SEE, WHAT I DONT UNDERSTAND. IF YOU DONT LIKE APPLE GOOGLE RULES WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE ON THAT PLATFORM? ITS AS THOUGH, THEY WANT ALL THE BENEFITS OF THE APP GOOGLE PLAYSTORE, BUT THEY DONT WANT TO PAY. IF YOU DONT LIKE KETCHUP ON YOUR HOT DOG, YOU DINT HAVE TO EAT IT.
Works the same way, right?
yet, google is a bigger market. Why would you want to target a small market ?
The Appstore is much larger than Google Play. There are more than a BILLION Android users who do not rely on Google Play for apps, and millions more who take advantage of having Google Play plus more than one alternate app store to choose from on their personal device. How many iOS users rely on the App Store for apps and have an option for "other"?
But that isn't pertinent anyway. This is strictly pertaining to the US and its market and HERE Apple's iOS is the dominant platform with Android playing second fiddle. So again IMHO, it's odd that the AG's would file this antitrust lawsuit against the provider to the smaller marketshare, and the less restrictive one with alternate application sources if the device owner wishes.
That's just more FUD. I have no doubt that your numbers are correct but, even with all that, over 90% of the apps on the average Android device was downloaded from the Google Play Store. The number of Android users that only rely on the Google Play Store for their apps outnumbers ALL of the iOS users.
The "size" of a store can be based on square area, number of items for sale, number of items sold, number of customers, number of stores or profitability.
Apple App Store sells more and is more profitable than the Google Play Store. But the Google Play Store has more available apps, have more stores (if we count each Android device as having a store), more customers and 3X the downloads, than the Apple App Store. To claim that the Apple App Store is ....... much larger than Google Play .... is FUD.
Plus, using quarter sales figure to determine marketshare for anti-trust purpose is wrong. Those figures can swing more than 5%, either way, from quarter to quarter, depending on who's releasing the next ... must have device. All the quarterly sale marketshare is saying is that in last quarter, there were more consumers buying iOS devices than Android devices.
In order for this figure to be used as an indication of the true marketshare, every iOS users and every Android users must have purchased a new device in the quarter. Just because in the last two quarters, more iPhone users replaced their phones (with newer 5G iPhones) than Android users replacing their devices, it doesn't mean that all of a sudden, Apple gained more than 10% marketshare in the US. What they gained was over 10% of the sales in the last 2 quarters. iOS users buying new iOS devices did not increase the percent of consumers using iOS. And Android users that did not buy new devices, did not reduce the percent of consumers using Android.
A better "marker share" indicator is the number of users, in each mobile OS.
Based on users, iOS do not "dominate" in the US or UK, as many seems to think, because they are basing it on quarterly sale figures. It's going to take a Hell a lot more than just 2 quarters of 58% of sales, for iOS to be the "dominate" mobile OS in the US.
The percent of iOS vs Android users in the US is closer to 50/50, when one include tablets, (where the iPad rule), into the iPhone numbers.
The FUD is all yours DavidW.
You make arguments that only have any validity if you include worldwide Android numbers, and you know that. and do it anyway.
Read my link. Those numbers only apply to the US and the UK. Those are not Worldwide numbers. Those numbers are based on "users" in the US, not latest quarterly sales numbers.
By the way, what matter is the UK stats to a US antitrust case brought by the states? You seem to think it's relevant.
Oh, BTW, the numbers in your link were derided from from the mobile OSes that were used to access web pages that they were tracking. In other words, close to 60% of the people that access their web sites (in the US) were using iOS. Though there is probably a correlation, it's not going to be 1 to 1. The only sure thing these numbers indicate, is that there were more iOS users viewing their web pages, than Android users. That is not how the AG will be determining the market share of iOS users, in the US.
You haven't won. But Thanks for playing.
You specifically said: "I bet you can not provide me a link that shows iOS as the "dominate" mobile OS in the US, that do not rely on the latest quarterly sale numbers."
So I gave you one that doesn't rely on sales numbers as you yourself point out now. It's based on mobile OS usage which seems to me far more reliable as an indicator of active devices but that's a separate discussion. What's more pertinent is I won the bet didn't I, even if you can't bring yourself to say so? It didn't rely on device sales which you bet me I couldn't find.
SEE, WHAT I DONT UNDERSTAND. IF YOU DONT LIKE APPLE GOOGLE RULES WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE ON THAT PLATFORM? ITS AS THOUGH, THEY WANT ALL THE BENEFITS OF THE APP GOOGLE PLAYSTORE, BUT THEY DONT WANT TO PAY. IF YOU DONT LIKE KETCHUP ON YOUR HOT DOG, YOU DINT HAVE TO EAT IT.
Works the same way, right?
yet, google is a bigger market. Why would you want to target a small market ?
The Appstore is much larger than Google Play. There are more than a BILLION Android users who do not rely on Google Play for apps, and millions more who take advantage of having Google Play plus more than one alternate app store to choose from on their personal device. How many iOS users rely on the App Store for apps and have an option for "other"?
But that isn't pertinent anyway. This is strictly pertaining to the US and its market and HERE Apple's iOS is the dominant platform with Android playing second fiddle. So again IMHO, it's odd that the AG's would file this antitrust lawsuit against the provider to the smaller marketshare, and the less restrictive one with alternate application sources if the device owner wishes.
That's just more FUD. I have no doubt that your numbers are correct but, even with all that, over 90% of the apps on the average Android device was downloaded from the Google Play Store. The number of Android users that only rely on the Google Play Store for their apps outnumbers ALL of the iOS users.
The "size" of a store can be based on square area, number of items for sale, number of items sold, number of customers, number of stores or profitability.
Apple App Store sells more and is more profitable than the Google Play Store. But the Google Play Store has more available apps, have more stores (if we count each Android device as having a store), more customers and 3X the downloads, than the Apple App Store. To claim that the Apple App Store is ....... much larger than Google Play .... is FUD.
Plus, using quarter sales figure to determine marketshare for anti-trust purpose is wrong. Those figures can swing more than 5%, either way, from quarter to quarter, depending on who's releasing the next ... must have device. All the quarterly sale marketshare is saying is that in last quarter, there were more consumers buying iOS devices than Android devices.
In order for this figure to be used as an indication of the true marketshare, every iOS users and every Android users must have purchased a new device in the quarter. Just because in the last two quarters, more iPhone users replaced their phones (with newer 5G iPhones) than Android users replacing their devices, it doesn't mean that all of a sudden, Apple gained more than 10% marketshare in the US. What they gained was over 10% of the sales in the last 2 quarters. iOS users buying new iOS devices did not increase the percent of consumers using iOS. And Android users that did not buy new devices, did not reduce the percent of consumers using Android.
A better "marker share" indicator is the number of users, in each mobile OS.
Based on users, iOS do not "dominate" in the US or UK, as many seems to think, because they are basing it on quarterly sale figures. It's going to take a Hell a lot more than just 2 quarters of 58% of sales, for iOS to be the "dominate" mobile OS in the US.
The percent of iOS vs Android users in the US is closer to 50/50, when one include tablets, (where the iPad rule), into the iPhone numbers.
The FUD is all yours DavidW.
You make arguments that only have any validity if you include worldwide Android numbers, and you know that. and do it anyway.
Read my link. Those numbers only apply to the US and the UK. Those are not Worldwide numbers. Those numbers are based on "users" in the US, not latest quarterly sales numbers.
By the way, what matter is the UK stats to a US antitrust case brought by the states? You seem to think it's relevant.
Oh, BTW, the numbers in your link were derided from from the mobile OSes that were used to access web pages that they were tracking. In other words, close to 60% of the people that access their web sites (in the US) were using iOS. Though there is probably a correlation, it's not going to be 1 to 1. The only sure thing these numbers indicate, is that there were more iOS users viewing their web pages, than Android users. That is not how the AG will be determining the market share of iOS users, in the US.
You haven't won. But Thanks for playing.
You specifically said: "I bet you can not provide me a link that shows iOS as the "dominate" mobile OS in the US, that do not rely on the latest quarterly sale numbers."
So I gave you one that doesn't rely on sales numbers as you yourself point out now. It's based on mobile OS usage which seems far more reliable as an indicator of active devices but that's a different discussion. What's more pertinent is I won the bet didn't I, even if you can't bring yourself to say so? It didn't rely on device sales which you bet me I couldn't find.
FFS; enough of the angst about Apple avoiding antitrust action.
In the U.S., Google has the dominant browser and search engine, with the associated advertising dominance therein, has a notable services footprint on Windows, as well as a large app and services footprint within Apple's ecosystem, and yes, Google Play store dominates 3rd party app stores in the U.S.
Next to Google's rap sheet, Apple's alleged antitrust violations of its App Store pale in comparison, so of course, Google is the focus of initial antitrust actions.
I assure you, Apple will soon get its turn in the barrel.
SEE, WHAT I DONT UNDERSTAND. IF YOU DONT LIKE APPLE GOOGLE RULES WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE ON THAT PLATFORM? ITS AS THOUGH, THEY WANT ALL THE BENEFITS OF THE APP GOOGLE PLAYSTORE, BUT THEY DONT WANT TO PAY. IF YOU DONT LIKE KETCHUP ON YOUR HOT DOG, YOU DINT HAVE TO EAT IT.
Works the same way, right?
yet, google is a bigger market. Why would you want to target a small market ?
The Appstore is much larger than Google Play. There are more than a BILLION Android users who do not rely on Google Play for apps, and millions more who take advantage of having Google Play plus more than one alternate app store to choose from on their personal device. How many iOS users rely on the App Store for apps and have an option for "other"?
But that isn't pertinent anyway. This is strictly pertaining to the US and its market and HERE Apple's iOS is the dominant platform with Android playing second fiddle. So again IMHO, it's odd that the AG's would file this antitrust lawsuit against the provider to the smaller marketshare, and the less restrictive one with alternate application sources if the device owner wishes.
That's just more FUD. I have no doubt that your numbers are correct but, even with all that, over 90% of the apps on the average Android device was downloaded from the Google Play Store. The number of Android users that only rely on the Google Play Store for their apps outnumbers ALL of the iOS users.
The "size" of a store can be based on square area, number of items for sale, number of items sold, number of customers, number of stores or profitability.
Apple App Store sells more and is more profitable than the Google Play Store. But the Google Play Store has more available apps, have more stores (if we count each Android device as having a store), more customers and 3X the downloads, than the Apple App Store. To claim that the Apple App Store is ....... much larger than Google Play .... is FUD.
Plus, using quarter sales figure to determine marketshare for anti-trust purpose is wrong. Those figures can swing more than 5%, either way, from quarter to quarter, depending on who's releasing the next ... must have device. All the quarterly sale marketshare is saying is that in last quarter, there were more consumers buying iOS devices than Android devices.
In order for this figure to be used as an indication of the true marketshare, every iOS users and every Android users must have purchased a new device in the quarter. Just because in the last two quarters, more iPhone users replaced their phones (with newer 5G iPhones) than Android users replacing their devices, it doesn't mean that all of a sudden, Apple gained more than 10% marketshare in the US. What they gained was over 10% of the sales in the last 2 quarters. iOS users buying new iOS devices did not increase the percent of consumers using iOS. And Android users that did not buy new devices, did not reduce the percent of consumers using Android.
A better "marker share" indicator is the number of users, in each mobile OS.
Based on users, iOS do not "dominate" in the US or UK, as many seems to think, because they are basing it on quarterly sale figures. It's going to take a Hell a lot more than just 2 quarters of 58% of sales, for iOS to be the "dominate" mobile OS in the US.
The percent of iOS vs Android users in the US is closer to 50/50, when one include tablets, (where the iPad rule), into the iPhone numbers.
The FUD is all yours DavidW.
You make arguments that only have any validity if you include worldwide Android numbers, and you know that. and do it anyway.
Read my link. Those numbers only apply to the US and the UK. Those are not Worldwide numbers. Those numbers are based on "users" in the US, not latest quarterly sales numbers.
By the way, what matter is the UK stats to a US antitrust case brought by the states? You seem to think it's relevant.
Oh, BTW, the numbers in your link were derided from from the mobile OSes that were used to access web pages that they were tracking. In other words, close to 60% of the people that access their web sites (in the US) were using iOS. Though there is probably a correlation, it's not going to be 1 to 1. The only sure thing these numbers indicate, is that there were more iOS users viewing their web pages, than Android users. That is not how the AG will be determining the market share of iOS users, in the US.
You haven't won. But Thanks for playing.
You specifically said: "I bet you can not provide me a link that shows iOS as the "dominate" mobile OS in the US, that do not rely on the latest quarterly sale numbers."
So I gave you one that doesn't rely on sales numbers as you yourself point out now. It's based on mobile OS usage which seems far more reliable as an indicator of active devices but that's a different discussion. What's more pertinent is I won the bet didn't I, even if you can't bring yourself to say so? It didn't rely on device sales which you bet me I couldn't find.
FFS; enough of the angst about Apple avoiding antitrust action.
In the U.S., Google has the dominant browser and search engine, with the associated advertising dominance therein, has a notable services footprint on Windows, as well as a large app and services footprint within Apple's ecosystem, and yes, Google Play store dominates 3rd party app stores in the U.S.
Next to Google's rap sheet, Apple's alleged antitrust violations of its App Store pale in comparison, so of course, Google is the focus of initial antitrust actions.
I assure you, Apple will soon get its turn in the barrel.
Patience.
You've misconstrued my posts.
I'm not at all saying that Apple's App Store deserves an antitrust review. IMO it doesn't.
My point was the antitrust lawsuit the AGH's are bringing against Google is illogical if they don't see a problem with Apple's even more restrictive store, and they have not indicated they have one. Therefore neither company should be targeted for the rules they run their stores by. Do you agree?
I assure you, Apple will soon get its turn in the barrel.
They're already in the barrel. Epic's U.S. lawsuit involves many of the same issues like the commission rate, 1st party billing system requirement, and alternate app stores. However, since iOS is proprietary and Android is licensed, the outcome of Epic's lawsuit (regardless of what it turns out to be) can't be viewed as applying to iOS/Android equally. There's your reason for the various Attorney Generals filing a suit that focuses on licensed mobile operating systems only.
SEE, WHAT I DONT UNDERSTAND. IF YOU DONT LIKE APPLE GOOGLE RULES WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE ON THAT PLATFORM? ITS AS THOUGH, THEY WANT ALL THE BENEFITS OF THE APP GOOGLE PLAYSTORE, BUT THEY DONT WANT TO PAY. IF YOU DONT LIKE KETCHUP ON YOUR HOT DOG, YOU DINT HAVE TO EAT IT.
Works the same way, right?
yet, google is a bigger market. Why would you want to target a small market ?
The Appstore is much larger than Google Play. There are more than a BILLION Android users who do not rely on Google Play for apps, and millions more who take advantage of having Google Play plus more than one alternate app store to choose from on their personal device. How many iOS users rely on the App Store for apps and have an option for "other"?
But that isn't pertinent anyway. This is strictly pertaining to the US and its market and HERE Apple's iOS is the dominant platform with Android playing second fiddle. So again IMHO, it's odd that the AG's would file this antitrust lawsuit against the provider to the smaller marketshare, and the less restrictive one with alternate application sources if the device owner wishes.
That's just more FUD. I have no doubt that your numbers are correct but, even with all that, over 90% of the apps on the average Android device was downloaded from the Google Play Store. The number of Android users that only rely on the Google Play Store for their apps outnumbers ALL of the iOS users.
The "size" of a store can be based on square area, number of items for sale, number of items sold, number of customers, number of stores or profitability.
Apple App Store sells more and is more profitable than the Google Play Store. But the Google Play Store has more available apps, have more stores (if we count each Android device as having a store), more customers and 3X the downloads, than the Apple App Store. To claim that the Apple App Store is ....... much larger than Google Play .... is FUD.
Plus, using quarter sales figure to determine marketshare for anti-trust purpose is wrong. Those figures can swing more than 5%, either way, from quarter to quarter, depending on who's releasing the next ... must have device. All the quarterly sale marketshare is saying is that in last quarter, there were more consumers buying iOS devices than Android devices.
In order for this figure to be used as an indication of the true marketshare, every iOS users and every Android users must have purchased a new device in the quarter. Just because in the last two quarters, more iPhone users replaced their phones (with newer 5G iPhones) than Android users replacing their devices, it doesn't mean that all of a sudden, Apple gained more than 10% marketshare in the US. What they gained was over 10% of the sales in the last 2 quarters. iOS users buying new iOS devices did not increase the percent of consumers using iOS. And Android users that did not buy new devices, did not reduce the percent of consumers using Android.
A better "marker share" indicator is the number of users, in each mobile OS.
Based on users, iOS do not "dominate" in the US or UK, as many seems to think, because they are basing it on quarterly sale figures. It's going to take a Hell a lot more than just 2 quarters of 58% of sales, for iOS to be the "dominate" mobile OS in the US.
The percent of iOS vs Android users in the US is closer to 50/50, when one include tablets, (where the iPad rule), into the iPhone numbers.
The FUD is all yours DavidW.
You make arguments that only have any validity if you include worldwide Android numbers, and you know that. and do it anyway.
Read my link. Those numbers only apply to the US and the UK. Those are not Worldwide numbers. Those numbers are based on "users" in the US, not latest quarterly sales numbers.
By the way, what matter is the UK stats to a US antitrust case brought by the states? You seem to think it's relevant.
Oh, BTW, the numbers in your link were derided from from the mobile OSes that were used to access web pages that they were tracking. In other words, close to 60% of the people that access their web sites (in the US) were using iOS. Though there is probably a correlation, it's not going to be 1 to 1. The only sure thing these numbers indicate, is that there were more iOS users viewing their web pages, than Android users. That is not how the AG will be determining the market share of iOS users, in the US.
You haven't won. But Thanks for playing.
You specifically said: "I bet you can not provide me a link that shows iOS as the "dominate" mobile OS in the US, that do not rely on the latest quarterly sale numbers."
So I gave you one that doesn't rely on sales numbers as you yourself point out now. It's based on mobile OS usage which seems far more reliable as an indicator of active devices but that's a different discussion. What's more pertinent is I won the bet didn't I, even if you can't bring yourself to say so? It didn't rely on device sales which you bet me I couldn't find.
FFS; enough of the angst about Apple avoiding antitrust action.
In the U.S., Google has the dominant browser and search engine, with the associated advertising dominance therein, has a notable services footprint on Windows, as well as a large app and services footprint within Apple's ecosystem, and yes, Google Play store dominates 3rd party app stores in the U.S.
Next to Google's rap sheet, Apple's alleged antitrust violations of its App Store pale in comparison, so of course, Google is the focus of initial antitrust actions.
I assure you, Apple will soon get its turn in the barrel.
Patience.
You've misconstrued my posts.
I'm not at all saying that Apple's App Store deserves an antitrust review. IMO it doesn't.
My point was the antitrust lawsuit the AGH's are bringing against Google is illogical if they don't see a problem with Apple's even more restrictive store, and they have not indicated they have one. Therefore neither company should be targeted for the rules they run their stores by. Do you agree?
Apple is already facing Congressional review of its App store, and I actually do agree that Apple should face review, sooner than later. It is going to happen and If there is going to be any mitigation, it should be based solely on a reduction of Apple's cut of app and subscription sales. I have no idea why the AGH's haven't acted on Apple yet, but I'd surmise that Google has been in their sights for much longer than Apple. Give it time, and I'm sure Apple will face the same review.
What I vehemently disagree with is forcing 3rd party stores and payments on Apple as mitigation, since this is a minimally consumer friendly. Exhibit A is how poorly 3rd party app stores actually compete with Google Play Store in the U.S., hence why Google is under review.
Among the many ludicrous things to consider here is that there is nearly ZERO groundswell from the public that they feel they are being wronged. In fact, people want exactly what Apple is offering, and the vanishingly few that legitimately don't like the model - tough.
Apple's wall-garden is appreciated by nearly everyone thats uses it. it is appreciated for the ease of use, the integration, the interoperability, and most importantly, the security of their approach. Nothing is perfect, but I have yet to see anyone describe how permitting third party app stores will offer the same level of integration and security of my personal information. It's really not possible. The only approach would be a completely separate sandbox for third party-sourced apps that does not have access to anything on the other side of the fence, negating all the aforementioned benefits. And even then, you would have introduced another vector for a possible crossover bug to be exploited.
Is any user clamoring they want to save $20-$40 a year in lower cost apps and sacrificing functionality and security? No one is. Only other entities, it appears, that stand to profit from such actions both private and governmental.
Finally, this is Apple's ecosystem. It's not in their interests to spend development time and money, and support resources, to another sandbox. Apple doesn't make phones. They offer an ecosystem that is a combination of HW/OS/SW/Services.
Their wild success is not due to coercion, but the genius what they do, don't do, and deliver, better than just about any other company out there. They really should be celebrated, not chastized.
If I invite you over for dinner, you don't have a say in what I make or where I buy the food from. It's my home, my idea, my efforts, my money. And of course, I choose who to invite over.
SEE, WHAT I DONT UNDERSTAND. IF YOU DONT LIKE APPLE GOOGLE RULES WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE ON THAT PLATFORM? ITS AS THOUGH, THEY WANT ALL THE BENEFITS OF THE APP GOOGLE PLAYSTORE, BUT THEY DONT WANT TO PAY. IF YOU DONT LIKE KETCHUP ON YOUR HOT DOG, YOU DINT HAVE TO EAT IT.
Works the same way, right?
yet, google is a bigger market. Why would you want to target a small market ?
The Appstore is much larger than Google Play. There are more than a BILLION Android users who do not rely on Google Play for apps, and millions more who take advantage of having Google Play plus more than one alternate app store to choose from on their personal device. How many iOS users rely on the App Store for apps and have an option for "other"?
But that isn't pertinent anyway. This is strictly pertaining to the US and its market and HERE Apple's iOS is the dominant platform with Android playing second fiddle. So again IMHO, it's odd that the AG's would file this antitrust lawsuit against the provider to the smaller marketshare, and the less restrictive one with alternate application sources if the device owner wishes.
That's just more FUD. I have no doubt that your numbers are correct but, even with all that, over 90% of the apps on the average Android device was downloaded from the Google Play Store. The number of Android users that only rely on the Google Play Store for their apps outnumbers ALL of the iOS users.
The "size" of a store can be based on square area, number of items for sale, number of items sold, number of customers, number of stores or profitability.
Apple App Store sells more and is more profitable than the Google Play Store. But the Google Play Store has more available apps, have more stores (if we count each Android device as having a store), more customers and 3X the downloads, than the Apple App Store. To claim that the Apple App Store is ....... much larger than Google Play .... is FUD.
Plus, using quarter sales figure to determine marketshare for anti-trust purpose is wrong. Those figures can swing more than 5%, either way, from quarter to quarter, depending on who's releasing the next ... must have device. All the quarterly sale marketshare is saying is that in last quarter, there were more consumers buying iOS devices than Android devices.
In order for this figure to be used as an indication of the true marketshare, every iOS users and every Android users must have purchased a new device in the quarter. Just because in the last two quarters, more iPhone users replaced their phones (with newer 5G iPhones) than Android users replacing their devices, it doesn't mean that all of a sudden, Apple gained more than 10% marketshare in the US. What they gained was over 10% of the sales in the last 2 quarters. iOS users buying new iOS devices did not increase the percent of consumers using iOS. And Android users that did not buy new devices, did not reduce the percent of consumers using Android.
A better "marker share" indicator is the number of users, in each mobile OS.
Based on users, iOS do not "dominate" in the US or UK, as many seems to think, because they are basing it on quarterly sale figures. It's going to take a Hell a lot more than just 2 quarters of 58% of sales, for iOS to be the "dominate" mobile OS in the US.
The percent of iOS vs Android users in the US is closer to 50/50, when one include tablets, (where the iPad rule), into the iPhone numbers.
The FUD is all yours DavidW.
You make arguments that only have any validity if you include worldwide Android numbers, and you know that. and do it anyway.
Read my link. Those numbers only apply to the US and the UK. Those are not Worldwide numbers. Those numbers are based on "users" in the US, not latest quarterly sales numbers.
By the way, what matter is the UK stats to a US antitrust case brought by the states? You seem to think it's relevant.
Oh, BTW, the numbers in your link were derided from from the mobile OSes that were used to access web pages that they were tracking. In other words, close to 60% of the people that access their web sites (in the US) were using iOS. Though there is probably a correlation, it's not going to be 1 to 1. The only sure thing these numbers indicate, is that there were more iOS users viewing their web pages, than Android users. That is not how the AG will be determining the market share of iOS users, in the US.
You haven't won. But Thanks for playing.
You specifically said: "I bet you can not provide me a link that shows iOS as the "dominate" mobile OS in the US, that do not rely on the latest quarterly sale numbers."
So I gave you one that doesn't rely on sales numbers as you yourself point out now. It's based on mobile OS usage which seems to me far more reliable as an indicator of active devices but that's a separate discussion. What's more pertinent is I won the bet didn't I, even if you can't bring yourself to say so? It didn't rely on device sales which you bet me I couldn't find.
Are you that dense? All that stat show is that 60% of the mobile device users in the US that visited the web sites that they were tracking, were using iOS. Did it ever occur to you that users with iPhones or iPads visited the sites they tracking, more often? Or that most of the mobile device users were using a tablets to surf the internet? Therefore most of the mobile devices were iPads. How about if Apple device owners were more interested in the sites they were tracking than Android users? Therefore. the stat would skew toward iOS. Or that most of their websites catered to the demographic that would mostly likely own an iPhone? What if most of the web sites catered to people with higher than average income? What if access most of these web sites is a better experience using a powerful smartphone, so the data don't reflect the Android users that are not using cheap Android phones for just checking email, texting, ? There are so many variables that using this stat to indicated actual market share of IOS vs Android in the US, useless.
They are not claiming that about 60% of the mobile device users in the US own an iOS device. They are claiming that about 60% of the mobile device users that visit the web sites they are tracking, were using iOS. That's a big difference.
Here's some web tracking data that involves just Facebook.
Though there are countries (including the US) where there are more iOS users accessing Facebook than Android users, iOS do not "dominate" in any of them. This stat is any more or less reliable in indicating true mark share of iOS vs Android, than the link you provided.
Stats citing that there are about 118M (up from about 113M on other sites) iPhone users in the US. and about 300M total smartphones in the US.
Think for a second. If there are about 300M smartphones being used in the US and iPhones makes up about 120M of them, that's about 40%. (Even though latest quarterly sales number shows that about 60% of mobile phones sold in the quarter were iPhones.) When you add tablets into the stat, iOS will be on about 50% to 52% of mobile devices in the US. Hardly what most would call "dominate". And no where close to the 60/40 you seem to think, but can't pull up any reliable data that don't rely on the latest quarterly sales numbers, to show it. Web impression tracking is not an accurate way to indicate true market share. Whether its 2M websites or 1 website, like Facebook.
SEE, WHAT I DONT UNDERSTAND. IF YOU DONT LIKE APPLE GOOGLE RULES WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE ON THAT PLATFORM? ITS AS THOUGH, THEY WANT ALL THE BENEFITS OF THE APP GOOGLE PLAYSTORE, BUT THEY DONT WANT TO PAY. IF YOU DONT LIKE KETCHUP ON YOUR HOT DOG, YOU DINT HAVE TO EAT IT.
Works the same way, right?
yet, google is a bigger market. Why would you want to target a small market ?
The Appstore is much larger than Google Play. There are more than a BILLION Android users who do not rely on Google Play for apps, and millions more who take advantage of having Google Play plus more than one alternate app store to choose from on their personal device. How many iOS users rely on the App Store for apps and have an option for "other"?
But that isn't pertinent anyway. This is strictly pertaining to the US and its market and HERE Apple's iOS is the dominant platform with Android playing second fiddle. So again IMHO, it's odd that the AG's would file this antitrust lawsuit against the provider to the smaller marketshare, and the less restrictive one with alternate application sources if the device owner wishes.
That's just more FUD. I have no doubt that your numbers are correct but, even with all that, over 90% of the apps on the average Android device was downloaded from the Google Play Store. The number of Android users that only rely on the Google Play Store for their apps outnumbers ALL of the iOS users.
The "size" of a store can be based on square area, number of items for sale, number of items sold, number of customers, number of stores or profitability.
Apple App Store sells more and is more profitable than the Google Play Store. But the Google Play Store has more available apps, have more stores (if we count each Android device as having a store), more customers and 3X the downloads, than the Apple App Store. To claim that the Apple App Store is ....... much larger than Google Play .... is FUD.
Plus, using quarter sales figure to determine marketshare for anti-trust purpose is wrong. Those figures can swing more than 5%, either way, from quarter to quarter, depending on who's releasing the next ... must have device. All the quarterly sale marketshare is saying is that in last quarter, there were more consumers buying iOS devices than Android devices.
In order for this figure to be used as an indication of the true marketshare, every iOS users and every Android users must have purchased a new device in the quarter. Just because in the last two quarters, more iPhone users replaced their phones (with newer 5G iPhones) than Android users replacing their devices, it doesn't mean that all of a sudden, Apple gained more than 10% marketshare in the US. What they gained was over 10% of the sales in the last 2 quarters. iOS users buying new iOS devices did not increase the percent of consumers using iOS. And Android users that did not buy new devices, did not reduce the percent of consumers using Android.
A better "marker share" indicator is the number of users, in each mobile OS.
Based on users, iOS do not "dominate" in the US or UK, as many seems to think, because they are basing it on quarterly sale figures. It's going to take a Hell a lot more than just 2 quarters of 58% of sales, for iOS to be the "dominate" mobile OS in the US.
The percent of iOS vs Android users in the US is closer to 50/50, when one include tablets, (where the iPad rule), into the iPhone numbers.
The FUD is all yours DavidW.
You make arguments that only have any validity if you include worldwide Android numbers, and you know that. and do it anyway.
Read my link. Those numbers only apply to the US and the UK. Those are not Worldwide numbers. Those numbers are based on "users" in the US, not latest quarterly sales numbers.
By the way, what matter is the UK stats to a US antitrust case brought by the states? You seem to think it's relevant.
Oh, BTW, the numbers in your link were derided from from the mobile OSes that were used to access web pages that they were tracking. In other words, close to 60% of the people that access their web sites (in the US) were using iOS. Though there is probably a correlation, it's not going to be 1 to 1. The only sure thing these numbers indicate, is that there were more iOS users viewing their web pages, than Android users. That is not how the AG will be determining the market share of iOS users, in the US.
You haven't won. But Thanks for playing.
You specifically said: "I bet you can not provide me a link that shows iOS as the "dominate" mobile OS in the US, that do not rely on the latest quarterly sale numbers."
So I gave you one that doesn't rely on sales numbers as you yourself point out now. It's based on mobile OS usage which seems far more reliable as an indicator of active devices but that's a different discussion. What's more pertinent is I won the bet didn't I, even if you can't bring yourself to say so? It didn't rely on device sales which you bet me I couldn't find.
FFS; enough of the angst about Apple avoiding antitrust action.
In the U.S., Google has the dominant browser and search engine, with the associated advertising dominance therein, has a notable services footprint on Windows, as well as a large app and services footprint within Apple's ecosystem, and yes, Google Play store dominates 3rd party app stores in the U.S.
Next to Google's rap sheet, Apple's alleged antitrust violations of its App Store pale in comparison, so of course, Google is the focus of initial antitrust actions.
I assure you, Apple will soon get its turn in the barrel.
Patience.
You've misconstrued my posts.
I'm not at all saying that Apple's App Store deserves an antitrust review. IMO it doesn't.
My point was the antitrust lawsuit the AGH's are bringing against Google is illogical if they don't see a problem with Apple's even more restrictive store, and they have not indicated they have one. Therefore neither company should be targeted for the rules they run their stores by. Do you agree?
Apple is already facing Congressional review of its App store, and I actually do agree that Apple should face review, sooner than later. It is going to happen and If there is going to be any mitigation, it should be based solely on a reduction of Apple's cut of app and subscription sales. I have no idea why the AGH's haven't acted on Apple yet, but I'd surmise that Google has been in their sights for much longer than Apple. Give it time, and I'm sure Apple will face the same review.
What I vehemently disagree with is forcing 3rd party stores and payments on Apple as mitigation, since this is a minimally consumer friendly. Exhibit A is how poorly 3rd party app stores actually compete with Google Play Store in the U.S., hence why Google is under review.
Maybe because under current anti-trust laws, they would have a hard time proving that Apple has a "monopoly", in any way. But with Google, they do have what can be considered a monopoly or monopolies under current anti-trust laws, with Android, their internet search engine and with online ads. If I recall, the earlier charges were against Google dominate position in internet search and online ad placements. These can be proven to be monopolies with current anti-trust laws. All the government would need to prove is abuse of those monopolies.
Anti-trust violations that was levied by the FTC against Facebook had to be dropped because the FTC did not provide enough evidence that Facebook had a monopoly (in the market cited), under current anti-trust laws.
The government is waiting and hoping for the passage of the new anti-trust laws aimed toward big tech, so that not only would they have an easier time proving a "monopoly" by narrowing down the definition of a "market", they don't even need to prove a "monopoly" to levy anti-trust charges. Just being one of the big techs the new anti-trust laws are aimed toward and making what they consider too much profit, would be enough. Under current anti-trust laws, making too much profit is not an anti-trust matter unless one abuses a monopoly or monopoly power.
Even if Google allows third party stores and side loading, they still have monopoly power with their Google Play Store, with over 90% of the app downloads and it being on over 70% of mobile devices. And they might be abusing that monopoly power. So even under current anti-trust laws, the government might have a case, if they have enough evidence that Google is abusing the monopoly power they have with the Google Play Store.
SEE, WHAT I DONT UNDERSTAND. IF YOU DONT LIKE APPLE GOOGLE RULES WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE ON THAT PLATFORM? ITS AS THOUGH, THEY WANT ALL THE BENEFITS OF THE APP GOOGLE PLAYSTORE, BUT THEY DONT WANT TO PAY. IF YOU DONT LIKE KETCHUP ON YOUR HOT DOG, YOU DINT HAVE TO EAT IT.
Works the same way, right?
yet, google is a bigger market. Why would you want to target a small market ?
The Appstore is much larger than Google Play. There are more than a BILLION Android users who do not rely on Google Play for apps, and millions more who take advantage of having Google Play plus more than one alternate app store to choose from on their personal device. How many iOS users rely on the App Store for apps and have an option for "other"?
But that isn't pertinent anyway. This is strictly pertaining to the US and its market and HERE Apple's iOS is the dominant platform with Android playing second fiddle. So again IMHO, it's odd that the AG's would file this antitrust lawsuit against the provider to the smaller marketshare, and the less restrictive one with alternate application sources if the device owner wishes.
That's just more FUD. I have no doubt that your numbers are correct but, even with all that, over 90% of the apps on the average Android device was downloaded from the Google Play Store. The number of Android users that only rely on the Google Play Store for their apps outnumbers ALL of the iOS users.
The "size" of a store can be based on square area, number of items for sale, number of items sold, number of customers, number of stores or profitability.
Apple App Store sells more and is more profitable than the Google Play Store. But the Google Play Store has more available apps, have more stores (if we count each Android device as having a store), more customers and 3X the downloads, than the Apple App Store. To claim that the Apple App Store is ....... much larger than Google Play .... is FUD.
Plus, using quarter sales figure to determine marketshare for anti-trust purpose is wrong. Those figures can swing more than 5%, either way, from quarter to quarter, depending on who's releasing the next ... must have device. All the quarterly sale marketshare is saying is that in last quarter, there were more consumers buying iOS devices than Android devices.
In order for this figure to be used as an indication of the true marketshare, every iOS users and every Android users must have purchased a new device in the quarter. Just because in the last two quarters, more iPhone users replaced their phones (with newer 5G iPhones) than Android users replacing their devices, it doesn't mean that all of a sudden, Apple gained more than 10% marketshare in the US. What they gained was over 10% of the sales in the last 2 quarters. iOS users buying new iOS devices did not increase the percent of consumers using iOS. And Android users that did not buy new devices, did not reduce the percent of consumers using Android.
A better "marker share" indicator is the number of users, in each mobile OS.
Based on users, iOS do not "dominate" in the US or UK, as many seems to think, because they are basing it on quarterly sale figures. It's going to take a Hell a lot more than just 2 quarters of 58% of sales, for iOS to be the "dominate" mobile OS in the US.
The percent of iOS vs Android users in the US is closer to 50/50, when one include tablets, (where the iPad rule), into the iPhone numbers.
The FUD is all yours DavidW.
You make arguments that only have any validity if you include worldwide Android numbers, and you know that. and do it anyway.
Read my link. Those numbers only apply to the US and the UK. Those are not Worldwide numbers. Those numbers are based on "users" in the US, not latest quarterly sales numbers.
By the way, what matter is the UK stats to a US antitrust case brought by the states? You seem to think it's relevant.
Oh, BTW, the numbers in your link were derided from from the mobile OSes that were used to access web pages that they were tracking. In other words, close to 60% of the people that access their web sites (in the US) were using iOS. Though there is probably a correlation, it's not going to be 1 to 1. The only sure thing these numbers indicate, is that there were more iOS users viewing their web pages, than Android users. That is not how the AG will be determining the market share of iOS users, in the US.
You haven't won. But Thanks for playing.
You specifically said: "I bet you can not provide me a link that shows iOS as the "dominate" mobile OS in the US, that do not rely on the latest quarterly sale numbers."
So I gave you one that doesn't rely on sales numbers as you yourself point out now. It's based on mobile OS usage which seems to me far more reliable as an indicator of active devices but that's a separate discussion. What's more pertinent is I won the bet didn't I, even if you can't bring yourself to say so? It didn't rely on device sales which you bet me I couldn't find.
Are you that dense? All that stat show is that 60% of the mobile device users in the US that visited the web sites that they were tracking, were using iOS. Did it ever occur to you that users with iPhones or iPads visited the sites they tracking, more often? Or that most of the mobile device users were using a tablets to surf the internet? Therefore most of the mobile devices were iPads. How about if Apple device owners were more interested in the sites they were tracking than Android users? Therefore. the stat would skew toward iOS. Or that most of their websites catered to the demographic that would mostly likely own an iPhone? What if most of the web sites catered to people with higher than average income? What if access most of these web sites is a better experience using a powerful smartphone, so the data don't reflect the Android users that are not using cheap Android phones for just checking email, texting, ? There are so many variables that using this stat to indicated actual market share of IOS vs Android in the US, useless.
They are not claiming that about 60% of the mobile device users in the US own an iOS device. They are claiming that about 60% of the mobile device users that visit the web sites they are tracking, were using iOS. That's a big difference.
Here's some web tracking data that involves just Facebook.
Though there are countries (including the US) where there are more iOS users accessing Facebook than Android users, iOS do not "dominate" in any of them. This stat is any more or less reliable in indicating true mark share of iOS vs Android, than the link you provided.
Stats citing that there are about 118M (up from about 113M on other sites) iPhone users in the US. and about 300M total smartphones in the US.
Think for a second. If there are about 300M smartphones being used in the US and iPhones makes up about 120M of them, that's about 40%. (Even though latest quarterly sales number shows that about 60% of mobile phones sold in the quarter were iPhones.) When you add tablets into the stat, iOS will be on about 50% to 52% of mobile devices in the US. Hardly what most would call "dominate". And no where close to the 60/40 you seem to think, but can't pull up any reliable data that don't rely on the latest quarterly sales numbers, to show it. Web impression tracking is not an accurate way to indicate true market share. Whether its 2M websites or 1 website, like Facebook.
Do Apple publish their known install base numbers? If they don't, and I believe they don't, other than very occasional stat flashes on a screen at WWDC, then how do you propose measuring it other than by limited measures of, e.g. web access?
Seems to me that you asked for something and gatorguy gave an imperfect response, but a reasonable one, given the information available.
IAC Is the absolute worst. I had to deal with them when I worked for Bank of America and they constantly complained about this or that and never got us their contracts on time, resulting in us duplicating our work and ultimately taking many months to get any products set up. Funny he says he thinks Apple is up next for antitrust when they own so many corporations themselves!
Here we go again with Apple is a “monopoly” crap. If Apple was a monopoly like Standard Oil or Ma Bell then you would not have a choice would you? who sells the most phones world wide? It isn’t Apple. Who sells the most PC’s? It is t Apple who has the largest share of Office software? No it isn’t Apple.
No one is holding an effing gun to your head forcing you to be on Apple’s ecosystem. The big difference here is Apple has always charged the 30% fee and until very recently Google has started enforcing its 30% fee so now developers are angry (probably rightfully so) but at the same time it is funny to watch a lot of tech companies that did the Democrats bidding in the last Presidential election how they are now becoming the democrats favorite target because the democrats want that wealth back. Got to love Karma and her *itchyness. Loyalty is not a two way street.
Exactly. It appears only in the Apple store is Apple a monopoly. Newsflash! Walmart is a monopoly in Walmart stores. Kroeger is a monopoly is their own stores. Amazon is a monopoly in its own marketplace. You don’t sell your products in there for free and you don’t get to ask the to pay outside these stores.
What this guy is is a worm piling on due to Apple being in the news. If TV loves Apple again he’ll be singing the praises of the App Store and how it made money for him. He’s a standard TV mouth used car salesman selling whatever is in favor on any given day. The TV world (and certain businesses) are chock full of these carnival barkers.
SEE, WHAT I DONT UNDERSTAND. IF YOU DONT LIKE APPLE GOOGLE RULES WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE ON THAT PLATFORM? ITS AS THOUGH, THEY WANT ALL THE BENEFITS OF THE APP GOOGLE PLAYSTORE, BUT THEY DONT WANT TO PAY. IF YOU DONT LIKE KETCHUP ON YOUR HOT DOG, YOU DINT HAVE TO EAT IT.
Works the same way, right?
yet, google is a bigger market. Why would you want to target a small market ?
The Appstore is much larger than Google Play. There are more than a BILLION Android users who do not rely on Google Play for apps, and millions more who take advantage of having Google Play plus more than one alternate app store to choose from on their personal device. How many iOS users rely on the App Store for apps and have an option for "other"?
But that isn't pertinent anyway. This is strictly pertaining to the US and its market and HERE Apple's iOS is the dominant platform with Android playing second fiddle. So again IMHO, it's odd that the AG's would file this antitrust lawsuit against the provider to the smaller marketshare, and the less restrictive one with alternate application sources if the device owner wishes.
So let me get this straight, Android is likely to be heading toward 80% WW market share but that doesn’t matter. Ok, Google is an American company that directly massively benefits from this dominance, but we’ll suspend their market share dominance to just look over in just this one square to suit you. Interesting that you state the Apple App Store is “bigger” (it does sell more Apps) but that is a global store. How come now global sales are ok?
What you’re peddling is nonsense. You are trying to make Apple a giant dominant (mission creep to monopoly!) but that is just here but that’s ok (us market share very much fluctuates by year and season, typically somewhere generally around 50/50). The APP Store comment completes your mission creep by going for their store (or Google’s store) as a monopoly (shhh, Walmart is a monopoly in their own store , 7-11 is too)
SEE, WHAT I DONT UNDERSTAND. IF YOU DONT LIKE APPLE GOOGLE RULES WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE ON THAT PLATFORM? ITS AS THOUGH, THEY WANT ALL THE BENEFITS OF THE APP GOOGLE PLAYSTORE, BUT THEY DONT WANT TO PAY. IF YOU DONT LIKE KETCHUP ON YOUR HOT DOG, YOU DINT HAVE TO EAT IT.
Works the same way, right?
yet, google is a bigger market. Why would you want to target a small market ?
The Appstore is much larger than Google Play. There are more than a BILLION Android users who do not rely on Google Play for apps, and millions more who take advantage of having Google Play plus more than one alternate app store to choose from on their personal device. How many iOS users rely on the App Store for apps and have an option for "other"?
But that isn't pertinent anyway. This is strictly pertaining to the US and its market and HERE Apple's iOS is the dominant platform with Android playing second fiddle. So again IMHO, it's odd that the AG's would file this antitrust lawsuit against the provider to the smaller marketshare, and the less restrictive one with alternate application sources if the device owner wishes.
Still playing dumb I see.
Android WAS less restrictive in the beginning, but has become much more restrictive in recent years. That’s classic antitrust behavior (make your product more attractive to gain market share, and after you’ve become dominant then start locking it down).
Android is the dominant mobile OS, having pretty much 100% of the market.
Mirror mirror...
The dominant mobile OS in the United States is Apple's iOS and their App store. The more restrictive of the two and also tightening their grip since their AppStore was introduced is Apple and their App Store. Zero question about either one. Also, no question that the AG's aren't representing anything except their own states. The market outside of the US is of zero relevance. In the US iOS rules in every category.
Whatever reason the AG's are targeting the Play Store is, the one you're guessing at in nonsensical. Try again.
EDIT:
This seems more politically motivated than protecting consumers from paying too much for apps.
Google's argument is essentially the same as Apple's as it pertains to their respective app stores:
"In a blog post, Google dismissed the suit as "meritless," saying the changes the plaintiffs demand for its Google Play store risk "raising costs for small developers, impeding their ability to innovate and compete, and making apps across the Android ecosystem less secure for consumers."
"This lawsuit isn’t about helping the little guy or protecting consumers," the company said. "It’s about boosting a handful of major app developers who want the benefits of Google Play without paying for it."
If that makes sense for Apple, and the overwhelming opinion held here is that it does, why would it not equally apply to Google? Any comment whether Google's argument is just as valid as Apple's @ericthehalfbee ?
Google’s argument is valid. Getting a tighter running store will be a success for Google and Play users.
Play Store is a mess compared to the App Store. Google’s been in the process of cleaning it up but it ain’t Play Store. You go to the App Store and there’s virtually no worry to download an app…no malware or scam or pure spyware (And for Play Store, you write an app, it’s taken quite easily for sideload.).
In a world that is seeing internet based internet scams hijacks and the rest, it seems like a wonderful idea to make average users rely less on stores that aren’t messes.
SEE, WHAT I DONT UNDERSTAND. IF YOU DONT LIKE APPLE GOOGLE RULES WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE ON THAT PLATFORM? ITS AS THOUGH, THEY WANT ALL THE BENEFITS OF THE APP GOOGLE PLAYSTORE, BUT THEY DONT WANT TO PAY. IF YOU DONT LIKE KETCHUP ON YOUR HOT DOG, YOU DINT HAVE TO EAT IT.
Works the same way, right?
yet, google is a bigger market. Why would you want to target a small market ?
The Appstore is much larger than Google Play. There are more than a BILLION Android users who do not rely on Google Play for apps, and millions more who take advantage of having Google Play plus more than one alternate app store to choose from on their personal device. How many iOS users rely on the App Store for apps and have an option for "other"?
But that isn't pertinent anyway. This is strictly pertaining to the US and its market and HERE Apple's iOS is the dominant platform with Android playing second fiddle. So again IMHO, it's odd that the AG's would file this antitrust lawsuit against the provider to the smaller marketshare, and the less restrictive one with alternate application sources if the device owner wishes.
Still playing dumb I see.
Android WAS less restrictive in the beginning, but has become much more restrictive in recent years. That’s classic antitrust behavior (make your product more attractive to gain market share, and after you’ve become dominant then start locking it down).
Android is the dominant mobile OS, having pretty much 100% of the market.
Mirror mirror...
The dominant mobile OS in the United States is Apple's iOS and their App store. The more restrictive of the two and also tightening their grip since their AppStore was introduced is Apple and their App Store. Zero question about either one. Also, no question that the AG's aren't representing anything except their own states. The market outside of the US is of zero relevance. In the US iOS rules in every category.
Whatever reason the AG's are targeting the Play Store is, the one you're guessing at in nonsensical. Try again.
EDIT:
This seems more politically motivated than protecting consumers from paying too much for apps.
Google's argument is essentially the same as Apple's as it pertains to their respective app stores:
"In a blog post, Google dismissed the suit as "meritless," saying the changes the plaintiffs demand for its Google Play store risk "raising costs for small developers, impeding their ability to innovate and compete, and making apps across the Android ecosystem less secure for consumers."
"This lawsuit isn’t about helping the little guy or protecting consumers," the company said. "It’s about boosting a handful of major app developers who want the benefits of Google Play without paying for it."
If that makes sense for Apple, and the overwhelming opinion held here is that it does, why would it not equally apply to Google? Any comment whether Google's argument is just as valid as Apple's @ericthehalfbee ?
Google’s argument is valid. Getting a tighter running store will be a success for Google and Play users.
Play Store is a mess compared to the App Store. Google’s been in the process of cleaning it up but it ain’t Play Store. You go to the App Store and there’s virtually no worry to download an app…no malware or scam or pure spyware (And for Play Store, you write an app, it’s taken quite easily for sideload.).
In a world that is seeing internet based internet scams hijacks and the rest, it seems like a wonderful idea to make average users rely less on stores that aren’t messes.
While allegations about commission rates are a key part of the lawsuit, the attorneys general spend a lot of time dissecting Google’s alleged efforts to keep competing app stores at bay, especially Samsung’s Galaxy Store. “Google was willing to offer Samsung myriad benefits and concessions in order to prevent Samsung’s Galaxy Store from being built out,” it says.
Though the Galaxy Store was not nearly as popular as the Play Store, Google feared that Samsung would develop into a strong competitor, especially since the company sells a majority of high-end Android phones in the US. Google was particularly concerned that Samsung would get an exclusive game for the store to attract more users, which Samsung did in 2018 when it partnered with Epic to launch Fortnite exclusively on the Galaxy Store. That move alone cost Google millions of dollars in revenue."
This is not at all how the anti-trust lawsuit has been portrayed in these forums by either the OP or supporters of Google. If the allegations are true, Google has set itself up for a fail.
"Reuters and Bloomberg are both independently reporting that Google is pushing Samsung to back away from its duplicate Android ecosystem and promote Google apps instead. A "correspondence" between the two companies was seen by both sites, which saw Google push Samsung to promote the Play Store and Google Assistant over the Galaxy App Store and Samsung's Bixby assistant. Google was apparently willing to open its wallet and pay Samsung to make it happen."
Six years ago, in November 2007, the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) was announced. The original iPhone came out just a few months earlier, capturing people's imaginations and ushering in the modern smartphone era. While Google was an app partner for the original iPhone, it could see what a future of unchecked iPhone competition would be like. Vic Gundotra, recalling Andy Rubin's initial pitch for Android, stated:
He argued that if Google did not act, we faced a Draconian future, a future where one man, one company, one device, one carrier would be our only choice.
Google was terrified that Apple would end up ruling the mobile space. So, to help in the fight against the iPhone at a time when Google had no mobile foothold whatsoever, Android was launched as an open source project.
In that era, Google had nothing, so any adoption—any shred of market share—was welcome. Google decided to give Android away for free and use it as a trojan horse for Google services. The thinking went that if Google Search was one day locked out of the iPhone, people would stop using Google Search on the desktop. Android was the "moat" around the Google Search "castle"—it would exist to protect Google's online properties in the mobile world.
New details: In their complaint, the states alleged that Google controls 90 percent of the market for Android apps, and no other Android app store has more than a 5 percent market share.
While Google allows other app stores, the search giant has taken steps to ensure that none of them gain traction, the complaint says. For example, it refuses to allow other app stores to be downloaded from its Google Play Store, which comes preinstalled on all Android smartphones. It also refuses to let other app stores buy advertising on its search engine or popular video streaming platform YouTube.
Google also took steps to keep Samsung, whose devices account for about 60 percent of U.S. Android smartphones, from gaining ground with its Samsung Galaxy Store, the states said. Google offered Samsung an undisclosed sum of money upfront and a portion of the revenue earned from its Play Store if the Korean smartphone manufacturer stopped pursuing exclusive deals to distribute popular apps such as Epic Games’ Fortnite. The negotiations eventually fell apart, they alleged.
The search giant also paid app developers to prevent them from removing their app from its Play Store and encouraging customers to directly download updates, the complaint alleges. And to prevent consumers from seeking out apps directly, the states said, the company has made false and misleading statements about the security of apps downloaded outside the Play Store, imposing various technical hurdles to make it more difficult for users to do so.
The original sin;
Android was launched as an open source project.
Google has been attempting to roll that back ever since.
SEE, WHAT I DONT UNDERSTAND. IF YOU DONT LIKE APPLE GOOGLE RULES WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE ON THAT PLATFORM? ITS AS THOUGH, THEY WANT ALL THE BENEFITS OF THE APP GOOGLE PLAYSTORE, BUT THEY DONT WANT TO PAY. IF YOU DONT LIKE KETCHUP ON YOUR HOT DOG, YOU DINT HAVE TO EAT IT.
Works the same way, right?
yet, google is a bigger market. Why would you want to target a small market ?
The Appstore is much larger than Google Play. There are more than a BILLION Android users who do not rely on Google Play for apps, and millions more who take advantage of having Google Play plus more than one alternate app store to choose from on their personal device. How many iOS users rely on the App Store for apps and have an option for "other"?
But that isn't pertinent anyway. This is strictly pertaining to the US and its market and HERE Apple's iOS is the dominant platform with Android playing second fiddle. So again IMHO, it's odd that the AG's would file this antitrust lawsuit against the provider to the smaller marketshare, and the less restrictive one with alternate application sources if the device owner wishes.
That's just more FUD. I have no doubt that your numbers are correct but, even with all that, over 90% of the apps on the average Android device was downloaded from the Google Play Store. The number of Android users that only rely on the Google Play Store for their apps outnumbers ALL of the iOS users.
The "size" of a store can be based on square area, number of items for sale, number of items sold, number of customers, number of stores or profitability.
Apple App Store sells more and is more profitable than the Google Play Store. But the Google Play Store has more available apps, have more stores (if we count each Android device as having a store), more customers and 3X the downloads, than the Apple App Store. To claim that the Apple App Store is ....... much larger than Google Play .... is FUD.
Plus, using quarter sales figure to determine marketshare for anti-trust purpose is wrong. Those figures can swing more than 5%, either way, from quarter to quarter, depending on who's releasing the next ... must have device. All the quarterly sale marketshare is saying is that in last quarter, there were more consumers buying iOS devices than Android devices.
In order for this figure to be used as an indication of the true marketshare, every iOS users and every Android users must have purchased a new device in the quarter. Just because in the last two quarters, more iPhone users replaced their phones (with newer 5G iPhones) than Android users replacing their devices, it doesn't mean that all of a sudden, Apple gained more than 10% marketshare in the US. What they gained was over 10% of the sales in the last 2 quarters. iOS users buying new iOS devices did not increase the percent of consumers using iOS. And Android users that did not buy new devices, did not reduce the percent of consumers using Android.
A better "marker share" indicator is the number of users, in each mobile OS.
Based on users, iOS do not "dominate" in the US or UK, as many seems to think, because they are basing it on quarterly sale figures. It's going to take a Hell a lot more than just 2 quarters of 58% of sales, for iOS to be the "dominate" mobile OS in the US.
The percent of iOS vs Android users in the US is closer to 50/50, when one include tablets, (where the iPad rule), into the iPhone numbers.
The FUD is all yours DavidW.
You make arguments that only have any validity if you include worldwide Android numbers, and you know that. and do it anyway.
Read my link. Those numbers only apply to the US and the UK. Those are not Worldwide numbers. Those numbers are based on "users" in the US, not latest quarterly sales numbers.
By the way, what matter is the UK stats to a US antitrust case brought by the states? You seem to think it's relevant.
Oh, BTW, the numbers in your link were derided from from the mobile OSes that were used to access web pages that they were tracking. In other words, close to 60% of the people that access their web sites (in the US) were using iOS. Though there is probably a correlation, it's not going to be 1 to 1. The only sure thing these numbers indicate, is that there were more iOS users viewing their web pages, than Android users. That is not how the AG will be determining the market share of iOS users, in the US.
You haven't won. But Thanks for playing.
You specifically said: "I bet you can not provide me a link that shows iOS as the "dominate" mobile OS in the US, that do not rely on the latest quarterly sale numbers."
So I gave you one that doesn't rely on sales numbers as you yourself point out now. It's based on mobile OS usage which seems to me far more reliable as an indicator of active devices but that's a separate discussion. What's more pertinent is I won the bet didn't I, even if you can't bring yourself to say so? It didn't rely on device sales which you bet me I couldn't find.
Are you that dense? All that stat show is that 60% of the mobile device users in the US that visited the web sites that they were tracking, were using iOS. Did it ever occur to you that users with iPhones or iPads visited the sites they tracking, more often? Or that most of the mobile device users were using a tablets to surf the internet? Therefore most of the mobile devices were iPads. How about if Apple device owners were more interested in the sites they were tracking than Android users? Therefore. the stat would skew toward iOS. Or that most of their websites catered to the demographic that would mostly likely own an iPhone? What if most of the web sites catered to people with higher than average income? What if access most of these web sites is a better experience using a powerful smartphone, so the data don't reflect the Android users that are not using cheap Android phones for just checking email, texting, ? There are so many variables that using this stat to indicated actual market share of IOS vs Android in the US, useless.
They are not claiming that about 60% of the mobile device users in the US own an iOS device. They are claiming that about 60% of the mobile device users that visit the web sites they are tracking, were using iOS. That's a big difference.
Here's some web tracking data that involves just Facebook.
Though there are countries (including the US) where there are more iOS users accessing Facebook than Android users, iOS do not "dominate" in any of them. This stat is any more or less reliable in indicating true mark share of iOS vs Android, than the link you provided.
Stats citing that there are about 118M (up from about 113M on other sites) iPhone users in the US. and about 300M total smartphones in the US.
Think for a second. If there are about 300M smartphones being used in the US and iPhones makes up about 120M of them, that's about 40%. (Even though latest quarterly sales number shows that about 60% of mobile phones sold in the quarter were iPhones.) When you add tablets into the stat, iOS will be on about 50% to 52% of mobile devices in the US. Hardly what most would call "dominate". And no where close to the 60/40 you seem to think, but can't pull up any reliable data that don't rely on the latest quarterly sales numbers, to show it. Web impression tracking is not an accurate way to indicate true market share. Whether its 2M websites or 1 website, like Facebook.
Do Apple publish their known install base numbers? If they don't, and I believe they don't, other than very occasional stat flashes on a screen at WWDC, then how do you propose measuring it other than by limited measures of, e.g. web access?
Seems to me that you asked for something and gatorguy gave an imperfect response, but a reasonable one, given the information available.
But Apple don't break down the number of each device. So its the total iPhone, iPad, Touch, Macs, ATV, and Watch, that Apple sees accessing an Apple service in the past 90 days. It's "active" Apple device, not activated". And each device is unique and is only counted once. It's not counted a dozen times, if it access a dozen different services, in 90 days.
In the old days, maybe a little over 5 years ago, researchers simply calculated the number on iPhones in the US by using 20% of the reported active devices. Because the US at the time represented 20% of the revenue from iPhones. But that's no longer accurate because China is now a bigger market (number wise) and the Apple Watch is counted in the mix. Plus Macs sales is increasing quite a bit. And because there such a wide range in the price of an iPhone now, the average selling price is much harder to determine.
Researchers can get iPhone numbers from telecom providers. In the US, all they really need are the numbers from ATT and Verizon. Because iPhones are the only phones that uses iOS and they have a general idea how many iPhones are in actual use from the telecoms data, they can calculate a more accurate iOS market share (in the US). And none of the data gather by these researchers, that tries to determine the number of users or activated iOS devices, shows that iOS is "dominate" in the US. Even when including iPad numbers.
Apple use to reveal actual sale numbers of iPhones in their quarterly report. They stopped about 3 years ago. They now only reveal total Worldwide revenue from iPhone sales. With the actual number sold every quarter and Apple revealing how many or what percent of them were new users, researchers had a better idea of the actual number of users. But now, even this 60% of phone sales (in the US) in the last quarter, is a calculated best guess. Apple has never confirmed the number of iPhones sold in the US, for the last quarter.
45% of the phones sold in the US in one quarter could be more phones sold, than in a quarter with 55% of the phone sold. There could have been 100M total phones sold in the 45% quarter and only 70M total phones sold in the 55% quarter. But revenue wise, Apple could have made still made more revenue in the 55% quarter, if the average selling price was much higher. That's why quarterly percentage of sale numbers, are not an accurate gauge of actual marketshare.
For investors, market share of quarterly sales is important in that over the long term, they can see a trend. They show how well Apple is competing with the competition, on a level playing field. But this stat should not be used for determine market share for anti-trust matters.
There's an interesting graph here showing how in the past 3 years, there's been more upgraders buying a new iPhone vs new iPhone purchasers. Thus a smaller and smaller percent of iPhone sales are being added to the install base.
>The iPhone business has turned into an upgrading business. While Apple is still bringing in 20M to 30M new iPhone users each year, the percentage of overall iPhone sales going to new users has steadily declined. For FY2020, iPhone sales to new users will likely have accounted for less than 20% of overall iPhone sales - an all-time low.
While quarterly iPhone unit sales contain an inherent amount of volatility, installed base totals do a better job of monitoring iPhone fundamentals over the long run. The iPhone installed base is defined as the total number of people using an iPhone (both new and used iPhones). <
If you google "iPhone users" you'll find sites that determines actual users or actual number of iPhones and for the most part, they all seem to agree in the numbers. And the numbers are far from the 60/40 that resent quarterly sales numbers indicate (in the US).
Using how many are using iPhones or at least taking a poll to see what percent are actually using iOS, is much more accurate that using web site impressions that don't even account for unique users. A user accessing a hundred web sites that are being tracked, is counted 100 times.
BTW- sorry for the late reply. My cat decided to take a nap on my laptop keyboard and manage to wipe out all the tabs I had open on Safari. Took me a while trying to remember and find all the articles I was commenting on.
SEE, WHAT I DONT UNDERSTAND. IF YOU DONT LIKE APPLE GOOGLE RULES WHY DO YOU WANT TO BE ON THAT PLATFORM? ITS AS THOUGH, THEY WANT ALL THE BENEFITS OF THE APP GOOGLE PLAYSTORE, BUT THEY DONT WANT TO PAY. IF YOU DONT LIKE KETCHUP ON YOUR HOT DOG, YOU DINT HAVE TO EAT IT.
Works the same way, right?
yet, google is a bigger market. Why would you want to target a small market ?
The Appstore is much larger than Google Play. There are more than a BILLION Android users who do not rely on Google Play for apps, and millions more who take advantage of having Google Play plus more than one alternate app store to choose from on their personal device. How many iOS users rely on the App Store for apps and have an option for "other"?
But that isn't pertinent anyway. This is strictly pertaining to the US and its market and HERE Apple's iOS is the dominant platform with Android playing second fiddle. So again IMHO, it's odd that the AG's would file this antitrust lawsuit against the provider to the smaller marketshare, and the less restrictive one with alternate application sources if the device owner wishes.
That's just more FUD. I have no doubt that your numbers are correct but, even with all that, over 90% of the apps on the average Android device was downloaded from the Google Play Store. The number of Android users that only rely on the Google Play Store for their apps outnumbers ALL of the iOS users.
The "size" of a store can be based on square area, number of items for sale, number of items sold, number of customers, number of stores or profitability.
Apple App Store sells more and is more profitable than the Google Play Store. But the Google Play Store has more available apps, have more stores (if we count each Android device as having a store), more customers and 3X the downloads, than the Apple App Store. To claim that the Apple App Store is ....... much larger than Google Play .... is FUD.
Plus, using quarter sales figure to determine marketshare for anti-trust purpose is wrong. Those figures can swing more than 5%, either way, from quarter to quarter, depending on who's releasing the next ... must have device. All the quarterly sale marketshare is saying is that in last quarter, there were more consumers buying iOS devices than Android devices.
In order for this figure to be used as an indication of the true marketshare, every iOS users and every Android users must have purchased a new device in the quarter. Just because in the last two quarters, more iPhone users replaced their phones (with newer 5G iPhones) than Android users replacing their devices, it doesn't mean that all of a sudden, Apple gained more than 10% marketshare in the US. What they gained was over 10% of the sales in the last 2 quarters. iOS users buying new iOS devices did not increase the percent of consumers using iOS. And Android users that did not buy new devices, did not reduce the percent of consumers using Android.
A better "marker share" indicator is the number of users, in each mobile OS.
Based on users, iOS do not "dominate" in the US or UK, as many seems to think, because they are basing it on quarterly sale figures. It's going to take a Hell a lot more than just 2 quarters of 58% of sales, for iOS to be the "dominate" mobile OS in the US.
The percent of iOS vs Android users in the US is closer to 50/50, when one include tablets, (where the iPad rule), into the iPhone numbers.
The FUD is all yours DavidW.
You make arguments that only have any validity if you include worldwide Android numbers, and you know that. and do it anyway.
Read my link. Those numbers only apply to the US and the UK. Those are not Worldwide numbers. Those numbers are based on "users" in the US, not latest quarterly sales numbers.
By the way, what matter is the UK stats to a US antitrust case brought by the states? You seem to think it's relevant.
Oh, BTW, the numbers in your link were derided from from the mobile OSes that were used to access web pages that they were tracking. In other words, close to 60% of the people that access their web sites (in the US) were using iOS. Though there is probably a correlation, it's not going to be 1 to 1. The only sure thing these numbers indicate, is that there were more iOS users viewing their web pages, than Android users. That is not how the AG will be determining the market share of iOS users, in the US.
You haven't won. But Thanks for playing.
You specifically said: "I bet you can not provide me a link that shows iOS as the "dominate" mobile OS in the US, that do not rely on the latest quarterly sale numbers."
So I gave you one that doesn't rely on sales numbers as you yourself point out now. It's based on mobile OS usage which seems to me far more reliable as an indicator of active devices but that's a separate discussion. What's more pertinent is I won the bet didn't I, even if you can't bring yourself to say so? It didn't rely on device sales which you bet me I couldn't find.
Are you that dense? All that stat show is that 60% of the mobile device users in the US that visited the web sites that they were tracking, were using iOS. Did it ever occur to you that users with iPhones or iPads visited the sites they tracking, more often? Or that most of the mobile device users were using a tablets to surf the internet? Therefore most of the mobile devices were iPads. How about if Apple device owners were more interested in the sites they were tracking than Android users? Therefore. the stat would skew toward iOS. Or that most of their websites catered to the demographic that would mostly likely own an iPhone? What if most of the web sites catered to people with higher than average income? What if access most of these web sites is a better experience using a powerful smartphone, so the data don't reflect the Android users that are not using cheap Android phones for just checking email, texting, ? There are so many variables that using this stat to indicated actual market share of IOS vs Android in the US, useless.
They are not claiming that about 60% of the mobile device users in the US own an iOS device. They are claiming that about 60% of the mobile device users that visit the web sites they are tracking, were using iOS. That's a big difference.
Here's some web tracking data that involves just Facebook.
Though there are countries (including the US) where there are more iOS users accessing Facebook than Android users, iOS do not "dominate" in any of them. This stat is any more or less reliable in indicating true mark share of iOS vs Android, than the link you provided.
Stats citing that there are about 118M (up from about 113M on other sites) iPhone users in the US. and about 300M total smartphones in the US.
Think for a second. If there are about 300M smartphones being used in the US and iPhones makes up about 120M of them, that's about 40%. (Even though latest quarterly sales number shows that about 60% of mobile phones sold in the quarter were iPhones.) When you add tablets into the stat, iOS will be on about 50% to 52% of mobile devices in the US. Hardly what most would call "dominate". And no where close to the 60/40 you seem to think, but can't pull up any reliable data that don't rely on the latest quarterly sales numbers, to show it. Web impression tracking is not an accurate way to indicate true market share. Whether its 2M websites or 1 website, like Facebook.
Do Apple publish their known install base numbers? If they don't, and I believe they don't, other than very occasional stat flashes on a screen at WWDC, then how do you propose measuring it other than by limited measures of, e.g. web access?
Seems to me that you asked for something and gatorguy gave an imperfect response, but a reasonable one, given the information available.
But Apple don't break down the number of each device. So its the total iPhone, iPad, Touch, Macs, ATV, and Watch, that Apple sees accessing an Apple service in the past 90 days. It's "active" Apple device, not activated". And each device is unique and is only counted once. It's not counted a dozen times, if it access a dozen different services, in 90 days.
In the old days, maybe a little over 5 years ago, researchers simply calculated the number on iPhones in the US by using 20% of the reported active devices. Because the US at the time represented 20% of the revenue from iPhones. But that's no longer accurate because China is now a bigger market (number wise) and the Apple Watch is counted in the mix. Plus Macs sales is increasing quite a bit. And because there such a wide range in the price of an iPhone now, the average selling price is much harder to determine.
Researchers can get iPhone numbers from telecom providers. In the US, all they really need are the numbers from ATT and Verizon. Because iPhones are the only phones that uses iOS and they have a general idea how many iPhones are in actual use from the telecoms data, they can calculate a more accurate iOS market share (in the US). And none of the data gather by these researchers, that tries to determine the number of users or activated iOS devices, shows that iOS is "dominate" in the US. Even when including iPad numbers.
Apple use to reveal actual sale numbers of iPhones in their quarterly report. They stopped about 3 years ago. They now only reveal total Worldwide revenue from iPhone sales. With the actual number sold every quarter and Apple revealing how many or what percent of them were new users, researchers had a better idea of the actual number of users. But now, even this 60% of phone sales (in the US) in the last quarter, is a calculated best guess. Apple has never confirmed the number of iPhones sold in the US, for the last quarter.
45% of the phones sold in the US in one quarter could be more phones sold, than in a quarter with 55% of the phone sold. There could have been 100M total phones sold in the 45% quarter and only 70M total phones sold in the 55% quarter. But revenue wise, Apple could have made still made more revenue in the 55% quarter, if the average selling price was much higher. That's why quarterly percentage of sale numbers, are not an accurate gauge of actual marketshare.
For investors, market share of quarterly sales is important in that over the long term, they can see a trend. They show how well Apple is competing with the competition, on a level playing field. But this stat should not be used for determine market share for anti-trust matters.
There's an interesting graph here showing how in the past 3 years, there's been more upgraders buying a new iPhone vs new iPhone purchasers. Thus a smaller and smaller percent of iPhone sales are being added to the install base.
>The iPhone business has turned into an upgrading business. While Apple is still bringing in 20M to 30M new iPhone users each year, the percentage of overall iPhone sales going to new users has steadily declined. For FY2020, iPhone sales to new users will likely have accounted for less than 20% of overall iPhone sales - an all-time low.
While quarterly iPhone unit sales contain an inherent amount of volatility, installed base totals do a better job of monitoring iPhone fundamentals over the long run. The iPhone installed base is defined as the total number of people using an iPhone (both new and used iPhones). <
If you google "iPhone users" you'll find sites that determines actual users or actual number of iPhones and for the most part, they all seem to agree in the numbers. And the numbers are far from the 60/40 that resent quarterly sales numbers indicate (in the US).
Using how many are using iPhones or at least taking a poll to see what percent are actually using iOS, is much more accurate that using web site impressions that don't even account for unique users. A user accessing a hundred web sites that are being tracked, is counted 100 times.
BTW- sorry for the late reply. My cat decided to take a nap on my laptop keyboard and manage to wipe out all the tabs I had open on Safari. Took me a while trying to remember and find all the articles I was commenting on.
I certainly agree that if you're going to use web analytics then you should measure unique users rather than simple hits. But polls are hardly error proof either, and lots of the links you've provided are not especially clear about how they've assembled their datasets.
I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but calling gatorguy dense was uncalled for. He provided a reasonable link in answer to your request.
Comments
"I bet you can not provide me a link that shows iOS as the "dominate" mobile OS in the US, that do not rely on the latest quarterly sale numbers."
So I gave you one that doesn't rely on sales numbers as you yourself point out now. It's based on mobile OS usage which seems to me far more reliable as an indicator of active devices but that's a separate discussion. What's more pertinent is I won the bet didn't I, even if you can't bring yourself to say so? It didn't rely on device sales which you bet me I couldn't find.
In the U.S., Google has the dominant browser and search engine, with the associated advertising dominance therein, has a notable services footprint on Windows, as well as a large app and services footprint within Apple's ecosystem, and yes, Google Play store dominates 3rd party app stores in the U.S.
Next to Google's rap sheet, Apple's alleged antitrust violations of its App Store pale in comparison, so of course, Google is the focus of initial antitrust actions.
I assure you, Apple will soon get its turn in the barrel.
Patience.
I'm not at all saying that Apple's App Store deserves an antitrust review. IMO it doesn't.
My point was the antitrust lawsuit the AGH's are bringing against Google is illogical if they don't see a problem with Apple's even more restrictive store, and they have not indicated they have one. Therefore neither company should be targeted for the rules they run their stores by. Do you agree?
What I vehemently disagree with is forcing 3rd party stores and payments on Apple as mitigation, since this is a minimally consumer friendly. Exhibit A is how poorly 3rd party app stores actually compete with Google Play Store in the U.S., hence why Google is under review.
Apple's wall-garden is appreciated by nearly everyone thats uses it. it is appreciated for the ease of use, the integration, the interoperability, and most importantly, the security of their approach. Nothing is perfect, but I have yet to see anyone describe how permitting third party app stores will offer the same level of integration and security of my personal information. It's really not possible. The only approach would be a completely separate sandbox for third party-sourced apps that does not have access to anything on the other side of the fence, negating all the aforementioned benefits. And even then, you would have introduced another vector for a possible crossover bug to be exploited.
Is any user clamoring they want to save $20-$40 a year in lower cost apps and sacrificing functionality and security? No one is. Only other entities, it appears, that stand to profit from such actions both private and governmental.
Finally, this is Apple's ecosystem. It's not in their interests to spend development time and money, and support resources, to another sandbox. Apple doesn't make phones. They offer an ecosystem that is a combination of HW/OS/SW/Services.
Their wild success is not due to coercion, but the genius what they do, don't do, and deliver, better than just about any other company out there. They really should be celebrated, not chastized.
If I invite you over for dinner, you don't have a say in what I make or where I buy the food from. It's my home, my idea, my efforts, my money. And of course, I choose who to invite over.
They are not claiming that about 60% of the mobile device users in the US own an iOS device. They are claiming that about 60% of the mobile device users that visit the web sites they are tracking, were using iOS. That's a big difference.
Here's some web tracking data that involves just Facebook.
https://www.adweek.com/performance-marketing/the-state-of-android-vs-ios-usage-among-facebook-users/
Though there are countries (including the US) where there are more iOS users accessing Facebook than Android users, iOS do not "dominate" in any of them. This stat is any more or less reliable in indicating true mark share of iOS vs Android, than the link you provided.
Stats citing that there are about 118M (up from about 113M on other sites) iPhone users in the US. and about 300M total smartphones in the US.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/232790/forecast-of-apple-users-in-the-us/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/201182/forecast-of-smartphone-users-in-the-us/
Think for a second. If there are about 300M smartphones being used in the US and iPhones makes up about 120M of them, that's about 40%. (Even though latest quarterly sales number shows that about 60% of mobile phones sold in the quarter were iPhones.) When you add tablets into the stat, iOS will be on about 50% to 52% of mobile devices in the US. Hardly what most would call "dominate". And no where close to the 60/40 you seem to think, but can't pull up any reliable data that don't rely on the latest quarterly sales numbers, to show it. Web impression tracking is not an accurate way to indicate true market share. Whether its 2M websites or 1 website, like Facebook.
Anti-trust violations that was levied by the FTC against Facebook had to be dropped because the FTC did not provide enough evidence that Facebook had a monopoly (in the market cited), under current anti-trust laws.
The government is waiting and hoping for the passage of the new anti-trust laws aimed toward big tech, so that not only would they have an easier time proving a "monopoly" by narrowing down the definition of a "market", they don't even need to prove a "monopoly" to levy anti-trust charges. Just being one of the big techs the new anti-trust laws are aimed toward and making what they consider too much profit, would be enough. Under current anti-trust laws, making too much profit is not an anti-trust matter unless one abuses a monopoly or monopoly power.
Even if Google allows third party stores and side loading, they still have monopoly power with their Google Play Store, with over 90% of the app downloads and it being on over 70% of mobile devices. And they might be abusing that monopoly power. So even under current anti-trust laws, the government might have a case, if they have enough evidence that Google is abusing the monopoly power they have with the Google Play Store.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/google-saw-samsung-app-store-103312380.html
Seems to me that you asked for something and gatorguy gave an imperfect response, but a reasonable one, given the information available.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/07/google-bought-off-samsung-to-limit-app-store-competition-36-states-allege/
This is not at all how the anti-trust lawsuit has been portrayed in these forums by either the OP or supporters of Google. If the allegations are true, Google has set itself up for a fail.
\https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/07/google-wants-samsung-to-kill-bixby-galaxy-app-store/
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/07/36-states-dc-sue-google-for-alleged-antitrust-violations-in-its-android-app-store-498622
The original sin;
Android was launched as an open source project.
Google has been attempting to roll that back ever since.
https://9to5mac.com/2020/01/28/apple-hits-1-5-billion-active-devices-with-80-of-recent-iphones-and-ipads-running-ios-13/
https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/27/22253162/iphone-users-total-number-billion-apple-tim-cook-q1-2021
But Apple don't break down the number of each device. So its the total iPhone, iPad, Touch, Macs, ATV, and Watch, that Apple sees accessing an Apple service in the past 90 days. It's "active" Apple device, not activated". And each device is unique and is only counted once. It's not counted a dozen times, if it access a dozen different services, in 90 days.
In the old days, maybe a little over 5 years ago, researchers simply calculated the number on iPhones in the US by using 20% of the reported active devices. Because the US at the time represented 20% of the revenue from iPhones. But that's no longer accurate because China is now a bigger market (number wise) and the Apple Watch is counted in the mix. Plus Macs sales is increasing quite a bit. And because there such a wide range in the price of an iPhone now, the average selling price is much harder to determine.
Researchers can get iPhone numbers from telecom providers. In the US, all they really need are the numbers from ATT and Verizon. Because iPhones are the only phones that uses iOS and they have a general idea how many iPhones are in actual use from the telecoms data, they can calculate a more accurate iOS market share (in the US). And none of the data gather by these researchers, that tries to determine the number of users or activated iOS devices, shows that iOS is "dominate" in the US. Even when including iPad numbers.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/heres-how-many-iphones-are-may-be-active-in-the-world/articleshow/78903188.cms
https://fortune.com/2017/03/06/apple-iphone-use-worldwide/
Apple use to reveal actual sale numbers of iPhones in their quarterly report. They stopped about 3 years ago. They now only reveal total Worldwide revenue from iPhone sales. With the actual number sold every quarter and Apple revealing how many or what percent of them were new users, researchers had a better idea of the actual number of users. But now, even this 60% of phone sales (in the US) in the last quarter, is a calculated best guess. Apple has never confirmed the number of iPhones sold in the US, for the last quarter.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/1/18053782/apple-earnings-q4-2018-stop-ipad-iphone-mac-unit-sales-disclosure ;
45% of the phones sold in the US in one quarter could be more phones sold, than in a quarter with 55% of the phone sold. There could have been 100M total phones sold in the 45% quarter and only 70M total phones sold in the 55% quarter. But revenue wise, Apple could have made still made more revenue in the 55% quarter, if the average selling price was much higher. That's why quarterly percentage of sale numbers, are not an accurate gauge of actual marketshare.
For investors, market share of quarterly sales is important in that over the long term, they can see a trend. They show how well Apple is competing with the competition, on a level playing field. But this stat should not be used for determine market share for anti-trust matters.
There's an interesting graph here showing how in the past 3 years, there's been more upgraders buying a new iPhone vs new iPhone purchasers. Thus a smaller and smaller percent of iPhone sales are being added to the install base.
https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2020/10/26/a-billion-iphone-users
>The iPhone business has turned into an upgrading business. While Apple is still bringing in 20M to 30M new iPhone users each year, the percentage of overall iPhone sales going to new users has steadily declined. For FY2020, iPhone sales to new users will likely have accounted for less than 20% of overall iPhone sales - an all-time low.
While quarterly iPhone unit sales contain an inherent amount of volatility, installed base totals do a better job of monitoring iPhone fundamentals over the long run. The iPhone installed base is defined as the total number of people using an iPhone (both new and used iPhones). <
If you google "iPhone users" you'll find sites that determines actual users or actual number of iPhones and for the most part, they all seem to agree in the numbers. And the numbers are far from the 60/40 that resent quarterly sales numbers indicate (in the US).
Using how many are using iPhones or at least taking a poll to see what percent are actually using iOS, is much more accurate that using web site impressions that don't even account for unique users. A user accessing a hundred web sites that are being tracked, is counted 100 times.
BTW- sorry for the late reply. My cat decided to take a nap on my laptop keyboard and manage to wipe out all the tabs I had open on Safari. Took me a while trying to remember and find all the articles I was commenting on.
I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but calling gatorguy dense was uncalled for. He provided a reasonable link in answer to your request.