Smartphone users, regardless of their mobile preference, consider Apple the ‘coolest brand’ for wearable technology, followed by industry rivals Samsung, Google, LG and Sony.
Findings from Juniper Research also claims that only one in five consumers would be willing to pay more than $US175 for a wearable of any sort with tech brands still considered the best for wearables, with fashion and sports brands lagging behind.
As a result, Juniper predicts that the smartwatch market is moving towards a duopoly of Apple-Samsung - with over 75 percent of respondents preferring either Apple or Samsung.
“As well as a more definite use, fitness devices also win on value,” adds James Moar, Research Analyst, Juniper Research.
“They are the least costly wearables in the market, and the only category consistently under $US175, which our survey identifies as the price ceiling for most consumers.”
Despite the prevailing opinion that wearable devices need to be more fashion oriented, Moar claims that it is “apparent that non-technology brands were not popular” - with no fashion or sports brand supported by more than three percent of respondents.
The Juniper Research Consumer Wearables Market Survey asked over 2,000 smartphone users (1,003 in the UK, 1,028 in the US) aged 14 and over about their use of and attitudes towards wearable technology.
Coolest Wearable Brand Ranking - Q3 2015:
- TAG Heuer
- Ralph Lauren
The survey also revealed that, even with tech savvy buyers, the value proposition for wearable devices still remains unclear for many.
Juniper cites the lack of a convincing use-case as being one of the main barriers.
Conversely fitness wearables have a very clear use-case, and have consequently become the most popular wearables category e.g. activity trackers have a definite purpose and use-case.
Other key findings claim that battery life is relatively unimportant, only deterring four percent of respondents from buying a wearable.
“While iOS users were more likely to buy a wearable in the near future than Android users, there was little difference in the type of device they were likely to buy,” Moar adds.