Apple Watch 'collapsing sales' report actually shows Apple is crushing smartwatch sector [u]

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 101
    h2ph2p Posts: 316member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

    ...accounting for fiscal year sales (launch through September) of 10.5 million units...

    I just read the USA Today Money story "Analyst: Apple Watch selling worse than thought" that included the line about a drop in the estimated sales from 11 million to 10.5 million. (http://americasmarkets.usatoday.com/2015/07/01/apple-watch-selling-worse-than-thought/

     

    THEN the story follows this up with "That might not sound like much of a reduction, but he warns the bigger letdown will come next fiscal year due to 'soft follow-on sales.' The analyst says the company will sell just 21 million watches in fiscal 2016, down from the earlier 24 million estimate." WHAT?!? So instead of an increase of more 100%, it could be an increase of 87.5% YoY! Golly, that too bad for poor Apple Investors. /s

     

    As the story mentions -- Apple is crushing the competition in the Wearables category (see the stories below... I don't feel like digging beyond the top few results... see the AI story for 2014 estimates).

     

    Samsung sold only 50,000 units (2013 after two months of sales): 

    http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-how-many-smart-watches-did-samsung-sell-2013-11

     

    2 million smartwatches sold last year, Galaxy Gear leading (2013)...1.2 million Android watches... 700K other:

    http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/galaxy-gear-top-selling-smartwatch/

     

    Ai Feb. 2015 (6.8 million total market; 1.2 million Gear "shipped"... check out the end of the story: Apple to sell 26.3 million by end of 2015!! -- pre-release estimate!): 

    http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/02/25/just-68m-smartwatches-sold-in-2014-at-an-average-price-of-189

  • Reply 82 of 101
    bluefire1bluefire1 Posts: 1,226member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fotoformat View Post



    The use of "Slice" and "Intelligence" as the title of this company seems to be a contradiction in terms!



    I believe that's called an oxymoron.

  • Reply 83 of 101
    I don't know how good or bad sales might really be, but 'crushing' other smart watches says nothing about Apple sales vs Apple sales goals. Other smart watches don't have big sales so 'crushing' them is a very low bar for Apple and not relevant to actual sales levels that matter for Apple.
  • Reply 84 of 101
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,922member
    Demand > supply. So it met Apple's goals insofar as supply may have been constrained.
  • Reply 85 of 101
    I think the watch sales would be much stronger than they already are by offering the watch through the carriers. That way they would be subsidized and lot more folks would be wearing one. Simple as that.Plus there does seem to be an issue with regards to the younger generation. I have read several reports that shows they just don't wear watches. They have their phone for that.
  • Reply 86 of 101
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    brit120666 wrote: »
    I think the watch sales would be much stronger than they already are by offering the watch through the carriers. That way they would be subsidized and lot more folks would be wearing one. Simple as that.Plus there does seem to be an issue with regards to the younger generation. I have read several reports that shows they just don't wear watches. They have their phone for that.

    They don't need service from a carrier so why would they subsidize it?
  • Reply 87 of 101
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by airnerd View Post

     



    I have very few options for computers, smartphones, or cars that WILL hold their value.  Watches are completely different.  Unless I buy a classic car to restore (or already restored) I have no options that won't depreciate.  Same with computers and smartphones, since they are technology like I clearly already said. 

     

    You make such a valid argument yourself, to be telling me to rethink mine.  Your argument is to buy the Apple watch, and then ALSO buy a nice timepiece that will hold value so that you have something that holds value.  DERP!




    You are applying to different standards. One for technology and another for jewelry. Apple Watch is technology--you must agree with that statement because you slam it for depreciating because it is technology. You apply technology standards to judge your smartphones and computers, but arbitrarily apply the jewelry standard to Apple Watch, even after you know it's a piece of technology and not a wind-up relic of some Old World horological tradition. Why the inconsistency? Why not judge it fairly?

  • Reply 88 of 101
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,418member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by foggyhill View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by boredumb View Post

     

    I'm prepared to believe sales may be disappointing, but then, everyone, the above author included,

    are speculating, and also manipulating what data there is to suit their own viewpoints.

     

    Someone called Smartwatch Group guesstimates smart watch sales this year will total about $8.9 billion,

    http://www.smartwatchgroup.com/top-10-smartwatch-companies-sales-2014/ )

    at an average of $330 per unit.  IF accurate, that's roughly 27 million units in all, and IF the daily sales guessed at

    by Slice is at all accurate, Apple will only sell somewhere between 10 and 20% of those...

    So, IF there is any accuracy in these "estimates",  

    Apple Watch sales this year may be "crushing" someone else's sales from last year,

    but they certainly aren't crushing the category.

     

    Still thinking one might make a nice b-day gift for our daughter!


     

    You went from saying you have no clue, to making a definite statement.... Hmmm...


    I have no clue where I said I had no clue...

    I did say we're all speculating...maybe it's just too foggy where you are;)

  • Reply 89 of 101
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    I am glad DED provide some counterweight to all the FUD in the market, but for those of you who wonder why they do it, and what the comments have to do relative to Apple's performance report upcoming, check what Jim Cramer said in 2006 about manipulating the market and Apple "" (this video is an edited "fair use" video as TheStreet.com made copyright infringement claims to take the original video down, and the specifics of Apple were edited out, but the manipulation of Apple's stock was specifically an example in this interview).

    TheStreet.com has the video here: "http://www.thestreet.com/video/cramermarketupdates/10329438.html" but I couldn't get the video to load, so I don't know if its really available or not.

    Jim Cramer has also been party to that manipulation. He's made some of the dumbest predictions on record.
  • Reply 90 of 101
    h2ph2p Posts: 316member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dev tty01 View Post



    I don't know how good or bad sales might really be, but 'crushing' other smart watches says nothing about Apple sales vs Apple sales goals. Other smart watches don't have big sales so 'crushing' them is a very low bar for Apple...

    Please remember the tablet market before iPad (including items like the Mac Tablet – a powerbook with touchscreen overlay – sold by OWC). They were selling in miniscule numbers but there still was a "market." iPad was predicted to sell between 1 and 3 million it's first year (which was 'crushing' the competition). According to Statistica.com they sold north of 7.5 million (I thought it was 15 million) (http://www.statista.com/statistics/269915/global-apple-ipad-sales-since-q3-2010/). I bought one immediately.

     

    Apple's "just a big iPhone" model became the industry standard overnight! NOW there is a market for tablets.

     

    Wearables were a small market, IMHO, because the solutions offered were too basic. Apple Watch is still too basic for me but this is Apple we're talking about. THEY will develop it... within two years – it will be a different animal.

     

    Also, about a year and a half ago, I saw the Samsung Gear-thang at Best Buy selling for about $379 in the Chicago area. What did the S-watch do to justifiy that price?

  • Reply 91 of 101
    h2ph2p Posts: 316member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    They don't need service from a carrier so why would they subsidize it?



    Good point. Also, AppleWatch is 'secondary device technology' at this point. I don't expect iPhone-like sales. Once I imagine an AppleWatch+ in a few years – it will have many more stand alone features to warrent closer to iPhone-like sales.

  • Reply 92 of 101
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,922member
    h2p wrote: »

    Good point. Also, AppleWatch is 'secondary device technology' at this point. I don't expect iPhone-like sales. Once I imagine an AppleWatch+ in a few years – it will have many more stand alone features to warrent closer to iPhone-like sales.

    I doubt it will ever achieve iPhone numbers even if it was a stand alone device. It's not a knock on the watch but the iPhone numbers are just unbelievable.
  • Reply 93 of 101
    ipenipen Posts: 410member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    Exactly. Nobody heard of Slice Intelligence until they started pimping this Apple Watch stuff. There's definitely an agenda here. And for all the haters of the Watch looking for confirmation bias they'll latch on to this and ride it as long as they can. But as I said and another post if Apple Watch is such a dud, such a failure then how come 3 people intimately involved in the Watch project were promoted by Tim Cook? People involved and failures don't typically get promoted do they?

     

    Office politics?  I've seen too many promotions but in reality were demotions in disguise.

  • Reply 94 of 101
    The Apple Watch enhances the use of the Apple Phone, plus is a pay system and a health tracker. The mistakes made really killed the emotions sent from a traditional watch, by introducing a digital viewing area rather than showing the data streaming from the Apple Phone by way of retrograde analog hands turns off the mainstream consumer buying into wearing the device to start with. There are many other turn offs, not worth mentioning here. The price vs. value of the Apple Watch is huge. I could have seen the watch more appropriately introduced to the consumer as a gift with purchase through the USA service provider's who hand out Apple Phones with contracts.
    PS: to boast that the Apple Watch is crushing the existing competition producing b-t wrist devices is a distortion as well. If you send hundreds of millions of dollars marketing a product, you can get many people to buy it initially. The other wrist device makes spend in marketing a fraction of what Apple did, so no fair comparison here.
  • Reply 95 of 101
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by H2P View Post

     

    Please remember the tablet market before iPad (including items like the Mac Tablet – a powerbook with touchscreen overlay – sold by OWC). They were selling in miniscule numbers but there still was a "market." iPad was predicted to sell between 1 and 3 million it's first year (which was 'crushing' the competition). According to Statistica.com they sold north of 7.5 million (I thought it was 15 million) (http://www.statista.com/statistics/269915/global-apple-ipad-sales-since-q3-2010/). I bought one immediately.

     

    Apple's "just a big iPhone" model became the industry standard overnight! NOW there is a market for tablets.

     

    Wearables were a small market, IMHO, because the solutions offered were too basic. Apple Watch is still too basic for me but this is Apple we're talking about. THEY will develop it... within two years – it will be a different animal.

     

    Also, about a year and a half ago, I saw the Samsung Gear-thang at Best Buy selling for about $379 in the Chicago area. What did the S-watch do to justifiy that price?




    I agree with everything you said here.  My point was that Mr. Dilger is trying to somehow say that Watch sales are not going down since they are 'crushing' the competition.  I am saying Apple sales could be collapsing and they could still be 'crushing' the competition.  The two points do not have the relationship that is implied by Mr. Dilger.  We don't know the sales at present and crushing other smart watches doesn't really help us get a much clearer picture.  However, I have no doubt that Apple is committed to this product category in a big way so even if it starts slow they will iterate and drive sales over time.

  • Reply 96 of 101
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,674member
    slurpy wrote: »
    The Apple is a fucking iPhone accessory, so comparing it 1 to 1 to iPhone sales is just stunningly idiotic. Why try to define the success/failure of a product by comparing it in sales to a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT kind of product? Because its made by the same company? The Apple Watch REQUIRES an iPhone. 

    You know what a sane comparison would be? Contrasting it against all the other wearables out there. But no, that would make too much sense. 

    Since it's a 1st gen product, contrasting it with the 1st iPhone would be reasonable too- but no, again, that makes too much sense. We should just compare it to sales of the 8th generation iPhone, a product which has increased exponentially in sales with each generation, and has been doing so since 2007. A product that is subsidized for so many people, and is required for them to buy.

    I guess Apple's entire Mac line is a complete fucking failure too, as well as the iPad, as they don't hold a candle to iPhone sales. What a ridiculous and moronic bar to set, with the only agenda being shitting on the product, instead of intelligent analysis. We have NO CLUE what Apple Watch sales are, but when we do find out, I hope most people are sane enough to place those in proper context. 

    QFT. Unfortunately this can be repeated over and over, yet somehow the blogosphere is filled with posts from idiots who at some point will hop over to MacRumours, only to find a comfort zone because of similar idiotic posts. BF comes to mind.
  • Reply 97 of 101

    The Apple consumer is 1000 times more loyal to their brand than other CE brands, so the comment made and this point make the smartwatch competition non relevant at this stage. Insiders within the Apple supply chain (in China) all have been talking that there will be a brand new update to the Apple Watch. They are already working on it. Apple is far from giving up on wrist devices, but their first introduction lacks the "why" factor of other Apple products.

  • Reply 98 of 101
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,922member
    The Apple Watch enhances the use of the Apple Phone, plus is a pay system and a health tracker. The mistakes made really killed the emotions sent from a traditional watch, by introducing a digital viewing area rather than showing the data streaming from the Apple Phone by way of retrograde analog hands turns off the mainstream consumer buying into wearing the device to start with. There are many other turn offs, not worth mentioning here. The price vs. value of the Apple Watch is huge. I could have seen the watch more appropriately introduced to the consumer as a gift with purchase through the USA service provider's who hand out Apple Phones with contracts.
    PS: to boast that the Apple Watch is crushing the existing competition producing b-t wrist devices is a distortion as well. If you send hundreds of millions of dollars marketing a product, you can get many people to buy it initially. The other wrist device makes spend in marketing a fraction of what Apple did, so no fair comparison here.

    You think marketing dollars is the main reason? Why can't the Galaxy phones every beat iPhone consistently if money is reason. Same for the Surface.

    In addition, how do you know what Apple or others spent in marketing. Remember the commercials for Galaxy Gear? Where did that get Sammy?

    Apple doesn't do free hardware.
  • Reply 99 of 101
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by airnerd View Post

     



    Someone didn't score too well in reading comprehension, I see.  I never said a $200 watch, I said "spend about $200 MORE".  As in instead of $500 for a watch, spend about $700. 

     

    Try actually reading before you spout off, and take Advil for the brain cramps. 


     

    Right. Hey Bud, for $700, you still don'T have a fracking watch that's keeps its god damn value more than the Apple Watch.

    So, the point still stands.

    And you didn'T say $500 dollars either buddy boy. So, is your $500 watch keep its god damn value better. No. $700, No. 

     

    As for my reading skills, I'll just have to "worry" about that as my ol' "illiterate self"(sic) sit on a big ass pile of assets accumulated despite my handicap...

  • Reply 100 of 101

    No, I don't think its the main reason, I was addressing the post's claim in my PS..

Sign In or Register to comment.