liquidmark

rogifan_old said:

How in the world would IDC know what iPP sales were? They're just pulling a number out of their ass to get headlines. 

http://www.statista.com/statistics/269915/global-apple-ipad-sales-since-q3-2010/
http://9to5mac.com/2016/01/26/apple-earnings-fy16-q1/
http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/21/mini-takes-lead-in-ipad-sales-as-ipad-pro-jumps-in-at-12-percent-survey-data-says

Do the math.

danvm said:

liquidmark said:

OS X is one product competing in an entire industry. If you compare apple unit sales 1 to 1 against any single company, then you'll see that Apple is doing very well.

Now, the surface is one product being compared to another product. If you compare the surface to the iPad 1 to 1, the surface looks like a failure. Keep in mind that people lambasted the Apple Watch as a failure, and people just shrugged and accepted that assessment, yet it has better adoption than the surface.

the iPad on its launch sold over 300,000 units on the first day and took less than a month to sell 1 million units. The surface's best quarter to date, after years on the market, has been 1 million units sold.

The post I answered mention "As for Surface and the iPad Pro, I'm all for letting the numbers describe the success of each. iPad sales for the previous quarter will be known Tuesday after the stock markets close. 

So in his POV, numbers define success.  I don't necessarily agree with that.  If that's the case, then OS X is a failure, since Windows 10 is for far ahead.  And I can use the same logic with MS Office over iWorks or iPhone over Windows Phone. 

There are many examples of excellent devices and applications that are a failure in sales.  IMO, success doesn't means quality, and that applies to Apple and MS devices and applications.  For me OS X, even with it's low marketshare, is an excellent OS, same as Windows 10.  Surface Pro are great devices, even though they sell far less than iPads, which is a great device.  

The numbers for Mac sales are nice tho. Like I said, you have to do a 1-to-1 comparison of sales instead of comparing one company to the entire combined market. If you do the latter then the one company will always look bad. Like I said, the numbers on the surface line are bad when you compare it to the numbers of the iPad line. No one is comparing the surface to the entire tablet market, it is being compared to another product. The surface is basically Zune 2.0 in terms of its market performance.

think about it. With the zune, we had people, mostly Apple haters and Microsoft fanboys, championing the device and claiming that it will destroy the iPod because it has X feature, Y advantage or Whatever. However, only a few people actually bought it. If the boasters actually bought it, it would have been successful, but seriously, who's going to do that? no, it's much easier to talk and claim victory. The surface is suffering from the same thing, most of the people championing it, just want to see Apple destroyed by Microsoft. That's not enough to actually put one's money where one's mouth is. The farthest they'll go is to try and convince other people to buy the surface.

A buddy of mine told a coworker of his about my getting an iPad pro and his words were "why didn't he just get a surface?". Meanwhile he doesn't have a tablet at all himself. He just wants *me*, a total stranger, to not buy Apple. Nevermind that I'm well aware of the surface, have used the surface and still don't want the surface. If I make a purchase that he doesn't agree with, then I must not be an informed consumer, in his mind. Meanwhile, no less than four people that I know chose to buy a pro after just watching me use mine. I didn't ask them to buy one and in a couple cases basically said "I don't know if you actually need it". But they bought theirs and are satisfied with their purchases. That's the difference.

danvm said:

rogifan_old said:

Check out the forums on windowscentral.com. Both Surface Pro 4 and Surface Book are mired with issues. 

I suggest you go to Apple forums, and you'll see the long list of problems users have with Apple devices.

So far, the list of problems on the iPad are a trickle compared to the torrent of complaints concerning the surface line. Especially when you consider that the iPad has an install base of over 200 million units.

danvm said:

tmay said:

It is especially funny considering that Apple didn't pay LA Unified to use their product. Even If Surface wasn't the reason for the failure during the game, MS and the NFL were unprepared for a data link failure, and both should suffer the consequences, just as Apple has with major failures during past Keynotes. One would think that there would at least be a fallback plan to a local server as an equalizer for both teams, but that didn't happen evidently. Egg meet face.

I don't know if you were watching the game, but they say the went to "hardwire" to keep going, so they had a plan B that worked.  

Since OS X is miles behind Windows, does that means that it's a failure? 

From what I know, the Surface is a mobile device. I haven't seen MS denying that.  The iPad has better characteristics for some things, but it fails in others where the Surface shines.  The same can be said if we compare it to the Macbook.

OS X is one product competing in an entire industry. If you compare apple unit sales 1 to 1 against any single company, then you'll see that Apple is doing very well.

Now, the surface is one product being compared to another product. If you compare the surface to the iPad 1 to 1, the surface looks like a failure. Keep in mind that people lambasted the Apple Watch as a failure, and people just shrugged and accepted that assessment, yet it has better adoption than the surface.

the iPad on its launch sold over 300,000 units on the first day and took less than a month to sell 1 million units. The surface's best quarter to date, after years on the market, has been 1 million units sold.