iPhone US market share sees small jump as Android still dominates

Posted:
in iPhone

Although the iPhone is dominant in specific areas of the US smartphone market, it still trails behind Android in terms of overall usage.

iOS still trails behind Android in the US
iOS still trails behind Android in the US



Earlier statistics indicated that the iPhone is the preferred smartphone among teenagers, as 87% of teens currently have one, and 88% anticipate it will be their following phone selection, according to a report from April. Nonetheless, the latest study by Consumer Intelligence Research Partners (CIRP) shows that Apple's position in the US smartphone market has stayed consistent overall, maintaining its spot as the second most popular choice.

Over the last ten years, there has been a growing trend of Android users moving to iPhones, according to a report from May. However, statistics for "iOS versus Android" have another layer because only the iPhone can run iOS, as opposed to Google opening up Android to run on smartphones from numerous companies.

iOS share (US mobile phone customers, twelve months ending in September of each year)
iOS share (US mobile phone customers, twelve months ending in September of each year)



Specifically, as of the annual period ending in September 2023, iOS accounted for 39% of smartphone sales. That challenges the popular narrative of iPhone dominance and offers a more balanced view of Apple's standing in the competitive landscape.

Apple's market share hasn't been static, it has seen fluctuations over the years. According to the report, the iPhone's market share has oscillated within a relatively narrow range -- between 37% and 46% -- over the past five years. Interestingly, iOS experienced its highest market share at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, that peak was followed by a gradual decline over the subsequent two years. The slight uptick to 39% in the year ending September 2023 suggests a reversal of this downward trend.

Several factors have contributed to these market share trends. In the early years of the smartphone era, Apple gained market share as it expanded its carrier partnerships beyond its initial exclusive agreement with AT&T.

Additionally, the exit of competitors like Blackberry and Windows phones from the market helped solidify the iOS-Android duopoly in the US. But while the market shares of both platforms have been relatively consistent since then, Apple has been more successful in persuading Android users to switch to iPhones.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,530member
    One would suspect that some of the fluctuations occur during a notable release, such as the iPhone X, or during an unusual event.

    Afterall most keep their iPhones for 3-5 years now. I’m guessing the cheaper Android handsets that make up the bulk of their sales get exchanged far quicker on average.
    Bart Ywatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 15
    When you look at market share, you should break out the numbers by family income.
    After all, do we really care about the homeless with Bush/Obama Android phones?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 15
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,362member
    Yeah, I'm not buying that CIRP metric, since there are many other sources that state that iPhone U.S. user base is larger than Android OS user base.

    https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/us-smartphone-market-share

    But sure, Android OS smartphone sales are greater than iPhone sales in the U.S., maybe.

    What does that tell me? Well, it says to me that iPhone users actually hold on to their phones longer and are likely passing their older phones down to other users.



    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/11/technology/apple-iphone-17.html#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20States%2C%20the,of%2013%20percent%20in%202019.

    By Tripp Mickle

    Tripp Mickle has reported on Apple for seven years and will cover his fifth iPhone unveiling on Tuesday.

    • Sept. 11, 2023

    There’s a general rule about consumer electronics: The older a device becomes, the more competitors appear and prices fall. This was true for televisions, personal computers and portable music players.

    It was supposed to happen with smartphones. But the iPhone has defied gravity.

    On Tuesday, Apple will unveil the 17th iteration of its flagship product. Remarkably, at an age in which most consumer devices have lost some of their appeal to users, Apple has increased its share of smartphone sales over less expensive rivals.

    Over the past five years, the iPhone has increased its percentage of total smartphones sold around the world while expanding its share of sales in four of the world’s largest regions: China, Japan, Europe and India.

    In the United States, the iPhone’s largest market, the device now accounts for more than 50 percent of smartphones sold, up from 41 percent in 2018, according to Counterpoint Research, a technology firm. The gains have helped it claim about a fifth of the world’s smartphone sales, up from a low of 13 percent in 2019.

    edited October 2023 watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 15
    Well, in lots of our groups ie fraternity most of them do have iphones, 1 in 8 probably have iphones compared w android. My observations alone.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 15
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,912member
    Thankfully we do not worship at the Church of Market Share 
    tmaywilliamlondonjfabula1Alex1Nwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 15
    mpantonempantone Posts: 2,065member
    tmay said:
    Yeah, I'm not buying that CIRP metric, since there are many other sources that state that iPhone U.S. user base is larger than Android OS user base.

    https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/us-smartphone-market-share

    If there are 30 surveys that report smartphone marketshare for a given area, there will likely be 30 different answers. They can't all be right. In fact, there's a distinct possibility of no one being correct.

    What makes the Oberlo number any more accurate than the CIRP number? They aren't particularly forecoming about their methodology. How did they arrive at this number?

    Looking at the company info link, this appears to be a Lithuanian headquartered e-commerce consulting firm. Why would they have better US smartphone data?


    edited October 2023 Alex1N
  • Reply 7 of 15
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,362member
    mpantone said:
    tmay said:
    Yeah, I'm not buying that CIRP metric, since there are many other sources that state that iPhone U.S. user base is larger than Android OS user base.

    https://www.oberlo.com/statistics/us-smartphone-m`arket-share

    If there are 30 surveys that report smartphone marketshare for a given area, there will likely be 30 different answers. They can't all be right. In fact, there's a distinct possibility of no one being correct.

    What makes the Oberlo number any more accurate than the CIRP number? They aren't particularly forecoming about their methodology. How did they arrive at this number?

    Looking at the company info link, this appears to be a Lithuanian headquartered e-commerce consulting firm. Why would they have better US smartphone data?


    If you delve into that link above, they base it on;

    https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america

    and under FAQ;

    https://gs.statcounter.com/faq#methodology

    Now that may not be sufficient for you, and I encourage you to do your own research, it does appear that Statcounter is a reasonable source. Please also note that there is iPhone of the total mobile phone user base in the U.S. market; and marketshare, which is specifically wrt sales.


    Alex1NBart Ywatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 15
    zonezone Posts: 71member
    This is so DUMB!

    Every year we hear about how Apple doesn't have a bigger market share than all those lame companies' phones but what does Apple have? All the profits! Since Android makes their money on the customer data no wonder they are cheaper. People who don't know quality, security, ease of use, non-fragmented OS, looking for the best deal buy Android. Ahh don't forget you can customize the icons on the Home Screen (mind blown). It's like buying a trailer home vs a custom home. It's cheaper but it costs you a whole bunch of your soul. 

    Also, let's get more patriotic. Buy an American company's products. Don't buy something that someone else stole from Apple. Android would not exist (meaning all the Asian phones) if it were not for Jobs and Apple. 

    Again ANY other company would jump for joy if they could profit just one-quarter of what Apple does. Apple is doomed...
    edited October 2023 Bart Ywatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 15
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,068member
    The biggest flaw with this methodology of determining iPhone "market share" is that it doesn't take into account the new users to each platform. It's the new users that increases the installed base. For instance, if every Android sales in the quarter, are to customers that are replacing an old Android phone, then the Android user base had a net gain of zero.

    So let say that iPhone market sales share for the year is 40% and Android is 58%. If 12% of iPhone sales for the year were to customers buying their first iPhone and only 5% of Android customers were buying an Android phone for the first time, iPhone would had increased their install base more than Android had. Even though iPhone market share shipment for the year was 40% vs 58% for Android.

    And that's what this survey is telling us. It uses the activation numbers to determine iPhone installed base in the US.


    So even if iPhones rarely beats out Android phones (WRT to US quarterly shipment market share) over the years, so long as Apple manages to sells more iPhones to new users every quarter than Android brands, eventually,(even if slowly), iPhones will capture more than 50% of the US installed base. A number Apple loss a couple of years after Google provide Android as Open Source to any mobile phone maker.

    And now of days with the US smartphone market about fully saturated, the number of switchers to each platform becomes the most important number WRT whether iPhones or Android phones increases their install base. And why is the US iPhone install base so important to Apple?


    and these numbers are for app purchases and don't include Apple Pay.






    Bart Ywatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 15
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,277member
    davidw said: And why is the US iPhone install base so important to Apple?
    Ooh, ooh, I know! 

    Because if it proven to be too high, approaching 60%, then they become far more exposed to antitrust actions.  I'd bet that exceeding even 50% causes some jitters in Cupertino. In fact that might be the reason for this report, intending to cast doubt on Apple's US market share being so high as we've all been told it is. 






    edited October 2023 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 11 of 15
    If Google lost their search dominance I think Android would suffer. Google has a very well built house of cards, but if search fails everything else probably fails. Android is too big to die, but a lot of people are tied to Google services on Android and many of those services are sustained by search ad revenue.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 15
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,068member
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said: And why is the US iPhone install base so important to Apple?
    Ooh, ooh, I know! 

    Because if it proven to be too high, approaching 60%, then they become far more exposed to antitrust actions.  I'd bet that exceeding even 50% causes some jitters in Cupertino. In fact that might be the reason for this report, intending to cast doubt on Apple's US market share being so high as we've all been told it is. 







    You will lose that bet because you are applying EU laws. Here in the US, rarely, if ever, has any US company have been deemed a monopoly (or even having monopoly power) when having less than 65% of the relevant market share. This is why some Progressive US politicians are trying to amend the Sherman Act, by claiming it has not kept up with the times with regards to the tech industry. But those bills making those amendments have not passed the Senate or House and might not (if ever), for several more years. The US government can't apply laws that have not yet been pass. So the Sherman Act and Clayton Act are still the standard anti-trust laws that applies today, in the US.



    If you look at the US anti-trust suits against Google, Facebook and Microsoft , they have over 85% of the relevant market share. It's going to take a lot ,more than a 60% market share of a relevant market, under current US anti-trust laws, to claim that Apple should fall under the same scrutiny. 

    I bet you can't name one US company, that has been deemed a monopoly or having monopoly power, in the US, that didn't have at least 65% market share.


    >In determining whether a competitor possesses monopoly power in a relevant market, courts typically begin by looking at the firm's market share.(18) Although the courts "have not yet identified a precise level at which monopoly power will be inferred,"(19) they have demanded a dominant market share. Discussions of the requisite market share for monopoly power commonly begin with Judge Hand's statement in United States v. Aluminum Co. of America that a market share of ninety percent "is enough to constitute a monopoly; it is doubtful whether sixty or sixty-four percent would be enough; and certainly thirty-three per cent is not."(20) The Supreme Court quickly endorsed Judge Hand's approach in American Tobacco Co. v. United States.(21)

    Following Alcoa and American Tobacco, courts typically have required a dominant market share before inferring the existence of monopoly power. The Fifth Circuit observed that "monopolization is rarely found when the defendant's share of the relevant market is below 70%."(22) Similarly, the Tenth Circuit noted that to establish "monopoly power, lower courts generally require a minimum market share of between 70% and 80%."(23) Likewise, the Third Circuit stated that "a share significantly larger than 55% has been required to establish prima facie market power"(24) and held that a market share between seventy-five percent and eighty percent of sales is "more than adequate to establish a prima facie case of power."(25)<



    edited October 2023 Bart Ywatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 15
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,277member
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said: And why is the US iPhone install base so important to Apple?
    Ooh, ooh, I know! 

    Because if it proven to be too high, approaching 60%, then they become far more exposed to antitrust actions.  I'd bet that exceeding even 50% causes some jitters in Cupertino. In fact that might be the reason for this report, intending to cast doubt on Apple's US market share being so high as we've all been told it is. 







    You will lose that bet because you are applying EU laws. Here in the US, rarely, if ever, has any US company have been deemed a monopoly (or even having monopoly power) when having less than 65% of the relevant market share. 
    Don't mistake market power being the same as monopoly power WRT antitrust actions. 
    "The judge said that the FTC did not adequately support its assertion that Facebook has more than 60% of the market..."
    https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-judge-tells-ftc-file-new-complaint-against-facebook-2021-06-28/


    edited October 2023 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 14 of 15
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,068member
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said: And why is the US iPhone install base so important to Apple?
    Ooh, ooh, I know! 

    Because if it proven to be too high, approaching 60%, then they become far more exposed to antitrust actions.  I'd bet that exceeding even 50% causes some jitters in Cupertino. In fact that might be the reason for this report, intending to cast doubt on Apple's US market share being so high as we've all been told it is. 







    You will lose that bet because you are applying EU laws. Here in the US, rarely, if ever, has any US company have been deemed a monopoly (or even having monopoly power) when having less than 65% of the relevant market share. 
    Don't mistake market power being the same as monopoly power w/r/t antitrust actions. 
    "The judge said that the FTC did not adequately support its assertion that Facebook has more than 60% of the market..."
    https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-judge-tells-ftc-file-new-complaint-against-facebook-2021-06-28/





    Maybe you don't quit understand why the FTC is suing Facebook. It seems that the FTC is claiming that Facebook made past acquisitions of competitors in order to maintain its dominance market power. Back when Facebook acquired the likes of Instagram and WhatsApp, Facebook had a much larger market share of the Social Media market. But now, those market share have dropped due to more competition from the likes of TikTok and You Tube. For sure Facebook have made great gains in number of users but the Social Media pie got bigger and those gains in users had not kept up with maintaining their pass market share percentage.

    So now, if the FTC can not prove that Facebook still have market power due to a dominate market share, then their whole claim that Facebook pass acquisitions were for the sake of eliminating competition in order to maintain their own market power with a dominate market share, goes down the drain. Even if Facebook acquisitions were intended to help them maintain their market power, it didn't work if they no longer have a market share of over 60% and the market power that comes with it. And even 65% might not be enough for the FTC to prove their case. 

    This is not a case about scrutinizing Facebook because of an over 60% market share. The suit is about Facebook acquisitions when they had much more than a 60% market share and most likely enough market share to have monopoly power, in the Social Media market. And those acquisition would be illegal, even though approved by the government at the time, if the FTC can prove Facebook have only been able to maintain their market power because of those acquisitions. Which is why the judge at first dismissed the suit, if the FTC can not prove Facebook still been able to maintain their market power by still having a dominate market share of over 60%.


    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 15
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,277member
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said:
    gatorguy said:
    davidw said: And why is the US iPhone install base so important to Apple?
    Ooh, ooh, I know! 

    Because if it proven to be too high, approaching 60%, then they become far more exposed to antitrust actions.  I'd bet that exceeding even 50% causes some jitters in Cupertino. In fact that might be the reason for this report, intending to cast doubt on Apple's US market share being so high as we've all been told it is. 







    You will lose that bet because you are applying EU laws. Here in the US, rarely, if ever, has any US company have been deemed a monopoly (or even having monopoly power) when having less than 65% of the relevant market share. 
    Don't mistake market power being the same as monopoly power w/r/t antitrust actions. 
    "The judge said that the FTC did not adequately support its assertion that Facebook has more than 60% of the market..."
    https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-judge-tells-ftc-file-new-complaint-against-facebook-2021-06-28/





    Maybe you don't quit understand why the FTC is suing Facebook. It seems that the FTC is claiming that Facebook made past acquisitions of competitors in order to maintain its dominance market power. Back when Facebook acquired the likes of Instagram and WhatsApp, Facebook had a much larger market share of the Social Media market. But now, those market share have dropped due to more competition from the likes of TikTok and You Tube. For sure Facebook have made great gains in number of users but the Social Media pie got bigger and those gains in users had not kept up with maintaining their pass market share percentage.

    So now, if the FTC can not prove that Facebook still have market power due to a dominate market share, then their whole claim that Facebook pass acquisitions were for the sake of eliminating competition in order to maintain their own market power with a dominate market share, goes down the drain. Even if Facebook acquisitions were intended to help them maintain their market power, it didn't work if they no longer have a market share of over 60% and the market power that comes with it. And even 65% might not be enough for the FTC to prove their case. 

    This is not a case about scrutinizing Facebook because of an over 60% market share. The suit is about Facebook acquisitions when they had much more than a 60% market share and most likely enough market share to have monopoly power, in the Social Media market. And those acquisition would be illegal, even though approved by the government at the time, if the FTC can prove Facebook have only been able to maintain their market power because of those acquisitions. Which is why the judge at first dismissed the suit, if the FTC can not prove Facebook still been able to maintain their market power by still having a dominate market share of over 60%.


    Oh, I completely understood, and still do. If Apple approaches 60% market share I believe it will expose them to more antitrust scrutiny, just as I said. 

    It does not mean they'll be found guilty of it, but Apple will do what it can to stay below that 60% threshold IMO. Apple has mixed success in courtrooms. Muddying the market share waters with a report like this works to Apple's benefit, and I would not be shocked to learn Apple is on-board. 
    muthuk_vanalingamAlex1N
Sign In or Register to comment.