Cheaper products sell better than more expensive products...News at 11.
Breaking news! Toyota outsells Mercedes-Benz by 100 to 1. M-B will be out of business by the end of the year if this keeps up. /s
I really do not understand why Apple is always the target for such ridiculous garbage. There must be an awful lot of people who have an axe to grind against Apple. There's probably more $20 bills in circulation than $100 bills, but that doesn't mean they're going to stop producing $100 bills. Both have their place. Since when is there a guarantee of a company with higher sales staying in business longer than a company with lower sales? It really has to do with a company being able to balance the books. There are plenty of companies in the past who've had large market share and loss of profits and many of them are no longer around. I definitely don't know when profitability stopped being important for a company. It goes against anything I ever learned in accounting. Wall Street is truly a place of dreams because reality doesn't seem to have any basis for company value there. Why does only an indefinite future remain as the most important thing for investors? Maybe because big investors already have the present in their pockets and only need to look towards big rewards the future. I guess I'm not that fortunate.
There's nothing wrong with Fitbit products outselling Apple products. Good for them. I just don't see what the big deal is. It just means there's some wearables out there for everyone at different price ranges. It's still going to be important to see if Fitbit has a sustainable business model no matter how many units they sell.
The only number that counts here is ASP. $691 for iPhone... We'll find out ASP for Watch sometime in the next year is guess once Apple begins to release those numbers. I'm sure Apple's margins are much healthier than Sh-tBits.
Well. As an example, a coworker has already bought three Fitbits... the first one's non-replaceable strap broke in record time (not covered by warranty), replaced with an identical device. Shortly after that, they upgraded to a more capable model. All within an 18 month time span.
That's the problem. Wall Street doesn't care about product quality. Wall Street considers consumers only objects companies can sell lots of products to. They consider it a boon for a product to break in order to keep getting early repeat sales. Apple has already been greatly criticized for building iPads that last consumers for too long a time. Apparently, it's a terrible thing when an iPhone is able to be used for longer than two years. It seems companies should be building products that deliberately have short lifespans in order to keep sales high. America's thinking is really messed up. Even as an Apple shareholder, I don't want Apple building products that have short lifespans. Wall Street's desire for companies to build products having deliberately limited lifespans is just downright dangerous. When I was growing up in the 1960's my parents always tried to find products that could be useful for a long time and so do I. Maybe consumers' mindset has changed over the years.
It seems pretty obvious to me, and I say this as a lover of apple products and owner of many: They don't seem clear on who or what the apple watch (which I owned for a while) is for, other than telling the time. The build quality may not be as good as other devices (although I would question that based on my experience of the Garmin Fenix 3, which I love) but the two key and somewhat important differences are that you know what the purpose of a fitbit is, or a garmin is (fenix 3- outdoor pursuits and sport, fitbit- fitness tracking). The whole design, UI and function of the watch is build around that. Secondly, you are not tied to your iPhone in order to get the most out of the device. Don't get me wrong, some people are happy with that, and if thats the case, good for them. Personally I found it didn't track my exercise very well, and after a while it became something of a limitation to have to have my phone with me.
Some will hate what I'm about to say but Watch needs to be thinner. It will attract more casual users and become even more appealing. Imagine how cool a Watch half as thin would look? I know it's possibly years off but I think this would launch sales like crazy.
Something 1/5 the price sells more... Huh.. Well duh.
Something that has sold for many many years before the Apple Watch, thus is more targeted to its niche and had time to develop this niche further.... Well, making asinine comparisons is our middle name....
Does it do the same thing, offer the same value, is it even comparable.... No...
But But But But, IT'S THE SAME THING ANYWAY!!!! If we say so....
Some will hate what I'm about to say but Watch needs to be thinner. It will attract more casual users and become even more appealing. Imagine how cool a Watch half as thin would look? I know it's possibly years off but I think this would launch sales like crazy.
Yes yes - its not as if nobody knows. As you well know Apple is obsessed with 'thin', and for a very good reason. Some people like their iPhones chunkier but I cannot imagine you'll ever hear that refrain when it comes to the watch. But as obvious as your insight is likewise the reason why. It won't happen in one go but it will be iterative, just like every other device. But as Jony Ive pointed out, there is always a big jump from v1 to v2, so maybe the biggest jump will come with the next gen.
If Apple, or somebody, could one day invent a solar panel layer that is so thin and translucent that it can become part of a device's screen, that would make a big difference and might even negate charging for long periods. For the watch you'd be required to wear jackets and shirts with shortened sleeves, however
I see a fad at work here as well. My son's 4th grade class is obsessed with the fitbit, all because one lucky kid got a Charge for his birthday. I asked him (he's a very nice kid, dad used to play in the MLB) why he has it, and he told me "Check how many steps I've walked, monitor my heart rate." Of course I asked if he had some rare congenital defect that required a 10 year-old being monitored, and received a blank stare.
So now my kid wants a Blaze. As does all of his friends. Then he saw the Moto360 and wants one of them. The real reason is because he knows no one will ever buy him a $300 Apple Watch (he's basically admitted as much).
I don't wish to take away the value of the fitbit. My wife has been using one for years and it's a nice little device, the price is right, and it keeps her on track when exercising. But at least in my limited circle, I'm seeing a bit of a blip more than anything.
BTW, I got an apple watch 2 weeks ago and love it. I see room for a lot of improvements but it is a neat device.
Why not get your son an Apple Watch? You can find them for $250. In the long run the Watch is cheaper than the Fitbit because they will last much longer, do much more, and may even save his life.
I can see if Apple includes an LTE radio on the next Watch it would be a HUGE feature for parents. Kids who get kidnapped or in trouble could send a distress signal from their watch.
A HUGE feature? Kidnapping? Talk about scare tactics! Everyone be afraid! Be very afraid!
I kind of like the distress signal idea.
But by bringing up kidnapping your are talking about extreme edge cases that are very unlikely.
A VAST majority of kids who go missing simply get lost or wandered away to an area unknown to them, didn't tell anyone where they were going, or ran away on purpose. This is not kidnapping and yes, anything with GPS and/or LTE would work just fine as long as it's on the kid and had battery life and a signal. These kids almost always make it back home regardless.
Most of those mentioned above are kids that simply run away. I think it unlikely that a smart watch is a part of their troubled life.
Most of the rest of kids that go missing are "kidnapped" by a family member over custody. I would not consider any smart watch for sale a great solution to a disputed custody battle. Not unless The Friend of the Court is involved.
Very, very few, an extremely low number, are actually kidnapped by a complete stranger. And if a complete stranger were to kidnap a child the first thing they might very well do is toss out the watch, the phone, or anything else that might track the location.
My apologies for being so abrasive, but this hits home for me personally and I do not like people using scare tactics like kidnapping as ammunition for their argument.
I feel the same way about terrorism. It's simply so unlikely to change our lives over it.
I find the responses here interesting, given the similar tone responses that appeared yesterday in response to an AI article on claims by FitBit's CEO. What I mainly noticed is that most of the pro-Apple Watch/con-everything else responses are based on hypothetical folks without specific goals or feature needs, whereas those of us that considered the Apple Watch, and I most certainly did; but, decided on an alternate product, had specific feature needs that the present Apple Watch does not address. The typical response to pointing this out is to chastise the observation and observer as atypical and therefore irrelevant (a borderline ad hominem, if you think about it). The reality is that I needed a watch with built-in GPS, overtly stated waterproofing (Apple's claims regarding the first generation Apple Watch's capabilities regarding water exposure are clear as mud when they both advise against getting it wet and also, for specific maladies, recommend washing it water), and notification capabilities. Would Apple Watch's capabilities , on top of those of the watch I selected, be nice to have? Of course they would; but, for me, and for just about every other single member of USA Triathlon, there are more suitable products, at comparable price points.
Do I acknowledge that some customers are acutely concerned with initial purchase price, rather than features or total cost of ownership? Certainly! MS, Dell, etc. all built whole business models based on those customers. Do I claim those people don't matter, or are irrelevant? No. Do I think that every business model must address every conceivable customer? No, that would ignore the opportunity costs of going after those customers.
The main point is that berating someone because they don't need a 33 function Swiss Army knife makes the berator look a bit on the rabid side. Likewise, berating someone because they had the audacity to pick something other than an Apple product looks idiotic and neurotic. I say this as a long-time Apple customer, and Apple Certified System Administrator, and iPhone user. I also keep my iPhone in a LifeProof case, since Apple declines to waterproof the phone itself, and I wear a Polar V800 because Apple Watch can not do the job I need it to do to find a place on my wrist.
Nobody gives a crap if you bought a polar; buy whatever fits your needs.
it's lumping those bands with the Apple Watch (and similar) that people object with: they're NOT in the same category.
The analysts lump everything that's on the wrist, most having 1/5 the price, to make a belabored point about "market share". They did the same thing with the Iphone (lumped with feature phones), the Ipad (lumped with $50 tablets), Macbooks (lumped with $200 chromebooks) Who cares about market segmentation; despite that being a key
element of how business create and market products.... Not them
seemingly.
It doesn't matter if Apple makes 95% of all profits or 80% of all revenues; these analysts always push the shipped device narrative as the only important number.
These narratives impacts how Apple's stock is price. That's one reason why many people here are mad about this.
The Fitbit's statement, which that pushed the same narrative as the analysts, deserved a serious putdown for the same reason. If someone soundly beats you to death in revenues and profits in just 10 months on a version 1.0 product; you don't call them "wrong". The fact he's adding all sort of functions that are included in the Apple Watch, even undercuts his own argument!
BTW, Next time, keep it short and less condescending; you're response was both haughty and meandering; and yes : BERATING.
Some will hate what I'm about to say but Watch needs to be thinner. It will attract more casual users and become even more appealing. Imagine how cool a Watch half as thin would look? I know it's possibly years off but I think this would launch sales like crazy.
If its thinner, it will actually be thinner than the current average "real" watch.
Making it both thinner and adding features is a big challenge because of battery; people want both!
I find the responses here interesting, given the similar tone responses that appeared yesterday in response to an AI article on claims by FitBit's CEO. What I mainly noticed is that most of the pro-Apple Watch/con-everything else responses are based on hypothetical folks without specific goals or feature needs, whereas those of us that considered the Apple Watch, and I most certainly did; but, decided on an alternate product, had specific feature needs that the present Apple Watch does not address. The typical response to pointing this out is to chastise the observation and observer as atypical and therefore irrelevant (a borderline ad hominem, if you think about it). The reality is that I needed a watch with built-in GPS, overtly stated waterproofing (Apple's claims regarding the first generation Apple Watch's capabilities regarding water exposure are clear as mud when they both advise against getting it wet and also, for specific maladies, recommend washing it water), and notification capabilities. Would Apple Watch's capabilities , on top of those of the watch I selected, be nice to have? Of course they would; but, for me, and for just about every other single member of USA Triathlon, there are more suitable products, at comparable price points.
Do I acknowledge that some customers are acutely concerned with initial purchase price, rather than features or total cost of ownership? Certainly! MS, Dell, etc. all built whole business models based on those customers. Do I claim those people don't matter, or are irrelevant? No. Do I think that every business model must address every conceivable customer? No, that would ignore the opportunity costs of going after those customers.
The main point is that berating someone because they don't need a 33 function Swiss Army knife makes the berator look a bit on the rabid side. Likewise, berating someone because they had the audacity to pick something other than an Apple product looks idiotic and neurotic. I say this as a long-time Apple customer, and Apple Certified System Administrator, and iPhone user. I also keep my iPhone in a LifeProof case, since Apple declines to waterproof the phone itself, and I wear a Polar V800 because Apple Watch can not do the job I need it to do to find a place on my wrist.
Nobody gives a crap if you bought a polar; buy whatever fits your needs.
it's lumping those bands with the Apple Watch (and similar) that people object with: they're NOT in the same category.
The analysts lump everything that's on the wrist, most having 1/5 the price, to make a belabored point about "market share". They did the same thing with the Iphone (lumped with feature phones), the Ipad (lumped with $50 tablets), Macbooks (lumped with $200 chromebooks) Who cares about market segmentation; despite that being a key
element of how business create and market products.... Not them
seemingly.
It doesn't matter if Apple makes 95% of all profits or 80% of all revenues; these analysts always push the shipped device narrative as the only important number.
These narratives impacts how Apple's stock is price. That's one reason why many people here are mad about this.
The Fitbit's statement, which that pushed the same narrative as the analysts, deserved a serious putdown for the same reason. If someone soundly beats you to death in revenues and profits in just 10 months on a version 1.0 product; you don't call them "wrong". The fact he's adding all sort of functions that are included in the Apple Watch, even undercuts his own argument!
BTW, Next time, keep it short and less condescending; you're response was both haughty and meandering; and yes : BERATING.
Sorry to be the asshole here, but you may want to follow your own advice.
Condescending: Check
Haughty. Check.
Meandering. Check.
Berating. Check.
Read everything that you wrote again.
You complain about behaviors of others and yet you display those same exact behaviors in your own posts.
People get all excited about wearing a Fitbit thinking the band will magically make them lose weight. After a few months with zero results to show for it they stop wearing it.
On the other hand the Apple Watch does 100x more than a simple fitness tracker. I find new uses for it all the time. And that's why Apple Watch users wear their Watches all the time and don't give up on it like Fitbit.
Its obvious Fitbit knows the Watch is a threat. That's why they made a smartwatch for the first time this year.
I can even attest to that. Counting steps, going for joy rides on a bike, does not help in getting leaner. What most people don't realize is that doing 10-20 squats in succession, is a lot more valuable than strapping on your fitbit and going out for a 1 mile walk.
Some will hate what I'm about to say but Watch needs to be thinner. It will attract more casual users and become even more appealing. Imagine how cool a Watch half as thin would look? I know it's possibly years off but I think this would launch sales like crazy.
So if Apple makes a watch that you like, it will sell like crazy? Awesome news!
What is it about an Apple Watch that justifies its purchase over, say, a Fitbit Alta for the average user?
waterproofing? No - same battery life? No - worse cost? No - worse Notifications? No - similar user interface? No - worse GPS? No - same (none) heart rate monitoring or step counting? No-same sleep monitoring? No - worse.
It's always the same question. What is the killer feature? Apps that take longer to load than you're willing to wait? Siri? Music? It seems to me that the two most mentioned (and advertised) benefits, activity tracking and notifications, are well covered by these $120-$150 devices.
Nobody gives a crap if you bought a polar; buy whatever fits your needs.
it's lumping those bands with the Apple Watch (and similar) that people object with: they're NOT in the same category.
The analysts lump everything that's on the wrist, most having 1/5 the price, to make a belabored point about "market share". They did the same thing with the Iphone (lumped with feature phones), the Ipad (lumped with $50 tablets), Macbooks (lumped with $200 chromebooks) Who cares about market segmentation; despite that being a key
element of how business create and market products.... Not them
seemingly.
It doesn't matter if Apple makes 95% of all profits or 80% of all revenues; these analysts always push the shipped device narrative as the only important number.
These narratives impacts how Apple's stock is price. That's one reason why many people here are mad about this.
The Fitbit's statement, which that pushed the same narrative as the analysts, deserved a serious putdown for the same reason. If someone soundly beats you to death in revenues and profits in just 10 months on a version 1.0 product; you don't call them "wrong". The fact he's adding all sort of functions that are included in the Apple Watch, even undercuts his own argument!
BTW, Next time, keep it short and less condescending; you're response was both haughty and meandering; and yes : BERATING.
Sorry to be the asshole here, but you may want to follow your own advice.
Condescending: Check
Haughty. Check.
Meandering. Check.
Berating. Check.
Read everything that you wrote again.
You complain about behaviors of others and yet you display those same exact behaviors in your own posts.
I don't understand it.
Maybe I am the crazy one.
I must be crazy.
1) It was meant to berate and even slightly condescending so not sure what's your fracking point is? If someone is claiming the high ground (not being any of these things) in a passive aggressive way, they get kicked back. (I didn''t even mention his throllish meme of "I own a Apple stuff for X years" so I'm allowed this opinion which pops up in those kind of message).
2) You actually used a fracking comment I did about the FIBIT guy, not even that guy.!! Huh! (reading skills? Yeah, I'm condescending)
3) Did I Do you actually know what meandering means (and yes, what I just said WAS condescending... Again... I sure suck hey (sic))
Tory Burch jewelry for Fitbit: instructions....remove everything from Fitbit except the screen....buy Tory Burch bracelet..hide screen in bracelet out of plain view....BRILLIANT !!!!
What is it about an Apple Watch that justifies its purchase over, say, a Fitbit Alta for the average user?
waterproofing? No - same battery life? No - worse cost? No - worse Notifications? No - similar user interface? No - worse GPS? No - same (none) heart rate monitoring or step counting? No-same sleep monitoring? No - worse.
It's always the same question. What is the killer feature? Apps that take longer to load than you're willing to wait? Siri? Music? It seems to me that the two most mentioned (and advertised) benefits, activity tracking and notifications, are well covered by these $120-$150 devices.
Basically, you crafted your point to your preference. By your own criteria, no one should buy any car over $20K because going A to B is all people really care about...
What's this average user you talk about, if you're talking about average fitness focused user you may be right for a subset of them, but you're not So it's again something you just defined to make a point.
You see, I can make little lists too.
Fitbit Apple Watch
Durability reports are not that good for fitbit - Very good for Sports, the Saphire Watch in particular is extremely tough (Read Consumer Report) Look Not fashionable - Very fashionable and customizable Service OK Fantastic Playing music No Yes Notification Very Basic Anything you want, from any app, customized and you can even reply Iphone Integration Basic Well, hey! Screen density of info, contrast, resolution, etc. Oh My Much much higher
etc, etc, etc.
- You're objection about cost evacuates the whole : value for the person vs price thing, so why is this even in your list? - UI : that's one of the most subjective thing to evaluate eve, and very personal (and it doesn't even match the many reviews reviews about it); - Your battery life objection is basically the same objection people had about smartphones vs feature phones.
At most, you maade the point that the watch is not right for you. Beyond that, you have not demonstrated anything.
Your arguments look exactly like the smartphone vs feature phone argument and we know how that turned out.
Actual sales revenues and profits way above, ace fitbit actually proves many people put value in things YOU dismiss.
Unfortunately people don't replace their Apple Watch every other day which make their market share seems to suffer. To make it worse, Apple don't even care. Is this even a news? Apple has created something that is not ready yet to be embraced by everyone, but it's there ready for the future.
Comments
I really do not understand why Apple is always the target for such ridiculous garbage. There must be an awful lot of people who have an axe to grind against Apple. There's probably more $20 bills in circulation than $100 bills, but that doesn't mean they're going to stop producing $100 bills. Both have their place. Since when is there a guarantee of a company with higher sales staying in business longer than a company with lower sales? It really has to do with a company being able to balance the books. There are plenty of companies in the past who've had large market share and loss of profits and many of them are no longer around. I definitely don't know when profitability stopped being important for a company. It goes against anything I ever learned in accounting. Wall Street is truly a place of dreams because reality doesn't seem to have any basis for company value there. Why does only an indefinite future remain as the most important thing for investors? Maybe because big investors already have the present in their pockets and only need to look towards big rewards the future. I guess I'm not that fortunate.
There's nothing wrong with Fitbit products outselling Apple products. Good for them. I just don't see what the big deal is. It just means there's some wearables out there for everyone at different price ranges. It's still going to be important to see if Fitbit has a sustainable business model no matter how many units they sell.
Watch needs to be thinner. It will attract more casual users and become even more appealing. Imagine how cool a Watch half as thin would look?
I know it's possibly years off but I think this would launch sales like crazy.
Something that has sold for many many years before the Apple Watch, thus is more targeted to its niche and had time to develop this niche further.... Well, making asinine comparisons is our middle name....
Does it do the same thing, offer the same value, is it even comparable.... No...
But But But But, IT'S THE SAME THING ANYWAY!!!! If we say so....
A BMW is the same as a bicycle.... I Swear!!
If Apple, or somebody, could one day invent a solar panel layer that is so thin and translucent that it can become part of a device's screen, that would make a big difference and might even negate charging for long periods. For the watch you'd be required to wear jackets and shirts with shortened sleeves, however
I kind of like the distress signal idea.
But by bringing up kidnapping your are talking about extreme edge cases that are very unlikely.
A VAST majority of kids who go missing simply get lost or wandered away to an area unknown to them, didn't tell anyone where they were going, or ran away on purpose. This is not kidnapping and yes, anything with GPS and/or LTE would work just fine as long as it's on the kid and had battery life and a signal. These kids almost always make it back home regardless.
Most of those mentioned above are kids that simply run away. I think it unlikely that a smart watch is a part of their troubled life.
Most of the rest of kids that go missing are "kidnapped" by a family member over custody. I would not consider any smart watch for sale a great solution to a disputed custody battle. Not unless The Friend of the Court is involved.
Very, very few, an extremely low number, are actually kidnapped by a complete stranger. And if a complete stranger were to kidnap a child the first thing they might very well do is toss out the watch, the phone, or anything else that might track the location.
My apologies for being so abrasive, but this hits home for me personally and I do not like people using scare tactics like kidnapping as ammunition for their argument.
I feel the same way about terrorism. It's simply so unlikely to change our lives over it.
Nobody gives a crap if you bought a polar; buy whatever fits your needs.
it's lumping those bands with the Apple Watch (and similar) that people object with: they're NOT in the same category.
The analysts lump everything that's on the wrist, most having 1/5 the price, to make a belabored point about "market share".
They did the same thing with the Iphone (lumped with feature phones), the Ipad (lumped with $50 tablets), Macbooks (lumped with $200 chromebooks)
Who cares about market segmentation; despite that being a key element of how business create and market products.... Not them seemingly.
It doesn't matter if Apple makes 95% of all profits or 80% of all revenues; these analysts always push the shipped device narrative as the only important number.
These narratives impacts how Apple's stock is price. That's one reason why many people here are mad about this.
The Fitbit's statement, which that pushed the same narrative as the analysts, deserved a serious putdown for the same reason.
If someone soundly beats you to death in revenues and profits in just 10 months on a version 1.0 product; you don't call them "wrong".
The fact he's adding all sort of functions that are included in the Apple Watch, even undercuts his own argument!
BTW,
Next time, keep it short and less condescending; you're response was both haughty and meandering; and yes : BERATING.
Making it both thinner and adding features is a big challenge because of battery; people want both!
Condescending: Check
Haughty. Check.
Meandering. Check.
Berating. Check.
Read everything that you wrote again.
You complain about behaviors of others and yet you display those same exact behaviors in your own posts.
I don't understand it.
Maybe I am the crazy one.
I must be crazy.
Counting steps, going for joy rides on a bike, does not help in getting leaner.
What most people don't realize is that doing 10-20 squats in succession, is a lot more valuable than strapping on your fitbit and going out for a 1 mile walk.
So if Apple makes a watch that you like, it will sell like crazy? Awesome news!
waterproofing? No - same
battery life? No - worse
cost? No - worse
Notifications? No - similar
user interface? No - worse
GPS? No - same (none)
heart rate monitoring or step counting? No-same
sleep monitoring? No - worse.
It's always the same question. What is the killer feature? Apps that take longer to load than you're willing to wait? Siri? Music? It seems to me that the two most mentioned (and advertised) benefits, activity tracking and notifications, are well covered by these $120-$150 devices.
1) It was meant to berate and even slightly condescending so not sure what's your fracking point is?
If someone is claiming the high ground (not being any of these things) in a passive aggressive way, they get kicked back.
(I didn''t even mention his throllish meme of "I own a Apple stuff for X years" so I'm allowed this opinion which pops up in those kind of message).
2) You actually used a fracking comment I did about the FIBIT guy, not even that guy.!! Huh! (reading skills? Yeah, I'm condescending)
3) Did I Do you actually know what meandering means (and yes, what I just said WAS condescending... Again... I sure suck hey (sic))
instructions....remove everything from Fitbit except the screen....buy Tory Burch bracelet..hide screen in bracelet out of plain view....BRILLIANT !!!!
By your own criteria, no one should buy any car over $20K because going A to B is all people really care about...
What's this average user you talk about, if you're talking about average fitness focused user you may be right for a subset of them, but you're not
So it's again something you just defined to make a point.
You see, I can make little lists too.
Fitbit Apple Watch
Durability
reports are not that good for fitbit - Very good for Sports, the Saphire Watch in particular is extremely tough (Read Consumer Report)
Look
Not fashionable - Very fashionable and customizable
Service
OK Fantastic
Playing music
No Yes
Notification
Very Basic Anything you want, from any app, customized and you can even reply
Iphone Integration
Basic Well, hey!
Screen density of info, contrast, resolution, etc.
Oh My Much much higher
etc, etc, etc.
- You're objection about cost evacuates the whole : value for the person vs price thing, so why is this even in your list?
- UI : that's one of the most subjective thing to evaluate eve, and very personal (and it doesn't even match the many reviews reviews about it);
- Your battery life objection is basically the same objection people had about smartphones vs feature phones.
At most, you maade the point that the watch is not right for you. Beyond that, you have not demonstrated anything.
Your arguments look exactly like the smartphone vs feature phone argument and we know how that turned out.
Actual sales revenues and profits way above, ace fitbit actually proves many people put value in things YOU dismiss.