Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Aug 2013 17:44 UTC
Windows IDC released its smartphone shipment numbers for the second quarter of 2013, and other than the usual stuff (Android at 80%, iOS down to 13.3% due to lack of a new model), the Windows Phone figures are interesting.

Windows Phone posted the largest year-over-year increase among the top five smartphone platforms, and in the process reinforced its position as the number 3 smartphone operating system. Driving this result was Nokia, which released two new smartphones and grew its presence at multiple mobile operators. But beyond Nokia, Windows Phone remained a secondary option for other vendors, many of which have concentrated on Android. By comparison, Nokia accounted for 81.6% of all Windows Phone smartphone shipments during 2Q13.

Over the past 12 months, Windows Phone went from 3.1% market share to 3.7%. This means that while shipments of Windows Phone devices are growing, they're barely growing any faster than the industry as a whole. Still, it's crazy to see there's less than a 10 percentages points difference between Windows Phone and iOS.

Another potential problem is that Microsoft is effectively entirely dependent on Nokia. If Nokia falters, Windows Phone falters. Other vendors have essentially lost all interest in the platform, and as such, Microsoft has a a very strong impetus in keeping Nokia going. Still, I'm pretty sure that the Surface phone is ready to go at a moment's notice.

They're going to need it.

Order by: Score:
Who are the 'Others'
by Tony Swash on Wed 7th Aug 2013 18:05 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

The most interesting bit of data in the referenced IDC reports is the 'Other' category in 'Top Android Smartphone Vendors, Shipments, and Market Share, 2013 Q3' chart (the third chart on the page. Apparently these other companies are selling as many phones as Samsung, 70 million per quarter. Who are?

I presume a big chunk must be Chinese companies only marketing within China but does anybody know where you can get more data about these 'Other' companies as understanding who they are and what they doing seems to be crucial to understanding the Android global market.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Who are the 'Others'
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 7th Aug 2013 18:24 UTC in reply to "Who are the 'Others'"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

HTC, is in there, along with Motorola, Sony. I'm sure the bulk is Chinese white lablers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Who are the 'Others'
by Nelson on Wed 7th Aug 2013 18:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Who are the 'Others'"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Yeah, mostly white box. HTC fell off of a cliff and Motorola...lol.

I think it underscores what a hollow shell the Android ecosystem is. Sure Android is technically moving volumes in astronomical amounts, but how much does this translate into a functional ecosystem when its from white box manufacturers who's phones are barely more functional than feature phones?

Edited 2013-08-07 18:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

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

I'm not sure I understand you're post. There isn't any information as to the capabilities of the phones in question, If they are android phones, then by definition they can run Android applications. ... And therefore are more functional than the feature phones of old.
Even if all of them were no better than the HTC G1, Android would still have like sizable market share.

I don't quite understand why people have such crazy opinions about technology that are unfounded by any resemblance of facts. I guess humans are so illogically passionate, that they'll even get passionate about inanimate objects, whose innate value lies in their objective abilities.

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: Who are the 'Others'
by Nelson on Thu 8th Aug 2013 10:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Who are the 'Others'"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I'm not sure I understand you're post. There isn't any information as to the capabilities of the phones in question, If they are android phones, then by definition they can run Android applications. ... And therefore are more functional than the feature phones of old.


I think that's assuming you compare them to old feature phones, but compared to an offering like the Asha they quickly become similar. And given how these low end Android phones perform, it isn't like you'll be doing many smartphone-esque tasks on them. They are a clear play for ultra low price emerging markets. Calling them full fledged smartphones is twisting the word.

Furthermore, these devices don't participate in the official Android marketplace ergo they are not a part of the ecosystem. They are simply counted for market shares sense which is okay I guess if that's your thing. They provide no real value to the ecosystem which is the end goal. Running some thrown together, malware infested Chinese store isn't the same.


Even if all of them were no better than the HTC G1, Android would still have like sizable market share.


I don't think I ever said they wouldn't. I can see now why you misunderstood my comment.


I don't quite understand why people have such crazy opinions about technology that are unfounded by any resemblance of facts. I guess humans are so illogically passionate, that they'll even get passionate about inanimate objects, whose innate value lies in their objective abilities.


You don't understand why people are passionate about technology? A "crazy unfounded opinion" doesn't really make sense and sounds more like a euphemism for "disagrees with my viewpoint". Cut the poetic bullshit and the faux lack of understanding.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Who are the 'Others'
by JAlexoid on Thu 8th Aug 2013 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Who are the 'Others'"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

They provide no real value to the ecosystem which is the end goal. Running some thrown together, malware infested Chinese store isn't the same.

It's like saying that pirated versions of Windows provide no value to the ecosystem as well...

Reply Score: 6

RE[6]: Who are the 'Others'
by Nelson on Thu 8th Aug 2013 16:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Who are the 'Others'"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

No. Actually its not. Considering the Play Store distribution model, it not being present means white box devices provide precisely no benefit to developers offering apps on that store front.

You know this though, you're a smart guy, I'm not sure why you pretend you don't.

Reply Score: 3

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

There is no information as to the capabilities of the phones listed in the other category. I now realize that I have no idea what your definition of smart phone could possibly be. I don't think any definition that would exclude a HTC G1 is a valid one. You're responses aren't rational enough to continue to effectively exchange ideas, but if you have time, I'd love for the sheer curiosity of it, to know what you feel defines a smart phone.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Who are the 'Others'
by Nelson on Thu 8th Aug 2013 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Who are the 'Others'"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

There is no information as to the capabilities of the phones listed in the other category. I now realize that I have no idea what your definition of smart phone could possibly be. I don't think any definition that would exclude a HTC G1 is a valid one.


It isn't what they're technically capable of, but what they're practically used for that counts. Who is buying these phones, what kind of consumer uses them, for how long, and what characteristics do their usage habits lend themselves to?

Are these ultra low cost budget smartphones being used like smartphones? Are they downloading dozens of apps, browsing the web for extended periods of times? Are they playing games or even having an enjoyable experience to drive engagement?

When you drill down into these low prices something has to give because these manufacturers are already selling at close to cost. The experience on a single core 1GHz Android device with 256MB of RAM isn't very desirable.

What are the data usage characteristics? Are they gobbing up loads of data a month or are they perfectly fine with a 3G radio and WhatsApp preinstalled? If they pay a feature phone price and use it like a feature phone, does it matter or benefit the smart phone ecosystem? Is it still fair to count these when comparing it to an ecosystem like iOS?

At what point does it become iOS (A high end smartphone) vs. every other permutation of phone out there? Then you have the self congratulation going on because they've been successfully able to redefine the jungle to mean the entire world, and make the 800lb gorilla look like an ant in comparison.

Its a hard question because there's no clear and dry definition of a smartphone, but something does not feel right calling these devices smartphones. Especially when using it to give a sober analysis of which ecosystem is currently on top.

Are Nokia Asha phones (especially the full touch variants) also smartphones? Some here would argue no and I'd be inclined to agree. There's definitely a gray area though.

Reply Score: 3

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

Wow, turns out I know a lot of iphone owners that don't own a smartphone ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Who are the 'Others'
by zima on Sat 10th Aug 2013 01:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Who are the 'Others'"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

It isn't what they're technically capable of, but what they're practically used for that counts. [...] Are these ultra low cost budget smartphones being used like smartphones?

It can go the other way around. On my decade-old Nokia 3510i I was "downloading dozens of apps" and "browsing the web for extended periods of times" (at least when Opera Mini came out) and "playing games" and generally having a pleasant experience...

Does 3510i count as a smartphone then? ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Who are the 'Others'
by glarepate on Wed 7th Aug 2013 22:49 UTC in reply to "Who are the 'Others'"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Karbonn, Xiaomi, Lenovo, Micromax, Huawei, Gradiente, Haier, ZTE, Oppo, Jolla, Alcatel, XOLO (first Intel CPU Android phone iirc), Fujitsu, NEC (quitting the game, but they did sell phones), Yota, Pantech, Geeksphone (in the news recently), Acer, ASUS, Vertu (dominates in the over $5000 niche, Nokia retains 10% interest after selling it). I'm pretty sure there are others too.

Now not all of these are Android phones but they all make smart phones if I'm not mistaken.

Put them all together and they don't spell MOTHER but they add up to a pretty good volume of phones being sold.

Some I read about here, some on general news/business sites, some at places like Android Police and half a dozen other Android-related sites.

But this probably only shows that I really need to get out more. ]o;~

Hopefully this list will help you if you want to follow up on this.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Who are the 'Others'
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 8th Aug 2013 03:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Who are the 'Others'"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Jolla hasn't sold a single phone yet. I'm pretty sure we can omit them from the total.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Who are the 'Others'
by glarepate on Thu 8th Aug 2013 17:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Who are the 'Others'"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

"With the thoughts that I'd be thinkin'
I could be another Lincoln
If I only had a brain." -- Scarecrow

Thank you for the correction. I've read so much about Jolla and Sailfish I imagined the phones were available already.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Who are the 'Others'
by franko on Thu 8th Aug 2013 04:58 UTC in reply to "Who are the 'Others'"
franko Member since:
2012-05-25

It is not only Chinese buyers. Unlocked phones are big in Australia as well. Most of the people I know buy from China. It is so much cheaper.
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=2120145

http://www.chinavasion.com/

Reply Score: 5

Comment by pcunite
by pcunite on Wed 7th Aug 2013 18:20 UTC
pcunite
Member since:
2008-08-26

Suggestion: change the title to read, "Windows Phone shows some market share growth".

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by pcunite
by glarepate on Wed 7th Aug 2013 22:58 UTC in reply to "Comment by pcunite"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Counter-suggestion: Recognize that increasing share by 0.6% over the quarter a year ago may be calculated out to be a 77.6% difference and could vaguely be called "some" but really is much more accurately described as "little".

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Wed 7th Aug 2013 18:52 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Windows Phone's problem that Thom correctly highlights is that it needs more serious OEMs. Nokia is one OEM on one ecosystem trying to pull the entire weight in a Samsung-esque fashion.

For example, when you view an individual breakdown of the OEMs (and excluding the Samsung behemoth) a different picture is painted:

LG controlled 5.1%
Lenovo controlled 4.8%
Huawei and ZTE each controlled 4.2%

Nokia controlled 3.1%, or ~85% of an entire ecosystem.

For Microsoft the crucial problem is growing the ecosystem in a much more robust fashion than Nokia can. They need more OEMs putting in effort like Nokia, or a flood of small time whitebox vendors (not going to happen).

I think the prime candidates for this are HTC, Lenovo, and probably even RIM. Get RIM to dump BB10 and go Windows Phone. Sign HTC away from Android.

Lenovo is already a Windows loyalist who knows how to sell devices. The synergy between their Tablet/Phone lines with a WP device would be compelling.

Basically:
- Nokia for its European/Middle East relevance and mindshare
- HTC for its US relevance and mindshare
- Lenovo for its Chinese relevance and mindshare
- RIM for its corporate know-how, strong middle east mindshare and African mindshare

ZTE, Huawei, et are sleepers too.

Edited 2013-08-07 19:10 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Nelson
by glarepate on Wed 7th Aug 2013 23:08 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

They had 9 OEMs when WP7 was released. About half of those quit offering WP when WP8 was released.

What would you offer OEMs that would entice them to want in on this niche? For instance, Samsung got $97 million in partner payments and some cross-licensing agreements.

You suggest that they "Sign HTC away from Android." What kind of inducements would be likely to make them give it up for a share in such a tiny market segment that Nokia has 85% of?

ZTE and Huawei are already selling WP8 handsets. What might wake them up?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 8th Aug 2013 11:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

They had 9 OEMs when WP7 was released. About half of those quit offering WP when WP8 was released.


A lot of these OEMs, for example Dell, were weak players on both ecosystems. LG didn't have the stomach for Windows Phone either. The only top tier ones were HTC and Samsung. It was a hopeful thought that 9 OEMs would take WP serious, but it didn't happen. That was then however.


What would you offer OEMs that would entice them to want in on this niche? For instance, Samsung got $97 million in partner payments and some cross-licensing agreements.


Microsoft has plenty of money, marketing muscle, and valuable property to cross license. Also Nokia's increasing volumes have shown the way for other OEMs and shown that WP was more than a fad. A doubling of sales YoY and strong sequential increases should be seen as impressive.


You suggest that they "Sign HTC away from Android." What kind of inducements would be likely to make them give it up for a share in such a tiny market segment that Nokia has 85% of?


Before Nokia, HTC ruled WP. Also, Nokia can't seem to crack the US market. HTC can and will if they place a serious effort into Windows Phone. They are still a common brand here.

HTC is hurting financially as a pure handset business. Microsoft could subsidize licenses, match marketing dollars, subsidize development costs, and even get some cross product synergy going to launch HTC into tablets. There are many options and HTC at present is in bad shape.



and Huawei are already selling WP8 handsets. What might wake them up?


They will come in strong as the pivot to lower cost models begins in earnest. They are excellent OEMs and I believe will be a large factor on either ecosystem in the medium term.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by glarepate on Thu 8th Aug 2013 18:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

It was a hopeful thought that 9 OEMs would take WP serious, but it didn't happen.


And now they are hoping that fewer OEMs can compete and survive within that segment. More realistic to split the pie between fewer makers. But Nokia is getting all the sales and even they haven't hit the make/break point on volume yet. Not very encouraging for other OEMs in this space or others who may contemplate joining in.

Microsoft has plenty of money, marketing muscle, and valuable property to cross license.


As I mentioned.

Also Nokia's increasing volumes have shown the way for other OEMs and shown that WP was more than a fad. A doubling of sales YoY and strong sequential increases should be seen as impressive.


They got $1 billion up front and $1 billion per year and aren't profitable on the phones yet. I also think this has shown the way for other OEMs.

Two times not very much is still not very much. Significant volumes will be impressive once/if they start to happen. The 77% increase in U.S. market share for last quarter was 172k handsets.

Before Nokia, HTC ruled WP.


HTC and Samsung sold WP for over a year before Nokia. They dropped to the position of being Nokia's strongest competitor for a while but after the Lumias had been on the market for 2 quarters they were never ahead of Nokia again. They now are sharing part of the 15% of sales that Nokia isn't getting.

Some of those options need to be exercised or HTC may just opt out. Even Nokia is complaining about the perceived lack of urgency. At least MSFT has come around to be willing to allow HTC to buy W8 licenses to make a tablet. Will that be enough?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Nelson
by chithanh on Thu 8th Aug 2013 00:07 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

Sign HTC away from Android.

Actually, what Microsoft did is drive HTC away from Windows Phone. Remember that HTC wanted to produce a WP8 Phablet last year[1]? They halted the project because Windows Phone can't use 1080p screens.

A 1080p phablet would be a much-needed addition to the selection of WP8 devices. But Microsoft will not allow this before Q4 2013 (maybe late Q3).

With this and other and roadblocks to innovation placed by Microsoft, its is rather unsurprising that OEMs are not queueing to sign up for WP8.

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-17/htc-said-to-halt-larger-wi...

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Thu 8th Aug 2013 11:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

My comment is about what they must do, and I'd agree that picking up the pace of innovation is one. It boggles the mind to try to figure out what's taking so long.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by jnemesh on Thu 8th Aug 2013 23:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson"
jnemesh Member since:
2008-04-08

They needed to get the frosted glass look "just right" on iOS 7!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Nelson
by dsmogor on Thu 8th Aug 2013 09:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

That can only happen when WP8 runs on MediaTec SOCs. I don't see it happening.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Nelson
by Soulbender on Fri 9th Aug 2013 11:46 UTC in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The question is, with Nokia as a heavily favoured partner how do you get anyone else even interested?

Reply Score: 3

I never know what numbers to believe
by Priest on Wed 7th Aug 2013 19:34 UTC
Priest
Member since:
2006-05-12

The Android at 80% and iOS at 13.3% measure worldwide phone sales.

When you look at other data at places like this one things change a bit: http://techland.time.com/2013/04/16/ios-vs-android/


In terms of US smartphone sales Andoid is 51% and iOS is 43%. When you look at things like App downloads and web browser statistics it is again pretty close.

Apple still leads in app store sales by a healthy amount. I think the 6:1 sales ratio is a little misleading because clearly many of those devices (more than half) are ending up in the hands of people not using them as smart phones.

Most of the Android sales numbers are to people using them as a replacement for Symbian as a cheap feature phones so the comparison is a little apples to oranges.

Reply Score: 3

gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

When you look at other data at places like this one things change a bit: http://techland.time.com/2013/04/16/ios-vs-android/

I'm pretty sure you can visit 50 different sites and get 50 different pie charts/graphs, each accompanied with their own story/spin. Soon, the only way we'll be able to get any sort of reliable estimate is by searching for disposed handsets in landfills and those that float up the Pacific trash vortex.

Edited 2013-08-07 21:29 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

The Android at 80% and iOS at 13.3% measure worldwide phone sales.

When you look at other data at places like this one things change a bit: http://techland.time.com/2013/04/16/ios-vs-android/


In terms of US smartphone sales Andoid is 51% and iOS is 43%. When you look at things like App downloads and web browser statistics it is again pretty close.

Apple still leads in app store sales by a healthy amount. I think the 6:1 sales ratio is a little misleading because clearly many of those devices (more than half) are ending up in the hands of people not using them as smart phones.

Most of the Android sales numbers are to people using them as a replacement for Symbian as a cheap feature phones so the comparison is a little apples to oranges.


I agree. The problem with platform market share in the mobile device markets is it's not a good proxy for anything. Saying X% of devices run a particular OS carries as much meaning as saying X% of devices are coloured black unless market share directly connects to, and therefore is a good proxy measure of, other important characteristics of platform performance.

One of the interesting things about the way Jobs changed the way Apple did things after 1997 was to change the focus inside Apple from competing with Windows to competing with PC OEMs (note how the alternative character in the Mac Vs PC ads was a PC and not Windows). Apple couldn't dent Windows market share (and market share was a reasonably good proxy for important platform metrics in the PC market) and instead to think much more about competing with PC OEMs. What's interesting about the phone market is not so much the disparity between iOS and Android as the disparity between Apple and Samsung on one side (both big profitable and engaged in intense competition with each other) and all the other Android OEMs scraping by on razor thin margins. And also lurking is the great unknown of the 'white box' Chinese handset makers who make up a huge chunk of the handset market, will they continue to grow, at whose costs, how does their sales success effect Google services etc. The next five years are going to be incredibly interesting.

Reply Score: 3

chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

There is not one single number to believe.

In terms of US smartphone sales Andoid is 51% and iOS is 43%. When you look at things like App downloads and web browser statistics it is again pretty close.

Of course, if you measure different things then you get different results. IDC is looking at worldwide smartphone share, and their numbers usually roughly match those from the other big analyst houses (Canalys, Gartner, Strategy Analytics).

If you look at US market share like e.g. comScore does, then you will of course see something very different: A market where phones are heavily subsidized by carriers through postpaid contracts, which is not common in most other parts of the world.

And if you look at usage statistics then you will measure installed base and behavior of the demographic that uses a particular platform.

Reply Score: 3

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

I think the 6:1 sales ratio is a little misleading because clearly many of those devices (more than half) are ending up in the hands of people not using them as smart phones.


What the heck does that even mean? Is that measurable? How?

Reply Score: 2

Priest Member since:
2006-05-12

It means they aren't being used as smart phones with data plans and such. Those devices are cheap Symbian replacements.

It is measurable because you can measure the ways people use their smartphones. Things like US smartphone sales (with data plans), app store downloads, web traffic statistics etc. paint a a much more accurate picture than worldwide raw android sales.

In the US the smartphone market share is closer to 50/50 with Android more ahead in other parts of the world. iOS users tend to use their phones more and spend more money in the app store which is part of the reason why devs usually target that platform first.

Not to say the 6:1 ratio isn't interesting. How long before the cheap phones even in undeveloped countries match my smartphone from a few years ago? Probably not long even though 3G and 4G network build outs in those parts of the world will be slow going.

Reply Score: 1

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

So what you're saying is that the web browsing and app downloading metrics don't correspond with the 6:1 sale figures?

That I understand.

The data plan part of it I don't. Doesn't really matter if you are using wifi or 3G/LTE, imho.


I'm not sure why anyone would buy a smart phone ( Still more expensive than a dumb phone anywhere) if they weren't going to use it like a smart phone, especially in developing areas of the world.

I never used symbian for long, so I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that usage pattern.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

What do you have with this "Symbian replacements" thing? Most of what Nokia sold (S40 handsets) weren't Symbians.

Reply Score: 2

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Replacing sturdiness and long battery life for range of unused features would be a sign of huge cluelessness.

Reply Score: 2

10 percentage points difference Thom
by lindkvis on Thu 8th Aug 2013 07:18 UTC
lindkvis
Member since:
2006-11-21

.... not 10 percent difference. And using percentage points is a rather ridiculous measurement. Because it gives the impression Apple only sold 10% more phones than the Microsoft Phones sold. This is not true; Apple sold 31.2M phones, the Microsoft vendors sold 8.7M Windows phones. By the same measurement, there is only a 13.2% points difference between iOS and Lindkvis-OS, of which there has been sold exactly 0 units.

Apple's market share was actually nearly 260% higher than Microsoft's.

Calculation:
Microsoft's market share was 3.7%
Apple's market share was 13.2%

Percentage higher: ((13.2 - 3.7) / 3.7) * 100 =~ 256.8

Reply Score: 5

Comment by Stephen!
by Stephen! on Thu 8th Aug 2013 17:06 UTC
Stephen!
Member since:
2007-11-24

If Nokia falters, Windows Phone falters


Or should that be when, rather than If ...

Reply Score: 0