$249 is a lot of money - you're talking the cost of a subsidized high-end phone for something that has less functionality. My intuition tells me smart-watches wont sell in big BIG numbers unless:
- It's a phone, therefore it can be subsidized by the carriers
- It almost does everything a smartphone can, including having a lot of screen real-estate, but only costs ~$250 unsubsidized. Perhaps like a flexible iPod touch that wraps around your wrist
If someone can come up with a $200+ wrist-mounted device that sells in the millions but doesn't meet the same level of functionality as a smartphone then I'll gladly eat my Fitbit.
> It's a phone, therefore it can be subsidized by the carriers
Subsidies are non-existent in many european countries, and seem to be (at least somewhat) on the way out in the US. I don't think this is a requirement.
> It almost does everything a smartphone can, including having a lot of screen real-estate
... or, it does things a smartphone might but is not convenient at - e.g., an LED light is potentially much more useful on a wrist than on a phone. an NFC device is way more useful on your hand. The second factor (think two factor auth) on your wrist is also way better than reaching out for your mobile.
- It's a phone, therefore it can be subsidized by the carriers
- It almost does everything a smartphone can, including having a lot of screen real-estate, but only costs ~$250 unsubsidized. Perhaps like a flexible iPod touch that wraps around your wrist
If someone can come up with a $200+ wrist-mounted device that sells in the millions but doesn't meet the same level of functionality as a smartphone then I'll gladly eat my Fitbit.