StatCounter is out today with their latest mobile web usage statistics and they serve as evidence that KDarling is correct in surmising that the differnce in web usage comes down to tablets. StatCounter doesn't include tablet usage in it's numbers:
"With Nokia’s share of mobile internet usage down 15.52% from 37.67% last January to just 22.15% this year, Apple was able to move into the number one position for the first time ever despite experiencing a decline of 2.81%. Apple took 25.86% of mobile internet usage in January, down from 28.67% last year. Nokia was also bumped to third position with Samsung gaining 7.85% to move into the number two spot. However, it’s important to point out that StatCounter doesn’t include iPads in its definition of mobile devices.
As for mobile OS, StatCounter has at Android 37% of the market in January up from 33.19% in December. In comparison, iPhone and iPod held 25.85% of the global OS share, up from 23.26% in December. Keeping in mind that StatCounter doesn’t include iPads in these stats, we take also take a look at a report for January from NetApplications (pictured below) that has iOS with iPads included at 60.56% of the market during the month"
quote from 9to5 article.
Contrary to popular sentiment at AI, Android smartphones appear to use the internet substantially more than iOS iPods/iPhones, not less.
StatCounter is out today with their latest mobile web usage statistics and they serve as evidence that KDarling is correct in surmising that the differnce in web usage comes down to tablets. StatCounter doesn't include tablet usage in it's numbers:
"<span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:22px;">With Nokia’s share of mobile internet usage down 15.52% from 37.67% last January to just 22.15% this year, Apple was able to move into the number one position for the first time ever despite experiencing a decline of 2.81%. Apple took 25.86% of mobile internet usage in January, down from 28.67% last year. Nokia was also bumped to third position with Samsung gaining 7.85% to move into the number two spot. However, it’s important to point out that StatCounter doesn’t include iPads in its definition of mobile devices.</span>
<p style="line-height:22px;font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;">As for <a href="http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-201201-201301" style="line-height:inherit;color:rgb(88,146,196);" target="_blank">mobile OS</a>
, StatCounter has at Android 37% of the market in January up from 33.19% in December. In comparison, iPhone and iPod held 25.85% of the global OS share, up from 23.26% in December. Keeping in mind that StatCounter doesn’t include iPads in these stats, we take also take a look at a report for January from NetApplications (pictured below) that has iOS with iPads included at 60.56% of the market during the month"</p>
<p style="line-height:22px;font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;">quote from 9to5 article.</p>
And, once again, we don't have any idea of whether this is representative of the market as a whole. Unless Statcounter either collects data from every site in the world or else can demonstrate that the sites they track are representative of the entire Internet, the data is not particularly useful.
No, you're ignoring the [SIZE=14px]fact[/SIZE] it didn't prove what you say it did, even after being corrected about it more than once. It wasn't my claim to begin with
Please try to keep up. The entire discussion was whether all the stratospheric sales figures that all the Android shills and mindless analysts present are correct. I cited evidence that they're not - in the one case where we actually got sales figures, the analysts estimates were far, far too high.
However, I'm glad you made me come up with the link. The consensus was that Samsung would sell 170 M smartphones in a year, or 35 M in the first quarter of 2012.
The ACTUAL number (as shown in the trial) was for 21 M in the 8 quarters before June, 2012 (including the quarter that was supposed to be 35 M).
Yes, the 21 M figure did not include ALL Samsung smart phones, but it included all the most popular ones.
Surely even you can see that the discrepancy is so large that the analysts' estimates need to be taken with a grain of salt - particularly since there's not one shred of evidence that their estimates have any bearing on reality.
Can we dispose of that little bit of JR FUD too now, throwing it in the same garbage bin as "all the Android feature phones being marketed and/or sold"?
Considering that I provided examples of Android features phones, I guess you're getting used to losing arguments.
Please try to keep up. The entire discussion was whether all the stratospheric sales figures that all the Android shills and mindless analysts present are correct. I cited evidence that they're not - in the one case where we actually got sales figures, the analysts estimates were far, far too high.
However, I'm glad you made me come up with the link. The consensus was that Samsung would sell 170 M smartphones in a year, or 35 M in the first quarter of 2012.
The ACTUAL number (as shown in the trial) was for 21 M in the 8 quarters before June, 2012 (including the quarter that was supposed to be 35 M).
You're mixing worldwide smartphone shipping estimates with numbers for specific Samsung handsets produced for sale in only the US over a span of 24 months beginning in 2010, and then with only a subset of those being cited by Apple with sales numbers produced. Somehow you think you've managed to prove something from the two unrelated sets of numbers. You've offered no proof at all that previous estimates of that subset were "far, far too high". There were no previous estimates of those AFAIK.
Sometimes you just make stuff up I think, hoping I really don't "keep up".
And, once again, we don't have any idea of whether this is representative of the market as a whole. Unless Statcounter either collects data from every site in the world or else can demonstrate that the sites they track are representative of the entire Internet, the data is not particularly useful.
Then you would be in the camp of members who dismiss this entire AI article as fanciful and unreliable as it depends on accepting a similar set of usage data as evidence of questionable Android market share numbers.
Now you're being dishonest. You cited one "imaginary phone" and one running Brew as the OS.
No, I cited the Galaxy Star. I also referred you back to the time I did this previously when I identified half a dozen feature phones running Android.
But since you apparently STILL haven't found a third grader to explain how to use a search engine, here are some more: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19736_7-20040826-251.html
"The i886 is billed as a feature phone with a slide-out QWERTY keyboard,"
"And yet, it IS an Android phone. We dug around in the phone's settings and discovered that according to the phone's open-source licenses, it runs using Android code."
You're mixing worldwide smartphone shipping estimates with numbers for specific Samsung handsets produced for sale in only the US over a span of 24 months beginning in 2010, and then with only a subset of those being cited by Apple with sales numbers produced. Somehow you think you've managed to prove something from the two unrelated sets of numbers. You've offered no proof at all that previous estimates of that subset were "far, far too high". There were no previous estimates of those AFAIK.
Sometimes you just make stuff up I think, hoping I really don't "keep up".
Once again, all of Samsung's best selling phones were in that number. So your position is that they only sold 21 M of their best selling phones but sold 150 M of 'everything else'? That's blatantly ridiculous.
Then you would be in the camp of members who dismiss this entire AI article as fanciful and unreliable as it depends on accepting a similar set of usage data as evidence of questionable Android market share numbers.
Of course. I've said that repeatedly. I've said the same thing when surveys like this show that iOS devices are overwhelming leaders. It's the same subject that I've explained over and over again. A sample is only useful for evaluating the entire market if the sample is representative. If the sample is not representative, it doesn't mean a thing.
Have to interject the obvious here. Samsung stated that they will not be releasing actual sales figures due to the business risk. Well of course they don't want to do that. If they reported actual sales, and the analysts see that it is a tiny number compared to "shipped" (and the analysts guesses), their stock will take a beating, and their executives don't get to take home the big bonuses, and the analysts look stupid (well, OK, they already do, but that would make them look even more foolish than they already are). Certainly not rocket science to see that.
Oh, and if Apple can report actual sales numbers during a quarter from their thousands of sales outlets worldwide, why can't other companies? Maybe a software upgrade is needed?
No, I cited the Galaxy Star. I also referred you back to the time I did this previously when I identified half a dozen feature phones running Android.
Me: There's no such thing as a Galaxy Star. There's a vaporware rumor you found that there might be one at some future point. All the other Samsung Star's run Symbian, not Android.
But since you apparently STILL haven't found a third grader to explain how to use a search engine, here are some more:
"The i886 is billed as a feature phone with a slide-out QWERTY keyboard,"
"And yet, it IS an Android phone. We dug around in the phone's settings and discovered that according to the phone's open-source licenses, it runs using Android code."
Me: Yet your linked article for a phone from two years ago says: "Motorola was firm in saying it wasn't Android, and that it was a proprietary Linux-based OS. More importantly, the i886 doesn't meet basic Android standards: it doesn't have a touch screen, and it doesn't have access to the Android Market, so it can't technically be called an Android phone".
"The enV series has been a popular consumer-oriented feature phone series for Verizon, and by adding Android to the enV Touch 2, LG is helping to expand the scope of Google’s mobile operating system to reach more consumers."
Me: Which doesn't say the enV Touch 2 is also a feature phone. It isn't.
Me: That one says Android makes it possible to target those who in the past could only have afforded a feature phone. Now they can get an Android smartphone instead with their lower entry price points.
" we expect to see a wide variety of Android phones running the gamut from feature phone to smartphone."
ooohhh. . Even better! An old article from 2009 opining there might be Android feature phones someday.
That took just a couple of minutes - there are many more references.
So which one of those was supposed to be the Android feature phone now being sold? I seem to recall you saying over the weekend that there were lots of them. I sense you grasping at straws now.
EDIT: Yes I did notice your sneaky yet subtle goalpost move to something you hope might be supportable since you can't find support for your claim of Android feature phones currently being sold amongst your 50,000+ Bing hits. I didn't fall for it.
Of course. I've said that repeatedly. I've said the same thing when surveys like this show that iOS devices are overwhelming leaders. It's the same subject that I've explained over and over again. A sample is only useful for evaluating the entire market if the sample is representative. If the sample is not representative, it doesn't mean a thing.
Well see, we CAN find some things to agree on. We both think this is a poorly conceived AI article with a flawed premise.
Comments
StatCounter is out today with their latest mobile web usage statistics and they serve as evidence that KDarling is correct in surmising that the differnce in web usage comes down to tablets. StatCounter doesn't include tablet usage in it's numbers:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-201201-201301
"With Nokia’s share of mobile internet usage down 15.52% from 37.67% last January to just 22.15% this year, Apple was able to move into the number one position for the first time ever despite experiencing a decline of 2.81%. Apple took 25.86% of mobile internet usage in January, down from 28.67% last year. Nokia was also bumped to third position with Samsung gaining 7.85% to move into the number two spot. However, it’s important to point out that StatCounter doesn’t include iPads in its definition of mobile devices.
As for mobile OS, StatCounter has at Android 37% of the market in January up from 33.19% in December. In comparison, iPhone and iPod held 25.85% of the global OS share, up from 23.26% in December. Keeping in mind that StatCounter doesn’t include iPads in these stats, we take also take a look at a report for January from NetApplications (pictured below) that has iOS with iPads included at 60.56% of the market during the month"
quote from 9to5 article.
Contrary to popular sentiment at AI, Android smartphones appear to use the internet substantially more than iOS iPods/iPhones, not less.
And, once again, we don't have any idea of whether this is representative of the market as a whole. Unless Statcounter either collects data from every site in the world or else can demonstrate that the sites they track are representative of the entire Internet, the data is not particularly useful.
Please try to keep up. The entire discussion was whether all the stratospheric sales figures that all the Android shills and mindless analysts present are correct. I cited evidence that they're not - in the one case where we actually got sales figures, the analysts estimates were far, far too high.
That was the consensus figure at the time:
http://www.dailytech.com/Analysts+Expect+Blowout+Quarter+for+Samsung+Smartphone+Sales+of+35+Million/article23669.htm
However, I'm glad you made me come up with the link. The consensus was that Samsung would sell 170 M smartphones in a year, or 35 M in the first quarter of 2012.
The ACTUAL number (as shown in the trial) was for 21 M in the 8 quarters before June, 2012 (including the quarter that was supposed to be 35 M).
Yes, the 21 M figure did not include ALL Samsung smart phones, but it included all the most popular ones.
Surely even you can see that the discrepancy is so large that the analysts' estimates need to be taken with a grain of salt - particularly since there's not one shred of evidence that their estimates have any bearing on reality.
Considering that I provided examples of Android features phones, I guess you're getting used to losing arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Considering that I provided examples of Android features phones, I guess you're getting used to losing arguments.
Now you're being dishonest. You cited one "imaginary phone" and one running Brew as the OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Please try to keep up. The entire discussion was whether all the stratospheric sales figures that all the Android shills and mindless analysts present are correct. I cited evidence that they're not - in the one case where we actually got sales figures, the analysts estimates were far, far too high.
That was the consensus figure at the time:
http://www.dailytech.com/Analysts+Expect+Blowout+Quarter+for+Samsung+Smartphone+Sales+of+35+Million/article23669.htm
However, I'm glad you made me come up with the link. The consensus was that Samsung would sell 170 M smartphones in a year, or 35 M in the first quarter of 2012.
The ACTUAL number (as shown in the trial) was for 21 M in the 8 quarters before June, 2012 (including the quarter that was supposed to be 35 M).
You're mixing worldwide smartphone shipping estimates with numbers for specific Samsung handsets produced for sale in only the US over a span of 24 months beginning in 2010, and then with only a subset of those being cited by Apple with sales numbers produced. Somehow you think you've managed to prove something from the two unrelated sets of numbers. You've offered no proof at all that previous estimates of that subset were "far, far too high". There were no previous estimates of those AFAIK.
Sometimes you just make stuff up I think, hoping I really don't "keep up".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And, once again, we don't have any idea of whether this is representative of the market as a whole. Unless Statcounter either collects data from every site in the world or else can demonstrate that the sites they track are representative of the entire Internet, the data is not particularly useful.
Then you would be in the camp of members who dismiss this entire AI article as fanciful and unreliable as it depends on accepting a similar set of usage data as evidence of questionable Android market share numbers.
No, I cited the Galaxy Star. I also referred you back to the time I did this previously when I identified half a dozen feature phones running Android.
But since you apparently STILL haven't found a third grader to explain how to use a search engine, here are some more:
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19736_7-20040826-251.html
"The i886 is billed as a feature phone with a slide-out QWERTY keyboard,"
"And yet, it IS an Android phone. We dug around in the phone's settings and discovered that according to the phone's open-source licenses, it runs using Android code."
http://pocketnow.com/android/lg-adds-android-os-to-env-touch-feature-phone-follow-up
"The enV series has been a popular consumer-oriented feature phone series for Verizon, and by adding Android to the enV Touch 2, LG is helping to expand the scope of Google’s mobile operating system to reach more consumers."
http://www.zdnet.com/android-to-make-waves-among-feature-phones-2062201480/
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/compare/T-Mobile-G1,LG-Town-GT350/phones/3097,4417
(note table which lists it as a feature phone and Android)
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/10/13/leap-plans-android-feature-phone-wait-what/
http://www.mobiletechreview.com/phones/T-Mobile-G1-Android.htm
" we expect to see a wide variety of Android phones running the gamut from feature phone to smartphone."
That took just a couple of minutes - there are many more references.
I can't believe that you shills are still denying that Android has been used on feature phones.
Once again, all of Samsung's best selling phones were in that number. So your position is that they only sold 21 M of their best selling phones but sold 150 M of 'everything else'? That's blatantly ridiculous.
Of course. I've said that repeatedly. I've said the same thing when surveys like this show that iOS devices are overwhelming leaders. It's the same subject that I've explained over and over again. A sample is only useful for evaluating the entire market if the sample is representative. If the sample is not representative, it doesn't mean a thing.
Have to interject the obvious here. Samsung stated that they will not be releasing actual sales figures due to the business risk. Well of course they don't want to do that. If they reported actual sales, and the analysts see that it is a tiny number compared to "shipped" (and the analysts guesses), their stock will take a beating, and their executives don't get to take home the big bonuses, and the analysts look stupid (well, OK, they already do, but that would make them look even more foolish than they already are). Certainly not rocket science to see that.
Oh, and if Apple can report actual sales numbers during a quarter from their thousands of sales outlets worldwide, why can't other companies? Maybe a software upgrade is needed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
No, I cited the Galaxy Star. I also referred you back to the time I did this previously when I identified half a dozen feature phones running Android.
Me: There's no such thing as a Galaxy Star. There's a vaporware rumor you found that there might be one at some future point. All the other Samsung Star's run Symbian, not Android.
But since you apparently STILL haven't found a third grader to explain how to use a search engine, here are some more:
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19736_7-20040826-251.html
"The i886 is billed as a feature phone with a slide-out QWERTY keyboard,"
"And yet, it IS an Android phone. We dug around in the phone's settings and discovered that according to the phone's open-source licenses, it runs using Android code."
Me: Yet your linked article for a phone from two years ago says: "Motorola was firm in saying it wasn't Android, and that it was a proprietary Linux-based OS. More importantly, the i886 doesn't meet basic Android standards: it doesn't have a touch screen, and it doesn't have access to the Android Market, so it can't technically be called an Android phone".
http://pocketnow.com/android/lg-adds-android-os-to-env-touch-feature-phone-follow-up
"The enV series has been a popular consumer-oriented feature phone series for Verizon, and by adding Android to the enV Touch 2, LG is helping to expand the scope of Google’s mobile operating system to reach more consumers."
Me: Which doesn't say the enV Touch 2 is also a feature phone. It isn't.
http://www.zdnet.com/android-to-make-waves-among-feature-phones-2062201480/
Me: That one says Android makes it possible to target those who in the past could only have afforded a feature phone. Now they can get an Android smartphone instead with their lower entry price points.
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/compare/T-Mobile-G1,LG-Town-GT350/phones/3097,4417
(note table which lists it as a feature phone and Android)
Me: Ah, the very first Android phone ever to hit the consumer market, from 2009!
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/10/13/leap-plans-android-feature-phone-wait-what/
Oh, goody. . . Another vaporware reference from you.
http://www.mobiletechreview.com/phones/T-Mobile-G1-Android.htm
" we expect to see a wide variety of Android phones running the gamut from feature phone to smartphone."
ooohhh. . Even better! An old article from 2009 opining there might be Android feature phones someday.
That took just a couple of minutes - there are many more references.
So which one of those was supposed to be the Android feature phone now being sold? I seem to recall you saying over the weekend that there were lots of them. I sense you grasping at straws now.
EDIT: Yes I did notice your sneaky yet subtle goalpost move to something you hope might be supportable since you can't find support for your claim of Android feature phones currently being sold amongst your 50,000+ Bing hits. I didn't fall for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Of course. I've said that repeatedly. I've said the same thing when surveys like this show that iOS devices are overwhelming leaders. It's the same subject that I've explained over and over again. A sample is only useful for evaluating the entire market if the sample is representative. If the sample is not representative, it doesn't mean a thing.
Well see, we CAN find some things to agree on. We both think this is a poorly conceived AI article with a flawed premise.