or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple's iOS mobile web share calls into question reports touting Android sales supremacy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's iOS mobile web share calls into question reports touting Android sales supremacy - Page 2

post #41 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

This article was one of the better researched and written articles by DED in a long time -- it was reasoned, even-handed and informative... a good read!  ...from one of DED's biggest critics.

Agreed. One of the best discussions I've seen of the 'shipments' vs 'sales' issue in the press.

The only thing I would have added is: if Samsung's shipments were anywhere close to sales, you can bet they'd be shouting out the audited numbers from their rooftops. The fact that they're still coy about channel data tells you all you need to know. It's bogus.

Only fools believe Android's so-called market share numbers (to the extent that, ultimately, market share even matters).
post #42 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I had to edit that 3x to get it all that one might think I'd started using beer money. This was from a recent change in Safari where I turned on Correct Spelling Automatically. I have just turned it off so now you should only get my usual misspelled words that typically don't spell other words, which is oddly better than correctly spelled that alter the meaning of the sentence. Now I know it's my fault for not proofreading my comments and I take full blame but I would really like spell checking to evolve to understand the intention of the writer. I hope someone is working on that.

Simply put, Apple's autocorrect and predictive typing (can you believe it: it autocorrected, until I just caught it, to 'practice taping'!) sucks.

They should simply pay for the IP from Blackberry, and get rid of the crap that it currently is.
post #43 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Well if I were the CEO of Google, I'd be pretty concerned since web surfing is the company's main source of revenue.  AFAIK, Google still makes more money from iOS than it does Android.

Google makes very little from Android. Again, the fact that it is not even material enough for them to break it out in their segment reporting tells you everything you need to know.
post #44 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Here's some info that might in handy when forming debate points...

PHONE USAGE IS NOT DIFFERENT -- ONLY TABLET USAGE IN THE USA


Note that when they break out phones and tablets separately, the cellular web usage is the same for both OSes.  There is no such thing as some kind of Android feature phone gap or poor buyers or other such nonsense.

Only tablet over WiFi usage seems to vary, and apparently only in the USA.  Why?  I think it's because...

THE ANDROID "TABLETS" BEING COUNTED INCLUDE MILLIONS OF E-READERS

The device numbers include millions of Android base e-Readers which are mainly used to read books and view videos.  They are not used that much for web browsing.  For example, webstat sources show that Kindle Fires account for less than 1% of mobile web browsing.

MOST OF THE ANDROID E-READERS ARE USED IN THE USA

In addition, surveys show that quite a few American tablet owners have both an Android based e-Reader and an iPad.  Guess which is used for browsing?

STAT COUNTER NUMBERS SHOW THERE IS NO WEB GAP OUTSIDE THE USA.

On the contrary, it shows what we expect:  more Android usage.   Below: USA, then the World.   Link here.








THE ARTICLES THAT CLAIM SOME KIND OF DISCREPANCY USE WEB STATS
WHICH ARE ARTIFICIALLY WEIGHTED BY COUNTRY

The charts above are from StatCounter.  The chart used in the article is from Net App.
  • StatCounter does not weight their data.  Net App weights their data by country, using numbers we don't know.
  • StatCounter uses 3 million websites.   Net App only looks at their own group of 40,000 websites.  
  • StatCounter counts page hits.  Net App only counts unique visitors, which does not indicate the amount of web usage.  

The upshot is, it seems pretty obvious that the discrepancy in web stats is because of:
  1. Including e-Readers in the Android count, and
  2. Looking at USA only or USA weighted data.

More later. The original article is full of other mistakes.

1) You missed the whole point of the article. Go back and re-read, before hyperventilating. (Hint: Shipments vs Sales).

2) You don't need a PhD to figure out that web use statistics are skewed towards the US and that cellular usage numbers are closer in the rest of the world. The reason is simple. Android dominates in China and India (the former because Apple is not on China Mobile, and the latter is barely getting 3G connectivity) -- wifi connectivity is generally low and all that most users have is cellular data.
post #45 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

1) You missed the whole point of the article. Go back and re-read, before hyperventilating. (Hint: Shipments vs Sales).

 

Look at the thread title.  The whole question of shipments and sales only comes up because of a supposed discrepancy in web stats.   Without them, there'd be no article.   (It also uses other mistaken concepts and data as backing.  I'll get to all that in a later post.)

 

In the meantime, this thread has a lot of posts mixing up phones and tablets, sales and shipments, US and world stats.  That was partly my purpose ... to keep the discussion on track, because it is an interesting one, and I don't want the more thoughtful posts (like jragosta's) to get lost in unrelated noise talking about phones, etc.

 

The secondary purpose was to suggest that perhaps the simplest answer is the correct one:  that they're mixing general purpose tablets and e-readers into a mostly general purpose tablet-only situation (web surfing).

 

PS.  I sometimes boldface to make it easier for people in a hurry to get the main points in a long post.   It's not hyperventilating, it's an attempt to be helpful :-)

post #46 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post


This is confirmed by my experience. Latest exemple: A friend just told me her Mom loves her GS3.

I have a GS3 and an iPhone. GS3 *sucks*. However, it seems her mom uses the GS3 to phone, SMS, check FB... and sometimes mail. End of usage.

iPhone users are spoilt in that it works so well, you do more with it.

It sucks? Is that via an attachment? Or are you showing some bias there?
post #47 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Look at the thread title.  The whole question of shipments and sales only comes up because of a supposed discrepancy in web stats.   Without them, there'd be no article.   (It also uses other mistaken concepts and data as backing.  I'll get to all that in a later post.)

 

In the meantime, this thread has a lot of posts mixing up phones and tablets, sales and shipments, US and world stats.  That was partly my purpose ... to keep the discussion on track, because it is an interesting one, and I don't want the more thoughtful posts (like jragosta's) to get lost in unrelated noise talking about phones, etc.

 

The secondary purpose was to suggest that perhaps the simplest answer is the correct one:  that they're mixing general purpose tablets and e-readers into a mostly general purpose tablet-only situation (web surfing).

 

PS.  I sometimes boldface to make it easier for people in a hurry to get the main points in a long post.   It's not hyperventilating, it's an attempt to be helpful :-)

Stop with your BS about 'thread title', and READ the article.

 

You posted the same nonsense in the Fortune thread (from which this was drawn) and a reader (not me!) caught you out there as well, for not actually reading the article. Either you must think that the people here are stupid -- and you are very smart -- or you're a troll (I'll grant you, better than most).

 

As the original article clearly states, this data is based on ".....browser data from 160 million users per month weighted geographically according to the number of users in each country." Indeed, if you go to the 'web statistics' link in DED's article, it takes you to the NetMarketShare website, where if you click on 'Mobile/Tablet' --> 'Browser Share' which provides data for ALL operating systems for ALL search engines for ALL device types for the WHOLE world, you'll see that Safari has a 61% share, followed by 21.5% for 'Android Browser', 9.8% for Opera Mini, 2% for Chrome.

 

Move along, buddy, and take your FUD elsewhere....

post #48 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Or maybe they're out living life, having fun, and knocking up broads, who the hell knows?

Actually you might be onto something...
post #49 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

To some extent, I can understand the assertion that "iOS users surf the web from their devices more than Android users":
  1. Many Android phones are feature phones not smartphones conducive to web surfing
  2. Many Android phones are purchased off contract, BOGO or because of price -- likely the user has minimal or no data plan

Please list these Android phones which are "feature phones", and then a description as to why they are only feature phones?

Also, where are these BOGO deals you talk of? I have never seen one.
post #50 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Please list these Android phones which are "feature phones", and then a description as to why they are only feature phones?

1) Why don't you list the share of Android phones in India and China as % world 'sales' (actually, shipments) total? 50%? 60% 70%?

 

2) What proportion of those do you think are smartphones?

 

3) If they're selling so well, how come none of the Android manufacturers provides their sales and channel numbers? Why is Apple the only company to provide data on both?


Edited by anantksundaram - 2/1/13 at 9:46pm
post #51 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

As the original article clearly states, this data is based on ".....browser data from 160 million users per month weighted geographically according to the number of users in each country."

 

Right, which is why my long post gave charts that showed that another stat site with far more input, and no artificial weighting, comes up with a very different result.

 

You seem to be taking this very personally, btw.  Calm down.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

1) Why don't you list the share of Android phones in India and China as % world 'sales' (actually, shipments) total? 50%? 60% 70%?

 

2) What proportion of those do you think are smartphones?

 

3) If they're selling so well, how come none of the Android manufacturers provides their sales and channel numbers? Why is Apple the only company to provide data on both?

 

All those Android phones are smartphones. 

 

Why doesn't Apple break out sales of the different iPhone models?   Because it's information that helps competitors.


Edited by KDarling - 2/1/13 at 9:55pm
post #52 of 128
^ A phone with a 320x240 display running Gingerbread and a processor so slow half the Apps available wont run properly has no business being called a smartphone.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #53 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

^ A phone with a 320x240 display running Gingerbread and a processor so slow half the Apps available wont run properly has no business being called a smartphone.

 

The original iPhone had a slower processor, no 3G, no GPS, no MMS, no video, no voice control or search, and no third party apps at all.  In many ways, it was just a "feature phone", and far less capable than even cheaper smartphones today.

 

Yet it was amazing and useful to quite a few people.

 

I do agree that surfing the web on a 320x240 screen is not ideal, although millions of us did it for years.  (I used to use the Picsel browser, which had a type of tap-to-zoom before the iPhone ever came along.  You tapped and then slid your finger up or down, to zoom in or out.  It beat the heck out of Pocket IE.)


Edited by KDarling - 2/1/13 at 10:23pm
post #54 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Right, which is why my long post gave charts that showed that another stat site with far more input, and no artificial weighting, comes up with a very different result.

 

You seem to be taking this very personally, btw.  Calm down.

 

 

All those Android phones are smartphones. 

 

Why doesn't Apple break out sales of the different iPhone models?   Because it's information that helps competitors.

Actually weighting isn't artificial when you are discussing CPM cost for advertising and "stickiness" of an ecosystem.  Region A costs more to advertise to than Region B based on pop #'s, income, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

The original iPhone had a slower processor, no 3G, no GPS, no MMS, no video, no voice control or search, and no third party apps at all.  In many ways, it was just a "feature phone", and far less capable than even cheaper smartphones today.

 

Yet it was amazing and useful to quite a few people.

 

I do agree that surfing the web on a 320x240 screen is not ideal, although millions of us did it for years.  (I used to use the Picsel browser, which had a type of tap-to-zoom before the iPhone ever came along.  You tapped and then slid your finger up or down, to zoom in or out.  It beat the heck out of Pocket IE.)

I had an iPhone OG (4gb) and I liked it then but I wouldn't buy it now nor would I compare it to my iPhone 4 )heck, I envy Siri right now but not upgrading anything at the moment.

2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #55 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

The original iPhone had a slower processor, no 3G, no GPS, no MMS, no video, no voice control or search, and no third party apps at all.  In many ways, it was just a "feature phone", and far less capable than even cheaper smartphones today.

 

Yet it was amazing and useful to quite a few people.

 

I do agree that surfing the web on a 320x240 screen is not ideal, although millions of us did it for years.  (I used to use the Picsel browser, which had a type of tap-to-zoom before the iPhone ever came along.  You tapped and then slid your finger up or down, to zoom in or out.  It beat the heck out of Pocket IE.)

One of these days you'll get something right, and the cheers will be deafening. But not yet.

Thank you for such spiffy efforts in misdirection.

 

Cheers

post #56 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


PHONE USAGE IS NOT DIFFERENT -- ONLY TABLET USAGE IN THE USA

Note that when they break out phones and tablets separately, the cellular web usage is the same for both OSes. There is no such thing as some kind of Android feature phone gap or poor buyers or other such nonsense.

Only tablet over WiFi usage seems to vary, and apparently only in the USA. Why? I think it's because...

THE ANDROID "TABLETS" BEING COUNTED INCLUDE MILLIONS OF E-READERS

The device numbers include millions of Android base e-Readers which are mainly used to read books and view videos. They are not used that much for web browsing. For example, webstat sources show that Kindle Fires account for less than 1% of mobile web browsing.

MOST OF THE ANDROID E-READERS ARE USED IN THE USA

In addition, surveys show that quite a few American tablet owners have both an Android based e-Reader and an iPad. Guess which is used for browsing?

Where do you get stats on the large percentage of tablets only used as e-reader and not used to surf net?

kindle fire web stats suggest around ~1% but suggests more a low percentage of sales rather than only low usage.

Other tabs like nook has even lower sales and likely too low to show much data.

Samsung tablet sales have been rather quiet ever since they got called out on their numbers by Lenovo back in 2011.

For us only sales up till june 2012:
They only sold 1.4million as court documents revealed.

How much more they have sold now is anyone's guess really but interesting to note they shout loud about popular phone milestones but have been very quiet on tablets.

Edit: correction of formating

Inspiration begins with google

Reply

Inspiration begins with google

Reply
post #57 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

1) Why don't you list the share of Android phones in India and China as % world 'sales' (actually, shipments) total? 50%? 60% 70%?

2) What proportion of those do you think are smartphones?

3) If they're selling so well, how come none of the Android manufacturers provides their sales and channel numbers? Why is Apple the only company to provide data on both?

1. What does that have to do with the fact that he falsely claimed that the Android phones aren't smartphones
2. 100%
3. Actually Apple reports shipping numbers, their financial reports specify this fact
post #58 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

^ A phone with a 320x240 display running Gingerbread and a processor so slow half the Apps available wont run properly has no business being called a smartphone.

 

I'm sure that there's plenty of fandroids who don't consider the iPhone to be a smartphone for many spurious reasons. If you go by the Wikipedia definition (and therefore by common consensus), all Android phones are smartphones.

post #59 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

... THE ANDROID "TABLETS" BEING COUNTED INCLUDE MILLIONS OF E-READERS ...

 

You keep repeating this, but who is making and selling all these Android e-readers? The only "e-reader tablet" sold in any numbers is the Amazon Fire, and that's not Android.

post #60 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

1. What does that have to do with the fact that he falsely claimed that the Android phones aren't smartphones
2. 100%
3. Actually Apple reports shipping numbers, their financial reports specify this fact

1. It has about the same relevance as your first question.
2. Ha ha.
3. You don't understand much about financial reporting, so best to not sound off. You obviously didn't read or understand the article. Or, it's likely that you wouldn't have understood it even if you read it.
post #61 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Please list these Android phones which are "feature phones", and then a description as to why they are only feature phones?
Also, where are these BOGO deals you talk of? I have never seen one.

ROTFLMAO. You've never seen a BOGO deal? Do you live on the moon? They advertise them on the radio and TV all the time here.

As for Android feature phones, the answer is the same as the last ten times you asked the question and I provided multiple examples. I'm tired of looking it up for you and providing the answer since you're simply going to ignore it, anyway. Google 'android feature phone' and look at the results. There are many phones being sold that the manufacturer calls a feature phone - and that's a pretty good definition (especially since, if anything, they're going to want to call the borderline phones 'smartphones' if they can get away with it).

Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post

This is a serious problem with IDC group.  They should know the numbers can be very different between shipped and sold.  Then they conveniently mix Apple's sales number with a very uncertain shipped number causing Apple investors great amount of loss. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/155756/apples-ios-mobile-web-share-calls-into-question-reports-touting-android-sales-supremacy#post_2270083"]I call into question Android's numbers also. As a matter of fact, I've been calling into question those bogus numbers for years now. Why should anybody just believe in estimates that somebody decides to whip up? There's a reason why official Android numbers are rarely revealed by certain companies.

I really think Apple ][ has the right answer and not tzeshan. As I explained above, the 'shipped vs sold' issue does not explain the discrepancy; certainly not when it's been going on for years. I think the fundamental problem is that the market research firms are using methodology which gives them incorrect answers - as shown by the Apple/Samsung trial where Samsung's shipments were shown to be much lower than all the analysts estimates.

Ask yourself this: There are estimates every quarter for Android phone shipments by vendor. If the estimates are any good, they're going to be on the high side sometimes, on the low side some times and right on the money some times. There should be something approaching a bell curve with the number of underestimates being comparable to the number of overestimates.

Now, if the estimates were significantly too high, the vendor is probably not going to correct them - because lots of prestige accrues to people who have high market share. OTOH, if the estimates are significantly too low, the vendor would probably correct it in some way - perhaps a press release about how well phone xyz is selling. Yet the latter never happens. The most likely explanation is that the estimates are too high on average and rarely underestimate actual sales.
"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 #62 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turley Muller View Post

One problem here--- Apple does count and report shipments to channel partners as "sales." That's standard accounting practice as the risk has transferred from the vendor to the reseller. Apple counts those as sales, because they are in fact, sales, to the reseller. Apple gives the change in channel inventory on its calls, so taking the units sales reported and subtracting net change in channel inventory gives the actual units sold to end-users or "sell-through."

The difference with Samsung is they stuff the channel then use discounting or buy back unsold units. Apple keeps shipments roughly inline with sell-through.

 

And you neglect to mention Apple's policies on Inventory. They basically have none. By None I mean less than a week's worth in the pipeline at any time. They sell as fast as they make.

 

Big difference from Shamesung who stock piles, and then cancels production once they've 2 or 3 times as many as they will eventually sell.

post #63 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmas View Post

This could simply indicate that iOS users surf the web more than users of other platforms. For example, up to now I doubt Blackberry was a decent device to surf the web.?

It still isn't.

post #64 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

 Google 'android feature phone' and look at the results. There are many phones being sold that the manufacturer calls a feature phone - and that's a pretty good definition (especially since, if anything, they're going to want to call the borderline phones 'smartphones' if they can get away with it).

JR, neither a Google or Bing search turns up results for a single "Android feature phone" being advertised and/or sold. I've no idea why you think there's some large number of them when not even one shows up in a basic search. All I can think of  is perhaps you believe an inexpensive phone must necessarily be a feature phone while one going for more than $100 or so could be a smartphone?? I'd rather think you just had an uncommon definition for feature phones rather than just making up the claim.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #65 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

JR, neither a Google or Bing search turns up results for a single "Android feature phone" being advertised and/or sold. I've no idea why you think there's some large number of them when not even one shows up in a basic search. All I can think of  is perhaps you believe an inexpensive phone must necessarily be a feature phone while one going for more than $100 or so could be a smartphone?? I'd rather think you just had an uncommon definition for feature phones rather than just making up the claim.

Are you Android shills so totally incapable of using a search engine? Do it without the quotes. There are 56,000,000 hits on Bing. Many of them are exactly what I've said they are.

I've already cited plenty of examples before, but since you apparently can't figure out how to use a search engine:

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsung-might-unveil-as-many-as-8-Android-smartphones-in-Q1-2013_id39213
(Talking about new phones to be released in 2013):
"there is even an update to Samsung's Star feature phone,"

Then things like the Pantech Swift which is specfically listed as a feature phone:
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Pantech-Swift-for-AT-T-is-a-teen-friendly-QWERTY-feature-phone_id31084

There's lots more but since you've ignored all the examples every other time I provided them, I'm not going to bother. Get a grade school student to teach you how to use a search engine.
"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 #66 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Are you Android shills so totally incapable of using a search engine? Do it without the quotes. There are 56,000,000 hits on Bing. Many of them are exactly what I've said they are.

I've already cited plenty of examples before, but since you apparently can't figure out how to use a search engine:

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsung-might-unveil-as-many-as-8-Android-smartphones-in-Q1-2013_id39213
(Talking about new phones to be released in 2013):
"there is even an update to Samsung's Star feature phone,"

Then things like the Pantech Swift which is specfically listed as a feature phone:
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Pantech-Swift-for-AT-T-is-a-teen-friendly-QWERTY-feature-phone_id31084

There's lots more but since you've ignored all the examples every other time I provided them, I'm not going to bother. Get a grade school student to teach you how to use a search engine.

Love it when you hang yourself out to dry. 

You're accusing me of being incapable of doing a proper web search yet to prove your're right you offer up examples of phones that don't even run Android.  A simple Google Search would have shown the Swift uses Brew as the OS, not Android. 

 

Your other example? it was first sold back in 2009, with at least one other in the model line released last year. Guess what? They didn't run Android either. Another simple Google search would have told you that they use Symbian. 

 

Let me know when your grade school student finds a real example of an Android feature phone being sold today. You should be embarrassed to offer the examples you did after being so arrogant in your reply.


Edited by Gatorguy - 2/2/13 at 8:34am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #67 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Love it when you hang yourself out to dry. "Find a grade school student" lol.gif

You're accusing me of being incapable of doing a proper web search yet to prove your're right you offer up examples of phones that don't even run Android.  A simple Google Search would have shown the Swift uses Brew as the OS, not Android. 

 

Your other example? it was sold back in 2009! 

 

Let me know when your grade school student finds a real example of an Android feature phone being sold today.

What's your point? Is there an argument you're trying to make, or are you content going on with a bunch of stream-of-consciousness ramblings like your other Androider pals?

 

I am thoroughly bored and confused by you guys......

post #68 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What's your point? Is there an argument you're trying to make, or are you content going on with a bunch of stream-of-consciousness ramblings like your other Androider pals?

 

I am thoroughly bored and confused by you guys......

It was JR's talking point, not mine. You'll have to wait for him to clarify it.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #69 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Love it when you hang yourself out to dry. 
You're accusing me of being incapable of doing a proper web search yet to prove your're right you offer up examples of phones 
that don't even run Android.  
A simple Google Search would have shown the Swift uses Brew as the OS, not Android. 


Your other example? it was first sold back in 2009, with at least one other in the model line released last year. Guess what? They didn't run Android either. Another simple Google search would have told you that they use Symbian. 


Let me know when your grade school student finds a real example of an Android feature phone being sold today. You should be embarrassed to offer the examples you did after being so arrogant in your reply.

I specifically checked and the site I had checked said it ran Android Jelly Bean. The site I checked was apparently wrong.

In any event, it doesn't matter. As I showed you, the Galaxy star is a feature phone that runs Android. And the last dozen times you pretended that there was no such thing, I cited many more.

That, of course, ignores the huge number of people who use Android smartphones as feature phones, as well.
"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 #70 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It was JR's talking point, not mine. You'll have to wait for him to clarify it.

If that's the case, why are you adding to what you apparently think is noise? In what way does that advance the discussion related to the topic at hand?

post #71 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I specifically checked and the site I had checked said it ran Android Jelly Bean. The site I checked was apparently wrong.

In any event, it doesn't matter. As I showed you, the Galaxy star is a feature phone that runs Android. And the last dozen times you pretended that there was no such thing, I cited many more.

That, of course, ignores the huge number of people who use Android smartphones as feature phones, as well.

There's no such phone as a Galaxy Star. Your link  offered a rumor that there might be one someday so it's a bit premature to claim it's a feature phone . . .  IF it's even built and IF it even uses Android.  At the end of the day you have no example of an Android feature phone to offer then? 

 

So I'm guessing you've signaled you'd prefer to change your argument to "a huge number of people use Android smartphones as feature phones", a claim a bit harder to quantity and thus disagree with. Fair enough. Perhaps a large number of people use their iPhone as a feature phone. Hard to disprove that one either. Your point? Anantksudarum is getting confused by it and he's not the only one.


Edited by Gatorguy - 2/2/13 at 9:05am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #72 of 128
Another factor to consider is that Apple iOS products have an "afterlife," courtesy of Gazelle and other companies that re-purchase and sell used units. How big is this market for Android units? Tiny by comparison.

iPads and iPhones are recycled to new users. Android tabs and phones are used less for web when new, and then languish in the bureau drawer when replaced.
post #73 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

StatCounter does not weight their data.  Net App weights their data by country, using numbers we don't know.

StatCounter uses 3 million websites.   Net App only looks at their own group of 40,000 websites.  

StatCounter counts page hits.  Net App only counts unique visitors, which does not indicate the amount of web usage.  

 

  1. Including e-Readers in the Android count, and

 

 

Please. Once you hit 40,000 websites there's not going to be any difference. If they had 100 websites targeting specific groups (like auto or sports) then maybe. You're making a false assumption that because stat counter has 3 million sites that their data is going to be better. It's not. 40,000 is plenty large enough for a sample size. Statistics 101.

 

Number of visitors is a good enough stat. People visit a site and some will leave after seeing the first page and some will spend more time reading other pages. This will average out over all demographics. Again you're trying to imply that Net App somehow uses "inferior" data. Unless you're going to try and claim that iOS users only view home pages while Android users are more likely to stay and visit other pages.

 

I get lots of e-readers at my site. In fact, I get just as many Kindles as I do Android tablets like the Galaxy. So in my experience (with a real website that is 100% free of any iOS or Android content), your argument that people with e-readers and an iPAd will pick up the iPad. If you've got a device in your hands and you want to quickly look something up you'd just keep using it. Same way that if I'm using my iPad I'm not going to run over to my laptop to type a short e-mail.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

The original iPhone had a slower processor, no 3G, no GPS, no MMS, no video, no voice control or search, and no third party apps at all.  In many ways, it was just a "feature phone", and far less capable than even cheaper smartphones today.

 

Yet it was amazing and useful to quite a few people.

 

I do agree that surfing the web on a 320x240 screen is not ideal, although millions of us did it for years.  (I used to use the Picsel browser, which had a type of tap-to-zoom before the iPhone ever came along.  You tapped and then slid your finger up or down, to zoom in or out.  It beat the heck out of Pocket IE.)

 

Yet even the original iPhone had a 320x480 screen, twice what new phones are getting. And we're talking about 2007. Android OEM's are selling phones in 2013 that are no better than the original iPhone in 2007. Even the iPhone 4 is lights years better than many brand-new Android feature phones and it's already 2 years old.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #74 of 128
Another great article. I always enjoy these DED articles. They're obviously written from an Apple fan's perspective, but backed up by real facts and analysis, exactly what I hope for on an Apple blog. As much as the facts/analysis, I also enjoy the tone the articles set, and the perspectives they offer, which appear to be in line with a positive agenda for Apple's often-maligned public image. I particularly liked the extra info on Apple's improvements in channel inventory. It's as if Apple laced up a pair of Nike's.. it won the sprint, now it's ready for a marathon, and there's no way anybody's going to catch up! 1smile.gif

   

Reply

   

Reply
post #75 of 128
Eventually, all devices not made by Apple will run Android, because what else is there? Windows 8 for Embedded?

"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 #76 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Eventually, all devices not made by Apple will run Android, because what else is there? Windows 8 for Embedded?

BB10 and Windows Phone 8 both look very good to me. I'd go with WP8 before I went with Android.

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #77 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Everyone from IDC on down cites 6 million Kindle Fires last quarter, and they run a branch of Android, which is why they're often included in "Android tablet" sales figures.

What's interesting is that their custom Silk browser has a User Agent string that makes it look more like an iPad:

With a UA of: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_3; en-us; Silk/1.0.13.81_10003810) AppleWebKit/533.16 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0 Safari/533.16 Silk-Accelerated=true it seems unlikely to me that it would get mixed up with Apple's starts. Add to that the resolution not used by any Apple device and any analytics company that can't tell the difference between Silk and Safari isn't very good.

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #78 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Please. Once you hit 40,000 websites there's not going to be any difference. If they had 100 websites targeting specific groups (like auto or sports) then maybe. You're making a false assumption that because stat counter has 3 million sites that their data is going to be better. It's not. 40,000 is plenty large enough for a sample size. Statistics 101.

Wrong. Statistics 101 indicates that sample size is not sufficient if the sample is not representative. If Stat Counter is more representative, then those results would be more accurate - even if it had a lower sample size.

You can't argue that 40,000 web sites automatically makes it representative - it doesn't. For example, a site that used Apple's iAds, it wouldn't be representative of the world as a whole since Google sites would be underrepresented. Now, if there were a way to ensure that the sample was representative, then 40,000 sites would be more than enough. But if it's not representative, then even 100 billion sites wouldn't be enough.
Edited by jragosta - 2/2/13 at 4:59pm
"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 #79 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

I get lots of e-readers at my site. In fact, I get just as many Kindles as I do Android tablets like the Galaxy.   So in my experience (with a real website that is 100% free of any iOS or Android content), your argument that people with e-readers and an iPAd will pick up the iPad.

 

So you're agreeing with me that the entire basis of the article... the Net App statistics which (alone out of all web stats) supposedly call into question IDC's sales figures... are wrong?

 

Because they're the same source which also claims that Kindle Fires are less than 1% of mobile web accesses, and are seen thirty times less than other Android tablet browsers.  I was just quoting the same source the articles used.  See their chart below.

 

So either I'm right and the article is based on stats that include millions of e-Readers which don't surf the web, or you're right and the article is based on stats that are bogus in your experience.  Either way, the article is based on suspect info.

 

 

Or of course, we could all be wrong 1wink.gif


Edited by KDarling - 2/2/13 at 5:55pm
post #80 of 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

So you're agreeing with me that the entire basis of the article... the Net App statistics which (alone out of all web stats) supposedly call into question IDC's sales figures... are wrong
?


Because they're the same source which also claims that Kindle Fires are less than 1% of mobile web accesses, and are seen thirty times less than other Android tablet browsers.  I was just quoting the same source the articles used.  See their chart below.

So either I'm right and the article is based on stats that include millions of e-Readers which don't surf the web, or you're right and the article is based on stats that are bogus in your experience.  Either way, the article is based on suspect info.




Or of course, we could all be wrong 1wink.gif

Nice to see that you posted the graph to which I was referring before, which nullifies your prior ramblings.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple's iOS mobile web share calls into question reports touting Android sales supremacy
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple's iOS mobile web share calls into question reports touting Android sales supremacy