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.
Well there it is. You stated that this chart shows that Apple is "again number one in tablet SALES". Sales? WHERE do the charts mention SALES? Yeah.
This is the exact point and issue the "tin-foil hattists" are making with this "chart", its premise and methodology. It creates a perception that is simply false. That perception being, "Apple is rapidly losing ground in SALES".
More companies and brands are shipping more tablets. They don't appear to be selling huge numbers of them, but they are SHIPPING them. According to you and IDC, simply by virtue of SHIPPING a product, the number you shipped counts as MARKET SHARE and SALES (the only true measure of market share).
The problem here is that IDC makes "shipments" a measure of real market share, and market share is NOT measured simply by how efficient your manufacturing and distribution is at getting product TO market.
It's what happens NEXT that makes the idea of 'market share' meaningful.
Imagine that you SHIP 100 units and they sit on a shelf unsold, while the competitor blows 1,000 units through the shop in real sales. IDC will say you own 10% of the market share (simply by virtue of SHIPPING those units), even though you SOLD not one single unit. Do you find this somehow true and meaningful? That you OWN a 10% share of the market simply by having 100 unsold units on a shelf?
If that's what you think then I have to laugh at you. Like this: bwaaaa hahahaha!
Worse though, is the ignorance these "analyses" create in people like you. Who then repeat WRONGLY that what this chart shows is Apple LOSING GROUND in market share (aka SALES) when the charts never mention SALES at all...
It's the same method used for all other products. Manufacturers aren't in the business of a retailers side of things. If Target orders a million bottles of baby powder from Johnson & Johnson do you think they care when Target sells them? Obviously if Target keeps ordering it's because they're selling.
Oops. So you think you understand the manufacturer-distributor-retailer buying relationship then?
The model you based your post on pretty much went away a long time ago. At least for the bigger retailers like Target, et al.
Target doesn't order a million bottles of something and then just hope it sells. The gamble is almost entirely on the producer side. If it doesn't sell, Target just sends it back. Target's shelf and floor space is the currency that brands do battle for, and Target calls the shots there (ultimately determines who gets that space). In some cases, the manufacturer practically pays the retailer for that space… they then fill the space with product, and promote the heck out of it. Target has provided the space, and reaps the profits from those sales. Most of the promotions you see in those Target mailers are developed in tandem with the manufacturer or based on supplier side promotion.
I'm oversimplifying here, but hopefully you get the difference...
(PS: I'm not talking about every retail situation everywhere… this is specifically aimed at the "consumer electronics" side of things.)
Oops. So you think you understand the manufacturer-distributor-retailer buying relationship then?
The model you based your post on pretty much went away a long time ago. At least for the bigger retailers like Target, et al.
Target doesn't order a million bottles of something and then just hope it sells. The gamble is almost entirely on the producer side. If it doesn't sell, Target just sends it back. Target's shelf and floor space is the currency that brands do battle for, and Target calls the shots there (ultimately determines who gets that space). In some cases, the manufacturer practically pays the retailer for that space… they then fill the space with product, and promote the heck out of it. Target has provided the space, and reaps the profits from those sales. Most of the promotions you see in those Target mailers are developed in tandem with the manufacturer or based on supplier side promotion.
I'm oversimplifying here, but hopefully you get the difference...
(PS: I'm not talking about every retail situation everywhere… this is specifically aimed at the "consumer electronics" side of things.)
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.
The funniest part of this assertion is this: Historically, and until only very recently, Apple was always the 'underdog' and the smaller competitor to the IBM, Microsoft and PC behemoth. They were always the 'niche player', and even with their recent dominance in the market these days, that part of their culture remains apparent and intact… it partially explains the continuing adherence to the "premium" quality of their products. They always had to less compromising to stay relevant.
So this assertion that we need to accept that "Apple isn't the only player ANY MORE" cracked me up. When have they ever been? Seriously, since this recent condition of owning more than half of ANY major market space is something kind of new to Apple.
As long as they continue doing what they do so well (innovate, maintain high standards, care about the customer needs and experience first above profits) they'll have a loyal customer in me, and I could care less what their 'market share' is, just so long as it doesn't negatively impact that short list...
I guess that, in a nutshell, is pretty much the definition of both Apple and their "loyalists" (although I prefer to say I appreciate Apple more than having "loyalty" to them).
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?
Apple doesn't sell exclusively through their own "specialty" stores. There's also Best Buy, WalMart and other outlets like them, large and small, all over the U.S., and equivalents all around the world. For example, they have a half dozen Apple Stores in China, but over 11,000 points of sale.
As for how manufacturers know if something sold, it usually works like this: unless it's an older or obsolete model that went into the 'discount wholesale' bin, most new stock is "manufacturer provided", and unsold stock is often returned to the manufacturer after a new model releases. The "liability" for unsold "current model" product typically lies with the manufacturer, not the retailer.
Samsung knows full well how many of their newer phones and tablets are selling (not just how many have shipped). It's IDC that has to guess at those numbers, since no-one BUT Apple makes them public.
Show me this pattern. As for me, I don't take it as gospel, and there are certainly issues, but it is quite clear that the Apple market share is dropping, and this is another data point which supports this. The FUD that anantksundaram is spreading is relevant only if you want the EXACT numbers -- I think we all agree that these are impossible to come by.
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.
Please, please don't waste your valuable time (and, umm, mine) arguing with me. We have all decided that the sales numbers is what we DON'T have, and that the shipped numbers are a reasonable proxy. If you have sales numbers which prove your contention, bring'em. If not, you are blowing smoke out of where the sun don't shine.
Oops. So you think you understand the manufacturer-distributor-retailer buying relationship then?
The model you based your post on pretty much went away a long time ago. At least for the bigger retailers like Target, et al.
Target doesn't order a million bottles of something and then just hope it sells. The gamble is almost entirely on the producer side. If it doesn't sell, Target just sends it back. Target's shelf and floor space is the currency that brands do battle for, and Target calls the shots there (ultimately determines who gets that space). In some cases, the manufacturer practically pays the retailer for that space… they then fill the space with product, and promote the heck out of it. Target has provided the space, and reaps the profits from those sales. Most of the promotions you see in those Target mailers are developed in tandem with the manufacturer or based on supplier side promotion.
I'm oversimplifying here, but hopefully you get the difference...
(PS: I'm not talking about every retail situation everywhere… this is specifically aimed at the "consumer electronics" side of things.)
I'd be pretty darned surprised if big ticket items are usually placed with big retailers like Wal-Mart, Target, and Best Buy "on consignment" which is basically what you're claiming. As a rule shipments are equal to sales no matter how many times you or someone else says they are not. It's generally expected and in line with GAAP for the mobile manufacturers to have met the other requirements to record that a sale occurred when shipment is made.
You're making the discussion confusing by adding your own definition that a sale only happens to an end-user and not a reseller. That's not how Apple or any of the others recognize revenue.
With that said Anantsundaram made an excellent point earlier that the manufacturers do have numbers on how much product they shipped, Outside of Apple I don't know that any of the others share unit numbers.
The "liability" for unsold "current model" product typically lies with the manufacturer, not the retailer.
Samsung knows full well how many of their newer phones and tablets are selling (not just how many have shipped). It's IDC that has to guess at those numbers, since no-one BUT Apple makes them public.
I don't believe Apple reports unit numbers for returned product any more than other manufacturers do. If so I've not seen it.
Actually, notice that Microsoft bets that people will buy tablets corresponding to the DESKTOP OS they use. According to Strategy Analytics (an IDC competitor), the surface RT has a 7.5% market share, which is not bad, given that the device certainly has issues and their market share was 0% three quarters ago, so they are not entirely wrong.
I think its similar, but there's a 'tipping point' to the products. In the case of Apple I think the dominant one is the phone. If you use an iPhone and buy a tablet, chances are pretty near 100% that it is going to be an iPad. I know a lot of iPhone/iPad users that are still not Mac users.
In the case of Android, I think the tablets didn't cross the threshold to hit the tipping point. If you loved your Android phone and went to buy a tablet, it still made more sense to buy an iPad because the iPad was a more robust product. You just had to accept the nuisance of dealing with iTunes and the Apple store (note: those aren't bad systems or stores, its just that if you use primarily Android but have to do similar things on another system its a nuisance compared to if you just had to do it once). Android tablets now are great and have crossed threshold. If you own an Android phone it just makes more sense to buy an Android tablet and I think that is just starting to happen and it will end up at a point somewhere where Android tablet share is similar to their phone share.
Microsoft is a little different because their core is PC's and Windows. They may have shot themselves in the foot with Windows 8 because it such a new experience that it is essentially like buying into a different product. They may have been better off building a more familiar tablet version first so going from Windows XP, Vista, or 7 to the tablet experience wouldn't feel so much like you're doing something completely different. The RT is just a bad idea without compatibility on top of the new ui experience. It should be interesting to see how the compatible one fare (Windows Tablet Pro?)
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.....
They also deal with all the tiny cell phone stores littered throughout the world, not just major carriers.
The FUD that anantksundaram is spreading is relevant only if you want the EXACT numbers.......
Lol! To want honest numbers is FUD?
You know, I was willing to cut you some some slack, and sometimes give you the benefit of doubt. Unfortunately, you're just another cheap troll polluting this forum.
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.....
They also deal with all the tiny cell phone stores littered throughout the world, not just major carriers.
Please, please don't waste your valuable time (and, umm, mine) arguing with me. We have all decided that the sales numbers is what we DON'T have, and that the shipped numbers are a reasonable proxy. If you have sales numbers which prove your contention, bring'em. If not, you are blowing smoke out of where the sun don't shine.
'Shipped' can be a reasonable proxy for sales share assuming return rates are the same.
However, in this instance, IDC's numbers are made up because of the methodological problems I've discussed above. They're not, by any stretch of imagination, 'reasonable'. Just bad.
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18.1875px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);">The "liability" for unsold "current model" product typically lies with the manufacturer, not the retailer.</span>
Samsung knows full well how many of their newer phones and tablets are selling (not just how many have shipped). It's IDC that has to guess at those numbers, since no-one BUT Apple makes them public.
I don't believe Apple reports unit numbers for returned product any more than other manufacturers do. If so I've not seen it.
Apple reports 'net sales' (as I think the others do too) -- returns will likely be reported a quarter late.
You know, I was willing to cut you some some slack, and sometimes give you the benefit of doubt. Unfortunately, you're just another cheap troll polluting this forum.
Awww, I did so want some slack from you. The reason that companies like IDC even exist is because it is hard to get hard numbers -- you know that as well as I do. Their numbers mean something, how much is in the eye of the beholder. The point of the root article of this thread was that Apple lost market share "and here is more evidence". Well, works for me.
Actually, notice that Microsoft bets that people will buy tablets corresponding to the DESKTOP OS they use. According to Strategy Analytics (an IDC competitor), the surface RT has a 7.5% market share, which is not bad, given that the device certainly has issues and their market share was 0% three quarters ago, so they are not entirely wrong.
There is no mention of Microsoft's Surface in their report.
On the other hand, IDC has Windows RT with a market share of 0.4% for the quarter. I wouldn't call that "not bad"
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
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.
Well there it is. You stated that this chart shows that Apple is "again number one in tablet SALES". Sales? WHERE do the charts mention SALES? Yeah.
This is the exact point and issue the "tin-foil hattists" are making with this "chart", its premise and methodology. It creates a perception that is simply false. That perception being, "Apple is rapidly losing ground in SALES".
More companies and brands are shipping more tablets. They don't appear to be selling huge numbers of them, but they are SHIPPING them. According to you and IDC, simply by virtue of SHIPPING a product, the number you shipped counts as MARKET SHARE and SALES (the only true measure of market share).
The problem here is that IDC makes "shipments" a measure of real market share, and market share is NOT measured simply by how efficient your manufacturing and distribution is at getting product TO market.
It's what happens NEXT that makes the idea of 'market share' meaningful.
Imagine that you SHIP 100 units and they sit on a shelf unsold, while the competitor blows 1,000 units through the shop in real sales. IDC will say you own 10% of the market share (simply by virtue of SHIPPING those units), even though you SOLD not one single unit. Do you find this somehow true and meaningful? That you OWN a 10% share of the market simply by having 100 unsold units on a shelf?
If that's what you think then I have to laugh at you. Like this: bwaaaa hahahaha!
Worse though, is the ignorance these "analyses" create in people like you. Who then repeat WRONGLY that what this chart shows is Apple LOSING GROUND in market share (aka SALES) when the charts never mention SALES at all...
Do… you… get this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
It's the same method used for all other products. Manufacturers aren't in the business of a retailers side of things. If Target orders a million bottles of baby powder from Johnson & Johnson do you think they care when Target sells them? Obviously if Target keeps ordering it's because they're selling.
Oops. So you think you understand the manufacturer-distributor-retailer buying relationship then?
The model you based your post on pretty much went away a long time ago. At least for the bigger retailers like Target, et al.
Target doesn't order a million bottles of something and then just hope it sells. The gamble is almost entirely on the producer side. If it doesn't sell, Target just sends it back. Target's shelf and floor space is the currency that brands do battle for, and Target calls the shots there (ultimately determines who gets that space). In some cases, the manufacturer practically pays the retailer for that space… they then fill the space with product, and promote the heck out of it. Target has provided the space, and reaps the profits from those sales. Most of the promotions you see in those Target mailers are developed in tandem with the manufacturer or based on supplier side promotion.
I'm oversimplifying here, but hopefully you get the difference...
(PS: I'm not talking about every retail situation everywhere… this is specifically aimed at the "consumer electronics" side of things.)
So it's like the retailer is renting shelf space.
That's very interesting
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
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.
The funniest part of this assertion is this: Historically, and until only very recently, Apple was always the 'underdog' and the smaller competitor to the IBM, Microsoft and PC behemoth. They were always the 'niche player', and even with their recent dominance in the market these days, that part of their culture remains apparent and intact… it partially explains the continuing adherence to the "premium" quality of their products. They always had to less compromising to stay relevant.
So this assertion that we need to accept that "Apple isn't the only player ANY MORE" cracked me up. When have they ever been? Seriously, since this recent condition of owning more than half of ANY major market space is something kind of new to Apple.
As long as they continue doing what they do so well (innovate, maintain high standards, care about the customer needs and experience first above profits) they'll have a loyal customer in me, and I could care less what their 'market share' is, just so long as it doesn't negatively impact that short list...
I guess that, in a nutshell, is pretty much the definition of both Apple and their "loyalists" (although I prefer to say I appreciate Apple more than having "loyalty" to them).
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
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?
Apple doesn't sell exclusively through their own "specialty" stores. There's also Best Buy, WalMart and other outlets like them, large and small, all over the U.S., and equivalents all around the world. For example, they have a half dozen Apple Stores in China, but over 11,000 points of sale.
As for how manufacturers know if something sold, it usually works like this: unless it's an older or obsolete model that went into the 'discount wholesale' bin, most new stock is "manufacturer provided", and unsold stock is often returned to the manufacturer after a new model releases. The "liability" for unsold "current model" product typically lies with the manufacturer, not the retailer.
Samsung knows full well how many of their newer phones and tablets are selling (not just how many have shipped). It's IDC that has to guess at those numbers, since no-one BUT Apple makes them public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical
History. A pattern of deception.
And you believe IDC why?
Show me this pattern. As for me, I don't take it as gospel, and there are certainly issues, but it is quite clear that the Apple market share is dropping, and this is another data point which supports this. The FUD that anantksundaram is spreading is relevant only if you want the EXACT numbers -- I think we all agree that these are impossible to come by.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical
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.
Please, please don't waste your valuable time (and, umm, mine) arguing with me. We have all decided that the sales numbers is what we DON'T have, and that the shipped numbers are a reasonable proxy. If you have sales numbers which prove your contention, bring'em. If not, you are blowing smoke out of where the sun don't shine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical
Oops. So you think you understand the manufacturer-distributor-retailer buying relationship then?
The model you based your post on pretty much went away a long time ago. At least for the bigger retailers like Target, et al.
Target doesn't order a million bottles of something and then just hope it sells. The gamble is almost entirely on the producer side. If it doesn't sell, Target just sends it back. Target's shelf and floor space is the currency that brands do battle for, and Target calls the shots there (ultimately determines who gets that space). In some cases, the manufacturer practically pays the retailer for that space… they then fill the space with product, and promote the heck out of it. Target has provided the space, and reaps the profits from those sales. Most of the promotions you see in those Target mailers are developed in tandem with the manufacturer or based on supplier side promotion.
I'm oversimplifying here, but hopefully you get the difference...
(PS: I'm not talking about every retail situation everywhere… this is specifically aimed at the "consumer electronics" side of things.)
I'd be pretty darned surprised if big ticket items are usually placed with big retailers like Wal-Mart, Target, and Best Buy "on consignment" which is basically what you're claiming. As a rule shipments are equal to sales no matter how many times you or someone else says they are not. It's generally expected and in line with GAAP for the mobile manufacturers to have met the other requirements to record that a sale occurred when shipment is made.
You're making the discussion confusing by adding your own definition that a sale only happens to an end-user and not a reseller. That's not how Apple or any of the others recognize revenue.
With that said Anantsundaram made an excellent point earlier that the manufacturers do have numbers on how much product they shipped, Outside of Apple I don't know that any of the others share unit numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical
The "liability" for unsold "current model" product typically lies with the manufacturer, not the retailer.
Samsung knows full well how many of their newer phones and tablets are selling (not just how many have shipped). It's IDC that has to guess at those numbers, since no-one BUT Apple makes them public.
I don't believe Apple reports unit numbers for returned product any more than other manufacturers do. If so I've not seen it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
Actually, notice that Microsoft bets that people will buy tablets corresponding to the DESKTOP OS they use. According to Strategy Analytics (an IDC competitor), the surface RT has a 7.5% market share, which is not bad, given that the device certainly has issues and their market share was 0% three quarters ago, so they are not entirely wrong.
I think its similar, but there's a 'tipping point' to the products. In the case of Apple I think the dominant one is the phone. If you use an iPhone and buy a tablet, chances are pretty near 100% that it is going to be an iPad. I know a lot of iPhone/iPad users that are still not Mac users.
In the case of Android, I think the tablets didn't cross the threshold to hit the tipping point. If you loved your Android phone and went to buy a tablet, it still made more sense to buy an iPad because the iPad was a more robust product. You just had to accept the nuisance of dealing with iTunes and the Apple store (note: those aren't bad systems or stores, its just that if you use primarily Android but have to do similar things on another system its a nuisance compared to if you just had to do it once). Android tablets now are great and have crossed threshold. If you own an Android phone it just makes more sense to buy an Android tablet and I think that is just starting to happen and it will end up at a point somewhere where Android tablet share is similar to their phone share.
Microsoft is a little different because their core is PC's and Windows. They may have shot themselves in the foot with Windows 8 because it such a new experience that it is essentially like buying into a different product. They may have been better off building a more familiar tablet version first so going from Windows XP, Vista, or 7 to the tablet experience wouldn't feel so much like you're doing something completely different. The RT is just a bad idea without compatibility on top of the new ui experience. It should be interesting to see how the compatible one fare (Windows Tablet Pro?)
They also deal with all the tiny cell phone stores littered throughout the world, not just major carriers.
Lol! To want honest numbers is FUD?
You know, I was willing to cut you some some slack, and sometimes give you the benefit of doubt. Unfortunately, you're just another cheap troll polluting this forum.
What part of "moot" is unclear?
'Shipped' can be a reasonable proxy for sales share assuming return rates are the same.
However, in this instance, IDC's numbers are made up because of the methodological problems I've discussed above. They're not, by any stretch of imagination, 'reasonable'. Just bad.
Apple reports 'net sales' (as I think the others do too) -- returns will likely be reported a quarter late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Lol! To want honest numbers is FUD?
You know, I was willing to cut you some some slack, and sometimes give you the benefit of doubt. Unfortunately, you're just another cheap troll polluting this forum.
Awww, I did so want some slack from you. The reason that companies like IDC even exist is because it is hard to get hard numbers -- you know that as well as I do. Their numbers mean something, how much is in the eye of the beholder. The point of the root article of this thread was that Apple lost market share "and here is more evidence". Well, works for me.
In all actuality just about everything is a 'moot' point.
There is no mention of Microsoft's Surface in their report.
On the other hand, IDC has Windows RT with a market share of 0.4% for the quarter. I wouldn't call that "not bad"
Then what would you consider bad if not that?
Read it again!