In anticipation of yesterday’s Apple event, I have been thinking about the market share differences between iPhones and iPads.

They are both hugely successful products, but the iPad absolutely dominates in terms of market share. That share has shrunk from the 95% when Apple created the category, but even at 57% its still enormous.

iPhones, on the other hand, despite a similar experience and essentially the operating system, are a much smaller 30%.

Why is that?

Have a look at the next 3 charts, then meet me at bottom.

>

iPhone Market Share


via Apple Insider

>

iPad Market Share


via Venturebeat

>

iPad vs Nook vs Kindle vs Android Market Share


via Minyanville

>

I have a modest theory as to why this market share disparity exists: Buyers of phones get a carrier subsidized product that all do a decent job acting as mobile phones. Smart phones are half phone, half mobile computing platform. The phones both more or less do what they are supposed to do.

I suspect that the differences between the smart devices matter much less if your usage is nearly identical for telephony and close enough for computing. They are, in the words of Wired, good enough (The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple Is Just Fine).

Hence, the differences between the products is not that great relative to how they are actually deployed. Perhaps “good enough” is sufficient when half of your usage is basic text and phone calls.

On the other hand, the Tablets are primarily used as computing devices. The user experience, interface, app availability, power, speed, and operating system superiority could make an enormous difference between tablet users.

Does this explain the market share differences?I don’t know, but its the best thesis  I have.

What do you think?

Category: Technology

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

47 Responses to “Why Is iPad So Much More Dominant Than iPhone?”

  1. patfla says:

    It’s my understanding that it’s very difficult (close it impossible) for anyone else who wants to make a tablet to product something comparable to the iPad at Apple’s price point (and still make a profit of course). While this is much less true as regards smartphones.

    In a word, monopsony.

  2. iPad dominates due to Apple’s supply deals

    Apple certainly has lots of buzz and corporate cache behind its products, but there’s a hidden — almost mundane — reason its newest iPad is likely to dominate the competition: the advantageous deals the company cuts with components manufacturers.

    Apple’s size, and the fact that the iPad shares components with the highly popular iPhone, means that the company can buy crucial parts such as processing chips and display screens at lower prices. Any company that wants to make a tablet computer that matches the iPad’s $499 starting price has to endure higher costs.

    As a result, Apple’s tablet-making competitors have flailed — and failed. And with the new iPad, Apple is expected to extend its 62 percent market share in the tablet computer category it created. IMS Research expects Apple to capture 70 percent of the market this year.

    A year ago, scores of companies all thought they had a shot at emulating Apple’s success. More than 100 tablet models were on display at the annual consumer electronics trade show in Las Vegas in January 2011. Many of them ran on the Android operating system, developed by Silicon Valley powerhouse Google.

    As the year progressed, those dreams crumbled. The iPad 2, launched in March, proved nearly unassailable.

    A big part of the reason was that Apple has priced the iPad aggressively. At just under $500 for the basic model, Apple’s profit margin on the device is lower than on the iPhone, a smaller device for which it charges phone companies a wholesale rate of $600 or more.

    On Wednesday, Apple stuck to that price point when it unveiled the new iPad model. It has a screen that displays sharper images and deeper, more vibrant colors to set it apart from the competition. The new tablet goes on sale March 16 in the U.S. and several other countries.

    Apple has other advantages, too. The company sells about a third of all iPads in its own stores or from its website. By cutting out the middleman, Apple is able to keep more of the slim profit margin for itself.

    Because it produces tens of millions of iPads and uses some of the same components as the highly popular iPhone, Apple can buy crucial components such as chips and displays at lower prices.

  3. louiswi says:

    What do I think?
    As a long time Apple stockholder, whenever Apple comes out with a new product- I get an I-boner!

  4. chavan says:

    the HARDWARE competitors to the iPhone have been making phones for a long time. They’ve built expertise in supply chains and with their customers (the telephone providers). When Android came out companies like Samsung could build it quick and deploy it worldwide to lots of carriers. For Apple it took some time to build these relationships and the phones launched in other countries.

    The HARDWARE competitors to the iPad are all newbies since Apple basically invented the concept. They have no tablet customer relations. It’s all built from scratch. That’d be my guess as to the difference.

  5. Fred McBill says:

    When my 60 year old+ mother goes to the telco store to renew her phone contract – the phone she ends up with is whatever the telco staff push on her. A telco will not push for this phone to be an Apple phone.

  6. f says:

    Manufacturers were late to the tablet space with andriod and rim is non existant in the tablet space. There’s a flood of androids coming now. Check back this time next year and android will be even with apple. The year following, they will have easily surpassed them.

  7. Bob A says:

    yep with android 4.0 and the latest generation of hardware the gap will close considerably this year.

  8. ssc says:

    No, BR, I don’t think so. Most of the people I know that have “Pad”, be it I(Apple) or otherwise basically treat it as toy/gadget. My daughter works in the healthcare industry and a number of physicians she works for have brought Ipads for “work” (and yes, they are all going to upgrade), but all the work are done on their Dell, Lenovo and Fujitsu (the little pocket size touch screen thing). They always ask my daughter “how to download stuff” on their Ipad, never anything work related.
    I brought an Amazon Fire, used it for a month plus now, pretty good little toy, in so far as doing any real work (even reading your site or wsj, bloomberg), my used Thinkpad X60 runs circle around it and then some. The x60 costed me substantially less than $199 (even after I upgrade the hd to a 60G SSD).
    I have played with the current Ipad(2) and thought it was a pretty expensive toy. For $199, the Fire is pretty OK, but I certainly would not spend $499+ even with all the additional power,…,screen. For me, and I know this is true for a lot of people, to spend anything more than a trivia amount of time looking at a screen, reading and digesting charts, a 12 inch diagonal form factor is basically the absolute floor, anything smaller, no matter how great the screen, is just a non starter.

    Somewhat related, I LOL when I saw the market share chart, I have absolutely no idea the IPad started with 95% market share and in 2 years, it now has 58%. I did a quick Google, and apparently, according to Gardner,on a paper that they published in 2008, that was the first year Windows market share dropped below 90%, it took something like 20 years, and yet, there are so many people and pundits predicting Apple will eat Microsoft’s lunch, a little premature, especially now that Jobs is gone..

  9. jaymaster says:

    A couple things (and I work for a supplier to Apple).

    Technically, Apple was late to the smart phone game. Yes, they changed the market in a very big way, but even so, it is hard to catch up to established players.

    Plus as previously mentioned, there are other parties involved in smart phone purchases (carriers). That muddies things.

    But Apple has been a leader in the tablet market. They’ve been tinkering with it for a decade, literarily.

    And a tablet is a computer first and foremost, which is in Apple’s wheelhouse, versus a phone, which is relatively new for them.

    And from a marketing perspective, a tablet is in practicality, a 100% luxury item. Nobody needs them. And that is familiar territory for Apple as well. Smart phones, on the other hand, are more like enhancements to a utility item.

  10. dudebroman says:

    It appears that Android is catching up. I would be surprised this this did not continue.

  11. JimRino says:

    No Name Brands are Risky.
    Apple’s iPad is worth every penny, it’s the product, just a higher quality product.

    People Reward innovation, esp. when your competitors are no-name knockoff brands.
    Rewarding the innovator allows the innovator to continue to deliver a superior product.

  12. JimRino says:

    Apple’s computer sales have gone UP during the recession, SSC.

  13. Adam Clark says:

    Time & Apples to Oranges comparison.

    i) Time. In 2007, Apple had not invented the smartphone category though it had been going on for years prior. Apple had to come from behind in an established category. Whereas the tablet market really started in 2010 with Apple. They only faced a downward share curve. Just math. Give it 4-5 years. You may have your answer.

    ii) Apples vs. Oranges. Compare hardware share, not platforms. Your charts will look different. Google’s OS share comes from a myriad of hardware OEMs. iPhone, the hardware, is actually quite strong relative to other individual hardware OEMs in a well established category. Back to point 1: iPad hasn’t had 5 years on the market for other OEMs to pick away at share. Eventually people will figure out that Android tablets can do just about anything iOS tablets can, but at a much more reasonable price.

    Tablets and phones are toys as they are today. It’s doubtful the mass market is doing anything of any substance on any of them because the user interface stinks, except maybe read and watch more videos on the tablets (but even that seems like having a 13″ B/W TV compared to where we are going). There is tremendous upside in changing that experience as it is today. And there are a number of technologies to do it. Some Apple already owns and is working on. Some its competitors own and are working on. If Apple doesn’t get to the next U/X revolution first, you can kiss their bloated margins goodbye. It will be interesting to see how Google plans users to interface with their glasses by the end of this year. Will there be any mental elements in them or not. If it’s just twitching eyeballs and tapping frames, no worries then. All is the same.

  14. tom_k says:

    These are two different product categories at very different stages of the adoption lifecycle. There are something like 300M cell phone accounts in use in the US and something like half of them have a smart phone. That’s very broad market adoption. Tablets are definitely popular but they’re not at that level yet; purchasers still skew towards the affluent and the somewhat early adopter population. As you get into the rest of the population, buyer types shift towards less tech-savvy, more price-sensitive and marketing-sensitive consumers. I suspect products like the Kindle Fire, and other “budget” Android tablets in the sub-$500 range, will do quite well over time. I also suspect that a lot of heavy Android / Gmail users will prefer the more cohesive experience of being on an Android tablet once there are some more out that offer ICS.

  15. GetReal1 says:

    Country and folks deep in debt, but gotta have that iPad. I’m totally surprised that so many people bought it, guess folks are richer than I thought or they’re just keeping up with the Jones. Whatever.

  16. Jim Birch says:

    Google are only at the first generation tablet version of Android. A couple more versions and there won’t be any compelling practical difference. iPad will retain Made by the Design Gods status (and price premium) but Android will be faster, cheaper, and more flexible. Android will have more goodies in the baseline models while Apple use their entry level models as trade up points.

    It’s worth remembering that this is a very immature market.

  17. mathdock says:

    Count me in as one of the top 0.8% !!! Palm apps rock! Until my dog ate the charger–now it’s a nice coaster for my sodas.

  18. I know many people who went android because AT&T had junk coverage in their area so Verizon/android was the only choice. Now the are iPhone. I also like the sales guy pushing whatever he’s told to push idea. Lastly Apple is the other to a lot of people, changing fast I know but that’s a cultural divide.

  19. bear_in_mind says:

    Barry, I think your points are salient, as are a number of contributors (pro/con iPad). I am, however, surprised by those claiming the iPad is a “toy” because that mindset is really behind the curve, IMHO.

    Folks are just beginning to scratch the surface of the capabilities of this new platform, and yet, major airlines and the Air Force are already purchasing thousands of iPads for their pilots; others are developing professional training curriculum for corporations; and sales professionals are gobbling them up.

    I understand that MD’s and other clinicians don’t see the potential real-life uses because programmers have yet to roll out paradigm-shifting applications, but make no mistake — they’re coming. And as voice input becomes fully integrated, holy cow, the whole way many professions interact with technology and data is on the verge of a revolution.

    There will always be lower-cost solutions out there, and that’s fine. Go Android. But Google has sadly followed more of the Microsoft roadmap to development, relying on appropriating others’ innovations. They can do that for a while, but I think Apple is well-positioned to plow ahead as far as the eye can see (next 3-5 years).

    By the way, here’s a terrific read from GigaOm on why the inclusion of Bluetooth 4 on the new iPad may be an unheralded game-changer:
    http://gigaom.com/mobile/forget-lte-the-real-new-ipad-3-wireless-story-is-bluetooth-4/

  20. gethoht says:

    louiswi Says:
    March 8th, 2012 at 8:28 pm

    What do I think?
    As a long time Apple stockholder, whenever Apple comes out with a new product- I get an I-boner!
    ——————————————-

    Yeah and every dollar into your pocket comes on the backs of chinese slave labor. Enjoy your profits! Apple has such high profit margins they could shift their manufacturing base to the US and still make billions and billions. Instead they’ll continue to use what is for all intents and purposes slave labor provided by foxconn and AAPL shareholders will make an extra 5 or 10% this year on their investment because of it. Ain’t capitalism grand?

  21. raybo says:

    Some Android phones are cheaper than the iPhone up front… 2 for 1 deals etc. This is probably the biggest factor. iPhones are still the best selling phone.

  22. waas says:

    Perhaps I am not looking deeply enough, but when you have a 2 year exclusive deal with one carrier, you automatically limit your adoption in the market to the share of that carrier (and people who you can get to switch). Since carriers lock people down with contracts, switching carriers is slow and I would argue a bit tough.

    I think it is a blend of your theory and the carrier problem. Switching is slowed by the economics of the carrier contract model. Android based phones had some time to catch up and market against Apple coupled with carriers intent on keeping customers. Cheaper subsidized Android phones on carriers other than AT&T driven by both the handset makers and the carriers need to compete made staying with a “just good enough” Android a sound financial choice too.

    Just my 2 cents.

  23. davidj270 says:

    Who needs to dominate unit shipments if you get 80% of the profit:

    http://www.bgr.com/2012/02/07/apple-claimed-a-staggering-80-of-mobile-profit-in-q4/

  24. CTB says:

    Apple makes fantastic hardware. Their Macbook Pro consistently rates as the best laptop for running *Windows OS*. Apple’s hardware advantage is a big driver in the tablet segment. The new iPad 3 has a higher screen resolution than 99% of all desktop monitors.

    However, they also have an integrated software advantage — a cohesive UI experience and “things just work together” reputation.

    With Apple products, you know in advance that the item you purchase will not be obsolete in three months. In other words, you’re not going to be duped into buying a product with unknown/unseen flaws that require you to buy a replacement.

  25. CTB says:

    Android is getting more and more polished, but it lacks a unified update mechanism (eg Windows Update). This is hurting it in the tablet market. People don’t expect to updating the OS on their smart phone OS, but they do with their laptops and tablets. Apple prevents fracturing their market with frequent iOS updates.

    I expect Apple will continue to dominate the tablet market until Android develops a culture of standing behind products, rather than the shotgun approach/orphaning devices once they’ve been bought. This is probably deeply ingrained due to the profit motives of Google’s OEM partners.

  26. Kay Manian says:

    From 95% to 58% in a couple years aint good since you created the category. Google will probably have a comparable share of the tablet mkt as they do on the phone side once the hardware manf catch on.

    But interesting is MSFT coming late to the party with the new windows, which looks good on the phone side. Whats that gonna do to the tablet mkt since they already have so much dominance in the PC mkt. Is Apple set to be marginalised again all be it to the premium segment.

  27. “…since you created the category…”
    ~~~
    “…Before full-fledged tablet PCs could become a reality, however, engineers first had to build a functioning tablet-based input system. Two such tablet interfaces appeared in the ’60s – the Styalator and the RAND tablet. Both allowed for handwriting recognition using an electronic tablet slate and a specialized pen…”
    “…GRiD Systems became the first company to offer an actual portable tablet-based computer in 1989 when they introduced the GRiDPad. The GRiDPad managed to weigh in at just under 1.5 pounds despite offering a large, grayscale, backlit screen, internal floppy drive, fax/modem card, and a PCMCIA slot. Like the Penpad before it, the GRiDPad relied on MS-DOS as its operating system…”
    “…GRiDPad
    Operating system wars are nothing new to the computer industry, and the early ’90s saw two companies battle it out for tablet OS supremacy. GO Corporation introduced an OS called PenPoint OS, which allowed for a greater range of gesture recognition. PenPoint OS debuted on tablet models in 1992. That same year, Microsoft countered with Windows for Pen Computing.

    Even Apple itself began developing its own entry into the tablet market. The Apple Newton began taking shape as early as 1989. While originally the Newton was intended to be a larger computer along the lines of the GRiDPad it was eventually shrunk down to a more pocket-friendly size. The Newton ultimately veered away from the tablet arena and became one of the first of a new type of computer called a Personal Digital Assistant or ‘PDA’…”
    http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/04/01/the-history-of-the-tablet-pc
    ~~
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/15/history-tablet-pc-photos_n_538806.html#s77827&title=RAND_Tablet_1964

    ~~
    tangentially..

    The Four Horsemen of the General Purpose Computing Apocalypse

    “…Cory Doctorow’s “keynote to the Chaos Computer Congress” and follow-up post (Lockdown: The coming war on general-purpose computing) on BoingBoing raise the alarm about keeping the Internet and PC “free and open.” Doctorow makes excellent points and if you haven’t watched the keynote or read his essay, you should do so right away.

    I’m generally in agreement with Doctorow, but I’m not really sure that he goes quite far enough with Lockdown. Doctorow’s focus on the copyright war we’re facing with things like SOPA and PROTECT-IP is well warranted, but I’m not sure it covers everything.

    The threat to general purpose computing goes beyond legislation. As I see it, we have at least four major threats to general purpose computing: …”
    http://www.readwriteweb.com/cloud/2012/01/the-four-horsemen-of-the-gener.php

  28. V says:

    I don’t there is any reason. It is what it is.
    Personally I don’t get the big wows, but who cares so long as AAPL is spinning off cash.

  29. dsawy says:

    In hindsight, the carrier lock-in on AT&T hurt iPhone sales in a big way.

    To people in Silicon Valley and the east coast, AT&T seems like a viable wireless carrier.

    In “flyover country,” it simply isn’t. Period, end of story. There are huge areas of the non-urban midwest and west where AT&T’s coverage is non-existent or non-functional in reality, regardless of whatever the wireless sales rep’s maps might say. There’s lots of urbanized areas in flyover country where AT&T will happily drop your call as you walk around a corner.

    In the “pad” marketspace, the apps work or they don’t. There’s no reason to buy a platform on which the apps don’t work. On the Android smartphones, they work well enough as a phone to justify putting up with them. I have a Droid X on VZ, and it works OK as a phone. The apps? They’re obviously infested with bugs. The data service is good enough to get information I need on the road, but it isn’t a “great” platform.

    If Apple hadn’t been so obsessive about secrecy of the iPhone-on-VZ launch, I might have an iPhone. But as it was, my contract was due for renewal, my previous carrier (Alltel) was acquired in our area by AT&T, and we were a week away from a forced conversion to AT&T. I wasn’t going there, period. I’ve been an AT&T customer in the past and they’re one of the most offensive companies I’ve ever had to deal with. The cell phone sales shack lady claimed to know nothing about any iPhone, yet she was selling them a week later. I would have held out for a week, but Apple’s obsession with secrecy cost them a customer… and even now, Apple tells the franchise retailers that they cannot provide any support for the iPhone.

    With an idiotic business model… come results like the above.

  30. mathman says:

    My son left for CA (job opportunity) and lived by himself (his wife was here in PA packing up their home for the move out there while he secured living space, took care of the vehicles and boxes of stuff we mailed to him) with only his iPad and got everything done on it – paid bills, got airline tix, watched tv, did the usual e-mail stuff, and communicated with work (the only thing he couldn’t do is print out, which wasn’t a problem). i was impressed. Now that he’s re-united with his wife and critters and all the furniture, he’ll probably go back to the stationary computer with all the gadgets once his office is set up, but he said it was a life-saver in his case.

    @ mathdock: Do you have a Weimaraner? Mine will eat anything (he’s torn a hole in my living room rug, chewed up Christmas ornaments, dragged a tree branch into the house through the dog door and chewed the bark off, 2 cheesecake cupcakes i put on the counter, turned my back to dispose of the package they came in, turned around and they were GONE, paper towels, lint (!) from the dryer, clothing, and a metal tea ball) even though he has squeeky toys, bones, antlers, balls, and chew toys galore. He’s getting better about it, growing slowly out of his puppy stage, and (thankfully) hasn’t had any ill effects from his little adventures in gastronomical selection.

  31. econimonium says:

    This is a really strange comparison. A phone is a subsidized device, offered by a small subset of providers who have their own agenda (margin, usage) and can push devices in different ways. A tablet is offered by anyone in a free-market way with no lock-ins. Furthermore, the tablets’ function set is completely different.

    I read in interesting articles on laptops a while ago that got me thinking about devices and market segments. The smartphone set is really ruled by people who have a business cross-over function for their phones. Let’s be serious here, I use an iPhone because when I’m not in front of my desk, I can still “keep up”. I don’t expect to do real work on it, I just want to stay updated with some apps. This market is also dominated by people who are “gadget-friendly” and very opinionated. So you have a huge uptake from technical folks, who mostly hate all things Apple because of the very closed (and arbitrary) system they have. So Android has made huge inroads here. As you know I’m in tech and it’s a religious argument with any developer/tech person.

    iPads are different. They are mass-consumer and you’ll get very little of a religious argument here about the OS. You’ll also get no developer tech types as they can’t use the thing for anything really, and view it as a device of “those people”…you know the marketing folks they always complain about being tech illiterate. So the iPad market is completely different. It’s aimed at people who don’t really *use* a computer. Read that again. And slobbering fanboys.

    I was in one of those incubator spaces the other day where they have meeting rooms you can reserve. On every meeting room wall was stuck an iPad that are all displaying the reservation system. There’s literally like 100 of them there, stuck to the walls. No purpose but that app and the (nice) touch screen interface to it. I thought “now here’s the perfect use for one”. I also thought it was the tech FU to the device in a way, all there will no real “computing” purpose…a consumption/display device. And for a lot of people, this is all they need. But you can’t really “work” on one and we all know it. And apps are crap, no matter what anyone says for “work”. You type a 20 page paper with embedded graphs on it. You work on a complicated financial spreadsheet on one. And “work” was the driver of computer behavior, not entertainment. Until now. Because it’s now possible to stream entertainment efficiently.

    So let’s be clear here. Tablets == (new) optional entertainment devices bought by a wide demographic. Phones == utilitarian devices bought by a large demographic but “smartphones” are driven by “work” needs. Draw the Venn Diagrams and see where the meet. There’s the answer to your question. And why my $199 Kindle Fire is perfect for my entertainment needs and, in the long run, will be purchased by many price conscious people, and the tech set (or any Andriod device) that hates anything Apple for being closed. You know where this went in the 80′s right? But now is different ;)

  32. abstutz says:

    everyone is making this way more complicated than it has to be.

    phone = necessity in this day and age
    tablet is still a luxury

    i think this is more about the consumer than it is the product.

  33. Orange14 says:

    +1 to what econimonium said. The iPad is just a digital content manager and not much more. I think if you compare it to the new ultrabook computers, you see the really big difference. Since I work out of a home office, the iPad has never tempted me one iota; neither has the iPhone since my HTC Android phone was cheaper and does everything that I need it to do.

  34. Robert M says:

    Given my age my peers prefer the pad because they really sit down and operate. My younger colleagues are glued to I-idiot, and its power app I-giant, as they belief that being social is more important than anything else. Every day as real responsibility gains on them they make the change over.

  35. econimonium,

    nice Post, though, here..

    “…Because it’s now possible to stream entertainment efficiently…”

    be careful on your choice of ‘Vector’..

    “…in each band there is only a certain amount of spectrum “depth” — as in chunks of those frequencies — available for their delivery portfolio. The spectrum depth matters most when it comes time to bring bandwidth to users — simply put, the more spectrum you have, the bigger “pipes” you can provide.

    For the historic cellular bands, the amount of spectrum depth provided by the government was sufficient for the technical needs of the time — providing voice phone calls. The advent of “digital” voice technology made cellular systems more efficient, allowing for more calls to be made over the same amount of cellular bandwidth.

    As technology advanced rapidly, more types of digital communications started leaping onto cellular networks, from text messages to email to full Internet access, albeit originally at transmission speeds reminiscent of the earliest dial-up modems. But by the end of the decade, wireless data services were reaching mainstream at the so-called third generation or “3G” level, where the major providers were promising speeds of a megabit per second or more, good enough even for limited forays into streaming video as long as your connection stayed solid.

    The big problem was — as technology advanced rapidly, producing such wildly accepted phenomena as YouTube and the iPhone, spectrum assets in use remained largely the same, leading to some predictable dropoffs in service as the available airwaves all got snapped up.

    While some of the woes plaguing AT&T and its iPhone dilemma were due to network infrastructure issues — such as the lack of robust “backhaul” connections from the wired Internet to many of AT&T’s cellular towers —…”
    http://www.sidecutreports.com/2010/03/22/report-excerpt-why-spectrum-depth-matters-the-most/
    http://www.sidecutreports.com/tag/aws/
    +
    http://search.yippy.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus-ns-aaf&v%3Aproject=clusty&query=wireless+backhaul+shortages ~

  36. louiswi says:

    gethoht:

    No, capitalism isn’t grand, it is a system in which moneyed interests fleece the public while collecting government subsidies – direct and through tax credits, deductions, depletion allowances or other forms of corporate welfare, while engaging in the fine art of slave labor in a world economy where protecting corporate interests is the prime responsibility of the U.S. State Department and the Defense Department.

    You gotta admit, iBoner is funny however.

  37. loteq says:

    Biggest reason is contracts. iPhone’s have them and iPads don’t. When carriers offer monthly plans without commitment and te iPhone is priced at 499 for a base version from apple people will buy more of them.

  38. jib10 says:

    It is just the snap shot of time you took. Early on, iPhones dominated too. Then Android started gaining and eventually passed iPhones. Same thing will happen here. Look at how much Android has gained in the last year.

    Tablet market is slower to mature than phones because tablets are not subsidized and they are not to ‘required’ like a phone is. And it is a new hardware platform and it takes longer to ramp up the competition. But Apple will settle in around 35% of the market when it is all said and done.

  39. silverBUG says:

    I think the iPhone is the wrong comparision. I’d bet the iPad continues in the same way as the iPod which 10 years after launch still has 78% market share on hardware side and likely +90% on music sales (no data on the +90%, just a guess).

    Just like the iPod, Apple will continue to increase features one step ahead of the comp while lowering price. While they increase the product portfolio they will continue to capture more and more users. Their App store is similar to the itunes environment that then locks in users each upgrade cycle.

    I think microsoft is in the best position to compete with windows but if they can’t get the hardware right is this the Zune all over again?

  40. Bill Wilson says:

    I think Apple’s exclusive deal with AT&T allowed Android phones to get into the market. When I got my Android phone, Verizon did not have an iPhone. Why did I stick with Verizon instead of switching to AT&T? I can’t answer that, but it has something to do with the Devil you know versus the one you don’t. At one time, I had a cell phone through MCI World Com.

    Also, Apple really invented a market with the iPad. I don’t think that’s true with the iPhone or iPod. Those devices are just much better than the competition.

  41. silverBUG says:

    gethoht Says:
    March 8th, 2012 at 11:50 pm
    louiswi Says:
    March 8th, 2012 at 8:28 pm

    What do I think?
    As a long time Apple stockholder, whenever Apple comes out with a new product- I get an I-boner!
    ——————————————-

    Yeah and every dollar into your pocket comes on the backs of chinese slave labor. Enjoy your profits! Apple has such high profit margins they could shift their manufacturing base to the US and still make billions and billions. Instead they’ll continue to use what is for all intents and purposes slave labor provided by foxconn and AAPL shareholders will make an extra 5 or 10% this year on their investment because of it. Ain’t capitalism grand?
    ———————————-

    As does every dollar you spend purchasing produce grown in south flordia, mexico or California. Except in those cases, housing isn’t provided, the working conditions are outdoors, and per bushel piece rates are used for field green tomatoes to eliminate overtime. I’ll happily support Apple and I’ll certainly do everything I can to avoid supporting slave labor in the US.

  42. JL says:

    The uber short version is phones are sold. Tablets are purchased.

    The slightly longer version is. The vast majority of people buying a
    phone just want a phone that does (fill on the blank) like Mary’s or
    tad’s. They walk into a cell phone store and they leave with whatever
    phone the phone store wants them to leave with. They do this because
    their is immense channel pressure to move these phones and since they
    do not have “organic demand like the iPhone” they pay for sell thru at
    point of sale. Stores and sales people are incentivized to sell
    phones.

    Demand for Android phones is three overly simplified segments

    Geeks that don’t want to live in Apples walled garden (smallish but
    not insignificant group)

    People who cannot or think they cannot afford an iPhone. (the cost of
    the phone is largely irrelevant relative to the cost of the contract)

    And lastly…people who walked into a phone store without knowing
    exactly what they wanted.

    None of the carriers WANT to sell iPhones. The $400+ per unit
    subsidies added up to over 6 Billion in Q4. The Carriers would much
    rather sell you a phone they pay 150-200 to subsidize that they are
    getting spiff money from the manufacturer to sell.

    The reality is that the carriers NEED the iPhone ask Sprint how they
    were doing before the iPhone.

    One last bit. I think the iPad has a greater margin of quality lead
    over its competitive set than the iPhone does. It Is sold at tighter
    margins that manufacturers have not been able to compete with. And
    lastly. Google ain’t apple so Android for tablets ain’t iOS.

  43. Bigkev says:

    Samsung tab IS as good as Ipad but its availability was delayed by legal proceedings. Just watch it go now!

  44. [...] Last week, you asked “Why Is iPad So Much More Dominant Than iPhone?” [...]

  45. bear_in_mind says:

    iPad Credited With Saving Man’s Life
    http://mashable.com/2012/03/09/ipad-saves-life-mayo-clinic/