Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Jan 2012 13:41 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y "This week, tons of websites are reporting that Apple is catching up with Android when it comes to U.S. smartphone market share. The reports are based on some new data from Nielsen, a metrics company that measures smartphone use. The only problem: people are completely misinterpreting the data." Numbers are fickle beings.
Order by: Score:
Regardless...
by gan17 on Fri 20th Jan 2012 14:09 UTC
gan17
Member since:
2008-06-03

Misinterpreted data or not, it's clear at the building I work in (where there are a lot of traditionally Apple "artsy-creative-barista" types, mind you) and at the malls that Android is indeed getting more users, at least on smartphones. Tablets are another story.

But as much as I like the whole open-ness(?) thing and Android's modularity, I personally wouldn't mind if Google lost some market share to competitors. Maybe not to Apple (who seem to be doing well enough), but to MS (as much as I despise them) or some other party ideally.

Competition is always a good thing. Keeps everyone on their toes. Google in particular seem to be getting complacent in some areas. They seem to be giving stinky carriers more power when it should be the opposite. None of the Android devices offer anything close to decent battery-life in my opinion (more the fault of the manufacturers than Google's, but whatever) Their marketplace, while improved, is still a turdy wild-west that doesn't attract developers of apps that cater to serious/creative professionals (music production and mixing for example). TBH, I think Google needs to apply degree of hard-vetting at this point, maybe not Apple levels of dictatorship, but at least some sort of "tier-1, tier-2, tier-3" type separation between apps.

Yeah, I'll probably get modded down or lambasted for not making much sense in a Fandroid's eyes, but whatever.... meh

Edit:
Sorry if I seem ranty. I've just spent the last few hours battling funky Eclipse plug-ins. >_<

Edited 2012-01-20 14:11 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: Regardless...
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 20th Jan 2012 14:21 UTC in reply to "Regardless..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

More MeeGo would've been nice. A rather default truly open source Linux stack on a phone.

One can dream.

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: Regardless...
by Radio on Fri 20th Jan 2012 14:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Regardless..."
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

More WebOS, rather. The open-source Meego is not very interesting (it does not have the original swipe paradigm used on the N9: that is a proprietary overlay designed and owned by Nokia).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Regardless...
by gan17 on Fri 20th Jan 2012 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Regardless..."
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

it does not have the original swipe paradigm used on the N9.

That's the saddest part about the death of Maemo/MeeGo-Harmattan. Nokia are keeping a lot of what made it so good on the N9 (I might be biased since I own that handset). One could probably put out a QT based OS with MerOS or a HTML5 alternative on Tizen, but unless they can prize Swipe-UI and algorithms for the haptic feedback away from the new Nokiasoft and manufacture a handset with a similar concave screen, it'll be pretty useless.

Edited 2012-01-20 19:01 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Regardless...
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 20th Jan 2012 21:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Regardless..."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah, I understand why a lot of people think that Maemo/Meego were more open than Android, but if you have a phone you put Cyanogen mod on its just as open but less gnu/linux like.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Regardless...
by Lava_Croft on Fri 20th Jan 2012 14:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Regardless..."
Lava_Croft Member since:
2006-12-24

As usual, without realizing, you mean Maemo.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Regardless...
by Beta on Fri 20th Jan 2012 15:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Regardless..."
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Or Tizen.
Bloody 6 month naming cycles.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Regardless...
by TemporalBeing on Fri 20th Jan 2012 18:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Regardless..."
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

Or Tizen.
Bloody 6 month naming cycles.


Isn't it getting merged with Bada? So then what would it be called???

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Regardless...
by gan17 on Fri 20th Jan 2012 18:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Regardless..."
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

Rumpelstiltskin!!

Reply Score: 7

RE[5]: Regardless...
by moondevil on Sat 21st Jan 2012 10:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Regardless..."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

It will never happen, in 6 months Samsung will drop it.

Unfortunately this merge is only another milestone in the Moblin/Maemo/MeeGoo/Tizen downfall.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Regardless... - Agreed
by jabbotts on Fri 20th Jan 2012 20:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Regardless..."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Shame Nokia only dropped a few N910s into developer hands on loan instead of doing a propper manufacturing run and letting us nerds get one by retail. It looked to be a very nice upgrade from the N900 hardware and shipped withe he new OS.

I'd have liked to see it keep more of the Debian heritage but such is life. At least it would have provided a more complete and viable OS distribution than the IOS prison and Android stained class window fragments.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Regardless...
by bouhko on Sat 21st Jan 2012 20:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Regardless..."
bouhko Member since:
2010-06-24

A friend of mine has a Nokia N9 and it's the greatest phone I've seen. The hardware is just stunning. It's beautiful, solid, well-designed. The software is quite nicely thought too. It's kind of minimalist and I like it a lot. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of apps available and it's based on a dying OS.

I feel like this is really a phone that could be marketed to the mass (contrary to the N900 or other meego/maemo phones on which the software wasn't that polished). But instead of doing that, Nokia made it a dead phone even before launching it.. That's really sad.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Regardless...
by spiderman on Sat 21st Jan 2012 22:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Regardless..."
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Openmoko!

Openmoko > Meego/Maemo > Symbian > Android > S40 > iOS > WP7

That is because free > open > closed
Market share doesn't agree but then again market is dumb.

Give me a phone without any OS and let me install multi boot with openmoko and Meego and I'll pay as much as €2000 for it, even with a crappy camera. Compiling my own kernel on my phone would be much more fun than all the Angry birds and fruit ninjas in the world.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Regardless...
by senshikaze on Fri 20th Jan 2012 14:24 UTC in reply to "Regardless..."
senshikaze Member since:
2011-03-08

As an avid android fan: I miss webOS phones. That stuff looked good, imho. We need more competition, and webOS really looked like it could be more like android than like the other two systems (RIM? What RIM?).
Oh well, the smartphone market is a fickle one, it would seem.

Reply Score: 3

How can Apple compete
by reduz on Fri 20th Jan 2012 20:08 UTC
reduz
Member since:
2006-02-25

When competitors such as Samsung are pulling out amazing phones like the S2? After using it, the screen on the 4S feels tiny and the phone too thick..
At the same time phones like the Motorola Defy or Sony Xperia mini, which are target for the low end, are still extremely powerful 2.3 phones, so people gets hooked from the bottom line.
Apple phones don't even feel like top-line anymore, so I sure hope try something new for the iphone 5..

Reply Score: 2

this stuff is so ridiculous
by kristoph on Sat 21st Jan 2012 01:33 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

1) Yes, Apple now has a greater marker share then it did last month / last quarter. Market share is function of what's being sold and not the install base.

2) The install base data this guy pulled does not mathematically correlate with the last 3 months of market share data which makes me think either the historical or the recent data is bullshit.

3) The data will change dramatically as the iPhone 4S ages while Android OEM's pump out new stuff so it's sort of pointless to even argue this thing.

Reply Score: 0

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

1) Depends on how you define market share. How do you measure Web browser market share by number of web browsers sold?!?


3) I think that was the author's point.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: this stuff is so ridiculous
by Alfman on Sat 21st Jan 2012 05:34 UTC in reply to "RE: this stuff is so ridiculous"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Bill Shooter of Bul,

The previous definition of market share threw up a red flag for me as well. One could talk about market share in different ways: units sold, the sum of sale prices, units in use, etc. We regularly talk about windows xp's large market share despite it not having been sold officially by ms for years.


I agree with everyone else, the more competition the better. Even if I don't like one party, it's better that they're there to keep others competitive. It is bad that webos tablets were discontinued. It would be a shame to end up with only three viable market players.

We need economic systems which do more to discourage monopolies and oligopolies from taking over our markets - ideally in a fully automatic and natural way, since courts and politicians are bound to screw it up when they have to intervene.

Reply Score: 3

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

No, market share has one definition. It is the share of units sold over a given period (usually a quarter).

If you start redefining this stuff you will basically be able to make the numbers mean anything you want.

If you, for example, use the same methodology to measure mobile device usage as you use to measure browser usage then iOS would have about 52% share of the market.

Anyway, as I said before, none of this really matter since it fluctuates so wildly and neither Apple nor Android are really taking significant share from one another.

Edited 2012-01-22 02:38 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

kristoph,

"No, market share has one definition. It is the share of units sold over a given period (usually a quarter)."

You say it's the the share of units sold, the following link says it's the share of sales.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketshare.asp

The following sources say it can be either.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/market+share
http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=3257

Also, term "market share" is being applied to markets that don't involve any "sales" at all. Even your term "web share", which I've never heard before, could be interpreted ambiguously too.

Are you counting distinct users? Distinct devices? Total hits? Total page counts? Total registered users? Do we attempt to factor in page caches or privacy blockers? We've long moved away from raw "hits", as simple as they are, because they tend to be correlated heavily to website implementation details rather than meaningful user data. Online businesses are often interested in unique visitors, however they usually resort to counting unique devices instead. But that's imperfect when users delete cookies. You can attempt to use IP addresses and browser fingerprinting. Saying X has Y% "web share", doesn't clarify any of the details used to create the metric. It may not matter, but the metric is still ambiguous.

Now I understand the personal desire to be pedantic and nail terms down to have precise meanings, however you'll have to admit that, given today's common usage, what is meant when an author says "market share" can differ from what you believe the terminology should mean. So it's not all together unwarranted to ask what is meant whenever the term is used.

Edited 2012-01-22 04:53 UTC

Reply Score: 3

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

The term webshare was someone else's. I can't be blamed for that.

Market share is defined here ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_share

I am not disagree with you that you could dice the numbers differently. I am just saying that once you do you tend to lose relevance.

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

kristoph,

"Market share is defined here ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_share"

I'm not sure why your link would be any better than mine, considering that they also give an ambiguous definition.


"I am not disagree with you that you could dice the numbers differently. I am just saying that once you do you tend to lose relevance."

We are in agreement. That's not to say that, in different contexts, it never makes sense to dice them differently though.

Reply Score: 2

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

Yeah the biggest issue is that this all becomes fanboi fodder and all fanboi's want to use whatever numbers favor their platform.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: this stuff is so ridiculous
by ricegf on Sat 21st Jan 2012 12:49 UTC in reply to "RE: this stuff is so ridiculous"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

I usually define market share as as the ratio of units sold relative to the entire sales market.

I use installed base for the ratio of product installed relative to all devices in the area of interest.

And I use webshare as the ratio of the number of hits with a given http header label to a broad sampling of websites relative to all hits.

So in 4Q11 the iPhone had about a 52% webshare, a 44% market share, and a 28% installed base - probably because (as stated) the iPhone 4S is getting a high volume of sales to replace older iPhones, and a lot of iPhone apps monitor websites in Net Applications' market.

As an unrelated aside, desktop Linux has about a 1.5% webshare (up 50% last year!) and a near 0% market share. Estimates for installed base (given it's mostly an after-market install) are all over the map, which is what makes debating it so much fun. :-D

Reply Score: 3

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I do not believe I've ever heard the term "webshare, but I understand how it could resolve some ambiguity.

Now, the term market share has been used historically to illistrate how much of a particular stream of revenue a particular company has. Viewed this way, we can sort of see how difficult it would be to do with the smartphone market.

The revenue streams I can think of:

1) Software licensing
2) Hardware sales
3) Ad revenue from browser/app use.
4) App store/market places purchases ( including in App)
5) Connectivity fees ( phone service/data usage/sms, ect)


So many different players, and they all take some of the profits in each one of those for each phone model and make. I pitty the fool that has that errand, unless they have an amazing salary, in which case I herby copywrite/copyrite/copyright/patent/ Community design this approach to marketplace analysis in the name of Bill, shooter of Bul. All violators will be subject to imersification.

Reply Score: 2

Sad state of journalism
by porcel on Sat 21st Jan 2012 10:58 UTC
porcel
Member since:
2006-01-28

Here is the relevant part of the article:

Nielsen didn't provide any info explicitly describing the change in overall market share, so I went back and pulled its last set of published numbers, showing U.S. smartphone market share for the third quarter of 2011. In those numbers, Android was at 42.8 percent and Apple was at 28.3 percent of the overall smartphone market. In the new quarter-four numbers, Android is at 46.3 percent while Apple is at 30 percent. Data from ComScore, another independent metrics company, shows a similar scenario.

So did Apple grow in overall smartphone market share from the third to fourth quarter? Sure. But so did Android. And Android grew quite a bit more, gauging by Nielsen's measurements -- twice as much, with a total share increase of 3.5 points compared to Apple's 1.7. Despite the boost in iPhone sales following the launch of the iPhone 4S, the gap between the two platforms has actually continued to widen.

Damn facts. Always getting in the way of a good story.


What surprised me is that I had seen the faulty conclusions quoted in reputable newspapers as fact. Do journalists do any fact-checking any more?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Sad state of journalism
by unclefester on Sat 21st Jan 2012 13:41 UTC in reply to "Sad state of journalism"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13


What surprised me is that I had seen the faulty conclusions quoted in reputable newspapers as fact. Do journalists do any fact-checking any more?


No.

Most news stories are now just verbatim reprints of press releases and wire service articles.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Sad state of journalism
by zima on Fri 27th Jan 2012 23:02 UTC in reply to "Sad state of journalism"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

What surprised me is that I had seen the faulty conclusions quoted in reputable newspapers as fact. Do journalists do any fact-checking any more?

The "great state of journalism from the past" is largely a myth, anyway (and ending your question with "any more" itself an expression of myths into which humans fall & propagate, responsible also for so called bad journalism).

In the past, there was hardly any way to reasonably verify stories, much less opportunities to stumble on anything which would cast some doubt on them, so of course the audiences remember them as more "reliable" - and we have the archives, we know how ridiculous many were (too often, say, just a thinly veiled propaganda; seriously, check for yourself: follow for a year some random "reputable newspaper" on the day of each issue plus a century)

Come on, fairly recent past holds a gem called outright "policy by press release" - but how many people still believe in the myths of bomber or missile (or mineshaft...) gaps?
How many are aware of the whole background and real outcomes of, say, even something as profound like Cuban missile crisis?
How many realize about Team B? (some really curious names associated with this one) Nurse Nayirah?

And there's how people tend to remember the past as much better than it was ...maybe it helps us to cope with how better it actually is "now" in most cases of "now" (generally, how we like to believe in the reliability of our very poor memory - for one example in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification - or, overall, our mind: go through a list of cognitive biases)

Kinda like the text made popular by one Baz Luhrmann single...
Accept certain inalienable truths, prices will rise, politicians will philander, you too will get old, and when you do you’ll fantasize that when you were young prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders.


Edited 2012-01-27 23:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Makes no difference
by wocowboy on Sat 21st Jan 2012 14:08 UTC
wocowboy
Member since:
2006-06-01

This article means nothing, when you remember that Andrioid makers sell dozens of different models of phones all the way from crap giveaways to the Galaxy Nexus, each one running a different version of the Android OS, and most never to be updated from the version they ship with.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Makes no difference
by unclefester on Sun 22nd Jan 2012 00:00 UTC in reply to "Makes no difference"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

So that is why Dyson has a bigger vacuum cleaner marketshare than Electrolux, Miele, Hoover and all the others brands combined [/sarc].

Reply Score: 2

the crerct headline
by unclefester on Sun 22nd Jan 2012 00:03 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

The correct headline should be US Android marketshare grows twice as fast as iOS in Q4.

It doesn't have quite as much fanboi appeal does it?

Reply Score: 3

So...
by pfortuny on Sun 22nd Jan 2012 16:15 UTC
pfortuny
Member since:
2006-02-05

what?

I mean, is anyone worried one way or the other. Because if he is, then he has a problem.

Numbers are fickle beings, and at the same time they are just... numbers?

Reply Score: 1

RE: So...
by unclefester on Sun 22nd Jan 2012 22:54 UTC in reply to "So..."
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Nearly all of of the Apple fanboi sites are interpreting this news as the imminent defeat of Android.

Most of us just don't care.

Reply Score: 2