End users, developers seen flocking to iPhone apps on wide scale

[AppleInsider]

A mobile analytics firm has published new findings which show the iPhone taking the majority of the app market -- especially when it comes to the sheer number of users.

Examining 8 million users and 100 apps, researchers at Flurry hint that Apple's handset has a conspicuous market share lead among developers, the number of apps and the actual range of customers for those apps.

The study, provided to ReadWriteWeb, reveals that 72 percent of the developers being tracked by Flurry are writing for iPhones, while Google's Android is a comparatively distant second at 22 percent. JavaME and BlackBerry had far smaller shares at 5 percent and 1 percent each, though Flurry's marketing VP Peter Farago explains the BlackBerry's weakness as the product of too few BlackBerry developers on its network at the time of the report. He notes that the absence of the smartphone may have its own implications for the interest, or lack of it, in apps for the platform.

"Why haven't [more] BlackBerry developers signed up for analytics?" he asks.

The gap appears less severe in the actual number of apps produced, with the iPhone garnering 64 percent of business where Android and JavaME each have 16 percent, but quickly widens once real-world use is taken into consideration. There, a massive 87 percent of all users are running iPhone apps -- a clear lead that gives Android and JavaME just 6 percent and 7 percent, respectively, of what's left. Blackberries don't register on the chart.

Relative share of the mobile app space in Flurry's metrics. | Image credits: Flurry.

Usage itself is also on the rise, supporting the notion that many of the downloads aren't simply being neglected. While apps have traditionally been orphans, as only 10 percent of smartphone owners have actually used third-party software, Flurry believes many more are now actively running software. Of those apps launched daily, some are invoked as many as 20 times a day.

While the statistics for share and day-to-day use don't reflect the full market as Symbian and Windows Mobile aren't included in the results, they're given as an indicator of the strong interest in Apple's platform versus others -- an effort which will garner more public attention as Apple marks its 1 billionth app download later this week.

[SpamSandwich]

My favorite apps (I suppose that would have to include Safari) collectively get used at least 50 times a day. A large number of other apps sit idle for weeks at a time, that is if I don't decide to delete them instead.

[dreyfus2]

While Apple has a clear lead here (as can be expected), I have to say that those numbers for Android are not bad at all. There is only one rather ugly phone so far, and its distribution is fairly limited; still, developers seem to bet on the success of the platform. This does not really hurt Apple a lot, but it could be bad news for new entrants – supporting too many platforms, all of them having different input methods and varying resolutions, is nothing smaller developers can easily manage.

[vinney57]

Android has a future as the 'official opposition' but the others can forget it. It ain't happening. There's really no incentive.

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by vinney57

Android has a future as the 'official opposition' but the others can forget it. It ain't happening. There's really no incentive.

Apple's store and payment method make so many of the alternatives obsolete. I just wish there was a better way to find and navigate apps. I feel like I've just barely scratched the surface of what is available.

[melgross]

This really does need the Symbian, Win Mobile, AND Palm OS included. We don't know the real numbers because of this.

[Bageljoey]

Originally Posted by melgross

This really does need the Symbian, Win Mobile, AND Palm OS included. We don't know the real numbers because of this.

I agree. I was wondering at the methodology that had them leaving those out. And the logic behind not mentioning their absence until the end of the article...

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Bageljoey

I agree. I was wondering at the methodology that had them leaving those out. And the logic behind not mentioning their absence until the end of the article...

It seems strange.

We don't have to like the other platforms to recognize that they exist. They also have a lot of programs. Win Mobile has over 20,000. Palm has almost the same. I have no idea how many Symbian has, though I know it's a lot less. But, surely they have more than Android and RIM!

So we have no idea where those charts should be.

Is Apple at 50% on any of them when these others are included? 45%, 40%, 35%?

[dreyfus2]

Originally Posted by Bageljoey

I agree. I was wondering at the methodology that had them leaving those out. And the logic behind not mentioning their absence until the end of the article...

The way I understand it (fwiw), Flurry is not a market research firm, but a company providing services/advise to mobile application developers (analysis tools like path tracking, cross-promotions, embedded ads, etc.). What they have analyzed here is their own customer base. It seems to be a fairly new company (there is no press release before September '08) and their services seem to be free until now(?)... As they are not around since long, they may mainly have newer, unexperienced developers among their clients. This does likely cause the overweight of new platforms. Symbian and WinMob developers are around since ages, they may not be too interested in consulting from a company being less experienced than themselves?!

[Ireland]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

My favorite apps (I suppose that would have to include Safari) collectively get used at least 50 times a day. A large number of other apps sit idle for weeks at a time, that is if I don't decide to delete them instead.

You should apply for the writing job Spam, when I'm rich and famous we could go for a coffee

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by Ireland

You should apply for the writing job Spam, when I'm rich and famous we could go for a coffee

Gladly! I'll buy.

[Frank777]

I really don't like the idea of monopolies, whether it's Apple or Microsoft at the helm.
Competition is a good thing.

I really hope Palm can make a decent comeback to give Apple a run for their money.
I don't see Android, Symbian or Windows Mobile being a real pain to Apple.

[melgross]

I'n not sure we can count any of them out yet, though Palm is by far, in the worst condition.

[ivan.rnn01]

I don't believe Android would beat iPhone OS in the segment of phones.

Android may excel in some special areas like linux boxes, which need GSM/3G/... connectivity. But this market is quite narrow... This is their chance (for free)

[ivan.rnn01]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

only 10 percent of smartphone owners have actually used third-party software

That's a habit - instinct - developed since long. Third party software used not to work. Only Apple's approval process's gonna change this...

[hiimamac]

Originally Posted by Bageljoey

I agree. I was wondering at the methodology that had them leaving those out. And the logic behind not mentioning their absence until the end of the article...

Why is anyone surprised???? Apple and some sweaty palm fan exec outs this spin everytime msft releases a new stat or commercial plus with apple giving their financials today, no one should be surprised.

Spin like this is almost as bad as an apple keynote or the first :30 minutes anyway, where apple praises itself over and over and talks about their .01265% growth. LOL

[mjtomlin]

Originally Posted by Frank777

I really don't like the idea of monopolies, whether it's Apple or Microsoft at the helm.
Competition is a good thing.

I really hope Palm can make a decent comeback to give Apple a run for their money.
I don't see Android, Symbian or Windows Mobile being a real pain to Apple.

Monopoly!? Not sure where you get that from. The only company that has anything remotely close to a "monopoly" would be Nokia/Symbian who have about 50% of the worldwide cell phone market.

Apple/iPhone sit at just above 1% of the cell phone market and about 15%-17% of the smartphone market. Having a huge number of applications and developers for your platform has nothing to do with your marketshare... it has to do with the willingness of end users to purchase and use those applications. It turns out that a higher percentage of iPhone users do just that. That in no way gives Apple a "monopoly".

[mjtomlin]

Originally Posted by melgross

This really does need the Symbian, Win Mobile, AND Palm OS included. We don't know the real numbers because of this.

No, it doesn't. The report was comparing the four platforms only. No where does it say this is representative of the entire market. This report is only showing the differences between the four platforms they study. Symbian, WinMo, and Palm do not factor into it.

Just because some sites seem to have misrepresented the data here, doesn't mean it is invalid, skewed or wrong. If you only wanted to know how well RIM is doing compared to WinMo, you wouldn't need to include every other platform because it is irrelevant data to your needs.

This report is only showing the differences between these four platforms... for whatever reason... and should only be viewed that way.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by mjtomlin

Having a huge number of applications and developers for your platform has nothing to do with your marketshare... it has to do with the willingness of end users to purchase and use those applications.

That depends on how you are looking at it. With so many applications (and soon to be 3rd-party accessories via the 30-pin connector) Apple's marketshare will continue to grow because they've created an ecosystem for the platform.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by mjtomlin

No, it doesn't. The report was comparing the four platforms only. No where does it say this is representative of the entire market. This report is only showing the differences between the four platforms they study. Symbian, WinMo, and Palm do not factor into it.

Just because some sites seem to have misrepresented the data here, doesn't mean it is invalid, skewed or wrong. If you only wanted to know how well RIM is doing compared to WinMo, you wouldn't need to include every other platform because it is irrelevant data to your needs.

This report is only showing the differences between these four platforms... for whatever reason... and should only be viewed that way.

Yes, it does.

You can't eliminate half to two thirds of the smartphone sales and say that the information provided is meaningful.

That would be like comparing the car sales of GM, Ford and Chrysler and concluding that GM has 45% marketshare, 60% of leather seats, and 64% of aftermarket add-ons. It's ludicrous!

I'n not the only one to have noticed this either.

This is a very biased report, even if it's not intended to be.

[mjtomlin]

Originally Posted by solipsism

That depends on how you are looking at it. With so many applications (and soon to be 3rd-party accessories via the 30-pin connector) Apple's marketshare will continue to grow because they've created an ecosystem for the platform.

But that doesn't give or even guarantee Apple a monopoly position in the market, it just promises a thriving ecosystem. And you can make the argument that it worked out that way for the iPod, but the music player and cell phone markets, while both being mobile devices, are very different markets. The main difference is of course the fact that cell phones are sold along with subscription plans. (Of course, this doesn't apply to the iPod touch, which isn't counted as an iPhone anyway.)

[mjtomlin]

Originally Posted by melgross

Yes, it does.

You can't eliminate half to two thirds of the smartphone sales and say that the information provided is meaningful.

That would be like comparing the car sales of GM, Ford and Chrysler and concluding that GM has 45% marketshare, 60% of leather seats, and 64% of aftermarket add-ons. It's ludicrous!

I'n not the only one to have noticed this either.

This is a very biased report, even if it's not intended to be.

No it doesn't. You can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that they only want to know how well these platforms are doing against each other. They don't give a crap about the rest of the platforms. It is very meaningful when it is all the data you're looking for. If I only want to target two cell phones, but want to know which is doing better, then all the data I need is to compare those two devices. If I want to know how well Android is doing against the iPhone, Windows Mobile numbers are worthless to me. Why would I want to know them, if I'm not interested in them anyway? The report is not saying that the iPhone has 80% market share of the entire market. It is saying that of these platforms, iPhone has an 80% share. That's a huge difference that for some reason you and others can't comprehend.

You need to read the report for what it is and not make assumptions based off of pretty graphs. If this company came out and said here our assessment of the overall cell phone market... Then yes, this would be a very inaccurate and biased report. But that's not what the report represents. The report clearly states that it represents the shares of each platform within the four platform scope that is important to them and their clients.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by mjtomlin

No it doesn't. You can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that they only want to know how well these platforms are doing against each other. They don't give a crap about the rest of the platforms. It is very meaningful when it is all the data you're looking for. If I only want to target two cell phones, but want to know which is doing better, then all the data I need is to compare those two devices. If I want to know how well Android is doing against the iPhone, Windows Mobile numbers are worthless to me. Why would I want to know them, if I'm not interested in them anyway? The report is not saying that the iPhone has 80% market share of the entire market. It is saying that of these platforms, iPhone has an 80% share. That's a huge difference that for some reason you and others can't comprehend.

You need to read the report for what it is and not make assumptions based off of pretty graphs. If this company came out and said here our assessment of the overall cell phone market... Then yes, this would be a very inaccurate and biased report. But that's not what the report represents. The report clearly states that it represents the shares of each platform within the four platform scope that is important to them and their clients.

That's not true. It doesn't say that anywhere.

No matter how you spin it, this is just a partial account of what's happening. It doesn't tell the full story.

[xwiredtva]

It's a good fluff piece but does point two very prominent things out clearly. The App-Store is what it is and what it always should have been. And last the other players are loosing developers to Apple because of it.

Think about it this way. Your a small developer/development house. You have no $$ for advertising. You create a sweet little app that works on WinMobile/BB/Palm. How do you tell the audiance? And at what cost? The Apple route: You place you app in the store, in the right classification. EVERY customer goes to that ONE store, you reduce the need to advertise and can spend more time on teaching/showing/demonstrating it which is what makes sales.

So what brings developers is what caters to their weakness, sales and marketing. Apple does something similar with their software section on the site but the app store took it 2 steps further.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by mjtomlin

But that doesn't give or even guarantee Apple a monopoly position in the market, it just promises a thriving ecosystem. And you can make the argument that it worked out that way for the iPod, but the music player and cell phone markets, while both being mobile devices, are very different markets. The main difference is of course the fact that cell phones are sold along with subscription plans. (Of course, this doesn't apply to the iPod touch, which isn't counted as an iPhone anyway.)

I never mentioned monopoly. I replied to your comment that stated that having a rich App Store has nothing to do with the iPhone's marketshare. I just tried to point out how it's connected.

[eldernorm]

Originally Posted by hiimamac

Why is anyone surprised???? Apple and some sweaty palm fan exec outs this spin everytime msft releases a new stat or commercial plus with apple giving their financials today, no one should be surprised.

Spin like this is almost as bad as an apple keynote or the first :30 minutes anyway, where apple praises itself over and over and talks about their .01265% growth. LOL

Yep its that M$ troll time of year again. :-) user is " hi i ma mac" yet is totally an ms fanboy.

Now, I believe (like most mac users) that people should use what ever platform they most desire. But MS does scare me. They do not mind using that $$ power to buy, bribe, steal.... what ever they want.

Just a thought.
en

[mjtomlin]

Originally Posted by melgross

That's not true. It doesn't say that anywhere.

No matter how you spin it, this is just a partial account of what's happening. It doesn't tell the full story.

The Flurry website says which platforms they currently have support for. So, only those developers would be interested in this data.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by mjtomlin

The Flurry website says which platforms they currently have support for. So, only those developers would be interested in this data.

That's why it's a problem. The charts are fake, in that they make it look as though it's the actual smartphone market.

There are more than a few people who will look at those charts, and not even realize that some of the biggest companies are being left out, and will think that those numbers are actually representing the smartphone market rather than a subset of it.

[mjtomlin]

Originally Posted by melgross

That's why it's a problem. The charts are fake, in that they make it look as though it's the actual smartphone market.

There are more than a few people who will look at those charts, and not even realize that some of the biggest companies are being left out, and will think that those numbers are actually representing the smartphone market rather than a subset of it.

The real problem here is that the wrong people are reading the reports. These reports are obviously meant for those developers that use Flurry's statistical monitoring code. Not consumers who apparently don't understand what the data means or is used for. Any developer that uses this code to monitor their applications usage is well aware which platforms are supported and would fully understand the scope of this data and it's meaning to them.

You're absolutely correct in that most people are too lazy to do anything other than read what is put in front of them without being knowledgeable in what they are looking at and just make assumptions based off of it. Unfortunately, like so many other regurgitated news stories, the author failed to do any research and didn't mention the fact that Flurry currently only supports the platforms on the chart, and only recently started supporting BlackBerry.

So I stand by the fact that there's nothing wrong with the report. The only thing wrong is the way it is being presented and misunderstood by less knowledgeable readers.

[Haggar]

Apple should not allow third parties to create native iPhone applications. Nobody cares about native applications. Web apps are really SWEET.

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by Haggar

Apple should not allow third parties to create native iPhone applications. Nobody cares about native applications. Web apps are really SWEET.

Where's your smiley? Am I wrong to interpret this comment as sarcasm?

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Where's your smiley? Am I wrong to interpret this comment as sarcasm?

His replies are always like that. It's an odd passive-aggressive form of trolling.

[TenoBell]

He seems to like to make those types of posts. We've asked for their relevancy, their really is none. I think most of us just ignore them.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Where's your smiley? Am I wrong to interpret this comment as sarcasm?

[hezekiahb]

Originally Posted by hiimamac

Why is anyone surprised???? Apple and some sweaty palm fan exec outs this spin everytime msft releases a new stat or commercial plus with apple giving their financials today, no one should be surprised.

Spin like this is almost as bad as an apple keynote or the first :30 minutes anyway, where apple praises itself over and over and talks about their .01265% growth. LOL

yeah, cause Microsoft doesn't spin anything?

Good grief, think I blew soda out my nose! Seriously, don't make me laugh anymore!

[pfarago]

Originally Posted by dreyfus2

The way I understand it (fwiw), Flurry is not a market research firm, but a company providing services/advise to mobile application developers (analysis tools like path tracking, cross-promotions, embedded ads, etc.). What they have analyzed here is their own customer base. It seems to be a fairly new company (there is no press release before September '08) and their services seem to be free until now(?)... As they are not around since long, they may mainly have newer, unexperienced developers among their clients. This does likely cause the overweight of new platforms. Symbian and WinMob developers are around since ages, they may not be too interested in consulting from a company being less experienced than themselves?!

Hi all,

I work for Flurry, and completely agree that this is not a randomly selected, statistically significant sample. It clearly suffers from self-selection bias, and the fact that all platforms in the mobile ecosystem are not represented. Dreyfus2 is spot on about what Flurry does, and the potential bias in the data. The analytics service is free btw. It's worth noting that Flurry never positioned this data as a scientific study, but rather simply rolling up and presenting the data we were seeing so others could consume it. However, we believe there are things that can be learned from the data.

Regarding not including Windows Mobile, Symbian (and Palm and BREW for anyone counting) in our roll-up, it's simply because we don't support those platforms. We shipped our analytics solution to support iPhone, Android, Blackberry and JavaME. We chose to hold off on the others due to the lack of demand from the developer community. We spoke with dozens of developers before we started building our service, and with many more since. To us, it seemed that the four platforms we covered matched what our customers wanted. We'd be happy to support other platforms, and it's relatively easy for us to do, since the back end is built in a way that knocking out additional SDK's for those is not a major issue. So we're happy to do so, but just waiting for the right amount of demand (based on our POV of the market).

What we think this could show is where the development community is spending its time. They are putting a significant amount of resources toward the iPhone vs. other platforms. We get very, very few requests to support WinMo. We do get more for Symbian, but primarily from Europe (which makes sense), but not quite as much as we would have once expected. And JavaME apps do run on the Symbian platform, so where the developer is using the J2ME app for S60, we could run there.

Another issue I'd like to volunteer regarding the data is that with WinMo, Symbian, JavaME and Blackberry (two of which we cover) distribution of those applications primarily goes through the carrier channel. So if a developer wants to add an analytics solution to an existing app, she would have to go through the whole carrier submission and approval process all over again. Anyone who has dealt with carriers directly (I have my scars) knows this is challenging. Updating apps for iPhone and Android is very easy, relatively speaking. This could account for the proportions of support for iPhone and Android as well.

Peter Farago
VP Marketing
www.flurry.com
http://blog.flurry.com
http://twitter.com/FlurryMobile

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by pfarago

Hi all,

I work for Flurry, and completely agree that this is not a randomly selected, statistically significant sample. It clearly suffers from self-selection bias, and the fact that all platforms in the mobile ecosystem are not represented. Dreyfus2 is spot on about what Flurry does, and the potential bias in the data. The analytics service is free btw. It's worth noting that Flurry never positioned this data as a scientific study, but rather simply rolling up and presenting the data we were seeing so others could consume it. However, we believe there are things that can be learned from the data.

Regarding not including Windows Mobile, Symbian (and Palm and BREW for anyone counting) in our roll-up, it's simply because we don't support those platforms. We shipped our analytics solution to support iPhone, Android, Blackberry and JavaME. We chose to hold off on the others due to the lack of demand from the developer community. We spoke with dozens of developers before we started building our service, and with many more since. To us, it seemed that the four platforms we covered matched what our customers wanted. We'd be happy to support other platforms, and it's relatively easy for us to do, since the back end is built in a way that knocking out additional SDK's for those is not a major issue. So we're happy to do so, but just waiting for the right amount of demand (based on our POV of the market).

What we think this could show is where the development community is spending its time. They are putting a significant amount of resources toward the iPhone vs. other platforms. We get very, very few requests to support WinMo. We do get more for Symbian, but primarily from Europe (which makes sense), but not quite as much as we would have once expected. And JavaME apps do run on the Symbian platform, so where the developer is using the J2ME app for S60, we could run there.

Another issue I'd like to volunteer regarding the data is that with WinMo, Symbian, JavaME and Blackberry (two of which we cover) distribution of those applications primarily goes through the carrier channel. So if a developer wants to add an analytics solution to an existing app, she would have to go through the whole carrier submission and approval process all over again. Anyone who has dealt with carriers directly (I have my scars) knows this is challenging. Updating apps for iPhone and Android is very easy, relatively speaking. This could account for the proportions of support for iPhone and Android as well.

Peter Farago
VP Marketing
www.flurry.com
http://blog.flurry.com
http://twitter.com/FlurryMobile

Do you have some kind of co-marketing deal with Apple Insider? Because your reply and the coverage of this story seems to me like some kind of an advertising agreement may exist. If such an agreement exists, it needs to be disclosed.

[pfarago]

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Do you have some kind of co-marketing deal with Apple Insider? Because your reply and the coverage of this story seems to me like some kind of an advertising agreement.

No we don't have a co-marketing agreement. To be honest, we don't know any of the people at AppleInsider. We're just active in several developer forums and only became aware of this one when Flurry was being discussed.

And honestly, I don't think that agreeing that our data is not statistically significant is what I'd call promoting flurry ;-) What we're good at is providing real-time data about how users interact with individual applications. Every once in a while we can roll up data from across large groups of apps to spot a trend and share them, like we did wrt developer activity across the four platforms we cover. Read Write Web covered that news and that discussion eventually found its way here into this forum. That's pretty much it.

Peter Farago
VP Marketing
www.flurry.com
http://blog.flurry.com
http://twitter.com/FlurryMobile

[TenoBell]

That's an unfair accusation. Its not impossible that he caught wind of his company being mentioned in the article and wanted to address its intent.

We should be happy and welcome first hand sources to add information to our discussions.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Do you have some kind of co-marketing deal with Apple Insider? Because your reply and the coverage of this story seems to me like some kind of an advertising agreement may exist. If such an agreement exists, it needs to be disclosed.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by pfarago

No we don't have a co-marketing agreement. To be honest, we don't know any of the people at AppleInsider. We're just active in several developer forums and only became aware of this one when Flurry was being discussed.

And honestly, I don't think that agreeing that our data is not statistically significant is what I'd call promoting flurry ;-) What we're good at is providing real-time data about how users interact with individual applications. Every once in a while we can roll up data from across large groups of apps to spot a trend and share them, like we did wrt developer activity across the four platforms we cover. Read Write Web covered that news and that discussion eventually found its way here into this forum. That's pretty much it.

Peter Farago
VP Marketing
www.flurry.com
http://blog.flurry.com
http://twitter.com/FlurryMobile

I think it's very interesting. What you are saying is what I've been saying, that these charts do not represent the smartphone market, but rather a subset of it, and so do not tell us (the public) what the actual percentage are for any of those statistical markers.

By the way, Win Mobile apps have been marketed through third party stores for as long as I can remember, just as Palm apps have been. While the carriers do offer some of the Win Mobile apps, it's not close to being a large percentage of the apps available.

I'm also not certain that you can judge all that well the platforms you don't cover. I understand that you say that since there isn't much call for your service from the other platforms, there might not be as much developer activity, but that might not be true. It's an assumption.

One can't prove a negative.

[Bageljoey]

Originally Posted by pfarago

Hi all,

I work for Flurry, and completely agree that this is not a randomly selected, statistically significant sample. It clearly suffers from self-selection bias, and the fact that all platforms in the mobile ecosystem are not represented. Dreyfus2 is spot on about what Flurry does, and the potential bias in the data. The analytics service is free btw. It's worth noting that Flurry never positioned this data as a scientific study, but rather simply rolling up and presenting the data we were seeing so others could consume it. However, we believe there are things that can be learned from the data.

Hey pfarago.
Thanks for the posts.
My problem was not so much with your report (I have not read it), but with AppleInsider writing an article about "the app market" using your report without making clear its limitations--at least not until the very end. It gives one the impression, as one reads it, that it is talking about the entire market so the percentages seem to be bad information.
I do agree, however, that the general thrust of the article is true and is supported by your report--that the Apple ecosystem is thriving and drawing the attention of developers.
Thanks for dropping in to clear things up!