Launch day Apple Watch orders estimated at 1M in US, skews toward Sport model

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 137
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    gtr wrote: »
    Why go for the black sports band when you could pick this little beauty (band only) for a mere $450 USD?

    600

    What a bargain!

    ????

    my guess is your new to watches. that's ok. a watch fan can tell you that 450 for a high-quality bracelet isn't bad. and this is a fine bracelet...you don't even need to visit a jewler to remove links.
  • Reply 102 of 137
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    So your attacking someone because they are using "fabricated numbers" as it contradicts an article that is using "fabricated" numbers.
    Nice one

    stick to the facts -- your buddy lied and made up numbers,Mexico someone called him out on. this story's guesses are irrelevant to that.
  • Reply 103 of 137
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    cnocbui wrote: »
    Shipped is what Apple quote.

    wrong -- Apple hasn't quoted a thing.
  • Reply 104 of 137
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy View Post





    wrong, troll -- Apple hasn't quoted a thing.



    ,,I,

  • Reply 105 of 137
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,105member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post





    Because only about 720K Android Gear smart watches were estimated to have been sold in 2014, not 4.6 million. The 4.6 million is Canalys' estimate of the total "smart wearable band" market (which includes fitness bands from likes of Fitbit, Jawbone, Garmin, Microsoft, etc.)



    Source: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/android-wear-sales-bad-compared-to-phones-ok-compared-to-other-watches/



    Original Source: http://canalys.com/newsroom/over-720000-android-wear-devices-shipped-2014



    The 800K is what Samsung claims it sold (or shipped, depend on who you ask) in 2013. If Canalys is correct, it means Samsung didn't sell as many Android Wear watches in 2014. Samsung hasn't announced numbers for 2014, but their Android Wear products.



    Pebble says it sold 1 million watches from launch date 2013 to Dec 2014. They started shipping in Jan 2013, so that's 23 months, with 60% of their total sales in the last 10 months of 2014.



    This exact info was brought up so many times in the past that there would have been no way cnocbui could have missed it.  In fact, perhaps cnocbui may be a few cans short of a six-pack since I wrote on that post that I was referring to ANDROID watches and not the other brands that he is now trying to move the goal-post for.  I guess he'd rather have other people doing the google-search for him.



    So once again, as I have said on the first post that got cnocbui's tighty-whities in a wedgie... Apple will have sold more in one day than all of ANDROID smartwatches did in 2014.



    But hey... if he wants a more level playing field, let's revisit this topic in two months so we can do a fair 2-month comparison between what Apple sold in TWO months, versus what Samsung "shipped" in two months.  Heck, I'll even sweeten his chances by not including Samsung's the 750K difference between what was shipped vs. sold, and not including the 30% return rate.  Maybe, I'll even not include the unknown number of Gear watches Samsung was GIVING FOR FREE to anyone buying their flatscreen to unload (i.e. dump) their crap that no one wanted.



     

  • Reply 106 of 137
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    cnocbui wrote: »
    There is a good example of intellectual dishonesty, right there.  I asked for a citation of Apple negative comments and you come back with my comment that was about smart watches as a class of product and was entirely brand neutral.

    Care to try again?

    stop lying, at least to yourself if not us as well. everybody read that as [Apple's] smart watch sales. you know, the fucking topic of this thread.

    Christ.
  • Reply 107 of 137
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,105member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy View Post





    my guess is your new to watches. that's ok. a watch fan can tell you that 450 for a high-quality bracelet isn't bad. and this is a fine bracelet...you don't even need to visit a jewler to remove links.



    People (especially the cheapskate Apple-haters) don't realize that $450 is a very reasonable - if albeit "bargain" - for a high-quality timepiece/techno-jewel.  They seem to conveniently not criticize the Rolexes and such for being so expensive, yet only do one thing but will crucify Apple for upping the game.



    And of course, they don't say any bad thing about Android watches which - though cheaper - is actually the biggest waste of money in the bigger picture.



    I'm waiting for the hysteria to die down before I walk into an Apple store to look at one for myself.  I'm leaning - for now - for that SS model and bracelet, and I didn't know that one can remove the links without a jeweler.  My weight fluctuates quite a bit (I'm a gym-rat) and depending on much I'm lifting, my wrists get quite a bit larger.  It's the one turnoff that I had with my prior watch bracelets.  Now I'm curious.

  • Reply 108 of 137
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,105member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    Exactly.  Some dope on Youtube went on a rant saying the AppleWatch is too expensive at $350.  Yet latter we find out to bough a GalaxyGear for $200 AND a Moto360 for $250.  And probably will buy another Android watch for $200+.  So he spend $650 on 3 crappy Watches instead of paying $350 for the best.




    Typical PC mentality.



    but..but... "It's cheaper!!!"  so lets buy a bunch of them.

  • Reply 109 of 137
    paul94544paul94544 Posts: 1,027member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    So if you have ZERO interest in any smartwatches what is your point making hundreds of comments about smartwatches?

     

    What is your point?  What are you trying to achive?  

     

    This is like me posting hundreds of posts about African dung bats (something I have ZERO interest in).

     

    Again tell me what is your purpose of posting about a product you have ZERO interest in?  

     

    IMO, you are either just wasting space or trolling.  Prove me wrong.


    Perhaps its Mr Frosty and his new userid>

  • Reply 110 of 137
    paul94544paul94544 Posts: 1,027member
    "History will reduce the Apple Watch to a footnote in the annals of technology" - Benjamin Frost Dec 2014


     


     


    Enough said. I'm sure the reason Mr Frosty was banned because the mods wanted to keep the troll from posting a couple of hundred more msgs.


     


    We seem to have some more Trolls in the woods now
  • Reply 111 of 137
    fallenjt wrote: »
    cnocbui wrote: »
    Samsung sold 800 K Gear smart watches in two months - in 2013 - so I would guess you are just inventing numbers you would like to be true.  Even the numbers in this article are just made up.
    no. Samsung ain't sold 800k in 2 months. They shipped. No wonder I haven't seen any Gear in the wild.

    If I remember correctly, the customer return rate was staggering...
  • Reply 112 of 137
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,382moderator
    The 800K is what Samsung claims it sold (or shipped, depend on who you ask) in 2013. If Canalys is correct, it means Samsung didn't sell as many Android Wear watches in 2014. Samsung hasn't announced numbers for 2014, but their Android Wear products.

    Pebble says it sold 1 million watches from launch date 2013 to Dec 2014. They started shipping in Jan 2013, so that's 23 months, with 60% of their total sales in the last 10 months of 2014.

    Samsung switched to Tizen for the OS so only a small portion of their sales was for Android Wear. The 50k units number was misreported as worldwide sales, it was just sales in South Korea:

    http://www.sammobile.com/2013/11/19/global-sales-of-galaxy-gear-pitiful-at-50000-units/

    They sold 800k worldwide in 2 months but as others mentioned, they were giving them away with phones and the prices were under $200. It's this year's figures that Apple would compare against though.

    Motorola will likely launch their next iteration late May and I would expect Samsung to wait to see what they do and then respond later in the year with another Tizen watch.
  • Reply 113 of 137
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,056member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    Exactly.  Some dope on Youtube went on a rant saying the AppleWatch is too expensive at $350.  Yet latter we find out to bough a GalaxyGear for $200 AND a Moto360 for $250.  And probably will buy another Android watch for $200+.  So he spend $650 on 3 crappy Watches instead of paying $350 for the best.


    Don't forget the resale value. Samsung gear? $20 online now...I tried not to laugh.

  • Reply 114 of 137
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,056member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post





    If I remember correctly, the customer return rate was staggering...

    True.

    I met an old friend last month and she asked me if I still had her phone number. I checked and called her number again. It rang and she raised her wrist in front of me: Samsung Gear Fit...lol. The thing looked like sh.t because of its dumbass orientation that you have to lean your head to look at that little screen. I thought she would return it if she saw Apple Watch that day.

  • Reply 115 of 137
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shard View Post

     

    4. These are preorders. Apple would have held back maybe half their inventory to be sold on launch day at brick and mortar stores.


    Imagine the unmitigated fury of customers (like myself) who preordered minutes after the starting bell and got a June shipping acknowledgement, only to learn that retail shoppers can just walk in on April 24 and buy the same watch that day.

     

    I don't think so. First ordered, first fulfilled is the only ethical sales protocol.

  • Reply 116 of 137
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gameboy70 View Post

     

    Imagine the unmitigated fury of customers (like myself) who preordered minutes after the starting bell and got a June shipping acknowledgement, only to learn that retail shoppers can just walk in on April 24 and buy the same watch that day.

     

    I don't think so. First ordered, first fulfilled is the only ethical sales protocol.




    "Unmitigated fury," overreact much? ;) You're actually covered both ways. If it turns out they have product in store (they might at some point before June), you can get one in-store if you wish (either queuing with all the other, what I would label, "queueing dolts") or wait till queues die in-store and get one then, or you can wait and have it delivered to your door. Think about those people queueing where that is their only chance to get one, that they haven't done the smart thing and pre-ordered like you. You've hedged your bets and now have options.

  • Reply 117 of 137
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    If it turns out they have product in store (they might at some point before June), you can get one in-store if you wish (either queuing with all the other, what I would label, "queueing dolts") or wait till queues die in-store and get one then, ... Think about those people queueing where that is their only chance to get one, that they haven't done the smart thing and pre-ordered like you.
    If Apple truly is trying to avoid lines outside their stores during the initial launch period as their various press releases and statements suggest, then they will likely wait until the shipping window narrows somewhat before they start selling them in their stores. That might be before June, it might not.

    While it's clear Apple will not be selling unreserved watches to walk-ins on the 24th, I'm not so sure they won't be available at their third party boutique partners. Indeed, a traditional jewelry store will need stock on hand. My guess is those stores will carry mostly the higher end watches, and perhaps not the Sport.

    But I am thinking about those people queuing up, because they weren't smart enough to preorder ... Yeah, it's too bad they realized that this is something they will be wearing, and they didn't want to pre-order something that personal, sight unseen. Sadly they thought that Apple cared whether they received the watch that best suited them, and with the correct fit. Turns out they should have ordered blindly, taking their chances, or held potentially thousands of dollars on their credit cards ordering multiple watches to hedge their bets until they could get into a store to confirm the correct one, and then cancel the others.
  • Reply 118 of 137
    tobiwantobiwan Posts: 73member
    aaronj wrote: »
    Thought people here might be interested in this:

    http://fashionista.com/2015/04/apple-watch-editorial-styling

    Oh, and I ordered a regular Sport 38mm (it seems best -- but I guess we'll see), with a White Band, and then ordered an additional Milanese band.  I guess I will get my Milanese band on target date, but the watch itself won't arrive until June sometime. 

    PS: This is all my fault.  I'm the one who waited hours to make an order.  As I was actually up at the time, there's no reason why I won't be getting my watch on target date, other than my own lameness.

    The Milanese loop is stainless and your Sport is aluminum so there will be a difference in the two metal colors.

    Love that band though and it almost had me switch to SS.
  • Reply 119 of 137
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    tobiwan wrote: »
    The Milanese loop is stainless and your Sport is aluminum so there will be a difference in the two metal colors.

    Love that band though and it almost had me switch to SS.

    I do wonder how Apple is going to handle this ... The Sport Watch currently has no "upscale" options available to dress it up. It's almost as if Apple expects customers to buy a Sport and a Stainless. Some people don't care about mismatches like that, but for many, it's going to bother them.

    I wonder if Apple will offer some additional leather or aluminum options for the sport to give customers an option to "dress it up". And if they don't, will third party band licensees? I doubt they would ever do an aluminum Milanease, but maybe a link -- though at 9 hours per band, the price is not likely to ever match the Sport range. And let's face it, despite the "sport" monicker, it's the entry level model for people who don't want to spring for stainless.

    The Edition is probably the worst in this regard. Two toned silver and gold watches are not uncommon, but I'm not sure there are any that truly make any sense. The Milanese is beautiful, but not with the gold case. What's odd to me is that the only Milanese bands I'd seen prior to this were gold, so I'm surpsed not only that there's no gold Milanese, but especially that there's no gold link, which is arguably the most popular gold watch combo in watch history. Then again, both of those bracelets would likely cost as much as the watch. I suspect Apple will correct this discrepancy fairly quickly.

    What I'm not sure about is when Apple will offer a less expensive gold clad model for people who simply don't wear silver jewelry. I'm expecting Apple to offer a Platinum Edition for the elite who prefer silver jewelry, and at that time a gold clad stainless for the common customer who prefers gold jewelry and accessories. I'm also expecting a gold anodized Sport to match your iPhone. I bet that model at least comes out by Christmas as has been rumored. I mean even Beats is releasing headphones in Gold -- how can you have a gold iPhone, and headphones, but a silver watch!?
  • Reply 120 of 137
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    mac_128 wrote: »
    I do wonder how Apple is going to handle this ... The Sport Watch currently has no "upscale" options available to dress it up. It's almost as if Apple expects customers to buy a Sport and a Stainless. Some people don't care about mismatches like that, but for many, it's going to bother them.

    I wonder if Apple will offer some additional leather or aluminum options for the sport to give customers an option to "dress it up". And if they don't, will third party band licensees?

    The Edition is probably the worst in this regard. Two toned silver and gold watches are not uncommon, but I'm not sure there are any that truly make any sense. The Milanese is beautiful, but not with the gold case. What's odd to me is that the only Milanese bands I'd seen prior to this were gold, so I'm surpsed not only that there's no gold Milanese, but especially that there's no gold link, which is arguably the most popular gold watch combo in watch history. Then again, both of those bracelets would likely cost as much as the watch. I suspect Apple will correct this discrepancy fairly quickly.

    What I'm not sure about is when Apple will offer a less expensive gold clad model for people who simply don't wear silver jewelry. I'm expecting Apple to offer a Platinum Edition for the elite who prefer silver jewelry, and at that time a gold clad stainless for the common customer who prefers gold jewelry and accessories. I'm also expecting a gold anodized Sport to match your iPhone. I bet that model at least comes out by Christmas as has been rumored. I mean even Beats is releasing headphones in Gold -- how can you have a gold iPhone, and headphones, but a silver watch!?

    A gold Milanese band would be spectacular.
Sign In or Register to comment.