Give me specifics to compare and I'm not going to waste my time trying to read two different articles relating different information. I don't have that much time to do this.
What I can tell you is that ALL market research companies have metrics that are either good metrics to use to arrive at certain assumptions and some don't. I look at the trends on my own, I have other sources like this that I look at to see what's going on..
Now, don't try to act like Dvorak is a reliable source. He's written some stupid articles in his career. BTW, I used to read Dvorak faithfully as early as the mid 80's around the time when the Mac first hit the market and his articles were sometimes full of shit back then. I got off reading his articles faithfully since he got worse over the years. Every once in a while he manages to squeeze out an article that actually makes sense, but it's rare. Just like most journalists.
I look at the raw numbers. What I hate is when they make assumptions based on numbers from one quarter that reflect a down turn in Apple sales on a specific product line when they are in the transition of releasing a new product.
What happens EVERY single time Apple gets ready to release a new product, their sales take a nose dive because everyone knows that a new product is getting ready to be announced, so sales drop off. In terms of the iPad and iPhone sales, they will take a nose dive in the Sept quarter and then spike back up during the following two quarters. But some of these analysts take the low Sept quarter numbers and speculate doom and gloom for Apple and then they don't really explain that this happens EVERY single product release. The Sept quarter is ALWAYS Apple's worst quarter, just like December quarter is always Apple's best quarter.
Either way, you haven't proven anything other than you are now becoming like other journalists. A waste of my time.
Sometimes DED and others use specific data and arrive at a reasonable assumption and sometimes they don't.
But you seem to just categorically dismiss DED regardless. Well, I don't think he's off base all of the time, sometimes he is and sometimes he isn't. Dvorak is RARELY correct in his assumptions, he's been writing off Apple for the past decade and I don't know about you, but Apple turned from barely surviving to becoming the biggest success story in the Personal Computer industry and it looks as though they remain a success story for the time being.
I don't see Android as a success story as much as others do with regards to their entire business. Market share, they have done a decent job, but with over 30 companies spitting out anywhere between the cheapest piles of crap to more expensive units, I would think they would do well from a market share standpoint, but if you look at the profits these companies are making that are directly related to product/s/w sales, they really aren't doing that well. Google STILL makes most of their money from the Search site ad revenues. and most of the Android OEMs, other than Samsung actually make any profit or anything I would consider decent. That, to me, is not being successful any company can BUY market share. But BUYING market share isn't running a successful business.
But in terms of deriving that iOS is better for developers than Android was fairly straightforward. S/W developers have a better chance of making more revenues than developing for Android. That was clear.