According to International Data Corporation (IDC), a quarter after Apple debuted as the number two wearables vendor worldwide, Chinese vendor Xiaomi finished the third quarter of 2015 (3Q15) as a strong contender for this position. Similarly, newcomer XTC beat out Samsung as the world’s number five wearables vendor. According to the IDC’s Worldwide Quarterly Wearable Device Tracker, total shipment volume for the quarter came to 21.0 million units, up 197.6% from the 7.1 million units shipped in 3Q14.
“The early stages of the wearables market have led to tight competition among the leading vendors, and Chinese vendors have seized upon market momentum to grab market share,” noted Ramon Llamas, Research Manager for IDC’s Wearables team, in a statement.. “China has quickly emerged as the fastest-growing wearables market, attracting companies eager to compete on price and feature sets. In addition, multiple vendors have experimented with a broad range of products and applications. The challenge, however, is whether these vendors can expand their presence, as few have extended beyond the country’s borders and into other markets.”
While there has been clear growth in the wearable market, there has been little sign of product cannibalization. Smart watches have drawn increased attention to the market from the likes of Apple, Motorola, Pebble, and Samsung, but this has not dampened interest in fitness trackers. By the end of 3Q15, shipment volumes for both product categories increased sequentially and year over year, showing that, for now, the categories can co-exist and grow. This also provides end users with choice in terms of feature sets and functionalities, ranging from simple fitness tracking to smartphone-like experiences.
“The bifurcation doesn’t just exist in features, but also in price,” said Jitesh Ubrani, Senior Research Analyst for IDC Mobile Device Trackers, in a statement. “The average smart watch or band came in at just over $400 and the average basic watch/band at $94. This leaves a lot of room for new players like Fossil and niche players like Pebble as they have an opportunity to address this space.”
Vendor Highlights
Fitbit relied on its popular Fitbit Charge and Fitbit Surge models to maintain its leadership in the worldwide wearables market, and also saw continued growth within the Asia/Pacific and Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) markets. Equally noteworthy has been its fast-growing Corporate Wellness strategy during the quarter, which added North American retailer Target and its order of 335,000 fitness trackers for its employees. Target joins Bank of America, Time Warner, and more than 70 other Fortune 500 companies to deploy Fitbit devices to its employees.
Apple posted a slight increase from the previous quarter (3.6 million units estimated in Q215), mostly the result of additional markets and channels coming on line. End-user attention has been going toward its entry-level and least expensive Sport line, to which Apple responded by introducing gold and rose gold models. In addition, Apple released watchOS 2, bringing native third-party applications to the device.
Xiaomi‘s inexpensive Mi Band buoyed volumes higher during the quarter, with more than 97% of its volumes shipping into China. Volumes outside of China remain limited, although progress has been made in Western markets. Adding to Xiaomi’s selection is its Mi Band Pulse, which added real-time heart rate monitoring and was released on Singles Day (November 11) in China.
Garmin‘s focus on citizen athletes with wearables for running, golf, swimming, hiking, and aquatics kept the company well entrenched as the clear number four vendor worldwide. With a deep and broad product portfolio and multiple price points, Garmin has been well-positioned to cover numerous market segments and address the rising fitness tracker category with its Vivo sub-brand of bands and watches.
Chinese vendor XTC, a subsidiary of BBK, beat Samsung for the number five position by 100,000 units in its worldwide debut. Like other Chinese vendors before it, XTC maintained its focus exclusively within China, and with just one device: the Y01, a children’s phone watch.
Top Five Wearables Vendors, Worldwide Shipments, Market Share and Year-Over-Year Growth , Q 3 2015 Data (Units in Millions)
Source: IDC Worldwide Quarterly Wearable Device Tracker, December 3, 2015
Table Notes:
• Data is subject to change.
• Vendor shipments are branded device shipments and exclude OEM sales for all vendors.
• The “Vendor” represents the current parent company (or holding company) for all brands owned and operated as subsidiary. For example, BBK is the parent company of Chinese brand XTC.
• This table represents a combination of both basic and smart wearables.
Source: International Data Corporation
MacDailyNews Take: Mixing Apple Watches that start at $349 with fitness bands that you can get for under $20 (Xiaomi Mi Band) is a goofy way to measure unit share, but, of course, if IDC measured anything correctly, we’d probably have a collective stroke. Not to mention that if IDC simply looked at smartwatches, it’d show Apple’s utter dominance, so they don’t.
Lies, lies, lies…..
First, Apple doesn’t provide “sales” figures for the Apple Watches. Plus we are back to the “shipped vs sales” crap.
So should we all guess who paid IDC for this report? Much easier to guess who didn’t.
Next they will be telling us MS will control the wearable market by 2017. haha
IDC = It Don’t Count because It cant differentiate shit from Shinola
That’s only about $2.5 billion revenue for Apple. We know that’s not going to move any needle and there will be disappointment all around on Wall Street.
Idiots. Dumbass. Cretins.
In a related story, IDC estimated that Microsoft’s soon to be conceptualized Really Smart Watch, will sell 20 million units, when Microsoft designer, Ivy Johns, thinks it up.
Funny how they consider Windows Tablets as a different category to Apple and Android Tablets yet they consider fitness devices to be in the same category as Smart watches. Yes you can see their motivations aren’t exactly strictly driven by objectivity can’t you.
Why isn’t there anybody to publish market share statistics that use revenue instead of units? In smart watches, phones, tablets, and computers? Perhaps Apple could hire a reputable firm to do this? IDC not only uses unit sales, but every year it switches the definitions of a unit laptop, or mobile device, or music player, or smart phone, in order to cast Apple in a bad light.