Fitbit CEO says Apple Watch 'wrong way' to approach wearables
James Park, chief executive at Fitbit, in an interview published Monday described how his company was able to withstand what many viewed as direct competition from Apple in 2015, saying the Cupertino tech giant took a wrong turn with Apple Watch.
According to Park, Fitbit's health-minded products are in a different category than Apple Watch, which also packs in specialized fitness tracking features, reports The New York Times. Fitbit products are often simple, single-mode devices, whereas Apple crammed a little of everything into Watch.
"We look at it from a consumer point of view," Park said. Apple Watch "is a computing platform, but that's really the wrong way to approach this category from the very beginning."
Limiting functionality to activity monitoring, step counting and other health-related tasks makes Fitbit a less daunting consumer product than a multi-function Apple Watch, and it also keeps prices comparatively low. Fitbit started with basic activity tracking features and added functionality one step at a time, a strategy embodied by eight wearable offerings ranging from the $50 Zip to the $200 smartwatch-esque Blaze.
Hitting niche demographics at multiple price points is a benefit for Fitbit, which sold some 21.3 million units in 2015, nearly double the 10.9 million it moved a year prior. Still, big tech companies like Apple boast hundreds of millions of installed users, numbers that can quickly erode a smaller firm's marketshare. Moving forward, Park says Fitbit will need to remain vigilant when it comes to adding in new features like mobile payments and integration with the "Internet of Things."
"We're going to be very careful with how we include these things over time," he said. "I think one of the general knocks against smartwatches is that people still don't know what they're good for, so they've crammed everything in."
That being said, Fitbit's current success is at least in part thanks to Apple. When the iPhone 4S debuted in 2011 with support for accessory synching via Bluetooth 4.0, Park realized real-time connectivity opened the door to a slew of new fitness tracking possibilities. Playing off iPhone 4S, Fitbit moved to integrate Bluetooth into its upcoming products, a decision that delayed production by about six months but yielded a number of best sellers. Bluetooth connectivity is now standard on most wearables.
According to Park, Fitbit's health-minded products are in a different category than Apple Watch, which also packs in specialized fitness tracking features, reports The New York Times. Fitbit products are often simple, single-mode devices, whereas Apple crammed a little of everything into Watch.
"We look at it from a consumer point of view," Park said. Apple Watch "is a computing platform, but that's really the wrong way to approach this category from the very beginning."
Limiting functionality to activity monitoring, step counting and other health-related tasks makes Fitbit a less daunting consumer product than a multi-function Apple Watch, and it also keeps prices comparatively low. Fitbit started with basic activity tracking features and added functionality one step at a time, a strategy embodied by eight wearable offerings ranging from the $50 Zip to the $200 smartwatch-esque Blaze.
Hitting niche demographics at multiple price points is a benefit for Fitbit, which sold some 21.3 million units in 2015, nearly double the 10.9 million it moved a year prior. Still, big tech companies like Apple boast hundreds of millions of installed users, numbers that can quickly erode a smaller firm's marketshare. Moving forward, Park says Fitbit will need to remain vigilant when it comes to adding in new features like mobile payments and integration with the "Internet of Things."
"We're going to be very careful with how we include these things over time," he said. "I think one of the general knocks against smartwatches is that people still don't know what they're good for, so they've crammed everything in."
That being said, Fitbit's current success is at least in part thanks to Apple. When the iPhone 4S debuted in 2011 with support for accessory synching via Bluetooth 4.0, Park realized real-time connectivity opened the door to a slew of new fitness tracking possibilities. Playing off iPhone 4S, Fitbit moved to integrate Bluetooth into its upcoming products, a decision that delayed production by about six months but yielded a number of best sellers. Bluetooth connectivity is now standard on most wearables.
Comments
Keep that poker face up FitBit. We all know you're bluffing.
[quote]
"We're going to be very careful with how we include these things over time," he said. "I think one of the general knocks against smartwatches is that people still don't know what they're good for, so they've crammed everything in."
[/quote]
Yes, but you WILL be adding it, because you know that unless you do, the Apple Watch is going to kill you sooner rather than later.
Fitbit exist because they sell junky, disposable trackers which are cheap enough to be trivially acquired as part of a health kick. It's a repeat of the pedometer fad of the 90s. Fitbit have few established competitors at this price point, and are likely to be eaten soon by generic brands that offer the same feature set.
Meanwhile the first year sales of the Apple Watch have already eclipsed fitbit's entire company revenue. How I see it: Fitbit are already gone, now it's just going to be a few years of thrashing while the only valuable IP left is their brand name. (They'll probably be purchased by HTC or similar and have their logo slapped onto whatever copy-cat design they're working on at the moment.)
Mmmm...
Apple has said, long long time before release that it wouldn't release sales info on the watch.
BTW, who the fuck else releases actual sales numbers on ANYTHING : no one.
Yet Apple is expected to spill the beans all the time.;
You do know that the ASP of the Apple Watch is likely 4-5 that of a fitbit with massively more profits per watch too.
Fitbit as but a tiny fraction of Apple's Watch profits : that's a fact.
Like it or not, the limited function fitness devices will increasingly fall prey to the integrated devices that provide more capability in a still reasonable footprint. Sure there will still be a market for limited function devices to satisfy the edge cases, niches, and price points, much like the iPod Nano and Shuffle hang in there as ultra portable and lightweight alternatives to iPhone. The iPod Touch remains as a lower cost phone-less version of iPhone but pulls in the vast Apple iTunes ecosystem. So there's still going to be a place for Fitbit to sell their products that were purposely designed to be fitness and activity devices. Sure they can add time and connectivity functions to their portfolio and start to encroach of Apple Watch from the other side. But Apple Watch started as a time and connectivity based device with integrated fitness and activity capability. It also leverages the Apple iTunes ecosystem because frankly that's now one of antes into the Apple product portfolio. Every Apple connected product has to extend the Apple iTunes ecosystem and create additional consumption points. Sorry Fitbit, that's going to be a tough mountain to climb if you want to put yourself in the same league as Apple Watch. Or you can try to create a new narrative that explains why your products are still worthy despite their apparent shortcomings against the dominant player. It's worth a try, but not everyone is going to buy into your argument. You could also recognize the niche where your product can be highly profitable and play to your strengths without denigrating the things that are outside of your happy niche.
Between FitBit and Apple Watch, which one "just works"?
Which has the less cluttered physical and logical UI?
Which provides a GPS option along with at least some notifications?
Which is selling more devices?
Which has better battery life?
Which has the more "Apple" approach (carefully adding new features), and which has the more "Samsung" approach (throwing in the kitchen sink regardless of user experience, like 5-second app. load times)?
Two yeas ago I would have replied exactly as you have so far. But with the "new" Apple, along with my own decision to go Garmin instead of Apple, I am not as confident, and neither should you be. In the end I would still like to believe Apple will get it right, but I no longer believe it is a given.
While I don't agree much with his assertions, I do believe that Apple made a (small) stumble by including 3rd party apps in gen 1. This is the one function of the watch which gets the most (legitimate) criticism - slow to load, and with limited functionality. It also perhaps diluted the message about what AW was solving in gen 1. Anyways, not a mortal wound by any measure, and hopefully they have done some learning & fine tuning.
I am really excited for Apple Watch's future - more so than I was when the iPad came out (although I use that device for at least a couple hours every day). This device has strong potential - some of which we can already see and use - in fitness, health, sports, secure access / identity, quick communications, timely information. All while looking good and telling the time in more interesting ways than ever before.
It is the only product of Apple's that could even come close to the iPhone in terms of units & margins (though not likely getting to that total revenue).
Everyone must evaluate their lifestyles and decided what works best for them.
Some have and will by Apple Watch or Apple Edition simply for the 'status' value - again whatever moves your world.
Some have and will by Fitbit for function and function is all it devise has to offer.
I bought my Apple Watch for function and style - 42mm Milanese loop - stainless - have had since 2015 launch and have never gone back to my Tag of 5 years.
Apple Watch is a complete package - it works for me, others will have to make their own decisions.
I kind of think they've all got it right. It would be awesome for Apple to buy Fitbit and integrate the product line like an iPod shuffle < nano < touch < iphone. They could have Fitbits as the entry level wearable, all compatible and feeding info into Health and Activity.