Apple Watch Sales Have Dropped 90% Since Opening Week

omega 616

New member
May 1, 2009
5,883
0
0
To me the initial sales are to the rabid fanbase, anything with an apple on it and they buy it ... no, they que up for two weeks to buy it. Now that all the frothing mouths have been sated, the normal people are picking it up in a casual manner.

Thing is, casual people don't really give a fuck for various reasons, such as expense or don't see the appeal.
 

pearcinator

New member
Apr 8, 2009
1,212
0
0
Who the fuck needs an Apple watch? I've been wearing my iPod Nano 6th gen for about 4 years now.



Looks fine, works fine, plays music, has different watch faces, has fitness tracking, I mean really. What more do you need?

Seems Apple got wind of people wearing it like a watch so the 7th gen changed all that. (6th Gen on left, 7th Gen on right)



Yeah, try wearing that on your wrist. This is why I don't like Apple, they pull shit like this all the time. The new iPods have been less convenient than the 6th gen. They advertise the new Nano saying it's the thinnest iPod (who cares about thickness?) at 5.4mm thick. By comparison the 6th gen Nano is 6mm thick...HOLY FUCKING SHIT GOTTA GET ME THE NEW ONE!
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
As someone who actually prefers lugging large devices that you can actually see the bloody screen on, I can't say I'm shocked.

Apple watches just seem completely pointless to me and my fat fingers.

I will say, though, that's it's really flipping annoying working at a tech shop with droves of people coming in and asking for Apple watches. We DON'T SELL THEM, PEOPLE. Only the Apple store is godly enough to sell such technology, but while you're here, why don't you buy one of five other,cheaper smartwatches that we do sell...? (This may be one reason the Apple watch isn't selling as perfectly as one might expect.)
 

synobal

New member
Jun 8, 2011
2,189
0
0
I've got a fitbit and honestly I'm not really sure I need it. it's great for my runs but honestly I don't use most it's features. The only reason I recommend it to people is it's alarm feature. It makes the watch vibrate on my wrist when it reaches my alarm time. This alone is the single greatest feature of the fitbit. I no longer have to wake up to an alarm clock which instantly ruins my day and makes me grumpy. Instead I wake up to a slight vibration on my wrist. It is amazing.
 

Albino Boo

New member
Jun 14, 2010
4,667
0
0
Apple have always relied on the brand to make the sale. People want to be seen with an Ipad or Macbook. The problem with the smart watch it that they are up against brands that people want to be seen more with. They are up against established brands with widespread cache. You look around offices or on in first class on the train, you will find Ipad and macbooks but also rolexes. 30k will buy a Patek Philippe watch that will not only hold its value but will go up above inflation and has more social cache than Apple.
 

Drops a Sweet Katana

Folded 1000x for her pleasure
May 27, 2009
897
0
0
Not surprising considering it's less functional and practical than a smartphone, and looks worse than most conventional watches. It definitely feels like Apple trying to see how much they could away with on brand alone. Not very it would appear.
 

Shoggoth2588

New member
Aug 31, 2009
10,250
0
0
...Didn't Apple and their iPhone kill the watch? If not the iPhone than smart phones in general, didn't they kill the idea of using a wrist-watch when smart devices do almost literally everything else? The whole concept of a smartwatch just struck me as weird...it's like someone exhuming the corpse of something they killed and trying to revive it...Like if Microsoft and Sony were to announce a bunch of Arcade Exclusives...

Oh well...I don't own one, I don't plan to own one...looks like another piece of tech to be added into the same box as the Kinect and Google Glass.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
I like how the watch has failed and they brush it away with a "it was just an experiment...meh". No it wasnt. They wanted to make money from it, from all the fanboys with more money than sense.
 

Trippy Turtle

New member
May 10, 2010
2,117
0
0
You have to charge yours every 12 hours?
I haven't had to charge mine once since I got it.
And according to my watch its already been 12 hours since I got it a few weeks ago.

Now after attempting to make that joke work and failing... I'd just like to say I called it.
I argued with dad about how useless these are going to be. Its not classy enough to be used as a watch, which lets face it, aren't made to tell the time with. And its too limited to be used as a phone. I don't really care if it can control my phone from my wrist, or unlock my car or something. Until it makes me socially awkward not to have one I'm staying away.
 

Steve the Pocket

New member
Mar 30, 2009
1,649
0
0
chikusho said:
Yeah, this isn't really accurate.

First off, the data used to make these calculations are suspicious at best. Apple hasn't gone out with any numbers this quarter, and Slice collects data from people who freely provide them with information on their purchases.

Secondly, 1.5 million watches sold in one week is more than the closest competitor sells in an entire year, for a product that's much more expensive. That's not a failure, that's knocking it out of the park.
Not compared to any of the other electronic gizmos Apple makes, though. They had built this up as if it were the Next Big Thing (because they always do), and if anything, the fact that so few people had been interested in other brands of smartwatches just further drives home the point that these things aren't really catching on in general.

Maybe if Apple were able to develop a thing that converts people's arm movements into energy, like how those self-winding watches work crossed with the dynamos in hand-crank flashlights, then maybe they could make a smartwatch that almost never needs recharging and then they'd have something. It really seems like the sort of crazy thing Apple would do. But then, if they could do that, they could also put them in iPhones and iPods too and then the Apple Watch is back to being useless.

albino boo said:
Apple have always relied on the brand to make the sale. People want to be seen with an Ipad or Macbook. The problem with the smart watch it that they are up against brands that people want to be seen more with. They are up against established brands with widespread cache. You look around offices or on in first class on the train, you will find Ipad and macbooks but also rolexes. 30k will buy a Patek Philippe watch that will not only hold its value but will go up above inflation and has more social cache than Apple.
This is more or less what I said when these were first announced: Apple relies on a chunk of its market buying their brand just as a status symbol (especially when the product itself is unimpressive, see also the first gen MacBook Air), but then they tried it in a market where they're competing with other status symbols, and far more established and successful ones at that. Oops!
 

0hnoes

The Magic Man!
May 18, 2015
18
0
0
Pretty simple choice for me. Once it allows video calls, then I might be up for one. Maaaaybe.
 

chikusho

New member
Jun 14, 2011
873
0
0
Steve the Pocket said:
chikusho said:
Yeah, this isn't really accurate.

First off, the data used to make these calculations are suspicious at best. Apple hasn't gone out with any numbers this quarter, and Slice collects data from people who freely provide them with information on their purchases.

Secondly, 1.5 million watches sold in one week is more than the closest competitor sells in an entire year, for a product that's much more expensive. That's not a failure, that's knocking it out of the park.
Not compared to any of the other electronic gizmos Apple makes, though. They had built this up as if it were the Next Big Thing (because they always do), and if anything, the fact that so few people had been interested in other brands of smartwatches just further drives home the point that these things aren't really catching on in general.

Maybe if Apple were able to develop a thing that converts people's arm movements into energy, like how those self-winding watches work crossed with the dynamos in hand-crank flashlights, then maybe they could make a smartwatch that almost never needs recharging and then they'd have something. It really seems like the sort of crazy thing Apple would do. But then, if they could do that, they could also put them in iPhones and iPods too and then the Apple Watch is back to being useless.
Not really. Creating a new product that dominates its market and knocks out all competitors makes it "the next big thing" for that market.
 

Major_Tom

Anticitizen
Jun 29, 2008
799
0
0
To be fair, I need to "charge" my watch every day, too. Oh wait, I don't need electricity for that.
 

Guitarmasterx7

Day Pig
Mar 16, 2009
3,872
0
0
Maybe if the fucking things didn't cost almost as much as a new smartphone they would have better sales. Drop the price tag down to 150 bucks and I guarantee almost EVERYONE with an iphone would have one. The price point is way too high for what it does. That said, I've wanted a cool future wrist gadget since I was like 5 so I want one, but hopefully the shitty sales will force a price drop.
 

Redlin5_v1legacy

Better Red than Dead
Aug 5, 2009
48,837
0
0

So you're telling me Apple's attempt to revitalize the 'Calculator watch' era failed? You will find me not at all bothered.
 

Kajin

This Title Will Be Gone Soon
Apr 13, 2008
1,016
0
0
Smart watches are great for people who need to take a lot of calls but also always have their hands full. It's about the only demographic that would want or even need one. Not surprised about the ninety percent drop.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
As I think it was Edge said, it's an auxiliary screen- for your auxiliary screen.

I won't deny that a few of its features sound kind of cool. But even if the battery doubled in efficiency, it's one more thing to plug in... And watches are something a lot of people have happily replaced with cell phones in the first place.
 

WhiteTigerShiro

New member
Sep 26, 2008
2,366
0
0
circularlogic88 said:
WhiteTigerShiro said:
circularlogic88 said:
Why have a smart watch when you have a smart phone? If it's for the pulse tracker, then why not just get a fitbit? It just doesn't make any sense to me.
Either you want one or you don't. I could sit here and list some of the things that I do with my watch, but I already know that your response will be that you can do all that just fine with the phone. It's a convenience if you want it, and frankly I love my smart watch.
So, you're going to be dismissive about the practicality of a device that you and a large majority of 1st world countries already own to defend the legitimacy of another luxury device that has less functionality, relies heavily upon syncing up with said device you already own and has pricing that starts at the same level of a base entry device you already own? And you're not going to list off the benefits because you're assuming I'm the one being dismissive? You said, either I want one or I don't. I want a reason to want one apart from saying that I have one when it does nothing that products released before it have already come out and are cheaper. And that steep drop off in purchases echos my sentiments.
Nice use of the Pronoun Game. You can just say "Smart Phones" and "Smart Watches", you know. And please explain where I was being dismissive about the practicality of smart phones, because even after re-reading my post, I don't see it.

And I stand by my statement. Either you want one or you don't. You very clearly don't want one, as evidenced by the reasons to own one being out there, yet you're still demanding to hear a reason to own one. It'd be like me saying that no one can list a reason to watch a movie I don't like. The reasons are there, they're just reasons that don't appeal to me. As for the smart watch, it's a supplement to things I can do with my phone without needing to dig-out my phone. Frankly, I think it's amazing that we live in a world where spending $500+ on a watch that does nothing but tell time (oh but that brand name!) is perfectly reasonable, but spending a few hundred on a watch that has several functionalities in addition to telling time is apparently bat-shit insanity.