Print 33 comment(s) - last by Breakfast Suse.. on Jun 12 at 4:57 PM

The iPad is still the most popular tablet on the market by far
Tablet market will continue to grow at the same time

Gartner says that the growth in the PC market in 2011 will slow to 9.3%, which is lower than the previously predicted 10.5% growth. The total number of computers predicted to ship this year is 385 million. Part of the reason growth in the market is slowing according to Gartner is that there are fewer compelling reasons for the consumer to upgrade their computer today. The company also predicts that there will be few direct replacements of PCs with tablets. The tablet is expected to be a complementary device to a computer.

"Consumer mobile PCs are no longer driving growth, because of sharply declining consumer interest in mini-notebooks. Mini-notebook shipments have noticeably contracted over the last several quarters, and this has substantially reduced overall mobile PC unit growth," said Ranjit Atwal, research director at Gartner. "Media tablets, such as the iPad, have also impacted mobile growth, but more because they have caused consumers to delay new mobile PC purchases rather than directly replacing aging mobile PCs with media tablets. We believe direct substitution of media tablets for mobile PCs will be minimal."

Gartner predicts that over the next 18 months, PC growth will be supported by healthy replacement in the professional markets. Many of these professional users have been holding onto existing computers in the face of the sagging economy. "Businesses sharply reduced replacements and extended PC lifetimes in response to the recession," said Raphael Vasquez, research analyst at Gartner. "Businesses have begun replacing aging PCs more vigorously. We expect the growing urgency for businesses to migrate away from Windows XP will drive significant professional replacements."

The tablet market is continuing to grow with very robust sales of tablets like the iPad. The iPad is in such high demand that Apple is having a hard time keeping up with the demand and some users are willing to go to extreme measures to purchase one. Android tablets are also increasing in popularity and Windows tablets are starting to hit the market with capabilities more like a notebook than Android tablets or the iPad.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Kosh401 on 6/8/2011 8:12:45 PM , Rating: 3
Apparently nobody told Mr. Gartner about a little PC game coming out this fall called Battlefield 3... going to spur a whole lot of upgrades and sales!

RE: Hm
By fic2 on 6/8/2011 8:27:25 PM , Rating: 5
Has Gartner ever been correct with their predictions?

RE: Hm
By jay401 on 6/8/2011 10:50:16 PM , Rating: 2
Probably not, but every marketing exec practically orgasms over any data on a pretty chart put out by a big name market research firm. There should probably be a webcomic strip made about that.

RE: Hm
By StevoLincolnite on 6/9/2011 12:07:50 AM , Rating: 1
Has Gartner ever been correct with their predictions?

Probably as often as the weather forecasters! ZING!

RE: Hm
By hiscross on 6/9/2011 8:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
sure, they often said microsoft will never be touched, like king forever. Got that one right .. until steve came back

RE: Hm
By michael2k on 6/8/2011 11:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
Battlefield2 only sold 2.25m copies. Why would Battlefield3 move enough to register PC sales?

RE: Hm
By StevoLincolnite on 6/9/2011 12:10:39 AM , Rating: 2
Battlefield2 only sold 2.25m copies. Why would Battlefield3 move enough to register PC sales?

Because from a graphical stand point, it's set to be the next Crysis.

Gamers make up such a small portion though...
Most build their own machines or get a mate to do it, and once they have the machine up and running they just upgrade core components.
Hence they usually aren't counted in sales projections.

RE: Hm
By KoolAidMan1 on 6/9/2011 4:04:56 AM , Rating: 2
Because from a graphical stand point, it's set to be the next Crysis.

This isn't encouraging. :) Crysis didn't sell well at all since it didn't run well with cranked settings on even the best hardware for a long time.

In many ways Crysis was actually the tipping point that slowed down graphical enhancements in PC games. It made clear that people weren't spending tons of money on very expensive upgrades every year or so like they had in the late 90s and early-2000s. Combine this with the lowered ceiling for visuals that more popular console platforms brought about, and increased production budgets for AAA titles (those high quality assets and massive worlds aren't cheap to produce), and the result is a slower evolution for the moment.

A game certainly can't be counted on to drive the sales of expensive hardware. What we are seeing though is hardware catching up to a point where a lot of it will be able to run games like RAGE and BF3 well, but it will be a good amount of affordable hardware able to do this, not just bleeding edge.

Right now we're at a point where display size is more important than the games themselves. I'm currently gaming on a 2650x1440 display, but if I was on a normal 1080p monitor I could certainly dial back on my graphics cards without sacrificing any visual fidelity.

RE: Hm
By TSS on 6/9/2011 9:16:15 AM , Rating: 2
Crysis is a bad comparison (not to mention that engine has always run sloppy). "BF3 is the new CoD4" would be more accurate.

Though considering the advantages BF3 has over MW3 (free stat service, destructability, larger enviroments, better looking enviroments, vehicles *including jet fighters*, just as good a single player story with better battlefield MP gameplay, better animations, better sound (that new sound system is amazing), it would be even more accurate to say "BF3 is the new BF1942".

BF1942 was a culture shock. We went from closed space infantry battles in Q3, UT and HL to expansive enviroments where you could fly a plane just as well as walk around and shoot people. The first time i played that game i saw a zero and a hurricane collide head on with eachother in mid air. I stood and watched in awe from a FPS perspective and knew it was the future. Right before said wreckages hit me on the head. I honestly had not expected wreckages to have collision. I hadn't even expected wreckages.

BF3 will be the same thing, the new standard all future games will reference to. IMO first thing i'm going to do when i have the game is start a local game, bring some C4 and take a skyscraper down!

The only down side to this game for me is that it's 64 players tops. Yes it is absolutely amazing to do what they do with 64 players, i agree. But the only time i've actually felt inside a war was in planetside, in a 200vs250vs250 player battle. And that was years ago. Surely it must be possible by now to get atleast ~150 players in the same battle? I'd be willing to accept BF2 era graphics for that no problem.

RE: Hm
By MrBlastman on 6/9/2011 11:42:08 AM , Rating: 2
BF 1942 was amazing for its time. It had a certain charm to it that really hasn't been repeated since. It had semi-realistic player characters with a bit of humor to them (remember the shifty-eyes?), it had semi-realistic weaponry but not quite totally realistic and it had over-the top gameplay that was based off of real vehicles and aircraft yet, sacrificed complete realism for fun.

Yes, it was fun. It was a lot of fun actually. So much so that I played it as much, if not more than Quake 3/Rocket Arena 3 at the time. It was just pure entertainment. Then there was Desert Combat and the Vietnam Mod (forget the name) that came out.

Great memories. Then Battlefield 2 happened. It started to lean more towards realism. It put stuff in it like--you had to play more to earn weapons. It to me at least, became less fun and more like a chore. It lost its charm. It did have pretty graphics though. Despite them, I still found Desert Combat to be more entertaining than BF 2.

So when I look at Battlefield 3... I worry. It looks GREAT--but, I really don't care that it looks so good. I stopped caring about improvement in graphics back in 2007. I'm fine with where they are at right now. What bothers me is... will they sacrifice gameplay in the name of graphics? So far I don't think they will. Will they sacrifice fun in the name of realism? I'm not sure yet. You see, if I want realism, I can play Armed Assault--which is fun, but, I really have decided I could care less for realism in an FPS.

I fly flight simulators for realism--simulators like Rise of Flight which is absolutely amazing and a pleasure to fly. I get to relive Red Baron from 1991 with far more realism and fluidity of flight than ever before. An FPS though, I want to take out stress, I want to frag people online. I want to see guts and explosions.

So, I play Team Fortress 2. Not realistic at all but lots of fun.

We're at a crossroads right now. Do we push graphics to the limits again (like I'm seeing at E3), or do we focus on making games fun again. I vote for fun. I hope (and wish) developers will do the same.

RE: Hm
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/2011 2:55:15 PM , Rating: 2
We're at a crossroads right now. Do we push graphics to the limits again (like I'm seeing at E3), or do we focus on making games fun again. I vote for fun. I hope (and wish) developers will do the same.

NO! I absolutely refute your assertion that it has to be one or the other or there is a "crossroads". We can have BOTH fun games with amazing graphics. Mostly we already do!

RE: Hm
By MrBlastman on 6/9/2011 3:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well, mainly I must admit I'm lazy right now and do not want to spend the time, nor money to upgrade my machine. I do it all by hand so anytime I upgrade I lose about 8 - 10 hours out of my weekend (I do it right, I'm not lazy and just format, I do full on ports... haven't formatted in 12 years at least).

So, in the spirit of lazyness *raises a glass* I toast to better gameplay.

We do need better gameplay regardless, though.

But, as you point out:

We can have BOTH fun games with amazing graphics. Mostly we already do!

We already do have amazing graphics. I'm content with them right now for many years to come.

RE: Hm
By inighthawki on 6/9/2011 12:15:55 AM , Rating: 2
Because BF3 not only looks 10x better, but the BF series is now far more well known, especially after the huge success of BC2 on PC.

RE: Hm
By michael2k on 6/9/2011 12:18:55 AM , Rating: 2
You think that there will be over 10m PCs purchased in 2011 due to Battlefield 3 or something?

RE: Hm
By inperfectdarkness on 6/9/2011 4:42:49 AM , Rating: 2
they SAY it's being primarily developed for PC...but i'll believe it when i see it.

imho, not only should all FPS's be developed for PC; the lead developer should not even touch console porting. console porting should be handed to a different developer altogether.

RE: Hm
By Strunf on 6/9/2011 7:23:23 AM , Rating: 3
The PC version will get 64 players per game, if they were thinking on consoles first then this number would be much lower.

RE: Hm
By quiksilvr on 6/9/2011 10:07:09 AM , Rating: 2
What you talking about? You can have 40 players on Resistance, 32 on SOCOM and frigging 256 in MAG. It's completely possible to have 64 online.

RE: Hm
By Strunf on 6/9/2011 9:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
Go tell that to DICE cause it's them who said the console version would have 24 players and smaller ground maps.

MAG can achieve that number of players cause the devs had that in focus, there aren't planes, helicopters, destructible environments etc...

RE: Hm
By tayb on 6/9/2011 7:51:31 AM , Rating: 2
I guess you would run a development studio that didn't care about income or profit then.

Sorry but there will be more consoles sales in the first 24 hours for this game than the PC version will sell TOTAL.

Besides being a fan of PC gaming I see no reason why any developer would target the PC as their main platform. Consoles are a cash cow.

RE: Hm
By tayb on 6/9/2011 7:56:04 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't count on that. Even if Battlefield 3 doubled the sales of Battlefield 2 (~5 million, extremely optimistic) only a small minority of those purchasers will choose to upgrade their system.

Let's be overly optimistic and say that 1 in every 10 BF3 buyers upgrades their system. 10%. You're only talking about an increase of 500,000 sales in a market that is expected to sell almost 400,000,000 units. That's less than a fraction of a fraction of a percent.

Sorry but the notion that a video game is going to spur PC sales is silly.

RE: Hm
By kattanna on 6/9/2011 11:57:46 AM , Rating: 2
pretty much.

also over looked is the simple fact that 3-4 year old computers are more then enough for the majority of people.

if there is no need to upgrade, then most people will not, as its an appliance to them just like the dishwasher or washing machine or tv. only replaced when the old one breaks.

"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

Latest Headlines
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki