Strategy Analytics: Xiaomi sells more wearables than Apple or Fitbit

Strategy Analytics: Xiaomi sells more wearables than Apple or Fitbit
For the calendar second quarter that started in April and ended in June, Xiaomi took over the top spot and now is the leading seller of wearable devices on a global basis. Over the last year, Fitbit's top-ranked share of the global wearable market has plunged to 15.7% from 28.5%, a stunning 45% decline. Xiaomi now has 17.1% of the market putting it on top for the very first time. Last year at this time, Xiaomi had 15% of the wearable market.

While Fitbit is known for its fitness trackers, it is working on a smartwatch project and thus far, it has not been a success. Fitbit has had to lay off 110 employees and is in the middle of proceeding with lawsuits filed against it. Apple had a 44% increase in wearable marketshare from 9% to 13% The rest of the field, listed as "others," saw its share rise from 47.5%  to  54.2%.

Converting these market share figures into actual global sales is not too difficult. Xiaomi's leading wearable sales figure amounts to 3.7 million units sold during Q2. Fitbit had sales of 3.4 million wearable units worldwide during the second quarter, down from 5.7 million fitness trackers. And Apple sold an additional 1 million Apple Watch units from April through June as those sales figures rose from 1.8 million units to 2.8 million units. In the "others" section, sales rose to 11.7 million units from 9.5 million units during the second quarter.

According to Cliff Raskind, Director at Strategy Analytics,  Apple lost out to Xiaomi this past quarter because of a lack of presence in fitness tracking. However, Raskind says that the rumored Series 3 Apple Watch is expected to have enhanced health tracking that could put Cupertino back on top later this year.

Overall, 21.6 million wearbles were sold during the second quarter, an 8% rise from the 20 million sold during the same quarter last year.

source: StrategyAnalytics



1. Atrixboyyy

Posts: 580; Member since: Nov 03, 2011

Great job for them wearables is a hard market but going cheap will definitely help.

2. jellmoo

Posts: 2531; Member since: Oct 31, 2011

This is Apples to Oranges (no pun intended). Xiaomi wearables start at $15. Apple Watch starts at $269. Units sold is not a valuable metric for comparison.

5. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

Un;less Apple is the top weller? A wearbale is a wearbale, no matter how much they cost. GM sold millions of cars last month, we didn't ask which were luxury or SUV's. Its all selling cars. Whether they cost $10 or $100 a sell is a sell. Stop trying to distort the facts. Apple makes a Smart wearable. Samsung makes smart wearables. Fitbit makes smart wearable, and other kinds too., If all I need is a wearable to track walking and running, then I dont need a $300 smart wearable. All i need is a $25 fitness tracker. Stop being a jerk! Sounds liek you are mad because someone you like isn't on top. Units sold is units sold based on categories, not sub-categories.

8. jellmoo

Posts: 2531; Member since: Oct 31, 2011

Wow, easy there buckaroo, I don't have a horse in this race. (Hell, my wearable is a Gear S3). I'm not trying to distort facts and I have zero idea where I was being a jerk... My point is, as a metric, the comparison doesn't lead anywhere. Does saying that Ford sold more cars than Porsche tell a valuable story? Not really, as we are dealing with wildly different price points in their products. Using just a sales metric doesn't tell the whole story. We should be seeing revenue and profit as well, to give us a better indicator of what these numbers really mean.

10. k4ever

Posts: 240; Member since: Oct 08, 2014

Actually I didn't mean to +1 you. I accidentally hit the +1 trying to hit the reply button. I call BS on your reply. I think you knew exactly what you were doing by posting the (supposed) price difference between these products. Quit trying to play coy. The article is talking about market share, not profit margin. I'm pretty sure that there a couple of luxury watches that cost way more than the Apple watch (the Apple Watch is far far from a luxury watch) that are also selling well... Let's stick to the topic at hand and quit bringing up red herrings.

12. jellmoo

Posts: 2531; Member since: Oct 31, 2011

Call BS all you like, it's a valid argument whether you like it or not. I picked the prices for that specific reason, it's no great mystery. We're saying that a company sold more $15 wearables than $269 wearables. Okay... what's the point? The anti-Apple circle jerk around here can't seem to see straight as soon as Apple products are involved. I picked the expensive outlier as the best example. My bad, I'll know better than to try and use Apple as an example of anything. The point at hand is the wearable market. It's not a red herring to rightfully point out that maybe there's a flaw in a comparison, or that the metric used isn't telling the whole story. Is it too much to ask for some additional context? But no, you want to call BS on my point. Let's just ignore any and all points we don't like, cobver our ears and go "Lalalala". That'll make for great discussion.

3. PhoneCritic

Posts: 1345; Member since: Oct 05, 2011

Who are the others? If anything they seem to be doing very well - better than Xiaomi and Apple combined.

4. mudcat626

Posts: 218; Member since: Jul 13, 2016

This is very deceiving. Only Rolex sells more watches than Apple. Why do they not make a smart watch category rather than lump everything from rubber bands to cheap fitness bands that FitBit and Xiaomi make and lump them all together. Probably because that would put a big hole in the narrative that Apple Watch is a flop.......

6. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

Wearble is defined as -DEFINITION of 'Wearable Technology' Electronics that can be worn on the body, either as an accessory or as part of material used in clothing. One of the major features of wearable technology is its ability to connect to the Internet, enabling data to be exchanged between a network and the device. Which means Rolex wouldn't be counted unless they make such a device. Price ranges do not dictate what it is. A smartphone is a smartphone whether its cost $50 or $1000. Its a smartphone because of what it does, not what it costs. Apple Watch is a wearable, just like the Gear, FitBit and others are smart-wearable devices. Cost does not dictate what they are. A car is a car even if its a small SUV. We aren't look for luxury wearable sales vs cheap ones. Its the wearable sales period! Its what it is, not what you think it should be.

7. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

Also, the Apple Watch is not a "watch". Its a smart wearble that happens to also tell time and support "watch" fucntions. Just like the Gear is not a "watch". Fitbit also doesn't make "watches" by definition. They are smart wearables that happen to tell time. Phones tell time too, should we count the iPhone as a watch? Because that is basically what you're saying.

11. k4ever

Posts: 240; Member since: Oct 08, 2014

Why should we redefine an entire category just to make one company look favorable? Where is the fairness in that?

9. therealestboy

Posts: 82; Member since: May 03, 2013

I dinr care how many were shipped. Joe many were actually sold to customers? Thats the important number.

13. mudcat626

Posts: 218; Member since: Jul 13, 2016

Lol, Techie, you are a champion at mental gymnastics. I am looking at my Apple Watch face right now. Guess what I see? THE TIME!!!!! What is the definition of a Watch? A timepiece. The Apple just does more than tell time, but by its definition it's a Watch. It must be something living in your

14. jeroome86

Posts: 2314; Member since: Apr 12, 2012

Loving my smart enough wearable made by Casio. 6 year battery life is great.

Latest Stories
