Estimates peg Apple Watch at third place in wearables with 2.8M units in June quarter

Posted:
in Apple Watch
The Apple Watch's share of the global wearables market is on the rise, but still leaving the company behind rivals Xiaomi and Fitbit, according to research data published this week.




Apple shipped an estimated 2.8 million Watches in the June quarter, representing 13 percent marketshare, Strategy Analytics said. The exact figure is unknown, as Apple didn't break out Watch numbers in its quarterly results except to say sales were up 50 percent, and that it has the top-selling smartwatch in the world. A year ago Apple is thought to have shipped about 1.8 million units, putting it at 9 percent share.

The reigning wearables company is currently Xiaomi -- which thanks to its low-cost Mi Band fitness trackers shipped 3.7 million units in the June quarter, up from 3 million a year ago. The company's marketshare rose from 15 to 17.1 percent.

Taking a blow was Fitbit, which saw its share plummet from an industry-leading 28.5 percent to second-place 15.7, as shipments slid from 5.7 million units to 3.4.

"Fitbit is at risk of being trapped in a pincer movement between the low-end fitnessbands sold by Xiaomi and the fitness-led, high-end smartwatches sold by Apple," wrote Strategy Analytics executive director Neil Mawston. Much of the company's future may hinge on its first smartwatch, due by the end of the year.

The wearables industry as a whole reportedly grew 8 percent, a slower pace than the 21.2 percent seen in Q2 2016.

Apple is believed to be working on an "Apple Watch Series 3," but rumors are so far few and far between. These have suggested features like glucose monitoring, LTE, and/or "smart" bands that could add functions without requiring a complete Watch upgrade.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 37
    sergiozsergioz Posts: 219member
    I think Apple needs to create a simple version for kids! I bet if it was $99 most parents would buy it. 
    albegarc
  • Reply 2 of 37
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,866member
    sog35 said:
    This is total Bullshit.

    The leader in wearables is Acme Rubber bands.

    Comparing the AppleWatch with an average selling price of $300 to  $10 junk is ridiculous.
    I give in, what are the Acme Rubber bands worn for?  ;)
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 37
    mike1mike1 Posts: 1,804member
    "The Apple Watch's share of the global wearables market is on the rise, but still leaving the company behind rivals Xiaomi and Fitbit, according to research data published this week."

    That's like complaining more VW Golf's are sold than Mercedes E-class. Apples and oranges.
    lolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 37
    mike1mike1 Posts: 1,804member
    MacPro said:
    sog35 said:
    This is total Bullshit.

    The leader in wearables is Acme Rubber bands.

    Comparing the AppleWatch with an average selling price of $300 to  $10 junk is ridiculous.
    I give in, what are the Acme Rubber bands worn for?  ;)
    I think it's those colored bands people wear on their wrists to support their cause of the day.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 37
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 3,562member
    sog35 said:
    sergioz said:
    I think Apple needs to create a simple version for kids! I bet if it was $99 most parents would buy it. 
    Apple doesn't sell junk like Xiaomi and Fitbit.

    To make a quality $99 wearable it will only have a monochrome lcd screen. which is dung.
    While I agree with you that Apple doesn't sell junk, the thing about a monochrome lcd screen being dung is incorrect.   It actually works better for sports watches like Garmins because it is more visible in sunlight while burning less power that the beautiful AW display.   The display of the AW is a bit of compromise -- it works best for the mundane, day to day functions of the watch while being "good enough" as an exercise monitor.   But, most high end athletes go with Garmin or the like.
    anantksundaram
  • Reply 6 of 37
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 3,562member
    sog35 said:
    ....
    Comparing the AppleWatch with an average selling price of $300 to  $10 junk is ridiculous.
    Why is it ridiculous?   People only wear one watch or exercise tracker.   If the $10 junk fulfills their need, why would they pay 30 times more for an AW?

    That's not to trash the AW.   It is a masterpiece of design and execution.  But rather to point out that user needs vary.  

    A similar situation exists in the laptop market:   Why would somebody buy a $2,000 MBP if a $200 Chromebook fits their needs?
    cali
  • Reply 7 of 37
    anton zuykovanton zuykov Posts: 1,031member
    sog35 said:
    The leader in wearables is Acme Rubber bands.
    Are you saying that calling Acme Rubber the leader of the wearable segment would not be a stretch, then?
    chiateejay2012pscooter63StrangeDaysentropys
  • Reply 8 of 37
    jdgazjdgaz Posts: 333member
    Market share in $'s or Units? When you are comparing apples and and raisins its kind of important to use both numbers. Since apple is now the number 1 supplier of watches in dollar volume I kind of think of this little note as click bait.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 37
    metrixmetrix Posts: 239member
    My parents both bought Fitbits but they only seem to last about years and then stop working. They are on 2nd and 3rd replacements. However, they are exercising so totally worth it in my opinion.
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 10 of 37
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,483member
    If Apple can add a non-invasive glucose sensor that will create a whole new market for diabetics. Other than that I can't see a long range future for it with the current feature set. 
    calianton zuykov
  • Reply 11 of 37
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,866member
    sog35 said:
    The leader in wearables is Acme Rubber bands.
    Are you saying that calling Acme Rubber the leader of the wearable segment would not be a stretch, then?
    LOL
  • Reply 12 of 37
    mike1 said:
    MacPro said:
    sog35 said:
    This is total Bullshit.

    The leader in wearables is Acme Rubber bands.

    Comparing the AppleWatch with an average selling price of $300 to  $10 junk is ridiculous.
    I give in, what are the Acme Rubber bands worn for?  ;)
    I think it's those colored bands people wear on their wrists to support their cause of the day.
    Isn't it called "cause du jour"? Somehow, "of the day" doesn't sound quite as fancy...

    ;-)
    mike1
  • Reply 13 of 37
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,866member

    sog35 said:
    ....
    Comparing the AppleWatch with an average selling price of $300 to  $10 junk is ridiculous.
    Why is it ridiculous?   People only wear one watch or exercise tracker.   If the $10 junk fulfills their need, why would they pay 30 times more for an AW?

    That's not to trash the AW.   It is a masterpiece of design and execution.  But rather to point out that user needs vary.  

    A similar situation exists in the laptop market:   Why would somebody buy a $2,000 MBP if a $200 Chromebook fits their needs?
    To answer the last paragraph.  Because they perhaps prefer quality, if they can afford it.  I'd suggest it's more about budget than needs (and I place no moral judgement here).  I use a MBP for little more than a Chromebook could do as I use a new Mac Pro for most uses.  If I couldn't afford the MBP then sure, I'd use something like a Chromebook or more likely an iPad.  If you want analogies, why do some folks buy a BMW when a Fiat 500 Pop can get you from point A to point B? It's about choice but choice can be constrained by budget.  I know a guy who could afford a Rolls Royce but drives an old Audi, in his case he is choosing regardless of constraints.
    randominternetpersonlolliver
  • Reply 14 of 37
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    sog35 said:
    ....
    Comparing the AppleWatch with an average selling price of $300 to  $10 junk is ridiculous.
    Why is it ridiculous?   People only wear one watch or exercise tracker.   If the $10 junk fulfills their need, why would they pay 30 times more for an AW?

    That's not to trash the AW.   It is a masterpiece of design and execution.  But rather to point out that user needs vary.  

    A similar situation exists in the laptop market:   Why would somebody buy a $2,000 MBP if a $200 Chromebook fits their needs?
    $10 junk is ridiculous, it fullfills NO NEEDS besides not wanting to spend money for the feature you actually want.
    They are mostly fraudulent products sold under false pretense that fall apart and work like utter garbage.
    The companies producing these products are shameless.
    They're dollar store level crap but sold at $10.

    The $10 POS is not even in chromebook league, it's in the league of those $50 dollars virus infested Chinese tablets that last 2 months and wind in landfills within 3 months.

    If your talking about $30-$50 dollar products you'd have a point and if people want the absolute minimal features and are willing to live with a product that does just that; good for them..

    Still, doesn't mean those products should be compared with the AW. From a marketing and business perspective that's complete nonsense.

    In most industries, you don't compare a Pro, prosumer or near luxury product with some dollar store junk; but not when it comes to Apple. In that case it happens ALL THE TIME.
    edited August 2017 radarthekatlolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 37
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,926moderator
    sog35 said:
    ....
    Comparing the AppleWatch with an average selling price of $300 to  $10 junk is ridiculous.
    Why is it ridiculous?   People only wear one watch or exercise tracker.   If the $10 junk fulfills their need, why would they pay 30 times more for an AW?

    That's not to trash the AW.   It is a masterpiece of design and execution.  But rather to point out that user needs vary.  

    A similar situation exists in the laptop market:   Why would somebody buy a $2,000 MBP if a $200 Chromebook fits their needs?
    His point was that it's ridiculous to compare such products on the basis of unit sales.  If the entire fitness wearable market is $10 billion spent annually by all consumers in that market, and one product captures $7 billion of those total consumer dollars, then who cares that the several competing products sold many more units to capture the other $3 billion of consumer spend?  It's fallacious to compare on a unit basis. 
    StrangeDaysmacxpresslolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 37
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 6,505member
    jd_in_sb said:
    If Apple can add a non-invasive glucose sensor that will create a whole new market for diabetics. Other than that I can't see a long range future for it with the current feature set
    Why would you make the incorrect assumption that the features are set in store for eternity? That doesn't make sense. 

    Regardless, I've worn my AW from Day 1 and enjoy the value I get from it. I'd like to continue reaping that value, so I can definitely see a long range future for it, especially knowing that it will continue to evolve as all things do.
    edited August 2017 GeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 37
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,226member
    sergioz said:
    I think Apple needs to create a simple version for kids! I bet if it was $99 most parents would buy it. 
    If it had a lojack on it, they could sell them at any price. If AW3 comes with some sort of rudimentary, standalone cell and gps service, expect parents to jump in at existing prices (or more.)

    Yes, there is a battery issue. But give your kid a device like this that the kid likes, but can be used to track him/her down in case of an emergency = priceless.
    lolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 37
    So what is Apple's share of the Smart Watch Market PROFITS ??

    PROFIT is the most important number, not marketshare.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 37
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 3,562member
    MacPro said:

    sog35 said:
    ....
    Comparing the AppleWatch with an average selling price of $300 to  $10 junk is ridiculous.
    Why is it ridiculous?   People only wear one watch or exercise tracker.   If the $10 junk fulfills their need, why would they pay 30 times more for an AW?

    That's not to trash the AW.   It is a masterpiece of design and execution.  But rather to point out that user needs vary.  

    A similar situation exists in the laptop market:   Why would somebody buy a $2,000 MBP if a $200 Chromebook fits their needs?
    To answer the last paragraph.  Because they perhaps prefer quality, if they can afford it.  I'd suggest it's more about budget than needs (and I place no moral judgement here).  I use a MBP for little more than a Chromebook could do as I use a new Mac Pro for most uses.  If I couldn't afford the MBP then sure, I'd use something like a Chromebook or more likely an iPad.  If you want analogies, why do some folks buy a BMW when a Fiat 500 Pop can get you from point A to point B? It's about choice but choice can be constrained by budget.  I know a guy who could afford a Rolls Royce but drives an old Audi, in his case he is choosing regardless of constraints.
    That's the "Red Convertible" theory:  
    "If I buy a red convertible, I'll be young and handsome -- and the girls will come flocking to me".
    ...  That delusion is worth a lot of money to insecure people.
  • Reply 20 of 37
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 3,562member
    sog35 said:
    ....
    Comparing the AppleWatch with an average selling price of $300 to  $10 junk is ridiculous.
    Why is it ridiculous?   People only wear one watch or exercise tracker.   If the $10 junk fulfills their need, why would they pay 30 times more for an AW?

    That's not to trash the AW.   It is a masterpiece of design and execution.  But rather to point out that user needs vary.  

    A similar situation exists in the laptop market:   Why would somebody buy a $2,000 MBP if a $200 Chromebook fits their needs?
    His point was that it's ridiculous to compare such products on the basis of unit sales.  If the entire fitness wearable market is $10 billion spent annually by all consumers in that market, and one product captures $7 billion of those total consumer dollars, then who cares that the several competing products sold many more units to capture the other $3 billion of consumer spend?  It's fallacious to compare on a unit basis. 
    You have a valid point.   Except that what he said was:
    "Comparing the AppleWatch with an average selling price of $300 to  $10 junk is ridiculous."

    It sounded to me and still sounds like he was comparing product to product -- with no mention of unit sales or market share...
Sign In or Register to comment.