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 2

post #41 of 205

The article is not the first one on these so called "Market Research" companies. You can guess the level of incompetency when you read the article here (http://www.zdnet.com/why-does-the-it-industry-continue-to-listen-to-gartner-7000001394/).

 

Some light moments from the article -

 

 

"To recap: In early 2009, Gartner projects “sharpest unit decline in history.” At the end of the year, it reports “strongest growth rate in seven years.”

And you wonder why I put “Gartner predicts” right up there with “a report from DigiTimes” on my list of phrases that cause me to stop reading further.

You should too."

 

post #42 of 205

Great piece shedding light on these questionable firms. This piece should be re-printed on CNN and all the investment news sites.

Help! I'm trapped in a white dungeon of amazing precision and impeccable tolerances!

Reply

Help! I'm trapped in a white dungeon of amazing precision and impeccable tolerances!

Reply
post #43 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by richsadams View Post

This article highlights the "Cheat to win" strategy that is so prevalent in today's society.  The practice is disgusting, morally wrong and indefensible.

...

Maybe not such a new strategy:
Quote:
Literature and linguistics.

The strongest teacher of the prohibition of bribery was literary. At the center of the European tradition stood Dantes Divine Comedy, in which bribery and simony constituted sins of fraud, more reprehensible than sins of violence because they involved misuse of man's intellect; those who sold secular justice were punished even more severely than the ecclesiastics, by immersion in a boiling, sticky pitch. Lucca, where "No becomes Yes for money," is eternally stigmatized as a symbol of civic corruption (Inferno, canto 21). Shakespeare fixed the English literary-moral tradition, especially with passages on bribes and corruption in Julius Caesar (act 4, scene 3) and with an entire play, Measure for Measure, which contrasts Christian spiritual reciprocities with foul redemption by a bribe. From Shakespeare to Henry Adams (Democracy) and Robert Penn Warren (All the King's Men), the moral offensiveness of criminal bribery has been a significant theme in English and American literature.

The classical languages had a single word—shohadh in Hebrew, doron in Greek, and munus in Latin—meaning gift, reward, bribe. The ambiguity reflected moral and legal ambivalences. By the sixteenth century, English used bribe unambiguously in its present moral and legal sense. By the same period to bribe, bribery, and briber were in use, as well as the colloquial expression to grease, meaning to bribe. Bribee, graft, and grafter are nineteenth-century terms, the latter two American. Slush fund, a source from which bribes are paid, and payoff are twentieth-century Americanisms. The association of bribes with dirt, dirty hands, and grease goes back to classical times. Euphemisms for bribe are gift, gratuity, reward, contribution, and kickback. Conflict of interest is sometimes used for a good-faith dilemma, sometimes as a euphemism for a situation produced by bribery.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/572/Bribery-tradition.html
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #44 of 205
I don't know why you'd even quote Dvorak. Although I haven't read him in a number of years, he is incredibly wrong far more often than he he's right and he was almost always wrong about Apple.

You could do a comedy routine with quotes from Dvorak about Apple. Here are just two, but I'm sure with a bit of research, one could easily find 100:

March 28, 2007: "Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone" Commentary: Company risks its reputation in competitive business

1984: "The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a "mouse". There is no evidence that people want to use these things. I dont want one of these new fangled devices."

But he's not the only one:
5/21/2001: Cliff Edwards: "Commentary: Sorry, Steve: Here's Why Apple Stores Won't Work. New retail outlets aren't going to fix Apple's sales.

1/14/2007: Matthew Lynn: "Apple iPhone Will Fair in a Late, Defensive Move"

12/23/2006: Bill Ray: "Why the Apple phone will fail, and fail badly" It's the Pippin all over again.

10/05/2000: Michael S. Malone: "Apple R.I.P."

And here are some more quotes, which I took off of some website (no longer remember which - it could have even been this one):

"The iMac will only sell to some of the true believers. The iMac doesn't include a floppy disk drive drive for doing file backups or sharing of data. ... The iMac will fail.
- Hiawatha Bray, Boston Globe, 1998.

"I'd shut [Apple] down and give the money back to the shareholders."
- Michael Dell, October 1997

"The biggest long-term problem with moving to an Apple platform is that the company is in decline."
- Rob Enderle, in October 2003

"Within the next two months, Sony will acquire Apple. Sony will be the white knight who will step into the picture."
- former Apple VP Gaston Bastiaens, January 1996.

"[Apple] seems to have two options. The first is to break itself up, selling the hardware side. The second is to sell the company outright."
- The Economist, February 1995


My issue with all these idiots is not that they get it wrong. It's that they never admit they were wrong.
Edited by zoetmb - 11/16/13 at 9:41am
post #45 of 205
Thanks so much for sharing this incredible information! Really nice work!!!!
post #46 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

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

 

You mean like telling people if they liked their healthcare plan they could keep it? 

post #47 of 205
John C. Dvorak also doesn't believe in the science of climate change and thinks nuclear power plants are a good thing.

Apple has the world's best hardware, operating systems, customer support and customer satisfaction. Oh yeah, Apple also has more cash and makes higher profit than any other computer company. In spite of all this reality, the Wall Street cons still manage to manipulate Apple's stock price on cue, to their advantage of course.
post #48 of 205
"If you're Pepsi and you're getting outsold by Coke, why not print headlines that statistically compare Coke to every cola on earth, or perhaps every drink containing caffeine? Poor Coke! After inventing such news its "market share" would now ostensibly be slipping into irrelevance, calling into question the fact that it sells the most product in its actual market, makes the most money, and people everywhere pay a premium for its name brand. What a miserable loser Coke suddenly is, just with some creative reporting of meaningless, contrived statistics."

Bravo!!
post #49 of 205
That's why market share studies are useless when only Apple reports actual numbers. Usage share has less bias if they span a wide variety of sites/apps/etc.
post #50 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post
 

Apple doing well within the segment that is growing slowly *is* of note to Wall Street, but what they are more interested in is the segment of the market that is poised for huge growth- the low end segment.  Call them 'junk phones' if it makes you feel better, but that's where the huge growth is going to be in the next few years.  Wall Street is rightfully interested in any data it can get on that, and it may even be true that they are *more* interested in that than the data on the more established and predictable high end market.  Apple chose not compete in the high growth segment and that is fine.

 

Getting mad at data firms and Wall Street for looking at the data that is important to them just because doesn't align with your belief that it should instead focus on how awesome your favorite company is would seem silly if it didn't serve the higher purpose of rallying the other members of the fan base.

 

Obviously, I wouldn't expect Wall Street or any business analyst to ignore any part of the market.   But what is absurd is to claim that Apple is failing for not bothering to address a part of the market that consumes many units, but doesn't make much in the way of profit.  And if Apple did do that, Wall Street would probably complain that they're losing focus.    It's the difference between a fine restaurant and McDonald's.   Which business does one want to be in?    From a Wall Street perspective, they'd look at "hamburger shipments" and choose McDonald's.   Anyone who cared about quality would choose the fine restaurant.    

 

We're seeing this right now in the photography market (partially because of Apple actually):    The low-end point-and-shoot market is disappearing even though that's where all the units were.    It's disappearing because smartphones can do just about everything the low end p&s cameras can do, much that they can't (like instant posting to photos sites or Facebook, etc.) and because the best camera to have is the one you have with you and people always have their phones with them.      Through September, shipments of p&s cameras are down 44% this year and actual sales have probably declined even more.   (Not that higher-end cameras aren't doing well either:  DSLRs are down 17% and Mirrorless are down 13%).  A number of camera makers are either getting out of the p&s business completely or are de-emphasizing it.   Do you want to see Apple in that position in a few years?

 

The problem with playing at the low end of the market, aside from the lack of profits there, is that it's too easy for someone else to compete with you, since the resulting product will have fewer features or lesser performance.    I don't care what Apple's market share is - they're very smart for not trying to play in that space.    The only advantage to playing in that market is to build brand loyalty, although I wonder if even that would happen if the resulting low-end product doesn't have differentiation.   

post #51 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Look. This is a business. DED sells kool aid to believers. You can believe what you want but actual facts matter - the iPad is not as dominant as it was and nowhere near as dominant as the iPod.

 

Look. This is a business. Strategy Analytics sells kool aid to people willing to believe the talking points that Apple is doomed.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by manxman View Post

I think you are fundamentally wrong to look at macs in a general home computer market.
Just like you'd be wrong to compare Porsches with Fords. Mac have never really been mainstream, but for professional users. Its not one market, its segmented such as: home, pro, and business users.

 

Nope. Anyone can and does buy Macs, which start under $600.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #52 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamphick View Post

John C. Dvorak also doesn't believe in the science of climate change and thinks nuclear power plants are a good thing.
damn you almost make me want to like Dvorak now...
post #53 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

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

Very true ... and something else I learned from experience is that the most valuable form of advertisement is "word of mouth" coming from customers who bought and use a particular product .... and Apple has that "in spades".

 

That's why I admire the efforts of Tim Cook so much. He has the amazing focus and ability to "separate the wheat from the chaff" and to just keep on building the world's most valuable company, while ignoring all the drivel that comes from the competition.

Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #54 of 205
Mitigating all the efforts at "Influencing consumer behavior and buying preferences" is the obvious fact that folks who buy Apple products simply do not spend much time reading the financial or the technical press. They are too busy getting on with their lives with a product that delivers a satisfying experience.

Two years from now, many Android advocates might need to jump ship, as Samsun moves forward with a big Tizen push. A Time Techland article entitled "Tizen: Samsung Makes Quiet Push for New Mobile Operating Operating System". In it, Kang Yeen-kyu, of the state-run Korea Information Society Development Institute suggested that %u201CSamsung%u2019s goal is to establish an ecosystem centered on Samsung.%u201D

http://techland.time.com/2013/11/12/tizen-samsung-makes-quiet-push-for-new-mobile-operating-system/#ixzz2kpdKSH6Q
post #55 of 205

Facts are not the truth, they are merely an indication of where the truth may lie.

post #56 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamphick View Post

John C. Dvorak also doesn't believe in the science of climate change and thinks nuclear power plants are a good thing.
damn you almost make me want to like Dvorak now...

This^^^

But, but, but... climate change is settled science...


This (emphasis mine):
Quote:
sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
1.
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

And this:
Quote:
settled science
Web definitions
Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #57 of 205

This is almost a good article.  

 

He raises some very good points including how Macs, Iphone and iPads are categorized, and I think he certainly can make an argument that the categorization that was chosen by the IDCs and Gartners of this world perhaps didn't help Apple.  

 

I also certainly agree that IDC and Gartner et al. very much try to influence the market.   In a prior role, I used to routinely have IDC and Gartner among others come in to talk at large customer events and they would ask us what they wanted us to say and would present only data that backed up what we requested.  Basically, you can buy any of these companies.  These firms have a long history of doing this, well before smartphones and tablets were a twinkling in Jobs' eye.   That being said, I don't believe any of these companies have an intrinsic Apple bias, on the contrary, I find some of their projections to be very rosy for Apple.

 

However, as usual, I'm afraid, the bias in this articles ruins it.  Some of the assertions are ridiculous, such as: 

 

"Over the past year, the failure of Android tablets from Amazon, Samsung, Asus, LG, Microsoft and Google/Motorola to live up their sales predictions (or have any substantial impact on the iPad at all) has demanded a new tactic in the anti-counting of Apple's iPad."

 

I agree with the author that the 'white label' tablets should be singled out, but in the latest 3Q tablet data from IDC, you'll see Samsung growing 123% to 9.7 million units and Lenovo growing 421% to 2.3 million units.  This compares to Apple's growth of 0.6% to 14.1 million units.  Apple will of course do much better in 4Q, but the claims that this is having no substantial impact on Apple is not backed up by the evidence.  The fact that Apple came out with an 8" device responding directly to a (correctly perceived) threat from these very competitors is evidence that even Apple wouldn't agree with the author.


Edited by JamesMac - 11/17/13 at 3:54pm
post #58 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Something else happened in 2010: iPad, a highly mobile personal computer with a tablet form factor. Shortly after it went on sale, Gartner and IDC stopped counting tablets as Personal Computers. Well not exactly; they stopped counting tablets that didn't run Windows as Personal Computers.

This prevented Apple from distorting their PC market share figures. As the PC market mysteriously flattened out (it failed to grow by more than 2 million units between 2010 and 2012, a pace more than twice as slow as that seen during the recession of 2008), Apple's iPad sales quickly ramped up to 58.3 million per year.

 

that's because its not a pc, why report on it as if its a pc when its not. very simple reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


What is the relevance of digging up this "tier two" garbage, counting it as a serious product offering, and then announcing that, given the discovery of piles of junk being shoveled into inventory channels, that Apple's iPad "market share" has fallen? Particularly when the same market research firms are studiously avoiding any comparison between conventional PCs and the iPads that are stampeding through their historical markets, a move of noteworthy significance? 

 

Err because there tablets that have been made and sold! Price is irrelevant, if it looks like a tablet, works like a tablet then why wouldn't you include it.

post #59 of 205
This "pay the market research firm or suffer the consequences" does sound like a paying for protection... Don't you guys have racketeering laws? 1smile.gif
post #60 of 205

Why would Apple want to get in the way of competitors getting information that is overly optimistic, if not outright false? Savvy people like Horace Dediu of asymco provide a solid counter to these analysts, as do Apple's financial reports.

 

Excepting Wall Street's take on Apple, which will from here on be pessimistic, I don't see a downside for Apple.

 

Watch Samsung.

 

They are Apple's primary competitor, and they are having to sell a mix of substantially more phones of all types to increase revenues, but ASP and margins are falling quite fast relative to Apple. Eventually, Samsung will see much of its low end market overtaken by hungry "white box" oem's while Apple will maintain its premium dominance, while seeing a slower decrease in ASP and margins, still with increasing sales volume.

post #61 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948 View Post

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

You mean like telling people if they liked their healthcare plan they could keep it? 

There's a funny video at:

http://freebeacon.com/leno-pokes-fun-at-obama-presser/
Quote:
NBC late-night host Jay Leno poked fun at President Obama’s press conference Thursday night, suggesting that if it’s not as easy to buy health insurance as it is to download a song off iTunes, maybe he should think about hiring the iTunes folks to fix the website.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #62 of 205
Bearing in mind the effect that these so-called research firms have on various tech co's share price i'm surprised that the SEC hasn't investigated them yet, or are they still asleep on their watch?
post #63 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


Maybe not such a new strategy:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/572/Bribery-tradition.html

 

Absolutely nothing new for sure (and thanks for the great example)...however this sort of tactic is becoming more and more prevalent now.  When success cannot be guaranteed by playing by the accepted rules, some game the rules and/or the system believing the ends justifying the means.  Obviously not everyone does it, Apple being a shining example, but even if everyone did it still cannot be justified.  

 

Cheating is the last bastion of those sad individuals and organizations that have no moral compass.  Karma is a bitch as they say.  I just hope it visits those types sooner than later.

post #64 of 205
Great article DED. But for anyone in the industry this is not really news. I have often looked on in disbelieve as my senior management pays ridiculous amounts of money for these "reports" totally ignoring our in house research that is much more likely to be accurate. These "research" companies are nothing more than snake oil salesmen and have been for many many years...
post #65 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

I don't know why you'd even quote Dvorak. <snip>

 

What a great collection of quotes.  Thanks!

post #66 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by richsadams View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Maybe not such a new strategy:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/572/Bribery-tradition.html

Absolutely nothing new for sure (and thanks for the great example)...however this sort of tactic is becoming more and more prevalent now.  When success cannot be guaranteed by playing by the accepted rules, some game the rules and/or the system believing the ends justifying the means.  Obviously not everyone does it, Apple being a shining example, but even if everyone did it still cannot be justified.  

Cheating is the last bastion of those sad individuals and organizations that have no moral compass.  Karma is a bitch as they say.  I just hope it visits those types sooner than later.

Good points!

I believe that every individual (and every organization) has an agenda -- including me and thee...

Some are [mostly] open and forthright about their goals, purposes and methods -- while others obfuscate.

It is the responsibility of the individual in how he conducts his actions and to observe and understand the actions of others.

And, yes, Karma is the ultimate judgement.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #67 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

that's because its not a pc, why report on it as if its a pc when its not. very simple reason.
How do you define a PC?
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.

The mini is very useful, especially for beginners.
post #68 of 205
That 2% figure was always suspect. It was sales, not installed base. Macs last longer and don't need to be upgraded or replaced as often.

manxman is right about the consumer market being different from professionals. I work in printing. Even when the Mac was supposedly at 2% market share, 90% of the files people sent in for print jobs were Mac files. These days, it's more like 99%. We have one lonely PC that sits in a corner and gathers dust, versus six Macs, each being used 40 hours a week or more.
post #69 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

that's because its not a pc, why report on it as if its a pc when its not. very simple reason.
How do you define a PC?

Good question!!! Is an iPad any less that a 1978 Apple ][, 1981 IBM/PC, 1984 Mac, 2013 pc or Mac? In some ways, it's much more than any of these "real" PCs.
Quote:
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.

The mini is very useful, especially for beginners.

Headless home servers, server farms...
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #70 of 205

this DED post is on-target. but there is one more important point it still didn't get to:

 

there is no single "Android" in any real sense. There is the parent Google ecosystem Android, but few in the developing world actually use Google services, and that is the prime market for the white box tablets/smartphones. most of those are tied into local home country culturally-relevant services via their local telco and popular local websites. that describes virtually all of the China market to start with. and of course Amazon has totally split away from the Google ecosystem already in first world markets. Samsung - the #1 Android top tier global OEM - won't be far behind. it has already pushed Google services down into a second level underneath its own custom UI.

 

if "Android" with a capital "A" were accurately defined as smartphones/tablets principally using Google's ecosystem services (as Google always intended), or even just its advertising pipe, its total market share would be half of these inflated numbers - and will be even less in the near future.

post #71 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck View Post

Really? LOL. It reminds me of the ranting of the right about the left wing mass media "conspiracy."

AI lost me when they pointed to a Dvorak article and tried to take it seriously. Dvorak is paid say outrageous things, stir up the hornets nest if you will. The author doesn't seem to understand that. Basic math also seems a challenge because they don't seem to understand the simple fact that sales can increase while the percentage of the market share goes down.

Time would have been better spent on the fact that market share numbers, especially on their own, mean absolutely nothing.

-kpluck
I think someone else missed the point too. Sure Dvorak is paid to write sensationalistic titles and pieces. Now show me someone who isnt. You would think that Gartner would be one of those groups but they're not and that was the point. You've got such a hard on for Dvorak bashing that you missed the whole story.
post #72 of 205
The billion dollar question: Does the daily barrage of negativity affect Apple Sales? If so, by how much? Their gargantuan growth over the past few years arguably led to the stock price catching its breath. Is it better to grow 100% one year and then keep those gains the following year or grow 50% each year. For Wall Street it's no contest as they view the 2nd year of no growth as impending doom. Couple that with highly respected research firms using highly suspect data and now Apple must prove itself for the tenth time. Ichan buys 2 billion dollars worth of stock. Cooperman sells 15 million dollars worth and this is portrayed as somehow canceling out Ichan's view of Apple's future. If anything, Apple surviving the daily dissing about Macs for over a decade bodes well. Perhaps in a bizarre way the public flogging might actually be working in reverse. Constant publicity backed up by anecdotal evidence in schools, business and neighbors who are tired of having products that don't work and instead just get it.
post #73 of 205

Yes, there is a hidden agenda and/or point of view in these reports, and these companies are often fatally conflicted by reporting market data about companies who are also paying them for services to 'influence' consumers...    There is no mystery why there is a huge disconnect between the 'market share' statistics and the actual web usage of these devices...  A. You can't do a whole lot with white box devices running Android 2.2, B. Lots of them are sitting on shelves or in drawers, and/or C. They can't access Google Play.  

 

Android remains horribly fragmented, particularly when you include Amazon's Kindle...  It's sort of a joke to count Kindles as Android devices, yet based on activations, that's exactly what Google does and what IDC and Gartner parrot...

 

At the end of the day, this is not terribly harmful to Apple, who will continue to be judged by the quality of their products and strength of their app ecosystem...

 

In the short term, reports like these may slow down corporate adoption of Apple's products, by IT professionals who devour reports like these, and/or may affect Apple's share price by investors who do the same...

 

But 99% of consumers don't know who IDC or Gartner are...

post #74 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


How do you define a PC?
The mini is very useful, especially for beginners.

 

the mini is great if you can't lay out $1500+ for a new iMac and already have a decent monitor (as many do), and don't need a portable laptop - maybe because your iPad already satisfies your portable needs now - which is becoming more and more the situation these days.

 

many households still need a desktop for media stuff, general/special purpose big-screen applications, and shared use. the $600 base mini is a good fit for them. plug in a $100 2T external drive if more media storage is needed. then add two iPad mini's, one with 4G, and you get all that for the same price as an iMac.

 

whoever dissed the mini don't know beans.

post #75 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

the mini is great if you can't lay out $1500+ for a new iMac and already have a decent monitor (as many do), and don't need a portable laptop - maybe because your iPad already satisfies your portable needs now - which is becoming more and more the situation these days.

many households still need a desktop for media stuff, general/special purpose big-screen applications, and shared use. the $600 base mini is a good fit for them. plug in a $100 2T external drive if more media storage is needed. then add two iPad mini's, one with 4G, and you get all that for the same price as an iMac.

whoever dissed the mini don't know beans.

Or even no decent monitor. A VNC app on your iPad/iPhone and/or portable Mac can let you have a great but inexpensive Mac at home as an iTunes Server for your Apple TV or Roku box as well as for Time Machine backups (if you have multiple Mac notebooks).
post #76 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_sanders_aia View Post

Y

Android remains horribly fragmented, particularly when you include Amazon's Kindle...  It's sort of a joke to count Kindles as Android devices, yet based on activations, that's exactly what Google does and what IDC and Gartner parrot...
No Amazon devices are included in Google Android activation numbers. NONE.

I doubt IDC or Gartner include them in Android counts either since Amazon's verision is not Google Android but instead a customized and modified fork that's no longer the "Android" OS per-se. Can't remember now what Amazon calls the modded OS.

In any event Google only counts activations when users devices log into Google Play for the first time which eliminates most of those Chinese fork devices. They used to count activations when devices logged into Google services but the way it's done now is much more accurate and telling (and helpful to developers) since those using them as "feature phones" go largely uncounted in activations now.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/03/android-activations-tweak/
Edited by Gatorguy - 11/16/13 at 11:42am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #77 of 205

Why does Apple Insider constantly report these bogus numbers as if they were legitimate?

 

Here we have an epic takedown of this dishonesty... but where is Apple Insiders pledge to stop participating by reporting, sans attribution or defense, that "android has %80 of the market" and other similar BS?

 

It's bad enough that the android zealots do it, but inexcusable for AI.

post #78 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck View Post

Really? LOL. It reminds me of the ranting of the right about the left wing mass media "conspiracy."

AI lost me when they pointed to a Dvorak article and tried to take it seriously. Dvorak is paid say outrageous things, stir up the hornets nest if you will. The author doesn't seem to understand that. Basic math also seems a challenge because they don't seem to understand the simple fact that sales can increase while the percentage of the market share goes down.

Time would have been better spent on the fact that market share numbers, especially on their own, mean absolutely nothing.

-kpluck
Yes, sales can increase at the same time market share goes down. But, that was not the point to be made here. Market share can also go down when you inflate total sales with numbers of unlike products.

Do you seriously think that the numbers being reported can't be connected to legitimate vendors? Or, perhaps, are the legitimate vendors being hidden to cover the true identity of some of these so-called tablets.

Here is, potentially, one of those white box products they included:
post #79 of 205
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.

As with most other companies, Apple's "entry level" computer is not expected to be equal to it's "flagship model". Both models serve their market niche well, I think. If one buys a mac mini, expecting it to perform as well as a top line iMac, costing more, then I would have to say that that consumer has a lot to learn about smart spending.   ;)

Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #80 of 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post
 

 

You mean like telling people if they liked their healthcare plan they could keep it? 

 

Or like telling people they are being robbed of their existing healthcare plan, when really their existing healthcare plans were robbing them. 

 

Individual healthcare plans being taken off the market were all phony crap that allowed insurance companies to defraud their own customers, and the point of ObamaCare was to stop this from happening. Being able to "keep your plan if you like it" assumed that critics of reform wouldn’t jump on the tiny fraction of terrible plans being replaced with better ones that had some actual value, and attempt to make this into their primary campaign slogan.

 

Architects of the ACA (and I mean the Obama administration, not the Republicans who originally wrote it) probably shouldn’t have assumed their opponents would stoop so low to spread toxic lies, given that they previously campaigned on the notion that the ACA was designed to kill old people using "death panels."

 

But good example of how to lie and make it look like you are exposing a lie. That’s what market researchers often do. 

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