Oops. Forgot to say "mobile computing" somewhere in there. (And absolutely, mobile computing will devolve into "disposable electronics".)
There will always be a place for big-screen 8K pixel-perfection: the living room.
Or maybe by the time 8K TVs become affordable, we'll have room-filling holographic 3D displays.
Again, like in the movie "Her."
I suppose I should have mentioned the premise of my argument was that there isn't really a post-PC world. People who can get by with only a mobile device have very trivial computing needs. A life without real big screen computing would be very boring to me. That would be like living without a kitchen and eating only prepackaged ready-to-eat fast food. I like my organic vegetable garden and eat only hand made gourmet meals. Same idea. I despise modern society's mass-produced disposable mindset.
Continuity is such a strong concept. Rather than trying to create a compromise device that combines phone-tablet or tablet-pc, let each dedicated device do what it does best, but allow a seamless transition from one device to the next. I am not totally opposed to a hybrid concept, especially if funds don't permit having one of each type of device, but Continuity seems so much more powerful. Especially considering that so many people have at least two of the three: phone, tablet, or laptop.
Exactly. The right tool for the job at hand, but no tool excludes the use of another
The problem with hybrid on a lower power computing device is that it negates much of the benefit.
Now, if I can just get my calendars to sync all the time.
But we have no idea how long the post-PC era will last, or what sub-eras it might contain.
Will Siri and Google Now become the UX of choice (like in the move "Her") in the next 10 years?
Will all the chrome and animation and oh-so-precious pixel-perfection of app design all just go away in favor of voice?
Will the iTunes App Store evolve into the Siri Accessories store? With UI-less iOS plugins that used to be called "apps"?
Will we finally dump the "keyboard" and move on to gesture / voice / thought control of our devices?
Will we all be walking around with earpiece internet appliances and disposable displays in our pockets in 2024?
Who knows?
The App store (especially in-app functionality purchases) are an interesting implementation of Alan Cox's (father of ObjC) concept of the 'software IC' where micro payments are made every unit of time you use something. micro royalties, pay per use, whatever. If you're paying .99 for something... would you pay less (0.01) and use a broader set of valuable stuff. Apply that to Siri and custom filters. and then apply Siri coming back and saying... "I have a custom database that has highly curated and accurate info... would you like to search that today, this month, or forever (it will cost .10 each request, or .99 for a monthly subscription, or $9.99 for a lifetime)... No? or for how long?
I do see a day that there will be a '$$' symbol someplace on the pull-up/down screens to keep you up to date on your 'spend' that your AppleID and subIDs are accumulating as you navigate through the things you do on your phone.
Siri and eventually some body motion readying assistant will be part of the interface (or the Mitchell Gant "Firefox" Brain Monitoring interface, as long as you think in Russian;-)
Luddites will say, 'But I'm faster with a keyboard' .... (didn't the Blackberry show that that was a false efficiency?) Or how about typing on an 'air keyboard?;-)'
It marches on.
What we're doing with an iPhone today was tossed about in the 60's . Watching Minority Report (and xbox Kinect), the technology for motion communication is likely less than 50 years away, more like 50 months. (that order of magnitude thing)
Yeah, it would be nice to have "others" broken down, but it probably is some Kindles & Fires and a lot of those not-really-full-functioned-tablets $49 POS's that sog35 and an article here from a few months ago refer to…so, see? they probably do "break down"...
And there should be a new rule here not to print articles that don't differentiate between 'shipments' and 'sales'.
Yeah, it would be nice to have "others" broken down, but it probably is some Kindles & Fires and a lot of those not-really-full-functioned-tablets $49 POS's that sog35 and an article here from a few months ago refer to…so, see? they probably do "break down"...
And there should be a new rule here not to print articles that don't differentiate between 'shipments' and 'sales'.
part of my comment is raw data (in our hyper aware state) is better than useless summarizations.
Anything less than 1Munits/q isn't shown. Which means there at least 22 other VENDORS out there.
Amazon (fires are 4 and 5 on top electronics sold, and Kindle Paperwhite is number 2)
Microsoft
Blackberry
among them.
Part of this (on my cynical side) is that IDC has such fudgy numbers for everyone but apple, that it 'thinks' this many tablets were sold, but can't account for them, therefore it creates a bunch of 'others' to account for that.
The tablet market remains Apple's to lose, according to new data released Thursday....
Also according to old data released last month. And the month before. And the year before that... etc.
No matter what you're selling, when you're #1 in the market, that market is always "yours to lose". That's just a re-statement of what it means to be #1. It is another way of saying that you're winning. NOBODY ever says that the 3rd runner up has the market "to lose". They already lost.
So... Apple is winning the race. Still. They're just running a bit slower than before. For now.
Quote:
Company officials said they were not concerned, however....
And why would they be?
Neither is Stephen Kiprotich worried.
I don't understand why Sam Oliver is trying to make Apple's victories sound like failures.
They release the financial statements for the current quarter on July 31. Last quarter they squeaked by with a slightly higher profit than the same quarter last year.
I would expect their profits to decline overall according to the guidance in the article you cited, but as I suggested, it's due largely to an increase in expenses. Their operating income is expected to drop about 25% while revenues are only expected to drop by about 10%, indicating a massive increase in operating expenses.
This really isn't making sense to me. Are there really 50 million tablets shipped in the last quarter? If so, where the hell are they?
Without any official sales figures, people can only make educated guesses looking at inventory and ad-hoc surveys of stores, but even that will not allow for a vaguely clear picture.
This just looks like a brief survey + major extrapolation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
3. "Others" = "A Lot of Kindles"
A lot of Kindles, but not enough to account for 44% right? I mean, even if it was 10%, Bezos would actually announce sales figures!
This really isn't making sense to me. Are there really 50 million tablets shipped in the last quarter? If so, where the hell are they?
Without any official sales figures, people can only make educated guesses looking at inventory and ad-hoc surveys of stores, but even that will not allow for a vaguely clear picture.
This just looks like a brief survey + major extrapolation.
There are over 100 manufacturers of tablets... and over 500 models of tablets on sale around the world.
Most of them are cheap junk Android tablets... but they're tablets nonetheless. And since more tablets get shipped every quarter... someone must actually be buying them. (unless they all end up in a landfill in New Mexico)
China and India have 2,600,000,000 people combined. I would imagine that's where a lot of tablets end up.
We always debate these shipment numbers... but multiple analytics firms come up with similar numbers every quarter. They all get their numbers from a variety of sources. Can anyone possibly track the exact whereabouts of 50 million tablets across the globe? Probably not... but they can paint enough of a picture.
If there was some great conspiracy... we would have heard about it by now.
Personally... I don't care if tens of millions of garbage tablets get pumped into the market every quarter. It doesn't affect me in the least.
What I think is funny is when people think Android is "winning" because of all those garbage tablets.... or that Apple is somehow "losing" because of them. That's hilarious.
What I think is funny is when people think Android is "winning" because of all those garbage tablets.... or that Apple is somehow "losing" because of them. That's hilarious.
No one believes that and frankly it's getting a little annoying that people are even implying it, it's very, more then clear that Apple is so far ahead in the tablet game that all it would take is for them to lower their over inflated margins by as little as half, and they could effectively wipe out all competition in less then a year. However that would most defiantly bring the feds knocking on their door step faster then you could say, "Dutch East India Company", unless of course they grant Apple some sort of a Coercive monopoly, which actually wouldn't surprise me one bit given the amount of power and popularity Apple holds. However calling Apple a "monopoly" now is just a lazy exaggeration to imply that it has a "monopolistic" position in the market, which means that although it's not actually a monopoly, it's close enough to be deemed "anticompetitive."
As bad as Samsung may appear, we are actually better off having them in the picture then not, without Samsung yipping at the heals of Apple who else is available to give them at least a small amount of competition. I don't care how good the iPad or iPhone is, if you think it's the perfect device, whatever, we need more competition, not less, in fact for the first time in a long time I feel a little uneasy about current state of the mobile market. There's basically just two players, Google and Apple and that just sucks. Big reason why I purchase and at least try to support, use the underdogs stuff, Windows Mobile, Jolla and I'm still waiting on my Neo900. Not saying there better, I just don't want to see these companies giving up either, could you imagine a world where only two mobile OS's existed, God forbid just one, we're almost to that point now.
No one believes that and frankly it's getting a little annoying that people are even implying it, it's very, more then clear that Apple is so far ahead in the tablet game that all it would take is for them to lower their over inflated margins by as little as half, and they could effectively wipe out all competition in less then a year. However that would most defiantly bring the feds knocking on their door step faster then you could say, "Dutch East India Company", unless of course they grant Apple some sort of a Coercive monopoly, which actually wouldn't surprise me one bit given the amount of power and popularity Apple holds. However calling Apple a "monopoly" now is just a lazy exaggeration to imply that it has a "monopolistic" position in the market, which means that although it's not actually a monopoly, it's close enough to be deemed "anticompetitive."
As bad as Samsung may appear, we are actually better off having them in the picture then not, without Samsung yipping at the heals of Apple who else is available to give them at least a small amount of competition. I don't care how good the iPad or iPhone is, if you think it's the perfect device, whatever, we need more competition, not less, in fact for the first time in a long time I feel a little uneasy about current state of the mobile market. There's basically just two players, Google and Apple and that just sucks. Big reason why I purchase and at least try to support, use the underdogs stuff, Windows Mobile, Jolla and I'm still waiting on my Neo900. Not saying there better, I just don't want to see these companies giving up either, could you imagine a world where only two mobile OS's existed, God forbid just one, we're almost to that point now.
Oh Relic! I read your post.
Why does only Apple need competition?
I don't understand how you came away with the impression that Relic said that.
The message I got was that Apple's popularity creates the risk of iOS becoming a de facto monopoly, and that's not good for anyone. Competition drives creativity, and when you're left with only once choice, no matter which one it is, progress stagnates.
Competition drives creativity, and when you're left with only once choice, no matter which one it is, progress stagnates.
Tell that to the pre-iPhone mobile phone market. Apple didn't make the iPhone to compete with the existing mobiles, they did it because what all the many competitors offered sucked for years and they used the phones themselves. The aim wasn't to take over the market, they aimed for 1%, they just wanted to make a good phone. They didn't make the iPad to compete with anyone because no one made a tablet like the iPad, there was no market there at all. They didn't make the App Store to compete with all the other app stores, there were no popular app stores they had to compete with. Apple didn't make the Mac because they had to compete with IBM, there was no personal computer market. The iPod had many competitors but again, they weren't the target, the target was doing portable music in a way that didn't suck.
A lack of competition holds back progress if the market leaders have low standards. When they have high standards like Apple, the competition is mostly copying features and driving down quality to beat them on price. They might make incremental improvements here and there but largely inconsequential.
I don't promote monopolies as they are in opposition to the success of the free market (some free market proponents actually like monopolies when their favorite is the one in front) but I don't agree that competition drives creativity. Did Michelangelo, Picasso, Da Vinci etc do all their work to better their competitors? People who make great work do it because they choose an outlet for what they are passionate about. Competitors aren't even on the radar unless they start ripping them off.
The iPad is ahead because a tablet is an immersive device. If you get the experience wrong, people notice. You can't dress it up with gimmicky features or selling them at no profit. If the competition wants to get creative and actually improve on Apple's standards, the door's wide open. For non-Apple tablets to succeed, they don't need Apple to fail, they just need to do a better job. Good luck with that.
Where's your proof? Have you ever used a Samsung Tab? I have both a Samsung 8.4 Pro and a 3rd Gen iPad. Both are good and both have their strengths and weakness. Sure Apple has a higher percentage of the overall market but since they are the only player in the IOS arena, it's not surprising. What is surprising is that Samsung has the highest percentage of the Android market that is shared amongst many. You may not like Samsung or Android for that matter...but that's your prerogative. But 73.1% of the world does like Android. So when you make claims like this, it should be backed up with solid facts. Otherwise it makes you look foolish.
Did Michelangelo, Picasso, Da Vinci etc do all their work to better their competitors? People who make great work do it because they choose an outlet for what they are passionate about. Competitors aren't even on the radar unless they start ripping them off.
IIRC Michelangelo and Da Vinci did compete with each other, tho it may not be what drove each to seek perfection in their art. Anyway a very good post Marvin, and one that I agree with.
could you imagine a world where only two mobile OS's existed, God forbid just one, we're almost to that point now.
Yep... it's effectively that now. Android and iOS represent 95% of the mobile market.
I'm not sure how to remedy that though. There are other platforms out there... but they're just not popular enough.
People stopped buying Symbian, Palm and Windows Mobile smartphones and started buying Android and iOS phones instead. And they continue to buy them today.
Blackberry is still around... just barely. And Windows Phone is a relatively new entry in the market. But I doubt either of those will become a force to reckoned with.
It kinda reminds me of Windows, Mac and Linux.... or Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. Often there are 2 huge players and a 3rd far behind.
No one believes that and frankly it's getting a little annoying that people are even implying it
Huh? You must be reading different forums than I am.
You've never heard those tired market share arguments? How Android "dominates" the mobile market? Or how Apple is doomed?
Yeah I don't believe it either... but it gets implied quite often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
could you imagine a world where only two mobile OS's existed, God forbid just one, we're almost to that point now.
Yep... it's effectively that now. Android and iOS represent 95% of the mobile market.
I'm not sure how to remedy that though. There are other platforms out there... but they're just not popular enough.
People stopped buying Symbian, Palm and Windows Mobile smartphones and started buying Android and iOS phones instead. And they continue to buy them today.
Blackberry is still around... just barely. And Windows Phone is a relatively new entry in the market. But I doubt either of those will become a force to reckoned with.
It kinda reminds me of Windows, Mac and Linux.... or Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. Often there are 2 huge players and a 3rd far behind.
We tend to think that more choice is always a good thing, but it doesn't always pan out that way. Coke and Pepsi. McDonalds and Burger King. Sellotape and...other unknowns. Martini.
Then there are cars. I think there are way too many manufacturers today, even with all the consolidation that has already taken place. So many look almost identical, are made from the same materials and behave similarly. In the past, there was real distinction between them; now, they are one big homogenous gloop, from the cheapest to the most luxurious, save the very rare exception. In fact, it reminds me of the mobile phone market before the iPhone.
We tend to think that more choice is always a good thing, but it doesn't always pan out that way. Coke and Pepsi. McDonalds and Burger King. Sellotape and...other unknowns. Martini.
Then there are cars. I think there are way too many manufacturers today, even with all the consolidation that has already taken place. So many look almost identical, are made from the same materials and behave similarly. In the past, there was real distinction between them; now, they are one big homogenous gloop, from the cheapest to the most luxurious, save the very rare exception. In fact, it reminds me of the mobile phone market before the iPhone.
There was not always a real distinction between them:
Comments
There will always be a place for big-screen 8K pixel-perfection: the living room.
Or maybe by the time 8K TVs become affordable, we'll have room-filling holographic 3D displays.
Again, like in the movie "Her."
I suppose I should have mentioned the premise of my argument was that there isn't really a post-PC world. People who can get by with only a mobile device have very trivial computing needs. A life without real big screen computing would be very boring to me. That would be like living without a kitchen and eating only prepackaged ready-to-eat fast food. I like my organic vegetable garden and eat only hand made gourmet meals. Same idea. I despise modern society's mass-produced disposable mindset.
Continuity is such a strong concept. Rather than trying to create a compromise device that combines phone-tablet or tablet-pc, let each dedicated device do what it does best, but allow a seamless transition from one device to the next. I am not totally opposed to a hybrid concept, especially if funds don't permit having one of each type of device, but Continuity seems so much more powerful. Especially considering that so many people have at least two of the three: phone, tablet, or laptop.
Exactly. The right tool for the job at hand, but no tool excludes the use of another
The problem with hybrid on a lower power computing device is that it negates much of the benefit.
Now, if I can just get my calendars to sync all the time.
But we have no idea how long the post-PC era will last, or what sub-eras it might contain.
Will Siri and Google Now become the UX of choice (like in the move "Her") in the next 10 years?
Will all the chrome and animation and oh-so-precious pixel-perfection of app design all just go away in favor of voice?
Will the iTunes App Store evolve into the Siri Accessories store? With UI-less iOS plugins that used to be called "apps"?
Will we finally dump the "keyboard" and move on to gesture / voice / thought control of our devices?
Will we all be walking around with earpiece internet appliances and disposable displays in our pockets in 2024?
Who knows?
The App store (especially in-app functionality purchases) are an interesting implementation of Alan Cox's (father of ObjC) concept of the 'software IC' where micro payments are made every unit of time you use something. micro royalties, pay per use, whatever. If you're paying .99 for something... would you pay less (0.01) and use a broader set of valuable stuff. Apply that to Siri and custom filters. and then apply Siri coming back and saying... "I have a custom database that has highly curated and accurate info... would you like to search that today, this month, or forever (it will cost .10 each request, or .99 for a monthly subscription, or $9.99 for a lifetime)... No? or for how long?
I do see a day that there will be a '$$' symbol someplace on the pull-up/down screens to keep you up to date on your 'spend' that your AppleID and subIDs are accumulating as you navigate through the things you do on your phone.
Siri and eventually some body motion readying assistant will be part of the interface (or the Mitchell Gant "Firefox" Brain Monitoring interface, as long as you think in Russian;-)
Luddites will say, 'But I'm faster with a keyboard' .... (didn't the Blackberry show that that was a false efficiency?) Or how about typing on an 'air keyboard?;-)'
It marches on.
What we're doing with an iPhone today was tossed about in the 60's . Watching Minority Report (and xbox Kinect), the technology for motion communication is likely less than 50 years away, more like 50 months. (that order of magnitude thing)
1. Shipments
2. "Others"
'Nuff said.
3. "Others" = "A Lot of Kindles"
Yeah, it would be nice to have "others" broken down, but it probably is some Kindles & Fires and a lot of those not-really-full-functioned-tablets $49 POS's that sog35 and an article here from a few months ago refer to…so, see? they probably do "break down"...
And there should be a new rule here not to print articles that don't differentiate between 'shipments' and 'sales'.
Yeah, it would be nice to have "others" broken down, but it probably is some Kindles & Fires and a lot of those not-really-full-functioned-tablets $49 POS's that sog35 and an article here from a few months ago refer to…so, see? they probably do "break down"...
And there should be a new rule here not to print articles that don't differentiate between 'shipments' and 'sales'.
part of my comment is raw data (in our hyper aware state) is better than useless summarizations.
Anything less than 1Munits/q isn't shown. Which means there at least 22 other VENDORS out there.
Amazon (fires are 4 and 5 on top electronics sold, and Kindle Paperwhite is number 2)
Microsoft
Blackberry
among them.
Part of this (on my cynical side) is that IDC has such fudgy numbers for everyone but apple, that it 'thinks' this many tablets were sold, but can't account for them, therefore it creates a bunch of 'others' to account for that.
Method and raw data would make me a believer.
Also according to old data released last month. And the month before. And the year before that... etc.
No matter what you're selling, when you're #1 in the market, that market is always "yours to lose". That's just a re-statement of what it means to be #1. It is another way of saying that you're winning. NOBODY ever says that the 3rd runner up has the market "to lose". They already lost.
So... Apple is winning the race. Still. They're just running a bit slower than before. For now.
Company officials said they were not concerned, however....
And why would they be?
Neither is Stephen Kiprotich worried.
I don't understand why Sam Oliver is trying to make Apple's victories sound like failures.
Amazon only make an appearance in the "Top 5" during the Christmas quarter and the Spring quarter.
The other two quarters they are far below... mixed in with "Others" like they are now.
I love it when people say "but the Kindle Fire is the best-selling tablet on Amazon!"
That's true... on Amazon.com. But when you factor in all the other tablets around the world... Amazon barely makes a dent in the tablet market.
According to the data in this chart... Amazon sold no more than 999,999 tablets this past quarter.
(we can debate the merits and methodologies of this chart another time... I was just looking at what was presented here)
Revenue was down 10% in their mobile division (tablets/smartphones)
http://www.trefis.com/stock/ssnlf/articles/246392/samsung-q2-preview-weaker-smartphone-sales-inventory-concerns-will-impact-results/2014-07-24
They release the financial statements for the current quarter on July 31. Last quarter they squeaked by with a slightly higher profit than the same quarter last year.
http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/investor_relations/financial_information/downloads/2014/2014_con_quarter01_soi.pdf
I would expect their profits to decline overall according to the guidance in the article you cited, but as I suggested, it's due largely to an increase in expenses. Their operating income is expected to drop about 25% while revenues are only expected to drop by about 10%, indicating a massive increase in operating expenses.
This really isn't making sense to me. Are there really 50 million tablets shipped in the last quarter? If so, where the hell are they?
Without any official sales figures, people can only make educated guesses looking at inventory and ad-hoc surveys of stores, but even that will not allow for a vaguely clear picture.
This just looks like a brief survey + major extrapolation.
Quote:
3. "Others" = "A Lot of Kindles"
A lot of Kindles, but not enough to account for 44% right? I mean, even if it was 10%, Bezos would actually announce sales figures!
There are over 100 manufacturers of tablets... and over 500 models of tablets on sale around the world.
Most of them are cheap junk Android tablets... but they're tablets nonetheless. And since more tablets get shipped every quarter... someone must actually be buying them. (unless they all end up in a landfill in New Mexico)
China and India have 2,600,000,000 people combined. I would imagine that's where a lot of tablets end up.
We always debate these shipment numbers... but multiple analytics firms come up with similar numbers every quarter. They all get their numbers from a variety of sources. Can anyone possibly track the exact whereabouts of 50 million tablets across the globe? Probably not... but they can paint enough of a picture.
If there was some great conspiracy... we would have heard about it by now.
Personally... I don't care if tens of millions of garbage tablets get pumped into the market every quarter. It doesn't affect me in the least.
What I think is funny is when people think Android is "winning" because of all those garbage tablets.... or that Apple is somehow "losing" because of them. That's hilarious.
What I think is funny is when people think Android is "winning" because of all those garbage tablets.... or that Apple is somehow "losing" because of them. That's hilarious.
No one believes that and frankly it's getting a little annoying that people are even implying it, it's very, more then clear that Apple is so far ahead in the tablet game that all it would take is for them to lower their over inflated margins by as little as half, and they could effectively wipe out all competition in less then a year. However that would most defiantly bring the feds knocking on their door step faster then you could say, "Dutch East India Company", unless of course they grant Apple some sort of a Coercive monopoly, which actually wouldn't surprise me one bit given the amount of power and popularity Apple holds. However calling Apple a "monopoly" now is just a lazy exaggeration to imply that it has a "monopolistic" position in the market, which means that although it's not actually a monopoly, it's close enough to be deemed "anticompetitive."
As bad as Samsung may appear, we are actually better off having them in the picture then not, without Samsung yipping at the heals of Apple who else is available to give them at least a small amount of competition. I don't care how good the iPad or iPhone is, if you think it's the perfect device, whatever, we need more competition, not less, in fact for the first time in a long time I feel a little uneasy about current state of the mobile market. There's basically just two players, Google and Apple and that just sucks. Big reason why I purchase and at least try to support, use the underdogs stuff, Windows Mobile, Jolla and I'm still waiting on my Neo900. Not saying there better, I just don't want to see these companies giving up either, could you imagine a world where only two mobile OS's existed, God forbid just one, we're almost to that point now.
Oh Relic! I read your post.
Why does only Apple need competition?
Oh Relic! I read your post.
Why does only Apple need competition?
I don't understand how you came away with the impression that Relic said that.
The message I got was that Apple's popularity creates the risk of iOS becoming a de facto monopoly, and that's not good for anyone. Competition drives creativity, and when you're left with only once choice, no matter which one it is, progress stagnates.
Tell that to the pre-iPhone mobile phone market. Apple didn't make the iPhone to compete with the existing mobiles, they did it because what all the many competitors offered sucked for years and they used the phones themselves. The aim wasn't to take over the market, they aimed for 1%, they just wanted to make a good phone. They didn't make the iPad to compete with anyone because no one made a tablet like the iPad, there was no market there at all. They didn't make the App Store to compete with all the other app stores, there were no popular app stores they had to compete with. Apple didn't make the Mac because they had to compete with IBM, there was no personal computer market. The iPod had many competitors but again, they weren't the target, the target was doing portable music in a way that didn't suck.
A lack of competition holds back progress if the market leaders have low standards. When they have high standards like Apple, the competition is mostly copying features and driving down quality to beat them on price. They might make incremental improvements here and there but largely inconsequential.
I don't promote monopolies as they are in opposition to the success of the free market (some free market proponents actually like monopolies when their favorite is the one in front) but I don't agree that competition drives creativity. Did Michelangelo, Picasso, Da Vinci etc do all their work to better their competitors? People who make great work do it because they choose an outlet for what they are passionate about. Competitors aren't even on the radar unless they start ripping them off.
The iPad is ahead because a tablet is an immersive device. If you get the experience wrong, people notice. You can't dress it up with gimmicky features or selling them at no profit. If the competition wants to get creative and actually improve on Apple's standards, the door's wide open. For non-Apple tablets to succeed, they don't need Apple to fail, they just need to do a better job. Good luck with that.
Where's your proof? Have you ever used a Samsung Tab? I have both a Samsung 8.4 Pro and a 3rd Gen iPad. Both are good and both have their strengths and weakness. Sure Apple has a higher percentage of the overall market but since they are the only player in the IOS arena, it's not surprising. What is surprising is that Samsung has the highest percentage of the Android market that is shared amongst many. You may not like Samsung or Android for that matter...but that's your prerogative. But 73.1% of the world does like Android. So when you make claims like this, it should be backed up with solid facts. Otherwise it makes you look foolish.
IIRC Michelangelo and Da Vinci did compete with each other, tho it may not be what drove each to seek perfection in their art. Anyway a very good post Marvin, and one that I agree with.
Huh? You must be reading different forums than I am.
You've never heard those tired market share arguments? How Android "dominates" the mobile market? Or how Apple is doomed?
Yeah I don't believe it either... but it gets implied quite often.
Yep... it's effectively that now. Android and iOS represent 95% of the mobile market.
I'm not sure how to remedy that though. There are other platforms out there... but they're just not popular enough.
People stopped buying Symbian, Palm and Windows Mobile smartphones and started buying Android and iOS phones instead. And they continue to buy them today.
Blackberry is still around... just barely. And Windows Phone is a relatively new entry in the market. But I doubt either of those will become a force to reckoned with.
It kinda reminds me of Windows, Mac and Linux.... or Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. Often there are 2 huge players and a 3rd far behind.
No one believes that and frankly it's getting a little annoying that people are even implying it
Huh? You must be reading different forums than I am.
You've never heard those tired market share arguments? How Android "dominates" the mobile market? Or how Apple is doomed?
Yeah I don't believe it either... but it gets implied quite often.
could you imagine a world where only two mobile OS's existed, God forbid just one, we're almost to that point now.
Yep... it's effectively that now. Android and iOS represent 95% of the mobile market.
I'm not sure how to remedy that though. There are other platforms out there... but they're just not popular enough.
People stopped buying Symbian, Palm and Windows Mobile smartphones and started buying Android and iOS phones instead. And they continue to buy them today.
Blackberry is still around... just barely. And Windows Phone is a relatively new entry in the market. But I doubt either of those will become a force to reckoned with.
It kinda reminds me of Windows, Mac and Linux.... or Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. Often there are 2 huge players and a 3rd far behind.
We tend to think that more choice is always a good thing, but it doesn't always pan out that way. Coke and Pepsi. McDonalds and Burger King. Sellotape and...other unknowns. Martini.
Then there are cars. I think there are way too many manufacturers today, even with all the consolidation that has already taken place. So many look almost identical, are made from the same materials and behave similarly. In the past, there was real distinction between them; now, they are one big homogenous gloop, from the cheapest to the most luxurious, save the very rare exception. In fact, it reminds me of the mobile phone market before the iPhone.
There was not always a real distinction between them: