I'll probably be in the minority, but my phone can't track my steps, because I don't have it with me all the time, but my watch is on my wrist. The fitbit requires a Google account, so that's going to be a big no. The Casio might also require an account, I can't tell. The Fitbit has 10 days battery life, the Casio, 2 years.
replyThe price is a bit high, it is basically just a watch with a step counter. I'd also argue that people who buy Casio watches might have multiple watches they switch between, so you'd only put this on when you want to count your steps, and in that case there are better and cheaper options.
I recently thought I could probably go back to a not-smart watch to not have to charge the watch all the time, but I don't want to deal with setting the time regularly either due to quartz drift and dst. So a bluetooth watch with two years of battery life doesn't sound like a bad idea really.
replyEven cheap quartz movements tend to drift by ±10 seconds per year, so you'd only really set it at dst. Maybe you're thinking about automatic watches which can drift by several seconds per day, and stop if you don't use it for 24/48/X amount hours. I have to set my automatic quite frequently
replyIt is usually 10-15s per month. And the annoying thing is you have to notice it and I prefer a watch that I don't have to double check.
replySome of us prefer looser fitting bands. Most of smart watch features are useless unless you strap it down tight. I'd bite on something like this if the form factor wasn't off.
replySimple smart watches make sense for people who want accurate time who don't want to pull their phone out of their pocket for things that can be answered by looking at their wrist.
reply