or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › iPhone, Android dominate U.S. smartphone market with combined 82% share
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iPhone, Android dominate U.S. smartphone market with combined 82% share

post #1 of 65
Thread Starter 
Sales of Android and iOS handsets in the U.S. eclipsed other smartphone platforms in the first three quarters of 2011, holding a combined 82% of the market, while rival Research In Motion suffered a continued decline during the same period.

According to data released on Tuesday by market research firm The NPD Group, the growth seen by Google's Android and Apple's iOS platforms in 2011 came at the cost of one-time smartphone heavyweight RIM.

Android-based smartphones owned over half the market with a 53 percent share by the end of October, followed by Apple's iPhone with 29 percent. RIM's BlackBerry managed to hold onto an 11% share.

The competitive landscape for smartphones, which has been reshaped by Apple and Google, has ultimately forced every major handset provider through a major transition, said Ross Rubin, executive director, Connected Intelligence for The NPD Group. For many of them, 2012 will be a critical year in assessing how effective their responses have been.

iOS and Android's lead in the segment is significant as nearly half of all mobile users in the U.S. now own a smartphone, with the number expected to continue to grow in 2012.

The Apple/Google duopoly has caused major shifts within the mobile industry as RIM desperately tries to regain a foothold in the marketplace it helped create and Microsoft continues to push the Window Phone 7 platform toward relevance.

RIM's BlackBerry

BlackBerry devices comprised half of all smartphone sales in Q2 2006, but have since seen a steep decline, ending the third quarter of 2011 with just 8 percent market share.

Few companies have felt the impact of the shift to touch user interfaces and larger screen sizes as negatively as RIM, but the company is beginning anew with a strong technical foundation and many paths to the platform, NPD executive director of Connected Intelligence Ross Rubin said.

RIM's smartphone woes have been further exacerbated this year by multiple service issues in the EMEIA region (Europe, Middle East, India and Africa) and poor sales of its PlayBook tablet. Faced with rapidly evaporating cash reserves, the beleaguered company has been forced to cut its workforce.

Nokia and Windows Phone 7

Rubin viewed Nokia's agreement with Microsoft to use Windows Phone 7 on its smartphone devices as one of the biggest news stories of the year. After dropping the Symbian OS in February, Nokia focused on launching its new Windows Phone-based Lumia handsets by the end of the year.

Nokia's new Lumia 800 (left) and Lumia 710 are its first Windows Phones.

Nokia and Microsoft must build from almost nothing to carve out success between the consistency of the iPhone and the flexibility of Android, Rubin said.

A recent report cast doubt on the Microsoft-Nokia partnership, saying that the Lumia line of phones failed to innovate and would see only high-end user adoption.

Rubin compared the now defunct Windows Mobile's peak smartphone market share of 50 percent in Q2 2007 with that of Windows Phone 7, which has not surpassed 2 percent since launching late last year. Microsoft recently revealed that it making some leadership changes in order to take better advantage of Windows Phone 7's potential.

While Nokia remains the top handset vendor in the world, it has suffered a major blow in smartphone sales during the transition from Symbian to Windows Phone, seeing a decline from a 33 percent share in 2010 to 14 percent in 2011.

Android continues to dominate

Google's Android platform has seen remarkable growth in 2011, enjoying a 53 percent share of the market between January and October.

Rubin pointed out that Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility in September not only helped save the phone maker's ailing business, but also granted the internet search giant access to useful telecom patents.

Motorola's presence in the smartphone arena sunk as low as 1 percent in the third quarter of 2009, but rose to 16 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010 after the company adopted Google's mobile OS. Currently, the Droid RAZR manufacturer holds a 12 percent share of the market.

Android has helped Motorola climb back into the smartphone market; now, though, Google will seek to use Motorolas patent pool to help protect other Android licensees, Rubin said.

Android and iOS appear to be leading the way in smartphone design and usability, leaving competing OEMs to either join up with Google or try to fight the two megaliths for marketshare, as RIM and Microsoft are attempting.

During the three months ending in September, Apple held its title as America's top smartphone maker with a 28.3 percent share followed by HTC and RIM with 20.3 percent and 17.8 percent, respectively, according to Nielsen. Android phones as a whole dominated the market, however, garnering a 42.8 percent share.

But, Apple does enjoy the lion's share of the industry's profits. Canaccord Genuity estimates that the company took in more than half of the handset industry's operating profits last quarter with just 4 percent global market share. That's a stark contrast from 2007 when Nokia took in 67 percent of operating profits from the industry and Apple had just 4 percent.
post #2 of 65
I don't think it's fair to say Android dominates any handset or smartphone market. They dominate the handset or smartphone OS market. This distinction isn't minor as one distinctly refers to an OS and the other to HW.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #3 of 65
This article isn't worth discussion. The report is fundamentally flawed.

"According to The NPD Group, a leading market research company, Androids operating system (OS) share of smartphone sales grew to command more than half of the U.S. smartphone market (53 percent) from January through October 2011, as Apples iOS share grew to reach 29 percent of the market, and RIMs OS share declined to 11 percent."

Android doesn't have a share a smartphone sales. Google doesn't sell Android.

This is akin to stating that Rolls-Royce has 30% market share in commercial airliners although Rolls-Royce only manufactures jet engines.
post #4 of 65
I think the article adequately distinguishes between HW and OS. It could also be reasonably argued that a consideration of HW marketshare and OS marketshare is justifiable in different circumstances. If you were looking at 3rd party Apps you'd consider the OS, for instance, and not be concerned with the HW manufacturer as much.

There are different motivations for discussing each distribution.
post #5 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post

This article isn't worth discussion. The report is fundamentally flawed.

"According to The NPD Group, a leading market research company, Androids operating system (OS) share of smartphone sales grew to command more than half of the U.S. smartphone market (53 percent) from January through October 2011, as Apples iOS share grew to reach 29 percent of the market, and RIMs OS share declined to 11 percent."

Android doesn't have a share a smartphone sales. Google doesn't sell Android.

This is akin to stating that Rolls-Royce has 30% market share in commercial airliners although Rolls-Royce only manufactures jet engines.

This is a puzzling assertion. It is completely legitimate to quote the OS share numbers, just as it is legitimate to point out that Windows has ~85% OS marketshare in desktop computers.

It's not at all clear what you are objecting to from the report.
post #6 of 65
Yes, and Mac and Windows dominate the Desktop Operating System market with 98% share. That is utterly misleading!!! In such a case Windows dominates, and in the other Android dominates. The Mac and the iOS come second.

As misleading is saying that Mac is in the 10th or whatever position of sold Desktop computers, because in such a case the Mac (only sold by Apple) should be compared to Windows (including all the companies that sell them). Those are the real numbers in the real context.
post #7 of 65
Together, Mike Tyson and I can knock out every one of you here.
post #8 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanSolecki View Post

I think the article adequately distinguishes between HW and OS. It could also be reasonably argued that a consideration of HW marketshare and OS marketshare is justifiable in different circumstances. If you were looking at 3rd party Apps you'd consider the OS, for instance, and not be concerned with the HW manufacturer as much.

There are different motivations for discussing each distribution.

A consideration of the OS, as it applies to iOS, involves more than smartphones when it comes to 3rd party Apps, which makes these figures somewhat useless.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #9 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

A consideration of the OS, as it applies to iOS, involves more than smartphones when it comes to 3rd party Apps, which makes these figures somewhat useless.

The addition of iPod touches, and iPads to this figure would be interesting but Android would still be in the lead.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #10 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDoppio View Post

Together, Mike Tyson and I can knock out every one of you here.

the problem here is that you see android as mike tyson, as your previous posts show. In fact your previous posts show a lot about you and i feel sorry for your parents. however, android is no mike tyson. android is the same as a bunch of rats that were able to proliferate. apple is the cat... and, as you can guess, there's more rats than cats. so what? i don't want a rat, but my cat needs rats in order to feed and evolve. so be it..

(i have a xperia x10mini pro)
post #11 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

...In fact your previous posts show a lot about you and i feel sorry for your parents...

Why the ad hominem? You know nothing about me or my parents. Attacking people for no reason -- way to be a sorry loser!

I didn't read your previous posts. In fact, I don't care about them at all.
post #12 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

The addition of iPod touches, and iPads to this figure would be interesting but Android would still be in the lead.

i don't know if android would still be in the lead, but just like ferrari will never outsell fiat toyota and ford together (or even 1 vs 1), android being in the lead makes sense.

but what's the point? android products are cheaper, so there's nothing apple can do besides playing with it's strengths. they (apple) sell more and more and it won't stop soon. they sell almost everything they can produce, android doesn't (and shouldn't) matter. different markets. android will become just low-end (like it already is).
post #13 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx View Post

Yes, and Mac and Windows dominate the Desktop Operating System market with 98% share. That is utterly misleading!!! In such a case Windows dominates, and in the other Android dominates. The Mac and the iOS come second.

As misleading is saying that Mac is in the 10th or whatever position of sold Desktop computers, because in such a case the Mac (only sold by Apple) should be compared to Windows (including all the companies that sell them). Those are the real numbers in the real context.

And you're just as guilty as people making the opposite mistake.

The fact is that the comparison you use depends on what you're trying to understand. If you're looking at the potential for releasing a new application for desktop computers, you are more interested in the OS share. Or, even better, at the share of apps purchased by each platform. Or, better yet, the percentage of apps of the same type as YOUR app purchased for each platform. OTOH, if you're interested in making a desktop computer accessory designed to go with the computer brand (a little Apple or Dell or HP or Toshiba keyboard, for example), then you'd be more interested in the share by manufacturer. Or, better yet, the percentage of accessories purchased by customers of each manufacturer. If you're interested in investing, you might be more interested in share by manufacturer. Or, even better, profitability by manufacturer.

It's insane to think that only one type of comparison has any value.

In the iOS space, the percentage of smart phones by OS has some value. You might be interested in releasing an app that only makes sense on smart phones. Even there, the percentage of application sales by OS might make more sense (and you also have to consider what fraction of the entire segment your app will work on - which is particularly important with Android's fragmentation).

If you were interested in introducing a phone accessory (case, etc), you'd be interested in sales by handset model.

If you were interested in introducing an app that works on both smart phones and tablets, you'd want to know the total sales by OS (or, even better, the application sales by OS).

And so on.
"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 #14 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

android will become just low-end (like it already is).

As an Android user I have to agree with that last statement. Android ain't no iOS, it's lowest-common-denominator. Like Windows PCs it covers the cheap end of the market nicely while Apple take the cream.
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
post #15 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

The addition of iPod touches, and iPads to this figure would be interesting but Android would still be in the lead.

Given the number of iPads and iPods sold, I'd have to bring the android lead into question considering the level of disinterest in all Android devices outside the smartphone market.

... at night.

Reply

... at night.

Reply
post #16 of 65
The marketshare (or percentage of new handsets with a particular OS that are sold) is relevant because it can foreshadow developer support with their focusing third party apps for you OS platform. Installed base (the total number of active units on which the same OS is installed) is also important.

These numbers suggest that Android would likely fall in the category of an OS a developer would likely support either first or most certainly second if that developer wanted access to the most potential customers.

Given the structure of Android's business plan, the needs of the hardware manufacturers and users are secondary to the dissemination of the platform to as wide an audience as can be advertised to. A phone from one manufacturer can be slotted in with another with limited differentiation available to the OEM save specifications and most current version of the OS.

The fact is Android is good enough and has many advantages in certain areas like access to bleeding edge hardware as OEMs compete for handset share with other Android OEMs. Android is also a first-class recipient of most of Google's online services. Because of the penetration purchased by offering free services like GMail, Google is able to leverage a large userbase from the Windows and Mac desktop audiences.

Google is also iterating their OS faster in response to the market. It has many novel and useful features and satisfies the desires of many to individualize their experience with their phone.

Apple, on the other hand, has focused on simplifying complex services to a point where they are sufficiently usable to attract a wide audience from those new to smartphones and those who to do things WITH their phones rather than TO their phones.

Apple has also chosen to limit their OS to their own devices to ensure better integration between the hardware and the software. This has lead to Apple's services being for the most part more mature and usable and able to to do more with relatively lower-specced (and less expensive for Apple) hardware.

For most of its existence the iPhone has been on a limited number of carriers and appeared on a single phone form factor. This allows Apple more profit per handset and lower manufacturing costs but it limits adoption by those for whom the lack of alternate form-factors and hardware (such as a flip, slider, keyboard or removable battery, removable storage) are deal-breakers.

Set against all other manufacturers wishing to stay in business, the adoption of the low-cost Android OS in place of other licensed for a fee options is hardly surprising. Asian vendors in particular have always been hampered by the poor user experience they provide for some of their most innovative services.

Given that Apple's self-imposed constraints have permitted Android to achieve critical mass, one has to wonder what will happen when Apple takes it foot off the brake.
post #17 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

Given that Apple's self-imposed constraints have permitted Android to achieve critical mass, one has to wonder what will happen when Apple takes it foot off the brake.

Or, ya know, Apple has three handsets and Android has 10 vendors each with 3+ handsets - to keep it nice and short.

Its nothing to do with limitations at all, its just Apple are the only people who make iPhone and the world and his dog make handsets and choose Android for them. Nothing more, nothing less.

... at night.

Reply

... at night.

Reply
post #18 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

The marketshare (or percentage of new handsets with a particular OS that are sold) is relevant because it can foreshadow developer support with their focusing third party apps for you OS platform. Installed base (the total number of active units on which the same OS is installed) is also important.

These numbers suggest that Android would likely fall in the category of an OS a developer would likely support either first or most certainly second if that developer wanted access to the most potential customers.

Given the structure of Android's business plan, the needs of the hardware manufacturers and users are secondary to the dissemination of the platform to as wide an audience as can be advertised to. A phone from one manufacturer can be slotted in with another with limited differentiation available to the OEM save specifications and most current version of the OS.

The fact is Android is good enough and has many advantages in certain areas like access to bleeding edge hardware as OEMs compete for handset share with other Android OEMs. Android is also a first-class recipient of most of Google's online services. Because of the penetration purchased by offering free services like GMail, Google is able to leverage a large userbase from the Windows and Mac desktop audiences.

Google is also iterating their OS faster in response to the market. It has many novel and useful features and satisfies the desires of many to individualize their experience with their phone.

Apple, on the other hand, has focused on simplifying complex services to a point where they are sufficiently usable to attract a wide audience from those new to smartphones and those who to do things WITH their phones rather than TO their phones.

Apple has also chosen to limit their OS to their own devices to ensure better integration between the hardware and the software. This has lead to Apple's services being for the most part more mature and usable and able to to do more with relatively lower-specced (and less expensive for Apple) hardware.

For most of its existence the iPhone has been on a limited number of carriers and appeared on a single phone form factor. This allows Apple more profit per handset and lower manufacturing costs but it limits adoption by those for whom the lack of alternate form-factors and hardware (such as a flip, slider, keyboard or removable battery, removable storage) are deal-breakers.

Set against all other manufacturers wishing to stay in business, the adoption of the low-cost Android OS in place of other licensed for a fee options is hardly surprising. Asian vendors in particular have always been hampered by the poor user experience they provide for some of their most innovative services.

Given that Apple's self-imposed constraints have permitted Android to achieve critical mass, one has to wonder what will happen when Apple takes it foot off the brake.

the iPhone has (by far) the best graphics.
it is the most reliable.
it is the fastest smartphone (most likely the OS plays a big role in this field).

so what's the "lower-specced"?

what do you mean by "when Apple takes it foot off the brake"?
post #19 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

And you're just as guilty as people making the opposite mistake.

The fact is that the comparison you use depends on what you're trying to understand. If you're looking at the potential for releasing a new application for desktop computers, you are more interested in the OS share. Or, even better, at the share of apps purchased by each platform. Or, better yet, the percentage of apps of the same type as YOUR app purchased for each platform. OTOH, if you're interested in making a desktop computer accessory designed to go with the computer brand (a little Apple or Dell or HP or Toshiba keyboard, for example), then you'd be more interested in the share by manufacturer. Or, better yet, the percentage of accessories purchased by customers of each manufacturer. If you're interested in investing, you might be more interested in share by manufacturer. Or, even better, profitability by manufacturer.

It's insane to think that only one type of comparison has any value.

In the iOS space, the percentage of smart phones by OS has some value. You might be interested in releasing an app that only makes sense on smart phones. Even there, the percentage of application sales by OS might make more sense (and you also have to consider what fraction of the entire segment your app will work on - which is particularly important with Android's fragmentation).

If you were interested in introducing a phone accessory (case, etc), you'd be interested in sales by handset model.

If you were interested in introducing an app that works on both smart phones and tablets, you'd want to know the total sales by OS (or, even better, the application sales by OS).

And so on.

There is the situation of high fragmentation in the Android OS community. So when developers create their apps they rarely work across all the different competitive models. Also, look at the return on time invested, and iOS blows Android off the map. There are strong indications all the productive apps are being developed for iOS. Also look at the adoption of iOS in Enterprise. Android is a very distant void. FWIW
post #20 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

the iPhone has (by far) the best graphics.
it is the most reliable.
it is the fastest smartphone (most likely the OS plays a big role in this field).

so what's the "lower-specced"?

what do you mean by "when Apple takes it foot off the brake"?

What I am suggesting is that Apple is doing more with less. On devices with similar specifications, iOS 5 is performing better (especially with respect to graphics and responsiveness of the UI to touch).

By taking their foot off the brake I mean that Apple could decide to speciate the iPhone form factor with different sizes and additional hardware features that are said to be things that keep people from buying. For example, you have a large population (of which I am not a member) that learned to type accurately with their thumbs. If you wanted to target that population you might include a hardware keyboard for each character set you wished to support or you could make the individual hardware keys into displays that can change a single displayed character based on a user selection. This would be a logistics challenge of dubious payback but it might lead to wider adoption of iOS.

They could also create a separate model for each carrier's peculiar allocation of radio bandwidth and networking technology.

They could introduce a larger phone with a larger display and monster battery to power a 4G LTE radio for the markets in which it has been already rolled out.

They could make a dual-screened flip-phone that is compact enough to fit in the smallest pockets.

They could make a phone that is only an earwig and is operated by voice alone and displays on the palm of your hand or a wall when you look at it.

They could make a phone with a display built into a contact lens and the speakers built into your ears.

Instead they are taking the prudent course of building in such a way as to meet the needs of 80% of the people with a 95% solution on a third of the carriers.

- Sent from my iPhone 4S via Siri dictation
post #21 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I don't think it's fair to say Android dominates any handset or smartphone market. They dominate the handset or smartphone OS market. This distinction isn't minor as one distinctly refers to an OS and the other to HW.

I find it amazing the number of handsets that are not smartphones. Apple only accounts for 4% of the handset market which means that there is still a tremendous opportunity for growth in smartphones.

I'd love to be able to look 5 years into the future to see how things are shaking out.
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #22 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

What I am suggesting is that Apple is doing more with less. On devices with similar specifications, iOS 5 is performing better (especially with respect to graphics and responsiveness of the UI to touch).

By taking their foot off the brake I mean that Apple could decide to speciate the iPhone form factor with different sizes and additional hardware features that are said to be things that keep people from buying. For example, you have a large population (of which I am not a member) that learned to type accurately with their thumbs. If you wanted to target that population you might include a hardware keyboard for each character set you wished to support or you could make the individual hardware keys into displays that can change a single displayed character based on a user selection. This would be a logistics challenge of dubious payback but it might lead to wider adoption of iOS.

They could also create a separate model for each carrier's peculiar allocation of radio bandwidth and networking technology.

They could introduce a larger phone with a larger display and monster battery to power a 4G LTE radio for the markets in which it has been already rolled out.

They could make a dual-screened flip-phone that is compact enough to fit in the smallest pockets.

They could make a phone that is only an earwig and is operated by voice alone and displays on the palm of your hand or a wall when you look at it.

They could make a phone with a display built into a contact lens and the speakers built into your ears.

Instead they are taking the prudent course of building in such a way as to meet the needs of 80% of the people with a 95% solution.

- Sent from my iPhone 4S via Siri dictation

I didn't know Siri could dictate. Cool beans.

That aside; I agree that Apple's crazy optimisation has allowed them to save money and perform better than the equivalent and perform alarmingly close to those with higher specifications. Android tablets being a good benchmark for this.

Honeycomb needs 1GB of RAM, iOS5 can run on 256mb. Nice!

... at night.

Reply

... at night.

Reply
post #23 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It's insane to think that only one type of comparison has any value.

This comment could be posted to any thread here at AppleInsider and it would be relevant.

post #24 of 65
I have to agree with a number of you this article and the obvious research the article is based on, it is confusing. If you were not familiar with the over industry this could be very miss leading.

As it was said Google (not yet) is not in the cell phone business they attempted and failed, and I would argue they are not in the cellphone OS business either since the basic premise of being in a business or market segment is you actually sell and make revenue which they do not. They are in the ad business and they clearly said their objective is to be presents in the mobile ad space. Google needs to be measures on what they claim is their primary business which is ads not cell phone sales or Cell phone OS since they do not sell either of those items

Even though they have over 50% more opportunities to place an ad in front of an mobile use, they still do not dominate in the space. I think their ad dollars from this space is less than 50%. It sounds like the ad vehicle (android) is not doing what they expected.
post #25 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

The marketshare (or percentage of new handsets with a particular OS that are sold) is relevant because it can foreshadow developer support with their focusing third party apps for you OS platform. Installed base (the total number of active units on which the same OS is installed) is also important.

Did you even read what I wrote?

If you're a developer trying to decide which OS to support, you wouldn't simply look at smartphone handset market share. Among the other important considerations:

1. If your app is not restricted to being used on a phone, you'd look at ALL iOS devices vs all Android devices - not just phones. After all, iPhone apps run just fine on the iPod Touch and (with minimal developer effort) on the iPad. If you look at all iOS devices vs all Android devices, the numbers are roughly equal.

2. With iOS, a properly coded app will run on all recent systems. The same is not true for Android. So let's assume that the numbers are roughly equal for iOS and Android. But if 90% of iOS devices will run your app, but only 20% of Android devices will run each version, there's a difference in reward.

3. Android hardware is far more variable. There are a lot of cheap, low end Android devices out there that probably won't run any app worth developing. So you have to break it down by which devices are powerful enough to run your app.

4. It has been well documented that developers make far more money on iOS than on Android (about 4:1, IIRC). So you have to consider possible returns, as well.

Anyone who simply looks at the number of Android handsets sold vs the number of iPhones when trying to decide which platform to develop for is making a HUGE mistake.
"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 #26 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by benanderson89 View Post

Given the number of iPads and iPods sold, I'd have to bring the android lead into question considering the level of disinterest in all Android devices outside the smartphone market.

The statement of the person to whom you responded is false. Apple iOS has 54% market share for mobile operating systems.

http://www.netmarketshare.com/mobile-market-share
post #27 of 65
It's my opinion that Nokia made te wrong bet when they chose Microsoft for a mobile OS. Supposedly they chose WP7 over Android because Google's terms were more restrictive, but what has Microsoft allowed Nokia to do with WP7 that Google wouldn't allow with Android? Has Nokia actually customized WP7 beyond the blue tiles? What makes Nokia's WP7 any different from WP7 on other phones? I think in the end Nokia is going to regret that choice, right before they sack Elop.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #28 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by benanderson89 View Post

I didn't know Siri could dictate. Cool beans.

That aside; I agree that Apple's crazy optimisation has allowed them to save money and perform better than the equivalent and perform alarmingly close to those with higher specifications. Android tablets being a good benchmark for this.

Honeycomb needs 1GB of RAM, iOS5 can run on 256mb. Nice!

iPhone 4S provides a system-wide dictation feature. This isn't really part of Siri but the pervasiveness of dictation and the general sense of having a personal assistant vis-a-vis dictation is critical to the magical feel of Siri.
post #29 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Anyone who simply looks at the number of Android handsets sold vs the number of iPhones when trying to decide which platform to develop for is making a HUGE mistake.

Neither one has rules saying if you develop for one you can't do so for the other. In addition, once you have the principal idea for an app developed and most of the kinks figured out, it's easier and less expensive to port that app to another platform than start from scratch on a new idea. That's especially true with the average app even on iOS not making back their investment in time and money. The last figure I saw was the average i-publisher getting $8500 a year gross, and that may be shared among several people.

"While there may have been over 10 billion app downloads, that number spreads the $2 billion that Apple has paid to publishers over its three-year lifespan very thin. These numbers translate into an economy where there is just over $8,500 per publisher per year to go around. Keep in mind that a publisher may be just a single developer, or a whole team of analysts, developers, testers and managers."

That's not enough to rely on for a living is it? The numbers sound huge when throwing around x-Billion claims, but divided up it's relatively tiny.

http://gigaom.com/apple/the-average-...ng-much-money/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #30 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

It's my opinion that Nokia made te wrong bet when they chose Microsoft for a mobile OS. Supposedly they chose WP7 over Android because Google's terms were more restrictive, but what has Microsoft allowed Nokia to do with WP7 that Google wouldn't allow with Android? Has Nokia actually customized WP7 beyond the blue tiles? What makes Nokia's WP7 any different from WP7 on other phones? I think in the end Nokia is going to regret that choice, right before they sack Elop.

If they went with Android they'd just be another HW vendor vying for sales from those that want Android phones. It would be like Windows PC vendors all clawing their way to the bottom.

At least with WP7 they have a unique edge. And WP7 is great and their app store is okay. It's say it's just below the threshold of being large enough that size isn't an issue.

The Nokia Lumia 800 looks great, too. I'd love to buy one but at $1400 that's just too steep. They need to be a lot more competitive. I did read just yesterday they are in talks with US carriers so hopefully that will happen sooner rather than later.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #31 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Neither one has rules saying if you develop for one you can't do so for the other. In addition, once you have the principal idea for an app developed and most of the kinks figured out, it's easier and less expensive to port that app to another platform than start from scratch on a new idea. That's especially true with the average app even on iOS not making back their investment in time and money. The last figure I saw was the average i-publisher getting $8500 a year gross, and that may be shared among several people.

"While there may have been over 10 billion app downloads, that number spreads the $2 billion that Apple has paid to publishers over its three-year lifespan very thin. These numbers translate into an economy where there is just over $8,500 per publisher per year to go around. Keep in mind that a publisher may be just a single developer, or a whole team of analysts, developers, testers and managers."

That's not enough to rely on for a living is it? The numbers sound huge when throwing around x-Billion claims, but divided up it's relatively tiny.

http://gigaom.com/apple/the-average-...ng-much-money/

So what? Can you say 'non-sequitor'?

I was pointing out that you can't simply look at the number of licensed handsets if you're trying to decide whether to develop for a given platform or not.

Your response was (as is usual for you) totally irrelevant to that question and full of misleading information.
"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 #32 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

So what? Can you say 'non-sequitor'?

I was pointing out that you can't simply look at the number of licensed handsets if you're trying to decide whether to develop for a given platform or not.

Your response was (as is usual for you) totally irrelevant to that question and full of misleading information.

Totally irrelevant is a stretch since I was pointing out other factors to consider just as you were.

Misleading information? Please point those parts out.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #33 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

If they went with Android they'd just be another HW vendor vying for sales from those that want Android phones. It would be like Windows PC vendors all clawing their way to the bottom.

At least with WP7 they have a unique edge. And WP7 is great and their app store is okay. It's say it's just below the threshold of being large enough that size isn't an issue.

The Nokia Lumia 800 looks great, too. I'd love to buy one but at $1400 that's just too steep. They need to be a lot more competitive. I did read just yesterday they are in talks with US carriers so hopefully that will happen sooner rather than later.

Hmm. Well I guess the question is: will it be enough to reverse Nokia's fortunes?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #34 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

A consideration of the OS, as it applies to iOS, involves more than smartphones when it comes to 3rd party Apps, which makes these figures somewhat useless.

The figures are far from useless. If a consumer wants an OS that has a lot of staying power, they may well choose Android.

Android is far, far in the lead. Android is surging.

Apple is way behind. iOS is stagnant.
post #35 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

i don't know if android would still be in the lead, but just like ferrari will never outsell fiat toyota and ford together (or even 1 vs 1), android being in the lead makes sense.

but what's the point? android products are cheaper, so there's nothing apple can do besides playing with it's strengths. they (apple) sell more and more and it won't stop soon. they sell almost everything they can produce, android doesn't (and shouldn't) matter. different markets. android will become just low-end (like it already is).

You are confused. The iPhone is not a Ferrari. The iPhone is a Toyota Camry. Good enough for most people. Good in general. So it wells well.
post #36 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

Given that Apple's self-imposed constraints have permitted Android to achieve critical mass, one has to wonder what will happen when Apple takes it foot off the brake.

Apple will never take its foot off the brake. Or ore precisely, Apple does not have any feet on any brakes. Apple is attempting to get rid of as much product as possible, at the highest margins possible. Everything Apple does is to accomplish these ends.

Apple does NOT have its foot on the brakes. That is foolish.
post #37 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

If you wanted to target that population you might include a hardware keyboard for each character set you wished to support or you could make the individual hardware keys into displays that can change a single displayed character based on a user selection. This would be a logistics challenge of dubious payback but it might lead to wider adoption of iOS.

They could also create a separate model for each carrier's peculiar allocation of radio bandwidth and networking technology.

They could introduce a larger phone with a larger display and monster battery to power a 4G LTE radio for the markets in which it has been already rolled out.

They could make a dual-screened flip-phone that is compact enough to fit in the smallest pockets.

They could make a phone that is only an earwig and is operated by voice alone and displays on the palm of your hand or a wall when you look at it.

They could make a phone with a display built into a contact lens and the speakers built into your ears.

Instead they are taking the prudent course of building in such a way as to meet the needs of 80% of the people with a 95% solution on a third of the carriers.

- Sent from my iPhone 4S via Siri dictation






Jony Ives would slap those ideas into oblivion.


If any of those strategies would allow Apple to rake in more moolah, they would have been implemented already. Fact is, Apple makes more money by NOT doing those things.


Apple will ALWAYS do exactly what they think will make them the highest profits. And Apple thinks that each of those ideas will yield LESS profit for Wall Street.
post #38 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Did you even read what I wrote?

If you're a developer trying to decide which OS to support, you wouldn't simply look at smartphone handset market share. Among the other important considerations:

1. If your app is not restricted to being used on a phone, you'd look at ALL iOS devices vs all Android devices - not just phones. After all, iPhone apps run just fine on the iPod Touch and (with minimal developer effort) on the iPad. If you look at all iOS devices vs all Android devices, the numbers are roughly equal.

2. With iOS, a properly coded app will run on all recent systems. The same is not true for Android. So let's assume that the numbers are roughly equal for iOS and Android. But if 90% of iOS devices will run your app, but only 20% of Android devices will run each version, there's a difference in reward.

3. Android hardware is far more variable. There are a lot of cheap, low end Android devices out there that probably won't run any app worth developing. So you have to break it down by which devices are powerful enough to run your app.

4. It has been well documented that developers make far more money on iOS than on Android (about 4:1, IIRC). So you have to consider possible returns, as well.

Anyone who simply looks at the number of Android handsets sold vs the number of iPhones when trying to decide which platform to develop for is making a HUGE mistake.

Maybe you missed the part where said I own an iPhone and prefer iOS?

Also, since if a developer is targeting a certain OS release, their considerations should include whether the 20% of up-to-date Android systems you refer to is a larger number than up-to-date iOS systems.

At the moment both Android and iOS are expanding at the expense of other players. At some point in the future, price will win out. But, unlike the Mac era, Apple is offering devices at all the same price points. So, there is a good chance things won't play out toward one OS dominating everything.

Marketshare is important. But so is profitability for the developer.
post #39 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

Maybe you missed the part where said I own an iPhone and prefer iOS?

So? That's not the least bit relevant to anything being discussed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

Also, since if a developer is targeting a certain OS release, their considerations should include whether the 20% of up-to-date Android systems you refer to is a larger number than up-to-date iOS systems.

At the moment both Android and iOS are expanding at the expense of other players. At some point in the future, price will win out. But, unlike the Mac era, Apple is offering devices at all the same price points. So, there is a good chance things won't play out toward one OS dominating everything.

Marketshare is important. But so is profitability for the developer.

Absolutely. So why were you implying that the only thing that mattered was marketshare?
"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 #40 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

The marketshare (or percentage of new handsets with a particular OS that are sold) is relevant because it can foreshadow developer support with their focusing third party apps for you OS platform. Installed base (the total number of active units on which the same OS is installed) is also important.

These numbers suggest that Android would likely fall in the category of an OS a developer would likely support either first or most certainly second if that developer wanted access to the most potential customers.

The reports I have seen have indicated that Apple iPhone consumers purchase more apps, use apps more frequently, are willing to pay more for high quality apps and generate more ad-based revenue than Android-based smartphone consumers. While not the only factors to consider these are certainly major factors given the vast disparity in usage behavior of the two platforms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

Given the structure of Android's business plan, the needs of the hardware manufacturers and users are secondary to the dissemination of the platform to as wide an audience as can be advertised to. A phone from one manufacturer can be slotted in with another with limited differentiation available to the OEM save specifications and most current version of the OS.

The problem with this belief is that supposedly many of the Android-based smartphones and devices lock Google out such as the Amazon Kindle. Google representatives have stated that 2/3 of Google mobile advertising profits are derived from Apple products.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

The fact is Android is good enough and has many advantages in certain areas like access to bleeding edge hardware as OEMs compete for handset share with other Android OEMs. Android is also a first-class recipient of most of Google's online services. Because of the penetration purchased by offering free services like GMail, Google is able to leverage a large userbase from the Windows and Mac desktop audiences.

Please demonstrate the actual advantages of any "bleeding edge hardware" on an Android smartphone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

Google is also iterating their OS faster in response to the market. It has many novel and useful features and satisfies the desires of many to individualize their experience with their phone.

The customization argument has always been a misnomer to some degree. There isn't infinite customization, you are still reliant upon the limitations of the operating system. More importantly, novel features quickly lose their appeal. I do appreciate that Google has NFC but most smartphones haven't implemented NFC effectively yet and there isn't sufficient market saturation of NFC capable devices in North America for NFC to be a major value proposition. I do; however, applaud Google's efforts which may spur Apple to developing a more effective model sooner rather than later.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

For most of its existence the iPhone has been on a limited number of carriers and appeared on a single phone form factor. This allows Apple more profit per handset and lower manufacturing costs but it limits adoption by those for whom the lack of alternate form-factors and hardware (such as a flip, slider, keyboard or removable battery, removable storage) are deal-breakers.

While this statement appears true this may not be accurate. Apple is the leading smartphone manufacturer by a considerable margin. The best selling smartphones from Apple competitors are clones of the Apple iPhone. While the iClones may have removable battery and removable storage there is a strong argument that these are required due to major disadvantages of the competition. Apple's sales barriers have primarily been carrier availability, product availability and salesperson bias.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shock Me View Post

Given that Apple's self-imposed constraints have permitted Android to achieve critical mass, one has to wonder what will happen when Apple takes it foot off the brake.

Apple won't "take its foot off the brake." Apple is performing amazingly well based on virtually every metric conceivable. In fact, I can't name a single metric where Apple isn't the leader.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • iPhone, Android dominate U.S. smartphone market with combined 82% share
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › iPhone, Android dominate U.S. smartphone market with combined 82% share