Last Active
  • Apple maintains worldwide tablet marketshare lead in Q1, but cedes ground to Samsung

    Grimzahn said:
    IDC has a history. I am recognizing their numbers as untrustworthy and a waste of time. I am surprised seeing AI taking the time to report about them.
    So when IDC reported declining sales of Windows and Android (especially Samsung) devices and increasing sales of Apple devices (as they did when the iPhone 6 came out for example), are they equally trustworthy? Or did you like their numbers just fine back then? It seems like lots of Apple adherents love numbers from IDC, Kantar and Gartner when they show good numbers for Apple and bad numbers for everyone else but challenge them otherwise. Even though IDC, Kantar and Gartner have no business reason whatsoever to make Apple look bad and the other companies look good. Or that if the numbers from IDC, Kantar and Gartner do not match numbers from consumer surveys, retailers and supply chain data then companies will stop buying their data and they will go out of business. See, that is the thing. IDC, Kantar and Gartner don't produce their reports to fuel fanboy wars. Their reports are PRODUCTS that they SELL to investment firms, the media and companies themselves. If they were wrong year in and year out, the many companies that buy their reports would lose money, IDC/Gartner/Kantar would be discredited as a result and they would go out of business. Since that hasn't happened yet, obviously their data is pretty good. Not to mention that it clearly reflects anecdotal data and advertising trends. 5-6 years ago iPads were huge news. Everyone was talking about buying them, developing apps for them, rolling them out to their businesses etc. and carriers - especially AT&T - were running promotions based around data plans for LTE iPads and retailers - physical and online - prominently featured them in their advertising campaigns ... when you walked into a store iPads would often be the first thing that you saw. You even saw characters flaunting iPads - or devices designed to look like them - in movies and TV shows that were trying to appear cutting edge (or hip and cool). That isn't happening anymore, hasn't in awhile. But hey, you can believe that Kantar, IDC and Gartner are conspiring against Apple if it makes you feel better. But in the process, just know that retailers AND Apple have long confirmed the sales declines in iPads too. Where Apple used to have them front and center and almost as much attention as the iPhone, they are now barely mentioned in quarterly earnings calls and Apple doesn't even hold launch events for the media when new models are introduced anymore. So basically, all IDC is doing is providing numbers that confirm and provide context to Apple's own behavior.
  • Google Photos now streams photos, video to Apple TV via AirPlay

    @Herbivore and @Macxpress:

    Sigh. Why is Google doing this? Because unlike the Apple-only zealots - which are very few in number - the vast majority of tech users are multi-platform. So while Android phone sales are great, Android tablet and especially Chromebook sales are (comparably) horrible. So lots of people who take pictures and sync them to Google Photos using their Samsung, LG or Moto phones use their iPads and Macs to view them later. Just as most iPhone and iPad users actually own Windows PCs instead of Macs and use iTunes on that platform as well. The difference is that where Apple actually did try to use iTunes - as well as some of their hardware offerings such as the Mac Mini, MacBook Air and iPad - would cause Windows users to switch to their platform, Google doesn't care what platform you are on so long as you are using their software and services.. Please remember: Google created Android as a defensive measure against Microsoft, not as some grand scheme to compete against and bankrupt Apple. At the time, the iPhone did not even exist and even if Google knew that Apple was working on it, Google had no way of knowing that it would be anywhere near as massive. Apple had launched their various MSN-branded portals, was (at the time) huge in gaming with XBox and Direct X PC gaming, and gotten Yahoo to switch from Google to them on the backend. Microsoft also had a smartphone and feature phone platform, was using it to funnel search to what later became Bing, and was even using Microsoft Office applications to launch IE and perform searches. Had Google not come out with the Chrome+Android combination, Microsoft - at the time a much bigger and more powerful company that both Google AND Apple COMBINED - would have dominated search, eventually gotten much of Android's market share in mobile (though it is conceivable that Nokia and Symbian might have fared better at least for awhile) and Google would no longer exist. But apart from using Android to save itself from Microsoft, Google doesn't care what you use (so long as it isn't Windows Mobile). Even some Google executives use iPhones and a lot more of them use iPads. 

    Cloud storage is not necessary because flash storage is so cheap? Sure ... except those local storage flash media options can't travel with you all the time. And since flash media is clearly preferable, I suppose you don't use iCloud either? Or watch HD movies rented through iTunes without downloading them? 

    As far as Google not committing to anything without dropping the service in 12-18 months ... Google Photos has already been out 2 years. And considering that it's predecessor was a feature in Google+, that means going on 6 years. And Google Photos' true antecedent was Picasa, which has been in existence since 2004. Yes, Google does discontinue unsuccessful products. As does Apple ... remember iTunes Ping? But as Google Photos has over 200 million monthly active users, rest assured it isn't going anywhere. The Samsung Galaxy loyalists who also own iPads will be enough to keep Google Photos on iOS by themselves. If they had to buy the app on Android and then buy it again on iOS it  would at least make them think about it, but since it is free on both, why not?
  • Analyst floats idea of Apple buying Disney to make 'tech/media juggernaut'

    daven said:
    Naw... Apple should buy Google so they have a monopoly on the smartphone market again. /s
    I know you are being sarcastic but never at any time did Apple have a monopoly on the smartphone market. As recently as 2010, Blackberry sold more smartphones annually than Apple. So while Apple certainly deserves credit for inventing the smartphone, the consolidation of the smartphone market into iOS and Android, driving established players like Blackberry, Nokia and Microsoft off the scene entirely, was primarily due to the success of Android. Had it not been for Android, either Symbian or Microsoft Mobile would have succeeded. (Ironically, the same company, Nokia, represented the failure of both.)
  • Apple's Mac continues to buck worldwide PC shipment decline in Q1

    Rocwurst said:
    Typical of IDC to count Chrome Books (that run a web browser as an OS) and yet don't count Apple iPads (whose Average Selling Price is higher than that of PCs or ChromeBooks) in their numbers. If IDC and Gartner did include iPads in their PC numbers (as Canalys and Barrons do), Apple would jump to the number 1 PC position worldwide with around 14 million unit sales last quarter.
    And this is typical of Apple fans who only want a self-serving narrative with no regard to actual technology or consistency.

    1. Why do Surface Books count as PCs while iPads do not? Because Surface Books run Windows 10 (or Windows 8) which is a PC OS. The iPad uses iOS which is a mobile OS. Making the Surface Book a PC device in a different form factor but the iPad a mobile device. Essentially Surface Book to Dell laptop = iPad to iPhone. The iPad and the iPhone both run iOS. Not only that, all iPads can now place and receive telephone calls, and some iPads have LTE! So is the iPad a phone? No. It is a mobile device in a different form factor. The same with the Surface Book. Running a PC OS makes it a PC. 

    2. Chrome OS versus iPad: more of the same. First off, even if Chrome Books run a web browser as an OS, it is still a PC OS. For goodness sakes, most Chromebooks don't even have touchscreens. Also, Chrome desktop devices exist, as do dongles like the Chromebit. By contrast, no Chrome OS phones or tablets exist. Chrome OS is not a mobile operating system but rather a PC operating system designed for web and cloud applications. Chrome OS devices generally run on 2 GB of RAM and lower end Intel processors? So did most Windows Vista laptops and desktops ... as well as Macs sold around the same time period. (Even today, a Mac Mini has RAM/CPU similar to higher end Chrome Books, with the difference being Intel i5 for a good Acer or Asus Chromebook versus an i7 for a Mac Mini ...both have 4 GB of RAM.) Also, Android only requires 512 MB of RAM and a dual core Qualcomm 200 SOC (or an even cheaper SOC from MediaTek) and - unlike Chrome OS which has always supported it - only recently provided support for full blown multi-tasking, and even now only supports 2 windows. Mobile OS for mobile devices. Finally, with Chrome OS, the operating system is not a web browser. Google would like you to believe that. Or at least they DID want you to believe that in the past, until the devices' failure in the marketplace forced them to offer offline support and Android apps (which include but are not limited to other web browsers). "Chrome OS" is merely marketing, as the OS for Chrome OS devices is actually Debian Linux - similar to Ubuntu - with desktop environments such as GNOME, KDE, MATE (or soon to be dead Unity) replaced with Google's desktop environment. Granted originally that desktop environment was limited to the Chrome browser as well as Chrome extensions and plugins - called "apps" - that run on top of the Chrome browser, but now with Android apps even that no longer exists. But it was always possible and relatively easy to convert "Chrome OS" to full blown Debian or Ubuntu and switch back and forth between the Chrome OS desktop environment and a more mainstream Linux desktop like GNOME - though most Chrome OS users who do this choose LXDE or another lightweight desktop due to most Chromebooks having 2-4 GB of RAM and an underpowered CPU ... virtually no one uses Unity, even those who have touchscreen and 2 in 1 Chromebooks that Unity is designed around because Unity is a resource hog - and the Chrome OS desktop environment. But the main thing is that Chrome OS devices are laptops, not mobile devices. Most of them don't even have USB type mobile chargers ... instead they use the same power cables - and batteries - that low end laptops do. In other words, a Chromebook - especially one with decent specs that has been converted to full Ubuntu - is more akin to a MacBook Air than an iPhone. 

    In other words, there is more to stuff like this than merely cost ... and the desire of Apple fans to inflate their market positions. There are real issues like technology, operating systems and the use cases for which the product is designed. So bottom line: if Apple wants iPads to be counted as PCs by analysts, they need to put macOS on them. No point in claiming that macOS can't run on iPads. Modern iPads are more powerful - indeed much more powerful - than MacBook Air and Mac Mini devices. But Apple won't put macOS on the iPad Pro to compete directly against Surface Book (and obviously Dell, HP and Lenovo laptops) because it would upset their philosophy and business strategy. That and the reality that it would not change a whole lot. The iPad Pro would still cost more than a great many PCs - even very good machines aimed at enterprise and professionals - and even more so if you include a keyboard and mouse. And it would still lack monitor support (modern laptops can support up to 4 monitors and have VGA, DVI, HDMI and Thunderbolt-compatible ports ... or they simply have multiple HDMI or mini-HDMI ports) as well as USB 3.0 or USB Type C ports, even if some peripherals can theoretically be attached to the lightning port. (Before you claim that such things aren't needed in the first place, that argument won't be sustainable until MacBooks have the same lack of support for monitors and peripherals that iPads do.) So while an iPad running macOS would not exactly sell to those wishing to use it as a PC - save those who are thoroughly uninformed about its limitations - at least then Apple fans would be able to be able to claim to be the top PC maker. Or something, whatever it is worth. 
  • Apple's Mac continues to buck worldwide PC shipment decline in Q1

    This analysis is pretty good. Lenovo, HP and Dell target:

    professionals who buy laptops for home/business use
    people with serious educational needs i.e. STEM majors

    Asus and Acer focus on cheaper devices. However:

    "PC vendors will need to place more emphasis on enterprise sales as consumer demand dries up." simply is not going to happen. Tablets and smartphones do not replace PCs for a lot of (indeed most) tasks, and there is also no evidence of consumer sales migrating to macOS. Further, "Overall PC shipments dipped 2.4 percent year over year, continuing a negative sales trend that has been in effect for more than five years" is true, the 2.4 percent decline is very small, another indication that the free fall that began due to the iPhone and iPad has stabilized. So, no real change here. The migration of people from Windows to Mac as a result of the halo effect of the iPhone/iPad - as well as the horrible Windows 8 - ended several years ago, as Mac sales went up from 1 million a quarter to 4-5.5 million a quarter but has not exceeded that. And the people who only bought computers for entertainment/web surfing purposes have already largely swapped out for mobile devices, although with the downward momentum of iPad and tablet sales and the lack of large increase in smartphone sales, all evidence points to the trend of folks who were never seriously using PCs in the first place giving them up for mobile devices has also largely tapered off, as the folks who were going to do so have had since 2008 - and especially since 2010 and the iPad - to make the switch.