Wearable Fitness Devices Versus Smartphones

SMITH BRAIN TRUST -- U.S. News and World Report recently explored the question of whether wearable fitness devices and smartphones were complementary products — or competitive ones. As fitness apps on phones get more sophisticated, must Fitbit fade? For insight, the magazine tapped Ritu Agarwal, the Dean’s Chair of Information Systems and Director of the Center for Health Information and Decision Systems (CHIDS) at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business. Their exchange follows.

Q. Fitness trackers have become a huge industry over the past few years. Do you see it continuing to grow? Or will it slow down?

A. My prediction is that tracking will continue to grow into the foreseeable future. Driving growth will be increasing use by clinicians prescribing and recommending tracking solutions, and employers incentivizing the use of these devices to improve wellness. Traditional trackers like Fitbits and Jawbone might be replaced by smartphone-based devices and watches, but the evidence is not yet in on effectiveness. As this plays out, it might require changes in functionality but might not restrain growth. Overall, the striking acceleration in the use of fitness trackers is part of a bigger societal shift in developed and developing economies toward greater quantification and the use of data to drive decisions in every sphere of personal life. Also, it’s important to note that the field is very competitive — data suggest that most people who own trackers replace or change them within three months.

Q. With manufacturers working fitness tracking capabilities into their phones, like the Galaxy Note 4, do you see more people opting to choose these over a dedicated fitness tracker?

A. If people's phone has the tracking capability, in general, most people would prefer fewer devices (other than those who wear devices as a fashion statement). But it is also important to note that the choice depends on the customer’s need. The CEO of a fitness tracker company that caters to “elite athletes” observed that beginners tend to use mobile phones but the sophisticated users still prefer watch-based trackers to document their running. He noted that “battery” was the key issue. Besides that, mobile devices cannot fulfill all the requirements. For example, some professional runners would like to measure their heart rate while running; therefore, they would have to wear a heart-rate strap to do so. But these are temporary constraints that are being addressed by smartphone manufacturers proactively.

Q. Does the fitness tracking capabilities of a phone, which most people keep in their pocket or bag, compare to that of a wrist-worn one?

A. Currently, the capabilities are comparable for top-end smartphones, but not in general.  Keeping the phone’s tracking capability on drains the battery. Wrist-worn capabilities already have and will increasingly embed additional sensors such as pulse monitoring. … Of course, this comparison is a moving target and, as technologies continue to evolve, the tracking capabilities between the two types of devices may become comparable — setting into motion another set of competitive dynamics.

Q. Should consumers view smartphones and wearable as separate devices? Or should they view them as something that can work together?

A. Certainly they can work together. A watch (which is a wearable device) can evolve to have the functionality of a smartphone together with capabilities of a fitness tracker, and a whole host of additional sensors to boot. Smartphones can work on the arm and some have built-in sensors as well. At the moment the common view is that they are separate devices, but there is no compelling reason for them to be that way. Today’s wearable trackers generally need a phone to connect to the cloud, or a dongle into a pc. But new products being released by Samsung, Microsoft and Apple are blurring the distinction between a tracking device and a smart phone. Now it remains to be seen who the winners in this competitive market will be.