they would estimate Apple's numbers using exactly the same methodology -- whatever that is -- they use to estimate shipments and shares for the non-Apple firms, and report that for all firms, including Apple. Indeed, it would be a great check of whether their methodology is worth the paper it's written on, since it can be compared against Apple's actuals. (Perhaps that's what IDC is afraid of?).
They did that once and they were way off.
After that they have never again shown their own estimates but used Apple's numbers instead.
From that single point of data my estimate is the error band for IDC's numbers is at least 20% (and my own error band is 100% ).
btw, what's with the caps, "I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S NOT A PAID ENDORSEMENT"?
Apple does not need anything. They are doing fine.
Apple followers, however - at least most "loyal" ones (I'm really being diplomatic here) - need to accept Apple is not only player any more, and live with that.
Who are the "others"? Just curious which companies out of that group had any significant sales since they seem to comprise a large chunk of the sales. I am imagining very cheap Chinese brands.
Lenovo, HP, DELL... all make Windows tablets. Lenovo used to have Android as well (first gen Lenovo ThinkPad Tablet) but changed to x86 Windows for 2nd release. They still might have something Android, I think there was IdeaPad beside ThinkPad, no idea if still being made. HP, to my knowledge, does only Windows x86 tablets, current ones being ElitePad 900 and Envy X2 model, both with Atom. Dell, I'm not sure, they are really not common in NZ.
Amazon and Microsoft shipments combined attaining those of ASUS (who? what?).
Bezos and Bozo Ballmer must be popping the champagne corks tonight. LOL
Microsoft still might. Asus does make Windows tablets alongside Androids, from VivoTab RT to x86 VivoTabs with Atom and iCore machines.
Samsung also makes variety of Windows tablets under Ativ brand.
Add to that Lenovo, HP and Dell Windows tablets (which I'd expect are among "Others"), and who knows? maybe MS is not really doing bad at all - for a newcomer.
I read all the replies and it's still unsubstantiated bullshit. Nothing more than a guess. Not a single vendor even releases shipment data...except for Apple. Don't tell me I need to disprove bullshit. If we go back and compare even IDC's estimated Samsung shipments in 2010 versus the actuals that were revealed at trial, we see that IDC doesn't know jack shit about actual shipments or sales.
The essence of your claim is true, estimates aren't proof, but your flawed argument of using court reported US salesof specific and select Samsung smartphone models with the IDC's estimates of worldwide numbers of all Samsung smartphone modelsdoesn't prove "jack" either.
It amazes me how many news outlets run with numbers that can't be verified. And none of these news outlets refer to these figures as estimates. Or explains the methodology IDC uses to come up with these figures. Lets apply their methodology to Apple and compare it to the actual figures Apple reports. That would give us a better feel for how accurate their methodology is.
OK, I took the trouble of breaking it down for you above.
(i) Yes, I don't. Did you understand why? (For a good hint, see ii below)
(ii) There is nothing to 'admit.' A flawed methodology is a flawed methodology. If they want to be intellectually honest and consistent, they would estimate Apple's numbers using exactly the same methodology -- whatever that is -- they use to estimate shipments and shares for the non-Apple firms, and report that for all firms, including Apple. Indeed, it would be a great check of whether their methodology is worth the paper it's written on, since it can be compared against Apple's actuals. (Perhaps that's what IDC is afraid of?).
(iii a) You have not shown in any remotely convincing way that various companies produce similar numbers. You pulled out one out of your hat, about MSFT. Indeed, as numerous reports have shown, these consulting (sorry "research") firms have often produced contradictory results in a whole host of areas.
(iii b) It has SOME information content, surely. I just don't know what. If I don't know or don't trust a methodology, I have no clue what to make of it. I am willing to be persuaded, but I have to have an actual argument.
(iv) We do know Apple's actual shipments. The rest are estimates (without error bands!).
(v) Because guys like you show up with FUD (that stands for F^ckin' Useless Data), and pretend you're making some profound point, despite the fact that you are unable to answer some basic questions. (That kind of nonsense needs to be countered.)
Here are the basic questions, again for you, asdasd, dasanman, Frood, and the rest of your crowd: (a) Why is Apple the only one to report volumes shipped -- What are the others hiding? (b) What is IDC's methodology? (c) How can you conceptually justify confounding actuals with estimates? Why not use estimates all around (which will also provide us an excellent check on their methodology, since Apple thankfully provides volume data)?
Add: Calling it a day now. Will check back tomorrow to see if you have a response to any or all of the three specific questions.
Because Apple has specialty stores. It's much easier to keep track of sales when you're selling your product in your store. How many different retailers sell Samsung phones? Too many to actually keep track of. If a little cell phone store on the corner of God Street and Forsaken Avenue buys 100 Samsung phones to sell, how is Samsung going to know if they actually sold?
It amazes me how many news outlets run with numbers that can't be verified. And none of these news outlets refer to these figures as estimates. Or explains the methodology IDC uses to come up with these figures. Lets apply their methodology to Apple and compare it to the actual figures Apple reports. That would give us a better feel for how accurate their methodology is.
According to the IDC they thought Apple would be reporting 18.7 million iPads shipped, but Apple did better than their estimate coming in at 19.5.
For an explanation of the sources IDC uses to compose these estimates and projections visit this webpage and then clink on "Factsheet" to download a PDF with methodology details.
According to the IDC they thought Apple would be reporting 18.7 million iPads shipped, but Apple did better than their estimate coming in at 19.5.
For an explanation of the sources IDC uses to compose these estimates and projections visit this webpage and then clink on "Factsheet" to download a PDF with methodology details.
LOL. This is what they say about their methodology, from your link:
-----
IDC's Tracker Methodology
IDC's tracker data is developed using a rigorous methodology that includes well-planned and well-coordinated local, regional, and worldwide data cross-checks combined with a proprietary advanced data consolidation and analysis data platform managed by IDC's Worldwide Tracker organization. Data sources used in the process of determining IDC's tracker numbers include, but are not limited to:
? In-country local vendor interviews
? Distribution data feeds
? Worldwide and regional vendor guidance
? ODM data
? In-country local channel partner discussions ? Import records
? Feedback from component suppliers
? Vendor briefings and public financial reports
------
No mention of sample sizes, likely errors in estimation, why they use actuals for Apple (and estimates for the rest) and why they mix up the two, whether they validate their numbers, how they validate their numbers......
What that? Over there. Is it? Could it be? A lesser spotted Surface? No. Wait. A nuxus? No. Oh that's right. It Is a mirage, unless its an ipad of course. And if there's something worse than an Apple user/product it's a smug non apple useing pleb who thinks he's Jesus Christ for buying a Nexus.
My personal accounts also rarely show non-iPad tablets but anecdotes just aren't reliable. Not that IDC is accurate but I'd say it more's scientific than our accounts. I'd even say that I see about 80% Macs when I'm out and about but that's because I tend to see personal computers at coffee shops where there tend to be more affluent people or students hanging out. If you walked into my local Starbucks next to university you'd think Apple was the only notebook vendor and Facebook was the operating system.
Have you ever bought a vehicle with a color and options you hadn't seen anyone else driving before. . .
...until you make it yours? Then it seems you see them everywhere.
Nonsense. Apple had ~$160B in total sales in 2012. Less than $20B came from their 'specialty stores'.
You are correct but Apple mostly deals with major carriers which are much easier to get solid sales numbers from.
Who do Samsung, Nokia, Blackberry, Motorola, etc deal with?
Incidentally, all this is moot, since every manufacturer knows how many they've shipped. Otherwise they couldn't recognize revenue, and if they couldn't do that, they couldn't put out a financial statement.....
Just realized the headline is a bit misleading or mistaken. "iPad dipped to 40% of tablet shipments in Q1 2013", but according to the second IDC chart, that "dip" happened in Q3 2012, not Q1 2013%u2026 a precipitous and frankly unbelievable 20% drop in market share (from 60% to 40%). O-rly?
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.
So, you've decided to just ignore the "shipping like gangbusters" disconnect that producers create trying to make a product appear popular? Microsoft "shipped" a much larger percentage of Surfaces (to warehouses and store shelves) than they actually sold. Do they simply get to create "market share" by reporting shipments that never translate to actual sales? And meanwhile, Apple who sells everything they can make and struggles to maintain inventory is "competing" against imagined/invented competitor share?
Yes. Sales. Users. THAT is "how else" I would define market share. Pretty much the only way. If someone manufactures and ships a million units to a warehouse, counting that alone does not equal MRKET SHARE. If you put yourself forward as 'knowledgeable', but don't understand this basic tenet, then I'm not wasting time having 'conversations' with you anymore.
Their methodology follows generally accepted practices. Unlike Apple, most companies don't sell the majority of their products in their own stores, so they report how many units they shipped to their customers. The tin-foil hattists seem to think many phone selling companies are ordering way more phones than they can hope to sell from Samsung, with the general plan being to pile up inventory and sell the phones at a loss or give them away- or simply put them on a ship at sea and sink it in the ocean. They do this because they want to artificially inflate Samsungs books.... If you buy that, more power to ya, run with it! Shipped data may certainly have its flaws, and is prone to some manipulation, but I'd put considerably more weight on it than someone who's rationale is "I really hate Android and wish it wasn't doing as well as it is, so I'm going to ignore data and/or refute it simply because it doesn't support what I wish were true."
Reading the chart is pretty straight forward and it shows Apple is again number one in tablet sales, but rapidly losing ground and won't continue to be so for long if the current trend persists. If you draw a different conclusion from that data, you are reading it wrong If the data itself is wrong, the chart still points to the same conclusion- it is simply invalid. People are starting to buy tablets corresponding to what phone OS they use. There are more Android phone users in the world and I think its pretty believable that in 2 to 3 years Android tablets will outnumber Apple tablets. Both will still be great.
Buy the tablet you like better and enjoy it.
But what's the result of Android tablets outnumbering Apple tablets?
In phones... Android smartphones passed the iPhone years ago. Yet developers still prefer developing for the iPhone... and accessory makers enjoy making products for the iPhone too.
Will the iPad still be the preferred platform for tablets... even though it will eventually be outnumbered?
I'm getting the impression that Android's market share numbers make a great headline... but there's no compelling story after that.
But what's the result of Android tablets outnumbering Apple tablets?
In phones... Android smartphones passed the iPhone years ago.
The articles I've seen said it happened about a year ago. You're correct tho that reports also show developers work on their iOS apps first as a general rule before moving over to Android. As for accessory makers that's a no-brainer. There's not all that much variation on the Apple product front compared to other platforms.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
they would estimate Apple's numbers using exactly the same methodology -- whatever that is -- they use to estimate shipments and shares for the non-Apple firms, and report that for all firms, including Apple. Indeed, it would be a great check of whether their methodology is worth the paper it's written on, since it can be compared against Apple's actuals. (Perhaps that's what IDC is afraid of?).
They did that once and they were way off.
After that they have never again shown their own estimates but used Apple's numbers instead.
From that single point of data my estimate is the error band for IDC's numbers is at least 20% (and my own error band is 100%
Apple does not need anything. They are doing fine.
Apple followers, however - at least most "loyal" ones (I'm really being diplomatic here) - need to accept Apple is not only player any more, and live with that.
Lenovo, HP, DELL... all make Windows tablets. Lenovo used to have Android as well (first gen Lenovo ThinkPad Tablet) but changed to x86 Windows for 2nd release. They still might have something Android, I think there was IdeaPad beside ThinkPad, no idea if still being made. HP, to my knowledge, does only Windows x86 tablets, current ones being ElitePad 900 and Envy X2 model, both with Atom. Dell, I'm not sure, they are really not common in NZ.
Microsoft still might. Asus does make Windows tablets alongside Androids, from VivoTab RT to x86 VivoTabs with Atom and iCore machines.
Samsung also makes variety of Windows tablets under Ativ brand.
Add to that Lenovo, HP and Dell Windows tablets (which I'd expect are among "Others"), and who knows? maybe MS is not really doing bad at all - for a newcomer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher
I read all the replies and it's still unsubstantiated bullshit. Nothing more than a guess. Not a single vendor even releases shipment data...except for Apple. Don't tell me I need to disprove bullshit. If we go back and compare even IDC's estimated Samsung shipments in 2010 versus the actuals that were revealed at trial, we see that IDC doesn't know jack shit about actual shipments or sales.
The essence of your claim is true, estimates aren't proof, but your flawed argument of using court reported US sales of specific and select Samsung smartphone models with the IDC's estimates of worldwide numbers of all Samsung smartphone models doesn't prove "jack" either.
Originally Posted by nikon133
…Apple is not only player any more, and live with that.
90% of tablets in use. They're the only player that matters.
Because Apple has specialty stores. It's much easier to keep track of sales when you're selling your product in your store. How many different retailers sell Samsung phones? Too many to actually keep track of. If a little cell phone store on the corner of God Street and Forsaken Avenue buys 100 Samsung phones to sell, how is Samsung going to know if they actually sold?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
It amazes me how many news outlets run with numbers that can't be verified. And none of these news outlets refer to these figures as estimates. Or explains the methodology IDC uses to come up with these figures. Lets apply their methodology to Apple and compare it to the actual figures Apple reports. That would give us a better feel for how accurate their methodology is.
According to the IDC they thought Apple would be reporting 18.7 million iPads shipped, but Apple did better than their estimate coming in at 19.5.
For an explanation of the sources IDC uses to compose these estimates and projections visit this webpage and then clink on "Factsheet" to download a PDF with methodology details.
http://www.idc.com/tracker/showproductinfo.jsp?prod_id=81
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Because Apple has specialty stores.
Nonsense. Apple had ~$160B in total sales in 2012. Less than $20B came from their 'specialty stores'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
According to the IDC they thought Apple would be reporting 18.7 million iPads shipped, but Apple did better than their estimate coming in at 19.5.
For an explanation of the sources IDC uses to compose these estimates and projections visit this webpage and then clink on "Factsheet" to download a PDF with methodology details.
http://www.idc.com/tracker/showproductinfo.jsp?prod_id=81
LOL. This is what they say about their methodology, from your link:
-----
IDC's Tracker Methodology
IDC's tracker data is developed using a rigorous methodology that includes well-planned and well-coordinated local, regional, and worldwide data cross-checks combined with a proprietary advanced data consolidation and analysis data platform managed by IDC's Worldwide Tracker organization. Data sources used in the process of determining IDC's tracker numbers include, but are not limited to:
? In-country local vendor interviews
? Distribution data feeds
? Worldwide and regional vendor guidance
? ODM data
? In-country local channel partner discussions ? Import records
? Feedback from component suppliers
? Vendor briefings and public financial reports
------
No mention of sample sizes, likely errors in estimation, why they use actuals for Apple (and estimates for the rest) and why they mix up the two, whether they validate their numbers, how they validate their numbers......
It's a joke.
You are correct but Apple mostly deals with major carriers which are much easier to get solid sales numbers from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
My personal accounts also rarely show non-iPad tablets but anecdotes just aren't reliable. Not that IDC is accurate but I'd say it more's scientific than our accounts. I'd even say that I see about 80% Macs when I'm out and about but that's because I tend to see personal computers at coffee shops where there tend to be more affluent people or students hanging out. If you walked into my local Starbucks next to university you'd think Apple was the only notebook vendor and Facebook was the operating system.
Have you ever bought a vehicle with a color and options you hadn't seen anyone else driving before. . .
...until you make it yours? Then it seems you see them everywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Nonsense. Apple had ~$160B in total sales in 2012. Less than $20B came from their 'specialty stores'.
You are correct but Apple mostly deals with major carriers which are much easier to get solid sales numbers from.
Who do Samsung, Nokia, Blackberry, Motorola, etc deal with?
Incidentally, all this is moot, since every manufacturer knows how many they've shipped. Otherwise they couldn't recognize revenue, and if they couldn't do that, they couldn't put out a financial statement.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
And you know this how? IDC has been doing this for a while.
History. A pattern of deception.
And you believe IDC why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
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.
So, you've decided to just ignore the "shipping like gangbusters" disconnect that producers create trying to make a product appear popular? Microsoft "shipped" a much larger percentage of Surfaces (to warehouses and store shelves) than they actually sold. Do they simply get to create "market share" by reporting shipments that never translate to actual sales? And meanwhile, Apple who sells everything they can make and struggles to maintain inventory is "competing" against imagined/invented competitor share?
Yes. Sales. Users. THAT is "how else" I would define market share. Pretty much the only way. If someone manufactures and ships a million units to a warehouse, counting that alone does not equal MRKET SHARE. If you put yourself forward as 'knowledgeable', but don't understand this basic tenet, then I'm not wasting time having 'conversations' with you anymore.
But what's the result of Android tablets outnumbering Apple tablets?
In phones... Android smartphones passed the iPhone years ago. Yet developers still prefer developing for the iPhone... and accessory makers enjoy making products for the iPhone too.
Will the iPad still be the preferred platform for tablets... even though it will eventually be outnumbered?
I'm getting the impression that Android's market share numbers make a great headline... but there's no compelling story after that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
But what's the result of Android tablets outnumbering Apple tablets?
In phones... Android smartphones passed the iPhone years ago.
The articles I've seen said it happened about a year ago. You're correct tho that reports also show developers work on their iOS apps first as a general rule before moving over to Android. As for accessory makers that's a no-brainer. There's not all that much variation on the Apple product front compared to other platforms.