or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › NPD: iPad cannibalization of PC market has slowed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NPD: iPad cannibalization of PC market has slowed

post #1 of 42
Thread Starter 
A new report from market research firm NPD claims that the iPad's cannibalization of the PC market has slowed, as new purchasers of the device are less likely to have forgone a PC purchase than were early adopters.

NPD revealed its findings in a press release entitled "Consumer PC Market May Be Weak But It Isn't Because of the iPad" earlier this week. According to the group's Apple iPad Owner Study II report, 12 percent of iPad owners abandoned a PC purchase over the recent holiday season, compared to 14 percent of iPad users who had owned the device for six months or more.

It should be noted, however, that the group's survey does not appear to take into account the recent launch of the iPad 2. Though the online survey was completed in March of this year, many of the sales figures relate to the fourth quarter of 2010.

Cannibalization of netbooks, which were largely seen as having been hit the hardest by the growth in iPad sales, is down by 50 percent among recent iPad buyers, when compared to early adopters, the report noted. A separate study by NPD found the under $500 segment of the Windows consumer notebook market grew by 21 percent between September 2010 and March 2011, making it the largest segment of the consumer notebook market.

"The explosion of computer sales when Windows 7 launched, as well as the huge increase in netbook sales at that time, are much more to blame for weak consumer PC sales growth than the iPad," said NPD vice president of industry analysis Stephen Baker. "Overall it appears that the vast majority of iPad purchases to-date have been incremental to the consumer technology industry."

After U.S. PC sales contracted by 10.7 percent in the first quarter of 2011, analysts were quick to ascribe the decline to the 'iPad effect.' Last month, Morgan Stanley analyst Katy Huberty revised her 2011 PC shipment estimates downward with predictions of a tablet cannibalization rate of 29 percent in 2011.

NPD found that 75 percent of consumers who purchased an iPad "had no intentions of buying anything else," likely resulting in the addition of "billions of dollars to the industry's coffers" after declining Average Sales Prices had drained the market for years. The iPad has also driven accessory revenues, as 83 percent of iPad owners reported having purchased an accessory for their iPad.

According to the report, expanded distribution of the iPad in the fourth quarter of 2010 had little impact on sales shares, as Best Buy and Apple made up 75 percent of sales of the device during the period. On the other hand, carriers appeared to struggle, comprising just 3 percent of iPad sales due to "consumers' indifference to 3G connectivity."

"Consumers just do not see the utility in 3G connectivity," said Baker. "There's an added expense for the device and for the service, something a majority of iPad owners aren't willing to pay. Since most iPads rarely venture away from home the value of a 3G connection is likely to diminish, especially as other tablets enter the market and pricing starts to fall. When every penny counts, features that aren't core to the user becoming increasingly marginalized as manufacturers fight for every sale."

NPD's findings on distribution run counter to an earlier assertion by Baker that expanded distribution of the iPad 2 is key to Apple's success. In a post to the company's official blog in early March, Baker wrote that "Apple's distribution clearly needs to expand into more regional CE outlets and test more alternative distribution opportunities like department and home stores."

Last year, NPD revealed that early adopters of the iPad were more satisfied with the device than other customers.
post #2 of 42
In other words, it's your own damn fault Netbook sales suck!

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #3 of 42
Here we go again with this word "cannibalize".

Have at it, guys...
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #4 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Here we go again with this word "cannibalize".

Have at it, guys...

+1

you beat me to it.
post #5 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Here we go again with this word "cannibalize".

Have at it, guys...

Cannibalize is a perfectly fine word... It means to "cut into" or "reduce" as well as eating flesh.
post #6 of 42
NPD report translation:

"People stopped buying our last report which was no more than speculation, so we'll write a new one which is also pure speculation. We're sure to get a few suckers to pay up."
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #7 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobodyy View Post

Cannibalize is a perfectly fine word... It means to "cut into" or "reduce" as well as eating flesh.

Let's see:

I'll cannibalize this steak. Then I'll cannibalize a banana. Then watch some TV, but not too much, because that's been cannibalizing my reading time.

No good. The article's use of the word is sloppy. iPads eat into PC sales; they don't "cannibalize" PC sales.

But that's all a tangent. Back to the story
post #8 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac'em X View Post

Let's see:

I'll cannibalize this steak. Then I'll cannibalize a banana. Then watch some TV, but not too much, because that's been cannibalizing my reading time.

No good. The article's use of the word is sloppy. iPads eat into PC sales; they don't "cannibalize" PC sales.

But that's all a tangent. Back to the story

Control click the word. Cannibalize means to eat own own kind. Its not sloppy writing - just wrong.
Car purchases didn't canniablize horse and cart purchases; just replaced them.
___
John
Reply
___
John
Reply
post #9 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Here we go again with this word "cannibalize".

Have at it, guys...

Ahh...

The old cannibal song:

"Last night, I passed you on the street..."
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #10 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobodyy View Post

Cannibalize is a perfectly fine word... It means to "cut into" or "reduce" as well as eating flesh.

Just to help you out...

From Wiki:

"In marketing strategy, cannibalization refers to a reduction in sales volume, sales revenue, or market share of one product as a result of the introduction of a new product by the same producer."


... by the same producer. Wiki even gives an example... Diet Coke/original Coke

Regarding actual cannibalization... the iPad must be a bit of a dilemma for Apple. Too many features and it could cannibalize Mac Book and iMac sales... too few features and it could grow stale and lose momentum. What to do, what to do...

It must always be remembered that iPad is only on its 2nd iteration and just over a year old. I'm sure that Steve J would just love to have a pen sized computer that generates a fully functional touch holographic image.

I can hardly wait to see what iPad 3 brings to the table.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #11 of 42
iPad is just a fad.
post #12 of 42
deleted
post #13 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac'em X View Post

Let's see:

I'll cannibalize this steak. Then I'll cannibalize a banana. Then watch some TV, but not too much, because that's been cannibalizing my reading time.

No good. The article's use of the word is sloppy. iPads eat into PC sales; they don't "cannibalize" PC sales.

But that's all a tangent. Back to the story

If you are stumbling over an industry appropriating a word and using it contrary to the word's strict definition, where were you guys at when the industry forced "run" on us years ago.

Oh how the world was nearly destroyed when all the home hobbyists finished typing in the "basic" program they found in 'Byte' magazine and then horrible of horribles typed the word "run" to make the program work.

Where were the legions of grammar police as they instructed their computers to:

--- snip from built-in Mac OSX dictionary ---
run |rən|
verb ( running ; past ran |ran|; past part. run )
1 [ intrans. ] move at a speed faster than a walk, never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time : the dog ran across the road | she ran the last few yards, breathing heavily | he hasn't paid for his drinksrun and catch him.
run as a sport or for exercise : I run every morning.
(of an athlete or a racehorse) compete in a race : she ran in the 200 meters. | [ trans. ] Dave has run 42 marathons.
[ trans. ] enter (a racehorse) for a race.
Baseball (of a batter or base runner) attempt to advance to the next base.
(of hounds) chase or hunt their quarry.
(of a boat) sail directly before the wind, esp. in bad weather.
(of a migratory fish) go upriver from the sea in order to spawn.
2 [ intrans. ] move about in a hurried and hectic way : I've spent the whole day running around after the kids.
( run to) have rapid recourse to (someone) for support or help : don't come running to me for a handout.
3 pass or cause to pass quickly or smoothly in a particular direction : [ intrans. ] the rumor ran through the pack of photographers | [ trans. ] Helen ran her fingers through her hair.
move or cause to move somewhere forcefully or with a particular result : [ intrans. ] the tanker ran aground off the Aleutian Islands | [ trans. ] a woman ran a stroller into the back of my legs.
[ trans. ] informal fail to stop at (a red traffic light).
[ trans. ] navigate (rapids or a waterfall) in a boat.
extend or cause to extend in a particular direction : [ intrans. ] cobbled streets run down to a tiny harbor | [ trans. ] he ran a wire under the carpet.

--- end of snip ---
post #14 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh View Post

Oh how the world was nearly destroyed when all the home hobbyists finished typing in the "basic" program they found in 'Byte' magazine and then horrible of horribles typed the word "run" to make the program work.

The Byte is a larger set of bits hence it's relevant and not inappropriate use of the English language. The BASIC language stood for Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code. You type run to send a set of commands through an interpreter which then processed those commands line by line. So it in this case it's perfect sense to use the word run.

Your example fail.
post #15 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by tania View Post

The Byte is a larger set of bits hence it's relevant and not inappropriate use of the English language. The BASIC language stood for Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code. You type run to send a set of commands through an interpreter which then processed those commands line by line. So it in this case it's perfect sense to use the word run.

Your example fail.

How did you incorrectly infer that I did not understand what a byte is vs. the proper name of a publication, or what the acronym "BASIC" means? I am sorry that went so far over your head. I was simply referring to a joyous time in my youth in the late 70's of my pouring over the pages of "Byte" magazine and spending hours faithfully typing in the lines of code on my TRS 80 model III, typing "run" followed by hours looking for my syntax errors where I had incorrectly typed the code.

My example perfectly illustrates how a word has been appropriated and has had the definition expanded.



Your own answer provides the proof:
Quote:
"a set of commands through an interpreter which then processed those commands"

The word "process" or "execute" would have been a much better choice of a command name as they closely match the common use definition.


Quote:
So it in this case it's perfect sense to use the word run

After 40 plus years of being used this way the word "run" might seem to you to make perfect sense, but still the dictionary's definition of "run" does not prove your point.
post #16 of 42
12% vs 14%

Difference can be easily explained by:
1 - noise (data is imprecise) +
2- Holiday season - buying gift for someone else so did not forego a computer

They never would have shelled out the bucks for a full computer (besides, she just got a new one) but an iPad made a great gift.

Plausable explanation in any case. We will see what the future brings.
post #17 of 42
Do all of these "cannibalization" reports take into account the fact that the American, British, Irish, Icelandic, Japanese, Portugese, Spanish and Greek economies are in the shitter right now?

Uh, didn't think so...

The iPad is aimed squarely at upper-middle class and above. I'd say most iPad owners also own Macs and iPods, and probably also iPhones. That's a segment that has done relatively okay in the economic downturn, while the kind of people who buy netbooks have been hit the worst. Hence, you might see a reduction in overall PC sales, while the iPad bucks the trend due to its newness, trendiness and target audience.

Again, I'd say 99.999% of iPad owners also own PCs, so saying that iPad sales are "cannibalizing" PCs is like saying the iPhone and iPod touch is doing the same...
post #18 of 42
Have to admit that for the 2nd time in receint memory, I have recommended an iPad to a friend that just surfs, checks emails, and does a few minor word processing tasks. at 499, it's a better PC than most PC's for some of my less technical friends.
post #19 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbonner View Post

Have to admit that for the 2nd time in receint memory, I have recommended an iPad to a friend that just surfs, checks emails, and does a few minor word processing tasks. at 499, it's a better PC than most PC's for some of my less technical friends.

If those were his only needs you could have recommended a NookColor. At half the price of an iPad, $249 it would have filled the needs just as well.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #20 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Just to help you out...

From Wiki:

"In marketing strategy, cannibalization refers to a reduction in sales volume, sales revenue, or market share of one product as a result of the introduction of a new product by the same producer."


... by the same producer. Wiki even gives an example... Diet Coke/original Coke

Regarding actual cannibalization... the iPad must be a bit of a dilemma for Apple. Too many features and it could cannibalize Mac Book and iMac sales... too few features and it could grow stale and lose momentum. What to do, what to do...

It must always be remembered that iPad is only on its 2nd iteration and just over a year old. I'm sure that Steve J would just love to have a pen sized computer that generates a fully functional touch holographic image.

I can hardly wait to see what iPad 3 brings to the table.

I totally agree.

Regarding Apple on this, IMHO the very success Apple enjoys is in part due to willingness to risk cannibalization of their own products. They always anticipate this well in advance and adapt. I suspect as iPads evolve into ever more powerful products we will indeed see a change in other products to compensate and evolve too. As the most innovative company on the planet this is in their very DNA. On the other hand, companies that are simply churning out cheap copies / clones have no where to turn and avoid cannibalization. Hence their inertia keeps them heading towards the cliff.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #21 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

Do all of these "cannibalization" reports take into account the fact that the American, British, Irish, Icelandic, Japanese, Portugese, Spanish and Greek economies are in the shitter right now?

Uh, didn't think so...

The iPad is aimed squarely at upper-middle class and above. I'd say most iPad owners also own Macs and iPods, and probably also iPhones. That's a segment that has done relatively okay in the economic downturn, while the kind of people who buy netbooks have been hit the worst. Hence, you might see a reduction in overall PC sales, while the iPad bucks the trend due to its newness, trendiness and target audience.

Again, I'd say 99.999% of iPad owners also own PCs, so saying that iPad sales are "cannibalizing" PCs is like saying the iPhone and iPod touch is doing the same...

Off topic kind of but ... Given your opening statement is a little suspect I'm not sure your extrapolations are too accurate either. Depending on which set of data you use, the entire Eurozone's GDP is rough the same as the USA's I don't think you can lump them in all together as being in the same 'shitter'. There are States within the US with larger economies than many of the countries you mention. Does this prove anything? ... No but nor does your above rambling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

If those were his only needs you could have recommended a NookColor. At half the price of an iPad, $249 it would have filled the needs just as well.

I know you were jesting ... but to have fun, I challenge the term 'just as well'. Price isn't everything, a pad of paper, pen and a calculator would be even cheaper!

However, include the enjoyment, simplicity, power, speed, cost of apps, intuitive futuristic interface the iPad is so superior to a NookColor (and as you infer) Usefulness, the decision has to be a no brainer.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #22 of 42
This whole PC-iPad thing is overblown. PC sales went down during the recession (especially since the average PC buyer is less well-heeled than the average Mac buyer), a period in which the iPad was introduced.

Now, with the recession over, PC sales are back on trend.

This is association, not causation.
post #23 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

This whole PC-iPad thing is overblown. PC sales went down during the recession (especially since the average PC buyer is less well-heeled than the average Mac buyer), a period in which the iPad was introduced.

Now, with the recession over, PC sales are back on trend.

This is association, not causation.

Only anecdotally I admit, but I personally know literally dozens of folks that bought iPads and will not be replacing their PC or having them 'fixed' in many cases. These are people with no previous Apple product in many cases or at best an iPod.

When faced with the annual ritual of paying a fortune to get a PC working at full speed again or the usual option of buying a new one, many are saying 'to hell with it' and going iPad.

The observation I have in these cases (casual users) is the immediate 'love' they have for the iPad, a far cry from the absolute frustration they had for their PC, and the instant conversion to becoming an Apple evangelist.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #24 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

When faced with the annual ritual of paying a fortune to get a PC working at full speed again or the usual option of buying a new one, many are saying 'to hell with it' and going iPad.

Annual ritual? Paying a fortune? What on earth are you on about?
post #25 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I know you were jesting ... but to have fun, I challenge the term 'just as well'. Price isn't everything, a pad of paper, pen and a calculator would be even cheaper!

However, include the enjoyment, simplicity, power, speed, cost of apps, intuitive futuristic interface the iPad is so superior to a NookColor (and as you infer) Usefulness, the decision has to be a no brainer.

For the stated needs, it really would serve the same purpose. It includes an easy to set-up email client, basic office suite, PDF reader, web-browser, same IPS screen as an iPad, same general hardware specs as the iPad from just three months ago. And it's extremely easy to use. My computer-phobic wife has no issues with figuring out her Mother's Day present. Very intuitive.

And yes, I was pretty surprised at how useful a $250 tablet is.

For those that don't plan to use it for hours a day a a gaming machine or photo-editor, IMHO it's a good option. I know a lot of folks who seldom if ever do more than check email, do a bit of web browsing, catch up on news articles, and read on their computers or laptops. A $250 Nook will do all that just as well (if they can do without a keyboard). A $500 iPad wouldn't fill their needs any better in my view.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

1. For those that don't plan to use it for hours a day a a gaming machine or photo-editor, IMHO it's a good option. I know a lot of folks who seldom if ever do more than 2. check email, do a bit of web browsing, catch up on news articles, and read on their computers or laptops. A $250 Nook will do all that just as well (if they can do without a keyboard). A $500 iPad wouldn't fill their needs any better in my view.

My Wife fit scenario 2 to a T but I still bought her an iPad so that she would have the ability to grow with the machine if needed... and I'm glad I did because she does do a bit of scenario 1 and a lot more.

In other words... if you want to stay limited... buy the Nook.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #27 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

The iPad is aimed squarely at upper-middle class and above. I'd say most iPad owners also own Macs and iPods, and probably also iPhones. That's a segment that has done relatively okay in the economic downturn, while the kind of people who buy netbooks have been hit the worst. Hence, you might see a reduction in overall PC sales, while the iPad bucks the trend due to its newness, trendiness and target audience.

Again, I'd say 99.999% of iPad owners also own PCs, so saying that iPad sales are "cannibalizing" PCs is like saying the iPhone and iPod touch is doing the same...

WTF??!! "aimed squarely at upper-middle class and above"

That's just too stupid a statement to bother with a more detailed answer.

... unless you're starting your income baseline at the world's homeless and most destitute geographic regions.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #28 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

My Wife fit scenario 2 to a T but I still bought her an iPad so that she would have the ability to grow with the machine if needed... and I'm glad I did because she does do a bit of scenario 1 and a lot more.

In other words... if you want to stay limited... buy the Nook.

Yes, it's certainly conceivable that using her Nook for awhile will give my wife enough confidence to branch out a bit. And if so, there might be an iPad in her future too.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #29 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh View Post

How did you incorrectly infer that I did not understand what a byte is vs. the proper name of a publication, or what the acronym "BASIC" means? I am sorry that went so far over your head. I was simply referring to a joyous time in my youth in the late 70's of my pouring over the pages of "Byte" magazine and spending hours faithfully typing in the lines of code on my TRS 80 model III, typing "run" followed by hours looking for my syntax errors where I had incorrectly typed the code.

My example perfectly illustrates how a word has been appropriated and has had the definition expanded.



Your own answer provides the proof:

The word "process" or "execute" would have been a much better choice of a command name as they closely match the common use definition.


After 40 plus years of being used this way the word "run" might seem to you to make perfect sense, but still the dictionary's definition of "run" does not prove your point.

"run" has not been appropriately incorrectly. If you revisit your definition stack above you will see in:

Quote:
3 pass or cause to pass quickly or smoothly in a particular direction

Since "run" in the command sense is in fact being used as an imperative (as in directing the OS to sequence the steps of the program), its falls nicely into proper usage. But thanks for giving me a new poster child for errant pedantry!

Cannibalization as used in the article (and widely and erroneously by commentators and blogists) is not correct in very fundamental ways, unless and only unless you are referring to the entire category of computational devices as a whole. Since it has specific references within marketing usage that reflects self-inflicted damage by a manufacturer, the use is very appropriate in that case but not across manufacturers. But then to expect bloggers or pundits to be accurate is begging the question.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #30 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urinal Mint View Post

Annual ritual? Paying a fortune? What on earth are you on about?

I have a neighbor who, when her laptop gets sluggish or stops working, simply goes out and buys another one. This has been on average every 18 months or so, at $2000 (she buys Sony lappies) each time. I suggested that a little bit of work on her existing lappy would clean up her issues, but she demurred - she'd rather just have the newest fastest laptop anyway.

To my mind while not a yearly ritual for her - it comes bloody close, especially paying out $2000 each time.

As PCs become commoditized this is not usual behavior. A result of the "race to the bottom".
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #31 of 42
There is a good chance that many iPad buyers are no longer interested in netbooks, which truly was a "fad" for the last few years. Since "NPD found that 75 percent of consumers who purchased an iPad "had no intentions of buying anything else...."" I would suspect that buyers no longer even have netbooks on their possible consideration, while a year ago, iPad buyers had once considered buyer a netbook, but elected to go with the iPad instead. It just means that buyers have their minds made up, and didn't need to even consider a laptop, netbook or desktop, and are comfortable in purchasing the iPad. If the iPad had not been invented a year ago, those buyers would likely be looking at netbooks today. It is difficult to cannibalize something when there are only a few meatless bones left lying around that nobody wants.
post #32 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie John View Post

Control click the word. Cannibalize means to eat own own kind. Its not sloppy writing - just wrong.
.

You mean, like consumer-oriented computing devices being cannibalized by a consumer electronics company?
People need to get off the grammar police horse around here. We all know what "cannibalize" means in this context. Get over it.
post #33 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

WTF??!! "aimed squarely at upper-middle class and above"

That's just too stupid a statement to bother with a more detailed answer.

... unless you're starting your income baseline at the world's homeless and most destitute geographic regions.

Right, you know a lot of minimum wagers with iPads, I take it? Also a lot of people who have been foreclosed on who waited in line for one? Blue-collar workers?
post #34 of 42
Wasn't NPD the outfit in the previous reports telling us that iPads didn't affect netbook sales at all? Now they're telling us that they're affecting netbooks less than they were. Is there a disconnect here?
post #35 of 42
Cannibalization slowed cause Apple can't build enough iPads. SImple as that.
Just wait next quarter numbers or 2011 numbers and it will prove that it didn't slowed at all.
post #36 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

Right, you know a lot of minimum wagers with iPads, I take it? Also a lot of people who have been foreclosed on who waited in line for one? Blue-collar workers?

As a matter of fact, yes, I do.

... but your statement started at "upper-middle"... or are you changing the goal line?!

The vast majority of people that I know that have iPads are lower middle and middle income people. I actually don't know that many upper-middle or upper income folks.

or do you just ignore the lower-middle and middle income strata...
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #37 of 42
deleted
post #38 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Since cannibalization is by definition a matter of percentages rather than absolute quantities, it would seem so.

Besides, the economy was worse off when AI reported that the iPad was beginning to cannibalize netbook sales - where is your post from that period calling those numbers into question?

In the shitter...
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #39 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

As a matter of fact, yes, I do.

... but your statement started at "upper-middle"... or are you changing the goal line?!

The vast majority of people that I know that have iPads are lower middle and middle income people. I actually don't know that many upper-middle or upper income folks.

or do you just ignore the lower-middle and middle income strata...

"The first Yahoo! iPad users were 94% more likely to be affluent consumers with solid wealth and strong incomes than typical U.S. Yahoo! users."

http://ymobileblog.com/blog/2010/05/...user-analysis/

"iPad, iPhone Users Trend Younger, Wealthier"

http://www.marketingcharts.com/direc...althier-13778/
post #40 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Since cannibalization is by definition a matter of percentages rather than absolute quantities, it would seem so.

Besides, the economy was worse off when AI reported that the iPad was beginning to cannibalize netbook sales - where is your post from that period calling those numbers into question?

Again, my opinion is that the idea of the iPad "cannibalizing" netbook sales is bull.

The economy was worse a couple years ago, and as always happens, people in lower income brackets had their disposable income much more severely limited than people in upper income brackets - therefore a major slowdown in Netbook sales (aimed at people with little buying power) while at the same time the iPad came out, which is geared at the people who weren't as severely affected, and was also an iconic, trendy item (more "recession-proof" than netbooks or trips to disneyland for example). This is what AI was calling "cannibalization", which was false.

Now the economy improves, netbook sales and trips to disneyland go up as the jobless rate goes down and less people are on welfare, iPad sales remain steady. All of a sudden "cannibalization" is not as severe as previously thought....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › NPD: iPad cannibalization of PC market has slowed