I don't see how the 90% market share statement is wrong unless you include boxes sitting in warehouses or returned products as 'sold'.
What's wrong with the price comparison?
I agree that the smooth/small thing was underhanded, although let's not forget that that statement was made as Samsung admitted that they hadn't actually sold 2m devices as they had previously claimed.
1) I don't see how the 90% market share statement is wrong
From the article: Apple sold 14.8 mln iPads. Samsung sold 2 mln Tabs. Do you imply that these figures are not correct? If so, please provide better data.
But if we use these figures, Apple has 14.8 / (14.8 + 2) ~ 88% market share, and a claim about "> 90%" is outright wrong.
Please note that no other competitors were included in this count.
2) What's wrong with the price comparison?
"Jobs compared the most expensive Android tablet -- the XOOM --against the iPad. ... The XOOM's are simply better. It has (expandable) 32GB of storage built in and 3G built in ... XOOM has a much better, bigger 720P+ screen ... Then, add far superior cameras (w/flash), stereo speakers (iPad 2 has one), 4G and a micro-USB/SD Card reader", plus (possibly) more RAM.
One pays more for XOOM, but one gets more (EDIT - in terms of components. I'm not saying XOOMs have better design/software/etc) as well. Jobs compares prices for devices with different specs.
It seems that despite the correction, we apparently still believe that the sell-through was "small" rather than "smooth". Even though Samsung themselves raised their estimated sales in November, suggesting it was doing better than they expected.
There's nothing wrong with comparing them, but it is extremely misleading to use it as a measure of market share, when it is likely that sell-through rates are significantly different. The only relevant measure of market share or market size is devices in the hands of users,
It is even worse to claim that shipment to retailers is the one true measure of market share, and someone else "lied" by estimating customer sales instead.
Do they? I imagine they do, but there aren't any WSJ blog posts pointing that out. The issue then is one of how long it takes Apple to sell out that inventory.
Please provide your data on sales (on iPads, Samsung Tabs and other competitors you consider worthy) and show that iPad has more than 90% market share.
There is no cheaper Xoom. There simply isn’t. The comparison is entirely valid.
Prices matter. Case in point: Apple has no competitive budget laptop. Their cheap plastic laptop costs $1,000 while competitors sell budget laptops for $500.
Sure, some spec might be minimally better here and there, that doesn’t change anything about the fact that those $500 laptops are perfectly competent and Apple has nothing to beat them.
(The only difference is that Apple explicitly doesn’t want to sell a budget laptop but the iPad’s competitors position themselves as, well, competitors.)
But if we use these figures, Apple has 14.8 / (14.8 + 2) ~ 88% market share, and a claim about "> 90%" is outright wrong.
But you can't just pick your own figures and then say "because Apple didn't look at the market the same way I am, they are lying".
The only way it's a lie is if you use the same distinctions they do (which we don't know) and the same figures they used (which we don't know) and then show that they said different figures than their analysis resulted in (aka a lie).
Otherwise, when you say "lie" and "wrong" what you really mean is "they used different criteria", and that's not lying.
It was up to whoever makes a comparison to find such a device.
Comparing your device's price to something with a better specs is stretching the truth; if comparable device doesn't exist - just don't do this comparison.
For anyone who wants a good tablet for $500 or $600, the comparison is completely valid. All he said was that the competition wasn't offering anything at the lower price points. Nothing even slightly misleading about that.
This is common practice.
"Everyone does that" is no excuse.