Kindle Fire shipments drop sharply as Apple's iPad takes 68% tablet share - Page 2

As soon as I saw that Amazon's profit margin was up in the latest quarter I started wondering if Fire sales had collapsed. [edit for clarification-- because the Fire is not profitable, lower sales mean higher profit margins, at least in the short term]

 

Makes me think of the SNL jab against Fire --- popular among parents who always buy the wrong thing. 

 

Hey! That's not fair to Gatorguy! You know that the only thing that would put him into a coma is if Samsung actually came out and said that its smartphone figures were shipped, not sold.

 

(where are the rest of those damn emoticons?!)

Like SteveJack over at MDN says:

 

Consumers don't want fake iPads. 

 

We needed Ellison to confirm an obvious fact?

It must suck for you that the facts continually have a Pro-Apple bias. 

 

Start backing the right horse and all that envy and frustration will disappear. 

As stated earlier, the methodology is questionable because they really don't define the market and each surveyor is free to use a different definition. I just came across an article which explains another reason why these results are not valid - they do not use a representative sample:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/02/winning-in-neither-name-nor-spirit/

This article is about phones, but it applies equally well to surveys like these. If Samsung were selling as many millions of tablets as these analysts suggest, don't you think they'd be bragging about it?

Exactly. A cheap knockoff, which is a copy. That's what a cheap knockoff means—a cheap copy.

And like all cheap knockoffs, it not an exact copy.

If the 399$ ipad2 is already hurting the Kindle sales imagine what the ipad mini will do. I have even seen a few times a shortage of ipad2 at Best buy and the Apple store, they must be selling very well.

You should know better than to trust the articles posted on here. Some of them are decent. Others just make the dumbest mistakes.

 

I liked the black and white e-ink one, specifically for reading. I don't have any experience with the fire.

 

I think Samsung is getting Apple blueprints ahead of time for production, they copy it and beat Apple to market with it. Be carefull, the note may be a clone of the upcoming ipadmini / ipodtouchXL. (minus the pen i hope)

 

That article suggests that the whole thing is a farce (in the Shakespearean sense). I'd love to sit in that court room just for the laughs.

For example, Google's attorney said:
""They want a share of Android's profits," the attorney reportedly said."

Really? What profits? Google doesn't make anything from Android itself. Even if you look at advertising, Google makes more off iPhone advertising than Android advertising - and that's even with more competition on the iPhone side. In fact, when you consider development costs and legal costs, Google is probably losing money on Android (not even counting $12 B down the drain for Motorola Mobility).

The IDC can do all the research they want into how many Kindles were sold during the last quarter via retail stores; that's not going to help them come up with an accurate sales figure. Amazon does not release sales figures, so how does the IDC have any idea how many were sold through Amazon.com?

 

Look, I don't think that the Kindle Fire is in any way more outstanding that the IPad, but the reality is, it appeals to a niche and it supports loyalty for the Amazon brand. I own stock in AAPL and AMZN, and have been please over the past 7 years with both. 

 

A May 2, 2012 article from the Epoch Times states: 

"Coinciding with Amazon’s quarterly report, a separate report from market research firm comScore Inc. said that Amazon’s Kindle Fire tablet has a 54 percent market share among Android-based tablet computers.

We know Apple’s iPad is the market-leading tablet, but Kindle Fire has clearly taken the No. 1 title among Android-based machines.

The Kindle Fire, released last year, is far outpacing Android rivals such as Samsung Galaxy Tab with 15 percent market share, and Motorola Xoom with 7 percent.

Kindle Fire sells for $199 on Amazon, which is a lower price point than most tablets. The least expensive version of the iPad retails for $499."

This certainly seems to work against the IDC claim that Samsung has overtaken the Kindle fire as the best selling Android tablet. I am not saying that either is correct, I am just saying that neither source really has any clue how many Fire's have sold. 

My parents said they wanted a Kindle Fire and I got them a refurb for $139 and they're thrilled (they already had a wifi Kindle reader).   They tried my iPad and didn't like how large it was.  So if you want to hear from someone  that flatout wanted a Kindle Fire I can give you my parent's phone #.   

Please keep me out of your inane little comments and realize that there are those of us who like to experience devices from any number of manufactures... rather than going around like some obsessed one-brand fanatic.

And that's the problem. Each company has its own formulas, metrics, and people they talk to at whichever companies they can get people to talk to them from. They have their own set of people who take part in surveys, etc. it's difficult to know what to believe.

In addition, we keep talking about shipped vs sold numbers. When it comes to shipped, we don't hear that it includes returns from customers, or returns from retail for unsold units.

With Apple, at least we get what they consider to be sold device numbers, plus how many days or weeks in the channel, which we can get an approximate number for having been given the sold figures. But I never see that total number being used in marketshare for Apple, whereas it is what's being used elsewhere. That is, where we are even being given shipped (in the channel) numbers at all, which we haven't been given for Samsung for almost a year now.

Then, we read numbers of tablets shipped for Acer and Asus. What hasn't been broadcast was that last winter, both companies quietly sold their stock in the EU at well below normal sales prices to dump unsold stock.

Normally, when stock is sold at overstock outlets, those sales aren't included in the normal sales figures in regards to marketshare (or much of anything else), as those sales aren't considered to be "real" due to their nature. Yet, they're included in phone and tablet marketshare.

And then we get the hype for new Android products, which assumes that those products will sell well. A good example is the Asus Transformer Prime. This product has been hyped at pretty much every website I've seen it mentioned, as the latest iPad killer. But thanks to the lawsuit from Hasboro over the name, we know more exactly what these numbers are.

Some here might remember that due to the expectation that this wonderful tablet would sell so well that they might run out of stock the way Apple does, they heavily promoted a Pre-sales period.

So, how did they do? Well, according to the legal filings they had to make in the trial, they pre-sold an entire 2,000 tablets. Yup, that's 2,000. Not exactly a high flier.

And the other figures that were given is how many were ordered by retailers around the world. This is all of the retailers around the world that sell their products that wanted to sell the Prime. So what was that large number? 80,000. Again, 80,000. And remember, this is how many were ordered. In other words, how many retailers thought they could sell, not how many Asus could make, which surely could be far more than that small number.

Then, earlier last year, Lenovo states that of the over one million 7" "tablets" Samsung shipped, they only sold 20,000. Now, while its a competitor stating that, we could at least look to Samsung for some clarification, and a defense of their numbers. But we got none! Samsung didn't respond at all. Why would that be? Probably because Lenovo wasn't that far off. And then, more recently, Samsung said that their tablet sales were doing "poorly", and they are supposed to be the biggest Android tablet seller.

So how are these other tablets doing? Apparently not very well.

 

A little touchy, are we...

Not many people are going to buy a fake, piece of shit knockoff when they can simply go and get the original, which happens to be the iPad of course. It's a no brainer. Nothing even comes close.

I don't fault people from trying other brands, or buying them. I've tried out every phone and tablet I could get my hands on. At the very least, it's an interesting experience.

 

What's really weird is that in the ComScore report regarding the Kindle's android share report the Nook Tablet is considered an eBook reader.

"For the purposes of this study, Nook was classified as an e-reader and not a tablet," a ComScore spokeswoman said, referring to Barnes & Noble Nook Tablet."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57422288-92/kindle-fire-grabs-half-of-android-share-in-february/

 

 

 

I don't think a 7" iPad is a good idea.  The UI would be a little small at times for some apps designed for the iPad.

 

The refurb Kindle ($139) is cheaper than the iPod Touch ($199).  The Kindle is the same price.  Choosing between the two is a no brainer...I got the Kindle for the same things I'd use the Touch for.  It's a little weak for higher end gaming but for Fruit Ninja, Angry Birds, etc it's just fine.  Same for Netflix.

 

An 8GB 4.7" iPod Touch for $249 with a single core 45nm A5 (aka iPhone 4S rejects) would fill much of the gap between iPhone and iPad and not harm sales of either that much.  It wouldn't be retina but the UI designed for the iPhone would work just fine and it would still look pretty good.

 

$399 with LTE and GPS and it would be absolutely killer.

 

There's already data out there on customer retention when people buy their second (or third, or fourth) smartphone. Apple's customer retention rate is much higher than Android's, so what you're predicting is already happening.

 

 

Yep. That's absolutely insane - classifying the Nook as an e-reader and even the entry level Kindle as a tablet.

 

The pen part is actually nice.  I think the 10.1 Galaxy Note is one of the ways that Samsung can beat the iPad in certain niches...if they can actually get the drawing apps that artists want.

 

The rest of the Galaxy Tab line up is kinda DOA and by having so many variants it's just confusing.

 

Really? How about some evidence? I haven't seen a single report that indicates any significant number of problems with the new iPad's display. And given that the press blows up even minor issues into massive mountains, if there were any major problems, the press would be all over it.

Samsung and other Android-based manufacturers continue to be hobbled by the lack of the rich book, app, and media ecosystem that surounds Apple's iPad and Amazon's Kindle Fire. Google newly rebranded "Google Play" may help, but would still require device makers to compete according to Google's rulebook. 

 

B&N will also distribute its free Nook app through Microsoft's Windows Store, giving a Metro tablet access to a large and growing library of ebook content. And Microsoft already has plenty of Xbox Live media content warmed up, ready and waiting on the bench.

All in all, I think it's safe to say that Microsoft will be working as hard as possible to make their entry a contender, and is poised to gain ground at the expense of Android.

See http://www.iSights.org/2012/05/android-tablets-drop-the-ball-during-2012s-first-quarter.html

We get the point.  It's a CHEAP smartphone or a cheap tablet.  It boils down to being CHEAP. I think the operative word is CHEAP.

real story was that the numbers did not meet expectations in total... 17.4mill tablets total. So much for the post PC era

All these Garbage mickey mouse OS just need to die off.

 

Whose expectations?

It was a good give away gift for Xmas season for that had to give something decent and allowed them to save money for themselves ( to by the IPAD 3)

 

Don't feed the troll...don't feed the troll...aw heck.

 

In context 87M PCs were sold.  Apple sold 11.8M iPads.

 

"Canalys said that tablets make up about 19 percent of all client PC shipments."

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/hp-apple-pc-tablet,15518.html.

 

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23433412

 

So 19% share for a segment that didn't exist two years ago.  Yep, for trolls that "misses expectations".

hmm kindle fire sales dropping off, it's not as if someone colluded with publishers to raise ebook prices so their competitor could not compete anymore.

 

Don't you mean they go to the 'Walled Garden of Walmart'?

 

 

Groan!

(>_<)
Edited by GTR - 5/4/12 at 7:02am

 

You really have to combine the trolls' comments to get the real  humor. At about the same time as the post you were responding to, someone else commented in another thread that it wasn't that big of a deal when RIM went from 77% market share for government sales to under 50% in under 2 years. So going from 77% to under 50 is no big deal - when it's an Apple competitor. But going from 0 to 19% is underperforming.

I know 3 people who got kindle fires in the office. Two were from Santa Clauss and one was a Kindle Fanboi. They all took them to the office in the first couple of weeks showing them off etc. After that, I've never seen them again. People with iPads on the other hand, even ones with first gen, they bring them in all the time. Kindle fires are boring and that's the bottom line.

No doubt the Kindles are not iPads. But I believe Kindle Fires just displaced Kindle eInk devices. Although we are a 3 iPad family and have no plans to get a Fire, I am still an appreciator of the Fire.

Late to this, although I live in Silicon Valley area (many Apple supporters), I see 8-15 iPads on the train every day to/from work, but at most I've seen 5-6 Amazon Fire's since beginning of the year total. I see more Kindle's and Samsung 7" tablets than I do Fire's.

 

In all fairness, that's not really useful to try to project relative sales. The products are different enough that their use patterns are different.

For example, I would venture that the Kindle products (all of them) are more likely to be found on a family vacation - where the size is important for packing considerations and where the device is more likely to be used just for reading or maybe videos. The iPad is more likely to be used in a corporate situation where a full-featured tablet is needed. That would explain why you see more iPads on a train to/from work.

All of my colleagues at work rushed to get Kindle Fires amid the hype back in October and November. Most have returned them at this point and all you see are iPads at this point.

Nook color is definitely closer to a Kindle Fire than an iPad. If they consider Amazon's Fire a tablet so is the Nook in color. I know they do this stuff to create hype for a product that has high visibility in the news so people will read the catchy head line and send the fanbois into a frenzy generating ad rev for their website.

From what we're reading, it would be an 8" tablet. Just as the 9.7" screen of the iPad is thought of as a 10" device, the talked about 7.85" screen of the smaller one would be an 8" device. Saying it's 7" as we read, is wrong. The info about this size is that it would have the same ppi as the original iPhone, and the icons and spacing would be exactly the same as the iPhone.

So nothing would have to be made smaller than what Apple originally thought was proper. A 7" screen would be too small though.

I don't see how Apple could do this for $299 with GPS and 3/4G though, as that extra costs an additional $130. I thought it would have dropped to $100 with the new iPad, but it didn't. Some other manufacturers charge less for the WiFi tablet, but add as much as $150 for the 3G/GPS version.