Nielson: Android flourished before iPhone 4, but Apple 'most desired' - Page 2

If I'm not mistaking, the iPhone has been out a lot longer then Android devices and the Android platform in general. Only time will tell. Like I said I have an iphone 4. But I'm just so tired of everybody thinking that this electronic device is the world and it has no faults, no problems etc.

All in all, it just depends on what the buyer wants. The iphone 4 is great device don't get me wrong. But something doesn't always stay on top. It's gonna be competition and it's gonna be other winners. But at the end give respect when respect is do. And Android in my opinion deserves the respect that a lot of people especially Apple Lovers fail to give.

Just my .2 Cents

Survey results can be twisted to make things look good for who ever you want to look good and you fell for it.

I would like to see what these results do not show (the numbers they hide to make the story more interesting).

Example1: The results only compare new acquisitions of an iPhone in the USA (23% of total USA iPhone sales) compared to new acquisitions of Android phones (nearly all Android Sales). They do not include any used iPhone activations from all those other 77% of iPhone customers who sold their used iPhone's and they do not include any second line activations of existing iPhone users. Comparing almost all Android purchases to about 23% of total USA iPhone sales just means that total Android sales have now reached 23% of USA only iPhone sales, it does not mean that Android is outselling iPhone, which is what this survey is trying to make you think is happening. 23% of USA iPhone sales is not a very big number compared to total world wide iPhone sales, Android is still very small.

Example2: Stating that iphone sales have dropped because the percentage of total sales to new acquisitions went from 34% to 23% is also misleading. Just because you change percentages does not mean you reduce total sales, we need to see hard numbers not percentages to know what is really going on. iPhone had huge sales records the last 2 quarters. 23% of twice as many total sales is more than 34% of half as many previous sales. If you sell 1,000 Android phone one quarter then 2,000 Android phones the next month you have a 100% increase in sales. If you sell 8,000,000 iPhones one quarter then 9,000,000 iPhones the next quarter you have a 12.5% increase in sales. Which is more 1,000 or 1,000,000 in new sales. By looking at just the %'s it looks like 100% is more than 12.5%.

another good point.. iPhone 4 just released in 17 new countries..

Apple has to confront two serious issues, and they must do so soon, if they are to effectively combat the onslaught of Android devices.

1) They need to build out additional manufacturing capacity. Waits of 3 weeks will not work in a market where there are other devices running Android 2 (and soon 3) easily available from multiple carriers. It is too easy for consumers to simply walk away and purchase from another carrier, which brings up...

2) Apple needs - NEEDS - to get out of the exclusivity deal with AT&T. This deal is going to kill market share for them in the US; it creates a competitive disadvantage for them that will only grow more severe as the market becomes crowded with higher-quality devices that erode the perceived gap between iPhone and Android handsets.

I don't know if anyone realizes it or not, but Google is attempting a replay of the OS war fought between Apple and Microsoft. Its the same strategy, only this time in the mobile space. But all of the factors are the same: Apple has a tight ecosystem that integrates hardware and software, and they control the entire pie. Google manufactures the operating system, and provides it to hardware vendors that design and manufacture their own hardware variants. Just like last time, Google is banking on volume and incremental improvement, while Apple is banking on supremacy in design, technology, and quality. The question is, are we seeing a replay, or is this going to turn out to be an entirely different movie.

If they were fighting the same “battle” it would be to get their mobile OS on as many smartphones as possible, but since Apple is not nor will will not license any of their OS to any one else the only battle Apple is fighting is against other vendors and it’s for the only prize that matters: profit.

And there are some key differences between MS and Google is this unbalanced “war” for OS supremacy that Apple isn’t even fighting in, is that Android is free, whereas Windows always had a cost associated with it. The fact that Android isn’t doing better in total OS marketshare concerns me more.

What's Symbian?

Yeah? and the point here?

I think you oversimplify the issue greatly. The 'bet' that M$ made last time around was that volume and incremental improvement would eventually create a critical mass that a single competing platform could not possibly counter. And as you may have noted, it absolutely worked out for them, and nearly destroyed Apple in the process. The only thing that saved Apple was SEVERE cutting and a return to a singular vision... and some very lucky hits in emerging markets. Honestly, iPod saved Apple, pure and simple. Had it not been for the breakout success of iPod and the iTunes store, Apple would still be an obscure market force today.

Google is betting that the same lightning will strike twice, as is Apple.

It astounds me when the argument is made that 'its all about profit' - the argument is myopic. If I operate a business where my product has a tremendous gross margin but I sell 100 units for each of my competitor's 1000, it does not matter that my margin is higher, because the economies of scale involved translate into higher operating profits for my competitor regardless. The more my competitor succeeds at outpacing me in sales, the more the pendulum swings in their favor, and as they gain greater and greater traction in the marketplace, even if my sales remain the same, I become a smaller and smaller player in a bigger and bigger market, until such time that I become an irrelevancy in the market as a whole. Apple HAS to avoid that.

Do iPhones get 3g on T-Mobile? If not, I doubt anyone would want to do that.

No, you left out the related news:

All Japanese cars together outsell the Ford Focus.


The comparison can't be made until you know the question.

If the question involves which phone OS sells more, then the information as presented is useful.

OTOH, if you're a developer wondering about potential market, you should be looking at all devices that run a given OS - that is, All Android devices vs iPhone + iPad + iPod Touch devices put together.

If you're an investor, you're probably more concerned about profitability than numbers sold.

And so on.

The iPod went up against multiple vendors and won. This might be part of the answer, but not all of it. The reality is, most general consumers don't care about the supposed openness of Android, the ideology of open source, etc. They want a phone on a network that works. That's why Android has been kicking ass on Verizon.

Here's something from over the weekend about Verizon's future plans:
"The 4G network should feel complete for most subscribers by 2012, as all major highways and cities within 30 miles should be covered by the LTE-based network; every 3G area in existence today will have 4G by 2013."
http://www.electronista.com/articles...map.slips.out/

Does anyone think AT&T will have 4G out by 2012-2013? I doubt AT&T will even have 3G to match Verizon's coverage by then. AT&T is an anchor around Apple's neck. As this article says, the iPhone is what everybody wants. AT&T isn't, so Apple loses out on millions of sales to the Droid, which is a far inferior phone on a great network. It is really too bad.

Geez....settle down....

The world's best selling smartphone platform for the 9th year running? (truly the soccer of the smartphone market - popular everywhere but North America)


I think that it was inevitable that Android would overtake iOS in terms of sales. It's got more manufacturers, more models, more carriers, more countries and more price-points. It can win without being anywhere near as polished as iOS.

But who cares? Apple will continue to dominate the top end of the market in the same way in does the computer market. It'll always be the brand that most phone users aspire to owning. A billion phones are sold are year so there's enough room for multiple operating systems and manufacturers. Everybody wins.

All true. But keep in mind that market share stats are snapshots of a given moment in time, while trends in rate of acquisition can help point to the future.

So sure, even as Apple's rate of acquisition dropped a third, in absolute numbers at that one moment in time they were still higher than their competitors.

But also note that Android's rate of acquisition increased during the same period, by an astounding 450%.

You can find comfort in looking backwards toward the past if you prefer, or join Solipsism in boldly looking forward when he wrote here on June 6:

"I expect Android to be much larger marketshare than iPhone after it matures."

Very rational and well put. Who says one company has to win out. The mobil space is not the pc space. This is not Microsoft vs apple anymore. There's lots of carriers, os's and manufactures involved. I predict a diverse market of lots of great phones for all sorts of preferences.

Your entire comment is not just over simplifying it by also myopic. You imply that making an OS for all vendors is the only viable method for business despite Apple proving otherwise. No other smartphone, tablet, PC or PMP vendor makes as profit as Apple and theyve done it with tight control of the HW and OS.

You can say that Windows and Android are shipped on more devices, but that means nothing to a company that makes its money from selling HW. That is the battle they are fighting. They are competing against others HW vendors not for some marketshare of an OS that would yield them less profit.

BTW, Apple nearly destroyed themselves in the 90s from poor management, not because they failed to see the genius of marketing their Mac OS to any and all vendors.

Thoughtful and rational post in a thread full of logical and verbal gymnastics. Good job RichL.

Here is part of the answer:
"The study by Validas, a research firm that gathers data from phone bills, shows that Verizon subscribers who have smart phones (but not BlackBerrys) power through an average of 450MB per month, up more than double from last fall, before Verizon's Droid-branded Android line hit the market. In the same period, iPhone users averaged about 350MB of data consumption, while BlackBerry users across all carriers were averaging less than 50MB."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38456202...ence-wireless/

Android users seem to be using more data, but there are also far more iPhone users on AT&T (the article says up to 10 times), so there are caveats.

The question is, will Verizon be hammered with overuse the way AT&T has? I doubt it. Would they have, had Verizon gotten the iPhone instead of AT&T in 2007? Maybe, but I doubt it would have been as bad as AT&T has been.

Apple made a similar "bet" with the iPod. From 2001, when the iPod was $400 for 5 GB, they cut prices and increased capacity every year. Doing this, they were able to outmaneuver the "Plays for Sure" partners and dominate the market. Even today, you can get an iPod Touch for less than half the (unsubsidized) price of an iPhone. I don't understand the thinking behind this, but it seems that Apple is protecting high margins on the iPhone and ignoring the lessons of Mac vs. Windows and iPod vs Plays for Sure.

I should know better...


Yes, Apple is aiming there because that is Apple's demographic. They don't need to target tech users and Apple users because we already know more about the thing than Apple could ever hope to convey in ten-thousand commercials. Also, Apple does very well with this audience due to the simplicity of their platform. Apple's mom-and-pop users actually download apps. Note that this is not an anomaly, and it should not surprise people that the app store is a chief target of Apple in advertisement: it familiarizes everyone with the app store, which in turn results in app store sales, in turn resulting in a more profitable app store, more apps, a better and more inviting platform.

On the flip-side, Android, to the mom-and-pop user, is a generic smartphone. They aren't familiar with the Android brand and they likely purchased it based on specifications in an effort to save money over the iPhone, or because it happened to be the nicest looking phone where they went to buy. Unfortunately the complexities are generally lost on them, and Android does not have a strong enough brand to market even if a company wanted to. Android, as a brand, is only truly relevant in the tech sector. There is one strong brand among Android phones, and that is Droid, as you mentioned, but Verizon has chosen to market Droid against the tech community which contains a sub-community that is eager for the tinker-ready fully-customizable Android platform. Unfortunately I don't see how this ends well for Android in terms of strengthening the Android market, which is still leaps and bounds behind the iOS market.

Apple's advertising motivation is clear: they know exactly who their biggest customers are and they're hitting home runs again and again with their advertisements to this demographic (which, I should note, is virtually never us). The Droid campaign has been great, but I would criticize its exclusion of the general phone user, who the Droid commercials don't really appeal to. Has there been any other sort of successful advertising campaign in the Android world? I'm trying to think of one.

Yes, of course you're right. Early morning misstatement on my part.... need coffee.

Here's a story that's on 16,800 sites this morning, but absent from the Mac fan site AppleInsider.com:

Android shipments grew 886% in Q2 2010
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...%25+in+Q2+2010

i have a nexus one with android 2.2
i have absolutely no iphone 4 'lust'. everything i need to do i can do with my android based phone. if i had to choose between 'face time' and my android 2.2 built in access point/tethering i go with android. twice it has saved me when wireless access was down....
most people i meet that are really into android are much more technical, and mentally brighter, than the people that rave on about iphone.

Maybe, but she started seeing charging issues right after upgrading over the air, I think to 'cupcake'. I told her to Google about it and she said that several other posts were describing the exact same battery problem. I don't believe she was offered an upgrade or patch since that time. The battery issue which appeared immediately after the upgrade eventually manifested itself as a condition that caused it to be unable to fully recharge, takes forever to recharge and doesn't last very long as compared to the original configuration. But she is not the type to complain, she just adapts, in this case by keeping it plugged in as often as possible, but eventually she will get her new iPhone.

Just as pointless as Windows OS vs. Macs?

There is one big difference here. Google actually has an excellent product while DOS and Windows weren't.

that's what I've been thinking. I was around back in the day when us apple users all felt the superiority of our platform, was the advantage that would keep it dominant, I'm seeing and hearing the same bragging, deja vu But, it didn't.

However, I think there are many many things being done differently this time round, having SJ at the top for one, and the success apple is seeing isn't going to slow anytime soon.

But I do think the dismissal of the other platforms, is brainless.

Apple seems not to give a sh*t about marketshare. They seem to only occupied with owning/catering to the high-end crowd.

seems to be something that is currently working.

No doubt. But long-term, I worry that Apple will be crushed by Google...

Currently Android doesn't have a real OEM competitor in the US, which is why they are doing so well in market percentages... Most of the "sales" that went to WinMo are being handed to Android. OEMs and carriers can stick whatever OS they want on the hardware, when Microsoft releases WP7 later this year, those OEMs and carriers will have a choice. Consumers will then have a better choice as well. I'm pretty sure within a couple of years, there will just as many phones available with WP7 as there are Android and Android's share of the market will drop almost as fast as it rose.

Secondly, in "open" phone markets where the iPhone is offered on multiple networks, Android is nothing but a blip on the radar, a small fraction of iPhone sales. In the US, subscribers of Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile do not have the choice of buying an iPhone vs. Android, so you can't really compare how well one is doing over the other.

Spot on. Apple only competes in the profitable/high-end markets. They never jump into the bulk/low-profit/high-risk markets. It has worked out for them, and I don't mind it one bit: I like their products because I prefer to pay the extra amount for a well-built product that lasts.


They will not be. Android has appeal to the tech crowd, but there is a very large market it is disgusting to. Android will also never be even remotely as cool and desirable to the masses. My prediction is that Android will be very successful in the general smartphone market, but that those buying for aesthetics, trends, simplicity, and all the other common reasons (tech reasons why people prefer iPhone, word-of-mouth, family recommendations) will continue to buy the iPhone as long as Apple continues to innovate. There will be some head-to-head among tech users (based on type and preference), but Android will have a lot of trouble snatching up Apple's other users.


This assumes Microsoft can put together a mobile OS which can actually compete with Android and iOS. I believe they've got the potential: they've got mountains of talent and plenty of software experience. But they do need to sever any requirement for a stylus, it needs to be unique (not a Windows shell of any sort), fully integrated with Windows, Office, Exchange, and it needs to offer an attractive app market and touch screen experience. If they can hit on enough of these points (and I think they can hit on some of these points as long as Balmer keeps his head out of his arse), then they've definitely got the talent to compete in terms of getting the OS on phones. Blackberry probably has new cause to sweat in such a scenario.

Unfortunately; apple no longer produces a high end product. Its just a matter of time before the apple followers realize that; as they struggle to make phone calls.

You must be living under a rock. It is the iphone that is struggling to catch up with features and UI. Iphone has the same archaic UI it had 3 years ago. If you consider adding folders innovative, you are living in the 1970s. Androids UI is competley customizable so the phone works how the customer wants; not how Steve Job's limited concept of how things should work. The high demand for iphone jailbreaking is to add features android has by default.

A scrolling grid of squares = Apples idea of a useful UI. Sad.

Ah, troll. Ignorant one at that.


You are the perfect example of the most braindead type of consumer out there: the sort who buys a product based on a feature list. Any trash Chinese knock-off company can throw out a product with a feature list that looks absolutely incredible—until you actually use the piece of junk. The same applies to Android, but on a much smaller scale. Google throws every feature they can find into the OS with very little time for preparation, by way of comparison, and it absolutely shows. Apple, by way of comparison, is content to let its users scream in agitation as it carefully mulls over a feature, finally implementing it in a way that few other devices could have ever hoped to do it (everything from FaceTime to Copy/Paste and the Camera). It leaves competitors with the choice to completely undo their previous method of doing things and copy Apple (or out-innovate them, which doesn't happen much), or with an obsolete feature. The end result is a product that works in marvelous ways from the top to the bottom, and that's one I can get behind. I want a device that works quickly, and when I need it to. I do not want to tinker with it. Android, by comparison, can do so many things, but precious few of those things as well as iOS. Now, this actually does appeal to some users, and for good reason, but not to me.

In any case, you should probably be in school right now.

Done chatting with you.

Note to readers of intelligence: I actually do respect the Android platform and I am certainly not implying that Android buyers are braindead. Simply that product buyers who think their platform is best because of a feature list are. Buying Android because it is more open, tinker friendly, hackable, whatever—those are good reasons for some people to make a buying decision.

I will ignore the childish name-calling. Iphone has the worst reputation for voice quality, dropped calls and reception. This is not an opinion; it is fact that even apple admits. And the latest iphone4 apple admits drops more calls that the previous version. If you consider this high end; so be it. I cant help those who ignore the obvious.

But; it is the main reason Android is now outselling iphone and there are many more Android activations per day that IOS activations. Apple simply cant keep up. I know; apple doesnt care about market volume. Its a good thing.

is it even possible to have some kind of balanced viewpoints on the different platforms without this kind of horseshit? I mean really. If what you say is true, apple would not be seeing the astounding successes it is seeing.

Granted I have plenty of criticisms of the iphone, but I don't think we need to resort to this kind of bull. It's as bad as the hardcore apple defence league that shrieks "apple hater!" the minute you "veer off message".

As long as apple keeps innovating at the pace it is, and surprising the others with bold new products like the ipad, apple will continue to reign. Period. However, android is a very good platform, as is iOS, despite all the bickering back and forth as to who is worse.

I have to say though, the last mobile development conference I was at, all the platforms that were there, the tables, the excitment, were all at every platform BUT microsoft. That poor guy sat there with one or two people dropping by. It'll be a while before M$ is going to be able to recover, if at all. I could be wrong, but M$ simply putting out a W7 phone isn't going to automatically trounce android.

Not true. The iPhone has always been a pain in the ass to make a phone call on. The hardware itself - especially the iPhone 4 - is amazing and well ahead of the couple of Droids I have used.

This is not how Apple operated in establishing dominance with the iPod. Otherwise we would not have the Shuffle, for example. Is the Mac the model for the iPhone or is the iPod?

That was more responsible, so I'll reply.

In early days the iPhone had a poor reputation for voice quality. Voice quality on the iPhone 4 is phenomenal, however, and it has also gradually improved as the device has grown. Unfortunately right now, in the United States, voice quality is held back by AT&T's network, which does not offer voice quality on par with Verizon. Dropped calls and reception are not top notch as is often the case with media smartphones. If you're referring to the 'Antennagate' nonsense, though, I don't buy it. The iPhone 4 has been one of the very most reliable phones I have ever owned, outside a high-end phone-feature-based phone I used to have on Verizon, which also offers a superior network in areas I have spent most my time in terms of call reliability. Despite conducting business regularly on the iPhone 4 I have dropped few calls, and this includes Manhattan and San Francisco. Speculation beyond this is speculation by definition as AT&T has chosen not to release the real numbers.

In any case, I was content to use the original iPhone as well, despite knowing clear well that, compared to say, a good BlackBerry, its phone feature was immature. The other features were great and the phone feature performed well enough. If someone wants phone first they should be looking to BlackBerry on Verizon (in the US).

And as for your final sentence, weaseling a blanket statement stating that Apple releases low-quality products into a phone quality argument, when the iPhone 4 also happens to be an excellent phone, is horribly disingenuous.


And you are completely wrong here. Unless Apple releases the iPhone to Verizon (and possibly other carriers) the Android platform will continue to grow at a pace faster than the iPhone. Note that you're comparing an OS to a device here, which is a little silly. Android is out-growing iPhone because it is the only high-quality multimedia smartphone OS available to OEM manufacturers (RIM and Microsoft may change this). It is available in phones ranging from high quality to bottom-feeding trash. It is also a fairly good product. Of course it is going to sell like hotcakes. It isn't so different from the Windows OS vs. Mac OS X circumstance.

Incidentally, "Finally! The combined effort of every big phone producer in the phone market, making a range of low-end to high-end devices, has finally managed to activate more Android-based smartphones than a specific manufacturer's single device!" is, well, a little sad as a celebration. This is a naturally progression of the market under the current circumstances and reflects that Google has done a good job. Apple has as well. If Apple made the iOS platform available to OEM you would see a horribly different story, but that wouldn't be a good move for Apple, and its developers, at all.