I've been eyeballing that Sprint Evo coming out lol
I think once we see what iphone 4g has though, the evo might not be so grand. I don't think I'm alone when I say the HD video recording and even HD output is something I really want, and that many people can take advantage of (and I don't see why 4th gen iphone won't have it)
Why then is the Q3/2009 showing slower growth than Q2? And Q4/2009 a shrink in market share? Shurely people weren't waiting for the iPhone HD at that point in time?
Regs, Jarkko
The graph is using percentages not absolute amounts. Generally, the size of the US smartphone market is also increasing; so a share decrease can mask a unit increase. Apple's biggest US quarter is generally the 3rd calendar quarter, and then it decreases for 4Q and 1Q.
Assuming that this survey data is accurate (a VERY BIG ASSUMPTION), we can roughly calibrate it against the AT&T iPhone activation data. (I'm assuming away some still small number of US iPhone sales that are activated on T-Mobile or outside the US.)
In calendar 1Q10, AT&T says it activated 2.7m iPhones. If that is 21% of US smartphone share, then the total smartphone market is about 12.9m units. From that, there was 3.6m Android-based smartphones, 4.6m Blackberries sold, and 300k Palm webOS-phones sold.
In calendar 4Q10, AT&T says it activated 3.1m iPhones. If that is 21% of US smartphone share, then the total smartphone market in the 4Q was about 14.8m units. From that, there was 3.1m Android-phones, 5.6m Blackberries, and 600k webOS-phones sold. (I had to eyeball the shares off of the graph - RIM 38%?, Android 21%, Palm 4%)
In calendar 3Q10, AT&T says it activated 3.2m iPhones. If that is also 28% of US smartphone share, then the total smartphone market in the 3Q was about 11.4m. From that, there was 0.3m Android-phones, 5.3m Blackberries, and 600k webOS-phones sold. (I had to eyeball the shares off of the graph - RM 46%?, Android 3%?, Palm 5%?)
In calendar 2Q10, AT&T says it activated 2.4m iPhones. If that is also 24% of US smartphone share, then the total smartphone market in the 2Q was about 10m. From that, there was 0.3m Android-phones, 4.6m Blackberries, and 200k webOS-phones sold. (I had to eyeball the shares off of the graph - RM 46%?, Android 3%?, Palm 2%?)
Note that Verizon Wireless had 2-for-1 smartphones thruout the 1Q10, and 2-for-1 BB thruout most of 2010 with 2-for-1 for Droid/Eris in Dec.
As for the overall discussion, Apple is not interested in market share for market share sake. Apple is interested in steadily growing its year-over-year market share consistent with a reasonable profit margin and a pace that allows it to build a solid unified foundation for its iPhone OS platform. If Google can continue its Android growth long-term and handle the fragmentation, then that's great, but Apple has chosen not to take that fragmentation risk in order to build its platform market share.
(Note that I have previously said that Apple should play the Verizon trump card by this fall/before Christmas. I don't know if Apple will, but there are lots of good reasons for them to do so; those reasons were articulated by me and many others on previous threads.)
Heh. This is sorta silly. I had the *exact* same thing said to me when I mentioned I was buying an HTC Hero last year. I got the device, I'm loving it, and it serves me just fine.
Android is a good platform. If it stunk, then it wouldn't be on any study. If I were to buy a phone today, it'd be another android device. They are not bad devices, and no everyone who leaves will come back.
Choice. It's good.
As a matter of fact, Android is the only thing that can keep Apple in line now.
At this point, a lot of app developers are probably rethinking which platform they should focus on - once android has about 150% of the iPhone OS's marketshare, I think you'll see a big shift in where the better designers use their energies... A more open system with bigger marketshare, more carriers, and much greater international penetration...
I'm sorry, did I miss some big announcement where people exhibited an ounce of care for the brand of the OS their phone is running? I could've sworn it was the device brand that mattered?
Half of the Android models exist on separate non-compatible versions of Android. It's not like a consumer could seamlessly transfer the software with all its apps and settings onto a totally different Android model.
Isn't grouping several devices under the Android banner more like grouping Safari, Chrome, and Firefox web browsers under the WebKit banner? People care about the entire wrapped package - show me the numbers of the iPhone compared to each Android model? Or show me all Android devices compared to all iPhone OS devices (iPod touch, iPad included).
I had to shake my head recently when some pundit on Leo Laporte's Twitcast said something to the effect of:
"I don't get why Apple got so bent out of shape about the Gizmodo thing... it was just a phone worth a few hundred bucks."
... and then followed up, without a hint of irony or self reflection with...
"The new phone looks really cool... I'll probably hold off on getting my new iPhone until this one comes out."
That simple purchase of stolen property is costing Apple tens of millions.
Yup. ;-D
With regards to the Android phones, who cares? They're nice phones. I really like my secretary's Droid, and can't fault her for getting one (Particularly in Phoenix, where Verizon is king). Nothing wrong with having competition, and just like the desktop market, Apple will never be #1 forever because they are competiting with dozens of phone manufacturers, and only one can run the iPhone OS. . .
I had to shake my head recently when some pundit on Leo Laporte's Twitcast said something to the effect of:
"I don't get why Apple got so bent out of shape about the Gizmodo thing... it was just a phone worth a few hundred bucks."
And then there are other people who, seeing a dead iPhone prototype, thought, "Gosh, that doesn't do anything special" and decided to buy something other than an iPhone.
The graph is using percentages not absolute amounts. Generally, the size of the US smartphone market is also increasing; so a share decrease can mask a unit increase. Apple's biggest US quarter is generally the 3rd calendar quarter, and then it decreases for 4Q and 1Q.
The poster that I responded to was making a claim that was in no way supported by the facts shown in the chart (loss of share due to people waiting for iPhone HD).
Of course Q3 is the biggest since that's immediately after launch of new models. In this case the market share growth slowed during that quarter (even if volumes went up). After that it declided. I referenced only the chart and only the market share numbers as that was the topic at hand and shows a particular trend (Apple is not the only thing on end user's choice list).
If you want to discuss market share, these last few quarters have shown that the things that some even here have stated (and that has been dismissed by a larger part) are showing first signs of happening. Competition is catching up and joe average doesn't necessarily look only at the brand rather the combination of product image, price and UX. If the price is lower, UX comparable and image OK, that's competition already.
Will this downward marketshare trend for Apple (if it even is that yet) continue is a big IF. But these are the first signs that the competition is catching up and even surpassing Apple (for now only in market share in the US). If the market share drops too low, it will hurt absolute unit numbers as well (you'll lose mindshare).
Also of note is that everyone here keeps telling us "foreigners" that the US is the most important market and a sign of what's going to happen in the rest of the world. So why wouldn't this be important?
If marketshare drops too low, you will fall into obscurity (I know, a far stretch, but an exaggerated example to point that market share is also of some importance). Then you'll have to cut prices, invent something brand new or leave the market.
At this point, a lot of app developers are probably rethinking which platform they should focus on - once android has about 150% of the iPhone OS's marketshare, I think you'll see a big shift in where the better designers use their energies... A more open system with bigger marketshare, more carriers, and much greater international penetration...
Well put. More carriers/handsets, more sales. 1+1
HTC + Android are a real force to be reckoned with:
?Verizon-Incredible
?Sprint- Evo (looks amazing)
?T-mobile HD2, Nexus 1
And these are just a few of the very latest.. However, lets see what Iphone 4 does, and more importantly,where it goes.
Things have changed drastically in the last year for everyone. All good things so far.
Verizon needs the iPhone more than the iPhone needs Verizon.
I'm not sure I can agree...
I'm not an iPhone zombie ... nor am I an Droid droid... but here are my thought for what they're worth...
- AT&T doesn't make for a good carrier choice for the entire US...
- Neither does Verizon...
- Android is being sold via every (or just about) carrier in the US
- iPhone is sold only to AT&T (officially)
- Jail Broken iPhones I presume will/do work on T-Mobile
One thing is all but clear... The Android is all but unchallenged on all US networks other than AT&T.. So the fact that they are outselling the iPhone is a hollow victory at best.
Is Apples choice to shun the other networks really worth all that comes with it?
- The loss of sales (obviously)
- The more people who own Android the more people will recommending Android.
Does Apple really feel so confidant that they are willing to simply GIVE the Android platform an ENORMOUS chunk of the US market? I don't have any answers to this issue but I'm simply not 'impressed' by Android market gains when Apple is simply handing it over to them.
Facts: Almost third of the world are Chinese and Indians; more than half Asians. There are more E. coli (a bacterial species) in a person's body than the total population of the world. It is also true that there are more Fords, GMs, Toyotas, Hondais, Hyundais sold than Ferraris, Jaguars, Bentleys, BMWs, or Aston Martins.
Can we really use any of the aforementioned numbers to be a measure of success of any of the "groups" or products cited?
one must measure a company not by its marketshare nor its growth rate but by its profitability. In the aforementioned article, I noted the tendency of "Apple websites", like Apple Insider, to give too much credence to high growth rates or increased market share of an Apple product, in this case the iPhone. The same bias is prevalent in similar sites, espousing other products.
To illustrate this myopic analysis, Nokia, at present the world's largest phone company in terms of units sales -- dwarfing those of RIMM, Apple, Android or any other company by a wide margin. The information on unit sales is a fact (or can be verified more scientifically), and not conjecture based on surveys of usage, sampling, surveys, nor other indirect correlations.
Using the information provided in the aforementioned article
To use an Olympics analogy, the chosen AI headline would be akin to the silver and bronze medalists squabbling about which of them (two) won the race for that moment.
In fact, if the total phones are considered, Nokia is the "1000-pound gorilla" or shall we call the titanic in terms of unit sales. And yet, from the latest news Nokia is a beleaguered company for not being able to produce its killer phone or the ecosystem to compete with the iPhone and the ecosystem created by Apple for its interrelated products. Similarly, this article
is not a surprise but it is flawed in many respects. Who cares about marketshare, as the sole basis to judge a product? It's just like people measuring their worth in terms of their wealth. In one respect, the iPhone has already been declared and acknowledge even by all its competitors as the "winner" -- it is the product that prompted all phone companies to attempt to create their iPhone killer.
If smartphones are to be evaluated with regard to profitability (see above) more than likely the iPhone might be the most likely winner. At least, at present. Whether it can sustain this lead, history will be the judge.
Phone products must be evaluated on a more scientific or at least a more rational head-to-head comparison - to ascertain the market leader. In the US, a more controlled comparison would be the actual market share of the same smartphones if they were allowed to compete within each telephone company. In this case, in the US, it is only in AT&T where this true head-to-head comparison may be evaluated -- since the iPhone, RIMM and Androids are all sold by AT&T.
The same more controlled comparison may be performed once the iPhone is introduced in Verizon where RIMM and Androids are currently sold. If some surveys are to be believed (I do not have the links right now). the iPhone will be very popular in Verizon. Whether this will happen or not in Verizon can be ascertained only when all horses are in the starting lineup.
Everything else, such as this report is flawed. More important, one should not forget that the phone with the highest share may not be the most profitable.
One should question one's ability to think rationally if one puts too much credence on reports like this. Focusing too much on market share as the criteria of the succes of a company is akin to adolescent boys and girls bragging about the size of their private parts.
Apple is doomed if it attempts to focus on market share at the expense of profitability.
Comments
Windows sells a gazillion times more copies than Mac OS, yet Apple has been in the top 5 computer manufacturers for how long?
Apple is doomed?.
I think once we see what iphone 4g has though, the evo might not be so grand. I don't think I'm alone when I say the HD video recording and even HD output is something I really want, and that many people can take advantage of (and I don't see why 4th gen iphone won't have it)
I´ve mentioned a while ago that Apple needed to diversify it´s iPhone line like they did with the iPod.
1: Flip
The Flip functionality may come in the nex gen iPod touch, but certainly in the next iPhone.
Why then is the Q3/2009 showing slower growth than Q2? And Q4/2009 a shrink in market share? Shurely people weren't waiting for the iPhone HD at that point in time?
Regs, Jarkko
The graph is using percentages not absolute amounts. Generally, the size of the US smartphone market is also increasing; so a share decrease can mask a unit increase. Apple's biggest US quarter is generally the 3rd calendar quarter, and then it decreases for 4Q and 1Q.
Assuming that this survey data is accurate (a VERY BIG ASSUMPTION), we can roughly calibrate it against the AT&T iPhone activation data. (I'm assuming away some still small number of US iPhone sales that are activated on T-Mobile or outside the US.)
In calendar 1Q10, AT&T says it activated 2.7m iPhones. If that is 21% of US smartphone share, then the total smartphone market is about 12.9m units. From that, there was 3.6m Android-based smartphones, 4.6m Blackberries sold, and 300k Palm webOS-phones sold.
In calendar 4Q10, AT&T says it activated 3.1m iPhones. If that is 21% of US smartphone share, then the total smartphone market in the 4Q was about 14.8m units. From that, there was 3.1m Android-phones, 5.6m Blackberries, and 600k webOS-phones sold. (I had to eyeball the shares off of the graph - RIM 38%?, Android 21%, Palm 4%)
In calendar 3Q10, AT&T says it activated 3.2m iPhones. If that is also 28% of US smartphone share, then the total smartphone market in the 3Q was about 11.4m. From that, there was 0.3m Android-phones, 5.3m Blackberries, and 600k webOS-phones sold. (I had to eyeball the shares off of the graph - RM 46%?, Android 3%?, Palm 5%?)
In calendar 2Q10, AT&T says it activated 2.4m iPhones. If that is also 24% of US smartphone share, then the total smartphone market in the 2Q was about 10m. From that, there was 0.3m Android-phones, 4.6m Blackberries, and 200k webOS-phones sold. (I had to eyeball the shares off of the graph - RM 46%?, Android 3%?, Palm 2%?)
Note that Verizon Wireless had 2-for-1 smartphones thruout the 1Q10, and 2-for-1 BB thruout most of 2010 with 2-for-1 for Droid/Eris in Dec.
As for the overall discussion, Apple is not interested in market share for market share sake. Apple is interested in steadily growing its year-over-year market share consistent with a reasonable profit margin and a pace that allows it to build a solid unified foundation for its iPhone OS platform. If Google can continue its Android growth long-term and handle the fragmentation, then that's great, but Apple has chosen not to take that fragmentation risk in order to build its platform market share.
(Note that I have previously said that Apple should play the Verizon trump card by this fall/before Christmas. I don't know if Apple will, but there are lots of good reasons for them to do so; those reasons were articulated by me and many others on previous threads.)
Heh. This is sorta silly. I had the *exact* same thing said to me when I mentioned I was buying an HTC Hero last year. I got the device, I'm loving it, and it serves me just fine.
Android is a good platform. If it stunk, then it wouldn't be on any study. If I were to buy a phone today, it'd be another android device. They are not bad devices, and no everyone who leaves will come back.
Choice. It's good.
As a matter of fact, Android is the only thing that can keep Apple in line now.
Half of the Android models exist on separate non-compatible versions of Android. It's not like a consumer could seamlessly transfer the software with all its apps and settings onto a totally different Android model.
Isn't grouping several devices under the Android banner more like grouping Safari, Chrome, and Firefox web browsers under the WebKit banner? People care about the entire wrapped package - show me the numbers of the iPhone compared to each Android model? Or show me all Android devices compared to all iPhone OS devices (iPod touch, iPad included).
Exactly. Who in their right mind will buy a 3GS now that the 4thG is on its way? Unless, Apple drops the price dramatically.
Also, when Verizon gives one Android away for free for every one purchased, it is easy to double the share.
I had to shake my head recently when some pundit on Leo Laporte's Twitcast said something to the effect of:
"I don't get why Apple got so bent out of shape about the Gizmodo thing... it was just a phone worth a few hundred bucks."
... and then followed up, without a hint of irony or self reflection with...
"The new phone looks really cool... I'll probably hold off on getting my new iPhone until this one comes out."
That simple purchase of stolen property is costing Apple tens of millions.
I had to shake my head recently when some pundit on Leo Laporte's Twitcast said something to the effect of:
"I don't get why Apple got so bent out of shape about the Gizmodo thing... it was just a phone worth a few hundred bucks."
... and then followed up, without a hint of irony or self reflection with...
"The new phone looks really cool... I'll probably hold off on getting my new iPhone until this one comes out."
That simple purchase of stolen property is costing Apple tens of millions.
Yup. ;-D
With regards to the Android phones, who cares? They're nice phones. I really like my secretary's Droid, and can't fault her for getting one (Particularly in Phoenix, where Verizon is king). Nothing wrong with having competition, and just like the desktop market, Apple will never be #1 forever because they are competiting with dozens of phone manufacturers, and only one can run the iPhone OS. . .
You've missed the point of my post and/or are reading too far into it.
On the contrary, I believe you over-estimate the significance of the update process you describe.
For Android, when an update is made available...
That's the problem: When is an Android update available to the end-user? A: Rarely.
I had to shake my head recently when some pundit on Leo Laporte's Twitcast said something to the effect of:
"I don't get why Apple got so bent out of shape about the Gizmodo thing... it was just a phone worth a few hundred bucks."
And then there are other people who, seeing a dead iPhone prototype, thought, "Gosh, that doesn't do anything special" and decided to buy something other than an iPhone.
The graph is using percentages not absolute amounts. Generally, the size of the US smartphone market is also increasing; so a share decrease can mask a unit increase. Apple's biggest US quarter is generally the 3rd calendar quarter, and then it decreases for 4Q and 1Q.
The poster that I responded to was making a claim that was in no way supported by the facts shown in the chart (loss of share due to people waiting for iPhone HD).
Of course Q3 is the biggest since that's immediately after launch of new models. In this case the market share growth slowed during that quarter (even if volumes went up). After that it declided. I referenced only the chart and only the market share numbers as that was the topic at hand and shows a particular trend (Apple is not the only thing on end user's choice list).
If you want to discuss market share, these last few quarters have shown that the things that some even here have stated (and that has been dismissed by a larger part) are showing first signs of happening. Competition is catching up and joe average doesn't necessarily look only at the brand rather the combination of product image, price and UX. If the price is lower, UX comparable and image OK, that's competition already.
Will this downward marketshare trend for Apple (if it even is that yet) continue is a big IF. But these are the first signs that the competition is catching up and even surpassing Apple (for now only in market share in the US). If the market share drops too low, it will hurt absolute unit numbers as well (you'll lose mindshare).
Also of note is that everyone here keeps telling us "foreigners" that the US is the most important market and a sign of what's going to happen in the rest of the world. So why wouldn't this be important?
If marketshare drops too low, you will fall into obscurity (I know, a far stretch, but an exaggerated example to point that market share is also of some importance). Then you'll have to cut prices, invent something brand new or leave the market.
Regs, Jarkko
At this point, a lot of app developers are probably rethinking which platform they should focus on - once android has about 150% of the iPhone OS's marketshare, I think you'll see a big shift in where the better designers use their energies... A more open system with bigger marketshare, more carriers, and much greater international penetration...
Well put. More carriers/handsets, more sales. 1+1
HTC + Android are a real force to be reckoned with:
?Verizon-Incredible
?Sprint- Evo (looks amazing)
?T-mobile HD2, Nexus 1
And these are just a few of the very latest.. However, lets see what Iphone 4 does, and more importantly,where it goes.
Things have changed drastically in the last year for everyone. All good things so far.
Verizon needs the iPhone more than the iPhone needs Verizon.
I'm not sure I can agree...
I'm not an iPhone zombie ... nor am I an Droid droid... but here are my thought for what they're worth...
- AT&T doesn't make for a good carrier choice for the entire US...
- Neither does Verizon...
- Android is being sold via every (or just about) carrier in the US
- iPhone is sold only to AT&T (officially)
- Jail Broken iPhones I presume will/do work on T-Mobile
One thing is all but clear... The Android is all but unchallenged on all US networks other than AT&T.. So the fact that they are outselling the iPhone is a hollow victory at best.
Is Apples choice to shun the other networks really worth all that comes with it?
- The loss of sales (obviously)
- The more people who own Android the more people will recommending Android.
Does Apple really feel so confidant that they are willing to simply GIVE the Android platform an ENORMOUS chunk of the US market? I don't have any answers to this issue but I'm simply not 'impressed' by Android market gains when Apple is simply handing it over to them.
Why is it that AppleInsider's home page is being overwhelmed by flash based advertising that takes up over half of the width of the home page?
I hadn't noticed.
Can we really use any of the aforementioned numbers to be a measure of success of any of the "groups" or products cited?
As explored in another article forum:
iPhone market share grows to 16% at expense of BlackBerry
one must measure a company not by its marketshare nor its growth rate but by its profitability. In the aforementioned article, I noted the tendency of "Apple websites", like Apple Insider, to give too much credence to high growth rates or increased market share of an Apple product, in this case the iPhone. The same bias is prevalent in similar sites, espousing other products.
To illustrate this myopic analysis, Nokia, at present the world's largest phone company in terms of units sales -- dwarfing those of RIMM, Apple, Android or any other company by a wide margin. The information on unit sales is a fact (or can be verified more scientifically), and not conjecture based on surveys of usage, sampling, surveys, nor other indirect correlations.
Using the information provided in the aforementioned article
http://images.appleinsider.com/idc-100507.png
one could just as well headline the article as:
Nokia outsells RIMM, Apple and Android "smartphones"
which would be more accurate than the Apple Insider chosen title
iPhone market share grows to 16% at expense of BlackBerry
To use an Olympics analogy, the chosen AI headline would be akin to the silver and bronze medalists squabbling about which of them (two) won the race for that moment.
In fact, if the total phones are considered, Nokia is the "1000-pound gorilla" or shall we call the titanic in terms of unit sales. And yet, from the latest news Nokia is a beleaguered company for not being able to produce its killer phone or the ecosystem to compete with the iPhone and the ecosystem created by Apple for its interrelated products. Similarly, this article
NPD: Android phones now outsell Apple's iPhone in US
is not a surprise but it is flawed in many respects. Who cares about marketshare, as the sole basis to judge a product? It's just like people measuring their worth in terms of their wealth. In one respect, the iPhone has already been declared and acknowledge even by all its competitors as the "winner" -- it is the product that prompted all phone companies to attempt to create their iPhone killer.
If smartphones are to be evaluated with regard to profitability (see above) more than likely the iPhone might be the most likely winner. At least, at present. Whether it can sustain this lead, history will be the judge.
Phone products must be evaluated on a more scientific or at least a more rational head-to-head comparison - to ascertain the market leader. In the US, a more controlled comparison would be the actual market share of the same smartphones if they were allowed to compete within each telephone company. In this case, in the US, it is only in AT&T where this true head-to-head comparison may be evaluated -- since the iPhone, RIMM and Androids are all sold by AT&T.
The same more controlled comparison may be performed once the iPhone is introduced in Verizon where RIMM and Androids are currently sold. If some surveys are to be believed (I do not have the links right now). the iPhone will be very popular in Verizon. Whether this will happen or not in Verizon can be ascertained only when all horses are in the starting lineup.
Everything else, such as this report is flawed. More important, one should not forget that the phone with the highest share may not be the most profitable.
One should question one's ability to think rationally if one puts too much credence on reports like this. Focusing too much on market share as the criteria of the succes of a company is akin to adolescent boys and girls bragging about the size of their private parts.
Apple is doomed if it attempts to focus on market share at the expense of profitability.
CGC