"In terms of smartphone platforms, Google extended its lead by 1.1 percentage points, as Android accounted for 53.7 percent of all active smartphone users in the U.S"
Important point.
It is an important point. Android's market share growth has apparently stalled out faster than expected.
Oh ok... those cheap pre-paid Android phones. Essentially the "burners" of this generation.
Doesn't this fall under the category of "you get what you pay for" ?
Wouldn't a $299 Nexus 4 be a much better phone?
Not following your point. You asked a question that seemed to imply that it wasn't possible. I have shown that it is. Many of those models are from Samsung.
If your point is that most of Samsung's "smartphone' sales are in the same high-end range as Apple's smartphone sales then why even suggest that there are not sub-$100 Samsung "smartphones"?
Note: I'm putting smartphone in quotes there because 'I' do not think that any device running Android should be labeled as a smartphone. IMO, these low cost "burners" are today's feature phones.
Not following your point. You asked a question that seemed to imply that it wasn't possible. I have shown that it is. Many of those models are from Samsung.
If your point is that most of Samsung's "smartphone' sales are in the same high-end range as Apple's smartphone sales then why even suggest that there are not sub-$100 Samsung "smartphones"?
Note: I'm putting smartphone in quotes there because 'I' do not think that any device running Android should be labeled as a smartphone. IMO, these low cost "burners" are today's feature phones.
Can you list some Android phones that would not qualify and why? I'm not trying to pick at your point but an sincerely curious. For example, are there Huawei phones that cannot access most websites and cannot run 90% of apps?
Not following your point. You asked a question that seemed to imply that it wasn't possible. I have shown that it is. Many of those models are from Samsung.
If your point is that most of Samsung's "smartphone' sales are in the same high-end range as Apple's smartphone sales then why even suggest that there are not sub-$100 Samsung "smartphones"?
Note: I'm putting smartphone in quotes there because 'I' do not think that any device running Android should be labeled as a smartphone. IMO, these low cost "burners" are today's feature phones.
I didn't think there were smartphones available for $100. Thank you for enlightening me.
New topic... is Samsung really dominating by pumping a bunch of garbage phones into the market? A bunch of phones that will never see a modern OS?
I often wonder this... Android has something like 75% market share across the globe. A big number.
But shouldn't all those terrible phones weigh against Android as a whole? You know... Fandroids spouting off about "winning" while those StraightTalk phones are being sold today running Froyo...
I didn't think there were smartphones available for $100. Thank you for enlightening me.
New topic... is Samsung really dominating by pumping a bunch of garbage phones into the market? A bunch of phones that will never see a modern OS?
I often wonder this... Android has something like 75% market share across the globe. A big number.
But shouldn't all those terrible phones weigh against Android as a whole? You know... Fandroids spouting off about "winning" while those StraightTalk phones are being sold today running Froyo...
75%? I haven't seen that. Looking at web traffic it's clear that most of these Android-based devices are being used like Symbian was when it dominated the mobile-OS front when the iPhone was already dominating the web traffic with its rich apps usable browser. If it really is that high throughout world than the low-cost Android "feature" phone market is even worse than I thought.
I think worldwide Samsung might be the biggest supplier of cheap Android phones. It seems clear they are making their money from the high-end Android phones. There doesn't seem to be a better option for a high-end Android phone than Samsung. The Galaxy line of products is certainly selling well. The Galaxy SIII is not only selling well, but has legs much like an Apple product selling well across multiple quarters. Every Android-based vendor (and Google) should be afraid of Samsung.
75%? I haven't seen that. Looking at web traffic it's clear that most of these Android-based devices are being used like Symbian was when it dominated the mobile-OS front when the iPhone was already dominating the web traffic with its rich apps usable browser. If it really is that high throughout world than the low-cost Android "feature" phone market is even worse than I thought.
Android surges to 75% smartphone market share in Q3
Google's (NASDAQ:GOOG) Android mobile operating system powered three out of every four smartphones shipped worldwide during the third quarter of 2012, according to new data from market intelligence firm IDC.
Samsung is going to invest heavily in Tizen and/or Bada, which will start to make Google less of a factor in the debate.
The next question is if Samsung drops to 40-50% Android phones, what happens to Android?
I doubt Samsung's higher end phones are switching from android anytime soon.
One of the perks with galaxy phones are plenty of apps and compatible software which Samsung wont get with another OS. I suppose the cheaper android phones they sell could use an alternative OS but those phones matter far less to google anyway.
Aside from that my point was that it might be a good time for Apple to add a few more iPhone models up and down the spectrum.
It's hard to list which phones as I don't know any of the low-end devices by name. I can point out aspect that I think would not qualify but that is stuff is highly debatable. All I can say or certain is that devices that were once considered feature phones are being replaced by devices that are now considered smartphones yet they are still used the same way. See the chart below.
Android surges to 75% smartphone market share in Q3
Google's (NASDAQ:GOOG) Android mobile operating system powered three out of every four smartphones shipped worldwide during the third quarter of 2012, according to new data from market intelligence firm IDC.
There are reports like this all over the web...
Thanks, although I do like links and images.
This image helps detail I was mentioning earlier. iOS still grew (not it's just for handsets, not including PMPs or tablets) but Symbian took a huge beating. That tells me the growth in units is in what was previously the cheap feature phone market which are now being called smartphones simply because they run Android in some form or fashion. I personally think that makes it a poor judge of the actual smartphone industry or the size of the market for Android-based developers.
Samsung expects to sell 390 million "smartphones" in 2013. This tells you all you need to know: Samsungs "definition" of smartphone allows them to claim big numbers by including low-end devices in the smartphone category.
All you have to do is look as GS3 + Note sales (Samsung likes to brag how many they've moved) and compare that to the total number of "smartphones" they've moved. There's a pretty big number left over.
Or look at Samsungs smartphone revenue vs their unit sales. You come up with an average price per phone that shows for every GS3 sold they also sold several less expensive devices.
It might look impressive, but it's not. People wonder why Android traffic is lower than iOS? Or why the App Store pays out so much more $$$ than Google Play? Simple. All those people with low end devices don't buy Apps (and most Apps probably don't run well on their lousy processors anyway) and they don't use the Internet much (who wants to browse on a 320x240 2.8" screen).
The facts are out there and the conclusions are obvious. Obvious to all except Apple haters/green kool aid drinkers.
it would not surprise me. samsung android phones are significantly cheaper than apple's. they can be found for under $100 off contract when the iPhone 4 sells for $450.
...and how much for a Galaxy Note 2, here they cost more than a 16GB iPhone 5, the SIII has dropped to become slightly lower.
Most of it but Samsung is certainly making healthy profits which tells me they are selling plenty of their high-end devices and likely have a fairly efficient production process that other Android-based vendors can't contend with.
What an odd phone. Clearly there is a reason for a 2G-only GSM phone but with dual-SIM card slots and 802.11n capabilities. What markets would that be ideal for?
Note: I'm putting smartphone in quotes there because 'I' do not think that any device running Android should be labeled as a smartphone. IMO, these low cost "burners" are today's feature phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
Can you list some Android phones that would not qualify and why? I'm not trying to pick at your point but an sincerely curious. For example, are there Huawei phones that cannot access most websites and cannot run 90% of apps?
Technically they are smartphones, however from a user perspective they are often only used as feature phones, which is reflected in various user statistics.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte
"In terms of smartphone platforms, Google extended its lead by 1.1 percentage points, as Android accounted for 53.7 percent of all active smartphone users in the U.S"
Important point.
It is an important point. Android's market share growth has apparently stalled out faster than expected.
Not following your point. You asked a question that seemed to imply that it wasn't possible. I have shown that it is. Many of those models are from Samsung.
If your point is that most of Samsung's "smartphone' sales are in the same high-end range as Apple's smartphone sales then why even suggest that there are not sub-$100 Samsung "smartphones"?
Note: I'm putting smartphone in quotes there because 'I' do not think that any device running Android should be labeled as a smartphone. IMO, these low cost "burners" are today's feature phones.
A phone.
An iPod.
An Internet navigator.
Are you getting me?
Can you list some Android phones that would not qualify and why? I'm not trying to pick at your point but an sincerely curious. For example, are there Huawei phones that cannot access most websites and cannot run 90% of apps?
More like "featureless" phones.
I didn't think there were smartphones available for $100. Thank you for enlightening me.
New topic... is Samsung really dominating by pumping a bunch of garbage phones into the market? A bunch of phones that will never see a modern OS?
I often wonder this... Android has something like 75% market share across the globe. A big number.
But shouldn't all those terrible phones weigh against Android as a whole? You know... Fandroids spouting off about "winning" while those StraightTalk phones are being sold today running Froyo...
75%? I haven't seen that. Looking at web traffic it's clear that most of these Android-based devices are being used like Symbian was when it dominated the mobile-OS front when the iPhone was already dominating the web traffic with its rich apps usable browser. If it really is that high throughout world than the low-cost Android "feature" phone market is even worse than I thought.
I think worldwide Samsung might be the biggest supplier of cheap Android phones. It seems clear they are making their money from the high-end Android phones. There doesn't seem to be a better option for a high-end Android phone than Samsung. The Galaxy line of products is certainly selling well. The Galaxy SIII is not only selling well, but has legs much like an Apple product selling well across multiple quarters. Every Android-based vendor (and Google) should be afraid of Samsung.
God forbid that a "smartphone" is actually used as a phone to communicate with somebody.
Android surges to 75% smartphone market share in Q3
Google's (NASDAQ:GOOG) Android mobile operating system powered three out of every four smartphones shipped worldwide during the third quarter of 2012, according to new data from market intelligence firm IDC.
There are reports like this all over the web...
I doubt Samsung's higher end phones are switching from android anytime soon.
One of the perks with galaxy phones are plenty of apps and compatible software which Samsung wont get with another OS. I suppose the cheaper android phones they sell could use an alternative OS but those phones matter far less to google anyway.
Aside from that my point was that it might be a good time for Apple to add a few more iPhone models up and down the spectrum.
It's hard to list which phones as I don't know any of the low-end devices by name. I can point out aspect that I think would not qualify but that is stuff is highly debatable. All I can say or certain is that devices that were once considered feature phones are being replaced by devices that are now considered smartphones yet they are still used the same way. See the chart below.
Thanks, although I do like links and images.
This image helps detail I was mentioning earlier. iOS still grew (not it's just for handsets, not including PMPs or tablets) but Symbian took a huge beating. That tells me the growth in units is in what was previously the cheap feature phone market which are now being called smartphones simply because they run Android in some form or fashion. I personally think that makes it a poor judge of the actual smartphone industry or the size of the market for Android-based developers.
All you have to do is look as GS3 + Note sales (Samsung likes to brag how many they've moved) and compare that to the total number of "smartphones" they've moved. There's a pretty big number left over.
Or look at Samsungs smartphone revenue vs their unit sales. You come up with an average price per phone that shows for every GS3 sold they also sold several less expensive devices.
It might look impressive, but it's not. People wonder why Android traffic is lower than iOS? Or why the App Store pays out so much more $$$ than Google Play? Simple. All those people with low end devices don't buy Apps (and most Apps probably don't run well on their lousy processors anyway) and they don't use the Internet much (who wants to browse on a 320x240 2.8" screen).
The facts are out there and the conclusions are obvious. Obvious to all except Apple haters/green kool aid drinkers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers
it would not surprise me. samsung android phones are significantly cheaper than apple's. they can be found for under $100 off contract when the iPhone 4 sells for $450.
...and how much for a Galaxy Note 2, here they cost more than a 16GB iPhone 5, the SIII has dropped to become slightly lower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
BTW... which Android phone can you get for $100 off-contract?
Something like this powerhouse.
Most of it but Samsung is certainly making healthy profits which tells me they are selling plenty of their high-end devices and likely have a fairly efficient production process that other Android-based vendors can't contend with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Important point.
It would be if we had a static definition for each type.
What an odd phone. Clearly there is a reason for a 2G-only GSM phone but with dual-SIM card slots and 802.11n capabilities. What markets would that be ideal for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Note: I'm putting smartphone in quotes there because 'I' do not think that any device running Android should be labeled as a smartphone. IMO, these low cost "burners" are today's feature phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
Can you list some Android phones that would not qualify and why? I'm not trying to pick at your point but an sincerely curious. For example, are there Huawei phones that cannot access most websites and cannot run 90% of apps?
Technically they are smartphones, however from a user perspective they are often only used as feature phones, which is reflected in various user statistics.
Wow! It even has EDGE data! None of those pesky "3G" standards to worry about!!
But... it is fine for a whole lot of people. (...who won't be buying apps.)