Samsung recently launched the new Galaxy Watch FE this week, which is actually just a 2024 “refresh” of the Galaxy Watch 4. The smartwatch features more or less the same specs, chipset and design as the 2021 model, except of new sapphire glass on the display for better scratch protection. However, while the reboot of the Galaxy Watch 4 may seem like an odd move for Samsung, I think it’s genius. In fact, this is exactly what Wear OS needs: more affordable smartwatches.
I’ve been reviewing Wear OS smartwatches for a few years now and have often wondered at the prices some of these companies charge for these devices. Fossil, which pulled LG out of the smartwatch business earlier this year, was charging $299 for the Fossil Gen 6, which didn’t even run Wear OS 3 at launch and had very questionable performance. Samsung’s Galaxy Watches are now worth more than ever, with the Watch 5 Pro priced at the same price as a cheap Android phone, and even the Pixel Watch 2’s price tag gives me pause (don’t even get me started on the Montblanc Summit 3 ).
The only exception I’ve seen is the TicWatch E3, which launched a few years ago. This watch featured a relatively cheap build and missed out on the best features of the more expensive TicWatch models, such as dual display technology, but the price somehow made up for it. At $199, you get a smartwatch that’s much cheaper than the competition and performs surprisingly well with the Snapdragon Wear 4100, even though Wear OS 3 is coming much later.
I’m actually a little bummed that we didn’t get a TicWatch E4 or some equivalent, especially now that Wear OS 4 is here and Wear OS 5 is on the way, both of which likely require newer chips like the Snapdragon W5 Plus Gen 1. But seeing how Samsung is releasing the Galaxy Watch FE gives me some hope that cheaper Wear OS watches can be a thing again if companies play their cards right.
Anschel Sag, principal analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, agrees, saying that launching the cheaper smartwatch is a smart move on Samsung’s part. “I think the Galaxy Watch FE allows Samsung and its partners to offer a lower-cost option that can easily be discounted or given away for free as a bundled item and expands the price range of the products it offers for wearables.”
I’m not saying that every cheap Wear OS smartwatch should be a rebranded version of an older model, but I do think that companies should keep affordability in mind when developing upcoming models. At $349.99, the Pixel Watch 2 is asking a lot, and that’s not even with LTE. If I didn’t already have one, I’d have a hard time justifying spending that money on it, and honestly, I’m still trying to figure out if it’s worth it (don’t get me wrong, it’s a really cool smartwatch). But I’d like to see a future Pixel Watch 3a that includes a toned-down Snapdragon chip and some other compromises, especially if it means spending just $199 to be part of the Pixel ecosystem.
Keep in mind that Google just released the $229 Fitbit Ace LTE, and Qualcomm is already giving smartphone OEMs cheaper alternatives to its chips, like the Snapdragon 8s Gen 3, so both companies could go for it. Apple already sells the more affordable Apple Watch SE, which was apparently good enough to warrant an upgraded model two years later, so I’d like to see more Android OEMs follow suit. Sagg notes the importance of releasing cheaper models as it allows people to make decisions based on price “and it doesn’t put certain people out of the market because their appetite for spending on a smartwatch is less than $299.”
The Galaxy Watch FE is a blueprint for how other companies can approach making cheaper Wear OS watches.
That’s why the lack of cheaper Wear OS watches is a glaring omission for me, especially as companies add more features to their devices to drive up the price. Wear OS doesn’t have the same reputation as WatchOS, and while that’s starting to change, I’m not convinced too many people are clamoring to shell out Garmin or Apple Watch cash for a Wear OS smartwatch. It’s good that we have premium smartwatches that perform well, but Wear OS also needs to be more affordable.
This also applies to companies like OnePlus, which is rumored to be releasing a potentially budget variant of the OnePlus Watch 2 soon. Then there’s Motorola, which is staying away from Wear OS on its budget smartwatches. However, a new Wear OS model from the company would be perfect as it already makes some of the best affordable phones on the market.
However, Sagg cautions that while there needs to be more affordable Wear OS models, there needs to be a happy medium, and that companies need to be careful. “I really think it’s a problem, but I also believe that if you go too cheap, the experience becomes really bad and it’s not worth doing. Kind of like most really cheap smartphones.”
One of the reasons Android is so great is that it caters to everyone, from those willing to spend an arm and a leg on a new phone to those who just want something with the basics that won’t break the bank. Now that Wear OS is finally gaining ground with big players like Samsung and Google at the helm, the same philosophy needs to be applied to the wearable platform to help it reach more people.
