I had to edit that 3x to get it all that one might think I'd started using beer money. This was from a recent change in Safari where I turned on Correct Spelling Automatically. I have just turned it off so now you should only get my usual misspelled words that typically don't spell other words, which is oddly better than correctly spelled that alter the meaning of the sentence. Now I know it's my fault for not proofreading my comments and I take full blame but I would really like spell checking to evolve to understand the intention of the writer. I hope someone is working on that.
Simply put, Apple's autocorrect and predictive typing (can you believe it: it autocorrected, until I just caught it, to 'practice taping'!) sucks.
They should simply pay for the IP from Blackberry, and get rid of the crap that it currently is.
Well if I were the CEO of Google, I'd be pretty concerned since web surfing is the company's main source of revenue. AFAIK, Google still makes more money from iOS than it does Android.
Google makes very little from Android. Again, the fact that it is not even material enough for them to break it out in their segment reporting tells you everything you need to know.
Here's some info that might in handy when forming debate points...
PHONE USAGE IS NOT DIFFERENT -- ONLY TABLET USAGE IN THE USA
Note that when they break out phones and tablets separately, the cellular web usage is the same for both OSes. There is no such thing as some kind of Android feature phone gap or poor buyers or other such nonsense.
Only tablet over WiFi usage seems to vary, and apparently only in the USA. Why? I think it's because...
THE ANDROID "TABLETS" BEING COUNTED INCLUDE MILLIONS OF E-READERS
The device numbers include millions of Android base e-Readers which are mainly used to read books and view videos. They are not used that much for web browsing. For example, webstat sources show that Kindle Fires account for less than 1% of mobile web browsing.
MOST OF THE ANDROID E-READERS ARE USED IN THE USA
In addition, surveys show that quite a few American tablet owners have both an Android based e-Reader and an iPad. Guess which is used for browsing?
STAT COUNTER NUMBERS SHOW THERE IS NO WEB GAP OUTSIDE THE USA.
On the contrary, it shows what we expect: more Android usage. Below: USA, then the World. Link here.
THE ARTICLES THAT CLAIM SOME KIND OF DISCREPANCY USE WEB STATS WHICH ARE ARTIFICIALLY WEIGHTED BY COUNTRY
The charts above are from StatCounter. The chart used in the article is from Net App.
StatCounter does not weight their data. Net App weights their data by country, using numbers we don't know.
StatCounter uses 3 million websites. Net App only looks at their own group of 40,000 websites.
<span style="font-size:13px;line-height:1.231;">StatCounter counts page hits. Net App only counts unique visitors, which does not indicate the amount of web usage. </span>
The upshot is, it seems pretty obvious that the discrepancy in web stats is because of:
Including e-Readers in the Android count, and
Looking at USA only or USA weighted data.
More later. The original article is full of other mistakes.
1) You missed the whole point of the article. Go back and re-read, before hyperventilating. (Hint: Shipments vs Sales).
2) You don't need a PhD to figure out that web use statistics are skewed towards the US and that cellular usage numbers are closer in the rest of the world. The reason is simple. Android dominates in China and India (the former because Apple is not on China Mobile, and the latter is barely getting 3G connectivity) -- wifi connectivity is generally low and all that most users have is cellular data.
1) You missed the whole point of the article. Go back and re-read, before hyperventilating. (Hint: Shipments vs Sales).
Look at the thread title. The whole question of shipments and sales only comes up because of a supposed discrepancy in web stats. Without them, there'd be no article. (It also uses other mistaken concepts and data as backing. I'll get to all that in a later post.)
In the meantime, this thread has a lot of posts mixing up phones and tablets, sales and shipments, US and world stats. That was partly my purpose ... to keep the discussion on track, because it is an interesting one, and I don't want the more thoughtful posts (like jragosta's) to get lost in unrelated noise talking about phones, etc.
The secondary purpose was to suggest that perhaps the simplest answer is the correct one: that they're mixing general purpose tablets and e-readers into a mostly general purpose tablet-only situation (web surfing).
PS. I sometimes boldface to make it easier for people in a hurry to get the main points in a long post. It's not hyperventilating, it's an attempt to be helpful :-)
Look at the thread title. The whole question of shipments and sales only comes up because of a supposed discrepancy in web stats. Without them, there'd be no article. (It also uses other mistaken concepts and data as backing. I'll get to all that in a later post.)
In the meantime, this thread has a lot of posts mixing up phones and tablets, sales and shipments, US and world stats. That was partly my purpose ... to keep the discussion on track, because it is an interesting one, and I don't want the more thoughtful posts (like jragosta's) to get lost in unrelated noise talking about phones, etc.
The secondary purpose was to suggest that perhaps the simplest answer is the correct one: that they're mixing general purpose tablets and e-readers into a mostly general purpose tablet-only situation (web surfing).
PS. I sometimes boldface to make it easier for people in a hurry to get the main points in a long post. It's not hyperventilating, it's an attempt to be helpful :-)
Stop with your BS about 'thread title', and READ the article.
You posted the same nonsense in the Fortune thread (from which this was drawn) and a reader (not me!) caught you out there as well, for not actually reading the article. Either you must think that the people here are stupid -- and you are very smart -- or you're a troll (I'll grant you, better than most).
As the original article clearly states, this data is based on ".....browser data from 160 million users per month weighted geographically according to the number of users in each country." Indeed, if you go to the 'web statistics' link in DED's article, it takes you to the NetMarketShare website, where if you click on 'Mobile/Tablet' --> 'Browser Share' which provides data for ALL operating systems for ALL search engines for ALL device types for the WHOLE world, you'll see that Safari has a 61% share, followed by 21.5% for 'Android Browser', 9.8% for Opera Mini, 2% for Chrome.
Move along, buddy, and take your FUD elsewhere....
Please list these Android phones which are "feature phones", and then a description as to why they are only feature phones?
1) Why don't you list the share of Android phones in India and China as % world 'sales' (actually, shipments) total? 50%? 60% 70%?
2) What proportion of those do you think are smartphones?
3) If they're selling so well, how come none of the Android manufacturers provides their sales and channel numbers? Why is Apple the only company to provide data on both?
As the original article clearly states, this data is based on ".....browser data from 160 million users per month weighted geographically according to the number of users in each country."
Right, which is why my long post gave charts that showed that another stat site with far more input, and no artificial weighting, comes up with a very different result.
You seem to be taking this very personally, btw. Calm down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
1) Why don't you list the share of Android phones in India and China as % world 'sales' (actually, shipments) total? 50%? 60% 70%?
2) What proportion of those do you think are smartphones?
3) If they're selling so well, how come none of the Android manufacturers provides their sales and channel numbers? Why is Apple the only company to provide data on both?
All those Android phones are smartphones.
Why doesn't Apple break out sales of the different iPhone models? Because it's information that helps competitors.
^ A phone with a 320x240 display running Gingerbread and a processor so slow half the Apps available wont run properly has no business being called a smartphone.
^ A phone with a 320x240 display running Gingerbread and a processor so slow half the Apps available wont run properly has no business being called a smartphone.
The original iPhone had a slower processor, no 3G, no GPS, no MMS, no video, no voice control or search, and no third party apps at all. In many ways, it was just a "feature phone", and far less capable than even cheaper smartphones today.
Yet it was amazing and useful to quite a few people.
I do agree that surfing the web on a 320x240 screen is not ideal, although millions of us did it for years. (I used to use the Picsel browser, which had a type of tap-to-zoom before the iPhone ever came along. You tapped and then slid your finger up or down, to zoom in or out. It beat the heck out of Pocket IE.)
Right, which is why my long post gave charts that showed that another stat site with far more input, and no artificial weighting, comes up with a very different result.
You seem to be taking this very personally, btw. Calm down.
All those Android phones are smartphones.
Why doesn't Apple break out sales of the different iPhone models? Because it's information that helps competitors.
Actually weighting isn't artificial when you are discussing CPM cost for advertising and "stickiness" of an ecosystem. Region A costs more to advertise to than Region B based on pop #'s, income, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
The original iPhone had a slower processor, no 3G, no GPS, no MMS, no video, no voice control or search, and no third party apps at all. In many ways, it was just a "feature phone", and far less capable than even cheaper smartphones today.
Yet it was amazing and useful to quite a few people.
I do agree that surfing the web on a 320x240 screen is not ideal, although millions of us did it for years. (I used to use the Picsel browser, which had a type of tap-to-zoom before the iPhone ever came along. You tapped and then slid your finger up or down, to zoom in or out. It beat the heck out of Pocket IE.)
I had an iPhone OG (4gb) and I liked it then but I wouldn't buy it now nor would I compare it to my iPhone 4 )heck, I envy Siri right now but not upgrading anything at the moment.
The original iPhone had a slower processor, no 3G, no GPS, no MMS, no video, no voice control or search, and no third party apps at all. In many ways, it was just a "feature phone", and far less capable than even cheaper smartphones today.
Yet it was amazing and useful to quite a few people.
I do agree that surfing the web on a 320x240 screen is not ideal, although millions of us did it for years. (I used to use the Picsel browser, which had a type of tap-to-zoom before the iPhone ever came along. You tapped and then slid your finger up or down, to zoom in or out. It beat the heck out of Pocket IE.)
One of these days you'll get something right, and the cheers will be deafening. But not yet.
Thank you for such spiffy efforts in misdirection.
PHONE USAGE IS NOT DIFFERENT -- ONLY TABLET USAGE IN THE USA
Note that when they break out phones and tablets separately, the cellular web usage is the same for both OSes. There is no such thing as some kind of Android feature phone gap or poor buyers or other such nonsense.
Only tablet over WiFi usage seems to vary, and apparently only in the USA. Why? I think it's because...
THE ANDROID "TABLETS" BEING COUNTED INCLUDE MILLIONS OF E-READERS
The device numbers include millions of Android base e-Readers which are mainly used to read books and view videos. They are not used that much for web browsing. For example, webstat sources show that Kindle Fires account for less than 1% of mobile web browsing.
MOST OF THE ANDROID E-READERS ARE USED IN THE USA
In addition, surveys show that quite a few American tablet owners have both an Android based e-Reader and an iPad. Guess which is used for browsing?
Where do you get stats on the large percentage of tablets only used as e-reader and not used to surf net?
kindle fire web stats suggest around ~1% but suggests more a low percentage of sales rather than only low usage.
Other tabs like nook has even lower sales and likely too low to show much data.
Samsung tablet sales have been rather quiet ever since they got called out on their numbers by Lenovo back in 2011.
For us only sales up till june 2012:
They only sold 1.4million as court documents revealed.
How much more they have sold now is anyone's guess really but interesting to note they shout loud about popular phone milestones but have been very quiet on tablets.
1) Why don't you list the share of Android phones in India and China as % world 'sales' (actually, shipments) total? 50%? 60% 70%?
2) What proportion of those do you think are smartphones?
3) If they're selling so well, how come none of the Android manufacturers provides their sales and channel numbers? Why is Apple the only company to provide data on both?
1. What does that have to do with the fact that he falsely claimed that the Android phones aren't smartphones
2. 100%
3. Actually Apple reports shipping numbers, their financial reports specify this fact
^ A phone with a 320x240 display running Gingerbread and a processor so slow half the Apps available wont run properly has no business being called a smartphone.
I'm sure that there's plenty of fandroids who don't consider the iPhone to be a smartphone for many spurious reasons. If you go by the Wikipedia definition (and therefore by common consensus), all Android phones are smartphones.
... THE ANDROID "TABLETS" BEING COUNTED INCLUDE MILLIONS OF E-READERS ...
You keep repeating this, but who is making and selling all these Android e-readers? The only "e-reader tablet" sold in any numbers is the Amazon Fire, and that's not Android.
Comments
Simply put, Apple's autocorrect and predictive typing (can you believe it: it autocorrected, until I just caught it, to 'practice taping'!) sucks.
They should simply pay for the IP from Blackberry, and get rid of the crap that it currently is.
Google makes very little from Android. Again, the fact that it is not even material enough for them to break it out in their segment reporting tells you everything you need to know.
1) You missed the whole point of the article. Go back and re-read, before hyperventilating. (Hint: Shipments vs Sales).
2) You don't need a PhD to figure out that web use statistics are skewed towards the US and that cellular usage numbers are closer in the rest of the world. The reason is simple. Android dominates in China and India (the former because Apple is not on China Mobile, and the latter is barely getting 3G connectivity) -- wifi connectivity is generally low and all that most users have is cellular data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
1) You missed the whole point of the article. Go back and re-read, before hyperventilating. (Hint: Shipments vs Sales).
Look at the thread title. The whole question of shipments and sales only comes up because of a supposed discrepancy in web stats. Without them, there'd be no article. (It also uses other mistaken concepts and data as backing. I'll get to all that in a later post.)
In the meantime, this thread has a lot of posts mixing up phones and tablets, sales and shipments, US and world stats. That was partly my purpose ... to keep the discussion on track, because it is an interesting one, and I don't want the more thoughtful posts (like jragosta's) to get lost in unrelated noise talking about phones, etc.
The secondary purpose was to suggest that perhaps the simplest answer is the correct one: that they're mixing general purpose tablets and e-readers into a mostly general purpose tablet-only situation (web surfing).
PS. I sometimes boldface to make it easier for people in a hurry to get the main points in a long post. It's not hyperventilating, it's an attempt to be helpful :-)
It sucks? Is that via an attachment? Or are you showing some bias there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Look at the thread title. The whole question of shipments and sales only comes up because of a supposed discrepancy in web stats. Without them, there'd be no article. (It also uses other mistaken concepts and data as backing. I'll get to all that in a later post.)
In the meantime, this thread has a lot of posts mixing up phones and tablets, sales and shipments, US and world stats. That was partly my purpose ... to keep the discussion on track, because it is an interesting one, and I don't want the more thoughtful posts (like jragosta's) to get lost in unrelated noise talking about phones, etc.
The secondary purpose was to suggest that perhaps the simplest answer is the correct one: that they're mixing general purpose tablets and e-readers into a mostly general purpose tablet-only situation (web surfing).
PS. I sometimes boldface to make it easier for people in a hurry to get the main points in a long post. It's not hyperventilating, it's an attempt to be helpful :-)
Stop with your BS about 'thread title', and READ the article.
You posted the same nonsense in the Fortune thread (from which this was drawn) and a reader (not me!) caught you out there as well, for not actually reading the article. Either you must think that the people here are stupid -- and you are very smart -- or you're a troll (I'll grant you, better than most).
As the original article clearly states, this data is based on ".....browser data from 160 million users per month weighted geographically according to the number of users in each country." Indeed, if you go to the 'web statistics' link in DED's article, it takes you to the NetMarketShare website, where if you click on 'Mobile/Tablet' --> 'Browser Share' which provides data for ALL operating systems for ALL search engines for ALL device types for the WHOLE world, you'll see that Safari has a 61% share, followed by 21.5% for 'Android Browser', 9.8% for Opera Mini, 2% for Chrome.
Move along, buddy, and take your FUD elsewhere....
Actually you might be onto something...
Please list these Android phones which are "feature phones", and then a description as to why they are only feature phones?
Also, where are these BOGO deals you talk of? I have never seen one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Please list these Android phones which are "feature phones", and then a description as to why they are only feature phones?
1) Why don't you list the share of Android phones in India and China as % world 'sales' (actually, shipments) total? 50%? 60% 70%?
2) What proportion of those do you think are smartphones?
3) If they're selling so well, how come none of the Android manufacturers provides their sales and channel numbers? Why is Apple the only company to provide data on both?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
As the original article clearly states, this data is based on ".....browser data from 160 million users per month weighted geographically according to the number of users in each country."
Right, which is why my long post gave charts that showed that another stat site with far more input, and no artificial weighting, comes up with a very different result.
You seem to be taking this very personally, btw. Calm down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
1) Why don't you list the share of Android phones in India and China as % world 'sales' (actually, shipments) total? 50%? 60% 70%?
2) What proportion of those do you think are smartphones?
3) If they're selling so well, how come none of the Android manufacturers provides their sales and channel numbers? Why is Apple the only company to provide data on both?
All those Android phones are smartphones.
Why doesn't Apple break out sales of the different iPhone models? Because it's information that helps competitors.
Another cherrypicked stat to fit some wild fantasy where iOS is actually leading Android worldwide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
^ A phone with a 320x240 display running Gingerbread and a processor so slow half the Apps available wont run properly has no business being called a smartphone.
The original iPhone had a slower processor, no 3G, no GPS, no MMS, no video, no voice control or search, and no third party apps at all. In many ways, it was just a "feature phone", and far less capable than even cheaper smartphones today.
Yet it was amazing and useful to quite a few people.
I do agree that surfing the web on a 320x240 screen is not ideal, although millions of us did it for years. (I used to use the Picsel browser, which had a type of tap-to-zoom before the iPhone ever came along. You tapped and then slid your finger up or down, to zoom in or out. It beat the heck out of Pocket IE.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Right, which is why my long post gave charts that showed that another stat site with far more input, and no artificial weighting, comes up with a very different result.
You seem to be taking this very personally, btw. Calm down.
All those Android phones are smartphones.
Why doesn't Apple break out sales of the different iPhone models? Because it's information that helps competitors.
Actually weighting isn't artificial when you are discussing CPM cost for advertising and "stickiness" of an ecosystem. Region A costs more to advertise to than Region B based on pop #'s, income, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
The original iPhone had a slower processor, no 3G, no GPS, no MMS, no video, no voice control or search, and no third party apps at all. In many ways, it was just a "feature phone", and far less capable than even cheaper smartphones today.
Yet it was amazing and useful to quite a few people.
I do agree that surfing the web on a 320x240 screen is not ideal, although millions of us did it for years. (I used to use the Picsel browser, which had a type of tap-to-zoom before the iPhone ever came along. You tapped and then slid your finger up or down, to zoom in or out. It beat the heck out of Pocket IE.)
I had an iPhone OG (4gb) and I liked it then but I wouldn't buy it now nor would I compare it to my iPhone 4 )heck, I envy Siri right now but not upgrading anything at the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
The original iPhone had a slower processor, no 3G, no GPS, no MMS, no video, no voice control or search, and no third party apps at all. In many ways, it was just a "feature phone", and far less capable than even cheaper smartphones today.
Yet it was amazing and useful to quite a few people.
I do agree that surfing the web on a 320x240 screen is not ideal, although millions of us did it for years. (I used to use the Picsel browser, which had a type of tap-to-zoom before the iPhone ever came along. You tapped and then slid your finger up or down, to zoom in or out. It beat the heck out of Pocket IE.)
One of these days you'll get something right, and the cheers will be deafening. But not yet.
Thank you for such spiffy efforts in misdirection.
Cheers
Where do you get stats on the large percentage of tablets only used as e-reader and not used to surf net?
kindle fire web stats suggest around ~1% but suggests more a low percentage of sales rather than only low usage.
Other tabs like nook has even lower sales and likely too low to show much data.
Samsung tablet sales have been rather quiet ever since they got called out on their numbers by Lenovo back in 2011.
For us only sales up till june 2012:
They only sold 1.4million as court documents revealed.
How much more they have sold now is anyone's guess really but interesting to note they shout loud about popular phone milestones but have been very quiet on tablets.
Edit: correction of formating
1. What does that have to do with the fact that he falsely claimed that the Android phones aren't smartphones
2. 100%
3. Actually Apple reports shipping numbers, their financial reports specify this fact
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
^ A phone with a 320x240 display running Gingerbread and a processor so slow half the Apps available wont run properly has no business being called a smartphone.
I'm sure that there's plenty of fandroids who don't consider the iPhone to be a smartphone for many spurious reasons. If you go by the Wikipedia definition (and therefore by common consensus), all Android phones are smartphones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
... THE ANDROID "TABLETS" BEING COUNTED INCLUDE MILLIONS OF E-READERS ...
You keep repeating this, but who is making and selling all these Android e-readers? The only "e-reader tablet" sold in any numbers is the Amazon Fire, and that's not Android.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
... You seem to be taking this very personally, btw. Calm down. ...
I was leaning slightly toward KDarling being a shill, but the above convinces me he's just another troll.