Forget cross platform. Make it compatible with all ios/mac products!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Watch Drops to Just 5% Share of Wearables Market as Basic Fitness Trackers 'Reign Supreme'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well Apple Watch represents Tim Cook's Apple, whereas the Jobs' Apple looked more like Fitbit - simplicity and functionality wins for the consumer in the end.
If the Apple watch is a fitness tracker and more, then it should sell better.
Who says the other fitness devices don't make money?
More defensive posturing. The Apple watch didn't need to be so expensive.
You lost me when you said Apple has no competition in iOS when they have singlehandedly put over $60 billion in the hands of developers throughout the world through the App store and the iOS ecosystem. Yet Apple gives away all its software to its users. Yes indeed, no competition.
No comparison to the PC market. Apple could own this market or have a bigger chunk. Why not? Oh, because it's not compatible with a necessary phone?
Yet, assuming for the sake of argument that is true, they still own the market and the main competitors are dropping like flies. I guess your point is that they dominate whether the market for watches is going up or down.
I know I'm late to the party on this thread, apologies if point already made.
The RAZR is comparable to the iPhone. You are very few RAZRs and a ton of iPhones these days. Why? Because people have one or the other and Apple convinced people that they should have an iPhone instead of a RAZR by giving it features people wanted.
The Apple Watch should be the iPhone to the Fitbit's RAZR ("why would anyone buy a Fitbit when Apple Watch exists?"), but it isn't. Why? No 'can't live without' feature.
I have had my Apple Watch for a year or so and am getting fed up with it for running. The available apps are unreliable and the watch face controls are useless if you are sweaty or it is raining. Useless for distance (or pretty much anything) without my phone. Going to a Garmin. May still use the Apple Watch for day to day use or sell it. Not sure yet.
I agree it's a premium device, and this article doesn't highlight the true meaning of the Apple Watch and it's standings.
Well, since you asked: "
- Motorola, one of the pioneers of Android Wear, is dropping out of it. Earlier this year, Motorola and a few other popular OEMs, good bye Moto
, stated that they wouldn't be releasing any more Android Wear-powered smartwatches in 2016.
- Pebble is toast.
- Microsoft tried twice with its Band, touted as the most advanced fitness tracker on the market, but gave up the ghost in October and ceased production because of poor sales. The Band is officially dead.
- Nike stopped making its FuelBand and has switched to selling Apple Watches with a special Nike band and watch face.
- Jawbone stopped making its fitness tracker this in September.
- Fitbit doesn't make a smart watch, but they are impacted by Apple's appeal to fitness folks, and Fitbit's stock hit an all time low today, December 5 as a familiar pattern plays out with Xiaomi fighting for scraps among the low end and Fitbit not being able to compete with the smart watch segment.
- Garmin is the second biggest smartwatch maker behind Apple (again these are all estimates), but hanging on.
- Samsung is just hanging around selling Gear smart watches waiting for Apple to do something so it can try and copy.
Finally, everyone should be wary of these stimates of sales. Apple doesn't report them and they may be much higher. For example, one analyst is "reporting" Apple sold 1.1 million watches this quarter, while another says it was 2.8 million. The reality is that neither knows.
Last edited:
Ferrari need to work out how to sell replaceable seats....the cash spinner is watch bands baby.....and the competition is left for dead here!!!!
I think if Apple want this to be the defacto smart watch they're going to have to make it cross platform like they did with the iPod.
People in the past have shown that if a product is reallly good, they will buy it no mather the price. Just like the first iPhone when it was 500$ (in that time 500$ for a phone was "you're crazy" price). Now what did apple watch achieve? Nothing really, nobody really wants to buy it. It's ugly, its expensive and it's useless. Brandind it as some "exclusive" device just to excuse its lackluster sales doesnt really cut i.
I see what you're saying. But the iPod and Apple Watch shouldn't be used in comparison for platform base. And let's not forget, the iPod is practically non-existent anymore, which it's to hazy to determine if Wearable Tech will follow or not.
Navigation
Notifications
Home automation control
Not dismissing it. I love my V1 - Just mean to the casual buyers it looks the same as the first one - Not a major redesign. GPS / Waterproofing / brighter display / better battery are all great but it's never the wow factor of a new feature which will probably come with the next gen - new design / Bigger screen / more independence from iPhone / facetime camera ( will be the killer thing for some people )
More than 1 billion people own iPhones. So the amount of Apple Watch sales are not great at all.
Apple tried to market and sell the Apple Watch as a Rolex. That idea flopped!
Essentially the Apple Watch is a nice looking fitness watch with an overly complicated fitness system. Like it or not, Apple Watch is competing with Fitbit and Garmin, not Rolex or Omega (which Apple would like it to compete against).
Negatives
- too expensive
- doesn't pair with iPads (which is just silly)
- fitness part is too complicated (like it or not steps is very easy to understand and compare with a friend)
- delay in HR/step/activity data (Fitbit shows HR/steps live as it happens on the display without having to tell it you are running or walking for example)
- battery life (fitbit blaze has 5 days)
- to the average joe it doesn't really do anything more than a fitness tracker (notifications and tracks fitness)
Plus
- high quality
- brilliant vibration
- apple pay
Apart from Apple Pay and the funky vibration, my Fitbit Blaze does everything the Apple Watch does and better (and for £150 less). Even Apple are marketing it as a fitness device now.
That is the problem!
Apple tried to market and sell the Apple Watch as a Rolex. That idea flopped!
Essentially the Apple Watch is a nice looking fitness watch with an overly complicated fitness system. Like it or not, Apple Watch is competing with Fitbit and Garmin, not Rolex or Omega (which Apple would like it to compete against).
Negatives
- too expensive
- doesn't pair with iPads (which is just silly)
- fitness part is too complicated (like it or not steps is very easy to understand and compare with a friend)
- delay in HR/step/activity data (Fitbit shows HR/steps live as it happens on the display without having to tell it you are running or walking for example)
- battery life (fitbit blaze has 5 days)
- to the average joe it doesn't really do anything more than a fitness tracker (notifications and tracks fitness)
Plus
- high quality
- brilliant vibration
- apple pay
Apart from Apple Pay and the funky vibration, my Fitbit Blaze does everything the Apple Watch does and better (and for £150 less). Even Apple are marketing it as a fitness device now.
That is the problem!
I can't speak for other people but I have two main reasons for not buying an Apple (or other) watch:
- Price. I don't want to add another really expensive device to my list of devices I need to replace every so often: iPhone, iPad, Mac AND a watch: no thank you.
- Use. I don't want a smart watch. If you use all it can do, especially the notifications, it seems too obtrusive. I don't want to know straight away, all the time whenever I get a new notification. And if you're not going to use the notifications, you might as well not buy a smart watch.
Since most people will only wear one smartwatch/wearable on their wrist, the data should be interpreted less as a comparison of the products themselfs and more as a representation of their buyer's major focus on fitness-tracking.
And while the Apple Watch in general might offer plenty more functionality, it can't do anything in the fitness section that it competitors couldn't do equally good or even better (btw: some of those "step counters" come with a premium pricetag too, like the Garmin Fenix 3 starting at $ 500).
If it was on me, I would do that. However, it is often at my desk, at the other end of the building from me, where the wearable is usually on my wrist.
Apparently you lost the entire thread context, which is about Apple Watch.
It's tied to iOS.
Apple has made sure no one can directly compete with their Watch, by making sure no one else can access things like Apple Pay on their device, access known WiFi sites and passwords, etc. Competing watches cannot access their own phone based watch app store. Competing watches cannot transfer data to Apple Health, AFAIK. Nor directly reply to texts or emails.
It's like how Microsoft used to be accused of being evil, by keeping secret APIs just for its own use, so its own apps would be faster.
In other words, the Apple Watch doesn't directly compete with anything, because Apple won't let anyone else directly compete with it.
My argument is that the Apple Watch (and other smartwatches to a lesser degree) started with way too high expectations in regard to usefulness and appeal. Meaning many people bought them blind and only later discovered that it wasn't for them. Having mindshare is usually good for products but you can have too much mindshare resulting in disappointment post-purchase.
PS: Am I the only one that bought a Series 0 when they came out and tucked it away? Still sealed, hoping it will be worth some money in 2025 or later.