Slashdot Mirror
Android Passes iPhone In US Market Share
Adrian writes "61.5 million people in the US owned smartphones during the three months ending in November 2010, up 10 percent from the preceding three-month period. For the first time, more Americans are using phones running Google's Android operating system than Apple's iPhone, but RIM's BlackBerry is still in first place, according to comScore. RIM fell from 37.6 percent to 33.5 percent market share of smartphones, Google captured second place among smartphone platforms by moving from 19.6 percent to 26.0 percent of US smartphone subscribers, and Apple slipped to third despite its growth from 24.2 percent to 25.0 percent of the market. Microsoft, in fourth place, fell into single digits from 10.8 percent to 9.0 percent while Palm was still last and further slipped from 4.6 percent to 3.9 percent."
This is not unexpected, since Android sales have been outpacing iPhone sales for some time, but it happened significantly earlier than Gartner's prediction: Q4 2012.
It is telling to note, that both Android and iPhone are growing market share at the expense of Blackberry and others, rather than at the expense of each other.
The more competition the better, I say.
So Motorola, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, HTC, LG, Meizu, and more have created well over 20 handsets on four networks which all together sell more in America than two models of 1 handset from Apple only on AT&T. These guys should be patting themselves on the back for a job well done.
Even more impressive than you consider that (atleast earlier, maybe we're too far into the year now, but it doesn't matter much for the comparision) Android only had a 3.5% market share just a year ago (eventually more, as said, so what if it was 13-14 months ago? ..)
People draw very weird conclusions for that though. Earlier I guess the conclusion was that Android would never get a foot in, and that iPhone was small but much bigger than Android. Now iPhone is pretty big and Android have had amazing growth. So now the conclusion is that everyone want only iPhones or that Android will beat all other mobile OSes.
And when Playstation bet Nintendo and killed of Sega (Sega killed themselves .. :D) and the Gamecube sold even worse people wheren't slow to conclude that Nintendo was dying and would never come back on top. And who thought Xbox would get in? Seriously? Before the mod chips?
People seem to only be able to look at the current trend and extrapolate it into the future assuming everything will be the same and nothing will change in the future and current trends can survive forever. Well guess what? ...
Atleast it's nice to see that totally new concepts and player can actually become a major player on the market and that everything isn't stuck in same old. As it more or less is and has ever been on the PC market.
Only if you consider 3% market share "a lot". Indeed, the article quoted points out that Android is just slightly outside the margin of error to tie with Apple (rim at .3% higher market share is considered to be tied with either one due to margin of error). With respect to margin of errors both articles agree. However you may want to take a gander at the upper graph in the article linked, Android has 40.8% of new sales and iPhone at 26.9% - roughly a 14 point difference and that *is* major (indeed, at that different a rate the exact date in November of differences in sampling can certainly make enough difference for the discrepancy).
Not sure how that equates to the iPhone still in the lead by a lot, but oh well. Maybe all those people who were holding off purchasing an iPhone waiting on version 4 to come out are now going to rush out and save Apples Market share. Since we haven't seen that phenomenon happen yet (and a few months back it was *obvious* that was going to happen) it should within the next quarter. After all we were supposed to add those people in the last two quarters, might as well shift Apples market by them now too.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
The conversation is about the market penetration of cellular phone OS's, not about the market penetration of the physical phones themselves. Really, if apple wanted to brag a higher market penetration, they would provide users with more options, like devices made by other manufacturers, or more affordable phones.
With JUST AT&T as a carrier.
When Verizon gets the iPhone, I say that the market share proposition shifts big towards iPhone.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Because they are a business, not a charity.
Apple probably wasn't willing to concede control of iOS to Verizon. Now that iOS is a hit, Apple has bargaining power to retain control of the platform.
Android, however, is very much under the control of the carriers.
Err....
i'm puzzled why people think Google's ultimate aim was or should have been to make money on Android.
Maybe because they are a business????
Looks, it's really simple.
Apple makes iPhones, so that people buy iPhones, buy cell service from ATT (and soon Verizon), so that ATT (and soon Verizon) pay kick backs to Apple. Apple also generates revenue off Apps and Media sales.
Google built Android; so that Google can collect data, which is then used to better improve Google's searches. Improving Google's searches, and Google's ability to manipulate knowledge, enables Google to sell ads and other "in-the-cloud" services better.
For Apple, the iPhone is the platform. For Google, the Cloud is the platform. That's why iPhones are expensive, droid devices tend to be cheaper, and Google's network services are better.
Oh, and that's why Google builds services for other platforms; its not about selling Android phones, its about collecting data! Android phones collect data better than iPhones, but why limit the market?
And the mirror image of that is why the Apple App store is not available on other platforms; selling Applications is a secondary goal; selling iPhones (and the monolithic iOS ecosystem) is the primary goal, and the primary revenue driver.
People are going to have to understand that both companies are working for the betterment of mankind, but both companies seek to maximize revenue while they are at it. Google's profit drivers push Google toward being and omniscient, if usually benevolent big-brother in the cloud. Apple's profit drivers push Apple toward a monolithic ecosystem with Jobs firmly in control. But it is a *very* well designed ecosystem in which 3rd parties who are willing to play by the rules can prosper.
Shades of gray. Capitalism at work. The invisible hand. An exhibit in how pursuing the amoral in a competitive landscape can achieve the greater good.
*shrug*
basically. Google didn't monetize the hell out of it. that's a selling point. i'm tired of people / corporations thinking they can control me through their product just because they invented it. stop using your services as a launching platform for your personal holy crusades and simply provide people with what they want.
If that's what you are looking for, you should give up. Google's very clearly "giving away" services so that they can learn everything about you, and then tell Kraft exactly how many boxes of Mac and Cheese you might buy next month. For me, that's a reasonable trade-off; hell, you can argue that its a reasonable thing to make advertising "more relevant" and "more targeted".
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
It ain't hard to be number one when you have no competition. Let's see what you have to say about the situation come 2012.
People are going to have to understand that both companies are working for the betterment of mankind,
Uh no. Neither company is working for the betterment of mankind. They are working only for their own betterment. Any improvement of the lot of the rest of us will be coincidental. Arguably, selling people phones they don't really need is just squandering our precious natural resources; both corporations (these are not book clubs or charities, but public corporations whose primary goal is to make a profit and maximize shareholder value) are arguably doing harm to the entire world.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If your Ford car could only use Ford gas and only drive on Ford roads, or if your Sony TV could only tune to Sony channels, then you might have a point.
-Lod