Of more interest (IMHO) is how Apple Watches did over Christmas. A web analytics firm can't provide that information (at least not until Apple sneaks a browser onto the aWatch...)
The best I have seen is data from Slice released about a week ago. Slice gets its data from tracking emails about parcel delivery. (Yeah, yeah, we all know --- you think it's a terrible thing to ever sign up for such a service, you would never let anyone scan your emails for parcel tracking data, those of us who do so are crazy, blah blah. We all know --- please spare us the fulmination.)
OK, so what Slice has released publicly (as always the data released is teaser, to get the full data you have to pay) is that Apple picked up 46% of the ONLINE revenue for WEARABLES this quarter. Online because Slice tracks stuff that is mailed to you. Wearables, so in principle also includes Airpods, but that's probably too small to matter compared to aWatch.
That compares to 37% last year (Fitbit in #2 fell from 37% last year to 31% this year). Gamin and Samsung (the only two serious other smartwatch vendors left) are at 7% and 5%.
IF we assume that the Wearables segment is growing (which I think is true, the hype seems to suggest that even among the crowd who reflexively hate Apple and support fitness trackers) this suggests that Apple Watch is doing better than last year, and is basically reprising the iPhone trajectory. (A minority taste [and slow hardware] the first year, but gradually the common population start to see value in it, especially as OS and HW improve. I'd say we're about at the iPhone 3GS stage --- meaning 2017's aWatch will probably be the equivalent of the iPhone4 as THE breakout point, where aWatch/iPhone go from specialist taste to cultural icon.)
I stand by my previous claim that Fitbit et al are selling feature phones for the wrist, and while those had a moment of relevance, that moment is rapidly fading away -- by 2019 or so I expect that category to be as relevant as feature phones were by, say, 2013.
One IMPORTANT difference compared to the phone story is that far fewer companies appear to have the capability to manufacture a desirable smartwatch than a smartphone. Apple, Samsung, ? (Who will Google contract with for the Nexus Watch? LG, Huawei, Moto all DID launch smartwatches but then, more or less, gave up.The fact that they won't be under the Pixel brand tells us what --- that Google doesn't trust them to be good enough for the *new* Google hardware brand?) Note, for example, that Xiaomi's watch is more fitness band than smartwatch --- it doesn't run Android Wear and doesn't do much. Likewise even Samsung is not running Android Wear.
Obviously this means less competition for Apple; but it may ALSO mean a delay in the tipping over from rare to ubiquity that happened so fast with smartphones because their won't be the pool of cheap low-end devices that people pick up just for the hell of it. Let's see if Google do *something* (release a reference HW design? teach a Chinese manufacture how to create the Package-on-Packages necessary to fit everything into such a small volume?)