Good counter-example. The reason is leverage. FitBit had nothing to leverage, whereas Watch had iPhone, Apple's manufacturing prowess, and Apple's entire market presence. There's a part of the essay that covers the leverage piece, but the quote that most applies (and may be most controversial here on HN) is:

> "a lack of leverage is one reason why category-defining products are rarely created by brand new startups."

This idea of course is distressing to product creators. You can create great products (focused, well-executed, nails the need) that don't succeed. Business can be pretty unfair like that.

I'm probably oversimplifying, but there is some truth to the notion of Apple being as much a fashion company as they are a tech company, and smart-watches fit perfectly into that niche of fashion-tech.

FitBit was a good product, but Apple had more experience and resources available when they decided to enter the space.

Even so, I have no doubt there were other factors at play as well.

Yeah definitely! Fashion is itself a framing mechanism and a way to convey meaning, and part of any good product launch is having people understand your product the way you want it to be understood.

If one of the properties you want your product to have is being fashionable and communicate something about you, you have to both invest effort in making a product that reflects that need (through the design decisions of form & function), and gets people to understanding it through that lens (framing it through product marketing). It's a push and pull to create something fashion-forward, the product adapts to the market's needs, and the market shifts what's fashionable to include the product.

I think that's exactly what Pebble' problem was, unfortunately. It wasn't fashionable.

Also curious is the case of Pebble. Great product, priced right, small set of customers who swore by it, did one thing really really well. Now its dead.

Pebble took on enormous debt expecting their market to just keep growing. They had a great product, but they thought they had the next iPhone. They bet big, and they went bankrupt (basically the acquisition cost was just to cover the cost of debt).

https://qz.com/857412/pebble-went-from-kickstarter-to-being-...

If you bet big, you may lose and eat the dust.

If you don't, and play cautiously, your competition will eat your market and starve you. You still eat the dust.

I just don't get it.

> I just don't get it.

Nobody likes to admit it, but luck is 99% of success.

This is everywhere in life, luck is incredibly important. Everyone that is successful only see when they worked hard and were smart, not all the luck. Sure you need hard work and talent, but there are lies of people with that and no luck that fail or at least less successful.

It isn't just luck. It's knowing what markets to enter and what markets to avoid. Pebble entered a market adjacent to iPhone and where Apple was likely to move next. It wasn't Pebble's market to win, it was Apple's to lose.

It isn't just luck, far from it, but it is also luck. All the skill and determination in the world might not do you any good without some luck to come with it.

Of curse getting that skill and determination in the first place is largely luck based so there is that as well.

It was unlucky that the android watch, pebble and fitbits failed compared to apple? I don’t think so. Apple tied the whole experience together with their phone and airpods. Smart watches don’t live in a silo.

Google failed because they’re google; they don’t understand UX.

Apple didn't win because they "tied the whole experience together". Apple won because they're Apple, and an Apple watch is a status symbol. My middle schooler was adamant about upgrading his Android phone to an iPhone last year, because all the cool kids had iPhones.

You can only punch so far above your weight before reality comes crashing in. On the flip-side, if you are a huge company, this new market might not be worth the distraction (amongst your existing priorities). But if you are just the right size, with the correct competencies, gaining traction in the market will not only be attractive but will be something the company is actually capable of achieving. Of course companies grow and shrink in their capacity, so that is the luck of the timing.

It doesn't seem that complex to me – Apple has sacks of cash and is quite good at integration, especially given their existing reach. Taking on hugely powerful incumbents is almost guaranteed to fail. We only remember the handful who beat the odds. I mean to me this is a rubbish way to organise a society, but hugely powerful incumbents think it's fine, so that's what we have for now.

I still use my pebble everyday, I prefer it over new watches. Sad to see them go

> "What happened to FitBit?"

I was confused when reading this and googled market share - you're right, apparently Apple has a much larger chunk of that market than FitBit does. Either I live in an odd bubble, or the market is a lot different in New Zealand because I probably know 5 or so people with FitBits, and zero with Apple watches.

Fitbit should have iterated on their devices, making them more accurate while maintaining "host platform" neutrality. Instead, they thought they were in a position to compete against Apple and Samsung in "tiny wrist computers" and the rest of the story is history.

Fit it also had quality issues. My wife owned several and used all of them until they fell apart, which was always less than a year. They were garbage. Counterexample: I have g-shocks that have been abused for decades and are going strong.