Apple critical of Trump's tariffs on China

In a letter to US trade representative Robert Lighthizer Apple claims that the Trump administration tariffs could both lower the company's economic output and put it at a disadvantage especially in relation to its Chinese competitors.

	1 of 2

Trump tariffs could impact almost all Apple products

Apple claims the tariffs will have an impact on almost all Apple products including the iPhone, MacBook, AirPods and the Apple Watch. The tariffs will also hurt US employees and lessen the company's ability to contribute to the US economy.

Negative effects have increased with tariff increases

The earlier rounds of tariffs did not hit Apple's highest volume item such as the iPhone and Apple Watch just items such as adapters, chargers, cables and cords. However, now the situation is more serious and Apple is speaking out as in May Trump announced a massive expansion of tariffs that hurt items such as computers, smartphones and televisions. The Office of the US Trade Representative is seeking feedback on these tariffs and that is why Apple wrote the letter.

A recent Financial Times article also notes that the Trump tariffs would tilt the playing field in favor of Apple's competitors especially those in China, and would also put a dent in Apple's contribution to the US economy.

Other companies also responded to the request for feedback

Other companies that are involved with computer manufacturing such as Dell, HP, Intel and Microsoft also wrote to Lighthizer expressing their opposition to the tariff increases. The letter claimed that the tariffs would hurt US technology leaders and hinder their ability to innovate and compete in the global market place.

Tariffs face US companies with limited options

Companies could move production out of China. Apple is said to be exploring such a move, perhaps to India or Vietnam. This could be expensive and disruptive for the technology giant. The companies could raise their prices, but this could hurt sales and be a competitive disadvantage. Companies could also simply absorb the extra costs but then this would have a very negative impact on profits. The best scenario for both sides would be a trade deal between the US and China that removed the tariffs.

A recent article reports on Apple's consideration of moving production from China: "Apple has asked its major suppliers to evaluate the cost implications of shifting 15% to 30% of their production capacity from China to Southeast Asia as it prepares for a fundamental restructuring of its supply chain, the Nikkei Asian Review has learned."

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Apple has big drop in iPhone sales in China

Apple reports a significant decline in iPhone sales in mainland China during the first quarter of 2019. As a result, there was a drop also in employee pay and benefits and even layoffs and resignations at assembly plants.

Reasons for the decline in China iPhone sales

Apple Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Tim Cook, said: "While we anticipated some challenges in key emerging markets, we did not foresee the magnitude of the economic deceleration, particularly in greater China." Cook also noted: "We believe the economic environment in China has been further impacted by rising trade tensions with the United States."

During the first quarter of this year, revenue dropped 26.7 percent in greater China, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan.

A recent Digital Journal article discussed Huawei's cheaper phones, and how they are impacting the ability of Apple and Samsung to sell premium smartphones in the region: "Samsung at 17 percent and Apple at 16 per cent approximately still are first and second in terms of smart phone market share. However, at 15 percent Huawei is nipping at their heels. Both are also losing share in the fourth quarter compared to the same time period the previous quarter. Apple lost two percentage points and Samsung about one."

Mark Zandi, an economist at Moody's Analytic,s had a different take on events: "Apple is a bellwether. The iPhone is something that everyone knows and buys, and if people aren't buying it, then that's a pretty good sign they're having a hard time. If people aren't buying iPhones, they're probably not buying everything else. It symbolizes how deep China's economic problems are, and we can connect the dots right back to the trade war."

Sales decline has a negative effect on working conditions

The world's largest iPhone assembly plant Foxconn in the city of Zhengzhou capital of Henan province has seen working conditions deteriorate. Workers reported that their salaries were unexpectedly cut at the end of 2018. One anonymous Foxconn worker claimed that peak production lasted only 20 days last year, resulting in a salary cut from about $598 in October last year to just $447 in the next month November.

Formerly published in Digital Journal

Smartwatch sales in the US were up more than sixty percent last year

Smartwatch sales in the US were up more than 60 percent in 2018. As the wearables market begins to mature more people are buying smartwatches. The data is provided by the NPD Group. Total sales last year were nearly $5 billion.

Market dominated by a few firms

Apple, Samsung, and Fitbit together make up 88 percent of Smartwatch sales according to NPD data during the time NPD was monitoring them. This is a particularly bad figure for Google as none of them make the company's Wear OS devices.

Smartwatch market is just starting rapid growth

The NPD data showed that owners of smarwatches grew from 12 percent in 2017 to 16 percent in 2018. Most of the increase was driven by younger buyers as between the age of 18 to 34 almost a quarter of the group own a smartwatch. The growth is also driven by the fact that many smartwatches now have functions that mimic those of health and fitness wearables. For example Apple has added fall detection to its smart watches. Samsung's latest Galaxy Watch model has added fitness and sleep tracking features.

Google buys smartwatch tech from Fossil

The new tech will make its way into Google's Wear OS watches. A recent article notes: "Google and watchmaker Fossil Group today announced an agreement for the search giant to acquire some of Fossil’s smartwatch technology and members of the research and development division responsible for creating it.

The deal is worth roughly $40 million, and under the current terms Fossil will transfer a “portion” of its R&D team, the portion directly responsible for the intellectual property being sold, over to Google. As a result, Google will now have a dedicated team with hardware experience working internally on its WearOS software platform and potentially on new smartwatch designs as well." Reports indicate the technology is health related.

Previously published in Digital Journal

Apple stock declines in spite of good holiday sales after price target slash

(January 3) Just over last night, Apple stock suffered a decline of more than nine percent. The downward trend was continuing in trading this morning. The stock price has declined 38 percent since last October.

	1 of 3

Apple's stock price decline

The company halted trading yesterday afternoon in order to provide guidance for future earnings. The iPhone upgrade market has softened and this was among the factors causing a big impact on revenues.

On October 3, Apple stock was priced at $232.07 per share but has dropped $87 a share since that high point. However, the market in general has also suffered a decline. As the Techrunch article went to press the price was still down 8.19 percent at $144.98.

D. Davidson senior analyst Tom Forte said that Apple's announcement was surprising given that Apple traditionally has a strong position: “We knew that iPhone unit sales were weak, but just not how weak." The company said it is now expecting $84 billion in the quarter that ended Saturday, down from its earlier estimate of $89 billion to $93 billion.

China a key factor in Apple's decline

Forte thinks that the China situation is key to the decline as a full 20 percent of Apple sales are in China. The U.S. China trade war with accompanying tariffs on both sides is having a negative effect on Apple's Chinese business. The iPhone is much pricier than competing phones including those of the Chinese giant competitor Huawei but also foreign competitor Samsung. Given the weakening Chinese economy, many Chinese consumers simply cannot afford the high-priced iPhone. Apple is also having patent disputes with Qualcomm in China as reported in this Digital Journal article. Apple had already indicated that iPhone sales were weak in other markets as well such as: India, Russia, Brazil and Turkey.

Other than iPhone rest of Apple portfolio is up

Aside from the iPhone, the remainder of Apple's portfolio is up a huge 19 percent. The company has even been able to set aside a whopping $100 billion for a stock buy-back. Forte notes: “They have the balance sheet. They have the stock buy-back program. They still generate very significant free cash flow, and if the individual investor won’t buy the stock, then the company will buy the stock."

Cannacord Genuity believes that Apple is still a sound company in spite of the announced lower iPhone sales outlook. The company wrote in a report: “We maintain our belief Apple can expand its leading market share of the premium-tier smartphone market and the iPhone installed base (excluding refurbished iPhones) will exceed 700M in 2018. This impressive installed base should drive iPhone replacement sales and earnings, as well as cash flow generation to fund strong long-term capital returns. We reiterate our BUY rating but decrease our price target to $190 based on our lowered estimates.”

In Forte's view the company might not recover in the near term as long as the U.S.-China trade war is not resolved.

Apple's banner holiday sales

A recent article notes: "Apple today is sharing some good news in the wake of yesterday’s reveal of a significant, market-moving cut to its revenue forecast, attributed to declining iPhone sales in China’s slowing economy. The company says its App Store, at least, was having a good holiday. This year, customers spent $1.22 billion during the 2018 holiday season and broke a new single-day record on New Year’s Day."

On New Year's Day the company reported more than $322 million was spent in New York setting a record as customers bought iPhones, iPads with apps, and used their App Store gift cards.

The sales this year broke those of last year's holiday season which saw sales of $890 million and $300 million on New Year's Day. CEO of Apple Tim Cook noted in his announcement yesterday that the App Store remained one of the bright spots in Apple's services category.

Previously published in Digital Journal

CEO of Apple, Tim Cook, asks Bloomberg to retract report on Chinese spying on the company

In an interview with Buzzfeed News, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Apple Tim Cook asked Bloomberg to retract its news report alleging that Chinese spies had compromised company servers by implanting a malicious micro chip on them.

The original claim

In the original story the Bloomberg authors, Jordan Robertson and Michael Riley, quote Joe Grand, a hardware hacker and the founder of Grand Idea Studio Inc. as saying: “Having a well-done, nation-state-level hardware implant surface would be like witnessing a unicorn jumping over a rainbow. Hardware is just so far off the radar, it’s almost treated like black magic.” Yet this does not deter the Bloomberg authors from claiming this is what happened.

The authors claim:But that’s just what U.S. investigators found: The chips had been inserted during the manufacturing process, two officials say, by operatives from a unit of the People’s Liberation Army. In Supermicro, China’s spies appear to have found a perfect conduit for what U.S. officials now describe as the most significant supply chain attack known to have been carried out against American companies.

One official says investigators found that it eventually affected almost 30 companies, including a major bank, government contractors, and the world’s most valuable company, Apple Inc. Apple was an important Supermicro customer and had planned to order more than 30,000 of its servers in two years for a new global network of data centers. Three senior insiders at Apple say that in the summer of 2015, it, too, found malicious chips on Supermicro motherboards. Apple severed ties with Supermicro the following year, for what it described as unrelated reasons

Apple denies the Bloomberg claim

Cook claimed: “This did not happen. There’s no truth to this " After the Bloomberg report was issued Apple released a statement that picked the story apart and denied each individual claim the statement said: “On this we can be very clear: Apple has never found malicious chips, ‘hardware manipulations’ or vulnerabilities purposely planted in any server." Shortly after that the Apple vice president of information security wrote to the US Congress to directly deny the allegations.

Cook told Buzzfeed that he had been involved in the response from the beginning in correspondence with Bloomberg. He claimed that Apple made it clear to them that what they alleged did not happen and had answered all their questions. Cook also claimed that each time they brought the issue up the story changed and each time the company investigated they found nothing.

Other sources are critical of the reports as well

The report has also been criticized by US intelligence chiefs and cybersecurity experts. No malicious chips have been discovered. There has been no new evidence come to light and none of the many sources Bloomberg claims the report is based upon have acknowledged that they are part of the investigation. Indeed, one of the few named sources said in a podcast that the claims did not make sense.

A recent article in the Digital Journal notes that the The UK National Cyber Security Centre claimed it had no knowledge of the investigation. The article contains as well denials by others such as Amazon who were said to have been affected by the Chinese actions.

The original article claimed that 17 unnamed intelligence and company sources reported that Chinese spies had placed the computer chips inside equipment used by about 30 companies and numerous government agencies. Yet none of these agencies have identified themselves and no companies have claimed that they have found the chips.

However, Bloomberg stands by the story even though it has damaged the reputation of the Chinese suppliers as well as those of the giant US companies using the Chinese equipment. Perhaps Bloomberg is being used to spread fake news to further convince US companies not to use Chinese produced products. So far Bloomberg has avoided being sued.

On the appended video an expert claims a chip on a motherboard would be a very amateurish hack.

Previously published in Digital Journal

UK cybersecurity group supports Amazon and Apple's denial of Chinese hacking charge

A recent Bloomberg article claimed that 17 unnamed intelligence and company sources reported that Chinese spies had placed computer chips inside equipment used by about 30 companies as well as numerous US government agencies.

The charges

The article is by Jordan Robertson and Michael Riley who quote Joe Grand a hardware hacker and founder of Grand Idea Studio Inc who said: “Having a well-done, nation-state-level hardware implant surface would be like witnessing a unicorn jumping over a rainbow. Hardware is just so far off the radar, it’s almost treated like black magic.”

Yet the two authors claim:But that’s just what U.S. investigators found: The chips had been inserted during the manufacturing process, two officials say, by operatives from a unit of the People’s Liberation Army. In Supermicro, China’s spies appear to have found a perfect conduit for what U.S. officials now describe as the most significant supply chain attack known to have been carried out against American companies. One official says investigators found that it eventually affected almost 30 companies, including a major bank, government contractors, and the world’s most valuable company, Apple Inc. Apple was an important Supermicro customer and had planned to order more than 30,000 of its servers in two years for a new global network of data centers. Three senior insiders at Apple say that in the summer of 2015, it, too, found malicious chips on Supermicro motherboards. Apple severed ties with Supermicro the following year, for what it described as unrelated reasons.Notice there is not a single identified source. All are anonymous. Yet the story is widely repeated as if it is true. The appended video by Bloomberg does not ask the journalist any critical questions about sources. Not a single source is available to confirm or deny the evidence presented.

Amazon's response

Bloomberg printed Amazon's response: "It’s untrue that AWS knew about a supply chain compromise, an issue with malicious chips, or hardware modifications when acquiring Elemental. It’s also untrue that AWS knew about servers containing malicious chips or modifications in data centers based in China, or that AWS worked with the FBI to investigate or provide data about malicious hardware." AWS is Amazon Web Services.

Bloomberg replies that the denials are countered by six current and former senior national security officers who in conversations that began in the Obama administration and continued under Trump gave details on the discovery of the chips and the government investigation. Bloomberg continued: "One of those officials and two people inside AWS provided extensive information on how the attack played out at Elemental and Amazon; the official and one of the insiders also described Amazon’s cooperation with the government investigation. .. The sources were granted anonymity because of the sensitive, and in some cases classified, nature of the information."

Note that some of the information is said to be classified. In other words someone leaked classified information to the two reporters. Why? Was it to discredit China but also to make sure that the information could not be verified? There is all sorts of detail that makes the story sound credible but of course there is no way of checking the detail to see if it is correct, No doubt the Trump administration will not talk about the talks if they exist and would likely neither confirm or deny them to suggest that they are indeed taking place without actually committing to this being so.

Apple's response

Apple's statement also printed by Bloomberg: "Over the course of the past year, Bloomberg has contacted us multiple times with claims, sometimes vague and sometimes elaborate, of an alleged security incident at Apple. Each time, we have conducted rigorous internal investigations based on their inquiries and each time we have found absolutely no evidence to support any of them. We have repeatedly and consistently offered factual responses, on the record, refuting virtually every aspect of Bloomberg’s story relating to Apple."

Bloomberg claims that three Apple insiders, four of the six US officials confirmed that Apple was a victim. In all 17 people confirmed the manipulation of Supermicro's hardware and other elements of the attack. Of course, the identities of all 17 people, including the three Bloomberg and four senior US officials are not revealed. Instead of giving any independent evidence Bloomberg simply repeats the narrative that the two companies deny.

SuperMicro

SuperMicro responded to the story: "While we would cooperate with any government investigation, we are not aware of any investigation regarding this topic nor have we been contacted by any government agency in this regard. We are not aware of any customer dropping Supermicro as a supplier for this type of issue." Again the Bloomberg response is just to rely on their story and their sources which remain anonymous. There is no independent evidence that those sources are telling the truth. Imagine if SuperMicro's defence began by citing anonymous senior officials say that there was no investigation. We cannot say who they are because the information is too sensitive or classified,

The UK National Cyber Security Centre response

The Centre said that it had no reason to doubt the assessments made by Apple Inc. and Amazon Inc. a position that challenges the Bloomberg report that both companies had systems incorporating computer chips inserted by the Chinese intelligence services.

The Centre is a unit of Britain's eavesdropping agency GCHQ. The Centre said:“We are aware of the media reports but at this stage have no reason to doubt the detailed assessments made by AWS and Apple. The NCSC engages confidentially with security researchers and urges anybody with credible intelligence about these reports to contact us.”

So even a major fellow security agency knows nothing about this investigation even though it has been going on for years.

Bloomberg has not taken back anything that it has said as evidenced in the appended video. The report has no doubt harmed Apple and Amazon as well as making serious allegations against China that have no way of being confirmed. Was the article specifically designed to ensure that US companies will avoid Chinese hardware?

Previously published in Digital Journal

Qualcomm beats analysts' earnings and revenue estimates in 3rd quarter

US-based giant telecommunication equipment and chip maker Qualcomm has managed to beat analysts' revenue and earnings estimates in its fourth quarter, in spite of a year-long legal battle with Apple.

Qualcomm racked up $5.96 billion in sales or 92 cents per share contrasted with expectations of $5.8 billion and 81 cents per share. The economics of the chip business is improving.

Shares in Qualcomm rose 54 cents or one percent to $54 dollars in after hours trading. In the year-ago quarter, the chipmaker reported earnings per share of $1.07 on $6.2 billion in revenue.

Positive news about Qualcomm also included the recent announcement that there will be Microsoft laptops powered by the company's Snapdragon 385.

The legal battle with Apple was outweighed by the strength of its business with Android handset makers such as Samsung, Alphabet, LG, and Xiaomi.

Looking forward to 2018, Qualcomm sees sales being buoyed by its increasing penetration of the 3G and 4G market, as well as growth in both the area of handset and Internet of Things (Iot) markets, according to the CEO Steve Mollenkopf.

Qualcomm's improved numbers was in large part due to the company's growth in China.

Mollenkopf said that as new technology rolled out such as 5G connectivity, the company was well placed to win a significant share of the new markets: “We are very excited about the increased momentum of 5G around the world."

Qualcomm law suits

In April Apple sued Qualcomm for about $1 billion last January, for charging a heft fee for using technologies claims Apple maintains Qualcomm should not be associated with. Apple also claimed Qualcomm owed it payments.

The issue is that Qualcomm charges a percentage of the total price of iPhones and other Apple products as a a fee for using some Qualcomm patents. Qualcomm has counter-sued, claiming patent infringement. In July, Qualcomm asked U.S. trade regulators to halt the sale of imported iPhone and iPads in the United States. Qualcomm alleges that technology purchased by Apple from its rival Intel violated six of Qualcomm's patents.

The US Federal Trade Commission filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Qualcomm, also in January, for charging high fees for the use of its technologies using the fact that it was the leading supplier in the industry.

Qualcomm had already been fined $774 million by the Taiwanese regulatory agency for violation of anti-trust regulations in a ruling last October that Qualcomm said it would appeal. South Korea also fined the company $854 million for anti-competitive practices. China fined the company $975 million back in 2015.

The legal fracas with Apple and other law suits have taken their toll on Qualcomm's share price that has dropped over the year by more than 18 percent. Apple has designed iPhones and iPads that will no longer use Qualcomm chips, according to Reuters, citing two people familiar with the matter

Acquisition of NXP

A bright spot for Qualcomm is its recent approval by the US government of its $47 billon bid for NXP that manufactures semi-conductors. Earlier, NXP's management said Qualcomm's $110 per share offer was a good deal for its shareholders. The deal is expected to be wrapped up by early 2018.

The acquisition should put Qualcomm in a good position to compete with rival chip makers Nividia and Intel in the growing market demand for new automotive technologies, as well as technology for smart homes and manufacturing.

Qualcomm's headquarters are in San Diego California.

Just as shipments begin Apple Watch Series 3 experiences connectivity problems

As shipments of Apple's new Series 3 smart watch begin the watch is experiencing difficulties in certain situations with connecting to cellular.

One of the key differences between the Series 3 and earlier models are its built-in cellular capabilities as the iPad and iPhone have. If a Wi-fi network is not available the watch should be able to connect to a cellular network. A reviewer in the Verge reports: "While writing my review of the Apple Watch Series 3 with LTE capabilities, I experienced notable connectivity issues. The new Watch appeared to try to connect to unknown WiFi networks instead of connecting to cellular, when I was out and about without my phone. " The reviewer again had problems when he made a second review.

Eventually Apple acknowledged there was a problem and released a statement saying: “We have discovered that when Apple Watch Series 3 joins unauthenticated Wi-Fi networks without connectivity, it may at times prevent the watch from using cellular. We are investigating a fix for a future software release.” However, it is not yet known when a new software fix will be released. This is the first time that Apple has acknowledged the existence of a problem after pre-orders and just before it officially ships. Potential buyers of the watch could put off purchases until there is software to fix the problem.

A Time article explains the watches' connectivity problem as follows:In plain language, the Apple Watch 3 seems to be connecting to wireless networks it shouldn't be, which then screws up LTE connectivity, since the Watch 3 is effectively creating a connectivity dead end, then doubling down on it. The ability to shift back and forth between connectivity paths is called a "handoff," and for some reason the Watch 3 can't manage it consistently.The new model 3 watch was celebrated at the recent new iPhone release last week. The new watch is able to send and receive data without a smartphone. However, the device is limited in the amount of talk time and the battery can soon run out as the appended video shows.

Critic Joanna Stern writes of the new watch:"A cellular device is, sometimes literally, a lifeline. That’s why I can’t recommend the cellular Apple Watch Series 3 until the connectivity is more reliable."At $400, the cellular version of the Apple Watch 3 is pricey — $70 more than the non-cellular version. It also requires an extra monthly data fee, in the vicinity of $10 per carrier. If you haven't ordered one yet, it's probably best to hold off, or opt for the non-cellular version, which includes the other Series 3 benefits like a faster processor and barometric altimeter. Not that you'd get a cellular Apple Watch 3 quick anyway: according to the Apple Store, orders for the LTE version are currently backordered 3 to 4 weeks.LTE or Long-Term Evolution is a standard for high-speed wireless communication for mobile devices and data terminals. The new Apple model 3 series smart watches appear to be experiencing a rough launch.

Apple and Samsung suits about restricting competition

The constant refrain from business is that competition is great and the lifeblood of capitalism. Yet the expensive court cases between Samsung and Apple show the opposite. Global capitalism is now to a considerable extent all about patents.

Patents give corporations monopoly rights. These rights prevent competitors from producing products at a lower cost that contain patented features. Patents provide corporations with cash cows that enable them to milk consumers by charging prices that would not exist in a truly competitive market structure.

Even free trade deals are not so much about competition as about restricting competition. Part and parcel of free trade deals are TRIPS(Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights). Part of the provisions on patents reads as follows:

Patents must be granted for "inventions" in all "fields of technology" provided they meet all other patentability requirements (although exceptions for certain public interests are allowed (Art. 27.2 and 27.3)[4] and must be enforceable for at least 20 years (Art 33).

In order to enter a so-called Free Trade agreement a country must grant corporations monopoly rights for at least 20 years and allow patents in all fields of technology. It is in this context that the dispute between Apple and Samsung should be viewed. The suit is about the rights of Samsung and Apple to sell products to you the consumer in a manner that restricts competition. The result is that prices for their products will be much higher than if they were being produced in a market without patents. For some reason when business people talk about government intervention in the market, patents are never mentioned. Without governments passing laws to give these rights there would be no patents.

We now have the results of two cases in which Apple and Samsung sued on the basis of patent infringement. In South Korea where Samsung is headquartered the court ruled against Apple's position that Samsung had copied the design of the iPhone. The court also ruled that Apple had infringed two Samsung patents related to mobile broadcasting technology. However, the court also ruled that Samsung had violated an Apple patent. The judge ruled that many of Apple's claims of design patents were not valid since they had already appeared in inventions of Japanese and European countries. As a result of the court decision Samsung will be banned from selling 10 of its products in South Korea and Apple four products.The Korean judge's views on Apple design patents were quite different than those of a U.S. jury.

The U.S. trial took place in San Jose California just a few miles from the headquarters of Apple. The jury found that Samsung had copied key features of the iPhone and iPad and Apple was awarded $1.051 billion in damages. The decision will mean that Apple has successfully limited Samsung's competitive challenge and that sales of some key Samsung products will be banned. The free market triumphs again.

Apple is already the biggest company by market value in history. With the money from the Samsung settlement Apple can file more suits against other companies to further boost their economic rents due to patent monopolies. The result of these trials confirm the importance of monopoly power in modern global capitalism.The costs of ensuring the continued triumph of these powers will be passed on to consumers in the price of Apple and Samsung products.

By 2016 sales of Tablets to be greater than notebook PCs.

 A survey by research firm NPD shows that devices such as the Apple iPad are attracting consumers away from notebook PCs. By 2017 the survey predicts that notebook PC shipments will increase from 208 million this year to 393 million in 2017. However tablet shipments in the same period go from 121 million this year to a whopping 416 million.
  The growth in the tablet market is most evident in what are called mature markets. These markets include North America, Japan, and Western Europe. These markets already account for two thirds of the market and will remain in the sixty per cent range up to 2017.
  An analyst at NPD said: “While the lines between tablet and notebook PCs are blurring, we expect mature markets to be the primary regions for tablet PC adoption. New entrants are tending to launch their initial products in mature markets. Services and infrastructure needed to create compelling new usage models are often better established in mature markets.”  A recent survey shows that Apple's iPad has almost 63 per cent of the market. Samsung in second place has just 7.5 per cent. Big names such as Google and Microsoft are also entering the tablet field.
  Personally I prefer to use an old desk top and to travel a lap top. For more see this article.