or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › IDC: iPad dipped to 40% of tablet shipments in Q1 2013
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

IDC: iPad dipped to 40% of tablet shipments in Q1 2013 - Page 2

post #41 of 109

love the entire "no that is Shipped" mentality - The idea that the 20million tablet Apple sold is enough tablets to satisfy the entire world market is nonsense. If it is, this Post PC era is a bust.

post #42 of 109
How does IDC come up with their figures for tablets other than iPads? And if IDC is way off (in 2011 they predicted Windows phone would be #2 in market share by 2015) what happens? Actually how would we even know if they're way off since no one but Apple reports shipment figures? 1hmm.gif
post #43 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte View Post

The idea that the 20million tablet Apple sold is enough tablets to satisfy the entire world market is nonsense. If it is, this Post PC era is a bust.

How many PCs were sold worldwide at the end of their third year of existence?
post #44 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuffyzDead View Post

Ahhhhh

I see what you did there.

The Old  > Shipments < Instead Of > Sold To Actual Customers < chart.

Yup this needs to be said every single time you see "shipments"

A shipment is not a sale, for all we know the shipments went into warehouses and may never be sold, or got shipped directly to landfills (like ET Cartridges)

Apple makes more money from all their iOS devices combined than the entire Android ecosystem. No amount of shipping is going to change that. Android is a horrible thing to develop for and even more horrible because of fragmentation. Apple is all "write once, works on everything"
post #45 of 109
Attention shoppers: shipped does not equal sold.
post #46 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa View Post


Yup this needs to be said every single time you see "shipments"

A shipment is not a sale, for all we know the shipments went into warehouses and may never be sold, or got shipped directly to landfills (like ET Cartridges)

I'm sure you wouldn't disagree that a sale took place if the product was paid for, correct?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #47 of 109
Other tablets (not apple) are for poor people, if you're knocking apple for aiming products at people with money then you're a silly goose. Apple hasn't chosen the stack em heigh sell em cheap philosophy thus far, so why start now. Apple is the new whipping boy for the media and bitter sour faced people who can't afford an iPad but like to leave posts on website articles. I remember the days when is was cool to hate Microsoft, the price of success. A bit like American media turning on Toyota when they had a few recalls, all because they are whipping US industries asses with their superior products. The US car companies don't recall they just allow them the crash and burn.

Love you all
post #48 of 109

Looking at raw quantities, the numbers are believable.  I'm sure a lot of $99 tablets are sold.  But after a short period of use, many realize that this was a waste of $99, and go buy something better.  Sometimes, they will be stupid and buy another piece of junk because it's cheap, hoping it's better.  Or maybe they will upgrade to a higher end tablet, such as the Samsung, or the iPad.  End result is they bought 2 tablets, even though they only ever use one.  Still counts as a sale for that cheap unit even though it's never turned on.


Software developers look more at usage than sales.  If their customers are using a device, they will develop for that device, plain and simple.  And all reports still show the iPad far in the lead in this category.  High end app selection is still far greater in the iOS market.  Yes the gap of counting raw quantities of apps on each market is closer now, but quantity does not mean quality.

post #49 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 
Why is their prediction evidence that they are off? Does your crystal ball disagree?
 
Please read what i said. I said IF not WHEN. Can you tell me where they get their estimates from and what happens IF their estimates are incorrect?
post #50 of 109
Based on my observations of tablets being used...Apple's market share looks like 99%.

I have only seen 2 Samsung tablets ever being used in public over the past six months.
post #51 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winnie View Post

Based on my observations of tablets being used...Apple's market share looks like 99%.

I have only seen 2 Samsung tablets ever being used in public over the past six months.

My personal accounts also rarely show non-iPad tablets but anecdotes just aren't reliable. Not that IDC is accurate but I'd say it more's scientific than our accounts. I'd even say that I see about 80% Macs when I'm out and about but that's because I tend to see personal computers at coffee shops where there tend to be more affluent people or students hanging out. If you walked into my local Starbucks next to university you'd think Apple was the only notebook vendor and Facebook was the operating system. 1biggrin.gif

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #52 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCProfessor View Post

Screw you. I have both the ipad4 and Nexus 10, and the 10 beats the crap out of the ipad. 

 

In what way?

 

Like how's the LTE connectivity for instance?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #53 of 109
Units shipped means nothing compared to units sold.
post #54 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


My personal accounts also rarely show non-iPad tablets but anecdotes just aren't reliable. Not that IDC is accurate but I'd say it more's scientific than our accounts. I'd even say that I see about 80% Macs when I'm out and about but that's because I tend to see personal computers at coffee shops where there tend to be more affluent people or students hanging out. If you walked into my local Starbucks next to university you'd think Apple was the only notebook vendor and Facebook was the operating system. 1biggrin.gif

Very good observation and I don't need a citation to find it credible. 1biggrin.gif

post #55 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 

Why do you like the Nexus? I have never used it (and it not having LTE is a big minus for me)...

I have both the Nexus 7 and the iPad Mini for work. My son tried both and chose the Nexus. This is a kid who has had nothing but Macs and iPhones all his life.

post #56 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

It can't be accurate since the methodology is messed up. (As you noted elsewhere in your post, "Half of reading a chart is understanding the data you are looking at.").

 

Their methodology follows generally accepted practices.  Unlike Apple, most companies don't sell the majority of their products in their own stores, so they report how many units they shipped to their customers.  The tin-foil hattists seem to think many phone selling companies are ordering way more phones than they can hope to sell from Samsung, with the general plan being to pile up inventory and sell the phones at a loss or give them away- or simply put them on a ship at sea and sink it in the ocean.  They do this because they want to artificially inflate Samsungs books....  If you buy that, more power to ya, run with it!  Shipped data may certainly have its flaws, and is prone to some manipulation, but I'd put considerably more weight on it than someone who's rationale is "I really hate Android and wish it wasn't doing as well as it is, so I'm going to ignore data and/or refute it simply because it doesn't support what I wish were true."

 

Reading the chart is pretty straight forward and it shows Apple is again number one in tablet sales, but rapidly losing ground and won't continue to be so for long if the current trend persists.  If you draw a different conclusion from that data, you are reading it wrong :p  If the data itself is wrong, the chart still points to the same conclusion- it is simply invalid.  People are starting to buy tablets corresponding to what phone OS they use.  There are more Android phone users in the world and I think its pretty believable that in 2 to 3 years Android tablets will outnumber Apple tablets.  Both will still be great.

 

Buy the tablet you like better and enjoy it.

post #57 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

Their methodology follows generally accepted practices. 

Can you tell me what those "generally accepted practices" are? Especially a research practice that allows you to confound an actual in one portion of the data with an estimate in the other portion, to arrive at a total?

I've not got an answer to this simple question from any of the blowhards here.

Links and cites please. (Otherwise, I'll have to assume you too are just making it up).
post #58 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Can you tell me what those "generally accepted practices" are? Especially a research practice that ws you to confound an actual in one portion of the data with an estimate in the other portion, to arrive at a total?

I've not got an answer to this simple question from any of the blowhards here.

Links and cites please. (Otherwise, I'll have to assume you too are just making it up).

It's the same method used for all other products. Manufacturers aren't in the business of a retailers side of things. If Target orders a million bottles of baby powder from Johnson & Johnson do you think they care when Target sells them? Obviously if Target keeps ordering it's because they're selling.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #59 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

It's the same method used for all other products. Manufacturers aren't in the business of a retailers side of things. If Target orders a million bottles of baby powder from Johnson & Johnson do you think they care when Target sells them? Obviously if Target keeps ordering it's because they're selling.

You didn't even understand my question to Frood, did you?

 

Anyway, unless you have some specific links and cites, don't even bother to reply. At this point, it's fairly obvious that you guys are just making it up as you go along...... lol.gif

post #60 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post
I assume that this is not the same with phones or baby powder, but I actually don't know (baby powder can be warehoused, phones become obsolete after a few months).

Ok, at least you're being honest. Kudos.

post #61 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

(i) Let me get it straight: you don't trust IDC methodology, and (ii) you admit that you are not aware of better methodology. (iii a) Do you assume that the IDC study (which gets very similar results to the Strategy Analytics study which came out a few days ago) (iii b) has NO information content? (iv) So, we know absolutely nothing about tablet (or phone, or adjustable wrench) marketshare of anyone. (v) In that case, why even read this thread?

OK, I took the trouble of breaking it down for you above.

 

(i) Yes, I don't. Did you understand why? (For a good hint, see ii below)

 

(ii) There is nothing to 'admit.' A flawed methodology is a flawed methodology. If they want to be intellectually honest and consistent, they would estimate Apple's numbers using exactly the same methodology -- whatever that is -- they use to estimate shipments and shares for the non-Apple firms, and report that for all firms, including Apple. Indeed, it would be a great check of whether their methodology is worth the paper it's written on, since it can be compared against Apple's actuals. (Perhaps that's what IDC is afraid of?).

 

(iii a) You have not shown in any remotely convincing way that various companies produce similar numbers. You pulled out one out of your hat, about MSFT. Indeed, as numerous reports have shown, these consulting (sorry "research") firms have often produced contradictory results in a whole host of areas.

 

(iii b) It has SOME information content, surely. I just don't know what. If I don't know or don't trust a methodology, I have no clue what to make of it. I am willing to be persuaded, but I have to have an actual argument.

 

(iv) We do know Apple's actual shipments. The rest are estimates (without error bands!).

 

(v) Because guys like you show up with FUD (that stands for F^ckin' Useless Data), and pretend you're making some profound point, despite the fact that you are unable to answer some basic questions. (That kind of nonsense needs to be countered.)

 

Here are the basic questions, again for you, asdasd, dasanman, Frood, and the rest of your crowd: (a) Why is Apple the only one to report volumes shipped -- What are the others hiding? (b) What is IDC's methodology? (c) How can you conceptually justify confounding actuals with estimates? Why not use estimates all around (which will also provide us an excellent check on their methodology, since Apple thankfully provides volume data)?

 

Add: Calling it a day now. Will check back tomorrow to see if you have a response to any or all of the three specific questions.

post #62 of 109
I read all the replies and it's still unsubstantiated bullshit. Nothing more than a guess. Not a single vendor even releases shipment data...except for Apple. Don't tell me I need to disprove bullshit. If we go back and compare even IDC's estimated Samsung shipments in 2010 versus the actuals that were revealed at trial, we see that IDC doesn't know jack shit about actual shipments or sales.

By the way, Apple shipped 1 trillion iPads this quarter. Disprove it!
post #63 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotoformat View Post

Amazon and Microsoft shipments combined attaining those of ASUS (who? what?).

 

Bezos and Bozo Ballmer must be popping the champagne corks tonight. LOL
 

 

Both of the numbers for Amazon and Microsoft were not as big as I expected them to be. Remember how the analyst were saying Microsoft sold 1.4 million of both types of Surface tablets? This report rolled that back to 900,000... probably a more accurate number.

 

in the "other" category is the Barnes and Noble Nooks... Pretty low end pricing. Then there's the $89 Walgreen's Chinese no-brand tablets with a resistive screen and all the capability of a wrist watch with a built-in calculator and usually DOA.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #64 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

 they would estimate Apple's numbers using exactly the same methodology -- whatever that is -- they use to estimate shipments and shares for the non-Apple firms, and report that for all firms, including Apple. Indeed, it would be a great check of whether their methodology is worth the paper it's written on, since it can be compared against Apple's actuals. (Perhaps that's what IDC is afraid of?).

They did that once and they were way off.
After that they have never again shown their own estimates but used Apple's numbers instead.

 

From that single point of data my estimate is the error band for IDC's numbers is at least 20% (and my own error band is 100% 1biggrin.gif ).


Edited by smalM - 5/2/13 at 1:49am
post #65 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Let me guess, Apple needs:-

A cheaper tablet.

To update iOS so it's less "dated" and "boring".

Whatever else is on the menu this week.

btw, what's with the caps, "I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S NOT A PAID ENDORSEMENT"?

Apple does not need anything. They are doing fine.

Apple followers, however - at least most "loyal" ones (I'm really being diplomatic here) - need to accept Apple is not only player any more, and live with that.
post #66 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

Who are the "others"? Just curious which companies out of that group had any significant sales since they seem to comprise a large chunk of the sales. I am imagining very cheap Chinese brands.

Lenovo, HP, DELL... all make Windows tablets. Lenovo used to have Android as well (first gen Lenovo ThinkPad Tablet) but changed to x86 Windows for 2nd release. They still might have something Android, I think there was IdeaPad beside ThinkPad, no idea if still being made. HP, to my knowledge, does only Windows x86 tablets, current ones being ElitePad 900 and Envy X2 model, both with Atom. Dell, I'm not sure, they are really not common in NZ.
post #67 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotoformat View Post

Amazon and Microsoft shipments combined attaining those of ASUS (who? what?).

Bezos and Bozo Ballmer must be popping the champagne corks tonight. LOL

 

Microsoft still might. Asus does make Windows tablets alongside Androids, from VivoTab RT to x86 VivoTabs with Atom and iCore machines.

Samsung also makes variety of Windows tablets under Ativ brand.

Add to that Lenovo, HP and Dell Windows tablets (which I'd expect are among "Others"), and who knows? maybe MS is not really doing bad at all - for a newcomer.
post #68 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher View Post

I read all the replies and it's still unsubstantiated bullshit. Nothing more than a guess. Not a single vendor even releases shipment data...except for Apple. Don't tell me I need to disprove bullshit. If we go back and compare even IDC's estimated Samsung shipments in 2010 versus the actuals that were revealed at trial, we see that IDC doesn't know jack shit about actual shipments or sales.

The essence of your claim is true, estimates aren't proof, but your flawed argument of using court reported US sales of specific and select Samsung smartphone models with the IDC's estimates of worldwide numbers of all Samsung smartphone models doesn't prove "jack" either. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #69 of 109
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post
…Apple is not only player any more, and live with that.

 

90% of tablets in use. They're the only player that matters.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #70 of 109
It amazes me how many news outlets run with numbers that can't be verified. And none of these news outlets refer to these figures as estimates. Or explains the methodology IDC uses to come up with these figures. Lets apply their methodology to Apple and compare it to the actual figures Apple reports. That would give us a better feel for how accurate their methodology is.
post #71 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

OK, I took the trouble of breaking it down for you above.

(i) Yes, I don't. Did you understand why? (For a good hint, see ii below)

(ii) There is nothing to 'admit.' A flawed methodology is a flawed methodology. If they want to be intellectually honest and consistent, they would estimate Apple's numbers using exactly the same methodology -- whatever that is -- they use to estimate shipments and shares for the non-Apple firms, and report that for all firms, including Apple. Indeed, it would be a great check of whether their methodology is worth the paper it's written on, since it can be compared against Apple's actuals. (Perhaps that's what IDC is afraid of?).

(iii a) You have not shown in any remotely convincing way that various companies produce similar numbers. You pulled out one out of your hat, about MSFT. Indeed, as numerous reports have shown, these consulting (sorry "research") firms have often produced contradictory results in a whole host of areas.

(iii b) It has SOME information content, surely. I just don't know what. If I don't know or don't trust a methodology, I have no clue what to make of it. I am willing to be persuaded, but I have to have an actual argument.

(iv) We do know Apple's actual shipments. The rest are estimates (without error bands!).

(v) Because guys like you show up with FUD (that stands for F^ckin' Useless Data), and pretend you're making some profound point, despite the fact that you are unable to answer some basic questions. (That kind of nonsense needs to be countered.)

Here are the basic questions, again for you, asdasd, dasanman, Frood, and the rest of your crowd: (a) Why is Apple the only one to report volumes shipped -- What are the others hiding? (b) What is IDC's methodology? (c) How can you conceptually justify confounding actuals with estimates? Why not use estimates all around (which will also provide us an excellent check on their methodology, since Apple thankfully provides volume data)?

Add: Calling it a day now. Will check back tomorrow to see if you have a response to any or all of the three specific questions.

Because Apple has specialty stores. It's much easier to keep track of sales when you're selling your product in your store. How many different retailers sell Samsung phones? Too many to actually keep track of. If a little cell phone store on the corner of God Street and Forsaken Avenue buys 100 Samsung phones to sell, how is Samsung going to know if they actually sold?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #72 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

It amazes me how many news outlets run with numbers that can't be verified. And none of these news outlets refer to these figures as estimates. Or explains the methodology IDC uses to come up with these figures. Lets apply their methodology to Apple and compare it to the actual figures Apple reports. That would give us a better feel for how accurate their methodology is.

According to the IDC they thought Apple would be reporting 18.7 million iPads shipped, but Apple did better than their estimate coming in at 19.5. 

 

For an explanation of the sources IDC uses to compose these estimates and projections visit this webpage and then clink on "Factsheet" to download a PDF with methodology details.

http://www.idc.com/tracker/showproductinfo.jsp?prod_id=81

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #73 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Because Apple has specialty stores. 

Nonsense. Apple had ~$160B in total sales in 2012. Less than $20B came from their 'specialty stores'.


Edited by anantksundaram - 5/2/13 at 8:12am
post #74 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

According to the IDC they thought Apple would be reporting 18.7 million iPads shipped, but Apple did better than their estimate coming in at 19.5. 

 

For an explanation of the sources IDC uses to compose these estimates and projections visit this webpage and then clink on "Factsheet" to download a PDF with methodology details.

http://www.idc.com/tracker/showproductinfo.jsp?prod_id=81

LOL. This is what they say about their methodology, from your link:

-----

 

IDC's Tracker Methodology

IDC's tracker data is developed using a rigorous methodology that includes well-planned and well-coordinated local, regional, and worldwide data cross-checks combined with a proprietary advanced data consolidation and analysis data platform managed by IDC's Worldwide Tracker organization. Data sources used in the process of determining IDC's tracker numbers include, but are not limited to:

  •   In-country local vendor interviews

  •   Distribution data feeds

  •   Worldwide and regional vendor guidance

  •   ODM data

In-country local channel partner discussions Import records
Feedback from component suppliers
Vendor briefings and public financial reports

------

No mention of sample sizes, likely errors in estimation, why they use actuals for Apple (and estimates for the rest) and why they mix up the two, whether they validate their numbers, how they validate their numbers......

 

It's a joke.

    
post #75 of 109
What that? Over there. Is it? Could it be? A lesser spotted Surface? No. Wait. A nuxus? No. Oh that's right. It Is a mirage, unless its an ipad of course. And if there's something worse than an Apple user/product it's a smug non apple useing pleb who thinks he's Jesus Christ for buying a Nexus.
post #76 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Nonsense. Apple had ~$160B in total sales in 2012. Less than $20B came from their 'specialty stores'.

You are correct but Apple mostly deals with major carriers which are much easier to get solid sales numbers from.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #77 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


My personal accounts also rarely show non-iPad tablets but anecdotes just aren't reliable. Not that IDC is accurate but I'd say it more's scientific than our accounts. I'd even say that I see about 80% Macs when I'm out and about but that's because I tend to see personal computers at coffee shops where there tend to be more affluent people or students hanging out. If you walked into my local Starbucks next to university you'd think Apple was the only notebook vendor and Facebook was the operating system. 1biggrin.gif

Have you ever bought a vehicle with a color and options you hadn't seen anyone else driving before. . . 

 

...until you make it yours? Then it seems you see them everywhere.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #78 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Nonsense. Apple had ~$160B in total sales in 2012. Less than $20B came from their 'specialty stores'.

You are correct but Apple mostly deals with major carriers which are much easier to get solid sales numbers from.

Who do Samsung, Nokia, Blackberry, Motorola, etc deal with? 1confused.gif

 

Incidentally, all this is moot, since every manufacturer knows how many they've shipped. Otherwise they couldn't recognize revenue, and if they couldn't do that, they couldn't put out a financial statement.....

post #79 of 109
Just realized the headline is a bit misleading or mistaken. "iPad dipped to 40% of tablet shipments in Q1 2013", but according to the second IDC chart, that "dip" happened in Q3 2012, not Q1 2013%u2026 a precipitous and frankly unbelievable 20% drop in market share (from 60% to 40%). O-rly?
post #80 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 

And you know this how? IDC has been doing this for a while.

 

History. A pattern of deception.

 

And you believe IDC why? 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › IDC: iPad dipped to 40% of tablet shipments in Q1 2013