You?re still ignoring the facts yet at the same time you do realize that the iPhone takes the "bulk of the profits? from the handset market.
Market share isn?t just a comment about number of units. It can also be expressed in terms of revenue. Again, what time frame are you using here? What happens when you use a full year or move it to the first full quarter in which the iPhone is released.
How much revenue does Android take? Being a free OS it takes zero profit directly from Android OS.
If you want to slide to Android-based handset then tell me why you think it?s fair in business to put every handset maker that is using Android against one handset maker? Why would anyone think that dozens of handset makers wouldn?t be able to sell more units than a single handset maker when grouped in such a way?
It has nothing to do with fair. It just is. And I don't know what fact it is that I'm ignoring. Since the first quarter of 2009, sales of smartphones using the Android OS have grown at a faster pace than iPhones. Fact and indisputable. While there might be some argument over exact current market shares for the two, I don't know any rational person who could argue differently. Android was reported at 2% of the smartphone market as of March, 2009 while Apple's iPhone held 11%, according to widely accepted figures from Canalys. There was no posted disagreement with those market stats by AI nor any staff, DED included, as far as I know. So accepted as valid even here.
By March of 2010 Android had achieved 10% market share whereas Apple had gone to 15%, again from Canalys. And now the most recent reports from both Canalys and Comscore show Android holding over 30% off the smartphone market, with the iPhone models at approx. 25%.
There's no mathematical model or use of logic that could explain how Android could come from 9 percentage points behind in 2009 to 5 percentage points greater market share by the beginning of 2011 without having necessarily grown at a faster rate. And that's the claim I made that at least of couple of you have trouble with.
If you want to change the subject to revenue's from app stores, or perhaps overall installed user-base or even a comparison of company profits, then have at it. It's a different field altogether. It doesn't make anything I've stated incorrect.
As soon as I got all of our training videos reformatted into H.264 HTML5, our company felt it was necessary to issue a press release informing our industry that we were now iOS compatible. I have not received any requests for WebM yet. I guess it must be because all those Androids run Flash well enough to not need it. I still think the majority of Androids in the market are not using the smart features. Android is the new dumb phone because only dumb people buy them.
I guess ?running? shouldn?t be confused with ?useable.? Hell, I can get Photoshop ?running? on a netbook but that doesn?t mean it?s an experience anyone would consider decent.
Their biggest issue isn't the app itself, it's the way they placed the ads. A lot of people with those older devices can run the Premium version of the app (in the amazon app store) just fine. They could run the "demo" version just fine as well. It was the ads that caused the thing to chug.
And Angry birds crashe/stutters more on my ipod touch (iOS4, but no multitasking or wallpapers) than it does on my friend's LG ally (paid version of both)
Since the first quarter of 2009, sales of smartphones using the Android OS have grown at a faster pace than iPhones. Fact and indisputable.
I dispute this ?fact? unless you can prove to me that sales revenue for Android OS has grown faster than sales revenue for iPhone HW.
See what I did there. What part of qualifying your statements are you not getting or are you purposely trying to be lose with your comments so when you backed into a corner you can say that isn?t what you meant?
As soon as I got all of our training videos reformatted into H.264 HTML5, our company felt it was necessary to issue a press release informing our industry that we were now iOS compatible. I have not received any requests for WebM yet. I guess it must be because all those Androids run Flash well enough to not need it. I still think the majority of Androids in the market are not using the smart features. Android is the new dumb phone because only dumb people buy them.
From recent reports I've seen, only around half of all smartphone owners do web-browsing from it.
Yet for some reason it?s now excluded from any talk of OS marketshare despite you having just stated "no matter [?] what version of android it's running it can still run the same apps.?
IT'S NOT A PHONE. That's a pretty big change, especially in the context of the conversation.
We're talking about phones. What I was responding to was someone saying how the 3GS was still available and to name one android PHONE that was nearly 2 years old and still selling. I mentioned that you wouldn't see it since there are more android models and the hardware upgrades come more frequently to high end models. Thus my comment how the only reason the 3GS still existed was because it was the cheapest way for someone to get an iOS phone.
I figured that since the conversation was about people buying phones ON CONTRACT was the topic of discussion, the fact that I was talking about phones would be obvious.
I guess I can't assume common sense, I apologize for that. I'll just spell everything out from now on, since deductive reasoning no longer exists.
IT'S NOT A PHONE. That's a pretty big change, especially in the context of the conversation.
We're talking about phones. What I was responding to was someone saying how the 3GS was still available and to name one android PHONE that was nearly 2 years old and still selling. I mentioned that you wouldn't see it since there are more android models and the hardware upgrades come more frequently to high end models. Thus my comment how the only reason the 3GS still existed was because it was the cheapest way for someone to get an iOS phone.
I figured that since the conversation was about people buying phones ON CONTRACT was the topic of discussion, the fact that I was talking about phones would be obvious.
I guess I can't assume common sense, I apologize for that. I'll just spell everything out from now on, since deductive reasoning no longer exists.
You?ve mentioned Android OS many times and I don?t recall you once excluding activations that were from non-phone Android-based devices.
But I ask again, why are you comparing all vendors who use the free Android OS for their handset with one vendor who uses an OS they build in-house? Why do you think that is fair and why do you think it?s then also fair to exclude their other devices that use the same OS that run the same apps without any change to the app or how it?s used?
I bet if Android OS was on a huge number of PMPs that exceeding the iPod Touch in terms of HW unit sales you?d be all about using that comparison in your argument. As it stands now you?ve carved and molded your stats in such a way that you think makes Android looks good but it really doesn?t. Until you can show that Android OS is pulling in more money for developers and that handset vendors on their own are rivaling the iPhone in revenue and profit it?s really just a commodity, bottom feeding platform.
From recent reports I've seen, only around half of all smartphone owners do web-browsing from it.
Ok but I don't think you can include iPhone in that number because those people surf the web, I have proof. If Android users don't surf the web it is unlikely they see any Google ads, hence a major failure for Google's strategy. And, If they don't surf, they don't download many apps either. Furthermore, free apps that are ad supported probably suck for the most part. I'm just guessing since I have never seen an ad in an app. Either way, no matter the number of people buying Androids, if they don't click on ads, then Google is losing money.
You?ve mentioned Android OS many times and I don?t recall you once excluding activations that were from non-phone Android-based devices.
But I ask again, why are you comparing all vendors who use the free Android OS for their handset with one vendor who uses an OS they build in-house? Why do you think that is fair and why do you think it?s then also fair to exclude their other devices that use the same OS that run the same apps without any change to the app or how it?s used?
I bet if Android OS was on a huge number of PMPs that exceeding the iPod Touch in terms of HW unit sales you?d be all about using that comparison in your argument. As it stands now you?ve carved and molded your stats in such a way that you think makes Android looks good but it really doesn?t. Until you can show that Android OS is pulling in more money for developers and that handset vendors on their own are rivaling the iPhone in revenue and profit it?s really just a commodity, bottom feeding platform.
OK:
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT PHONES ON CONTRACT.
It's really that simple.
We're not talking about Activations, or marketshare or anything else. We were talking about when a customer buys a phone on contract, what are their choices.
I'm not even presenting any stats here. I'm talking about RETAIL PRICES and number of models available and upgrade cycles.
For the love of God, F*&^ read the conversation before hitting reply.
Ok but I don't think you can include iPhone in that number because those people surf the web, I have proof. If Android users don't surf the web it is unlikely they see any Google ads, hence a major failure for Google's strategy. And, If they don't surf, they don't download many apps either. Furthermore, free apps that are ad supported probably suck for the most part. I'm just guessing since I have never seen an ad in an app. Either way, no matter the number of people buying Androids, if they don't click on ads, then Google is losing money.
What is fundamentally different that users of Android-based devices wouldn?t be accessing webpages as frequently? The experience of the browser? The HW? The type of user that would buy an Android-based device over an iPhone?
We're not talking about Activations, or marketshare or anything else. We were talking about when a customer buys a phone on contract, what are their choices.
I'm not even presenting any stats here. I'm talking about RETAIL PRICES and number of models available and upgrade cycles.
For the love of God, F*&^ read the conversation before hitting reply.
There are multiple conversations within a thread. If you want to switch up the topic between posters that?s fine, but don?t lie and say you?re only talking about phones on contacts when you write, "Because no matter WHO makes the device, or what version of android it's running it can still run the same apps.? and then expect to be taking seriously when you say you are only talking about phones on contract when you are clearly also talking about devices, OSes and apps.
There are multiple conversations within a thread. If you want to switch up the topic between posters that’s fine, but don’t lie and say you’re only talking about phones on contacts when you write, "Because no matter WHO makes the device, or what version of android it's running it can still run the same apps.” and then expect to be taking seriously when you say you are only talking about phones on contract when you are clearly also talking about devices, OSes and apps.
The quote you quoted me on was me responding to ACTIVATIONS on CONTRACT. which is why I didn't include ipod touches. So yes, I was only talking about phones on contract in that conversation.
My post about who makes the device was in response to someone talking about MARKET FRAGMENTATION. (I never even brought UP marketshare here)
In fact, I haven't used marketshare in ANY of my arguments in this entire Forum Topic.
If you want to pretend to talk in multiple conversations you can. But don't mix them up, like you do every single topic.
MStone, I won't dispute your personal experience. But I do have some faith that actual reported sales and market share figures from industry specialists do have some connection to reality. If not, they why trust sales figures from anyone, including Apple?
To Solipsism: You keep trying to confuse market share figures with revenue figures. They are NOT the same no matter how many times you try to mix the two. I've made no claims regarding a comparison of Android/Google, Apple/iOS revenue from all sources. I've only acknowledged that Apple is currently making a greater share of the profits from every report I read.
Sorry. So far it's a fail on your part to show any of my statements false. (tho I'll give a bit on not being aware that Google management once had mentioned Apple as competition and made a not nice comment in a much earlier post)
What is fundamentally different that users of Android-based devices wouldn’t be accessing webpages as frequently? The experience of the browser? The HW? The type of user that would buy an Android-based device over an iPhone?
Who knows? it is like saying, venison must be tasty, a million coyotes can't be wrong. I have never seen a coyote in the wild either, although I hear them howling in the hills at night on rare occasion. I have tried venison, not to my liking.
To Solipsism: You keep trying to change the market share figures to revenue figures.
Seriously! What part of a share of a market are you just not getting? As previously stated, ad nauseum, marketshare can refer to either units or revenue.
I can't argue with you anymore. You just don't understand the difference between market share and revenue share. The links I provided are using the customary and accepted definition of market share. Apparently not your "special" version.
EDIT: market share
Definition
Percentage of total sales volume in a market captured by a brand, product, or firm.
As applied in this case: Product =smartphones
Sales volume= the number of smartphones sold, stated as a percentage of total smartphone sales
NOT sales of apps or accessories, revenue from ads, dollars spent per consumer, etc. It's simply the number of smartphones sold. Easy to understand, right?
I can't argue with you anymore. You just don't understand the difference between market share and revenue share. The links I provided are using the customary and accepted definition of market share. Apparently not your "special" version.
No, I don’t think you can yet still are. Even Wikipedia gets it right...
Market share, in strategic management and marketing is, according to Carlton O'Neal, the percentage or proportion of the total available market or market segment that is being serviced by a company. It can be expressed as a company's sales revenue (from that market) divided by the total sales revenue available in that market. It can also be expressed as a company's unit sales volume (in a market) divided by the total volume of units sold in that market.
If you really don’t think market share can refer to anything but units then the 2nd link will likely be too complex for you to understand but at least understand the Wikipedia post above.
Fortunately some of your posts really do add to the discussion. Unfortunately this isn't one of them. If you follow the links and read the disclaimers, plain they are NOT referring to revenue. And as I've stated at least two times, neither am I. Revenue and volume cannot be combined into a single stat. It's either/or dude.
I think WP7 is good mobile OS and I?d easily choose it before Android but I haven?t seen any notion that it?s going to a winner in the market even with Nokia backing it in HW, which I think is a great move.
Comments
You?re still ignoring the facts yet at the same time you do realize that the iPhone takes the "bulk of the profits? from the handset market.
Market share isn?t just a comment about number of units. It can also be expressed in terms of revenue. Again, what time frame are you using here? What happens when you use a full year or move it to the first full quarter in which the iPhone is released.
How much revenue does Android take? Being a free OS it takes zero profit directly from Android OS.
If you want to slide to Android-based handset then tell me why you think it?s fair in business to put every handset maker that is using Android against one handset maker? Why would anyone think that dozens of handset makers wouldn?t be able to sell more units than a single handset maker when grouped in such a way?
It has nothing to do with fair. It just is. And I don't know what fact it is that I'm ignoring. Since the first quarter of 2009, sales of smartphones using the Android OS have grown at a faster pace than iPhones. Fact and indisputable. While there might be some argument over exact current market shares for the two, I don't know any rational person who could argue differently. Android was reported at 2% of the smartphone market as of March, 2009 while Apple's iPhone held 11%, according to widely accepted figures from Canalys. There was no posted disagreement with those market stats by AI nor any staff, DED included, as far as I know. So accepted as valid even here.
By March of 2010 Android had achieved 10% market share whereas Apple had gone to 15%, again from Canalys. And now the most recent reports from both Canalys and Comscore show Android holding over 30% off the smartphone market, with the iPhone models at approx. 25%.
There's no mathematical model or use of logic that could explain how Android could come from 9 percentage points behind in 2009 to 5 percentage points greater market share by the beginning of 2011 without having necessarily grown at a faster rate. And that's the claim I made that at least of couple of you have trouble with.
If you want to change the subject to revenue's from app stores, or perhaps overall installed user-base or even a comparison of company profits, then have at it. It's a different field altogether. It doesn't make anything I've stated incorrect.
Exhibit A: http://www.rovio.com/index.php?mact=...t01returnid=58
I guess ?running? shouldn?t be confused with ?useable.? Hell, I can get Photoshop ?running? on a netbook but that doesn?t mean it?s an experience anyone would consider decent.
Their biggest issue isn't the app itself, it's the way they placed the ads. A lot of people with those older devices can run the Premium version of the app (in the amazon app store) just fine. They could run the "demo" version just fine as well. It was the ads that caused the thing to chug.
And Angry birds crashe/stutters more on my ipod touch (iOS4, but no multitasking or wallpapers) than it does on my friend's LG ally (paid version of both)
Since the first quarter of 2009, sales of smartphones using the Android OS have grown at a faster pace than iPhones. Fact and indisputable.
I dispute this ?fact? unless you can prove to me that sales revenue for Android OS has grown faster than sales revenue for iPhone HW.
See what I did there. What part of qualifying your statements are you not getting or are you purposely trying to be lose with your comments so when you backed into a corner you can say that isn?t what you meant?
As soon as I got all of our training videos reformatted into H.264 HTML5, our company felt it was necessary to issue a press release informing our industry that we were now iOS compatible. I have not received any requests for WebM yet. I guess it must be because all those Androids run Flash well enough to not need it. I still think the majority of Androids in the market are not using the smart features. Android is the new dumb phone because only dumb people buy them.
From recent reports I've seen, only around half of all smartphone owners do web-browsing from it.
Same SoC/PoP for that year?s iPhone model.
Same size display.
Same resolution display.
Same OS and UI.
Same apps without any changes.
Yet for some reason it?s now excluded from any talk of OS marketshare despite you having just stated "no matter [?] what version of android it's running it can still run the same apps.?
IT'S NOT A PHONE. That's a pretty big change, especially in the context of the conversation.
We're talking about phones. What I was responding to was someone saying how the 3GS was still available and to name one android PHONE that was nearly 2 years old and still selling. I mentioned that you wouldn't see it since there are more android models and the hardware upgrades come more frequently to high end models. Thus my comment how the only reason the 3GS still existed was because it was the cheapest way for someone to get an iOS phone.
I figured that since the conversation was about people buying phones ON CONTRACT was the topic of discussion, the fact that I was talking about phones would be obvious.
I guess I can't assume common sense, I apologize for that. I'll just spell everything out from now on, since deductive reasoning no longer exists.
IT'S NOT A PHONE. That's a pretty big change, especially in the context of the conversation.
We're talking about phones. What I was responding to was someone saying how the 3GS was still available and to name one android PHONE that was nearly 2 years old and still selling. I mentioned that you wouldn't see it since there are more android models and the hardware upgrades come more frequently to high end models. Thus my comment how the only reason the 3GS still existed was because it was the cheapest way for someone to get an iOS phone.
I figured that since the conversation was about people buying phones ON CONTRACT was the topic of discussion, the fact that I was talking about phones would be obvious.
I guess I can't assume common sense, I apologize for that. I'll just spell everything out from now on, since deductive reasoning no longer exists.
You?ve mentioned Android OS many times and I don?t recall you once excluding activations that were from non-phone Android-based devices.
But I ask again, why are you comparing all vendors who use the free Android OS for their handset with one vendor who uses an OS they build in-house? Why do you think that is fair and why do you think it?s then also fair to exclude their other devices that use the same OS that run the same apps without any change to the app or how it?s used?
I bet if Android OS was on a huge number of PMPs that exceeding the iPod Touch in terms of HW unit sales you?d be all about using that comparison in your argument. As it stands now you?ve carved and molded your stats in such a way that you think makes Android looks good but it really doesn?t. Until you can show that Android OS is pulling in more money for developers and that handset vendors on their own are rivaling the iPhone in revenue and profit it?s really just a commodity, bottom feeding platform.
From recent reports I've seen, only around half of all smartphone owners do web-browsing from it.
Ok but I don't think you can include iPhone in that number because those people surf the web, I have proof. If Android users don't surf the web it is unlikely they see any Google ads, hence a major failure for Google's strategy. And, If they don't surf, they don't download many apps either. Furthermore, free apps that are ad supported probably suck for the most part. I'm just guessing since I have never seen an ad in an app. Either way, no matter the number of people buying Androids, if they don't click on ads, then Google is losing money.
You?ve mentioned Android OS many times and I don?t recall you once excluding activations that were from non-phone Android-based devices.
But I ask again, why are you comparing all vendors who use the free Android OS for their handset with one vendor who uses an OS they build in-house? Why do you think that is fair and why do you think it?s then also fair to exclude their other devices that use the same OS that run the same apps without any change to the app or how it?s used?
I bet if Android OS was on a huge number of PMPs that exceeding the iPod Touch in terms of HW unit sales you?d be all about using that comparison in your argument. As it stands now you?ve carved and molded your stats in such a way that you think makes Android looks good but it really doesn?t. Until you can show that Android OS is pulling in more money for developers and that handset vendors on their own are rivaling the iPhone in revenue and profit it?s really just a commodity, bottom feeding platform.
OK:
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT PHONES ON CONTRACT.
It's really that simple.
We're not talking about Activations, or marketshare or anything else. We were talking about when a customer buys a phone on contract, what are their choices.
I'm not even presenting any stats here. I'm talking about RETAIL PRICES and number of models available and upgrade cycles.
For the love of God, F*&^ read the conversation before hitting reply.
Ok but I don't think you can include iPhone in that number because those people surf the web, I have proof. If Android users don't surf the web it is unlikely they see any Google ads, hence a major failure for Google's strategy. And, If they don't surf, they don't download many apps either. Furthermore, free apps that are ad supported probably suck for the most part. I'm just guessing since I have never seen an ad in an app. Either way, no matter the number of people buying Androids, if they don't click on ads, then Google is losing money.
What is fundamentally different that users of Android-based devices wouldn?t be accessing webpages as frequently? The experience of the browser? The HW? The type of user that would buy an Android-based device over an iPhone?
OK:
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT PHONES ON CONTRACT.
It's really that simple.
We're not talking about Activations, or marketshare or anything else. We were talking about when a customer buys a phone on contract, what are their choices.
I'm not even presenting any stats here. I'm talking about RETAIL PRICES and number of models available and upgrade cycles.
For the love of God, F*&^ read the conversation before hitting reply.
There are multiple conversations within a thread. If you want to switch up the topic between posters that?s fine, but don?t lie and say you?re only talking about phones on contacts when you write, "Because no matter WHO makes the device, or what version of android it's running it can still run the same apps.? and then expect to be taking seriously when you say you are only talking about phones on contract when you are clearly also talking about devices, OSes and apps.
There are multiple conversations within a thread. If you want to switch up the topic between posters that’s fine, but don’t lie and say you’re only talking about phones on contacts when you write, "Because no matter WHO makes the device, or what version of android it's running it can still run the same apps.” and then expect to be taking seriously when you say you are only talking about phones on contract when you are clearly also talking about devices, OSes and apps.
The quote you quoted me on was me responding to ACTIVATIONS on CONTRACT. which is why I didn't include ipod touches. So yes, I was only talking about phones on contract in that conversation.
My post about who makes the device was in response to someone talking about MARKET FRAGMENTATION. (I never even brought UP marketshare here)
In fact, I haven't used marketshare in ANY of my arguments in this entire Forum Topic.
If you want to pretend to talk in multiple conversations you can. But don't mix them up, like you do every single topic.
Context is important. Stop ignoring it.
To Solipsism: You keep trying to confuse market share figures with revenue figures. They are NOT the same no matter how many times you try to mix the two. I've made no claims regarding a comparison of Android/Google, Apple/iOS revenue from all sources. I've only acknowledged that Apple is currently making a greater share of the profits from every report I read.
Sorry. So far it's a fail on your part to show any of my statements false. (tho I'll give a bit on not being aware that Google management once had mentioned Apple as competition and made a not nice comment in a much earlier post)
What is fundamentally different that users of Android-based devices wouldn’t be accessing webpages as frequently? The experience of the browser? The HW? The type of user that would buy an Android-based device over an iPhone?
Who knows? it is like saying, venison must be tasty, a million coyotes can't be wrong. I have never seen a coyote in the wild either, although I hear them howling in the hills at night on rare occasion. I have tried venison, not to my liking.
To Solipsism: You keep trying to change the market share figures to revenue figures.
Seriously! What part of a share of a market are you just not getting? As previously stated, ad nauseum, marketshare can refer to either units or revenue.
http://www.asymco.com/2010/08/02/and...tphones-in-q1/
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events...r_Market_Share
I can't argue with you anymore. You just don't understand the difference between market share and revenue share. The links I provided are using the customary and accepted definition of market share. Apparently not your "special" version.
EDIT: market share
Definition
Percentage of total sales volume in a market captured by a brand, product, or firm.
As applied in this case: Product =smartphones
Sales volume= the number of smartphones sold, stated as a percentage of total smartphone sales
NOT sales of apps or accessories, revenue from ads, dollars spent per consumer, etc. It's simply the number of smartphones sold. Easy to understand, right?
http://www.asymco.com/2010/08/02/and...tphones-in-q1/
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events...r_Market_Share
I can't argue with you anymore. You just don't understand the difference between market share and revenue share. The links I provided are using the customary and accepted definition of market share. Apparently not your "special" version.
No, I don’t think you can yet still are. Even Wikipedia gets it right... But there is more…If you really don’t think market share can refer to anything but units then the 2nd link will likely be too complex for you to understand but at least understand the Wikipedia post above.
Nice article. predicting is always easy and not reliable at all. IDC also came up with a similar report (http://buzzintechnology.com/2011/04/...5-idc-reports/). I am wondering how good are they?
Where do these companies gather their data from?
I think WP7 is good mobile OS and I?d easily choose it before Android but I haven?t seen any notion that it?s going to a winner in the market even with Nokia backing it in HW, which I think is a great move.