Smartwatches and fitness trackers have become very popular in large part to the excellent Apple Watch and Fitbit. For many years, those on the Android side have largely been picking between Fitbits, Wear OS smartwatches, or a Tizen-based watch like the Samsung Galaxy Watch. That choice became a bit less convoluted when Samsung and Google paired up for Wear OS 3. Even so, the most common wearables in the U.S. are Apple Watches, Wear OS watches, most likely from Samsung, and Fitbits.
Many people in the U.S. ignore or are completely unaware of wearables from outside those ecosystems. Part of that is due to a lack of partnerships with smartphone carriers. But I think the bigger issue is that these lesser-known brands, like Amazfit or Suunto, don't have great app support.
I have used a wide range of Wear OS watches, as well as wearables from Amazfit, Polar, Fitbit, and even an Apple Watch, which has led me to the question: Is the lack of third-party app support holding back smartwatches not using a fully-featured OS?
Smartwatches aren't smartphones, but we want them to be
When I say we want smartwatches to be smartphones, I don't necessarily mean phones; I'm talking about apps. For many years, Samsung's Galaxy Watches were celebrated as some of the best smartwatches, even before the switch to Wear OS. However, even though the hardware was fantastic and the in-house Tizen OS was snappy and offered third-party app support, their app selection was regularly a knock against it, and rightfully so.
I asked Anshel Sag, principal analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, why apps on smartwatches are viewed as a necessity. "I think it has to do with the smartphone-centric view of smartwatches," he said. "If you consider that they are usually paired with a phone, they are generally seen as an extension of your phone. Thus, it should support many of the apps on your phone and enable those apps on your wrist."
I know that smartwatch fans who've tried out RTOS-based watches have loved them, and I think others would too — if they knew about them.
I love the watches I've used from Amazfit and Polar, and I look forward to getting an opportunity to explore wearables from Honor, Xiaomi, and others. But all of these devices are using a proprietary operating system, usually based on a real-time operating system (RTOS). While each brand has its own approach to devices and the OS, the lack of third-party app support is something they have in common.
RTOS-based devices, while able to perform similar tasks as a watch running Wear OS or Watch OS, do so very differently. An RTOS device that is launching an app or taking a heart rate measurement does so based on a pre-determined time constraint for performing that task. This means that anything done on one of these wearables is quicker and more efficient since it has been previously established. Because the watch doesn't need to work as much to complete your request or run many background processes, you'll get excellent battery life as well.
However, because RTOS devices run on proprietary operating systems, they're tougher to develop apps for. Matthew Orf, a research analyst with Counterpoint Research, pointed to the cost differences of supporting and developing apps on proprietary operating systems, like RTOS devices. He explained that the firm differentiates between basic smartwatches and what it calls high-level operating system (HLOS) watches, the latter of which are more expensive and tend to feature some kind of app support.
"Watches using proprietary HLOS often don’t feature as many apps, as the lack of scale increases the costs for app developers. As a result, there are fewer applications available for proprietary OS watches, occasionally including popular applications. This is inconvenient for users," Orf said.
How much do people need smartwatch apps?
According to Orf, Watch OS is still the most popular system worldwide, "capturing nearly 57% share in 2022," with WearOS coming in second with 18%. This is great for developers, who only need to design apps for one operating system.
However, things become way more complicated when more than just a couple of operating systems come into play. "This means they have to create a version of their app for each HLOS they intend to launch their app on, which can be prohibitively expensive, resulting in fewer apps launching on operating systems outside of WatchOS," Sag said.
But app support isn't the end of the conversation when it comes to wearables. I asked Sag if it is a broad choice or specific apps that are key factors in the success of a wearable. "I think that broad app support is great as a selling point, but I actually think a few well-made, very focused apps are actually more helpful," he explained. "I think we’ve figured out which are the most popular applications for a smartwatch, even though new sensor technologies keep adding new applications."
What other smartwatch options are there?
Many non-Wear OS and Watch OS watch brands like Amazfit are largely unknown in the U.S. An exception to this is Garmin, which has found a way to get some third-party apps onto its platform, but Garmin wearables are targeted toward fitness enthusiasts. Amazfit and similar brands do have apps, but you won't find apps for Uber, Google Maps, Spotify, or other popular smartphone apps available.
"Many of the most successful smartwatch brands that use a proprietary operating system feature a strong suite of differentiated apps that serve a specific purpose," Orf said. "Since these brands are unlikely to be able to compete in supporting the breadth of third-party applications available on WatchOS due to their comparative lack of scale, OEMs supporting proprietary OSs can instead focus on nurturing the development of well-crafted applications that serve the particular needs of their target consumers."
Users have access to more brands than those in the U.S. and are choosing watches that aren't offering expansive third-party app catalogs.
So it's not necessary for other wearable brands to have app support to compete in the market. It's not the most viable option, either. "I think the challenge is that many times these applications eventually become in-house built because of their proprietary nature, and it becomes expensive to maintain a suite of these apps since developers are no longer involved or incentivized to build apps for the platform," he said. "I also think it’s more challenging to build an RTOS app since there are some technical limitations compared to having a fully-fledged OS, and that’s a factor as well."
Outside of the U.S., non-Wear OS and Watch OS devices might not have a ton of apps, but they share other features largely missing from other wearables. In Europe and Asia, companies like Oppo, Xiaomi, Honor, and more all have wearables to support their great smartphone platforms. Users have access to more brands than those in the U.S. and are choosing watches that aren't offering expansive third-party app catalogs.
Perhaps the biggest difference is in the battery life department. I've never gotten less than five days of use from any Amazfit watch. I recently finished reviewing the Amazfit GTR Mini, and even with its tiny size, I got no less than five days between charges. That's with sleep tracking, workouts, always-on display, and more.
These watches also offer full suites of fitness and health features, with the ability to track your heart rate, blood oxygen saturation, workouts, and more. Plus, options like the Amazfit T-Rex 2 offer helpful insights into those health readings, with coaching available to help improve your metrics.
I'd happily switch to non-Wear OS or Watch OS devices full-time — but only if I could have more robust response options for notifications and a few key apps.
These are things that Fitbit offers as well, and the popularity of these products shows that there are people who enjoy wearables that aren't app heavy but still provide meaningful features. Yet, it appears that Fitbit is an anomaly since it is one of the few brands outside the Wear OS and Watch OS options to get any significant market share.
Finally, many smartwatches from the likes of Amazfit, Honor, and Xiaomi offer a broad range of styles to pick from without degrading the overall experience. Many of the classically-styled options are far slimmer and lighter because the battery size is smaller than those of Wear OS and Watch OS options. But you still get similar, if not better, battery life.
Because the range of device styles and features possessed by smartwatches not running Wear OS or Watch OS are on par in many ways with the more mainstream wearables, and battery life is far better, I'd happily switch to those devices full-time — but only if I could have more robust response options for notifications and a few key apps. I want support for Google Maps, some preferred fitness apps, and even popular messaging apps.
Getting smartwatches to the point where what we want and needs are more aligned
Looking around, even in the rural area of Kansas where I live, the number of smartwatches and computers I see people wearing is surprising. What I once thought was a scene only for tech enthusiasts has broken into the everyday life of a much wider audience. Some may choose to wear one because it was "free" with their latest phone purchase at the carrier because, in the U.S., that is still far and away the most common smartphone purchase method, or maybe they want to actually track their health metrics.
I've asked people I know who wear Fitbits why they choose those devices. The most common answers are battery life and they don't need all the bells and whistles of a smartwatch. By increasing the mind share of devices from companies like Amazfit, Honor, and others in the U.S., many of the issues logged against the big-name Wear OS and Watch OS devices can be resolved — many times for less money.
Whether it is the lack of known third-party apps or a marketing restriction to expose Americans to brands that could solve these pain points is yet to be known. But I do know that smartwatch fans who've tried out RTOS-based watches have loved them, and I think others would too — if they knew about them.
-
Amazfit GTR Mini
- Brand
- Amazfit
- Battery Life
- 7 - 30 days
- Operating System
- Zepp OS 2.0
- Onboard GPS
- 5 satellite positioning systems
- Display Size
- 1.28-inch AMOLED (416 x 416, 326ppi)
- Case Material
- Stainless Steel + plastic
Amazfit's GTR Mini brings a classically styled watch that looks great and is comfortable to wear and a fully packed fitness companion. This watch is ready to go for up to 14 days of battery life to help you with everything from monitoring your heart rate to tracking over 120 workouts.
-
Amazfit T-Rex 2
The Amazfit T-Rex 2 is a good rugged smartwatch for those who have an active lifestyle. It offers reliable activity tracking and impressive battery life.
