Android Jumps Past iOS in Overall U.S. Smartphone Usage

[G58]

I'm shocked by how many people see this as good news - apple is losing the battle, if not the war. Shrinking market share is generally not good, and it is a solid sign that nothing has changed since Microsoft won the OS battle: open might not produce better products, but it wins on market share.

The one difference is that google isn't selling android, so the economics of selling software (clearly better than hardware, as each additional unit costs nothing) don't quite work. However, ad revenue could well eclipse hardware costs.

At the moment, though, apple is still clearly making the most money of any single player in this market. What remains to be seen is if the controller of the OS makes the money in the long run, or the hardware manufacturer.

Mark my words, though - the ipad will follow the exact same arc. There is no good reason for it not to.

Apple are not only making the highest profits of any phone maker, they have the highest revenues. You may need to Google that one.

Apple's business model is the only one that's working. None of the other phone manufacturers have anything like Apple's share of the market. Grouping lots of manufacturers together under the Android OS causes fragmentation of profits, meaning no-one makes any real money. And the effect of this is that they have no money for innovation, and struggle to recoup development costs.

As the desktop wars proved, competition under one OS causes a race to the bottom in pricing and therefore profits. So the uneducated predictions you make about Apple are precisely what will happen to the Android OEMs. But this won't happen in the 30 year timescale of the PC experience. No, this will happen in a matter of months.

What you need to understand is that market share is irrelevant. The only numbers that really matter in business are the bottom line on the balance sheet and customer satisfaction figures. If Google understood that, they would be copying Apple instead of Microsoft.

 

[Bernard SG]

What does it tell us? There is only 1 iOS handset to choose from... it better sell well or else the entire iPhone platform is dead. It is all the eggs in one basket and it is working great for them, but one slip...

(I understand that I am replying to a person who doesn't feel Apple has ever made a mistake, but the people that run it are human.)

What it tells us is that companies like Samsung, HTC, Motorola, Sony-Ericsson that have been in the cell-phone business for ages, some even from day one, got totally outdone by the newcomer Apple (starting iPhone in 2007) in the smartphone segment.

You seem to imply that it's a mistake for Apple not to allow OEM's to offer iOS on their handsets. There's no economic evidence that such approach would be better for Apple's bottom line; moreover it presents a high risk that it would degrade the overall user experience on the iOS platform, as far as the tight integration between hardware and software is the main pillar of that famous Apple user experience.

The current success of the Mac is actually proof that Apple sticking to its guns, not licensing its platform to OEM's, pays in the long run.

 

[pistolero]

Where exactly are these ads then? Cant see any on my phone...are they anything like iAds?

Your mobile usage of the google apps in android is used to create a more accurate profile of your location, tastes and consumer preferences to send you targeted advertisement or sell your profile data to marketers. That's the reason why the android platform was created.

 

[radiohead14]

If Apple users have a bad image, I don't get why there are more and more of them each day (see Apple's sales growth).

Apple's market positioning is and has always been high-end. If purchasing high-end products and services (i.e. Apple devices, BMW's, 5-star hotels, branded fashion and accessories...) is elitist, pretentious and gives a bad image, then so be it.

As LTD says, that category of consumers doesn't seem to care and I would venture to say that apparently most of the people who are not in the category wish they got there.

that was not the point i was trying to make.. ever see some members here ask why there's some animosity towards apple users? well, read those quotes that i was referring to, and those will give you an idea why. they just seem negative and generalized. those thoughts are what i'm calling elitist and pretentious.. not purchasing or owning apple products. and from just reading the past couple of posts where others have disagreed on those referred statements as well makes what LTD said untrue. there are apple users, like me, who are tired of the stigma. and those same referred statements are also some of the reasons why there can't be a decent discussion here sometimes without it becoming a 'my toy is better than your toy argument'. anyway, i apologize for the slight derailment. please continue with the discussion of the actual topic.

 

[MattInOz]

...

The problem with Apple's model is it doesn't deal well with competition. All is good so long as things run well, but if Apple loses momentum, I think it will sink. Consider:

...

Apple's previous model didn't deal well last time.

But Last time Apple was run by young people who didn't have the business background or training. So they were pushed to bring "Business People" on board who then used the standard business playbook and almost run the company into the ground. As tradition business logic says you have to own the market to be successful.

Now those same people aren't so young and have enough of their own successes and failures under their belt to know what works in situations where the playbook has yet to cover.

There are two questions
1) has the market learned that mono-cultures are bad*?
Answer is resounding a NO. Man keeps getting itself in trouble in so many areas by trying to force mono-cultures on the world at large till it pushes back. So no reason to think we won't make the same mistake again and again.

2) has Apple learned that the only market share that matters is the ones who'll pay and to run inventory lean to sell to only 95% of the demand?
Seems to be a big Yes.

*Just think of the difference between malware spread when you have 4-5 popular platforms compared to one.

 

[iOS v Android]

That's just me. Different strokes for different folks.

That is fact. Some people need to realize that hardware can be spoken in terms of facts but software preferences are based on terms of opinions. Live and let live, android is not for everyone and iOS is not for everyone. Some of the people here seem like they have the idea that if everyone on earth had iOS and a mac they would all be happy.

 

[oban14]

As someone who switched from an iPhone to Android... I can say that Android is far better.

 

[Blue Fox]

This is a study of SMARTPHONES. So the study is 100% accurate. You don't need to pull in iPads and iPod Touches to keep convincing yourself that Apple will always maintain the highest market share. They won't.

Not trying to convince myself of anything, nor do I really care. I rather liked it when the iPhone wasn't the number 1 selling handset because it was more exclusive. (back when I was able to buy the iPhone 3G in the afternoon on launch day without having to stand in line for days to get one)

But yes, it is a study of smartphones, but a little misleading as people are taking it as if the iOS platform is doomed because one part of it is being overtaken by Android. There is a much larger picture here that people are overlooking. The iPhone is only a part of the much larger iOS platform. Really, the normal consumer should care less about this study as it has nothing to do with them, it's just useless information, and I wonder why people even argue about it........I guess it's just fun to argue on the internet. Seems to be the "thing" these days. The information in the study is really more for developers to decide which platforms they want to start supporting.

But like I said earlier, this study is only showing a small piece of the mobile operating system arena. Developers usually want to support the larger operating systems because their App will get more sales, which equals more revenue for them....the whole point behind selling Apps. When looking at a platform, you need to look at the WHOLE platform, which is all the systems running it, not just the smartphone market.

Apple has the iPod, iPad and iPhone on the iOS platform. Android has numerous phones and a few tablets too. But when you compare marketshare of all Android vs all of iOS, the story of who is commandingly on top changes dramatically.

But I guess in terms of this particular study, yes, the Android has more marketshare than iOS, that is a given, and there's no argument from me about that at all.

 

[AaronEdwards]

The penalty for "losing the desktop battle":

The most profitable PC maker in the world, that is the Gold Standard of personal computing with Macs + OS X. I can't remember the last time Apple *didn't* sell record numbers of Macs quarter for quarter. Many have tried to copy the whole Mac + OS X experience, and everyone (notably Dell) have failed. Now Apple is selling record numbers of expensive Macbook Airs! Totally impossible for anyone else to pull off who isn't called "Apple."

Anyone can license out their beta OS to anyone else who can slam together a box and sell a lot of POS devices at low cost. Some of these Android smartphones are the biggest piles of junk you've ever seen. And guess what . . . they're counted toward Android market share. Yes, GOOGLE ALLOWS THIS TO HAPPEN. Because they don't give a **** about the user and will do anything - including whore out their OS to shytebox makers - just to squeeze out a few more percent share.

I could make the argument that Apple don't care about the user, unless the user can pay the price Apple want. Not everyone can or will pay what Apple want.

 

[iOS v Android]

Why the centralized OS has worked

People seem to think the other companies should have made their own OSs for their computers. I highly disagree. Had that happend many of them would have disapeared we would also have over a hundred different OSs it would be nearly impossible to get anything completed in work as everyone will be use to a different OS. Programing for programs will be impossible. The millions of people who build their own computers will be SOL Do I believe we should have only one prominent OS? No. I do think there should be more then two right now. MAC OS and Windows. I think that their should be slightly more then that. I would also like for a company like apple to work with others and form a console to better its OS. It would reach more customers and they can still control the hardware.

 

[marksman]

you guys are still in denial.

the fact is...most people dont want an iphone. the reports says it and the sales numbers proves it. its not about the limit availability of the iphone or contract issues...its just doesn't appeal to most people.

But more people bought an iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 than any other smart phones in the last 5 years.

 

[RebelScum]

Meh, when you scratch and plead for your OS to be on as many devices as possible, of course you're gonna wind up with significant market share. Apple has 2 phones, each in 2 configurations. Android has, what...30?

Android devices come in all flavors to suite all needs, because Google knows you'll never fail if you cater to the lowest common denominator. Whether the OS is better or worse than iOS is a futile argument in that it's based n ones personal preference. But come on...I see hundreds of Fords on my drive into work every morning, but I still think a Porsche is a better car.

If volume is on your side, you'll win every time.

 

[Bernard SG]

I could make the argument that Apple don't care about the user

You could make the argument but you might make a fool of yourself, considering that Apple is the company and brand that is most commonly referred to when it comes to the concept of "User experience".

 

[Sined]

With approximately 140 devices on the market, it's about time.

 

[marksman]

So, because RIM has as many top selling smart phones the last five years as Apple they aren't in trouble right now?

Compared to whom?

See how it works? Apple and Rim are valid comparisons. Android is not a smartphone manufacturer it is an operating system.

That is why the comparisons don't make sense.

Rim is certainly in a better position as a smart phone manufacturer/seller than Android is.

Android is not a smart phone manufacturer/seller.

People need to keep their fruits in comparison with each other. If we want to compare individual phones fine. If we want to compare OSes fine. Comapring OSes to individual phones is stupid.

HTC, Samsung, Mototorola and whomever else get absolutely no benefit from Android being the most popular smartphone OS. In fact it hurts them because it means increased competition for that space for the same OS.

 

[SandynJosh]

I think the big story is that Windows Phone 7/Windows mobile has a 10% share! I pegged them at like a 2% tops.

I think they included all the active old clunky Windows Mobile phones from the pre-Win7 days too. That's the way it reads to me.

 

[j-traxx]

Too bad Apple didn't see the light and make its iPhone available across all carriers.

too bad apple is NUMBER ONE IN profitability and revenue. LOL! in business... those are the top statistics to pay homage to.

 

[clibinarius]

Growth means selling more units, not "selling a unit". We're tracking growth of Mac sales rising over 27% YoY with PC sales shriking half a percent. Apple's total market share in Macs is increasing.

Regarding "high margins", iPads and iPhones are comparably priced. MacBook Air is the most affordable ultraportable in its segment.

Your statements are full of aphorisms and unfounded biases. I'm simply pointing out that you don't have any facts to back up anything you say (like in the post I just quoted).

Macbook Air? Most affordable ultraportable? Maybe. Depends if you define it as Netbook and Laptop. If then, no. If you mean most affordable expensive small laptop, then yes, you might have a point.

iPads and iPhones are comparably priced. But Apple still makes large sums on them, suggesting they could be more competitively priced.

Selling a unit...see, when you have a low market share, every unit means more than the next unit you sell over time. You understand how this works? The closer you have to 0, the more the next one you sell means. So while other manufacturers can see declines, they still have vast quantities more than Apple. And while Apple sees an increase, that doesn't mean they're filling in the void. All those unsold non-Mac machines aren't magically being sold as Macs. Not by a long shot.

Just another point. A lot of government entities and corporate entities buy Dells and other Windows machines-not Macs. In this recession, capital expenses are being trimmed in both government and corporations. So the idea that growth would be slowed is...rather unsurprising. Similarly Vista left a temporary bad taste in people's mouths.

I think your agenda is just to prove that Apple is great in a way that's founded on cherry picking information. The fact you say the Macbook Air is cheap...makes me laugh. I have a Macbook Air. I like my Macbook Air. Its cheap...compared to a Macbook Pro. Its more powerful...than a $200 netbook. I like its balance of power and the fact I can carry it on a plane and not be bothered with it. Great value? For me, yes. For most people...well, why not? But cheap?

Surely you're joking. Ultraportables if defined as fully functioning computers aren't supposed to be cheap, and having the cheapest expensive machine isn't a great accomplishment to me.

The point still is that Apple currently has great growth and great margins. No one's disputing that. The concern is the future, and no-I don't see how Apple can maintain that. Why, by your logic, Apple will have 125% of the computer market within a few decades.

 

[clibinarius]

Apple's previous model didn't deal well last time.

But Last time Apple was run by young people who didn't have the business background or training. So they were pushed to bring "Business People" on board who then used the standard business playbook and almost run the company into the ground. As tradition business logic says you have to own the market to be successful.

Now those same people aren't so young and have enough of their own successes and failures under their belt to know what works in situations where the playbook has yet to cover.

There are two questions
1) has the market learned that mono-cultures are bad*?
Answer is resounding a NO. Man keeps getting itself in trouble in so many areas by trying to force mono-cultures on the world at large till it pushes back. So no reason to think we won't make the same mistake again and again.

2) has Apple learned that the only market share that matters is the ones who'll pay and to run inventory lean to sell to only 95% of the demand?
Seems to be a big Yes.

*Just think of the difference between malware spread when you have 4-5 popular platforms compared to one.

I agree, but Apple in itself is practicing a mono-culture by having a complete walled garden. If Apple does something bad, since it has such huge control over this garden, it could be ruinous. I mean, can you imagine what would happen to Apple if it had a Vista-style fiasco? Microsoft still hasn't really recovered from its losses. Apple's a very small percent of the PC market, and Smartphones and Tablets have a way to go before saturation. If someone finds a really nasty exploit for iOS that can't be patched due to hardware constraints-far harder on Android or Windows due to the fact they're on so much hardware, but much easier in a software manner (see: Malware), then I do not see how iOS can be a viable platform too long.

But the fact Apple's maintaining such tight control over their software while blocking out other people's software-see: Blu-ray, USB 3...shows me they in fact have not learned from their mistakes when it comes to market share, just that they know how to not waste money.

Now its true that everyone always complaints about security in OS X aside from Mac Users...it hasn't been a problem YET. Its also true Apple leaves out features-that has been an advantage so far frankly. But these are very glaring weaknesses in my opinion-it really gives Apple room to make some major mistakes. This is why I'm referring to the reality distortion field so much-do you honestly think even the most talented people on earth will not release a product that resembles New Coke? (Jobs knows very well how changing a successful product can be an awful idea: The Macintosh...didn't do as well as the Apple II. Sorry Mac fans, but the Apple II was probably Apple's most successful product in the PC market; but then you also had the Apple III fiasco). Fine, so Jobs won't do that-R&D costs precious money and you have to apply R&D to good ideas-but it makes me wonder if Apple is willing to embrace the "next big thing" (they were on the ball with iOS back in the day, but it also hasn't changed too much for many years).

Since they've learned from errors in the 80s and 90s, my guess is a resounding "no"-they're a very conservative company now.

And last but not least, even business people make mistakes: Look at the financial system, circa 2008.

 

[AaronEdwards]

You could make the argument but you might make a fool of yourself, considering that Apple is the company and brand that is most commonly referred to when it comes to the concept of "User experience".

And your response is suffering from selective quoting.

I could make the argument that Apple don't care about the user, unless the user can pay the price Apple want.

Notice the second part.

 

[valkraider]

Except that a Honda Fit/Audi R8 analogy is so full of fail, your cup runneth over. We aren't talking about a $15,000 and $150,000 car. It's a phone......A PHONE. I get blown away by people who seem to think an Apple product is the equivalent of an exotic automobile. An iPhone costs a few hundred dollars. I'm pretty sure that if someone is in the market for a smartphone, and really wants an iPhone, they could scrounge together a few hundred dollars to buy one, so long as they are employed.

Didn't you just prove my entire point? I replied someone who said that anyone who could buy an Android phone could buy an iPhone.

The prices you used: $15,000 is 1 tenth of $150,000.

Just like a $200 iPhone is ten times as much as a $20 Android phone.

Lots of people buy Android phones fit $0 to $20 who can't afford $200 for an iPhone. Just like people buy a fit and they can't afford an R8.

When you can get an android phone free it opens up the market to a whole new demographic.

As for your brother getting one free? All I have to say is "Giddyup, Apple." Instead of sneering at the fact Androids are being given away, maybe you should ask yourself why someone can get an Android for free, while there is more or less no incentive from Apple whatsoever, to entice you to purchase an iPhone.

Because Apple wants no part of a race to the bottom.

Google what Acer's CEO said about trying to win with volume instead of margin.

Might a well say this:

"we lose $100 on every one we sell, but we'll make it up with volume."




--
"Officer, I know I was going faster than 55mph, but I wasn't going to be on the road an hour." -Steven Wright

Posted from my iPhone using the "Tapatalk" app.

 

[oban14]

too bad apple is NUMBER ONE IN profitability and revenue. LOL! in business... those are the top statistics to pay homage to.

One thing I have to hand to Apple: I've never seen so many consumers so pleased to be so gouged by a company. It's like the higher their profits and the more they overcharge you, the more they like it.

Too bad you can't teach that in business school.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Apple are not only making the highest profits of any phone maker, they have the highest revenues. You may need to Google that one.

Apple's business model is the only one that's working. None of the other phone manufacturers have anything like Apple's share of the market. Grouping lots of manufacturers together under the Android OS causes fragmentation of profits, meaning no-one makes any real money. And the effect of this is that they have no money for innovation, and struggle to recoup development costs.

As the desktop wars proved, competition under one OS causes a race to the bottom in pricing and therefore profits. So the uneducated predictions you make about Apple are precisely what will happen to the Android OEMs. But this won't happen in the 30 year timescale of the PC experience. No, this will happen in a matter of months.

What you need to understand is that market share is irrelevant. The only numbers that really matter in business are the bottom line on the balance sheet and customer satisfaction figures. If Google understood that, they would be copying Apple instead of Microsoft.

Apple buissiness model is to only play in the high end high margins areas.
Apple does not sell anything in the low end area that have small margins.
On the other smart phones makers strip out the anything that is a loss leader or break even and you will start seeing high margins.

It is just Apple way of doing bussiness is only do thing that have high margins and do not go for the low end stuff.
Right now in cell phones you have 2 markets. High end and low end stuff. The middle ground has completely for the most part been killed off. If you look at what people buy they are either buying the sub $50 cell phone or the $200 and not toughing the others.

 

[SandynJosh]

Apple's previous model didn't deal well last time.

But Last time Apple was run by young people who didn't have the business background or training. So they were pushed to bring "Business People" on board who then used the standard business playbook and almost run the company into the ground. As tradition business logic says you have to own the market to be successful.

Now those same people aren't so young and have enough of their own successes and failures under their belt to know what works in situations where the playbook has yet to cover.

You're too young to remember all the market forces that existed during the early '80s. IBM owned the computer market in general. When they entered what was called the micro-computer market at the time with IBM computers running DOS they totally owned that market as well. They felt so confident that they owned the market due to their deep entrenchment in the enterprise market, that they allowed Microsoft the ability to sell DOS to other computer companies. Bad move.

Apple owns the segment of the smart phone market they have targeted. They really have no desire to compete for smart phone buyers that buy Android phones because they are "free" or as cheap as a dumb phone. These users are the sort that use a smart phone to call, text, visit Facebook and play Bejeweled or Farmville. For these users, and there are some on this forum thread, an Android will do all they want it to do just peachy.

If, however, you want a reliable phone, backed by a first-rate customer service that you can count on to intuitively help you function as a business person, then you are the kind of user that represents Apple's target market.

For that reason, you will find BBs and iPhones in the hands of most business people. A survey of such users would yield much different results than this reported survey because you would be more closely surveying Apple's and RIM's chosen market segment within the whole market for smart phones.

The data processing market, as it was in 1980 has changed radically to today. Back then, it was a given that a computer required an in-house IT department and a lot of user training. Now, a device needs to be intuitive right out of the box for acceptance by the bulk of businesses small and large. That is what is behind the run-away success of the iPhone and the iPad in Apple's chosen segment of the two markets.

 

[Ruhruh]

Why does everyone argue over these stupid charts? (serious question)

Unless you are a super duper fan of an OS and connect your ego and self-worth to the success of a phone, I don't see the point in getting so hot and bothered.

You either use one or the other, or even both. One has more market share (good for?), one is bringing in tons more money (good for stock holders, developers).

Depending on what you personally need from an OS/Phone, you go with the one that fits you, hopefully.

I get that we as humans love to debate and argue and prove we are the best, but really, they are phones. Some of the things I read are more delusional then fans of losing sports teams.

There is no "best", sorry to break it to everyone. One might be more successful, depending on your measurement system, but there isn't a perfect OS/Phone that is going to fit the bill for everyone.

I'm assuming this article was posted on this site to get page hits, but it really is fairly meaningless, regardless of what page you read it on.