News - Tablet share shifts towards Android in 2011

[HEXUS]

Apple, though still market leader, looks to be losing ground fast.

Read more.

[crossy]

It's clear that Apple still holds the majority share with 57.6 per cent of the market, however, this is a 10.8 per cent drop in market share over 2010; with Microsoft tablet sales remaining relatively static all the points go towards Google's Android, that has opposingly increased its market share by 10.1 per cent.

If Apple lost 10.8% market share and Android gained 10.1 then you surely can't say that "all the points go towards Android"?

I also remain less than convinced that Microsoft's sales were static - the figures show going from 0.0M shipments to 0.4M, and their marketshare going from 0 to 1.5%. Or have I missed something obvious?

Presumably the Microsoft tablet sales are Win7 ones like the HP Slate 2 - asking because I've seen very few Microsoft tablets for sale, seems to be a two horse race between iPad and the various Android ones.

[Scribe]

If Apple lost 10.8% market share and Android gained 10.1 then you surely can't say that "all the points go towards Android"?

I also remain less than convinced that Microsoft's sales were static - the figures show going from 0.0M shipments to 0.4M, and their marketshare going from 0 to 1.5%. Or have I missed something obvious?

Presumably the Microsoft tablet sales are Win7 ones like the HP Slate 2 - asking because I've seen very few Microsoft tablets for sale, seems to be a two horse race between iPad and the various Android ones.

"relatively static"

They did change as you say, but comparatively very little.

[Saracen]

I think we can draw a number of conclusions from those figures, but everything needs to be in the context of one fact - sales went from 10.7m to 26.8m units. i.e. two and a half times the market size.

Next, that's a typical profile of an emerging technology. Initially, you get low volume high priced sales to early adopters, but then, prices come down, competitors come in and product trend towards catch-up. Market size goes up, and it's pretty much inevitable that cheaper products will gain in market share, partly because they're starting from a lower base, and partly (a large part) because a LOT of people simply won't pay the high-end price .... me included, most of the time.

So as a market grows and moves downwards on the price scale, it's inevitable that high-end operators like Apple will lose market share, but it's also worth pointing out behind that 10% reduction in market share, Apple also managed to more than double sales, from 7.3m to 15.4m units.

In other words, all this really shows is that the technology has caught on, the market is expanding as as it does, it inevitably moves down in price. If Apple won't drop prices to follow it, they will lose on on those that won't, or can't, buy at the higher prices. But with pricers maintained, and sales doubled, and no doubt profits up too, I doubt they're terribly upset about reducing market share.

The real picture here is that the market itself is expanding fast, suggesting that tablets has caught on, and by the look of it, achieved critical mass.

[Gordy]

It's interesting to note this decline in market share for the iPad. However it's not surprising for several reasons;

1. Apple don't care about market share. They care about profit/revenue. See iPhone and all other products. Market share can be bought like microsoft are trying to do currently and how RIM and HP did in selling off their tablets at a loss. Revenue and profit cannot be.
2. Apple had a massive part of the tablet share due to being the first to sell tablets in any large volume. As soon as others come along and start selling tablets in larger numbers like the kindle, it is going to affect market share.

It's interesting that despite a market share decline in both of their two major profit and revenue generators they had their biggest quarter on record. One that I don't think can be repeated as it had to many outside factors that contributed:
1. New iPhone 4s sold for the first time in the quarter. This new model coming after a longer previous cycle of the iPhone 4.
2. Christmas and holiday sales
3. A 14week quarter instead of the normal 13 weeks

[Gordy]

In other words, all this really shows is that the technology has caught on, the market is expanding as as it does, it inevitably moves down in price. If Apple won't drop prices to follow it, they will lose on on those that won't, or can't, buy at the higher prices. But with pricers maintained, and sales doubled, and no doubt profits up too, I doubt they're terribly upset about reducing market share.

This graph from Horace at Asymco is interesting on Apple's pricing structure



http://www.asymco.com/2012/01/26/price-competition/

This suggest that Apple's prices have remained static despite other companies slashing prices. There are a variety of explanations that could account for this, but it's an interest graph.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

other companies slashing prices.

Companies like Asus and Samsung seem to not really reduce the prices of their tablets,unless they are really old ones. OTH,these companies seem to make the best Android tablets out there ATM.

The tablets which are to put it mildy,half baked, seem to be the ones which are having the big price cuts.

Other tablets like the Amazon Kindle, are priced at a low price point.

[crossy]

It's interesting to note this decline in market share for the iPad.

Saw another take on these figures - commentator pointed out that iPad share decline was down to folks "making do" with cheap Android tablets or holding off altogether while waiting for the imminent (his words) launch of iPad3.

I remain to be convinced ...

Companies like Asus and Samsung seem to not really reduce the prices of their tablets,unless they are really old ones. OTH,these companies seem to make the best Android tablets out there ATM.

Solid agreement here - Samsung seem to have "visibility" approaching Apple's. Perversely I heard someone express the opinion that Apple's persecution of Samsung actually helped to raise the latter's profile. Asus on the other hand seem to be hell-bent on being "innovative" - more power to them.

The rest (perhaps excluding Motorola) are a bit "meh" for me - look suspiciously like the same half-dozen models with different badging.

Just wish Google would update Market Place so it you could use the same id for phone, tablet, cuddly toy, etc and GMP was able to identify the different devices - I get annoyed sometimes of getting update warnings for stuff on my phone when using my tablet - and vice-versa.

[Gordy]

Saw another take on these figures - commentator pointed out that iPad share decline was down to folks "making do" with cheap Android tablets or holding off altogether while waiting for the imminent (his words) launch of iPad3.

I don't see it either. Also there is a huge problem with all these stats is that what is android?

Is the kindle counted as android?
What about the nook?

Add to this that these are shipments. They are not sales, as proved in the past shipments mean nothing if they are not being sold. Apple still cannot make enough iPads to meet demand and keep a low amount in channel. I doubt the same is true for the other tablets out there.

[crossy]

I don't see it either. Also there is a huge problem with all these stats is that what is android? Is the kindle counted as android? What about the nook?

Kindle Fire is a moot point - although my feeling is that (very grudgingly) it is probably Android, Nook on the other hand definitely is.

Add to this that these are shipments. They are not sales, as proved in the past shipments mean nothing if they are not being sold. Apple still cannot make enough iPads to meet demand and keep a low amount in channel. I doubt the same is true for the other tablets out there

Hmm, not sure exactly what you're getting at here - or whether that was just a general comment - although totally agree that "shipments" != "sales". I don't see wholesale slashing of prices of the "proper" Android tablets (Samsung, Asus, Motorola etc - the ones with Market Place) which leads me to believe that there isn't a glut of these.

As to the second point - it's been widely held that Apple deliberately restricts supply so as to reinforce their "exclusivity" - being bitchy, to make owners feel "privileged" to be able to share in the magic! The alternative interpretation are that Apple management aren't competent enough to be able to generate sufficient stock - this is a view that I don't agree with.

I'd like to see an end to Apple's dominance - it's not healthy. I'd also like to see a third major force, whether that's Windows8, WindowsPhone7 or a.n. other I'm not bothered (a bit disappointed that webOS fell before the start).

[Saracen]

....

This suggest that Apple's prices have remained static despite other companies slashing prices. There are a variety of explanations that could account for this, but it's an interest graph.

It is indeed interesting.

My guess would be that Apple (probably rightly) don't see themselves as competing with the period-cutters. They are selling what they (again, probably correctly) consider a high-end product, something of an icon, a fashion statement, maybe even a status symbol. There is an argument that some people buy things because they're expensive, because they're a bit exclusive, because ownership purportedly says something about the owner. Never mind that some people might think that what it says is "more money than brains", owners won't be out to impress those, but perhaps, those with mindsets like their own.

I've never understood by people pay phenomenal prices for fashion labels, for instance. Why pay £50 for a pair of jeans when you can get something functionally the same for £3.

To me, the idea of paying through the nose for a label, especially on a functional product, say more about the person buying it than they plan. But then, if that's their choice, and wearing disgustingly expensive brand clothes is what rocks their boat, well, it's their money.

Anyway, I'd bet Apple execs have a cost/revenue analysis that predicts the price point at which they maximise profit. There is no point in them selling 10 times as many devices if to do it, they
have to cut margins and therefore cut unit profit to the point that the overall effect is that they make less overall profit.

And, after all, enough companies have down well-enough over the years selling products for a high-end market and relying on margins, not volume. Those would include most fashion design labels, Rolls Royce, Ferrari, Rolex, poncy perfume labels, and so many more. It's a business model that, plainly, works.

So if Apple can maintain volumes and more especially, profits, without cutting prices, why on earth would they? I mean, if significant proportions of their customer base are still prepared to buy iPads rather than Android tablets, and their figures seem to prove they are, then Apple aren't competing on price, but more on product quality, and perhaps simply on branding.

If Rolex cut their prices to compete with fuel-station watches at £3 each, what would it do to their brand? It's an extreme example, obviously, but it suggests Apples marketing philosophy, and it's hard to argue with their (financial) results.

[Saracen]

....

Solid agreement here - Samsung seem to have "visibility" approaching Apple's. Perversely I heard someone express the opinion that Apple's persecution of Samsung actually helped to raise the latter's profile. Asus on the other hand seem to be hell-bent on being "innovative" - more power to them.
....

It certainly raised my awareness. If Samsung are worth suing over it, their product is worth looking at. It's a kinda back-handed endorsement.

[Gordy]

Kindle Fire is a moot point - although my feeling is that (very grudgingly) it is probably Android, Nook on the other hand definitely is.

Hmm, not sure exactly what you're getting at here - or whether that was just a general comment - although totally agree that "shipments" != "sales". I don't see wholesale slashing of prices of the "proper" Android tablets (Samsung, Asus, Motorola etc - the ones with Market Place) which leads me to believe that there isn't a glut of these.

As to the second point - it's been widely held that Apple deliberately restricts supply so as to reinforce their "exclusivity" - being bitchy, to make owners feel "privileged" to be able to share in the magic! The alternative interpretation are that Apple management aren't competent enough to be able to generate sufficient stock - this is a view that I don't agree with.

I'd like to see an end to Apple's dominance - it's not healthy. I'd also like to see a third major force, whether that's Windows8, WindowsPhone7 or a.n. other I'm not bothered (a bit disappointed that webOS fell before the start).

I don't think we'll ever get true figures from all the parties in this battle as to the losers there is too much to lose from showing their figures. The winners apart from Apple don't seem keen on sharing numbers. Amazon and Samsung don't reveal real figures.

I don't believe apple have ever built less of a product than they could. You can see the evidence of them ramping up production on each launch. They are making far more devices than they could in previous years. Along side massive investment in future parts/factories.

I think the difference is in Tim Cook coming on board years ago. They have ramped down the surplus that is kept in the production/sales/shipping train to I think just a few weeks supply. This makes it hard for them to deal with a temporary or unexpected surge in demand.

I found it interesting at Apple's financial report call, Tim Cook mentioned the Kindle fire and stated that it seemed to have zero impact positive or negative on the iPad sales. I think the iPad is seen as a separate product to other tablets by many purchasers?

It is indeed interesting.

My guess would be that Apple (probably rightly) don't see themselves as competing with the period-cutters. They are selling what they (again, probably correctly) consider a high-end product, something of an icon, a fashion statement, maybe even a status symbol. There is an argument that some people buy things because they're expensive, because they're a bit exclusive, because ownership purportedly says something about the owner. Never mind that some people might think that what it says is "more money than brains", owners won't be out to impress those, but perhaps, those with mindsets like their own.

I've never understood by people pay phenomenal prices for fashion labels, for instance. Why pay £50 for a pair of jeans when you can get something functionally the same for £3.

To me, the idea of paying through the nose for a label, especially on a functional product, say more about the person buying it than they plan. But then, if that's their choice, and wearing disgustingly expensive brand clothes is what rocks their boat, well, it's their money.

Anyway, I'd bet Apple execs have a cost/revenue analysis that predicts the price point at which they maximise profit. There is no point in them selling 10 times as many devices if to do it, they
have to cut margins and therefore cut unit profit to the point that the overall effect is that they make less overall profit.

And, after all, enough companies have down well-enough over the years selling products for a high-end market and relying on margins, not volume. Those would include most fashion design labels, Rolls Royce, Ferrari, Rolex, poncy perfume labels, and so many more. It's a business model that, plainly, works.

So if Apple can maintain volumes and more especially, profits, without cutting prices, why on earth would they? I mean, if significant proportions of their customer base are still prepared to buy iPads rather than Android tablets, and their figures seem to prove they are, then Apple aren't competing on price, but more on product quality, and perhaps simply on branding.

If Rolex cut their prices to compete with fuel-station watches at £3 each, what would it do to their brand? It's an extreme example, obviously, but it suggests Apples marketing philosophy, and it's hard to argue with their (financial) results.

I think they value their brand far more than any other company of their type. They realise that if they cheapen it, there is a hard path back from that. Take Acer for example and HTC too. They've been releasing too many terrible products and simply too many similiar devices. It confuses customers and doesn't add anything to their bottom line. The cheap lines just destroy brand value and bring terrible profit margins. They've both announced cut backs in the number of products and type of products they produce.

What makes the graph even more interesting is the iPhone line. When the 4S came out they kept the 3GS in the line and in the states at least it is a free phone. You'd think that people would be buying them in massive numbers and it would affect the ASP for the iPhone line as a whole. But no it's actually gone up!?

[dustin87]

Doesn'T seem all that suprising. Since an iPad still costs 500$ to begin with and at this level you don't get to much for your money. It was obvious going to happen that many people switch to lower cost opportunities, or buy a tablet at a lower price level for the first time.
Looking at the increase in tablet sales happening at the moment it also has to be clear that apple can impossible hold or increase their market share in this environment. It's even good for the company, since increased tablet sales provides them with more and more possible customers for the future opting for a "better" (read: more expensive) tablet for their next purchase.