Moto pushes off smartwatches indefinitely

Lenovo Moto today confirmed that it will not be releasing a new smartwatch for the launch of Android Wear 2.0, due early next year. The company had earlier said it would not be releasing a new smartwatch in 2016, but it is now saying that it doesn’t plan to put out a new device timed to the arrival of Google’s newest wearable platform, either.

Shakil Barkat, head of global product development at Moto, said the company doesn’t “see enough pull in the market to put [a new smartwatch] out at this time,” though it may revisit the market in the future should technologies for the wrist improve. “Wearables do not have broad enough appeal for us to continue to build on it year after year,” Barkat said, and indicated that smartwatches and other wearable devices will not be in Moto’s annual device roadmap.

Smartwatches, and Android Wear devices in particular, have lost a lot of their steam over the past year, as few companies have updated their products. Google itself delayed the launch of Android Wear 2 from this fall to next year. The Moto 360 released in 2015 is expected to receive an update to the new software, but the original model launched in 2014 will not.

Whether or not Moto does jump back into the smartwatch market is still up in the air, but Barkat is leaving the possibility open. “We believe the wrist still has value and there will be a point where they provide value to consumers more than they do today,” Barkat said. But it doesn’t appear that we’ll be getting a new Moto 360 or other smartwatch any time in the near future.

Comments

One more nail in that Moto coffin…

I would never say that, especially if you used one of the Moto 360’s. The second gen Moto 360 is a great smart watch, especially with its gestures, and much better battery life. I can even extend its battery life if I turn off ambient mode. Notifications are very easy, and I can use one hand to run through all the notifications (wrist gestures), then I can use my voice to send replies. It’s a great smart watch. The majority of the complaints are towards its flat tire.

I can understand why they do not want to release any new watch until Android Wear 2.0 is released. This just makes sense. Also there have been rumors that two new Android Wear smart watches would be released at the beginning of 2017. Code named Angelfish and Swordfish.

.bq I can understand why they do not want to release any new watch until Android Wear 2.0 is released. This just makes sense.

The whole point of the article is that they aren’t releasing a watch for the 2.0 launch.

I own an original 360, and a Huawei watch.

I also stopped using the 360 completely after setting up the Huawei watch.

My friend has a 2nd gen 360 and comparing them side by side, the Huawei watch beats it in almost every aspect.

It’s like his responses are straight from Microsoft concerning the Lumia and Microsoft Band 3.

Apple Watch, killer.

Ahahah
Other brands will follow too. The Apple Watch will stay.

Remember when The Verge gave the Moro 360 an 8.0, and then said the Apple Watch was a sign that Apple was doomed

Who remembers Android Wear?

I not only remember, I love Android Wear and my Moto 360 2.0.

Only thing I would change about it is the lack of GPS, which is in the sport version, so I can’t complain. Thing gives me days worth of battery life and all the functionality I could want.

There’s always one.

Incidentally are you the Mike10010100 from Engadget days? If so, hi.

Apple Watch isn’t exactly doing all that well either man. It certainly hasn’t lived up to the hype they set for themselves.

Apple Watch isn’t exactly doing all that well either man.

What are you basing this on? By all reports the Apple Watch is doing very well. It is now the #2 watch brand in the world – not smart watch brand (they are #1 by far) but #2 out of ALL watch brands. And in the broader category of wearables, they are second only to Fitbit. Analysts are estimating very strong sales and strong growth. What have you seen that shows otherwise?

It certainly hasn’t lived up to the hype they set for themselves.

What "hype" did they "set for themselves"? They have frequently downplayed sales expectations. In fact, they aren’t even reporting sales numbers. Where is this "hype" that you speak of? Yes, has effectively marketed the Watch, but I don’t get how that equates to "hype" that is disproportionate to sales, which is what you imply.

It is now the #2 watch brand in the world – not smart watch brand (they are #1 by far) but #2 out of ALL watch brands.

Source?

"Fitbit established itself as an early market leader, capturing 61.7 percent of the US installed base by communicating a clear and simple value proposition to consumers. Apple accounts for 6.8 percent of the total number of fitness band and smartwatch owners in the US,"

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/156150/20160505/fitbit-dominates-wearable-tech-market-outsells-apple-watch.htm

You know two can play that game. Besides it’s early in the game, let’s see where fitbit is in a few years.

"In the three months ending July 2016, 47% of wearable sales in the U.S. occurred in the smartwatch category, versus the more basic fitness bands," cited Lauren Guenveur, consumer insight director at Kantar Worldpanel, in a statement. "Apple continues to dominate this segment."

http://fortune.com/2016/09/21/apple-watch-market-share/

You do know that they specifically exclude fitbit in that, right?

Sure, Apple watch is doing great if you exclude its competitors.

Because the fibit is not a smartwatch, but a fitness device. Different category, you are the one who wants to lump them in. If you going to do that then Apple is killing them on revenue.

You seem confused. I said Apple is the #2 watch brand. That has nothing to do with Fitbit.

Apple is also the #1 smart watch brand. Fitbit makes a smart watch, but its sales are quite small.

The broader fitness wearables category is where Fitbit is the leader. In that market, Apple is #2.

It is now the #2 watch brand in the world – not smart watch brand (they are #1 by far) but #2 out of ALL watch brands.

Yeah, except that claim is just plain wrong. Assuming you’re refering to Tim Cook’s claim of Apple being the #2 watchmaker: http://www.wareable.com/apple/watch-sales-rolex-tim-cook-556 – well that’s simply statistical massaging from TC as the Swatch Group has close to 20% market share vs Rolex’s ~11%. Richemont meanwhile is ahead of Rolex.

I acknowledge that you actually wrote ‘brand’ – the likelihood is that the AW as a ‘brand’ actuall outsold any single Swatch Group brand – but that’s meaningless.

Yeah, exactly. I said that Apple is the #2 watch brand in the world, and that is absolutely correct. Why would you add together a whole bunch of individual brands just because they were bought by a giant conglomerate? Comparing watch brands is totally valid, and that is the figure I quoted.

Because the revenue is going to the parent, not the brand.

Well that’s fairly obvious. In the watch industry, brands are organised by tiers, serving the luxury,mid or low end of the market. Interestingly Apple hasn’t done this, which removes the cachet of a more expensive unit, but that’s an aside here.

Anyway, no one talks about Galaxy Ace revenue, or S7 revenue vs comparable devices. Here, the tiers are all organised under the same brand name but they are there nonetheless. In any case, Samsung phone sales revenues are estimated as a whole.

View All Comments
Back to top ↑