Yes, it does. The iPhone accounts for 8% while Android Devices account for 14%.
From the link:
Quote:
We sample only calls we take at our contact centers (principally based in the U.S. and Europe)
...
"In this study, we were only able to use transactions in our direct control and split out hardware failures as part of that," Deluca-Smith added.
I think that reports doesn't include nor calls to brand service calls (Apple, Samsung or RIM support) nor people calling their carriers so it's a bit incorrect.
As much as I hate to admit this, under the current roll-out strategy the iphone in the long run is going to be marginalized and end up with a static (i.e. replacement level) and then eventually greatly reduced market share.
Go to any cell store in the USA and you're slammed with tons of visually impressive Android devices. I have had bad success lately convincing people to go with iphone (which I still don't understand but that Droid marketing is very very successful on Verizon). The android selection is so large, prices initially cheaper, that the single iphone just looks pathetic next too all these crappy functioning but visually impressive devices.
Hope I am wrong. But I don't believe the iphone is going to stay at it's current level given the onslaught of devices it faces.
I kind of agree with your sentiment; visiting Sweden right now, and was walking around a mall with 5-6 kiosks selling phones. Now that everything looks like the iPhone, I can't imagine how a consumer would be able to differentiate between models. From a sales perspective, it would be easy to say "all these phones are Android, except for that lonely one over there which is an Apple." It is the same old problem with buying a Mac at BestBuy 5-6 years ago... sure they have them, but the sales guy would never encourage it.
But, the solution is pretty easy... it just comes down to using advertising for consumer education. I do like the idea of having a few different models available from Apple though.
The analyst (Munster) was quoted in the article saying that Apple activated 29 million iOS devices in June alone. June has 30 days. That's almost 1 million per day...still well ahead of Android. (Edit: I now think the quote was wrong and he meant the June quarter.)
That makes a lot more sense. Google's claimed 550,000 per day would be around 50 million in the quarter compared to Apple's 29 million. That's a lot more believable than the 3:1 ratio you get when you compare Android activations to iPhone sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion
Why do you bet that? What do you think an activation is?
I don't know - and that's the problem. Google is bragging about a number that is meaningless because it's never been defined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion
Upgrades, rom installations or devices withouth google services doesn't account for activations
Evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikster
I doubt the number of activations is much bigger than 1 - unless they're stupid enough to count used android sales, which are pretty significant at least where I live. In that sense Apple should maybe counter with "activations" for iPhones - I know 2nd hand 3GS, and 2G are hot sellers around these parts...
If you buy a used Android device and then put it onto a wireless network, you have to activate it. So used devices would almost certainly be counted.
The proof is in the pudding. Someone above reported that Apple had activated 29 million phones in the quarter but only sold 16 million. Clearly, activations means something different than "the number of phones sold and put into service".
It is foolish to try to compare Android activations to iPhones sold. If you must make a comparison, you can only compare the SAME thing on both platforms. Compare devices sold to devices sold. Or compare activations to activations (just make sure that you define 'activations' well enough that it means something).
Agreed, although I'm very suspicious of the 550,000 activations per day figure since it can't be verified by anyone else - and Google refuses to provide any sales figures to back it up.
Apple SOLD 16 million iPhones in the quarter and Google claims 50 million activations. Does anyone really believe that they sold 3 Android phones for every iPhone? Based on what I'm seeing in the real world, that doesn't seem remotely plausible.
If Google were being honest, they're report how many phones were sold (and don't tell me they don't know - they get a record of how many Android licenses are issued each quarter). Or tell us how many activations are counted per phone. I'll bet the number is significantly greater than 1.
Don't compare apples and oranges.
We use iPhones (3GS, 3GS, 4) and a Windows 7 Phone (HD7S). So you now know what we use in our home. Anyway...
Yes I do believe this. Why? If you go to a Verizon or AT&T Store it is almost all Android (and to a smaller extent - Windows 7 Phone) with only 1 or 2 iPhones on display. There are simply more AT&T/Verizon stores than Apple stores.
I don't believe Apple has anything to worry about; the market can handle several players. But of the people I know, most use Android. It is just like with computers, there are simply more computers running Windows versus OS X. There are simply more hardware choices for Android.
Will we buy an Android phone? I was tempted last year by the HTC Aria, but my wife used our upgrade for her iPhone 4 and I am glad she did! I am happy with my 3GS and HD7S phones. Will I upgrade to the iPhone 5? Unknown. It depends on the design as I really like the iPhone 4 design.
I think that reports doesn't include nor calls to brand service calls (Apple, Samsung or RIM support) nor people calling their carriers so it's a bit incorrect.
That is correct as WDS is contracted by the carriers, not the OEM.
Yes, a lot faster considering the number of vendors, devices and range in price points. I consider Android to be a failure because it's free and can barely manage 1/3 of the market after a couple years. The iPhone isn't far behind and it's a single vendor. You add in all iOS-based devices and Apple may actually be ahead. That shouldn't happen if Android was well marketed and designed. Something it failing miserably in their camp.. .
If it's a quality OS that vendors can get behind, devs can get behind, and consumers enjoy using then it should have a much higher marketshare… but it doesn't. Something is failing in the Android camp.
So Apple's failure to grab as much as one-third of the smartphone market in 4 years should also be deemed a failure in some ways? I think not, and I'm fairly certain you wouldn't apply the same standard.
In the fall of 2009 Apple held 14% of the smartphone market, up from 2% a year prior. That was considered "eating everyone's lunch" by some analysts. In the fall of 2009 Android had 2% share, and now surges to 38% in less than two year's. Is that still the equivalent of "eating everyone's lunch"?
When i pay attention to what people use for their cell phones, I see more Andriod devices than i do iPhones. All these numbers do not mean anything. People lie all the time. I like the iPhone. There are 3 in my family, but we seem to be a rare bunch.... Everyone else we know has Androids or BB's.
I guess it depends on your circle of friends really...
I work in small cafe in Cleveland, OH, and I've noticed many more iPhones, iPads and Mac laptops than a total of all other makes and brands. I am still amazed at how many Apple products I see on a day to day basis.
Yes, a lot faster considering the number of vendors, devices and range in price points. I consider Android to be a failure because it's free and can barely manage 1/3 of the market after a couple years. The iPhone isn't far behind and it's a single vendor. You add in all iOS-based devices and Apple may actually be ahead. That shouldn't happen if Android was well marketed and designed. Something it failing miserably in their camp.
normally you're one of the voices of reason around here, so this really surprised me. Android grew immensely fast, unprecedentedly fast. Just because an OS is free doesn't mean it will unseat incumbents. How many Linux desktops do you see out in the wild compared to Windows? Android was primarily competing with 'free' OSes anyway -home-grown platforms like Bada & Symbian, linux/JVM phones and feature phones.
The only direct competitor for Android, as a for-fee licensed OS was windows mobile. What's their market share now? Oh yes, around 1% of new sales.
Android is only a failure in mobile if you consider that success would have meant destroying the iPhone, now if you said that Android is failing in the tablet market you might have a case.
The proof is in the pudding. Someone above reported that Apple had activated 29 million phones in the quarter but only sold 16 million. Clearly, activations means something different than "the number of phones sold and put into service".
you misread that...
Sold 16 million iPhones.
Apple sold 29 million iOS devices... They do sell other devices that use iOS; AppleTV, iPad, iPod touch.
Yes, a lot faster considering the number of vendors, devices and range in price points. I consider Android to be a failure because it's free and can barely manage 1/3 of the market after a couple years. The iPhone isn't far behind and it's a single vendor. You add in all iOS-based devices and Apple may actually be ahead. That shouldn't happen if Android was well marketed and designed. Something it failing miserably in their camp.
For lack of a better example: If you say your Bugatti Veyron can go from 0-60mph in 4 seconds and has a top speed of 150mph I'd say something is very wrong with your vehicle as it's designed to be much faster. It has no barring on whether my Kia is faster or slower in any way than your Veyron because it's based on expectations of your device.
Android is a freely distributed OS used by dozens of vendors across dozens of new devices each quarter and at dozens of price points throughout the world. If it's a quality OS that vendors and devs can get behind, and consumers enjoy using then it should have a much higher marketshare… but it doesn't. Something is failing in the Android camp.
Some anecdotal evidence... where I live (Western Canada) there isn't an iPhone to be seen at any of the phone vendors. Every time I pass by any vendor all I see are Android phones and those are the phones that they will push on you. You actually have to ask to see an iPhone and then they will not show it to you... you actually have to buy it untested in many places.
I'd say the reason for this is that the vendors are making a higher profit on Android phones (including incentives). Some places don't even have any iPhones... and haven't had them for weeks.
These numbers are deceiving. They are new phone activations which to me could mean that the massive number of phones being activated could be replacements for poorly built phones. I and many of my friends who have iPhones have had the same device for over two years now. I'm constantly seeing my other friends who have the latest flavor of 'droid' going back to the store or calling their insurance for a replacement device. Each of these replacements are then activated and feed this number of 'new phone activations.' People in this situation are not in a position to switch phones all together because that would mean more money out of their pockets.
I have seen this with my nephews when I was on Vacation to my old home town. Plus don't forget the two Android phones for one family plan as well as other promotions giving away free android phones.
normally you're one of the voices of reason around here, so this really surprised me. Android grew immensely fast, unprecedentedly fast. Just because an OS is free doesn't mean it will unseat incumbents. How many Linux desktops do you see out in the wild compared to Windows? Android was primarily competing with 'free' OSes anyway -home-grown platforms like Bada & Symbian, linux/JVM phones and feature phones.
The only direct competitor for Android, as a for-fee licensed OS was windows mobile. What's their market share now? Oh yes, around 1% of new sales.
Android is only a failure in mobile if you consider that success would have meant destroying the iPhone, now if you said that Android is failing in the tablet market you might have a case.
1) Linux is the most popular kernel in the world.
2) What you're talking about is Linux distress, of which there are many, and which gained little support from vendors who still sold Windows as the primary desktop offering.
3) Linux distress failed on desktops because it's inherently flawed for a mass end user solution, which is why Windows still dominates for 'PC' vendors.
While your conclusion may be correct, your evidence isn't. The problem with that survey is it only gives the proportion of service calls that are hardware related - that could be caused by Android having worse hardware, or it could be caused by Android having fewer problems with carriers, software, ...
The report explicitly says that it doesn't cover actual issue rates (so called Propensity To Call) because they don't have enough information about the population of users to make a determination. So we can't use that survey to estimate the chance that an Android handset will develop a hardware fault versus an iOS handset or a BB handset.
2) What you're talking about is Linux distress, of which there are many, and which gained little support from vendors who still sold Windows as the primary desktop offering.
3) Linux distress failed on desktops because it's inherently flawed for a mass end user solution, which is why Windows still dominates for 'PC' vendors.
Do you mean distros? Linux distress is what I feel when I see how they bloated KDE & Gnome in an attempt to compete
Linux didn't fail on the desktop because it's flawed for the desktop. Way back in 1995 Linux offered a demonstrably superior desktop experience to Windows 3.1, what it lacked was applications. Linux failed on the desktop for market reasons, not for technical reasons.
Comments
Yes, it does. The iPhone accounts for 8% while Android Devices account for 14%.
From the link:
We sample only calls we take at our contact centers (principally based in the U.S. and Europe)
...
"In this study, we were only able to use transactions in our direct control and split out hardware failures as part of that," Deluca-Smith added.
I think that reports doesn't include nor calls to brand service calls (Apple, Samsung or RIM support) nor people calling their carriers so it's a bit incorrect.
As much as I hate to admit this, under the current roll-out strategy the iphone in the long run is going to be marginalized and end up with a static (i.e. replacement level) and then eventually greatly reduced market share.
Go to any cell store in the USA and you're slammed with tons of visually impressive Android devices. I have had bad success lately convincing people to go with iphone (which I still don't understand but that Droid marketing is very very successful on Verizon). The android selection is so large, prices initially cheaper, that the single iphone just looks pathetic next too all these crappy functioning but visually impressive devices.
Hope I am wrong. But I don't believe the iphone is going to stay at it's current level given the onslaught of devices it faces.
I kind of agree with your sentiment; visiting Sweden right now, and was walking around a mall with 5-6 kiosks selling phones. Now that everything looks like the iPhone, I can't imagine how a consumer would be able to differentiate between models. From a sales perspective, it would be easy to say "all these phones are Android, except for that lonely one over there which is an Apple." It is the same old problem with buying a Mac at BestBuy 5-6 years ago... sure they have them, but the sales guy would never encourage it.
But, the solution is pretty easy... it just comes down to using advertising for consumer education. I do like the idea of having a few different models available from Apple though.
The analyst (Munster) was quoted in the article saying that Apple activated 29 million iOS devices in June alone. June has 30 days. That's almost 1 million per day...still well ahead of Android. (Edit: I now think the quote was wrong and he meant the June quarter.)
That makes a lot more sense. Google's claimed 550,000 per day would be around 50 million in the quarter compared to Apple's 29 million. That's a lot more believable than the 3:1 ratio you get when you compare Android activations to iPhone sales.
Why do you bet that? What do you think an activation is?
I don't know - and that's the problem. Google is bragging about a number that is meaningless because it's never been defined.
Upgrades, rom installations or devices withouth google services doesn't account for activations
Evidence?
I doubt the number of activations is much bigger than 1 - unless they're stupid enough to count used android sales, which are pretty significant at least where I live. In that sense Apple should maybe counter with "activations" for iPhones - I know 2nd hand 3GS, and 2G are hot sellers around these parts...
If you buy a used Android device and then put it onto a wireless network, you have to activate it. So used devices would almost certainly be counted.
The proof is in the pudding. Someone above reported that Apple had activated 29 million phones in the quarter but only sold 16 million. Clearly, activations means something different than "the number of phones sold and put into service".
It is foolish to try to compare Android activations to iPhones sold. If you must make a comparison, you can only compare the SAME thing on both platforms. Compare devices sold to devices sold. Or compare activations to activations (just make sure that you define 'activations' well enough that it means something).
And the reason you think I'm a fandroid is....
I thought it's rather obvious.
Upgrades, rom installations or devices withouth google services doesn't account for activations
And you know that how?
Agreed, although I'm very suspicious of the 550,000 activations per day figure since it can't be verified by anyone else - and Google refuses to provide any sales figures to back it up.
Apple SOLD 16 million iPhones in the quarter and Google claims 50 million activations. Does anyone really believe that they sold 3 Android phones for every iPhone? Based on what I'm seeing in the real world, that doesn't seem remotely plausible.
If Google were being honest, they're report how many phones were sold (and don't tell me they don't know - they get a record of how many Android licenses are issued each quarter). Or tell us how many activations are counted per phone. I'll bet the number is significantly greater than 1.
Don't compare apples and oranges.
We use iPhones (3GS, 3GS, 4) and a Windows 7 Phone (HD7S). So you now know what we use in our home. Anyway...
Yes I do believe this. Why? If you go to a Verizon or AT&T Store it is almost all Android (and to a smaller extent - Windows 7 Phone) with only 1 or 2 iPhones on display. There are simply more AT&T/Verizon stores than Apple stores.
I don't believe Apple has anything to worry about; the market can handle several players. But of the people I know, most use Android. It is just like with computers, there are simply more computers running Windows versus OS X. There are simply more hardware choices for Android.
Will we buy an Android phone? I was tempted last year by the HTC Aria, but my wife used our upgrade for her iPhone 4 and I am glad she did! I am happy with my 3GS and HD7S phones. Will I upgrade to the iPhone 5? Unknown. It depends on the design as I really like the iPhone 4 design.
Evidence?
Google as I posted before?
If you buy a used Android device and then put it onto a wireless network, you have to activate it. So used devices would almost certainly be counted.
Why? You don't need to activate nothing, the phone works with every compatible SIM card.
The only phone (GSM phone) that needs to be "activated" and doesn't works out of the box is the iPhone.
I thought it's rather obvious.
So, no argument, just name calling.
From the link:
I think that reports doesn't include nor calls to brand service calls (Apple, Samsung or RIM support) nor people calling their carriers so it's a bit incorrect.
That is correct as WDS is contracted by the carriers, not the OEM.
Yes, a lot faster considering the number of vendors, devices and range in price points. I consider Android to be a failure because it's free and can barely manage 1/3 of the market after a couple years. The iPhone isn't far behind and it's a single vendor. You add in all iOS-based devices and Apple may actually be ahead. That shouldn't happen if Android was well marketed and designed. Something it failing miserably in their camp.. .
If it's a quality OS that vendors can get behind, devs can get behind, and consumers enjoy using then it should have a much higher marketshare… but it doesn't. Something is failing in the Android camp.
So Apple's failure to grab as much as one-third of the smartphone market in 4 years should also be deemed a failure in some ways? I think not, and I'm fairly certain you wouldn't apply the same standard.
In the fall of 2009 Apple held 14% of the smartphone market, up from 2% a year prior. That was considered "eating everyone's lunch" by some analysts. In the fall of 2009 Android had 2% share, and now surges to 38% in less than two year's. Is that still the equivalent of "eating everyone's lunch"?
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...-lunch-2009-10
So Solipcism, there's still the unanswered question: Which OS should the OEM's be adopting?
When i pay attention to what people use for their cell phones, I see more Andriod devices than i do iPhones. All these numbers do not mean anything. People lie all the time. I like the iPhone. There are 3 in my family, but we seem to be a rare bunch.... Everyone else we know has Androids or BB's.
I guess it depends on your circle of friends really...
I work in small cafe in Cleveland, OH, and I've noticed many more iPhones, iPads and Mac laptops than a total of all other makes and brands. I am still amazed at how many Apple products I see on a day to day basis.
Yes, a lot faster considering the number of vendors, devices and range in price points. I consider Android to be a failure because it's free and can barely manage 1/3 of the market after a couple years. The iPhone isn't far behind and it's a single vendor. You add in all iOS-based devices and Apple may actually be ahead. That shouldn't happen if Android was well marketed and designed. Something it failing miserably in their camp.
The only direct competitor for Android, as a for-fee licensed OS was windows mobile. What's their market share now? Oh yes, around 1% of new sales.
Android is only a failure in mobile if you consider that success would have meant destroying the iPhone, now if you said that Android is failing in the tablet market you might have a case.
The proof is in the pudding. Someone above reported that Apple had activated 29 million phones in the quarter but only sold 16 million. Clearly, activations means something different than "the number of phones sold and put into service".
you misread that...
Sold 16 million iPhones.
Apple sold 29 million iOS devices... They do sell other devices that use iOS; AppleTV, iPad, iPod touch.
So, no argument, just name calling.
Yes. Spelling it out might hurt your feelings
Apple sold 29 million iOS devices... They do sell other devices that use iOS; AppleTV, iPad, iPod touch.
They normally don't include the ATV figures in the mix because it's not comparable, the 29mil should just be iPhone/iPod-Touch/iPad
Yes, a lot faster considering the number of vendors, devices and range in price points. I consider Android to be a failure because it's free and can barely manage 1/3 of the market after a couple years. The iPhone isn't far behind and it's a single vendor. You add in all iOS-based devices and Apple may actually be ahead. That shouldn't happen if Android was well marketed and designed. Something it failing miserably in their camp.
For lack of a better example: If you say your Bugatti Veyron can go from 0-60mph in 4 seconds and has a top speed of 150mph I'd say something is very wrong with your vehicle as it's designed to be much faster. It has no barring on whether my Kia is faster or slower in any way than your Veyron because it's based on expectations of your device.
Android is a freely distributed OS used by dozens of vendors across dozens of new devices each quarter and at dozens of price points throughout the world. If it's a quality OS that vendors and devs can get behind, and consumers enjoy using then it should have a much higher marketshare… but it doesn't. Something is failing in the Android camp.
Some anecdotal evidence... where I live (Western Canada) there isn't an iPhone to be seen at any of the phone vendors. Every time I pass by any vendor all I see are Android phones and those are the phones that they will push on you. You actually have to ask to see an iPhone and then they will not show it to you... you actually have to buy it untested in many places.
I'd say the reason for this is that the vendors are making a higher profit on Android phones (including incentives). Some places don't even have any iPhones... and haven't had them for weeks.
These numbers are deceiving. They are new phone activations which to me could mean that the massive number of phones being activated could be replacements for poorly built phones. I and many of my friends who have iPhones have had the same device for over two years now. I'm constantly seeing my other friends who have the latest flavor of 'droid' going back to the store or calling their insurance for a replacement device. Each of these replacements are then activated and feed this number of 'new phone activations.' People in this situation are not in a position to switch phones all together because that would mean more money out of their pockets.
I have seen this with my nephews when I was on Vacation to my old home town. Plus don't forget the two Android phones for one family plan as well as other promotions giving away free android phones.
The only direct competitor for Android, as a for-fee licensed OS was windows mobile. What's their market share now? Oh yes, around 1% of new sales.
Android is only a failure in mobile if you consider that success would have meant destroying the iPhone, now if you said that Android is failing in the tablet market you might have a case.
1) Linux is the most popular kernel in the world.
2) What you're talking about is Linux distress, of which there are many, and which gained little support from vendors who still sold Windows as the primary desktop offering.
3) Linux distress failed on desktops because it's inherently flawed for a mass end user solution, which is why Windows still dominates for 'PC' vendors.
Well maybe you were fortunate. I'm constantly seeing/hearing reports of broken/failed headphone jacks, broken keyboards, broken charging ports, etc... The major players in the Android market all made their name in feature phones (aka "made to fail") there is nothing different.
While your conclusion may be correct, your evidence isn't. The problem with that survey is it only gives the proportion of service calls that are hardware related - that could be caused by Android having worse hardware, or it could be caused by Android having fewer problems with carriers, software, ...
The report explicitly says that it doesn't cover actual issue rates (so called Propensity To Call) because they don't have enough information about the population of users to make a determination. So we can't use that survey to estimate the chance that an Android handset will develop a hardware fault versus an iOS handset or a BB handset.
Unfortunately that report is pretty much useless.
1) Linux is the most popular kernel in the world.
2) What you're talking about is Linux distress, of which there are many, and which gained little support from vendors who still sold Windows as the primary desktop offering.
3) Linux distress failed on desktops because it's inherently flawed for a mass end user solution, which is why Windows still dominates for 'PC' vendors.
Do you mean distros? Linux distress is what I feel when I see how they bloated KDE & Gnome in an attempt to compete
Linux didn't fail on the desktop because it's flawed for the desktop. Way back in 1995 Linux offered a demonstrably superior desktop experience to Windows 3.1, what it lacked was applications. Linux failed on the desktop for market reasons, not for technical reasons.