While I can generally agree with the article, there are things missing from it. One is that it’s entirely focused on Google. But Samsung sells a fair number of tablets. It’s estimated, as we don’t know how many smartphones, smart watches or tablets they really sell, as they don’t say in quarterly reports, that Samsung sells between 15 and 25% as many tablets as Apple. We don’t know if Samsung’s tablet sales have fallen in recent years as Apple’s has, something the article also fails to address.
but Samsung does it’s own SoCs, as Apple does. We don’t know exactly what the differences Samsung’s has, as they don’t just use their own. But a big thing here is that Google is apparently getting tired of not having a state of the art SoC. They’ve begun a chip division, hiring away a major designer from Apple, and I suspect, from others as well. We’ll see how that works out, as it will take a couple of years for any result of that to become available. Will they make these for the Android market in general, or just for themselves? Nobody knows.
if we poo poo their SoC before it comes out, just remember that the same thing was said about Apple’s attempt, before that came out.
Samsung have the SoC but not the OS. This is the perfect opportunity for Samsung to take over the tablet market using Tizen. I just don't think Samsung have shown in the past at being very good at software, so this may not actually happen.
Eventually, the Android tablet vendors will need an updated OS. So where is it going to come from?
This is the perfect opportunity for Samsung to take over the tablet market using Tizen. - Is that @Herbivore2 in the guise of GG1??? Just kidding. You restored normality with the very next sentence which is more important - I just don't think Samsung have shown in the past at being very good at software. I completely agree with this point, which is why Samsung cannot take over the <$300 market for themselves with Tizen. Android will continue to be the default OS for those tablets with <$300 price. Apple has pretty much taken over the majority of tablet market in >$300, with very little hope/scope for others to compete.
The answer to your last question is fairly obvious - Google. Don't look any further than that (despite this article implying otherwise), because they do support Android in tablets and will continue to do so.
I misinterpreted the article. Thanks for clarifying (and to Gatorguy).
Now, if Samsung were good at software (that's a yuge "IF"), they probably would have forked Android a long time ago (like Amazon did).
When Apple has grown even more, and plays the endgame of ‘winner takes al’, and the very ethical Tim Cook has retired, what will this humongous organization do with all its power? Whenever I buy Apple stuff, and I really own a lot these days, this question haunts me at night.
The funny thing is that a similar question haunts me for Google (and Facebook): if/when the time comes where they are being sold/changing hands, what happens to all of the profile data they've built up on people?
That data would be worth a lot to governments or organizations interested in monitoring and potentially controlling a population's activities. Not that people don't already make a lot of this data available publicly, but the level of detail in the profile data gathered by Google would offer far more potential for misuse.
They already have built and are making the AI better and better for the US DoD to identify footage From drones. Sooner or later they can just build profiles of people for drones to hunt down, depending on their views on politics and how big a risk you pose for the deep state. Google could really just change their slogan to: ”Hey google, who do we wana kill today?”. Maybe we can search some facebook data for pictures?
This is the perfect opportunity for Samsung to take over the tablet market using Tizen. - Is that @Herbivore2 in the guise of GG1??? Just kidding. You restored normality with the very next sentence which is more important - I just don't think Samsung have shown in the past at being very good at software. I completely agree with this point, which is why Samsung cannot take over the <$300 market for themselves with Tizen. Android will continue to be the default OS for those tablets with <$300 price. Apple has pretty much taken over the majority of tablet market in >$300, with very little hope/scope for others to compete.
The answer to your last question is fairly obvious - Google. Don't look any further than that (despite this article implying otherwise), because they do support Android in tablets and will continue to do so.
This is an intresting point why didnt Apple try harder to lower the line and cater to market on phones like they did with the IPad/IPad pro. Samsung would have been squeezed out like a pimple and left the rest of the market to niché players. Apple tried to fix the situation with IPhone SE But it was years too Late and the app support was too good by then on Android platform (phones). IPad has always had a lower margin. And I’m not talking about the race to the bottom, just lowering the Bar and having two segments. Middle and high. Apple created the space for Samsung. Samsung was just using the void to create Android. What would Android (phones) be today without Samsung?
Apple iOS differentiates iPhone with iPad. Google Android does not. This is why Android tablet fail and Google finally give up. Google could merge tablet into Chrome OS. But it looks like Google has encountered considerable difficulties. The effort is not successful at all.
"A similar trend can be observed in the tablet operating system market share. In the second quarter of 2010, Apple’s iOS held 94 percent of the market share, while nearly three percent of the market used Android’s operating system. As of the first quarter of 2015, Android had taken over the market, holding almost 70 percent of the share. Apple’s iOS accounted for 24 percent of the market, and Microsoft’s operating system made up seven percent of it."
Google's business isn't built around hardware. It can dabble in it, make a more or less concerted effort here or there, fail or have moderate success in different areas. It could drop all tablet support today and jump right back in next year.
As for what they were ''supposed" to achieve with each idea/project, it's moot as long as Google has its services running on most of the devices out there. In that sense, mission accomplished and if iPad sales are largely flat, it can definitely be put down to Android dominance from Google. As can the presence of a so called 'low cost' iPad in Apple's lineup.
With the purchase of the HTC engineering resources, it's possible (probable?) that a concerted effort will be put into the Pixel phone brand over the coming years.
Tablets can be left in the hands of Lenovo, Samsung, Huawei which, among them alone, represent just as much of the pie as Apple and that is without throwing in Amazon or ''other" which has consistently taken more tablet share than Apple since 2013.
I doubt Google loses much sleep over consumer hardware decisions, loss making or not.
If that were so, they wouldn’t have invested so much in trying to make a real go at it.
Even publicly advertising that their hardware design is this and that... taking a page from Apple and plastering it everywhere.
It hurts them in the in the public eye and deep in the heart that they cannot sell products to people. No one wants their stuff unless it’s free. They literally have to give themselves away (cue U2 song from iTunes) in order to be accepted. When they charge, they’re left with nothing.
Despite the restructure, google is just an ad company that wastes money on other stuff.
Yes, although it's more than an ad company too. Consumer hardware hasn't been its revenue driver and it is not even remotely part of its core business so you could wrap up each consumer hardware failure and put Christmas lights on them and it still wouldn't mean anything significant. That said, it's still a billion dollar part of the company. That's not a bad way to 'fail'. And in spite of everything the Pixel phones will probably get even better soon.
Google/Android lacks corporate direction, they lack leadership. This article sums it up perfectly. They are always looking to play catch up, to try to find something that can fill the gap between them and a competitor, and they are quick to sell something and then drop it. I posted a few weeks ago about firing up my iPhone 4S for the first time in years. After updating to iOS9 it flies around apps on wifi pretty quickly, I was amazed. Gave it to my 6 year old to play on. he also has my old original iPad Mini that he still plays games like Madden 17 and streams youtube Kids on without a problem. I didn't expect the ipad to last this long and didn't figure my phone would be able to run any apps. But they are both there and I can get around it just as simply as I can my newer everyday phone.
tl;dr...Apple shows that you can invest your money in them and they will build on what you bought. You won't lose support or focus in 2 years and have to toss it.
While this is true, it's becoming a shorter length of time for each device and the software is really being used to push hardware purchases.
Logic 10.4 abandoned Mac OS El Capitan, Sierra abandoned Macs that can actually run it fine, and most, if not all, Apple iOS apps require iOS 11.x. It's fine if you don't want to maintain a fully-functional iCloud-enabled ecosystem of Apple products, because that requires staying within a 1 to 2 year range of OS versions across all devices, until Apple abandon the device by withholding the most recent OS release from it, which withholds ecosystem functionality and app support.
My iPhone 4 is no longer a cell phone in usage. I was forced, by Safari, to move to a new device (with iOS 9 at the time). It doesn't have iOS 7 on it. I refuse to install that (and wow is iOS 6 pretty and fast, in comparison to iOS 7+, just like how Snow Leopard looks better and runs far faster than any newer Mac OS). The device works well as an iPod, so it's not useless to me, but it's still very frustrating to use for Internet (on rare occasions I try to do so) and the Apple iCloud stuff is partially incapacitated due to iCloud changes (mostly in the changes Notes format). None of the apps I use on it are up-to-date and none can be updated.
It's quite limited but certainly not useless. It's almost like the PowerMac G4 I still have serving as an iTunes library and a retro software machine... there's already a bunch of abandoned apps only usable on older iOS versions. Of course, unlike the old Mac, it's impossible to reinstall anything (including the OS), so good luck if the device needs to be restored...
So yeah, "playing around" isn't a problem on older Apple devices. Having a fully functional "ecosystem", however, definitely is an issue beyond a couple of years. The ecosystem is one of the main draws for Apple product, so this isn't inconsequential. The more Apple products a person has (when they weren't all bought at the same time), the more difficult it is to keep them all synchronized with supported software and functionality; especially when you want to avoid slowing devices with OS upgrades and have no money to replace them all at the same time (have to do it piecemeal).
Google arrogantly thought it could walk in and take that away but it fell on its face and is now limping away.
"Google is backing out of tablets. It’s not leaving money on the table. There is no money on the table. "
That's because Google, like MS, has moved on to 2-in-1s. In that world, there is no room for a dedicated tablet. This is an interesting article on the state of the African / Middle Easter markets:
"Yet in the Middle East and African markets, the tide is turning away from tablets and back to PC's and 2-in-1 devices. And while the iPad Pro is considered a detachable device or a 2-in-1 device, Apple is simply not faring well in that particular market."
Whether, over time, that translates to other markets, who knows. iPad sales did see an uptick with the introduction of the $329 iPad and iPad Pro models but growth has leveled off.
Microsoft is not making significant money from all of its Surface operations: barely $1 billion in revenue per quarter since it started, and its profits are quite thin because it spends so much money servicing failed hardware.
When you say that detachables are where it's at, and iPads are leveling off, you also have to qualify those generalizations: Apple is the largest maker of tablets+detachables+slates globally, by a huge margin. Almost 2x the second place Samsung. Microsoft Surface isn't even in the top 5.
Nobody else shipping any volumes of devices is making any money. That's because #2 and #3 are Samsung and Amazon, which are dumping low-cost devices in the market, making it very hard for anyone else to compete with a profitable product, outside of the leader, iPad.
It's just bizarre that the media narrative keeps saying that success is failure and that various petty marginal busywork from companies that haven't made any money in the space after years of trying is all incredible work and has untapped, unlimited potential. That's all total bullshit.
There's an iPad market and then there is everybody else making Android OS tablets. There are no Android OS tablets in anyway comparable to the iPad Pro's for hardware or ecosystem. That's the reality.
Cool beans about Roku;
"Roku states its average revenue per unit is $11.22, up 35 percent. It reported $199 million in revenue in the six month period ending June 30, 2017, up from the year prior of $162 million. Its annual revenue numbers also increased year-over-year, up from $319 million to $398 million."
That's a wonderful thing, selling low cost streaming devices in volume; see Amazon, Google, and bundled versions in various television. I Hope that Roku's business model beyond the box works out. Maybe they would be better off absorbed by Spotify.
I'm a little puzzled. I keep hearing (fake) news about how Google is crushing Apple in the educational market where all schools are buying Chromebooks for students because the schools have decided that Apple iPads are either too expensive or too limited in function. I had accepted that news as being true and I thought it was Apple who basically gave up on selling iPads to schools.
I certainly never had any clue that Google was going to be dropping support of Chromebooks. I personally would rather have a device with a keyboard so I'd prefer a MacBook or MacBook Pro instead of an iPad. I definitely wouldn't want some Chromebook. I simply figured schools were buying Chromebooks because they cost less to buy and were good enough for students to use. Does Google giving up on Chromebooks mean Apple has a clear shot at taking over educational institutions with iPads? If so, that would be absolutely spectacular for Apple. The way Wall Street was always happily chirping about how Apple was being destroyed in the educational market, I really thought Apple products had no chance at all in schools.
I'm surely sick of hearing from analysts how the iPad has basically died because they don't feel Apple is selling as many of them as Wall Street expects them to sell. It's not easy to sell a product in high quantity every year if the product is well-built and long-lasting. There's simply no need for consumers to constantly upgrade products that are working well. That would be a supreme waste of natural resources. Wall Street doesn't seem to understand such simple concepts.
Google's Android OS does seem to be flourishing quite well on those low-cost streaming TV boxes which are practically for sale everywhere. That is a really puzzling platform where features are never easy to figure out because they're so inconsistent with hardware. SOME will have Bluetooth, SOME will have USB 3.0 ports, SOME will have dual-band WiFi, SOME will have more system RAM, etc. Only the most expensive device has everything and the NVidia Shield is the King of Android streaming boxes. There seem to be hundreds of various models from cheap to expensive all competing for the same space. If AppleTV were a bit more open, Apple could probably own that Android TV space but that could be dangerous as there a huge number of apps relying on pirated content to keep Android streaming boxes from dying out. I think they're pretty cool to play with but hardly a product any company could survive on. I like my Fire TV 2 which Amazon doesn't sell anymore but I use that mostly to watch Amazon Prime Video content. I've side-loaded plenty of illegal apps and they work fairly well but it really just for me to play around with Kodi and Kodi builds and stuff like that. Messing around with pirated IPTV and such.
Yeah I'd be careful taking your news about how wonderful things are for Apple from "Apple Insider." Here's the other side: "Windows was the only OS tracked by Futuresource to make gains from last quarter to this quarter in the K-12 space in the US. Chrome OS' share was down sequentially (though only slightly) from 59.8 percent in Q3 to 59.6 percent in Q4. Apple iOS' share was down more significantly, to 10.6 percent, and Apple macOS' share to 3.5 percent." http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-pcs-gain-share-in-k-12-in-the-u-s-but-chromebooks-still-dominate/
There's an iPad market and then there is everybody else making Android OS tablets. There are no Android OS tablets in anyway comparable to the iPad Pro's for hardware or ecosystem. That's the reality.
Cool beans about Roku;
"Roku states its average revenue per unit is $11.22, up 35 percent. It reported $199 million in revenue in the six month period ending June 30, 2017, up from the year prior of $162 million. Its annual revenue numbers also increased year-over-year, up from $319 million to $398 million."
That's a wonderful thing, selling low cost streaming devices in volume; see Amazon, Google, and bundled versions in various television. I Hope that Roku's business model beyond the box works out. Maybe they would be better off absorbed by Spotify.
If the iPad market is around a quarter of the tablet market, the iPad Pro market is far, far less and the iPad Pro has competition too.
It clawed back a minimal amount of share in the last quarter of 17 thanks to the iPad Pro refresh and the entry level model. Unless there is a mid year refresh, the iPad has probably already peaked for 2018.
The other 75% is Android and covers all price points. Who makes the most money off each sale is simply irrelevant if your product was never even brought to market with high margins in mind in the first place. Of course that doesn't mean there aren't models that generate decent revenues for manufacturers and every Android tablet sale is a potential sale that didn't go to Apple.
Apple is doing well enough given the circumstances. If they decide to release a decent Mini 5 I'd definitely be interested.
When Apple has grown even more, and plays the endgame of ‘winner takes al’, and the very ethical Tim Cook has retired, what will this humongous organization do with all its power? Whenever I buy Apple stuff, and I really own a lot these days, this question haunts me at night.
For a good laugh, try reading this little gem I came across, explaining why Android makers switched to 4:3 ratio. Do this away from any hot liquids like coffee or tea.
As for what they were ''supposed" to achieve with each idea/project, it's moot as long as Google has its services running on most of the devices out there. In that sense, mission accomplished and if iPad sales are largely flat, it can definitely be put down to Android dominance from Google. As can the presence of a so called 'low cost' iPad in Apple's lineup.
Ditto Gator Guy's comments - there are plenty of Android tablets, just not Google tablets.
Apple's main competition in the tablet world is not Google, its Microsoft. Despite recent additions of things like the files app and split screen multitasking, iPads and iOS are not viable laptop replacements. I recently purchased a 12" iPad Pro to replace my aging MacBook Air. It can do a lot of what you want a laptop to do, but many of the workflows are clumsy, awkward and inefficient, and other things just can't be done and I ended up purchasing a MacBook Pro.
I haven't used one more than to play for a few seconds, but the Surface tablets seem to do a better job of being a laptop/tablet hybrid. iPads are awesome, solid devices, but if Apple wants them to truly become productivity devices, they need to step up the development of iOS.
A lot of people on this forum will hate you for saying that... After all, didn't Apple decree that the iPad was the way of the future?
(actually, I think it will be - but it just ain't there yet)
What people?
Cook has said he uses an ipad personally but he never said it’s all things for all people. since it’s launch it’s better a matter of cars and trucks, as Jobs said. Most people don’t need trucks. For many use cases and customers the ipad has completely replaced notebooks or desktop alternatives. I see this with my own family as parents gave up fuller sized computers for ipads.
It's a good article and accurate... But I think it may cause some to become a bit over confident and to overlook an important point: Apple has worked hard on Tablets while Google kind of moved on to Chromebooks.
The Chromebooks mostly stumbled around but more recently have been finding a foot hold in education -- where countless kids are being indoctrinated into in the Google ecosystem of Chrome and GoogleDocs...
And, with 5G in the pipeline, the Chromebooks are likely to get stronger rather than weaker - Conceivably, a LOT stronger...
Has Google done an end-run around Apple? Is Apple preparing for the the possibilities that 5G can/will open up? ... I can't believe that they aren't thinking about this. But...
(I guess I'm following the Gretsky philosophy of skating to where the puck will be...)
Google worked to dump cheap ($150) generic chromebooks from its partners on US schools to mine children for data
Google isn’t selling its own stupidly expensive (now discontinued) Chromebook Pixel, not is it selling its $1000 Pixelbook netbook. Google makes $0 from education hardware, and its partners make very close to $0.
The only reason anyone is talking about US k-12 education is because that’s the only place Google can dump the browser based netbooks that no consumers or business people will buy.
If you collectively group cheap junk in volume with expensive high end concepts nobody buys, you can create the illusion that people want Google’s high end Pixel/Chrome devices, but the truth is clearly that nobody is buying them and it’s a foolish to think that’s suddenly going to change after 6-8 years.
Nobody has has ever made real money from Android tablets (vs phones, which were once profitable). Companies don’t keep making stuff that doesn’t sell. IE Zune, Nexus, Chromebook Pixel, etc. Google is backing out of tablets. It’s not leaving money on the table. There is no money on the table.
Meanwhile, Apple has revenues from iPad that are on the level of AWS or nearly twice the revenue of Netflix, at ~38% profit margins.
Google arrogantly thought it could walk in and take that away but it fell on its face and is now limping away.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not advocating Chromebooks. But I do see them as part of Google's long term strategy that is more likely to grow (especially with 5G) than to die or shrink. I am suspecting that that is why Apple is offering a $329 iPad and why they are enhancing the iPad with more laptop features each year -- to provide an alternative to the Chromebooks in education.
Er no. The ipad gets more features because that’s always been the long game, as we said from day 1 that it would continue build steam and get more powerful as apple’s SoC and ipads capabilities evolved. Much the same way we said the Watch would from its own limited day 1.
Nobody sane believe they were invented to remain static and not grow more powerful. That would be ignoring all of technological history.
I'm a little puzzled. I keep hearing (fake) news about how Google is crushing Apple in the educational market where all schools are buying Chromebooks for students because the schools have decided that Apple iPads are either too expensive or too limited in function. I had accepted that news as being true and I thought it was Apple who basically gave up on selling iPads to schools.
I certainly never had any clue that Google was going to be dropping support of Chromebooks. I personally would rather have a device with a keyboard so I'd prefer a MacBook or MacBook Pro instead of an iPad. I definitely wouldn't want some Chromebook. I simply figured schools were buying Chromebooks because they cost less to buy and were good enough for students to use. Does Google giving up on Chromebooks mean Apple has a clear shot at taking over educational institutions with iPads? If so, that would be absolutely spectacular for Apple. The way Wall Street was always happily chirping about how Apple was being destroyed in the educational market, I really thought Apple products had no chance at all in schools.
I'm surely sick of hearing from analysts how the iPad has basically died because they don't feel Apple is selling as many of them as Wall Street expects them to sell. It's not easy to sell a product in high quantity every year if the product is well-built and long-lasting. There's simply no need for consumers to constantly upgrade products that are working well. That would be a supreme waste of natural resources. Wall Street doesn't seem to understand such simple concepts.
Google's Android OS does seem to be flourishing quite well on those low-cost streaming TV boxes which are practically for sale everywhere. That is a really puzzling platform where features are never easy to figure out because they're so inconsistent with hardware. SOME will have Bluetooth, SOME will have USB 3.0 ports, SOME will have dual-band WiFi, SOME will have more system RAM, etc. Only the most expensive device has everything and the NVidia Shield is the King of Android streaming boxes. There seem to be hundreds of various models from cheap to expensive all competing for the same space. If AppleTV were a bit more open, Apple could probably own that Android TV space but that could be dangerous as there a huge number of apps relying on pirated content to keep Android streaming boxes from dying out. I think they're pretty cool to play with but hardly a product any company could survive on. I like my Fire TV 2 which Amazon doesn't sell anymore but I use that mostly to watch Amazon Prime Video content. I've side-loaded plenty of illegal apps and they work fairly well but it really just for me to play around with Kodi and Kodi builds and stuff like that. Messing around with pirated IPTV and such.
Yeah I'd be careful taking your news about how wonderful things are for Apple from "Apple Insider." Here's the other side: "Windows was the only OS tracked by Futuresource to make gains from last quarter to this quarter in the K-12 space in the US. Chrome OS' share was down sequentially (though only slightly) from 59.8 percent in Q3 to 59.6 percent in Q4. Apple iOS' share was down more significantly, to 10.6 percent, and Apple macOS' share to 3.5 percent." http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-pcs-gain-share-in-k-12-in-the-u-s-but-chromebooks-still-dominate/
The continued Apple profit speaks for itself. Profit is the air corporations breathe and which gives them life. Not market share or even growth alone. Profit. That “Windows growth” figure is meaningless.
There's an iPad market and then there is everybody else making Android OS tablets. There are no Android OS tablets in anyway comparable to the iPad Pro's for hardware or ecosystem. That's the reality.
Cool beans about Roku;
"Roku states its average revenue per unit is $11.22, up 35 percent. It reported $199 million in revenue in the six month period ending June 30, 2017, up from the year prior of $162 million. Its annual revenue numbers also increased year-over-year, up from $319 million to $398 million."
That's a wonderful thing, selling low cost streaming devices in volume; see Amazon, Google, and bundled versions in various television. I Hope that Roku's business model beyond the box works out. Maybe they would be better off absorbed by Spotify.
The other 75% is Android and covers all price points. Who makes the most money off each sale is simply irrelevant if your product was never even brought to market with high margins in mind in the first place. Of course that doesn't mean there aren't models that generate decent revenues for manufacturers and every Android tablet sale is a potential sale that didn't go to Apple.
Another guy who thinks profit doesn’t matter, this time to the individual android tablet manufacturers. Cool strategy these CEOs must have — “We aren’t making any money and won’t survive ourselves, but at least it’s not a sale to Apple!”
Hint: it absolutely matters who makes the money. If you’re not making money you can’t innovate, you can only clone. That’s a short term strategy and won’t last. Apple can invent new products and technologies because they can afford to. How? By worrying about actually making a good profit. It’s the air corporations breathe. Without healthy profit they suffocate and die.
As for what they were ''supposed" to achieve with each idea/project, it's moot as long as Google has its services running on most of the devices out there. In that sense, mission accomplished and if iPad sales are largely flat, it can definitely be put down to Android dominance from Google. As can the presence of a so called 'low cost' iPad in Apple's lineup.
My, how he tries. So precious.
Cognitive dissonance is real.
I linked to iPad marketshare over the last few years showing decline then flattening out.
I don't have to try. The reality is there staring straight at you. Of course, if you think Android tablets had nothing to do with all this I'm willing to hear you out.
But please don't fire back with "but the money goes to Apple". That is irrelevant when tablets like Amazon's offerings aren't even brought to market with high margins in the first place. Have you ever wondered why?Although that doesn't mean other Android tablets don't make money. They do.
As for what they were ''supposed" to achieve with each idea/project, it's moot as long as Google has its services running on most of the devices out there. In that sense, mission accomplished and if iPad sales are largely flat, it can definitely be put down to Android dominance from Google. As can the presence of a so called 'low cost' iPad in Apple's lineup.
My, how he tries. So precious.
Cognitive dissonance is real.
I linked to iPad marketshare over the last few years showing decline then flattening out.
I don't have to try. The reality is there staring straight at you. Of course, if you think Android tablets had nothing to do with all this I'm willing to hear you out.
But please don't fire back with "but the money goes to Apple". That is irrelevant when tablets like Amazon's offerings aren't even brought to market with high margins in the first place. Have you ever wondered why?Although that doesn't mean other Android tablets don't make money. They do.
I don't think iPad growth flattening out is solely due to Android tablets. Other factors include 1) surging popularity of large-screen smartphones, 2) popularity of thin / light laptops. I actually think Android tablet sales are the least contributing factor.
Comments
Now, if Samsung were good at software (that's a yuge "IF"), they probably would have forked Android a long time ago (like Amazon did).
http://theantimedia.org/google-collaborating-pentagon-drone-strikes/
Logic 10.4 abandoned Mac OS El Capitan, Sierra abandoned Macs that can actually run it fine, and most, if not all, Apple iOS apps require iOS 11.x. It's fine if you don't want to maintain a fully-functional iCloud-enabled ecosystem of Apple products, because that requires staying within a 1 to 2 year range of OS versions across all devices, until Apple abandon the device by withholding the most recent OS release from it, which withholds ecosystem functionality and app support.
My iPhone 4 is no longer a cell phone in usage. I was forced, by Safari, to move to a new device (with iOS 9 at the time). It doesn't have iOS 7 on it. I refuse to install that (and wow is iOS 6 pretty and fast, in comparison to iOS 7+, just like how Snow Leopard looks better and runs far faster than any newer Mac OS). The device works well as an iPod, so it's not useless to me, but it's still very frustrating to use for Internet (on rare occasions I try to do so) and the Apple iCloud stuff is partially incapacitated due to iCloud changes (mostly in the changes Notes format). None of the apps I use on it are up-to-date and none can be updated.
It's quite limited but certainly not useless. It's almost like the PowerMac G4 I still have serving as an iTunes library and a retro software machine... there's already a bunch of abandoned apps only usable on older iOS versions. Of course, unlike the old Mac, it's impossible to reinstall anything (including the OS), so good luck if the device needs to be restored...
So yeah, "playing around" isn't a problem on older Apple devices. Having a fully functional "ecosystem", however, definitely is an issue beyond a couple of years. The ecosystem is one of the main draws for Apple product, so this isn't inconsequential. The more Apple products a person has (when they weren't all bought at the same time), the more difficult it is to keep them all synchronized with supported software and functionality; especially when you want to avoid slowing devices with OS upgrades and have no money to replace them all at the same time (have to do it piecemeal).
Nobody else shipping any volumes of devices is making any money. That's because #2 and #3 are Samsung and Amazon, which are dumping low-cost devices in the market, making it very hard for anyone else to compete with a profitable product, outside of the leader, iPad.
It's just bizarre that the media narrative keeps saying that success is failure and that various petty marginal busywork from companies that haven't made any money in the space after years of trying is all incredible work and has untapped, unlimited potential. That's all total bullshit.
Cool beans about Roku;
"Roku states its average revenue per unit is $11.22, up 35 percent. It reported $199 million in revenue in the six month period ending June 30, 2017, up from the year prior of $162 million. Its annual revenue numbers also increased year-over-year, up from $319 million to $398 million."
That's a wonderful thing, selling low cost streaming devices in volume; see Amazon, Google, and bundled versions in various television. I Hope that Roku's business model beyond the box works out. Maybe they would be better off absorbed by Spotify.
It clawed back a minimal amount of share in the last quarter of 17 thanks to the iPad Pro refresh and the entry level model. Unless there is a mid year refresh, the iPad has probably already peaked for 2018.
The other 75% is Android and covers all price points. Who makes the most money off each sale is simply irrelevant if your product was never even brought to market with high margins in mind in the first place. Of course that doesn't mean there aren't models that generate decent revenues for manufacturers and every Android tablet sale is a potential sale that didn't go to Apple.
Apple is doing well enough given the circumstances. If they decide to release a decent Mini 5 I'd definitely be interested.
“But but but open!!”
My, how he tries. So precious.
Cognitive dissonance is real.
Cook has said he uses an ipad personally but he never said it’s all things for all people. since it’s launch it’s better a matter of cars and trucks, as Jobs said. Most people don’t need trucks. For many use cases and customers the ipad has completely replaced notebooks or desktop alternatives. I see this with my own family as parents gave up fuller sized computers for ipads.
Er no. The ipad gets more features because that’s always been the long game, as we said from day 1 that it would continue build steam and get more powerful as apple’s SoC and ipads capabilities evolved. Much the same way we said the Watch would from its own limited day 1.
Nobody sane believe they were invented to remain static and not grow more powerful. That would be ignoring all of technological history.
Another guy who thinks profit doesn’t matter, this time to the individual android tablet manufacturers. Cool strategy these CEOs must have — “We aren’t making any money and won’t survive ourselves, but at least it’s not a sale to Apple!”
Hint: it absolutely matters who makes the money. If you’re not making money you can’t innovate, you can only clone. That’s a short term strategy and won’t last. Apple can invent new products and technologies because they can afford to. How? By worrying about actually making a good profit. It’s the air corporations breathe. Without healthy profit they suffocate and die.
I don't have to try. The reality is there staring straight at you. Of course, if you think Android tablets had nothing to do with all this I'm willing to hear you out.
But please don't fire back with "but the money goes to Apple". That is irrelevant when tablets like Amazon's offerings aren't even brought to market with high margins in the first place. Have you ever wondered why?Although that doesn't mean other Android tablets don't make money. They do.