Android tablet wont dominate the iPad, because tablets are not heavily subsidized like their cellphone counterparts. Unlike a smartphone that can be literally given away for free with a 2 year contract, tablets are generally sold wifi only, and with no contract.. leaving the consumer to pay the full retail price. So when the time comes to spend upwards of $500 on a tablet.. it takes a serious hardcore Android fan to choose Android over the iPad. The situation is even worse for those buying Tablets as gifts.. as the iPad name is recognized and Android tablets arent. Consumers dont understand why they should pay the same price for an Android Tablet.. when they can the Apple one (that mom was talking about) for the exact same price. Its the reason why every tablet (except the Transformer and G-Tab) has failed. And even those 2 devices come nowhere near the sales and popularity of the iPad. And thats without even considering the even bigger failures of tablets like the Playbook or Touchpad.
With no subsidization in the tablet arena.. Android is forced to compete purely on its specs, features, hardware design and available software. Price (giving them away for almost free) isnt an option in this market. And its too much of an uphill battle to beat Apple at that game. Even worse when overly aggressive Android manufacters kill each other, buy constantly announcing a new "faster, better, slimmer" tablet every month. Sure there are "cheap" $199 Android tablets which seem to be doing well (Nook & Fire) but in reality these are E-readers that are designed to also run tablet software. They do not give the true/full tablet experience. These items are new to the market and it remains to be seen exactly how successful they will be, as anything thats "cheap" is going to sell well initially.
But given the lesser experience they deliver. Its literally 2 different experiences.. with 2 entirely different target audiences. Their lack of a front facing camera for example, will turn away many buyers.. as video calling and video conferencing is a major reason to purchase a Tablet. Its the future of communication, atleast over wifi or 4G networks that can handle the bandwidth.
Those are all excellent points...
Let me add another:
Both Apple and MS have an advantage over Android in that they have (or will have) a corresponding desktop OS that has a vast number of existing apps. Many of these can be re-apped (re-thought, re-purposed, re-written) for the touch/tablet form factor.
Android has no such repository, unless you count the relatively few number of Java desktop apps -- even then, Android can't really emphasize Java because of the litigation with Oracle.
We are already seeing parts of some desktop apps being re-apped for the iPad -- Apple, Adobe, AutoDesk, Citrix and MicroSoft to name a few... and IBM is making noises.
Android tablet wont dominate the iPad, because tablets are not heavily subsidized like their cellphone counterparts. Unlike a smartphone that can be literally given away for free with a 2 year contract, tablets are generally sold wifi only, and with no contract.. leaving the consumer to pay the full retail price.
Carriers tried subsidizing the tablet but it hasn't worked. Before that they were subsidizing the netbook. Can you imagine the customer that got stuck with a two year contract on a 3G netbook? That has to be worse buyer's remorse than with buying a Honeycomb-based tablet.
As for these enhanced eReaders with some multimedia capabilities the Nook and Fire aren't pulling down any measurable profits. B&N might be closer to breaking even but it's hard to say since they are selling less devices even though it's 25% more expensive. For twice the money you get a lot more than twice the display area so I think these clipped tablets will inevitably help Apple's iPad increase sales. Look at the PC market where Apple reigns as king. They don't sell the most units but they have a near exclusivity on the coveted units and the prices are low enough that high school and college kids dominate the Mac.
"Mobile Continues Strong 9-Month Growth: In the last nine months, the share of U.S. online retail dollars attributable to mobile devices has doubled from 1.87 percent in April of 2011 to 3.74 percent in December 2011. RichRelevance also tracked a spectacular increase in mobile traffic as share of commerce page views with more than 15 percent of shopping sessions occurring on mobile devices. In April of 2011, just under 9 percent of all shoppers were browsing digital aisles via a mobile device. By December of 2011, the share has more than doubled, reaching 18 percent of all consumers."
Your quote seems to be a paraphrase from panarmenian.net and they got it a bit off. Given richrelevance clearly sees the iPad as a mobile device, they do not break out phone VS tablet in this study as presented in this press release. They well might have a paid for version of the report that breaks it out, but given the very different meanings of the richrelevance press release and the panarmenian.net quote (that you have 100%), I suspect panarmenian.net simply mis-interpreted what was said.
What the above indicates is that 18% of all shoppers "window shop" using either a smart phone or a tablet and 15% of all online sessions originate on a phone/tablet device. So 18% of people shop using a smartphone/tablet. 15% of online shopping sessions originate on a phone/tablet (this means that desktop shopping is stickier). Sales from phones/tablets, however, still account for only 3.74% of online sales. Lots of people use the mobile phones/tablets to look for things but then use desktops for the actual purchase (or go to a brick and mortar store).
Given the RPITA actually using a smartphone/tablet is to make a purchase compared to the desktop, I understand this.
My take away from this is that shopping on a phone/tablets still sucks when compared to the desktop. Making it easier should be a primary goal of OS/Device makers. This is, I think, the motivation behind Google's digital wallet and Apple's push for in-app purchasing. Google is blocked by doing their standard proprietary implementation and going against what 90% of the industry is wanting to do. Apple is blocked by their stupid 30% cut for being a credit card transaction handler.
Much better explaination. Just FYI, My quote was taken directly from the AppleInsider article at the front of this thread so I guess the leasson here is take what they "quote" with a grain of salt. Their poor paraphrasing can easily lead to confusion.
There is a subtlety in those data; traffic share to the retail sites (described in the article as "browsing the digital aisles") is not the same as sales share. Also, in the original article it states that the 18% share is for mobile devices, not just smartphones:
So I could not find enough resolution in the data to distinguish how much of the spending is occurring on iPad v. iPhone, or even overall tablet v. smartphone.
The 92% share certainly could be just a reflection of the iPad dominance, if those devices represent most of the mobile shopping, but the data I've seen don't support (or contradict) that conclusion.
Thank you for your explaination as well. Seems to me that the only thing these types of articles do is "sensationalize" whatever the author wants. The numbers are "shockers" but can easily be miss leading or manipulated to support whatever the author wants.
1) This proves that iOS users are compulsive shoppers
2) iOS users are more likely to run up the credit card bills
3) Unlike the Fire, which allegedly has no controls to stop unintended shopping, iOS does, but it still doesn't stop iOS users from shopping like crazy anyway
This new learning amazes me. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.
Thank you for your explaination as well. Seems to me that the only thing these types of articles do is "sensationalize" whatever the author wants. The numbers are "shockers" but can easily be miss leading or manipulated to support whatever the author wants.
I'm not even sure the intent was to manipulate - I suspect it was just lazy journalism, with too little effort to understand the results of the study.
I'm not even sure the intent was to manipulate - I suspect it was just lazy journalism, with too little effort to understand the results of the study.
True, was not intending to accuse, just pointing out that it is real easy to be fooled and or confused with these types of articles.
EDIT:
I take that back. After re-reading AppleInsiders article and then reading the original, it is clear that things were taken out of context, things were deleted combined then written as a quote, on top of no link to the original article. Seems rather underhanded. Para-phrasing is one thing but this seems like something else. Regardless the numbers are still impressive I just think that AppleInsider manipulated things to make it more than it is.
But? but iPads only account for 63% of tablets, so? that can't be right! These numbers HAVE to be wrong because of the VAST numbers of Android tablets out there!
I have some doubts about Slappy. There's another Slappy over at Cnet trashing Android and trolling Android users. I'm starting to suspect they are one and the same person. Perhaps our Slappy is a double troll who just likes to stir the pot in either direction.
I have some doubts about Slappy. There's another Slappy over at Cnet trashing Android and trolling Android users. I'm starting to suspect they are one and the same person. Perhaps our Slappy is a double troll who just likes to stir the pot in either direction.
Which is apparently working, he isnt even in this thread and all anyone seems to do is talk about him
I have some doubts about Slappy. There's another Slappy over at Cnet trashing Android and trolling Android users. I'm starting to suspect they are one and the same person. Perhaps our Slappy is a double troll who just likes to stir the pot in either direction.
I guess you would expect the pure troll to be platform agnostic...
I may be missing your point here, but the 30% cut only applies to Apps or App functionality enhancement bought from the App store, right? There is no 30% charge if you use, say, the Amazon Shopper App to buy goods from Amazon. The 30% charge is not for handling credit card transactions per se - it is for selling your software in the App Store.
Yes, but you are not purchasing retail goods in-app (unless you count subscriptions). The online shopping referred to in the article is retail sites (such as Amazon), via either their apps or websites. I was wondering what kind of online sales you would like to see Apple not charge 30% for. Not apps, presumably.
1) This proves that iOS users are compulsive shoppers
2) iOS users are more likely to run up the credit card bills
3) Unlike the Fire, which allegedly has no controls to stop unintended shopping, iOS does, but it still doesn't stop iOS users from shopping like crazy anyway
...and are doing so well that they can afford it.
Keep up the great work supporting the economy, you guys!
What if Apple didn't develop iBooks? What if they had struck a deal with Amazon to integrate the Kindle into iOS? Could have been some kind of win-win!
Of course, they would have had to haggle over music and videos.
What if Apple and Google had worked together against established businesses like Microsoft?
Imagine how awesome that partnership would have been!
Good thing Google decided that Apple needed the competition instead...
These numbers are just a temporary uptick for iOS. For now maybe iOS devices are leading. Android Tablet market will soon dominate the iPad and this current report will need a drastic update. It's early in the game but as I have stated before, iOS dominance will cease to exist early 2012.
"This trend, of course, can't continue. Amazon's Kindle Fire and the Barnes & Noble Nook Tablet should start grabbing some market share. But these latest numbers certainly underscore Apple's current dominance of mobile shopping."
Well calling the Nook & Kindle Fire not a true tablet is selective perception. In the real world these two products are Tablets for all intents and purposes. People are being selective because of the runaway success of these two Tablets. It's a real viable threat to the iPad. When the numbers are published everyone will be shocked at how quickly it surpassed the iPad in sales.
Actually, what will be shocking is how tremendously the Amazon Kindle Fire will help Apple in the next year or so. It truly is the worst thing ever to happen to all modern versions of the Android OS.
Much better explaination. Just FYI, My quote was taken directly from the AppleInsider article at the front of this thread so I guess the leasson here is take what they "quote" with a grain of salt. Their poor paraphrasing can easily lead to confusion.
If this site is so inaccurate then why are you still here?
Comments
Android tablet wont dominate the iPad, because tablets are not heavily subsidized like their cellphone counterparts. Unlike a smartphone that can be literally given away for free with a 2 year contract, tablets are generally sold wifi only, and with no contract.. leaving the consumer to pay the full retail price. So when the time comes to spend upwards of $500 on a tablet.. it takes a serious hardcore Android fan to choose Android over the iPad. The situation is even worse for those buying Tablets as gifts.. as the iPad name is recognized and Android tablets arent. Consumers dont understand why they should pay the same price for an Android Tablet.. when they can the Apple one (that mom was talking about) for the exact same price. Its the reason why every tablet (except the Transformer and G-Tab) has failed. And even those 2 devices come nowhere near the sales and popularity of the iPad. And thats without even considering the even bigger failures of tablets like the Playbook or Touchpad.
With no subsidization in the tablet arena.. Android is forced to compete purely on its specs, features, hardware design and available software. Price (giving them away for almost free) isnt an option in this market. And its too much of an uphill battle to beat Apple at that game. Even worse when overly aggressive Android manufacters kill each other, buy constantly announcing a new "faster, better, slimmer" tablet every month. Sure there are "cheap" $199 Android tablets which seem to be doing well (Nook & Fire) but in reality these are E-readers that are designed to also run tablet software. They do not give the true/full tablet experience. These items are new to the market and it remains to be seen exactly how successful they will be, as anything thats "cheap" is going to sell well initially.
But given the lesser experience they deliver. Its literally 2 different experiences.. with 2 entirely different target audiences. Their lack of a front facing camera for example, will turn away many buyers.. as video calling and video conferencing is a major reason to purchase a Tablet. Its the future of communication, atleast over wifi or 4G networks that can handle the bandwidth.
Those are all excellent points...
Let me add another:
Both Apple and MS have an advantage over Android in that they have (or will have) a corresponding desktop OS that has a vast number of existing apps. Many of these can be re-apped (re-thought, re-purposed, re-written) for the touch/tablet form factor.
Android has no such repository, unless you count the relatively few number of Java desktop apps -- even then, Android can't really emphasize Java because of the litigation with Oracle.
We are already seeing parts of some desktop apps being re-apped for the iPad -- Apple, Adobe, AutoDesk, Citrix and MicroSoft to name a few... and IBM is making noises.
Android tablet wont dominate the iPad, because tablets are not heavily subsidized like their cellphone counterparts. Unlike a smartphone that can be literally given away for free with a 2 year contract, tablets are generally sold wifi only, and with no contract.. leaving the consumer to pay the full retail price.
Carriers tried subsidizing the tablet but it hasn't worked. Before that they were subsidizing the netbook. Can you imagine the customer that got stuck with a two year contract on a 3G netbook? That has to be worse buyer's remorse than with buying a Honeycomb-based tablet.
As for these enhanced eReaders with some multimedia capabilities the Nook and Fire aren't pulling down any measurable profits. B&N might be closer to breaking even but it's hard to say since they are selling less devices even though it's 25% more expensive. For twice the money you get a lot more than twice the display area so I think these clipped tablets will inevitably help Apple's iPad increase sales. Look at the PC market where Apple reigns as king. They don't sell the most units but they have a near exclusivity on the coveted units and the prices are low enough that high school and college kids dominate the Mac.
The actual quote is:
"Mobile Continues Strong 9-Month Growth: In the last nine months, the share of U.S. online retail dollars attributable to mobile devices has doubled from 1.87 percent in April of 2011 to 3.74 percent in December 2011. RichRelevance also tracked a spectacular increase in mobile traffic as share of commerce page views with more than 15 percent of shopping sessions occurring on mobile devices. In April of 2011, just under 9 percent of all shoppers were browsing digital aisles via a mobile device. By December of 2011, the share has more than doubled, reaching 18 percent of all consumers."
Your quote seems to be a paraphrase from panarmenian.net and they got it a bit off. Given richrelevance clearly sees the iPad as a mobile device, they do not break out phone VS tablet in this study as presented in this press release. They well might have a paid for version of the report that breaks it out, but given the very different meanings of the richrelevance press release and the panarmenian.net quote (that you have 100%), I suspect panarmenian.net simply mis-interpreted what was said.
What the above indicates is that 18% of all shoppers "window shop" using either a smart phone or a tablet and 15% of all online sessions originate on a phone/tablet device. So 18% of people shop using a smartphone/tablet. 15% of online shopping sessions originate on a phone/tablet (this means that desktop shopping is stickier). Sales from phones/tablets, however, still account for only 3.74% of online sales. Lots of people use the mobile phones/tablets to look for things but then use desktops for the actual purchase (or go to a brick and mortar store).
Given the RPITA actually using a smartphone/tablet is to make a purchase compared to the desktop, I understand this.
My take away from this is that shopping on a phone/tablets still sucks when compared to the desktop. Making it easier should be a primary goal of OS/Device makers. This is, I think, the motivation behind Google's digital wallet and Apple's push for in-app purchasing. Google is blocked by doing their standard proprietary implementation and going against what 90% of the industry is wanting to do. Apple is blocked by their stupid 30% cut for being a credit card transaction handler.
Much better explaination. Just FYI, My quote was taken directly from the AppleInsider article at the front of this thread so I guess the leasson here is take what they "quote" with a grain of salt. Their poor paraphrasing can easily lead to confusion.
There is a subtlety in those data; traffic share to the retail sites (described in the article as "browsing the digital aisles") is not the same as sales share. Also, in the original article it states that the 18% share is for mobile devices, not just smartphones:
So I could not find enough resolution in the data to distinguish how much of the spending is occurring on iPad v. iPhone, or even overall tablet v. smartphone.
The 92% share certainly could be just a reflection of the iPad dominance, if those devices represent most of the mobile shopping, but the data I've seen don't support (or contradict) that conclusion.
Thank you for your explaination as well. Seems to me that the only thing these types of articles do is "sensationalize" whatever the author wants. The numbers are "shockers" but can easily be miss leading or manipulated to support whatever the author wants.
Since slappy is busy today, allow me.
1) This proves that iOS users are compulsive shoppers
2) iOS users are more likely to run up the credit card bills
3) Unlike the Fire, which allegedly has no controls to stop unintended shopping, iOS does, but it still doesn't stop iOS users from shopping like crazy anyway
This new learning amazes me. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.
Thank you for your explaination as well. Seems to me that the only thing these types of articles do is "sensationalize" whatever the author wants. The numbers are "shockers" but can easily be miss leading or manipulated to support whatever the author wants.
I'm not even sure the intent was to manipulate - I suspect it was just lazy journalism, with too little effort to understand the results of the study.
I'm not even sure the intent was to manipulate - I suspect it was just lazy journalism, with too little effort to understand the results of the study.
True, was not intending to accuse, just pointing out that it is real easy to be fooled and or confused with these types of articles.
EDIT:
I take that back. After re-reading AppleInsiders article and then reading the original, it is clear that things were taken out of context, things were deleted combined then written as a quote, on top of no link to the original article. Seems rather underhanded. Para-phrasing is one thing but this seems like something else. Regardless the numbers are still impressive I just think that AppleInsider manipulated things to make it more than it is.
But? but iPads only account for 63% of tablets, so? that can't be right! These numbers HAVE to be wrong because of the VAST numbers of Android tablets out there!
This time I get the sarcasm.
Maybe he's busy slappping his monkey?
I have some doubts about Slappy. There's another Slappy over at Cnet trashing Android and trolling Android users. I'm starting to suspect they are one and the same person. Perhaps our Slappy is a double troll who just likes to stir the pot in either direction.
I have some doubts about Slappy. There's another Slappy over at Cnet trashing Android and trolling Android users. I'm starting to suspect they are one and the same person. Perhaps our Slappy is a double troll who just likes to stir the pot in either direction.
Which is apparently working, he isnt even in this thread and all anyone seems to do is talk about him
I have some doubts about Slappy. There's another Slappy over at Cnet trashing Android and trolling Android users. I'm starting to suspect they are one and the same person. Perhaps our Slappy is a double troll who just likes to stir the pot in either direction.
I guess you would expect the pure troll to be platform agnostic...
I may be missing your point here, but the 30% cut only applies to Apps or App functionality enhancement bought from the App store, right? There is no 30% charge if you use, say, the Amazon Shopper App to buy goods from Amazon. The 30% charge is not for handling credit card transactions per se - it is for selling your software in the App Store.
It is for any in app purchases using Apple's API.
It is for any in app purchases using Apple's API.
Yes, but you are not purchasing retail goods in-app (unless you count subscriptions). The online shopping referred to in the article is retail sites (such as Amazon), via either their apps or websites. I was wondering what kind of online sales you would like to see Apple not charge 30% for. Not apps, presumably.
Just wait until Siri has the ability to diagnose your ailments. Just place a small sample on the screen and Siri will recite your health prognosis.
I can't wait for true artificial intelligence in our connected devices. It may lead to a new renaissance... or a new Idiocracy... Time will tell.
Since slappy is busy today, allow me.
1) This proves that iOS users are compulsive shoppers
2) iOS users are more likely to run up the credit card bills
3) Unlike the Fire, which allegedly has no controls to stop unintended shopping, iOS does, but it still doesn't stop iOS users from shopping like crazy anyway
...and are doing so well that they can afford it.
Keep up the great work supporting the economy, you guys!
What if Apple didn't develop iBooks? What if they had struck a deal with Amazon to integrate the Kindle into iOS? Could have been some kind of win-win!
Of course, they would have had to haggle over music and videos.
What if Apple and Google had worked together against established businesses like Microsoft?
Imagine how awesome that partnership would have been!
Good thing Google decided that Apple needed the competition instead...
These numbers are just a temporary uptick for iOS. For now maybe iOS devices are leading. Android Tablet market will soon dominate the iPad and this current report will need a drastic update. It's early in the game but as I have stated before, iOS dominance will cease to exist early 2012.
"This trend, of course, can't continue. Amazon's Kindle Fire and the Barnes & Noble Nook Tablet should start grabbing some market share. But these latest numbers certainly underscore Apple's current dominance of mobile shopping."
http://www.itworld.com/mobile-wirele...obile-shopping
Temporary uptick, eh?
Slapppy: He has that name for a reason.
Feel free to take a gander at Apple's share price and net worth over the past ten years and let me know when should start selling my shares, will you?
Well calling the Nook & Kindle Fire not a true tablet is selective perception. In the real world these two products are Tablets for all intents and purposes. People are being selective because of the runaway success of these two Tablets. It's a real viable threat to the iPad. When the numbers are published everyone will be shocked at how quickly it surpassed the iPad in sales.
Actually, what will be shocking is how tremendously the Amazon Kindle Fire will help Apple in the next year or so. It truly is the worst thing ever to happen to all modern versions of the Android OS.
Confused?
Watch and learn, my little Android-loving friend.
Watch and learn.
Really? You joined JUST to make that comment? These forums are doomed.
LOL!
The Android fan says these Apple forums are doomed.
Why can I hear C3-PO's voice when he says that?
Much better explaination. Just FYI, My quote was taken directly from the AppleInsider article at the front of this thread so I guess the leasson here is take what they "quote" with a grain of salt. Their poor paraphrasing can easily lead to confusion.
If this site is so inaccurate then why are you still here?