This is some incredible compelling analysis. I would urge anyone interested in the methodology behind PC/tablet/phone market share “reporting” (and I do use that term loosely) to read this top-to-bottom.
Things start off with a bit of history.
Following a routine that began in the 1990s, Gartner and IDC spent the 2000s noting that Apple’s Mac market share was virtually irrelevant, afloat in an ocean of PC sales without giving much regard to the fact that Apple enjoyed very high share in some market segments (such as education and graphic design) and essentially none in others (such as enterprise sales, kiosks and cash registers).
Then came the iPod, then the iPhone, then the iPad, with Mac sales rising as the Mac-iOS ecosystem evolved and expanded.
And that’s when this article really gets interesting. In a nutshell, a case is made that IDC, Gartner, and Strategy Analytics (the big three) set out to torpedo Apple’s perceived market share.
There’s little mystery of who shot down the iPad’s market share or what weapon they’re using: all three major market research firms rapidly fire off headline bullets clearly aimed at wounding the perception of Apple’s tablet. One can, generally, only speculate about why this is occurring.
However, Strategy Analytics has offered some unusual transparency regarding its motive for carving out a very specific market and then stuffing the pie chart with “tier two” volume to the point where the world’s best selling tablet is crushed down into an embarrassing statistical sliver of shrinking “share.”
Read the article. Fantastic.
Interesting article. I’m always surprised when I see headlines like the “Android snags record 81 percent of smartphone market”, when if I look up from my screen, the devices people are holding seem to show iPhones outnumbering androids 2:1.
Also, a side note – I can’t sign into disqus commenting here with Chrome. Something is broken.
😀
That sure does explain it! #sarcasm
A similar story to one I saw about Nielsen, whose subscriber base consists of traditional media networks who love to hear how relevant they still are.
Big fan of John Dvorak, then?
Nope, don’t know him. It’s just the whole conspiracy theory bit.
See, when the numbers suit the Apple followers they are touted: “It’s an iPad market, not a tablet market.” When they don’t, CLEARLY they’re wrong and people are out to get Apple.
It’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s about analyst groups who pander to their core subscribers and create a public narrative that’s easy to generate headlines with.
Every major industry has outfits like this. It’s how CTOs make decisions that benefit them more than their users.
So it was ok when they touted how great Apple is doing in the tablet market but now it isn’t?
It’s also ok when they bloviate about profit share? Are those narratives slanted to their viewership?
My point: if you accept the positive, don’t be mad when they’re negative.
Just read the titles about IDC numbers here on The Loop: http://www.loopinsight.com/search/idc.
Just look at the headlines.
Positive so all good:
“IDC: iPad still leads tablet market, which lags overall”
“IDC: iPad market share to stay 70 – 80 percent in 2011”
Negative so questioned:
“About those IDC Android tablets passing iPad reports”
Now there is an agenda by the same organization once held in high esteem? You can’t have it both ways.
It was ok and non-relevant when there was an “iPad market” vs Android tablet shipments but once Android gained momentum the shipments were a problem [even though Apple reports shipments too].
See my point?
Not okay with me. Please don’t assign an opinion to me that I haven’t actually expressed. I try to give my attention to analysis from less partial sources.
The behavior of companies like IDC pretty much guarantee I won’t ever take them seriously, no matter which company they’re touting at the moment. They’ve demonstrated their methodology is ad hoc, which taints everything they say.
See my point?
“It’s about analyst groups who pander to their core subscribers and create a public narrative that’s easy to generate headlines with.”
You said ^.
I was clarifying why I don’t buy into that point of view. In no way did I attempt to put it on you, that’s why I put Loop links and posed everything as a question, but you backed it with reasoning so I was merely responding with clarity.
I do see your point. I don’t care about the numbers, to be honest. I repeat often: “pick a stat and you can win too”. Stats are for fans and stocks, neither of which apply to me.
As with any for-profit (and some non-profit) entity, you only need to follow the money trail. The consumers are not the ones paying these companies’ bills. Their clients are. Who are their clients? Companies who commission them for “research”. It’s widely reported that Apple rarely, if ever, commissions such research. Meanwhile, Apple’s competitors in virtually all of its markets pay for a lot of such reports. You generally don’t bite the hands that feed you, if you want to stay in business. It’s really not that complicated.
The same might be said about recent JD Powers reports.
Yep, they atroturf for their customers who want certain stocks shorted. People just want to bury their head in sand and pretend it isn’t so.
They haven’t a leg to stand on (JD) and I will look upon anything else they say with skepticism. Clearly they can’t be trusted to be impartial.
Well, the people driving it are likely fully aware of how dishonest they’re being, but they’re way more concerned with making their quarterly numbers look good. No matter what it does to the company in the long term.