Why not? Because it's smaller? It has the same processor as the iPad and runs the same software. The only difference is the size of the screen. Just because it is marketed as an iPod does not stop it being a tablet.
The iPod touch isn't a tablet due to it's screen size. It doesn't have the same interface elements as the iPad - again, because of the screen size.
What I do find funny is seeing Verizon ads for the Xoom on the AppleInsider. That is advertising money well spent. LOL. Maybe those ads are targeted just for trolls?
Moto must have outbid everyone else on the iPad keyword, you can bet it's a few dollars per click maybe even $6 to $8.
Click an ad and divert a few dollars from Moto to Google :-)
I am not sure that is entirely fair. I have not seen the raw data, and if they stuck to the term shipped in their calculations, this is a fair estimate of ratios of shipped tablets, as they defined it.
It is analysts, pundits and authors that misrepresent or falsely interpret the data that were at fault here.
CGC
Um..... no. If you're halfway credible, you don't compare 'shipped' to 'sold.' Check the wording again.
Um..... no. If you're halfway credible, you don't compare 'shipped' to 'sold.' Check the wording again.
Here's the actual part of the Press Release of IDC relevant to tablets
*******************************
"Nearly 18 Million Media Tablets Shipped in 2010 with Apple Capturing 83% Share; eReader Shipments Quadrupled to More Than 12 Million, According to IDC
10 Mar 2011
FRAMINGHAM, Mass., March 10, 2011 - According to the International Data Corporation (IDC) Worldwide Quarterly Media Tablet and eReader Tracker, 10.1 million media tablets were shipped in the fourth quarter of 2010 (4Q10) - more than double the 4.5 million shipped in the third quarter. Apple's share came down from 93% in 3Q10 to 73% in 4Q10, but still reflected Apple's strong leadership position. Samsung's Galaxy Tab was the primary competitor in the holiday season, beating other players to market and capturing more than 17% share, while a number of smaller regional players also participated."
*******************************
They only used the term "shipped", and % "shares" of that shipment. What I find fault with the IDC data, as I noted in my other post here, is that they did not provide raw data that broke that the shippments more clearly -- well, they sell the actual data to big "firms", e.g., investment firms, that tracks Apple.
Unless you have other sources of information, or actually took the time (I did not) to pore over the links provided by IDC itself, there is no way to confirm the derivative % shipped data for each tablet manufacturer. Moreover, IDC did not comment on the actual sales of those shipped tablets to take into consideration about the actual "smooth sell" of the Galaxy.
Nor did IDC explicitly contradicted the figures of Steve Jobs.
While IDC can make use of the SEC filings of Apple to get an estimate of actual numbers of iPads sold, I do not think Apple would provide that "actual" raw data. And, I am not sure that similar SEC types of reports in countries like Korea, China, etc.And, even if there is, I do not know if there are publicly available to firms like IDC
So, if you do not have the raw data, you either simply accept the "derivative data % "shares" of that shipment, which is what Sam Oliver did. I guess, Apple Insider could not afford to buy the detailed report. I saw the prices for Gartner, each report is in the thousands of dollars, and some several hundreds of dollars.
It was Sam Oliver's summary that made the incorrect comparison:
*************************
"Contrasting Apple's recent claims that it controls more than 90 percent of the tablet market, research firm IDC revealed on Thursday that the iPad represented 73 percent of shipments in the fourth quarter of 2010, and 83 percent for the entire year."
*************************
In the above statement, Sam Oliver did not grasp that Steve Jobs used the term "SOLD" and provided his own definition of TABLETS by enumerating the products Steve considered with his own "numbers" of estimated "SOLD" as "TABLETS" for 2010.
It is quite possible that the IDC shipment data are most likely estimates, not actual figures, so that is another variable. On the other, Apple should have more solid information, not only of the actual shipment but also the actual sales. It would look ridiculous for IDC to vhallenge Apple's internal data.
Let's not forget also that Galaxy did not reveal actual sales either. Thus, it is another soure of variable that would impact even the values provided by Steve Jobs.
I surmised that the above factors leading to increase margin of errors of any calculated data is a reason why IDC can only stick with "SHIPPED" not 'SOLD".
Sam Oliver and other Apple Insider freelancers???? do this invalid comparisons quite often. Another blogger pundit (I forgot whether it was Businessweek or some other mainstream media that actually accused Steve Jobs of being disingenous in his claims of market share. This was more vitriolic, but when I briefly browsed his article -- he simply accepted the derivative data of IDC or some other company, made some other "mental" calculations himself (without really showing any raw data) to claim that Steve Jobs was less than honest.
On the other side, Frommer, a more gung-ho Apple supporter, made his own mental calculations, to go to another extreme, that the actual shares of Apple of the tablet market may even be as high as 95%.
The iPod touch is not really a tablet though. The only rational way to divide the devices up is by software.
it goes like this:
Platform = all devices running iOS
Devices = Phones, PMPs, Tablets
What's an iPhone? It's a PMP that also has a phone function.
What's a tablet? It's a mobile device that runs large format apps like Books, Comics, Writing apps, and other "full" software. An iPod touch can run shrunken versions of some of these apps, but the fact that there are two different types of apps (Tablet apps and PMP/Phone apps) is more telling. An iPod touch is not a tablet, but by the same definition, neither is the Dell streak or any of those 7" tablets like the Tab that are running PMP or phone software.
Obviously there is a lot of crossover in all of these devices and with all of the definitions but size, and more importantly the size of the software running on it is the clearest differentiator. Tablets are analogues for books and pads of paper, which throughout history from cuneiform tablets through papyrus scrolls to present day paper books, (with a few exceptions) have been roughly (surprise!) the size of the iPad. Everything else is not a tablet.
If the Galaxy Tab was running actual tablet software, then you might consider it a "mini-tablet," but referring to anything smaller than a large paperback size as a tablet is just wrong IMO.
The study in question considers devices with 5" screens or larger. My point is that the iPod Touch, with a 3.5" screen, would completely swamp out their statistics but is excluded for an 1.5" of screen real estate
What if Apple boosts the screen size slightly in another iteration, say to 4" in roughly the same size case? Does it make sense for an inch to make the difference between 83% market share and something closer to 95%?
Or, conversely, set the bar at something with some reasonable differentiation from pocketable devices, say 7", and run the numbers then. I have no problem with comparing iPad sales to 7" and larger devices. I do have a problem with a metric which is likely to be inflated by a lot of super cheap 5" "tablets" while excluding the actually very capable iPod Touch.
But more generally I don't think this kind of horse race stuff is very useful, because it seeks to establish sales levels among categories that don't matter very much. iOS vs. other platforms is the real contest, not individual devices. Particularly in the case of iOS, because Apple's strategy is so dependent on creating a seamlessly interacting ecosystem of devices. When more people have Touches, more people can control their Apple TV with their remote app, or move media to and fro with AirPlay, or initiate and receive FaceTime calls, or purchase dock enabled accessories. The more people have Touches, the more accessory manufacturers are motivated to produce new and compelling additions to the ecosystem, or add iOS functionality to their existing products.
Counting iPad sales without acknowledging iPod Touch sales ignores this critical fact. iOS is a platform that creates a virtuous circle of adoption, and the Touch is very much a part of that circle-- if not a major player.
It's the little things the drive up costs. Honeycomb won't be a flop, but it needs better optimization if they ever expect to compete with the iPad on price. The OS simply demands at least a gig of memory and faster processing which increases costs.
In contrast, the iPad flies with 256 mb of memory. Try implementing 256 or even 512 mb in the Xoom - it won't be pretty. Even now with 1 gig, it runs like complete and utter crap.
Thats Java I guess. Bloated 1990s academic experiment. If it wasnt for Android Java would be a dead duck.
Huh. In successive posts you demand someone "stop lying to themselves" because they doubt the veracity of some research, then turn around and declare some other research to be invalid because (according to an extremely opinionated appearing blog post) that research firm is comprised of "huge Apple fans."
The extremely opinionated blog post gives no further support for this contention, other than to go from that to raving about "Apple fans" making "libelous" accusations which may or may not result in litigation.
Comments
Why not? Because it's smaller? It has the same processor as the iPad and runs the same software. The only difference is the size of the screen. Just because it is marketed as an iPod does not stop it being a tablet.
The iPod touch isn't a tablet due to it's screen size. It doesn't have the same interface elements as the iPad - again, because of the screen size.
That's not bad or good, just different.
What I do find funny is seeing Verizon ads for the Xoom on the AppleInsider. That is advertising money well spent. LOL. Maybe those ads are targeted just for trolls?
Moto must have outbid everyone else on the iPad keyword, you can bet it's a few dollars per click maybe even $6 to $8.
Click an ad and divert a few dollars from Moto to Google :-)
The big question is will Honeycomb be a flop. The Xoom isn't doing well because of price point not because it isnt a good tablet.
BEEP! Wrong answer. It's not just the price. There is no ecosystem to support it. The software is buggy. There are no apps! Duh!
I am not sure that is entirely fair. I have not seen the raw data, and if they stuck to the term shipped in their calculations, this is a fair estimate of ratios of shipped tablets, as they defined it.
It is analysts, pundits and authors that misrepresent or falsely interpret the data that were at fault here.
CGC
Um..... no. If you're halfway credible, you don't compare 'shipped' to 'sold.' Check the wording again.
Um..... no. If you're halfway credible, you don't compare 'shipped' to 'sold.' Check the wording again.
Here's the actual part of the Press Release of IDC relevant to tablets
*******************************
"Nearly 18 Million Media Tablets Shipped in 2010 with Apple Capturing 83% Share; eReader Shipments Quadrupled to More Than 12 Million, According to IDC
10 Mar 2011
FRAMINGHAM, Mass., March 10, 2011 - According to the International Data Corporation (IDC) Worldwide Quarterly Media Tablet and eReader Tracker, 10.1 million media tablets were shipped in the fourth quarter of 2010 (4Q10) - more than double the 4.5 million shipped in the third quarter. Apple's share came down from 93% in 3Q10 to 73% in 4Q10, but still reflected Apple's strong leadership position. Samsung's Galaxy Tab was the primary competitor in the holiday season, beating other players to market and capturing more than 17% share, while a number of smaller regional players also participated."
*******************************
They only used the term "shipped", and % "shares" of that shipment. What I find fault with the IDC data, as I noted in my other post here, is that they did not provide raw data that broke that the shippments more clearly -- well, they sell the actual data to big "firms", e.g., investment firms, that tracks Apple.
Unless you have other sources of information, or actually took the time (I did not) to pore over the links provided by IDC itself, there is no way to confirm the derivative % shipped data for each tablet manufacturer. Moreover, IDC did not comment on the actual sales of those shipped tablets to take into consideration about the actual "smooth sell" of the Galaxy.
Nor did IDC explicitly contradicted the figures of Steve Jobs.
While IDC can make use of the SEC filings of Apple to get an estimate of actual numbers of iPads sold, I do not think Apple would provide that "actual" raw data. And, I am not sure that similar SEC types of reports in countries like Korea, China, etc.And, even if there is, I do not know if there are publicly available to firms like IDC
So, if you do not have the raw data, you either simply accept the "derivative data % "shares" of that shipment, which is what Sam Oliver did. I guess, Apple Insider could not afford to buy the detailed report. I saw the prices for Gartner, each report is in the thousands of dollars, and some several hundreds of dollars.
It was Sam Oliver's summary that made the incorrect comparison:
*************************
"Contrasting Apple's recent claims that it controls more than 90 percent of the tablet market, research firm IDC revealed on Thursday that the iPad represented 73 percent of shipments in the fourth quarter of 2010, and 83 percent for the entire year."
*************************
In the above statement, Sam Oliver did not grasp that Steve Jobs used the term "SOLD" and provided his own definition of TABLETS by enumerating the products Steve considered with his own "numbers" of estimated "SOLD" as "TABLETS" for 2010.
It is quite possible that the IDC shipment data are most likely estimates, not actual figures, so that is another variable. On the other, Apple should have more solid information, not only of the actual shipment but also the actual sales. It would look ridiculous for IDC to vhallenge Apple's internal data.
Let's not forget also that Galaxy did not reveal actual sales either. Thus, it is another soure of variable that would impact even the values provided by Steve Jobs.
I surmised that the above factors leading to increase margin of errors of any calculated data is a reason why IDC can only stick with "SHIPPED" not 'SOLD".
Sam Oliver and other Apple Insider freelancers???? do this invalid comparisons quite often. Another blogger pundit (I forgot whether it was Businessweek or some other mainstream media that actually accused Steve Jobs of being disingenous in his claims of market share. This was more vitriolic, but when I briefly browsed his article -- he simply accepted the derivative data of IDC or some other company, made some other "mental" calculations himself (without really showing any raw data) to claim that Steve Jobs was less than honest.
On the other side, Frommer, a more gung-ho Apple supporter, made his own mental calculations, to go to another extreme, that the actual shares of Apple of the tablet market may even be as high as 95%.
CGC
The iPod touch is not really a tablet though. The only rational way to divide the devices up is by software.
it goes like this:
Platform = all devices running iOS
Devices = Phones, PMPs, Tablets
What's an iPhone? It's a PMP that also has a phone function.
What's a tablet? It's a mobile device that runs large format apps like Books, Comics, Writing apps, and other "full" software. An iPod touch can run shrunken versions of some of these apps, but the fact that there are two different types of apps (Tablet apps and PMP/Phone apps) is more telling. An iPod touch is not a tablet, but by the same definition, neither is the Dell streak or any of those 7" tablets like the Tab that are running PMP or phone software.
Obviously there is a lot of crossover in all of these devices and with all of the definitions but size, and more importantly the size of the software running on it is the clearest differentiator. Tablets are analogues for books and pads of paper, which throughout history from cuneiform tablets through papyrus scrolls to present day paper books, (with a few exceptions) have been roughly (surprise!) the size of the iPad. Everything else is not a tablet.
If the Galaxy Tab was running actual tablet software, then you might consider it a "mini-tablet," but referring to anything smaller than a large paperback size as a tablet is just wrong IMO.
The study in question considers devices with 5" screens or larger. My point is that the iPod Touch, with a 3.5" screen, would completely swamp out their statistics but is excluded for an 1.5" of screen real estate
What if Apple boosts the screen size slightly in another iteration, say to 4" in roughly the same size case? Does it make sense for an inch to make the difference between 83% market share and something closer to 95%?
Or, conversely, set the bar at something with some reasonable differentiation from pocketable devices, say 7", and run the numbers then. I have no problem with comparing iPad sales to 7" and larger devices. I do have a problem with a metric which is likely to be inflated by a lot of super cheap 5" "tablets" while excluding the actually very capable iPod Touch.
But more generally I don't think this kind of horse race stuff is very useful, because it seeks to establish sales levels among categories that don't matter very much. iOS vs. other platforms is the real contest, not individual devices. Particularly in the case of iOS, because Apple's strategy is so dependent on creating a seamlessly interacting ecosystem of devices. When more people have Touches, more people can control their Apple TV with their remote app, or move media to and fro with AirPlay, or initiate and receive FaceTime calls, or purchase dock enabled accessories. The more people have Touches, the more accessory manufacturers are motivated to produce new and compelling additions to the ecosystem, or add iOS functionality to their existing products.
Counting iPad sales without acknowledging iPod Touch sales ignores this critical fact. iOS is a platform that creates a virtuous circle of adoption, and the Touch is very much a part of that circle-- if not a major player.
83% still makes Apple's point that they're steamrolling the competition.
Exactly.
IDC and its analyses sound more and more suspect as time goes on. Too bad, 'cos they used to be a pretty good source of credible tech data.
If IDC claimed figures that was in favor of Apple, would you have raised this question?
I think not.
You wouldn't have questioned the validity of their claims as it favors Apple.
Stop lying to yourself.
http://blog.flurry.com/bid/54035/And...the-new-Wintel
So the claims of 2 million actually sold is reasonable.
Also, those claims of 16% return rates are completely false. It was fabricated by Apple fans.
http://www.examiner.com/gadgets-in-l...ab-return-rate
It's the little things the drive up costs. Honeycomb won't be a flop, but it needs better optimization if they ever expect to compete with the iPad on price. The OS simply demands at least a gig of memory and faster processing which increases costs.
In contrast, the iPad flies with 256 mb of memory. Try implementing 256 or even 512 mb in the Xoom - it won't be pretty. Even now with 1 gig, it runs like complete and utter crap.
Thats Java I guess. Bloated 1990s academic experiment. If it wasnt for Android Java would be a dead duck.
Galaxy Tab had close to 1 million activations in the first month it was sold according to this report.
http://blog.flurry.com/bid/54035/And...the-new-Wintel
So the claims of 2 million actually sold is reasonable.
Also, those claims of 16% return rates are completely false. It was fabricated by Apple fans.
http://www.examiner.com/gadgets-in-l...ab-return-rate
Huh. In successive posts you demand someone "stop lying to themselves" because they doubt the veracity of some research, then turn around and declare some other research to be invalid because (according to an extremely opinionated appearing blog post) that research firm is comprised of "huge Apple fans."
The extremely opinionated blog post gives no further support for this contention, other than to go from that to raving about "Apple fans" making "libelous" accusations which may or may not result in litigation.
It's 2014. What's a Xoom? Who is HP? Lol. Even my three year old knows what an iPad is. And can work it.