No, it’s all about innuendo and misdirection. Any article that insinuates a failure by Apple is popular and makes money. Notice the Apple “sneaks in third” in the headline. Of course cheap, single function wearable bands have nothing to do with the Watch but if you can put it in people’s minds that the Watch is a failure because it’s behind something else then so much the better. Like the “smartphone” market the “wearable” market encompasses numerous devices which are not in competition with Apple products, i.e. Fitbits. Apple centric blogs like AI are also popular withe iHater crowd so it pays to throw them a bone now and then.
Come on, a guy's gotta eat. Maybe he should try boring, non eye-catching, prosaic headlines?
Isn't it odd that the most defining metric actually used by businesses to determine success in their markets (percent of total dollars spent accruing to each vendor) is the one metric the business press never cites.
No, it’s all about innuendo and misdirection. Any article that insinuates a failure by Apple is popular and makes money. Notice the Apple “sneaks in third” in the headline. Of course cheap, single function wearable bands have nothing to do with the Watch but if you can put it in people’s minds that the Watch is a failure because it’s behind something else then so much the better. Like the “smartphone” market the “wearable” market encompasses numerous devices which are not in competition with Apple products, i.e. Fitbits. Apple centric blogs like AI are also popular withe iHater crowd so it pays to throw them a bone now and then.
Come on, a guy's gotta eat. Maybe he should try boring, non eye-catching, prosaic headlines?
At least adding accuracy somewhere in their criteria would make them actual journalists and not touts! It's actually possible to be both not boring and not always distort everything. This is not just a problem here but all over the internet. Coupling lust for money with inherent lazyness of most humans has led us down this path.
This how these marketing companies work. Want to show Apple is doing bad? Add items That are loosely similar to Apple's product even if Apple doesn't compete against them. If that fails, invent some mysterious white box quantities. Still fail? Invent some random market segment.
You realise that IDC was tracking this category before Apple had a product right? They aren't trying to make Apple look bad, they track the market and sell the research regardless of who is doing badly. You really think they invented the wearables category to spite Apple?
It's also interesting that they'll even bother comparing sales volume in a category with such a massive difference in ASP. You might as well throw in American Apparel's Casio watch sales. Sadly Fitbit is as good as dead - cheap asian manufacturers will eat their low end device sales, and they're technically incapable of competing on the top end with Apple/Samsung/et. al.
They split the market into smaller categories - wearables broken down to wrist wear broken down to smart watches - and by price band. All of that information is useful to their clients. Motorola can compare it's watches to the total wrist wear market as yes, some people decide to buy a fitbit rather than a watch, or just with smart watches or just with expensive smart watches. All of that is then rolled up with PCs, phones and tablets into end-user devices then that is rolled up into hardware, then rolled up into IT. It pays to read more than just the press release before criticising.
This how these marketing companies work. Want to show Apple is doing bad? Add items That are loosely similar to Apple's product even if Apple doesn't compete against them. If that fails, invent some mysterious white box quantities. Still fail? Invent some random market segment.
You realise that IDC was tracking this category before Apple had a product right? They aren't trying to make Apple look bad, they track the market and sell the research regardless of who is doing badly. You really think they invented the wearables category to spite Apple?
They split the market into smaller categories - wearables broken down to wrist wear broken down to smart watches - and by price band. All of that information is useful to their clients. Motorola can compare it's watches to the total wrist wear market as yes, some people decide to buy a fitbit rather than a watch, or just with smart watches or just with expensive smart watches. All of that is then rolled up with PCs, phones and tablets into end-user devices then that is rolled up into hardware, then rolled up into IT. It pays to read more than just the press release before criticising.
Right.. So, the frack the title and this article then huh? Should we read between the line, have to go down three citation layers to determine provenance and weight the facts? If I wanted to hunt down press releases for "truth", I'd do that instead of coming here.
IDC has been proven really unreliable, especially reporting BS numbers from companies reporting even less info than Apple and probably shouldn't be used by anyone.
First - IDC can't be trusted. Their numbers are imaginary most of the time and riddled with inaccuracies. Second - They are comparing "Apples" or oranges. How anyone can claim these are comparable devices is beyond me. Some overlapping fucnctions? Yes, but comparable? No way.
IDC has been proven really unreliable, especially reporting BS numbers from companies reporting even less info than Apple and probably shouldn't be used by anyone.
I use their numbers on an almost daily basis. Some of their figures are estimates and some are actual data. All of their clients know that. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water to suggest no one should use them anymore. It just requires some commonsense and experience to know when to rely on which figures.
Comments
It's actually possible to be both not boring and not always distort everything. This is not just a problem here but all over the internet.
Coupling lust for money with inherent lazyness of most humans has led us down this path.
They split the market into smaller categories - wearables broken down to wrist wear broken down to smart watches - and by price band. All of that information is useful to their clients. Motorola can compare it's watches to the total wrist wear market as yes, some people decide to buy a fitbit rather than a watch, or just with smart watches or just with expensive smart watches. All of that is then rolled up with PCs, phones and tablets into end-user devices then that is rolled up into hardware, then rolled up into IT. It pays to read more than just the press release before criticising.
Should we read between the line, have to go down three citation layers to determine provenance and weight the facts?
If I wanted to hunt down press releases for "truth", I'd do that instead of coming here.
IDC has been proven really unreliable, especially reporting BS numbers from companies reporting even less info than Apple
and probably shouldn't be used by anyone.