or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Gartner mobile figures supporting Android differ from IDC by 77 million
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gartner mobile figures supporting Android differ from IDC by 77 million

post #1 of 56
Thread Starter 
In their latest quarterly reports on the mobile industry, Gartner and IDC have reported numbers that are wildly different, with Garner counting 77 million additional units sold. Gartner also assumes the use of Android by a large number of unspecified "Other" phone manufacturers, greatly reducing the market share of Apple, RIM, and even the major Android makers.

That huge discrepancy in counting global phone sales is, as noted by Asymco blogger Horace Dediu, "nearly as big as all the smartphones sold (81 million). This is not within any margin of error for whatever sampling method they use."

Dediu added that IDC and Gartner "need to clarify this because until they do, neither is credible."

The Mysterious Others

The huge difference in reported phone sales allowed Gartner to describe a huge category of "Other," unnamed phone vendors who the firm claims are now collectively selling low end phones at an astoundingly high growth rate well above the rapidly growing HTC and Apple, and incredibly far above the industry average growth rate.

According to Gartner, this "Other" category reportedly ballooned from 16% to 33% of the mobile phone market in one year. Dediu wrote that Gartner analysts "state that the incumbent vendors are being pressured by these low end [other] entrants. They go on to explain that the same set of vendors will probably use Android to enter the smartphone space."

Gartner's mobile sales figures for recognizable brands, including Nokia, Samsung, Apple, RIM, Sony Ericsson, Motorola, HTC, and even the two smaller brands ZTE and Huawei, all show plausable growth rates in unit sales:

Nokia added a few thousand units but still slipped in market share; second place Samsung boosted sales by more than 10,000 units but still slipped in market share; RIM grew sales by three thousand but remained nearly static in market share, while Apple nearly doubled its phone sales (thanks to the launch of iPhone 4) and yet only inched up a little from 2.3% to 3.2% of the overall phone market.

LG, Sony Ericsson and Motorola all slipped significantly in quarterly sales, while the much smaller ZTE and Huawei increased sales (but not significant market share). Outside of these brands however, the Other category ballooned dramatically from 49.8 million units to 137.8 million, a fantastic increase that gobbled up twice as much market share as Gartner assigned to "everyone else" a year ago.




Others all assumed to use Android

Gartner's figures by operating system (rather than vendor) suggest that a large part of this "Other" growth is benefitting Android. While Gartner notes that the major Android licensees Samsung, Sony Ericsson, Motorola and HTC have only grown their sales moderately (or none) over the past year, and that all have actually lost overall market share, it reports that Android as a platform has ballooned from 3.5% of the market to an incredible 25.5% of the smartphone market.

Symbian, Apple's iOS, RIM, Windows Mobile, Linux and "Other OS" were all assigned flat or sharply lower market share, making it clear that Garner is assuming that most of the smartphones included in its 88 million new phones attributed to "Other" vendors (77 million of which no other firm has noticed in its own counts) must all be using Android.

While Android has helped Motorola, HTC and Samsung to deliver popular new models, Gartner's data does not indicate that its fantastic growth rates for "Other" Android makers are coming from sales of the popular Droid, Incredible and Galaxy models. Instead, the vast majority of Gartner's reported growth in Android is coming from unnamed companies more obscure than even ZTE and Huawei, and all small enough not to figure into Gartner's top tepee vendor brand list.

Gartner does not figure Apple's iPod touch and iPad sales into its mobile numbers, so presumably the firm isn't counting a huge swell of off-brand Android tablets or other devices to pad Android's purported growth. Where are these huge numbers of small phone companies selling their tens of millions of phones, what brands of phones do they sell, and why aren't these tens of millions of users showing up in Android app store sales or web use statistics? Gartner hasn't offered any challengable details.

Because Gartner bases its numbers on sell through to end users, while IDC's figures are based on sell in to vendors, any balloon of inventory should be reported by IDC first, rather than showing up in Gartner's figures of actual phones sold.

Gartner: they are white box PC phones

A report by Philip Elmer-DeWitt of Fortune cites a comment from a Gartner PR representative explaining where these "other" phones might be. "Effectively, many companies can now assemble large numbers of handsets cheaply using readily-available components -- in much the same way that white box PC manufacturers were able to do so in the past. These companies are increasingly exporting to countries with high demand for basic handsets."

The report also references a Gartner press release noting that the mobile market for phones in India is expected to exceed 138 million this year, a large number of which are increasingly being supplied from Chinese vendors (although the Indian government has since banned Chinese knockoff phones that lack proper IMEI numbers). Gartner's Anshul Gupta wrote in that report that "the average selling price (ASP) of a mobile device [in India] is approximately $52, with 85 percent of devices sold costing below $100.

Given that mainstream Android phones sell for about $600, it's hard to imagine that a vast segment of new low cost phones are reaching well below $100 because of Android, or that if these phones were using Android, that they would be recognizable to users in the West as Android smartphones. A profile of "the five cheapest Android phones in India" by India Business Blog lists models all selling for around $200 to $300, far above the $52 ASP Gartner cites for the region.

Certainly the majority of India's phones can't be running Android, and other market data does not show this to be the case. While Android offers a less expensive smartphone platform than Windows Phone 7, it is not price competitive with embedded devices that do not require the minimum components needed to host an Android smartphone, exemplified in the $200-$300 Android models now available in India.

Maintaining the fiction for convenience

The Fortune report also included a comment from a former IDC employee, who notes that his firm regularly based its market share figures on manufacturer's reported sales. "We just did some systematic adjustments to the vendor guidance and called it a day," the reader explained.

He portrayed the industry's analyst unit counts and market share growth statistics, not as a scientific exercise, but an effort to create numbers that "maintain the fiction because it was convenient." He writes that the goal was to "preserve the growth rates; to hell with the actual numbers. Even the growth rates are fiction.

"The fudge is in the 'others' category, which is used as a plug to make the numbers work out. In fairness, we did do survey work, calling around, and attending white box conferences and venues to try to get a feel for that market, but in the end, the process was political. I used to tell customers which parts of the data they could trust, essentially the major vendors by form factor and region. The rest was garbage."

Microsoft: analysts' business model is selling out

Gartner has historically worked to influence public opinion by crafting numbers that support the firms that support it. In the late 90s, Gartner partnered with Microsoft to release research that said WIndows provided lower Total Cost of Ownership compared to competing thin client Network Computers.

An internal, confidential Microsoft memo made public during the monopoly trial acknowledged that "analysts sell out thats their business model. But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with.

Gartner later announced research in 2005 that Microsoft's Windows Mobile 5 would largely defeat Symbian as soon as the company shipped it. In reality, Symbian still remains in the lead today, only having take a beating from the iPhone, RIM, and Android. Windows Mobile never really even threatened Symbian.

Gartner has most recently announced that Android would become the second largest mobile platform by 2012, releasing research that said Android's market share would grow 400 percent in two years, Windows Mobile 7 would grow by 70 to 80 percent, Apple would remain stagnant, and RIM would drop by half.
post #2 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Maintaing the fiction for convenience

The Fortune report also included a comment from a former IDC employee, who notes that his firm regularly based its market share figures on manufacturer's reported sales. "We just did some systematic adjustments to the vendor guidance and called it a day," the reader explained.

He portrayed the industry's analyst unit counts and market share growth statistics, not as a scientific exercise, but an effort to create numbers that "maintain the fiction because it was convenient." He writes that the goal was to "preserve the growth rates; to hell with the actual numbers. Even the growth rates are fiction.

"The fudge is in the 'others' category, which is used as a plug to make the numbers work out. In fairness, we did do survey work, calling around, and attending white box conferences and venues to try to get a feel for that market, but in the end, the process was political. I used to tell customers which parts of the data they could trust, essentially the major vendors by form factor and region. The rest was garbage."

Microsoft: analysts' business model is selling out

Gartner has historically worked to influence public opinion by crafting numbers that support the firms that support it. In the late 90s, Gartner partnered with Microsoft to release research that said WIndows provided lower Total Cost of Ownership compared to competing thin client Network Computers.

An internal, confidential Microsoft memo made public during the monopoly trial acknowledged that "analysts sell out – that’s their business model. But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with.”

Gartner later announced research in 2005 that Microsoft's Windows Mobile 5 would largely defeat Symbian as soon as the company shipped it. In reality, Symbian still remains in the lead today, only having take a beating from the iPhone, RIM, and Android. Windows Mobile never really even threatened Symbian.

Gartner has most recently announced that Android would become the second largest mobile platform by 2012, releasing research that said Android's market share would grow 400 percent in two years, Windows Mobile 7 would grow by 70 to 80 percent, Apple would remain stagnant, and RIM would drop by half.

The moral of the story - who the heck really knows what is going on.
post #3 of 56
One more problem with creating an OS in house, then opening up hardware to all comers.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #4 of 56
I seem to remember analyists were saying 9 months ago, that Apple would sell 1.5 million iPads in 2010. They will actually sell over 10 million. Why are anyone surprised when these people come out with dumb figures. It's all guesswork.
post #5 of 56
You have to forgive both IDC and Gartner. When two groups are making up numbers out of thin air, there is bound to be some discrepancy. Can Gartner even tell us who they think these mythical other Android manufacturers are?

In my numbers I assume all the "Others" are pirating iOS, and I must say it is really kicking ass.
post #6 of 56
deleted
post #7 of 56
Where were all of you when Munster put out that idiotic 45 million iphone figure or Andy Zaky pulling numbers out of thin air?
post #8 of 56
.

Simple!

Eric Schmidt says they are activating 855,556 per day!


Edit: Oops! I meant: Eric Schmidt says they are activating 855,556 more per day!


Edit2: These were remote controls for the 77 million Google TVs sold during the quarter.

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #9 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

You have to forgive both IDC and Gartner. When two groups are making up numbers out of thin air, there is bound to be some discrepancy. Can Gartner even tell us who they think these mythical other Android manufacturers are?

In my numbers I assume all the "Others" are pirating iOS, and I must say it is really kicking ass.

So true!

We were recently romanced by Gartner: totally 'pay to play'. Probably IDC too. Welcome to America!
post #10 of 56
A lot of what we think we know about this stuff from data-broking consultants like Gartner is of highly questionable value (not unlike the Neilsen ratings for TV).

Yet, forums run with these like they are the truth.

The only thing one can trust is segment reporting from the companies themselves. However, outside of Apple, RIM, and Nokia, getting any decent numbers on smartphones -- especially from the Android types such as Motorola, HTC, Samsung, etc -- is like pulling teeth.

I have never trusted the Android numbers from Day 1, and don't plan to start anytime soon. Unless they start to show up the segment reports in their SEC filings, caveat investor.
post #11 of 56
There is a huge difference between forecasts, and historical estimates....

The former is just guesswork. The latter should be educated guesswork.
post #12 of 56
All I care about is how many "glass" smart phones are being sold!

In other words, the more Apple sells, the more they are going to invest in the next gen., iPhone.

Which, essentially means, I win and you win, too!

I liken it to when I was playing a lot of tennis. Nike was selling a boat load of tennis shoes, via Sampras and Agassi. I reasoned they sold more, made more money, and therefore invested more than the other shoe companies. Reebok sucked, Converse sucked, Adidas sucked, Diadora sucked, Fila sucked, Prince sucked, Wilson sucked...But every 4 months Nike was coming out with an improved shoe!

Granted I paid more for Nike...but having the best shoes took them out of the "equation." So all I had to concentrate on was my fitness, my strategy, my tactics and my execution of said strategy and tactics. (I also bought the best jockstrap so my balls were always "taken care of." In fact, I think, on the package, there was a guarantee that said, "No Cock will 'Pop' out of our strap."


With Apple, I trust Stevo and his battalion of PHD's to provide the best digital experience available, given the tech available at the time.

If it was not for Apple, we would all be using the original "plastic" Blackberries that felt like holding up a "cheeseburger to your ear" or a desktop that looks like creaky, plasticky "death" provided by Dell with dusty cables and pwr bricks galore or an OS provided by MS that looked like something from Hasbro/Fischer Price and whose error messages would make a grown man cry in frustration! I mean, think about it...Dell's solution to a supposedly "wireless" mouse and keyboard involved "wires" to a receiver cable to the back of your tower! Sheez!

Best

PS. Or an MP3 player from Dell (Uggh!), a brown Zune from MS, an iTunes equivalent from MS, Media player (Uggh!), Palm's smart phones, Dell's PDA's, Sony's abominations...HP's crap, Gateway's crap, Compaq's crap...the list goes on and on.



Comments? 2 cents, Akac, alexkhan2000, chad.price, Dick Applebaum, mdriftmeyer, msantti, NasserAE, palter, Peleas, piot, radster360
post #13 of 56
.

If statistics can be used to influence people -- someone will find a way to make money influencing statistics!


Back in the 1950's there was this big scandle called Payola:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payola

Simplistically: Record companies would pay disc jockeys to play their records more often on their radio shows. This would influence the top 100 ratings -- the songs were reported as more popular than they actually were.

These "Top 100" charts were reported weekly. Of course, if you wanted to be "cool" (it was called "hot" back then) -- you just had to buy the top hits...

Today, we would call this RecordGate!

The government got involved, passed laws -- made it worse.

As a know-it-all teenager, something my dad had always said, suddenly made sense: "Son, don't believe everything you read (or hear)."


A few years ago, a high-up executive in the music industry, explained how Payola is done today -- yes, differently, more sophisticated, but still being done.


So, you have to ask: Who benefits from artificially inflated numbers? How?

I'll leave that to others to determine!


I often cite statistics that support the assertions I make. I will try to be more discerning and qualify those citations when necessary.

FWIW, I question everything that the author of this article publishes or posts. DED, frequently cites himself, arranges events and facts to suit his agenda, and ignores or minimizes those that do not meet his requirements.

,
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #14 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

.

If statistics can be used to influence people -- someone will find a way to make money influencing statistics!

Back in the 1950's there was this big scandle called Payola:

,

Agreed, Dick...

I would say, there are designated "lanes" corporations can "drive" in. Much like a highway. The more money they make, the more money they can spend on "buying" our elected officials to widen said "lanes." Hence, they make more money and on and on it goes!

If it was left up to corporations, there wouldn't be a tree left standing in the Northwest, you could walk across Lake Erie and you could cut the air in LA with a knife!

Best
post #15 of 56
Don't forget the HP Android printers.

Surely they count too!
post #16 of 56
deleted
post #17 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

The stats from both companies also show Apple with a larger market share than Android.

I guess that can only mean Apple is part of the conspiracy too!

Consider the conspicuous absence of Steve Jobs from all pictures of the grassy knoll....

I think I get your drift...but probably too intellectual for me!

Best
post #18 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

One says "Others", the smaller one says "Android". Sounds like this mystifies only the writers at AI, as everyone can probably figure out that "Android" is a subset of "Others".

Look at the figures for manufacturers. Gartner's "Others" section says about 1,377,970 phones were shipped by others. IDC's "Others" section - which includes Sony Ericsson, Motorola, HTC etc. that were given their own section in Gartner's figures - shows only about 1,038,000 shipments.

Gartner is assuming that the majority of these extra 77 million phones - that no-one else seems to know about - are running Android and thus, seem to be randomly increasing their estimated Android market share.
post #19 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

.

If statistics can be used to influence people -- someone will find a way to make money influencing statistics!

,

human nature doesn't change much does it?

And so we have "creative" statistics, massaged reports and a general lack of veracity in those who claim authority. Wish I could say I'm shocked but that would be 89% inaccurate with a margin of error of .02%.
post #20 of 56
Will these stats be what decides your next phone purchase? I doubt it

Buy what you buy.

Personally I'm with the more money = more development approach. Linked to that is where the money comes from. Google is ads, so their development angle is ad centric, not os centric. Moto and friends are volume based, rapid release hardware so they dump the last as soon as the next comes and the next is built with minimal research, maximum off the shelf bits with packaging tweaks. Apple is a premimum profit per unit, minimal models, annual release so they research to reduce their cost and leverage research from across each release.

I'll go with the premium research based low volume provider, thanks. I don't want an ad focus or a fire and forget focus.
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
post #21 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

a lot of what we think we know about this stuff from data-broking consultants like gartner is of highly questionable value (not unlike the neilsen ratings for tv).

Yet, forums run with these like they are the truth.

The only thing one can trust is segment reporting from the companies themselves. However, outside of apple, rim, and nokia, getting any decent numbers on smartphones -- especially from the android types such as motorola, htc, samsung, etc -- is like pulling teeth.

I have never trusted the android numbers from day 1, and don't plan to start anytime soon. Unless they start to show up the segment reports in their sec filings, caveat investor.

+++ qft

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #22 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

PS. Or an MP3 player from Dell (Uggh!), a brown Zune from MS, an iTunes equivalent from MS, Media player (Uggh!), Palm's smart phones, Dell's PDA's, Sony's abominations...HP's crap, Gateway's crap, Compaq's crap...the list goes on and on.



Comments? 2 cents, Akac, alexkhan2000, chad.price, Dick Applebaum, mdriftmeyer, msantti, NasserAE, palter, Peleas, piot, radster360

Years ago, I was reviewing my mom's portfolio when HP announced the consumerger with Compaq. She had fairly significant holdings in both.

Both went down before the merger, and stayed down. She lost money on both.

bad ++ bad == really bad

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #23 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

The stats from both companies also show Apple with a larger market share than Android.

I guess that can only mean Apple is part of the conspiracy too!

Consider the conspicuous absence of Steve Jobs from all pictures of the grassy knoll....

LOL

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #24 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

.


I often cite statistics that support the assertions I make. I will try to be more discerning and qualify those citations when necessary.

FWIW, I question everything that the author of this article publishes or posts. DED, frequently cites himself, arranges events and facts to suit his agenda, and ignores or minimizes those that do not meet his requirements.

,

1) No you don't and the assertions you usually make are laughable.

2) I would trust this author far more than I would ever trust anything you write given how biased and irrational you are.
post #25 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by macnyc View Post

1) No you don't and the assertions you usually make are laughable.

2) I would trust this author far more than I would ever trust anything you write given how biased and irrational you are.

Kind of "jaw-dropping" isn't it?

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #26 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

You have to forgive both IDC and Gartner. When two groups are making up numbers out of thin air, there is bound to be some discrepancy. Can Gartner even tell us who they think these mythical other Android manufacturers are?

In my numbers I assume all the "Others" are pirating iOS, and I must say it is really kicking ass.

Thin Air? What are the number mean? smart only or including all handsets? If it is all inclusive, the others could be big number. SanZai ji are all over china. Not using any of the OS mentioned before. Anyone read the real reports? what is the criteria of the accounting for those numbers?
post #27 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by grking View Post

The moral of the story - who the heck really knows what is going on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

One more problem with creating an OS in house, then opening up hardware to all comers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

A lot of what we think we know about this stuff from data-broking consultants like Gartner is of highly questionable value (not unlike the Neilsen ratings for TV)... I have never trusted the Android numbers from Day 1, and don't plan to start anytime soon. Unless they start to show up the segment reports in their SEC filings, caveat investor.

I think, the take away point from this whole shebang is Android is still going to be huge because it's free and apparently easy to implement. I think Apple's focus should be not what it is doing vs. Android, but what unit sales it is doing compared to Android by select top 10 manufacturers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by msantti View Post

Don't forget the HP Android printers.
Surely they count too!

I hear those super-advanced Japanese restrooms will run Android.
post #28 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

If it was left up to corporations, there wouldn't be a tree left standing in the Northwest, you could walk across Lake Erie and you could cut the air in LA with a knife!

What? You can't cut the air in LA with a knife??

No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
No Matte == No Sale :-(
Reply
post #29 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blah64 View Post

What? You can't cut the air in LA with a knife??


I grew up in the area (Pasadena) in the 1950s.

The smog predates western civilazation:

Quote:
The name given by the Chumash tribe of Native Americans for the area now known as Los Angeles translates to "the valley of smoke" because of the smog from native campfires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles

We were taught in school:

The area is a bowl, surrounded by high mountains on 3 sides and open to the Pacific Ocean on the west.

Under certain weather conditions: gentle breezes from the west pack the air up against the mountains, where it stalls. When the Sun beats down on this air mass for several days or weeks, a lid of warmer air covers the cooler air closer to the ground. This is called an inversion layer and is very stable.

Any smoke, dust, chemicals, etc. released into the air is trapped by the inversion layer and is known as smog.

http://daphne.palomar.edu/calenvironment/smog.htm

It was terrible in the 1950s and early 1960s. There were 7,000 foot high mountains about 8 miles from our back yard -- sometimes you couldn't see them for weeks on end.

The Governments outlawed incinerator burning, outdoor fires, and regulated automobile emissions, air polluters, etc. -- and it helped some. I moved back to Pasadena in 2001-2003. It was better, but there was still smog.

I guess the point is that there has long been smog in the LA Basin, and likely, will be for a long time in the future-- until the unique geography changes.

We humans can make it a lot worse, or a little better -- but nature rules.


On the brighter side -- watch the Pasadena Rose Bowl parade and game on New Years Day. That time of year the weather conditions do not contribute to an inversion layer. The sky is usually bright blue and clear, and the mountains are breathtaking!

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #30 of 56
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPhone might provide some hints.
post #31 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewisdorigo View Post

Look at the figures for manufacturers. Gartner's "Others" section says about 1,377,970 phones were shipped by others. IDC's "Others" section - which includes Sony Ericsson, Motorola, HTC etc. that were given their own section in Gartner's figures - shows only about 1,038,000 shipments.

Gartner is assuming that the majority of these extra 77 million phones - that no-one else seems to know about - are running Android and thus, seem to be randomly increasing their estimated Android market share.

The author of this piece has no clue how to read the data and it appears you accept what he said at face value. Gartner said 20.5 million Android phones, not 77 million difference between Garner and IDC, not the 137.8 million "others". If you look at the number of phones sold by HTC Motorola and Samasung, it is possible that all 20.5 million Android phone came from them, canabalizing sales from the older models running different OS's that they offered last year. That the vast majority of Android phones came from the branded manufacturers is not just possible, it is probable.

The notion that "others all assumed to use Android" put forth in the artical is simply moronic. If the Others are selling 137.8 million phones, and a total of 20.5 million phones had Android, even if NO ONE ELSE BUT OTHER sold Android, the OS would still have less than 15% of the Other category. It is more likely that HTC, Motorola, Samsung and the other known brands accounted for most or all of the 20.5 million Android phones and the Other category is made up of budget phones that are not smart phones and are not running any of the major OS's. DUH!

PLEASE people read what Gartner said, read what the data REALLY says. Don't trust the idiots writing for AI these days.

BTW, AI, you should be ashamed to publish trash like this. Use your freakin' brains before you go off on crazy conspiracy theories.
post #32 of 56
deleted
post #33 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by macnyc View Post

2) I would trust this author far more than I would ever trust anything you write given how biased and irrational you are.

You are making a horrible error of judgement here. This author's analysis would get a solid "F" in a third grade writing assignment. He sees the world with such a strong bias, he reads things in Garner's report that they simply did not write. I would not trust his ability to perform simple addition, or even tell me if the sky is blue or cloudy today. Don't take my word for it, read the artical above and look at the numbers yourself.
post #34 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnoble View Post

So true!

We were recently romanced by Gartner: totally 'pay to play'. Probably IDC too. Welcome to America!

I know one thing - I'll never trust numbers from Gartner.

I documented a little scam of theirs that went on for years. When I showed them the data, they just ignored it and made no changes to their policies.

The situation was this. It was back in the days when everyone was claiming that Apple was dying - and Gartner was the head cheerleader for that refrain. They did everything they could to make it look like Apple was dying.

Every quarter, Gartner release 'estimated' sales figures. And every quarter, their estimate of Apple's sales figures showed a decline. They issued a huge press release about how Apple's sales were declining - including all the buzzwords like 'beleaguered' and 'troubled'. Then, a month or so later, they would find the actual figures - but never published them. In each quarter, Apple's ACTUAL figures showed a gain from the previous year, yet Gartner was telling everyone that their sales declined.

Since there was never any press release on Apple's actual sales figures, the only way I was able to track it down was to use the NEXT year's press release which showed the estimated sales declining from the previous year's actuals (and, of course, the previous year's actuals were always far higher than the estimate published at the time). The difference was sometimes significant - 25% or more.

I don't know whether it was gross incompetence or outright lies, but this went on for 4 years. EVERY SINGLE QUARTER, they played the same game. 'Estimated' sales were down - and got a big press release. Actual sales figures actually showed growth over the previous year, but were not mentioned - until the following year when they wanted a larger base so that they could show another quarter of 'dropping sales'.

Oh, and just to clarify any possible confusion - the same effect was not seen for Windows software sales. As expected, each year the actual sales figures were similar to the estimated figures and varied by a small percentage - in both directions.

It's entirely possible that it was an unintentional bias in their procedure, but the fact that I notified them of the discrepancy several times without response suggests otherwise.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #35 of 56
Quote:
Nokia added a few thousand units but still slipped in market share; second place Samsung boosted sales by more than 10,000 units but still slipped in market share; RIM grew sales by three thousand

Gartner is hardly a trustworthy source of data, but good lord, how stupid do you have to be to think sales for these manufacturers only changed in the thousands. Gartner's data certainly does not imply this. Try MILLIONS, Dilger MILLIONS, you are off by 3 orders of magnitude.

AI, PLEASE GET RID OF THIS IDIOT, HE HAS NO PLACE PUBLISHING ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
post #36 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post



Don't trust the idiots writing for AI these days.

BTW, AI, you should be ashamed to publish trash like this. Use your freakin' brains before you go off on crazy conspiracy theories.


Usually AI just paraphrases articles written in other publications. Rarely do they add original insight, and even more rarely do they uncover new facts.

It is a different sort of writing. Maybe they need to stick to it exclusively.
post #37 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I know one thing - I'll never trust numbers from Gartner.

I documented a little scam of theirs that went on for years.

Why did you keep all that under your hat? Who did you contact besides Gartner? Did you tell the guy in your organization responsible for renewing their contract? Did you tell the press? Did you tell the PR department at Apple?

Do you have the documentation currently? ISTM that there are thousands of reporters looking for a story that has an "Apple angle". The allegations made in the current situation fit perfectly with your documentation and story about another past incident - and they BOTH involve Apple and Gartner.

If there is any validity to your allegations, please contact Pouge and Mossberg. Their people will get back to you. They got lots o' kids hanging out and Jonesing for a Pulitzer.
post #38 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

Gartner is hardly a trustworthy source of data, but good lord, how stupid do you have to be to think sales for these manufacturers only changed in the thousands. Gartner's data certainly does not imply this. Try MILLIONS, Dilger MILLIONS, you are off by 3 orders of magnitude.

AI, PLEASE GET RID OF THIS IDIOT, HE HAS NO PLACE PUBLISHING ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



The piece is shoddy in many respects. A total POS. It is the fault of the editors. It should not have been published in its current form.
post #39 of 56
deleted
post #40 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

But if you're looking for real Mac news, try MacRumors.com

What is your opinion of Cult of Mac? Leander seems like a good guy, and John Brownlee is very funny.

They also publish pics like this:



It is "art", BTW, not sacriledge (or is it)? Anyways, interested in other opinions.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Gartner mobile figures supporting Android differ from IDC by 77 million