Apple Watch retaining clear lead in smartwatch market despite advances by Samsung & Fitbit...

Posted:
in Apple Watch
The Apple Watch maintained a solid grip on smartwatch shipments during the March quarter, according to new estimates, even as rivals from Samsung and Fitbit made headway.

Apple Watch Series 4


Apple claimed 35.8 percent of the market, Counterpoint Research said on Thursday. That's up just slightly year-over-year from 35.5 percent in Q1 2018, despite Apple Watch shipments reportedly rising 49 percent in the same timeframe.

Samsung's marketshare jumped from 7.2 to 11.1 percent, something Counterpoint credited to success of the latest Galaxy Watch models. These include a traditional round watchface, improved battery life, and 4G connectivity, making them one of the better smartwatch options for people who don't have or want an iPhone.

Fitbit rose from 3.7 percent to 5.5. Once focused on dedicated fitness trackers, the company's Ionic and Versa watches have expanded functions including third-party apps and Fitbit Pay.

Another notable maker was Huawei, which leapt to 2.8 percent of the market by launching the Huawei Watch GT.

Companies losing out in the quarter included imoo, Amazfit, Fossil, and Garmin. While Garmin is focused primarily on hardcore fitness, sports, and outdoors enthusiasts, the rest are trying to cater to a general market.

In disclosing quarterly wearables numbers on Tuesday, Apple kept precise Watch sales a secret as usual. It did say that wearable sales rose 50 percent year-over-year, and that roughly three-quarters of Watches were sold to people new to the hardware. Overall "Wearables, Home, and Accessories" revenue rose from $3.94 billion to $5.1 billion, though that includes AirPods, Beats products, Apple TVs, and the HomePod, among other things.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    tjwolftjwolf Posts: 298member
    "Overall "Wearables, Home, and Accessories" revenue rose from $3.94 billion to $5.1 billion, though that includes AirPods, Beats products, Apple TVs, and the HomePod, among other things."

    Given the lack of popularity of HomePod & and Apple TV, I think one cans safely assume the increased revenue in this category is solely due to Apple Watch and AirPods (maybe Beats).
  • Reply 2 of 15
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,450member
    Insanely strange photo.
    lkruppcornchip
  • Reply 3 of 15
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,306member
    tjwolf said:
    "Overall "Wearables, Home, and Accessories" revenue rose from $3.94 billion to $5.1 billion, though that includes AirPods, Beats products, Apple TVs, and the HomePod, among other things."

    Given the lack of popularity of HomePod & and Apple TV, I think one cans safely assume the increased revenue in this category is solely due to Apple Watch and AirPods (maybe Beats).
    Prove it or withdraw your claim. Prove that the Apple TV and HomePod are not popular. Show us your facts, not your biased opinion.
    chasmAppleExposedpscooter63StrangeDayslolliverleavingthebiggcornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 15
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,306member
    I absolutely LOVE the fact that journalists and analysts are going bat shit crazy over Apple’s decision to not release individual product sales figures. No one else does either , and never have, but somehow it’s mandatory for Apple and an indication they are hiding something. It’s a thing to behold. ROFL!
    AppleExposedleavingthebiggcornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 15
    chasmchasm Posts: 1,667member
    Yeah, tjwolf is pulling that theory out of their posterior. It’s certainly true that AirPods, the Apple Watch, and Beats are the top sellers in that category, but Apple TV in particular is a modest (maybe 25M a year in units) but steady seller with years of good word-of-mouth. Everyone and I mean **everyone** that owns one loves it — and Apple hasn’t even started letting people know how much their other boxes or “smart” TVs spy on them!

    By comparison, I’m sure HomePod’s numbers are low — but it is the best selling smart speaker over $200. Those little Dots and Echos sell well now, but they will be keeping the Android tablets and two-year-old Android phones company in the drawers and recycling bins in due course — I’ve already seen a “privacy backlash” happening where people are hesitant to buy them because of the many stories about (in particular) Amazon’s abuse of privacy.

    So in point of fact the HomePod is the world’s most popular HIGH-QUALITY smart speaker. But quality doesn’t appear to matter to some folks ... ahem ...
    StrangeDayslolliverfastasleepalbegarccornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 15
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,699member
    tjwolf said:
    Given the lack of popularity of HomePod & and Apple TV, I think one cans safely assume the increased revenue in this category is solely due to Apple Watch and AirPods (maybe Beats).
    This is a perfect example of what's wrong with the Internet.  People can pull anything out of their backside and try passing it off as fact.

    Reality is you have zero clue what you're talking about.


    AppleExposedpscooter63lolliverleavingthebiggcornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 15
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,503unconfirmed, member
    STRANGE MARKET.

    Fitbit is making knockoff Apple Watch hardware and Samsung is (surprisingly) only making knockoff Apple Watch software.

    tjwolf said:
    "Overall "Wearables, Home, and Accessories" revenue rose from $3.94 billion to $5.1 billion, though that includes AirPods, Beats products, Apple TVs, and the HomePod, among other things."

    Given the lack of popularity of HomePod & and Apple TV, I think one cans safely assume the increased revenue in this category is solely due to Apple Watch and AirPods (maybe Beats).

    People don't wear HomePods in their ears so their success is less obvious.

    I do think Apple TV needs more love and Arcade may be the first real dive into serious gaming. With exclusive games that take advantage of Apple Hardware, I'd love to see a new Apple TV with an A12x chip, which is equivalent to gaming consoles. And maybe Apple TV+ will grow the platform. Let's hope a new kick-ass version is released this year along with Arcade and TV+.
    StrangeDayslolliverleavingthebiggalbegarccornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 15
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 8,546member
    chasm said:
    Yeah, tjwolf is pulling that theory out of their posterior. It’s certainly true that AirPods, the Apple Watch, and Beats are the top sellers in that category, but Apple TV in particular is a modest (maybe 25M a year in units) but steady seller with years of good word-of-mouth. Everyone and I mean **everyone** that owns one loves it — and Apple hasn’t even started letting people know how much their other boxes or “smart” TVs spy on them!

    By comparison, I’m sure HomePod’s numbers are low — but it is the best selling smart speaker over $200. Those little Dots and Echos sell well now, but they will be keeping the Android tablets and two-year-old Android phones company in the drawers and recycling bins in due course — I’ve already seen a “privacy backlash” happening where people are hesitant to buy them because of the many stories about (in particular) Amazon’s abuse of privacy.

    So in point of fact the HomePod is the world’s most popular HIGH-QUALITY smart speaker. But quality doesn’t appear to matter to some folks ... ahem ...
    Exactly, the HP is not a cheap digital assistant terminal, it's an excellent high-quality speaker. I have two, and it's amazing the amount of volume and clarity is coming out of such little devices.

    FYI 90% of the time I'm using it with my ATV. When I play music on it, I'm usually operating it via an iOS device's Music UI rather than spoken commands only. The only verbal commands I use are for radio station playback, or for HomeKit scenes. So the all the ballyhoo about it is irrelevant from this perspective.
    edited May 2 fastasleepcornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 15
    chasm said:

    So in point of fact the HomePod is the world’s most popular HIGH-QUALITY smart speaker. But quality doesn’t appear to matter to some folks ... ahem ...
    Just last month a friend of mine was shocked at the cost of HomePod. She has an Echo Dot in her kitchen that she primarily uses to listen to music and sets timers. It sounds pretty bad. When she asked why HP is “so expensive” I told her in part it’s because of the quality of the sound. She told me sound quality is not a priority to her. This makes almost no sense to me considering she’s almost always listening to music with it. Why is sound quality not important in a product that is used to listen to sound?

    (it’s because she’s very cheap)
    edited May 2 watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 15
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,130moderator
    Two important factors in the relative success of the Samsung, Huawei and Fitbit devices.  

    1. The watch industry is in a disruptive phase, with technology companies having the upper hand over traditional watch makers.  Thus we see Fossil and other watch manufacturers losing out to the disrupters and the smaller tech participants losing out to the larger ones who can be more agile and have larger R&D budgets.  That’s market share that will keep coming until the disruptive phase plays out. At that point the market will be truly segmented between traditional watches and smartwatches, likely with the latter taking a considerable majority market share.  Apple is benefiting from this as well, maybe even the driving force behind the disruption at this stage of the game. 

    2. Samsung, Hauwei, Fitbit, et al play in a segment of the market where they aren’t in direct competition with Apple.  That being the mobile market outside of iOS; meaning, they have access to the Android market without needing to compete with Apple on features or capabilities, but only indirectly for consumers’ wallets.  And even then, a consumer has to first move over to iOS before considering an Apple Watch.  Anyone who is happy with Android is available to Samsung, etc, without Apple having a shot at their smartwatch purchase.  

    Given these factors the market share discussion cannot yet be one of this company beating, or gaining on, that company.  In a shifting and expanding market all players get a ticket for the ride.  
    albegarcwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 15
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 5,137member
    chasm said:
    Yeah, tjwolf is pulling that theory out of their posterior. It’s certainly true that AirPods, the Apple Watch, and Beats are the top sellers in that category, but Apple TV in particular is a modest (maybe 25M a year in units) but steady seller with years of good word-of-mouth. Everyone and I mean **everyone** that owns one loves it — and Apple hasn’t even started letting people know how much their other boxes or “smart” TVs spy on them!

    By comparison, I’m sure HomePod’s numbers are low — but it is the best selling smart speaker over $200. Those little Dots and Echos sell well now, but they will be keeping the Android tablets and two-year-old Android phones company in the drawers and recycling bins in due course — I’ve already seen a “privacy backlash” happening where people are hesitant to buy them because of the many stories about (in particular) Amazon’s abuse of privacy.

    So in point of fact the HomePod is the world’s most popular HIGH-QUALITY smart speaker. But quality doesn’t appear to matter to some folks ... ahem ...
    I can see AppleTV sales being boosted in the future -- partly because of Apple's push into streaming but also because it can act as a Hub for a Homekit based smart home (which I think will be a growing market in the coming decade).  (Homepod can also act as a hub, but its very expensive which will limit its appeal).
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 15
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 5,137member
    chasm said:

    So in point of fact the HomePod is the world’s most popular HIGH-QUALITY smart speaker. But quality doesn’t appear to matter to some folks ... ahem ...
    Just last month a friend of mine was shocked at the cost of HomePod. She has an Echo Dot in her kitchen that she primarily uses to listen to music and sets timers. It sounds pretty bad. When she asked why HP is “so expensive” I told her in part it’s because of the quality of the sound. She told me sound quality is not a priority to her. This makes almost no sense to me considering she’s almost always listening to music with it. Why is sound quality not important in a product that is used to listen to sound?

    (it’s because she’s very cheap)
    Her priority is money rather than sound.   Your's seem to be the opposite.  Nothing wrong with either.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 15
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 5,137member
    Two important factors in the relative success of the Samsung, Huawei and Fitbit devices.  

    1. The watch industry is in a disruptive phase, with technology companies having the upper hand over traditional watch makers.  Thus we see Fossil and other watch manufacturers losing out to the disrupters and the smaller tech participants losing out to the larger ones who can be more agile and have larger R&D budgets.  That’s market share that will keep coming until the disruptive phase plays out. At that point the market will be truly segmented between traditional watches and smartwatches, likely with the latter taking a considerable majority market share.  Apple is benefiting from this as well, maybe even the driving force behind the disruption at this stage of the game. 

    2. Samsung, Hauwei, Fitbit, et al play in a segment of the market where they aren’t in direct competition with Apple.  That being the mobile market outside of iOS; meaning, they have access to the Android market without needing to compete with Apple on features or capabilities, but only indirectly for consumers’ wallets.  And even then, a consumer has to first move over to iOS before considering an Apple Watch.  Anyone who is happy with Android is available to Samsung, etc, without Apple having a shot at their smartwatch purchase.  

    Given these factors the market share discussion cannot yet be one of this company beating, or gaining on, that company.  In a shifting and expanding market all players get a ticket for the ride.  
    I find it difficult to explain to people the advantages of the Apple Watch.   The discussion always seems to devolve into specific functions with the inevitable question:  "Why would I need to wear a watch for THAT?"   Plus, the fact that many/most have not quite evolved into understanding the vistas opened by the wearable market.  For instance, my friend thinks that simply "tracking steps" is the equivalent of the Apple Watch's 3 rings and all of its activity tracking.   Or, another:   "Why should I wear a watch for ApplePay when I can just insert my card?".

    It's kinda the situation where, if ya gotta ask the question, ya won't understand the answer.

    It seems that you just have to experience it to understand it.  That makes for a difficult marketing effort for Apple.   But, so far, they have done well.
    cornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 15
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,390member
    Yet more fretting over market share, which, we all know how much Apple cares about that.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.