Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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 (according to IDC) has 4.9% of the smartwatch market.
Apple Watch only works with iPhone.
iPhone has about 15% of smartphone market.

Brand X fitness band (Garmin, Fitbit) has 4-23% of fitness band market but it caters to all smartphone users ... or even anyone with a computer.

There's pretty big difference between 5% of a maximum 15% smartphone market vs say 5% of the entire smartphone and computer market. It's like comparing the marketshare share of the lightning cable (which is made for apple products only), to the marketshare all USB cables (which work on any almost any product).

.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Stella
I see a lot o' panties getting into wads over whether one should compare a Fitbit to an Apple Watch. Perhaps it's due to the poorly written headline. But the real story here is that Apple Watch shipments experienced a YoY drop from 3.9 to 1.1 million. Who cares about Ferraris vs Fords, that's over a 70% drop.
 
I wear a watch because I always have... from my first Timex as a kid, to Casio calculator watches as a geeky math student, to early smartwatches from Microsoft, Fossil (yay PalmOS, on a watch!), and then a Rolex Air-King I received as a gift (wore that for 15 years)... Moto 360 (I develop Android software), and now Apple Watch Sport since the original release. The Rolex taught me the value of a comfortable, compact, everyday watch "that just works" and has an understated elegance.

Fact is, I like always having the time, in analog form, on my wrist. It's quick to glance and schedule my day. AW added handy things like Day of Week, outside temperature, next scheduled meeting, and some things I never knew I'd really enjoy: answering the phone even though it's on my desk in another room, using Siri to "add milk to the grocery list", setting a 5 minute timer in the kitchen with my hands full, etc... oh yeah, and the fitness tracking is a nice-to-have. On top of that, the AW also ticks the checkboxes for me of comfortable, compact, everyday watch "that just works" and has an understated elegance.

Before AW, my fitness tracking involved a sheet of paper I kept my workout log on (weights and reps), and a pair of running shoes that tracked my fitness by gradually wearing out.

None of these gadgets are required for life, but are nice improvements in day-to-day.

All that said, there's a whole generation of people who just need a pocket-size glass screen that logs into Facebook, takes a good selfie, and maybe play a game now and then... oh and maybe make a phone call to mom. I see few of these people even wearing watches - something the phone displaced like the wristwatch did to the pocket watch, only know the phone IS the pocket watch. So, the pocket watch had it right all along.

I'll keep wearing my Apple Watch, though. It works great for me, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that assessment.
 
Last edited:
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.


so what are the remaining 99 Appel watch features that actually draw consumers to buy Apple Watch?
 
Why would a customer care about market share?

If a product has low market share, it runs the risk of being discontinued / being unsupported by third parties.

I would avoid buying a product if its marketshare was low enough AND on a downwards trend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob_2811
I see a lot o' panties getting into wads over whether one should compare a Fitbit to an Apple Watch. Perhaps it's due to the poorly written headline. But the real story here is that Apple Watch shipments experienced a YoY drop from 3.9 to 1.1 million. Who cares about Ferraris vs Fords, that's over a 70% drop.

It's a Apple Watch S year... minor upgrades same design. I bet the next one will be slimmer with a video camera bigger screen and other stuff and will sell bucket loads. Like the iPhone 3G.
 
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.

This is the same company that refused to place iPads in competition with "computers" because they were a different device. Basically, IDC/Gartner... "We will game the data to always make Apple look like they are DDDDOOOMMMEEEDDD!!!!"
 
Agreed, comparing $70 fitbits and $15 Mi Bands to $300+ Apple Watches doesn't make much sense.

In other news, $200-$500 windows laptops outsell $2400 Retina MacBook Pro.

Not sure I agree with you on that..

Some Fitbits go between 150-250, such as the charge 2, surge, and blaze which are direct competitors. The Charge 2 is very very popular and it notifies for calls and messages (not apps), but does fitness tracking. Everything else I can do on my phone. I have no reason to send anyone my heart beat or a stupid drawing. Apple watch is a great product, but for the price point it doesn't provide enough utility, and the utility of it decreases as the majority of smart phones out there are android.

So no, it's not comparing a Retina Macbook pro with touch bar vs 200 dollar laptop. The dongles you will need for the retina laptop will be 200 dollars. It's comparing a 1500 laptop vs $2400 retina macbook with touch (dongles excluded).

I love Apple and would love to stay in the Apple ecosystem but I can't do it just for blind loyalty as Tim likes to flaunt. In the past these premiums have been well worth it, but not any more. These are just my observation, I do think the Apple watch is pretty than most alternatives, but Fitbit did an excellent job with the charge 2. So I give them credit. I hope they keep doing well, same with pebble (fugly but I like there drive).
 
Last edited:
.....IDC attributed Apple's decline in the third quarter to an "aging lineup" and an "unintuitive user interface." Apple addressed those concerns with Apple Watch Series 2, but the second-generation models launched in mid-September and therefore did not have a full impact on the third quarter.....

I highly doubt this is the reason for the decline. Smartwatches are in it's early days, most people don't even have one.

To say, it's because of aging or unintuitive is the reason just too far fetched, when most people probably haven't even tried a smartwatch or fitness band.

.
 
ITT: a bunch of people trying to justify wasting money on something as useless and redundant as an Apple Watch.
 
I highly doubt this is the reason for the decline. Smartwatches are in it's early days, most people don't even have one.

To say, it's because of aging or unintuitive is the reason just too far fetched, when most people probably haven't even tried a smartwatch or fitness band.

.

I think its a round an about way of saying that the watch was awful until Watch OS 3 shipped, and this numbers dont fully relfect the new hardware announced in September. Still I doubt the rest of the series 2 sales will put too much of a dent in that.
 
Last edited:
It's TOO EXPENSIVE. Fitness competitors sell at 10% to 25% of the cost of the Apple Watch. By the time you have the case and band you like it can be au$1400 or more vs $300 or so for a good fitness wearable.
I also think that the competition do what they do well but the Apple Watch probably needs another generation before it's really good at what it's trying to do.
 
I have thought that the apple watch is something looking for a function. It seems like a great idea, at least for some, to extend the phone to the wrist, but I am not sold on this notion.

What I have been sold on is independent functionality of a GPS capable device - in my case the Fenix 3. While it is useful for data mining - aka assessing performance - the vast majority of what it does is for me non-essential. In other words it has not changed how I train or how active I am. What it has done though is provide a single piece of equipment which does it all for all sports, which is granting a simplification.

In comparison, my gf got an Apple Watch for christmas last year. She has since switched to a garmin device because of its ability to aid her in training.

I think what is clear is that specialized devices provide better experiences at the current state of technology - there have to be compromises in getting things down to the size of a watch. Now given more people might be (falsely?, based on some of the stories I have seen) benefiting from simple trackers, it makes complete sense the cheap simple trackers would sell more.

On the other hand, you get what you pay for - my gf tried and lost two Misfits before the Apple watch.
 
it still doesnt change that the apple watch isn't very good. although you'd love to tell me otherwise.

If the apple watch were so useful people would be clamoring for them as they did they iphone.
 
a watch instead in place of a mac pro.
this is where apple is headed boys and girls !
 
Hardware differences between v1 and v2 are minor. Software functionality for v1 has been improved making the hardware upgrade less essential.
The watch is expensive as are the straps. Those using it for running / fitness might just decide to use a much cheaper and disposable Fitbit.

The features like sending scribbles would be more useful if it worked between phone and watch and, by using an app, between watch and any android phone. Until you get a certain market share or number of users it will remain very very niche.

Ultimately price is important. There are very few who will feel the need for a fancy leather strap. So profit margins may be great but volume will be tiny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stella
I got mine from Best Buy a month or two ago for $170 and honestly, I wouldn't have paid any more for it. $300+ for this thing is just ludicrous.
 
Because they both compete for the same spot on your wrist and you won't wear both. So my dollars go to either the basic fitness band or a more advanced smartwatch fitness band, but not both.

But, they don't always compete for the same spot on your wrist. I know many people who wear a (non-Apple) watch on one wrist and a Fitbit on the other wrist.
 
It is important to investors. Profit margin is great , but if you don't grow in market share it makes it much more difficult for your profits to continue to increase.

Well, secondary isn't a bad thing by any means. Of course Apple wants as many people using their products, but let's face it: their prices, software, hardware, features, etc will not appease everyone. Not everyone cares about the A10 Fusion Chip's benchmarking even though it's a great technological accomplishment. There are some concepts that might be tertiary or even low on the priority list: water resistance being covered by warranty, which is really low considering a standard US warranty doesn't cover water resistance underperforming.
 
The apple watch fills it’s purpose for me. Notifications, fitness and checking my texts on the go. Some just want it to do too much like a phone.

Eh, they have a point to an extent. I want LTE and a loud enough speaker to have phone calls on around the house, but those are wants and I can live by with a Series 1 AW. Series 0? Too many sluggish performance issues to consider now adays.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.