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

13468911

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 215
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    iPhone sales show explosive growth, take over 95% market share*

     

    *64bit smartphone market 

  • Reply 102 of 215
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

     

    iPhone sales show explosive growth, take over 95% 105% market share*

     

    *64bit smartphone market 


    That was pretty funny though. good one! LOL

  • Reply 103 of 215
    This makes me really want to read 2 side-by-side articles, both with totally accurate statistics for the same time period, painting totally different pictures. And then an explanation of those same statistics :)
  • Reply 104 of 215
    Good stuff! Eloquently echoing that which many of us have perceived for years.
  • Reply 105 of 215
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    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/

     

    good point.

     

    and from that Google site web link we also learn that only 4.9% of those Google Play "activations" were for devices greater than 7" screen size (for two weeks in April of this year). that is, ALL Android tablets! Google itself says so!! 

     

    about 200M Android devices were so activated between then and August - 4 months = 50M per month (http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-android-activations-hit-1-billion-2013-9). so only 10M were true "Google Android" tablets at that 5% rate - about 2.5M Android tablets per month. which would total a mediocre 30M per year! compared to Apple's 60M+ per year (actually, much more given that was a slow sales quarter).

     

    yet Strategy Analytics reported 34.6 million Android tablet shipments in that same 2nd quarter 2012 time period!! (https://www.strategyanalytics.com/default.aspx?a0=5403&mod=pressreleaseviewer). which would be over 11.5 million per month!!!

     

    so what/where are those other 9 Million alleged "Android" tablets per month that did not log into Google Play?

     

    or are SA's numbers just bullshit they pulled out of their butt?

     

    either way, thank you so much for providing the data link that conclusively proves DED's article is valid and right on target. 

     

    it's kinda a classic "smoking gun," you know?

     

    edit: fixed math

  • Reply 106 of 215
    mstone wrote: »
    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.
    Sure for graphics, but I bet your RIP, color proofing, plate imager, press software, accounting and web site do not run on Macs. People who live and work in Mac centric environments sometimes forget that most business, manufacturing, banking, medical, government, military, scientific research, education and virtually every other professional field uses primarily Windows.

    What you say is true, today -- but it is starting to change. The status-quo Wintel apps are kind of like the "rust belt" of technology.

    For example take POST/Checkout/Cash Registers... Today, that job can be done cheaper and more efficiently on an iPad -- and it doesn't require special technical ability (IT) to setup and support.

    Within the next 2 years we will see the bulk of customers pay for onsite purchases, say in a supermarket, with your phone, receive an itemized receipt that goes directly into your budget/expense accounting apps. Likely, there will be little need for individual, manned checkout stations -- rather something like the situation where 1 clerk monitors several self-checkout stations, in while manning a [more traditional] checkout station. There will be no need for credit card swiping, cash handling, printed receipts, etc. -- and all the associated unproductive busy-work (like stocking ink/ribbons and paper rolls, then taking the time to load them in the cash requesters).

    Even more so in small stores -- where they will be able to run their entire business on iPads.

    Same for doctors in hospitals, movie-makers on location and a whole slew of services -- like the carpet or furniture salesman that comes to your house to sell (and write up the sale of) products, options, financing, etc.

    Sure, for larger businesses, there will be back-office/back-end/cloud servers/services running Linux or Windows [and some Macs] -- but the action will be in the inexpensive, easy-to-install, easy-to-replace, easy-to-use tablets -- likely iPads!
  • Reply 107 of 215
    mstone wrote: »
    jungmark wrote: »
     
    [CONTENTEMBED=/t/160764/the-curious-case-of-idc-gartner-strategy-analytics-pc-phone-tablet-data-on-apple/60#post_2436013 layout=inline]does BMW get lumped into the entire vehicle market? Or do they just talk about them in the luxury/premium market? Ford and GM are selling tons of pickup trucks, BMW should make one too to keep up its growth.[/CONTENTEMBED]
    All the purists frowned when BMW made the X5 and X6, but I wouldn't mind seeing a BMW pickup. That would be pretty sweet. Mercedes already makes a lot of great trucks. Apple kind of disappointed me with the new Mac Pro because it was sort of a departure from heavy duty industrial strength computing platform. The deminutive new Mac Pro just doesn't look like an industrial beast like the old one.

    How about this:

    It's Coming...
    Dedicated Mac Pro Hosting and Colocation


    700


    1000


    http://www.macstadium.com/mac-pro
  • Reply 108 of 215
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post



    How about this:



    It's Coming...

    Dedicated Mac Pro Hosting and Colocation











    http://www.macstadium.com/mac-pro

    They are really not designed for that. I have an acquaintance who has a cabinet near to ours who does Mac mini hosting and his cabinet is a mess because the mini is not designed to be in a rack. Rack servers need to be on rails and have a rear accessibility so you can access the ports, lift the lid to check out fans, redundant power supplies, dust, connect a keyboard, etc. Besides, rack server installations are rarely about brute power but more about load balancing, dependability and redundancy. And why should anyone pay over a $1000 extra for two powerful video cards that are never going to be used? For my money I would go with the 230VAC IBM or HP blade servers which are very efficient. They are perfect for a datacenter. Using Mac Pros in a rack has never been practical in a datacenter plus OS X server is too non standard to be a very popular UNIX-like platform. Traditionally they have been workstations and probably will continue in that role for the foreseeable future. The reason the Xserve never got any traction was because of the OS, not the hardware, although the hardware was seen as slightly overpriced.

  • Reply 109 of 215
    Fantastic article as usual Daniel.
  • Reply 110 of 215
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,614member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Frood View Post

     

     

     

    DED is basically saying you can't count the fast burgers in the steak burgers.  If all you want to look at is the steak houses, he's right.

     

    If you happen to care about money, then looking at the whole market probably isn't a bad idea.  Much of the world can't afford steak and never will be able to.

     

    I prefer a nice juicy steak over a McD burger myself, but show me a steak house chain that has McDonalds' revenue.


    The problem in capitalist societies is that we only look at money.   Wall Street has brainwashed us to do that and we've come to accept it as normal - that the only true measure of success is money.  Even the NY Times publishes lists every week of the top 10 this or that.   

     

    While occasionally, art and commerce collide, in most cases quite the opposite is true:   if it gets great market acceptance, it's probably a piece of crap.   

     

    Justin Beaver sells a lot of records.    It's still crap.     McDonald's sells a lot of burgers.   That's still crap.   WalMart sells a lot of everything.   Crap.

     

    Those who think that only business revenue counts would probably be more than willing to turn Central Park into a giant shopping mall or build a bunch more condos for the rich.  After all, the park isn't "maximizing revenue".  

     

    I prefer to live in a society where me measure things based upon their critical greatness and quality.    I think Apple strives for this and I think it's where Steve's head was at.    The last thing I would want to see is to have Apple start making crap products just to capture market share.   Does Wall Street really want Apple to be Dell?  It's bad enough Apple sells its products in WalMart, which as I've written before, devalues the brand IMO.

  • Reply 111 of 215
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post



    How do you define a PC?

    For the purpose of comparing market share of device like the articles about. Screen with separate keyboard and pointing device (mouse, trackpad etc).

     

    It's fair enough to say the tablet market is taking sales from the PC market. But putting tablets into the same market is just silly. If you did that why not put games consoles in too? Lots of PC's are sold for gaming, consoles have similar hardware, they have internet browsers, they have apps for tv, can play music etc. Xbox even has skydrive. Or what about smart TV's? They have an OS that you can write apps for, they can browse the web etc. Or what about the old Amstrad email phone? Or this Android based mp3 player http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/9119734.htm

     

    It makes sense to split the markets up into similar devices that can be used in similar ways. An iPad can do a lot of the stuff a PC does, but it is not used in the same way.

  • Reply 112 of 215

    For someone who sounds like they were involved at a higher level than most you certainly taint that insight and value by your post here.

     

    I am not trying to attack you personally, but trying to show that focusing solely on numbers is sometimes not the whole story, or possibly ridiculous depending on timing.

     

    So lets look at what you said (only taking the relevant part of your quote).

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JamesMac View Post

     

    I agree with the author that the 'white label' tablets should be singled out, but in the latest 3Q tablet data from IDC, you'll see Samsung growing 123% to 9.7 million units and Lenovo growing 421% to 2.3 million units.  This compares to Apple's growth of 0.6% to 14.1 million units.  Apple will of course do much better in 4Q, but the claims that this is having no substantial impact on Apple is not backed up by the evidence.  The fact that Apple came out with an 8" device responding directly to a (correctly perceived) threat from these very competitors is evidence that even Apple wouldn't agree with the author.


     

     

    In essence, here is where you fail.  Apple has been selling iPads since 2010.  At what state in time did all the other manufacturers start selling comparable tablets?  Key word COMPARABLE.  Yes, some were selling what you might call tablets long before 2010, but we need to focus on the copycat format of what is deemed a tablet today.  Or give Apple credit of exploding a market that sucked @S$ before iPads that allowed other companies to even attempt to make the kind of money they can today.

     

    So Apple starts from a sale position of 0 units in April 2010.  There are obviously a million ways to look at, gather, analyze, and present data, but here is just one to look at.  This is the total sales of all iPads since the first release broken down by year.

     

    2010 - 7.5 Million

    2011 - 32.4 Million

    2012 - 58.3 Million

    2013 - ~70 Million

     

    That totals ~170 million units.  In just over 3 years.  Sales may have "slowed", but that is perspective.  They are still selling more each year than previous.  Like everyone else mostly.

     

    Lets compare that to each individual company as I hate using the "Android as a whole" when you need to look at profits and share versus an actual competing manufacturer, not an idea.

     

    As already established that becomes difficult to impossible due to reporting methods.  For sake of argument though Samsung announced doubling its sales this year from last year.  That is guestimated at this.

     

    2011 - ~192,000

    2012 - ~20 million  (ironically IDC guessed 16.8 million)

    2013 - ~40 million

     

    That totals ~62 million in roughly the same time span.

     

    So analysts and people like you start quoting shit numbers like quarter over quarter or year over year growth and how the competition is 123% or 400% or 50,000% versus Apple's 0.6% growth.  This is such rubbish and exactly what DED has been trying to dispel with his articles.

     

    Go back and look at Apple's growth from 2010 to 2011.  What percentage growth was that?  That is an astonishing number isn't it?

     

    So come back 2 years from now and restate your position please.  I would gladly eat a bucket of crow if you did and it actually still showed Samsung, Asus, Lenovo, etc. as continually having 125%, 400% (or whatever) plus YoY or QoQ growth numbers.  That, for example would put Lenovo selling just under 10 million tablets next year and 40 million the following.  Not likely.  Not with the multitude of competitors.  And if Apple starts actually dropping in unit sales by year it will still take years to catch up to what Apple has already sold.  That is if Apple stops selling them today and makes no more ever.  

     

    The point is that other companies growth looks massive in comparison right now only due to the time in the game.  Apple has been selling this market segment longer as I outlined above as to what is a "tablet".

     

    Some of these companies may never reach 170 million total tablet sales ever, but we shall have to wait and see who stays in the market and who folds their tablet divisions.

     

    So, again, I would love to see the same headlines in a couple years, or even quarters, applied to Apple's competition screaming "SAMSUNG TABLETS SHIPMENTS DECLINING HORRIBLY"  or "LENOVO TABLET GROWTH PLUMMETING".  That is what DED's pieces are constantly targeted towards.  The fact that mainstream media does not apply the same standards they do to Apple.  They hide in the lump sum game of total market share of platform (Android) or some other stupid nonsense.

     

    (Proof in point - HP tablets - ever heard of them?  Well in 2011 they held 17% of the non-iPad tablet numbers.  1% more than Samsung's 16%)  That was huge growth for them back then and reported as such.  I don't recall seeing anywhere near the same doom and gloom headlines Apple continues to get from wall street and analysts when HP totally bowed out. Even though Apple is destroying the profits tables and nowhere close to actually losing money.)

  • Reply 113 of 215
    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.


    The mini is a great computer and is basically a headless iMac.  The new ones are very speedy and very nice to use.  You can get a quad core i7 in a mini the same the run in the iMac.

    Apple does not build a "crap" computer.

  • Reply 114 of 215
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by akqies View Post





    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).

    Yep one of my two Mini's is just that a headless media server for my apple tv's and works great with a thunderbolt sata hub with two channels fed into two external 4 terabyte drives software raided in the mini as one drive.  Put a 6gb sata data flash drive in a mini and they scream.  When I want to interact with the mini the hdmi to my tv works great.  You can also put an extra drive inside as well if you need more space. I also VNC with my iPhone and iPad with great apps off the iTunes AppStore for those as well.

  • Reply 115 of 215
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lookforandrew View Post

     

    So Apple starts from a sale position of 0 units in April 2010.  There are obviously a million ways to look at, gather, analyze, and present data, but here is just one to look at.  This is the total sales of all iPads since the first release broken down by year.

     

    2010 - 7.5 Million

    2011 - 32.4 Million

    2012 - 58.3 Million

    2013 - ~70 Million

     

    That totals ~170 million units.  In just over 3 years.  Sales may have "slowed", but that is perspective.  They are still selling more each year than previous.  Like everyone else mostly.


    I agree that total installed base is more relevant than YoY sales growth, but wouldn't that also apply to assessing the state of the PC market?

     

    YoY PC sales declined this year, but they still added 303 million new computers to an already massive installed base:

    http://bgr.com/2013/10/21/tablet-growth-2013-pc-shipments-decline/

     

    That's more than four times the number of iPads sold last year, and even if we add in the paltry 62 million Android tablets to the total for iPads the entire tablet sector hasn't sold as many units in 3+ years as new PCs were added just this year alone, the worst PC sales year on record.

     

    While the Mac fared no better than other PCs (IIRC the only OEM with YoY growth was Lenovo), I think it was a very smart move of Apple to put out the Mac Pro update this year.

     

    Tablets are hot, but laptops and even desktops don't seem to be going away soon.  Most of us who enjoy our iPads still use our Macs too.

  • Reply 116 of 215
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    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/

    While I agree with you on the way google counts the numbers the analysts don't count them that way.  They include the "white box" numbers as android.  Those should not be counted but you don't see google complaining if they are.  It gives the illusion that there part of mainstream android too. Which there not.  Like most here have said, these analyst firms will customize the data that makes your company look good for a "fee".  They get paid to make there customers look good even if they have to make up numbers to do so.  There information is very very sketchy at best and in most cases inaccurate.

  • Reply 117 of 215
    akqiesakqies Posts: 768member
    fbaker wrote: »
    Tablets are hot, but laptops and even desktops don't seem to be going away soon.  Most of us who enjoy our iPads still use our Macs too.

    Not going away soon does not mean they aren't being displaced, demoted and dislodges as the primary computing devices for consumers. As Steve Jobs said "PCs" will be the trucks of the computing world.
  • Reply 118 of 215

    Wrong again. Everything but the accounting software runs on Macs.

     

    People who work on Windows sometimes have absolutely no knowledge of Macs, but are willing to parrot lame anti-Apple propaganda online.

  • Reply 119 of 215

    It's simple : the only kind of market share data that matters to consumers is ecosystem usage.

     

    And for those who don't care about the ecosystem, any kind of market share data should be irrelevant anyway.

  • Reply 120 of 215
    akqiesakqies Posts: 768member
    Wrong again. Everything but the accounting software runs on Macs.

    People who work on Windows sometimes have absolutely no knowledge of Macs, but are willing to parrot lame anti-Apple propaganda online.

    To whom are you responding?


    PS: There are no apps for the Mac. /s
Sign In or Register to comment.