Perhaps. All I know, as a shareholder, Apple needs growth. And since they don't have anything in the pipeline but faster versions of what we have, it's time to branch out and work that Apple magic marketing machine on them. Hell, Apple doesn't even seem to promote Beats.
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.
Fitbit Continues to Outpace Apple Watch in Broader Wearables Market
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Perhaps. All I know, as a shareholder, Apple needs growth. And since they don't have anything in the pipeline but faster versions of what we have, it's time to branch out and work that Apple magic marketing machine on them. Hell, Apple doesn't even seem to promote Beats.
We don't know what they have in the pipeline.
This article ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterco...e-is-more-doomed-than-you-think/#6720e8c152c5 ) says Apple had "nothing in the pipeline" and since then it delivered Touch ID, 64-bit ARM chips, Apple Pay, Apple Watch, a new Apple TV.
But then, you're a shareholder. You just want to sell your shares on later, at a higher price than you bought them for. So you and I won't see eye-to-eye because I'm a consumer, and I just want great products I can use.
Yeah but they still have enough cash for R&D and to pay everyone. If they had to sell iPhones at cost their other products would make about as much profit as Google. Would make a very healthy private business.
Just people like yourself who want to sell their shares later on for profit aren't happy.
I don't think it's due to the high cost, if the Apple Watch had GPS and functional design similar to Garmin or Fitbit, plus something along the lines such as Garmin Connect, Fitbit Dashboard etc.. then I would have given it some serious consideration as I own several Apple products. The Apple fitness watch is very unappealing at the moment for me. As such I will stick with my Garmin ForeRunner 235 as it excels at what I use it for.
However, it may be more appealing for other users. I recently spoke to a partially sighted person who said it works very well for himself.
Last edited:
I have to say that the apple waggling is sorely lacking for its price point. I recently purchased a blaze ($200 msrp but I got it for just over half that used) and, aside from app installations, it does almost everything the aw can do. The AW is clearly the superior product, but at what cost?
The things I lose is app installs and the ability to send texts and emails (texts I would like to be able to send but emails I couldn't care less). The kicker is the battery life. This thing will go four days (claims are five but I've not pushed it that hard) without needing s charge and in wearing it all day, tracking an hour of cardio daily (for the last six weeks). An Apple Watch is in its last legs by the end of the day with similar use. (Wife has one, essentially uses it to look at notifications and not a whole lot else).
I think the reality is that the Apple Watch just isn't a very good fitness tracker. It simply doesn't meet my needs. I'd be happy to get one if I could get a couple days battery out of it particularly when I have no dire need to be running apps (which on the current watch are often slow to load anyway). Give me a fitness tracker, Apple. I'll be glad to pay the apple tax on it so long as it matches my needs that the Fitbit meets so well.
Another important thing to note is the limitations apple outs on other smart watches. The best smart watch for your iPhone is an Apple Watch and this is simply because those other watches can't do a whole lot of the things even if they wanted to die to restrictions. Even an android smart watch can't send a text because apple doesn't allow it. Pretty silly. It's what had me go for a Fitbit over a Moto 360 sport (an ACTUAL sport smart watch, unlike apples sport monicker). I simply wouldn't have any more connectivity than with a Fitbit so it made no sense to spend the extra cash.
[doublepost=1463518355][/doublepost]
The things I lose is app installs and the ability to send texts and emails (texts I would like to be able to send but emails I couldn't care less). The kicker is the battery life. This thing will go four days (claims are five but I've not pushed it that hard) without needing s charge and in wearing it all day, tracking an hour of cardio daily (for the last six weeks). An Apple Watch is in its last legs by the end of the day with similar use. (Wife has one, essentially uses it to look at notifications and not a whole lot else).
I think the reality is that the Apple Watch just isn't a very good fitness tracker. It simply doesn't meet my needs. I'd be happy to get one if I could get a couple days battery out of it particularly when I have no dire need to be running apps (which on the current watch are often slow to load anyway). Give me a fitness tracker, Apple. I'll be glad to pay the apple tax on it so long as it matches my needs that the Fitbit meets so well.
Another important thing to note is the limitations apple outs on other smart watches. The best smart watch for your iPhone is an Apple Watch and this is simply because those other watches can't do a whole lot of the things even if they wanted to die to restrictions. Even an android smart watch can't send a text because apple doesn't allow it. Pretty silly. It's what had me go for a Fitbit over a Moto 360 sport (an ACTUAL sport smart watch, unlike apples sport monicker). I simply wouldn't have any more connectivity than with a Fitbit so it made no sense to spend the extra cash.
[doublepost=1463518355][/doublepost]
Depending on the model ofnforbit, maybe. The blaze has a rather large array of third party bands that are actually rather nice. You can even change the metal trim of the watch to give it an even more differentiated look. In sure the sheer number of bands for the Apple Watch outnumber that of the blaze, but my gut tells me there is a large enough selection to fit the appetite of most users. You likely won't find the crazy high end stuff though, like Hermes and coach.But does Fitbit have as many fancy watch bands? I think not!
Last edited:
It really shouldn't come as any surprise that the Fitbit is outselling Apple Watch. As well as being considerably less expensive, it has battery life that lasts for days, is waterproof, and works on all platforms. Apple Watch will NEVER be the seller that it could be until Apple changes its basic strategy with it. Android represents 85% of the smartphone market OS wise, so Apple have eliminated 85% of their potential sales, simply by limiting the watch to iPhone only.
If Apple releases their next watch with the ability to charge over wifi, then I, for one, won't care much about battery life. Always around wifi where I live/work, so the watch will always be topped up!
Apple needs to get into insurance, shipbuilding and heavy equipment!
So they should become Samsung? /s
So they should become Samsung? /s
Nice.
They would also have to account for 20% of US' GDP and Jobs family heirs lord over the rest of society.
and works with any phone.
Some do not like apple phones. All have their tastes. So accessories that acknowledge the existence of non apple stuff would attract that business. As well as apple phone users who may not dig the apple watch.
To some its not cost...its just there is no appeal to the apple watch for them. I have a $400-500 classic mechanical watch I got last year. Bought after apple watch release. For a nice watch I actually like, I can put cash down on the barrel. Nothing about apple watch said buy me buy me really.
The idea that Apple Watch is somehow hobbled by requiring pairing with an iPhone seems like a non-issue to me. But I'm not one of those people that leaves home without my iPhone, so it doesn't have to 'stand on its own'. I don't think it's a real world concern for most people.
Yes, I'm aware. I'm also aware that not all terms are as horrible as "wearable". It's totally ambiguous and doesn't fully describe the product/s it's referring to. I'd be fine with "wearable computer". But, again, people are apparently more interested in saving a few key strokes than speaking in a intelligible way.
First, Apple Watch is currently a first generation item. The 1st gen iPhone was entirely dependent on syncing to your mac or PC, there was no App store, it had to be charged daily, and people were shocked (shocked, I tell you) that you couldn't even switch out the battery yourself! It was way more expensive than all the cheap and free cellphones on the market, and it was way behind Blackberry in market share, and way, way behind Nokia. It also only worked on AT&T's network in the US. It was little more than a very limited capacity proof-of-concept. It's only because its incremental improvements over time made it an indispensable category standard that people look back and think Steve Jobs introduced an iPhone 5S right out of the gate a decade ago.
Does this mean that Apple Watch is guaranteed to be a ubiquitous and indispensable item that makes billions for Apple as later generations come out? No. It does mean that all the current comparisons of Apple Watch 1 to other things currently on the market really don't mean much, and that its future potential is quite significant.
Second, comparisons to FitBit, along with suggestions that AW needs to be cheaper or that Apple should buy FitBit in order to compete in the cheap market are nonsense. Apple has always gladly ceded the low end of any given market to others. Apple has also always been quite content to carry a minority share of the market for any given product line. The only profit on the low-end comes from volume, and competition on that end is about pushing for the lowest price point by seeing what the absolute minimum can be in features and quality is that consumers will accept. That's never been what Apple does.
So the point here is that all the usual peanut gallery nay-sayers line up with their usual critiques about market share and whatnot, and 'Tim Cook is running the company into the ground,' fail to understand the core ideas behind what has made Apple successful.
Does this mean that Apple Watch is guaranteed to be a ubiquitous and indispensable item that makes billions for Apple as later generations come out? No. It does mean that all the current comparisons of Apple Watch 1 to other things currently on the market really don't mean much, and that its future potential is quite significant.
Second, comparisons to FitBit, along with suggestions that AW needs to be cheaper or that Apple should buy FitBit in order to compete in the cheap market are nonsense. Apple has always gladly ceded the low end of any given market to others. Apple has also always been quite content to carry a minority share of the market for any given product line. The only profit on the low-end comes from volume, and competition on that end is about pushing for the lowest price point by seeing what the absolute minimum can be in features and quality is that consumers will accept. That's never been what Apple does.
So the point here is that all the usual peanut gallery nay-sayers line up with their usual critiques about market share and whatnot, and 'Tim Cook is running the company into the ground,' fail to understand the core ideas behind what has made Apple successful.