This is one of the worst researched articles I've seen on here, which is saying something. It's conclusions would be laughed out of an undergraduate-level research methods class.
A few basic questions come to mind: Where did this dataset come from? Who collected it? When was it collected? How was it collected? Without knowing answers to these questions, it's hard to take the conclusions seriously. We know, for example, the iOS 6 has built-in Twitter support. Might that introduce bias into the dataset? If so, was that bias controlled for, and, if so, how? We don't know. Also, it's important to note that this map came from Benedict Evans, who is hardly unbiased.
Let's put those questions aside for the moment, and look at the map. At first blush, it certainly appears that there are a lot more iOS users tweeting than Android users. But the map is misleading -- if a red (iOS) pixel and a green (Android) pixel are in the same location, the red pixel overdraws the green one, masking it. That makes the iOS + Android combined view very
The map lets you toggle individual platforms on and off. If you do that, you see very different results. Here are some screenshots I took showing each platform. Notice that they don't show the difference DED claims there is.
The continental US:
The San Francisco Bay Area:
The Northeast Corridor:
More to the point, why do Apple fan sites like this regularly publish this sort of "Android is for poor people" nonsense? It's elitist garbage, denigrating anyone who uses a different type of phone as some sort of poor, defective slob. I'm usually hit-or-miss on Dan Lyons, but I think he hit the nail on the head with his explanation