Android tablets won't outsell the iPad until 2016, one market watcher has claimed. Informa's forecast for tablet sales in 2015 has Apple shipping 90m tablets, just ahead of combined sales from Motorola, Samsung, Acer, Asus, Toshiba et al of 87m units. By the following year, Android unit shipments will have surpassed Apple's. …
What about Amazon
Have they factored the forthcoming Amazon tablet into their calculations? If it's priced right then Amazon could see an awful lot of them. Given the very reasonable price of the Kindle, I strongly suspect that Amazon will strive to keep their Android tablet at an affordable price. They're probably the only company with a sufficiently complete ecosystem in place, who could successfully challenge the iPad.
What kind of research is this?
Has this "researcher" had access to Android Ice Cream Sandwich or future Apple or Android-based products? Of course not. So what are these numbers based on?
Even the local fortune teller would do a better a job. Can't understand why the media amplifies these
Isn't it obvious?
Their research is based on sales of the current model of iPad, versus whatever latest version of Android tables are released in the future.
Since we've all heard that the next version of Android will surely be The One, every time, then it stands to reason that whatever is available 4 years hence will surely be better than the iPad 2.
Apple could not possibly top the iPad 2 or maintain their competitive advantage with newer technologies and designs. Evah.
Re: Isn't it obvious?
<quote>Apple could not possibly top the iPad 2 or maintain their competitive advantage with newer technologies and designs.</quote>
And that's exactly why they are currently trying to sue the shit out of Android manufacturers.
I love these authoritative predictions. They're like Martin Brundle commentating on the 35th lap of a Grand Prix.
"Well if Hamilton keeps this pace up he'll be overtaking Vettel by lap 50."
He never does, though, does he?
The post is required, and must contain letters.
Fail of a title
Contrary to popular belief When totem poles are created the more important people/animals/items go near the bottom and the least important go at the top. The Indians created this tradition because they believed the the more important should be easier to see rather than the least important..
"Vertical order of images is widely believed to be a significant representation of importance. This idea is so pervasive that it has entered into common parlance with the phrase "low man on the totem pole." This phrase is indicative of the most common belief of ordering importance, that the higher figures on the pole are more important or prestigious. A counterargument frequently heard is that figures are arranged in a "reverse hierarchy" style, with the most important representations being on the bottom, and the least important being on top. Actually there have never been any restrictions on vertical order, many poles have significant figures on the top, others on the bottom, and some in the middle. Other poles have no vertical arrangement at all, consisting of a lone figure atop an undecorated column." - Taken from wikipedia. Other sources - NCIS and my granddad (a historian in this subject)
- Updated Zucker punched: Google gobbles Facebook-wooed Titan Aerospace
- Elon Musk's LEAKY THRUSTER gas stalls Space Station supply run
- Windows 8.1, which you probably haven't upgraded to yet, ALREADY OBSOLETE
- FOUR DAYS: That's how long it took to crack Galaxy S5 fingerscanner
- Did a date calculation bug just cost hard-up Co-op Bank £110m?