Amazon gets BURNED, or iPad puts out Fire's fire

[Mac.World]

But the Amazon Kindle Fire runs Android - that's on OS with hundreds of thousands of applications available. The Kindle Fire might not connect to the official Google Market out of the box, but Google Market is a downloadable application and Amazon also has an own app store that has many exclusive titles in its portfolio.

So the Fire is NOT just a gadget to shop on Amazon, it --is-- a real tablet computer.

the only apps the Fire will be ale to run, are those that AMAZON allows. You will not be able to use any apps from the Marketplace. Saying that the Fire can run any Google app is putting out false info.

Of course we all know that devs will root the device to allow ICS or another variant of the Google OS to run on it so that people can use the Marketplace. However, doing so will only hurt Amazon and in the end the Fire.

----------

I was intentionally comparing a Wifi iPad to a wifi Fire. If you want to compare the Fire to a 3G iPad, the Fire is only 31%, not 40% of the price of the iPad. ........

For the tablet "power user" there is no question that the iPad provides essential functionality that the Fire does not. But it's also true that for someone like me the iPad cannot possibly provide the features I need by itself. I have to have a powerful laptop. That doesn't make the iPad worthless. It provides about 80% of the functionality of my laptop at about 40% of the cost. I cannot get along without that missing 20%, but many users (as shown on this board) can. The same is true of the Fire in comparison to the iPad.

full quote edited for brevity... I do like how you skipped over things like Bluetooth capability, large app selection and gyroscope (do you know how many features and games utilise this? One simple feature is the screen rotating when you switch from landscape to portrait! Just wait til you hear how many people complain about the Fire not auto-rotating!!) when comparing the two. These are significant features that the Fire lacks.

Anyway jsh1120, time will tell who is right on this topic. In 6 months we'll see how many Fires have sold, the return rate (assuming Amazon actually gives this info out and doesn't distort facts) and if iPad sales have been effected. I anticipated 2 million "actual" sales of the Fire in the first quarter with sales dropping off each additional quarter to a plateau point. 7" tablets are not popular for a reason, and probably why Amazon is already looking to sell 8.9 and 10" Fires next year.

 

[FloatingBones]

Amazon just added a free lending library function to its Prime membership package. That library is expected to cover a substantial portion of the best seller list.

That is an interesting use of a passive verb. As Mathew Ingram notes in this GigaOM article, none of the six big publishers have agreed to allow free downloads of their titles through this service. As I noted in a comment on his site, I cannot see how the use case makes sense for authors to give away their work on this service? Can you?

I see no evidence for your claim. Can you provide a single quote from any representative of the Big Six publishers that they're interested in participating in this giveaway?

Did you notice that Amazon has succeeded in fracturing their Kindle e-reading service? These "borrowed" books would only be readable on Kindle hardware. I created a new phrase to describe this marketing strategy:

All Kindle e-Readers are equal, but some are are more equal than others.

I don't do extensive editing on my iPad but the same apps that enable me to edit MS Office documents on the iPad are available for the Fire. I don't use iWork apps. Neither do more than 95% of those who edit documents.

95% of what? Who made that claim? What did they base that claim on? Can you provide any reference -- or did you just pull the number out of your ... hat? Throwing made-up numbers into the discussion persuades nobody. Please stop doing that.

Where we differ is your belief that integration of Apple's devices from iPhone to iPad to their lines of computers is a major advantage from a consumer point of view.

It is a major advantage to the owners of those quarter-of-a-billion iOS devices to have distributed access to their iWork files.

But if Apple were counting on that to be a significant feature of their strategy it would be inherently limiting. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of computer users do not use Apple computers and that is not changing significantly.

Of course it's changing significantly! Did you bother to listen to the numbers from Tim Cook's "Let's Talk iPhone" event? You can see the detailed notes here. From that transcript:

• 10:10 a.m. The Mac has outgrown the PC market by almost 6 times in the past year. Every single quarter for 5 years the Mac has outgrown the PC market. They are now approaching 60 million users (58 million right now).
• 10:10 a.m. Macbook Air and iMac are #1 notebook and desktop in the U.S.
• 10:11 a.m. Apple’s Mac market share is now 23%, so nearly 1 out of every 4 computers sold in the US is a Mac.

Yes, Microsoft share of laptop and desktop computers has declined...by about 4% over the last decade. So now they're only at about 90%.

Read above. You are way off in your numbers. Tim Cook noted that Apple is at 23% of the market share in the US.

I realize that Apple fans don't like to think about what a small slice of the overall computing environment the brand occupies

What I mind is when people throw out numbers with absolutely nothing to back them up. Cut it out, please.

but I've been hearing for 30 years that Apple is going to take over the world. It ain't happening.

Actually, it is happening. Every single quarter for the past 5 years, the Mac has outgrown the PC market. Do you understand what those words mean?

But portable computers still outsell tablets by 5 to 1

Yet another number pulled out of your hat. If your world view is accurate, you'd be able to cite hard statistics backing it up. But you can't. Made-up numbers are a fail.

 

[rdowns]

Amazon just added a free lending library function to its Prime membership package. That library is expected to cover a substantial portion of the best seller list.

I don't see how that's possible given the big 6 book publishers haven't signed onto that.

 

[FloatingBones]

Of course, even on boards like this where heavy iPad users congregate, about half of all owners have wifi only iPads.

How exactly is this an "of course"? Where does the number come from? What is your source for this observation? Or is this another number pulled out of thin air?

As far as GPS is concerned, it's true that an iPad has that feature while the Fire does not. On the other hand, those who have Android phones have a better GPS already in place than either the iPad or the iPhone offers. (Mine offers spoken turn by turn directions, for example.) And if I'm traveling, I have very little use for redundant GPS on my iPad.

This is a total non-sequitur for any discussion comparing the Fire to other tablets.

That brings us to the functionality provided by the microphone. A nice little bell/whistle but no more an essential function for most users than a camera.

You presume that Siri will not be available on the iPad after it emerges from Beta. Do you know for a fact that Apple will not make Siri available on tablet machines?

If Siri becomes available on the iPad, I'm certain it will become an essential feature for many users.

You're correct that the iPad offers far more on-board storage than the Fire. But Amazon is counting on their cloud-based infrastructure to make up for that difference. And in that area they're far ahead of Apple's iCloud. (Netflix streaming for example is already supported by Amazon's servers.) Amazon doesn't have to build out server capacity. It's already there.

Netflix has been available on the iPad for well over a year. Please explain your comment -- please provide a reference. Thanks.

I don't see how that's possible given the big 6 book publishers haven't signed onto that.

Bingo. It's not possible for a bestsellers to be covered unless the big 6 publishers sign up.

I don't see how Amazon's "let's give away a free e-book every month" makes sense for publishers. If all books were available on this service, it's way too easy for Amazon Prime customers to just use this as a free alternative for books they would have bought anyway. That is a fail for the publishers -- and for the authors.

AFAICT, it's a great deal for Amazon, but a terrible deal for the content providers.

 

[jsh1120]

That is an interesting use of a passive verb. As Mathew Ingram notes in this GigaOM article, none of the six big publishers have agreed to allow free downloads of their titles through this service. As I noted in a comment on his site, I cannot see how the use case makes sense for authors to give away their work on this service? Can you?

I see no evidence for your claim. Can you provide a single quote from any representative of the Big Six publishers that they're interested in participating in this giveaway?

Did you notice that Amazon has succeeded in fracturing their Kindle e-reading service? These "borrowed" books would only be readable on Kindle hardware. I created a new phrase to describe this marketing strategy:

All Kindle e-Readers are equal, but some are are more equal than others.



95% of what? Who made that claim? What did they base that claim on? Can you provide any reference -- or did you just pull the number out of your ... hat? Throwing made-up numbers into the discussion persuades nobody. Please stop doing that.



It is a major advantage to the owners of those quarter-of-a-billion iOS devices to have distributed access to their iWork files.



Of course it's changing significantly! Did you bother to listen to the numbers from Tim Cook's "Let's Talk iPhone" event? You can see the detailed notes here. From that transcript:

• 10:10 a.m. The Mac has outgrown the PC market by almost 6 times in the past year. Every single quarter for 5 years the Mac has outgrown the PC market. They are now approaching 60 million users (58 million right now).
• 10:10 a.m. Macbook Air and iMac are #1 notebook and desktop in the U.S.
• 10:11 a.m. Apple’s Mac market share is now 23%, so nearly 1 out of every 4 computers sold in the US is a Mac.

Read above. You are way off in your numbers. Tim Cook noted that Apple is at 23% of the market share in the US.



What I mind is when people throw out numbers with absolutely nothing to back them up. Cut it out, please.



Actually, it is happening. Every single quarter for the past 5 years, the Mac has outgrown the PC market. Do you understand what those words mean?





Yet another number pulled out of your hat. If your world view is accurate, you'd be able to cite hard statistics backing it up. But you can't. Made-up numbers are a fail.

This is ridiculous. Surely I'm not the only one who can use google.


Given that about 90% of all personal computers are non-Apple units, the overwhelming proportion of which are Windows PCs and that Apple Macs are routinely equipped with MS Office, the estimate that 95% of systems running office software are running MS Office seems reasonable. It could only be less if Apple users were MORE likely to run office automation software than Windows users. Fat chance.


Amazon doesn't need the publishers' participation to include titles in their lending library. Publishers and authors may not like it, but once Party A buys a book, they can lend that book to anyone they please. As long as Amazon purchases X books and does not lend more than X+1 books at any one time, they can include any book on their list that they please.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jac...e-lending-program-causes-publishing-stir.html

As for limiting lending to those with Kindle hardware, I'm rather surprised you'd complain about that. I'm unable for example to use any of the iOS apps on anything but Apple supplied hardware.

As for Mr. Cook's numbers, I prefer third party i.e. objective estimates of sales. I've been hearing about Apple overtaking PC sales for the last 30 years. Somewhere along the line, they should have moved significantly beyond 10%. Virtually no other than Mr. Cook puts Apple's share of market in the US (much less the rest of the world) more than half his 23.5%

P.S. To give Mr. Cook the benefit of the doubt, I suspect he's referring to percentage increases. If you have one apple and get another you have a 100% increase in apples. If you have 100 apples and add 10 you have a 10% increase in apples. However, you still have added nine more apples than the first guy.

For a view from those without an axe to grind on behalf of Apple, try the following.

http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1744216

 

[jsh1120]

How exactly is this an "of course"? Where does the number come from? What is your source for this observation? Or is this another number pulled out of thin air?



This is a total non-sequitur for any discussion comparing the Fire to other tablets.



You presume that Siri will not be available on the iPad after it emerges from Beta. Do you know for a fact that Apple will not make Siri available on tablet machines?

If Siri becomes available on the iPad, I'm certain it will become an essential feature for many users.



Netflix has been available on the iPad for well over a year. Please explain your comment -- please provide a reference. Thanks.



Bingo. It's not possible for a bestsellers to be covered unless the big 6 publishers sign up.

I don't see how Amazon's "let's give away a free e-book every month" makes sense for publishers. If all books were available on this service, it's way too easy for Amazon Prime customers to just use this as a free alternative for books they would have bought anyway. That is a fail for the publishers -- and for the authors.

AFAICT, it's a great deal for Amazon, but a terrible deal for the content providers.

My estimate of wifi vs 3G percentages comes from a poll on another iPad forum site. Given the shared membership and similar focus, I expect it's a reasonable estimate. Any reason to think it isn't?

Citing the weakness of the iPad's GPS functionality isn't a non-sequitur when many purchasers of the Fire may well already have that functionality in other devices. What purpose does an inferior version on the iPad serve?

No, I didn't presume Siri wouldn't become available on the iPad. But you really can't claim the iPad has an advantage over another device as a result of software it doesn't have.

My reference to Netflix using Amazon's servers was simply to indicate that Amazon's infrastructure is already in place and working. In fact, you use it every time you watch a Netflix movie on an iPad.

As noted above, Amazon does not need a publisher's permission to include a book in its lending library. Just as your local library can lend you a book and when you return it, lend it to someone else, so can Amazon.

By the way, publishers and authors have managed to survive the advent of the public library. Ever hear of a publisher who refuses to sell a book to a library because it would be lent to multiple readers?

 

[Mac.World]

You guys are talking about US vs Worldwide market share. To be fair, worldwide market share is a more influential number, but at the same time jsh is combining all pc manufacturers using windows into a lump. This is what Fandroids do to say Android has a larger market share over iOS, but only use iPhone statistics, instead of all iOS devices.
It is a better statistic to show a break down by manufacturer. The problem is that Mac's cost a premium AND the OS is not licensable. However, in the 1st world areas like N America, Oceana and Europe, Mac market share is high, in that as a manufacturer, Apple takes roughly 13% market share in all three of those areas, while HP has 29% and Dell has roughly 21% market share in the US alone, with Apple and HP the only two companies showing positive growth in recent quarters. Globally, I believe Apple only garners about 4% of all pc sales, if that, unless you include iPad sales... Then it's a huge swing in Apples favor! A huge swing!

However, jsh is wrong in saying that Mac's are routinely equipped with Office. Mine are, but I know many that refuse to install any m$ crap on their computer. And no Mac comes preinstalled with anything m$!

 

[Demosthenes X]

I am not talking about importing stuff into Fire.

I am talking about buying stuff on Amazon and play it on NON- Kindle stuff.
(Kindle app for iOS and Androids, maybe even BlackBerry's, as well as Mac/PC's)

This is exactly what Amazon wants. They're selling hardware to encourage you to buy their digital content, but they're just as happy if you buy that digital content for use on another platform. That's why they have Kindle apps for iOS, Android, Windows, and OSX.

So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Buy a song from iTunes, it is linked to iTunes (I think their is a way to break it, but not easy)

This used to be true, but no longer is. In any event, that supports Apple's model of selling content cheaply to drive hardware sales. But Amazon wants you to buy the content, so the more hardware it runs on, the better off they are.

$100 more for a device that will not play in bright light, and need to be recharged a few times before you finish reading the book.

And it is a bit small for reading magazine articles.

*shrug* Each buyer needs to weigh those pros and cons themselves. For me, the Kindle Fire is a very attractive device.

Unless you are at 30,000 ft.
iTunes lack of streaming will probably go away with iCloud

But the Kindle Fire does not make streaming the exclusive option - it still has 8GB of local storage. To get streaming on iPad you need a third-party service like Netflix.

I did not contradict myself.
"Strong sales", maybe a couple million units, which is pretty good.
HOWEVER, if the profit margin is razor thin, or even a small loss, it is bad for Amazons bottom line (but they survived negative profit before).
Netbooks are a good example of a very popular product being bad for a company, becuase of tiny profit margins.

You're looking at this from too narrow a perspective. This is called a "loss leader": a product sold below cost in order to get people to buy other products. Your printer and ink example is a perfect one. Sell the printer cheap, make money on the ink cartridges. Amazon is selling the tablet cheap, and making money on the digital content. It's a perfectly valid business model.

Whether it will work is another question, but I think it will. Apple has proven the power of an integrated hardware/content ecosystem to be very effective.

 

[jsh1120]

You guys are talking about US vs Worldwide market share. To be fair, worldwide market share is a more influential number, but at the same time jsh is combining all pc manufacturers using windows into a lump. This is what Fandroids do to say Android has a larger market share over iOS, but only use iPhone statistics, instead of all iOS devices.
It is a better statistic to show a break down by manufacturer. The problem is that Mac's cost a premium AND the OS is not licensable. However, in the 1st world areas like N America, Oceana and Europe, Mac market share is high, in that as a manufacturer, Apple takes roughly 13% market share in all three of those areas, while HP has 29% and Dell has roughly 21% market share in the US alone, with Apple and HP the only two companies showing positive growth in recent quarters. Globally, I believe Apple only garners about 4% of all pc sales, if that, unless you include iPad sales... Then it's a huge swing in Apples favor! A huge swing!

However, jsh is wrong in saying that Mac's are routinely equipped with Office. Mine are, but I know many that refuse to install any m$ crap on their computer. And no Mac comes preinstalled with anything m$!

No, it's not appropriate to compare individual manufacturers unless you're slanting the numbers to present the best possible case for Apple.

In this case the appropriate comparison is between Apple and non-Apple devices. No one disputes that Apple is among the largest manufacturers of personal computers. But even if you add the iPad to the mix and use optimistic numbers for sales of Macs (e.g. 12% market share) and iPads (80%) market share, 2011 sales figures of about 450 million units (400 million PC's and 50 million tablets), about 80% of 2011 unit sales of PC's and tablets will be non-Apple (and therefore non-iOS and non-Lion). That's a "swing" in favor of Apple, but if someone claimed that non-iPad tablets were a howling success in capturing 1 out of 5 unit sales, the howls of derision on this board would be loud and long.

Take into account the huge installed base of non-Apple devices (90%+) and the fact that future growth will be concentrated in Asia where Apple has practically no presence, at all, and the chance that Apple will come to dominate world wide sales of computing devices in my (or my daughter's) lifetime based on these short-term sales figures is nil. (By the way, the biggest increases in sales in recent quarters worldwide is not Apple; it's Lenovo.)

As for the dominance of Microsoft in the office software space, the threat to MS Office doesn't come from iWorks, a very minor player in that space. It comes from cloud-based applications such as Google Docs and Open Office. That threat is very real but the notion that Apple can benefit from interoperability between iWorks on the iPad and on the Mac is a pipe dream. Too few users use iWorks at all for that to be a major factor except among the minority of Apple PC users.

Finally, I have no idea how many Mac users have MS Office on their systems. I simply guessed about half since that's a number that has been thrown around by Microsoft for several years. And Apple eagerly took the opportunity to have MS Office on the Mac because they needed it to sell to the millions of users who rely upon it.

But even if it's less than that, the fact remains that no one other than a Mac or iPad user uses iWorks. And even if Apple sales grow, MS Office will continue to be a necessity for anyone operating in 90%+ of corporate environments.

 

[Mac.World]

But the Kindle Fire does not make streaming the exclusive option - it still has 8GB of local storage. To get streaming on iPad you need a third-party service like Netflix.

Actually, it only has about 6gb of local storage after you subtract out the OS. This will be an Achilles heal, trust me on this. 16gb iPads are a limitation! Of course, iOS games are rich and graphics intensive now for quality games, which is why each game is reaching the 2gb level! The Fire will have games likely limited to 50mb. And high level app content. Don't expect anything of the sort on the Fire. I have apps that require 500mb to 1gb of storage. Quality software is what makes the iPad such an amazing device. Having high spec hardware doesn't hurt either. The Fire has neither. While some people don't need either and will be happy, many expecting an iPad like experience will be returning the Fire in droves.


And you can stream any of your home content or anyone else's shared iTunes content onto an iPad...., it's not limited to 3rd party services.

 

[JAT]

The iPad will continue to do just fine.

And the Kindle Fire will do just fine, as well.

For one device to be successful doesn't mean the other device must be destroyed.

Obviously you've never talked to either a Ford or Chevy owner.

 

[4DThinker]

Lending ebooks doesn't need anyone's permission. Library rules. You can't copy a lended book, and have to return it (the file expires). Amazon accounts for the number of copies lended and limits them to the number it "owns" or has paid for from the publisher. Same as your local library, who doesn't need permission from the publisher to lend out the books it owns. Prime subscription fees pay for all those original copies, which is why it is only for Prime members. Amazon wins because more books are read and then recommended to others. Clever strategy. Hope it works well for them.

 

[Demosthenes X]

Actually, it only has about 6gb of local storage after you subtract out the OS. This will be an Achilles heal, trust me on this. 16gb iPads are a limitation! Of course, iOS games are rich and graphics intensive now for quality games, which is why each game is reaching the 2gb level! The Fire will have games likely limited to 50mb. And high level app content. Don't expect anything of the sort on the Fire. I have apps that require 500mb to 1gb of storage. Quality software is what makes the iPad such an amazing device. Having high spec hardware doesn't hurt either. The Fire has neither. While some people don't need either and will be happy, many expecting an iPad like experience will be returning the Fire in droves.

I think that you'll find that for most users, the Kindle Fire delivers the same thing the iPad would. They want to be able to surf the internet, read books and magazines, watch movies, listen to music, and play casual games. The Kindle Fire will do all of those things without any problems.

The people that need more storage, better graphics, more speed etc. are likely people who know technology well enough to know what the Kindle Fire is from the outset, and they'll buy whatever meets their needs.

But for most people, the Kindle Fire is 90% of an iPad for 40% of the price. That's some winning math right there.

 

[qtx43]

...They want to be able to surf the internet, read books and magazines, watch movies, listen to music, and play casual games...

I have to agree, because until recently that's pretty mich all I used my iPad for. As the app market has developed, it's getting more feasible to use for a wide variety of things, but if the Amazon's Fire had been out a year and a half ago, I probably would've gotten it instead. But it wasn't, and I didn't, and once an individual does start using it, and spending money on the Apple ecosystem, it's a hard sell to downgrade to Android or Amazon's version of Android.

On second thought, I wouldn't have gotten it, because a 7" display is too small for me and my aging eyes. Portability is nice, but then you want the e-ink for outside.

 

[Navdakilla]

interesting article and discussion.

I have a couple of family members who are perfect for the Fire, however, they love the iPad and are "average consumers"

Seems like word of mouth is such a important factor to consider these days too. Everyone talks about apple, and iPods, and macbook, obviously iPads are in there too, thus everyone wants a iPad.

 

[FloatingBones]

This is ridiculous. Surely I'm not the only one who can use google.

JSH, the problem is that we can't tell when you're using google and when you're pulling numbers out of your ... hat. When you said:

I don't do extensive editing on my iPad but the same apps that enable me to edit MS Office documents on the iPad are available for the Fire. I don't use iWork apps. Neither do more than 95% of those who edit documents.

What exactly should we do with number? Are you suggesting that we start madly googling to try to reverse-engineer where it came from? I think not. If you don't provide a source, we'll just presume it's a made-up number. I asked you about this number, and you failed to respond. Why didn't you just tell it was a wild-a.. gusss?

Given that about 90% of all personal computers are non-Apple units

As Mac.World notes, that's waaaay too vague a number to throw out. This is another advantage of providing links whenever you cite a number: it's clear what you're talking about.

the overwhelming proportion of which are Windows PCs and that Apple Macs are routinely equipped with MS Office, the estimate that 95% of systems running office software are running MS Office seems reasonable.

Hardly. It's a bunch of conjectures piled on top of each other. I have no interest in talking about your ungrounded speculations. If you throw out a number, make sure it's grounded in reality.

It could only be less if Apple users were MORE likely to run office automation software than Windows users.

And that is yet another conjecture. Again, not really worthy of discussing.

Amazon doesn't need the publishers' participation to include titles in their lending library. Publishers and authors may not like it, but once Party A buys a book, they can lend that book to anyone they please. As long as Amazon purchases X books and does not lend more than X+1 books at any one time, they can include any book on their list that they please.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jac...e-lending-program-causes-publishing-stir.html

Details from your words above are not contained in the article you referenced. There's no word about Amazon's being able to lend X books at any time. Again, this looks like something you made up. Can you point to a single reputable article which says what you said?

The way to avoid these misunderstandings is to quote what the article says. Just the facts, ma'am. That is exactly what MR does in its front page articles.

As for limiting lending to those with Kindle hardware, I'm rather surprised you'd complain about that. I'm unable for example to use any of the iOS apps on anything but Apple supplied hardware.

The difference is clear: in the iOS App Store, it was radiantly clear that iOS Apps would run on Apple's hardware. OTOH, Amazon has changed the rules in the middle of the game with their Kindle Bookstore. Before, all Amazon books would be readable on all Kindle readers someone owned. With the Amazon Prime lending service, those Amazon books can only be read on Amazon hardware. All Kindle readers are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Do you now understand the difference?

As for Mr. Cook's numbers, I prefer third party i.e. objective estimates of sales.

Why would you think that? Why would the CEO of Apple knowingly present a false number in the public presentation? Never mind the embarrassment if Apple got corrected in a fact-check: an officer of a corporation cannot knowingly make false claims in a public presentation.

I've been hearing about Apple overtaking PC sales for the last 30 years. Somewhere along the line, they should have moved significantly beyond 10%. Virtually no other than Mr. Cook puts Apple's share of market in the US (much less the rest of the world) more than half his 23.5%

Then you have a bit of a problem: why has no reputable person in the media questioned Apple's number?

P.S. To give Mr. Cook the benefit of the doubt, I suspect he's referring to percentage increases.

He is not. If you wanted to know what Cook was saying, why didn't you go to the presentation and see the words? Starting at 9:24 of the "Let's Talk iPhone" presentation (download in iTunes here):

"[...] every single quarter for five years, the Mac has outgrown the PC market. And we are now approaching 60 million users around the world. With all of this momentum, our market share has steadily increased, and I'm pleased to report that in US retail the Macs now are selling about one in four PCs sold."

The graphic on the presentation shows 23% market share for Apple. At the bottom of the slide, the text reads "NPD for US Retail, August 2011"

For someone who pontificates that he's the only person who can locate something on the Internet, I'm at a loss to know why you couldn't research these facts for yourself.

If you have one apple and get another you have a 100% increase in apples. If you have 100 apples and add 10 you have a 10% increase in apples. However, you still have added nine more apples than the first guy.

That's a nonsense statement. But if you research the August NPD numbers for US Retail, you should find your 23% number.

Can you google that?

 

[FloatingBones]

My estimate of wifi vs 3G percentages comes from a poll on another iPad forum site. Given the shared membership and similar focus, I expect it's a reasonable estimate. Any reason to think it isn't?

A poll is a lousy place to get a statistical breakdown of the iPad sales. One problem is the self-selection bias. If you want to get up-to-speed on common problems with statistics, I suggest the great book How to Lie with Statistics.

Citing the weakness of the iPad's GPS functionality isn't a non-sequitur when many purchasers of the Fire may well already have that functionality in other devices.

Aha. You are presuming that people are always carrying all of their portable devices with them. That's a whole other debate, my friend.

No, I didn't presume Siri wouldn't become available on the iPad.

But you did ignore the usefulness of a microphone in note-taking for students and businessmen in meetings. Students can record lectures and annotate important bits with written notes. Those notes are timestamped to provide immediate access to the exact portion of the audio track. Pretty cool!

It serves a similar function for businessmen who want to note an important section of the conversation in a business meeting.

My reference to Netflix using Amazon's servers was simply to indicate that Amazon's infrastructure is already in place and working. In fact, you use it every time you watch a Netflix movie on an iPad.

Amazon's cloud service is working perfectly -- except when it isn't.

As noted above, Amazon does not need a publisher's permission to include a book in its lending library.

As I noted in my reply, the article you cited says no such thing.

Just as your local library can lend you a book and when you return it, lend it to someone else, so can Amazon.

Can you cite a single article from a credible media source that says the Amazon Prime lending service is comparable to a real library?

Just because you claim something about the Amazon Prime lending service doesn't mean that it's true. You need to back up your claims from a real source.

 

[jsh1120]

This is ridiculous. Rather than criticize my estimates, how about coming up with some of your own other than the press conference references from the Apple CEO that are so vague as to uncheckable. As far as I can tell, that has been your only source throughout this discussion.

What I've said is that about 90% of all the PC's out there are running something other than an Apple operating system. That has been an accepted estimate for years except for the period in which Apple hovered around 5%. If you can find different figures, cite them.

I've also said that iWorks is a minor player in the office application world. That's not a controversial statement. If you can cite any figures from anywhere that put the figure above 10%, cite them.

I've pointed out that Amazon has a huge cloud infrastructure in place that supports a wide variety of customers including Netflix. If that were not the case, an occasional hiccup in that infrastructure wouldn't make news. Amazon has built its brand reputation on a massive server infrastructure. So far it has been spectacularly successful in serving its customers with that infrastructure. If you contend that's not true, cite a source.

You misstate my own comments and then criticize the misstatement. I didn't "presume that people are always carrying their other portable devices with them." That's not what I said nor is it a reasonable extrapolation from what I did say. I don't carry my umbrella with me constantly. That doesn't mean I think an iPad should have a built-in umbrella or that its absence is critical weakness in the device. Likewise, I don't think many consumers care whether a tablet has a GPS. If you believe otherwise, cite some evidence that it is a critical feature among iPad purchasers.

Nor did I "ignore" various functions that might be useful for some people in some scenarios that are lacking in the Fire. I said that the Fire provides about 80% of the functionality of an iPad at 40% of the price. For someone that needs audio recording, the iPad provides a barely passable means to record sound from a nearby source, just as those who want to take photos can use an iPad as a poor substitute for a camera. Neither, however, is a primary use that most consumers are looking for in a tablet. Again, if you think that's incorrect, feel free to cite some source that contradicts it.

Finally, you maintain that the article I cited discussing Amazon's lending library doesn't say that Amazon is free to distribute digital versions of content it purchases to its customers just as a library distributes books. In fact, that is exactly what Amazon claims and their position is strongly supported in case law. Again, if you disagree feel free to cite a source that makes a contrary claim.

As far as I can tell, you believe every feature on an iPad is essential, useful, and widely used. Any feature not on an iPad, on the other hand, is something that no one in their right mind would want. I get that. But so far all you've done is criticize contrary assertions with no evidence of your own other than anecdotes, your own preferences, and the unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiatable)claims of Apple executives in press conferences.

 

[FloatingBones]

This is ridiculous. Rather than criticize my estimates, how about coming up with some of your own other than the press conference references from the Apple CEO that are so vague as to uncheckable. As far as I can tell, that has been your only source throughout this discussion.

There is absolutely nothing vague about what I gave you. I asked you:

Of course it's changing significantly! Did you bother to listen to the numbers from Tim Cook's "Let's Talk iPhone" event? You can see the detailed notes here. From that transcript:

• 10:10 a.m. The Mac has outgrown the PC market by almost 6 times in the past year. Every single quarter for 5 years the Mac has outgrown the PC market. They are now approaching 60 million users (58 million right now).
• 10:10 a.m. Macbook Air and iMac are #1 notebook and desktop in the U.S.
• 10:11 a.m. Apple’s Mac market share is now 23%, so nearly 1 out of every 4 computers sold in the US is a Mac.

The answer is clear: no, you never bothered to look up the numbers. You clearly didn't read them from the liveblog I cited, and you didn't bother going back to the original presentation. Presumably, you never bothered even listening to the iPhone event the first time around, or you would have known what it said.

Tim Cook spelled out his source in his presentation, and I spelled it out for you in my last reply. If you doubt his claims, then the onus is on you to debunk them.

Do you really think that the CEO of Apple was fudging numbers in the talk? If so, then why haven't we heard anything about it from anyone?

Did you go look up the NPD reports? What did you find?

You are right about one thing -- this is absolutely ridiculous. Apple wasn't making up the numbers.

 

[jsh1120]

There is absolutely nothing vague about what I gave you. I asked you:




The answer is clear: no, you never bothered to look up the numbers. You clearly didn't read them from the liveblog I cited, and you didn't bother going back to the original presentation. Presumably, you never bothered even listening to the iPhone event the first time around, or you would have known what it said.

Tim Cook spelled out his source in his presentation, and I spelled it out for you in my last reply. If you doubt his claims, then the onus is on you to debunk them.

Do you really think that the CEO of Apple was fudging numbers in the talk? If so, then why haven't we heard anything about it from anyone?

Did you go look up the NPD reports? What did you find?

You are right about one thing -- this is absolutely ridiculous. Apple wasn't making up the numbers.

And those numbers are largely irrelevant to the discussion even if they are true. They ignore the multiple manufacturers of Windows PC's which is the relevant number in this case.

What does "outgrow" the PC market mean? If it means more Apple computers were sold than the total of Windows PC's, it's clearly nonsense. If it means Apple has shown greater percentage growth, it means that Apple's much smaller installed base yields higher growth figures.

In general the figures you're citing either ignore the installed base of computers already sold or assume that every Apple computer ever sold is currently being used. Which is it? We don't know.

Consider the "nearly 60 million users" figure. Is that in the US? We don't know because it Mr. Cook wisely chose not to say. But if it is it means that one out of every five Americans is using an Apple computer. That is simply ridiculous.

Does it mean that if I own an iPad and four PC's (as I do) that I'm an Apple user and I'm four PC users? And most relevant for this discussion, does it mean that my highest priority is to buy a tablet that integrates well with my one Apple product?

And if it's a worldwide figure, how is it calculated? Every Apple computer ever sold? By assuming that there is one computer sold to each household and that every member of those households is a computer user? If a user owns two Apple computers are they counted as two users?

Simply put, these are classic examples of, as you put it, how to lie with statistics. Since of 400,000,000 non-Apple PC's will have been sold in 2011, alone, and over 1 billion over the last three years, are we to assume that one of every six people on the entire planet is a non-Apple PC user?

It would help if you gave some thought to how figures like this could be derived rather than mindlessly quoting them without question.

 

[FloatingBones]

And those numbers are largely irrelevant to the discussion even if they are true.

Mac market share is relevant to the discussion when you think the numbers support your world view. When you see numbers about market share that don't support your world view, they suddenly become irrelevant to the discussion.

BTW: what shred of evidence do you have that any numbers that Tim Cook cited in the October 4, 2011 "Let's Talk iPhone" event were false? Have you bothered to look at the video of the event? Did you notice that the slides note the source of the data being presented at the bottom? Did you bother to look up those references? In a fact-based discussion, innuendo with no substance is a FAIL.

They ignore the multiple manufacturers of Windows PC's which is the relevant number in this case.

If you think that IDC and NPD have errors in their reporting, you need to tell us what exactly is wrong with their reports. Spell it out for us, please. Innuendo with no substance isn't going to cut it.

What does "outgrow" the PC market mean? If it means more Apple computers were sold than the total of Windows PC's, it's clearly nonsense.

Have you been reading the discussion? Tim Cook spelled out what "outgrow" meant, and I quoted his words yesterday: Every single quarter for 5 years the Mac has outgrown the PC market.

If it means Apple has shown greater percentage growth, it means that Apple's much smaller installed base yields higher growth figures.

No. It actually means that Apple has been gaining market share in every single quarter for the past 5 years.

In general the figures you're citing either ignore the installed base of computers already sold or assume that every Apple computer ever sold is currently being used.

If issues for the installed base are too complicated for you, just concentrate on the market share numbers. Apple's market share in computers has expanded over the past 5 years, a notable achievement. It's actually expanded for every single quarter over the past 5 years, a rather remarkable achievement. Yet all you can do is spread innuendo that Cook's numbers are somehow not true.

And if it's a worldwide figure, how is it calculated?

Why are you asking us? Cook is clear in his presentation what he's talking about, and he consistently notes the sources on the slides. You've told us that you're super-competent in searching for facts on the web.

You haven't done a shred of due diligence in your attempts to debunk the numbers.

Simply put, these are classic examples of, as you put it, how to lie with statistics.

No. All you have given us is innuendo that Cook is somehow lying with statistics. Apple carefully provided sources for all the numbers they quoted: read the notes on the slides. If there is actually a lie in the statistics, then you should be able to point out the problem from those sources.

It would help if you gave some thought to how figures like this could be derived [...]

Nope. You are the one who has repeatedly claimed that the numbers are somehow "false". The onus is on you to show to us the errors in those numbers. Just the facts, ma'am.

Have you even bothered to look up the sources that Cook noted from the presentation?

 

[jsh1120]

I'm done. Your comprehension of market statistics or even arithmetic does not suggest this discussion can go any further.

P.S. The "sources" cited on the slides you referenced consist of exactly one. It's on a slide entitled "Mobile Installed Base" and refers to phones, not computers. The "source" in its entirety is "Comscore for US, July 2011."

There are no sources for the statistics cited by Mr. Cook on the url's you cited. Specifically, these...

"You can see the detailed notes here. From that transcript:

10:10 a.m. The Mac has outgrown the PC market by almost 6 times in the past year. Every single quarter for 5 years the Mac has outgrown the PC market. They are now approaching 60 million users (58 million right now).
10:10 a.m. Macbook Air and iMac are #1 notebook and desktop in the U.S.
10:11 a.m. Apple’s Mac market share is now 23%, so nearly 1 out of every 4 computers sold in the US is a Mac."

In short your "source" of Mr. Cook's information is...wait for it...Mr. Cook. No indication what "outgrow" means (percentage increase versus units sold.) No indication how "60 million users" is calculated. And no indication how "market share" is calculated. No sources. No notes on calculations. Nothing. Period.


http://glowstickbay.com/2011/10/04/lets-talk-iphone-event-first-hour-transcript/

 

[FloatingBones]

I'm done. Your comprehension of market statistics or even arithmetic does not suggest this discussion can go any further.

Understood. When you asked if a self-selecting sample was a good way to get the breakdown of iPad G3 sales, I had my doubts about your statistics and reasoning skills.

You were done when someone called you on your baseless innuendo of the statistics from Tim Cook's presentation. The presentation we're discussing is the "Let's Talk iPhone" event held on October 4, 2011; the presentation is available for download from this podcast on iTunes.

P.S. The "sources" cited on the slides you referenced consist of exactly one. It's on a slide entitled "Mobile Installed Base" and refers to phones, not computers. The "source" in its entirety is "Comscore for US, July 2011."

That paragraph has three factual errors. The slide at 9:11 -- 23% Mac growth vs. 4% growth for the PC (year-over-year) -- notes "Apple & IDC, last four reported quarters" at the bottom. The slide at 9:54 -- showing Apple with a 23% share of US retail -- notes "NPD for US Retail, August 2011" at the bottom. Multiple sources, not one. And both of those slides are talking about computers and not phones. And neither of them have anything at all to do with Comscore.

There are no sources for the statistics cited by Mr. Cook on the url's you cited.

Incorrect. Tim Cook is clearly using IDC, NPD, and Apple itself for the numbers. That is painfully obvious to anyone who actually views his presentation starting at 9:11. I have no idea what you were looking at.

In short your "source" of Mr. Cook's information is...wait for it...Mr. Cook.

That's another factual error. THe sources are NPD, IDC, and Apple's own announced statistics. Apple is not making up the numbers.

No indication what "outgrow" means (percentage increase versus units sold.)

That's another error. Cooke spelled it out in the presentation: Every single quarter for 5 years the Mac has outgrown the PC market. Mac market share has been increasing consistently for the past 20 quarters.

Do you have any idea how remarkable it is for a company to consistently grow its market share every single quarter for 20 quarters?

No indication how "60 million users" is calculated.

Is that a question? Do you know how to get the answer?

If you want your answer, go to the Apple investor page and contact them with your question.

Did you get access to the appropriate NBD and IDC reports? What did you find? Note: your failure to locate these reports doesn't mean that Cooke was incorrect; it means that you weren't able to find the records.

Please use some common sense. If any numbers in the Apple presentation were fabricated, why do you think the news media and Apple's competitors would stay silent? Why would NBD and IDC remain silent? Why would Cooke expose himself to huge personal liability by making up any number? In short, do you realize that your innuendo makes absolutely no sense?

You claimed that Cooke's numbers were somehow false; the onus is on you to show that. You have categorically failed to provide a shred of evidence to back up that innuendo. We are done with you on this question.

 

[jsh1120]

The url YOU cited was

http://glowstickbay.com/2011/10/04/lets-talk-iphone-event-first-hour-transcript/

You then say...

"...the slide at 9:11 -- 23% Mac growth vs. 4% growth for the PC (year-over-year) -- notes "Apple & IDC, last four reported quarters" at the bottom. The slide at 9:54 -- showing Apple with a 23% share of US retail -- notes "NPD for US Retail, August 2011" at the bottom. Multiple sources, not one. And both of those slides are talking about computers and not phones. And neither of them have anything at all to do with Comscore..."

In reality, the slide at 9:11 shown on that url is a table full of mini muffins.

This says more about your sources than anything I could add.

For a less comical version of a source, try the Wikipedia analysis of OS market shares. As of August 2011, Mac OSX had about 7%; iOS about 3%. Windows XP 35%; Windows 7 31%; Windows Vista 11%. Yes, Apple has increased its market share over the last five years. It has grown at about 1% per year.

I'm reminded of a scene from Citizen Kane in which Charles Foster Kane says, "You're right. I lost a million dollars on the newspaper last year. I lost a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year. At this rate I'll have to close the paper in 50 years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

 

[FloatingBones]

The url YOU cited was

http://glowstickbay.com/2011/10/04/lets-talk-iphone-event-first-hour-transcript/ [SNIP]

...and if you cross-referenced and looked up the presentation, you would have found the slides ... with the references to the sources that Tim Cooke used for his slides.

Have you bothered to actually look at the presentation? Did you notice the sources that are provided on the bottom of the slides?

This says more about your sources than anything I could add.

They're not my sources; they are Apple's sources. Do you understand that Apple is meticulously careful about the statistics that they quote in their public presentations?

You claimed that Cooke's numbers were somehow false; the onus is on you to show that. You have categorically failed to provide a shred of evidence to back up that innuendo. We are done with you on this question.