Tech for your connected self

People don't want to pay more than $200 for a smartwatch

Listen up - smartwatches are too expensive

Smartwatch makers and buyers are still agreeing to disagree over how much one should cost. But we're going to call it - it's time to make them cheaper.

In a study by First Insight of 1,500 people in the US this July, 49% of people surveyed said they are "waiting for the prices of existing smartwatches to come down". Not only that but 74% of women and 69% of men said they want to spend either less than $100 or $100 - $200 on watches.

Read this: #Trending - How much should you pay for wearable tech?

Compare that to last week's Apple Watch Series 2 which starts at $369 and the Series 1 which is still - by this study's standards - too expensive at $269.

That said, the Apple Watch did score highest when compared to an odd bunch of rivals in the form of the Moto 360, LG Urbane LTE and some Garmin smartwatches.

One more nugget: when asked what is most important in a smartwatch, 37% of people asked said features and functionality, 25% price, 18% quality, 12% style and just 8% brand. That doesn't exactly correlate with smartwatch sales so far where Apple has dominated its Android Wear and other rivals.

If you're looking for a smartwatch you can actually afford, check out our roundup of the best budget smartwatches including devices from Pebble, Sony and Asus.

Hot smartwatch deals

38mm Apple Watch Series 3 - save $50
38mm Apple Watch Series 3 - save $50
Samsung Gear S2 - save $95
Samsung Gear S2 - save $95
Fitbit Ionic - save $50
Fitbit Ionic - save $50
Huawei Watch 2 Classic - save $101
Huawei Watch 2 Classic - save $101

Wareable may get a commission


  • yogibimbi says:

    oK, then I am the exception. But I am already rocking a "traditional" watch (aka Suunto Core) with a list price of greater than 200 €.

    I think, purely measured on a feature-by-feature comparison of the Core with the upcoming Mission from Nixon, the 400 € price tag of the latter is entirely justified. 500 €, as in the Casio outdoor watch, is too high, imho, especially since it wimps out in features compared to the Mission. If somebody made the LG Urbane 2 waterproof and gave it a sh..load of sensors, I might be compelled to pay up to 500 €, but only in the current situation. Once the novelty wears off (say, in a year) and I can compare a watch to a similarly featured smartphone (in terms of features that are reasonable to expect in that timeframe and form factor, which leaves removable storage and a camera out as an option for the time being, although Omate tried peddling that a couple of years ago already), for me the sweetspot would be between 250-300 € for a LTE-enabled waterproof Android Wear watch.
    I am not even considering watches that are less than waterproof. Checked out the Sony SW3 (IP68) recently, went swimming in a 1.20 m deep pool a total of 3 hours on two occasions ("swimming" means not continued immersion, as the arms constantly leave the water) and after the second time, the touchscreen became unresponsive. Amazon took it back without a hickup, so good on them. But not what I am looking for in a watch, obviously.

    • Rhasget says:

      The SW3 is only rated to IP 68. Meaning it is waterproof in the sense that it can be submerged for a short period (up to 30 minutes is required for the test) without leaking. Not that it is rated for swimming. You should look at a watch with atleast 5atm (50m) waterproofing when used for swimming.

  • ZeMane says:

    Hopefully that Amazfit smartwatch (~$120) comes to the U.S.

What do you think?

Connect with Facebook, Twitter, or just enter your email to sign in and comment.