Seems to me the primary basis for this set of forecasts is the manufacturing capacity of the companies offering each platform. It thus assumes that whoever is capable of building the most smart phones sells the most smart phones. Such a curious concept; assuming that customers do not care between one model and another and that a mfrs ability to crank out widgets determines its ability to sell them. Despite all these iPod/iPhone/iPad killers that have shriveled up and died in the middle of their journey down the birth canal.
I can't speak about the current Dell way of doing things (e.g. committing much of a budget to R&D) but Michael Dell used to speak proudly about how his company had a minimal R&D budget because the simply ordered stuff off the shelf from various mfrs, got some cheap lalor to slap everything together, then load a Windoze OS onto it. He used to think that was the way to do do it, differentiating Dell from the crowd by selling by mail order and providing decent customer service, certainly not by coming up with any ground-breaking designs.
Is it truly different now?
Looking at the Streak heck no, but looking at the Venue Pro it very well could be, though that is just one not completely bad device which I think is a big step for Dell though we?ll have to see if they can make it an upward trend and not a one time event.
So they expect every Nokia customer to buy a crap cloner Windows 7 Phone. LOL. People who have Nokia phones now had a choice of buying Windows Mobile and now Windows Phone 7. And they did not, they bought a Symbian based phone. So Gartner is saying people who rejected the crap Windows cloner OS before are going to magically forget the reasons they did not buy a cloner Windows 7 Phone and buy one? I do not think so.
It's actually safe to write off anything Gartner says. At least in this case DED is correct, and there is no empirical evidence to suggest anything Gartner says about Win7 will change.
I guess the thing to remember is that Apple is still the (or a) winner here since IOS only runs on Apple hardware. Gartner shows big increases in IOS adoption which means big increases in Apple hardware sales. How could this possibly be bad? Plus Windows Mobile will run on many different hardware models most of which won't be made by Microsoft right? Doesn't seem like that big of a win for MS.
They're using dozens of partially or completely incompatible OSs with enough of a family resemblance that people like to lump them together with a one-word descriptor—but thinking "Android" is a single, monolithic OS is just delusional.
Suppose the 90% of the market that Windows PCs represent had dozens or hundreds of somewhat incompatible versions so that you couldn't be sure that any given software would run on your machine? (Kind of like the early DOS days, which I'm old enough to remember.) Would you crow about "Windows" having 90% of the market? Maybe you would, but who would benefit? Not the end-user, just Microsoft.
Similarly today, The only ones benefiting from "Android's" marketshare are Google and the spammers they're pimping your eyeballs to.
Well, that's not really true. The latest Google OS distribution chart shows a total of seven versions since it was first released for mobile devices. Only about 6% of current devices still use a version incompatible with many of the Android Market applications. Even an estimated 15% of iPhones are using an old unsupported iOS version. No telling how many iPods are no longer supported. So the problem isn't so much Android itself. It's the phone manufacturers that use it. To make their product "unique" many insist on adding another layer of functions, a UI specific to their company. It's the phone suppliers themselves that are causing delays in extending the very latest OS updates to their already sold devices in a timely manner. The few smartphones that use a "pure" Android interface are seeing updates as quickly as the Android Open Source Project releases them. While there's some advantages to having an "open" (?) development platform, there's also inherent problems. Who know at this point if Google, as the primary developer, can overcome them.
As far as no one making money, the phone manufacturers are not donating phones to the Telcos. If the Sprints, AT&T's and Verizons of the world wish to use them as promotion tools, making thousands in contract fees for every one moved, then fine by the consumer. You have to assume it makes business sense for them to have a few as BOGO deals, pulling in customers they might not have otherwise. Most phones are NOT free tho, with the better devices going for $200-$250 with new 2-year contracts. But companies like HTC who actually build those phones are seeing record profits, with the telcos eating some of the cost just as they do with the iPhone.
So again, arguing for iOS as more stable, a better user experience, easier to understand or a better overall value with more available applications than Android? Valid. The points you use for your argument? Not really IMHO.
There was a recent article with 92% of 2000 employees of Clorox choosing iphones. 6% android and 2% windows. When people are thinking about market share obviously price is factoring in when people are buying android. That and the fact that some carriers do or did not have iphone for a while.
Folks - the significant takeaway here is *not* what's going on in Android-land, or nearby.
What is important to remember is that Gartner's credibility is near zero. At least in markets such as this. Maybe they're OK in the more traditional, business-oriented IT stuff where you can look at trends and extrapolate. However, that is not where we are in this case. We're in a period of disruption and major change and Gartner doesn't have a good track record in that space recently.
It's really getting old listening to analysts try and force old analysis on a new product field that bears little or no resemblance to the old market.
Like in this case, windows was not and never has been an open OS. It was open in that any parts you found on the street could be used by the OS, but the code itself was very proprietary.
So, because google claims android is an open OS, people compare it to windows. This is ridiculous, even of android were open, then it would be Linux, not windows. Yet, android isn't open software. 2nd, there will never be a market of home built/self upgraded phones, the primary advantage windows provided over Mac. Plus there are carriers involved in the phone game, there was none if this for PCs.
Additionally, windows was probably best served by it's huge development community, and now that advantage lies squarely with apple. So, if little to no part of this market is modeled by the past, why would the PC market be a valuable guide fir the future of the phone market.
Finally, how on earth can you even pretend to predict a technology market 5 years in advance? It's a complete joke. In 2006 the mobile phone industry was predicting everyone would own two feature phones by now. Except now most of us don't even own one, and how many people own two smartphones? (I know, some do, but it's hardly a major force in the market).
Finally, the one positive for WP7 is it's alliance with nokia. But as allthe people graduate from feature phones to smartphones, why would they necessarily stay with nokia? Unless WP7 comes out with a popular device, then all these people will mostly adopt the iPhone or android at this rate. This, of course, could change if MS releases a competitive product, which is why I don't predict sales for almost twice as long out as the product itself has even been in existence.
Google doesn't charge the consumer for anything does it? Google Navigation, Google Voice, etc, etc. . . All free. It's a very odd business plan that I really don't understand.
As for Gartner's projections, they're no more than educated guesses, no more valid than any of these other "analysts" than seem to pop up every day. Show me the money. That's all that counts in the end.
Google doesn't charge the consumer for anything does it? Google Navigation, Google Voice, etc, etc. . . All free. It's a very odd business plan that I really don't understand.
Ads. If you like Google * then you will use it more.
Course iAds exist too, with the advantage of being "immersive", whatever the **** that means.
Gartner "predictions" are only accurate if you buy into its self-fulfilling prophecies.
In the past, management types read this garbage, and believing it, bought into the predictions and made decisions making the predictions true. Gartner is as clueless at they ever were.
Let me say this once and for all. It is not possible to predict the future. Sorry children, psychics don't exist, astrology is there to fleece the unclean masses. No Santa Claus, and no Easter Bunny either.
Faith healing, also false, reading tea leaves, not true, tarot cards, no way, palm reading, you've got to be kidding, ouija boards, bridge to nowhere, seances, you've got to be dead from the neck up, Gartner, sheltered workshop of the mindless.
From 300+ Android phones, may be only 10% are on par or slightly better than 3GS, the rest are crap. Even Android tablets are barely keeping up with iPad 1. It just like saying number of sold stones outnumbers number of sold gold.
Comments
Hey Soli, thanks for the laugh!
I can't speak about the current Dell way of doing things (e.g. committing much of a budget to R&D) but Michael Dell used to speak proudly about how his company had a minimal R&D budget because the simply ordered stuff off the shelf from various mfrs, got some cheap lalor to slap everything together, then load a Windoze OS onto it. He used to think that was the way to do do it, differentiating Dell from the crowd by selling by mail order and providing decent customer service, certainly not by coming up with any ground-breaking designs.
Is it truly different now?
Looking at the Streak heck no, but looking at the Venue Pro it very well could be, though that is just one not completely bad device which I think is a big step for Dell though we?ll have to see if they can make it an upward trend and not a one time event.
And where are the two-year-old "Android" phones that are "selling" at all, even for free?
Do you accept that iPhone is also available for 'free', and is junk?
They're using dozens of partially or completely incompatible OSs with enough of a family resemblance that people like to lump them together with a one-word descriptor—but thinking "Android" is a single, monolithic OS is just delusional.
Suppose the 90% of the market that Windows PCs represent had dozens or hundreds of somewhat incompatible versions so that you couldn't be sure that any given software would run on your machine? (Kind of like the early DOS days, which I'm old enough to remember.) Would you crow about "Windows" having 90% of the market? Maybe you would, but who would benefit? Not the end-user, just Microsoft.
Similarly today, The only ones benefiting from "Android's" marketshare are Google and the spammers they're pimping your eyeballs to.
Well, that's not really true. The latest Google OS distribution chart shows a total of seven versions since it was first released for mobile devices. Only about 6% of current devices still use a version incompatible with many of the Android Market applications. Even an estimated 15% of iPhones are using an old unsupported iOS version. No telling how many iPods are no longer supported. So the problem isn't so much Android itself. It's the phone manufacturers that use it. To make their product "unique" many insist on adding another layer of functions, a UI specific to their company. It's the phone suppliers themselves that are causing delays in extending the very latest OS updates to their already sold devices in a timely manner. The few smartphones that use a "pure" Android interface are seeing updates as quickly as the Android Open Source Project releases them. While there's some advantages to having an "open" (?) development platform, there's also inherent problems. Who know at this point if Google, as the primary developer, can overcome them.
As far as no one making money, the phone manufacturers are not donating phones to the Telcos. If the Sprints, AT&T's and Verizons of the world wish to use them as promotion tools, making thousands in contract fees for every one moved, then fine by the consumer. You have to assume it makes business sense for them to have a few as BOGO deals, pulling in customers they might not have otherwise. Most phones are NOT free tho, with the better devices going for $200-$250 with new 2-year contracts. But companies like HTC who actually build those phones are seeing record profits, with the telcos eating some of the cost just as they do with the iPhone.
So again, arguing for iOS as more stable, a better user experience, easier to understand or a better overall value with more available applications than Android? Valid. The points you use for your argument? Not really IMHO.
What is important to remember is that Gartner's credibility is near zero. At least in markets such as this. Maybe they're OK in the more traditional, business-oriented IT stuff where you can look at trends and extrapolate. However, that is not where we are in this case. We're in a period of disruption and major change and Gartner doesn't have a good track record in that space recently.
iPhone 3GS is available for free in Europe and for $49 in US.
on big contracts. iOS is way ahead in Europe in any case.
Like in this case, windows was not and never has been an open OS. It was open in that any parts you found on the street could be used by the OS, but the code itself was very proprietary.
So, because google claims android is an open OS, people compare it to windows. This is ridiculous, even of android were open, then it would be Linux, not windows. Yet, android isn't open software. 2nd, there will never be a market of home built/self upgraded phones, the primary advantage windows provided over Mac. Plus there are carriers involved in the phone game, there was none if this for PCs.
Additionally, windows was probably best served by it's huge development community, and now that advantage lies squarely with apple. So, if little to no part of this market is modeled by the past, why would the PC market be a valuable guide fir the future of the phone market.
Finally, how on earth can you even pretend to predict a technology market 5 years in advance? It's a complete joke. In 2006 the mobile phone industry was predicting everyone would own two feature phones by now. Except now most of us don't even own one, and how many people own two smartphones? (I know, some do, but it's hardly a major force in the market).
Finally, the one positive for WP7 is it's alliance with nokia. But as allthe people graduate from feature phones to smartphones, why would they necessarily stay with nokia? Unless WP7 comes out with a popular device, then all these people will mostly adopt the iPhone or android at this rate. This, of course, could change if MS releases a competitive product, which is why I don't predict sales for almost twice as long out as the product itself has even been in existence.
/rant
I'm curious. How exactly is that a compliment?
Do you accept that iPhone is also available for 'free', and is junk?
Since the first quote you put my name on isn't even from me, I don't have to accept anything.
Yup. It's being said that Android is the new Windows.
Hardly. Microsoft had the business sense to charge for its OS.
As for Gartner's projections, they're no more than educated guesses, no more valid than any of these other "analysts" than seem to pop up every day. Show me the money. That's all that counts in the end.
Google doesn't charge the consumer for anything does it? Google Navigation, Google Voice, etc, etc. . . All free. It's a very odd business plan that I really don't understand.
Ads. If you like Google * then you will use it more.
Course iAds exist too, with the advantage of being "immersive", whatever the **** that means.
In the past, management types read this garbage, and believing it, bought into the predictions and made decisions making the predictions true. Gartner is as clueless at they ever were.
Let me say this once and for all. It is not possible to predict the future. Sorry children, psychics don't exist, astrology is there to fleece the unclean masses. No Santa Claus, and no Easter Bunny either.
Faith healing, also false, reading tea leaves, not true, tarot cards, no way, palm reading, you've got to be kidding, ouija boards, bridge to nowhere, seances, you've got to be dead from the neck up, Gartner, sheltered workshop of the mindless.
If Gartner is so wrong, why do you keep posting their stuff AI?
That's for entertainment. Gartner is one of laughing stock. You can get more on macalope.com.