Slashdot Mirror
Android Passes BlackBerry In US Market Share
An anonymous reader writes "69.5 million people in the US owned smartphones during the three months ending in February 2011, up 13 percent from the preceding three-month period. For the first time, more Americans are using phones running Google's Android operating system than Research In Motion's BlackBerry, according to comScore. Having passed the iPhone in the preceding three-month period, this now means that Android has been crowned king in the US."
Android is an operating system available on devices from numerous manufacturers. It was only a matter of time, given the level of control that both RIM and Apple maintain over the hardware that their operating system is available on.
I'm a Droid user and a huge fan, but it is almost an unfair comparison. You're comparing an (relatively) open operating system with proprietary devices running proprietary software.
Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
I'm wondering if this will only help actually.
Where else are the phone makers going to get an OS/that many apps quick enough to compete with Apple?
And if they don't like to be told the interface, they going to go to Microsoft that's even more restrictive?
Don't know. Still too early to tell, but I don't think it'll be as doom and gloom as some are saying.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
This is all just a rehash of the PC industry during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Back then, Apple had their proprietary hardware and software stack, and it did achieve a relatively high level of popularity, at least initially. There were other smaller players, like Amiga, Commodore and Tandy back then, and RIM and Nokia today, who offered their own platforms.
Android is best compared to MS-DOS, oddly enough. It was about being a flexible OS that ran on a wide range of hardware from a wide range of vendors, and in many ways it maximized the freedom of developers and users alike. It did very little to dictate how programs could be implemented, who may use them, and how they may be distributed.
We all know what happened. The most open of the platforms prevailed, and the rest were basically crushed into obscurity. Most went completely out of business. Apple, by far the strongest of them, only barely managed to survive the rest of the 1980s and early 1990s.
I suspect that the same thing might be happening today. Although not the first, Apple took a commanding lead within the market. But facing competition from more open hardware and software, they don't have a hope in hell of surviving in the long run. It remains to be seen what will happen with Jobs in the near future, but if he departs from Apple for whatever reason, it's likely that they'll face yet another dark period like that between 1987 and 1999.
I assume you are referring to the continued feet dragging with the Honeycomb source.
I would like to start by saying that many of the people complaining about this are people with little knowledge of the Android development cycle. For starters, the newest version of Android is always released closed source so that Open Handset Alliance partners get premium access. Eventually the versions are all released under the Apache license. The only difference between Honeycomb and previous versions is that Google is slowing down the release a bit. They have not reversed their commitment to open source it, they just delayed it.
One of the most common complaints about Android is the fragmentation. This is one way that Google can slowly rein this in. If they are completely closed the source and locked the platform they will be much more like Apple. If they are completely open it will be more like Linux (Android distributions anybody?). It is in the middle ground where they can be both a little open, yet still control the platform and keep quality and homogeneity high.
The reason why Blackberry is losing marketshare is because Android is taking over Blackberry's non-key markets. A lot of people used to have Blackberries because they were the cheapest smartphone you could get. If you were with Sprint or Verizon and didn't want to get a Windows Mobile smartphone, BlackBerry was your only option until Android really took over. And even on T-Mobile and AT&T, a Blackberry cost a lot less than a G1 or iPhone.
Really, RIM made Blackberries for people who use their enterprise system, and for corporate people who check their e-mail every 5 seconds, and not as the general purpose smartphones that Android and iOS devices are. So when Android started gaining marketshare, it made sense for the people who simply got a Blackberry because it was cheap and had a Facebook app and a browser to migrate to Android.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
While I love open source it's because there's a zillion phones that run android. I suspect if you compare any one Android model against RIM or Apple's offerings then it won't look so good. Combine that with the fact Android owners seem less keen on paying for apps and I think you end up with the iphone or even blackberry being more attractive to a developer despite android's growth.
What people miss is that most of those 30ish % are from low end devices. Those devices are mostly crap and give out a bad impression about the OS.
I'm not too confident that android growth will be as big in the following years. Google should set up some minimum specs for Android phones!
(I'm the proud owner of an HTC Desire, so I'm not bashing. Just stating something that has been on my mind lately..)
We all know what happened. The most open of the platforms prevailed
This is true among home computers. But whether the smartphone market shapes up to be like the home computer market (where open won) or the set-top video gaming market (where closed won) hasn't entirely been decided. Android is in the lead now, but I'm not sure how much of that comes from people avoiding the iPhone to avoid AT&T. This can change as more Verizon Wireless contracts hit their 24th month, and it can also change come iPhone 5 and Sony NGP. But on the other hand, Apple doesn't have a low-end phone for use with prepaid service, unlike Sprint's Virgin Mobile USA which has a few Android phones now, and Apple has historically chosen not to compete in the extreme low-end.
Sort of, but MS-DOS was proprietary and ran on relatively open hardware, while Android is the other way around.
Not likely. Unfortunately, devices without locked bootloaders are the exception, not the rule. Most Android devices are not really any more open than the Blackberry in practice.
Caveat Utilitor
The summary makes the mistake of confusing market share (sales) with installed base ("user share"). Android has had leading market share for some time, which is why their share of the installed base is increasing. CRT televisions still have a very large installed base, but a very low market share - the vast majority of new TVs are LCD/plasma. Windows 2000 still has a significant installed base, but almost zero market share.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law