Apple's 4Q 2010 Tablet Market Share Pegged at 73%

[btallada9870]

So what does everyone think about Apple securing components like the screens and in turn preventing other manufacturers from obtaining an adequate quantity?

On one hand, it does seem like they could be abusing a monopoly, but on the other they're just using the resources they've acquired (I don't see anything except maybe the lack of funds preventing other companies from doing this) to ensure enough iPads for the consumers that want - well iPads.

 

[CQd44]

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

I like the portability a full OS, a keyboard, micro-sd expansion slot. It would just make me happy and not have to carry around a laptop when I went laptop functions.

A use example would be me carrying it to a place with wifi and torrenting/downloading something that my phone won't let me.

 

[AppleScruff1]

So what does everyone think about Apple securing components like the screens and in turn preventing other manufacturers from obtaining an adequate quantity?

On one hand, it does seem like they could be abusing a monopoly, but on the other they're just using the resources they've acquired (I don't see anything except maybe the lack of funds preventing other companies from doing this) to ensure enough iPads for the consumers that want - well iPads.

I think its funny that Apple now uses the business tactics that it once criticized IBM, Microsoft and others for using. I guess it's ok as long as it benefits them. They don't care about the little guy anymore since they are the big bad corporation now.

 

[BaldiMac]

I think its funny that Apple now uses the business tactics that it once criticized IBM, Microsoft and others for using. I guess it's ok as long as it benefits them. They don't care about the little guy anymore since they are the big bad corporation now.

When did Apple criticize IBM or Microsoft for buying a large number of components? Or are you talking about something else? Are you being non-specific for a reason?

 

[AppleScruff1]

When did Apple criticize IBM or Microsoft for buying a large number of components? Or are you talking about something else? Are you being non-specific for a reason?

I said tactics, not components. Go view some vintage Steve and Apple and get back to me.

 

[BaldiMac]

I said tactics, not components. Go view some vintage Steve and Apple and get back to me.

I assumed you were referring to the tactic that you actually quoted. Silly me.

You didn't actually say anything. You made an abstract claim without any justification. I asked for evidence, and you argue semantics. Please provide a specific example of Apple criticizing IBM or Microsoft for something that they are currently doing.

 

[AppleScruff1]

I assumed you were referring to the tactic that you actually quoted. Silly me.

You didn't actually say anything. You made an abstract claim without any justification. I asked for evidence, and you argue semantics. Please provide a specific example of Apple criticizing IBM or Microsoft for something that they are currently doing.

I'm not going to go searching youtube at the moment to find some classic Steve back in the 80's. Go watch the 1984 Apple commercial and the Jobs presentation of it before it was aired. There's plenty of justification. Apple used to be the little guy fighting against the establishment. Now they are the establishment and practice the same business tactics that they once abhorred. Is that too hard to understand?

 

[BaldiMac]

I'm not going to go searching youtube at the moment to find some classic Steve back in the 80's. Go watch the 1984 Apple commercial and the Jobs presentation of it before it was aired. There's plenty of justification. Apple used to be the little guy fighting against the establishment. Now they are the establishment and practice the same business tactics that they once abhorred. Is that too hard to understand?

I understand that that is your argument. Yes, Apple is no longer the little guy. I've watched the commercial and have read Jobs' description of what it meant to him. I disagree with your conclusions.

Once again, if you are going to make the claim, please back it up. No YouTube needed. Just a specific example of Apple criticizing IBM or Microsoft for a business tactic that Apple now employs.

 

[AppleScruff1]

I understand that that is your argument. Yes, Apple is no longer the little guy. I've watched the commercial and have read Jobs' description of what it meant to him. I disagree with your conclusions.

Once again, if you are going to make the claim, please back it up. No YouTube needed. Just a specific example of Apple criticizing IBM or Microsoft for a business tactic that Apple now employs.

Did you watch the Jobs presentation before the 1984 commercial was aired? Have you ever heard him bash Windows? Have you ever heard him do it when he was being interviewed alongside Bill Gates?

 

[Avalontor]

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...

congrats!

since you know so much, please tell me how Apple records the 17 iMacs in my london drugs store? shipped or sold? maybe I should send them an email after each sale so they can record it fairly.

Microsoft is a software company that sells it's WP7 licenses to mobile operators and retailers because they are Microsofts customer. That's it, they just sold them. so they say they sold them. weird eh? one more time, in most cases MS sells stuff to companies that sell them to you.

 

[haruhiko]

congrats!

since you know so much, please tell me how Apple records the 17 iMacs in my london drugs store? shipped or sold? maybe I should send them an email after each sale so they can record it fairly.

Microsoft is a software company that sells it's WP7 licenses to mobile operators and retailers because they are Microsofts customer. That's it, they just sold them. so they say they sold them. weird eh? one more time, in most cases MS sells stuff to companies that sell them to you.

This thread is about the iPad, not the 17 iMacs in your london drugs store.
The first time you connect the iPad to iTunes, your iPad is activated and Apple has the record of your activation.

That's it.

 

[Avalontor]

This thread is about the iPad, not the 17 iMacs in your london drugs store.
The first time you connect the iPad to iTunes, your iPad is activated and Apple has the record of your activation.

That's it.

my reply was about the difference between shipped and sold, where did your reply come from? where did I say anything about activation of an iPad.

stoned much?

 

[kdarling]

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.

Apple also always quotes shipment-from-the-factory numbers, not actual end user sales.

.

 

[SandynJosh]

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.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Don't be so provincial in your thinking and calculating...this projection is for WORLDwide sales, not USA only.

 

[marksman]

Did you watch the Jobs presentation before the 1984 commercial was aired? Have you ever heard him bash Windows? Have you ever heard him do it when he was being interviewed alongside Bill Gates?

Just admit Baldi smacked you down for making a silly comment you made without any justification.

Don't tell people to go watch a speech by Jobs before his 1984 commercial where he alludes to some claim about Microsoft and IBM. You made the statement you watch it and provide a specific relevant quote...

One doesn't exist of course, so you just look silly. Steve Jobs and Apple never based Microsoft or IBM for buying components to be used in products they are going to sell.

If you don't believe me go read the bible.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Just admit Baldi smacked you down for making a silly comment you made without any justification.

Don't tell people to go watch a speech by Jobs before his 1984 commercial where he alludes to some claim about Microsoft and IBM. You made the statement you watch it and provide a specific relevant quote...

One doesn't exist of course, so you just look silly. Steve Jobs and Apple never based Microsoft or IBM for buying components to be used in products they are going to sell.

If you don't believe me go read the bible.

No, you look silly. I never once posted anything about buying components and comparing Apple to Microsoft or IBM. Go read it again. Apple has become what it was once against. Is that so hard to understand? I don't mean to insult your hero, but it is what it is.

 

[SandynJosh]

So what does everyone think about Apple securing components like the screens and in turn preventing other manufacturers from obtaining an adequate quantity?

On one hand, it does seem like they could be abusing a monopoly, but on the other they're just using the resources they've acquired (I don't see anything except maybe the lack of funds preventing other companies from doing this) to ensure enough iPads for the consumers that want - well iPads.

If Apple is planning on being able to ship 50 million units of iPads then they are wrong in not ensuring that they can secure the components to do so. Anything else is just p*ss poor planning.

If another company wants to extend themselves into the tablet market, then they need to do the proper planning to do so. They can't expect that sufficient uncommitted production is immediately available for them to suddenly demand components.

It's not like Apple is buying up production to shut other manufacturers out, because Apple is only buying what they need, and if that prevents the "me-toos" from entering the market, that's an unintended consequence of good planning ahead competing with poor advanced planning.

It's also means Apple has big balls to put down the amount of money they have to back up their promotion of what is a very new product category. Most other companies, I would think, would like to see a few more sales quarters before making such a bold move.

Apple has dominance in the tablet market they created. Many of their moves indicate a strong intention to maintain their dominance. This can be very intimidating to other companies considering competing with Apple. Apple doesn't have a monopoly however they do have strong dominance due to their overwhelming marketing ability, the whole iTunes App Store infrastructure, their ability to fund production of critical touch screens, and to control the low-end price point and the timeline of enhancements to the product line.

If you make up a checklist of necessary points needed to hold onto market dominance, I think you'll see Apple has covered them all. It's just brilliant!!!

 

[charlituna]

True.. but 73% is not bad! The iPad 2 will make that go back up. I know a lot of people buying the 2nd gen who never bought the 1st gen!

Keep in mind that they were talking about shipments. and only for the one quarter.

And the other boys were just coming out during that time. So they were likely shipping pretty large amounts.

What would be interesting to see is 73the sales numbers. I'd hazard the guess that the ipad's 73% of shipped tablets was a 100% sales of available units. but the other 27% could have been only 40-50% sold. meaning that the ipad had more like 85% of the sales. Still a drop but not as big of one

 

[zenio]

I think its funny that Apple now uses the business tactics that it once criticized IBM, Microsoft and others for using. I guess it's ok as long as it benefits them. They don't care about the little guy anymore since they are the big bad corporation now.

There's a lot of truth (100%) to your statement. I've been an Apple customer for a long time, which reveals the severe hypocrisy of the way they operate now.

It's all about the money first.

Second is about the money

Third's about the ... well you get the picture

 

[SandynJosh]

Apple has become what it was once against. Is that so hard to understand? I don't mean to insult your hero, but it is what it is.

There are strategies one uses to gain market share, and a whole different set one uses to hold onto market share.

I don't see Apple as ever philosophically against a set of strategies just because they didn't use them at one time. They just weren't appropriate for Apple at the time.

This is not to say that Apple wouldn't push the limits today on what is legal or not, but they are big enough and have large piles of cash, so they would be prime targets for any legal action against them would they mis-step.

There's a lot of truth (100%) to your statement. I've been an Apple customer for a long time, which reveals the severe hypocrisy of the way they operate now.

It's all about the money first.

Second is about the money

Third's about the ... well you get the picture

Do you really believe it has never been about the money??

 

[marksman]

No, you look silly. I never once posted anything about buying components and comparing Apple to Microsoft or IBM. Go read it again. Apple has become what it was once against. Is that so hard to understand? I don't mean to insult your hero, but it is what it is.

Yes you did.

You said this:

think its funny that Apple now uses the business tactics that it once criticized IBM, Microsoft and others for using. I guess it's ok as long as it benefits them.

In reply to this:

So what does everyone think about Apple securing components like the screens and in turn preventing other manufacturers from obtaining an adequate quantity?

On one hand, it does seem like they could be abusing a monopoly, but on the other they're just using the resources they've acquired (I don't see anything except maybe the lack of funds preventing other companies from doing this) to ensure enough iPads for the consumers that want - well iPads.

So someone asked about Apple's practice of securing most of the components in the marketplace and then you compare them to IBM and Microsoft who you claim used to do the same thing. You said.. it is clear as black and white.

When was Apple against companies buying components to build their own products? That is what you were replying to when you said they were like how IBM and Microsoft used to be.. You wrote it.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Yes you did.

You said this:



In reply to this:



So someone asked about Apple's practice of securing most of the components in the marketplace and then you compare them to IBM and Microsoft who you claim used to do the same thing. You said.. it is clear as black and white.

When was Apple against companies buying components to build their own products? That is what you were replying to when you said they were like how IBM and Microsoft used to be.. You wrote it.

Would you feel better if I added similar business tactics? The point I was making is obvious to everyone except you and your pal. Spin it anyway you like.

 

[Zunjine]

Would you feel better if I added similar business tactics? The point I was making is obvious to everyone except you and your pal. Spin it anyway you like.

Actually it wasn't. I thought the same as them. Really there's no shame in admitting you made a claim you can't back up. Constantly trying to wiggle out of it only makes it worse.

Heck, I make statements that I later have to admit were wrong all the time. To pretend this never happens would be to pretend you know everything about everything!

So come on - don't be a bad sport. You did a bit of Apple Bashing and you got called on it. If it was just a case of poorly worded post you could have just said so at first and not gone in for defensive stuff. Just let it go.

 

[AppleScruff1]

I'm not wording my thoughts correctly. To those that understood my point thank you. I thought my point was quite simple that now that Apple has become Goliath they have no problem beating the David's down, and using their leverage to get what they want, a practice that at one point in time Mr. Jobs abhorred. I apologize to those I have offended.

 

[trevorlsciact]

Would you feel better if I added similar business tactics? The point I was making is obvious to everyone except you and your pal. Spin it anyway you like.

You are not very good at debating. You're just arguing in circles. Why don't you just actually make a point instead of treading around it?