Caitlin Cimino / Android Authority
Despite becoming a fitness staple over the past few years, smart rings still don’t come anywhere close to matching the market share of smartwatches and fitness trackers. This is not surprising: while the feature kit is reasonably mature, smart rings remain a novelty. Now, more companies are entering the smart ring market, but few have achieved true success in this space.
The genre has received a huge hype boost from the launch of the Samsung Galaxy Ring. Consumers would be excited about a discreet, screen-free, unobtrusive and functional device that could measure their pulse, and such a device has already been made.
Caitlin Cimino / Android Authority
A few years ago, I wrote about my desire for a modern, wrist-wrapped, screen-less fitness tracker like the Fitbit Flex. It was my first major fitness tracker of this type, and I wore it religiously until I eventually moved on to the dot-display Charge HR. But these simple, focused devices lost their appeal when flashy, saturated screens were adopted.
The smart ring isn’t quite how I imagined a screen-less fitness tracker would look, but it proves my point.
It’s funny to see the monkey’s paw flexing as we approach the end of 2024. While the Smart Ring isn’t the screen-less fitness tracker I had imagined it to be, it does prove my point that consumers don’t necessarily need a display on a fitness tracker.
Which fitness tracker form factor do you prefer?
2 votes
Smart Watches
100%
Fitness tracker with display
0%
Screenless Fitness Tracker
0%
Smart Ring
0%
Other (please explain in the comments)
0%
Suitable for most people
So why would you need a screen-less fitness tracker when we have smart rings? The truth is, the two devices are not entirely equal.
I like the idea of a discreet band whose sole purpose is to monitor my vitals. Smart rings (and WHOOP 4.0, but their subscription model puts them out of reach for most) are the only options currently, but they are limited in concept, physical design, and value. I fully understand that smart ring buyers are paying for discreetness and minimalism, but I hate being tied down by space constraints, especially if it means sacrificing a bit more battery life or adding a few more sensors.
Smart rings have limited space for sensors and are often more expensive than simpler but more powerful fitness tracking bands.
There’s only so much you can do within the confines of a rigid ring. The fact that current devices are feature-rich is a feat in itself. But if you compare a smart ring to a modern fitness tracker like the Fitbit Charge 6, you’ll notice a big difference in specs. The latter has much more space and plenty of internal space, making it easier to package more sensors at a lower price. You also need to choose the exact size to track your measurements, and fear your body changing so that the ring doesn’t no longer fit.
Unlike affordable screenless fitness trackers, you’ll need to invest a comparable amount of money into a smart ring as you would into a smartwatch: Samsung sells the ring for $399, while the Oura Ring 3 is $299 excluding monthly subscription fees. And because the range of fitness tracking features is fairly limited, the value of a smart ring is also limited.
Caitlin Cimino / Android Authority
Screenless fitness trackers overcome these limitations thanks to their flexibility, larger footprint, and affordability. Band-based fitness trackers are flexible enough to fit any wrist without stretching or slight strap adjustments. There’s no need for multiple size options, just a few different holes in the band with enough space for a larger battery or other sensors.
Both do away with displays, but as we said earlier, the growing popularity of smart rings proves that screens are no longer a must-have feature for fitness trackers: While a screen is certainly a useful addition, it ultimately drains the battery faster, wastes valuable packaging space, and requires more investment from manufacturers in software.
Smart rings, with their smartphone companion, are already solving this problem. Fitness tracker apps are nearly mature, offering a range of health and fitness monitoring features, providing more detailed views of the collected data and deeper insights than a slim screen could ever hope to accommodate. Smart ring owners have proven that using a smartphone to manage a device isn’t a game breaker, and the same can be said for fitness trackers.
For those looking for a screenless fitness tracker, there are very few options, which is a real shame.
Given this detail, it probably isn’t too big a step for users to consider screenless fitness trackers and warm to the idea. In my last opinion piece, I polled readers asking if they would like such a device, and 98% of the nearly 900 respondents nodded enthusiastically. Screenless fitness trackers are perfectly positioned in the market to fill this need.
Now is the best time
Caitlin Cimino / Android Authority
As smart rings become more popular, now is the perfect time for companies to offer cheaper alternatives to a wider audience: Not everyone can afford to spend $399 on a smart ring, but there are many more people who can afford to spend a few bucks on a screen-less fitness tracker.
This is a great opportunity for those who, like Google, haven’t yet invested in the smart ring circus. Fitbit was once the king of screenless fitness trackers, establishing itself with its Flex series. Given Google’s plans to scale back Fitbit’s smartwatch program, revitalizing the fitness tracker series with a new Flex model would be a perfect successor to the Pixel Watch and Charge series, and a much cheaper alternative to smart rings.
I believe smart rings and screenless fitness trackers can exist in the same world, and that world will be better for both consumers and businesses.
comment
Source link
