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 3

post #81 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 

How else would you define market share, other than number of units sold (or shipped, since this is all they have)? By the way, given that the market is growing exponentially, the number of units USED share will not be that different from market share.

 

So, you've decided to just ignore the "shipping like gangbusters" disconnect that producers create trying to make a product appear popular? Microsoft "shipped" a much larger percentage of Surfaces (to warehouses and store shelves) than they actually sold. Do they simply get to create "market share" by reporting shipments that never translate to actual sales? And meanwhile, Apple who sells everything they can make and struggles to maintain inventory is "competing" against imagined/invented competitor share?

 

Yes. Sales. Users. THAT is "how else" I would define market share. Pretty much the only way. If someone manufactures and ships a million units to a warehouse, counting that alone does not equal MRKET SHARE.  If you put yourself forward as 'knowledgeable', but don't understand this basic tenet, then I'm not wasting time having 'conversations' with you anymore.

post #82 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

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 1tongue.gif  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.

But what's the result of Android tablets outnumbering Apple tablets?

In phones... Android smartphones passed the iPhone years ago. Yet developers still prefer developing for the iPhone... and accessory makers enjoy making products for the iPhone too.

Will the iPad still be the preferred platform for tablets... even though it will eventually be outnumbered?

I'm getting the impression that Android's market share numbers make a great headline... but there's no compelling story after that.
post #83 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post


But what's the result of Android tablets outnumbering Apple tablets?

In phones... Android smartphones passed the iPhone years ago. 

The articles I've seen said it happened about a year ago. You're correct tho that reports also show developers work on their iOS apps first as a general rule before moving over to Android. As for accessory makers that's a no-brainer. There's not all that much variation on the Apple product front compared to other platforms.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #84 of 109
Quote:

Originally Posted by Frood View Post

 

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.

 

Well there it is. You stated that this chart shows that Apple is "again number one in tablet SALES". Sales? WHERE do the charts mention SALES? Yeah.

 

This is the exact point and issue the "tin-foil hattists" are making with this "chart", its premise and methodology. It creates a perception that is simply false. That perception being, "Apple is rapidly losing ground in SALES".

 

More companies and brands are shipping more tablets. They don't appear to be selling huge numbers of them, but they are SHIPPING them. According to you and IDC, simply by virtue of SHIPPING a product, the number you shipped counts as MARKET SHARE and SALES (the only true measure of market share).

 

The problem here is that IDC makes "shipments" a measure of real market share, and market share is NOT measured simply by how efficient your manufacturing and distribution is at getting product TO market. 

 

It's what happens NEXT that makes the idea of 'market share' meaningful. 

 

Imagine that you SHIP 100 units and they sit on a shelf unsold, while the competitor blows 1,000 units through the shop in real sales. IDC will say you own 10% of the market share (simply by virtue of SHIPPING those units), even though you SOLD not one single unit. Do you find this somehow true and meaningful? That you OWN a 10% share of the market simply by having 100 unsold units on a shelf?

 

If that's what you think then I have to laugh at you. Like this: bwaaaa hahahaha!

 

Worse though, is the ignorance these "analyses" create in people like you. Who then repeat WRONGLY that what this chart shows is Apple LOSING GROUND in market share (aka SALES) when the charts never mention SALES at all...

 

Do… you… get this?

post #85 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.


Oops. So you think you understand the manufacturer-distributor-retailer buying relationship then?

 

The model you based your post on pretty much went away a long time ago. At least for the bigger retailers like Target, et al.

 

Target doesn't order a million bottles of something and then just hope it sells. The gamble is almost entirely on the producer side. If it doesn't sell, Target just sends it back. Target's shelf and floor space is the currency that brands do battle for, and Target calls the shots there (ultimately determines who gets that space). In some cases, the manufacturer practically pays the retailer for that space… they then fill the space with product, and promote the heck out of it. Target has provided the space, and reaps the profits from those sales. Most of the promotions you see in those Target mailers are developed in tandem with the manufacturer or based on supplier side promotion.

 

I'm oversimplifying here, but hopefully you get the difference...

 

(PS: I'm not talking about every retail situation everywhere… this is specifically aimed at the "consumer electronics" side of things.)

post #86 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

Oops. So you think you understand the manufacturer-distributor-retailer buying relationship then?

The model you based your post on pretty much went away a long time ago. At least for the bigger retailers like Target, et al.

Target doesn't order a million bottles of something and then just hope it sells. The gamble is almost entirely on the producer side. If it doesn't sell, Target just sends it back. Target's shelf and floor space is the currency that brands do battle for, and Target calls the shots there (ultimately determines who gets that space). In some cases, the manufacturer practically pays the retailer for that space… they then fill the space with product, and promote the heck out of it. Target has provided the space, and reaps the profits from those sales. Most of the promotions you see in those Target mailers are developed in tandem with the manufacturer or based on supplier side promotion.

I'm oversimplifying here, but hopefully you get the difference...

(PS: I'm not talking about every retail situation everywhere… this is specifically aimed at the "consumer electronics" side of things.)

So it's like the retailer is renting shelf space.

That's very interesting 1smile.gif
post #87 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post


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.

 

The funniest part of this assertion is this: Historically, and until only very recently, Apple was always the 'underdog' and the smaller competitor to the IBM, Microsoft and PC behemoth. They were always the 'niche player', and even with their recent dominance in the market these days, that part of their culture remains apparent and intact… it partially explains the continuing adherence to the "premium" quality of their products. They always had to less compromising to stay relevant.

 

So this assertion that we need to accept that "Apple isn't the only player ANY MORE" cracked me up. When have they ever been? Seriously, since this recent condition of owning more than half of ANY major market space is something kind of new to Apple.

 

As long as they continue doing what they do so well (innovate, maintain high standards, care about the customer needs and experience first above profits) they'll have a loyal customer in me, and I could care less what their 'market share' is, just so long as it doesn't negatively impact that short list...

 

I guess that, in a nutshell, is pretty much the definition of both Apple and their "loyalists" (although I prefer to say I appreciate Apple more than having "loyalty" to them).

post #88 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


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?

 

 

Apple doesn't sell exclusively through their own "specialty" stores. There's also Best Buy, WalMart and other outlets like them, large and small, all over the U.S., and equivalents all around the world. For example, they have a half dozen Apple Stores in China, but over 11,000 points of sale.

 

As for how manufacturers know if something sold, it usually works like this: unless it's an older or obsolete model that went into the 'discount wholesale' bin, most new stock is "manufacturer provided", and unsold stock is often returned to the manufacturer after a new model releases. The "liability" for unsold "current model" product typically lies with the manufacturer, not the retailer.

 

Samsung knows full well how many of their newer phones and tablets are selling (not just how many have shipped). It's IDC that has to guess at those numbers, since no-one BUT Apple makes them public.

post #89 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post


Oops. So you think you understand the manufacturer-distributor-retailer buying relationship then?

 

The model you based your post on pretty much went away a long time ago. At least for the bigger retailers like Target, et al.

 

Target doesn't order a million bottles of something and then just hope it sells. The gamble is almost entirely on the producer side. If it doesn't sell, Target just sends it back. Target's shelf and floor space is the currency that brands do battle for, and Target calls the shots there (ultimately determines who gets that space). In some cases, the manufacturer practically pays the retailer for that space… they then fill the space with product, and promote the heck out of it. Target has provided the space, and reaps the profits from those sales. Most of the promotions you see in those Target mailers are developed in tandem with the manufacturer or based on supplier side promotion.

 

I'm oversimplifying here, but hopefully you get the difference...

 

(PS: I'm not talking about every retail situation everywhere… this is specifically aimed at the "consumer electronics" side of things.)

I'd be pretty darned surprised if big ticket items are usually placed with big retailers like Wal-Mart, Target, and Best Buy "on consignment" which is basically what you're claiming. As a rule shipments are equal to sales no matter how many times you or someone else says they are not. It's generally expected and in line with GAAP for the mobile manufacturers to have met the other requirements to record that a sale occurred when shipment is made.

 

You're making the discussion confusing by adding your own definition that a sale only happens to an end-user and not a reseller. That's not how Apple or any of the others recognize revenue.

 

With that said Anantsundaram made an excellent point earlier that the manufacturers do have numbers on how much product they shipped, Outside of Apple I don't know that any of the others share unit numbers.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #90 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

 

The "liability" for unsold "current model" product typically lies with the manufacturer, not the retailer.

 

Samsung knows full well how many of their newer phones and tablets are selling (not just how many have shipped). It's IDC that has to guess at those numbers, since no-one BUT Apple makes them public.

I don't believe Apple reports unit numbers for returned product any more than other manufacturers do. If so I've not seen it.


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/2/13 at 12:50pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #91 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 

Actually, notice that Microsoft bets that people will buy tablets corresponding to the DESKTOP OS they use. According to Strategy Analytics (an IDC competitor), the surface RT has a 7.5% market share, which is not bad, given that the device certainly has issues and their market share was 0% three quarters ago, so they are not entirely wrong.

 

I think its similar, but there's a 'tipping point' to the products.   In the case of Apple I think the dominant one is the phone.  If you use an iPhone and buy a tablet, chances are pretty near 100% that it is going to be an iPad.  I know a lot of iPhone/iPad users that are still not Mac users.

 

In the case of Android, I think the tablets didn't cross the threshold to hit the tipping point.  If you loved your Android phone and went to buy a tablet, it still made more sense to buy an iPad because the iPad was a more robust product.  You just had to accept the nuisance of dealing with iTunes and the Apple store (note:  those aren't bad systems or stores, its just that if you use primarily Android but have to do similar things on another system its a nuisance compared to if you just had to do it once).  Android tablets now are great and have crossed threshold.  If you own an Android phone it just makes more sense to buy an Android tablet and I think that is just starting to happen and it will end up at a point somewhere where Android tablet share is similar to their phone share.

 

Microsoft is a little different because their core is PC's and Windows.  They may have shot themselves in the foot with Windows 8 because it such a new experience that it is essentially like buying into a different product.  They may have been better off building a more familiar tablet version first so going from Windows XP, Vista, or 7 to the tablet experience wouldn't feel so much like you're doing something completely different.  The RT is just a bad idea without compatibility on top of the new ui experience.  It should be interesting to see how the compatible one fare (Windows Tablet Pro?)

post #92 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

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.....

They also deal with all the tiny cell phone stores littered throughout the world, not just major carriers.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #93 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

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.....

They also deal with all the tiny cell phone stores littered throughout the world, not just major carriers.

What part of "moot" is unclear?
post #94 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post


Please, please don't waste your valuable time (and, umm, mine) arguing with me. We have all decided that the sales numbers is what we DON'T have, and that the shipped numbers are a reasonable proxy. If you have sales numbers which prove your contention, bring'em. If not, you are blowing smoke out of where the sun don't shine.

'Shipped' can be a reasonable proxy for sales share assuming return rates are the same.

However, in this instance, IDC's numbers are made up because of the methodological problems I've discussed above. They're not, by any stretch of imagination, 'reasonable'. Just bad.
post #95 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

The "liability" for unsold "current model" product typically lies with the manufacturer, not the retailer.


Samsung knows full well how many of their newer phones and tablets are selling (not just how many have shipped). It's IDC that has to guess at those numbers, since no-one BUT Apple makes them public.
I don't believe Apple reports unit numbers for returned product any more than other manufacturers do. If so I've not seen it.

Apple reports 'net sales' (as I think the others do too) -- returns will likely be reported a quarter late.
post #96 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What part of "moot" is unclear?

In all actuality just about everything is a 'moot' point.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #97 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

Actually, notice that Microsoft bets that people will buy tablets corresponding to the DESKTOP OS they use. According to Strategy Analytics (an IDC competitor), the surface RT has a 7.5% market share, which is not bad, given that the device certainly has issues and their market share was 0% three quarters ago, so they are not entirely wrong.

There is no mention of Microsoft's Surface in their report.

On the other hand, IDC has Windows RT with a market share of 0.4% for the quarter. I wouldn't call that "not bad"
Edited by piot - 5/2/13 at 6:48pm
post #98 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

There is no mention of Microsoft's Surface in their report.

On the other hand, IDC has Windows RT with a market share of 0.4% for the quarter. I wouldn't call that "not bad"

Then what would you consider bad if not that?
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #99 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Then what would you consider bad if not that?

Read it again!
post #100 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 

Well, I can imagine that the car guys are earthy shade tree mechanics, whereas from what I deduce with the help of google the original insulter has no such excuse (especially as this discussion is purely technical, to wit: how much confidence should one have in IDC's data [answer: none of us have have any idea how they get their numbers, but the fact that they seem to be trusted in the industry indicates that there is a fair amount of signal in the noise]. I don't believe any sane (or even mildly insane) person is disputing the one sentence takeaway, that is: Apple is losing market share, especially worldwide. It will certainly continue losing market share until it brings out its new generation of gadgets, after which the crystal ball clouds up).

 

I am guessing that these forums bring out the worst in people in the same way driving does: the mild amount of anonymity allows them to act much more rudely than they would face to face.

 

Sigh.

 

Even if whathisname - the angry guy,starts with Ant - got his error bands and exact methodologies for IDC's estimates from us random posters on the internet ( all of us non-employees of IDC), the seconded bolded part there would still be true because the error bands could hardly br more than +/-10%. This thread therefore should be on the issue of what, if anything, should be done ( or could be done) by Apple. If anything.

 

Instead we are arguing the credentials of a data mining company used, and referenced, by Apple in their conference calls - when the data is favorable. Including the last call. This point, which I have made in every thread, has failed to convince one guy on the internet, which would be fine if he didn't dominate the threads with this inane caterwauling; letting the adults discuss the actual stats, rather than the bone fides of the company presenting the stats.

I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #101 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

Read it again!

Yup I read it wrong.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #102 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post


So it's like the retailer is renting shelf space.

That's very interesting 1smile.gif

 

A reasonable analogy. It's definitely true of many supermarkets (food industry) as well, and convenience stores where shelf space is at such a premium that producers have all kinds of "bribe like" programs to convince chains like 7-11 to stock their goods… 

 

Sometimes it's really obvious. Like when the actual manufacturer themselves are delivering fresh product and carting off the old, expired stuff… 

post #103 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 

Please, please don't waste your valuable time (and, umm, mine) arguing with me. We have all decided that the sales numbers is what we DON'T have, and that the shipped numbers are a reasonable proxy. If you have sales numbers which prove your contention, bring'em. If not, you are blowing smoke out of where the sun don't shine.

 

 

"We have all decided that...shipped numbers are a reasonable proxy." First of all, speak for yourself. It's clear that we haven't ALL agreed that premise.

 

That isn't even the argument, however. I can agree that certain statistics COULD be a good 'proxy measure' of market activity. But it doesn't assume that ANY application of those numbers would result in a reasonable measure. Those numbers could be skewed to fit a narrative (spin), mixed with other numbers and written in a way to create a false perception, and so on. It's CLEAR that IDC consistently does this.

 

Here's my "proof". The results. One poster here wrote that "this chart shows that Apple is losing SALES".  (Sales being the only true measure of market share.)

 

Mission accomplished, IDC?

 

The way that IDC mixes the numbers and spins the results, their track record for getting it clearly wrong. If I went exclusively by IDC reports and predictions over the past three years, I'd believe today that Apple had been a failing company throughout, would surely be hitting the bottom of the barrel in terms of market share, and surely on the verge of bankruptcy by now.

 

IDC is essentially forced to reset their start point each quarter, massage new irrelevant numbers into the mix to fit their narrative, and continue blaring (for more than three years continuously now, over a period of greatest growth for Apple IN OPPOSITION to the entire market) that Apple is losing share, failing against Microsoft and Google, etc.

 

Perhaps the most consistent doomsayers in the industry. Juxtaposed to Apple's ACTUAL performance throughout, I'd say IDC is pretty unreliable overall...

post #104 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


Apple reports 'net sales' (as I think the others do too) -- returns will likely be reported a quarter late.

 

^that

post #105 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 

My mistake, it was not just the RT, but windows-based tablets: Still, 7.5% is not bad (would have been great for just the RT).

 

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9238694/Windows_tablets_no_more_than_niche_player_in_Q1_research_firm_says

 

Again falsely promoting Microsoft having SHIPPED 3 millions 'tablets' as equal to EARNING 7.5% of market share (sales).

 

It would be more accurate (and honest) to say that "Microsoft padded retailer shelves with the equivalent of 7.5% of all tablets shipped". The true market share is unknown. However, judging by financials, user activity, and market wide responses to the devices (meaning, sales activity, not opinions) compared to others, we can extrapolate that they MIGHT have captured half a percent in real terms...

 

But, I see that we now praise companies simply for their high-yield manufacturing processes, and reward them with accolades of having gained share simply by exhibiting distribution prowess...

 

The ghost town that is The Microsoft Store tells a very different story.

post #106 of 109

In a nutshell, a tad more honest results-based reporting than igriv, IDC, et al...

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2030986/microsoft-surface-sales-underwelm-at-an-estimated-1-5-million-units.html

 

NOTE: Those totals are the sum of both units (Surface RT and PRO) and span two quarters. In other words, since the original RT launch in October, and subsequent Pro launch in February, MS averaged about 250,000 units a month in real sales. So, 750,000 a quarter vs Apple's what, 19.5 million the last quarter alone?

 

In summary, the CONSISTENT reports across the 'net, indicate that Microsoft has been shipping about 3 million units per quarter and selling about a quarter of those (on average).

 

That isn't REMOTELY a 7.5% "market share", just based on what Apple reported sold alone, never mind the rest of the market (Amazon, Samsung). If Apple's numbers were equal to a 50% market share, then MS stands at less than 2%. Do you see how REALITY doesn't hold up to IDC's "reports"?

 

 

The disconnect of IDC's "shipped numbers = market sales" premise is clearly demonstrated, in just this example alone, to be so far off the mark as to be laughable. Extrapolate that to the rest of the market. Units shipped equals market share? Really?

 

I maintain my position that IDC are UNRELIABLE at best, and outright dishonest at worst. 'Nuff said, for sure.

 

 

[EDIT]  Because I love math...

 

If MS shipped 3 million units, and earned a 7.5% market share, then 1 million units = a 2.5% share.

 

Based on that, it would mean that 40 million total units were SHIPPED into the market by all manufacturers over the quarter.

 

Apple reported 19.5 million iPads SOLD (not shipped) during that period. Almost half of all units shipped.

 

Apple likes to keep a few weeks worth of channel inventory at most. Assuming they'd mostly caught up with demand over the last quarter, and SHIPPED 'a few weeks of inventory' on top of units sold, they would have shipped closer to 25 million units, or a nearly 65%  "market share" by this measure.

 

Sadly, the numbers from IDC and others don't add up. Apple reports "Sold" and they put that number in the "shipped" column… is it any wonder?


Edited by tribalogical - 5/3/13 at 12:13pm
post #107 of 109
For those of you wondering about Asus' shipments, they were the manufacturer behind the Nexus 7, Google's own 7" tablet (Google releases a Nexus tablet / phone every so often that runs stock Android, and they chose a manufacturer for each project independently). It's a quad core tablet with great resolution and starting at only $200. Works like a charm. You can get a 32GB version now for $250, which is a huge savings to the comparable iPad mini, which is a bit bigger but has a lower resolution display. How could the Nexus 7 NOT sell well? Don't discount Android just because you prefer iOS. It's not "settling" to get a non-iPad tablet.
post #108 of 109
I would bet that those oversized phones are inflating the Android tablet numbers.
(Phablet phones like the Samsung Galaxy Note.)
post #109 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by macpd View Post

I would bet that those oversized phones are inflating the Android tablet numbers.
(Phablet phones like the Samsung Galaxy Note.)

 

Not in this case.  From their website, explaining the charts:

 

"IDC considers all LCD-based slate devices with screens between 7 and 16 inches as tablets, regardless of whether or not they include a removable keyboard (such as the Surface RT).   Convertible devices with non-removable keyboards (such as Lenovo's Yoga) are not counted as Tablets."

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