or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › The curious case of IDC, Gartner & Strategy Analytics' PC, phone & tablet data on Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The curious case of IDC, Gartner & Strategy Analytics' PC, phone & tablet data on Apple - Page 4

post #121 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by bingethinker View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

Sure for graphics, but I bet your RIP, color proofing, plate imager, press software, accounting and web site do not run on Macs. People who live and work in Mac centric environments sometimes forget that most business, manufacturing, banking, medical, government, military, scientific research, education and virtually every other professional field uses primarily Windows.


Let's see if I can put this post in the right place this time!

 

Everything  but the accounting software runs on Macs. As usual, the anti-Mac guy is parroting lame propaganda from 1997.

Quickbooks accounting software works fine on a Mac or you can even use their online version in Safari. The fact of the mater is that hardly anyone uses Macs for any of the industries I mentioned even though they easily could if they wanted to. As far as the printing industry goes, which is what I initially responded to, you can only do the page layout and graphics on a Mac, and you should, because that is what everybody uses, but all of the machinery control systems are all done on either Windows or UNIX. All those other industries use Windows, well, because everyone just does, not because they couldn't use a Mac, just no one does. They are almost exclusively Windows centric environments.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #122 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacAir View Post
 

Real Macs start over 900$.

 

That useless pice of crap, the mini, at 600$. I bet it will sell less than the 3000+ $ Mac Pro.


You have such remarkable insight:rolleyes:. Take a look at the breakdown of the mini. In fact look at the $800 model. The GPU even with iris graphics will be way below the mac pro, but the quad mac pro will be closer than you think when it comes to X86 power. If you look at the breakdown of the $3000 model, it looks like an E5-1620V2 and 2 pitcairn cards with their framebuffers cut in half from their PC side equivalents. I could see a case for it if the workload aligns well, but how does that make the mini a useless piece of crap? Constraints on things like ports and serviceability are present across all Macs at this point.

post #123 of 206
Figures never lie .... but liars figure.
post #124 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacAir View Post
 

Real Macs start over 900$.

 

That useless pice of crap, the mini, at 600$. I bet it will sell less than the 3000+ $ Mac Pro.

Mini is crap?

 

You mean you use it for video and audio editing.

 

Otherwise it is a great piece for everything else.

post #125 of 206
To counter this someone should do a side-by-side-by-side comparison with the Walmart tablets and either Apple or Samsung. Perhaps a seemingly objective reviewer like Consumer Reports. This would get noticed, and, I assume, show the Land Rover vs. Yugo performance I would expect.
post #126 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookforandrew View Post
 

 

 

In essence, here is where you fail.  Apple has been selling iPads since 2010.  At what state in time did all the other manufacturers start selling comparable tablets?  Key word COMPARABLE.  Yes, some were selling what you might call tablets long before 2010, but we need to focus on the copycat format of what is deemed a tablet today.  Or give Apple credit of exploding a market that sucked @S$ before iPads that allowed other companies to even attempt to make the kind of money they can today.

 

So Apple starts from a sale position of 0 units in April 2010.  There are obviously a million ways to look at, gather, analyze, and present data, but here is just one to look at.  This is the total sales of all iPads since the first release broken down by year.

 

2010 - 7.5 Million

2011 - 32.4 Million

2012 - 58.3 Million

2013 - ~70 Million

 

That totals ~170 million units.  In just over 3 years.  Sales may have "slowed", but that is perspective.  They are still selling more each year than previous.  Like everyone else mostly.

 

Lets compare that to each individual company as I hate using the "Android as a whole" when you need to look at profits and share versus an actual competing manufacturer, not an idea.

 

As already established that becomes difficult to impossible due to reporting methods.  For sake of argument though Samsung announced doubling its sales this year from last year.  That is guestimated at this.

 

2011 - ~192,000

2012 - ~20 million  (ironically IDC guessed 16.8 million)

2013 - ~40 million

 

That totals ~62 million in roughly the same time span.

 

So analysts and people like you start quoting shit numbers like quarter over quarter or year over year growth and how the competition is 123% or 400% or 50,000% versus Apple's 0.6% growth.  This is such rubbish and exactly what DED has been trying to dispel with his articles.

 

Go back and look at Apple's growth from 2010 to 2011.  What percentage growth was that?  That is an astonishing number isn't it?

 

So come back 2 years from now and restate your position please.  I would gladly eat a bucket of crow if you did and it actually still showed Samsung, Asus, Lenovo, etc. as continually having 125%, 400% (or whatever) plus YoY or QoQ growth numbers.  That, for example would put Lenovo selling just under 10 million tablets next year and 40 million the following.  Not likely.  Not with the multitude of competitors.  And if Apple starts actually dropping in unit sales by year it will still take years to catch up to what Apple has already sold.  That is if Apple stops selling them today and makes no more ever.  

 

The point is that other companies growth looks massive in comparison right now only due to the time in the game.  Apple has been selling this market segment longer as I outlined above as to what is a "tablet".

 

Some of these companies may never reach 170 million total tablet sales ever, but we shall have to wait and see who stays in the market and who folds their tablet divisions.

 

So, again, I would love to see the same headlines in a couple years, or even quarters, applied to Apple's competition screaming "SAMSUNG TABLETS SHIPMENTS DECLINING HORRIBLY"  or "LENOVO TABLET GROWTH PLUMMETING".  That is what DED's pieces are constantly targeted towards.  The fact that mainstream media does not apply the same standards they do to Apple.  They hide in the lump sum game of total market share of platform (Android) or some other stupid nonsense.

 

(Proof in point - HP tablets - ever heard of them?  Well in 2011 they held 17% of the non-iPad tablet numbers.  1% more than Samsung's 16%)  That was huge growth for them back then and reported as such.  I don't recall seeing anywhere near the same doom and gloom headlines Apple continues to get from wall street and analysts when HP totally bowed out. Even though Apple is destroying the profits tables and nowhere close to actually losing money.)

 

I was disputing that Samsung and Lenovo are having having 'no substantial impact on Apple' (the authors words), which I demonstrated in 2 ways, industry growth (and the obvious substitution that is occurring) and Apple's decision to make the iPad mini.

 

Your well written response, which I largely agree with, is off topic and doesn't address what I wrote.  I agree with you that it is highly unlikely that Samsung and Lenovo will be able to maintain their present trajectories.   

 

If you feel that Android is having no substantial impact on Apple, I'd like to hear your views.

post #127 of 206

To FBaker.  I do not disagree with what you posted, but my post focused on how the numbers are messed up and a comment that JamesMac mad specifically regarding iPads VS the World.

 

What your reply really shows though is how people take one thing and mutate it back to such generic meaningless numbers.

 

With what you posted you would again have to do what I did to break things down to make more sense.  Yes, 303 million computers sold in X amount of time.  How many were Apple?  How many were HP?  How many were Lenovo, Dell, Samsung, White Box, etc.  Now what percentage did Apple increase or decrease Year over Year? Quarter over Quarter?  How about the others?  Did they decline in percentages?  Did Apple decline?

 

You then have to break down the 303 million number further.  How many are Kiosks?  How many are Servers?  Are Linux/Unix boxes counted?  Many, many more questions like those.

 

Apple does not sell products in some segments that those counted PCs are sold in.  Some they do.  Some segments are being taken over by other devices (like cash registers moving to tablet systems not counted as PCs like the iPad).

 

In essence, the whole thing is an effort in futility to argue about what numbers truly mean.  The bottom line for me is Apple making money as a company?  Are they in a position to continue?  Do they sell products that I purchase, or would like to?

 

For me the answer is yes so I don't really give a crap about IDG or Gartner or anyone else's drivel about Apple "failing".  I speak with my wallet.

post #128 of 206

I also think this was a first rate article. Some people likely do not understand the underlining biases with these reporting agencies. I know I did not. It becomes clear when you understand who the customers are, and the services offered. 

post #129 of 206
Well researched, informative and interesting topic. I always look forward and enjoy your work. Thank you.
post #130 of 206
I love this 'flashlight in the coalmine'. MS hasn't even been computer science for a long time; when Bill Gates was stealing and winning one legal battle at a time, I gave him credit for his monopolistic oligarchy. Before Win95 and after XP the company has shown what it is- a conduit for sh*t OS (they only paid 50k for it) and Bloatware, including 'the thumb' Ballmer... this is just like the 'facts' supporting Federal Subsidies for Banks, Chemicals, "Farmers" and Insurance- but when they have to rely on a equal playing field, the transfer of wealth is ending, not beginning. Yes you can hotrod a Pile o Chit box and get great numbers, but your ecosystem is poisonous. Fanboy or otherwise, a Ferrari is a good choice if driving is the discussion, and now everyone knows that an Apple is a much better value, not plastic and gaseous masses, if computing is the discussion.
post #131 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dachar View Post

The home market may be changing. I have moved from a windows desktop PC to an iMac just for home use. I became so fed up with Microsoft os and so pleased with my iPad and iPhone that when it came time to replace my computer Apple was the only choice. I now have a trouble free computer that works properly, something that I didn't have under Microsoft's os. Apple is no longer just for selected markets but for home users too.

Agreed. I switched over too. I will never go back to Windows except when I have to for my job. Call me an Apple fanboy if you want, I just feel there is a difference in both software and hardware.
post #132 of 206

JamesMac.  I hear what you are saying in response to my post, but I believe it was totally on topic.  In your justification of your point you used the very numbers that DED talks about people using.  I was showing how that is not necessarily an accurate way to defend a position.  I refuted your claim that Apple is being affected by these "massive percentage gains" of others.

 

Are Samsung and Lenovo having an impact on Apple?  How?  That is what we have to prove/disprove.  Are they stealing away sales from Apple or is the market as a whole growing?  You end your reply with "Android" which again then lumps in all the garbage with Samsung and Lenovo.  The problem with that is that Apple makes as many devices as its internal analysis and manufacturing limitations allow.  So is Apple to then guess that the competition (Android in your argument - not specifically Samsung for example) is going to flood the market with 500 million devices and therefore in order to maintain a "no impact" position rush out and produce 2 billion devices to maintain a 70% marketshare? (Inaccurate numbers to illustrate the point.)

 

My position is that I am perfectly happy that Apple sold 14 million last whatever and sold 19 million this whatever.  It is still a significant increase.  As the segment numbers get larger the percentage increase can do nothing but shrink as you will see Lenovo and Samsung's percentage "gains" lessen.  That in essence devalues the word "impact" in my opinion.  Compound that by adding previously uncounted devices to a segment, or lumping all Android as if they were a single company.  It would be like adding Xbox or Playstation sales to overall PC numbers.  Or making Nintendo now a "PC" manufacturer and then showing the impact of percentage growth for Dell and HP because of the millions previously uncounted devices from those 3 products.

 

You are 100% welcome to have a different opinion on that.  I still think this is what DED is fighting a lot of the time with his articles.

 

Honestly though, every company has an impact on every other competing company.  That is how capitalism works.  The funny thing is that when Apple came and took over the current markets they did take over, no one was reporting how in trouble their long time entrenched competitors were or the "impact" Apple had on them.

 

As for the decision to make the iPad Mini, we don't know the answer to that yet do we?  Jobs was adamant that he was never going to produce that type of device.  Adamant.  Did they argue internally over that and produce prototypes before or after others brought out such devices?  Did Steve simply say - no!?  Did they in fact make it as a direct response to those devices?  It was announced a year after Steve's passing.  Did his passing open the door to announce the product? 

 

Unless you were on Apple's Board or an Executive we might never know.  We can definitely make assumptions and you may in fact be 100% correct on that, but we don't unequivocally know.

 

The 7" Galaxy Tab was released in September of 2010.  It had little impact at the time.  Unfortunately to agree or even disagree with you currently, we would need a breakdown of tablets by size.  How many iPad minis VS 7" Tabs VS other 7" whatevers.  Even Apple does not provide those detailed numbers for us though.

 

 

Had there been the internet like we have today, the same debates would have occurred with cars, televisions, rotary dial phones, coffee makers etc.  Pretty much any device that did not exist in every home and grew to that level.  How was Ford "impacted" and are they dead as a company today because of the changing landscape?  Some companies are dead and some are still here, like Ford.  And Apple.

post #133 of 206
I've personally given up on GARTNER and IDC reports. I've never read of these companies calling the demise of Porsche and Ferrari against the Hyundai, Kia's sales. So why are they doing this to APPLE ?? go figure.......

The low end android devises are so useless but add up the numbers against android while every single ios devise sold is usable.

It's about time GARTNER and IDC take things seriously and compare apples to apples or atleast use some statistics to use a certain mhz capacity to compare apple sales to android sales or give up their day job and work directly for google and shamesong (samsung).
post #134 of 206
The biggest problem Apple has at the moment isn't that the tech industry doesn't recognize Apple's profitable numbers of tablets, but neither does Wall Street. Wall Street is valuing Apple as a company who has lost a vast amount of tablet market share and is losing more by the day. Wall Street is ignoring Apple's profits and is only concerned about the iOS platform losing market share to the Android platform. Wall Street isn't comparing company against company it's comparing one company selling iOS tablets in a limited price range against possibly 50 or more companies selling Android tablets at any price point. Wall Street considers Android far more powerful platform based on sales numbers than Apple's platform based on profits. There has to be the perception on Wall Street that no company can maintain profitability and growth over such overwhelming odds of lower-priced products.

So forget about Gartner, IDC, et al. As long as the big Wall Street investors believe Apple will be the big failure in the long run then Apple doesn't stand much of a chance of ever being properly valued based on profits or revenue as a single company. As a shareholder, I realize that Apple's goals have never been to sell the most products but that's not helping my shareholder valuation. Wall Street should certainly realize Apple's target market goals are being met but it's just not good enough for investors and Apple is being valued as a failing company for that reason. One might actually think the tech industry in general doesn't like Apple for being such a disruptive company and neither does Wall Street. It's a rather stupid conspiracy theory, but that's the way it seems to me.
post #135 of 206
I agree with your comments, but I just don't get it.
Yes, they are trying to put Apple down, that has been clear before, and the example of Coke and Pepsi is very clear, only that it never happened. Pepsi is not that stupid.
Consumers will not buy someone's product because someone says the competition is doomed, consumers buy smart phones and tablets based on price, style, features, quality, that's why Apple keeps selling despite what Strategy Analytics and Gartner and IDC say.

The reason is Wall Street, the smart guys in Wall Street, the same Wall Street that put us in this mess in 2008, the same Wall Street that has screwed up over and over.

Google needs to show something, despite its huge diversification, its only meaningful business is still search, how can analysts be so blinded by Google? Google messed up with Android, messed up even more with buying Motorola, essentially they paid 12 billion dollars for nothing, less than nothing, they bough a company with a very bad corporate culture that was on its knees. Any company that made such a bad investment would be punished by the market, not Google, look no further to see who is paying Strategy Analytics and the others for misinformation, Page and co are trying to save their ass making Android look good, when in reality, it has been a disaster for everyone involved except Samsung.
post #136 of 206
Terrific article. Love these pieces. Great job.
post #137 of 206

I agree that the iPad belongs in the same market as the PC. This is because it is powerful enough to be general purpose enough to fill the role of a PC (with a few exceptions). A 64-bit 1.4GHz CPU, 1GB of RAM and 128GB disk was a decent PC not long ago.

 

The second point about some kind of conspiracy from the purveyors of stats is a bit harder to believe. I agree that one way to publish objective numbers, but still have them come out to favour your losing client, is to be creative with market boundaries. But it could just as easily be explained by them taking a simplistic view of things, e.g. not grouping devices together based on how general purpose they potentially are, but just on what they look like. One can imagine non technical people making that mistake.

post #138 of 206
Yeah, that's why, HONESTLY, whenever I see a "figure" stating so and so PRODUCT is getting whatever %, I am like a yeah, WHATEVER...

They are so UP and DOWN, every week it's a joke.

Laters...
Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
post #139 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post
 

 

If game consoles were rapidly replacing PCs among PC gamers, it would be useful for anyone involved in the gaming industry to look at the market for (consoles and PC sales) when making decisions about platforms. Microsoft was gravely concerned about the original PlayStation eating up PC sales, for example, which launched the Xbox effort. 

 

In general terms however, game consoles aren’t usually described as being significant to PC sales. They’re only used for games. Nobody really browses the web on a PS3, and console media consumption probably has impact on home stereo gear or Smart TVs than PCs.

 

You can’t say that about iPad, which has replaced the conventional PC for millions of people, and served as a direct replacement for client PCs in a variety of business and education settings. It used to be that the general concept of a PC was a box with components. But iPad delivered a form factor at a cost where it became a very popular device. 

 

Microsoft spent years trying to challenge Apple’s device with transformer notebooks, netbooks and thick x86 slates. Surface is close to iPad, but is trying to be more like an iPad/netbook hybrid, at a higher price point. It’s not working at all. Google entered tablets with Honeycomb slates with 16:9 screens and a 3D interface that layered on "Droid" complexity and brought back lots of old PC cruft via Android. Flopped miserably. It’s now trending closer to iPad-like devices, but still isn’t making any headway. 

 

Its not useful to call everything a PC, but iPads are clearly being used for tasks conventional PCs were previously bought for. That makes your arbitrary distinction of PC = "separate keyboard and pointing device" incorrect, or more precisely: not useful. PC makers have sold Tablet PCs without keyboards, just not in significant quantity.

 

And of course, DOS PCs lacked pointers from 1981 to 1995, 14 years. Nearly as long as Windows PCs have been around. 

Cars replaced horses so should horses still be included in car market share figures? DVD players replaced VCR's should they have been considered the same product?

 

So what about smartphones? Phones have been replacing pc's for online shopping in a far bigger way than iPads have affected business or education. Most people building sites now talk about mobile first strategies. So smartphones should be included right? Under your logic about replacing the pc, a smartphone does, so market shares for pc's should include smartphones.

 

Also is there actually that much evidence tablets are replacing pcs rather than being an additional item. We've got a few tablets in our house, but we still use a pc for stuff too. Almost everyone in my office has a tablet, some use them for work, but everyone still also uses a pc.

 

In a work environment tablets have had a massive impact on the way people take notes. Some people that used to use a pen and paper now use a tablet. So should iPads be included in market share figures for notepads?

post #140 of 206

Ultimately, until every manufacturer that is being compared to Apple starts reporting actual sales figures like Apple does, all of these research papers from IDC, Gartner, et al., are pointless.  The margin of error and the amount of assumptions made are too high.  Additionally, as mentioned in the article, there is a substantial amount of bias.  With all those factors in play, it's tough to get any actual insight into the market.  What I do know is that I see far more iPads than I do tablets from any other manufacturer.

post #141 of 206

AI - Great article! Do people still believe in Gartners and IDCs? They will dance to whatever tune you want - It's your dime! The real sad part is that we have people at Marketwatch, CNBC, CNET, WSJ, etc. will pick up those figures and will plaster it all over their headline board! The market and those retail investors will read this and start dumping Apple share without realizing who are the players behind the story. Two days will pass by and they will look at AAPL  stocks and they will say - DHUH!

post #142 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by radster360 View Post
 

AI - Great article! Do people still believe in Gartners and IDCs? They will dance to whatever tune you want - It's your dime! The real sad part is that we have people at Marketwatch, CNBC, CNET, WSJ, etc. will pick up those figures and will plaster it all over their headline board! The market and those retail investors will read this and start dumping Apple share without realizing who are the players behind the story. Two days will pass by and they will look at AAPL  stocks and they will say - DHUH!

 

The thing is that all those publications that you listed and more also have a great deal of bias in their reporting.  Whether it is ad dollars or market manipulation, it isn't straight up reporting.  When you start factoring rumors about the supply chain among other things, it's just nuts.  For some reason Apple incites some of the craziest reporting that you will see...even crazier than muscle car debates that involve stickers with kids peeing on Ford and Chevy logos.

post #143 of 206
The Androids are here, the Androids are here ...or are they?

Yesterday, was my favourite sister's birthday ( ) and she expressed how she wanted my wife and I to take her to the Apple store to see an iPad, since we have 4 Apple retail stores within 30 minutes of our home by car. We decided to take it a step further.

We gave her an iPad as we had done with my mother-in-law back in October. My wife had allocated the time to set up the iPad for her and get her going in the afternoon.

She was ecstatic with her gift and my mother-in-law arrived and quickly got busy showing her how she uses it, and then competing with her for next two hours.

As I looked around the room, I realized we had 4 iPads, 2 iPhone 5S's, an iMac 27" and a Macbook pro and not a single Android device visible.

Yes, look out Apple your market share is dwindling, but not here.

Please note that I am biased as is IDC, Gartner and Strategy Analytics since all of our Apple products were paid for by Apple dividends paid to us for owning Apple stock!
I do not suffer from insanity;
I enjoy every minute of it!
Reply
I do not suffer from insanity;
I enjoy every minute of it!
Reply
post #144 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

Principle in use: Tell a lie often enough and people will believe it.

 

yep. look at faux news

post #145 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post
 

I agree that the iPad belongs in the same market as the PC. This is because it is powerful enough to be general purpose enough to fill the role of a PC (with a few exceptions). A 64-bit 1.4GHz CPU, 1GB of RAM and 128GB disk was a decent PC not long ago.

 

The second point about some kind of conspiracy from the purveyors of stats is a bit harder to believe. I agree that one way to publish objective numbers, but still have them come out to favour your losing client, is to be creative with market boundaries. But it could just as easily be explained by them taking a simplistic view of things, e.g. not grouping devices together based on how general purpose they potentially are, but just on what they look like. One can imagine non technical people making that mistake.


It isn't a conspiracy. That's putting words in DED's mouth. It is movement into new markets and servicing new customers by SA, IDC, et al.

 

And they aren't purveyors of stats, but rather, historically, have been creators of market analysis reports that can be used by middle managers and VPs to justify virtually any decision or forecast. That's an important distinction: the products that SA and IDC create (and charge considerable sums for) are artfully crafted reports that can be used to prop up purchasing or operations decision, so that a manager or executive can better sell his/her plan to the top brass.

 

Does Mr. Green's plan to focus the company's software development on products that will run exclusively on the Samsung Galaxy Y sound a bit, well, deluded? But, says Mr. Green, look here at page 32 in this hefty and oh-so-professional report custom-tailored for us by IDC! The Galaxy Y has prodigious market share in the mid-to-lower-range name-brand smartphone segment! And the chart shows that it has nowhere to go but up! Can't argue with that!

 

These reports are beautiful artifices, chock-full of obfuscating industry jargon, page-long tables that appear tidy and scrupulous, and, most important of all, charts and graphs that can be read to mean anything you want them to. Art, beautiful, exceptional art, masquerading as science.

 

Now SA, IDC, and Gartner are moving beyond their traditional reports into new products: artfully crafted press releases, designed to sway industry pundits who will assume that there must be at least a grain of truth in the releases, and who will, like the oysters they are, build fantastic pearls of wisdom around those grains. The pearls will be shared with investors, early adopters, and others who will further influence consumers. In the end, the truthiness will out.

 

If you were a marketer at a billion-dollar company which bet on the Android horse and hasn't seen a penny of profit from it, would you consider paying a relative pittance for press releases from well-known industry analysts that appear to be impartial but which actually paint your company's struggles as triumphs and your competitor's wins as losses?

 

There's no conspiracy here, just sleazy businesses servicing sleazy businesses.

post #146 of 206
The best advertisement for an iPhone is having used an Android. I didnt realize the goal of the "research" was to influence purchasing behavior.
Edited by AdonisSMU - 11/17/13 at 6:07am
post #147 of 206
@manxman
"I think you are fundamentally wrong to look at macs in a general home computer market."

completely wrong. actually couldn't be more wrong. Personally, i know more people who have a mac at home, than i know who use one at work. And i used to work for a Mac Distributor and am involved in IT support each day now, so have a fairly large stats base to work from

i would even go so far as to say now that its Windows that is the general "work" computer
post #148 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

 

If game consoles were rapidly replacing PCs among PC gamers, it would be useful for anyone involved in the gaming industry to look at the market for (consoles and PC sales) when making decisions about platforms. Microsoft was gravely concerned about the original PlayStation eating up PC sales, for example, which launched the Xbox effort. 

In general terms however, game consoles aren’t usually described as being significant to PC sales. They’re only used for games. Nobody really browses the web on a PS3, and console media consumption probably has impact on home stereo gear or Smart TVs than PCs.

You can’t say that about iPad, which has replaced the conventional PC for millions of people, and served as a direct replacement for client PCs in a variety of business and education settings. It used to be that the general concept of a PC was a box with components. But iPad delivered a form factor at a cost where it became a very popular device. 

Microsoft spent years trying to challenge Apple’s device with transformer notebooks, netbooks and thick x86 slates. Surface is close to iPad, but is trying to be more like an iPad/netbook hybrid, at a higher price point. It’s not working at all. Google entered tablets with Honeycomb slates with 16:9 screens and a 3D interface that layered on "Droid" complexity and brought back lots of old PC cruft via Android. Flopped miserably. It’s now trending closer to iPad-like devices, but still isn’t making any headway. 

It
s not useful to call everything a PC, but iPads are clearly being used for tasks conventional PCs were 
previously bought for. That makes your arbitrary distinction of PC = "
separate keyboard and pointing device" incorrect, or more precisely: not useful. PC makers have sold Tablet PCs without keyboards, just not in significant quantity.

And of course, DOS PCs lacked pointers from 1981 to 1995, 14 years. Nearly as long as Windows PCs have been around. 
Cars replaced horses so should horses still be included in car market share figures? DVD players replaced VCR's should they have been considered the same product?

So what about smartphones? Phones have been replacing pc's for online shopping in a far bigger way than iPads have affected business or education. Most people building sites now talk about mobile first strategies. So smartphones should be included right? Under your logic about replacing the pc, a smartphone does, so market shares for pc's should include smartphones.

Also is there actually that much evidence tablets are replacing pcs rather than being an additional item. We've got a few tablets in our house, but we still use a pc for stuff too. Almost everyone in my office has a tablet, some use them for work, but everyone still also uses a pc.

In a work environment tablets have had a massive impact on the way people take notes. Some people that used to use a pen and paper now use a tablet. So should iPads be included in market share figures for notepads?

Your analogies are inconsistent and too extreme to form a useful argument. One could extend your methodology equally in the other direction to rule out electric cars from the car market just because they don't have internal combustion engines, which is arguably a much bigger product differentiator than a computer without the old-style pointing device.

We did not reclassify PCs as entirely new products when they transitioned from floppy drives to hard drives to SSDs, when they stopped using CRTs as displays, when the box went away and it just became a screen with a keyboard (iMac), when the mouseless laptop started to dominate (even though that mobile sales segment is still sometimes broken out), or when their primary functions changed to include entertainment (movies, music etc.).

So just because an iPad lacks a couple of the peripherals that you are used to (or rather it has them but now built into the display) does not make it less of a PC. It still has all the key elements of a PC and, even more significantly, it is being used for the same purposes as a PC. Furthermore, it is clearly canniblelizing PC sales in significant, even if not all, market segments, including business and home use. For many purposes an iPad is a perfectly viable replacement for a regular PC. That's not really true for a smartphone - even though they include much of the same functionality they are too small to be viable replacements.
post #149 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dachar View Post

The home market may be changing. I have moved from a windows desktop PC to an iMac just for home use. I became so fed up with Microsoft os and so pleased with my iPad and iPhone that when it came time to replace my computer Apple was the only choice. I now have a trouble free computer that works properly, something that I didn't have under Microsoft's os. Apple is no longer just for selected markets but for home users too.

Same here. Back in the late '80's to early '90's, I always thought Apple was for the "rich, odd" people. Since thier market share was so low, I thought they must be crap machines that only the rich people would want just to set themselves up on a higher pedestal than the rest of the crowd. Since Windows 3.1, I've always been a Microsoft user, even though at times the devices were extremely frustrating to use. I thought, well I guess this is just how it is, you just learn to accept the fact that these devices are mid to low rate, and there's nothing you can do about it. Again, only the rich people would pay more at Apple for the same crap. When I got my first iPod, I remember thinking, "Wow! Ok, Apple's onto something here." When the iPhone came out, again, the user experience I encountered with the iPhone was out of this world! Comparing EVERY other mobile phone I had used since 1996 couldn't even be done on the same planet! Unheard of user friendliness. By now, Apple's got me hooked and I'm so fed up with Microsoft Vista and their garbage. So when the iPad hit, I GOTTA have this thing! What great products! How could I ever go back to junk? So when my Dell finally died, there was absolutely no question in my mind what I was getting to replace it. Of course, a Mac!

Now, I'm all for competition, but when I tried using friends' Android and Windows phones and their tablets, it was like going backwards in time. Like going back to Vista. No way! They can keep that garbage.
post #150 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullhead View Post

yep. look at faux news

Ha! I call it the same thing!
post #151 of 206
Really cool stuff. Thank's a lot :-)
post #152 of 206

Android will become android when Samsung goes full court with their competitive Tizen OS.  

Tizen: Samsung Makes Quiet Push for New Mobile Operating System

post #153 of 206
No doubt! Now i want to see this article published everywhere, For a year .. Once a week .. With a giant headline!
post #154 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post
 

Cars replaced horses so should horses still be included in car market share figures?

 

if you talking about modal split in travel, yes. just like air planes replaced trains and passenger liners. they perform the same basic function: get you from here to there.

 

DVD players replaced VCR's should they have been considered the same product?

 

you must mean did they (+DVR) compete for the same market? yes. because they also performed the same function: commercial/personal media hard copy playback and TV time-shifting.

 

So what about smartphones? Phones have been replacing pc's for online shopping in a far bigger way than iPads have affected business or education. Most people building sites now talk about mobile first strategies. So smartphones should be included right? Under your logic about replacing the pc, a smartphone does, so market shares for pc's should include smartphones.

 

yes you can use smartphones for some of the same traditional functions as a PC. but most users use them primarily for the things PC's never did. like take pictures and make phone calls (in general, communicate digitally) from anywhere. as a practical matter, few have actually replaced their PC with just a smartphone. so no, the functional overlap is too limited to count them as the same market. what smart phones have truly replaced instead are pay phones and to a significant extent land lines in general, and also now consumer cameras. they also have fostered a whole new world of location-based services of all kinds that PC's never encompassed conceptually at all. so smartphones are really a true new category/market - the "post PC" device.

 

Also is there actually that much evidence tablets are replacing pcs rather than being an additional item. We've got a few tablets in our house, but we still use a pc for stuff too. Almost everyone in my office has a tablet, some use them for work, but everyone still also uses a pc.

 

PC sales went down significantly and now have flattened. there is no doubt about that. businesses still need conventional workstations for many obvious reasons, but replacement cycles have lengthened as older PC's are still good enough. that is one factor. slowed global economic growth is a second factor. the third factor has to be shifts in the consumer market - the same longer replacement cycle, the same household budget tightening. those are all "forgone" PC sales, while tablet sales have boomed in spite of all that. one key factor is many tablet buyers never even owned/used a PC before - a new market segment. another is a decline in multiple-PC households as the second and third PC's are replaced by tablets when they get old.

 

In a work environment tablets have had a massive impact on the way people take notes. Some people that used to use a pen and paper now use a tablet. So should iPads be included in market share figures for notepads?

 

now you getting pretty silly, but sure, you could say that (and add pens and pencils too) - for a theoretical "note taking mechanisms" market. it would be fun to check if total sales of all office paper products to businesses have gone down due to the digital revolution of the last 20 years, both per capita and absolute tonnage. conventional wisdom would predict it has, substantially.

 

if we were talking just newsprint, that's for damn sure.

 

 

post #155 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cintos View Post

Android will become android when Samsung goes full court with their competitive Tizen OS.  

Tizen: Samsung Makes Quiet Push for New Mobile Operating System




Good! Now Apple can just go after Samsung solely and directly. Maybe even add Intel to the lawsuit list.

“I got an impression that Tizen was benchmarking Android,” said Park Minhyung, a developer who attended the conference. “Speakers at the sessions said that they adopted strong features from Android."

Fortunately for Samsung, Google is highly unlikely to file patent suits for "borrowing" Android IP as it's so atypical for them. As much as I dislike the IP wars, even software patents altogether for that matter, I'd almost forgive Google if they broke with tradition and got Samsung's attention.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #156 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Good! Now Apple can just go after Samsung solely and directly. Maybe even add Intel to the lawsuit list.

“I got an impression that Tizen was benchmarking Android,” said Park Minhyung, a developer who attended the conference. “Speakers at the sessions said that they adopted strong features from Android."

Fortunately for Samsung, Google is highly unlikely to file patent suits for "borrowing" Android IP as it's so atypical for them. As much as I dislike the IP wars, even software patents altogether for that matter, I'd almost forgive Google if they broke with tradition and got Samsung's attention.

 

Google threatened legal action against licensees who said they would include Chinese forks of Android on some of their devices, kicking them out of the Android party. Of course, Google can’t sue over Android IP that it has given away, but Google would certainly sue a dissident licensee who destroyed the whole Android game.

 

Google has so far attempted to retaliate against Microsoft and Apple, using mostly FRAND licensed, standards essential patents in failed bids to block Android infringement of previously patented features. But if Samsung leaves for Tizen and rips off Google’s own apps, taking half of the installed base of Android with it (and the premium half at that), you have to be really naive to think that Google wouldn’t attempt to recoup some of the $13 billion it has paid for Andy Rubin’s Motorola Mobility boondoggle. 

 

It’s equally impossible to fathom that Samsung would leave without ripping off every possible element of Google’s closed layer of Android value, the apps that aren’t free and which add the most value to "open" Android as a platform for OEMs. Google viciously protects this IP, just like every other company. It just spins a delusion of being free and open to impress its naive and ideological fan base.

 

Also, even if you think Google is incapable of suing over IP, recall that Google thought the same thing about Sun when it ripped off Java under the belief that Sun would just bend over and take it. But then Oracle bought Sun and changed the rules. If Google spun its Android group & IP rights off or sold it to another firm, say BlackBerry or even a full-on patent troll, all bets would be off. And everyone would be suing Samsung. 

post #157 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

“I got an impression that Tizen was benchmarking Android,” said Park Minhyung, a developer who attended the conference. “Speakers at the sessions said that they adopted strong features from Android."

Isn't that the whole point of open source?

Besides, further from there, the whole idea of IP is very hard to define, because "an obvious idea" is obvious to specialists, but rarely to the common man.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #158 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post
 

Cars replaced horses so should horses still be included in car market share figures? 

Well, I'd say yes, among other reasons, because you damn can't know if in a century from now, most people won't travel by horse for "short" distances, and electric zeppelin or electric sailboat for longer distances.

Right now, the horse is a minimal player, due to the ease of access to oil at competitive prices in $$$ and blood (not the West's).

Tomorrow, it might  be again huge, as oil resources dwindle and replacements have to be found, especially in a world where business can be very much dematerialized. Just look at how many people use FaceTime or Skype everyday nowadays instead of wasting hours in a car!

However, it obviously cannot be the "car" market share figures, but the "transportation" market share figures, else your data is flawed.

 

The very problem with statistics is that you orient your analysis based on what you wish to study.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #159 of 206
Well I now believe that Apple is at 120% of the market. Thanks DED.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #160 of 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


Good! Now Apple can just go after Samsung solely and directly. Maybe even add Intel to the lawsuit list.

“I got an impression that Tizen was benchmarking Android,” said Park Minhyung, a developer who attended the conference. “Speakers at the sessions said that they adopted strong features from Android."

Fortunately for Samsung, Google is highly unlikely to file patent suits for "borrowing" Android IP as it's so atypical for them. As much as I dislike the IP wars, even software patents altogether for that matter, I'd almost forgive Google if they broke with tradition and got Samsung's attention.

 

Shouldn't you be over on YouTube posting the benefits of Google +?

 

Seems a lot of people don't like it at all.

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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • The curious case of IDC, Gartner & Strategy Analytics' PC, phone & tablet data on Apple
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › The curious case of IDC, Gartner & Strategy Analytics' PC, phone & tablet data on Apple