I don't know how they obtained numbers for the Kindle Fire, but if they have any validity, it looks like people buy them as Xmas gifts than for personal use, based on the Q42012 numbers.
It does seen odd in a Q which included the mini compared to previous quarters. Apple needs a $250 device. If that can't compete then there is no need to go after that market.
Oh, and if IDC is to be believed in the second chart, Apple dropped from a 60% global market share to a 40% market share in a single quarter (the drop occurring between Q's 2 & 3 in 2012), where they remain today.
Who stepped in and 'stole' that 20% of market share away in a single quarter? How is that even remotely imaginable?
Even with IDC saying: "the number of units shipped equals market share"? Bwaaa hahahaha!
How else would you define market share, other than number of units sold (or shipped, since this is all they have)? By the way, given that the market is growing exponentially, the number of units USED share will not be that different from market share.
Seriously, IDC has always had it out for Apple. The fact is, their research is funded by subscriptions paid for by all the very same PC manufacturers whose profits are now being decimated by Apple. So IDC's incentive for twisting and stretching the numbers is the hope that if they can make their bread and butter customers look good, perhaps they can buy them some time to figure out how to compete with Apple by making the reality "appear" better than it really is. However, the REALITY is that, just as we saw with netbooks, the only way all of these so-called "competitors" know how to compete is in a race to the bottom as they stumble over themselves rushing to "ship" product as close to cost (or below) as they dare. This may help them gain market share in the short term (while "shipped" product builds up in warehouses waiting for "customers" who may or may not ever appear), but in the end, only Apple makes profits--which in itself is pretty amazing when you consider that everyone else is basically giving their shit away!
This chart is hilarious! How can they publish this and not be nuked?
9 million Samsung's tablets?? Whaaat? Where???
I can believe Asus because of Nexus 7, but all others?
Someone was drunk.
They can publish this because they did their research. You can do your research, and if it comes out different, you can argue. As it is, you are just talking.
Well, people weren't raising these types of questions until a few months ago. (Even AI is now very careful to use the term 'shipments' while previously, it used to be quite loose in its reporting conflating it with 'sales'). Let's see who long this 'trust' lasts -- others will catch on too. Even the dumb-as-a-rock (on finance issues) tech press will get it one day.
Unless IDC put out an actual methodology -- and they don't so both bother giving us a link -- and also explain how they combine a set of actuals (Apple) with a set of estimates (everyone else), there is nothing to trust.
This chart is hilarious! How can they publish this and not be nuked?
9 million Samsung's tablets?? Whaaat? Where???
I can believe Asus because of Nexus 7, but all others?
Someone was drunk.
They can publish this because they did their research. You can do your research, and if it comes out different, you can argue. As it is, you are just talking.
And you're just trolling (unless you're shilling for IDC).
Unless IDC put out an actual methodology -- and they don't so both bother giving us a link -- and also explain how they combine a set of actuals (Apple) with a set of estimates (everyone else), there is nothing to trust.
Exactly. They list the top 5 companies... which is probably easy to find.
But... how deep did they go to get the "Others" category?
This is worldwide... with probably dozens of little manufacturers all across the globe. How are they formulating these estimates? Where did they get 15.5 million "other" tablets?
If I wanted to know how many "Micromax Funbook Infinity P275" were sold in India... IDC would have that information, right?
Well, people weren't raising these types of questions until a few months ago. (Even AI is now very careful to use the term 'shipments' while previously, it used to be quite loose in its reporting conflating it with 'sales'). Let's see who long this 'trust' lasts -- others will catch on too. Even the dumb-as-a-rock (on finance issues) tech press will get it one day.
Unless IDC put out an actual methodology -- and they don't so both bother giving us a link -- and also explain how they combine a set of actuals (Apple) with a set of estimates (everyone else), there is nothing to trust.
Once again. Apple use IDC's figures in its conference calls including the last one. You are just a guy on the Internet, one who doesn't understand that Apples figures are shipments to channel not sales. Amongst other remedial mistakes.
Once again. Apple use IDC's figures in its conference calls including the last one. You are just a guy on the Internet, one who doesn't understand that Apples figures are shipments to channel not sales. Amongst other remedial mistakes.
Of course Apple figures are 'shipments'. The fact that even you were able to figure that out pretty much makes that obvious.
Looks like you have trouble comprehending the words 'actuals' and 'estimates' in my post. Not for the first time.
And, for the n-th time -- since you bring it up every time IDC is brought up in AI (which leads me to think that you might work for them) -- the fact that Oppenheimer used it says nothing at all one way or another.
Unless you can explain their methodology, your post makes so sense.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010
ASUS makes the Google Nexus 7
But are those attributed to Google or ASUS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical
Oh, and if IDC is to be believed in the second chart, Apple dropped from a 60% global market share to a 40% market share in a single quarter (the drop occurring between Q's 2 & 3 in 2012), where they remain today.
Who stepped in and 'stole' that 20% of market share away in a single quarter? How is that even remotely imaginable?
Even with IDC saying: "the number of units shipped equals market share"? Bwaaa hahahaha!
How else would you define market share, other than number of units sold (or shipped, since this is all they have)? By the way, given that the market is growing exponentially, the number of units USED share will not be that different from market share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher
Total unsubstantiated bullshit.
And you know this how? IDC has been doing this for a while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bengregg
Seriously, IDC has always had it out for Apple. The fact is, their research is funded by subscriptions paid for by all the very same PC manufacturers whose profits are now being decimated by Apple. So IDC's incentive for twisting and stretching the numbers is the hope that if they can make their bread and butter customers look good, perhaps they can buy them some time to figure out how to compete with Apple by making the reality "appear" better than it really is. However, the REALITY is that, just as we saw with netbooks, the only way all of these so-called "competitors" know how to compete is in a race to the bottom as they stumble over themselves rushing to "ship" product as close to cost (or below) as they dare. This may help them gain market share in the short term (while "shipped" product builds up in warehouses waiting for "customers" who may or may not ever appear), but in the end, only Apple makes profits--which in itself is pretty amazing when you consider that everyone else is basically giving their shit away!
No, IDC's bread and butter is being trusted.
How do I invest in this Others company? I see them all the time and they are always doing great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
This chart is hilarious! How can they publish this and not be nuked?
9 million Samsung's tablets?? Whaaat? Where???
I can believe Asus because of Nexus 7, but all others?
Someone was drunk.
They can publish this because they did their research. You can do your research, and if it comes out different, you can argue. As it is, you are just talking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kozchris
B. S. I seriously doubt that many people are settling for a non- iPad.
What this is saying is that you are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
No one buys the Nexus 10, at least no one with a working brain.
Never saw one in the wild and most likely will never see it.
Even the Nexus 7 is not that good...
You are wrong, just google "Nexus 10 review". Or check this out:
http://phandroid.com/2013/03/07/ios-user-reviews-the-nexus-10/
(they are discussing a review from an iOS user on iSource, which you can click through to).
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkell31
How do I invest in this Others company? I see them all the time and they are always doing great.
I think you would have to move to China...
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Apples figures are also shipped, not sold.
So, where did you find them numbers on non-Apple 'shipments'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher
Total unsubstantiated bullshit.
And you know this how? IDC has been doing this for a while.
The National Enquirer has been doing what they do for a longer while than IDC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
No, IDC's bread and butter is being trusted.
Well, people weren't raising these types of questions until a few months ago. (Even AI is now very careful to use the term 'shipments' while previously, it used to be quite loose in its reporting conflating it with 'sales'). Let's see who long this 'trust' lasts -- others will catch on too. Even the dumb-as-a-rock (on finance issues) tech press will get it one day.
Unless IDC put out an actual methodology -- and they don't so both bother giving us a link -- and also explain how they combine a set of actuals (Apple) with a set of estimates (everyone else), there is nothing to trust.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
This chart is hilarious! How can they publish this and not be nuked?
9 million Samsung's tablets?? Whaaat? Where???
I can believe Asus because of Nexus 7, but all others?
Someone was drunk.
They can publish this because they did their research. You can do your research, and if it comes out different, you can argue. As it is, you are just talking.
And you're just trolling (unless you're shilling for IDC).
Exactly. They list the top 5 companies... which is probably easy to find.
But... how deep did they go to get the "Others" category?
This is worldwide... with probably dozens of little manufacturers all across the globe. How are they formulating these estimates? Where did they get 15.5 million "other" tablets?
If I wanted to know how many "Micromax Funbook Infinity P275" were sold in India... IDC would have that information, right?
Or are they just guessing?
Once again. Apple use IDC's figures in its conference calls including the last one. You are just a guy on the Internet, one who doesn't understand that Apples figures are shipments to channel not sales. Amongst other remedial mistakes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Once again. Apple use IDC's figures in its conference calls including the last one. You are just a guy on the Internet, one who doesn't understand that Apples figures are shipments to channel not sales. Amongst other remedial mistakes.
Of course Apple figures are 'shipments'. The fact that even you were able to figure that out pretty much makes that obvious.
Looks like you have trouble comprehending the words 'actuals' and 'estimates' in my post. Not for the first time.
And, for the n-th time -- since you bring it up every time IDC is brought up in AI (which leads me to think that you might work for them) -- the fact that Oppenheimer used it says nothing at all one way or another.
Unless you can explain their methodology, your post makes so sense.