Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Amazon gets BURNED, or iPad puts out Fire's fire
- Thread starter PracticalMac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"Mac outgrew the PC market almost six times "... was gotten from worldwide sales figures like these for 3Q 2010 and 3Q 2011:
As you can see, it doesn't mean Macs are outselling PCs. HP alone sells almost four times as many PCs as Apple.
Apple is simply starting out far smaller, so it's easier to "outgrow" others percentage-wise even with smaller sales increases.
- Apple - 3Q sales grew from 3.9 million to 4.5 million, an increase of 600K or 15%.
- PCs - 3Q sales grew from 89 million to 92 million, an increase of 3 million or 3%.
As you can see, it doesn't mean Macs are outselling PCs. HP alone sells almost four times as many PCs as Apple.
Apple is simply starting out far smaller, so it's easier to "outgrow" others percentage-wise even with smaller sales increases.
Last edited:
BACK to the OP,
I now see a number of Amazon commercials aimed at the eInk Kindles, of note the $79 one.
Amazon hedging its bet?
I now see a number of Amazon commercials aimed at the eInk Kindles, of note the $79 one.
Amazon hedging its bet?
With the Nook Simple-Touch E-ink tablet dropping to $99, Amazon wants to make sure potential buyers know there is an even less expensive option. No reason to only advertise the Fire. Apple doesn't advertise it's macbooks as a hedge in case iPads stop selling.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
It sounds as though you may not be aware of who Amazon is.
Unlike Apple who is the expert at bragging how much money they have, making wild marketing claims and getting others to subsidize their iPhones. Amazon is more professional in it's public persona.
The Fire has been carefully targeted to a specific audience. There will only be one of two outcomes. They will be successful or not. If not, Amazon can easily absorb the loss.
To make a big deal out of this is to be unaware of basis business.
It's a simple as that.
Don't forget, most large scale business do not rely on cult like followers like Apple.
Amazon will do fine. They are just about the only place to get old books and old video games. They are one of two power players in the ebook business and I see a budget tablet only increasing their footprint in the consumer industry.
Sure, their tablets are inferior NOW, but if you think that soccer moms will keep shelling out extra $$ for a white tablet just because it has an Apple logo on the back of it, then you might be wrong.
Am I going to buy my kids two iPads for $400-$500 or *two* Nook/Kindles for the same price?
The iPad is too big for frequent use as a mobile e-reader. The Kindle/Nooks have their niche. Almost everyone I know who reads voraciously has a nook or kindle.
Sure, their tablets are inferior NOW, but if you think that soccer moms will keep shelling out extra $$ for a white tablet just because it has an Apple logo on the back of it, then you might be wrong.
Am I going to buy my kids two iPads for $400-$500 or *two* Nook/Kindles for the same price?
The iPad is too big for frequent use as a mobile e-reader. The Kindle/Nooks have their niche. Almost everyone I know who reads voraciously has a nook or kindle.
This article says Kindle Fire demand has already surpassed demand for the iPAd before launch!!
http://www.bgr.com/2011/11/09/kindle-fire-demand-surpasses-ipad-ahead-of-launch-could-be-a-threat/
http://www.bgr.com/2011/11/09/kindle-fire-demand-surpasses-ipad-ahead-of-launch-could-be-a-threat/
This article says Kindle Fire demand has already surpassed demand for the iPAd before launch!!
http://www.bgr.com/2011/11/09/kindle-fire-demand-surpasses-ipad-ahead-of-launch-could-be-a-threat/
Since Amazon does not release actual figures, this is impossible to know...
This article says Kindle Fire demand has already surpassed demand for the iPAd before launch!!
http://www.bgr.com/2011/11/09/kindle-fire-demand-surpasses-ipad-ahead-of-launch-could-be-a-threat/
Although sales estimates are often a guessing game subject to many qualifications and hedges, (e.g. "purchase intention" may or may not match actual behavior) the source of the information is a respected market research firm and their figures are a comparison of similar surveys conducted for the iPad prior to launch and the Fire at the same point in the pre-release cycle. Thus, they're about as comparable as possible.
The analyst quoted in the article makes an especially telling point. "...Sustained Fire uptake and buzz will depend on consumer/reviewer reactions to Fires user experience.
I suspect that Amazon's emphasis in their introductory press conference on the Fire's Opera-like browser is a major part of assuring that the initial reactions of purchasers is positive since web browsing will be a major priority among those users. If Amazon is able to deliver a satisfying browser experience, audio and video streaming, and strong support for email management, the 'buzz' will continue to be strong.
Many of the posters on iPad boards believe the features not available on the Fire (e.g. no camera, limited local storage, wifi only connectivity) will lead to widespread disappointment. I'm skeptical. As long as Amazon is able to provide 80% of the functionality of the iPad at 40% of the price, the Fire will be a hit, I suspect. Some users may hunger for more functionality but I suspect that will occur only after most have already opted for a $79 annual Prime membership when their free month expires. And for most purchasers, the Fire is all the tablet they need or want.
Of the 2600 respondents surveyed, the difference between the ipad and Fire is 1%, which is within the margin of error. I never put much faith in surveys like this, even if it had shown the Fire was down by 10%.This article says Kindle Fire demand has already surpassed demand for the iPAd before launch!!
http://www.bgr.com/2011/11/09/kindle-fire-demand-surpasses-ipad-ahead-of-launch-could-be-a-threat/
Additionally, this survey is skewed, since the original ipad was an unknown factor. People now know what a tablet can do and see the ipad for what it is, hence people are more likely tonow buy a tablet compared to a year and a half ago.
In essence, this survey is useless.
You're free to believe or not believe whatever you like. However, major corporations and investors do base decisions on surveys like this. Furthermore, while the 1% difference in the "very likely" category is not statistically significant, the overall 17% to 13% difference in the very likely/somewhat likely categories is statistically significant with sample sizes over 2500.
On the other hand, even if the figures are accurate, the more interesting result is the potential of the Fire to discourage some consumers from purchasing an iPad in the immediate future. That's not surprising but I wonder how many of those who claim they may put off an iPad purchase are realistically considering such a purchase in the first place. (Consumers are notoriously unreliable in answering hypothetical questions about their own behavior.)
Amazon responded to B&N's advertising app availability for the Nook Tablet by offering some details on what will be available for the Fire...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57321444-1/kindle-fire-yep-itll-have-netflix-pandora-and-more/
Although the list is not omnibus, Hulu Plus (which was announced by B&N) is notably absent. I wonder if that suggests it will not be available, due to antipathy on one side or the other for Amazon's competition in the same space? At the moment I'm no longer paying for either Netflix or Hulu, but they're important apps for broadening the media availability on the device, since no one service, Prime included, does everything.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57321444-1/kindle-fire-yep-itll-have-netflix-pandora-and-more/
C|Net said:
Although the list is not omnibus, Hulu Plus (which was announced by B&N) is notably absent. I wonder if that suggests it will not be available, due to antipathy on one side or the other for Amazon's competition in the same space? At the moment I'm no longer paying for either Netflix or Hulu, but they're important apps for broadening the media availability on the device, since no one service, Prime included, does everything.
That's going to be increasingly the story on all these devices as the various media services and device manufacturers choose sides. Nor does it end there. The various streaming subscription services compete with one another for exclusive access to content from studios, networks, etc.
It's not a great trend for consumers since it means negotiating a labyrinth of content, streaming services, and devices to figure out where you can access what but it's the wave of the future.
If someone wants to know what Tim Cook said in Apple's October 4, 2011 "Let's Talk iPhone" event, watch the video (download available through this podcast). If you want to see the sources that Apple used for their claims and statistics, look at the sources noted at the bottom of the slides. Simple.
If one wants to take a shortcut, he/she can reference one of the numerous archives of the live-blog of the event available (including the MacRumors liveblog archive of the event). If you use one of the liveblogs that has timestamps, you can use those timestamps to jump to a particular point in the video -- a cross-reference.
...but if that's too complicated for you to do, then don't do it.
Just watch the video. Claiming that this is some sort of labyrinth is just goofy. Earlier, you said:That statement is incorrect: Apple is indeed using third-party sources for their statistics. Anyone watching the presentation will see the third-party sources noted in the lower left-hand corner.
That was also incorrect. Anyone who had actually viewed the presentation -- or even read one of the liveblogs -- would have known he was talking about market share. I don't mind fact-based criticism, but your observations on Cook's presentation are rife with errors. And once your gaffes are pointed out, you've done nothing to account for them.
That's another statement that makes absolutely no sense. It looks like you're just slinging together nonsense words. You're the only one who has ever mentioned muffins in this discussion; there are none in the presentation.
Have you ever bothered to actually view the presentation and get your misconceptions untangled?
Apple's report for FY11 Q4 (reporting period ended September 24, 2011 -- report available here note sales of 4.89 million Macs for the quarter. The number for FY10 Q4 was 3.89 million Macs -- so your number from a year ago was correct. The actual change from FY10 Q4 to FY11 Q4 is 4.89 / 3.89 -- a 26% increase for the year. That is very different from the 15% number you noted above! You didn't cite your source; we can't tell if that was a transcription error or your source has bad data.
I looked through the HP financials; they do not break down the number of PCs they sold. Given the significant error in reported Mac sales, we know that your source is suspect.
I would agree with all of those words -- except for the "simply". First, HP is decidedly unhappy with their PC sales. If you download their 2011 Q3 presentation from here, you'll see that HP is decidedly unhappy with their PC division (from page 4 of that presentation):
Exploring possible separation of worlds leading manufacturing of PCs through spin-off or other transaction.
It is not possible to "simply" compare Apple Mac sales to HP's PC sales. Apple's sales are increasing; HP's sales are stagnant. Apple's market share is increasing, which squeezes the unit sales and the margins for all other PC manufacturers. For the first three quarters this calendar year, Apple has sold 4.69 + 9.25 + 11.12 = 25.06 million iPads. By the end of the year, Apple will have sold between 33 million and 40 million iPads. Some of those iPad sales have cannibalized PC (and Mac) sales. At the same time, HP's sales of their TouchPad were abysmal. 48 days after launching the TouchPad, HP announced that they were abandoning the product. Their acquisition of the Palm WebOS has essentially been a total bust.
My question for you about "simply": what percentage of the market must Apple own before that justification no longer makes sense to you?
Last edited:
When Apple has significantly more than 1/8th of the total market for their Mac and iOS devices, it will matter. As of August, 2011, the installed base of Mac OS was 7.31% and iOS was 3.38%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_market_share
P.S. If you check back over the url's you've cited, you'll find you did not point to the actual presentation. You pointed to the coverage of the presentation by a media source. I can't help it if you cannot put in the correct url for the source you're citing.
As for the actual presentation, Mr. Cook is much more careful in his words than you are. First he indicates that the percentage increase in Mac sales have outstripped those of PC's. No one disputes that. Coming from a much smaller base, it's simple arithmetic to get such a figure.
On the other hand, Mr. Cook also says that Apple has "23% of retail sales." In fact he says that "one out of four PC's sold in a store is a Mac." In other words, the 23% figure is carefully massaged to compare Apple sales "in a store" to PC sales "in a store" such as Best Buy. He is apparently not even counting retail sales via mail order (such as Dell and HP) much less corporate sales of PC's that are not sold "at retail."
If you'd be as careful listening to Mr. Cook as Mr. Cook is in putting the best possible face on Apple sales, you wouldn't be wondering why your figures are so vastly different from what is widely accepted.
Last edited:
Hi, JSH. The question was actually for @kdarling. I'm actually looking for a real number; "significantly more" isn't going to cut it.
You need to account for the massive number of errors you've made in this thread before we can have a serious discussion.
As noted, my "errors" came from looking at the url you cited as a source. Take a look at the url in your own post. Go to 9:11. Enjoy the muffins.
You said:
Nothing that I said, the liveblog said, or Tim Cook said would have led you to make that claim. You made it up on your own. And it is completely and utterly wrong.
I've asked you a question multiple times; and I haven't ever seen an answer. Again: Have you ever bothered to actually view the presentation and get your misconceptions untangled?
Just putting this out there:
The iPod wasn't the first MP3 player on the market, but it was pretty much the ONLY one anyone wanted when it came out. Better and better MP3 players came out from the competition (cheaper too), but never gained much foothold.
Couldn't that be true here too? The Fire is a cheaper, somewhat as functional, solid competitor to the iPad for less than half the price, but is it a true iPad competitor or is it the tablet version of an iPod competitor?
The way the tech blogs are sounding today, Amazon is going to put Apple out of business by releasing this thing. On days like today, I have to try to put things in perspective, because the tech media can get ridiculous sometimes.
The iPod wasn't the first MP3 player on the market, but it was pretty much the ONLY one anyone wanted when it came out. Better and better MP3 players came out from the competition (cheaper too), but never gained much foothold.
Couldn't that be true here too? The Fire is a cheaper, somewhat as functional, solid competitor to the iPad for less than half the price, but is it a true iPad competitor or is it the tablet version of an iPod competitor?
The way the tech blogs are sounding today, Amazon is going to put Apple out of business by releasing this thing. On days like today, I have to try to put things in perspective, because the tech media can get ridiculous sometimes.
Yup. That's how I know that Cook limited the 23% Mac market share to "retail stores." Watch it and learn.
The iTunes store was a major factor for the attractiveness of the iPad. Arn also noted earlier this week how Apple used a disproportionate amount of money to promote the iPod. Those ubiquitous dancing silhouettes showing up in print ads, billboards, and TV certainly helped!
It's a very good question.
Amazon is clearly blasting away on marketing the yet-to-be-released Kindle Fire: lots of TV and print ads. And the Kindle gets a home-page blast on amazon.com.
If you actually watched the "Let's Talk iPhone" presentation, then why did you say, "As for Mr. Cook's numbers, I prefer third party i.e. objective estimates of sales." Someone looking at the presentation video should have seen the third-party sources listed in the lower left-hand corner of the slides.
Check out the FAQ: this is supposed to be a fact-based constructive debate. Nobody should ever knowingly make false statements in the discussion. You claimed that Cook wasn't using third-party sources for his numbers; that claim was factually incorrect. You have yet to account for that factual error.
I did, and I learned plenty.
All of the startups I know use Macs. When I see a group of students at my local university using computers, I see at least 50% Macs. Ditto at airports. But those are all dangerous places to conclude anything: they are anecdotal a bit of a self-selecting sample.
23% of retail is a pretty darn interesting number -- especially, as Tim noted, those numbers were in the single digits only a few years ago. And Tim was clear: 23% is still a small part of the pie. Apple has a huge potential to grow!
Last edited:
Yes, you're right. Your observations at your university is a self-selecting sample. So is extrapolating a 23% current share of sales "in retail stores" to a claim about market share. And you're also right about a potential to "grow."
Currently, Apple has about 7% of the PC installed base, close to 11% if iPads are included. That was the figure before Apple began its long decline two decades ago when Steve Jobs left the company. They've managed to climb back up to that figure in the last six years or so.
At the rate of gaining 1% a year, Apple will have about 25% of the market in 2025.
One thing to note here. I have been in the military for 21 years. In all that time we have moved from Sun microsystem computers to PC's like Dell and in just the last 2 years i have seen my first Mac's popping up. This is huge, because the infrastructure of the military is based on M$. Now all of a sudden iMac's, mac mini's and even ipads are invading that territory. Mac's are still in the minority, but it's very surprising to me to even see them next to the Dell's and HP's! We are also seeing Mac's and ipad's invading all facits of the US government.
There is a shift in perception about Mac's. I don't know if Mac's will ever make it to 25% market share worldwide, but if it does i would hazard to guess it will be long before 2025.
Could well be. I've been hanging around one way or another in this industry for about 30 years and have seen predictions based on short term trends come and go.
In the case of Apple, it held about the same percentage of the market 25 years ago as it does now. But that was before it went into a long term, serious decline, leading almost to its extinction as a viable brand before Steve Jobs returned to the helm. Since 2005, Apple has grown significantly. increasing its share of the worldwide installed base at the rate of about 1% per year. But even now Macs only constitute about 7% of the world's PC's and the rest of the total 11% (as estimated by web use) belongs to iOS.
(Note: In that context, it's interesting to note that iOS has a market share about 3 times larger than Android in these stats, reflecting the dominance of the iPad among tablets.)
As you note, Apple products are "popping up" more frequently in corporate and government environments than was the case several years ago. Frankly, though, I've yet to see major shifts in procurement in the industries and government agencies where I consult. That may change, of course. But the purchase of even several hundred iPads by an agency/firm that routinely purchases 5000 PC's a year isn't going to shift the market significantly.
Apple makes noises frequently about going after the "enterprise" but I've yet to see any serious efforts to do so. It's a consumer company and that's where its culture and focus remain. Thus the focus in Mr. Cook's remarks on "sales in retail stores." I don't know a single firm (even small businesses) that purchase PC's "in retail stores."
This particular sub-thread began with over the top estimates of Apple's penetration of the computer marketplace. From a tiny single digit percentage five years ago, Apple has managed to increase their market penetration significantly, but mainly with the sales of the iPad, not the Mac.
And according to Mr. Cook, Apple has done very well with their brick and mortar "retail stores." I have no reason to doubt that. The Apple store near my home is always crowded. But brick and mortar store statistics are hardly a bell weather of market penetration, especially in technology. I suspect that Apple could sell 99% of the PC's "sold in stores" and their overall market share would increase by about five percent.
It is indeed a valid way to compare sales between computer vendors. Despite what you claimed, Tim Cook is indeed using third-party figures for those numbers.
Tim also notes that Apple's share of retail "was in the mid-single digits" only a few years ago. Apple has made significant gains on the marketplace in the last few years.
Apple chooses the third-party NPD numbers because they're readily available. Do you have some other source of numbers for market share? If so, can you please provide those numbers -- and cite your source?
It's both a potential and a kinetic.
Based on that retail metric, Apple's market share has consistently grown for every quarter for the past 5 years.Think about the product release timelines between companies. It's one thing to grow your market share on a year by year basis; it's quite a different thing to grow your market share in every single quarter. IMHO, that speaks to a fundamental and profound change in the PC marketplace.
Why did you put the word "grow" into quotes? Do you disagree that Apple has indeed been consistently been growing its market share? If so, please provide your numbers and cite your sources.
Please cite your source for those numbers. Thanks!
Why did you use the 1% number? Are you basing that on any statistics, or are you pulling that number out of thin air?
As the rules for appropriate debate note, a poster here should cite his sources. You've thrown a whole bunch of numbers out in this message, but haven't cited a single source.
Could you please make a follow-up posting and cite your sources. If you can't cite any source for your numbers, please say that.
Thanks, JSH.