The Great Wrist Divide: Smartwatches, G-Shocks and the Love of Analogue

In a world obsessed with technology, why do some of us still love a watch that simply tells the time?

“I should probably declare my position before going any further. I'm hopelessly conflicted, because I love all three. I love the cleverness of a smartwatch, the timeless charm of an analogue watch and the unapologetic toughness of a G-Shock. Depending on the day, the occasion or simply my mood, I can make a perfectly convincing argument for wearing any of them. And perhaps that's the problem with the great wrist divide: some of us are quite happily living on both sides of it.”

There is something wonderfully personal about a watch. It's one of the few things we wear every day that can tell a story without saying a word. A watch can be a fashion statement, a family heirloom, a piece of engineering, a fitness companion or simply an old friend that has accompanied us through years of everyday life. Some watches remind us of people, others of places, and occasionally one reminds us of that slightly questionable purchase we made because we convinced ourselves we absolutely needed another watch.

And yet, in 2026, the world of watches feels more divided than ever. On one side, we have the smartwatch enthusiasts, people who have embraced the idea of wearing a miniature computer on their wrist. On the other, the traditionalists who wouldn't dream of replacing their beloved analogue timepiece with something that needs charging every evening. Somewhere in the middle sit the G-Shock devotees, retro Casio collectors and an increasingly interesting selection of hybrid watches trying to bring these two worlds together.

I find myself fascinated by all of them, because the watch you choose says surprisingly much about what you want from technology.

The Apple Watch is perhaps the perfect example of how far we've travelled. What was once a straightforward instrument for telling the time has become capable of monitoring our health, tracking exercise, making payments, handling phone calls and delivering a seemingly endless stream of notifications. There's no denying its usefulness. Being able to check your heart rate during exercise, see who's calling or glance at a message without reaching for your phone is genuinely convenient. For many people, a smartwatch has become an essential part of everyday life, and it's difficult to imagine giving up all those little conveniences once you've grown accustomed to them.

But somewhere along the way, our watches also became another device demanding our attention. Another screen, another software update, another battery to charge and another gadget congratulating us for standing up after we've spent too long sitting at a desk. Occasionally, I wonder whether we've become so obsessed with what our watches can do that we've forgotten the simple pleasure of wearing something that asks absolutely nothing of us.

Which brings me to the traditional analogue watch, something that still holds a special kind of magic. Whether it's a beautifully engineered automatic movement or a straightforward quartz watch, there's something reassuring about the simplicity. You glance at your wrist, the hands tell you the time, and life carries on. There are no notifications waiting to be dismissed, no activity rings to complete and no gentle vibration suggesting you might like to take a moment to breathe.

There's also the physical connection. The weight of a stainless-steel case, the feel of a leather strap, the movement of the second hand and even the familiar ritual of setting the time. These are little things, but they're part of what makes traditional watches so enjoyable. An expensive smartwatch might be technologically obsolete in a few years, whereas a well-maintained mechanical watch could still be ticking away decades from now, perhaps on the wrist of someone who hasn't even been born yet. That's rather lovely when you think about it.

Then, of course, there's the wonderful world of Casio G-Shock, a category that seems to operate entirely according to its own rules. Neither delicate nor particularly concerned with fitting neatly underneath a shirt cuff, a G-Shock has a certain unapologetic charm. These are watches designed to survive life's knocks, whether that's a day spent working outdoors, a weekend hiking or simply the everyday chaos of being worn without too much thought. Their chunky cases, wonderfully busy displays and unmistakable styling have earned them an almost cult-like following.

And I completely understand why. There's something refreshing about owning a watch that doesn't need to be treated like a precious piece of jewellery. You put it on, get on with your day and don't worry too much about what happens next. Even the humble Casio F-91W, without the ruggedness of a G-Shock, has become something of a design icon. It's inexpensive, uncomplicated and instantly recognisable. Proof, if ever we needed it, that technology doesn't have to be expensive or complicated to earn our affection.

But here's where the modern watch conversation becomes particularly interesting. What happens if you love traditional watches, enjoy the rugged simplicity of a Casio, but still want the health information that makes smartwatches so appealing? What if you're interested in your sleep, heart rate, recovery and fitness without necessarily wanting another illuminated screen attached to your arm?

This is where companies such as WHOOP have introduced a different way of thinking. Rather than trying to replace the traditional watch, WHOOP concentrates on collecting health and performance information without a conventional display. The technology quietly monitors your body, while the companion application makes sense of the information. It isn't trying to be a miniature smartphone, and that's precisely the appeal. You can enjoy the benefits of health tracking without constantly being invited to look at your wrist.

Google is clearly interested in this direction too. Its screen-free Fitbit Air, introduced earlier this year, puts health monitoring ahead of notifications and watch faces, while the newly announced Fitbit Edge demonstrates that there's still a place for slim, dedicated fitness trackers with a display. It's an interesting development at a time when smartwatches seem determined to become increasingly sophisticated. Perhaps the future isn't always about adding more features, but deciding which features actually matter.

And some smaller manufacturers are taking that thinking in genuinely creative directions. Kronaby has explored the idea of combining classic analogue watch design with discreet connected functionality, preserving the appearance of a traditional timepiece while introducing useful modern conveniences. Ollee Watch approaches things with a wonderful sense of nostalgia, taking classic Casio digital watches and giving them new capabilities, including smartphone connectivity and activity tracking. It's rather charming to think that a watch design associated with the 1980s can find an entirely new purpose in 2026.

Then there's HIYD, which is developing a tiny health-tracking sensor designed to sit discreetly behind a traditional watch. The concept is wonderfully simple: keep wearing the watch you already love while adding the health information you've become accustomed to. Its real-world performance remains to be tested, but it's exactly the kind of idea that makes the wearable technology industry exciting again. Scottish company UNA Watch is challenging things from another direction, building a modular, repairable GPS sports watch with an open development platform. Different approaches, certainly, but all asking whether the future of wearable technology needs to follow the same familiar formula.

Perhaps that's what I find most encouraging about the whole thing. For years, the conversation seemed to suggest that traditional watches and smartwatches were competing for the same piece of wrist space, and eventually one would have to win. But I'm not convinced that's how people actually feel about watches. You can appreciate the engineering of a mechanical movement while enjoying the convenience of an Apple Watch. You can love the nostalgia of a Casio while being fascinated by the recovery information collected by WHOOP. You might wear a smartwatch for exercise, a G-Shock when working outdoors and an analogue watch when heading out for dinner. And why shouldn't you?

Watches are emotional objects as much as practical ones. They remind us of birthdays, holidays, achievements and people we've known. Sometimes they remind us of the first watch we owned as a child, when having a little digital display with a stopwatch felt like owning a piece of the future. Other times they're simply something familiar that has quietly accompanied us through the years.

Technology will continue to evolve. Sensors will become smaller, batteries will last longer and the information collected by wearable devices will become increasingly sophisticated. But I don't believe the traditional wristwatch is going anywhere. If anything, the growing interest in hybrid watches and screen-free fitness trackers suggests that we're beginning to appreciate something important: we don't always need more technology. Sometimes we just need technology that fits around the things we already love.

And perhaps that's the real beauty of the humble wristwatch. Whether it's a mechanical masterpiece, an Apple Watch, a battered G-Shock or a £20 Casio that's been faithfully keeping time for decades, the best watch isn't necessarily the smartest, toughest or most expensive.

It's the one that makes you smile when you put it on in the morning, that's something no specification sheet will ever be able to measure.