With all due respect to my colleague Kate, who claims that Samsung switching the Galaxy Watch 4 from Tizen to Wear OS would be a game changer, I would like to tell you that such a move would be a disaster and ruin everything special about Samsung's smartwatches.

First, let's look at market share: according to Canalsys, Samsung smartwatches accounted for roughly 12% of the total smartwatch market in the first half of 2020. It is in third place behind Apple (36%) and Huawei (14%), with Huawei spurring sales in China. Other products (including Wear OS) collectively accounted for 22% of the market, trailing only Garmin and Fitbit.

From a simple market perspective, it makes little sense for Samsung to abandon Tizen and compete on other platforms. But let's also look at it from the perspective of future smartwatch owners.

One thing Apple Watch and Wear OS watches have in common is poor battery life. Under the best of circumstances, we are lucky to get two full days of use without needing to recharge the battery. On the other hand, Tizen's more efficient operating system allows Samsung's smartwatch to be used for at least three days. This is not spectacular compared to something like Garmin or Fitbit, but at least you can go on a weekend trip and not worry about your watch running out before you get back.

Next, let's look at the hardware. Currently, if you want to use Wear OS, you have to use Qualcomm's Snapdragon 4100 processor, which was announced last June; it's the first major update in two years, but even now there are only a few watches with the latest chip.

How bad is it? A Google search for "WearOS" revealed that the first two questions in the "People Also Ask" box were "Is Wearos good" and "Is WearOS dead?"

The only major company using WearOS is Fossil Group, which sells smartwatches under half a dozen brands, including Misfit, Skagen, Armani Exchange, Diesel, Emporio Armani, and Michael Kors It is. All of those smartwatches are powered by the Qualcomm 3100 chip, which was introduced in 2018.

I can see why Fossil chose WearOS and why it is attractive to Samsung. If the internal components could be standardized, it would be much easier and cheaper to build countless cases. It would be like buying a Toyota Camry with dozens of trim packages to choose from.

We also understand that since WearOS has the backing of Google, more developers are likely to develop apps for this platform. Furthermore, it can work with all Google apps and Google Assistants.

However, this standardization has led to a lack of innovation within WearOS. Put a jeweled bezel on a watch, put a $350 price tag on it, and that is the end of it.

Over the past year or so, Apple, Fitbit, Garmin, and Samsung have introduced countless new features for health and fitness tracking, including SP02 tracking, blood oxygen monitoring, and skin temperature sensors. WearOS devices, on the other hand, offer the heart rate monitor found in $25 fitness trackers.

Like the WearOS processor, it took Google two years from 2018 to late 2020 to make any meaningful updates to WearOS. Google acquired Fitbit, but the acquisition was only completed last month, and we won't see any integration for a while; let's hope Google doesn't do to Fitbit what Fitbit did to Pebble.

But for me, it all comes back to battery life. The fact that Samsung's Galaxy Watch is more durable than the WearOS smartwatch is a real competitive advantage, as is its smartphone integration. And as the world's second largest smartphone maker, its close compatibility helps.

It is clear that Google is not spending much time on its own smartwatch WearOS. Neither should Samsung.