“Although the heyday of the iPad — when it basically owned the tablet computer market — may be over, the product line is still Apple’s second most important source of revenue, holding steady at roughly 20% of total sales,” Philip Elmer-DeWitt reports for Fortune.
“Nearly half of the 34 Apple analysts we’ve heard from so far — 21 Wall Street professionals and 13 amateurs — expect the company to report next week that unit sales in fiscal Q2 2014 declined year over year,” P.E.D. reports. “The consensus estimate, at 19.3 million, would represent a 0.7% decline, with the pros slightly more optimistic (at 19.4 million) than the amateurs (19.2 million).”
P.E.D. reports, “Dragging down the amateur numbers is the 15 million estimate submitted by the Braeburn Group’s Matt Lew. Tugging in the other direction is Horace Dediu’s 21.8 million. One represents a year-over-year decline of 23%, the other an increase of 12%.”
More info and the full list of the individual analysts’ iPad unit sales estimates, here.
thats nice and good, what i want to know is how many surface and whatever tablets did Microsoft sell?
17
But 11 were returned 🙂
The 17 sold were to developers and Ballmer’s kids.
Easy Answer = Lots!
A more important question is how many businesses are in the process of developing apps for their employees, so they can switch them off of the proverbial desktop and non-essential laptops.
In the healthcare sector, I see medical articles and devices in hospitals and even on shop floors in the medical manufacturing arena indicating that the uptake is only going to accelerate.
Labor is a majority of medical costs and the only way to cut those costs is to give people tools & training that make them more efficient.
“In the healthcare sector, I see medical articles and devices in hospitals and even on shop floors in the medical manufacturing arena indicating that the uptake is only going to accelerate.
Labor is a majority of medical costs and the only way to cut those costs is to give people tools & training that make them more efficient.”
I have to vehemently disagree. Giving medical staff access to computers and training how to use them does not necessarily lower any heathcare costs — and it seems to lower the personal care received.
My wife had a total joint replacement last year. During her stay in the hospital for the few days post operative care she was in a hospital where the year before they had changed over to a new, detailed software system documenting and tracking all care. There was a dedicated computer in each and every room and several at the nurse’s station–all tied together.
What both my wife and I observed is that all the staff were much, much, MUCH more interesting in interacting with the computer and documenting every little detail than they were in caring for the patients. They would literally walk into the room, walk up to the computer and start asking my wife (or me) questions while having their backs to us. On a typical visit they spent 80% to 90% of their time interacting with the computer and only 10% to 20% of the time directly interacting with her (looking at the bandages, checking her IVs, checking her skin color and eye responses, etc.).
It was painfully clear that care and feeding of the computer system was much, much more important than care and feeding of the human patient.
Comparing that to several years earlier when she was hospitalized for a different procedure, it did not seem that the staff to patient ratio had changed. No noticeable labor costs had been reduced. However, the actual staff time is now taken up more by computer interaction than by human interaction.
While you can draw any trend line you want through a single data point (my wife’s hospital stay) the event was an eye opener for both her and me — and not in a good way.
Shadowself
We (medical professionals) are just as frustrated as you. Hospitals and clinics got pushed/embraced medical technology as an way to control medical costs. It was completely oversold as the SIGNIFICANT reasons for rising medical costs are more related to too much technology (i.e. MRI/CV surgery/Cancer treatment center) at every hospital rather than not enough. The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) can produce savings in terms of quality issues such as reduced medication errors, more accurate ordering and reduced duplication but these are minuscule in terms of cost savings compared to the over technology problem.
The side effect of all of this is INTENSE, OVERWHELMING pressure on the staff to document and charge correctly so you get the situation you described where the focus is on correct data entry rather than dealing with people. Medical providers of all categories are in the profession to take care of people, not work computers but that is what the EMR technology has produced as an unanticipated side effect. I used to joke about spending more time looking at the computer screen than at the patient but it isn’t a joke anymore. I’ve had to learn to balance a 4 pound “portable” on my lap and type as I talk so I can look over the top top of the screen at the person I am speaking to. (heavy sigh)
BTW: for MDN readers, I’m still waiting our IT “wizards” to let us use an iPAD which is supported by our EMR software- at least it is smaller and less intrusive.
The expensive ‘diagnostic’ equipment vacuums huge amounts of time and dollars from the US medical system without giving much health benefit with the newly emerging medical records systems taking up most of the rest of the dollars and time.
Actual procedures or treatments that give some health benefits are only a tiny amount of the health care costs. Overshadowing all of this is the medical/legal costs that drive the system to check and double check and triple check a simple diagnosis by ordering many of these (non-health creating) tests with expensive equipment.
Equipment cost is driven up by the overriding medical/legal costs which spirals the total costs up again without creating any health benefits.
More than the same quarter last year. Whatever that was – I don’t feel like looking it up.
Not to be rude, but that is being intentionally ignorant. I am using the word in its proper sense, not in a derogatory attack.
Had you read the article, you would see that nobody expects Apple to have sold more iPads than the same quarter last year.
Why? I have a suggestion: early adopters already got theirs, and the introduction of iOS7 scared away many potential new buyers towards other tablets. Apple needs to undo the iOS7 ugliness.
Not be rude, but my guess is as good as any number an analyst can come up with.
Early adopters have theirs… The iPad came out 4 years, 2 weeks an, I think, 1 day ago. That’s from memory so feel free to correct me if wrong. Since then I have bought 3 iPads for myself and a total of 7 for our family of 3. The market is still growing for tablets (iPads) so seriously doubt Apple will sell less YOY.
In the interest of full disclosure – I didn’t read the article. I was purely answering the headline.
There’s little wrong with iOS7 expect the vocal minority that rails against it.
Don’t bother looking at the chart, Apple share will tank next week regardless what the outcome is.
The same number as : “How many great tablets were sold last year”.
typo: “How many great tablets were sold last year” should of course be ‘last quarter”.
One represents a year-over-year decline of 23%, the other an increase of 12%.
So that’s an effective 35% difference across analcyst predictions. So, why bother?
Clown car.
💩💣💥
iPad is a nice bit of kit but that POS iOS 7 makes me feel like I’m driving a Soviet combine harvester.
It maybe you wish a soviet farmer was fisting you
obsess much?
Beat it. I’m workin’ here.
???