“A new research study has determined that not only did Apple garner nearly half of the online revenue generated, but that number has grown significantly since the last holiday season, at the expense of its rivals Fitbit, Samsung, and Garmin,” Mike Wuerthele reports for AppleInsider.
“New data collected by Slice Intelligence shows Apple holding a commanding 46.6 percent of the holiday market share of wearables’ online revenue so far, up from 37 percent at the end of November 2015,” Wuerthele reports. “Apple’s main competitor in the overall space Fitbit, has fallen from 36.8 percent of the revenue, down to 31.9 percent this year.”
Wuerthele reports, “Apple’s rival in the smartphone market, Samsung, clings to fourth place, with a 4 percent share of the revenue, also down year-over year.”
Read more in the full article here.
The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. — Apple Watch
Apple Watch sales growth is ‘off the charts,” on track for the best quarter ever – December 6, 2016
Apple CEO Cook: Apple Watch sales to consumers set record in holiday week – December 6, 2016
IDC: Apple Watch sales fell 71% YOY in Q316 as Series 2 launched at end of quarter – December 5, 2016
Computerworld reviews Apple Watch Series 2: Delivers on first generation’s promise – October 21, 2016
Computerworld reviews Apple Watch Series 2: It’s time to jump in – September 27, 2016
Ars Technica reviews Apple Watch Series 2: ‘Great experience with very few hiccups’ – September 22, 2016
Mossberg reviews Apple’s watchOS 3: Quicker, easier, and more useful – September 21, 2016
CNET reviews Apple Watch Series 2: ‘The smooth wrist companion it was always meant to be’ – September 14, 2016
WSJ reviews Apple Watch Series 2: ‘Apple Watch finds its purpose in life’ – September 14, 2016
The Verge reviews Apple Watch Series 2: There’s something effortlessly cool about it – September 14, 2016
Apple Watch Series 2: Apple refocuses its smartwatch – September 12, 2016
Apple and Nike launch the perfect running partner, Apple Watch Nike+ – September 7, 2016
Well, the trolls certainly quieted down on that revelation. While there are things Apple could definitely improve on, the acrimonious advice of premature-evaluation TC-hating trolls can be summarily flushed down the sh*tter where such useless POS advice and infantile commentary belongs. (Funny thing is if that judgmental microscope were turned back on them we’d no doubt see some massive beyond the pale FAILURE that dwarf’s anyone else they’re talking about.)
I’m happy for Apple and am sure that Watch is selling well, but this article talks about REVENUE (which is great). Just keep in mind that 1 Watch = 5 Fitbits, so from a market share perspective, are a LOT more of the cheaper devices out there. Not that market share matters, but this article does NOT contradict earlier news about Watch’s market share falling…
The closest Fitbit product in comparison to the Apple Watch is the Fitbit Blaze. Its price is $200. The Apple Watch 2 is retailing for $370. The original Apple Watch can be had for $270. So, at best, 1 Watch = 1.85 Fitbits, all the way down to just 1.35 Fitbits if you use the closest comparable models.
Unlikely that in a line-up like FitBit that the highest cost version will sell equally well as the lower cost siblings. May not be as high as 1:5 but certainly not as low as 1:1.85 that you calculate. Would have been more convincing if you took the just above median price version of FitBit.
I didn’t say the “highest cost” Fitbit. I said the “comparably priced” Fitbit. You can’t compare unit sales of wildly different products such as the low end Fitbit to an Apple Watch as macman1984 did with his 1:5 sales ratio. That is not a valid measurement of any kind. I simply provided a more valid ratio.
You’re right, the Blaze is not the most expensive. I think that honor goes to the FitBit Surge, $249 at Amazon. However I believe you narrowing down the comparison to a single FitBit product to calculate your ratio (and a higher end one at that, 2nd in price to the Surge) is skewing your ratio lower than would be shown through actual sales. You are correct that comparing the sales of wildly different products such as the Apple watch to the Fitbit would normally not be a valid measurement for feature/cost basis. But as the source document this article is based on compares revenue from wearables in general I stand by my reasoning of selecting a median Fitbit price to calculate a ‘valid’ ratio between Apple Watch and Fitbit products.
MacMan, based on your analysis you are mathematically an unfit bit! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
Money makes a market, not units. For this reason, money share — not unit share — is the only pertinent measure of business success. It is so easy easy a 6th grader would understand it. Someone find Wall Street analysts, tech pundits, and Apple haters some 6th graders to explain it to them.
Amusing that the email link to this article was more broad “Apple dominates online holiday revenue share” than the actual title “Apple WATCH dominates online holiday revenue share”. Though even that is broader than the title of the article it uses as source “New study on holiday WEARABLES sales gives Apple Watch dominant revenue lead”. Best layering of click-bait I’ve seen recently. Like a game of ‘telephone’.