iOS, iPad web use still outpacing all Android devices combined - Page 2

They both are right depending on how you look at it.

Android is beating iOS in raw OS market share numbers. Carefully look at those reports and the details they don't talk about. They don't talk about Android revenue. They don't talk about developer growth and excitement for Android. They don't talk about web designers and how they design sites specifically for Android. They don't talk about Android's presence on devices other than smart phones.

No wacky weird stuff going on here. If a Konqueror user went to that site it would think it was safari as well, along with Gnome's browser because it equates webkit with safari.

Seen this happen lots of time.

Maybe, but in this case Google Analytics is reading every key/value in the UA array, as they should. If anything Google has an incentive to display actual Android usage and not as Safari/Android unless that were indeed the case. As you mentioned Android users do sometimes modify their UA which I believe is the case here since it specifically logged as Mobile Safari/523.12.2

APPL is up over 41% since September. That's not being beat down.


Unlikely when your flat market share is adding a few billion to your revenue and a billion to the bottom line as well.


To investors profit is what matters, if you think Apple is expensive now, you should see what would happen if they suddenly decided to issue a dividend. Furthermore, analysts are a dime a dozen and they're here to provide information, not provide interpretations and their opinions.


Nokia is still the single largest manufacture in the world.


Bloggers are proclaiming this, not Wall Street, and they're all basing this off of previous experience of knocking off Android as a one hit wonder and the OS exploding. I've yet to see a tablet that is consumer purchase friendly that offers similar experience to the iPad, so Apple really has a chance to keep churning along and get consumer confidence now.


Again, APPL is up 41% since September, the iPad is helping the stock at every tick. I'm an Android fan and I wouldn't swallow this crap you're spewing. Back it up with facts. Talk about the MADC, don't just say Wall Street because Wall Street just makes the trades, real investors hold the shares.

Only as a shareholder.

As a customer - not so much (unless you are worried the company will go under).

as a valid place to get information?

First and formost, they're an SEO firm, and when you GOOGLE them you get a whole list of sites, which tell you absolutely NOTHING about the company. In fact, the first result is a blank login page, and you get a couple obvious MLM blogs in the first page of results. You reverse it (365ROI) and you get a call center outsourcing firm.

Now, if a company specializes in SEO, shouldn't their public website be one of the top results when you google them? Why is DED quoting him like they're someone worth quoting?

The numbers (and graph) come from a company, maybe you heard of them... Stat Counter. Now, stat counters pretty big, but where I remember them most are those annoying little squares you could put at the bottom of your Xanga page so you could see how popular your ramblings were. You go to their "methodology" page and they say they don't weight any results (Good). But here's the kicker:

They ONLY count hits that come from search engine referrals. This means if you were referred by a webapp, RSS reader, bookmark, favorites, or simply browser history the hit wouldn't count. Take a look at your phone. When you browse to say AppleInsider, do you always search for it and then click the link, or do you (like most people) simply click on the bookmark (or at worse, you start typing in address bar and it auto completes). This is most likely what you do for almost EVERY website you visit regularly (generate the most hits for) And this isn't even counting the "Nerdy" options like Instapaper, Webapps, Pulse, RSS readers, flipbook, etc.

Even my Mother, someone who knows as much about technology as I know about nuclear physics knows how to use bookmarks.


Now, I'm not saying the data is worthless. Far from it. But it's not a total representation of what's going on here, unless you're just looking at how many people use their phones as search engines to find information (which is useful, but not what DED is doing).

Statistics are powerful tools, but they are easy to misread and even easier to misrepresent. Yes, some of those polls showing Android "blowing away" Apple are missing the mark entirely. But the answer to that is focus on the hard numbers (profitability, customer satisfaction, reliability) instead of using shady statistics yourself.

Articles like this might have an impressive title, and they might make you feel good for your OS of choice, but in the long run, they're about as useful as me having a "readers choice" award for the best restaurant, but ONLY tabulate those votes where the customer went to that restaurant because of an ad in a single paper.


EDIT: Secondly, Jeff Tribble appears to be someone who doesn't exist. You can't find ANYTHING on him and SEO besides for this article and other apple sites that copy/pasted it.

in a few weeks we will get Apple's quarterly sales numbers, including one month of iPad 2 March sales. so we will we be able to add up all iOS device sales (except Apple TV maybe) for whatever period of time.

all the Android OEM's almost never report actual sales numbers. which right off the bat is very suspicious. how many of the 2.1 million 7" Galaxy tabs "shipped" were actually sold do you think? less than half i bet. will Samsung ever say? probably not, it was a disaster. will we hear how many Xoom's sold in March? Motorola isn't saying. wonder why? if they sold a million, i bet we would hear about it.

so instead we get "educated guesses" from NDP, or all these third-hand reports/surveys extrapolating ad hoc metrics like browser hits into market share projections.

you would think the blogsphere would demand to know the facts from all the OEM's. with at least as much detail as Apple provides. but that would be real journalism ... when bullsh*tting is all they really know how to do.

How could they do that? Safari is only built as an iOS, Mac OS, and Windows browser. I haven't heard of a version built for Android OS.

IF you have a rooted phone (or any of a dozen or so alternate browsers) you can tell your phone to "spoof" being Safari. The reason for this is that some sites (like AI) refuse to update their code so they will ONLY show a mobile view if they detect an iOS browser.

Also, some tracking sites will count most modern webkit browsers as iOS because the don't want to bother with the dozens of unique user-agent strings android devices can have (each major UI skin uses a custom browser as well)

TLR Lazy websites or stat counters are the reason some Android devices show up as Safari.

delete

Your friends must not be nerds.

I think there is a large group of Windows/Linux users who hate Apple's vision of the computer. They're waging a war of "computer as a collection of parts" against "computer as an appliance." Like Windows and Linux, Android is just a "part" to be combined with various hardware parts, whereas, like with the Macintosh, iOS is designed along with its hardware and is only available on it. They really, really don't want "computer as appliance" to win: too user-friendly, too reliable. Their in-depth troubleshooting expertise will no longer be required.

And since this group includes many pundits and bloggers, if someone wanted to suppress Apple's stock price, floating questionable statistics their way would be an easy way to do it (and hard to trace).

You'd have a point except for the fact that practically every major tech blogger uses an iphone and/or mac computer.

The problem is that you're trying to compare the posts on specialized blogs (droid forums) with posts at AI, while somehow still holding AI posts in higher esteem.

the most strident fanDroids are typically diehard Linux fans (like Catherine Noyes). they see Android as - at long last - a successful Linux platform. so after many years of being left out of the media mainstream, they champion it and bask in the glow. then on top of that, they drink the "open" Googleaide, as if it really is about open source instead of market/advertising manipulation of the users.

and they hate Apple of course, because if OS X had not succeeded, the world would have turned to Linux as the only alternative to Windows! yeah, sure it would have ...

Pardon me but it is in fact the Android market that is spewing all the FUD which DED is countering so that we can have an intelligent view of what is really going on in the marketplace instead of all the false hype. The fact is that Android is an immature, unstable and extremely fragmented OS. People are getting what they paid for - oh, that's right, its free. The market spin around android is so full of FUD that it really is astonishing that it is doing so well as it is. Consumers apparently fail to realize that in many if not most cases, as soon as they buy an Android device, that it is obsolete as it comes with a version of the OS that is not up to date, that it's hardware will not allow it to be updated in many cases, that to get updates they may have to wait months for the carrier to implement them, that all the apps they may have purchased previously might not run on the new device and can't be updated, and its UI is some bastardized carrier or handset maker implementation that deviates from the intended use and isn't consistent across devices. Now, what was your point again?

deleted

deleted

And this is relevant how? What major tech column does she write for? How does she compare to BGR, Engadget, SB Tech (where Most of Engadget went), Time, CNN, Etc?

deleted

quite:


so, to clarify, the money for developers is

1) iOs
2) Android if you are Rovio. But thats it. Rovio is sweeping up all the ads. The rest get nothing.

Part of the joys of this forum is taking on Android trolls, and pointing out the hypocrisy of the fandrods. ( Now pro Open Source! Now anti-Open Source!)

Amuses us.

deleted

yes yes but 4% of the app market. Frankly most people would be better off burning money than developing for Andriod. That at least would keep them warm.

EDIT: and why is that chart comparing Android ( a platfrom) with the iPhone.

it's not just her. she is just a very blatant example. there is the whole Techcrunch crowd (except the token Siegler). and many others among the dozens of tech blogs. look around. not to mention many commenters.

what's relevant now is their desperate stridency. because of iPad 2's runaway success of course. they were so close! Linux was going to finally win! Damn Apple! that is why the sudden burst of FUD. not the only reason why, but a very emotional one.

And a majority of people (including those that read for this site) are not developers. In fact, the original post has NOTHING to do with development.

This story is about WEB HITS. So development is meaningless in the context you're trying to imply anything from the listed data. THE ONLY thing this data is showing is that of the sites Stat Counter monitors, a larger percentage of iOS users navigated to those pages from a search engine than android did. If ANYTHING, this means that SEO is more important for iOS related devices, and even that is a stress.

Android is still largely a phone OS. tablet's make up less than 1% of the install base (honeycomb tablets make .2%) so the comparison is still rather valid, even though if you ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE the people DED is quoting already built in iPad and iPod numbers into other statistics as well.

Sometimes, reading the article, and the discussion that follows, is helpful before responding.

The ONLY main author who really openly goes out for android in TC is Jason Kinkaid who (at least until recently) used an iOS device. The fact that they are critical of apple doesn't mean they don't use their devices. You can't go three days without TC posting something critical of Google either.

So where exactly are these well known bloggers that are BLATANTLY pro-android and don't use primarily apple products?

And you refused to say where that author you posted actually wrote. EDIT: Just saw. She writes for PC world, right? They also have some VERY heavy apple supporters there, who are better known than she is. She also largely writes on desktops, specifically linux and firefox, so any cellphone articles by her are commentary at best. If there is some pervasive anti-apple bias in the media, you shouldn't have to grasp at straws.

Lol, except in the bit where it mentioned app revenue which is where I got my 4% android share from.

A report from February indicated that Apple continues to own 82.7 percent of all mobile software sales with its iOS App Store.


If you ACTUALLY READ the article:


While Android's year over year "percentage growth" in app sales was up an impressive 861.5 percent compared to Apple's 131.9 percent growth, Android's software revenues actually grew by $91 million over last year, while Apple's App Store grew by a whopping $1,013 million, more than 11 times as much real growth in terms of revenue dollars. Handset sales by all Android licensees combined were higher than Apple's in 2010, but that did not result in greater app sales nor even in greater web use by Android users.e.




yeah, try that. . ....


EDIT: added four more rolleyes, and frankly that is not enough. I am, perhaps, too kind.

The article is about a study published about webhits from stat counter. I'm not talking about the FUD commentary DED ads.

The ARTICLE is about web hits. DED added the bit about software sales because he likes kicking things for fun.

So again, it's NOT about mobile software sales, it's not about iOS App store. It is about SAFARI and CHROME.


ARTICLE TITLE: iOS, iPad web use still outpacing all Android devices combined.

The talk about mobile stores has NOTHING to do with the title, the sourced information, or the point of the article.

The first two paragraphs are on topic. The one you quoted has NOTHING to do with the context of the rest of the article. And then it closes with a rant on tablets (because the iPAd is helping iOS dominate webstats)

So again, read the article. Words are only meaningful in context.

The article isnt what it is actually about? FFS man. Check in somewhere. Apparantly we cant comment on the parts of the article you dont like.

I am responsding to DEDs article where he cited two sources. Statcounter, and IHS screen digest.

Feel free to read it. To the end. There are numbers, and stuff.

The topic is whatever DED writes about. Not only are you deciding what he can write about (which depends apparently on the headline*), you want to also proclaim on both what he can write about and what we can respond to. Feel free to go fuck yourself.

So again, read the article. Not just the bits you like, but the bits you dont like.


* Do you get mad when other characters other than Oliver Twist turn up in Oliver Twist?

No, but I would get mad if I was reading an essay on oliver twist and the author started talking about his undying love of Twilight. And furthermore, if two people were talking about olver twist in the commentary, someone arguing for Twilight IN THAT CONTEXT would be wrong.

This ARTICLE (by the title and main theme) was about WEB HITS. The Graph you quoted was about WEB HITS, and the commenter you quoted was ALSO talking about WEB HITS.

Even if a portion of DED's article was about APP SALES, the conversation you're commenting on has NOTHING to do it with. In fact the ONLY reason he mentioned web sales is because it's another statistic where iOS is dominate. a "Oh yeah, and this" it's secondary information, NOT the point of the article.

I'm really sorry this is so hard for you to grasp.

You actually responded to a commenter who was talking about (and used a graph of) ONLY web hits. You weren't responding to DED's article at all.

don't put your words in my mouth. my post was specifically about "the most strident fanDroids." you're complaining about some "pervasive bias" straw man comment of your own imagination, not mine.

just FYI if you don't know history, michael arrington, the poobah of Techcrunch, was a linux guy going back a good while. and remember his (Linux) Crunchpad flop over a year ago? he plainly favors Android now. but i would not call him "strident." he's admires the iPad, but prefers Android. nowadays, his main focus is the social web, something very different.

Actually it's interesting that you have this notion because my feeling is exactly opposite of yours. For me, it's why does Android fans and Google feel so threatened by iOS? First they "rubbish Apple" by laying false claims to how Android provides freedom from
a "draconian future". Then they make false comparisons to Apple by conglomerating all Android phone manufacturers to one group and then comparing it with only one iOS product, the iPhone, made by one company, Apple. As Dilger quoted, this is not a comparison of like kinds.

I think it's good that Android OS exists, but don't use false
ideologies and false comparisons to "rubbish the competition".

deleted

As I said in a previous post, Rovio is an outlier. In terms of paid apps Apple took 82% of all app store revenues last year, and Android came 4th.

Thats paid, not advertising. The question is - after Rovio - how much advertising budget is left. Ads on mobiles tend to be fairly well featured, particularly for iAds, but also for Ad Mobile. That means they come out of a marketing budgets not your average joe's classifieds. The number of advertisers willing to advertise is a product of the wider economic environment, not the number of apps available. An app like Rovio is taking the lions share of that advertising ( the advertisers want to be on Angry Birds) and thus gets a 100% fill rate. I dont know if they pay more for this, but they get it. This leaves the rest of the app market with less and less per app. Your app shows no advertisements most of the time ( the Fill rate is low).

It would be as if newspapers, solely dependent on advertisements rather than price, kept multiplying as the number of advertisers remained constant.

Some of googles advertising will leech from it's website, but its a different form of advertising.

For that reason, unpaid apps - except for minority outliers - will fail in advertising, more so than paid apps. There is no way to pay ot the $2B that Apple paid out in the last 2 years, unless your advertisers paid you $2B.

Actually, their change of heart comes from the fact that SOFTWARE is their main business.

Apple and Google, like Apple and Microsoft, are ORTHOGONAL rivals at best; by that is meant that while Apple is essentially a hardware vendor that uses its own software to enhance its saleability, Google and Microsoft are in the main software companies that profit from licensing or advertising deals off their software. Nexus, Google TV and Zune/X-box/Kinect reflect their efforts to enter the hardware business, but are tiny in comparison to the revenues and resources backing their software business.

Now, for Apple to be so handily beating Google and Microsoft in the mobile App Store revenue stakes must be a massive, massive downer internally for those two software giants, far away from the spin doctors and pseudo-analysts with their emphasis on the accumulated market share of the mobile HARDWARE vendors.

Hence the need to stop believing the hype and actually taking steps to bridge the gap.