Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You're missing the point again. Total university deployment will be relatively minor outside of the US, where tuition is tax-subsidized.

The initial link you provided about the word "use", did not define usage. If it said "deploy", that would be a different statement. It also didn't state percentage of each corporation. In fact, I couldn't think of a worse article to cite.

LOL "didn't state percentage of each corporation"

Silly us. Who in the world cares about any of this?

Keep splitting hairs.

It seems that you learned and adopted the German "Rechthaberei" behavior and the "I vil tell you (with the raised professor finger)" attitude the rest of the world likes so much about Germans:)

Buy whatever you like and be happy. Doesn't have to be the only now market leader ipad.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I get paid huge amounts of money to explicitly do analyses all day long :D

I hope you do a better job at work than you do in your spare time.

1. The data you are throwing around are 20 years old. Things have changed quite a bit in that time. The median household income in China, for example, is about $6,000.

2. 30 million netbooks were sold in 2009 (and 20 million in 2008). It doesn't strike me as spectacularly improbable that iPads could sell 50 million. And if that's at the upper end of what's possible, it's not due to world income distribution in 1993.

3. A lot of students making less than $7,500/year own iPads. A lot were given by parents; others will have been bought by students with lower incomes but very few expenses. And, as was pointed out, some households will have more than one.

4. IPads are not subsidized like phones (or like other tablets). A $500 iPad costs $500; there is nothing additional to buy. The "real cost" is not $1,500; the real cost is $500. This is a pretty fundamental point to get wrong.
 
How dare they give away a free piece of their software in their own OS, and then give me the choice of using it.

I'm not saying that I agree with the EU judgement. I'm just saying you got it the wrong way around- MS didn't abuse their dominant position within the browser market, they abused their dominant position in the OS market to get that market share for IE in the first place. At least according to the EU!
 
Only 1.2B people live in households that have more than a $7.5k yearly income (consumer class of people).

Selling, not only shipping, 50M iPads this year plus the 7M from last year would mean the 57M / 1.2B or roughly 5% of people in these households would have one ... or 1 in every 20.

I just don't buy it ... at all.

edit: as an extension, if one considers 3.5 ppl / household that would be 1.2B / 3.5 ppl = 340M households. Therefore, 57M / 340M household or roughly 20% of households would have an iPad ... I think that's EXTREMELY optimistic.

Your armchair statistics could be right. I think it is a lot more likely that Apple is telling the truth about their sales.
 
No, but I do ask people to reference what they are claiming. I could easily reference all of my statements, which is why my calculations seem short-sighted. I don't acknowledge anecdotal evidence while most others do.

Oh?

Price point is the biggest reason. Disposable income/available credit has significantly decreased within the US since 2008. Let's assume that an average iPad household makes 100k in the US (average US household income is about 50k). After deductions from the income of the iPad household, that's roughly 75k or so. 3 iPads would run between 1000 and 1500 USD without any services. 1500 USD out of 75k is a substantial investment.

But pulling numbers out of a specific orifice seems to be OK. I would like to see you backup "Let's assume that an average iPad houseold makes 100k in the US...."

Too funny.
 
The reason I don't believe it is because the tablet still doesn't have a basic function. It's not a utility ... it doesn't replace a phone/TV/kitchen appliance. I just don't think it will reach 20% saturation unless the definition of tablet changes to merge with a phone based item.

It still seems like segway ...great technology with no application. It does however have apple behind it and they do produce some products that are essential (phones, PCs, laptops) that could lure customers in.

Just my .02€

See, I think this is where you're going wrong. The iPad is merely a different form of computing device which, by virtue of its design, is becoming very popular for doing some things people used to do on their PCs. It does, in that regard, "replace" other things for certain functions.

Think of it this way, the PC as it is today was designed in a pre-internet era. The concept of a TV with a typewriter infront of it as a way of manipulating data is as old as the hills in technology terms. With the growth of digital entertainment and internet use the PC adapted to do these things but it retained all the legacy stuff. It's still the same machine it was - in very fundamental ways - when it was only used by boffins in lab coats and people in offices.

But now, where are we? Many people around the world are using their PCs frequently for nothing more than checking email, looking at videos, going on facebook and playing games. Due to the form factor of the PC these things are not as easy as they might be. Big, clunky, often slow machines that do loads of stuff (including crashing and needing specialist help to sort out!) but aren't suited to sitting on the sofa flicking through photographs. Sure, you need a PC to update and manage the content of your iPad but that's not the issue. People now use their iPads for what iPads are good for and PCs for what PCs are good for. One doesn't replace the other but rather it enhances it.

So, just as you may own a small car for going around town and a big truck for your day job, you can now own an iPad for looking at pictures and reading your email and a PC for all the heavy lifting stuff. This means, in a household where you're always fighting the kids for the PC cause you've got a ton of work to do but they want to watch a video, you can now get them an iPad and you're free to use the big machine.

There is no need for all new classes of product to completely replace an old class. The new class may simply be needed in recognition of the fact that people's use patterns have changed.

A case in point here might be the Mobile Phone. It didn't replace the landline phone (at least not at first!) but came along as an alternative way of keeping in touch when not at home or in the office. It was still a massive success and the uptake, once the tech was good enough, was very rapid.
 
So 73% doesn't count as a monopoly?

Perhaps, but being a monopoly isn't the issue. The issue is how you got there and what you do when you are there.



Still I'm confused, the article seems to say that this company is basing their numbers on shipments. But shouldn't they be using sales, in particular sales to end users, to determine share. Cause anyone can ship say a thousand units and have 900 of them collecting dust in a warehouse
 
lol ... i'm doing the analysis the IDC should have. maybe i should become an analyst on the side.

So, you're telling me that 1 in every 5 households over 7.5k USD/year income is going to buy a tablet in 2011?!?!?!?

hahahahahaha ... no way.

You're forgetting corporations and multi-tablet families. The iPad's uptake is faster than the DVD player, and everybody and their dog has a DVD player.

Still, 1 in 20 is pretty high. Where do you get your stats?
 
When they stop other companies from being able to ship computers.

Seems like Samsung is having a hard time shipping tablets because of Apple.

It's not illegal to crush the competition. It's just illegal to use certain tactics to hold them down (like threatening manufacturers, etc).
 
We know that Apple's share can't remain in the 90's cause others will build competing tablets and people will buy them.

Right now it seems more like people won't buy them. And then return over half.

I suspect there won't be a serious iPad competitor for at least another year. And maybe even not then.

do you have any numbers for this? i haven't seen a single business in Germany with an iPad, nor anyone running iPhones in house (enterprise).

There aren't always numbers but if you google there are pages of articles about all kinds of businesses and schools buying iPads.



Does the iPad require an Apple Store account?

No.

But if you want to download anything from the stores, you'll have to have one.
 
I will be amused to read this site tomorrow when the new Version is in stores. After reading the comments in this thread, I presume it will be epic.

Its either

"Only 70% marketshare and much smaller waiting lines, iPad is dead!"

or

"Sold units is way more than 70%, waiting lines were even larger than with previous version. Success for Apple!"

Whatever it will be, it will be amusing. Let the show go on.
 
I wish tablets interested me. The only new tech things I'm interested in getting right now are the viliv n5 and the superpad from amazon someone posted here.

That thing excites you? a four inch screen with 4 hours real battery life?
I just dont understand that.

The result in the phone space is apple was surpassed in market share already and doesn't look to be slowing down. consumers want options, apple does not give that too them

Consummers do have options. To use Apple products or not. In the case of the iPad, apparently according to this study, 73% chose to use it.
 
Why does anyone need a TV or a computer? Why does anyone need a newspaper? Why do people need 4 bedrooms and central air? Or a car, let alone 2?


All we need is food, clothing and shelter...

I will be buying 3. One for each of my daughters and one for myself.
 
define "use."
Good lord! DO you need to be spoon fed everything? Every statement you have made is very short sighted. You make assumptions that only 1 person per household will be buying an iPad. Businesses are buying them, people are buying more than 1, people are replacing their computers with them, people are buying them for their kids. Why is it so hard to believe that people are treating these things like iPods? I bought 1 for my wife last year and after seeing my 4 and 3 year old sons fight over it I bought another. Tomorrow I will buy an iPad 2...that's 3 in my house alone in case you lost count(do you need a link for that as well?) I may not be a case model, but I know that there are many more families like mine. How manyt households have more than 1 computer? Remember, there was a time when people thought that there would never be a TV in every household...now there are 2.24 in every one.

acidfast7 has a valid point. If Apple manages to SELL 25 million iPads in 2011, I would consider this as a big success.

Still, I would be very surprised if the competion would sell more than ~5 million units in total in 2011 (maybe assisted by rock-bottom prices during the 2nd half of the year to clear out sale-channels?)
 
lol So they are counting shipments.......

All you need to do is ship a hundred billion crap tablet, then you can claim 99% market share... Cool sounds like a plan.
 
So 73% doesn't count as a monopoly?

look up the word, son.

goes to show $teve Job$' lies eventually catch up.

so do your moms.

Very good. Maybe this will eventually force Apple to release real iPad 2 and not iPad 1.2.

do you complain about incremental upgrades in cars, from year to year? why not? in both scenarios the new year's model is not designed to replace the prior year's.

4. IPads are not subsidized like phones (or like other tablets). A $500 iPad costs $500; there is nothing additional to buy. The "real cost" is not $1,500; the real cost is $500. This is a pretty fundamental point to get wrong.

you win!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lol So they are counting shipments.......

All you need to do is ship a hundred billion crap tablet, then you can claim 99% market share... Cool sounds like a plan.

Yep, old "marketing trick". If sales numbers don't look that great, quote "shipment" numbers, and count on the fact that most media citing your "accomplishment" won't differentiate between units shipped and units sold. MSFT did something similar when releasing the WP7 4Q10 numbers (WP7 devices sold to mobile operators and retailers - not to customers)

Wow, my 30th post in 6 yrs. Not a newbie any longer - what a great accomplishment... ;)
 
So you haven't had any interest in purchasing a single Apple product for the last 10 years, yet feel the need to frequent and post on an Apple message board? What could you possibly add to the discussion, without owning ANY recent Apple product (and by recent, I mean anything with a color screen) except trolling and snark? I'd never frequent an android forum, because I don't own any android devices and therefore could not make real, educated comments about their software. Beyond that, I don't see WHY someone would be interested in a fansite messageboard for a company's products that they don't care for.

I can't imagine how little time I would have to do anything productive if I spent time on forums for every product I don't plan to buy... but that is just me.
 
This is a conservative estimate. The ipad will likely have greater than 80%.

The larger issue for the competitors is this philosophy of producing large quantities in hopes they will sell. Samsung did this and its not clear they sold to customers.

There could be a large number of competitor tablets sitting on shelves next year. This could be very costly to these companies.
 
You're missing the point.

There are only 1.2 billion people on the planet that live in a household with more than 7500 USD in income. Assume that 3.5 people live in a household ... that makes roughly 1.2B/3.5 = roughly 350 million households that have an income of greater than 7500 USD / year.

I am assuming that households below 7500USD/yr would not spend roughly one month of their income on a tablet.

50M tablets / 350M households = 1 / 7 or roughly 14.3%. If you include last years tablets ... it's roughly 20% of households with a tablet.

1 out of 5 households ... I don't believe it.

I also understand the limitation of my analysis ... households can have more than a single tablet ... I guess that I have a little, actually a tiny, hope that the human race hasn't descended that much into consumerism yet!

The reason I don't believe it is because the tablet still doesn't have a basic function. It's not a utility ... it doesn't replace a phone/TV/kitchen appliance. I just don't think it will reach 20% saturation unless the definition of tablet changes to merge with a phone based item.

It still seems like segway ...great technology with no application. It does however have apple behind it and they do produce some products that are essential (phones, PCs, laptops) that could lure customers in.

Just my .02€

Nope.... I'm pretty sure the "market" is defined as the number of tablets shipped..... IPad account for 73% of that market. It's really not hard to believe that.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.