Not internet traffic. It's based on the number of ad views.
Basically it's a report intended to woo potential iPad advertisers to use their ad network.
Aye - "A study of web usage" - so people, quickly, how many of you iPad users actually see or click on any of those ads on webpages? I don't due to I use a different browser that blocks all those ads, I never see them. And most times I change what I am reporting as, as well. Not showing my browser type as Safari Mobile all the time. I see more ad's in apps then on webpages.
My questioning would be, on all those Fire's, what was the normal Kindle's numbers for the month beforehand??? I knew a few people still using the old Kindle(s) and was going to upgrade this year after the holiday's if Santa did not bring them one of the new Fire's. Or even better yet, the main question is what the numbers looked like for the first two weeks compared to the last two. Also, what websites are you reporting from? Cause I know I have a certain set of bookmarks I go to, and most of them are not mainstream style ones like Yahoo.com or anything. Most of my news and stuff comes from apps. There are day's I don't even go on web, I use my apps, read my books, etc.
Bottom line - who bloody cares about these numbers, just grab other numbers and throw them into a chart. Web useage/ads is a very bad indicator for marketshares why, because unless every person with every device goes to certain webpages each day, your numbers are wrong. It's like trying to prove who has more ticket sales for airlines, without actually looking at the sales, but looking and counting people at the gates.
And one month later, expect all those kindles to be 2nd-hand gifts, gathering dust in a desk drawer, used as a door stop, or landfill material.
The moment the novelty wears off, most those folks will probably realize that it's a crippled iPad.
Not "all" by any means. They are what they are. Don't assume that EVERYONE buying a Kindle or Nook thinks that for $150 they're getting an iPad. They may pale in comparison but until Apple puts out a $150 tablet there are no apples to apples. I know lots of happy users of all three. Not everyone needs what an iPad does.
Most people aren't buying cheap burger meat at the supermarket and then a month later complain about how wasn't sirloin.
And again, both KDarling and Macrulez fail to respond.
KD, aren't you a touch screen developer with "decades" of experience? And don't you work with a Fortune 20 company that's deploying thousands of Android tablets?
The news report is not surprising given my own purchase patterns this year. I bought an iPad 4 for my best friend in September, bought two iPad 4s for myself and my partner last year, and bought my parents two Kindle Fires for Christmas. Why did I get them Kindle Fires instead of iPad Minis? Because my parents see all tablets as "the same" (forget trying to tell them about why the iPad is better) and the Kindle Fire is much cheaper at $199 than Apple's $329 iPad Mini.
I presume there are many, many people out there who are evaluating tablets along the same lines - i.e., they are all the same and Kindle Fire is cheaper.
And again, both KDarling and Macrulez fail to respond.
I've been in the hospital ER since New Year's, and am awaiting surgery for a twisted bowel. Using phone now. Will have to wait a few days for a reply. Sorry.
(Actually not sure what you want a comment on from me. I don't care who buys what. I've seen many fan objects come and go over three decades online. This group too shall pass.)
Of course this is going to happen over the holiday week. Everyone got shiny new presents that they're playing with. This time next month those stats will revert back to what they were before the holidays.
Exactly what I was thinking. How many people are still making do with something that isn't an iPad? Give it a few weeks and they'll stop using their "also ran" tablet that someone bought them thinking it's the right one or they bought because it was cheap.
You really think so? I think there will be a low-end tablet market - there's a large group of people for whom even $329 is more than they can afford for a tablet. I don't doubt Apple's ability to do well for years to come in the premium sector, and now mid-sector with the mini.
Obviously the data is of very limited use. The interesting points for me were the lack of penetration of the Surface despite very heavy advertising.
And the data shows that in the non iOS segment Kindle Fire is doing well against Google Nexus & Samsung Galaxy pad. It confirms the anecdotal evidence I get in the UK that among those who are buying budget tablets, Amazon is the favoured brand. Presumably this is because of Amazon's good reputation as a internet mail-order reseller, and good experience with Kindles as a single purpose eReader.
Oh there's definitely a low-end tablet market. I was just saying that this article has a fantastic headline that is a complete sham.
This article is based on web usage... not market share.
Market share is calculated by taking the company's sales over the period and dividing it by the total sales of the industry over the same period.
So.... take all the iPads sold over the holidays... and compare that to all the Kindle Fires sold over the holidays... and tell me how the Kindle Fire gained market share at the expense of the iPad.
Web traffic is not the same as market share... nor can it be used to calculate market share.
That's why I said this news is no cause for celebration. The headline is wrong.
You're also locked in with iBooks though because even though it's an epub it's an encrypted epub.
You're locked in with every e-bookstore with the exception of Project Gutenberg. (Where, unfortunately, because of absurd extensions to copyright, the selection is somewhat limited.) Although, with iBooks the app, at least, you are able to "side load" content. Something you can't really do with Kindle, where you have to upload it to your account to be able to access it. Then there are also the instances where Amazon has wiped people's accounts clean, including books they "purchased".
Books, like music, ought to be DRM free, but, if I were going to buy e-books (and I'm not, until they are DRM free), I'd buy them from someone who doesn't have a history of revoking your access to them.
And again, both KDarling and Macrulez fail to respond.
KD, aren't you a touch screen developer with "decades" of experience? And don't you work with a Fortune 20 company that's deploying thousands of Android tablets?
Touch screen developer since 1869...
And that Fortune 20 company is Apple, which is deploying thousands of millions of Android tablets. /s
Not having pored over the license(s) with this question in mind, I can't say whether he is mistaken or not. Just as I don't buy e-books, I don't use cloud based music services, or buy music as downloads, so the question doesn't affect me.
Some of that Android traffic is from people like my girlfriend, whose father gave her a 7-inch Galaxy Tab for Christmas. I told her to give it a fair chance to prove itself, which she did ... before we traded it in on an iPad mini.
It wouldn't surprise me if 7% was low for the Fire, and that ABI chart agrees with me. The logic being that the browser on the Kindle is actually pretty poor.
They are fun for games, movies and reading, but still need a quality browser. Because of that, for every owner browsing on an iPad, I say there are probably 2 Kindle users. So I would not be surprised if these reported numbers are low - I would expect closer to 10-14% Kindle.
Additionally, of the people I know, many more purchased Kindles for kids and family than an iPad. Some got an iPad, but the value proposition is helping Amazon big time.
Amazon and google had effectively destroy the myth of marketshare by selling their products at cost or very low profits whereas in a business environment where profits rule.
So what is the point of selling more when profits are negligible.
One thing I can't figure out is just before christmas the same company said the iPads registered the highest ads impression and all of a sudden it lost over 7% post christmas apparently the law of average doesn't apply to Apple and what about the iPads being gifted or some Apple shorts paid them a huge amount of money to say so.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Not internet traffic. It's based on the number of ad views.
Basically it's a report intended to woo potential iPad advertisers to use their ad network.
Aye - "A study of web usage" - so people, quickly, how many of you iPad users actually see or click on any of those ads on webpages? I don't due to I use a different browser that blocks all those ads, I never see them. And most times I change what I am reporting as, as well. Not showing my browser type as Safari Mobile all the time. I see more ad's in apps then on webpages.
My questioning would be, on all those Fire's, what was the normal Kindle's numbers for the month beforehand??? I knew a few people still using the old Kindle(s) and was going to upgrade this year after the holiday's if Santa did not bring them one of the new Fire's. Or even better yet, the main question is what the numbers looked like for the first two weeks compared to the last two. Also, what websites are you reporting from? Cause I know I have a certain set of bookmarks I go to, and most of them are not mainstream style ones like Yahoo.com or anything. Most of my news and stuff comes from apps. There are day's I don't even go on web, I use my apps, read my books, etc.
Bottom line - who bloody cares about these numbers, just grab other numbers and throw them into a chart. Web useage/ads is a very bad indicator for marketshares why, because unless every person with every device goes to certain webpages each day, your numbers are wrong. It's like trying to prove who has more ticket sales for airlines, without actually looking at the sales, but looking and counting people at the gates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
And one month later, expect all those kindles to be 2nd-hand gifts, gathering dust in a desk drawer, used as a door stop, or landfill material.
The moment the novelty wears off, most those folks will probably realize that it's a crippled iPad.
Not "all" by any means. They are what they are. Don't assume that EVERYONE buying a Kindle or Nook thinks that for $150 they're getting an iPad. They may pale in comparison but until Apple puts out a $150 tablet there are no apples to apples. I know lots of happy users of all three. Not everyone needs what an iPad does.
Most people aren't buying cheap burger meat at the supermarket and then a month later complain about how wasn't sirloin.
KD, aren't you a touch screen developer with "decades" of experience? And don't you work with a Fortune 20 company that's deploying thousands of Android tablets?
The news report is not surprising given my own purchase patterns this year. I bought an iPad 4 for my best friend in September, bought two iPad 4s for myself and my partner last year, and bought my parents two Kindle Fires for Christmas. Why did I get them Kindle Fires instead of iPad Minis? Because my parents see all tablets as "the same" (forget trying to tell them about why the iPad is better) and the Kindle Fire is much cheaper at $199 than Apple's $329 iPad Mini.
I presume there are many, many people out there who are evaluating tablets along the same lines - i.e., they are all the same and Kindle Fire is cheaper.
I've been in the hospital ER since New Year's, and am awaiting surgery for a twisted bowel. Using phone now. Will have to wait a few days for a reply. Sorry.
(Actually not sure what you want a comment on from me. I don't care who buys what. I've seen many fan objects come and go over three decades online. This group too shall pass.)
Thx wish me luck.
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin
Sorry, but...
Duh!!!
Of course this is going to happen over the holiday week. Everyone got shiny new presents that they're playing with. This time next month those stats will revert back to what they were before the holidays.
Exactly what I was thinking. How many people are still making do with something that isn't an iPad? Give it a few weeks and they'll stop using their "also ran" tablet that someone bought them thinking it's the right one or they bought because it was cheap.
Oh there's definitely a low-end tablet market. I was just saying that this article has a fantastic headline that is a complete sham.
This article is based on web usage... not market share.
Market share is calculated by taking the company's sales over the period and dividing it by the total sales of the industry over the same period.
So.... take all the iPads sold over the holidays... and compare that to all the Kindle Fires sold over the holidays... and tell me how the Kindle Fire gained market share at the expense of the iPad.
Web traffic is not the same as market share... nor can it be used to calculate market share.
That's why I said this news is no cause for celebration. The headline is wrong.
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcfa
For one, nobody cares about devices, people care about the software.
Actually, I don't think most people distinguish between the hardware and the software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neillwd
1. US & Canada data only
2. Let's talk margins
3. Let's talk halo
4. Let's talk returns.
Last year, a significant number of Kindle Fires were returned. No doubt because they were given
as gifts that the recipients didn't want. And I'd expect the same this year.
Of course, Amazon doesn't reveal sales numbers (or return percentages.) How convenient.
Sources:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/03/how-many-kindle-fires-are-being-returned-to-amazon/
http://seekingalpha.com/article/312394-kindle-fire-returns-could-hit-amazon-s-earnings
http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2011/12/05/kindle-fire-high-sales-and-high-returns/
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
You're also locked in with iBooks though because even though it's an epub it's an encrypted epub.
You're locked in with every e-bookstore with the exception of Project Gutenberg. (Where, unfortunately, because of absurd extensions to copyright, the selection is somewhat limited.) Although, with iBooks the app, at least, you are able to "side load" content. Something you can't really do with Kindle, where you have to upload it to your account to be able to access it. Then there are also the instances where Amazon has wiped people's accounts clean, including books they "purchased".
Books, like music, ought to be DRM free, but, if I were going to buy e-books (and I'm not, until they are DRM free), I'd buy them from someone who doesn't have a history of revoking your access to them.
deleted
Touch screen developer since 1869...
And that Fortune 20 company is Apple, which is deploying thousands of millions of Android tablets. /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
I prefer DRM-free myself, but what happens to the media you "purchased" when you die?
This author claims it isn't clear in the license - is he mistaken?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57505272-37/who-owns-your-downloaded-music-after-you-die/
Not having pored over the license(s) with this question in mind, I can't say whether he is mistaken or not. Just as I don't buy e-books, I don't use cloud based music services, or buy music as downloads, so the question doesn't affect me.
It wouldn't surprise me if 7% was low for the Fire, and that ABI chart agrees with me. The logic being that the browser on the Kindle is actually pretty poor.
They are fun for games, movies and reading, but still need a quality browser. Because of that, for every owner browsing on an iPad, I say there are probably 2 Kindle users. So I would not be surprised if these reported numbers are low - I would expect closer to 10-14% Kindle.
Additionally, of the people I know, many more purchased Kindles for kids and family than an iPad. Some got an iPad, but the value proposition is helping Amazon big time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
Last month microsoft sold 1 surface.
This time they sold 3. That's a 300% increase right there, in 1-month span, while Apple is sleeping and losing it's shine and market share.
I wonder how Apple fanboys will deal with this one.
Well the sun still shines and my mum loves me, need I say more.
Amazon and google had effectively destroy the myth of marketshare by selling their products at cost or very low profits whereas in a business environment where profits rule.
So what is the point of selling more when profits are negligible.
One thing I can't figure out is just before christmas the same company said the iPads registered the highest ads impression and all of a sudden it lost over 7% post christmas apparently the law of average doesn't apply to Apple and what about the iPads being gifted or some Apple shorts paid them a huge amount of money to say so.
I am just saying.