iPad tablet market share will dip to 50% by 2017, study says

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 109
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,743member


    Wasn't there a study that said it'll drop drastically in 2012?


     


    They keep pushing back the date.


     


    Actually, the utter incompetence of the competition keeps pushing back the date. The industry outside of Cupertino is its own worst enemy. 

  • Reply 62 of 109
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,743member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apfeltosh View Post


     


    They use existing sales trends, interview stores for buying trends across the various products, then run algorithms to try and predict the future. This is done in every industry so why are you surprised? Do you honestly believe Apple will maintain the lead it has now forever? Seriously, are you that naive? Apple has had leads in the past and squandered them before so WAKE UP.



     


    No one needs "forever." "Forever" is OBVIOUSLY problematic and unlikely.  "The next several years" is good enough. And Apple has shown that they can handle such a timeline easily. 


     


    Judging by the sheer incompetence of the non-Apple portion of the industry, Apple has a clear road ahead of them. It's their game to lose, and I don't think they're in such a losing frame of mind at this point.


     


    I love all these "you think they'll be this way forever??" comments. When you run out of arguments, just start shovelling absurdities. 


     


    Think in blocks of 5 years at a time. It'll help. 

  • Reply 63 of 109
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    That's only sort of true.

    But with a brand new product, outside of the people designing it who are allowed to see it, the only outside opinions I would imagine Apple receiving are those from the families they send on vacation with the product to get those great demo shots they always have.

    And those people are part of Apple's market. It's not that Apple doesn't do market research, it's that they go about in a different (more efficient) way because they make products they want to use so it's not a requirement for them to hire an outside company to figure out what the public will find interesting and useful.

    Now this surely can't happen in every product. For instance, I don't expect the CEO of Nintendo to understand how to evolve the Pokémon universe without getting plenty of market research. Nintendo may use the children of their employees for this (which isn't unlike what Apple does) but it's still one level removed from the employees themselves and probably not enough as they need to make the franchise as widely appealing to children across the globe.

    Apple really has it a lot easier as a better tech experience is pretty simple in comparison. The hard part is figuring out how to achieve that better user experience we've grown up watching and reading about in sci-fi.
  • Reply 64 of 109
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,113member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


     


    I think you're wrong. The forecast relies on decent marketing.



     


    Sorry, but I can't see that. To my mind, it relies on guesswork that's no better than yours or mine.





    With the iPod, there just aren't that many options. How many features do you need in a portable mp3 player? With the iTunes ecosystem overriding any demand for new features, it's not surprising that one product family dominates, especially on a $200 product.



     


    Ever heard of the iPod touch? Its features left the original mp3 players (including the iPod Classics) in the dust after its introduction a few months after the original iPhones in 2007. While waiting for my phone contract to expire in 2008 so I could migrate to the iPhone 3G, I abandoned my Classic for the touch to gain many of the same apps and Internet connectivity of the phones, except for the lack of a cellular data plan. I still carry it for high data rate WiFi streaming.


     



    With tablets, the needs and features are much, much more diverse. Some people want simple e-readers. Others only want to access widgets occasionally. Some want to play simple games. Some want more complex games. Some use them for business (presentations, etc). Some use them to play movies remotely or connected to their TV. Some watch TV on the tablet. Some are willing to pay for a full-featured device, others want only the cheapest product that will do just the minimum activities that they desire. Unless Apple were to decide to release an entire family of iPads (all the way from sub-$100 e-readers up to the current high end), it is unlikely that they will continue their massive market share. Just the release of the new Kindle Fire (as well as the continued success of earlier Kindles and Nooks)showed that. There's a place in the market for a product at the low end that Apple has shown no desire to participate in.


     


    "Some people." True - some. My wife likes to read books on her Kindle in the evening, simply because she likes the smaller form factor and screen for reading. But at the same time she keeps her new iPad beside her for more diverse purposes, and she picks it up whenever she wants to manage email, check or update our family iCloud calendar, or watch streaming videos from instructors in her favorite hobby. Some people may be satisfied with limited-purpose devices, but the recent Kindle developments are disturbing from a competitive standpoint. Have Kindle sales fallen off a cliff since Christmas? What's behind Target dropping Kindles from its retail shelves? I submit that there are many more people who want multipurpose tables than those with more limited functionality.


     



     So if competitors have managed to find niches to obtain 20% of the MP3 player market, it would not surprise me in the least for competitors to find niches that will add up to 50% of the tablet market.  The more I think about it, that number sounds about right - in fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Apple has even less than 50% in 5 years. As usual, though, it will be the most desirable and profitable 50% since Apple generally doesn't bottom feed.



     


    Here's a curve ball for you. Two years ago when iPads were first introduced, who ever heard the term "post-PC era"? Yet here we are today, with global personal computer sales plateauing and even beginning to slip in some geographic markets. Oh, they'll still be around for a long time, but as Steve Jobs asserted, their role is changing into the "trucks" of our digital world. In 2006, who envisioned that today iPods would enter a long obsolescence phase, much of their functionality subsumed by smart phones and tablets? Can you imagine a similar fate for tablets by 2017, when something undreamt of today will usher in the "POST-TABLET" era? When it comes to creatively destroying the current product landscape - even if it means destroying the relevance of their own product - I'll still put my money on Apple. In other words, Apple's share of the tablet market may decline to 50% by 2017 - but by then - will anybody care?

  • Reply 65 of 109
    nhtnht Posts: 4,429member


    Pretty much the same forecast as they made around this time last year shifted to the right a little.


     


    DisplaySearchTouch_Screens_for_Tablet_PC_Shipment_Forecast_(_in_Millions)_110311.png


     


    http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/displaysearch/hs.xsl/110314_touch_screens_in_tablet_pcs_forecast_to_reach_60m_in_2011.asp


     


    Would have been nice if AI had spent 5 mins to track this down and done some analysis,

  • Reply 66 of 109
    carthusiacarthusia Posts: 561member


    jragosta, your reply might be a bit incomplete and perhaps inaccurate, for the most part due to the conflation of the concepts "low-end" and "small-form factor". Apple has no history of marketing low-end products, but has at least a decade-long history of introducing small form factor products within a category. Bear with me here:


     


    Steve said that Apple markets to consumers with disposable income who will choose the best consumer electronics product when they see it. Apple goes where the money is (more than ever to China, for example). With regards to the oft-repeated trope about Apple having no interest in the low-end, how do you explain the iPod Shuffle, or Nano complementing the Touch and Classic? How do you explain the 11" MacBook Air? Apple is a hardware company, yes; and yes they have the habit of producing the best products possible. This reasoning suffers from the above-mentioned concept conflation. Moreover, everyone knows that Apple only enters product markets when they feel they can produce a product that is undeniably better than what already is out there. 


     


    Apple predicted exactly what is noted to be happening with gimped low-end tablets, i.e., sales are falling off a cliff. This likely is a result of consumers who have not tried them out and belatedly realized how gimped they are. If introduced, a lower-priced iPad would never be gimped. Apple likely already found a way to produce an amazing mini iPad at the right price that would make selecting it over a Fire a no-brainer. (Not to mention that the iPad 2 and new iPad appear already to have achieved that goal.) I believe there is a market for a smaller form factor tablet-the others just failed to seize the opportunity with half-baked features and poor supply chain management. A mini iPad, I think, is simply waiting for Retina display tech infrastructure to further mature to the point where marketing a mini iPad with Rd is profitable and when the competition appears to be gaining a foothold. Neither of those eventualities yet obtains. Hence, no mini iPad-yet.


     


    The price-to-feature proposition of a $399 iPad 2 or $499 new iPad is very easy for Apple's likely buyers to wrap their heads around Furthermore, Apple is willing to cannibalize their own products if they can maintain or increase gross margins and total profits; iPod sales are declining; for many, the perceived discrepancy in affordability between a $399 full-featured tablet and a $199-$249 iPod is smaller than you might think; a $299 mini iPad would narrow that discrepancy considerably, as such cost differentiation across those product lines is shrinking in the minds of consumers; much of the cannibalization of iPod sales are by iPhone and iPad (my conjecture); and, lastly, consumers are demanding increased value for dollar by way of ever more portable and full-featured devices-mini iPad would hasten that trend.


     


    Besides product quality and usability, one of Apple's overriding principles is minimizing SKU bloat. When we see any one of these core values being violated, then there is reason to worry about the viability of the company's product offerings.Think about it, Apple could move current iPod Nano, iPod Touch and iPod Classic buyers up to a $299-and-up iPad and move others up to an iPhone; in the end, you could easily end up with no iPod at all, just an iPhone, and two iPads (5" and 10"). Or, if they choose, an iPod Touch, iPhone, and two iPads. Sounds like a winning strategy to me. Apple loves their 99s-$199 Touch, $299 mini iPad, $399 last-gen iPad, $499 current-gen iPad (then the larger storage connectivity choices) alongside MBA, MBP and desktops. (FTR, I happen to think their product lines would benefit from a smaller than 3.5" offering for the same reasons I think they would benefit from a smaller than 9.7" iPad offering.) This all asumes they have found a way to mitigate UI fragmentation and UX compromises.


     


    Variations on the iPod will exist until it no longer makes sense for them to exist (meager profits, overlapping features, etc.). However, eliminating the iPod Nano, Classic, or Touch would make room for an additional iPad SKU while also saturating screen size/feature continua. In essence, they could easily port their winning iPod strategy to iPad. That eventually will be their strategy, IMHO. The likes of Samsung would leave the tablet space altogether, or be satisfied with their meager margin and market shares. Apple is patient and disciplined; an HDTV can wait indefinitely until a viable go-to-market strategy arises.


     


     


    Tim Cook is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He might facilitate settling some current IP litigation but make it an ancillary goal to diminish the competition's viability in any market in which Apple competes. Is consumer electronics sales at a zero-sum game? No-Steve noted that others do not need to fail for Apple to succeed. Having said all that, if there are strategic reasons for Apple entering the small-form factor tablet space they will, if for no other reasons than to demoralize their competition (which they are really, really good at), dominating mind share, and choking off any profits their competition might use to gain a foothold into the larger form factor tablet space. There likely exists marketing, prototyping, and software/UI development going on behind the scenes to resolve any concerns about the need or ability to profitably address broader strategic concerns inherent in introducing a mini iPad. I'm not saying they will enter this market, but if they perceive they need to, they would be prepared to pull the trigger-and would dominate it. 

  • Reply 67 of 109
    carthusiacarthusia Posts: 561member


    I get your point, Quadra 610, but there's a lotta time between five years and forever. Apple's current success is based on Steve's focus on a unified strategy that emerged over thirty years ago. Apple, Inc. needs to be thinking short-term (five years or so) and long term (decades into the future). That was one of Steve's greatest gifts. Apple's viable into the 2030s, 2040s and beyond requires that sort of vision. Long term goals facilitate the succes of short term goals.

  • Reply 68 of 109
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    nht wrote: »
    Pretty much the same forecast as they made around this time last year shifted to the right a little.

    image: http://forums.appleinsider.com/image/id/163112/width/422/height/280/flags/LL

    http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/displaysearch/hs.xsl/110314_touch_screens_in_tablet_pcs_forecast_to_reach_60m_in_2011.asp

    Would have been nice if AI had spent 5 mins to track this down and done some analysis,

    It's amazing that they would predict that the tablet market would continue to grow with Apple barely increasing with YoY sales at all. If they predicted their most likely scenario was Apple increasing their YoY sales dramatically but that the market itself was growing even faster, thus resulting in a lower marketshare, that would at least be a historically reasonable general conclusion for those that are familair with Apple, their competitors in the feild, or tech in general.
  • Reply 69 of 109
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    None of that explains why MS and others are seen as only being able get bigger and more successful while constantly failing at entering new markets and Apple is seen to be always on the brink of their "lucky streak" collapsing.
    Note that when people review non-Apple products in an Apple market it's done on a curve. Why is this? Does the reviewer think they sound more balanced by not being fair?

    I agree with that part. Clearly, Apple is held to a different standard than everyone else.

    I was simply arguing against the view that Apple couldn't possibly have a 50% market share in 5 years. Given the size and scope of the market, I think that's quite possible.
  • Reply 70 of 109
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jragosta wrote: »
    I was simply arguing against the view that Apple couldn't possibly have a 50% market share in 5 years. Given the size and scope of the market, I think that's quite possible.

    Gotcha. I mentioned something along those line in the post above, #69.

    However, I do think Apple is working very hard to give themselves another iPod like dominance in the tablet market. Whether they succeed or not is not set in stone but from what I can see they started this project with that goal in mind. Besides their aggressive maneuvers I also think they have a leg up because the integration of the OS and HW is much more important than it was with the desktop PC market that made MS' business.

    It Just Works really does play an important part in mobile devices. Android has nothing but financial loses with their OS across the board, but no real market penetration in the tablet market, other tablet OSes are making no headway.

    Finnaly, I think Windows RT will be unsuccessful even if it is the most successful non-Apple tablet OS on the market as there are simply too many drastic changes without enough benefit to make users choose it over the iPad. If you are going to choose a new OS that needs all new apps then Apple seems like the best option, even for most businesses.

    PS: I also have doubts about Windows 8 being to much of a drastic change which will help sell more Macs which is why I expect Apple to push the Mac HW, OS, and app hard shortly and have a new ad campaign focused on the Mac.
  • Reply 71 of 109
    relefuntrelefunt Posts: 18member


    Remind me again how this is not complete fiction and why it's worthy of being on the home page of appleinsider?


     


    My lord, I predict that apple's share of the tablet market will reach about 97% by 2017. 


     


    So there.

  • Reply 72 of 109

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    Wasn't there a study that said it'll drop drastically in 2012?


     


    They keep pushing back the date.


     


     



     


     


    2011 was going to be the year of the Android Tablet.  Never happened.


     


    These predictions of the future (Hell -all predictions of the future) are rarely accurate.

  • Reply 73 of 109

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Relefunt View Post


    Remind me again how this is not complete fiction and why it's worthy of being on the home page of appleinsider?


     


    My lord, I predict that apple's share of the tablet market will reach about 97% by 2017. 


     


    So there.



     


     


    If you can write up 7 or 10 pages of cogent argument using stats, you could probably go into business.  As of now,  

  • Reply 74 of 109
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member

    2011 was going to be the year of the Android Tablet.  Never happened.

    These predictions of the future (Hell -all predictions of the future) are rarely accurate.

    Some predictions are quite accurate. We used to do business forecasting for 3 years and hit within about 5% of our forecast most years.

    As for 2011 being the year of the Android tablet, it was a milestone year for Android. First decent Android tablets came out and first high volume Android tablets also came out (Kindle Fire). Meanwhile, WebOS and Blackberry for tablets essentially died, so Android is the de facto #2.
  • Reply 75 of 109
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    It's amazing that they would predict that the tablet market would continue to grow with Apple barely increasing with YoY sales at all. If they predicted their most likely scenario was Apple increasing their YoY sales dramatically but that the market itself was growing even faster, thus resulting in a lower marketshare, that would at least be a historically reasonable general conclusion for those that are familair with Apple, their competitors in the feild, or tech in general.

    Actually, it's not that big of a switch. Another thread says that Apple has a 68% share today. Going from 68% to 50% in 5 years is not the massive market switch that everyone's complaining about.

    Heck, RIM managed to go from 77% to under 50% in 2 years - and that is in a market that wasn't growing as fast.
  • Reply 76 of 109
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Actually, it's not that big of a switch. Another thread says that Apple has a 68% share today. Going from 68% to 50% in 5 years is not the massive market switch that everyone's complaining about.

    Heck, RIM managed to go from 77% to under 50% in 2 years - and that is in a market that wasn't growing as fast.
    Good point. I was assuming they were starting with a more realistic marketshare value which is likely not the case.
  • Reply 77 of 109
    apfeltoshapfeltosh Posts: 31member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Yes.


     


    Which?


     


     


    Get back to saving your lost company. image



    Apple led the GUI (that they stole) and got crushed by Windows. They led the mouse (which they stole) and got crushed by Logitech and many other vendors. Thinking that any technology company will lead forever is pure insanity, immaturity, and ignorance. And what lost company and I saving? That dumb made no sense but based on your thinking, it makes sense that you would say something like that. Apple leads the tablet market because they were first so they had essentially no competition. Then the tablets got popular, good for Apple, and numerous other companies jumped into the market and it only makes sense, even for a simpleton, that Apple will contonue to lose market share. Go back to school.

  • Reply 78 of 109
    apfeltoshapfeltosh Posts: 31member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post


     


    The same kinds of idiots predicted that the iPad would only have some 40% of market share by 2011... ;) They have absolutely no clue with such numbers pulled out of their arses.



    BUt someone as brilliant as yourself with hindsight makes perfect predictions. How stupid.

  • Reply 79 of 109
    ssassa Posts: 47member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by waybacmac View Post


    Market share, shmarket mare. Remember this...?


     


    Apple now earning 73% of global mobile profits with just 8.8% unit share


     


    ...or as Apple E. Newman sez: What? Me worried?



     






    That is exactly how Apple will lose market share.  Apple does NOT care too much about market share.  They care about far more about profit margins as they arguably should.  Apple will cede the low end market without contest because they market themselves as a high end brand.  If they sold a lower end model they could have higher market share, but they would cannibalize the profits of their higher end units.  As more companies have jumped into competing with the ipad the prices have dropped considerably sales of ipad competitors have grown considerably.  I could easily see some point in the future where Apple not only doesn't have a majority of tablet sale, but not even a plurality of the sales, but a majority of the profits due to having profit margins that are just that much higher than *any* of the competition.


     


    Market share is only important up to the point that you have sufficient users for developers to develop for the platform.

  • Reply 80 of 109
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apfeltosh View Post

    Apple led the GUI (that they stole) and got crushed by Windows. They led the mouse (which they stole) and got crushed by Logitech and many other vendors. Thinking that any technology company will lead forever is pure insanity, immaturity, and ignorance. And what lost company and I saving? That dumb made no sense but based on your thinking, it makes sense that you would say something like that. Apple leads the tablet market because they were first so they had essentially no competition. Then the tablets got popular, good for Apple, and numerous other companies jumped into the market and it only makes sense, even for a simpleton, that Apple will contonue to lose market share. Go back to school.


     


    And people wonder why I'm a teetotaler and won't ever do drugs.

Sign In or Register to comment.