The curious case of IDC, Gartner & Strategy Analytics' PC, phone & tablet data on Apple

1246711

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 215
    lkrupp wrote: »
    Principle in use: Tell a lie often enough and people will believe it.

    You mean like telling people if they liked their healthcare plan they could keep it? 

    There's a funny video at:

    http://freebeacon.com/leno-pokes-fun-at-obama-presser/
    NBC late-night host Jay Leno poked fun at President Obama’s press conference Thursday night, suggesting that if it’s not as easy to buy health insurance as it is to download a song off iTunes, maybe he should think about hiring the iTunes folks to fix the website.
  • Reply 62 of 215
    Bearing in mind the effect that these so-called research firms have on various tech co's share price i'm surprised that the SEC hasn't investigated them yet, or are they still asleep on their watch?
  • Reply 63 of 215
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post





    Maybe not such a new strategy:

    http://law.jrank.org/pages/572/Bribery-tradition.html

     

    Absolutely nothing new for sure (and thanks for the great example)...however this sort of tactic is becoming more and more prevalent now.  When success cannot be guaranteed by playing by the accepted rules, some game the rules and/or the system believing the ends justifying the means.  Obviously not everyone does it, Apple being a shining example, but even if everyone did it still cannot be justified.  

     

    Cheating is the last bastion of those sad individuals and organizations that have no moral compass.  Karma is a bitch as they say.  I just hope it visits those types sooner than later.

  • Reply 64 of 215
    Great article DED. But for anyone in the industry this is not really news. I have often looked on in disbelieve as my senior management pays ridiculous amounts of money for these "reports" totally ignoring our in house research that is much more likely to be accurate. These "research" companies are nothing more than snake oil salesmen and have been for many many years...
  • Reply 65 of 215
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post



    I don't know why you'd even quote Dvorak. <snip>

     

    What a great collection of quotes.  Thanks!

  • Reply 66 of 215
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

     

    Nope. Anyone can and does buy Macs, which start under $600.


    Real Macs start over 900$.

     

    That useless pice of crap, the mini, at 600$. I bet it will sell less than the 3000+ $ Mac Pro.

  • Reply 67 of 215
    richsadams wrote: »

    Absolutely nothing new for sure (and thanks for the great example)...however this sort of tactic is becoming more and more prevalent now.  When success cannot be guaranteed by playing by the accepted rules, some game the rules and/or the system believing the ends justifying the means.  Obviously not everyone does it, Apple being a shining example, but even if everyone did it still cannot be justified.  

    Cheating is the last bastion of those sad individuals and organizations that have no moral compass.  Karma is a bitch as they say.  I just hope it visits those types sooner than later.

    Good points!

    I believe that every individual (and every organization) has an agenda -- including me and thee...

    Some are [mostly] open and forthright about their goals, purposes and methods -- while others obfuscate.

    It is the responsibility of the individual in how he conducts his actions and to observe and understand the actions of others.

    And, yes, Karma is the ultimate judgement.
  • Reply 68 of 215
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,918member
    timgriff84 wrote: »
    that's because its not a pc, why report on it as if its a pc when its not. very simple reason.
    How do you define a PC?
    macair wrote: »
    Real Macs start over 900$.

    That useless pice of crap, the mini, at 600$. I bet it will sell less than the 3000+ $ Mac Pro.

    The mini is very useful, especially for beginners.
  • Reply 69 of 215
    That 2% figure was always suspect. It was sales, not installed base. Macs last longer and don't need to be upgraded or replaced as often.

    manxman is right about the consumer market being different from professionals. I work in printing. Even when the Mac was supposedly at 2% market share, 90% of the files people sent in for print jobs were Mac files. These days, it's more like 99%. We have one lonely PC that sits in a corner and gathers dust, versus six Macs, each being used 40 hours a week or more.
  • Reply 70 of 215
    jungmark wrote: »
    timgriff84 wrote: »
    that's because its not a pc, why report on it as if its a pc when its not. very simple reason.
    How do you define a PC?

    Good question!!! Is an iPad any less that a 1978 Apple ][, 1981 IBM/PC, 1984 Mac, 2013 pc or Mac? In some ways, it's much more than any of these "real" PCs.
    macair wrote: »
    Real Macs start over 900$.

    That useless pice of crap, the mini, at 600$. I bet it will sell less than the 3000+ $ Mac Pro.

    The mini is very useful, especially for beginners.

    Headless home servers, server farms...
  • Reply 71 of 215
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member

    this DED post is on-target. but there is one more important point it still didn't get to:

     

    there is no single "Android" in any real sense. There is the parent Google ecosystem Android, but few in the developing world actually use Google services, and that is the prime market for the white box tablets/smartphones. most of those are tied into local home country culturally-relevant services via their local telco and popular local websites. that describes virtually all of the China market to start with. and of course Amazon has totally split away from the Google ecosystem already in first world markets. Samsung - the #1 Android top tier global OEM - won't be far behind. it has already pushed Google services down into a second level underneath its own custom UI.

     

    if "Android" with a capital "A" were accurately defined as smartphones/tablets principally using Google's ecosystem services (as Google always intended), or even just its advertising pipe, its total market share would be half of these inflated numbers - and will be even less in the near future.

  • Reply 72 of 215
    wigbywigby Posts: 692member
    kpluck wrote: »
    Really? LOL. It reminds me of the ranting of the right about the left wing mass media "conspiracy."

    AI lost me when they pointed to a Dvorak article and tried to take it seriously. Dvorak is paid say outrageous things, stir up the hornets nest if you will. The author doesn't seem to understand that. Basic math also seems a challenge because they don't seem to understand the simple fact that sales can increase while the percentage of the market share goes down.

    Time would have been better spent on the fact that market share numbers, especially on their own, mean absolutely nothing.

    -kpluck
    I think someone else missed the point too. Sure Dvorak is paid to write sensationalistic titles and pieces. Now show me someone who isnt. You would think that Gartner would be one of those groups but they're not and that was the point. You've got such a hard on for Dvorak bashing that you missed the whole story.
  • Reply 73 of 215
    The billion dollar question: Does the daily barrage of negativity affect Apple Sales? If so, by how much? Their gargantuan growth over the past few years arguably led to the stock price catching its breath. Is it better to grow 100% one year and then keep those gains the following year or grow 50% each year. For Wall Street it's no contest as they view the 2nd year of no growth as impending doom. Couple that with highly respected research firms using highly suspect data and now Apple must prove itself for the tenth time. Ichan buys 2 billion dollars worth of stock. Cooperman sells 15 million dollars worth and this is portrayed as somehow canceling out Ichan's view of Apple's future. If anything, Apple surviving the daily dissing about Macs for over a decade bodes well. Perhaps in a bizarre way the public flogging might actually be working in reverse. Constant publicity backed up by anecdotal evidence in schools, business and neighbors who are tired of having products that don't work and instead just get it.
  • Reply 74 of 215

    Yes, there is a hidden agenda and/or point of view in these reports, and these companies are often fatally conflicted by reporting market data about companies who are also paying them for services to 'influence' consumers...    There is no mystery why there is a huge disconnect between the 'market share' statistics and the actual web usage of these devices...  A. You can't do a whole lot with white box devices running Android 2.2, B. Lots of them are sitting on shelves or in drawers, and/or C. They can't access Google Play.  

     

    Android remains horribly fragmented, particularly when you include Amazon's Kindle...  It's sort of a joke to count Kindles as Android devices, yet based on activations, that's exactly what Google does and what IDC and Gartner parrot...

     

    At the end of the day, this is not terribly harmful to Apple, who will continue to be judged by the quality of their products and strength of their app ecosystem...

     

    In the short term, reports like these may slow down corporate adoption of Apple's products, by IT professionals who devour reports like these, and/or may affect Apple's share price by investors who do the same...

     

    But 99% of consumers don't know who IDC or Gartner are...

  • Reply 75 of 215
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    How do you define a PC?

    The mini is very useful, especially for beginners.

     

    the mini is great if you can't lay out $1500+ for a new iMac and already have a decent monitor (as many do), and don't need a portable laptop - maybe because your iPad already satisfies your portable needs now - which is becoming more and more the situation these days.

     

    many households still need a desktop for media stuff, general/special purpose big-screen applications, and shared use. the $600 base mini is a good fit for them. plug in a $100 2T external drive if more media storage is needed. then add two iPad mini's, one with 4G, and you get all that for the same price as an iMac.

     

    whoever dissed the mini don't know beans.

  • Reply 76 of 215
    akqiesakqies Posts: 768member
    alfiejr wrote: »
    the mini is great if you can't lay out $1500+ for a new iMac and already have a decent monitor (as many do), and don't need a portable laptop - maybe because your iPad already satisfies your portable needs now - which is becoming more and more the situation these days.

    many households still need a desktop for media stuff, general/special purpose big-screen applications, and shared use. the $600 base mini is a good fit for them. plug in a $100 2T external drive if more media storage is needed. then add two iPad mini's, one with 4G, and you get all that for the same price as an iMac.

    whoever dissed the mini don't know beans.

    Or even no decent monitor. A VNC app on your iPad/iPhone and/or portable Mac can let you have a great but inexpensive Mac at home as an iTunes Server for your Apple TV or Roku box as well as for Time Machine backups (if you have multiple Mac notebooks).
  • Reply 77 of 215
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,365member
    Y

    Android remains horribly fragmented, particularly when you include Amazon's Kindle...  It's sort of a joke to count Kindles as Android devices, yet based on activations, that's exactly what Google does and what IDC and Gartner parrot...
    No Amazon devices are included in Google Android activation numbers. NONE.

    I doubt IDC or Gartner include them in Android counts either since Amazon's verision is not Google Android but instead a customized and modified fork that's no longer the "Android" OS per-se. Can't remember now what Amazon calls the modded OS.

    In any event Google only counts activations when users devices log into Google Play for the first time which eliminates most of those Chinese fork devices. They used to count activations when devices logged into Google services but the way it's done now is much more accurate and telling (and helpful to developers) since those using them as "feature phones" go largely uncounted in activations now.

    http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/03/android-activations-tweak/
  • Reply 78 of 215
    jessijessi Posts: 302member

    Why does Apple Insider constantly report these bogus numbers as if they were legitimate?

     

    Here we have an epic takedown of this dishonesty... but where is Apple Insiders pledge to stop participating by reporting, sans attribution or defense, that "android has %80 of the market" and other similar BS?

     

    It's bad enough that the android zealots do it, but inexcusable for AI.

  • Reply 79 of 215
    kpluck wrote: »
    Really? LOL. It reminds me of the ranting of the right about the left wing mass media "conspiracy."

    AI lost me when they pointed to a Dvorak article and tried to take it seriously. Dvorak is paid say outrageous things, stir up the hornets nest if you will. The author doesn't seem to understand that. Basic math also seems a challenge because they don't seem to understand the simple fact that sales can increase while the percentage of the market share goes down.

    Time would have been better spent on the fact that market share numbers, especially on their own, mean absolutely nothing.

    -kpluck
    Yes, sales can increase at the same time market share goes down. But, that was not the point to be made here. Market share can also go down when you inflate total sales with numbers of unlike products.

    Do you seriously think that the numbers being reported can't be connected to legitimate vendors? Or, perhaps, are the legitimate vendors being hidden to cover the true identity of some of these so-called tablets.

    Here is, potentially, one of those white box products they included:
    400
  • Reply 80 of 215
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MacAir View Post

     

    Real Macs start over 900$.

     

    That useless pice of crap, the mini, at 600$. I bet it will sell less than the 3000+ $ Mac Pro.


    As with most other companies, Apple's "entry level" computer is not expected to be equal to it's "flagship model". Both models serve their market niche well, I think. If one buys a mac mini, expecting it to perform as well as a top line iMac, costing more, then I would have to say that that consumer has a lot to learn about smart spending.   ;)

Sign In or Register to comment.