iPhone and Android Duopoly Nears Peak With Estimated 99.9% Market Share Last Year

[mi7chy]

Security and useability are two different things.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/us-army-android-phones-iphones/

That's fake news and iPhone still doesn't do split screen.

Earlier ATAK was based on 2012 Galaxy Note II on 32nm node so, yes, it can run warm in extreme desert environment if not using hardware video decode. Later version of ATAK uses what appears to be a 2015 Galaxy S6 or Galaxy Note 5 on 14nm node which makes more logical sense than switching to iPhone 6S with worse issues like short battery life, extreme cold weather intolerance, premature shutdown at ~30%, performance throttling, half the DRAM, worse water resistance, etc.

2014 video showing 2012 Galaxy Note II ATAK

Late 2017 video showing 2015 Galaxy Note 5 ATAK

 

[I7guy]

That's fake news and iPhone still doesn't do split screen.

Earlier ATAK was based on 2012 Galaxy Note II based on 32nm so, yes, it can run warm in extreme desert environment if not using hardware video decode. Later version of ATAK uses what appears to be a 2015 Galaxy S6 or Galaxy Note 5 on 14nm which makes more logical sense than switching platform with worse issues like short battery life, extreme cold weather intolerance, premature shutdown at ~30%, performance throttling, half the DRAM, etc.

2014 video showing 2012 Galaxy Note II ATAK

Late 2017 video showing 2015 Galaxy Note 5 ATAK

What’s fake news? An army division is replacing its phones with iPhones?

 

[Abazigal]

I'd say Google's Android competes at the high end as well.

The major difference, in my mind, is that one is very clearly a big data company. So one realistic option if that is important, which it is to many people and organizations.

Well, they aren’t doing a very good job of competing then.

 

[JPSaltzman]

Oh, but that notch!

 

[wozmatic]

Holy crap that phone in the middle looks nice! What the iPhone X should have looked like... What phone is that?

 

[fermat-au]

Security and useability are two different things.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/us-army-android-phones-iphones/

Obviously Security and usability are different things. My point that still stands is that Android when configured appropriate can be secure, like iOS. From my knowledge of that particular army division switch from an Android phone to an iPhone, it was mostly about hardware, not the security of the OS. The fact the army used Android in the first place implies Android meet their security requirement.

 

[Abazigal]

Obviously Security and usability are different things. My point that still stands is that Android when configured appropriate can be secure, like iOS. From my knowledge of that particular army division switch from an Android phone to an iPhone, it was mostly about hardware, not the security of the OS. The fact the army used Android in the first place implies Android meet their security requirement.

That just shows that it is possible, not that it is likely.

 

[WatchFromAfar]

If Apple wanted to compete with less expensive phone, they could, and they do some extent with the SE. In terms of profits it is better for Apple to stay in the high end (and maybe touch on the mid range) if a consumer is going to but an iPhone it is better for Apple if that is an $800 rather than a $600 phone. While Apple would have the capability to make a $300-$400, I don't think Apple could have a <$200, that is not their forte and certainly not their 'Brand'.
[doublepost=1519429312][/doublepost]
There are many manufactures making high-end phones running Android, Google with the Pixel, Samsumg S8 and Note etc. The point is that all the mid to low end phones that the majority of the world's population can afford all run Android, none iOS.

While Google does collect significant amounts of data from Android users, they are open about what they collect and this data allows for better products in many cases. The user does have significant control over their data. In fact some of the most secure phone are Android phones. It seems President Obama used a locked down Samsung Galaxy S4.

So Apple has lost computers to Microsoft and lost mobile to Google what is "their forte and certainly not their 'Brand"? coming second?
[doublepost=1519468872][/doublepost]

Security and useability are two different things.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/us-army-android-phones-iphones/

If you hate Google so much why come to a site that hosts all its videos on Google owned YouTube?

 

[fermat-au]

So Apple has lost computers to Microsoft and lost mobile to Google what is "their forte and certainly not their 'Brand"? coming second?

I wouldn't say that Apple has lost mobile to Google, Apple still still has significant marketshare in many wealthy western nations vsuch as the US, that produces signicsigni profits.

Apple's forte is not inexpensive products, the cheapest iPhone is currently the SE 32GB for US$349, and the SE included parts of the iPhone 6 technologies, I doubt Apple could produce a completely new iPhone for less than $500.

 

[I7guy]

Obviously Security and usability are different things. My point that still stands is that Android when configured appropriate can be secure, like iOS. From my knowledge of that particular army division switch from an Android phone to an iPhone, it was mostly about hardware, not the security of the OS. The fact the army used Android in the first place implies Android meet their security requirement.

Samsung phones can be made secure through Knox. Would the us govt start issuing huawei phones to its top intelligence officer?
[doublepost=1519474925][/doublepost]

Holy crap that phone in the middle looks nice! What the iPhone X should have looked like... What phone is that?

If the iPhone X looked like that there wouldn’t be a difference between the two phones....Apple wouldn’t let that happen.

 

[harriska2]

I wouldn't say that Apple has lost mobile to Google, Apple still still has significant marketshare in many wealthy western nations vsuch as the US, that produces signicsigni profits.

Apple's forte is not inexpensive products, the cheapest iPhone is currently the SE 32GB for US$349, and the SE included parts of the iPhone 6 technologies, I doubt Apple could produce a completely new iPhone for less than $500.

I would rather have the pocketable and sturdy $350 iphone than the glitchy samsung j3 for $150.

 

[wozmatic]

Samsung phones can be made secure through Knox. Would the us govt start issuing huawei phones to its top intelligence officer?
[doublepost=1519474925][/doublepost]
If the iPhone X looked like that there wouldn’t be a difference between the two phones....Apple wouldn’t let that happen.

It's funny because they already do look very similar. Only thing is the iPhone X has that UGLY AF notch.

Sadly as much as I love the iPhone, the competition beat Apple on design.

 

[TiggrToo]

It's funny because they already do look very similar. Only thing is the iPhone X has that UGLY AF notch.

Sadly as much as I love the iPhone, the competition beat Apple on design.

Samsung recently filed a patent to have multiple holes in the display, as opposed to a single notch. Can't imagine the purists will dig that either...

 

[I7guy]

It's funny because they already do look very similar. Only thing is the iPhone X has that UGLY AF notch.

Sadly as much as I love the iPhone, the competition beat Apple on design.

Similar is not the same as almost identical, but I get your point about the notch. The “notch” is polarizing, love it or hate it. I happen to like it.

 

[0007776]

I notice the study specifies "Sales to End Users" as its scope. What does this mean, in simple terms? Are corporate sales excluded? If they are, are sales to corporates a significant number and how does one differentiate? Sold to "XYZ Inc" or sold to "Jane Citizen", how would Gartner (or anyone else) know?

Surely units sold directly by the manufacturers or by 3rd-parties are the measures unless the numbers of smart-phone used by "the Feds" on a worldwide basis is a secret. Strange qualification on the numbers posted.

I admittedly did not read through all 6 pages of the thread so maybe someone else already answered this, but I believe sales to end users means a sale to the person who will actually use it as opposed to a manufacturer selling devices to a store to resell them.

 

[I7guy]

I admittedly did not read through all 6 pages of the thread so maybe someone else already answered this, but I believe sales to end users means a sale to the person who will actually use it as opposed to a manufacturer selling devices to a store to resell them.

I don't know how Gartner knows the difference between sales to end users and to retail channel wrt iphone. Apple doesn't differentiate those numbers.

 

[jacksmith21006]

Actually think the more interesting data is the slight user install base decline in Apple. I had always thought that Android phones do not last as long and why these sales numbers favor Android by so much. That the install base was still increasing but apparently it has peaked and now declining.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/385001/smartphone-worldwide-installed-base-operating-systems/

 

[kdarling]

I don't know how Gartner knows the difference between sales to end users and to retail channel wrt iphone. Apple doesn't differentiate those numbers.

Analysts often use tools like exit polls and spies to determine end user sales, but Apple makes it easier:

Apple gives both the sales (which is mostly to retailers) and quarterly channel inventory changes (unsold stock in stores - which by now, is probably close to 35 million iPhones around the world).

For example, for 2017 Q1, Apple said they sold 78.3 million iPhones. At the same time, they stated that 1.1 million iPhones were added to the total number of iPhones sitting on store shelves. So roughly 77.2 million were sold through to end users (it's more complicated than that, because you need to take into account past and future numbers as well, but you get the idea).

For 2018 Q1 Apple said they sold 77.3 million iPhones. As for channel inventory change, they did something tricky: instead of outright giving the raw total number of additional unsold devices, they cleverly said that they exited the quarter "with less than 1 million more iPhones in the channel compared to the December quarter a year ago."

Wait, what? Oh, cute. Instead of outright saying that probably 2 million of the 77 million were added to retailers' unsold inventory, they wanted to leave the impression that it was less than a million to casual listeners.

Why would Apple do this verbal slight of hand? Simple. They claimed that the reason sales were less than the year before was because it was only a 13 week quarter. Yet they sure as heck did not want to baldly point out that even with a shorter quarter, they added almost double the number of unsold units to store inventories as they did the year before.

Nothing wrong with any of that, of course. It's just interesting to watch Cook wiggle things all the time to make them sound better.

 

[I7guy]

Analysts often use tools like exit polls and spies to determine end user sales, but Apple makes it easier:

Apple gives both the sales (which is mostly to retailers) and quarterly channel inventory changes (unsold stock in stores - which by now, is probably close to 35 million around the world).

For example, for 2017 Q1, Apple said they sold 78.3 million iPhones. At the same time, they stated that 1.1 million iPhones were added to the total number of iPhones sitting on store shelves. So roughly 77.2 million were sold through to end users (it's more complicated than that, because you need to take into account past and future numbers as well, but you get the idea).

For 2018 Q1 Apple said they sold 77.3 million iPhones. As for channel inventory change, they did something tricky: instead of outright giving the raw total number of additional unsold devices, they cleverly said that they exited the quarter "with less than 1 million more iPhones in the channel compared to the December quarter a year ago."

Wait, what? Oh, cute. Instead of outright saying that probably 2 million of the 77 million were added to retailers' unsold inventory, they wanted to leave the impression that it was less than a million to casual listeners.

Why would Apple do this verbal slight of hand? Simple. They claimed that the reason sales were less than the year before was because it was only a 13 week quarter. Yet they sure as heck did not want to baldly point out that even with a shorter quarter, they added almost double the number of unsold units to store inventories as they did the year before.

Nothing wrong with any of that, of course. It's just interesting to watch Cook wiggle things all the time to make them sound better.

Thanks for that.

However Cook can wiggle all he wants, the proof is in the numbers(for better or worse)

 

[jacksmith21006]

Analysts often use tools like exit polls and spies to determine end user sales, but Apple makes it easier:

Apple gives both the sales (which is mostly to retailers) and quarterly channel inventory changes (unsold stock in stores - which by now, is probably close to 35 million iPhones around the world).

For example, for 2017 Q1, Apple said they sold 78.3 million iPhones. At the same time, they stated that 1.1 million iPhones were added to the total number of iPhones sitting on store shelves. So roughly 77.2 million were sold through to end users (it's more complicated than that, because you need to take into account past and future numbers as well, but you get the idea).

For 2018 Q1 Apple said they sold 77.3 million iPhones. As for channel inventory change, they did something tricky: instead of outright giving the raw total number of additional unsold devices, they cleverly said that they exited the quarter "with less than 1 million more iPhones in the channel compared to the December quarter a year ago."

Wait, what? Oh, cute. Instead of outright saying that probably 2 million of the 77 million were added to retailers' unsold inventory, they wanted to leave the impression that it was less than a million to casual listeners.

Why would Apple do this verbal slight of hand? Simple. They claimed that the reason sales were less than the year before was because it was only a 13 week quarter. Yet they sure as heck did not want to baldly point out that even with a shorter quarter, they added almost double the number of unsold units to store inventories as they did the year before.

Nothing wrong with any of that, of course. It's just interesting to watch Cook wiggle things all the time to make them sound better.

But wish he would not do this as it makes me question credibility on other things.

 

[Carnegie]

Analysts often use tools like exit polls and spies to determine end user sales, but Apple makes it easier:

Apple gives both the sales (which is mostly to retailers) and quarterly channel inventory changes (unsold stock in stores - which by now, is probably close to 35 million iPhones around the world).

For example, for 2017 Q1, Apple said they sold 78.3 million iPhones. At the same time, they stated that 1.1 million iPhones were added to the total number of iPhones sitting on store shelves. So roughly 77.2 million were sold through to end users (it's more complicated than that, because you need to take into account past and future numbers as well, but you get the idea).

For 2018 Q1 Apple said they sold 77.3 million iPhones. As for channel inventory change, they did something tricky: instead of outright giving the raw total number of additional unsold devices, they cleverly said that they exited the quarter "with less than 1 million more iPhones in the channel compared to the December quarter a year ago."

Wait, what? Oh, cute. Instead of outright saying that probably 2 million of the 77 million were added to retailers' unsold inventory, they wanted to leave the impression that it was less than a million to casual listeners.

Why would Apple do this verbal slight of hand? Simple. They claimed that the reason sales were less than the year before was because it was only a 13 week quarter. Yet they sure as heck did not want to baldly point out that even with a shorter quarter, they added almost double the number of unsold units to store inventories as they did the year before.

Nothing wrong with any of that, of course. It's just interesting to watch Cook wiggle things all the time to make them sound better.

I think what Apple did this past quarter, when it comes to reporting the iPhone channel inventory change, was even trickier than you suggest. From a Seeking Alpha transcript of Apple's last conference call (note: other transcripts read a bit different):

We exited the December quarter towards the lower end of our target range of five to seven weeks of iPhone channel inventory with less than 1 million more iPhones in the channel compared to the December quarter a year ago, in line with our growth in average weekly unit sales.

That doesn't mean iPhone channel inventory increased by 1 million (or so) more than it increased by in the previous December quarter (i.e. by around 2.2 million). That means the number of iPhones in channel inventory at the end of this December quarter was 1 million (or so) greater than it was at the end of the previous December quarter.

There were around 21 million iPhones in channel inventory at the end of the December 2016 quarter. (I keep a running tally.) A million more means around 22 million iPhones in channel inventory at the end of the December 2017 quarter. There were around 17.8 million at the end of the September 2017 quarter. That suggests that iPhone channel inventory increased by around 4 million during the December 2017 quarter and that sell-through was something like 73 million. That would still be more sell-through on a weekly basis than there was in the previous December quarter, but not by much. And the (weekly) sell-through comparison doesn't look nearly as good as the (weekly) sell-in comparison does.

It makes sense that there would have been a large channel build in this last December quarter - something like 4 million as compared to something like 1 million the previous December quarter. Normally some of the initial channel build for the new models comes in the September quarter rather than the December quarter. This year, all of the initial channel build for the iPhone X came in the December quarter because it wasn't released until November. (Indeed, the channel build for the most recent September quarter was considerably smaller than it had been in the previous couple of September quarters.) And when that iPhone X channel build happened there wasn't the offsetting need to reduce channel inventory for an older model which wasn't going to be sold anymore (or which wasn't going to sell as much now). That would have happened more in the September quarter as older models were being pushed down (and out of) the lineup by the new iPhone 8 models.

That said, and even though it makes sense that the channel build was much larger in the most recent December quarter, I think Apple tried to obfuscate how much larger it was by reporting on the channel inventory in a way that was much different than - and less direct than - the way it had, for quite a while, been reporting on channel inventory.

 

[wozmatic]

Samsung recently filed a patent to have multiple holes in the display, as opposed to a single notch. Can't imagine the purists will dig that either...

Really what was that for?

Actual holes or access for a fingerprint sensor?

 

[TiggrToo]

Really what was that for?

Actual holes or access for a fingerprint sensor?

Beats me - the patent was particularly obtuse and hard to read - even for obtuse and hard to read patents...

My guess is it's for cameras and other sensors.

 

[lowendlinux]

Sailfish OS! Could be a realistic alternative, given that they focus on markets where there are political reasons for trying to break the smartphone duopoly, e.g. Russia and China.

They need more dev's..

I'm not buying an Xperia to run it and Jolla doesn't make hardware anymore

 

[mi7chy]

Really what was that for?

Actual holes or access for a fingerprint sensor?

Probably for future devices with in-screen sensors on transparent display.