Consumers prefer Apple Watch Series 9 over SE and Ultra models

AppleInsider

Consumers prefer the mid-priced Apple Watch models over the big-budget Ultras and the low-cost Apple Watch SE, a report finds, with the Series 8 and Series 9 making up the bulk of sales in the June quarter.

A render of what the Apple Watch Series 10 could look like

The Apple Watch SE is a lower-priced model in the Apple Watch range, intended as an entryway into wearable devices. Despite the price, the Apple Watch SE is seemingly selling poorly when compared to others in the catalog, including those that Apple doesn't directly sell.

According to a report by analysts at CIRP, there are three broad categories of Apple Watch, consisting of the flagship Apple Watch Series 9, the basic Apple Watch SE, and the premium Ultra 2.

In the quarter ending June 2024, the Apple Watch Series 9 was by far the most popular option, with a 43% share. It was followed by the Apple Watch Series 8, which garnered a 19% share from third-party retailers.

The Ultra category came next, at 11% for the Apple Watch Ultra 2 and 9% for the Apple Watch Ultra. Just like the Apple Watch Series 8, the original Apple Watch Ultra is only sold by third-party resellers.

The Apple Watch SE consumed just 12% of the overall market share, being outpaced by the Series 8 by a considerable margin.

CIRP also said that Nike-branded Series models made up a 5% share.

Overall, the mid-range Series models had a total share of 67% of sales. The Ultra picked up 20% and the SE about 12%.

The report does certainly demonstrate that consumers are happy with going for the main flagship model instead of going for a cheaper or considerably more expensive variant.

It is expected that Apple will be introducing a new Apple Watch Series 10 during the fall special events, which could shake up sales. The new model is anticipated to have a new band connection method, improved power savings, a larger screen, and a possibly thinner body.



Read on AppleInsider

9secondkox2

It’s the goldilocks
 syndrome. 

One is too little. One is too much. And one is just right. 

SE is the ghetto version for some. Ultra is overkill for some. And the mainstream model is … just right. 

I’ll take the ultra though. 

apple4thewin

9secondkox2 said:

It’s the goldilocks
 syndrome. 

One is too little. One is too much. And one is just right. 

SE is the ghetto version for some. Ultra is overkill for some. And the mainstream model is … just right. 

I’ll take the ultra though. 

“I'm in the ghetto ah-rat-ta-ta”

 but in all seriousness if the Ultra had some sort of a better feature like better sensors and/or a pro chip inside then I would get it. I am right there at the tipping point where it sounds like a great option but missing that one thing (I don’t have a Apple Watch rn i am waiting on this next gen)

kitatit

I’ve personally witnessed how durable the ultra is in extreme conditions. My workmate has one and iron ore dust on the mine I work on is some of the nastiest, most abrasive dust and it is looking brand new after a year. He is a boilermaker and doesn’t get exposed to as much grease as me (mechanical fitter). I’m still not buying one as I’d get grease and dirt all jammed in around the crown, but for almost anyone else, they close to indestructible. 

slow n easy

I prefer the Ultra. I used to trade in my Watch every year but the Ultra is too expensive so I still have the original. I might trade in my original for the gen 3 model if it’s compelling enough for me. I have always felt very bummed out regarding how scratched up the watch faces get. I feel so much happier now that my watch face doesn’t have scratches on it.

VictorMortimer

The Ultra is too big.  Honestly, my 45mm 7 is too big.

But the only way I'd get a 9 is by picking it up in Canada, pulse ox being missing is unacceptable.

apple4thewin

VictorMortimer said:

The Ultra is too big.  Honestly, my 45mm 7 is too big.

But the only way I'd get a 9 is by picking it up in Canada, pulse ox being missing is unacceptable.

Correct me if I am wrong isn’t pulse ox just a software region lock? So if your watch is in the us for x amount of time/connected to a US Apple ID it would lock the feature again?

StrangeDays

VictorMortimer said:

The Ultra is too big.  Honestly, my 45mm 7 is too big.

But the only way I'd get a 9 is by picking it up in Canada, pulse ox being missing is unacceptable.

It isn’t too big. It may not be right for you, but that doesn’t t it too big. It’s also why they make three different sizes. 

darbus69

dude, the Ultra is by far the only way to go-the battery and the durability are above and beyond comparison to all other AppleWatch models. NO SCRATCHES IN TWO YEARS and almost three day battery life-I’ll never go back…

apple4thewin said:

9secondkox2 said:

It’s the goldilocks
 syndrome. 

One is too little. One is too much. And one is just right. 

SE is the ghetto version for some. Ultra is overkill for some. And the mainstream model is … just right. 

I’ll take the ultra though. 

“I'm in the ghetto ah-rat-ta-ta”

 but in all seriousness if the Ultra had some sort of a better feature like better sensors and/or a pro chip inside then I would get it. I am right there at the tipping point where it sounds like a great option but missing that one thing (I don’t have a Apple Watch rn i am waiting on this next gen)

dewme

The Ultra is basically the Apple Watch I’ve been waiting for all along. When I’ve purchased previous Apple Watches I’ve always opted for the most durable case and crystal and longest runtime. When cellular became available I added that to my list of must-haves. By the time I added everything up I was paying close to what the Ultra cost anyway, and it has even more features and is more rugged. No more optioning up. 

When the Ultra was first announced I was very impressed but expected it would easily hit the $1000 USD mark. I was kind of shocked when its price came out around $50 USD higher than what I was buying with the standard model optioned-up with stainless, sapphire, and LTE. Very easy to configure, very easy to purchase in one-click fashion, and it’s an awesome product with a fabulous screen. 

But that’s just one buyer and there are so many others with different priorities. A friend of mine works for a carrier and gets special deals on Apple devices but still opted for a different model because of the size and thickness of the Ultra. There’s millions of reasons why Apple makes different models of its products with different configurations. We’re not all looking for the same thing, especially when it comes to price and features.

DAalseth

I would definitely get for an Ultra next time, except for the price. It costs twice as much as the regular one. $549 vs $1099 starting price here in Canada.  The Ultra is great, but it’s not TWICE as great. 

slow n easy

VictorMortimer said:

The Ultra is too big.  Honestly, my 45mm 7 is too big.

But the only way I'd get a 9 is by picking it up in Canada, pulse ox being missing is unacceptable.

If the 45mm size is too big, then why didn’t you get the 41mm size? It’s the same watch other than the smaller form factor that you prefer.

lewchenko

Is the SE still nerfed in terms of basic features ? Like always on display for example ?

If so, that’s probably why most people avoid it. 

Previously I’ve always bought the standard ALU large models. Screen scratches galore though. It’s shocking we have to pay a small fortune for non sapphire screens  at this price unless we stump up even more for the stainless steel or ultra. 

I’m considering switching to the Pixel 9 Pro series and watch 3 at the moment (16 pro rumours not looking good). A potential issue though is their watch too isn’t sapphire screen either and no high end option to get it. 

mattinoz

What is the split between upper steel models and lower price aluminium models in that middle tier?

seems odd not to break out those 2 as separate given gap in pricing 

daven

slow n easy said:

I prefer the Ultra. I used to trade in my Watch every year but the Ultra is too expensive so I still have the original. I might trade in my original for the gen 3 model if it’s compelling enough for me. I have always felt very bummed out regarding how scratched up the watch faces get. I feel so much happier now that my watch face doesn’t have scratches on it.

I’m still using my Gen3 too. I wondered if I would get my money’s worth when I bought it and it hasn’t disappointed me. 

charlesn

apple4thewin said:

 but in all seriousness if the Ultra had some sort of a better feature like better sensors and/or a pro chip inside then I would get it. I am right there at the tipping point where it sounds like a great option but missing that one thing (I don’t have a Apple Watch rn i am waiting on this next gen)

It does have better features vs. other models of Apple Watch: the all-titanium case, a display that's 10% larger (makes a difference on a small screen) and 50% brighter with a very cool and automatic Night Mode, more accurate dual-frequency GPS, true full-featured dive watch/computer capability up to 100 meter depth, the Action Button, a siren, an improved Compass app and exclusive Wayfinder watchface. Also, while appearance is a subjective thing, it looks like no other Apple Watch and (in my opinion) is the best looking model, by far. Oh, and all of the above is only $50 more than Apple Watch 9 in stainless steel, which makes it a rare bargain in the Apple product lineup. It also goes on sale more frequently than Apple Watch stainless steel, so the Ultra price is often the same and sometimes less. 

Stabitha_Christie

apple4thewin said:

VictorMortimer said:

The Ultra is too big.  Honestly, my 45mm 7 is too big.

But the only way I'd get a 9 is by picking it up in Canada, pulse ox being missing is unacceptable.

Correct me if I am wrong isn’t pulse ox just a software region lock? So if your watch is in the us for x amount of time/connected to a US Apple ID it would lock the feature again?

You correct about the lock being software but a watch purchased outside of the US wouldn’t suddenly lock inside of the US. Basically any watch sold in the US after a certain date has the feature disabled. Any watch sold prior to that date  still has it. 

And yea, that is a slight over simplification. Anything that was already in the sales channel when the ruling came down also got to keep the feature.  

dewme

charlesn said:

apple4thewin said:

 but in all seriousness if the Ultra had some sort of a better feature like better sensors and/or a pro chip inside then I would get it. I am right there at the tipping point where it sounds like a great option but missing that one thing (I don’t have a Apple Watch rn i am waiting on this next gen)

It does have better features vs. other models of Apple Watch: the all-titanium case, a display that's 10% larger (makes a difference on a small screen) and 50% brighter with a very cool and automatic Night Mode, more accurate dual-frequency GPS, true full-featured dive watch/computer capability up to 100 meter depth, the Action Button, a siren, an improved Compass app and exclusive Wayfinder watchface. Also, while appearance is a subjective thing, it looks like no other Apple Watch and (in my opinion) is the best looking model, by far. Oh, and all of the above is only $50 more than Apple Watch 9 in stainless steel, which makes it a rare bargain in the Apple product lineup. It also goes on sale more frequently than Apple Watch stainless steel, so the Ultra price is often the same and sometimes less. 

All of the additional or improved features you've mentioned are exactly why I thought the Ultra would surpass the $1000 USD mark when Apple first showed it off. It's rare for me to be surprised that a new Apple product hits the market at a lower price than I expected after seeing it demo'd. Having previously bought stainless+sapphire Apple Watches I was like "damn... how'd they pull that off?" Usually it's the other way around on the high end, e.g., Vision Pro price shock and awe. That said, the Series 9 stainless+sapphire models are more fashionable and elegant than the Ultra. Plus, nobody asks you whether you forget your propeller hat at home when they see it on your wrist. I also love the look of the Ultra (when not paired with an Ocean band) and the extra screen real estate makes a big difference for me. 

charlesn

dewme said:

charlesn said:

apple4thewin said:

 but in all seriousness if the Ultra had some sort of a better feature like better sensors and/or a pro chip inside then I would get it. I am right there at the tipping point where it sounds like a great option but missing that one thing (I don’t have a Apple Watch rn i am waiting on this next gen)

It does have better features vs. other models of Apple Watch: the all-titanium case, a display that's 10% larger (makes a difference on a small screen) and 50% brighter with a very cool and automatic Night Mode, more accurate dual-frequency GPS, true full-featured dive watch/computer capability up to 100 meter depth, the Action Button, a siren, an improved Compass app and exclusive Wayfinder watchface. Also, while appearance is a subjective thing, it looks like no other Apple Watch and (in my opinion) is the best looking model, by far. Oh, and all of the above is only $50 more than Apple Watch 9 in stainless steel, which makes it a rare bargain in the Apple product lineup. It also goes on sale more frequently than Apple Watch stainless steel, so the Ultra price is often the same and sometimes less. 

All of the additional or improved features you've mentioned are exactly why I thought the Ultra would surpass the $1000 USD mark when Apple first showed it off. It's rare for me to be surprised that a new Apple product hits the market at a lower price than I expected after seeing it demo'd. Having previously bought stainless+sapphire Apple Watches I was like "damn... how'd they pull that off?" Usually it's the other way around on the high end, e.g., Vision Pro price shock and awe. That said, the Series 9 stainless+sapphire models are more fashionable and elegant than the Ultra. Plus, nobody asks you whether you forget your propeller hat at home when they see it on your wrist. I also love the look of the Ultra (when not paired with an Ocean band) and the extra screen real estate makes a big difference for me. 

While the stainless steel model vs the aluminum has a slightly more elegant appearance thanks to its (literally) more polished look, I've always felt the $200 upcharge vs the aluminum model (wtih GPS & cellular) is just nuts. The watches are identical in all other ways other than SS vs aluminum (and, honestly, how much SS is in a Watch case?) plus the sapphire glass... THAT justifies a whopping 40% upcharge? Plus, the SS models don't hold a huge edge over aluminum when it comes to resale or trade-in--certainly nowhere near 40%! As for the Ultra and propeller hats--the whole "adventure" watch category is filled with thick, clunky-looking watches, so the Ultra hardly stands out as nerdy in that group. And if you want elegant, the Ultra paired with Nomad's titanium link band looks incredible. 

jvm156

why pay double for features you don't use or slightly less for a gimped watch? the series 9 does everything ya need it to and looks good doing it. I also can't fathom paying a ton more for stainless steel...a worthless metal....