I don't think it's a stretch at all. I use my iPad as a laptop replacement. I'm starting to wish I had Xcode on there.
Precisely why it's not a "computer". When people say computer, depending on who those people are, they may mean " a machine to access email and facebook and youtube" or "a general purpose machine capable of creating new programs". iPad is not the latter, but definitely fits the bill for the first category of people...
While I'm sure you are just repeating something you read, that statistic always sounds like it was written intentionally to deceive. When the PC side grows by roughly 300 million units in 2010 and the Mac side grows by 20 million units, that is not higher growth.
There's a difference between "growth" and "growth rate". It's like the difference between "speed" and "acceleration". It's not how fast you're going but how fast you're getting faster that matters the most.
Precisely why it's not a "computer". When people say computer, depending on who those people are, they may mean " a machine to access email and facebook and youtube" or "a general purpose machine capable of creating new programs". iPad is not the latter, but definitely fits the bill for the first category of people...
It's amusing to watch the shifting and arbitrary definitions people come up with to "prove" the iPad is not a computer. BTW, there have been a number of "computers" historically that, when applying the "capable of creating new programs" criteria strictly enough to exclude the iPad, would not qualify as a computer. By every meaningful and generally accepted definition of 'computer', the iPad is a computer, and so is the iPhone. Arguing that it isn't just makes you look ridiculous.
So are we talking about all iOS devices or just the iPad? It wouldn't make much sense to include the iPod Touch or the iPhone if we're talking about being the largest 'PC' manufacturer (and TBH, including iPads is a bit of a stretch even though it does make sense).
They're just talking about the iPad - since a lot of people are apparently using a tablet in place of a computer, but very few would replace their computer with an iPhone or iPod Touch. Essentially, the iPad is the Netbook for this generation.
The problem with the chart is that they should have added all the other tablets, as well. Granted, the numbers are small, but if they're going to include the iPad, they should have included the Touchpad, as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
And HP who are the only ones ahead of Apple are really serious about the PC business ... Oh wait a minute ...
ROTFLMAO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka
That is one bizarre chart.
Actually, I think they did it well. They showed most of the important information - Mac vs Windows growth rates and then they added a separate line for what the numbers would be if you included the iPad. This recognizes that the iPad is sort of in-between. It's not a full blown PC, but it can be used as one in many cases, so it's worth tracking separately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelstuff
While I'm sure you are just repeating something you read, that statistic always sounds like it was written intentionally to deceive. When the PC side grows by roughly 300 million units in 2010 and the Mac side grows by 20 million units, that is not higher growth.
He specifically said growth RATE. The growth rate is not a function of the number of units.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsa
I was told by someone at a store last week that I couldn't use the iPhone I just bought without an 'iPhone subscription.'
You can. You can use it to run apps or you can jail break it if you wish.
Precisely why it's not a "computer". When people say computer, depending on who those people are, they may mean " a machine to access email and facebook and youtube" or "a general purpose machine capable of creating new programs". iPad is not the latter, but definitely fits the bill for the first category of people...
For the purposes of market research it would be crazy to use the latter definition, though, since 99% of those customers, both consumer and enterprise, don't care if they can create new programs. The fact is that the iPad is replacing laptop computers. It's being "hired to do the same job." I don't actually know anyone who uses their iPad as a "media tablet." I see iPads in situations I used to see laptops, such as people taking notes as conferences, and not in "media consumption" situations. I'm pretty sure the iPad isn't displacing the television or the iPod, for example. It makes a great e-reader but that's clearly not all people use it for. It is, always has been and always will be a laptop replacement.
Indeed it is. It shows a steep plummet for Apple sales after Q4 but is labeled a success story.
That's because it's showing the growth RATE for the iPad. In Q1 0f 10, when the iPad first came out, it went straight up because there was no growth rate from the year before to compare it to. But by Q4 of 10, after a year, there was a growth RATE to compare it to and thus the beginning of the steep drop. It's still label a success story for those that knows how to read the chart. No where in the chart does it indicate that sales of the iPad has plummet.
Yes, I had skimmed the article and clearly misread it,. Thanks for mansplaining that.
Still, if you've been here long enough you've seen that other declining growth rates, such as posts about netbook growth rates throughout 2010, were taken by the regulars here as a reflection of sales numbers. So at least I'm in good company with this apparently common mistake.
Good point. Apple's sales numbers are much like netbook sales numbers, in that they are either both stellar or both dropping off a cliff, depending on how many times you hit me in the head with a hammer.
It's amusing to watch the shifting and arbitrary definitions people come up with to "prove" the iPad is not a computer. BTW, there have been a number of "computers" historically that, when applying the "capable of creating new programs" criteria strictly enough to exclude the iPad, would not qualify as a computer. By every meaningful and generally accepted definition of 'computer', the iPad is a computer, and so is the iPhone. Arguing that it isn't just makes you look ridiculous.
I was going to say pretty much the same thing. It wasn't very long ago that we were solemnly informed that the iPad could never be a real computer as long as it had to tether to a real real computer to setup, update and sync.
Now that iOS 5 eliminates those dependencies, I guess "must be able to program on" is the new fallback to avoid admitting the iPad is a computer. Of course, once programming apps begin to appear, we'll just move on to something else-- "Must have real keyboard"? "Must run software that also runs on desktop machines"? "No touching allowed"?
That's because it's showing the growth RATE for the iPad. In Q1 0f 10, when the iPad first came out, it went straight up because there was no growth rate from the year before to compare it to. But by Q4 of 10, after a year, there was a growth RATE to compare it to and thus the beginning of the steep drop. It's still label a success story for those that knows how to read the chart. No where in the chart does it indicate that sales of the iPad has plummet.
That's what's wrong with it. Increases are graphically depicted as drops if they don't exceed the previous rate of increase, even if the total is larger.. It may be LESS of an increase, but the number is still increasing. Chart fail.
I was going to say pretty much the same thing. It wasn't very long ago that we were solemnly informed that the iPad could never be a real computer as long as it had to tether to a real real computer to setup, update and sync.
Now that iOS 5 eliminates those dependencies, I guess "must be able to program on" is the new fallback to avoid admitting the iPad is a computer. Of course, once programming apps begin to appear, we'll just move on to something else--
We don't need any excuse, it is simple, the iPad is a computer, the iPad isn't a PC. Just like a truck is a vehicle, but a truck isn't a car.
They are categories of devices, simply concept.
Right, all PCs are computers, but it's not the case that all computers are PCs. On the other hand, it's a pretty ill-defined category to begin with, so if someone wants to refer to tablets as personal computers... they are after all computers that are fairly personal, the lines are blurred.
I think categories like desktop, laptop, tablet are much more useful than PC
Comments
I was told by someone at a store last week that the iPad is not a computer ..
The iPad is a computer, but the iPad is not a PC
I don't think it's a stretch at all. I use my iPad as a laptop replacement. I'm starting to wish I had Xcode on there.
Precisely why it's not a "computer". When people say computer, depending on who those people are, they may mean " a machine to access email and facebook and youtube" or "a general purpose machine capable of creating new programs". iPad is not the latter, but definitely fits the bill for the first category of people...
Just setup your Lion Server (or just an iMac, or a Linux, why not) and voilÃ*, you get the best of computing
I was told by someone at a store last week that the iPad is not a computer ..
I was told by someone at a store last week that the iMac is not a computer...
I was told by someone at a store last week that I couldn't use the iPhone I just bought without an 'iPhone subscription.'
While I'm sure you are just repeating something you read, that statistic always sounds like it was written intentionally to deceive. When the PC side grows by roughly 300 million units in 2010 and the Mac side grows by 20 million units, that is not higher growth.
There's a difference between "growth" and "growth rate". It's like the difference between "speed" and "acceleration". It's not how fast you're going but how fast you're getting faster that matters the most.
Precisely why it's not a "computer". When people say computer, depending on who those people are, they may mean " a machine to access email and facebook and youtube" or "a general purpose machine capable of creating new programs". iPad is not the latter, but definitely fits the bill for the first category of people...
It's amusing to watch the shifting and arbitrary definitions people come up with to "prove" the iPad is not a computer. BTW, there have been a number of "computers" historically that, when applying the "capable of creating new programs" criteria strictly enough to exclude the iPad, would not qualify as a computer. By every meaningful and generally accepted definition of 'computer', the iPad is a computer, and so is the iPhone. Arguing that it isn't just makes you look ridiculous.
So are we talking about all iOS devices or just the iPad? It wouldn't make much sense to include the iPod Touch or the iPhone if we're talking about being the largest 'PC' manufacturer (and TBH, including iPads is a bit of a stretch even though it does make sense).
They're just talking about the iPad - since a lot of people are apparently using a tablet in place of a computer, but very few would replace their computer with an iPhone or iPod Touch. Essentially, the iPad is the Netbook for this generation.
The problem with the chart is that they should have added all the other tablets, as well. Granted, the numbers are small, but if they're going to include the iPad, they should have included the Touchpad, as well.
And HP who are the only ones ahead of Apple are really serious about the PC business ... Oh wait a minute ...
ROTFLMAO.
That is one bizarre chart.
Actually, I think they did it well. They showed most of the important information - Mac vs Windows growth rates and then they added a separate line for what the numbers would be if you included the iPad. This recognizes that the iPad is sort of in-between. It's not a full blown PC, but it can be used as one in many cases, so it's worth tracking separately.
While I'm sure you are just repeating something you read, that statistic always sounds like it was written intentionally to deceive. When the PC side grows by roughly 300 million units in 2010 and the Mac side grows by 20 million units, that is not higher growth.
He specifically said growth RATE. The growth rate is not a function of the number of units.
I was told by someone at a store last week that I couldn't use the iPhone I just bought without an 'iPhone subscription.'
You can. You can use it to run apps or you can jail break it if you wish.
Indeed it is. It shows a steep plummet for Apple sales after Q4 but is labeled a success story.
I guess what it REALLY shows is that you are unable to read a chart.
It shows that Apple's GROWTH RATE has dropped, but Apple is still growing at several times the industry rate.
Precisely why it's not a "computer". When people say computer, depending on who those people are, they may mean " a machine to access email and facebook and youtube" or "a general purpose machine capable of creating new programs". iPad is not the latter, but definitely fits the bill for the first category of people...
For the purposes of market research it would be crazy to use the latter definition, though, since 99% of those customers, both consumer and enterprise, don't care if they can create new programs. The fact is that the iPad is replacing laptop computers. It's being "hired to do the same job." I don't actually know anyone who uses their iPad as a "media tablet." I see iPads in situations I used to see laptops, such as people taking notes as conferences, and not in "media consumption" situations. I'm pretty sure the iPad isn't displacing the television or the iPod, for example. It makes a great e-reader but that's clearly not all people use it for. It is, always has been and always will be a laptop replacement.
Indeed it is. It shows a steep plummet for Apple sales after Q4 but is labeled a success story.
That's because it's showing the growth RATE for the iPad. In Q1 0f 10, when the iPad first came out, it went straight up because there was no growth rate from the year before to compare it to. But by Q4 of 10, after a year, there was a growth RATE to compare it to and thus the beginning of the steep drop. It's still label a success story for those that knows how to read the chart. No where in the chart does it indicate that sales of the iPad has plummet.
Yes, I had skimmed the article and clearly misread it,. Thanks for mansplaining that.
Still, if you've been here long enough you've seen that other declining growth rates, such as posts about netbook growth rates throughout 2010, were taken by the regulars here as a reflection of sales numbers. So at least I'm in good company with this apparently common mistake.
Good point. Apple's sales numbers are much like netbook sales numbers, in that they are either both stellar or both dropping off a cliff, depending on how many times you hit me in the head with a hammer.
It's amusing to watch the shifting and arbitrary definitions people come up with to "prove" the iPad is not a computer. BTW, there have been a number of "computers" historically that, when applying the "capable of creating new programs" criteria strictly enough to exclude the iPad, would not qualify as a computer. By every meaningful and generally accepted definition of 'computer', the iPad is a computer, and so is the iPhone. Arguing that it isn't just makes you look ridiculous.
I was going to say pretty much the same thing. It wasn't very long ago that we were solemnly informed that the iPad could never be a real computer as long as it had to tether to a real real computer to setup, update and sync.
Now that iOS 5 eliminates those dependencies, I guess "must be able to program on" is the new fallback to avoid admitting the iPad is a computer. Of course, once programming apps begin to appear, we'll just move on to something else-- "Must have real keyboard"? "Must run software that also runs on desktop machines"? "No touching allowed"?
That's because it's showing the growth RATE for the iPad. In Q1 0f 10, when the iPad first came out, it went straight up because there was no growth rate from the year before to compare it to. But by Q4 of 10, after a year, there was a growth RATE to compare it to and thus the beginning of the steep drop. It's still label a success story for those that knows how to read the chart. No where in the chart does it indicate that sales of the iPad has plummet.
That's what's wrong with it. Increases are graphically depicted as drops if they don't exceed the previous rate of increase, even if the total is larger.. It may be LESS of an increase, but the number is still increasing. Chart fail.
I was going to say pretty much the same thing. It wasn't very long ago that we were solemnly informed that the iPad could never be a real computer as long as it had to tether to a real real computer to setup, update and sync.
Now that iOS 5 eliminates those dependencies, I guess "must be able to program on" is the new fallback to avoid admitting the iPad is a computer. Of course, once programming apps begin to appear, we'll just move on to something else--
http://twolivesleft.com/Codify/
http://twolivesleft.com/Codify/
Quick, we need a new excuse why the iPad isn't a pc.
Quick, we need a new excuse why the iPad isn't a pc.
We don't need any excuse, it is simple, the iPad is a computer, the iPad isn't a PC. Just like a truck is a vehicle, but a truck isn't a car.
They are categories of devices, simply concept.
We don't need any excuse, it is simple, the iPad is a computer, the iPad isn't a PC. Just like a truck is a vehicle, but a truck isn't a car.
They are categories of devices, simply concept.
Right, all PCs are computers, but it's not the case that all computers are PCs. On the other hand, it's a pretty ill-defined category to begin with, so if someone wants to refer to tablets as personal computers... they are after all computers that are fairly personal, the lines are blurred.
I think categories like desktop, laptop, tablet are much more useful than PC
We don't need any excuse, it is simple, the iPad is a computer, the iPad isn't a PC. Just like a truck is a vehicle, but a truck isn't a car.
They are categories of devices, simply concept.
Good job of missing the point.