Note that the article is mainly translated from Chinese by Doubao AI, and haven't been carefully examined.

"Candlelit Conversations" is the first series of columns on the Candlelit Guide blog, focusing on topics that I'm familiar with and interested in, and conducting casual discussions at various levels of depth.

The Xiaomi watch that only lasted for one generation was the starting point of my use of smart wearables. As the only fully smart watch of Xiaomi, it was equipped with the most powerful Qualcomm Snapdragon Wear 3100 processor at that time and MIUI For Watch customized based on Google WearOS. Why couldn't the Xiaomi watch remain in the fully smart camp? And what has OPPO, which is now at the forefront of fully smart watches in China, done well on its basis, and what remaining problems are still there? Generally speaking, when we are obsessed with full intelligence, are we looking forward to the unique advantageous functions that the watch can carry compared with the bracelet, or are we expecting it to "replace" the mobile phone?

From the first-generation Xiaomi Watch to the first-generation OPPO Watch, many mobile phone manufacturers have rushed to enter the field of smart wearable devices. However, most of them have completely leaned towards the "large-sized bracelet", that is, the combination of a low-power processor and RTOS. These are also the two mainstream smart wearable solutions in the market. One relies on the cloud and peripheral terminal devices to provide computing power and service support for the watch, while the other focuses on enhancing the capabilities of the watch on the device side, striving to be as independent of the mobile phone as possible.

The general trend of the world is that long periods of division are followed by unification, and long periods of unification are followed by division. Perhaps in the future, smart wearable solutions will fully integrate the advantages of the two aforementioned solutions. However, at present, the two are still nearly as distinct as the waters of the Jing and Wei rivers.

At present, the smart wearable device I'm using is the OPPO Watch4 Pro, which is also a mainstream model in the full - smart route. Let's start from the definition of "full - smart", trace the history and look forward to the future.

Intelligence?

Independent communication

Independent applications, independent calls, navigation, audio and video - these are all common selling points of fully smartwatches. They are also a significant feature that differentiates them from large-sized fitness bands. Manufacturers like Huawei, which focus on optimizing large-sized fitness bands, have made it possible to answer calls, send and receive text messages, and view navigation information on the watch through phone synchronization. Playing local music is also no problem. However, functions involving the Internet still cannot be used independently without a mobile phone.

To achieve independent communication and access to the Internet, the core technology relied on is eSIM, a virtual SIM card. Oh, this is not necessary. Many smartwatches in Huaqiangbei can insert physical SIM cards, directly solving the regulatory dilemma that eSIM faces nowadays. However, whether it is due to compliance requirements or the need to reduce openings for waterproofing, smartwatches of mainstream manufacturers will not adopt such a design.

Independent computing

With the network, computing power is also needed for support. Before the mainstream mobile phone manufacturers entered the market, there were also domestic manufacturers specializing in smart wearables, such as Mobvoi's Tic Watch and Huami. If children's watches are included, Xiaotiancai is also one of the brands in China that first used the Wear 4100 processor. However, this is not within the scope of this article's discussion.

On the watch processor, Samsung has its self-developed ExynosW, which is still being updated annually. The latest W1000 is the only processor in the Android camp that uses a 3nm process and LPDDR5 memory, making it a well-deserved flagship processor.

Qualcomm will naturally not be absent. However, the latest generation of W5 Gen1 is a processor released in the second half of 2022. Features such as the 4nm large core + 22nm coprocessor and deep sleep have also brought it good battery life performance, and its performance firmly ranks among the first echelon.

MediaTek has also introduced processors for wearable devices, such as the mt2601 with a 28nm dual-core A7. However, unlike mobile phone SoCs that can compete with Qualcomm again, both companies have ceased their efforts in the field of wearable device processors.

Huawei has also launched - no, to be precise, has used the self-designed Kirin 710L (12nm), which was equipped on the Huawei Watch3. However, the Huawei Watch4 no longer uses Kirin and has chosen to embrace the Snapdragon W5.

Speaking of the Kirin 710, I have used the Honor 8X equipped with it for about two years. Its performance is approximately between that of the Snapdragon 636 and 660. Judging from this, wouldn't the performance of the Huawei Watch3 dominate the smartwatch industry? In fact, the lite version is only equipped with a 12nm dual-core A53, and its performance is almost the same as that of the Wear4100. Due to its relatively backward manufacturing process, its battery life performance is rather disappointing.

Some smartwatches have adopted a dual-core solution. For example, OPPO uses the Snapdragon W5 + BES2700. The latter works in the light smart mode and is also the main chip for many "large-sized fitness trackers". We won't list them all here.

Taking Qualcomm Snapdragon as an example, from the 28nm quad-core A7 of Wear2100 to the introduction of a coprocessor in Wear3100 to handle extremely low power - on the Xiaomi Watch, it seems to function to display the time after shutdown, and then to the significant performance leap of the 12nm dual-core A53 in Wear4100 in 2020. In 2023, the W5, while being compatible with WearOS based on 4100, further supports Android and RTOS. The performance of these two generations of processors is already quite sufficient, approximately at the level of the Snapdragon 410. Considering the rather small size of the watch, as well as the huge improvements in manufacturing processes, Bluetooth protocols, etc. over the past decade, the actual experience is of course much better than using a mobile phone equipped with 410 nowadays.

Independent applications

Wear OS and Android cannot be generalized in terms of the application ecosystem. Due to the lack of some runtime libraries, most applications specifically developed for Wear OS cannot be directly run on Android. In addition, as current smartwatch processors are all armv7, that is, 32-bit, some applications that no longer provide official 32-bit installation packages cannot be installed on smartwatches either.

Xiaomi Watch once took pride in promoting itself with the selling point of "A true smartwatch should have its own app store". However, its software ecosystem still turned out to be a letdown. Of course, we can't entirely blame Xiaomi for this. At that time, building a watch software ecosystem was no less difficult than Huawei's efforts to attract developers to build a native HarmonyOS application ecosystem today. Moreover, the smart wearable market is still a much smaller one even today.

Although it has the most powerful Wear 3100 processor at that time, the actual experience of the Xiaomi smartwatch is even inferior to that of the OPPO Watch equipped with Wear 2500. The latter has a lower main frequency and no coprocessor, but as a result, it has lower power consumption. A more significant issue is that WearOS follows a different path from Android.

At least in terms of system maintenance, the Android camp has significant advantages. The system updates of WearOS cannot be decided independently by manufacturers. Every OTA must go through Google's review, which leads to very slow fixing of the originally imperfect system problems. When linked with mobile phones, not only the "Xiaomi Wear" APP needs to be installed, but also the Chinese version of Wear OS by Android. The actual experience is quite fragmented. The short one-year system maintenance cycle has made it a short-lived product that will never be replicated.
Today, you can buy a second-hand one for less than 300 yuan, but I don't recommend it.

On OW4P, the official software ecosystem is relatively rich. As an Android smartwatch, it naturally has the advantage of being more open compared to the Apple Watch. You can install any application through ADB debugging, such as the Wear Space/Onion Store, which provides more watch - compatible applications.

Take several of my commonly used apps as examples:

• Phoenix News: Positive feedback. Since the version in September 2024, the limit on the number of news items that can be viewed has been increased from six to fifteen. The news content is updated in real-time. The UI has a unified design with a black background and white text. From top to bottom, it shows the cover image, title, author/time, and main text. It's better than Tencent News' forced news audio playback on the smartwatch. The crown is well-adapted, and the scrolling distance is reasonably controlled.
• Eudic Dictionary: Highly recommended. The UI is simple and clean, and the English word entries are comprehensive. It is basically the same as the mobile version. You can play the pronunciation when connected to the Internet. It supports logging in to an account to synchronously add words to the vocabulary book. It also supports offline dictionary and offline word - querying.
• Alipay: Officially adapted, the offline payment code and transportation card code work fine; there's also an added bonus of collecting energy in Ant Forest.
• Baidu Map: Although I think independent navigation using a watch is a niche feature, it can indeed perform independent positioning and navigation.
• NetEase Cloud Music: It has complete functions and a smooth experience; the only drawback is that it requires a membership ovo
• QQ Watch Edition: Or the children's version. Although the UI is relatively youthful, its functions are quite comprehensive. Besides basic private and group chats, it supports sending and receiving text, pictures, and videos, collected emojis, viewing and posting on QQ Space, making and answering voice calls. It's quite capable.
• ... In addition to the officially adapted applications mentioned above, there are also many third - party developed applications worthy of recommendation:
• Bilibili Terminal: I boldly declare that this is the best Bilibili client for smartwatches at present! The UI is simple and clear, and the functions are very comprehensive, supporting recommendations, dynamic graphics and texts, video live broadcasts, comments and private messages... Of course, it doesn't support Bilibili Mall ().
• CoolWrist Player: A fully functional and well-optimized video player for smartwatches
• Via: The version with modified DPI makes web browsing smooth enough and it is also my main browser on the mobile phone.

For information browsing, real-time communication, entertainment, and daily commuting, a fully smartwatch can indeed meet the needs of a day out to some extent.

Downward compatibility

What the "big-sized bracelet" doesn't have, the fully smartwatch has; what the "big-sized bracelet" has, the fully smartwatch must also have.
Analysis of exercise records, monitoring of sleep/heart rate/blood pressure ▲, stress analysis, and all the basic functions you expect a modern smart bracelet to have can naturally be achieved by a smartwatch.
As for whether it is done well, it's a matter of personal opinion. Or rather, only a few can do a good job in health monitoring.

Dilemma

From the technical blueprint to the user's wrist, the path to the implementation of fully smart watches is fraught with difficulties. There are not only external barriers such as policies and the ecosystem, but also internal contradictions between hardware and demand.

eSIM

First and foremost, it is the repeated limitation of the independent communication function.
The eSIM (virtual SIM card) technology itself is already mature, but in China, due to regulatory policies and the promotion pace of operators, the implementation process is slow. On the one hand, the risk of fraud has led operators to frequently adjust the application rules, and in some regions, the opening for new users has even been suspended. On the other hand, the package design lacks attractiveness:

• Independent number plans: Taking China Unicom as an example, the plan costs 10 yuan per month and includes 500MB of data + a small amount of talk time, and the 20-yuan plan per month includes 1GB of data. The cost performance is much lower than that of mobile phone plans, and it is only suitable for specific scenarios (such as the temporary needs of student groups).
• Dual-Terminals with One Number: It needs to be handled by the primary cardholder in person, and the activation of the secondary card is restricted in some areas (for example, if the user's secondary card cannot be used), so the usage threshold is relatively high. The limitation of network functions directly weakens the "independent attribute" of the fully smart watch. For example, core functions such as map navigation and online music playback cannot be used when the watch is disconnected from the mobile phone. Users have to rely on the mobile phone hotspot, resulting in a fragmented experience.

Ecology

Although quite a number of watch - end applications have been introduced above, in other words, this is almost all you can use - unless mobile - end applications are counted in.
Who would actually consider a smartwatch as a substitute for a mobile phone? Ordinary users clearly tend to view the watch as an "extension of the mobile phone" rather than an "independent device". In reality, for example, during the commute, when a user wants to reply to work messages via the watch, they end up having to take out their phone due to frequent errors in voice - to - text recognition and subsequent need for corrections. At this point, the functionality of a smart bracelet and a smartwatch is no different.
Presumably, only three types of groups have such demands: primary and middle school students, special occupations with restricted smart devices, and technological minimalists. The demands of the first two groups are further eroded by small brands such as those in Huaqiangbei, or surpassed by alternative solutions like compact cameras. The latter group is too niche to have a significant impact on the market. The question then arises: who will pay for fully intelligent products?
The Google dependency of Wear OS has been mentioned previously, and the subsequent maintenance of the customized Android has also been widely criticized. OPPO Watch 4 Pro recently (around mid-May) pushed out a new version after a long absence, making the official "wrist browser" and new algorithms for heart rate and sleep monitoring available, which is already commendable. However, more new features have not been made available, even though the hardware configuration of X2 Mini has hardly changed. Nevertheless, this is not just a problem for fully smartwatches. Huawei, which focuses on large-sized fitness trackers, also hardly has the habit of making new algorithms available.

In addition, many mobile phone linkage functions are still deeply bound to the brand. Apple Watch only supports binding with iPhone. OPPO Watch's Fluid Cloud notifications, Huawei's application transfer, and Crescent Window all require linkage with their own mobile phones without exception. To some extent, the migration cost hinders the purchase of full-featured smartwatches, rather than small and versatile devices like the Xiaomi Band.

Returning to the application ecosystem, the smart wearable market has a limited scale and lacks attractiveness and influence in the face of large companies. For example, the independent WeChat Watch version is poorly done. After being installed on OW4P, the battery life drops significantly. This is because it does not support cloud notifications and forcibly uses background activity to maintain message reception. To be honest, it is not as user - friendly as the WeChat Watch version when it was linked to a mobile phone before... Interestingly, the QQ Watch version is quite well - done, with complete functions and good adaptability.

Furthermore, the battery life is still barely satisfactory. The efforts made by full-featured smartwatches, such as OPPO's Snapdragon W5 + BES2700 dual-core solution, have successfully extended the battery life to 3 days in the full smart mode, and I can confirm that this is achievable under medium and light usage. However, the presence of the light smart mode is actually very weak. Apart from the system automatically switching to it during hibernation, I would never actively switch to a mode with significantly limited features. The weak performance of the small core and the limited system partition space result in incomplete functions and almost no maintenance in the light smart mode (well, there was some, as an emergency package was pushed recently to fix the date error). In short, a battery life of 3 to 5 days is really not impressive compared to RTOS.

Prospect

In the long run, with the demand for eSIM introduced by devices such as iPads, there is a possibility of gradually expanding its openness. The RISC-V architecture is lightweight and in line with the upsurge of self-developed technologies. It is not impossible for some manufacturers to start with smart wearables. For example, Xiaomi recently released its self-developed Xianjie series of processors, which includes those for smartwatches. The linkage of NFC and UWB technologies, smart car keys, access control cards, and smart home triggers provides a reference for expanding its life functions.

When a watch is no longer an "accessory" to a mobile phone, but a "digital partner" that can define scenarios and create demands, the value of full intelligence truly materializes — perhaps this is the evolutionary path of smart wearable devices "from watches to the future".