Yet another coolaid overdose article. IDC numbers may not be 100% accurate, but they are close. Fact is the ipad is losing chunks of market shares worldwide over cheap android tablets. Same thing goes for iphones. Is not very apparent in developed counties.
On the ipad side, Apple is doing better than the on the phone side in terms of holding its market shares. There is nothing Apple can do at the $99 smartphone segments and $99 tablet segments. That being said, lets hope Apple will be able establish market shares in mid-range segments. Those developped countries mid-range segments will allow Apple to be position at the high end in emerging markets.
So either you've chosen to define the massive discrepancies in numbers in Daniel's article as 'close', or you have other numbers to contradict them.
Actually these white box tablets do exist, i actually saw one and touched it, my in-laws when to one of those time share things and were told they would get an android table for their time. Yeah they go one, and I could not tell you who made it, it look like trash and it had Android 1.2 running on it and this was last year. Could not get it to authorize with google store and it would disconnect from their Wifit all the time, got all kind of security error when trying to connect to a website.
It looks like a fair number of these things are being produce as freebies and give away items. I can tell you I never seen any of them being sold somewhere. Hell they are not even being sold on ebay or such. 11M were made you think they would show up somewhere being sold.
I don't know about 11 M, but I have also seen throwaway tablets out there - heck, I even got one as a free prize once (sold it on eBay for $50). There are, no doubt, some cheap junky tablets out there.
The question is whether it has any meaning for Apple. I would argue that it's meaningless to Apple. The people who would buy a $50 junk 7" tablet that's nearly impossible to use are not the people who are going to buy an iPad. So the 'discovery' of 11 M junk tablets has no significant impact on Apple - even if it's real.
I don't know about 11 M, but I have also seen throwaway tablets out there - heck, I even got one as a free prize once (sold it on eBay for $50). There are, no doubt, some cheap junky tablets out there.
The question is whether it has any meaning for Apple. I would argue that it's meaningless to Apple. The people who would buy a $50 junk 7" tablet that's nearly impossible to use are not the people who are going to buy an iPad. So the 'discovery' of 11 M junk tablets has no significant impact on Apple - even if it's real.
Agreed.
So what if there are 10 junky tablets sold for every one iPad? Apple isn't in the $100 or less tablet market... so one of those junky tablets didn't steal a sale from an iPad. I don't know why Apple would be worried.
All those junky tablets just add fuel to the "Android is winning... moar market share" fire.
It makes a nice headline... but there isn't a compelling story after that.
Actually these white box tablets do exist, i actually saw one and touched it, my in-laws when to one of those time share things and were told they would get an android table for their time. Yeah they go one, and I could not tell you who made it, it look like trash and it had Android 1.2 running on it and this was last year. Could not get it to authorize with google store and it would disconnect from their Wifit all the time, got all kind of security error when trying to connect to a website.
It looks like a fair number of these things are being produce as freebies and give away items. I can tell you I never seen any of them being sold somewhere. Hell they are not even being sold on ebay or such. 11M were made you think they would show up somewhere being sold.
exactly.
and they may be pre-loaded with malware too! don't let your folks enter any financial info on them.
If the IDC's numbers aren't accurate yet Tim Cook knowingly quotes them anyway, then it would dishonest in the view of some AI posters, right?
The takeaway then would be that the IDC's numbers are accurate enough as far as Apple is concerned. Or would that not be the case?
we know, from the true stats that came out about Samsung product sales in the Apple lawsuit last year, that IDC's reports of Samsung's sales for those past periods were way too high.
we know, from the true stats that came out about Samsung product sales in the Apple lawsuit last year, that IDC's reports of Samsung's sales for those past periods were way too high.
Apparently not. They're reliable enough for Apple to quote them in discussions of quarterly financial results as evidence of Apple's success in various markets.
The problem with these reports are that they are totally made up, but too many people don't know that fact. They are not grounded on any actual verifiable data.
The more important question is how to define market share for mobile devices. I don't think most would define it as the number of units shipped, since that doesn't mean the devices have been sold or are even being used. Amore accurate way is by web traffic, but that still probably doesn't include devices that are used for business purposes since they may not be using the Internet all that much and are using apps for most functions.
Fact is the ipad is losing chunks of market shares worldwide over cheap android tablets. Same thing goes for iphones. Is not very apparent in developed counties.
On the ipad side, Apple is doing better than the on the phone side in terms of holding its market shares. There is nothing Apple can do at the $99 smartphone segments and $99 tablet segments. That being said, lets hope Apple will be able establish market shares in mid-range segments. Those developped countries mid-range segments will allow Apple to be position at the high end in emerging markets.
To point one: saying "Fact is…" doesn't make it so. "Chunks of market share" is way overstated, and not at all equal to shifting a few % here and there (sometimes up, sometimes down, seasonally and mostly based on product refresh cycles). Overall, Apple is still growing with record quarterly sales. And you're correct about the trend being different in 'developed countries', since that's where their product lines are squarely aimed at. They don't do mass-produced cheap crap for "the masses". Neither does BMW. But Apple is only "Mostly" a 'luxury brand'. They are still accessible on a broad front.
Apple basically created the "multitouch mobile pad" market. This means they had an initial "100% share" for a brief period. Until everyone realized they'd done it right, and started making "like" devices. Similarly with the smartphone segment (what Samsung did with their smartphones after iPhone released). So naturally they're going to lose some market share as the market they created grows and matures. multitouch mobile devices are huge. Apple blazed the trail, but the market and demand has grown faster than any company could (or should) try to keep up with alone.
When the markets are as hot these are, and so broadly defined, one manufacturer can't (and shouldn't) try to keep up with the demand and variety of such a fast-growing market. Again, let the market share be only one broad measure. More importantly, are they continuing to define those markets and lead them? Growing all the while at a record pace? Yes. The recent quarters of diminished margins represent a needed correction. No-one can or should try to sustain 40% margins in this market. It gives them no room to compete at all. Low to mid 30s are still extremely healthy profit levels, and allow much more product flexibility. Apple is, in fact, healthier than they've ever been in their history as a company, and my goodness that irks some people!
To the second point: "There is nothing Apple can do at the $99 smartphone segments". What? iPhone 4S, $99 on contract. iPhone 4, $0 on contract. There ARE inexpensive alternatives FOR iPHONE at those prices. Not the latest and greatest, but then, compare to what else you can get for $99… yeah. See?
As for straight up, no-contract phones for $99, those are "advanced feature phones" at best, or two-year-old models, or worse. As for $99 "tablets". Right. No. I've played with some. I couldn't stand more than 2 minutes of watching them jitter and jostle and gag at every touch…
Sure, maybe some day Apple will look at that "segment" of the market and consider a super low priced product to fill it. But somehow, I don't think they will. They're in the business of "defining markets and showing the way". Phones, then touchpad "tablets", and next? Who knows...
"Mid-range" segment? Yeah. We'll see with the upcoming 'plastic back' phone. Perhaps they're targeting the mid-range of India and China with those. Assuming they're even real...
Apple is not hurting though, or in any kind of trouble, no matter how you see the "facts", sorry...
I still think there is a case to be made for factoring in millions of cheap ass Android tablets that are purchased but hardly ever used because they suck and perhaps they never get online either because the house has no wifi or they never bothered to connect to it. They may come with a couple built in games to keep a toddler occupied while mom is making dinner or while the child is riding in a shopping cart at the grocery store. I have seen this: 2-year old sitting in a shopping cart holding a tiny tablet and the mom doesn't even seem to care if it is about to be dropped on the floor, it was so cheap she doesn't care. She probably has an iPhone and iPad for herself but bought a cheap tablet for the child. If you walk into Fry's or Micro Center you will see dozens of these no-name tablets for sale.
I still think there is a case to be made for factoring in millions of cheap ass Android tablets that are purchased but hardly ever used because they suck and perhaps they never get online either because the house has no wifi or they never bothered to connect to it. They may come with a couple built in games to keep a toddler occupied while mom is making dinner or while the child is riding in a shopping cart at the grocery store. I have seen this: 2-year old sitting in a shopping cart holding a tiny tablet and the mom doesn't even seem to care if it is about to be dropped on the floor, it was so cheap she doesn't care. She probably has an iPhone and iPad for herself but bought a cheap tablet for the child. If you walk into Fry's or Micro Center you will see dozens of these no-name tablets for sale.
Apparently not. They're reliable enough for Apple to quote them in discussions of quarterly financial results as evidence of Apple's success in various markets.
They are being very selective about which numbers they quote too… only those they themselves could verify. A great deal of IDCs numbers are credible. There are times though, when they clearly 'make stuff up', so it gets hard to know when it's good and when it isn't...
Credibility is everything in that space. It seems like Strategy Analytics isn't getting that concept at all….
DED! I'm loving your last few in-depth 'analytical' articles. Good stuff, and showing you maturing as a writer. Keep it up!
Just one request: Please don't get caught up in the trap of using the word "sold" synonymously with "shipped". Apple, unlike other companies, does differentiate and as long as they do, we should do the same in support of that practice.
Let Apple's "sales" be compared with the rest of the market's "shipped" figures. That's fine. But referring to two charts that declare "shipments" in the headers, and then referring to those numbers as "sales" only reinforces the distortion of share that creates. Usually you're pretty good about this, but in this article you consistently 'misspoke' about it...
Differentiating these helps also to clarify and represent how claiming the idea of "sales" from what are actually "unsold shipments" only serves to muddy the waters and make facts harder to clarify.
Let's put 'best practices' into our own methods, and stick with reinforcing what Apple does. Differentiate between real sales numbers and "shipments"...
DED! I'm loving your last few in-depth 'analytical' articles. Good stuff, and showing you maturing as a writer. Keep it up!
Just one request: Please don't get caught up in the trap of using the word "sold" synonymously with "shipped". Apple, unlike other companies, does differentiate and as long as they do, we should do the same in support of that practice.
Let Apple's "sales" be compared with the rest of the market's "shipped" figures. That's fine. But referring to two charts that declare "shipments" in the headers, and then referring to those numbers as "sales" only reinforces the distortion of share that creates. Usually you're pretty good about this, but in this article you consistently 'misspoke' about it...
Differentiating these helps also to clarify and represent how claiming the idea of "sales" from what are actually "unsold shipments" only serves to muddy the waters and make facts harder to clarify.
Let's put 'best practices' into our own methods, and stick with reinforcing what Apple does. Differentiate between real sales numbers and "shipments"...
Thanks!
Yeah Apple do give sell through but nobody quotes that - not even DED.
And there you have it. Dozens of "generic brand", 10 & 7" "Android" tablets, taking "the market" by storm! OMG! Outselling Apple! Putting Android ON THE MAP!!! Train-wreck style! Yeah, right…. *cough*
Except, when products are SO completely substandard, as most of these likely are (I've interacted with a few myself, and aside from maybe "toilet reading", wouldn't pay even those prices for the crap), then you can't really count them as competing in the same "market" as Apple vs Samsung, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, et al. They aren't competing there either…
You could perhaps define the generic lowest-end market separately as another market with its own numbers (but if you think it's hard measuring the mainstream market, just imagine how hard it must be for the 'white box' area!). But really, is there a point?
SA does itself, and itself only, a terrible disservice with these 'analyses'. Where's my /ignore switch?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
Yet another coolaid overdose article. IDC numbers may not be 100% accurate, but they are close. Fact is the ipad is losing chunks of market shares worldwide over cheap android tablets. Same thing goes for iphones. Is not very apparent in developed counties.
On the ipad side, Apple is doing better than the on the phone side in terms of holding its market shares. There is nothing Apple can do at the $99 smartphone segments and $99 tablet segments. That being said, lets hope Apple will be able establish market shares in mid-range segments. Those developped countries mid-range segments will allow Apple to be position at the high end in emerging markets.
So either you've chosen to define the massive discrepancies in numbers in Daniel's article as 'close', or you have other numbers to contradict them.
If so, care to share them?
I don't know about 11 M, but I have also seen throwaway tablets out there - heck, I even got one as a free prize once (sold it on eBay for $50). There are, no doubt, some cheap junky tablets out there.
The question is whether it has any meaning for Apple. I would argue that it's meaningless to Apple. The people who would buy a $50 junk 7" tablet that's nearly impossible to use are not the people who are going to buy an iPad. So the 'discovery' of 11 M junk tablets has no significant impact on Apple - even if it's real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
they should include airfreight as well; all my iPads came straight from a plane onto a truck ¡
Then you should read his blog as well:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/
Unfortunately RD is pretty stale, only posting guest appearances on the hideous 'Tech Night Owl' podcast.
DED's pieces here have largely replace RD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadbag
Must be those North Korean Android tablets. Which would explain why they don't show up in weblogs as well...
Crank powered?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
they should include airfreight as well; all my iPads came straight from a plane onto a truck ¡
Then you should read his blog as well:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/
Unfortunately RD is pretty stale, only posting guest appearances on the hideous 'Tech Night Owl' podcast.
DED's pieces here have largely replace RD.
Agreed.
So what if there are 10 junky tablets sold for every one iPad? Apple isn't in the $100 or less tablet market... so one of those junky tablets didn't steal a sale from an iPad. I don't know why Apple would be worried.
All those junky tablets just add fuel to the "Android is winning... moar market share" fire.
It makes a nice headline... but there isn't a compelling story after that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
Actually these white box tablets do exist, i actually saw one and touched it, my in-laws when to one of those time share things and were told they would get an android table for their time. Yeah they go one, and I could not tell you who made it, it look like trash and it had Android 1.2 running on it and this was last year. Could not get it to authorize with google store and it would disconnect from their Wifit all the time, got all kind of security error when trying to connect to a website.
It looks like a fair number of these things are being produce as freebies and give away items. I can tell you I never seen any of them being sold somewhere. Hell they are not even being sold on ebay or such. 11M were made you think they would show up somewhere being sold.
exactly.
and they may be pre-loaded with malware too! don't let your folks enter any financial info on them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
If the IDC's numbers aren't accurate yet Tim Cook knowingly quotes them anyway, then it would dishonest in the view of some AI posters, right?
The takeaway then would be that the IDC's numbers are accurate enough as far as Apple is concerned. Or would that not be the case?
we know, from the true stats that came out about Samsung product sales in the Apple lawsuit last year, that IDC's reports of Samsung's sales for those past periods were way too high.
Apparently not. They're reliable enough for Apple to quote them in discussions of quarterly financial results as evidence of Apple's success in various markets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
Fact is the ipad is losing chunks of market shares worldwide over cheap android tablets. Same thing goes for iphones. Is not very apparent in developed counties.
On the ipad side, Apple is doing better than the on the phone side in terms of holding its market shares. There is nothing Apple can do at the $99 smartphone segments and $99 tablet segments. That being said, lets hope Apple will be able establish market shares in mid-range segments. Those developped countries mid-range segments will allow Apple to be position at the high end in emerging markets.
To point one: saying "Fact is…" doesn't make it so. "Chunks of market share" is way overstated, and not at all equal to shifting a few % here and there (sometimes up, sometimes down, seasonally and mostly based on product refresh cycles). Overall, Apple is still growing with record quarterly sales. And you're correct about the trend being different in 'developed countries', since that's where their product lines are squarely aimed at. They don't do mass-produced cheap crap for "the masses". Neither does BMW. But Apple is only "Mostly" a 'luxury brand'. They are still accessible on a broad front.
Apple basically created the "multitouch mobile pad" market. This means they had an initial "100% share" for a brief period. Until everyone realized they'd done it right, and started making "like" devices. Similarly with the smartphone segment (what Samsung did with their smartphones after iPhone released). So naturally they're going to lose some market share as the market they created grows and matures. multitouch mobile devices are huge. Apple blazed the trail, but the market and demand has grown faster than any company could (or should) try to keep up with alone.
When the markets are as hot these are, and so broadly defined, one manufacturer can't (and shouldn't) try to keep up with the demand and variety of such a fast-growing market. Again, let the market share be only one broad measure. More importantly, are they continuing to define those markets and lead them? Growing all the while at a record pace? Yes. The recent quarters of diminished margins represent a needed correction. No-one can or should try to sustain 40% margins in this market. It gives them no room to compete at all. Low to mid 30s are still extremely healthy profit levels, and allow much more product flexibility. Apple is, in fact, healthier than they've ever been in their history as a company, and my goodness that irks some people!
To the second point: "There is nothing Apple can do at the $99 smartphone segments". What? iPhone 4S, $99 on contract. iPhone 4, $0 on contract. There ARE inexpensive alternatives FOR iPHONE at those prices. Not the latest and greatest, but then, compare to what else you can get for $99… yeah. See?
As for straight up, no-contract phones for $99, those are "advanced feature phones" at best, or two-year-old models, or worse. As for $99 "tablets". Right. No. I've played with some. I couldn't stand more than 2 minutes of watching them jitter and jostle and gag at every touch…
Sure, maybe some day Apple will look at that "segment" of the market and consider a super low priced product to fill it. But somehow, I don't think they will. They're in the business of "defining markets and showing the way". Phones, then touchpad "tablets", and next? Who knows...
"Mid-range" segment? Yeah. We'll see with the upcoming 'plastic back' phone. Perhaps they're targeting the mid-range of India and China with those. Assuming they're even real...
Apple is not hurting though, or in any kind of trouble, no matter how you see the "facts", sorry...
White box...
I still think there is a case to be made for factoring in millions of cheap ass Android tablets that are purchased but hardly ever used because they suck and perhaps they never get online either because the house has no wifi or they never bothered to connect to it. They may come with a couple built in games to keep a toddler occupied while mom is making dinner or while the child is riding in a shopping cart at the grocery store. I have seen this: 2-year old sitting in a shopping cart holding a tiny tablet and the mom doesn't even seem to care if it is about to be dropped on the floor, it was so cheap she doesn't care. She probably has an iPhone and iPad for herself but bought a cheap tablet for the child. If you walk into Fry's or Micro Center you will see dozens of these no-name tablets for sale.
daHarder!
http://www.dinodirect.com/LifeStyle/Android-4-0-Tablet-On-Sale-6011Grid/?affid=2957&source=sem&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=cheap tablet pc&utm_campaign=3C-TabletPC_cheaptabletpc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Apparently not. They're reliable enough for Apple to quote them in discussions of quarterly financial results as evidence of Apple's success in various markets.
They are being very selective about which numbers they quote too… only those they themselves could verify. A great deal of IDCs numbers are credible. There are times though, when they clearly 'make stuff up', so it gets hard to know when it's good and when it isn't...
Credibility is everything in that space. It seems like Strategy Analytics isn't getting that concept at all….
A note to Daniel:
DED! I'm loving your last few in-depth 'analytical' articles. Good stuff, and showing you maturing as a writer. Keep it up!
Just one request: Please don't get caught up in the trap of using the word "sold" synonymously with "shipped". Apple, unlike other companies, does differentiate and as long as they do, we should do the same in support of that practice.
Let Apple's "sales" be compared with the rest of the market's "shipped" figures. That's fine. But referring to two charts that declare "shipments" in the headers, and then referring to those numbers as "sales" only reinforces the distortion of share that creates. Usually you're pretty good about this, but in this article you consistently 'misspoke' about it...
Differentiating these helps also to clarify and represent how claiming the idea of "sales" from what are actually "unsold shipments" only serves to muddy the waters and make facts harder to clarify.
Let's put 'best practices' into our own methods, and stick with reinforcing what Apple does. Differentiate between real sales numbers and "shipments"...
Thanks!
Yeah Apple do give sell through but nobody quotes that - not even DED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
http://www.dinodirect.com/LifeStyle/Android-4-0-Tablet-On-Sale-6011Grid/?affid=2957&source=sem&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=cheap tablet pc&utm_campaign=3C-TabletPC_cheaptabletpc
And there you have it. Dozens of "generic brand", 10 & 7" "Android" tablets, taking "the market" by storm! OMG! Outselling Apple! Putting Android ON THE MAP!!! Train-wreck style! Yeah, right…. *cough*
Except, when products are SO completely substandard, as most of these likely are (I've interacted with a few myself, and aside from maybe "toilet reading", wouldn't pay even those prices for the crap), then you can't really count them as competing in the same "market" as Apple vs Samsung, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, et al. They aren't competing there either…
You could perhaps define the generic lowest-end market separately as another market with its own numbers (but if you think it's hard measuring the mainstream market, just imagine how hard it must be for the 'white box' area!). But really, is there a point?
SA does itself, and itself only, a terrible disservice with these 'analyses'. Where's my /ignore switch?