Could a portion of that be that often Android users use alternate user agents in their browsers, thereby appearing as computer users instead of tablet users?
Amazon sales shouldn't even be counted as Android because Amazon forked the OS (making it it's own) and it isn't allowed to use the Android trademark in selling its product.
More importantly to the issue, Amazon's fork does not participate in the Android ecosystem. Any discussion of market share is really about the size and health, and ultimately viability, of the ecosystems behind them. Since Amazon's devices don't participate in the Android ecosystem, they don't contribute to its size, health or viability in any way. In fact, they compete against it. Ancestry is not an important criteria.
This is a fair question. But if I'm not mistaken, Android browsing on cellular networks has finally overtaken iOS? It's on Wifi that iOS still dominates rather significantly?
I'm sure this can be used to buttress the notion that Android tablets are rarely used (since tablets are more likely to coonnect on Wifi rather than 3G or LTE). I won't argue that right now because there isn't enough concrete data for anyone to take a strong stand. But here are two caveats:
1. If Samsung is shipping millions of tablets and not selling them, they'd be writing down inventory (as HP and RIM did). I'm not aware of evidence of this.
2. Not long ago, we (including myself) were all staunchly refuting Android activation data and steadfastly arguing that iPhones were still outselling android phones. Part of the evidence we used was the lack of Android web traffic. Well, today, who can still argue that iPhones are outselling Android phones?
The tide is changing. We all need to ask ourselves how objectively we really are thinking if we remain mired in distinction between shipment, sales and activation. That debate is passé - that much is apparent to the objective mind.
Could a portion of that be that often Android users use alternate user agents in their browsers, thereby appearing as computer users instead of tablet users?
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Another thought that has occurred to me about the web browser stats is that IDC needs some sort of script on the web page to detect the user agent/OS. If many large sites such as Google, Amazon etc, don't participate in the IDC program those web logs go undetected. They say they have 1000s of websites being analyzed but are they the kinds of sites that typical Android users visit, whatever that might be? Also I think most of asia is a big unknown when it comes to web analysis.
A trend I also see is a lot of younger kids are using Android tablets, perhaps because their parents opted for a less expensive device. Younger kids aren't really that much into web browsing as they are about playing games. So if they visit Google Play and download a game, they play it nonstop for days but don't register any web hits. I personally know a few cases like this.
Could a portion of that be that often Android users use alternate user agents in their browsers, thereby appearing as computer users instead of tablet users?
If you invent a market, you own pretty much 100% of it. If the market proves to be profitable, there will be more and more competition coming out of the woodwork. So the market share goes down. If the competition imitates the basic look & feel of your product (even if it's still a vastly inferior product overall), and you're dealing with a product that's squarely aimed at the mass market of largely uninformed, not-so-tech-savy people, you will end up with a significant number of people buying whatever is cheapest, if it superficially looks to be the same. So market share erodes further.
Market share doesn't matter. What matters are actual sales figures and profit margins. What good does it do (the) Apple (shareholder) if Apple's market share remains high, but in order to do so, they offer low-cost, cheap products that lower the profit marking and ruin the Apple brand because people start associating Apple with cheap, crappy products? (Answer for those who don't get it: NO GOOD AT ALL!)
Apple has massive increases in units shipped. They have very healthy product margins and don't spend an arm and a leg on marketing and sales channel kickbacks like e.g. Samsung does. And once their supply chain limits ease, they will ship even more.
But anyone who expects market share not to erode in a market that quickly starts to mature, needs his/her head checked. It's what must happen if a market economy is even remotely efficient. Apple on the other hand is doing its homework, and carves out the most profitable segments of that market for itself, and keeps innovating in order to remain in a strong leadership position in that market.
People who don't understand economics should stop investing in Apple, such that the scum of Wall Street doesn't have so many clueless sheep they can herd with good and bad news from euphoria to panic, while they are making out like bandits playing the options markets and the rest loses their hard earned money being tossed around in the waves created by the tug of war between evil and idiocy.
The iPad is following the exact same pattern as the iPod, whose marketshare almost decreased once an explosion of similar mp3 players were spammed to market by competitors. The iPod stayed the course, and eventually marketshare went back up as people realized most of these other products were shit, and Apple kept improving their product. Apple is in this for the long haul and they see the big picture. Marketshare will fluctuate, especially considering how a tablet is defined with the introduction of the surface, but Apple is still in the best possible position in this market to leverage their product.
While I'm not doubting your statements, I am concerned for 2 reasons. 1) I don't recall iPods "losing" market share as fast as the iPad has, and 2) for the iPod there wasn't a competing "platform" like Android (and Amazon/Google Play). And let's not forget that the one big reason why Apple as a corporation and as a platform kicked ass at that time (when the iPod really started to "lose its luster") was because the iPhone was introduced. What would've happened if the iPhone was not introduced?
Listen, I'm as pissed as the other regarding the FUD being spread, crap spewing, like: all of Android is a platform, units shipped, iPad losing market share, etc. That's BS. But we all know the influence of news/media. If it's repeated enough, the general public will believe that Android appliances are just as good and are cheaper.
I anxiously await innovation from Apple...yes, it's a crazy world where we expect innovation at the speed of light, but it's the nature of the beast at the moment.
How long are you going to hang onto these two outdated myths? We've saying the same two things about smartphones and Samsung keeps surging. If Samsung is only shipping and not selling, where is the write down in their reports?
Again, you are repeating the same reaction that we all had we first saw the surge in Samsung sales of Galaxy smartphoens. How's that working out?
Does it matter? Fact is that iPad sales is still growing but so is the overall market.
Your math is based on the assumption that there are 5M customers who wanted to buy the Mini but are either still on the waiting list or gave up waiting. Do you honestly believe this?
If you all allow yourselves to step outside your Apple-biased minds for a moment, can you not see to you are clinging to the world of 2011? As long as Apple is still growing in sales, does it matter that much to you whether Android tablets are growing? Do you have to see Samsung and Google die to make Apple's success sweet? The tablet market is headed in the same direction as the smartphone market: Samsung v. Apple rather than Android v. iOS, except for one difference: Amazon. And that will make the tablet world far more interesting to watch.
Good post until we got to here. The data shows the opposite: Amazon's tablet market share declined significantly. They did well at first - a trusted brand, good media support, but above all by selling really cheap - at cost and pre-iPad mini. Amazon seems to have lost this initial advantage to Google Nexus and Samsung. And this despite expanding into significant markets that the Fire wasn't available in a year back.
These reports never make sense to me because usage statistics tell a completely different story. The theory that Android users change their browsers user agent is laughable. There may be some tech geeks who do. But to think the average Joe, who's buying an Android tablet because its cheap, would even think to or know how to do this is ridiculous.
More importantly to the issue, Amazon's fork does not participate in the Android ecosystem. Any discussion of market share is really about the size and health, and ultimately viability, of the ecosystems behind them. Since Amazon's devices don't participate in the Android ecosystem, they don't contribute to its size, health or viability in any way. In fact, they compete against it. Ancestry is not an important criteria.
But don't Amazon's Kindle Fires get mashed in with the Nexus 7 and other Android tablets (including $99 Cobys or Pantechs running Android 2.3), when it comes to statistics showing how rosy the Android "tablet" market is?
OTOH, CNN Money thought that some of the IDC tablet numbers were "bizarre".
So maybe they're good with phone predictions, and not so much with tablets.
In any case, they're not Samsung's numbers, which was my main point.
Yes, but not only that...most would agree that IDC (and almost all other) estimates of Apple phones/tablets are accurate. But that only goes for Apple! And that's the key point, that Apple is the only one with fairly transparent sales numbers. All others use smoke and mirrors to play the media. Remember the whole Zune fiasco?...and the numbers MS was revealing at that time? Samsung's shipping estimates is still good info, just have to take it with a grain of salt.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhReally
Could a portion of that be that often Android users use alternate user agents in their browsers, thereby appearing as computer users instead of tablet users?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Amazon sales shouldn't even be counted as Android because Amazon forked the OS (making it it's own) and it isn't allowed to use the Android trademark in selling its product.
More importantly to the issue, Amazon's fork does not participate in the Android ecosystem. Any discussion of market share is really about the size and health, and ultimately viability, of the ecosystems behind them. Since Amazon's devices don't participate in the Android ecosystem, they don't contribute to its size, health or viability in any way. In fact, they compete against it. Ancestry is not an important criteria.
This is a fair question. But if I'm not mistaken, Android browsing on cellular networks has finally overtaken iOS? It's on Wifi that iOS still dominates rather significantly?
I'm sure this can be used to buttress the notion that Android tablets are rarely used (since tablets are more likely to coonnect on Wifi rather than 3G or LTE). I won't argue that right now because there isn't enough concrete data for anyone to take a strong stand. But here are two caveats:
1. If Samsung is shipping millions of tablets and not selling them, they'd be writing down inventory (as HP and RIM did). I'm not aware of evidence of this.
2. Not long ago, we (including myself) were all staunchly refuting Android activation data and steadfastly arguing that iPhones were still outselling android phones. Part of the evidence we used was the lack of Android web traffic. Well, today, who can still argue that iPhones are outselling Android phones?
The tide is changing. We all need to ask ourselves how objectively we really are thinking if we remain mired in distinction between shipment, sales and activation. That debate is passé - that much is apparent to the objective mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhReally
Could a portion of that be that often Android users use alternate user agents in their browsers, thereby appearing as computer users instead of tablet users?
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Another thought that has occurred to me about the web browser stats is that IDC needs some sort of script on the web page to detect the user agent/OS. If many large sites such as Google, Amazon etc, don't participate in the IDC program those web logs go undetected. They say they have 1000s of websites being analyzed but are they the kinds of sites that typical Android users visit, whatever that might be? Also I think most of asia is a big unknown when it comes to web analysis.
A trend I also see is a lot of younger kids are using Android tablets, perhaps because their parents opted for a less expensive device. Younger kids aren't really that much into web browsing as they are about playing games. So if they visit Google Play and download a game, they play it nonstop for days but don't register any web hits. I personally know a few cases like this.
Originally Posted by OhReally
Could a portion of that be that often Android users use alternate user agents in their browsers, thereby appearing as computer users instead of tablet users?
1/1000th of the total amount, at best, yes.
Market share doesn't matter. What matters are actual sales figures and profit margins. What good does it do (the) Apple (shareholder) if Apple's market share remains high, but in order to do so, they offer low-cost, cheap products that lower the profit marking and ruin the Apple brand because people start associating Apple with cheap, crappy products? (Answer for those who don't get it: NO GOOD AT ALL!)
Apple has massive increases in units shipped. They have very healthy product margins and don't spend an arm and a leg on marketing and sales channel kickbacks like e.g. Samsung does. And once their supply chain limits ease, they will ship even more.
But anyone who expects market share not to erode in a market that quickly starts to mature, needs his/her head checked. It's what must happen if a market economy is even remotely efficient. Apple on the other hand is doing its homework, and carves out the most profitable segments of that market for itself, and keeps innovating in order to remain in a strong leadership position in that market.
People who don't understand economics should stop investing in Apple, such that the scum of Wall Street doesn't have so many clueless sheep they can herd with good and bad news from euphoria to panic, while they are making out like bandits playing the options markets and the rest loses their hard earned money being tossed around in the waves created by the tug of war between evil and idiocy.
And this time Samsung really sold all those shipped tablets?
Lies, damn lies, Samsung shipment numbers...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
The iPad is following the exact same pattern as the iPod, whose marketshare almost decreased once an explosion of similar mp3 players were spammed to market by competitors. The iPod stayed the course, and eventually marketshare went back up as people realized most of these other products were shit, and Apple kept improving their product. Apple is in this for the long haul and they see the big picture. Marketshare will fluctuate, especially considering how a tablet is defined with the introduction of the surface, but Apple is still in the best possible position in this market to leverage their product.
While I'm not doubting your statements, I am concerned for 2 reasons. 1) I don't recall iPods "losing" market share as fast as the iPad has, and 2) for the iPod there wasn't a competing "platform" like Android (and Amazon/Google Play). And let's not forget that the one big reason why Apple as a corporation and as a platform kicked ass at that time (when the iPod really started to "lose its luster") was because the iPhone was introduced. What would've happened if the iPhone was not introduced?
Listen, I'm as pissed as the other regarding the FUD being spread, crap spewing, like: all of Android is a platform, units shipped, iPad losing market share, etc. That's BS. But we all know the influence of news/media. If it's repeated enough, the general public will believe that Android appliances are just as good and are cheaper.
I anxiously await innovation from Apple...yes, it's a crazy world where we expect innovation at the speed of light, but it's the nature of the beast at the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
How long are you going to hang onto these two outdated myths? We've saying the same two things about smartphones and Samsung keeps surging. If Samsung is only shipping and not selling, where is the write down in their reports?
Again, you are repeating the same reaction that we all had we first saw the surge in Samsung sales of Galaxy smartphoens. How's that working out?
Does it matter? Fact is that iPad sales is still growing but so is the overall market.
Your math is based on the assumption that there are 5M customers who wanted to buy the Mini but are either still on the waiting list or gave up waiting. Do you honestly believe this?
If you all allow yourselves to step outside your Apple-biased minds for a moment, can you not see to you are clinging to the world of 2011? As long as Apple is still growing in sales, does it matter that much to you whether Android tablets are growing? Do you have to see Samsung and Google die to make Apple's success sweet? The tablet market is headed in the same direction as the smartphone market: Samsung v. Apple rather than Android v. iOS, except for one difference: Amazon. And that will make the tablet world far more interesting to watch.
Good post until we got to here. The data shows the opposite: Amazon's tablet market share declined significantly. They did well at first - a trusted brand, good media support, but above all by selling really cheap - at cost and pre-iPad mini. Amazon seems to have lost this initial advantage to Google Nexus and Samsung. And this despite expanding into significant markets that the Fire wasn't available in a year back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smalM
And this time Samsung really sold all those shipped tablets?
Lies, damn lies, Samsung shipment numbers...
Samsung didn't provide these numbers.
IDC did. They're usually pretty accurate.
For example, last September they estimated that Apple would sell 27 million iPhones in F3Q 2012. Actual sales? 26.9 million.
They also predicted 48 million iPhones for the last quarter of 2012. Actual number? 47.8 million.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Samsung didn't provide these numbers.
IDC did. They're usually pretty accurate.
For example, last September they estimated that Apple would sell 27 million iPhones in F3Q 2012. Actual sales? 26.9 million.
They also predicted 48 million iPhones for the last quarter of 2012. Actual number? 47.8 million.
You're playing with us, right? No really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewys808
You're playing with us, right? No really.
OTOH, CNN Money thought that some of the IDC tablet numbers were "bizarre".
So maybe they're good with phone predictions, and not so much with tablets.
In any case, they're not Samsung's numbers, which was my main point.
These reports never make sense to me because usage statistics tell a completely different story. The theory that Android users change their browsers user agent is laughable. There may be some tech geeks who do. But to think the average Joe, who's buying an Android tablet because its cheap, would even think to or know how to do this is ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
More importantly to the issue, Amazon's fork does not participate in the Android ecosystem. Any discussion of market share is really about the size and health, and ultimately viability, of the ecosystems behind them. Since Amazon's devices don't participate in the Android ecosystem, they don't contribute to its size, health or viability in any way. In fact, they compete against it. Ancestry is not an important criteria.
But don't Amazon's Kindle Fires get mashed in with the Nexus 7 and other Android tablets (including $99 Cobys or Pantechs running Android 2.3), when it comes to statistics showing how rosy the Android "tablet" market is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
OTOH, CNN Money thought that some of the IDC tablet numbers were "bizarre".
So maybe they're good with phone predictions, and not so much with tablets.
In any case, they're not Samsung's numbers, which was my main point.
Yes, but not only that...most would agree that IDC (and almost all other) estimates of Apple phones/tablets are accurate. But that only goes for Apple! And that's the key point, that Apple is the only one with fairly transparent sales numbers. All others use smoke and mirrors to play the media. Remember the whole Zune fiasco?...and the numbers MS was revealing at that time? Samsung's shipping estimates is still good info, just have to take it with a grain of salt.