iPad Is Destroying Netbook Sales

Hugh Pickens writes "Fortune magazine reports that sales growth of low-cost, low-powered netbooks peaked last summer at an astonishing 641% year-over-year growth rate but netbook sales fell off a cliff in January and shrank again in April — collateral damage, according to Morgan Stanley's Katy Huberty, from the January introduction and April launch of the iPad. In support of Huberty's theory, she offers a Morgan Stanley/Alphawise survey conducted in March which found that 44% of US consumers who were planning to buy an iPad said they were buying it instead of a netbook or notebook computer. In related news, Apple announced that it sold its one millionth iPad last week, just 28 days after its introduction on April 3. 'One million iPads in 28 days — that's less than half of the 74 days it took to achieve this milestone with iPhone,' says Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. 'Demand continues to exceed supply and we're working hard to get this magical product into the hands of even more customers.'"

Comments

Re:welp.

[Yamata no Orochi]

-1, non sequitur

Re:Revised definition

[Locke2005]

I disput how many years you can be dead-wrong on the same topic and still be called brilliant.

Stephen Hawking and Allan Greenspan have both admitted they fucked up, and both are still considered brilliant. (Greenspan on financial markets' ability to regulate themselves, and Hawking on time reversing and running backwards, amongst other things.)

Re:Whatever it takes!

[rickb928]

"Um, no. He wasn't talking about that specific story, just the idea of a "news" organization so ignorantly backwards as Fox News reporting on science, is like McDonald's putting out a healthy recipes cookbook. In a word, ironic."

Yeah. And I was just pointing out that virtually identical reporting is done by several allegedly reputable and competent news organizations also. So the distinction was that when Fox did it, it was an ignorantly backwards news organization, but when, for example, CNN did it, it was at worst an honest mistake? I fail to see your point, but I believe you're making mine seem more plausible. And mine was that judging a news organization on their resistance to inaccurate or fraudulent stories is not likely to offer you a useful measure of their competence. But if you want to cling to the idea that Fox News is biased, go ahead. Frankly it IS BIASED! Just as the rest of the mainstream media is. What the bias is, that is the important question. Go ahead. Take another swing. You're bound to hit something.

"The funniest thing about defense of Fox News (or Bush or whatever) is almost always to point out a way in which, superficially, some non-conservative agency has done the same thing. "Bush lied about war? Clinton lied about sex!" or in this case, "Fox used the term 'pixie dust'? So did CNN!"

And there is the rub. You write 'non-conservative agency'. Just be honest, and leave it at that. Being 'non-conservative' is probably otherwise defined as 'liberal' in the popularly defined U.S. political spectrum, which runs from 'Left' to 'Right' It should be expressed as a circle, a continuum, where the extremes of both 'Left' and 'Right' are functionally indistiguishable. As you get further away from extremes, I believe, then you see genuine functional differences. As illustration, fascism and socialism are in many ways functionally identical, but come from different motivations and have different purposes. But both intend to insinuate government into as many areas of life as possible. Socialism seeks to make the State the primary agency of control and management, and seeks to exercise control to the betterment of its people (when it works as theoretical Socialism would teach). Fascism intends to make the State arbiter of purpose and intention, by coercion, usually to achieve a specific result. Denmark or Sweden may be the best current examples of socialism, while Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy might qualify as the best recent examples of fascist states, while Iran certainly is functionally not one bit different from either of those - it just chose an entirely non-secular purpose. It doesn't really matter the purpose, either system still functions, much as it doesn't matter if you run a red light because you were distracted singing 'Hail to the Chief' or trying to beat the red Mustang in the next lane.

It's unfortunate that we fail so often to entirely understand our own opinions. My experience has been that when I have to speak something out loud, it oftens sounds harsher than I intended. Not always, but often. Then I have to go back and reconsider why I want to say it. Even here.

ps - I was just having fun poking at a post that used the term 'pixie dust' and making 'magical iPads'. IBM used 'pixie dust' to increase storage density on hard drives, and it was just a cute term. Then someone called a medical collagen somthing-or-other 'pixie dust', and the thought of vats of iPads growing inthe basements of Apple buildings under lights made me chuckle. You had to go spoil it all and get all partisan when that was as far from the point as could be. You seem to have a real hardon for Fox News. Get used to it. All my adult life (and before) I've been assaulted with multiple outlets of left-leaning, conservative-bashing, slanted news. ONE OUTLET decides to tilt in the other direction. when the Titanic was going down, people standing upright were actually having to lean against the tilting deck. Fox could be scrupulously neutral and STILL LOOK RIGHT-LEANING COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA. What a frikin shame. Are you thereatened? Don't be. It's not Fox you should fear. And it is not their audience either.