I like the idea of having a device around my wrist that allows me to use my phone less. A device that allows me to reduce the FOMO (Fear of Missing Out). And a device that has the added benefit of helping me stay fit and active.

This description fits both Wear OS by Google and the Apple Watch, albeit both platforms have a different focus. However, the latest development shows that Apple — pardon the language — totally destroys Google with their efforts. It didn’t have to pan out this way.

2014, Google introduced the first version of Wear OS to much fanfare, then known as Android Wear. They entered that market before Apple and they had their unique approach next to existing products such as the much-appraised Pebble. In contrast to that, Google couldn’t promise long-lasting battery life that allowed users to go weeks without charging, but instead delivered a platform that could fit much more information and usability into a watch than Pebble could ever dream of. The potential of the platform seemed limitless.

But as time went on, it became clear that Android Wear/Wear OS was neither Google’s nor chip manufacturer Qualcomm’s favorite child. Since the smartwatch market didn’t become The Next Big Thing, interest in it dwindled in both users and developers. In fact, the highly anticipated Android Wear 2.0 update turned out to be controversial among fans of the OS, since it stripped features such as bundled notifications and reserved handy gestures for the seldomly used option to switch watch faces.

Fast forward, and Qualcomm only recently released its next dedicated smartwatch processor, the Snapdragon 3100. The biggest improvement is the processor’s new Big.little.tiny architecture that adds an even smaller set of co-processors for the 95% of time a Wear OS watch is idling. Unfortunately, this is where Qualcomm’s innovation ends. The bigger processor is still based on ancient technology from 2013 — thus not solving big performance problems on even the most recent Wear OS devices.

The fact that most serious smartphone manufacturers retreated from the Wear OS market and left the field to fashion brands doesn’t help either. Fashion brands will naturally focus mostly on the looks of their products, not on improving its soft- and hardware.

The recently announced third major redesign of Wear OS might be a step in the right direction, but it could turn out to be the classic case of too little, too late. The renewed focus on customer demands such as a higher information density and easier access to often used features is promising, but since the underlying hardware barley manages to push the UI stutter free, even this improvement will likely fail to give the platform new momentum.

On the other hand, there is the Apple Watch. Even if its sales numbers may pale against the iPhone, it is still the most popular smartwatch there is, and, according to Business Insider, a watch that sold better than the whole Swiss watch industry combined.

Last month, Apple announced its fourth-generation smartwatch with a big focus on its health and fitness capabilities. Even though I consider myself an Android person, the announcement almost made me want to switch to Apple’s devices (since in contrast to Wear OS, the Apple Watch only works with iPhones).

It’s not even necessarily the new health features that give me this “I want it” feeling. Rather, it’s the mixture of refined hardware and fluid, stutter-free software that “just works,” as Apple likes to advertise it and that I miss on Google’s counterpart. While my uncle’s Gen 2 Apple Watch is a charm to play with, my own Asus ZenWatch 3 feels like a bike that’s beginning to fall apart while you’re riding it, and you only want it to die so you can get a new one.

I never felt this way with Android phones vs. iPhones — here, I see thoughtful software on both sides, with some features better implemented in the one and other features better implemented in the other product.

Even the underlying tech in Apple Watch is now much further advanced than Qualcomm’s just announced chip. The Apple Watch is based on a custom engineered 64-bit processor while Wear OS is involuntarily stuck on a 32-bit platform.

Sure, there are some things that Wear OS does better. There is no always-on screen on the Apple Watch, making it a no-go for someone who wants their watch to do what a watch is supposed to do — always tell the time. But I personally have decided that the added convenience of an ambient screen does not outweigh the disadvantage of a significantly shorter battery life.

Speaking of battery life: This is something that could be improved on both platforms. Both my ZenWatch and an Apple Watch do not last full 24 hours, making it impossible to wear them all day long and only charge them for example while taking a shower. This limits sleep tracking abilities on both platforms (however, both don’t offer that function natively).

It’s unfortunate to see the market play out this way and it reminds me of the iPad. Back when tablets were introduced, Android had serious leverage against Apple with a specialized Android version just for tablets. But today, the premium tablet market is dominated by the iPads. Their only serious competitor is Amazon’s Fire Tablets — although their hardware and pricing is decidedly aimed at the low end of the market.

Competition is good and healthy, and even though Apple is rumored to radically redesign the iPad this year, one can only wonder if they would have iterated faster with real challengers next to them. So, here’s to hoping that Google sees and seizes its opportunity to become a serious contender to the Apple Watch.