Fortunately, the market isn't defined by you. And you most certainly don't get to exclude "craplets" or "iPad equivalent" tablets.
While it's certainly fair to say that Apple doesn't compete in some parts of the market, the market definition should be defined in some generic way rather than your arbitrary way. For example, "devices which are built as a single flat unit which can operate with no attached keyboard or monitor and which are capable of running non-embedded software" or something like that.
When you start with a reasonable definition of tablets, at least some eReaders (such as the Fire) fit the definition.
Furthermore, even if your numbers were true, it's still a market independent of the iPad. You don't define a market by one of the products in the market - even if it's dominant.
Color e-readers are, by design, devices of limited utility engineered to a price point. No one buys a Nook, for instance, expecting to run some version of photo editing software, or as an adjunct to music production, or to have access to any kind of office productivity suite.
There's this odd way that "the tablet market" gets defined downward to conform to the original, uninformed prejudice against the iPad-- that "tablets" are media consumption devices, and any machine that can do a credible job of surfing the net, looking at pictures and videos and running email is on equal footing with any other machine that can do those things, no matter how much more the latter device is capable of.
I grant you it's a bit of a gray area, in that lesser devices are theoretically capable of at least some some additional functionality, were anyone particularly interested in even trying. But it's obvious that Apple intends an entirely different market for the iPad than Amazon intends for the Fire, so why shouldn't we make that distinction? To put it another way, do you imagine that Amazon is planning on writing first party apps along the lines of Keynote or GarageBand or Pages or iPhoto? Do you think color e-reader developers will have any interest in providing much more than hooks to social networking and games? And if a device is that constrained in practice, even allowing for some vague potential, isn't it in fact a different kind of device?
Even the lowliest PC can run the majority of available software, if only slowly. These "iPad competitors" don't even have access to a lot of what makes the iPad an increasingly viable PC replacement, which is the whole point.
Note : The growth is down to 1%, so no decline, not even stable, still growing, but only by 1%... still going from 366 to 371mln
This happens a lot in stock market values as well when they are reporting a decline in profit growth. Sounds like its really going bad for that company, but read the sentence again : Still making profit, still a larger profit than last year, only the extrapolated increase in profit was lower.
The all depends on what you use as a baseline. 1% growth when population growth and worldwide economic output is growing at several times that rate can be interpreted as a contraction of influence in the overall market.
For some situations it just doesn't matter, for others it is the bellweather of a local maximum to be followed by a long decline, and in fewer yet it can mean bottoming out and poised for an increase.
When looking at the overall PC market, which really means the Windows market, it looks a lot more like the local max than anything else.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Fortunately, the market isn't defined by you. And you most certainly don't get to exclude "craplets" or "iPad equivalent" tablets.
While it's certainly fair to say that Apple doesn't compete in some parts of the market, the market definition should be defined in some generic way rather than your arbitrary way. For example, "devices which are built as a single flat unit which can operate with no attached keyboard or monitor and which are capable of running non-embedded software" or something like that.
When you start with a reasonable definition of tablets, at least some eReaders (such as the Fire) fit the definition.
Furthermore, even if your numbers were true, it's still a market independent of the iPad. You don't define a market by one of the products in the market - even if it's dominant.
Color e-readers are, by design, devices of limited utility engineered to a price point. No one buys a Nook, for instance, expecting to run some version of photo editing software, or as an adjunct to music production, or to have access to any kind of office productivity suite.
There's this odd way that "the tablet market" gets defined downward to conform to the original, uninformed prejudice against the iPad-- that "tablets" are media consumption devices, and any machine that can do a credible job of surfing the net, looking at pictures and videos and running email is on equal footing with any other machine that can do those things, no matter how much more the latter device is capable of.
I grant you it's a bit of a gray area, in that lesser devices are theoretically capable of at least some some additional functionality, were anyone particularly interested in even trying. But it's obvious that Apple intends an entirely different market for the iPad than Amazon intends for the Fire, so why shouldn't we make that distinction? To put it another way, do you imagine that Amazon is planning on writing first party apps along the lines of Keynote or GarageBand or Pages or iPhoto? Do you think color e-reader developers will have any interest in providing much more than hooks to social networking and games? And if a device is that constrained in practice, even allowing for some vague potential, isn't it in fact a different kind of device?
Even the lowliest PC can run the majority of available software, if only slowly. These "iPad competitors" don't even have access to a lot of what makes the iPad an increasingly viable PC replacement, which is the whole point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Exactly.
Also, we had "cue" used incorrectly a few days ago and now we have "queue" used incorrectly.
It's a karma thing. It all balances out.
Well I thought he meant line them up, so queue looks like it's used correctly that way. And if they are all lined up we can topple them like dominos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz
Note : The growth is down to 1%, so no decline, not even stable, still growing, but only by 1%... still going from 366 to 371mln
This happens a lot in stock market values as well when they are reporting a decline in profit growth. Sounds like its really going bad for that company, but read the sentence again : Still making profit, still a larger profit than last year, only the extrapolated increase in profit was lower.
The all depends on what you use as a baseline. 1% growth when population growth and worldwide economic output is growing at several times that rate can be interpreted as a contraction of influence in the overall market.
For some situations it just doesn't matter, for others it is the bellweather of a local maximum to be followed by a long decline, and in fewer yet it can mean bottoming out and poised for an increase.
When looking at the overall PC market, which really means the Windows market, it looks a lot more like the local max than anything else.