Apple Ceases Selling Jawbone UP, Nike Fuelband as Apple Watch Launch Approaches

[BvizioN]

It's simple fear of open and honest competition. Apple knows that their watch is grossly overpriced compared to competing products and so cannot allow customers to easily compare functionality and prices.

And customers most likely know the functionality and prices of both. Now on a modern days people tend to do some research before they buy something. And just like with anything else, some people are willing to pay more for a product that they find it to be better overall and it suits their lifestyle. Jawbone is nice and all for what it does, but there is not a chance in hell I will have that on my wrist if I wanted a smartwatch and I don't really care how much cheaper it is.

 

[houstonche]

Some of these products, especially the sub-$100 stuff, don't even compete directly with the Apple Watch. They're meant for fitness tracking only and not really considered smart watches or jewelry.

The fact that Apple is pulling even that stuff is kind of petty.

A jawbone or Nike band competes for the same real estate as a watch, the wrist.

If a customer leaves their store with a jawbone instead of an apple watch, it's a lost sale. Nothing petty here.

 

[QCassidy352]

That makes no sense at all.

It does make sense. You need to think a little deeper than this "stop carrying/never carried" distinction on which you're so hung up. That's relevant, but it's not the entire issue.

There has never been a question of Apple selling competitors products.

There certainly has, with respect to flagship products, of which the apple watch is one. Apple does not and never has sold desktops, laptops, smartphones, tablets, or music players that compete with their own.

Whether or not most other companies do is immaterial.

Not if you're trying to evaluate whether Apple's decision is rational, or whether it's "anti-competitive," as many in this thread have claimed.

Apple deciding to discontinue carrying products has nothing to do with other companies never carrying their competitors products.

It absolutely does. You think that distinction is the whole ballgame, but it isn't.

If Apple was following that principle then it would apply to their entire inventory

I don't agree with that at all. There could be perfectly rational business reasons for saying "we're going to sell someone else's iphone cases but not someone else's smartphone." The most obvious reason being that every case sold implies an iphone sold (either to that buyer or to the recipient of a gift), but every Galaxy S6 sold does not imply any other sale beneficial to apple. Another being that Apple isn't really making their living on iphone cases; if they make a few bucks that's great, but they mostly sell them because it's something iphone buyers want, and they make their living on iphones.

Apple still sells plenty of products that compete with their own. So Apple is in fact not following that principle. It's just a bad comparison, especially since you can still buy Nike product from Apple.

Any examples other than minor accessories/add-ons? I can't think of any. As I said, certainly not any desktops, laptops, smartphones, tablets, or music players. The apple watch is, like those products -- but unlike a case or adapter -- a "flagship" product for apple. So yes, this decision is entirely consistent with their principle of not selling against their flagship products.

 

[houstonche]

It's simple fear of open and honest competition. Apple knows that their watch is grossly overpriced compared to competing products and so cannot allow customers to easily compare functionality and prices.

It would be bad business to both quarterly profit and stock value to deliberately set a product up for failure. You may feel it's grossly overpriced, however apples market research likely suggested otherwise. If they are wrong, they'll adjust.

If you want to compare apples products to cheaper alternatives by all means do so, just don't expect the company to spend their resources helping you.

 

[ttss6]

There's going to be roughly 3 types of  Watch customers:
1) Apple Fan/Early adopter who has his/her heart set for it and is waiting for their pickup to be delivered to them by the person working at the Apple Store
2) Interested customer who wants to see it in person, try it on and likely isn't too put off by the prices for the Sport and low-end Regular models
3) Undecided people, who as usual, are hard to predict and will either become Type 2 or will be scared off like buffalo as soon as they see the price tag then may consider a fuel band or jawbone etc.
Overall Apple has nothing to worry about. Plenty of 1s and 2s that will buy the Watch and 3s to either convince or entertain

 

[Keirasplace]

I think there is merit to both your arguments. With the launch of the Apple Watch There is a new flagship product that doesn't need distractions. I think that is the reason why they removed it and the Flagship part is important here. That is why for example other headphones are still being sold and third party iPad cases etc. I also think it doesn't make sense to try to find a pattern in Apple's store policies. This is a new product and a new situation, so comparing it to previous situations or other kinds of stores is a recipe for failure.

The shelf space argument is not really strong. Apple stores are so large that an extra display would not matter. In addition I doubt that the watch bands will be on a simple display such as the iPhone cases considering their prices.

In Montreal, a rather large city, they're not large at all; in SFO (and other places) they are.

 

[skalden]

I bought a bluetooth handsfree from Jawbone some years ago, and it didn't work properly. I went to their forums and lots of people had same problem. Jawbone could have made a firmware update, but they just never did.. Finally they sent me a new one, but that one also didn't work properly.. A firmware update would have fixed it, instead they had peace in mind knowing customers couldn't really use it.. They didn't care helping. I promised my self I never ever buy anything from Jawbone ever again.

I wonder, apple watch need connection to iPhone to work? Thinking about my parents, they share a iPhone and if I bought my father a apple watch and he was out doing stuff with his other ordinary cell phone in his pocket, my mother wouldn't be able to send him text message or track him up on the map?

 

[Quu]

Does apple sell competing notebooks, phones or desktop computers in their store? What about Routers or MP3 players? - No they do not.

So why would the watch be any different? - I'm surprised posters in this thread are shocked by this.

 

[kahkityoong]

That's not quite the same thing as what is going on here, but nice try.

Actually it is exactly the same thing.

 

[Mildredop]

Um duh? Of course there not going to sell a competing product. That would be like an Apple Store selling Windows PCs. You can still order a FitBit or anything on Amazon and have it arrive at your house the next day. But clearly makes 0 sense for them to sell them in Apple Stores anymore.

But they sell other manufacturers iPhone covers next to their own. And iPad covers. And keyboards. And mice.

 

[coltman75]

imessages was suppose to be opened source, or was that facetime... i forget

It was FaceTime, but then they got sued by VirnetX, a patent troll company.

Originally, FaceTime was a direct device-to-device connection and would have been super easy for any device to implement. Because Apple lost the VirnetX lawsuit, they had to change FaceTime to a device-to-server-to-device connection. Because of this, Apple realized that they wouldn't be able to hand all the world's FaceTime calls, so they restricted it to iOS-only.

 

[stringent]

Yes still selling FitBit devices that don't have HealthKit integration?

 

[69Mustang]

It does make sense. You need to think a little deeper than this "stop carrying/never carried" distinction on which you're so hung up. That's relevant, but it's not the entire issue.



There certainly has, with respect to flagship products, of which the apple watch is one. Apple does not and never has sold desktops, laptops, smartphones, tablets, or music players that compete with their own.



Not if you're trying to evaluate whether Apple's decision is rational, or whether it's "anti-competitive," as many in this thread have claimed.



It absolutely does. You think that distinction is the whole ballgame, but it isn't.



I don't agree with that at all. There could be perfectly rational business reasons for saying "we're going to sell someone else's iphone cases but not someone else's smartphone." The most obvious reason being that every case sold implies an iphone sold (either to that buyer or to the recipient of a gift), but every Galaxy S6 sold does not imply any other sale beneficial to apple. Another being that Apple isn't really making their living on iphone cases; if they make a few bucks that's great, but they mostly sell them because it's something iphone buyers want, and they make their living on iphones.



Any examples other than minor accessories/add-ons? I can't think of any. As I said, certainly not any desktops, laptops, smartphones, tablets, or music players. The apple watch is, like those products -- but unlike a case or adapter -- a "flagship" product for apple. So yes, this decision is entirely consistent with their principle of not selling against their flagship products.

We can agree to disagree. I think the analogy is bad, you think it's okay. We can both take comfort in the fact that we think the other person's opinion is wrong. It's totally okay.

 

[Stella]

We will see about that. I had the Fitbit Charge HR and it never tracked my HR effectively. It was solid until I started to work out with it and then it was ineffective. I'm hoping Apple has it figured out. That is one of the weakness of this technology.

The description of the HR in the watch sounds similar to the Mio? The MIO is accurate.

 

[ctdonath]

But they sell other manufacturers iPhone covers next to their own. And iPad covers. And keyboards. And mice.

Because those are not "flagship" products. They're things that help sell flagship products.

Now that Watch is a flagship product, Apple won't sell directly competing products ... but they may very well start carrying alternate-manufacturer watch bands, holders, chargers.

 

[0098386]

I went to the Ford dealer and they had no Toyotas in the showroom. I don't get it.

Did the Ford dealer used to sell Toyotas when they had no Ford cars? And then stop selling them once their new car was priced 3-10 times more than the Toyota?

 

[deckard666]

I note our new Samsung store here in town (Bristol and always empty of customers) sells nothing but Samsung.

 

[MH01]

I can see why apple did this.

Though they might want to consider the people who don't want a watch, but still want an activity band. Those that want to wear a traditional watch on one wrist, and an activity tracker on the other.

----------

I went to the Ford dealer and they had no Toyotas in the showroom. I don't get it.

So, you completely missed the part "Apple Ceases Selling....." Unlike Ford, that never sold Toyotas, but apart from that an awesome and really appropriate analogy!

 

[Kar98]

I went to the Ford dealer and they had no Toyotas in the showroom. I don't get it.

I bought my Toyota at the Honda store.

 

[brendu]

Main products as in flagship products, not accessories. Apple's more open to competing accessories as they don't make as much money from them.

Ah sorry. My mistake.

 

[KidAKidB]

I think it's a good analogy. Apple isn't selling a competing brand and Ford isn't selling competing brands.

But these other fitness bands work alongside the iPhone. They should be an option for iPhone buyers as well. Not everyone wants an overpriced smart watch when all they need is a Fitbit for working out, etc.

 

[valleian]

It's simple fear of open and honest competition. Apple knows that their watch is grossly overpriced compared to competing products and so cannot allow customers to easily compare functionality and prices.

Okay guys, I just got back from South Korea, I was at the Samsung HQ. I have some troubling news… I asked the CEO if they'll be selling the Apple Watch alongside the Galxay Gears. They said no. Well, I mean, they had me forcibly escorted from the building, but I'm going to take that as a no. I think this "Fear of other competitors" might be spreading. What a shame, I was so excited to buy my Apple Watch at the Samsung Experience Store…

 

[bbeagle]

Did the Ford dealer used to sell Toyotas when they had no Ford cars? And then stop selling them once their new car was priced 3-10 times more than the Toyota?

Yes. Ford dealers used to sell Garmin nuvi Navigators in their showrooms when their cars did not have the option of navigation devices (2007). Now, Ford cars have the option of factory-installed navigation devices, and they no longer sell Garmin devices. Actually stopped selling them in their showrooms around 2011-2012.

http://www8.garmin.com/pressroom/corporate/020607.html

This is one example of many. Happened all the time in the 1950s and 1960s. Where after-market radios were offered, then were not when the dealers installed their own themselves.

 

[2457282]

It has always surprised me that Apple sells non Apple products in a store called Apple. I like the idea of the Apple store selling only Apple products. If they sell non Apple products they should create a seperate section of the store specific for those products so it is clear to customers.

I like the way phillips did it for their Hue Lights, by creating a section called "friends of Hue."

I like lots of products that are non-apple available at the apple store, but it does reduce the "cache" of Apple because of the lack of distinction.

Just my opinion, but those that believe that Apple has an obligation to sell anything other than Apple need to stop whatever they are smoking and think more clearly.

 

[spazzcat]

So you have three friends who are purchasing a $10,000 watch that will become obsolete in two years?

Doesn't sound like they make the best purchasing decisions.

Why would it be obsolete? I know people that are still using the iPhone 4. It may not be the latest and greatest, but it will tell time for a very long time.