That's unlikely, because so much of Samsung's share gains in smartphones were at the expense of Nokia, and Nokia is of course going to be a huge Mango shop, with special treatment from MS so that it's WP7 offerings can have added passion fruit or somesuch.
If anything WP7 being successful might reduce Samsung's share, and see Nokia move back up. Of course we'll probably never know, because WP7 is quite likely going to sink without trace and take Nokia with it.
I'm personally about 50/50 on WP7 having an impact right now. Frankly, as a consumer, I'd like it...I'd prefer the choice to be between three platforms, because that'll be better for innovation and competition. Samsung will have pretty nice WP7 phones, so if WP7 gains traction, I don't think it'll be at Samsung's expense...their smartphone share will just be a mix of Android and WP7.
In the short term Samsung, HTC and Apple all gain from RIM's rapid demise...
This should have happened way earlier considered that Nokia likes to put S60 in a dumb phone and calls it a smartphone, e.g. this no-3g, no-gps smartphone in 2010
So the original iPhone wasn't a smartphone then?
What about phones designed for markets without 3G (i.e. China until very recently)? Do none of them count as smartphones?
Just for the sake of argument, why does that matter?
I'm not sure what matters. I just have an opinion that Apple's numbers were more impressive and I gave my reasons for my opinion. I am not dissing Samsung or ignoring their growth. So, nope it was not for the sake of an argument. It was for the sake of an opinion!
Agreed. It shows that customers are looking for quality amongst the myriad choices of Android phones. And if Mango takes off, Samsung might be able to ride it as a second coattail to put together a rather awesome total.
That's one way to look at it, and I think it has a good chance to take off. I don't agree with a poster above that WP7 will mostly benefit Nokia. We shouldn't underestimate Samsung's hardware engineering (even though, of course, I don't like the way it copied Apple software look and feel) and I think right now Samsung brand is even bigger than Nokia.
But it's strange that suddenly Samsung just stop giving sale number and sale estimate. Very strange with such a success.
Just for the sake of argument, why does that matter?
It is much easier to gauge sales numbers with fewer models on the market. Because the iPhone is basically one model, sales have traditionally dipped before the release of the next version. The pattern has been the same with every model; upon release sales shoot up, then dip a little in the fall, then go up in the winter, then trail off in the spring before the release of the new model. However, this year we have seen something completely different. Sales continue to rise, not trail off. So either the iPhone 4 is wildly popular or the lower price of the 3GS is driving adoption rates (this cheaper price is only available on AT&T though in the states), or both.
Given that tradition, it is much more impressive to see how well the iPhone is still selling.
Also, Samsung's explosive growth during this period may actually hurt their case in the lawsuit Apple has against them... The more an Android phone looks like an iPhone, the better it sells, etc.
It is easy to copy another's ideas and bring them to market cheaper especially when you get a first peak at the other's ideas and you own the factories in which the products are made. I will pass on congratulating Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07
You have to give credit to Samsung though for such a growth. This quarter It might get past Apple when people are waiting for iPhone 5.
We don't know that yet, I've played with WP7 and it's not too shabby. Don't get me wrong, I have no intention of ditching my iPhone but WP7 is a good Android/iOS competitor that is only going to get stronger.
I think it's fair to say that MS needed Nokia more than the other way around and that this is a strategic fail of epic proportions on Nokia's side when the new N9 & it's MeeGo OS are taken into consideration.
I agree with that. Yet, it is because they are iPhone clones. A lady came into the office today, and wanted to show me some tex messages on her phone. I thought she was using an iPhone. Once the phone was in my face I saw the Samsung logo and could tell the messaging program was different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek
Samsung phones are highly popular, I'm sure that their sell through is pretty good.
Just for the sake of argument, why does that matter?
Well it matters that Samsung was mostly converting upper end feature-phones sales into smartphone sales, for two reasons. First it has relevance for their profits, which haven't actually increased all that much, second is is relevant to their future growth, where they are predicting only a 20% increase in their smartphone shipments from the first half of the year to the second.
The real standout amongst Android handset makers is HTC, which has high ASP, 100% YoY growth and complete focus on the smartphone segment.
I'm personally about 50/50 on WP7 having an impact right now. Frankly, as a consumer, I'd like it...I'd prefer the choice to be between three platforms, because that'll be better for innovation and competition. ...
I see this kind of comment all the time and I really don't understand it; not when we're talking about Apple. I think the idea that Apple needs strong competition in order to innovate is a complete misunderstanding of the Company. That whole concept is one in which it is assumed that Apple is reactionary, reacting to what the competition does. I doubt that anyone at Apple pays any attention to the competition; nor do I think they really care what the competition is doing unless and until they are copying patents that Apple owns. Competition is fine and all that and i assume it's the great American way. But to say that Apple "needs" competition is to misunderstand Apple.
Samsung will have pretty nice WP7 phones, so if WP7 gains traction, I don't think it'll be at Samsung's expense...their smartphone share will just be a mix of Android and WP7.
If WP7 is successful we have to assume that Nokia will recover share, because if they don't then really how can we consider WP7 a success? If Nokia recovers substantial share it must come at the expense of either Apple or Samsung, and there's no evidence that Apple has ever lost share to anybody in this market - since they entered it their share has been a function of supply constraints and carrier constraints.
That only leaves Samsung as the main loser in a hypothetical WP7 based Nokia resurrection.
Quote:
In the short term Samsung, HTC and Apple all gain from RIM's rapid demise...
RIM is losing share, but relatively slowly, nothing like the rollercoaster that Nokia is on. Maybe it will go off a cliff in the next quarter, but globally at least we haven't seen it yet.
Just four years after releasing the iPhone, Apple has managed to pass Nokia and fend off a challenge from Samsung in the second quarter on its way to a new milestone as the world's No. 1 smartphone maker in terms of volume....
While this is good news ... I so don't give a flying f*ck about "smartphone market share" and I'm tired of reading stories on AppleInsider about it.
It was pointed out in 2007 the first time a story appeared on "smartphone market share" that it's almost a meaningless statistic in terms of measuring the success or failure of Apple's iPhone project. It has been pointed out by someone in every thread on every story since. Once the iPad launched it became blindingly obvious that this metric has almost no relevance to Apple or what they are trying to do with iOS, and continues to be pointed out over and over again, yet we still have to read all these stupid stories about it.
It's a platform war. "Smartphone market share" is a made up term that refers only to a part of the platforms in question and varies in definition from day to day and from reporter to reporter.
Especially now that Apple is on top, could we please drop this focus on 'telephones' and go back to talking about mobile devices and computers (which is actually what Apple makes). "Smartphone" is just some dumb 90's concept that retains about as much relevance today as Bill Clinton.
While this is good news ... I so don't give a flying f*ck about "smartphone market share" and I'm tired of reading stories on AppleInsider about it.
It was pointed out in 2007 the first time a story appeared on "smartphone market share" that it's almost a meaningless statistic in terms of measuring the success or failure of Apple's iPhone project. It has been pointed out by someone in every thread on every story since. Once the iPad launched it became blindingly obvious that this metric has almost no relevance to Apple or what they are trying to do with iOS, and continues to be pointed out over and over again, yet we still have to read all these stupid stories about it.
It's a platform war. "Smartphone market share" is a made up term that refers only to a part of the platforms in question and varies in definition from day to day and from reporter to reporter.
Especially now that Apple is on top, could we please drop this focus on 'telephones' and go back to talking about mobile devices and computers (which is actually what Apple makes). "Smartphone" is just some dumb 90's concept that retains about as much relevance today as Bill Clinton.
There's no point railing against this, we get these numbers because they're easy to tabulate from the OEM's quarterly results, and from consumer surveys so we'll continue to get them and yes we'll continue to read them.
Are they volatile? Sure they are. But that doesn't make them useless, so long as people understand what they mean.
Don't get mad at numbers, get mad at misinterpretation of numbers!
... That only leaves Samsung as the main loser in a hypothetical WP7 based Nokia resurrection. ...
Don't you mean Android, not Samsung?
IMO the rise of any credible third platform, impacts primarily on Android which has always had problems, but has soared because it's the only credible alternative (at least in the public's perception so far). If WebOS wasn't being so badly mismanaged by HP, I think it could eat Android's lunch. If Windows Phone 7 gets any traction it could do the same.
IMO the sales of competing platforms are based on an "anything but Apple" kind of mentality (just as in any platform war) and people are basically just seeking the same sort of technology but from an alternative source (for whatever reasons). Any serious, credible alternative to iOS is an alternative to Android as well and is likely to eat into Android more than it does iOS because iOS platform loyalty is both stronger and stickier.
But it's strange that suddenly Samsung just stop giving sale number and sale estimate. Very strange with such a success.
Most likely because if they gave phone sell through, they'd have to do it for tablets too, and tablet sell through is presumed to be terrible. They even give a hint of it when they say this
The company will also proactively respond to increased demand for tablet devices with its GALAXY Tab portfolio in various sizes.
Ignoring that the phrase 'proactively respond' is an oxymoron this presumably means samsung is dumping out massive quantities of product in the hope that demand subsequently materializes.
Yes, but no. It depends how big a success WP7 is, and I'm mostly assuming that it's 'as good' as android - in that instance ...
No because I think HTC will preserve their share, thanks to their excellent execution and strong relationship with MS. Moto is mostly US based so it didn't gain from Nokia's fall and won't suffer from their rise. S-E, is mostly US & Japan so again, not a big winner or loser.
On the platform view Android will lose out too of course, but in terms of OEM that loss will be focused on Samsung.
Now if WP7 is a huge success in the US as well then that analysis changes, but I think then we're into the realms of science fiction. It's hard enough to believe that Nokia can breathe life into WP7 in the markets where it is historically strong.
There's no point railing against this, we get these numbers because they're easy to tabulate from the OEM's quarterly results, and from consumer surveys so we'll continue to get them and yes we'll continue to read them.
Are they volatile? Sure they are. But that doesn't make them useless, so long as people understand what they mean.
Don't get mad at numbers, get mad at misinterpretation of numbers!
I guess I'm asking for the moon.
What I want is for the writers at AppleInsider to get their own numbers. I think it's kind of sad that a few minor sites like Gruber's are willing to do the (10 minute!), 'back of a napkin' calculation to inform their readers of the actual *platform* share, and AppleInsider doesn't bother. This site used to have some really insightful articles, but now they've gone the route of just posting the figures that are given to them by others.
It's not exactly calculus to figure out what the actual platform share is from the smartphone share and the shipping numbers etc. It's not that hard at all.
Case in point is yesterday's story about the Xoom sales. There was even a line about "hmmm... these might just be channel sales." They just reported the number given to them yet a simple trip to a couple of other websites and some math will tell you that roughly 75% of the channel sales ended up turning into "real" sales. So the actual sales figure is easy to determine. Why not do the ten minutes work required instead of just repeating newsline stories verbatim?
Being a reporter or a journalist used to mean that you did some research and figured out what you needed to understand, then you report that story (which is "yours" because, you know, you figured it out). Nowadays it seems everyone is just republishing the same crap, direct from the mouths of the distributors, with almost no comment, let alone analysis. There is no ownership of the stories because there are no stories, it's just an echo chamber for the industry.
A news story appears on AppleInsider, BGR, TUAW, Engadget, etc. and within fifteen minutes it's on all of them, albeit using slightly different wording. Sometimes these stories are completely wrong but everyone is so busy trying to be first they don't even notice. Most of these stories are also plants from the sources these groups are supposed to be "reporting" on. The computer companies in question might as well just pay people to print what they tell them to. It would be simpler and it gets the same result we see on most of these sites.
What I want is for the writers at AppleInsider to get their own numbers. I think it's kind of sad that a few minor sites like Gruber's are willing to do the (10 minute!), 'back of a napkin' calculation to inform their readers of the actual *platform* share, and AppleInsider doesn't bother. This site used to have some really insightful articles, but now they've gone the route of just posting the figures that are given to them by others.
It's not exactly calculus to figure out what the actual platform share is from the smartphone share and the shipping numbers etc. It's not that hard at all.
Harder than you might think because HTC don't break down WP7/Android. Samsung don't break down WP7/Android/Bada. Moto don't break out their old JVM handsets. S-E do, sort-of, but they're kinda a joke. IDC don't even give us any breakdown on 'Other' unless presumably we buy the commercial reasearch product, so we have to scrabble around through the OEMs earnings reports.
These OEM numbers are the 'hardest' numbers that we have, but they don't give us platform sadly - for that we have to depend on consumer surveys, at least in the realm of publicly available numbers.
What these numbers are useful for, and particularly the raw handset numbers - is gauging how the OEMs' supply is having to shift to meet demand. We can see Apple and to a lesser extent HTC straining to meet demand. We can see Samsung growing steadily. We can see other OEMs slashing margin to try to avoid overcapacity.
Quote:
Case in point is yesterday's story about the Xoom sales. There was even a line about "hmmm... these might just be channel sales." They just reported the number given to them yet a simple trip to a couple of other websites and some math will tell you that roughly 75% of the channel sales ended up turning into "real" sales. So the actual sales figure is easy to determine. Why not do the ten minutes work required instead of just repeating newsline stories verbatim?
Indeed - or less, as I commented in that thread I think given your assumptions it would be 50%. Thing is though it's easy to produce those sales figures, they depend on a bunch of other assumptions or data. I wouldn't object if they did the analysis, but I'd like the raw numbers too.
Quote:
Being a reporter or a journalist used to mean that you did some research and figured out what you needed to understand, then you report that story (which is "yours" because, you know, you figured it out). Nowadays it seems everyone is just republishing the same crap, direct from the mouths of the distributors, with almost no comment, let alone analysis. There is no ownership of the stories because there are no stories, it's just an echo chamber for the industry.
A news story appears on AppleInsider, BGR, TUAW, Engadget, etc. and within fifteen minutes it's on all of them, albeit using slightly different wording. Sometimes these stories are completely wrong but everyone is so busy trying to be first they don't even notice. Most of these stories are also plants from the sources these groups are supposed to be "reporting" on. The computer companies in question might as well just pay people to print what they tell them to. It would be simpler and it gets the same result we see on most of these sites.
Well they're aggregators, not really reporters. I'm fine with that as it simplifies my data-hounding.
Comments
That's unlikely, because so much of Samsung's share gains in smartphones were at the expense of Nokia, and Nokia is of course going to be a huge Mango shop, with special treatment from MS so that it's WP7 offerings can have added passion fruit or somesuch.
If anything WP7 being successful might reduce Samsung's share, and see Nokia move back up. Of course we'll probably never know, because WP7 is quite likely going to sink without trace and take Nokia with it.
I'm personally about 50/50 on WP7 having an impact right now. Frankly, as a consumer, I'd like it...I'd prefer the choice to be between three platforms, because that'll be better for innovation and competition. Samsung will have pretty nice WP7 phones, so if WP7 gains traction, I don't think it'll be at Samsung's expense...their smartphone share will just be a mix of Android and WP7.
In the short term Samsung, HTC and Apple all gain from RIM's rapid demise...
This should have happened way earlier considered that Nokia likes to put S60 in a dumb phone and calls it a smartphone, e.g. this no-3g, no-gps smartphone in 2010
So the original iPhone wasn't a smartphone then?
What about phones designed for markets without 3G (i.e. China until very recently)? Do none of them count as smartphones?
Just for the sake of argument, why does that matter?
I'm not sure what matters. I just have an opinion that Apple's numbers were more impressive and I gave my reasons for my opinion. I am not dissing Samsung or ignoring their growth. So, nope it was not for the sake of an argument. It was for the sake of an opinion!
Agreed. It shows that customers are looking for quality amongst the myriad choices of Android phones. And if Mango takes off, Samsung might be able to ride it as a second coattail to put together a rather awesome total.
That's one way to look at it, and I think it has a good chance to take off. I don't agree with a poster above that WP7 will mostly benefit Nokia. We shouldn't underestimate Samsung's hardware engineering (even though, of course, I don't like the way it copied Apple software look and feel) and I think right now Samsung brand is even bigger than Nokia.
But it's strange that suddenly Samsung just stop giving sale number and sale estimate. Very strange with such a success.
Just for the sake of argument, why does that matter?
It is much easier to gauge sales numbers with fewer models on the market. Because the iPhone is basically one model, sales have traditionally dipped before the release of the next version. The pattern has been the same with every model; upon release sales shoot up, then dip a little in the fall, then go up in the winter, then trail off in the spring before the release of the new model. However, this year we have seen something completely different. Sales continue to rise, not trail off. So either the iPhone 4 is wildly popular or the lower price of the 3GS is driving adoption rates (this cheaper price is only available on AT&T though in the states), or both.
Given that tradition, it is much more impressive to see how well the iPhone is still selling.
Also, Samsung's explosive growth during this period may actually hurt their case in the lawsuit Apple has against them... The more an Android phone looks like an iPhone, the better it sells, etc.
You have to give credit to Samsung though for such a growth. This quarter It might get past Apple when people are waiting for iPhone 5.
We don't know that yet, I've played with WP7 and it's not too shabby. Don't get me wrong, I have no intention of ditching my iPhone but WP7 is a good Android/iOS competitor that is only going to get stronger.
I think it's fair to say that MS needed Nokia more than the other way around and that this is a strategic fail of epic proportions on Nokia's side when the new N9 & it's MeeGo OS are taken into consideration.
Samsung phones are highly popular, I'm sure that their sell through is pretty good.
Just for the sake of argument, why does that matter?
Well it matters that Samsung was mostly converting upper end feature-phones sales into smartphone sales, for two reasons. First it has relevance for their profits, which haven't actually increased all that much, second is is relevant to their future growth, where they are predicting only a 20% increase in their smartphone shipments from the first half of the year to the second.
The real standout amongst Android handset makers is HTC, which has high ASP, 100% YoY growth and complete focus on the smartphone segment.
I'm personally about 50/50 on WP7 having an impact right now. Frankly, as a consumer, I'd like it...I'd prefer the choice to be between three platforms, because that'll be better for innovation and competition. ...
I see this kind of comment all the time and I really don't understand it; not when we're talking about Apple. I think the idea that Apple needs strong competition in order to innovate is a complete misunderstanding of the Company. That whole concept is one in which it is assumed that Apple is reactionary, reacting to what the competition does. I doubt that anyone at Apple pays any attention to the competition; nor do I think they really care what the competition is doing unless and until they are copying patents that Apple owns. Competition is fine and all that and i assume it's the great American way. But to say that Apple "needs" competition is to misunderstand Apple.
Samsung will have pretty nice WP7 phones, so if WP7 gains traction, I don't think it'll be at Samsung's expense...their smartphone share will just be a mix of Android and WP7.
If WP7 is successful we have to assume that Nokia will recover share, because if they don't then really how can we consider WP7 a success? If Nokia recovers substantial share it must come at the expense of either Apple or Samsung, and there's no evidence that Apple has ever lost share to anybody in this market - since they entered it their share has been a function of supply constraints and carrier constraints.
That only leaves Samsung as the main loser in a hypothetical WP7 based Nokia resurrection.
In the short term Samsung, HTC and Apple all gain from RIM's rapid demise...
RIM is losing share, but relatively slowly, nothing like the rollercoaster that Nokia is on. Maybe it will go off a cliff in the next quarter, but globally at least we haven't seen it yet.
Just four years after releasing the iPhone, Apple has managed to pass Nokia and fend off a challenge from Samsung in the second quarter on its way to a new milestone as the world's No. 1 smartphone maker in terms of volume....
While this is good news ... I so don't give a flying f*ck about "smartphone market share" and I'm tired of reading stories on AppleInsider about it.
It was pointed out in 2007 the first time a story appeared on "smartphone market share" that it's almost a meaningless statistic in terms of measuring the success or failure of Apple's iPhone project. It has been pointed out by someone in every thread on every story since. Once the iPad launched it became blindingly obvious that this metric has almost no relevance to Apple or what they are trying to do with iOS, and continues to be pointed out over and over again, yet we still have to read all these stupid stories about it.
It's a platform war. "Smartphone market share" is a made up term that refers only to a part of the platforms in question and varies in definition from day to day and from reporter to reporter.
Especially now that Apple is on top, could we please drop this focus on 'telephones' and go back to talking about mobile devices and computers (which is actually what Apple makes). "Smartphone" is just some dumb 90's concept that retains about as much relevance today as Bill Clinton.
While this is good news ... I so don't give a flying f*ck about "smartphone market share" and I'm tired of reading stories on AppleInsider about it.
It was pointed out in 2007 the first time a story appeared on "smartphone market share" that it's almost a meaningless statistic in terms of measuring the success or failure of Apple's iPhone project. It has been pointed out by someone in every thread on every story since. Once the iPad launched it became blindingly obvious that this metric has almost no relevance to Apple or what they are trying to do with iOS, and continues to be pointed out over and over again, yet we still have to read all these stupid stories about it.
It's a platform war. "Smartphone market share" is a made up term that refers only to a part of the platforms in question and varies in definition from day to day and from reporter to reporter.
Especially now that Apple is on top, could we please drop this focus on 'telephones' and go back to talking about mobile devices and computers (which is actually what Apple makes). "Smartphone" is just some dumb 90's concept that retains about as much relevance today as Bill Clinton.
There's no point railing against this, we get these numbers because they're easy to tabulate from the OEM's quarterly results, and from consumer surveys so we'll continue to get them and yes we'll continue to read them.
Are they volatile? Sure they are. But that doesn't make them useless, so long as people understand what they mean.
Don't get mad at numbers, get mad at misinterpretation of numbers!
... That only leaves Samsung as the main loser in a hypothetical WP7 based Nokia resurrection. ...
Don't you mean Android, not Samsung?
IMO the rise of any credible third platform, impacts primarily on Android which has always had problems, but has soared because it's the only credible alternative (at least in the public's perception so far). If WebOS wasn't being so badly mismanaged by HP, I think it could eat Android's lunch. If Windows Phone 7 gets any traction it could do the same.
IMO the sales of competing platforms are based on an "anything but Apple" kind of mentality (just as in any platform war) and people are basically just seeking the same sort of technology but from an alternative source (for whatever reasons). Any serious, credible alternative to iOS is an alternative to Android as well and is likely to eat into Android more than it does iOS because iOS platform loyalty is both stronger and stickier.
But it's strange that suddenly Samsung just stop giving sale number and sale estimate. Very strange with such a success.
Most likely because if they gave phone sell through, they'd have to do it for tablets too, and tablet sell through is presumed to be terrible. They even give a hint of it when they say this
The company will also proactively respond to increased demand for tablet devices with its GALAXY Tab portfolio in various sizes.
Ignoring that the phrase 'proactively respond' is an oxymoron this presumably means samsung is dumping out massive quantities of product in the hope that demand subsequently materializes.
Samsung phones are highly popular, I'm sure that their sell through is pretty good.
samsung get over 25 % returned phones
apple get less than 1 %
samsung and its minions give 2 for one all the time
apple has trouble keeping a iPhone in stock
apple is rocking
9
Don't you mean Android, not Samsung?
Yes, but no. It depends how big a success WP7 is, and I'm mostly assuming that it's 'as good' as android - in that instance ...
No because I think HTC will preserve their share, thanks to their excellent execution and strong relationship with MS. Moto is mostly US based so it didn't gain from Nokia's fall and won't suffer from their rise. S-E, is mostly US & Japan so again, not a big winner or loser.
On the platform view Android will lose out too of course, but in terms of OEM that loss will be focused on Samsung.
Now if WP7 is a huge success in the US as well then that analysis changes, but I think then we're into the realms of science fiction. It's hard enough to believe that Nokia can breathe life into WP7 in the markets where it is historically strong.
There's no point railing against this, we get these numbers because they're easy to tabulate from the OEM's quarterly results, and from consumer surveys so we'll continue to get them and yes we'll continue to read them.
Are they volatile? Sure they are. But that doesn't make them useless, so long as people understand what they mean.
Don't get mad at numbers, get mad at misinterpretation of numbers!
I guess I'm asking for the moon.
What I want is for the writers at AppleInsider to get their own numbers. I think it's kind of sad that a few minor sites like Gruber's are willing to do the (10 minute!), 'back of a napkin' calculation to inform their readers of the actual *platform* share, and AppleInsider doesn't bother. This site used to have some really insightful articles, but now they've gone the route of just posting the figures that are given to them by others.
It's not exactly calculus to figure out what the actual platform share is from the smartphone share and the shipping numbers etc. It's not that hard at all.
Case in point is yesterday's story about the Xoom sales. There was even a line about "hmmm... these might just be channel sales." They just reported the number given to them yet a simple trip to a couple of other websites and some math will tell you that roughly 75% of the channel sales ended up turning into "real" sales. So the actual sales figure is easy to determine. Why not do the ten minutes work required instead of just repeating newsline stories verbatim?
Being a reporter or a journalist used to mean that you did some research and figured out what you needed to understand, then you report that story (which is "yours" because, you know, you figured it out). Nowadays it seems everyone is just republishing the same crap, direct from the mouths of the distributors, with almost no comment, let alone analysis. There is no ownership of the stories because there are no stories, it's just an echo chamber for the industry.
A news story appears on AppleInsider, BGR, TUAW, Engadget, etc. and within fifteen minutes it's on all of them, albeit using slightly different wording. Sometimes these stories are completely wrong but everyone is so busy trying to be first they don't even notice. Most of these stories are also plants from the sources these groups are supposed to be "reporting" on. The computer companies in question might as well just pay people to print what they tell them to. It would be simpler and it gets the same result we see on most of these sites.
I guess I'm asking for the moon.
What I want is for the writers at AppleInsider to get their own numbers. I think it's kind of sad that a few minor sites like Gruber's are willing to do the (10 minute!), 'back of a napkin' calculation to inform their readers of the actual *platform* share, and AppleInsider doesn't bother. This site used to have some really insightful articles, but now they've gone the route of just posting the figures that are given to them by others.
It's not exactly calculus to figure out what the actual platform share is from the smartphone share and the shipping numbers etc. It's not that hard at all.
Harder than you might think because HTC don't break down WP7/Android. Samsung don't break down WP7/Android/Bada. Moto don't break out their old JVM handsets. S-E do, sort-of, but they're kinda a joke. IDC don't even give us any breakdown on 'Other' unless presumably we buy the commercial reasearch product, so we have to scrabble around through the OEMs earnings reports.
These OEM numbers are the 'hardest' numbers that we have, but they don't give us platform sadly - for that we have to depend on consumer surveys, at least in the realm of publicly available numbers.
What these numbers are useful for, and particularly the raw handset numbers - is gauging how the OEMs' supply is having to shift to meet demand. We can see Apple and to a lesser extent HTC straining to meet demand. We can see Samsung growing steadily. We can see other OEMs slashing margin to try to avoid overcapacity.
Case in point is yesterday's story about the Xoom sales. There was even a line about "hmmm... these might just be channel sales." They just reported the number given to them yet a simple trip to a couple of other websites and some math will tell you that roughly 75% of the channel sales ended up turning into "real" sales. So the actual sales figure is easy to determine. Why not do the ten minutes work required instead of just repeating newsline stories verbatim?
Indeed - or less, as I commented in that thread I think given your assumptions it would be 50%. Thing is though it's easy to produce those sales figures, they depend on a bunch of other assumptions or data. I wouldn't object if they did the analysis, but I'd like the raw numbers too.
Being a reporter or a journalist used to mean that you did some research and figured out what you needed to understand, then you report that story (which is "yours" because, you know, you figured it out). Nowadays it seems everyone is just republishing the same crap, direct from the mouths of the distributors, with almost no comment, let alone analysis. There is no ownership of the stories because there are no stories, it's just an echo chamber for the industry.
A news story appears on AppleInsider, BGR, TUAW, Engadget, etc. and within fifteen minutes it's on all of them, albeit using slightly different wording. Sometimes these stories are completely wrong but everyone is so busy trying to be first they don't even notice. Most of these stories are also plants from the sources these groups are supposed to be "reporting" on. The computer companies in question might as well just pay people to print what they tell them to. It would be simpler and it gets the same result we see on most of these sites.
Well they're aggregators, not really reporters. I'm fine with that as it simplifies my data-hounding.