Apple's iOS mobile web share calls into question reports touting Android sales supremacy

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 131
    jfanning wrote: »
    1. What does that have to do with the fact that he falsely claimed that the Android phones aren't smartphones
    2. 100%
    3. Actually Apple reports shipping numbers, their financial reports specify this fact

    1. It has about the same relevance as your first question.
    2. Ha ha.
    3. You don't understand much about financial reporting, so best to not sound off. You obviously didn't read or understand the article. Or, it's likely that you wouldn't have understood it even if you read it.
  • Reply 62 of 131
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    jfanning wrote: »
    Please list these Android phones which are "feature phones", and then a description as to why they are only feature phones?
    Also, where are these BOGO deals you talk of? I have never seen one.

    ROTFLMAO. You've never seen a BOGO deal? Do you live on the moon? They advertise them on the radio and TV all the time here.

    As for Android feature phones, the answer is the same as the last ten times you asked the question and I provided multiple examples. I'm tired of looking it up for you and providing the answer since you're simply going to ignore it, anyway. Google 'android feature phone' and look at the results. There are many phones being sold that the manufacturer calls a feature phone - and that's a pretty good definition (especially since, if anything, they're going to want to call the borderline phones 'smartphones' if they can get away with it).

    tzeshan wrote: »
    This is a serious problem with IDC group.  They should know the numbers can be very different between shipped and sold.  Then they conveniently mix Apple's sales number with a very uncertain shipped number causing Apple investors great amount of loss. 

    "Apple wrote:
    [" url="/t/155756/apples-ios-mobile-web-share-calls-into-question-reports-touting-android-sales-supremacy#post_2270083"]I call into question Android's numbers also. As a matter of fact, I've been calling into question those bogus numbers for years now. Why should anybody just believe in estimates that somebody decides to whip up? There's a reason why official Android numbers are rarely revealed by certain companies.

    I really think Apple ][ has the right answer and not tzeshan. As I explained above, the 'shipped vs sold' issue does not explain the discrepancy; certainly not when it's been going on for years. I think the fundamental problem is that the market research firms are using methodology which gives them incorrect answers - as shown by the Apple/Samsung trial where Samsung's shipments were shown to be much lower than all the analysts estimates.

    Ask yourself this: There are estimates every quarter for Android phone shipments by vendor. If the estimates are any good, they're going to be on the high side sometimes, on the low side some times and right on the money some times. There should be something approaching a bell curve with the number of underestimates being comparable to the number of overestimates.

    Now, if the estimates were significantly too high, the vendor is probably not going to correct them - because lots of prestige accrues to people who have high market share. OTOH, if the estimates are significantly too low, the vendor would probably correct it in some way - perhaps a press release about how well phone xyz is selling. Yet the latter never happens. The most likely explanation is that the estimates are too high on average and rarely underestimate actual sales.
  • Reply 63 of 131
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Turley Muller View Post



    One problem here--- Apple does count and report shipments to channel partners as "sales." That's standard accounting practice as the risk has transferred from the vendor to the reseller. Apple counts those as sales, because they are in fact, sales, to the reseller. Apple gives the change in channel inventory on its calls, so taking the units sales reported and subtracting net change in channel inventory gives the actual units sold to end-users or "sell-through."



    The difference with Samsung is they stuff the channel then use discounting or buy back unsold units. Apple keeps shipments roughly inline with sell-through.


     


    And you neglect to mention Apple's policies on Inventory. They basically have none. By None I mean less than a week's worth in the pipeline at any time. They sell as fast as they make.


     


    Big difference from Shamesung who stock piles, and then cancels production once they've 2 or 3 times as many as they will eventually sell.

  • Reply 64 of 131
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ajmas View Post



    This could simply indicate that iOS users surf the web more than users of other platforms. For example, up to now I doubt Blackberry was a decent device to surf the web.?


    It still isn't.

  • Reply 65 of 131
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,321member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



     Google 'android feature phone' and look at the results. There are many phones being sold that the manufacturer calls a feature phone - and that's a pretty good definition (especially since, if anything, they're going to want to call the borderline phones 'smartphones' if they can get away with it).


    JR, neither a Google or Bing search turns up results for a single "Android feature phone" being advertised and/or sold. I've no idea why you think there's some large number of them when not even one shows up in a basic search. All I can think of  is perhaps you believe an inexpensive phone must necessarily be a feature phone while one going for more than $100 or so could be a smartphone?? I'd rather think you just had an uncommon definition for feature phones rather than just making up the claim.

  • Reply 66 of 131
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    JR, neither a Google or Bing search turns up results for a single "Android feature phone" being advertised and/or sold. I've no idea why you think there's some large number of them when not even one shows up in a basic search. All I can think of  is perhaps you believe an inexpensive phone must necessarily be a feature phone while one going for more than $100 or so could be a smartphone?? I'd rather think you just had an uncommon definition for feature phones rather than just making up the claim.

    Are you Android shills so totally incapable of using a search engine? Do it without the quotes. There are 56,000,000 hits on Bing. Many of them are exactly what I've said they are.

    I've already cited plenty of examples before, but since you apparently can't figure out how to use a search engine:

    http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsung-might-unveil-as-many-as-8-Android-smartphones-in-Q1-2013_id39213
    (Talking about new phones to be released in 2013):
    "there is even an update to Samsung's Star feature phone,"

    Then things like the Pantech Swift which is specfically listed as a feature phone:
    http://www.phonearena.com/news/Pantech-Swift-for-AT-T-is-a-teen-friendly-QWERTY-feature-phone_id31084

    There's lots more but since you've ignored all the examples every other time I provided them, I'm not going to bother. Get a grade school student to teach you how to use a search engine.
  • Reply 67 of 131
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,321member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Are you Android shills so totally incapable of using a search engine? Do it without the quotes. There are 56,000,000 hits on Bing. Many of them are exactly what I've said they are.



    I've already cited plenty of examples before, but since you apparently can't figure out how to use a search engine:



    http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsung-might-unveil-as-many-as-8-Android-smartphones-in-Q1-2013_id39213

    (Talking about new phones to be released in 2013):

    "there is even an update to Samsung's Star feature phone,"



    Then things like the Pantech Swift which is specfically listed as a feature phone:

    http://www.phonearena.com/news/Pantech-Swift-for-AT-T-is-a-teen-friendly-QWERTY-feature-phone_id31084



    There's lots more but since you've ignored all the examples every other time I provided them, I'm not going to bother. Get a grade school student to teach you how to use a search engine.


    Love it when you hang yourself out to dry. 


    You're accusing me of being incapable of doing a proper web search yet to prove your're right you offer up examples of phones that don't even run Android.  A simple Google Search would have shown the Swift uses Brew as the OS, not Android. 


     


    Your other example? it was first sold back in 2009, with at least one other in the model line released last year. Guess what? They didn't run Android either. Another simple Google search would have told you that they use Symbian. 


     


    Let me know when your grade school student finds a real example of an Android feature phone being sold today. You should be embarrassed to offer the examples you did after being so arrogant in your reply.

  • Reply 68 of 131

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Love it when you hang yourself out to dry. "Find a grade school student" image


    You're accusing me of being incapable of doing a proper web search yet to prove your're right you offer up examples of phones that don't even run Android.  A simple Google Search would have shown the Swift uses Brew as the OS, not Android. 


     


    Your other example? it was sold back in 2009! 


     


    Let me know when your grade school student finds a real example of an Android feature phone being sold today.



    What's your point? Is there an argument you're trying to make, or are you content going on with a bunch of stream-of-consciousness ramblings like your other Androider pals?


     


    I am thoroughly bored and confused by you guys......

  • Reply 69 of 131
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,321member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    What's your point? Is there an argument you're trying to make, or are you content going on with a bunch of stream-of-consciousness ramblings like your other Androider pals?


     


    I am thoroughly bored and confused by you guys......



    It was JR's talking point, not mine. You'll have to wait for him to clarify it.

  • Reply 70 of 131
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Love it when you hang yourself out to dry. 
    <span style="line-height:1.231;">You're accusing me of being incapable of doing a proper web search yet to prove your're right [SIZE=14px]you offer up examples of phones [/SIZE]</span>
    [SIZE=14px]<strong style="line-height:1.231;">that don't even run Android.  </strong>
    [/SIZE]<span style="line-height:1.231;">A simple Google Search would have shown the Swift uses Brew as the OS, not Android. </span>


    <span style="line-height:1.231;">Your other example? it was first sold back in 2009, with at least one other in the model line released last year. Guess what? They didn't run Android either. Another simple Google search would have told you that they use Symbian. </span>


    <span style="line-height:1.231;">Let me know when your grade school student finds a real example of an Android feature phone being sold today. You should be embarrassed to offer the examples you did after being so arrogant in your reply.</span>

    I specifically checked and the site I had checked said it ran Android Jelly Bean. The site I checked was apparently wrong.

    In any event, it doesn't matter. As I showed you, the Galaxy star is a feature phone that runs Android. And the last dozen times you pretended that there was no such thing, I cited many more.

    That, of course, ignores the huge number of people who use Android smartphones as feature phones, as well.
  • Reply 71 of 131

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    It was JR's talking point, not mine. You'll have to wait for him to clarify it.



    If that's the case, why are you adding to what you apparently think is noise? In what way does that advance the discussion related to the topic at hand?

  • Reply 72 of 131
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,321member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    I specifically checked and the site I had checked said it ran Android Jelly Bean. The site I checked was apparently wrong.



    In any event, it doesn't matter. As I showed you, the Galaxy star is a feature phone that runs Android. And the last dozen times you pretended that there was no such thing, I cited many more.



    That, of course, ignores the huge number of people who use Android smartphones as feature phones, as well.


    There's no such phone as a Galaxy Star. Your link  offered a rumor that there might be one someday so it's a bit premature to claim it's a feature phone . . .  IF it's even built and IF it even uses Android.  At the end of the day you have no example of an Android feature phone to offer then? 


     


    So I'm guessing you've signaled you'd prefer to change your argument to "a huge number of people use Android smartphones as feature phones", a claim a bit harder to quantity and thus disagree with. Fair enough. Perhaps a large number of people use their iPhone as a feature phone. Hard to disprove that one either. Your point? Anantksudarum is getting confused by it and he's not the only one.

  • Reply 73 of 131
    Another factor to consider is that Apple iOS products have an "afterlife," courtesy of Gazelle and other companies that re-purchase and sell used units. How big is this market for Android units? Tiny by comparison.

    iPads and iPhones are recycled to new users. Android tabs and phones are used less for web when new, and then languish in the bureau drawer when replaced.
  • Reply 74 of 131

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


    StatCounter does not weight their data.  Net App weights their data by country, using numbers we don't know.


    StatCounter uses 3 million websites.   Net App only looks at their own group of 40,000 websites.  


    StatCounter counts page hits.  Net App only counts unique visitors, which does not indicate the amount of web usage.  


     



    1. Including e-Readers in the Android count, and


     



     


    Please. Once you hit 40,000 websites there's not going to be any difference. If they had 100 websites targeting specific groups (like auto or sports) then maybe. You're making a false assumption that because stat counter has 3 million sites that their data is going to be better. It's not. 40,000 is plenty large enough for a sample size. Statistics 101.


     


    Number of visitors is a good enough stat. People visit a site and some will leave after seeing the first page and some will spend more time reading other pages. This will average out over all demographics. Again you're trying to imply that Net App somehow uses "inferior" data. Unless you're going to try and claim that iOS users only view home pages while Android users are more likely to stay and visit other pages.


     


    I get lots of e-readers at my site. In fact, I get just as many Kindles as I do Android tablets like the Galaxy. So in my experience (with a real website that is 100% free of any iOS or Android content), your argument that people with e-readers and an iPAd will pick up the iPad. If you've got a device in your hands and you want to quickly look something up you'd just keep using it. Same way that if I'm using my iPad I'm not going to run over to my laptop to type a short e-mail.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


    The original iPhone had a slower processor, no 3G, no GPS, no MMS, no video, no voice control or search, and no third party apps at all.  In many ways, it was just a "feature phone", and far less capable than even cheaper smartphones today.


     


    Yet it was amazing and useful to quite a few people.


     


    I do agree that surfing the web on a 320x240 screen is not ideal, although millions of us did it for years.  (I used to use the Picsel browser, which had a type of tap-to-zoom before the iPhone ever came along.  You tapped and then slid your finger up or down, to zoom in or out.  It beat the heck out of Pocket IE.)



     


    Yet even the original iPhone had a 320x480 screen, twice what new phones are getting. And we're talking about 2007. Android OEM's are selling phones in 2013 that are no better than the original iPhone in 2007. Even the iPhone 4 is lights years better than many brand-new Android feature phones and it's already 2 years old.

  • Reply 75 of 131
    Another great article. I always enjoy these DED articles. They're obviously written from an Apple fan's perspective, but backed up by real facts and analysis, exactly what I hope for on an Apple blog. As much as the facts/analysis, I also enjoy the tone the articles set, and the perspectives they offer, which appear to be in line with a positive agenda for Apple's often-maligned public image. I particularly liked the extra info on Apple's improvements in channel inventory. It's as if Apple laced up a pair of Nike's.. it won the sprint, now it's ready for a marathon, and there's no way anybody's going to catch up! :)
  • Reply 76 of 131
    Eventually, all devices not made by Apple will run Android, because what else is there? Windows 8 for Embedded?
  • Reply 77 of 131
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Eventually, all devices not made by Apple will run Android, because what else is there? Windows 8 for Embedded?

    BB10 and Windows Phone 8 both look very good to me. I'd go with WP8 before I went with Android.
  • Reply 78 of 131
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    del

  • Reply 79 of 131
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    kdarling wrote: »
    Everyone from IDC on down cites 6 million Kindle Fires last quarter, and they run a branch of Android, which is why they're often included in "Android tablet" sales figures.

    What's interesting is that their custom Silk browser has a User Agent string that makes it look more like an iPad:

    With a UA of: <font face="courier new">Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_3; en-us; Silk/1.0.13.81_10003810) AppleWebKit/533.16 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0 Safari/533.16 Silk-Accelerated=true</font> it seems unlikely to me that it would get mixed up with Apple's starts. Add to that the resolution not used by any Apple device and any analytics company that can't tell the difference between Silk and Safari isn't very good.
  • Reply 80 of 131
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Please. Once you hit 40,000 websites there's not going to be any difference. If they had 100 websites targeting specific groups (like auto or sports) then maybe. You're making a false assumption that because stat counter has 3 million sites that their data is going to be better. It's not. 40,000 is plenty large enough for a sample size. Statistics 101.

    Wrong. Statistics 101 indicates that sample size is not sufficient if the sample is not representative. If Stat Counter is more representative, then those results would be more accurate - even if it had a lower sample size.

    You can't argue that 40,000 web sites automatically makes it representative - it doesn't. For example, a site that used Apple's iAds, it wouldn't be representative of the world as a whole since Google sites would be underrepresented. Now, if there were a way to ensure that the sample was representative, then 40,000 sites would be more than enough. But if it's not representative, then even 100 billion sites wouldn't be enough.
Sign In or Register to comment.