"Nielson's latest figures contradict the notion that Android as a platform has already outpaced Apple's iOS in the US and globally,"
I understood what you were saying I just don't agree. I suppose it depends on how you define outpaced. He pointed out the difference between market share growth and overall market share.
Yes, that is exactly the problem with this article. The author is comparing entirely different types of information. Things like mobile web usage or phone market share are dependent on total number of phone (new OR old) actively in use in consumers' hands, where as product shipments depend on only new products sold. I think the author should do a bit better research about business and marketing before writing these kinds of article, which makes no empirical or logical sense.
On a different point, I do think that iOS platform would serve the non-technically sophisticated segments of the market very well, and will continue to do so for some time to come. There is really no danger of Apple losing market share anytime soon. Android will continue to gain market share, but from other mobile smartphone OSes such as BB, Symbian, WM, and an assortment of others.
That's especially the case with an older generation of users that did not grow up with computers and mobile devices in the home. My electronic gifts to the older generation relatives were all iOS devices, which are much easier to use and operate for people have little computer knowledge. For myself, and others in my generation, I see android being a much more appropriate device that has much more capabilities and options.
I basically agree. He needed to better explain all the different metrics and their importance/reliability. DED is correct that many believe Android has overtaken iPhone in number of users, from reading the IDC/Gartner reports. Those measure unit sales for a specific time period. Nielsen / Comscore measure the Installed base. Nielsen shows that Android has been outselling iPhone but has yet to catch up.
AT&T has ~30% share and 27% of recent buys were iPhones, which has been remained steady. That's about what we could expect if AT&T only has 30% of mobile users then be hard to achieve a figure higher. iPhone sales are 80% or more of AT&T smartphones.
It's all about the older generation. that's a whole new market that only the iPhone can capture and it's quite big.
I think Android will decline as a percentage of the market in 2011. Most of the Android handset makers will have WP7 devices. They'll be competing for the same market share (i.e., people who want a smart phone and are unwilling to switch carriers to get an iPhone). If iPhone appears on Verizon that'll also take a big chunk out of Android sales.
I think Android has really just been filling the void created by Microsoft's fumbling and iPhone only being available on AT&T. While it can match iOS on a list of features, Android has a mediocre user experience and a market that cannot fairly be considered a match to the App Store. I don't think they'll be able to retain new customers the way the iPhone has (polls appear to support this).
Many of them would have bought an iPhone if it were available on other carriers. Can't blame them for that. I have spent quite a bit of time playing around with their phones, and every time it makes me appreciate my iPhone even more. For those who love Android, more power to you. But, in my opinion, it is the Windoze of the smartphone world; overly complex.
I basically agree. He needed to better explain all the different metrics and their importance/reliability. DED is correct that many believe Android has overtaken iPhone in number of users, from reading the IDC/Gartner reports. Those measure unit sales for a specific time period. Nielsen / Comscore measure the Installed base. Nielsen shows that Android has been outselling iPhone but has yet to catch up.
AT&T has ~30% share and 27% of recent buys were iPhones, which has been remained steady. That's about what we could expect if AT&T only has 30% of mobile users then be hard to achieve a figure higher. iPhone sales are 80% or more of AT&T smartphones.
It's all about the older generation. that's a whole new market that only the iPhone can capture and it's quite big.
I think you have summed it up nicely.
I just have to add that ATT has seen lower churn rate and higher new subscriber figures, particularly in 2007-mid 2009, so iPhone has had in effect bringing many its potential customers under ATT for some time now. Although probably not all of the potential iPhone buyers are convinced by ATT/waiting for VZ, so there is still some potential market gain by moving to dual carrier.
Any idiot knows that the iPhone has any kind of lead because its been sold for longer, and that by all other indicators Android is going to surpass the iPhone in any numbers contest soon.
Any numbers contest except number of satisfied customers, profits, number of apps (especially # of QUALITY apps)... you know, things that actually matter. Marketshare is great, but if you aren't making any money, it's kind of pointless (see: Dell)
This Dilger kid is more prolific than L. Ron Hubbard. LOL.
This comment makes no sense. L. Ron Hubbard wasn't any more prolific writer than most other writers of his day. More importantly, he sucked kind of badly and almost all of his works are virtually unknown except for the Dianetics junk.
Philip K. Dick on the other hand, (another technically insane "sci-fi" writer from the same period), was not very prolific at all, yet he has five books (at least), that any science fiction reader of any note has probably read or seen the movie version of.
I think Android will decline as a percentage of the market in 2011. Most of the Android handset makers will have WP7 devices. They'll be competing for the same market share (i.e., people who want a smart phone and are unwilling to switch carriers to get an iPhone). If iPhone appears on Verizon that'll also take a big chunk out of Android sales.
I think Android has really just been filling the void created by Microsoft's fumbling and iPhone only being available on AT&T. While it can match iOS on a list of features, Android has a mediocre user experience and a market cannot fairly be considered a match to the App Store. I don't think they'll be able to retain new customers the way the iPhone has (polls appear to support this).
I think I would disagree with that statement.
For me, I think Android has had a superior user experience, especially in the areas where using an iPhone would feel restrictive; and many people around my age or younger feel the same. Either that or some would try to jailbreak. Android interface is slightly more complicated than iOS, but I don't think anyone with some reasonable amount of computer experience wouldn't pick up in 5 min (basically the majority of the people born after 1970).
I know my mom and my grandpa would both disagree with me, since I have bought them iOS devices, and they both find those very easy to use with really nothing in the computer or electronics world that they need to learn. So to each whatever suits them, I don't think there is one single model that is going to prevail over the bulk of the market.
Many of them would have bought an iPhone if it were available on other carriers. Can't blame them for that. I have spent quite a bit of time playing around with their phones, and every time it makes me appreciate my iPhone even more. For those who love Android, more power to you. But, in my opinion, it is the Windoze of the smartphone world; overly complex.
No no no... you must be wrong! It's not complex, it's free*! It can play Flash**! There's no overlord for apps***! It is the best thing ever****!
*Free does not mean for the end user. Rather, each carrier can change the look, feel, and even functionality of the phone without notice.
**Does not actually run smooth, and crashes more often than not. Battery estimated to last 15-20 minutes. Google (and its partners) are not responsible for third-degree burns due to overheating handsets.
***Google (and its partners) are not responsible for any malware and/or identity theft.
****Best only applies for 1-2 months until next best thing ever is released, dropping all hint of support for previous best thing ever.
Once again, DED looks at a study and totally misinterprets the data. Android has surpased the iPhone in new sales. It's third place in market share only reflects the relative newness of the platform's popularity and it will almost certainly be in the top spot in another 6-12 months as more contracts expire on older BB devices and as more people get their first smart phone.
Also, why repeat the false interpretation of the Gartner data? They did not clain there were tens of millions of no name android phones. That came from a complete idiot not knowing how to read and interpret the data they published. Publishing this foolish crap makes AI look bad and the author look worse.
I'm not saying I disagree with you or agree with you, but either way what you've said here is just classic wishful thinking. You may be right or wrong, but (unlike Daniel ironically), you simply have no data to back up these assumptions and are pretty much just blowing some kind of stinky gas here.
A lot of the comments on Daniel's articles seem to go like this. A lot of whining and bluster, a lot of denial, but no real counter-argument to back it up and no real analysis of what the author is actually putting forward as a thesis. The few times someone takes the trouble to factually knock down his arguments, it seems like only about 1% of the time do they actually come out on top and prove him wrong.
I've been reading his stuff since he started on pretty much a daily basis, and while he has been wrong before, he isn't wrong that often, which is probably why most of the comments on his stuff always end up sounding like the Sour Grapes arguments they really are.
Um. You should take the "growing up" advice yourself. Apple has 28% installed base from a carrier which covers 25% of the Market. Expect it to be 40% if on all carriers.
If it is later than the March timeframe, I suspect that Apple would do concurrent releases of iP5 for CDMA and GSM.
If it's that far out then an LTE chip better be in the mix. Both Verizon and AT&T will use LTE, so it wouldn't make sense to exclude it. Verizon's network would have already been up and running in a number of major areas and AT&T would just be starting up theirs.
I've been reading his stuff since he started on pretty much a daily basis, and while he has been wrong before, he isn't wrong that often, which is probably why most of the comments on his stuff always end up sounding like the Sour Grapes arguments they really are.
I agree with you professor. The DED-haters seem to be pretty good at name-calling, but I'd be more impressed if they could provide specific details of where DED is wrong. My guess is that over the past few years, DED has been accurate about 95% of the time. I seem to recall he was wrong about the uni-body, aluminum Mac Book, but that's the only thing that comes to my mind. So perhaps he's been accurate more like 99% of the time, I'm not quite sure.
I'm not saying I disagree with you or agree with you, but either way what you've said here is just classic wishful thinking. You may be right or wrong, but (unlike Daniel ironically), you simply have no data to back up these assumptions and are pretty much just blowing some kind of stinky gas here.
A lot of the comments on Daniel's articles seem to go like this. A lot of whining and bluster, a lot of denial, but no real counter-argument to back it up and no real analysis of what the author is actually putting forward as a thesis. The few times someone takes the trouble to factually knock down his arguments, it seems like only about 1% of the time do they actually come out on top and prove him wrong.
I've been reading his stuff since he started on pretty much a daily basis, and while he has been wrong before, he isn't wrong that often, which is probably why most of the comments on his stuff always end up sounding like the Sour Grapes arguments they really are.
No, I don't think you are understanding people's arguments here correctly.
I think some objections raised about this article begins with this statement:
Quote:
Gartner's numbers differed from a parallel IDC mobile phone market report by an astounding 77 million units (the smartphone market itself is currently only 81 million), casting a credibility shadow over Gartner's figures and reporting.
Which is a grossly incorrect statement in its plain text, without any extraneous interpretation. He is comparing two sets of completely different statistical distributions, and drawing conclusions from them, which is simply a material fallacy in logic.
That does not take away from the potential good point, which is that the gartners numbers only refers to new devices, but does not take the devices already in consumer hands (and sometimes in carrier inventory) into account. So in the sense of total number of devices, iOS is still significantly ahead. That's the point that he should have made, not this other stuff that is simply a very uneducated statement.
For me, I think Android has had a superior user experience, especially in the areas where using an iPhone would feel restrictive; and many people around my age or younger feel the same. Either that or some would try to jailbreak. Android interface is slightly more complicated than iOS, but I don't think anyone with some reasonable amount of computer experience wouldn't pick up in 5 min (basically the majority of the people born after 1970).
I know my mom and my grandpa would both disagree with me, since I have bought them iOS devices, and they both find those very easy to use with really nothing in the computer or electronics world that they need to learn. So to each whatever suits them, I don't think there is one single model that is going to prevail over the bulk of the market.
The number of people who even know what 'jail breaking' is or care about 'open vs. closed' ideological nonsense or could appreciate what on Earth it means to say iOS feel 'restrictive' or want to download a task killer is so tiny it's utterly insignificant to market share. This is the problem with assessing the impact of Android. In the iPhone space the people talking about the iPhone online tend to like it for the same reasons that the masses buying it do: brand, user experience, etc. But the people who talk up Android do so for reasons that the masses buying Android couldn't even begin to comprehend: openness, customisation, an irrational hatred of all things Apple, and so on (most actual Android-phone buyers probably couldn't even tell you it's developed by Google). These aren't the reasons Android is selling in the numbers it is and they will never be a significant reason for its sales. Rather, it sells because it's available on a wide-range of carriers, because Verizon has been pushing it hard in fighting against AT&T and the iPhone and because Microsoft's fumbling with Windows Phone 7 caused the handset manufacturers to start pushing Android devices. All this is going to change in 2011.
I don't buy your assertion that iOS is for old people. It's vastly overrepresented among young people. Moreover, the iPhone is a much more flexible device because of the availability of such a wide variety of 3rd party apps. Most people couldn't care less about changing existing aspects of the phone, especially when they already work well.
Comments
DED states:
"Nielson's latest figures contradict the notion that Android as a platform has already outpaced Apple's iOS in the US and globally,"
I understood what you were saying I just don't agree. I suppose it depends on how you define outpaced. He pointed out the difference between market share growth and overall market share.
I don't see any misinterpretation there.
Yes, that is exactly the problem with this article. The author is comparing entirely different types of information. Things like mobile web usage or phone market share are dependent on total number of phone (new OR old) actively in use in consumers' hands, where as product shipments depend on only new products sold. I think the author should do a bit better research about business and marketing before writing these kinds of article, which makes no empirical or logical sense.
On a different point, I do think that iOS platform would serve the non-technically sophisticated segments of the market very well, and will continue to do so for some time to come. There is really no danger of Apple losing market share anytime soon. Android will continue to gain market share, but from other mobile smartphone OSes such as BB, Symbian, WM, and an assortment of others.
That's especially the case with an older generation of users that did not grow up with computers and mobile devices in the home. My electronic gifts to the older generation relatives were all iOS devices, which are much easier to use and operate for people have little computer knowledge. For myself, and others in my generation, I see android being a much more appropriate device that has much more capabilities and options.
I basically agree. He needed to better explain all the different metrics and their importance/reliability. DED is correct that many believe Android has overtaken iPhone in number of users, from reading the IDC/Gartner reports. Those measure unit sales for a specific time period. Nielsen / Comscore measure the Installed base. Nielsen shows that Android has been outselling iPhone but has yet to catch up.
AT&T has ~30% share and 27% of recent buys were iPhones, which has been remained steady. That's about what we could expect if AT&T only has 30% of mobile users then be hard to achieve a figure higher. iPhone sales are 80% or more of AT&T smartphones.
It's all about the older generation. that's a whole new market that only the iPhone can capture and it's quite big.
I think Android has really just been filling the void created by Microsoft's fumbling and iPhone only being available on AT&T. While it can match iOS on a list of features, Android has a mediocre user experience and a market that cannot fairly be considered a match to the App Store. I don't think they'll be able to retain new customers the way the iPhone has (polls appear to support this).
Now that I think about it, I think it would be pretty cool if the Verizon iPhone only came in white.
It would make it really easy to see how fast they are being adopted.
Or if they had a barium coating (y'know, for tracking).
I basically agree. He needed to better explain all the different metrics and their importance/reliability. DED is correct that many believe Android has overtaken iPhone in number of users, from reading the IDC/Gartner reports. Those measure unit sales for a specific time period. Nielsen / Comscore measure the Installed base. Nielsen shows that Android has been outselling iPhone but has yet to catch up.
AT&T has ~30% share and 27% of recent buys were iPhones, which has been remained steady. That's about what we could expect if AT&T only has 30% of mobile users then be hard to achieve a figure higher. iPhone sales are 80% or more of AT&T smartphones.
It's all about the older generation. that's a whole new market that only the iPhone can capture and it's quite big.
I think you have summed it up nicely.
I just have to add that ATT has seen lower churn rate and higher new subscriber figures, particularly in 2007-mid 2009, so iPhone has had in effect bringing many its potential customers under ATT for some time now. Although probably not all of the potential iPhone buyers are convinced by ATT/waiting for VZ, so there is still some potential market gain by moving to dual carrier.
Any idiot knows that the iPhone has any kind of lead because its been sold for longer, and that by all other indicators Android is going to surpass the iPhone in any numbers contest soon.
Any numbers contest except number of satisfied customers, profits, number of apps (especially # of QUALITY apps)... you know, things that actually matter. Marketshare is great, but if you aren't making any money, it's kind of pointless (see: Dell)
This Dilger kid is more prolific than L. Ron Hubbard. LOL.
This comment makes no sense. L. Ron Hubbard wasn't any more prolific writer than most other writers of his day. More importantly, he sucked kind of badly and almost all of his works are virtually unknown except for the Dianetics junk.
Philip K. Dick on the other hand, (another technically insane "sci-fi" writer from the same period), was not very prolific at all, yet he has five books (at least), that any science fiction reader of any note has probably read or seen the movie version of.
I think Android will decline as a percentage of the market in 2011. Most of the Android handset makers will have WP7 devices. They'll be competing for the same market share (i.e., people who want a smart phone and are unwilling to switch carriers to get an iPhone). If iPhone appears on Verizon that'll also take a big chunk out of Android sales.
I think Android has really just been filling the void created by Microsoft's fumbling and iPhone only being available on AT&T. While it can match iOS on a list of features, Android has a mediocre user experience and a market cannot fairly be considered a match to the App Store. I don't think they'll be able to retain new customers the way the iPhone has (polls appear to support this).
I think I would disagree with that statement.
For me, I think Android has had a superior user experience, especially in the areas where using an iPhone would feel restrictive; and many people around my age or younger feel the same. Either that or some would try to jailbreak. Android interface is slightly more complicated than iOS, but I don't think anyone with some reasonable amount of computer experience wouldn't pick up in 5 min (basically the majority of the people born after 1970).
I know my mom and my grandpa would both disagree with me, since I have bought them iOS devices, and they both find those very easy to use with really nothing in the computer or electronics world that they need to learn. So to each whatever suits them, I don't think there is one single model that is going to prevail over the bulk of the market.
The percentages will reverse once the Verizon iPhone comes out.
And so the pissing contest continues...
Grow up!
Forget DED... when they let me on here I knew AI was on the way down...
Wow. An absolutely classic "Freudian Slip." Neat!
Many of them would have bought an iPhone if it were available on other carriers. Can't blame them for that. I have spent quite a bit of time playing around with their phones, and every time it makes me appreciate my iPhone even more. For those who love Android, more power to you. But, in my opinion, it is the Windoze of the smartphone world; overly complex.
No no no... you must be wrong! It's not complex, it's free*! It can play Flash**! There's no overlord for apps***! It is the best thing ever****!
*Free does not mean for the end user. Rather, each carrier can change the look, feel, and even functionality of the phone without notice.
**Does not actually run smooth, and crashes more often than not. Battery estimated to last 15-20 minutes. Google (and its partners) are not responsible for third-degree burns due to overheating handsets.
***Google (and its partners) are not responsible for any malware and/or identity theft.
****Best only applies for 1-2 months until next best thing ever is released, dropping all hint of support for previous best thing ever.
Wow. An absolutely classic "Freudian Slip." Neat!
Actually... I meant "me".
Once again, DED looks at a study and totally misinterprets the data. Android has surpased the iPhone in new sales. It's third place in market share only reflects the relative newness of the platform's popularity and it will almost certainly be in the top spot in another 6-12 months as more contracts expire on older BB devices and as more people get their first smart phone.
Also, why repeat the false interpretation of the Gartner data? They did not clain there were tens of millions of no name android phones. That came from a complete idiot not knowing how to read and interpret the data they published. Publishing this foolish crap makes AI look bad and the author look worse.
I'm not saying I disagree with you or agree with you, but either way what you've said here is just classic wishful thinking. You may be right or wrong, but (unlike Daniel ironically), you simply have no data to back up these assumptions and are pretty much just blowing some kind of stinky gas here.
A lot of the comments on Daniel's articles seem to go like this. A lot of whining and bluster, a lot of denial, but no real counter-argument to back it up and no real analysis of what the author is actually putting forward as a thesis. The few times someone takes the trouble to factually knock down his arguments, it seems like only about 1% of the time do they actually come out on top and prove him wrong.
I've been reading his stuff since he started on pretty much a daily basis, and while he has been wrong before, he isn't wrong that often, which is probably why most of the comments on his stuff always end up sounding like the Sour Grapes arguments they really are.
And so the pissing contest continues...
Grow up!
Um. You should take the "growing up" advice yourself. Apple has 28% installed base from a carrier which covers 25% of the Market. Expect it to be 40% if on all carriers.
You threw the toys out of the pram. Not me.
Yeah, depending on when...
Will the VZ be iP4, iP4.5 or iP5?
If it is later than the March timeframe, I suspect that Apple would do concurrent releases of iP5 for CDMA and GSM.
If it's that far out then an LTE chip better be in the mix. Both Verizon and AT&T will use LTE, so it wouldn't make sense to exclude it. Verizon's network would have already been up and running in a number of major areas and AT&T would just be starting up theirs.
I've been reading his stuff since he started on pretty much a daily basis, and while he has been wrong before, he isn't wrong that often, which is probably why most of the comments on his stuff always end up sounding like the Sour Grapes arguments they really are.
I agree with you professor. The DED-haters seem to be pretty good at name-calling, but I'd be more impressed if they could provide specific details of where DED is wrong. My guess is that over the past few years, DED has been accurate about 95% of the time. I seem to recall he was wrong about the uni-body, aluminum Mac Book, but that's the only thing that comes to my mind. So perhaps he's been accurate more like 99% of the time, I'm not quite sure.
I'm not saying I disagree with you or agree with you, but either way what you've said here is just classic wishful thinking. You may be right or wrong, but (unlike Daniel ironically), you simply have no data to back up these assumptions and are pretty much just blowing some kind of stinky gas here.
A lot of the comments on Daniel's articles seem to go like this. A lot of whining and bluster, a lot of denial, but no real counter-argument to back it up and no real analysis of what the author is actually putting forward as a thesis. The few times someone takes the trouble to factually knock down his arguments, it seems like only about 1% of the time do they actually come out on top and prove him wrong.
I've been reading his stuff since he started on pretty much a daily basis, and while he has been wrong before, he isn't wrong that often, which is probably why most of the comments on his stuff always end up sounding like the Sour Grapes arguments they really are.
No, I don't think you are understanding people's arguments here correctly.
I think some objections raised about this article begins with this statement:
Gartner's numbers differed from a parallel IDC mobile phone market report by an astounding 77 million units (the smartphone market itself is currently only 81 million), casting a credibility shadow over Gartner's figures and reporting.
Which is a grossly incorrect statement in its plain text, without any extraneous interpretation. He is comparing two sets of completely different statistical distributions, and drawing conclusions from them, which is simply a material fallacy in logic.
That does not take away from the potential good point, which is that the gartners numbers only refers to new devices, but does not take the devices already in consumer hands (and sometimes in carrier inventory) into account. So in the sense of total number of devices, iOS is still significantly ahead. That's the point that he should have made, not this other stuff that is simply a very uneducated statement.
I think I would disagree with that statement.
For me, I think Android has had a superior user experience, especially in the areas where using an iPhone would feel restrictive; and many people around my age or younger feel the same. Either that or some would try to jailbreak. Android interface is slightly more complicated than iOS, but I don't think anyone with some reasonable amount of computer experience wouldn't pick up in 5 min (basically the majority of the people born after 1970).
I know my mom and my grandpa would both disagree with me, since I have bought them iOS devices, and they both find those very easy to use with really nothing in the computer or electronics world that they need to learn. So to each whatever suits them, I don't think there is one single model that is going to prevail over the bulk of the market.
The number of people who even know what 'jail breaking' is or care about 'open vs. closed' ideological nonsense or could appreciate what on Earth it means to say iOS feel 'restrictive' or want to download a task killer is so tiny it's utterly insignificant to market share. This is the problem with assessing the impact of Android. In the iPhone space the people talking about the iPhone online tend to like it for the same reasons that the masses buying it do: brand, user experience, etc. But the people who talk up Android do so for reasons that the masses buying Android couldn't even begin to comprehend: openness, customisation, an irrational hatred of all things Apple, and so on (most actual Android-phone buyers probably couldn't even tell you it's developed by Google). These aren't the reasons Android is selling in the numbers it is and they will never be a significant reason for its sales. Rather, it sells because it's available on a wide-range of carriers, because Verizon has been pushing it hard in fighting against AT&T and the iPhone and because Microsoft's fumbling with Windows Phone 7 caused the handset manufacturers to start pushing Android devices. All this is going to change in 2011.
I don't buy your assertion that iOS is for old people. It's vastly overrepresented among young people. Moreover, the iPhone is a much more flexible device because of the availability of such a wide variety of 3rd party apps. Most people couldn't care less about changing existing aspects of the phone, especially when they already work well.