Smartwatches: 'If they cost €50, everyone would buy one'

Smartwatches aren't expensive; they're unnecessary

Why does a gadget many would accept as a gift generate such visceral rejection? This question sparks a discussion where price is repeatedly cited as the only socially acceptable criticism. The initial premise is clear: the smartwatch is an iPhone accessory, a wrist-mounted mini-computer with calls, messages, maps, music, GPS, and health metrics. "If it cost €50, we'd all wear one," summarizes the thread starter, attributing the hate to a case of sour grapes.

The response arrives quickly and isn't what was expected. Several participants argue the problem isn't the price, but that it offers nothing the phone doesn't already do.

What can a smartwatch do that a mobile phone can't?

Even critics acknowledge its real utility fits into three scenarios. First, sports: heart rate sensors, GPS, and tracking for cyclists or gym-goers. Second, location: finding your phone and keys, answering calls without pulling out your device. Third, vibration alarms, which wake you gently.

Beyond that, the list runs dry. Notifications get silenced, step counts add little insight, and heart rate or sleep data interest few. One participant puts it bluntly: "antiestéticatures 99% of users will never use."

Battery life: the argument nobody refutes

Here, consensus is nearly total. A smartwatch needs charging every two days; a budget band every two weeks; a quartz watch every three years. Comparisons across brands yield the same result: the annoyance of plugging in a watch every few days outweighs any extra function.

Exceptions prove the rule. Solar-powered models and titanium watches with solar charging and radio control avoid chargers and keep accurate time for years. These, precisely, look least like smartwatches.

Health data and privacy: who receives it?

The second major block of rejection is economic and political, not functional. A watch tracking steps, blood pressure, heart rate, sleep, and activity sends this log to the manufacturer. Suspicion that this data feeds insurers or pharmaceutical companies permeates the discussion, leading some to reject the device outright on these grounds.

Add to this incompatibility: closed ecosystems and accessories at inflated prices. Criticism targets not the buyer, but the strategy of selling a non-differentiated piece at several times the market rate.

Traditional watches as an aesthetic alternative

The dominant alternative isn't another smartwatch: it's a classic timepiece. Metallic, solar-powered, long-lasting battery, telling time and date without interaction. The aesthetic argument is explicit: identical black squares on every wrist look ugly and uniform, whereas mechanical watches remain the sole jewelry accessory many men allow themselves.

The thread's evolution is revealing. Those defending the gadget on price eventually rent high-end models to test them. Those rejecting it admit they'll likely cave eventually. Meanwhile, a silent majority keeps theirs in a drawer.

In the end, the object of desire wasn't the watch. It was the excuse not to buy it.