Android Outpaces iPhone in Share of New U.S. Smartphone Customers for First Half of 2010

[BaldiMac]

... and very very BAD for Apple! Didn't Apple learn anything when Windows killed it in market share and Apple struggled for decades before it finally found success with iMac?

Despite all the arguments to the contrary, this IS Windows vs. Mac all over again.

In what way are the market's similar other than Apple and Microsoft are involved? Even the people running both of those companies are different. Apple already has a higher market share among smartphones than they ever had in the PC market. PCs were an emerging market driven by enterprise spending. Smartphones are an established market driven by consumer spending.

Wait, it's all about profitability? Well, what's going to happen when you have 20 million Android smartphones vs. 10 million iPhones. Profitability will be determined by market share and the size of the prospective buying pool. It's inevitable.

How is profitability inevitably determined by market share? Android is basically free. Hard to see the inevitable profitability there despite the market share.

don't blame the data, it is what it is. And this is comparing ios to android not phone to phone.

No, its comparing iOS on smartphones to Android on smartphones.

One vendor (google) has allowed its OS to be on multiple handsets

And one vendor has successfully repurposed its OS to be used in multiple markets.

 

[wreckshop]

How is profitability inevitably determined by market share? Android is basically free. Hard to see the inevitable profitability there despite the market share.

Are you serious? Are handsets free? Or do you think we all live in some bizarro world the handset makers can make more profit by selling to less people?

/facepalm

 

[Ironworker808]

AT&T has done Apple no favors. They were second choice and even though Steve may act hurt about BigV, he's all about the money and a Verizon iPhone would bring in lots of it. 1st quarter 2011.

Actually they were third. Apple approached Sprint too.

I have a friend that works at a Sprint call center, and several months ago she told me that during one of their 'pep rally' meetings that one of the corporate higher ups was there and told them that Apple came to Sprint but that Sprint turned them away because they wouldn't agree to Apples terms about no Sprint branding on the phone and no Sprint ads featuring the iPhone.

 

[BaldiMac]

Are you serious? Are handsets free? Or do you think we all live in some bizarro world the handset makers can make more profit by selling to less people?

/facepalm

Yes, I am serious. We are talking about OS market share. Not handset market share. Comparing the profitability of the OS. Are you seriously going to compare the profits of all the Android handset manufacturers combined to Apple? (Though Apple would currently win that comparison by a landslide). If you would like to compare by hardware manufacturer, that is a different topic.

And yes, in the normal, non-bizarro world, you can make more profit by selling to less people through higher margins. And you can augment that profitability through attached services.

 

[Drag'nGT]

Why is that comical to you? It's logical considering the amount of advertising focus. Android, until the Verzion Droid campaign, wasn't really advertised. Also, Apple has the benefit of being to market sooner as well as all of the established iPod user base to build off of.

Because you're taking an entire group of phones and holding it up against one, one phone. It's just kinda like having a group of guys go beat up one guy and then claim that the group leader is better.

That's highly short sighted and a very limited view of what is really going on. It's also the:

• "I want a bigger screen" option
• "I don't like a walled garden" option
• "I like voice search and texting built in" option
• "I want wi-fi hotspot" option
• "I like the OS/Notifications/etc. better" option
• "I want flash on my phone" option
• And until the iP4, it was the "I need a camera flash" option

There's a variety of things that Apple or AT&T aren't giving people so they go elsewhere. It's not only because they can't get the iPhone on their current carrier.

And yet those options aren't on every Android phone. They're on some of them but also the carrier can control certain features.

Example, do you think Apple doesn't want the wi-fi hotspot? Or did AT&T have a big influence on that?

Also, find a not so techy guy or girl and ask "If the iPhone were on Verizon, would you buy one?" Let us know what you find out.

 

[ChazUK]

How is profitability inevitably determined by market share? Android is basically free. Hard to see the inevitable profitability there despite the market share.

I'm not sure if you know this BaldiMac, but whilst Android OS at a core level is free, some of the Google services apps are only included with handsets through "business deals". This was bought up after Cyanogen was including the Google apps with his custom Cyanogenmod roms unlicenced and Google issued a cease and desist: Source

With a high-quality open platform in hand, we then returned to our goal of making our services available on users' phones. That's why we developed Android apps for many of our services like YouTube, Gmail, Google Voice, and so on. These apps are Google's way of benefiting from Android in the same way that any other developer can, but the apps are not part of the Android platform itself. We make some of these apps available to users of any Android-powered device via Android Market, and others are pre-installed on some phones through business deals. Either way, these apps aren't open source, and that's why they aren't included in the Android source code repository. Unauthorized distribution of this software harms us just like it would any other business, even if it's done with the best of intentions.

What these deals amount to I don't know but there is an opportunity for Google to profit by licensing the Google Apps to handset manufacturers and most of the Android phones I've seen released seem to include the Google apps.

 

[wreckshop]

Yes, I am serious. We are talking about OS market share. Not handset market share. Comparing the profitability of the OS. Are you seriously going to compare the profits of all the Android handset manufacturers combined to Apple? (Though Apple would currently win that comparison by a landslide). If you would like to compare by hardware manufacturer, that is a different topic.

You are the one making arbitrary distinctions that are pointless. Why should I - a consumer - give a crap if google wants to give android away for free? Im no expert, but google seems to have done all right by giving away all its stuff for free

What I care about is what the ecosystem of the smartphone platform I just invested in. To have a healthy, strong ecosystem you need market share to encourage developers to write apps. Palm Pre was a very capable OS, but it still failed anyways. Take a guess why?

And yes, in the normal, non-bizarro world, you can make more profit by selling to less people through higher margins. And you can augment that profitability through attached services.

You mean like how apple sells macs (which are nothing more than slower PC hardware in an aluminum case) at a premium which lack a complete ecosystem and as a result users are forced to turn to PC solutions?

That kludge wont work for smartphones because you cant dual boot OS's and no one is going to carry two phones at the same time. So yah, market share is very important.

 

[roach]

They're all business users, so you won't see a WinMo phone in a Starbucks.

I know 2 winmo around my space area and I work for a game company. They like the teathering function and the free apps from XDA.

 

[BaldiMac]

I'm not sure if you know this BaldiMac, but whilst Android OS at a core level is free, some of the Google services apps are only included with handsets through "business deals". This was bought up after Cyanogen was including the Google apps with his custom Cyanogenmod roms unlicenced and Google issued a cease and desist: Source

What these deals amount to I don't know but there is an opportunity for Google to profit by licensing the Google Apps to handset manufacturers and most of the Android phones I've seen released seem to include the Google apps.

Yeah, that is why I said "basically free". My understanding is that it is more of a licensing agreement to discourage fragmentation than a profit generator for Google. And the OS itself is actually free.

You are the one making arbitrary distinctions that are pointless.

What distinctions did I make that are arbitrary and pointless?

Why should I - a consumer - give a crap if google wants to give android away for free?

I never said you should. You jumped into the middle of the discussion.

Im no expert, but google seems to have done all right by giving away all its stuff for free

What have they done?

What I care about is what the ecosystem of the smartphone platform I just invested in. To have a healthy, strong ecosystem you need market share to encourage developers to write apps.

If you read my posts instead of arguing with yourself, you would see that I agree with you completely. In fact, I specifically said that third party support is the main benefit of increased market share.

The point that I was making was that smartphone market share is less important to Apple than anyone else, because they currently have advantages for developers and other third parties that there major competitors do not. Apple still has more and better third party support even though they are currently in third or fourth place in smartphone market share. Of course, if their market share drops tremendously, that will change. But being in first place in smartphone OS market share doesn't win anything by itself.

Palm Pre was a very capable OS, but it still failed anyways. Take a guess why?

Your arguing with yourself. I'm sure we have very similar ideas of why Palm failed.

You mean like how apple sells macs (which are nothing more than slower PC hardware in an aluminum case) at a premium which lack a complete ecosystem and as a result users are forced to turn to PC solutions?

No, I mean how Apple sells Macs to 3% of the market and makes a much larger percentage of the profits.

That kludge wont work for smartphones because you cant dual boot OS's and no one is going to carry two phones at the same time. So yah, market share is very important.

Again, I specifically said in multiple posts in this conversation that market share is important to third party support. In fact, I said it was the primary advantage of market share.

 

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2; en-gb; Nexus One Build/FRF91) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

I thought that is what you meant when you said it was "basically free" BaldiMac, .

The bigger irony is the likes of HTC paying Microsoft to licence patents for Android

 

[kdarling]

A "free" piece of software usually is anything but that, anyway.

You still have to hire good programmers to port and maintain that supposedly free software.

In years past, companies also hated free software because there was no responsibility chain. If something goes wrong, a lot of managers prefer having a third party to call for support and/or to blame

In this case, just having so many companies using Android, provides its own excuse.

 

[chagla]

this just in:

NPD: Android is now top-selling OS in American smartphones

Link - http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/04/npd-android-is-now-top-selling-os-in-american-smartphones/

 

[arcite]

Yea baby! Apple is back to niche status, refuge for the cool and well heeled. We are in good company.

 

[wreckshop]

The point that I was making was that smartphone market share is less important to Apple than anyone else, because they currently have advantages for developers and other third parties that there major competitors do not. Apple still has more and better third party support even though they are currently in third or fourth place in smartphone market share. Of course, if their market share drops tremendously, that will change. But being in first place in smartphone OS market share doesn't win anything by itself.

First of all, apple is still in second place and gaining in total installed base in the US, and RIM is losing market share because its current model is unsustainable. THAT is why apple has good 3rd party support. That's the whole point of having market share.

No, I mean how Apple sells Macs to 3% of the market and makes a much larger percentage of the profits.

Who does that benefit? The mac user who pays for older, slower and higher priced PC parts because OEMs would rather focus on the platform with the 90% market share? The same mac user who has to buy a PC or install windows because 3% market share doesnt attract software developers? The only one that benefits from this is apple whose customers pay more for less.

 

[lilo777]

Here is why market share matters to users

Take an example of GPS navigation. I noticed that I get much more accurate traffic data from Google Navigation than from my Garmin. I have no idea how they get the data but one way would be to collect and analyze location data from all connected phones. In this case, the more phones use your navigation software the more accurate your data will be. As a consumer, I will benefit from it.

 

[peapody]

Because you're taking an entire group of phones and holding it up against one, one phone. It's just kinda like having a group of guys go beat up one guy and then claim that the group leader is better.

Meh Steve asked for it when he said his phone "changes everything." How pretentious and cocky.

 

[LagunaSol]

this just in:

NPD: Android is now top-selling OS in American smartphones

In the quarter directly preceding the iPhone 4 launch, with sales not helped by the Gizmodo prototype leak.

Android is coming on strong, but it may be a bit premature to gloat.

That said, I fully expect Android to come out on top, volume-wise, and hope that they do. I'd prefer my iPhone not be the #1 target of hackers and dirtbags everywhere.

Meh Steve asked for it when he said his phone "changes everything." How pretentious and cocky.

Steve's phone did change everything. Fact.

 

[CrownSeven]

I'd prefer my iPhone not be the #1 target of hackers and dirtbags everywhere.

Are we talking about the same iPhone which can be hacked by downloading a simple pdf through the all mighty safari browser?

Wow, you die hards will say anything. Wake up to reality buddy.

 

[LagunaSol]

Are we talking about the same iPhone which can be hacked by downloading a simple pdf through the all mighty safari browser?

Wow, you die hards will say anything. Wake up to reality buddy.

Who said the iPhone is bulletproof? I didn't. No device is.

I said I didn't want to become the primary target based on market share. I don't want to own the Windows of mobile devices, thanks. Malware is already being spread through the Android marketplace. The Safari hole has been used for the jailbreaking trick, but I've not heard of it being used for any other exploits yet. Perhaps you have some valid, contradicting information that supports your hyperbole?

 

[nikehair]

This was bound to happen with so many different varieties of Android phones and only one iPhone per release period. Also helps that Android is on several carriers.

 

[BaldiMac]

First of all, apple is still in second place and gaining in total installed base in the US, and RIM is losing market share because its current model is unsustainable.

No, Apple is in third or fourth place depending on if you are looking at US or global market share.

THAT is why apple has good 3rd party support. That's the whole point of having market share.

No one is arguing with you on this point.

Who does that benefit? The mac user who pays for older, slower and higher priced PC parts because OEMs would rather focus on the platform with the 90% market share? The same mac user who has to buy a PC or install windows because 3% market share doesnt attract software developers? The only one that benefits from this is apple whose customers pay more for less.

Please stop shifting the argument.

You said:

Or do you think we all live in some bizarro world the handset makers can make more profit by selling to less people?

I just pointed out that it is not "bizarro" to make more profit selling to less people by increasing margins and attaching additional services.

 

[wreckshop]

I just pointed out that it is not "bizarro" to make more profit selling to less people by increasing margins and attaching additional services.

Why are you so concerned about having consumers paying more for less?

 

[kdarling]

Malware is already being spread through the Android marketplace. The Safari hole has been used for the jailbreaking trick, but I've not heard of it being used for any other exploits yet. Perhaps you have some valid, contradicting information that supports your hyperbole?

Talk about hyperbole!

Malware isn't "being spread" through the Android market, any more than everyone's iPhone is being taken over by evil websites.

So far, all that's been seen has turned out to be publicity stunts or misconceptions.

 

[BaldiMac]

Why are you so concerned about having consumers paying more for less?

I'm not. Never claimed anything remotely close to that. Why do you keep making stuff up?

 

[entatlrg]

Line up's for iPhones are common with every new release. The Android phones don't often create that frenzy?

Haven't seen an Android device I'd swap my iPhone for, not even close. Apple makes a good product, is making oodles of money doing and they have 45 billion cash in the bank, it's all good.