http://www.cnet.com/news/xiaomi-jumps-to-fifth-largest-smartphone-maker-worldwide/
Android: 85%
iOS: 12%
Windows: 3%
Android: 85%
iOS: 12%
Windows: 3%
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Android has 85% smartphone market share
- Thread starter EbookReader
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not surprising when you have $100, sub-$100 smartphones being sold in new third world markets.
What's more surprising is Apple's continued growth, 31 millions to 35million units shipped, in a slower quarter, in markets that should already be near saturated.
What's a "third world market" then?
I guess a market in these countries :
One could argue they have other problems than smartphones .. Like .. food .. water .. less bullets ...
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
Or you could say that it isn't surprising Apple sold 35 million phones in 1st world markets, considering you can go to Wal-Mart and get a 4S for free and a 5S for $99 on contracts. Gotta love those sub-$100 phones.
See how easy it is to 'spin' things to suit personal bias?
But Lloyd....its not "spin"....the truth is there are hundreds and hundreds of different Android devices hitting all kinds of price points. The simple truth is in much of the world, Android dominates because financially these consumers don't have any other options. It's not a negative or a bias, simply the way things are.
In those markets where flagship devices are the primary devices bought, Apple leads in many, but not all. Its not hard to see that when put up against devices of the same price point, Apple usually is the preference.
But add in pricing considerations and its all a matter of personal value propositions. And in those countries where a vast number of people simply can't afford an iPhone (even a "cheap one"), Android is really the only game in town.
As I've said numerous times, marketshare is next to meaningless. If Apple decided it wanted to play the marketshare game, they could release a cheap iPhone and selling it at minimal profit. But they don't.
Because of how I feel about Apple services, I think it would be an immensely smart thing to do to get more people into the ecosystem - lowering the cost of entry. But Apple seems not to care. The 5C was a half-hearted attempt and really only served to offer a more kid/teen friendly alternative to the 5S. I bet margins were better on the 5C than the 5 as well.
Some Americans still continue to call developing nations "third world countries" when the USA has 47-50m people living in poverty.
True, however a good majority of all those sales fall in subsidized countries (U.S. and U.K. for example), while very few iPhones are sold in any other countries. Hence, the small 'overall' market share. If the U.S. stopped subsidizing iPhones, you'd see sales drop by roughly 40%. Apple can't afford to have its single biggest cash crop do that in the U.S. (Technically they could, for a while, but not before taking a huge hit in stock price and devaluation.)
----------
No argument here, other than to add iPhones aren't financially feasible for a huge portion of the worlds population, including people in the U.S. without subsidization. My reply was more of a simple retort at playing devils advocate.
True, however a good majority of all those sales fall in subsidized countries (U.S. and U.K. for example), while very few iPhones are sold in any other countries. Hence, the small 'overall' market share. If the U.S. stopped subsidizing iPhones, you'd see sales drop by roughly 40%. Apple can't afford to have its single biggest cash crop do that in the U.S. (Technically they could, for a while, but not before taking a huge hit in stock price and devaluation.)
----------
No argument here, other than to add iPhones aren't financially feasible for a huge portion of the worlds population, including people in the U.S. without subsidization. My reply was more of a simple retort at playing devils advocate.
Perhaps - I don't think the lack of subsidization would impact sales of the iPhone by the amount you mention (40%). And really...subsidization may go away, but carriers will find a way to make phones affordable to keep people locked in. Look at all the new "upgrade" plans - T-Mobile doesn't "subsidize" the cost of their devices anymore, but in the end they do exactly the same thing AT&T does when they sell you a device at $200 up front and build in cost of the phone over time.
Subsidization is simply another form of financing. And like the PC industry, we'll eventually hit a point where the smartphone industry has plateaued and the focus will be on cheaper ways to build devices with similar specs.
Heck, when PCs were introduced how much did they cost? No you can get a basic laptop that does infinitely more than the original PCs for $250. Smartphones won't be any different.
I think we sometimes forget, given just how incredibly rapid the rise of smartphones and tablets has been, the iPhone (I know it wasn't the first smartphone, but it gives a good starting point for the beginning of the smartphone boom) is only 7 years old. And the iPad is only 4 years old.
This are obviously moving faster now than they did back then, but I'd be willing to bet in the next 10 years we'll have ultracheap non-subsidized smartphones and tablets as the norm. Even Apple will come down a bit in price - though a Mac is priced at a premium versus PCs of similar specs and people still seem to buy Macs (I believe the Mac marketshare is similar to iOS at this point....low teens).
This is Apple's strategy. Not to be a "device for all" but to offer their "premium" devices to as many people as can afford them. If and when they decide they want to play the marketshare game, we'll see a cheap iPhone that costs $200 off-contract. And we'll know their strategy has shifted.
Given profitshare and the position Apple is in, I can't imagine they're in any rush to sacrifice what they see as the premium brand position Apple currently holds just to gain more marketshare.
That's true. We have Jump, Next and Edge which is quite similar to subsidy. However, the one thing that these new programs now have that the old 2-year contract subsidy model didn't is clear delineation between the price of the phone and the price of the service. It's easy for folks to choose the $199 iPhone when the monthly plan costs remain the same. However, when you're looking at $200 per month for 4x Moto G versus $290 per month for 4x iPhone on Next or around $1,800 in savings, well, that's bound to switch things up a bit. This isn't even taking into consideration various prepaid options.
Another thing BYOD discounts encourage is keeping your old devices longer. Almost everyone I know upgrade their phones like clockwork every 2 years (or every year using staggered subsidy upgrades). If you get to cut down your bill from $290 to $160 per month by not upgrading, that's a huge incentive to keep using your old phone longer.
Gain marketshare, no. Maintain it, quite possibly.
If they entered the low-end market, they would without doubt GAIN marketshare. Heck, I think they'll pick up a couple percentage points with the addition of a larger display option this fall/winter.
iOS has only 8 phones. Period. There are only 8 different iPhones. iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPhone 5S, and iPhone 5C. Out of these, only 3 are actively sold, and only 5 can run the latest software update.
Meanwhile Android has hundreds of devices (many of which don't actually even run regular Android). Samsung alone has almost 3x the amount of available devices CURRENTLY for sale. That number increases when you factor in all the devices they've made that run Android that are discontinued. Throw in Motorola, HTC, LG, ZTE, Huawei, Pantech, Sony, etc. and that number does nothing but skyrocket.
However, as someone above said, I'm curious to see if this figure includes devices running Android that utilize Google Play Services, or if it's also including ALL Android-based devices (i.e. Kindle Fire/Fire Phone, Nokia X line, Meizu phones, etc, Nabi, etc).
Edit: Also what's worth mentioning is that even though there are loads of more Android devices available, Apple still manages to be the #2 largest phone producer, which is impressive. It's managing double number marketshare under a single OEM, something Blackberry can't do, and something Windows can't achieve with MULTIPLE makers.
Meanwhile Android has hundreds of devices (many of which don't actually even run regular Android). Samsung alone has almost 3x the amount of available devices CURRENTLY for sale. That number increases when you factor in all the devices they've made that run Android that are discontinued. Throw in Motorola, HTC, LG, ZTE, Huawei, Pantech, Sony, etc. and that number does nothing but skyrocket.
However, as someone above said, I'm curious to see if this figure includes devices running Android that utilize Google Play Services, or if it's also including ALL Android-based devices (i.e. Kindle Fire/Fire Phone, Nokia X line, Meizu phones, etc, Nabi, etc).
Edit: Also what's worth mentioning is that even though there are loads of more Android devices available, Apple still manages to be the #2 largest phone producer, which is impressive. It's managing double number marketshare under a single OEM, something Blackberry can't do, and something Windows can't achieve with MULTIPLE makers.
Last edited:
I agree with you but that's just the thing. I don't think Apple's going to lower their prices or introduce lower end models until they start losing sales. They sell their products at what the market will bear and as of the last release, the market can still bear $450-850 iPhones (granted, I have no idea how much subsidy they actually get from carriers). They're more likely to gain marketshare with a higher end phablet.
That said, I think the move to no contract plans is bound to affect iPhone sales and I wouldn't be at all surprised if next year, they decide to keep the 5c (or a butchered version of it with inferior display, etc) and sell it at $350.
Any number given out by Google represents Android devices that have accessed the Play Store within the last 30 days. These are legit numbers.
Numbers given out by anyone else = crap shoot
Cool.
It actually grew in marketshare. Last I read it was 79-80%. In Spain, Android had like 92% last I checked.
Only in the US is where Apple is the #1 OEM. So iOS shrank about 3-4% globally. Personally I don't really care who is winning. I've used iOS, Android, and WP as my daily driver at some point. I generally liked all of them. Android was the last one I liked but became my #1 choice by 2012-2013. My iPhone 5s is only used as an iPod touch since I no longer can add files onto it since I sold my 9-year old laptop. My M7 & Mi 3 are my pair of daily drivers although I prefer the latter as of late because of battery life similar to the Note 3. Yesterday, I hit 9 hrs and 45 min screen time usage on the Mi 3.
With KitKat helping to compliment lower-end devices and prices dropping rapidly, I expect Android's marketshare to grow even more. Perhaps 90% in less than two years. Xiaomi and OnePlus is proving to consumers that you don't need to pay $700 for an unlocked phone to get flagship specs. And many other lower end phones with specs of a Moto G should start dropping under $100 by next year. The low end market still hasn't been fully saturated yet. Prices will continue to fall and KitKat will help compliment it for a better experience.
It actually grew in marketshare. Last I read it was 79-80%. In Spain, Android had like 92% last I checked.
Only in the US is where Apple is the #1 OEM. So iOS shrank about 3-4% globally. Personally I don't really care who is winning. I've used iOS, Android, and WP as my daily driver at some point. I generally liked all of them. Android was the last one I liked but became my #1 choice by 2012-2013. My iPhone 5s is only used as an iPod touch since I no longer can add files onto it since I sold my 9-year old laptop. My M7 & Mi 3 are my pair of daily drivers although I prefer the latter as of late because of battery life similar to the Note 3. Yesterday, I hit 9 hrs and 45 min screen time usage on the Mi 3.
With KitKat helping to compliment lower-end devices and prices dropping rapidly, I expect Android's marketshare to grow even more. Perhaps 90% in less than two years. Xiaomi and OnePlus is proving to consumers that you don't need to pay $700 for an unlocked phone to get flagship specs. And many other lower end phones with specs of a Moto G should start dropping under $100 by next year. The low end market still hasn't been fully saturated yet. Prices will continue to fall and KitKat will help compliment it for a better experience.
An example from north european country (new sold smartphones):
Android 39%
WP 36%
Enterprise:
-WP 60%
- Android 22%
- iOS next below Android
WindowsPhone has sold quite good. Typical price for smartphones, sold here, is around 500 dollars (usadollars, and iP5s16gb is around 860dollars vs. S5 840dollars).
And rest of the european markets is abit opposite than shares in usa. In UK iOS sells better, almost 30% share, but rest of european countries iOS has only around 5-17% share. And something to see: ex-iOS customers have just under twenty procents share of sold Samsung phones and that is a quite high rate.
It is very interesting to see what happens in few years. Somehow I believe that WP grows, if they dont mess up it and where tizen goes. It probably eats more Android share than others.
Well, here in Germany Apple actually restricts the carriers to subsidize the iPhone too much and I'm sure they do exactly the same in the States.
My 2 year contract is running out and Telekom offered me a 5S for 140, whereas they offered every single high end Android phone (M8, G3, S5..) for 40.
So there remains a considerable difference.
I personally find Apple to be like the Starbucks of tech. I enjoy going to Starbucks very much, but $5 for coffee? I can easily get my own gourmet brand in the supermarket for similar pricing and it tastes better too.
Apple is more for the experience and not always about offering the best value. Quite similar to the Window vs Mac marketshare and argument. But I think iPhones will continue to dominate the US. Samsung is only 2nd there. In the US since it is carrier controlled, it is one of the few countries you can get iPhones for cheap because most people are on postpaid/carrier plans. Americans love their $199 iPhones (extra $70 tax) like Americans love eating McDonald's fast food and shopping at Wal-Mart. Not every iPhone owners eats at Spagu and drives Bentleys.
Personally for me, money is no object when it comes to phones. I can easily get iPhones but I got so tired of iOS restrictions. If a Galaxy Note 3 and iPhone 5s were priced similar, I might pick the Samsung. Pricing is not the only thing restricting iOS to become more successful. People like me are also getting tired paying more for something that does half less. Proprietary software/accessories and crippled abilities like communicating with other devices (lack of OTG, lack of Bluetooth transfer, no expandable storage, no FM, ) are also what limits iPhones' growth.
Heck, I've owned four different iPhone generation models. I think the HTC One (M7) is better looking than ALL OF THEM. Yet, the One is in the box. Build quality is a superficial thing. Using the Mi 3 because of real life performance and better ability. Not as cute or as pretty, but I stick to performance and capabilities where I don't get purple photos or half battery life.
Beauty fades. Performance lasts.
Apple is more for the experience and not always about offering the best value. Quite similar to the Window vs Mac marketshare and argument. But I think iPhones will continue to dominate the US. Samsung is only 2nd there. In the US since it is carrier controlled, it is one of the few countries you can get iPhones for cheap because most people are on postpaid/carrier plans. Americans love their $199 iPhones (extra $70 tax) like Americans love eating McDonald's fast food and shopping at Wal-Mart. Not every iPhone owners eats at Spagu and drives Bentleys.
Personally for me, money is no object when it comes to phones. I can easily get iPhones but I got so tired of iOS restrictions. If a Galaxy Note 3 and iPhone 5s were priced similar, I might pick the Samsung. Pricing is not the only thing restricting iOS to become more successful. People like me are also getting tired paying more for something that does half less. Proprietary software/accessories and crippled abilities like communicating with other devices (lack of OTG, lack of Bluetooth transfer, no expandable storage, no FM, ) are also what limits iPhones' growth.
Heck, I've owned four different iPhone generation models. I think the HTC One (M7) is better looking than ALL OF THEM. Yet, the One is in the box. Build quality is a superficial thing. Using the Mi 3 because of real life performance and better ability. Not as cute or as pretty, but I stick to performance and capabilities where I don't get purple photos or half battery life.
Beauty fades. Performance lasts.