It's pretty impressive that an unsubsidized mobile device in the $500+ price range is putting up these numbers. Does anybody besides me think this indicates consumers are replacing their old "real" computers with iPads?
Another anecdotal point, we got iPad 2's at Christmas for my mother (in her 60's) and father in law (in his 80's) both have picked up using them really easily and it makes my life as family IT support person quite a bit easier!
Anecdote: I got the new iPad, my wife liked it and I asked her if she preferred it to her computer (White Macbook) she said that she did so I placed an order for another iPad and her computer is going up on ebay.
You are exactly right. Non-ipad PC sales have been flat to declining basically since the ipad was released. People are not buying as many PCs as you'd expect, they are buying ipads instead.
It's hard for me to see someone who grew up around computers switching to today's tablets. Producing anything (even a simple email) is radically faster on a computer. Consumption is even faster on a computer (key bindings, indirect input that doesn't block the screen) and more comfortable, at least while sitting down (head positioning). For the old market it seems like they could benefit from something like a chrome book just as well -- a really dumbed down computer where you don't need to install things, have windows, or anything us hackers tend to expect computers to do.
Not sure about that. I know lots of people under 40 years old who can't touch type. Hunting & pecking on a multi-touch keyboard is no worse than a physical keyboard. Probably better thanks to predictive typing and universal spell-check.
Speaking from personal experience. I use my Macbook Air at work and to do heavy duty document writing/coding, and my Macbook Pro for recording music and photo post processing.
At home or on the move, when I don't need to be VPNed in, a lot of time is spent on the iPad for browsing, magazine/news reading, email, document reading, etc (admittedly I read books more on the Kindle). It's the form factor and easy touch experience that I really like.
I think at netbook sales have gone down a lot (and that used to be the "hot" trend in PC sales before that because they were so cheap). That would sound logical as many people wanted a netbook as a "couch PC", and the iPad fits better in this setting.
I know at least one couple personally that has said they don't use their laptop anymore.
Probably more often they are just choosing not to replace their aging computers. Any PC within the last 5 years is good enough for most people. What's the incentive to spend $500 on a new PC? As long as the old PC continues to work I don't think they're going to be throwing it in the garbage to use the iPad exclusively but it will definitely collect dust and eventually when it dies it probably won't be replaced.
More than one third of US households have more than one PC. It’s probably a good assumption that most US households with iPads will keep at least one PC, but it’s very possible that many households are replacing their second or third PCs with iPads. After getting an iPad many households might not replace their kitchen or living room PC once it breaks. Maybe kids will get an iPad instead of a cheap laptop.
It would actually be very interesting to look at that question more closely. I’m not sure whether there is already data out there.
I think it’s important to emphasize that for the iPad to supplant PCs, people don’t have to ditch every PC they own. Many own more than one.
Does anybody besides me think this indicates consumers are replacing their old "real" computers with iPads?
While such conjecture is hardly novel, I think it's fairer to say that iPads are replacing a lot of things, and that's what feeds the justification. Your PVR, TV, newspaper and magazine subscriptions, kids toys, educational products, and on and on -- iPad (or tablet in general, though obviously the iPad is the front-runner).
This is more real for me. I so much prefer reading magazines on this iPad than in 'real' life form.
Its interesting that successful digital magazines are like 'print' and not like 'web'. I enjoy the Economist and WSJ and NYT etc when they just have print, pictures, and perhaps a short video snippet.
Unsuccessful magazines to date either try to animate / annoy with ads and/or charge more (or extra) for digital content.
The learning process is painful but I recently checked out the Endgadget's 'distro' magazine and its actually quite readable and useful so there are 'new media' folks arriving, 'old media' folks figuring it out, and people who aren't adapting I expect will die.
Now if we could bring back BYTE magazine in this form it would totally rock.