美國競爭的行動設備市場展望：UMPC、MID及智慧型電話

As categories of mobile devices converge, In-Stat has identified four primary types of productivity tools - the ultra-mobile PC (UMPC), the mobile Internet device (MID), smartphones, and smartphones with mobile companions. To determine which of these may have an advantage among US consumers, In-Stat commissioned a survey to test attitudes and perceptions. Based upon the preferences of 1,759 respondents, it appears that there are two "winners," a potential winner, and one with an uncertain future.

The clear winner in the survey is the smartphone, either alone or with a mobile companion. Nearly half of the respondents chose the benefits and capabilities associated with smartphones. Helping its chances for success are the established and successful channels of distribution and that the actual pricing of this solution is somewhat less than end-user expectations. That smartphones are established as a valuable solution today makes the sales process easier than for the other mobile device options.

To derive these results, the survey asked questions about the devices respondents currently own, carry with them regularly, that they plan to buy in the near future, and what devices they plan to retire. This information is meant to help any participant in the mobile device marketplace, including the software and accessories ecosystem, better anticipate customer demand and expectations.

• Executive Summary
• Introduction
  • Ultra-Mobile PCs
  • Mobile Internet Devices
  • Smartphones
  • The Smartphone "Mobile Companion"
    • Summary
• Current Device Ownership
  • The Practice of Carrying Duplicate Devices
  • The Issue of Weight of Devices
  • What Non-Users Say
• Preferences for New Mobile Data Devices
  • Marketing Mix for the New Devices
  • What Existing Device Would be Left Once the User Acquired a New Device
• Conclusions about UMPCs, MIDs, Smartphones, and Mobile Companions in the US
  • Smartphones
  • Smartphones with Mobile Companions
  • MIDs
  • UMPCs
• Methodology
  • Survey Demographics
• Glossary
• Related In-Stat Reports

• Table 1. Mapping of New Capabilities to the Device Categories

• Figure 1. US Respondents' Choice for Best Fit Among UMPCs, MIDs, and Smartphones
• Figure 2. Asus EEE PC
• Figure 3. Nokia N800 Mobile Internet Tablet
• Figure 4. AT&T Tilt Smartphone
• Figure 5. Image of Celio Corporation' s Redfly Smartphone Mobile Companion
• Figure 6. Devices Carried and Owned by US Respondents
• Figure 7. Comparison of Devices Carried Regularly or Just for Special Circumstances
• Figure 8. Business and Personal Use of Devices Carried Regularly by US Respondents
• Figure 9. The Source of Devices Carried by US Respondents
• Figure 10. Reasons Why US Respondents Carry Two or More Wireless Phones
• Figure 11. Reasons Why US Respondents Carry Multiple Computing Devices
• Figure 12. Weight of Devices Carried Regularly by US Respondents When Away From Primary Work Location
• Figure 13. Average Weight, in Pounds, of Devices Carried by US Respondents by Travel Amount
• Figure 14. Frustrations With Current Devices Carried Regularly by US Respondents
• Figure 15. Why US Non-Users of Mobile Data Said They Do Not Currently Carry a Mobile Data Device
• Figure 16. Primary Capability Desired by US Respondents for Mobile Devices
• Figure 17. Reasons US Respondents Were Not Willing to Pay $30 for a 3x Improvement of Battery Performance
• Figure 18. US Respondents' Choice for Best Fit Among UMPCs, MIDs, and Smartphones
• Figure 19. Sales Channel Preferences Among US Respondents for New Mobile Devices, by Device Category
• Figure 20. Price Expectations Among US Respondents for New Mobile Devices, by Device Category
• Figure 21. Most Common Devices Cited as Being Left After Acquiring New Device by US Respondents by Preference for a UMPC, MID, or Smartphone With and Without a Mobile Companion
• Figure 22. Age Distribution of US Respondents
• Figure 23. Income Distribution for US Respondents
• Figure 24. Travel Amounts for US Respondents
• Figure 25. Job Titles of US Respondents
• Figure 26. Industry of Employers for US Respondents
• Figure 27. Size of Employer of US Respondents