I don't know about that. Microsoft has two different OSs for tablets. One is more like Windows, but it needs X86 processors, so they will be more like a Slate tablet, rather than an iPad tablet. Those, historically haven't done very well.
The other version OS is Windows RT, which is the ARM based processor, but that one is supposed to suck.
The other problem Microsoft has is being able to catch up with the speed and frequency of iOS updates as Apple has been continuously coming out with iOS updates on a yearly basis. Now, some of those updates are fairly minor, but some are fairly major. I think there is a far greater speed of getting apps developed under iOS than Windows RT, which is their ARM based tablet.
I wouldn't worry too much in the tablet market.
Now, the other problem Android has is the Smartphone because Android operating system isn't getting many of these phones using the latest OS and the developers aren't really always updating their apps for the later OS since only 10% of the Android users are using Ice Cream Sandwich, which is basically a MELTED FAILURE. Android Jelly Bean is supposed to be their next OS version, but judging on history, it may not get much traction either. The way I see it, Android users might get fed up after they realize their bought a FAILURE and switch because they might not like Windows and how fast and up to date their OS is. The Apple advantage is they make both the hardware and OS at the same time, which allows them much easier and faster product development to bring the two together. Easier for support, one point of contact. Plus, Apple doesn't have to give outside OEM hardware makers code and deal with various issues and the testing of the products.
we need to ask balmer what he thinks of the ipad..
It doesn't matter what Balmer thinks, he was wrong with the iPod and the iPhone and if he doesn't like the iPad, then that means that Apple will do well and Microsoft stands a good chance at losing. See Microsoft has been VERY arrogant into thinking that all of these millions of Microsoft users will just automatically use Microsoft phones, media devices and tablets, but he is wrong on that. They stand a chance at winning but Android has gobbled up a bunch of WIndows users and if an Android user is going to switch to either Apple or Microsoft, which do you HONESTLY think the majority will go? I think the people that spend more money on the more expensive Android phones will opt for Apple since they are closer in how they work. Now Apple is smart by always having older revs of the phone still available for sale so that those that can't afford the more expensive units have a $99 alternative, or a free alternative. It's just a matter of how much of the nifty features you actually want/need/or will pay for in the actually unit.
From everything I have read, it would appear that Android's share of sales to end users is substantially less than 35% to 40% of the so-called "tablet" market. It may be that Android tablet shipments from manufacturers to retailers have comprised 35% to 40% of total shipments, but that is not a meaningful measure of market penetration. I don't believe IDC's numbers.
Exactly. I can count on one hand the number of times an Android OEM reported any actual end-user sales. I mean... they've got to know these numbers... right?
If sales were spectacular... they'd be shouting from the rooftops. But we barely hear a peep out of them.
So we're left with analysts, surveys and other forms of "research" to describe the Android tablet market.
But someone's gotta be buying these things... they wouldn't keep shipping them to stores unless the previous stock was sold.
I think both Tim and Steve said it... they aren't interested in going after market share, they just make the best products they can. If they happen to grab a huge chunk, why not brag about it? It's a double-whammy to competitors who flood the market with low margin devices no one buys or wants, yet are counted as market share.
Tim cook showed graphs of market share when the 4S was introduced, and he showed the graph of all mobile phones rather than smartphones, as he thinks over time all phones will be smart or feature. Apple was at 5%. He said they had a lot more to do. This is clear interest in market share.
Real world usage statistics always show the iPad way, way ahead, usually some 90% or higher, whether it's web usage, ad stats, enterprise deployment, etc. Like the iPod, the iPad is in a class all its own and will remain so until something else comes along and hopefully Apple again has the foresight to make the transition.
This I agree with. Android market share in tablets is supposed to be higher than iPhone market share in phones. Is this what we see around us?
Impressive as this is, I think that apple is more impressed with the profits generated. Market share is fine, but profits are finer. Apple doesn't really care so much about market share.
And besides, there really is no tablet market. There only an iPad market. No other tablet even comes close.
The numbers are silly. By "media tablets" they are including eReader's like the Kindle and Nook which really perform one function well. The Fire asides, with it's dismal sales, the iPad is 80%+ of the market if Samsung accounts for 10%. The Transformer and all those other iPad "killers" barely register on the chart.
"Demand for media tablets remains robust, and we see an increasing interest in the category from the commercial side," said Tom Mainelli [...]
Hey, Tom, why do you keep calling pad computers "media tablets"? It's like calling movies "talkies." Or like calling cars "horseless carriages."
Actually, it's even worse than that. It sounds like you have an agenda. Like you and other analysts are trying to put a firewall between iPad and the overall PC market. The "media tablet" category is at once vague yet semantically distant from general computing, because it could include small portable TVs and dedicated e-readers. It's almost as if you (and many other analysts) are trying to spin your audience into not realizing how much of an impact iPad is having on the legacy PC market. And you almost did it. You almost managed to artificially segregate iPad from the general PC market there, Tom. By trying to spread the meme that iPads aren't real computers.
But you didn't do it. And why not? Because you're trying to shore up the legacy PC numbers with Windows tablets:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Although the market share is not expected to be high, it should be noted that the Windows-based tablets do appear in IDC's PC market tracker.
No, Tom. You can't have it both ways. You can't spin iPad (a portable computer) as a "media tablet" in one press release, then dump "Windows-based tablets" (also portable computers) into the "PC market" soup in another press release. Well, actually you can. But you'll look like a fool when you do it. Knock yourself out. It's a free country, brother.
Comments
we need to ask balmer what he thinks of the ipad..
I don't know about that. Microsoft has two different OSs for tablets. One is more like Windows, but it needs X86 processors, so they will be more like a Slate tablet, rather than an iPad tablet. Those, historically haven't done very well.
The other version OS is Windows RT, which is the ARM based processor, but that one is supposed to suck.
The other problem Microsoft has is being able to catch up with the speed and frequency of iOS updates as Apple has been continuously coming out with iOS updates on a yearly basis. Now, some of those updates are fairly minor, but some are fairly major. I think there is a far greater speed of getting apps developed under iOS than Windows RT, which is their ARM based tablet.
I wouldn't worry too much in the tablet market.
Now, the other problem Android has is the Smartphone because Android operating system isn't getting many of these phones using the latest OS and the developers aren't really always updating their apps for the later OS since only 10% of the Android users are using Ice Cream Sandwich, which is basically a MELTED FAILURE. Android Jelly Bean is supposed to be their next OS version, but judging on history, it may not get much traction either. The way I see it, Android users might get fed up after they realize their bought a FAILURE and switch because they might not like Windows and how fast and up to date their OS is. The Apple advantage is they make both the hardware and OS at the same time, which allows them much easier and faster product development to bring the two together. Easier for support, one point of contact. Plus, Apple doesn't have to give outside OEM hardware makers code and deal with various issues and the testing of the products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcasey
we need to ask balmer what he thinks of the ipad..
It doesn't matter what Balmer thinks, he was wrong with the iPod and the iPhone and if he doesn't like the iPad, then that means that Apple will do well and Microsoft stands a good chance at losing. See Microsoft has been VERY arrogant into thinking that all of these millions of Microsoft users will just automatically use Microsoft phones, media devices and tablets, but he is wrong on that. They stand a chance at winning but Android has gobbled up a bunch of WIndows users and if an Android user is going to switch to either Apple or Microsoft, which do you HONESTLY think the majority will go? I think the people that spend more money on the more expensive Android phones will opt for Apple since they are closer in how they work. Now Apple is smart by always having older revs of the phone still available for sale so that those that can't afford the more expensive units have a $99 alternative, or a free alternative. It's just a matter of how much of the nifty features you actually want/need/or will pay for in the actually unit.
Exactly. I can count on one hand the number of times an Android OEM reported any actual end-user sales. I mean... they've got to know these numbers... right?
If sales were spectacular... they'd be shouting from the rooftops. But we barely hear a peep out of them.
So we're left with analysts, surveys and other forms of "research" to describe the Android tablet market.
But someone's gotta be buying these things... they wouldn't keep shipping them to stores unless the previous stock was sold.
So who knows...
Huh. Same company that predicted Windows Mobile to have a massive top share in 2012, right?
I'm going to ignore that analysis too, then. Even if they told me the Earth rotates around the Sun, I would doubt it, because it's them saying so
Tim cook showed graphs of market share when the 4S was introduced, and he showed the graph of all mobile phones rather than smartphones, as he thinks over time all phones will be smart or feature. Apple was at 5%. He said they had a lot more to do. This is clear interest in market share.
This I agree with. Android market share in tablets is supposed to be higher than iPhone market share in phones. Is this what we see around us?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
Impressive as this is, I think that apple is more impressed with the profits generated. Market share is fine, but profits are finer. Apple doesn't really care so much about market share.
And besides, there really is no tablet market. There only an iPad market. No other tablet even comes close.
The numbers are silly. By "media tablets" they are including eReader's like the Kindle and Nook which really perform one function well. The Fire asides, with it's dismal sales, the iPad is 80%+ of the market if Samsung accounts for 10%. The Transformer and all those other iPad "killers" barely register on the chart.
Never believe anything from IDC or Gartner
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
"Demand for media tablets remains robust, and we see an increasing interest in the category from the commercial side," said Tom Mainelli [...]
Hey, Tom, why do you keep calling pad computers "media tablets"? It's like calling movies "talkies." Or like calling cars "horseless carriages."
Actually, it's even worse than that. It sounds like you have an agenda. Like you and other analysts are trying to put a firewall between iPad and the overall PC market. The "media tablet" category is at once vague yet semantically distant from general computing, because it could include small portable TVs and dedicated e-readers. It's almost as if you (and many other analysts) are trying to spin your audience into not realizing how much of an impact iPad is having on the legacy PC market. And you almost did it. You almost managed to artificially segregate iPad from the general PC market there, Tom. By trying to spread the meme that iPads aren't real computers.
But you didn't do it. And why not? Because you're trying to shore up the legacy PC numbers with Windows tablets:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Although the market share is not expected to be high, it should be noted that the Windows-based tablets do appear in IDC's PC market tracker.
No, Tom. You can't have it both ways. You can't spin iPad (a portable computer) as a "media tablet" in one press release, then dump "Windows-based tablets" (also portable computers) into the "PC market" soup in another press release. Well, actually you can. But you'll look like a fool when you do it. Knock yourself out. It's a free country, brother.