The figures from Net Applications measurement allow visitors to Web sites suggest that the iPad more than 50 times more popular than its nearest rival is Android

Where exactly are all the other ones? In addition to the iPad. Yes, we 've just checked HP' s touch pad, which makes a much more promising device (in my opinion) \ as RIM's playbook, but according to Net Applications, Apple 's device to 0.92% of all surfing from across the Web. Doesn 't sound like much - until you compare it to their closest competitors, according to the Netmarketshare (and suitable for rough calculations of the turnover), the Samsung Galaxy Tab, with 0.018%, the Motorola Xoom (we' ve it reviewed) with 0.012% and the playbook (yes, we 've reviewed it) with 0.003%.

Or, in relative terms:
306: iPad
6: Galaxy Tab
4: Xoom
1: Textbook.

In other words, for every thousand page views of a tablet, would be 965 more than an iPad, Galaxy 19 from one tab 12 from a Xoom and 3 come from a textbook. (In terms of market share, it would show up as Android with a 3% share).

Sold 25m iPads, that would mean (on a like-for-like basis) that there is no such thing as half a million Galaxy Tabs in use, and 325,000 Xoom.

Net Applications says, "We collect data from the browsers of site visitors to our exclusive on-demand network of live stats customers. The data (sic) created by some 160 million visitors per month."

The surprisingly low number for the Android tablets can mirror as their sales in the West ahead. (China seems to be a market in itself: DisplaySearch suggests that a huge number of substandard Android tablets with inferior screens that were rejected for use in the West where they sell seem don 't, however, show up in the Net Applications numbers - the. could mean that if they 're offered, people aren' \ t with them.

One possible element of confusion on this stat is that when there are lots of Android tablets are out there, but people with applications to view them, or e-mail or a video, then they would be under-represented in the figure. This seems unlikely: it doesn 't seem no reason why iPad heavy users browser as Android users would be, especially the argument that Android can do Flash tablets where the iPad can' t (or won 't) .

Net Applications's numbers for mobile and tablet together seem to back this up: they show the non-desktop share growing since last August from 2.6% to 5% now, which would mirror the increasing number of Android smartphones out there driving browsing. (Consoles remain minimal, and have even fallen slightly - though the total browsing market has probably grown, so consoles' overall use has likely remained roughly constant.) During the same period the iPhone's use has doubled (from 0.7% to 1.4%) compared to both desktop and mobile operating systems; "other" mobile OSs have risen too, from 5.9% to 7%, more than the iPhone - which would also back up increased use on mobile by Android users.

The only reasonable conclusion is therefore that since Android pills aren 't always traction with buyers. For manufacturers, it 's easy enough to build, you don' t have to Apple. But the bigger challenge is to branch offices that want to sell them and customers want to buy it. It seems that \ isn 't enough "Flash can \ play" an attraction.

The chart below comes directly from Net Applications: