[gnu8]

The article seems to be saying that Apple has a decade-long lead in wearables over a list of companies that don't even make wearables. That is a clever trick for giving the article a bold title, but the result is a fairly uninteresting and uninformative Apple jerk-off piece. It is akin to saying "Quaker Oats has a 150-year lead in edibles" where Apple doesn't even make food.

[snowwrestler]

So who are the most capable competitors to Apple in wearables?

Among my friends and colleagues, those who don’t buy Apple Watch often buy Garmin watches instead. In the area of fitness tracking watches, Garmin seems to be serious competition. It’s missing the full app ecosystem of Apple Watch but I think you can send messages and email to some Garmin watches over 4G, for example.

[MichaEiler]

Around here (Austria/Switzerland, Country Side) people only wear smart watches for fitness purposes. Meaning most folks buy Garmin or Suunto devices. Another reason might be that the market share of Apple is lower in general compared to the US/UK.

Personally I love my Garmin Fenix watch. It lasts a week with light usage or up to 18 hours when using GPS. It also offers NFC payment. Notifications might be supported but I honestly don't need yet another device to bother me with messages and such... Meaning I disabled all of them ;).

On another note: Apple might simply be successful because of consistency. They've been iterating and improving on there smartwatch platform for years whiles others change their whole product every few years (samsung) or simply neglect it (google).

[nradov]

Garmin is now #2 in smartwatch market share. Fitness tracking features are generally superior to Apple but there are few useful 3rd-party apps. Currently only one Garmin watch has some limited LTE support so they generally need a smartphone Bluetooth connection for messages. Rumors say they'll be launching additional LTE models soon.

[airpoint]

> Garmin … Fitness tracking features are generally superior to Apple

Superior how exactly?

[nradov]

More physical buttons. Longer battery life. Displays that are clear in direct sunlight. ANT+ sensor connectivity. Data syncing and extended display with bike computers. More different sports, including multisport activities with transitions. Complex structured workouts. Multiple types of configurable alerts. Pacing targets based on a course elevation profile. Daily suggested workouts. Detailed online analytics. The list goes on and on.

If you count the fitness trackers worn by the top finishers in any sort of endurance sports race you won't see many Apple watches. There's a reason for that.

[deepGem]

As a current Apple watch owner I was tempted to get a Garmin, just for the battery life. It is super annoying to remember to charge the Apple watch every 20 hours or so. I wish Apple got around to offering better battery life than adding features.

I finally caved and bought an automatic. I just want a watch to show me the time accurately, last long and offer good water resistance as I wear the watch all the time.

[snowwrestler]

Personally, the watch I grab most these days is a good ol’ Timex Ironman. I pretty much only wear a watch when exercising and pretty much only care about the time while doing so.

[askafriend]

Why do you want a watch to tell you the time? The time is literally everywhere you look - from you laptop to your phone to your oven and even microwave.

[blinkingled]

I have been using the Samsung Gear Active 2 for few months and it is pretty good. Battery lasts couple days. it does everything I need and the UI is pretty good and simple.

[smoldesu]

Fossil is a pretty significant player in the industry, I own their Carlyle 5 model.

[bitwize]

In 10 years or so, everybody will have to have a wearables story -- because of the market for them Apple created.

[red_trumpet]

Yeah, the Apple Watch isn't even 10 years old...