It's hard to believe Google hasn't made a smartwatch until now. Wear OS launched all the way back in 2014 (as Android Wear), and in the intervening eight years, just about every Android device manufacturer you can think of has given it a shot. Samsung, Motorola, LG, Xiaomi, Oppo, and Sony have all released at least one Android-powered smartwatch — not to mention the likes of Fossil and Mobvoi, who seem to offer a new model every few months.

But the Pixel Watch, available for pre-order today, really is Google's first attempt. At $350, the device is positioned as Google's answer to the similarly premium Apple Watch. It may very well be a good Android alternative to every iPhone owner's favorite accessory — but I'm wondering whether that's what Wear OS really needs.

At first blush, there's a lot to like about the Pixel Watch. I dig the minimal, rounded look — it's very Google, and I mean that as a compliment. It's also sporting the latest Wear OS 3.5, and, as best we can tell so far, it's a well-made piece of hardware. It's got Fitbit integration, too, and Google's been talking up how accurate its health tracking features are. It even has Fast Pair, so it's dead simple to get it connected to your phone.

But even before the Pixel Watch is on store shelves, we're seeing some troubling signs. It's powered by a years-old Samsung Exynos chipset — the same one that was in the very first Samsung Galaxy Watch. In fairness, Google's added a co-processor, and we can't judge the watch on performance before we've had the opportunity to test it thoroughly. What we can judge sight unseen is Google's battery life estimate: the Pixel Watch purportedly lasts "up to 24 hours" on a charge. Unless the company is being conservative in that estimate, that's not great.

Google really wants you to think of the Pixel Watch as luxurious.

Apple Watch users are used to that kind of scrimpy battery life, but Wear OS devices from Samsung and others are easily making it past a full day of use by now, with the best of the bunch eking out two or more full days. Fitbit's Versa and Sense watches, which bear many of the same health features as the Pixel Watch, can manage up to a week without ever seeing a charger.

The Pixel Watch's high-end design, stainless steel case, and intricate, proprietary band connector — not to mention its bougie marketing — all point to a wearable Google's clearly put a lot of effort into making seem conspicuously premium. That's a big swing from Google, a company plagued by frequent shifts in strategy and, as a result, something of an unreliable track record with new products.

All the same, Google's following a lot of Apple's playbook here, and the results will certainly appeal to a subset of Pixel enthusiasts. The promise of tight integration with Google's services and other hardware products and the polished fit and finish have absolutely piqued my own interest.

But despite its aspirations, Google's name doesn't carry quite the same cachet with most Android users as Apple's does with iPhone users. Apple can get away with pricey smartwatches that offer crummy battery life because, on iOS, the Apple Watch is the default — every single watchOS device is a first-party one. Android users, on the other hand, have grown accustomed to a wide selection of smartwatches from a number of different manufacturers (they're not all good devices, but that's beside the point).

And while the Pixel Watch has the latest-and-greatest version of Wear OS, so does the Samsung Galaxy Watch 5 — a watch that costs a full $70 less than the Pixel Watch at MSRP, features newer internal components, better battery life, and more durable glass over its display. What's more, scads of watches from other manufacturers are supposed to get Wear OS 3 in the near future. Sure, the Pixel Watch has Fitbit integration going for it, but I can't imagine many Fitbit diehards taking to charging their wearables on a daily basis.

In building a high-end smartwatch with strong ties to its greater ecosystem, Google seems to have successfully created a Wear OS alternative to the Apple Watch (or at least the closest thing we have to one so far). But Google also aped the bad things about the Apple Watch: namely, mediocre battery life and a steep price tag.

I'll probably still end up buying one, and maybe you will too. But we're enthusiasts, and unlike Apple, Google doesn't have the advantage of being the only smartwatch game in town. Without buy-in from regular Android users, the Pixel Watch can't possibly succeed — and I'm not sure making the Apple Watch, but Pixel is the right way to get it.