This article presents a very different set of numbers for 2012 tablet ownership. The data set presented, shows the iPad with 52% in 2012, versus 81% in 2011. Granted, 21% goes to the Kindle Fire. Now this is just a survey. I can't find my last set of numbers, but given iPad sales numbers, the entire Android market would appear to be inflated in this study.http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/10/study-shows-25-of-ame...
I'd stake my entire net worth that those numbers are bogus.We know that the iPad has continued to experience huge sales growth rates. So for Android to make such a huge gain in market share, their growth rates would have to be astronomical. I just don't buy it.Also, what are all these people doing with their Android tablets?? Every single study I've seen looking at mobile usage shows iPad completely dominating...like 90 percent-ish.
I tend to agree. The Kindle Fire has drawn buyers for sure, but it's not even on the same planet as the iPad.Here's a review, and one of my biggest beefs with the Android platform." would be remiss not to re-emphasize the raw deal that Amazon's early adopters are getting here: first-gen Kindle Fire owners will not be receiving any of these software enhancements, despite having hardware that should be capable of running it. This doesn't exactly make it unique in the Android ecosystem, which is notoriously slow to move to newer versions of the OS, but Amazon is a large operation with a small product line, and since most of its products are Wi-Fi only, it rarely has to deal with the sort of the carrier-induced silliness which so delays Android updates for many handsets. We don't know how future generations of Kindle Fires will be handled, but this is a poor precedent to set for people planning to drop $500 on the 8.9" 4G model when it becomes available.If you're just looking for a tablet and you don't much care about tight Amazon integration, even the Kindle Fire's price can't quite redeem it. It's still tied to Amazon's app store, which has a decent complement of popular Android games but is much smaller than the official Google Play store. Its Web browser is still slow compared to Chrome on the Nexus 7 despite their comparable Sunspider scores. Scrolling and loading apps is still too slow and jerky. We said that last year's Kindle Fire was best thought of as an e-reader that can do some extra stuff; a slight bump in specifications and a fresh coat of paint haven't done much to change that impression."http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/10/old-dog-new-tricks-th...
"Also, what are all these people doing with their Android tablets??"I'd bet content consumption, browsing, communication, games...usual stuff.B
There are a lot of majorly conflicting numbers out there and it's not entirely clear which are accurate. Clearly Cook thinks the iPad has a 68% market share Pew just cranked out some numbers that say 52% and someone else claims Android has already passed the iPad up. What I don't see is how any of these people define what a tablet is. That sort of detail might explain some of the crazy huge differences away.Gartner's numbers in August suggest iPad is at 61% http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57500252/worldwide-ma...Pew Groups numbers suggest 52% http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/device_ownershipHas the Kindle Fire and Google Nexus sold that well in te last 2 months?
"Also, what are all these people doing with their Android tablets??"I'd bet content consumption, browsing, communication, games...usual stuff.Thing is, absolutely zero of the many studies I have seen show mobile browsing for Android to be much above 10%. So either you're wrong, or there's not nearly as many Android tablets in use as some of the marketshare studies would have you believe.Or all the studies on mobile internet usage are wrong.
Has the Kindle Fire and Google Nexus sold that well in te last 2 months?No.
I'd bet content consumption, browsing, communication, games...usual stuff. (emphasis added)Either they aren't browsing, or there aren't very many of them browsing.According to this article: http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/27/apple-ipad-dominat...Over 98% of all tablet-based web surfing is done from iPads.I also note that Amazon has never released sales figures for the Kindle Fire (or any other Kindle device). Since most are sold directly by Amazon, it's not clear to me how any analyst can make an informed estimate of Kindle Fire sales.
Since most are sold directly by Amazon, it's not clear to me how any analyst can make an informed estimate of Kindle Fire sales.It would definitely be helpful if these guys gave some indication of how they get their sales numbers. if the 52% number is correct that means 2-3 kindles or Nexus 7s were sold for every iPad during the previous quarter which seems to defy logic. It's certainly possible I suppose.What we do have pretty solid evidence of through third parties is prevalence of iOS surfing versus other platforms.Curiously, NetMarketshare's numbers seem to corroborate the claim that Android use is up recently but nowhere near equal to iOS use. http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpri...Considering the number of new Android products released in the past 3 months (Galaxy S3, Galaxy Nexus 7, Etc..) it's not too surprising.For what it's worth Wikipedia links mulitple web market share sources and while they are all over the place, all of them show iOS with 2-3 times the web traffic as Android.
I have absolutely no numbers to confirm this, but the fact that browsing numbers are so high for the iPad and not for other tablets doesn't really surprise me.The iPad was built for browsing. It also does other things well, but the size was a concession to the need for "full page" use for visiting websites. The idea of "apps" came later, and many companies have custom designed their content to fit other formats, but for browsing, it's best on a full size tablet.The Nook, I would presume, is bought by people with a special connection to Barnes & Noble, i.e. people who want to carry a lot of books around with them. Internet browsing? Maybe not so much.I have an old style Kindle, but if I didn't I would have been tempted to get a Fire, since it can be both a reader and a browser. But the browsing experience is just OK, while other functions are better, and I would probably be using it for book reading mostly. (I've only used the Fire for an hour or two and it was shortly after launch, so I may be all wet.)And the Galaxy tablets are new, they are small, and the uptake on them doesn't happen on the first day of the quarter, so browsing usage is a trailing indicator.I suspect there is a reason Jobs dissed the "small form factor", and that's because he didn't envision apps, and because he thought "browsing" would be the main event, followed by videos, songs, pictures, and whatever else. Of course the market seems to be asking for "smaller", so we'll see if people get used to it.(I find myself avoid apps and going straight to media websites instead: I get the NYT via browser, not their app; likewise many other publications - but on a smaller form factor I might not use it that way, dunno.)
The iPad was built for browsing. It also does other things well, but the size was a concession to the need for "full page" use for visiting websites. The idea of "apps" came later, and many companies have custom designed their content to fit other formats, but for browsing, it's best on a full size tablet.I think you are confusing the iPad and the iPhone. The iPhone initially didn't allow other apps than the ones built in. By the time the iPad came out, apps were in the hundreds of thousands.Mark
I suspect there is a reason Jobs dissed the "small form factor", and that's because he didn't envision appsJobs didn't envision apps?? He and his team invented them!!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo9cKe_Fch8
I think you are confusing the iPad and the iPhone. Yes, I got that wrong. For the first year the iPhone didn't allow outside apps, then Jobs relented and the floodgates opened, which is what gave the iPad the treasure trove of already existing apps.Jobs didn't envision apps?? He and his team invented them!!I meant from outside vendors, which Jobs was loudly against (control!) until some of his lieutenants showed how the apps could be vetted (control!) and sold through the app store, taking a piece of the action just like iTunes with music.
One thing about Jobs was that he could be strongly against something one day, but change his mind the next day. Ralph Waldo Emerson "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." and far too many CEO. And though seeming dictatorial, Jobs was willing to have people around him that would question his views. As long as those people were able to do so in a coherent way.
until some of his lieutenants showed how the apps could be vetted …I've never heard that story before. Do you have a source for that?One thing I have heard is that 3rd-party apps were part of the original plan, but the development tools just weren't ready at launch.Given the short period of time between the original iPhone launch and the app store launch (less than a year, as I recall), that story makes sense.
I've never heard that story before. Do you have a source for that?One thing I have heard is that 3rd-party apps were part of the original plan, but the development tools just weren't ready at launch.Given the short period of time between the original iPhone launch and the app store launch (less than a year, as I recall), that story makes sense.Steve Jobs: Walter Issacson p501The apps phenomenon began with the iPhone. When it first came out in early 2007, there were no apps you could buy from outside developers, and Jobs initially resisted allowing them. He didn't want outsiders to create applications for the iPhone that could mess it up, infect it with viruses, or pollute its integrity.Board member Art Levinson was among those pushing to allow iPhone apps. "I called him a half dozen times to lobby for the potential of the apps," he recalled. If Apple didn't allow them, indeed encourage them, another smartphone maker would, giving itself a competitive advantage. Apple's marketing chief Phil Schiller agreed. "I couldn't imagine that we would create something as powerful as the iPhone and not empower developers to make lots of apps," he recalled. "I knew customers would love them." From the outside, the venture capitalist John Doerr argued that permitting apps would spawn a profusion of new entrepreneurs who would create new services.Jobs at first quashed the discussion, partly because he felt his team did not have the bandwidth to figure out all of the complexities that would be involved in policing third party app developers. He wanted focus. "So he didn't want to talk about it," said Schiller. But as soon as the iPhone was launched, he was willing to hear the debate. "Every time the conversation happened, Steve seemed a little more open," said Levinson. There were freewheeling discussions at four board meetings.Jobs soon figured out that there was a way to have the best of both worlds. He would permit outsiders to write apps, but they would have to meet strict standards, be tested and approved by Apple, and be sold only through the iTunes Store...There was no reason for board members to make "a half dozen calls" nor to discuss it at "four board meetings" if Jobs immediately thought it was a good idea but merely wanted "focus". He could have simply said "Good idea. Right now we finish the design and get it out the door, then we open the app store." Instead it took a year's worth of prodding and arguing, and a demonstration of how it could be implemented to fulfill Steve's criteria before it was done.This plays perfectly into the "control" that Jobs so famously coveted, wanting to take charge of the user experience from end to end. The "genius", to use an overused word, was the ability to change his mind and allow outside development, even as he got control of the process in a way that no computer platform ever had before.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |