Android gaining on Apple iOS in mobile web market share - Page 2

In monthly sales (second quarter) maybe, but not in total market share or web use.

I forsee Android being dominant but if you consider iPod touch, iPhone and iPad collectively in 2011, 2012, with Apple ramping up production significantly, I would say Android could be 70% vs iOS at 20%. But nothing less than that. I say you'd be surprised, maybe iOS could be at worst, by 2012, 30% of [portable game player + *smartphone* mobile + tablet] OS.

This is not Mac vs PC. It is vastly different. This is iOS vs Android vs nibbles of Blackberry and Microsoft.

That said, I don't mind Android being dominant, let it become the fragmented, bloated, virus, malware, warez ridden mess that Windows is. FFS at the same time why does Apple have to be the ONLY major competitor to Android? Is there anyone else that can challenge Android in 2011 and 2012? Unfortunately it doesn't look like it, unless Microsoft does a Windows7-quality mobile platform. Windows7 literally pulled Microsoft's consumer-side business out of the fire after the madness that was Vista.

Its pretty amazing. This looks to be more sales than the first two iPhones within a comparable time frame

Due to the lower price point it will have to sell many more units than Macs in order to be more profitable, but I think its completely doable and possibly within a year from now.

App Store growth rate seems to be slower than the iPhone in a comparable time frame.

Bullshit. Every time Steve gives a formal talk, he crows about iOS blowing away every alternative.

Market share is just a means to Apple. Their one and only end is to maximize profits. Always has been. Always will be.

If capturing market share is the best means, like with the iPod and iPhone, they will do it and brag to high heavens about their market share. If they can get huge margins instead, like with Mac hardware, market share matters much less.


Bullshit. "Don't do search anymore"? "Use apps for everything"? Learn some perspective and precision and clarity and accuracy.

Maybe the facts are that an increasing number of people use apps more and more and search somewhat less. But I doubt even that is true, and neither of us has any data whatsoever.

Yes, it may mean that.

But you don't have any information, so all you are doing is giving a wild guess.

Apple isn't going to crush Android when it comes to Verizon but it will certainly strike a forceful, lasting blow until, and only until each of it's competitors create a useful Itunes-like interface where ALL media is housed and can be easily viewed, purchased and transfered. Until then, Apple wins.

I sure don't do a lot of google search anymore bud. I use apps more and more to get things done, get to anywhere, and look up what I need to know. But that's just me.. Steve said it about more people using apps than search. He's right about that AT LEAST TO ME. Is he right about that for everyone else? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. You're right neither of us has data, nor am I going to waste my time to go find it. But does it really matter to me and you?

And you don't have to be so hostile sounding about what I just said you know. Just calm down man... It's all good.

Nope. They too are merely a means to an end.

And Apple has treated App Store devs like shit in the last year or so, while constantly crowing about billions and billions [of apps] being served.

The Apps helped greatly to propel iOS to is current market share and growth rates. And market share and growth, in turn, inspired more and more apps to be written.

The strategy with iOS has to be very different from the strategy with Macs. The Mac can be a niche device and Apple can still make gobs of money. But they are now a CE company, and they will need volume to make gobs of money.

With the feedback loop of more apps-->market share-->more apps, Apple needs market share in the CE/appliance market they now seem to be embracing. Otherwise, they will be like Palm; excellent but irrelevant.

How many iPads are in the wild? How many other iOS devices are in the wild? Do the arithmetic and get back to me.

You think that RIM and Microsoft together will account for less then 10%. Your crystal ball is in need of calibration. WinPhone7 will be heavily promoted. RIM is quickly getting its act together, and offers compelling Blackberry-only capabilities to disparate classes of users, ranging from CEOs to schoolgirls.

Apple needs badly to retain market share to do well in this arena. They need to preserve their dominant position in the app market.

That is not necessarily true. One of the biggest drawbacks of iOS devices is iTunes. One of the biggest drawbacks of iTunes is that it is so bloated.

Out of the billions of people in the world, room exists for many different types of software. I often wish that I could sync with a quick and dirty music transfer program, for example, instead of going through all the rigamarole involved with using iTunes.

And I sure as hell don't use it as a media player!

I agree that it is bloated, and restrictive to a degree that more often than not makes my blood boil- but that's Apple. Even with all that though, I believe it is still the most useful, most well rounded interface available, by far..

Trust me, I am waiting for the competition to get off it's collective asses and offer up something less restrictive and possibly a bit more intuitive. I have to imagine something is around the bend.

I don't think so. I'm not using the Mac very much after buying my iPad... if it gets all my apps on the Mac, on the iPad, I might as well sell my Macbook Pro. You might think people enjoy freedom, well, it's not necessarily true if they can get their work done. Plus, iPad is a LOT cheaper

IMHO, the direction that iOS is going in is actually a good thing. Because it has the App Store, there isn't any potential for the virus situation like on Windows to ever happen. There just isn't a reason to produce apps that mess up the OS after they get vetted by Apple and then if they somehow slip through, get revoked by Apple. I'd prefer the closed system in preference to the open one if the result was more security, and in this case, it seems in general iOS has pretty good security.

For hackers, I admit, their hacks won't be as easy to implement for a possible customized interface. But Apple isn't serving this market.

I dont think the kind of OS running on mobile devices is important has it was back in the 80s with the PC market. Back then a standard OS was important for enterprise because then wanted to be able to run compatible software.
Mobile devices dont need to be all running the same OS has long has they can supply software to there users. Apple has a great system going on with the app store. Apple makes software to sell hardware, something people seems to forget. Even all iTunes and software sales are insignificant compare to hardware sales, just take a look at Apple Quarter results.

Dear AppleInsider:

Thank you for a well-balanced article.

The articles by Daniel what's-his-face are so biased, they are cringeworthy.

This was a good article.

Competition is good for consumers. I think Android will eventually have a greater percent of the market, but--just as with computers--Apple will rule the high-end (most profitable) part of the market. Fine by me.

You can't be serious. Android has surpassed iPhone WORLDWIDE where most countries have iPhone on multiple carriers. The U.S. is one of the few where it's only on one carrier. It's too little, too late for iPhone in the U.S. The Droid/Verizon combination is killer and iPhone won't matter if/when it comes to Verizon. People have "moved on" from wanting an iPhone when they know Android devices do so much more, have much more flexibility and customization.

yes, you're correct. But those figures include iPhone 4 but not the Droid X or Droid 2 or any of the Samsung Galaxy S series phones. There's no way iPhone can remain first with that kind of multi-carrier/manufacturer model.

Apple may have 6% PC market share and but yet has a bigger market cap than Microsoft and Google.

I think Apple will gains more in advertising than Google will gains Android phones and tablets.

For example Google paid a ton of money for AdMob but I bet that Quatro will be much more valuable than AdMob long term...


Time will tell.

It sounds like we agree more than we disagree.

Apple is not in the same business as the other two. Apple is a Consumer Electronics company. The other two are software companies.

Was actually a joke about Steve Balmer.

But I do agree developers are just a part of the means to profit for Apple. Apple will throw developers almost nothing since devs already have the incentive to do the work and, second, Apple knows running the app store is not supposed to be any more than just part of the way of demonstrating iOS hardware/software value to consumers.

I think we are starting to see the problem with Apple's 5-year exclusive contract with ATT. 5 years is a very long time in the world of mobile phones, and it's prevented Apple from branching out to other carries in the US earlier. This has allowed Android to build up momentum and Apple hasn't been allowed to respond. If/when iPhone becomes available on other US carriers, it will be interesting to see how hard Apple fights back.

I also wonder what the terms of Apple's contract with ATT said in respect to other models and if that's been why Apple has stuck with only having a single (more-or-less) version of the iPhone? It's a big Android advantage that there are multiple handsets available so users can pick what suits their needs and/or style. Apple shouldn't license iOS, that would be foolish. But they should create a family of iPhones. Just like the have a family of laptops, of desktops, and of iPods. (And even for all those other families, Apple should diversify. The volume is high enough to justify Apple offering greater choices in their lineups.)

There are still a lot of people who have no interest owning a smartphone, but would love a phone that easily syncs to their computer for contacts and music only. With the new nano, Apple appears to think there is utility in a 1.7" touch screen. Now how about an iPhone nano (perhaps a flip-phone). That would get more people using Apple's devices and provide a future pool of potential smartphone owners in the Apple camp before they even consider Android.

Au contraire... Apple is very much a software company, and a music company and an advertising company and much much more.

While Apple is famous for its industrial hardware design, it is the Mac OS and the iOS user experience that differentiates Apple from the from the rest...

Google and it's partners are trying so hard to copy Apple that they will lose their souls trying as Apple redefines market after market after market ...including the Television and advertising market...

Time will tell.

God what a shower of responses. If we just look at the Mac in the past decade and the traction it's gaining we see that it's the second most popular type of computer IN THE WORLD. And it's laptop sales are nearly reaching to the top. The fact is iPhone's got massive market share and if Android doesn't deliver as good as experience as iPhone many people will convert. We don't have to compare, to see which one's better and is getting more coverage... yes folks iPhone. I just see Android as another phone OS in the 'other' section. Which makes the other section quite big I know.

Why do u think Apple is not a software company? Because Press said so? Because Steve said so? What is the prerequisite for a company to be called a software company?

The point is the same. Apple marketshare/market cap is not directly comparable to those other two companies.

Yeah, and Zune is the second most popular type of MP3 player IN THE WORLD.

Do you really care? Both the Zune and the Mac are all but irrelevant in their respective markets.

They do not - the figures everybody quote are from the second quarter 2010, before the iPhone4 was launced. The next quarterly reports will include the iP4 along with the D-X, D-2 and others, so let's wait and see till then.
I can see that the iOS may be surpassed globally (in total market share) by Android in the future, but it hasn't happend yet, not by a long shot.
Don't think the Galaxy Tab will be a mega success either, not with a price almost twice that of the iPad (saw it on the website of the Samsung importer in Norway). I simply don't see the Droid'ers flocking around such super-expensive devices...

I don't have a list of requirements, sorry.

But Steve says that they are a mobile device company, which means that they are a CE company.

They have never enjoyed software as a dominant source of revenue.

Well whenever something ingenious comes out people copy it Morris Mini, Dyson, Hoover, AT&T Telephone, EMI Television and who can forget the SINCLAIR Executive! They come out with cheeper models, better models... and people trade then in with newer models. But Apple has beaten them all. Not many can claim to have come out with colour computers, modern day printers and the modern GUI.

Crap devices running iOS subpar? There are plenty of smartphones that are just as well built if not better than the iPhone running Android with better specs and more hardware features. If those phones ran iOS, it wouldn't have the problems associated with Android (and it wouldn't have the benefits).

Licensing iOS would be perfectly fine, and would net the iOS alot of market share, but it wouldn't serve Apple's end goal of PROFITS.

No not really. But Apple should care as it's there achievement. And no the Zune is not irrelevant, and the Mac definitely isn't. No 1 in the Media and Arts, and people who buy comps over $1000, Apple has 91% of that Market. It isn't me with a single minded point of view.

I thought the point was to maximize the return on the investors' investments.

The comment to which you replied was simply and manifestly correct. This is just about as brain-dead simple as it could possibly be. The number 6% was pulled out of the air. It will change over time, and it's anyone guess exactly where it will end up. But the point of the comment to which your replied is essentially correct. The mere fact that iOS will run only on devices manufactured by Apple means that it is destined to a much smaller market share than the Andoid OS. This is a given, and is a guaranteed consequence of the fact that one OS is available to any interested manufacturer and the other OS is not. The question of whether it would be in the best interest of Apple investors for Apple to license iOS to other manufacturers is a different question and one that does not have easy answers. But the comment made by the manufacturer to which you replied is essentially truthful, and it is brain-dead obvious that it is truthful, and the reason why it is truthful is brain-dead obvious.

Apple *is* a mobile device company, and a software company and a hardware company and an advertising company and a music company and a book company and a video company and a television company and a microprocessor company and a touch screen company and a track pad company and phone company and a ...


Note that it is the Apple Software that sells the hardware.

"I already know your favorite flavor."

Meet Google CEO Eric Schmidt

You say that like it is a bad thing. Part of what has allowed Apple to avoid anti-trust charges and forced cloning a la Psystar is the lack of dominance in appropriate markets. So long as they continue to make sales and money for the shareholders I doubt they really care what their percent is compared to the rest. In fact, not really giving a darn about what everyone else is doing seems to be a key element in Apple's mindset. Which could be why we don't have certain features like blu-ray in the computers even though everyone else is doing it.

And there is a flaw in this data. They speak of losing market share but isn't the market rising all the time. going from 10% to 9% or whatever doesn't seem like that big of a deal if the market has risen 5-10% from the last time it was measured. Particularly when you consider who had new devices etc release during the month (which tends to cause a jump in numbers). And you add in the detail that the counters ignored a whole set of devices that probably would change the results greatly

The real reason that Android is gaining market share is that a variety of manufacturers of mobile devices like it and are permitted to use it. Duh.

The lawsuit will likely inhibit Google from being able to do whatever they want to do with Java, but it is exceedingly unlikely that it will have any significant impact on the emergence of Android as the defacto standard operating system for mobile devices manufactured by diverse manufacturers. Very quickly, within one or perhaps two years, it will become apparent that Android is to mobile platforms as Windows is to PCs. That this will in fact happen is manifest, and this is why Oracle was not able to look the other way. It is an absolute certainty that this is going to happen. And it is far better than for it to be a Java platform than something owned lock stock and barrel by Microsoft. Apple's strategy and role in the mobile device arena is clearly destined to be much the same as it is in the personal computer arena. Apple will have a small market share in terms of units but, but this will not accurately reflect their overall presence in the market.

Maybe. This assumes that MS cannot recapture any share they lost to Android with WP7. Android CE makers have no overwhelming loyalty to the platform in the same way that Apple has with iOS, Nokia has with Symbian and RIM with Blackberry.

LG, Samsung, HTC, Sony-Ericsson all are rumored to have WP7 phones in the pipeline. These aren't going to take share from iOS but Android and Symbian.

This again?

The analogy you are looking for isn't Windows vs Mac. It's IBM PC vs. Apple II. That's when Apple saw its dominant market position evaporate.

Remember that Windows rode in on the back of DOS' dominance as an operating system. In fact, DOS was originally required to run Windows up until 1995, when the two where combined. When Mac 128K was introduced, it struggled against a giant: DOS. Mac was never the dominant platform. Windows marketshare grew because it could already run on DOS, and DOS was everywhere. If you were a DOS user, you already invested in PC hardware and software, so why throw that out to buy a Mac when you could just add Windows and a mouse, and run the next generation of GUI programs, like Office or Lotus or WordPerfect?

Remember too that Apple had licensed Mac OS to Mac clone makers (like Bill Gates was publicly suggesting they do), and all it did was further weaken Apple's profits without gaining any marketshare against Windows.

Things are different this time:

1. they continue to innovate
2. they focus on the customer experience instead of adding the kitchen sink feature
3. they are leveraging all their strengths (for example, iPhone and iPad is also fully functional iPods)
4. they learned how to keep marketshare by building infrastructure and services to their hardware/software platforms
5. the smartphone market still has a lot of "churn" which means it is not mature yet. Marketshare is anyone's to gain or lose at this point

Apple's long-term strategy for keeping iOS on top seems to be the same one they used to keep iPod dominant: support the hardware with world class infrastructure and services. For example: iTunes and then iTunes Music Store (which has since expanded to include movies, TV shows and now Apps and Books) has kept the iPod unbeatable, long after the novelty of its interface & style wore off (and Zune had stolen it). Apple is following a similar strategy for iOS. They know that the things competitor can copy from the UI or hardware design will be copied (it's already happened).

If Apple ever gets to the point where they're desperate enough to license iOS to clone makers, then they've forgotten all the lessons they've learned and what got them to the top in the first place.

In the computer market as a whole, Macs are not important.

In the niche markets you identify, the Mac sells well.