Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Android Catching Up In the Tablet Market

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the making-a-big-dent dept.

Android 191

TyFoN writes "Year to year, the iPad market share is down from 94.3 percent to 61.3 percent while Android is up about the same, going from 2.9 percent to 30.1 percent in the same period. 'Some 4.6 million Android-based tablets shipped in this year's second quarter as compared with just around 100,000 in the year-ago quarter, according to Strategy Analytics. ...the tablet OS market as a whole grew a whopping 331 percent in the last year and Apple grew right along with it in terms of unit shipments. Tablet makers shipped 3.5 million in the second quarter of 2010, with Apple easily leading the charge with 3.2 million iPads shipped. The number of units shipped exploded to 15.1 million in this past quarter— Apple was a bit behind the pace of that growth, but still managed to ship an impressive 9.3 million iOS-based tablets. Microsoft, meanwhile, had the third largest share of the global tablet OS market at 4.6 percent, with about 700,000 Windows 7-based tablets shipped in the recent quarter.'"

cancel ×

191 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Shipping share vs. market share (4, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847208)

The reported numbers are all shipping share [daringfireball.net] , not market share. The number of Android tablets being sold is pretty dramatically less....

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847240)

This is how Samsung is able to push out such huge numbers for the Galaxy Tab, etc, because they are basically artificially inflating their numbers.

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (2)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847256)

It may be less, but I doubt it's "dramatically" less. Tablet makers aren't feverishly pushing them out just to lose all their money as they rot on the shelves.

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (0)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847336)

Oh really? [techcrunch.com]

Samsung didn’t give any figures, but when a company describes sales of a flagship product as “quite small,” you better believe those sales are microscopic.

As you heard, our sell-in was quite aggressive and this first quarterly result was quite, you know, fourth-quarter unit [figure] was around two million. Then, in terms of sell-out, we also believe it was quite small. We believe, as the introduction of new device, it was required to have consumers invest in the device. So therefore, even though sell-out wasn’t as fast as we expected, we still believe sell-out was quite OK.

This was back when people were touting the "2 million Galaxy Tabs" sold when in fact that was just the shipped figure and then Samsung is saying the sales were "quite small". Yes, that would lead very much to believe that it is "dramatically less". Otherwise, if the sales were so great why don't they quote the actual sales numbers rather than the shipped numbers? Businesses do this to hide the fact that actual sales suck.

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (5, Informative)

LinksAwakener (1081617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847424)

Oh really? [techcrunch.com]

Samsung didn’t give any figures, but when a company describes sales of a flagship product as “quite small,” you better believe those sales are microscopic.

As you heard, our sell-in was quite aggressive and this first quarterly result was quite, you know, fourth-quarter unit [figure] was around two million. Then, in terms of sell-out, we also believe it was quite small. We believe, as the introduction of new device, it was required to have consumers invest in the device. So therefore, even though sell-out wasn’t as fast as we expected, we still believe sell-out was quite OK.

This was back when people were touting the "2 million Galaxy Tabs" sold when in fact that was just the shipped figure and then Samsung is saying the sales were "quite small". Yes, that would lead very much to believe that it is "dramatically less". Otherwise, if the sales were so great why don't they quote the actual sales numbers rather than the shipped numbers? Businesses do this to hide the fact that actual sales suck.

This would be true, except that later that day (or perhaps the next day) a redaction was submitted, saying he was misunderstood. What he really said was "quite smooth" [businessinsider.com] .

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (1)

LinksAwakener (1081617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847448)

Ignore my ignorance. My apologies, Lunix, for jumping the gun on my reply!

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (1)

OS2toMAC (1327679) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848390)

A flat 10 sales is "quite smooth". Still means nothing.

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36848358)

The Nook Color seems to be selling well.

Read article (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847548)

It may be less, but I doubt it's "dramatically" less.

Stated "shipping share" is an order of magnitude more than the number sold - read the article, it uses Google's own activation numbers and device counts to arrive at that position.

Now granted perhaps a lot of Android tablet owners are collecting them for posterity and never removing them from the box. But somehow I do not think that is the case.

Tablet makers aren't feverishly pushing them out just to lose all their money as they rot on the shelves.

That certainly is not what they HOPE to do. But the market can have other ideas.

Blackberry is shipping a lot of Playbooks but those aren't selling either. Obviously they did not put them out to "rot on shelves" either.

Re:Read article (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36847752)

What proportion of users do you think bother "activating" their tablets?

They work out of the box, you know...

They activate out of the box (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847906)

What proportion of users do you think bother "activating" their tablets?

Every one that turns on one, because they contact Google servers to check for updates and other things. Just what did you think "activation" meant in the context of tablets anyway?

Re:Read article (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848238)

And besides only tablets with the "with Google" mark and where the tablet maker has an agreement with Google get counted in their activation numbers, all of the nook color units for instance are not counted.

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (2)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847588)

Three words: Eee Pad Transformer. It would be interesting to see its share of the Android tab market, but you know that with the exception of maybe a few days of delay, shipping share equaled sales share for a few months. It was not until the past few weeks that Transformer backordering and price scalping ended.

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848926)

It may be less, but I doubt it's "dramatically" less. Tablet makers aren't feverishly pushing them out just to lose all their money as they rot on the shelves.

Actually, yes, they are.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/mobile-news/samsung-comes-clean-galaxy-tab-numbers-not-consumer-sales/775 [zdnet.com]

Apparently the number of Tabs sold to consumers is far less (10-20%?) of those shipped so far (Samsung won't comment on that number, of course, because it's a lot less than they hoped). Compared to the iPad (which is still hard to keep in stock at all) that's pretty dramatic.

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (1)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847278)


Yep. Remember how RIM was always boasting that 500K Playbooks were shipped then had to slash their actual sales projections by something like 2/3?

I could ship 20,000,000 cases of Mulched Puppy. That doesn't mean anyone is actually buying it.

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36847472)

I would!

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (1)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847524)


To eat whilst using your Playbook... :)

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36847668)

Pfft, no, I wouldn't get one of THOSE.

To munch on while using my iPad... Duh.

What about the cheapo crap tablets? (1)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847780)

The ones sold by Walwart, ASDA etc but the truckload. The ones priced at less than $150/£100.

IMHO, the Tablet/fondleslab market should be segmented.
At the top, things like the Playbook, Galaxy Tab and iPad.
etc etc.
Then we might get some more realistic figures especially if the measurements were done by units sold rather than shipped.

If the Galaxy Tab was a bit cheaper I'd buy one.

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36848182)

Exactly! I could build a brightly painted tin can and call it space tourism, but at 200000$ for a 5 minute glimpse out of a 6 inch porthole, I doubt anyone's buying that either!

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847310)

Based on...? His wild speculation on how get a number of android tablets? Is ignornig the shipping is based on demand?

That was a terrbile article.

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (0)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847384)

How about Samsung's own statements about the Galaxy S just a couple of months ago [techcrunch.com] :

As you heard, our sell-in was quite aggressive and this first quarterly result was quite, you know, fourth-quarter unit [figure] was around two million. Then, in terms of sell-out, we also believe it was quite small. We believe, as the introduction of new device, it was required to have consumers invest in the device. So therefore, even though sell-out wasn’t as fast as we expected, we still believe sell-out was quite OK.

"Sell-out" means actual sales to consumers. So why should anyone believe that Samsung or any of these other tablet markers are doing anything different now than Samsung was back in January when it was trying to inflate their "quite small" sales by using the shipped figures instead? Oh right, Motorola and RIM also had to have their actual sales figures dropped as well after pulling the same tactic.

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847608)

As someone linked above, that's a famous misquote. "Quite small" was never said. The REAL quote is, "quite smooth".

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (1)

s73v3r (963317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847778)

You mean the same guy above who retracted his statement?

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36847796)

oh quite smooth, that definitely means they sold a lot...

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (4, Informative)

AdmiralXyz (1378985) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847412)

Did you actually read said terrible article?

As for Android tablets, Robert Synnott suggested on Twitter a way to approximate actual tablets sold. First, five days ago Google CEO Larry Page announced that Android was in use on 135 million total devices. Second, Google’s Android developer site publishes a regularly-updated breakdown of the Android OS version numbers in active use. For the 14-day period ending July 5, 0.9 percent of Android devices were using Android 3.0 or 3.1 — a.k.a. Honeycomb, the versions of Android specifically for — and only for — tablets.

Round that up to an even 1 percent to be generous, multiply by 135 million devices, and you get 1.35 million tablets.

So it looks like Apple has sold, to customers, over 21 times more iPads than all Honeycomb Android tablets combined.

These are Google's own numbers here suggesting that the iPad is still eating their lunch.

Does this include the Nook? (4, Interesting)

edremy (36408) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847530)

IIRC, the Nook doesn't run Honeycomb. My bet is that the vast majority of Android tablets now out there are Nooks, of which only a few have been hacked to be stock Android tablets. The most recent sales figures I can find for the nook imply that 3M were sold as of last March, so the sales of that one tablet dwarf the numbers estimated above

Re:Does this include the Nook? (2)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847948)

Not to mention that many android tablets, the early ones, aren't running Honeycomb either. I have a Viewsonic G Tablet and it's running 2.2 and probably won't be running Honeycomb for a while. One million Honeycomb tablets isn't that bad, since HC didn't come out *that* long ago.

Re:Does this include the Nook? (1)

CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848586)

Not to mention that many android tablets, the early ones, aren't running Honeycomb either.

And you are telling us that those abismal failures suddenly started to sell well, many months after they came out?

Re:Does this include the Nook? (1)

arehm (794243) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848920)

Your gTablet could be running HC. There are many quite usable ports of HC. And with the progress on the .36 kernels over the past week the possibility of a fully functioning HC gTablet happening is high.

Re:Does this include the Nook? (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848068)

It probably doesn't- because B&N wasn't claiming it to be a tablet but purely an e-reader until they pushed the Froyo based update wherein they officially expanded the abilities on the out-of-box machines. The biggest problem of the tablet sales is that they went with Honeycomb with most of them instead of doing a variant like Cyanogenmod's done for devices like the NC and the G-Tablet. Gingerbread or Froyo could've already mostly handled a tablet without the stuff that they did with Honeycomb- even though what they did there is a major jump all the same. Now, having said this...if the prices on the devices were a little more compelling and Honeycomb a bit more robust...be a differing story on the uptake. Not everyone likes/wants Apple's stuff- and there's quite a few that would like to see an Android tablet. If they'd not stubbed their toes on this, we'd really not be having this conversation.

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (2)

robmv (855035) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847540)

And? in my country the big promoted table for one of the biggest Telco, and the one with the best 3G (not perfect 3G only the best in comparison) is selling a tablet running 2.2 and that is the Galaxy Tab, the only Tablet being sold directly here by a telco. So it is ok to ignore 2.2 Tablets just because 3.0 was designed for tablets?

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36847864)

Samsungs first gen tab is running android 2.x. So does the htc flyer.

Also consider that cheaper tablets made by non major players (such as archos) are running 2.x. Before discarding them bare in mind that some of these have pretty good specs such as dual core cpus.

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (5, Insightful)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848248)

Ah...but you're missing out on quite a few things there...

~1.35 Million HC Tablets checked in.
3+ million Nooks.
How many tablets running Froyo or Gingerbread because the vendors are "iffy" right at the moment with HC and waiting until ICS?

Quite simply, there's quite a few more Android tablets out there than your estimate. How many? Not sure- trying to find the numbers on those from that third line I gave you. It's a lot- but you can't just go off of Honeycomb activations to see what the space looks like. Not really.

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847538)

Shipping isn't always based on demand especially when talking about initial product offerings. Sometimes they are meeting contractual obligations. The retailers are always taking a gamble on these new products. They could be buying a lot of inventory that won't move. For example the original Zune supply far exceeded demand as retailers bought what they thought they needed for the holiday 2006 season. The problem was that it didn't sell very well and retailers were forced to dramatically cut prices to get rid of inventory of the first generation when the second generation came out. Retailers hopefully bought fewer of the second generation.

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36848122)

I don't think it's fair to characterize it as wild speculation. He uses Google's own numbers to get that figure

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (1)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848886)

Shipments are done based off expectations, not demand. Restocking is based on demand, but even then you may have large chains receive stock they did not request. Large supply chains have deals in place where should the hardware not sell, they will just return it, so other than space and time, they don't loose much money by accepting to carry products that don't sell.

If non-iOS tablets were selling so well, manufacturers would be more willing to just state how many they have actually sold and stop avoiding the question every time it comes up.

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36847662)

To be fair I'm having problems finding a shop that has a galaxy tab on stock to play with, but not problems finding an ipad. Actually I never heard of anyone that couldn't buy one because they were out of stock. Considering that Darring Fireball is a registered apple evangelist I would take his reasoning with a grain of salt regardless if it appears valid or not.

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847736)

Just to summarize some of the numbers from the Daring Fireball link for those who don't feel like reading through all of it, John Gruber borrowed Robert Synnott's method, which uses Google's regularly updated statistics on Android OS versions in active use, then applies them to the 135M activations of Android devices that Larry Page mentioned about a week ago on Twitter. According to Google's own statistics, only 0.9% of Android devices are running 3.0 or 3.1, which are tablet-specific. Gruber then works off of the assumption that 2.x tablet sales were negligible (and by all accounts, they were), but rounds the 0.9% up to an even 1%, which means that there are roughly 1.35M Android tablets being used. In contrast, Apple reports actual units sold rather than shipped in its financial reports, and it's sold 28.73M through the end of June.

One thing Gruber and Synnott didn't account for is the difference between sales and use. Since Google's active use numbers only reflect those devices that are still being used, any devices which were sold but have been lying idle would not be counted. So, it's possible that people who buy 2+ devices but only use one may be deflating the 1.35M number. Even so, I can't imagine them making up a large portion of the market already, given that Android tablets haven't been on the market for very long. And if they do make up a large part of the market because people are buying multiple Android tablets, then that makes a negative statement on the quality of the products in the Android tablet market; having customers that are willing to pay hundreds of dollars within the first year of ownership to abandon your first generation product for a different first generation product is never a good thing.

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (1)

CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848840)

One thing Gruber and Synnott didn't account for is the difference between sales and use. Since Google's active use numbers only reflect those devices that are still being used, any devices which were sold but have been lying idle would not be counted. So, it's possible that people who buy 2+ devices but only use one may be deflating the 1.35M number.

Sure. It's also possible that people bought several Android tablets, found them all lacking, and then bought an iPad - clearly Android tablets are outselling iPads.

Re:Shipping share vs. market share (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848480)

And even then, the exact same survey company said Android had 22% tablet market share in the Christmas quarter [bloomberg.com] . So it went from 2% to 22% from calendar Q2 to Q4 last year, then 22% to 30% from last Q4 to this Q2. Sure looks like even their over-inflated, Android-biased survey shows Android tablets asymptotically approaching about 35% of the market someday. Their growth curve-- and it's the most optimistic one of all the Android tablet research out there-- doesn't look good for Android taking a majority of the market any time soon.

Wow (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847218)

I didn't even know there WAS a Windows 7 tablet. I was at Best Buy a couple weeks ago and didn't even see one. Where are they selling these things?

Re:Wow (1)

obergfellja (947995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847250)

good question. if someone finds out, let me know, I'll be at the gas station filling up my 5 gallon bucket for ...umm.. research... yeah research.

Re:Wow (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847500)

Amazon at least...
Google is your friend

Re:Wow (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848094)

Heh... Nothing like a little bit of extreme temperature analysis, eh?

Re:Wow (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847512)

any x86 tablet. they got their uses, though I don't know if industry etc machines are counted into these statistics, exopc's has been out for a while too. they tend to cost significantly more than discount android tablets though.

what should be remembered with these analyst stats is that they're just published to drum up visitors and customers to the analyst in question - what they've probably done is have gone through some quarterly results for q2 from each of these companies for some shipped unit figures, which is less than ideal, then they spin a dramatic spin on it, like android gaining up marketshare dramatically(but ipad was still selling more). you know who base their business on these and choose target platforms based on these figures? idiots.

Re:Wow (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848120)

Heh... I would want the hardware and not the OS. Make for a decent target for Linux/MeeGo. The OS would just be a waste as it'd never get used. :-D

Re:Wow (1)

CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848868)

any x86 tablet. they got their uses, though I don't know if industry etc machines are counted into these statistics, exopc's has been out for a while too. they tend to cost significantly more than discount android tablets though.

First people complain when somebody counts iPads towards "computer" sales, then they turn around and count what Microsoft claims are full PCs as "tablets"?

Re:Wow (2)

adonoman (624929) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848208)

There are lots of them - and have been for good long time. I have one of these [cnet.com] , that I got when a local hospital was selling off the old generation of computers and upgrading to these. [motioncomputing.com] These things are freaking amazing - usable in full sunlgiht, nearly indestructible, great battery life (plus hot-swappable batteries), but they do cost $2000+, which is why you never see them, except in hospitals or government contracted job-sites, or on sci-fi tv shows. [tabletpcreview.com]

Fujitsu [shopfujitsu.com] , Acer [cnet.com] , HP [hp.com] , Dell [dell.com] , or Lenovo [trustedreviews.com] all have Windows tablet offerings. They just tend to be full-fledged computers, rather than toys, and so carry a higher price. Windows 7 with gestures / flicks works quite well as a tablet OS, but it is helpful to have the active digitizer with stylus, regardless of whether you also have a iPad style touchscreen.

Re:Wow (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848268)

My daughter has one. It's one of those Asus netbooks with a reversible touch screen where you can turn it around and push it flat and make it into a rather thick, heavy tablet. Comes with Windows 7 Dust Bowl Edition, (or whatever they call the lowest level) which does not have touch support, so the first thing you have to do is upgrade the OS. We upgraded to Windows 7 Pro being the lowest level that's actually useful on a network.

So, what she's found is that Windows 7 has almost no touch screen support, most of what they call "support" actually being existing Accessibility tools that have been rebranded as "tablet support". So you can call up a screen keyboard but it doesn't come up automatically when you need to enter text and it comes up in a random place on the screen, usually covering where you're trying to work. There is a 1990's era handwriting recognition toy, sorry, tool but it has the same problems as the virtual keyboard, with the added feature of accuracy worse than products available 20 years ago. (Graffiti, anyone?)

Mouse support is... interesting. Rather than change the paradigm to make Windows touch friendly, Microsoft has layered on a set of gestures that emulate the actions of a 2 button mouse. The advantage of this approach is that they don't have to change the GUI in any basic way, but it makes navigating rather cabalistic. For instance, to rename a file requires that you do the counter-clockwise circle gesture to emulate a right mouse click so you can choose "rename" from the popup menu. (And then you have to call up the on-screen keyboard and move it somewhere where it doesn't cover the text you're trying to enter.)

And on and on.

So in general, one could state in a court of law that "Windows 7 has touch support", but it's so aggravating and counter-intuitive to use that daughter finally gave up and uses the device as a standard netbook now. She will occasionally use the touch screen with drawing programs that support it (which was the original reason for purchase) but otherwise always uses keyboard and mouse.

The moral, to me, is: Don't buy a Windows tablet unless you can attach a keyboard and mouse, else you will find it becomes shelfware in a month or so. Unless (this is important) you're buying it for a very specific purpose, to run an application that has touch support, and you only intend to run that application.

The reason for this is that at a very basic level, Microsoft's strategy for touch support is not to create a new "touch friendly" paradigm as did Apple and Google, but to (a) layer on gestures that allow fingers to emulate mouse operations, and (b) leverage old crufty accessibility tools that, at least on paper, perform similar functions to the entry and edit functions of iOS and Android devices. This allows them to claim touch support in marketing pamphlets without the expense and lead time of actually writing a touch-friendly GUI.

Re:Wow (1)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848946)

I think they still call the old bulky laptops with stylus sensitive screens that turn around and weight 20 pounds and spinning hard drives to be "Tablets." After all, they are called TabletPCs.

For a long time i been thinking we should never have called these touch screen flat devices "tablets". We need a new term to distinguish them from the horrid thing that is a TabletPC. Slate? Pads? Touch Computing? I dont know, something other than Tablet.

The vast majority of those tablets (2)

Flipao (903929) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847236)

Are built on cheap hardware and run a version of Android developed for phones, Honeycomb tablets have so far priced themselves out of the market. Here's hoping Google and the manufacturers will pick up on that.

Seriously misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36847258)

Units shipped, which is all this article reports, does not equal market share. All those Xooms sitting on Best Buy shelves? Those are driving the supposed "catching up " in this article.

Re:Seriously misleading (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847674)

Meanwhile when I was looking for an iPad I was essentially told to be waiting at the store first thing in the morning for the truck or order online. They're literally selling them faster than they can ship them at the three Apple stores I went to. In a way I'm happy about that, after more though I paid half as much for Nook, and it's more than adequate for the main use case I was interested in (Web and e-mail capable e-reader).

Money or number of units? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36847290)

Is this by units or money? Because while they do have some higher end tablets, the majority of Android tablets tend to a lower price bracket than the iOS devices, which is going to skew statistics a bit if its by money instead of units sold.

"Shipped"? (1)

Ixokai (443555) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847306)

I am curious how they got to those numbers; namely, what do they mean by "shipped". Do they mean produced and sent to stores? Or actually sold to customers?

We know how many iPad's are actually bought by people; but how much of that 30% this analyst is claiming Android has is retail channels filling up but not actually being bought? Where are they getting their numbers?

I'm not saying there aren't plenty of people who may be interested in some of the latest Android offerings, but a 2:1 ratio of iPad's:Android's doesn't at all jive with what I've seen or heard in reality. (Granted, my anecdotal evidence isn't all that more awesomer then your anecdotal evidence)

Re:"Shipped"? (2)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847364)

Usually "shipped" means "sent to retailers", which doesn't necessarily mean sold. However, it tends to be an accurate enough approximation of units sold, since retailers wouldn't stock up on millions of devices they never would sell. Should that happen, the units shipped would quickly drop to almost nil after the first few months, which isn't the case here.

Still, I have to agree in that I have never seen anything but iPads around. Then again, I can't seem to glimpse anything but iPods and iPhones either, so maybe I'm just surrounded by a statistical anomaly.

Re:"Shipped"? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847638)

Well for an initial product offering, retailers have to guess on the amount they will buy since they don't really know how it will sell. Also they are not likely to get them all at once but over a time period like 20,000 initial with 20,000 a month for the next 4 months to get a 100,000 order. This kind of arrangment helps the manufacturer as it helps with timelines.

Re:"Shipped"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36847704)

since retailers wouldn't stock up on millions of devices they never would sell

Go shopping much? Retailers stock up on millions of everything they'd never sell, all the freaking time.

Re:"Shipped"? (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847810)

Don't even need to go anywhere. Just listen to the radio or watch TV.
"INVENTORY REDUCTION SALE!" "WE'VE GOT TO MAKE ROOM!" "OUR LOT IS BURSTING AT THE SEAMS WITH NEW SUBARUS!"

(All caps for the reason that they really are yelling)

Re:"Shipped"? (1)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848994)

"Shipped" means to stores. Note: this number does not discount stores getting unwanted inventory and returning it. They shipped your Best Buy 100 units and the manager returned them because they were not moving? No matter, those 100 count as "shipped."

A silly submission (4, Interesting)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847314)

Strategy Analytics is talking about units shipped. Unit shipments aren't the same as actual sales to customers. Microsoft used that same word-twisting when they tried to convince everyone that Vista was doing well. As John Gruber pointed out yesterday [daringfireball.net] , what Strategy Analytics is calling market share is actually "shipment share." That's not market share in the way most people think of it. If you go by actual sales, the iPad has sold almost 30 million total, while Android tablets have only sold about 1.35 million.

I'm surprised Apple's earnings report didn't make it to Slashdot's front page. Sales of the iPad have tripled [cnbc.com] since last year, at 9.25 million, and iPhone sales more than doubled. iPad sales have been so successful that retailers reserved inventory space for them at the expense of PCs. PC shipments declined by about 6% [slashdot.org] , and the PC industry overall declined by 4.2%. I think that's the biggest untold story of all in this--after decades of growth, the PC is in a downward trend because of the iPad.

Because it's percentage-based and can therefore fluctuate based on total size, market share is not as important a figure as it's often made out to be. It can be used to paint a negative picture where there isn't one. It can also be twisted by citing units shipped rather than sold. The iPad is doing better than ever and doesn't seem to be stopping any time soon. I realize that Slashdot is historically pro-Linux and will present Linux-based products as always "catching up" or being on the cusp of taking over, but there's just no evidence of that happening at this point in time.

Re:A silly submission (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847380)

THe PC is in a downward trend becasue of ALOT of factors, most notaby is the breaking of MS lock in and the slow of its inertia.

Re:A silly submission (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847442)

How can PC be in a downward trend when sales of PCs continue to grow [zacks.com] (yes, even if the growth is less than estimates)? Oh right, it's not.

Re:A silly submission (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847544)

That article you links says "PC shipments in the U.S were also down 4.2%." Both IDC and Gartner reached the same conclusion about the declining PC market.

Re:A silly submission (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848212)

That article you links says "PC shipments in the U.S were also down 4.2%."

In the US, where pretty much everyone already has a PC.

BTW, how are these figures calculated? I have five home-built 'PCs' which wouldn't be on any list of PC sales unless they're tracking motherboards.

Re:A silly submission (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848482)

Your PCs are not counted as you bought components and assembled yourself. The numbers they are tracking are built PCs as they have tracked them historically in an apples to apples comparison. I don't know how many consumers build their own systems but I would venture it is a small percentage as the cost savings isn't what it once was.

Re:A silly submission (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848686)

Most people who build a PC dont do it to save money. They do it to get the exact hardware stack and performance they want.

USA != world (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848336)

As I understand the article on zacks.com, it means that PC shipments were down in the United States but up slightly worldwide: "However, strong upside in PC shipments to Asia, Latin America and Japan offset these declines."

Re:A silly submission (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847834)

The second derivative of PCs sold over time is negative?

Re:A silly submission (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847568)

What you wrote doesn't contradict my point. People are choosing tablets because they're easier to use and maintain than PCs.

Re:A silly submission (1)

Flipao (903929) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847884)

Before admitting that PC sales are down, people will start to include all kinds of devices in the PC category, like Ballmer did with the iPad [xconomy.com] . PCs tend to be associated with Windows, and investors could get antsy if the holy market share started to dip.

I thought Jobs summed it up reasonably well here [youtube.com]

Re:A silly submission (1)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847600)

Because it's percentage-based and can therefore fluctuate based on total size, market share is not as important a figure as it's often made out to be.

Well, that's one problem. The other problem is that the tablet market was created out of nowhere by Apple less than 18 months ago, and its only in the last 6 months or so that there has been anything significant in the way of non-vaporware alternatives. So the fact that Android has increased its market share now that there are a number of viable iPad alternatives is definitely one for the department of urso-sylvanian scatology or the journal of papal denominational studies.

Re:A silly submission (1)

Thantik (1207112) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848496)

The other problem is that the tablet market was created out of nowhere by Apple less than 18 months ago

...wow, you really are brainwashed.

Re:A silly submission (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848772)

...wow, you really are brainwashed.

Well, to be perfectly precise, itsdapead's statement should have been, "The tablet-that-doesn't-totally-suck market was created out of nowhere by Apple less than 18 months ago."

But most reasonable people knew what he meant.

Front Page News (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847620)

I'm surprised Apple's earnings report didn't make it to Slashdot's front page.

I'm not; You and I were around when Slashdot was more even tempered than it is today. As soon as I saw that "Shipping Share" article I knew it would be on Slashdot.

Re:Front Page News (1)

alta (1263) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848060)

You young whipper snappers. Why I was first on /. we didn't have UIDs. All the stories were about OS/2 and 486s and that's the way we liked it! Now where'd I sit that floppy disk?

Re:A silly submission (1)

index0 (1868500) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847652)

DVDs are easy/cheap to duplicate, real hardware is not. Even if these numbers are the "shipped numbers", that is a lot of money sunk in.

Re:A silly submission (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36848576)

Actually, for these (smartphone and tablet) markets, using market share is unfair to a growing company. That's because both those markets are still in a period of rapid growth. If you're gaining market share, then you're gaining a larger percentage of a growing market, so it's actually a double-whammy. The market share side only shows one of the whammies :)

Pitty about the upgrades though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36847378)

I'm still waiting for my 3.1 upgrade on my Motorola XOOM and 3.2 is on its way already so my SD slot is thus as useless as an 5 1/4 floppy . This is the single most sucking aspect of Android Tablets (and phones) and is driving me away from the party. My wifes iPad2 might be less sophisticated but at least Apple hangs noone out to dry. I'm convinced this will eventually catch up with Android when everyone had the experience once of empty update promises of which HTC Hero is king!

at least you can expect an upgrade (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847974)

all the people that bought into g tablet have effectively been abandoned by viewsonic.

viewsonic could not resist the temptation of adding their "special touches" to otherwise generally serviceable 2.2 that rendered the unit utterly unusable (slow, crashes often) and compelled people to either return the unit or root the unit and overwrite the stock rom.

moral of the story - don't buy stuff you expect fw updates from 2 bit companies like viewsonic, because you won't get any.

"Year to year" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36847476)

The iPad has barely been out for a year -- how does trying to do a comparison like this make any sense at all?

Re:"Year to year" (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847978)

The iPad came out April 2010 so it's been more than a year calendar wise. For Apple it is the first fiscal year so there is some basis for comparison although it is only a single data point.

The Key (1, Informative)

rinoid (451982) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847492)

The key word here is SHIPPED, not sold.

All "tablets" reported from AAPL's quarterly were SOLD, not merely shipped and waiting to be bought.

Whatevers though, small point, and many Android tablets will be sold but the fragmentation will not abate.

Re:The Key (1)

Flipao (903929) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847592)

You sound almost hopeful there. There's fragmentation in iOS devices as well and nobody seems to mind.

Re:The Key (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847826)

There's fragmentation in iOS devices as well and nobody seems to mind.

That's because the fragmentation is small and separates the first generation of iOS hardware from the past two or three generations of hardware. There are advances in hardware that newer iOS versions would used (front facing camera for example, or amount of RAM). Of course this would mean older hardware can't support it. Other than these few differences in hardware, the majority of the apps still run on all versions of iOS.

Contrast this with Android which have fragmentation within the same generation of hardware.

Re:The Key (1)

Flipao (903929) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848366)

Contrast this with Android which have fragmentation within the same generation of hardware.

The main fragmentation issues with Android are due to the carriers' reluctance to allow users to upgrade to newer versions of the OS. A 3.1 tablet or 2.3 phone can run the overwhelmingly vast majority of the apps in the market, with the exception of apps that targetted a specific device (i.e. Xperia Play) or they where the devs took shortcuts with their code (i,e, used fixed values when settings up screen layouts).

What "Android" are they talking about? (2)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847718)

Considering there are $99 Android 2.1 tablets that you can get in stores like Walgreens or CVS, is it any wonder they're "gaining marketshare"?

They're on the low end of the spectrum, but they do browse the web and can play Angry Birds.

Re:What "Android" are they talking about? (1)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848432)

Considering there are $99 Android 2.1 tablets that you can get in stores like Walgreens or CVS, is it any wonder they're "gaining marketshare"?

They're on the low end of the spectrum, but they do browse the web and can play Angry Birds.

What does the price of the Android tablets have to do with the number of units sold? If it will make you feel better, I'll sell you the same $99 tablet for $499. As an app developer, the fact that machines are available for a modest sum that can run (and therefore purchase) my apps is a plus, not a negative.

Re:What "Android" are they talking about? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848512)

Really? I thought the Nook Color was the cheapest 2.x tablet. If there are seriously $99 color tablets I'll have to pick one up for the kids so they stop bugging the wife and I to use our phones to play Angry Birds.

This may turn out a lot like PCs did (4, Interesting)

MikeURL (890801) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847734)

Personally I'm waiting for the Eee pad slider. That has been delayed like 3 times already but it looks like exactly what I want.

With Apple you get one choice. With Android you'll soon have a couple dozen viable choices. Further, that competition will tend to drive down the price for the Android ecosystem as compared to Apple.

This could be the whole PC evolution playing out again in tablets. It is easy to forget that Apple had an early lead in PCs and then Bill Gates ate them alive by licensing DOS to run on a variety of hardware platforms. This situation seems almost like a play-by-play rerun. But to make it worse for Apple, this time around the DOS equivalent is "free" for manufacturers.

Re:This may turn out a lot like PCs did (2)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848108)

That extra competition will do nothing for Android pricing. Right now Android tablets are already facing full competition pressure from the iPad. Android prices aren't high because makers are ignoring the iPad and only pricing against each other. Android prices are high because Apple is buying components they took options on years ago in lots of ten million. Android makers are buying components based on current availability in lots of hundred thousands or even ten thousands.

Re:This may turn out a lot like PCs did (1)

CavemanKiwi (559158) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848630)

Apple also makes money on the applications for iPads, Android manufactures don't have this additional revenue stream.

Re:This may turn out a lot like PCs did (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36848216)

FWIW, I have a eee Transformer tablet with battery pack / keyboard dock and I love it.
If you'd prefer to have an Android tablet, this one is pretty good IMHO.

It just got updated to 3.1 and likes USB devices. Doesn't work with a USB DVD drive - but mice and hard drives it has no problem with.

HTH

Re:This may turn out a lot like PCs did (1)

wintercolby (1117427) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848306)

FWIW I won't buy a single Apple product until they stop trying to sue their competition and sometimes suppliers out of business. Even if their market share is up, it's pretty easy to see the greed at work. Once they get complete dominance that greed will be turned towards reduction in product quality.

Re:This may turn out a lot like PCs did (2)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848906)

You should refrain from purchasing any product whatsoever that is made by a company that is suing one of its competitors.

Re:This may turn out a lot like PCs did (1)

wintercolby (1117427) | more than 3 years ago | (#36849062)

The first suit I can remember was Polaroid vs. Kodak. Everyone remembers the amazing quality of Polaroid cameras, right? How they are a powerful, innovative player in the instant camera market place of the 21st century?

Now be honest, everybody... (1)

phonewebcam (446772) | more than 3 years ago | (#36847984)

Did you even know there was a Windows 7 tablet?

Re:Now be honest, everybody... (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848736)

Of course: We all remember Steve Ballmer on stage at CES giving praises to the HP Slate.

Which then HP tried to make people forget about by making it almost impossible to actually buy.

HP TouchPad (1)

RoccamOccam (953524) | more than 3 years ago | (#36848104)

Seems like a good place to make a fanboi plug for my HP TouchPad. I've been waiting for a nice tablet that would let me avoid the walled garden and, so far, I'm very happy with the TouchPad. Three ways to develop your own apps 1) SDK - which is javascript/HTML widgets, 2) PDK - which is C++ and OpenGL, and 3) a hybrid mix of the two. Very easy to create professional-looking applications, Linux-based, multi-tasking WebOS, and pretty good selection of commercial apps so it should be attractive to lots of slashdotters.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>