Samsung recently launched the new Galaxy Watch FE this week, which is actually just a “refresh” of the 2024 Galaxy Watch 4. The smartwatch has more or less the same specs, chipset and design as the 2021 model, except for a new sapphire glass display for better protection against scratches. However, while rebooting the Galaxy Watch 4 may seem like an odd move for Samsung, I think it’s kind of genius. In fact, this is exactly what Wear OS needs: a more affordable smartwatch.
I’ve been reviewing Wear OS smartwatches for several years now, and I’ve often cringed at the prices some of these companies charge for these devices. Fossil, which pulled LG out of the smartwatch business earlier this year, charged $299 for the Fossil Gen 6, which didn’t even run Wear OS 3 at launch and had very questionable performance. Samsung’s Galaxy Watch is now more expensive than ever, with the Watch 5 Pro priced the same as a budget Android phone and even the price of the Pixel Watch 2 giving me pause (don’t even get me started on the Montblanc Summit 3 ).
The only exception I’ve seen are the TicWatch E3s that were released a few years ago. This watch featured a relatively cheap build and missed out on the best features found on more expensive TicWatch models, such as dual-display technology, but it was worth it for the price. For $199, you got a smartwatch that was much cheaper than the competition and worked surprisingly well with the Snapdragon Wear 4100, even though Wear OS 3 came much later.
I’m actually a little bummed 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 Samsung launch the Galaxy Watch FE gives me some hope that cheaper Wear OS watches could be a thing again if companies play their cards right.
Anshel Sag, principal analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, agrees, saying that launching a cheaper smartwatch was 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 be easily discounted or given away for free as a bundle, and expands the price range of products it offers for wearables.”
I’m not saying that every cheap Wear OS smartwatch needs to be a rebadged version of an older model, but I think companies should keep affordability in mind when developing upcoming models. The Pixel Watch 2 is asking a lot for $349.99, even with LTE. If I didn’t already have them, I’d have a hard time justifying spending the money on them, and honestly, I’m still trying to see 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 an improved 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 launched the $229 Fitbit Ace LTE, and Qualcomm already provides smartphone makers with cheaper alternatives to its chips like the Snapdragon 8s Gen 3, so both companies could very well make this happen. 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 love to see more Android manufacturers follow suit. Sag notes the importance of bringing cheaper models to market as it allows people to make decisions based on price “and it’s not putting some 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 to me, especially when companies put more features into 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 money 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 launching a potentially budget-friendly variant of the OnePlus Watch 2 soon. Then there’s Motorola, which has stayed away from Wear OS on its low-cost smartwatches. However, a new Wear OS model from a company that already makes some of the best phones available on the market would be perfect.
However, Sag cautions that while there should be more affordable Wear OS models, there should also be a happy medium and that companies need to be careful. “I think it’s a problem, but I also believe that if you go too cheap, the experience will be really bad and not worth it. Kind of like most really cheap smartphones.”
One of the reasons Android is so great is that it suits 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 coming into its own with big players like Samsung and Google at the helm, the same philosophy should be applied to the wearable platform to help it reach more people.