Study finds Android handsets break more frequently than iPhone, could cost carriers $2B in repairs
Cheaply assembled devices running Google's fragmented Android platform could cost telecoms billions of dollars a year in repairs, contrasting service costs for devices based on tightly controlled ecosystems like Apple's iOS.
The fragmented hardware implementation of Android, which lets manufacturers use unchecked testing methods and cheap components, causes a higher rate of repair when compared with Apple's iOS devices, according to a report released Thursday.
Citing a study by wireless service research firm WDS, Reuters reports that Android's rising smartphone marketshare has been boosted by cheap handsets hitting store shelves, some costing less than $100 or free-on-contract, but the growth may come at a cost to telecoms that have seen a spike in repairs for devices running Google's OS.
"While this price point sounds very attractive, when you look at a total cost of ownership it's a different story," said Tim Deluca-Smith, Vice President of Marketing at WDS.
The study of 600,000 technical support calls taken by WDS across Europe, North America, South Africa and Australia showed that Android device returns cost telecoms around $128 in service costs, shipping fees or replacement.
Deluca-Smith was quick to point out that he doesn't see the financial burden to telecoms as the result of Android being a faulty OS, and instead cites inconsistency between handsets as the problem.
?One thing we must be absolutely clear on is that our analysis does not find any inherent fault with the Android platform,? Deluca-Smith said. ?Its openness has enabled the ecosystem to grow to a phenomenal size, at a phenomenal rate, and it?s this success that is proving challenging."
The fragmentation seen in Android's hardware implementation is not completely without standards as Google has mandated that handset makers follow the Android Compatability Program if they opt to use the company's platform. However, the required specs for processor and graphics speeds, seen as one of the most expensive components in an Android device, are very low causing some cheaper phones to operate poorly.
"At the moment, Android is a bit of the Wild West," Deluca-Smith said.
Contrasting the open source nature of Google's OS, closed-ecosystems like Apple's iOS have the benefit of being strictly monitored and implemented as the company that makes a device's hardware also writes its software.
Android's global smartphone market share rose to 57 percent in the third quarter, up from 25 percent a year earlier, boosted by strong growth from manufacturers like HTC, according to research firm Canalys. This is a marked increase from earlier estimates that pegged the OS to be on 49 percent of smartphones by 2012, leaving iOS with 19 percent.
The fragmented hardware implementation of Android, which lets manufacturers use unchecked testing methods and cheap components, causes a higher rate of repair when compared with Apple's iOS devices, according to a report released Thursday.
Citing a study by wireless service research firm WDS, Reuters reports that Android's rising smartphone marketshare has been boosted by cheap handsets hitting store shelves, some costing less than $100 or free-on-contract, but the growth may come at a cost to telecoms that have seen a spike in repairs for devices running Google's OS.
"While this price point sounds very attractive, when you look at a total cost of ownership it's a different story," said Tim Deluca-Smith, Vice President of Marketing at WDS.
The study of 600,000 technical support calls taken by WDS across Europe, North America, South Africa and Australia showed that Android device returns cost telecoms around $128 in service costs, shipping fees or replacement.
Deluca-Smith was quick to point out that he doesn't see the financial burden to telecoms as the result of Android being a faulty OS, and instead cites inconsistency between handsets as the problem.
?One thing we must be absolutely clear on is that our analysis does not find any inherent fault with the Android platform,? Deluca-Smith said. ?Its openness has enabled the ecosystem to grow to a phenomenal size, at a phenomenal rate, and it?s this success that is proving challenging."
The fragmentation seen in Android's hardware implementation is not completely without standards as Google has mandated that handset makers follow the Android Compatability Program if they opt to use the company's platform. However, the required specs for processor and graphics speeds, seen as one of the most expensive components in an Android device, are very low causing some cheaper phones to operate poorly.
"At the moment, Android is a bit of the Wild West," Deluca-Smith said.
Contrasting the open source nature of Google's OS, closed-ecosystems like Apple's iOS have the benefit of being strictly monitored and implemented as the company that makes a device's hardware also writes its software.
Android's global smartphone market share rose to 57 percent in the third quarter, up from 25 percent a year earlier, boosted by strong growth from manufacturers like HTC, according to research firm Canalys. This is a marked increase from earlier estimates that pegged the OS to be on 49 percent of smartphones by 2012, leaving iOS with 19 percent.
Comments
It's more than a little annoying that Android market share data only talks about smart phones when being compared to iOS. I guess the tablet market is an inconvenient data point that Android supporters don't care to discuss. The mantra is always "Android is kicking the iPhone's ass." And this article mostly confirms what a lot of us suspected all along. The bulk of Android's "500,000 activations a day" are cheap junk phones that break quickly and often. Not exactly something to be proud of but it does inflate the market share metric.
"Deluca-Smith was quick to point out that he doesn't see the financial burden to telecoms as the result of Android being a faulty OS, and instead cites inconsistency between handsets as the problem."
Guilt by association is real. Android may or may not be a faulty OS but a frustrated user with a crappy phone isn't going to make that distinction. The hardware AND the software will get the blame.
No breakdown by manufacturer?
1) That would make sense.
2) It's surprising you actually want vendors who use Android OS to be broken down.
1) That would make sense.
2) It's surprising you actually want vendors who use Android OS to be broken down.
Well I'm just expecting to see a big difference between let's say... Archos and Samsung
"At the moment, Android is a bit of the Wild West," Deluca-Smith said.
Contrasting the open source nature of Google's OS, closed-ecosystems like Apple's iOS have the benefit of being strictly monitored and implemented as the company that makes a device's hardware also writes its software.
Where have we seen this story played out before? Oh yeah, the Mac Vs Windows thing. Yes, there WILL end up being a bajilion more Android phones out in the world simply because they are a few dollars cheaper. Sometimes, the phones might even have a crazy feature or two that will best the iPhone. But they will never work as seamlessly as the Apple devices.
NOT.
Apples the best. Hardware, software, everything. If there was no iPhone I still wouldn't buy an android.
Sorry about the rant. Poor hardware? How else could they peddle their phones so cheaply
You do realize that's there's a massive range of Android phones, right? Ones that are free, to ones that cost $299 with a 2 year contract.
High end androids are not cheap. I had to hold myself back from spending $900 after shipping to import a Galaxy Nexus from the UK
You do realize that's there's a massive range of Android phones, right? Ones that are free, to ones that cost $299 with a 2 year contract.
High end androids are not cheap. I had to hold myself back from spending $900 after shipping to import a Galaxy Nexus from the UK
I'd be willing to bet money that LG is high on the repair list. However it's also proportionate to sales numbers. At the time that LG was the most exchanged phone at AT&T Wireless, it was also the most popular free phone brand. Samsung was #2 and Motorola #3, again because they were popular in that order. Part of this could be attributed to LG and Samsung possibly using the same defective radio parts that only worked on the 1900Mhz band correctly, with no support for the 850Mhz band.
I do hope things have substantially changed since then, but this is one of those reasons why I won't touch an Android device, and would sooner try Nokia's Windows Phone models if an iPhone wasn't an option. Maybe when the balkanized Android versions stops I'll give it a chance.
So why is Blackberry the lowest at 5%, beating iPhone's 8%? Should we go BB instead?
Probably because very few people buy Blackberry phones anymore. 😝 less phones mean less repairs.
Do iPhone owners call their carriers first or do they call Apple first?
Probably because very few people buy Blackberry phones anymore. 😝 less phones mean less repairs.
What part of 'percentage' do you not understand?
The study states that of all the repair calls WDS receives on Android phones, 12.6% were for hardware related troubles.
Do iPhone owners call their carriers first or do they call Apple first?
That's one of the problems with surveys like this.
The other problem is that if you have a super-cheap phone, you're less likely to pay to have it repaired than if it's an expensive phone.
The build quality was crap in each case. And, AT&T never even made a fuss about replacing them.
One month ago, she switched to the iPhone. The only thing she feels badly about is that she didn't switch earlier.
The study states that of all the repair calls WDS receives on Android phones, 12.6% were for hardware related troubles.
Do iPhone owners call their carriers first or do they call Apple first?
You'd contact Apple first. Their customer service is number one in basically every single relevant customer satisfaction survey and has been for years.
Mobile operators, particular American cellular companies, have abysmal customer satisfaction scores. This is repeatedly demonstrated by annual user surveys by Consumer Reports (and others). Verizon is usually the 37" giant in a land of three-foot midgets; the other ones just trade places in the rankings. Not one American mobile operator can be proud of their customer satisfaction ratings. It has been like this for years and years; the overall scores hasn't really improved.
As a matter of fact, mobile operators are pretty much near the basement of all industries, right by cable companies. Basically, your cellular provider is pretty much the last one you'd ask help from.
What part of 'percentage' do you not understand?
What part of 'less repairs = less percentage' do you not understand?
The study states that of all the repair calls WDS receives on Android phones, 12.6% were for hardware related troubles.
Do iPhone owners call their carriers first or do they call Apple first?
It used to be easy to contact Apple about any issue with the iPhone if you were on AT&T. You'd just dial 611. You'd get two options; one for your account and one for the device. The latter would direct you an Apple run call center in the US. I guess sometime this year (I assume around Verizon an on board) that changed.
The other problem is that if you have a super-cheap phone, you're less likely to pay to have it repaired than if it's an expensive phone.
Excellent point.
Apple also has the benefit of dealing with devices directly in their stores but I don't know if that is a plus or minus or Apple's repair percentage as some "hardware" issues might just be an issue with firmware, OS, setting or app, but thy can replace devices much easier.
What part of 'less repairs = less percentage' do you not understand?
I can see how you might come to that conclusion but it's a percentage of total units sold for that mobile OS/vendor divided by the number of HW failures. That means if RiM only had one device fail but sold only 5 phones thy would have a 20% failure rate. Get it?
iHaters, trolls, and whiners of course will try to spin this story to the contrary I'm sure...
I can see how you might come to that conclusion but it's a percentage of total units sold for that mobile OS/vendor divided by the number of HW failures. That means if RiM only had one device fail but sold only 5 phones thy would have a 20% failure rate. Get it?
And if they sold 20 million in a quarter with 2 million repaired, vice now selling 10 million but only 500k in repairs... Less volume sold typically equals less repairs, which in turn is a less percentage.
Your version assumes that less sales equates to an equal percentage of repairs. This is not the case.