Apple Watch Drops to Just 5% Share of Wearables Market as Basic Fitness Trackers 'Reign Supreme'

[phillipduran]

Good, as it should be.

In other news Ferrari trails car market as Ford Focus takes "Reigns Supreme"

$250 for a watch and you compare it to a Ferrari. Laughable.

The watch didn't catch on. It's not really what people are looking for. Member the deluge of comments saying this was going to fail? Too redundant, too bulky, too costly. Ferrari pricing and not even as useful as a ford focus considering most people have a Ford F-150 of a smartphone in their pockets.

 

[nfl46]

Good, as it should be.

In other news Ferrari trails car market as Ford Focus takes "Reigns Supreme"

LOL! This is so funny, but yet so true!

 

[2010mini]

I don't understand why these things are compared. Basic fitness-only wearables are a completely different product from Apple Watch. Most of that market is not going to buy an Apple Watch instead.

Fitness tracking is 1 of 100 Apple Watch features.

Edit: This just in - 95% of refrigerator profits not going to Apple.

Apple Watch has been compared to fitness trackers because Apple Watch has so far outsold its competitors, that fitness trackers are the only thing left to compare.

 

[Iconoclysm]

I just wish Apple wouldn't intentionally hide the Apple Watch's earnings in the "Other" category. If this device is as successful as Apple claims you'd think they would be shouting it from the ramparts.

Ehh, with a company like Apple announcing those numbers could actually negatively impact the sales of it - even if they are good numbers for a smartwatch, they'll be compared against the iPhone.
[doublepost=1480957910][/doublepost]

People are simply not buying any new Apple Watches. It's the same problem the iPad has - there's no compelling need to upgrade.

It hasn't truly hit an upgrade cycle yet. Right now we have the "S" version, really.

 

[Mildredop]

Yeah, I would like to see the profit taken figures. I'm sure it would be another "Apple has 98% of profit in the wearables market." (I hope no one took a loss because I don't want to have that "how can you have more than 100% of the profits argument again.")

In addition to that, I'd like to see how much they've spent on R&D. I remember seeing some promo video suggesting they'd even employed some guy to study the way people exercise.

Add to that the cost of design, sourcing materials, machining, packaging, training staff, writing apps etc. etc., I'd imagine the net profit is nothing like the amounts Apple were hoping for.

Not to mention the fact that the Apple Watch isn't likely to lead to people buying other Apple products in the way an iPhone might lead to the purchase of a Mac or iPad.

In the eyes of Apple, I'd think this is hugely disappointing. I give it only a couple more years before they drop the AW, like they have done the AirPort, in order to focus on their 'core business' of computers. I mean, mobile telephones.

 

[phillipduran]

AW1 was overpriced.

Apple should have gone for market share. The best advertisment is to see a friend have it and tell you how great it is. This is especially true if it is a new product category.


The user interface was horrible. They should have done something much simpler. Imagine the screen split into four quadrants, where each quadrant can either be a folder or an app. With 2-4 fast taps you could select any app. You can put the apps you use most often high in the hierarchy. That is much easier than zooming in and out with digital chrown and scrolling around among 50 apps and 95% you never use.

I also don't understand why it needs so much battery when I don't use the watch. A battery in a Tile lasts a year and it is able to poll my phone if it is lost and beep very quicly. Same mechanism can be used for notifications.

But fashion! Appointments to try on to buy! It has to be elite, quick, give limited editions away to celebrities! Our store workers were born to sell these.

Ya Apple, ran right into the wall with Angela's marketing strategy with this device. Maybe they should have created a $10,000 gold version too to top off the mistake their marketing campaign was.

Sub $200 seems like the sweet spot they should have gone for on release day.

 

[Iconoclysm]

In addition to that, I'd like to see how much they've spent on R&D. I remember seeing some promo video suggesting they'd even employed some guy to study the way people exercise.

Add to that the cost of design, sourcing materials, machining, packaging, training staff, writing apps etc. etc., I'd imagine the net profit is nothing like what Apple were hoping for.

Not to mention the fact that the Apple Watch isn't likely to lead to people buying other Apple products in the way an iPhone might lead to the purchase of a Mac or iPad.

In the eyes of Apple, I'd think this is hugely disappointing. I give it only a couple more years before they drop the AW like they have the AirPort in order to focus on their 'core business' of computers. I mean, mobile telephones.

You think employing a guy that studies the way people exercise costs a lot of money? I bet he costs half as much as an industry expert who helps design the electronics and none of those nearly as much as the marketing and sales people involved.

Comparing it to the AirPort when we don't even really know what the ongoing strategy is for that segment is beyond jumping the gun...

 

[coolbreeze]

LOL. So only reason people don't buy an Apple Watch in favour of another product, is because people are cheap??

Nah, but the average consumer is going to walk into Best Buy and look at options. $399?!

Timmy will be fine with the $99 fitbit thing, thanks.

But I'm wrong, so cool. Make no mistake, pricing for the majority of shoppers is king.

 

[thekeyring]

Well, ****.

Honestly, I was waiting for the refresh to buy one. Then they upped the price of the model I wanted to £400.

Crazy, especially when you consider this is over double the price of an iPod nano.

 

[MacLawyer]

Article Link: Apple Watch Drops to Just 5% Share of Wearables Market as Basic Fitness Trackers 'Reign Supreme'

Is this a surprise?

 

[cdmoore74]

I got to be brutally honest. I own a iPhone 7 Plus with Apple Watch Series 1 but before that I've owned plenty of Android phones with a Moto 360. So during Black Friday I picked up a Google Pixel on the cheap and while I still prefer my iPhone 7 Plus over the Pixel I actually liked using the Moto 360 circular interface with Android Wear on a Android phone over the Apple Watch paired to my 7 Plus. Feels that the watch interface has more room and I just like the simple action of the swipes. Come to think about it I never use the crown interface or wander to the apps screen and I really don't want to.
If the Android Wear App on iOS wasn't so buggy I would use my Moto 360 and give my wife or daughter the Apple Watch. One thing is pretty much certain, I won't buy another Apple Watch in it's current form.

 

[TechZeke]

Haha oh dear, they are links to just Fitbit bands not the Fitbit, probably should look what you're posting!

Haha. You got me. Didn't even notice.

 

[skellener]

But by all means Tim, keep cutting back on the Mac and Mac products and killing the Pro line. /s

 

[thekeyring]

I switched over from a Nike Fuelband to the Apple Watch (just under a month ago). To me, there's just no comparison. While the Nike was fine in what it did, it just didn't do enough NOR was it waterproof, as the Apple watch is. Sure, okay - people buy more of the other brands, and that's to be expected, just as more people buy Microsoft-based PCs than they do iMacs. The sales numbers don't impress so much as the functionality does.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with Apple Watch. But I wanted to point out your comparison to Windows PCs isn't perfect.

For example, Apple have for a while done quite well versus other hardware makers, just not very well when you lump all it's competition together and say label them 'Windows PCs'.

If Apple were doing badly against all hardware makers combined, then it would make sense. But they're not, this quarter has been quite bad in an absolute way (regarding the Watch).

 

[DVNIEL]

I honestly feel an Apple Watch Shuffle is coming because of this market share performance.

 

[FactVsOpinion]

The Apple Watch is fugly and you have to charge it every night just like everything else they make. A Rolex is a watch. An Apple Watch is a gimmick.

Incorrect.

 

[skellener]

I honestly feel an Apple Watch Shuffle is coming because of this market share performance.

It was called the 6th gen iPod nano.

 

[rGiskard]

Yep. The Apple Watch is a good example of a design by committee product. Everyone on the committee had to have their pet features in the watch. Nobody asked the hard questions, like, WTF is the point of a smartwatch that tries to do it all yet still needs an iPhone to work? And if it only does a few things without an iPhone, then why not have it do ONLY those things, so it's a perfect complement to the iPhone?

Too thick, boring design, and the fitness functions are compromised by putting all the sensors on the back of the watch instead of in the wrist band. Functionality is a mile wide and an inch deep, with a Health app that seems unfinished and doesn't even have a Mac counterpart.

The price is absurd since it requires an iPhone for complete function.

Imagine instead an Apple FitBit-like product that can store months of health and GPS data. The minimal display has only time and a few functional settings. You sync it with your iDevice or Mac in the Health app (yes, a Mac Health app). Health app provides detailed analysis and beautiful graphs and maps. You can share Maps and graphs of runs or hikes, think of a map with both the route and integrated health data of your choosing. It would have rocked.

 

[Stella]

Or because people just want a fitness tracker, not a smart watch, which would be completely overkill. Like I said before, an Apple Watch isn't going to be a lot of use for an Android phone - so why would someone with an Android phone even consider an Apple Watch?

Nah, but the average consumer is going to walk into Best Buy and look at options. $399?!

Timmy will be fine with the $99 fitbit thing, thanks.

But I'm wrong, so cool. Make no mistake, pricing for the majority of shoppers is king.

 

[cardfan]

This was expected to be honest. Apple isn't going to lead in any market for long as premium brand. It's on them to educate, market, and sell it. Would I pay what I did for another one? Perhaps, but it'd have to be much much better.

I don't use the health stuff on it and never have. I don't have time for it and it'd probably be a PIA. It wouldn't be helpful anyways. I exercise 3-4 times a week. That will have to do. I understand why Apple thinks it's essential or why people are interested in it.

I don't use apps really. Or maps. Siri can be hit or miss.

What does matter is notifications. I don't miss them as I would if I only had my iphone. This watch has paid for itself over and over since the original launch. However, i think they made the UI worse with 3.0. It wasn't hard at all prior to it. I can see stock ticker at a glance, temp, calendar, etc.

Convenience is another factor. Works great with music. Unlocking imac. Seeing texts quickly or responding if needed. Phone calls if iphone isn't in pocket.

What i'd like to see is cellular, always on screen, much better siri, quicker, facetime.

Ultimately, i think it's about finding a way to sell these. They're still all over the place with marketing. Needs refinement. Hopefully Apple keeps plugging away at it. These days you never know if they'll update something that isn't iphone.

 

[theLedger]

The Apple Watch is just beginning its vertical and horizontal application march but last week on Black Friday we went to several stores, including Apple, for the aluminum AW2 with a black band and no one had them. Apparently, the AW2 has been a hot seller.

Just think back a few years when cheap flip phones were outselling smartphones. Where are those cheap flips today? Someone has to dust it off in the janitor closet if you want to buy one. There are limits as to what a Fitbit or similar device can accomplish.

 

[Quu]

It seems weird to me to include these devices together. An iPad and iPhone are very similar devices just in different sizes but we don't lumber them together for good reason.

To me the Apple Watch is a watch first with some fitness aspects but 99% of my usage of it is as a Watch. A fitness band is really only for Fitness and 100% of your usage of it will be for fitness.

I can understand comparing sales just for comparing wearables in general to see how people are buying things to put on their bodies but I wouldn't infer anything more than that when comparing these two devices. To me the Apple Watch is competing against the Samsung Google Watches, Gear Watch, Pebble Watches etc

 

[RogerWilco]

What? Apple isn't going to build a Star Trek-esque tricorder-on-a-wrist after all? /s

All that hype and bluster Timmy, now you have to fire them one by one, and then the board will take care of you. No worries, you'll leave with a few $B, but do leave.

 

[0958400]

Something else they can drop after dropping TimeCapsules and Prosumers.
Sad though, kinda liked it.
If Tim keeps this it's vanity and not calculated as all the other exits.

 

[rwilliams]

I bought a Series 1 watch a couple of months ago, and I really like it. The only reason I see myself buying a new one in the next few years will be to upgrade to a better material (stainless steel). I think the upgrade market for this product is going to be very small, especially since watchOS 3.1 has made the Series 0 watches much faster and extended the battery life. They're going to face the same problem they have with iPads - a somewhat niche product that existing owners are happy with and see no compelling reason to replace.