Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iPad' started by darster, Oct 23, 2011.
My favorite, was reading the comment from the guy that says the Kindle Fire has it beat with useable content.
You just can't make this up.
Nothing new here. It's always been this way. for investors, shipped units is all that matters.
Additionally, Fandroids love the concept that Android has more marketshare than iOS. Doesn't matter if they are incapable of distinguishing that the iPhone alone does not represnt all of iOS. Still, it is always amusing to read such comments.
Talk about mixing apples and oranges.
Google doesn't report shipments. They report ACTIVATIONS, which means the device has been sold and is being used.
This is a good point, but the original quotation says that "1.8 percent of devices hitting the Market run Android 3.0 or better." What does "hitting the market" mean? 190 million Android activations is, I assume, for the entire run of Android phones since the beginning. Is it 1.8 percent of that number? or 1.8 percent of devices being sold now?
You're right; that's another goof on the part of the article writer. Good eye!
The Android Version Dashboard shows the distribution of devices that had accessed the Android Market during the previous 14 day period... not the overall distribution of activations since the beginning.
Why do you guys care?
Because they are fanboys.
Also Google only reports devices that have Market access. So all ereaders, and a ton of Archos devices did not make the statistic.
Question is... do you enjoy your device?
Just the fact that you pointed out this article as a way of saying "OMG look what THE OTHER TEAM cooked up"
iPad made significant gains. But so did Honeycomb tablets. From unimpressive Xoom launch, and ridiculous pricing, to a device that is able to compete. And with release of Tegra 3, things will get even more interesting. Throw ICS in the mix with fully GPU-accelerated apps (default in new API level), and you have a good contender.
Here's another link: http://androidandme.com/2011/10/news/andy-rubin-6-million-android-tablets-in-the-wild/
And quote from it:
At AsiaD this morning, Google Senior VP Andy Rubin mentioned that there are roughly six million activated Android tablets in the hands of consumers today.
So, it's number of activated units people are actually using.
In closing. iPad is not going anywhere. It's here to stay. But Android does pose a threat to iPad's marketshare. It won't happen overnight, but the gap will start closing. If you cannot see it, maybe you should try opening our eyes.
Are there even any numbers to twist in the first place?
Non-iPad tablet sales (let's be optimistic and consider them sales), at most, are around 3-4 million *total*, as in, since Android tablets first began shipping. What is the point of trying to twist 3-4 million to date?
For perspectives' sake: manufacturers have sold fewer Android tablets *to date* (3.4 million) than Apple sold iPhone 4Ses in a single weekend. Similarly, Apple sells around 4 million Macs per quarter, etc.
Quite frankly, at this point Android tablet sales numbers are negligible. And there doesn't seem to be any promise of this number changing drastically anytime soon. Perhaps the Kindle Fire, though it seems folks are getting their hopes a little too high for that one, too.
I used the galaxy tab 10.1 about a week ago at a store and I didn't really like it. Android on tablets isn't that good.
And the average person in the target market for the iPad didn't understand a word of what you are saying.
That's not true. Manufacturers often have to take back or provide deep discounts to move their inventory. SOld is what investors care about.
As an aside, what would the Android share numbers be if the Nook was not counted as a tablet.
Okay, so six million with Google services. No doubt many more without, but no way to get an accurate count of those.
True, and that brings up another point:
The Android tablets I have (Archos, Samsung, HTC, B&N) do not run Honeycomb, but are on Gingerbread 2.3.x or Froyo 2.2.x... which is fine by me. Many other tablets for sale online are similar.
So using just the Honeycomb stats from the Android Version Dashboard, would not be seeing anywhere near all the tablet users.
Tegra 3 = 5 core CPU. 4 for intensive and graphical tasks, 1 for background and low priority tasks. Translates into much higher performance and longer battery life. Compare to iPad 1 to iPad 2 improvement. Also, will improve significantly with Android's multitasking.
GPU accelerated interface = Same thing that iOS and WP7 have. User Interface is using graphic chips to drive all animations, transitions, etc. Unlike previous versions of Android where main CPU was responsible for UI rendering.
And while average person in target market does not understand it, does not mean that they do not need it. Do you understand how changes in air pressure, temperature and humidity affect airplane's performance? Maybe not. But you do rely on people behind the cockpit to get you from point A to point B. Same thing with hardware. You may not know/care about specs, but you need to make sure your device performs. Choosing simply to ignore specs is ignorant.
This simply isn't true. It is like saying that investors only care about this year's shipments, but not next year's. While short term investors might think that way, most investors care more about slightly longer term results...
Who counts the Nook as an Android tablet?
Google doesn't, unless you boot it with a third party ROM with the Market on it. (B&N includes their own market.) Their six million figure is for tablets that are being used purposely as Android devices.
Do report sellers like Strategy Analytics count e-readers using Android? I don't know. Let me check. Aha, they seem to. I wouldn't, unless those tablets can (also) access outside markets. I'd put them in their own category, because they're not being purposely used as Android tablets.
To me, e-readers are not direct competition to the iPad, as many iPad owners also buy the e-readers. OTOH, tablets being used for browsing, remote video, email, facebook and other apps, do count as direct competition... even if again, we often see people with both an iPad and a 7" tablet.
I don't necessarily see it as an either-or sales situation. Just as with different size and purpose TV sets, I think that households will often end up with multiple types and sources of tablets.
Unless there is a specific agreement in place, a shipped unit is a sold unit, per the OEM, and that is the number reported to investors.
Which is why they buy iPads. They don't understand all the tech stuff, and don't care. They want it to turn on and work, have very app they have ever seen on TV and have it easy to use and always have the latest software updates. iOS does that, Android doesn't. Android is geared for the geek crowd that wants to tweak their device and customize their wallpaper. The rest of the world doesn't care if Harry Potter or some video game theme is on their tablet.
Specs are the only thing companies like Samsung, Motorola and HTC can sell tablets on because they rely on 3rd party software. While its clear you like Android you make perfect sense why people buy iPads. They perform.
I've spent 6+ months with a Galaxy tab and the Asus Transformer, hated the tab, actually enjoyed the concept of the TF, but the lack of apps and laggy UI becomes annoying. They simply aren't in the same ballpark.
Rubin: "Specs don't matter to the average consumer? I... I can't believe it."
Yoda: "That, is why you fail."
Tegra 3? I thought Tegra 2 was the anti-iPad crowd's saviour?
Next, it'll be Kal-El, or Tegra 8 or UberDragon, or...
Tegra 2 is pretty old. It was fairly outdated when Xoom came out. Kal El is Tegra 3.
Specs may not matter, performance does. Performance is directly tied to specs. Run iPad 2 with only 64mb of RAM, and you will feel it.
Also I find it funny how a lot of people can say "my Mac/PC has Core i7, it's much better than my old core 2 duo" but as soon as we touch tablets, same people will claim that specs don't matter.
Specs do matter. It's also important how you market the device and specs. If you start your ad with "amazing new Tegra 3 processor with 5 asynchronous cores" you won't get a lot of success. But work ding it like "new improved processor design to make your experience blazing fast and battery super long lasting" will attract more people. Certain Verizon commercial comes to mind.
Take a look at apple iPad 2 marketing. They keep saying that it has "new A5 processor" and IPS display. Tell me, how many people know what IPS is and how is it different from TN, AMOLED, AFFS or VA screens?
Tell me, if iPad 2 simply lost some weight, did anyone go out and sell iPad 1 to get iPad 2?
Or for example, if iPhone 4 was identical to iPhone 3GS, only with Retina display, would people still go for it, for increased pixel density? Pixel density is a spec, after all.
Again, specs do matter. A lot more than you would care to admit. The key to attracting average consumer is to make it should less like some alien technology and more human friendly.
Specs matter... But only in as much as the software that runs it. This is why Android fails.
Of course specs matter, but not when marketing your product to the average consumer, for whom such talk goes completely over their heads.
Long before the Xoom was announced, Tegra 2 was the geek weapon of choice that was going to slay the iPad.
Score one for Meanee on the points above.
On the other hand, Apple understands a critical point about user perceptions of performance and builds their hardware/software to reflect that point.
Specifically, years of research indicate pretty clearly that users value "consistency" over "speed" in evaluating performance. That is, when users compare two devices, they are prone to perceive that the device that performs at the same rate on a consistent basis as "faster" even if that device is on average slower than its competitor.
For example, if one device always takes 3 seconds to perform an action, it will be judged as better performing than a competitor that requires 1 second half the time and 2 seconds half the time.
Many of Apple's design decisions and restrictions on software are designed to protect the iPad's (and iPhone's) performance consistency in a particular hardware environment. Thus, iOS places severe limits on multitasking. Apple does not permit third party "launchers" that enable extensive UI customization. The relatively tight requirements on apps in a highly curated "app store" all contribute to consistent performance, even if that performance is less robust than it might be if those restrictions were not in place. And all of these restrictions contribute to the perception that the iPad (and iPhone) performs "smoothly."
The much less restrictive Android environment stems in large part from the fact that Google doesn't manufacture its own hardware. Instead, it relies upon hardware manufacturers to provide sufficiently powerful hardware to support Android's less restrictive (i.e. more customizable) feature set. (i.e. multiple launchers, third party keyboards, virtually unlimited multitasking.)
The lesson is that there is no free lunch. Hardware specs matter more when options are more numerous. And when a manufacturer controls both the hardware and software they can fine tune performance, albeit at the cost of greater flexibility.