While not reflective of the market as a whole, this listing of bestselling tablets at Amazon may be of anecdotal interest if only as a hint of emerging mindshare:
... and this is something I have believed all along... the Android system tabs will keep coming until one of them finds traction... and with 6 or 7 manufacturers pitting themselves against Apple eventually sheer numbers alone will get people adopting Android tablets and the ecosystem will grow... just as it did with Android phones.
The question I have to ask, though, is, will there be a smooth transition between OS updates... the next one being ICS. If Android fails in this department then you will have a lot of pissed off people when they find out that apps built for ICS will not work properly on a Honeycomb tablet. Apple's transition has been quite smooth (and I don't mean that in a Samsung way).
I've also mentioned previously that I give a bit of credence to an iPad update this fall. With the onslaught of Android tablets I'm thinking that Apple may try to keep as much distance as possible between them and the competition.
Quite possibly, since all Android tablets pretty much sucked until very recently. The Asus Transformer premiered on April 30, and the Galaxy 10.1 on June 8.
The night is young....
That's still a full quarter worth of sales for Asus combined with two quarters of sales of the Xoom, 2 months of Galaxy 10.1, a full quarter of the Acer Iconia, over a quarter of the LG slate and probably some others that I haven't heard of. Combined they've managed less than the iPad did in its first quarter, by a significant margin - even after accounting for channel inventory.
We were pleased to launch a number of new carrier relationships. And by the end of the quarter, iPhone was available through 228 carriers in 105 countries, compared to 186 carriers in 90 countries as of the end of the March quarter. We ended the quarter with about 5.9 million iPhones in channel inventory, a sequential increase of about 700,000 to support strong iPhone demand, carrier addition and expanded distribution. We remained within our target range of 4 to 6 weeks of iPhone channel inventory.
We were pleased to launch a number of new carrier relationships. And by the end of the quarter, iPhone was available through 228 carriers in 105 countries, compared to 186 carriers in 90 countries as of the end of the March quarter. We ended the quarter with about 5.9 million iPhones in channel inventory, a sequential increase of about 700,000 to support strong iPhone demand, carrier addition and expanded distribution. We remained within our target range of 4 to 6 weeks of iPhone channel inventory.
OK. Thank you for that.
So if Apple wants to use the same metric as everyone else and report number SHIPPED rather than sold, you'd have to add 5.9 M to the numbers that Apple is reporting for iPhones sold. Makes the 'iPhone killers' look even worse.
So if Apple wants to use the same metric as everyone else and report number SHIPPED rather than sold, you'd have to add 5.9 M to the numbers that Apple is reporting for iPhones sold. Makes the 'iPhone killers' look even worse.
If you're talking quarterly figures I think that the 20.34 mil headline figure is shipped not sold, so you'd have to subtract off the inventory change of 700k. I believe that Apple uses the same approach of reporting shipped units because it's the GAAP accepted approach, but then they provide the additional channel inventory numbers so analysts can easily see the sell-through.
At any rate that appears to be Gartner's interpretation, and presumably Apple would correct them if it was wrong, since it is lowering the iPhone end user sales number.
Haven't read a single comment yet, but based on the article title all I can say is THANK GOD.
Android tablets are immature Pieces of Excrement.
I see so much potential there, yea, but so far the execution has been rushed and incomplete and just plain sad.
Plus I expected the hiring of the Palm guy to yield a slicker looking interface...granted I don't find honeycomb unattractive it's more like an average girl you WOULD frack but not someone you necessarily have to frack like iOS is upon first sight (IMO iOS is like a beautiful girl who is bad in bed).
but yes, android tablets, especially pre-3.0 are simply horrid...and the 3.0 launch was definitively botched by a) buggy software. b) not releasing the 3.0 sdk in time to allow app devs to actually make apps. and c) unfinished.
iOS will have the tablet market on lock for the foreseeable future and I know when I can figure out a need for one unless android ups it's game I will be the proud owner of an iPad #.
A UI optimized for 3.5inch is going to look bad at 7inch. A UI optimized for 10inch is going to be horribly fiddly at 7inch. But there's nothing to stop App UIs being designed for 7inch. The question is, whether it is worth fragmenting the App market further by introducing a tweener size, and that's unclear. Jobs may well be right, he often is, and the market may not be big enough. Jobs may also be wrong, it does happen - there may be a market for tweener devices that is big enough to justify optimized apps. There may be an enterprise market for 20inch+ tablets. Who knows? ...
Your argument, while it seems plausible on its face, is mistaken because it leaves out the question of utility. It's worth compromising on size with a phone UI at 4" because you can fit it in your pocket and the advantages of being able to carry it with you everywhere outweigh the disadvantages of a lack of screen real estate.
A tablet at 10" offers enough screen real estate that you can design a UI and apps that begin to be able to do some very interesting things, yet remains "portable" enough that you can still hold it easily in one hand.
At 5 or 7", a tablet doesn't provide enough screen real estate to be able to really do tablety things and it doesn't have the ultra-portability advantages of a 4" phone. In short, these "tweener" sizes inherit all the disadvantages of pocketable phones and 10" tablets and don't offer any of their advantages. For a dedicated device like an e-reader, the "tweener" sizes may be suitable, but for general purpose computing/communications devices, while they could be made to "work", they just aren't able to offer a compelling or useful experience.
Most things don't come in all sizes for a reason. Size and function are intimately connected, and things intended for a function tend to work best at some optimal size. Hand tools are of a size that fits in your hand. More powerful tools are of a size optimized to their purpose.
If you're talking quarterly figures I think that the 20.34 mil headline figure is shipped not sold, so you'd have to subtract off the inventory change of 700k. I believe that Apple uses the same approach of reporting shipped units because it's the GAAP accepted approach, but then they provide the additional channel inventory numbers so analysts can easily see the sell-through.
At any rate that appears to be Gartner's interpretation, and presumably Apple would correct them if it was wrong, since it is lowering the iPhone end user sales number.
Apple doesn't bother correcting Gartner because Gartner is always wrong and everyone knows it already.
Apple reports units sold, not shipped. Everyone else reports units shipped, not sold. Add 5.9 million to the units sold figure to get to unit shipped.
If you're correct you would still only add 700k to the quarterly number. I disagree regarding the likelihood of Apple correcting Gartner, while they wouldn't for a forward looking estimate I think it's likely they would for past data where the number is a factual one and not a projection.
Apple most likely reports the units sold that match up to the revenue reported. Revenue is recognised when the unit leaves Apple's possession, so they almost certainly do include units shipped to resellers, though they may well not include those shipped to Apple Stores. Only 12% of Apple's sales are through their own retail so if they're treating that differently from the other channel it's not that big a deal.
If Apple are recognising revenue and not reporting shipped units then industry calculations for the ASP would be too high. If Apple aren't recognising revenue of items shipped then I believe that would probably conflict with GAAP rules.
Do you have a source for a definitive statement on when Apple is recognising revenue, or sales?
Some further indications of this:
'Net sales consist primarily of revenue from the sale of hardware, software, digital content and applications, peripherals, and service and support contracts. The Company recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collection is probable. Product is considered delivered to the customer once it has been shipped and title and risk of loss have been transferred.'
At 5 or 7", a tablet doesn't provide enough screen real estate to be able to really do tablety things and it doesn't have the ultra-portability advantages of a 4" phone. In short, these "tweener" sizes inherit all the disadvantages of pocketable phones and 10" tablets and don't offer any of their advantages. For a dedicated device like an e-reader, the "tweener" sizes may be suitable, but for general purpose computing/communications devices, while they could be made to "work", they just aren't able to offer a compelling or useful experience.
It seems a lot of people actually like the form factor, a lot of reviewers have commented that they find them more comfortable for long use. Now if 7inch is suitable for an eReader, then the question is - why pay $200 for a 7inch eReader if you can pay $300 for a 7inch tablet that can also play video, audio, games etc. 7 inch may be too small for productivity, but it's plenty for 'media tablet' - the fact is that the iPad is MUCH more than a media tablet, but that doesn't invalidate the product concept.
Quote:
Most things don't come in all sizes for a reason. Size and function are intimately connected, and things intended for a function tend to work best at some optimal size. Hand tools are of a size that fits in your hand. More powerful tools are of a size optimized to their purpose.
Actually most things come in a variety of size. PMPs, televisions, laptops, desktops, etc. etc. Hand tools come in a variety of size, the only real limit being small enough to hold in your hand.
If you're correct you would still only add 700k to the quarterly number. I disagree regarding the likelihood of Apple correcting Gartner, while they wouldn't for a forward looking estimate I think it's likely they would for past data where the number is a factual one and not a projection.
Apple most likely reports the units sold that match up to the revenue reported. Revenue is recognised when the unit leaves Apple's possession, so they almost certainly do include units shipped to resellers, though they may well not include those shipped to Apple Stores. Only 12% of Apple's sales are through their own retail so if they're treating that differently from the other channel it's not that big a deal.
If Apple are recognising revenue and not reporting shipped units then industry calculations for the ASP would be too high. If Apple aren't recognising revenue of items shipped then I believe that would probably conflict with GAAP rules.
Do you have a source for a definitive statement on when Apple is recognising revenue, or sales?
Some further indications of this:
'Net sales consist primarily of revenue from the sale of hardware, software, digital content and applications, peripherals, and service and support contracts. The Company recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collection is probable. Product is considered delivered to the customer once it has been shipped and title and risk of loss have been transferred.'
When it has shipped TO THE CUSTOMER, it is considered sold. If it's sitting on a store shelf, it has not been delivered to the customer yet.
There is a reason why Apple uses the term 'sold' while competitors use the term 'shipped'.
The customer in this sense would include Verizon - they are an Apple customer. At that point the title and risk of loss have been transferred
You may be right about the unit sales numbers, but you're definitely wrong about the revenue numbers. That might actually explain why Apple's ASP seems so high when derived from revenues.
The customer in this sense would include Verizon - they are an Apple customer. At that point the title and risk of loss have been transferred
You may be right about the unit sales numbers, but you're definitely wrong about the revenue numbers. That might actually explain why Apple's ASP seems so high when derived from revenues.
Verizon is not the customer. They're a distributor.
Verizon is not the customer. They're a distributor.
They are indeed a customer, they purchase handsets from the vendors, at which point it goes onto their balance sheet as inventory, and they register an offsetting liability to Apple, until they pay.
They operate on the wholesale model and not the agency model. Do you think that if there is a theft of the devices from Verizon that Apple eats that loss, or claims on its insurance? No - title has passed to Verizon, and so Apple have recognised the revenue. Again ...
Product is considered delivered to the customer once it has been shipped and title and risk of loss have been transferred. For most of the Company’s product sales, these criteria are met at the time the product is shipped. For online sales to individuals, for some sales to education customers in the U.S., and for certain other sales, the Company defers recognition of revenue until the customer receives the product because the Company retains a portion of the risk of loss on these sales during transit.
Read the quarterly filings and it's all quite clear. If for most of their non-online sales they are recognising revenue at shipment then I really don't see how you can argue, at any rate you aren't arguing with me - you're arguing with Apple.
Edit: It's not just Gartner taking that 20.34mil number as shipments, Horace Dediu at Asymco is clearly doing so too - in fact I'll be interested if you can find any analyst reporting that they shipped 21mil handsets as your interpretation would require. Are all the analysts wrong, but Apple can't be bothered to correct any of them?
Comments
While not reflective of the market as a whole, this listing of bestselling tablets at Amazon may be of anecdotal interest if only as a hint of emerging mindshare:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers...cs/1232597011/
... and this is something I have believed all along... the Android system tabs will keep coming until one of them finds traction... and with 6 or 7 manufacturers pitting themselves against Apple eventually sheer numbers alone will get people adopting Android tablets and the ecosystem will grow... just as it did with Android phones.
The question I have to ask, though, is, will there be a smooth transition between OS updates... the next one being ICS. If Android fails in this department then you will have a lot of pissed off people when they find out that apps built for ICS will not work properly on a Honeycomb tablet. Apple's transition has been quite smooth (and I don't mean that in a Samsung way).
I've also mentioned previously that I give a bit of credence to an iPad update this fall. With the onslaught of Android tablets I'm thinking that Apple may try to keep as much distance as possible between them and the competition.
Quite possibly, since all Android tablets pretty much sucked until very recently. The Asus Transformer premiered on April 30, and the Galaxy 10.1 on June 8.
The night is young....
That's still a full quarter worth of sales for Asus combined with two quarters of sales of the Xoom, 2 months of Galaxy 10.1, a full quarter of the Acer Iconia, over a quarter of the LG slate and probably some others that I haven't heard of. Combined they've managed less than the iPad did in its first quarter, by a significant margin - even after accounting for channel inventory.
There were 5.9 million iPhones in the channel at the end of Apple's Q3.
Source?
Source?
They report channel numbers in every conference call, their target is around 4 to 6 weeks inventory.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2803...?source=nasdaq
We were pleased to launch a number of new carrier relationships. And by the end of the quarter, iPhone was available through 228 carriers in 105 countries, compared to 186 carriers in 90 countries as of the end of the March quarter. We ended the quarter with about 5.9 million iPhones in channel inventory, a sequential increase of about 700,000 to support strong iPhone demand, carrier addition and expanded distribution. We remained within our target range of 4 to 6 weeks of iPhone channel inventory.
They report channel numbers in every conference call, their target is around 4 to 6 weeks inventory.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2803...?source=nasdaq
We were pleased to launch a number of new carrier relationships. And by the end of the quarter, iPhone was available through 228 carriers in 105 countries, compared to 186 carriers in 90 countries as of the end of the March quarter. We ended the quarter with about 5.9 million iPhones in channel inventory, a sequential increase of about 700,000 to support strong iPhone demand, carrier addition and expanded distribution. We remained within our target range of 4 to 6 weeks of iPhone channel inventory.
OK. Thank you for that.
So if Apple wants to use the same metric as everyone else and report number SHIPPED rather than sold, you'd have to add 5.9 M to the numbers that Apple is reporting for iPhones sold. Makes the 'iPhone killers' look even worse.
OK. Thank you for that.
So if Apple wants to use the same metric as everyone else and report number SHIPPED rather than sold, you'd have to add 5.9 M to the numbers that Apple is reporting for iPhones sold. Makes the 'iPhone killers' look even worse.
If you're talking quarterly figures I think that the 20.34 mil headline figure is shipped not sold, so you'd have to subtract off the inventory change of 700k. I believe that Apple uses the same approach of reporting shipped units because it's the GAAP accepted approach, but then they provide the additional channel inventory numbers so analysts can easily see the sell-through.
At any rate that appears to be Gartner's interpretation, and presumably Apple would correct them if it was wrong, since it is lowering the iPhone end user sales number.
http://www.bgr.com/2011/08/11/gartne...hones-q2-2011/
Android tablets are immature Pieces of Excrement.
I see so much potential there, yea, but so far the execution has been rushed and incomplete and just plain sad.
Plus I expected the hiring of the Palm guy to yield a slicker looking interface...granted I don't find honeycomb unattractive it's more like an average girl you WOULD frack but not someone you necessarily have to frack like iOS is upon first sight (IMO iOS is like a beautiful girl who is bad in bed).
but yes, android tablets, especially pre-3.0 are simply horrid...and the 3.0 launch was definitively botched by a) buggy software. b) not releasing the 3.0 sdk in time to allow app devs to actually make apps. and c) unfinished.
iOS will have the tablet market on lock for the foreseeable future and I know when I can figure out a need for one unless android ups it's game I will be the proud owner of an iPad #.
A UI optimized for 3.5inch is going to look bad at 7inch. A UI optimized for 10inch is going to be horribly fiddly at 7inch. But there's nothing to stop App UIs being designed for 7inch. The question is, whether it is worth fragmenting the App market further by introducing a tweener size, and that's unclear. Jobs may well be right, he often is, and the market may not be big enough. Jobs may also be wrong, it does happen - there may be a market for tweener devices that is big enough to justify optimized apps. There may be an enterprise market for 20inch+ tablets. Who knows? ...
Your argument, while it seems plausible on its face, is mistaken because it leaves out the question of utility. It's worth compromising on size with a phone UI at 4" because you can fit it in your pocket and the advantages of being able to carry it with you everywhere outweigh the disadvantages of a lack of screen real estate.
A tablet at 10" offers enough screen real estate that you can design a UI and apps that begin to be able to do some very interesting things, yet remains "portable" enough that you can still hold it easily in one hand.
At 5 or 7", a tablet doesn't provide enough screen real estate to be able to really do tablety things and it doesn't have the ultra-portability advantages of a 4" phone. In short, these "tweener" sizes inherit all the disadvantages of pocketable phones and 10" tablets and don't offer any of their advantages. For a dedicated device like an e-reader, the "tweener" sizes may be suitable, but for general purpose computing/communications devices, while they could be made to "work", they just aren't able to offer a compelling or useful experience.
Most things don't come in all sizes for a reason. Size and function are intimately connected, and things intended for a function tend to work best at some optimal size. Hand tools are of a size that fits in your hand. More powerful tools are of a size optimized to their purpose.
If you're talking quarterly figures I think that the 20.34 mil headline figure is shipped not sold, so you'd have to subtract off the inventory change of 700k. I believe that Apple uses the same approach of reporting shipped units because it's the GAAP accepted approach, but then they provide the additional channel inventory numbers so analysts can easily see the sell-through.
At any rate that appears to be Gartner's interpretation, and presumably Apple would correct them if it was wrong, since it is lowering the iPhone end user sales number.
http://www.bgr.com/2011/08/11/gartne...hones-q2-2011/
Apple doesn't bother correcting Gartner because Gartner is always wrong and everyone knows it already.
Apple reports units sold, not shipped. Everyone else reports units shipped, not sold. Add 5.9 million to the units sold figure to get to unit shipped.
Apple doesn't bother correcting Gartner because Gartner is always wrong and everyone knows it already.
Apple reports units sold, not shipped. Everyone else reports units shipped, not sold. Add 5.9 million to the units sold figure to get to unit shipped.
If you're correct you would still only add 700k to the quarterly number. I disagree regarding the likelihood of Apple correcting Gartner, while they wouldn't for a forward looking estimate I think it's likely they would for past data where the number is a factual one and not a projection.
Apple most likely reports the units sold that match up to the revenue reported. Revenue is recognised when the unit leaves Apple's possession, so they almost certainly do include units shipped to resellers, though they may well not include those shipped to Apple Stores. Only 12% of Apple's sales are through their own retail so if they're treating that differently from the other channel it's not that big a deal.
If Apple are recognising revenue and not reporting shipped units then industry calculations for the ASP would be too high. If Apple aren't recognising revenue of items shipped then I believe that would probably conflict with GAAP rules.
Do you have a source for a definitive statement on when Apple is recognising revenue, or sales?
Some further indications of this:
'Net sales consist primarily of revenue from the sale of hardware, software, digital content and applications, peripherals, and service and support contracts. The Company recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collection is probable. Product is considered delivered to the customer once it has been shipped and title and risk of loss have been transferred.'
Source - Apple's 10-Q SEC filing
http://files.shareholder.com/downloa...Q_07.20.11.pdf
You sound so much like DaHarder that I actually forgot for a moment that it wasn't him.
LOL. Which part? The part where he says he whipped out his surrogate manhood and passed it around and people couldn't keep their hands off it?
At 5 or 7", a tablet doesn't provide enough screen real estate to be able to really do tablety things and it doesn't have the ultra-portability advantages of a 4" phone. In short, these "tweener" sizes inherit all the disadvantages of pocketable phones and 10" tablets and don't offer any of their advantages. For a dedicated device like an e-reader, the "tweener" sizes may be suitable, but for general purpose computing/communications devices, while they could be made to "work", they just aren't able to offer a compelling or useful experience.
It seems a lot of people actually like the form factor, a lot of reviewers have commented that they find them more comfortable for long use. Now if 7inch is suitable for an eReader, then the question is - why pay $200 for a 7inch eReader if you can pay $300 for a 7inch tablet that can also play video, audio, games etc. 7 inch may be too small for productivity, but it's plenty for 'media tablet' - the fact is that the iPad is MUCH more than a media tablet, but that doesn't invalidate the product concept.
Most things don't come in all sizes for a reason. Size and function are intimately connected, and things intended for a function tend to work best at some optimal size. Hand tools are of a size that fits in your hand. More powerful tools are of a size optimized to their purpose.
Actually most things come in a variety of size. PMPs, televisions, laptops, desktops, etc. etc. Hand tools come in a variety of size, the only real limit being small enough to hold in your hand.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...og&sa=N&tab=wi
There are tiny handtools, big fat professional tools, tweener sized tools.
If you're correct you would still only add 700k to the quarterly number. I disagree regarding the likelihood of Apple correcting Gartner, while they wouldn't for a forward looking estimate I think it's likely they would for past data where the number is a factual one and not a projection.
Apple most likely reports the units sold that match up to the revenue reported. Revenue is recognised when the unit leaves Apple's possession, so they almost certainly do include units shipped to resellers, though they may well not include those shipped to Apple Stores. Only 12% of Apple's sales are through their own retail so if they're treating that differently from the other channel it's not that big a deal.
If Apple are recognising revenue and not reporting shipped units then industry calculations for the ASP would be too high. If Apple aren't recognising revenue of items shipped then I believe that would probably conflict with GAAP rules.
Do you have a source for a definitive statement on when Apple is recognising revenue, or sales?
Some further indications of this:
'Net sales consist primarily of revenue from the sale of hardware, software, digital content and applications, peripherals, and service and support contracts. The Company recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collection is probable. Product is considered delivered to the customer once it has been shipped and title and risk of loss have been transferred.'
Source - Apple's 10-Q SEC filing
http://files.shareholder.com/downloa...Q_07.20.11.pdf
When it has shipped TO THE CUSTOMER, it is considered sold. If it's sitting on a store shelf, it has not been delivered to the customer yet.
There is a reason why Apple uses the term 'sold' while competitors use the term 'shipped'.
When it has shipped TO THE CUSTOMER, it is considered sold. If it's sitting on a store shelf, it has not been delivered to the customer yet.
There is a reason why Apple uses the term 'sold' while competitors use the term 'shipped'.
The customer in this sense would include Verizon - they are an Apple customer. At that point the title and risk of loss have been transferred
You may be right about the unit sales numbers, but you're definitely wrong about the revenue numbers. That might actually explain why Apple's ASP seems so high when derived from revenues.
The customer in this sense would include Verizon - they are an Apple customer. At that point the title and risk of loss have been transferred
You may be right about the unit sales numbers, but you're definitely wrong about the revenue numbers. That might actually explain why Apple's ASP seems so high when derived from revenues.
Verizon is not the customer. They're a distributor.
The customer in this sense would include Verizon
No. In no sense is Verizon a 'customer'.
Verizon is not the customer. They're a distributor.
They are indeed a customer, they purchase handsets from the vendors, at which point it goes onto their balance sheet as inventory, and they register an offsetting liability to Apple, until they pay.
They operate on the wholesale model and not the agency model. Do you think that if there is a theft of the devices from Verizon that Apple eats that loss, or claims on its insurance? No - title has passed to Verizon, and so Apple have recognised the revenue. Again ...
Product is considered delivered to the customer once it has been shipped and title and risk of loss have been transferred. For most of the Company’s product sales, these criteria are met at the time the product is shipped. For online sales to individuals, for some sales to education customers in the U.S., and for certain other sales, the Company defers recognition of revenue until the customer receives the product because the Company retains a portion of the risk of loss on these sales during transit.
Read the quarterly filings and it's all quite clear. If for most of their non-online sales they are recognising revenue at shipment then I really don't see how you can argue, at any rate you aren't arguing with me - you're arguing with Apple.
Edit: It's not just Gartner taking that 20.34mil number as shipments, Horace Dediu at Asymco is clearly doing so too - in fact I'll be interested if you can find any analyst reporting that they shipped 21mil handsets as your interpretation would require. Are all the analysts wrong, but Apple can't be bothered to correct any of them?
LOL. Which part? The part where he says he whipped out his surrogate manhood and passed it around and people couldn't keep their hands off it?
Har! That's the exact part of the his post that cemented the deal in my mind...