Personal insults definitely add gravitas to what you're saying.
Sorry, this is just plain wrong. If you look at any style book, like Chicago, MLA or anything else, what you suggested above would be considered bad practice.
When you say 'sales increased by 10%' sure, you add a time context (10% in the last year/month/day), but it is not necessary to say that sales 'increased by 10% of the sales' as that's some kind of weird tortology.
Your 2nd paragraph is also incorrect. If you're saying sales increased 'by 2.5% of the total market', that's also poor writing and presentation. You would say 'sales increased to X taking an extra X% of the market'. No one writes 'sales increased by X%' where X represents a % of 100% not of the subject.
Yes, I completely agree with this.
Good points, and I agree with this too.
I'm with Zoolook in this: If something increases by a %, then the default assumption is that it's proportional rather than additive (if that makes sense). So, given an initial 10%, to say there was a 10% increase implies 11%, not 20%. The real problem here is using percentages on percentages. The focus should be on the underlying units and then calculating % for the old and new values. And I'd say avoid any phrasing that something increased by X%. It's too ambiguous and confusing. So market share goes from 10% to 20%, not that it increased by 10% (or 100%).
Saying something is objectively more relevant than something else, without a qualifier, is pointless. Relevant to who, for what purpose? To you maybe, to AI readers possibly. You may be right.
I could very well be wrong here (it's been known to happen) but doesn't the following line from the early part of the article qualify as a "qualifier"?
"Apple's iPhone operating system still outgained its rival in terms of Web presence in the month of May."
In my mind "web presence" is equal to 100% ... therefore, again in my mind, an absolute number comparison is, IMO, valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook
While people can have a nice philosophical debate about statistics and lies, when someone says X increased by 10%, it's understood to mean by 10% of the original value.....
Since you work in the financial industry I can understand that viewpoint because you're always talking in terms of value relative to the original investment. However, in this case, we're talking about value relative to 100% (total web presence) so an absolute number makes sense, no?
I probably haven't explained myself very clearly .. but I hope you get my point.
I don't see why it matters. There is one main iPhone/iPad out at any given time, there are probably 30 Android handsets that exist across all carriers. A successful phone doesn't have to beat the iPhone, just as the iPhone has no need for iPhone OS to beat out Android as a whole.
The devices compete against each other mostly. A recent CNET review of the HTC Incredible comes to mind: "This is the Android phone to beat". Android phone makers are competing against each other, not Apple (for the most part).
I could very well be wrong here (it's been known to happen) but doesn't the following line from the early part of the article qualify as a "qualifier"?
"Apple's iPhone operating system still outgained its rival in terms of Web presence in the month of May."
In my mind "web presence" is equal to 100% ... therefore, again in my mind, an absolute number comparison is, IMO, valid.
Since you work in the financial industry I can understand that viewpoint because you're always talking in terms of value relative to the original investment. However, in this case, we're talking about value relative to 100% (total web presence) so an absolute number makes sense, no?
I probably haven't explained myself very clearly .. but I hope you get my point.
I get the point, although the difference between what I do and the purpose of the article is not so different. My team could send a report saying "Trading with X client increased 25% month-on-month" where the 25% is an increase of an absolute value, as you said. That may be backed up by a statement saying "X client is now responsible for 5% of all trading activity, up from 4.7%" or whatever - those figure may not be related. In this example, an increase of volume for one client, doesn't necessarily mean their overall proportion increased, if the overall trading volume also increased.
In the webmarket share example, yes 100% is an absolute percentage, but one would assume that the market is also increasing.
Let's put it this way, if Androind and Apple continue to grow in % terms by 16% and 8% respectively and the market increases by, let's say 10% a month, then by the end of next year, Android would overtake Apple. Stats are a bitch.
Android grew by 16.9% and iPhone by 8.25%, so Android is growing faster. If you're going to base stories on statistics, you need to understand them in the first place.
Yep.
Ignore the posts from the naysayers here who may have passed Statistic but certainly failed in Business Analytics.
Your focus is spot-on: absolute numbers describe only the state of things at a given moment, but rate of change suggests the future.
Pure comedy gold. Please continue with the stats pissing contest. It truley is entertaining. (seriously).
Personally, I'm interested in how much additional marketshare each platform captured. Perhaps the wording could have been better though.
Each statistic can be useful. But reality is that apple is increasing it's marketshare faster in absolute terms. This isn't ment as an insult to android though. Android is doing extremely well and it is great to see competition in the smart phone market!
This is true for things that exhibit a relatively constant relative growth rate. It isn't true for growth rates not based on previous measurements.
Here's a comparison of the three-month average ending Feb 2010 with the three-month average ending Nov 2009:
Quote:
The report concluded that 45.4 million people in the United States were using smartphones in the period ending in Feb. 2010, which is a 21% increase over period ending last November. RIM still has a strong lead over the field, with 42.1% of the smartphone market share, and it rose by 1.3% over this period. But the most interesting story is the rapid rise of Android, whose share grew 5.2%. Apple’s share has remained stable, with a .1% drop.
NPD: Android phones now outsell Apple's iPhone in US
May 10, 2010
With a variety of smartphones powered by Google's Android mobile operating system now available on the market, the handsets collectively outsell Apple's iPhone in the U.S., according to new data from the NPD Group.
NPD revealed data Monday that shows Android outselling Apple's iPhone, becoming the No. 2 selling smartphone operating system last quarter in America. Android was responsible for 28 percent of all handsets sold, ahead of Apple's 21 percent, but still behind Research in Motion's 36 percent.
The outlier in the most recent data from May is the bump for Apple. Whether that bump is a bubble from the iPad or is sustainable remains to be seen, but the steadiness of Android's grow is not lost on analysts like Gartner:
Quote:
Google's Android will be the second-largest smartphone platform in as little as three years, according to Gartner analyst Ken Dulaney estimated on Wednesday. While it trails today, the mobile OS is predicted to climb to 14.5 percent of the market, or about 76 million phones sold per year, by the end of 2012. As a consequence, it would whittle Symbian's market share down to 39 percent (203 million phones) and just slightly overtake the iPhone, which in this view would have 13.7 percent of the market or 71.5 million devices.
How can such a straightforward article give rise to so many different interpretations?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook
when someone says X increased by 10%, it's understood to mean by 10% of the original value, not by 10 percentage points.
However, the article never actually uses the word "by". All percentages are "grew from X% TO Y%" or just "is X%". Nothing in the article mentions or implies growth "by".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook
Note that the headline of this article is that "iPhone Web Market Share Outgrows Android in May"
The key word there is "outgrows", which means to grow faster or a greater rate. That is not backed by the figures, and the body of the story also adapts to reflect the figures, rather than support the headline.
I would never use the word "outgrows" as meaning "grow at at greater rate". Outgrows when used alone, pretty much always means 'grows more than". Which is precisely how the article is using the word, iPhone's share grew more than Android's share.
The article is interesting in that, assuming the numbers are correct, it contradicts the conventional wisdom that Android is catching up to the iPhone. The iPhone is increasing it's lead over Android, despite Android's higher growth rate.
It would be interesting to know if the difference is because iPhones still outsell Android phones, or because iPhone users use the web more.
Ok kids, let's put this to bed with a very simple example.
Let's assume the total market for web browsing of smart phones was 1,000,000 devices. Nice round number.
Apple started the period with 30.3%, which equates to 303,000 devices. They increase their share to 32.8% which is 328,000 devices. Subtract a from b means they gained 25,000 more devices
Android started at 5.3% which is 53,000 devices. They moved to 6.2%, which is 62,000 devices. Subtract a from b and you get 9,000 device increase.
Yes, the period on period growth for android vs android grew faster, BUT, apple gained 25,000 new devices, Android gained 9,000 new devices. Tell me which one gained MORE market share?
However, this is a simplistic example that ignores new handset sales, so the 1,000,000 would not really have been a static number, but the growth rates do remain.
Simple huh!
Statistics can bend the truth, numbers usually paint a clearer picture.
Run your trends as projections and tell us where it lands you in 24 months.
At current growth rates of both platforms, assuming everything else being equal, it will take 20 months for Android to have more market share than iPhone OS. A lot can happen in 20 months.
And for that to happen, that 1M starting market will need to grow to 2.4M by that time, as currently Android is not actually taking market share from iPhone OS, they are both expanding market share.
See you in 20 months.
BTW - statistics aren't numbers, they are interpretations of numbers. If I tell you 15%, that is not a number, it is an interpretation of some other number, for example 15% of home owners (which may be 200M).
At current growth rates of both platforms, assuming everything else being equal, it will take 20 months for Android to have more market share than iPhone OS. A lot can happen in 20 months.
True, but looking at the data from the last 10 months is quite encouraging - for Android.
Quote:
See you in 20 months.
See you in the AndroidInsider.com forums.
Quote:
BTW - statistics aren't numbers, they are interpretations of numbers. If I tell you 15%, that is not a number, it is an interpretation of some other number, for example 15% of home owners (which may be 200M).
Numbers without interpretation is just noise. Run a set of numbers through R with no operator or function name and see how far it gets you.
The outlier in the most recent data from May is the bump for Apple. Whether that bump is a bubble from the iPad or is sustainable remains to be seen, but the steadiness of Android's grow is not lost on analysts like Gartner:
It seems that you're arguing two points simultaneously. One about statistics and one about Apple vs Android. Both are valid discussions but it is wrong to conflate the two when responding to many posters.
Please realize that there are many types of people on these boards. Some are irrational in their platform preference, exhibiting extreme attachment to the one with which they've chosen. These are the ones you should ignore if wishing to have meaningful conversation. There are also people that just happen to prefer one or the other and approach the subject rationally.
I consider myself to be of the latter type. I also hold the view that Apple's lead (over Android) is widening despite the statistical game that shows android with a higher growth rate as a percentage of android's previous quarter. When looking at raw, absolute market share numbers, Apple's lead is increasing. With RIM in the picture, of course lead would be the wrong term. RIM is ahead but with a declining margin.
In terms of Android vs Apple, because that seems to be the topic of interest, of course this may not always be the case. I am perfectly happy to see Android catch up or even surpass Apple. Competition is good for us consumers! We should all hope that this unprecedented level of competition continues. But at the same time, let's be honest, Apple's lead is continuing to grow. Every quarter, Apple's marketshare increases by a larger number of dollars and units as compared to the competition.
Agreed. Also, if you look at how long the iPhone has been on the market starting from the 1st generation iPhone in comparison with Android then there is reason to worry. Android is gaining momentum fast and it's just a matter of time before they outnumber the iPhone.
I disagree. Android's gaining market share slowly but I don't know that I'd characterize it as "momentum." I'd say it's more the by-product of a massive advertising campaign and some buy-one-get-one deals.
I'm not an Android hater but consider that Android has been available on the market for, what, 2 years now? We saw barely any movement in the market share for Android until this recent, holiday-season advertising push with Droid, HTC and others. At that point, Android market share moved. It still didn't put it anywhere in the realm of the iPhone (last I read, Android still hasn't reached the market share the iPhone had last year) and it still doesn't show us what kind of longevity it has.
If, by next year, Android has continued to gain ground at the same pace, without heavy ad campaigns pushing Droids at us every half-hour and Verizon doing buy-one-get-one deals, then I'll concede that there's some real momentum.
The story is about platform share. Not browser share.
The article and its charts make no sense. Symbian has Java ME implementation, so they can't be separate platforms. It is difficult to have any trust in stats with such an elementary flaw.
The entertaining part of this story is how starkly it contrasts with the triumphalism of many Android partisans (ie people who prefer the approach and goals of Android). You would think the iPhone platform was already eclipsed by Android and declining. It may some day but Apple stockholders have to be happy with the way things look currently.
So very true, and "triumphalism" is exactly the word. It wasn't too long ago that Android fans were speaking confidently of "slumping" or "stagnant" iPhone sales, as if that notion was broadly understood to be fact.
Now, obviously Android has been a huge success for Google and is well established as viable platform going forward. But it has also established a new class of irony impaired enthusiasts who can simultaneously pour contempt onto hapless Apple "fan boys" who have "drunk the koolaid" while being subject to "the reality distortion field" even as they wax rhapsodic about a rapidly approaching Google run world with nothing but Google products forever, amen. Which apparently isn't any kind of problem on account of the "openness"-- meaning, in this context, "a vital attribute for anything that Google doesn't make money off of."
if you read the article it clearly states that there are more devices running android available than the iPhone OS
That's the clever thing about the Android-padding "facts" pundits... they switch from "smartphone" to "OS platform" to "devices" so deftly and adroitly that you fail to notice (and counter) that mobile "OS platform" or "device" for Apple would certainly include the iPod Touch and the iPad, if not the MacBook Air and other notebooks (the latter two would come under "devices").
And this is one market statistic where Apple and NOT the competition have the much-vaunted "variety of devices for sale", where they cannot be easily ganged-up on by the "knock-off Nigel's" of the Far East. At least not yet, not while their pitiable tablet efforts over the past decade continue to stagnate, and their PMP's fare ineffectually against the iPod.
Comments
Personal insults definitely add gravitas to what you're saying.
Sorry, this is just plain wrong. If you look at any style book, like Chicago, MLA or anything else, what you suggested above would be considered bad practice.
When you say 'sales increased by 10%' sure, you add a time context (10% in the last year/month/day), but it is not necessary to say that sales 'increased by 10% of the sales' as that's some kind of weird tortology.
Your 2nd paragraph is also incorrect. If you're saying sales increased 'by 2.5% of the total market', that's also poor writing and presentation. You would say 'sales increased to X taking an extra X% of the market'. No one writes 'sales increased by X%' where X represents a % of 100% not of the subject.
Yes, I completely agree with this.
Good points, and I agree with this too.
I'm with Zoolook in this: If something increases by a %, then the default assumption is that it's proportional rather than additive (if that makes sense). So, given an initial 10%, to say there was a 10% increase implies 11%, not 20%. The real problem here is using percentages on percentages. The focus should be on the underlying units and then calculating % for the old and new values. And I'd say avoid any phrasing that something increased by X%. It's too ambiguous and confusing. So market share goes from 10% to 20%, not that it increased by 10% (or 100%).
Saying something is objectively more relevant than something else, without a qualifier, is pointless. Relevant to who, for what purpose? To you maybe, to AI readers possibly. You may be right.
I could very well be wrong here (it's been known to happen) but doesn't the following line from the early part of the article qualify as a "qualifier"?
"Apple's iPhone operating system still outgained its rival in terms of Web presence in the month of May."
In my mind "web presence" is equal to 100% ... therefore, again in my mind, an absolute number comparison is, IMO, valid.
While people can have a nice philosophical debate about statistics and lies, when someone says X increased by 10%, it's understood to mean by 10% of the original value.....
Since you work in the financial industry I can understand that viewpoint because you're always talking in terms of value relative to the original investment. However, in this case, we're talking about value relative to 100% (total web presence) so an absolute number makes sense, no?
I probably haven't explained myself very clearly .. but I hope you get my point.
The devices compete against each other mostly. A recent CNET review of the HTC Incredible comes to mind: "This is the Android phone to beat". Android phone makers are competing against each other, not Apple (for the most part).
I could very well be wrong here (it's been known to happen) but doesn't the following line from the early part of the article qualify as a "qualifier"?
"Apple's iPhone operating system still outgained its rival in terms of Web presence in the month of May."
In my mind "web presence" is equal to 100% ... therefore, again in my mind, an absolute number comparison is, IMO, valid.
Since you work in the financial industry I can understand that viewpoint because you're always talking in terms of value relative to the original investment. However, in this case, we're talking about value relative to 100% (total web presence) so an absolute number makes sense, no?
I probably haven't explained myself very clearly .. but I hope you get my point.
I get the point, although the difference between what I do and the purpose of the article is not so different. My team could send a report saying "Trading with X client increased 25% month-on-month" where the 25% is an increase of an absolute value, as you said. That may be backed up by a statement saying "X client is now responsible for 5% of all trading activity, up from 4.7%" or whatever - those figure may not be related. In this example, an increase of volume for one client, doesn't necessarily mean their overall proportion increased, if the overall trading volume also increased.
In the webmarket share example, yes 100% is an absolute percentage, but one would assume that the market is also increasing.
Let's put it this way, if Androind and Apple continue to grow in % terms by 16% and 8% respectively and the market increases by, let's say 10% a month, then by the end of next year, Android would overtake Apple. Stats are a bitch.
Android grew by 16.9% and iPhone by 8.25%, so Android is growing faster. If you're going to base stories on statistics, you need to understand them in the first place.
Yep.
Ignore the posts from the naysayers here who may have passed Statistic but certainly failed in Business Analytics.
Your focus is spot-on: absolute numbers describe only the state of things at a given moment, but rate of change suggests the future.
Personally, I'm interested in how much additional marketshare each platform captured. Perhaps the wording could have been better though.
Each statistic can be useful. But reality is that apple is increasing it's marketshare faster in absolute terms. This isn't ment as an insult to android though. Android is doing extremely well and it is great to see competition in the smart phone market!
Absolute numbers describe only the state of things at a given moment, but rate of change suggests the future.
This is true for things that exhibit a relatively constant relative growth rate. It isn't true for growth rates not based on previous measurements.
If you were talking about a viral outbreak, that assertion would hold true. Smartphone market? I'm not convinced.
I'd agree that it is a factor. However, in this particular field, at this moment in time, the absolute numbers are far more informative.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/and...ata-2010-05-10
This is true for things that exhibit a relatively constant relative growth rate. It isn't true for growth rates not based on previous measurements.
Here's a comparison of the three-month average ending Feb 2010 with the three-month average ending Nov 2009:
The report concluded that 45.4 million people in the United States were using smartphones in the period ending in Feb. 2010, which is a 21% increase over period ending last November. RIM still has a strong lead over the field, with 42.1% of the smartphone market share, and it rose by 1.3% over this period. But the most interesting story is the rapid rise of Android, whose share grew 5.2%. Apple’s share has remained stable, with a .1% drop.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/05/com...on-the-iphone/
Consider also:
NPD: Android phones now outsell Apple's iPhone in US
May 10, 2010
With a variety of smartphones powered by Google's Android mobile operating system now available on the market, the handsets collectively outsell Apple's iPhone in the U.S., according to new data from the NPD Group.
NPD revealed data Monday that shows Android outselling Apple's iPhone, becoming the No. 2 selling smartphone operating system last quarter in America. Android was responsible for 28 percent of all handsets sold, ahead of Apple's 21 percent, but still behind Research in Motion's 36 percent.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...one_in_us.html
The outlier in the most recent data from May is the bump for Apple. Whether that bump is a bubble from the iPad or is sustainable remains to be seen, but the steadiness of Android's grow is not lost on analysts like Gartner:
Google's Android will be the second-largest smartphone platform in as little as three years, according to Gartner analyst Ken Dulaney estimated on Wednesday. While it trails today, the mobile OS is predicted to climb to 14.5 percent of the market, or about 76 million phones sold per year, by the end of 2012. As a consequence, it would whittle Symbian's market share down to 39 percent (203 million phones) and just slightly overtake the iPhone, which in this view would have 13.7 percent of the market or 71.5 million devices.
http://www.electronista.com/articles...re.in.3.years/
when someone says X increased by 10%, it's understood to mean by 10% of the original value, not by 10 percentage points.
However, the article never actually uses the word "by". All percentages are "grew from X% TO Y%" or just "is X%". Nothing in the article mentions or implies growth "by".
Note that the headline of this article is that "iPhone Web Market Share Outgrows Android in May"
The key word there is "outgrows", which means to grow faster or a greater rate. That is not backed by the figures, and the body of the story also adapts to reflect the figures, rather than support the headline.
I would never use the word "outgrows" as meaning "grow at at greater rate". Outgrows when used alone, pretty much always means 'grows more than". Which is precisely how the article is using the word, iPhone's share grew more than Android's share.
The article is interesting in that, assuming the numbers are correct, it contradicts the conventional wisdom that Android is catching up to the iPhone. The iPhone is increasing it's lead over Android, despite Android's higher growth rate.
It would be interesting to know if the difference is because iPhones still outsell Android phones, or because iPhone users use the web more.
Let's assume the total market for web browsing of smart phones was 1,000,000 devices. Nice round number.
Apple started the period with 30.3%, which equates to 303,000 devices. They increase their share to 32.8% which is 328,000 devices. Subtract a from b means they gained 25,000 more devices
Android started at 5.3% which is 53,000 devices. They moved to 6.2%, which is 62,000 devices. Subtract a from b and you get 9,000 device increase.
Yes, the period on period growth for android vs android grew faster, BUT, apple gained 25,000 new devices, Android gained 9,000 new devices. Tell me which one gained MORE market share?
However, this is a simplistic example that ignores new handset sales, so the 1,000,000 would not really have been a static number, but the growth rates do remain.
Simple huh!
Statistics can bend the truth, numbers usually paint a clearer picture.
Simple huh!
Statistics can bend the truth, numbers usually paint a clearer picture.
Simple indeed: Statistics are numbers.
Run your trends as projections and tell us where it lands you in 24 months.
Simple indeed: Statistics are numbers.
Run your trends as projections and tell us where it lands you in 24 months.
At current growth rates of both platforms, assuming everything else being equal, it will take 20 months for Android to have more market share than iPhone OS. A lot can happen in 20 months.
And for that to happen, that 1M starting market will need to grow to 2.4M by that time, as currently Android is not actually taking market share from iPhone OS, they are both expanding market share.
See you in 20 months.
BTW - statistics aren't numbers, they are interpretations of numbers. If I tell you 15%, that is not a number, it is an interpretation of some other number, for example 15% of home owners (which may be 200M).
At current growth rates of both platforms, assuming everything else being equal, it will take 20 months for Android to have more market share than iPhone OS. A lot can happen in 20 months.
True, but looking at the data from the last 10 months is quite encouraging - for Android.
See you in 20 months.
See you in the AndroidInsider.com forums.
BTW - statistics aren't numbers, they are interpretations of numbers. If I tell you 15%, that is not a number, it is an interpretation of some other number, for example 15% of home owners (which may be 200M).
Numbers without interpretation is just noise. Run a set of numbers through R with no operator or function name and see how far it gets you.
The outlier in the most recent data from May is the bump for Apple. Whether that bump is a bubble from the iPad or is sustainable remains to be seen, but the steadiness of Android's grow is not lost on analysts like Gartner:
It seems that you're arguing two points simultaneously. One about statistics and one about Apple vs Android. Both are valid discussions but it is wrong to conflate the two when responding to many posters.
Please realize that there are many types of people on these boards. Some are irrational in their platform preference, exhibiting extreme attachment to the one with which they've chosen. These are the ones you should ignore if wishing to have meaningful conversation. There are also people that just happen to prefer one or the other and approach the subject rationally.
I consider myself to be of the latter type. I also hold the view that Apple's lead (over Android) is widening despite the statistical game that shows android with a higher growth rate as a percentage of android's previous quarter. When looking at raw, absolute market share numbers, Apple's lead is increasing. With RIM in the picture, of course lead would be the wrong term. RIM is ahead but with a declining margin.
In terms of Android vs Apple, because that seems to be the topic of interest, of course this may not always be the case. I am perfectly happy to see Android catch up or even surpass Apple. Competition is good for us consumers! We should all hope that this unprecedented level of competition continues. But at the same time, let's be honest, Apple's lead is continuing to grow. Every quarter, Apple's marketshare increases by a larger number of dollars and units as compared to the competition.
Agreed. Also, if you look at how long the iPhone has been on the market starting from the 1st generation iPhone in comparison with Android then there is reason to worry. Android is gaining momentum fast and it's just a matter of time before they outnumber the iPhone.
I disagree. Android's gaining market share slowly but I don't know that I'd characterize it as "momentum." I'd say it's more the by-product of a massive advertising campaign and some buy-one-get-one deals.
I'm not an Android hater but consider that Android has been available on the market for, what, 2 years now? We saw barely any movement in the market share for Android until this recent, holiday-season advertising push with Droid, HTC and others. At that point, Android market share moved. It still didn't put it anywhere in the realm of the iPhone (last I read, Android still hasn't reached the market share the iPhone had last year) and it still doesn't show us what kind of longevity it has.
If, by next year, Android has continued to gain ground at the same pace, without heavy ad campaigns pushing Droids at us every half-hour and Verizon doing buy-one-get-one deals, then I'll concede that there's some real momentum.
The story is about platform share. Not browser share.
The article and its charts make no sense. Symbian has Java ME implementation, so they can't be separate platforms. It is difficult to have any trust in stats with such an elementary flaw.
The entertaining part of this story is how starkly it contrasts with the triumphalism of many Android partisans (ie people who prefer the approach and goals of Android). You would think the iPhone platform was already eclipsed by Android and declining. It may some day but Apple stockholders have to be happy with the way things look currently.
So very true, and "triumphalism" is exactly the word. It wasn't too long ago that Android fans were speaking confidently of "slumping" or "stagnant" iPhone sales, as if that notion was broadly understood to be fact.
Now, obviously Android has been a huge success for Google and is well established as viable platform going forward. But it has also established a new class of irony impaired enthusiasts who can simultaneously pour contempt onto hapless Apple "fan boys" who have "drunk the koolaid" while being subject to "the reality distortion field" even as they wax rhapsodic about a rapidly approaching Google run world with nothing but Google products forever, amen. Which apparently isn't any kind of problem on account of the "openness"-- meaning, in this context, "a vital attribute for anything that Google doesn't make money off of."
if you read the article it clearly states that there are more devices running android available than the iPhone OS
That's the clever thing about the Android-padding "facts" pundits... they switch from "smartphone" to "OS platform" to "devices" so deftly and adroitly that you fail to notice (and counter) that mobile "OS platform" or "device" for Apple would certainly include the iPod Touch and the iPad, if not the MacBook Air and other notebooks (the latter two would come under "devices").
And this is one market statistic where Apple and NOT the competition have the much-vaunted "variety of devices for sale", where they cannot be easily ganged-up on by the "knock-off Nigel's" of the Far East. At least not yet, not while their pitiable tablet efforts over the past decade continue to stagnate, and their PMP's fare ineffectually against the iPod.