Except when you have sites like MacRumors that report this data with little to no context and don't question its validity. I'll bet the reason other tech sites or just news sites in general picked up on this bogus story is because it ran as a front page item on MacRumors site.
At least Rene Ritchie attempted to provide context over at iMore.
But Rene Ritchie and DED are then dismissed as fanboy shills, even by some so-called Apple fans. It never ends.
To me these days Rene Ritchie does a better job than anyone else getting on top of FUD the minute it starts getting traction out there. That's one of the things I love about iMore. They seem to cut through the noise better than anyone else.
I thoroughly enjoy reading Rene, and everyone over at iMore. Great writing, very informative, and they stay on topic. They've also managed to keep the comment section void of trash talking.
I thoroughly enjoy reading Rene, and everyone over at iMore. Great writing, very informative, and they stay on topic. They've also managed to keep the comment section void of trash talking.
Greatly beating sales of your competitors is not saying much in this market.
Apple's competition is pure garbage. Plain and simple.
Daniel sort of blew off the fact that Apple will not be reporting watch numbers. If they are so stellar, one would think they would want to promote that fact.
Tey are probably "decent" but not more than that.
I don't buy into EVERYTHING that Apple does.
I own a Mac (well two), CTwo iPhones in the house, a now ancient A4 baed Apple TV, and an iPad so I of course buy Apple.
But no watch.
Apple didn't report sale of Apple Watch because they didn't think it will be a blockbuster like iPhone and iPad just yet, but we're not talking about that here. What we're talking about is report that sale have dropped 90%, which could be false.
I don't mind the report much though since it will mean I could likely get the Watch much easier.
Or I can spend about $200 more and get an entry level real watch that will hold value forever. You can't buy a phone that won't be irrelevant with the next version, you can buy a watch that is exempt from decline as tech support for it wanes.
How do you know it will be hold any value 'forever'? I would bet against you and I would likely win.
I think we need to wait a bit longer to get an idea of any long term trend in sales.
However the statistical methodology used is reasonably valid, and is probably within the ballpark.
Obviously you haven't taken a statistics class or performed a scientific survey.
What are the demographics of the responders? Does it just rely on volunteers or did it reach out to those representative demographics? Which outlets did they track? What's the margin for error?
Apple didn't report sale of Apple Watch because they didn't think it will be a blockbuster like iPhone and iPad just yet, but we're not talking about that here. What we're talking about is report that sale have dropped 90%, which could be false.
I don't mind the report much though since it will mean I could likely get the Watch much easier.
Of course it's not going to be a blockbuster like iPhone or iPad. It's more strategic than anything else.
The Apple Watch was never intended to be an electronic offering. Apple absolutely put Rolex, et. al. in their sights when they released the Apple Watch - not Fitbit or Pebble.
So any agency trying to measure the Apple Watch as an electronic is going to get bad data. The Apple Watch's market is ridiculously expensive analog watches.
The Apple is a fucking iPhone accessory, so comparing it 1 to 1 to iPhone sales is just stunningly idiotic. Why try to define the success/failure of a product by comparing it in sales to a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT kind of product? Because its made by the same company? The Apple Watch REQUIRES an iPhone.
You know what a sane comparison would be? Contrasting it against all the other wearables out there. But no, that would make too much sense.
Since it's a 1st gen product, contrasting it with the 1st iPhone would be reasonable too- but no, again, that makes too much sense. We should just compare it to sales of the 8th generation iPhone, a product which has increased exponentially in sales with each generation, and has been doing so since 2007. A product that is subsidized for so many people, and is required for them to buy.
I guess Apple's entire Mac line is a complete fucking failure too, as well as the iPad, as they don't hold a candle to iPhone sales. What a ridiculous and moronic bar to set, with the only agenda being shitting on the product, instead of intelligent analysis. We have NO CLUE what Apple Watch sales are, but when we do find out, I hope most people are sane enough to place those in proper context.
I am glad DED provide some counterweight to all the FUD in the market, but for those of you who wonder why they do it, and what the comments have to do relative to Apple's performance report upcoming, check what Jim Cramer said in 2006 about manipulating the market and Apple "" (this video is an edited "fair use" video as TheStreet.com made copyright infringement claims to take the original video down, and the specifics of Apple were edited out, but the manipulation of Apple's stock was specifically an example in this interview).
So what this article says is that Apple has the highest sales in a market with terrible demand? Way to go, biggest fish in a little pond.
Quite a few coworkers have the apple watch, and it was neat at first but just a glorified calendar keeper now. Rather than fishing their phone out to look at the meeting reminders they can glance down. Oh, and they can buy their cokes with the wave of a hand, that's cool actually. But not $500 cool.
What people have to remember is that this is a tech item. Meaning that other than the nostalgia factor, they will be worthless in 3 years. Or I can spend about $200 more and get an entry level real watch that will hold value forever. You can't buy a phone that won't be irrelevant with the next version, you can buy a watch that is exempt from decline as tech support for it wanes.
So do your co-workers share the view that they don't consider the Watch useful anymore, or is that just your view, or your interpretation? Have they said they want to sell their Watches, or wish they had not bought them?
I agree that if someone really doesn't want to wear a "watch" at all (they are anti-watch, but thought the Apple Watch would be life changing), that they might not find the Apple Watch worth the $350-400 (USD) price. While I think of it as a watch does "much more", and hence worth the price, others might not. For me, the Apple Watch is already a watch + fitness tracker + iPod + "information at at glance". I expect it will become much more useful over the next year with WatchOS 2 and 3rd party apps. Well worth $400 to me.
I am interested to know what "regular" watch in the $700-$800 range that would retain its value over long periods of time. I understand how a Rolex (many $1000's) will retain a good portion of its value (at a price of relatively expensive regular maintenance), I doubt that for a sub-$1000 watch.
All you need to do is go to Slices website and look at their previous reports. They have everything from interest in the movie Frozen to Keurig coffee cups to gas BBQ's. Then we have a bunch of reports on Apple, with most of them being the Apple Watch. Oh, and nothing on competing products. Where's the Galaxy S5 vs S6 numbers (which would be a popular topic)? Apple TV vs Roku? iPad vs all other tablets? Or the real kicker: iPhone sales by model/capacity vs other smartphones.
Surely they have access to this data as well. When a company has a disproportionate number of "reports" ins certain company or product then you know there's a alternate agenda. Same applies to another hater favorite, Crittercism.
Interesting. Well, based on the fact no on knew about this company before, it is clear what their motivation was to start following the Apple Watch.
No matter how you slice it, dice it, julienne it, or just plain chop it, the Apple Watch has not met sales expectations. Version 1.x and the glitz is off. The iPhone is still the money maker and the Apple Watch is what it is: an accessory.
No matter how you slice it, dice it, julienne it, or just plain chop it, the Apple Watch has not met sales expectations. Version 1.x and the glitz is off. The iPhone is still the money maker and the Apple Watch is what it is: an accessory. :no:
Wall Street. - The expectation was far greater than actual.
Apple. - The Watch was the next great "Thing" and the next "money maker". It's still the iPhone.
Media. - All we heard, saw, read, listened to for the months leading to the launch was how great the AW was going to be! It would take the world by storm!! Some, maybe a bit more level set, saw the base sales as a mix of solid dedicated core Apple users and some new for the glitz. Not the "everyone will want one!" message that was marketed.
The Apple is a fucking iPhone accessory, so comparing it 1 to 1 to iPhone sales is just stunningly idiotic. Why try to define the success/failure of a product by comparing it in sales to a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT kind of product? Because its made by the same company? The Apple Watch REQUIRES an iPhone.
You know what a sane comparison would be? Contrasting it against all the other wearables out there. But no, that would make too much sense.
Since it's a 1st gen product, contrasting it with the 1st iPhone would be reasonable too- but no, again, that makes too much sense. We should just compare it to sales of the 8th generation iPhone, a product which has increased exponentially in sales with each egeneration, and has been doing so since 2007. A product that is subsidized for so many people, and is required for them to buy.
I guess Apple's entire Mac line is a complete fucking failure too, as well as the iPad, as they don't hold a candle to iPhone sales. What a ridiculous and moronic bar to set, with the only agenda being shitting on the product, instead of intelligent analysis. We have NO CLUE what Apple Watch sales are, but when we do find out, I hope most people are sane enough to place those in proper context.
This is all true. We can't tell anything about the success of the watch until later generations and apple can, like Microsoft used to, afford to wait.
I think we need to wait a bit longer to get an idea of any long term trend in sales.
However the statistical methodology used is reasonably valid, and is probably within the ballpark. Apple Watch sales are dropping. So are all the other SmartWatch devices. This could be a seasonal behaviour as people spend their money on holidays instead. And of course, the device was hyped so everyone that absolutely needed it go it in the first few weeks, raising those figures and making the drop look more shocking than it actually is.
And it's nothing that a lot of people didn't expect. Watches are a far smaller market than phones! it's a market that Apple needs to be in, for integration purposes, and it's a sector that will grow over time as the devices become more useful. Apple's brand means that they will be king of this market, however large it turns out to be or not be.
Sometimes I think that people actually thought that Apple would be selling millions of these consistently every month straight from the beginning.
On the other hand, including dumb fitness bands is another matter entirely...
How is it valid? Do they have proof they're actually sampling watch buyers, which would be a much smaller part of the US population than Iphones. The wider and more diverse the targeted population departs from the general population, the more careful you must be in insuring your hitting them with your method.
In this case, Iphones having a huge footprint in the US pop, its kind of easy to get a sense of sales looking at receipt (almost any method will be representative); but you can't extrapolate this to the watch, especially in its initial phase were buyers will be pretty atypical. That's were the thing hit the BS meter.
No matter how you slice it, dice it, julienne it, or just plain chop it, the Apple Watch has not met sales expectations. Version 1.x and the glitz is off. The iPhone is still the money maker and the Apple Watch is what it is: an accessory.
Unless you run Apple, I'd say your wrong. The fact it took 2M to catch up on production does in fact prove the opposite.
Comments
I thoroughly enjoy reading Rene, and everyone over at iMore. Great writing, very informative, and they stay on topic. They've also managed to keep the comment section void of trash talking.
Canadians. So polite.
Apple didn't report sale of Apple Watch because they didn't think it will be a blockbuster like iPhone and iPad just yet, but we're not talking about that here. What we're talking about is report that sale have dropped 90%, which could be false.
I don't mind the report much though since it will mean I could likely get the Watch much easier.
How do you know it will be hold any value 'forever'? I would bet against you and I would likely win.
I'm prepared to believe sales may be disappointing, but then, everyone, the above author included,
are speculating, and also manipulating what data there is to suit their own viewpoints.
Someone called Smartwatch Group guesstimates smart watch sales this year will total about $8.9 billion,
( http://www.smartwatchgroup.com/top-10-smartwatch-companies-sales-2014/ )
at an average of $330 per unit. IF accurate, that's roughly 27 million units in all, and IF the daily sales guessed at
by Slice is at all accurate, Apple will only sell somewhere between 10 and 20% of those...
So, IF there is any accuracy in these "estimates",
Apple Watch sales this year may be "crushing" someone else's sales from last year,
but they certainly aren't crushing the category.
Still thinking one might make a nice b-day gift for our daughter!
Obviously you haven't taken a statistics class or performed a scientific survey.
What are the demographics of the responders? Does it just rely on volunteers or did it reach out to those representative demographics? Which outlets did they track? What's the margin for error?
Of course it's not going to be a blockbuster like iPhone or iPad. It's more strategic than anything else.
Apple may not release sales figures and Slice probably has no clue, but Instagram, Twitter and Shazam probably know exactly how many were sold.
So any agency trying to measure the Apple Watch as an electronic is going to get bad data. The Apple Watch's market is ridiculously expensive analog watches.
The Apple is a fucking iPhone accessory, so comparing it 1 to 1 to iPhone sales is just stunningly idiotic. Why try to define the success/failure of a product by comparing it in sales to a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT kind of product? Because its made by the same company? The Apple Watch REQUIRES an iPhone.
You know what a sane comparison would be? Contrasting it against all the other wearables out there. But no, that would make too much sense.
Since it's a 1st gen product, contrasting it with the 1st iPhone would be reasonable too- but no, again, that makes too much sense. We should just compare it to sales of the 8th generation iPhone, a product which has increased exponentially in sales with each generation, and has been doing so since 2007. A product that is subsidized for so many people, and is required for them to buy.
I guess Apple's entire Mac line is a complete fucking failure too, as well as the iPad, as they don't hold a candle to iPhone sales. What a ridiculous and moronic bar to set, with the only agenda being shitting on the product, instead of intelligent analysis. We have NO CLUE what Apple Watch sales are, but when we do find out, I hope most people are sane enough to place those in proper context.
TheStreet.com has the video here: "http://www.thestreet.com/video/cramermarketupdates/10329438.html" but I couldn't get the video to load, so I don't know if its really available or not.
So what this article says is that Apple has the highest sales in a market with terrible demand? Way to go, biggest fish in a little pond.
Quite a few coworkers have the apple watch, and it was neat at first but just a glorified calendar keeper now. Rather than fishing their phone out to look at the meeting reminders they can glance down. Oh, and they can buy their cokes with the wave of a hand, that's cool actually. But not $500 cool.
What people have to remember is that this is a tech item. Meaning that other than the nostalgia factor, they will be worthless in 3 years. Or I can spend about $200 more and get an entry level real watch that will hold value forever. You can't buy a phone that won't be irrelevant with the next version, you can buy a watch that is exempt from decline as tech support for it wanes.
So do your co-workers share the view that they don't consider the Watch useful anymore, or is that just your view, or your interpretation? Have they said they want to sell their Watches, or wish they had not bought them?
I agree that if someone really doesn't want to wear a "watch" at all (they are anti-watch, but thought the Apple Watch would be life changing), that they might not find the Apple Watch worth the $350-400 (USD) price. While I think of it as a watch does "much more", and hence worth the price, others might not. For me, the Apple Watch is already a watch + fitness tracker + iPod + "information at at glance". I expect it will become much more useful over the next year with WatchOS 2 and 3rd party apps. Well worth $400 to me.
I am interested to know what "regular" watch in the $700-$800 range that would retain its value over long periods of time. I understand how a Rolex (many $1000's) will retain a good portion of its value (at a price of relatively expensive regular maintenance), I doubt that for a sub-$1000 watch.
All you need to do is go to Slices website and look at their previous reports. They have everything from interest in the movie Frozen to Keurig coffee cups to gas BBQ's. Then we have a bunch of reports on Apple, with most of them being the Apple Watch. Oh, and nothing on competing products. Where's the Galaxy S5 vs S6 numbers (which would be a popular topic)? Apple TV vs Roku? iPad vs all other tablets? Or the real kicker: iPhone sales by model/capacity vs other smartphones.
Surely they have access to this data as well. When a company has a disproportionate number of "reports" ins certain company or product then you know there's a alternate agenda. Same applies to another hater favorite, Crittercism.
Interesting. Well, based on the fact no on knew about this company before, it is clear what their motivation was to start following the Apple Watch.
No matter how you slice it, dice it, julienne it, or just plain chop it, the Apple Watch has not met sales expectations. Version 1.x and the glitz is off. The iPhone is still the money maker and the Apple Watch is what it is: an accessory.
Whose expectations?
Whose expectations?
Wall Street. - The expectation was far greater than actual.
Apple. - The Watch was the next great "Thing" and the next "money maker". It's still the iPhone.
Media. - All we heard, saw, read, listened to for the months leading to the launch was how great the AW was going to be! It would take the world by storm!! Some, maybe a bit more level set, saw the base sales as a mix of solid dedicated core Apple users and some new for the glitz. Not the "everyone will want one!" message that was marketed.
This is all true. We can't tell anything about the success of the watch until later generations and apple can, like Microsoft used to, afford to wait.
I believe it. I sure won't be buying one
Thanks for the tip. I'm headed to my broker now to sell all my AAPL shares.
I think we need to wait a bit longer to get an idea of any long term trend in sales.
However the statistical methodology used is reasonably valid, and is probably within the ballpark. Apple Watch sales are dropping. So are all the other SmartWatch devices. This could be a seasonal behaviour as people spend their money on holidays instead. And of course, the device was hyped so everyone that absolutely needed it go it in the first few weeks, raising those figures and making the drop look more shocking than it actually is.
And it's nothing that a lot of people didn't expect. Watches are a far smaller market than phones! it's a market that Apple needs to be in, for integration purposes, and it's a sector that will grow over time as the devices become more useful. Apple's brand means that they will be king of this market, however large it turns out to be or not be.
Sometimes I think that people actually thought that Apple would be selling millions of these consistently every month straight from the beginning.
On the other hand, including dumb fitness bands is another matter entirely...
How is it valid? Do they have proof they're actually sampling watch buyers, which would be a much smaller part of the US population than Iphones. The wider and more diverse the targeted population departs from the general population, the more careful you must be in insuring your hitting them with your method.
In this case, Iphones having a huge footprint in the US pop, its kind of easy to get a sense of sales looking at receipt (almost any method will be representative); but you can't extrapolate this to the watch, especially in its initial phase were buyers will be pretty atypical. That's were the thing hit the BS meter.
No matter how you slice it, dice it, julienne it, or just plain chop it, the Apple Watch has not met sales expectations. Version 1.x and the glitz is off. The iPhone is still the money maker and the Apple Watch is what it is: an accessory.
Unless you run Apple, I'd say your wrong. The fact it took 2M to catch up on production does in fact prove the opposite.