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

[Red-red]

the reality is that android has already eaten into apple's share. just like the iphone, their strength is the competition from within android to keep up to date and the options available to the consumer, its a concept apple doesn't readily subscribe. 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

The reality of what exactly?

I don't subscribe to the theory that what happened in the mobile phone market will be replicated in the tablet one.

The mobile phone market is built around carriers and subsidy which is why Android's uptake and subsequent market share increase has been so rapid.

Now the typical response, much like you've put is that it's choice but this explanation falls flat when you ask yourself the question. Would Android's rise have been what it were if it were priced the same as the iPhone. The answer is quite unequivocally no. It's market penetration ultimately was a result of the phones being given away for free. That isn't a slant on the qualities of the platform, it's just the reason it's done so well.

So Android's market penetration strategy when applied to the tablet market doesn't quite work. It's up the companies involved to produce a product that matches it's rivals offerings that will stand on it's own. Without being pushed by carriers/networks, without being given away for free for both new and extending contracts. It has to standing entirely on it's own.

There's little case for app developers to create apps for it because there isn't the market share there yet, but the market share won't come without the product having the uses it's competitor/s have. I don't think anyone void from any bias would walk into a store and pick a android offering over an iPad currently. You'd have to be mad.

I'm not saying Android won't eventually get a consistent uptake and market share on tablets. What I'm saying is it's route to getting there certainly won't be as straight forward as you and many others seem to think it may.

I think Apple will be worrying about HP more than they will Android in this market.

 

[timirving]

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.

While I think everyone agrees that Apple is growing...... Who are they beating down? Volume purchases bring down cost. Larger companies can buy in bulk and secure lower wholesale prices. This drives growth for many companies. For Apple, they produce great products that have changed the way we use the Internet. That's pretty incredible and as such, we make them bigger. I don't think they've beaten anyone down though. Sure, there may be instances here and there where one could blame Apple for underperforming companies but the blame probably falls on the shoulders of said company and not Apple.

 

[AppleScruff1]

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?

I'm not attempting to debate. I made a two sentence statement and it was turned into this. Enjoy.

 

[TennisandMusic]

To avoid having to wait to use one.

Obviously, you don't have one, or you would understand.

I have one. It sits unused by multiple people, and my cat.

iPads still sell nowhere near PC's, it's funny how some are acting like they are taking over the world. They aren't. At least not yet. You really can do very little useful activities with them. People who think Apple dominates the globe need to get out of the RDF, the vast majority of the world really doesn't care about Apple at all.

Also, the Kinect now holds the Guinness world record for the fastest selling consumer electronics device in history. Faster than the iPad. Is the Kinect changing our world? Hardly. Neither is the iPad.

 

[charlituna]

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

There is likely nothing illegal about it. So long as Apple doesn't make them sign some kind of agreement not to sell to anyone else. Or didn't pull some game like threaten to take some other purchase away if they don't agree to sell X to Apple at Apple's price and it is way under what they asked. Say like Apple is wanting screens for ipads and the asking price was $100 a screen. But Apple wants to only pay $10 so they threaten to take away their huge business with the company which also make the screens for the laptops and imacs if they don't get the price they want. A stunt like that probably is illegal. Or at the least unethical and tacky

 

[kdarling]

A little extra fodder:

Dice.com (a well known professional job search site) has just reported that its Android job listings now outnumber iOS listings.

 

[timirving]

I have one. It sits unused by multiple people, and my cat.

iPads still sell nowhere near PC's, it's funny how some are acting like they are taking over the world. They aren't. At least not yet. You really can do very little useful activities with them. People who think Apple dominates the globe need to get out of the RDF, the vast majority of the world really doesn't care about Apple at all.

Also, the Kinect now holds the Guinness world record for the fastest selling consumer electronics device in history. Faster than the iPad. Is the Kinect changing our world? Hardly. Neither is the iPad.

Noted....
The iOS products are changing how many in the world are using the internet though. Just look at how many sites have changed to include a mobile version or just be more centralized so that those with iOS and other mobile devices can effectively view them.
I think, right now, the iPad is MUCH more useful than most of us think (tablets in general). I am figuring out ways to use PDFs and PDF annotation apps to use my tablet is replace paper in my practice. Just the other night, instead of handing a patient an exercise handout, I opened it up on iAnnotate, filled out my exercise recommendations, signed and dated it and emailed it to the patient. There's a learning curve but I can see it being more efficient because I don't have to rifle through files or print as needed.
I think things are changing and in 3 years, we'll look back at how we used to use tablets as primitive

 

[charlituna]

A little extra fodder:

Dice.com (a well known professional job search site) has just reported that its Android job listings now outnumber iOS listings.

Professional job sites ebb and flow. All this might mean is that all the iOS positions were already filled but the fresh Android market still needs folks. Simply because it came later. Nothing more or less.

I think, right now, the iPad is MUCH more useful than most of us think (tablets in general).

Agreed.

Just in your world, look at the FDA approving x-ray/mri viewing apps.

Or the FAA approving electronic flight materials

Handicap kids using ipads for communication tools

All things Apple may not have thought about. But developers did.

And that is only going to grow as more tablets and app markets pop up. Let folks get a little crazy with the ideas and they think of some amazing stuff

 

[kdarling]

Just in your world, look at
the FDA approving x-ray/mri viewing apps.
Or the FAA approving electronic flight materials
Handicap kids using ipads for communication tools

All things Apple may not have thought about. But developers did.

They've all been done on Tablet PCs since the turn of the century, and often in far more integrated methods. (X-ray readers talking directly to X-ray machines, flight tablets talking to avionics systems, handicap aids with physical I/o such as puff tubes.)

Bill Gates was correct about the touchscreen and form factor. He was wrong about using a desktop UI... at least as far as becoming massively popular.

 

[cmaier]

Bill Gates was correct about the touchscreen and form factor. He was wrong about using a desktop UI... at least as far as becoming massively popular.

He was only half-right re: touchscreen and form factor. The stylus seems like a great idea, but it's not.

 

[kdarling]

He was only half-right re: touchscreen and form factor. The stylus seems like a great idea, but it's not.

The stylus, in addition to fingers, is a very handy device.

We see more and more threads around here about people using a stylus for note taking and drawing in class and business.

 

[cmaier]

The stylus, in addition to fingers, is a very handy device.

We see more and more threads around here about people using a stylus for note taking and drawing in class and business.

The problem is when you design the OS (and apps) assuming there will be a stylus. It's a fine thing for certain tasks, but it was a mistake to build the UI with the assumption a stylus would always be present.

 

[twoodcc]

well hopefully Apple can maintain that market share. we will see

 

[Constable Odo]

So 73% doesn't count as a monopoly?

You'd need to look up the various meanings of the term monopoly.
One meaning:
A company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service.

Apple does not have full control over the tablet market. Apple has the highest market share because it's basically the first vendor to sell a large number of tablets. However, any company that builds tablets are welcome to compete and Apple can't stop them. Apple leads the market, but consumers can choose any available tablet they want. There are at least 50 Android tablet makers and consumers are free to choose from any of them that offer a tablet.

Apple does not have a monopoly because it is not restricting or controlling other tablet vendors. Consumers willingly gave Apple's iPad high market share.

 

[diamond.g]

You'd need to look up the various meanings of the term monopoly.
One meaning:
A company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service.

Apple does not have full control over the tablet market. Apple has the highest market share because it's basically the first vendor to sell a large number of tablets. However, any company that builds tablets are welcome to compete and Apple can't stop them. Apple leads the market, but consumers can choose any available tablet they want. There are at least 50 Android tablet makers and consumers are free to choose from any of them that offer a tablet.

Apple does not have a monopoly because it is not restricting or controlling other tablet vendors. Consumers willingly gave Apple's iPad high market share.

I was just asking. I don't think that they do have a monopoly. I was just trying to figure out why people felt that (in a somewhat similar situation) MS did.

My point:

Microsoft does not have full control over the OS market. Microsoft has the highest market share because it's basically the first vendor to sell a large number of OSs. However, any company that builds OSs are welcome to compete and Microsoft can't stop them. Microsoft leads the market, but consumers can choose any available OSs they want. There are at least 50 OS makers and consumers are free to choose from any of them that offer an OS.

Microsoft does not have a monopoly because it is not restricting or controlling other OS vendors. Consumers willingly gave Microsoft's OS high market share.

yet everyone believed that MS had a monopoly...

 

[charlituna]

I was just asking. I don't think that they do have a monopoly. I was just trying to figure out why people felt that (in a somewhat similar situation) MS did.

My point:

yet everyone believed that MS had a monopoly...

People believed it because they did.

Under legal terms, a monopoly is a majority share way above everyone else. At the time that Microsoft got into trouble they had somewhere between 85-90% of the relevant market (being defined as personal computer systems)

But understand that a monopoly alone is NOT the issue. It is totally legal to be a monopoly in your market. It is how you get there and what you do when you get there that is the issue.

Microsoft got their power by opening up Windows to any hardware company out there that asked to use it. No issues there. That allowed for a consumer friendly "price war" if you will that make Windows run computer very affordable so homes, schools etc snagged them up by the hundreds. Again, no issue.

BUT, then the internet especially the WWW came around and Microsoft found themselves at a loss. Sure right then everyone was giving away the software but one day they might want to sell it and folks are more likely to buy what they have been using over something untried. Plus companies like Netscape were making integrated software that eliminated the need for email software (potentially cutting into Outlook sales) etc. Microsoft felt that they needed to get into the whole WWW thing hard and fast.

and that is where they made their fatal mistake. See they decided the way to do it was to make including Internet Explorer and only IE a condition of getting an OEM license for Windows. And then they went further by cutting off openly available info about writing Windows apps to make it harder for Netscape and such to test their software. And they tried to sue folks that reverse engineered Windows on their own despite the fact that under copyright law, that is a fair use.

When it went to court, Microsoft tried to argue that Internet Explorer was a vital part of Windows and separating it would destroy the OS software. But they couldn't prove that claim even slightly. The courts declared that IE was not an OS issue but a separate market. And using power in Market A to push your goods in Market B is a huge no no. An Apple example might be dumping iTunes for Windows and making it so that you have to have a Mac computer to use any ipod or iOS device.