Hard to put much stock in these numbers. With all the marketshare owned by Google's android, i find it intriquing that Google missed on the top and bottom line when they reported last quarter. They should be blowing the numbers out like Apple used to do. In the US and Canda, it has been documented quarter after quater that the ipad accounts for 80-85% of web traffic on tablets. There's no way you can have an other category account for 30% of anything and have your work taken seriously.
Actually, to be honest, I'd buy another non-retina Mini if the one I have died. I've used the Nexus 7 and played with the Fonepad and Xperia, but they simply don't have the apps, delivery/presentation, security, update cycles (bar Nexus of course) or accessories. The 2nd Gen 7 is the only one that is as smooth as the Mini, too. It's the day-to-day presentation and design that I look at, and Android with its unregulated approach which provides a mish-mash of design that I personally dislike. Do I want Retina? YES! Do I want disintegrated design languages that conflict? Not at all. Eye of the beholder, right?
If you want to call it 'spec' by all means.
As I said if you want more specs go android as you said the nexus 7 has 12 hour of battery life.
That's my point. People might do just that. But why? To me a no retina mini is Apple settling on "good enough", being more focused on margins than a great product.
That's my point. People might do just that. But why? To me a no retina mini is Apple settling on "good enough", being more focused on margins than a great product.
Are these other "retina" devices using OLED or the tech Apple uses?
Are these other "retina" devices using OLED or the tech Apple uses?
The Nexus uses the same display type as Apple but at a higher res, 7.02-inch 1920x1200 IPS.
From Anandtech's review: "The 7-inch 1920 x 1200 display produces colors that are not only vibrant but, for the first time ever in a Nexus device, accurate as well. Google really worked on color accuracy this time, with a two step calibration process - once at a high level by the panel maker and once again per device during final manufacturing. The result is just awesome"
IMO if Asus/Google can find a way then Apple could put a retina display in the iPad mini and not sacrifice battery life in the process and they will when it makes sense in the product line.
I don't think anyone is saying that Apple is doomed. But this follows the trend in smartphones, where Apple is losing their dominant marketshare. I think it is relevant not to the different Android manufacturers, but to the two platforms as a whole: which platform/ecosystem will be dominant, Apple's or Androids? I'd like to hear your opinion on what consequences are if Android is the dominant platform. Will the developers bring their A game to it? Will they develop for Android first and Apple second? (and Windows third?).
Apple has never been the dominant smartphone platform yet Apple iPhones is immensely successful by every measure other than a comparison of Apple iOS to a very loose affiliation of OEM vendors who use the same base code but often modify the products and services beyond recognition.
The Nexus uses the same display type as Apple but at a higher res, 7.02-inch 1920x1200 IPS.
From Anandtech's review: "The 7-inch 1920 x 1200 display produces colors that are not only vibrant but, for the first time ever in a Nexus device, accurate as well. Google really worked on color accuracy this time, with a two step calibration process - once at a high level by the panel maker and once again per device during final manufacturing. The result is just awesome"
IMO if Asus/Google can find a way then Apple could put a retina display in the iPad mini and not sacrifice battery life in the process and they will when it makes sense in the product line.
If I remember right, these types of LCD displays are still very new for that size, meaning supply constraints are probably very real. The amount needed for Nexus tablets would be quite different than for iPad minis.
If I remember right, these types of LCD displays are still very new for that size, meaning supply constraints are probably very real. The amount needed for Nexus tablets would be quite different than for iPad minis.
Perhaps there was a couple years ago, but I think that was because there wasn't a lot of demand for them which also tended to keep the price high. Kind of a Catch-22. I can't find any indication of supply constraints now but perhaps you've seen something recently?
WRT the price of storage upgrades on the iPad and iPhone: If MS had the same price structure on the Surface—scratch that, they do—that would be gouging. Apple uses such a huge fraction of the world supply of flash memory that they have to discourage upgrades by rationing through price.
If they suddenly reduced the cost of each storage upgrade, or abruptly doubled capacity in their whole line, like everybody keeps urging them to, they would have to essentially corner the market. In addition to being investigated by various governments, and pilloried in the press, the marginal price would soar completely out of sight.
Believe me, they know what they're doing, but laying it out in so many words would be worse than simply being accused of price-gouging. Only when the supply expands to cover the resulting need could they increase the storage/price ratio in their units. Of course, this is a classic chicken-and-egg paradox, since Apple is the 800-pound gorilla in the flash market.
ETA: Plus, I think these estimates of $10 for 16 GB of storage are confusing the cheap crap flash memory that's used in those thumb drives you bought at Staples (and in those $49 Android tablets) with the high-quality (and ruinously expensive) flash memory that's used in iOS devices and computer SSDs.
Apple could also do this making 32 GB the base model in the new iPad/iPad mini. Add $100 to the 64 GB and $200 to 128 GB models.
The common AppleInsider consensus is that Android devices don't actually exist or sell. Samsung makes a bunch of them and ships them out to sea, and apparently sinks them in a secret location. Apple builds the only electronics products that people actually buy.
The shipped vs sold arguments are usually followed up by questioning the validity of the source and concluding they are 'a bunch of idiots' followed by browsing usage and 'mindshare' arguments. Just trying to condense every thread related to Android sales into one paragraph
Um... That's cute, but things are a tad more subtle. Perhaps that's why you don't understand.
All companies report shipments in dollar value terms, but Apple is the **only** company to report volumes and channel inventory in addition. Given those two data points, any idiot can calculate ACTUAL SALES for Apple. And, that data shows that sales are pretty much equal to shipments for Apple.
For the rest, all we have are shipments. If their actual sales were so good, you can bet they'd be reporting volumes and channel data.
In other words, this consulting firm's analysis, like that of the (rest and like your post), is based on FUD -- F'.. Useless Data.
They also keep calling it marketshare, which people think means total shipped units but it's the percentage of sales in a single quarter. The iPad web usage share is listed as still being over 80%:
They aren't distinguishing what screen size they stop at either. The next highest tablet manufacturer is Samsung with just over half Apple's sales and Apple still outsells the next top 5 Android device manufacturers combined:
The mystery category of "other" rears its head again to take the bulk of the rest of the units whoever they happen to be. That has to be split between at least another 12 manufacturers and some of them will run Windows 8. This means as you say that it has taken this long for at least 16 manufacturers' combined units to surpass Apple after 3 years.
This isn't a race between Apple and Android, it's between Apple and Samsung. Android is an irrelevant component here. If Samsung had a different OS, they'd most likely sell the same number of units.
As someone who spent a great deal of time in product management, I can tell you that this is one scary chart. Stock prices are based on future earnings and the MOST IMPORTANT column on this chart is Y/Y Growth. If you just keep running this chart forward with those growth numbers, Apple will be an insignificant blip in a few years.
If this isn't motivation for Apple to put out the best 7-8" tablet they can, I don't know what is. The next Mini absolutely has to be the best in the market.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">You know, if you play devil’s advocate enough, eventually he promotes you and there’s nothing you can do to hide your actual position.</span>
Now cut it out. I get called an idiot for WAY less stupid questions. You therefore don’t deserve a free pass.
That doesn't answer my question. Why doesn’t it have a lighting input? The worse part about is that Apple doesn't include a USB with the Apple TV and as we saw last week people were scrambling around getting cords to reset their Apple TVs because of the bad update.
As someone who spent a great deal of time in product management, I can tell you that this is one scary chart. Stock prices are based on future earnings and the MOST IMPORTANT column on this chart is Y/Y Growth. If you just keep running this chart forward with those growth numbers, Apple will be an insignificant blip in a few years.
If this isn't motivation for Apple to put out the best 7-8" tablet they can, I don't know what is. The next Mini absolutely has to be the best in the market.
Of course there's a caveat. 2Q12 had the introduction of the iPad 3. 2Q13 had no new product.
Sure. No android manufacturer releases actual sales numbers at all, nor do they release shipped numbers either.
This is a fact. This means that most of these "shipped" tablets are sitting on store shelves waiting to be sold or in warehouses waiting to be shipped to a buying customer. They are in "channel inventory". So these surveys are useless because analysts are guessing on how many actually made it to customers hands. Contrast that with Apples approach. Apple actually releases there "sold numbers" as in being in a paying customers hands every quarter in ther 10Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. You can read how many Apple sold last quarter Here.This is a requirement of a Company Traded in the U.S. Samsung and any other manufacturer not traded in the U.S. does not have to do this because there technically not traded in this country (The U.S.).
A better metric about how many android tablets are actually out in the wild would be there usage. Here Apple dominates with about 80% marketshare. Also this survey is comparing all Android manufacturers including Amazon's forked version and all other forked versions and So Call "white box" no name android brands that do not connect to the Google Play store to Apple.
A farer comparison would be on a manufacturer basis. But that does not make for a click bate headline.
One other note, this survey has taken place when sales of Apples iPads are at there lowest, just before Apple is about to release a brand new version of the iPad mini, and Full sized iPad. Also making the survey meaningless. A yearly comparison would be better. Not quarterly.
Also as the article noted:
Quote:
ABI's most recent figures reflect tablet shipments, and therefore do not necessarily show an accurate representation of the number of tablets bought and in the hands of consumers.
One other caveat, who are ABI's Clients? Are there clients android manufacturers? No where on there website do they list who there actual clientele are.
Samsung in particular has been caught buying surveys and spending over 4 billion in marketing to pay for favorable surveys and to pay people to post negative info on blog pages against competitors as part of there unscrupulous marketing campaign.
Again I would believe Apple on there numbers more because they actually post them in an S.E.C document for there stock.
Comments
Actually, to be honest, I'd buy another non-retina Mini if the one I have died. I've used the Nexus 7 and played with the Fonepad and Xperia, but they simply don't have the apps, delivery/presentation, security, update cycles (bar Nexus of course) or accessories. The 2nd Gen 7 is the only one that is as smooth as the Mini, too. It's the day-to-day presentation and design that I look at, and Android with its unregulated approach which provides a mish-mash of design that I personally dislike. Do I want Retina? YES! Do I want disintegrated design languages that conflict? Not at all. Eye of the beholder, right?
LOL - 'USB port' MWAHAHAHAHAA ;D))
Are these other "retina" devices using OLED or the tech Apple uses?
The Nexus uses the same display type as Apple but at a higher res, 7.02-inch 1920x1200 IPS.
From Anandtech's review: "The 7-inch 1920 x 1200 display produces colors that are not only vibrant but, for the first time ever in a Nexus device, accurate as well. Google really worked on color accuracy this time, with a two step calibration process - once at a high level by the panel maker and once again per device during final manufacturing. The result is just awesome"
They even managed to reduce the battery size from the previous year yet increase the battery life while pushing a "retina" display.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7231/the-nexus-7-2013-review
IMO if Asus/Google can find a way then Apple could put a retina display in the iPad mini and not sacrifice battery life in the process and they will when it makes sense in the product line.
Apple has never been the dominant smartphone platform yet Apple iPhones is immensely successful by every measure other than a comparison of Apple iOS to a very loose affiliation of OEM vendors who use the same base code but often modify the products and services beyond recognition.
If I remember right, these types of LCD displays are still very new for that size, meaning supply constraints are probably very real. The amount needed for Nexus tablets would be quite different than for iPad minis.
So why does the Apple TV have one?
Perhaps there was a couple years ago, but I think that was because there wasn't a lot of demand for them which also tended to keep the price high. Kind of a Catch-22. I can't find any indication of supply constraints now but perhaps you've seen something recently?
WRT the price of storage upgrades on the iPad and iPhone: If MS had the same price structure on the Surface—scratch that, they do—that would be gouging. Apple uses such a huge fraction of the world supply of flash memory that they have to discourage upgrades by rationing through price.
If they suddenly reduced the cost of each storage upgrade, or abruptly doubled capacity in their whole line, like everybody keeps urging them to, they would have to essentially corner the market. In addition to being investigated by various governments, and pilloried in the press, the marginal price would soar completely out of sight.
Believe me, they know what they're doing, but laying it out in so many words would be worse than simply being accused of price-gouging. Only when the supply expands to cover the resulting need could they increase the storage/price ratio in their units. Of course, this is a classic chicken-and-egg paradox, since Apple is the 800-pound gorilla in the flash market.
ETA: Plus, I think these estimates of $10 for 16 GB of storage are confusing the cheap crap flash memory that's used in those thumb drives you bought at Staples (and in those $49 Android tablets) with the high-quality (and ruinously expensive) flash memory that's used in iOS devices and computer SSDs.
Apple could also do this making 32 GB the base model in the new iPad/iPad mini. Add $100 to the 64 GB and $200 to 128 GB models.
Um... That's cute, but things are a tad more subtle. Perhaps that's why you don't understand.
All companies report shipments in dollar value terms, but Apple is the **only** company to report volumes and channel inventory in addition. Given those two data points, any idiot can calculate ACTUAL SALES for Apple. And, that data shows that sales are pretty much equal to shipments for Apple.
For the rest, all we have are shipments. If their actual sales were so good, you can bet they'd be reporting volumes and channel data.
In other words, this consulting firm's analysis, like that of the (rest and like your post), is based on FUD -- F'.. Useless Data.
You know, if you play devil’s advocate enough, eventually he promotes you and there’s nothing you can do to hide your actual position.
Now cut it out. I get called an idiot for WAY less stupid questions. You therefore don’t deserve a free pass.
They also keep calling it marketshare, which people think means total shipped units but it's the percentage of sales in a single quarter. The iPad web usage share is listed as still being over 80%:
http://tabtimes.com/resources/the-state-of-the-tablet-market
They aren't distinguishing what screen size they stop at either. The next highest tablet manufacturer is Samsung with just over half Apple's sales and Apple still outsells the next top 5 Android device manufacturers combined:
The mystery category of "other" rears its head again to take the bulk of the rest of the units whoever they happen to be. That has to be split between at least another 12 manufacturers and some of them will run Windows 8. This means as you say that it has taken this long for at least 16 manufacturers' combined units to surpass Apple after 3 years.
This isn't a race between Apple and Android, it's between Apple and Samsung. Android is an irrelevant component here. If Samsung had a different OS, they'd most likely sell the same number of units.
As someone who spent a great deal of time in product management, I can tell you that this is one scary chart. Stock prices are based on future earnings and the MOST IMPORTANT column on this chart is Y/Y Growth. If you just keep running this chart forward with those growth numbers, Apple will be an insignificant blip in a few years.
If this isn't motivation for Apple to put out the best 7-8" tablet they can, I don't know what is. The next Mini absolutely has to be the best in the market.
That doesn't answer my question. Why doesn’t it have a lighting input? The worse part about is that Apple doesn't include a USB with the Apple TV and as we saw last week people were scrambling around getting cords to reset their Apple TVs because of the bad update.
Of course there's a caveat. 2Q12 had the introduction of the iPad 3. 2Q13 had no new product.
Oh! Now there’s an interesting take. I think the next one very well could.
This one doesn’t, obviously, because it was released before the first Lightning devices.
Who doesn’t have either one of each USB cord or laying around?
Your only answer other than ‘no one’ should be “sane people, who realize that USB is as far from U as a format could be.”
But they’d definitely include a cable if it switched to Lightning.
Anybody who owns iDevices only, that's who. They might have regular USB cords but not micro USB.
"shipments"
Originally Posted by Bondm16
Want to elaborate?
Sure. No android manufacturer releases actual sales numbers at all, nor do they release shipped numbers either.
This is a fact. This means that most of these "shipped" tablets are sitting on store shelves waiting to be sold or in warehouses waiting to be shipped to a buying customer. They are in "channel inventory". So these surveys are useless because analysts are guessing on how many actually made it to customers hands. Contrast that with Apples approach. Apple actually releases there "sold numbers" as in being in a paying customers hands every quarter in ther 10Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. You can read how many Apple sold last quarter Here.This is a requirement of a Company Traded in the U.S. Samsung and any other manufacturer not traded in the U.S. does not have to do this because there technically not traded in this country (The U.S.).
A better metric about how many android tablets are actually out in the wild would be there usage. Here Apple dominates with about 80% marketshare. Also this survey is comparing all Android manufacturers including Amazon's forked version and all other forked versions and So Call "white box" no name android brands that do not connect to the Google Play store to Apple.
A farer comparison would be on a manufacturer basis. But that does not make for a click bate headline.
One other note, this survey has taken place when sales of Apples iPads are at there lowest, just before Apple is about to release a brand new version of the iPad mini, and Full sized iPad. Also making the survey meaningless. A yearly comparison would be better. Not quarterly.
Also as the article noted:
One other caveat, who are ABI's Clients? Are there clients android manufacturers? No where on there website do they list who there actual clientele are.
Samsung in particular has been caught buying surveys and spending over 4 billion in marketing to pay for favorable surveys and to pay people to post negative info on blog pages against competitors as part of there unscrupulous marketing campaign.
Again I would believe Apple on there numbers more because they actually post them in an S.E.C document for there stock.
But you go ahead and believe what you want.