Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th Dec 2013 17:24 UTC

2013 was nothing less than a blockbuster success for Windows Phone, which went from industry also-ran to the undisputed third mobile ecosystem, and is poised to challenge iPhone for the number two spot. You didn't think it could get this good? That's OK, neither did I.

Windows Phone seemingly turns a corner with every new application, small operating system update, and new Nokia Lumia. It's turning so many corners it's running in circles.

Thread beginning with comment 579079
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: "Growth" numbers are useless
by acobar on Thu 19th Dec 2013 16:13 UTC in reply to "RE: "Growth" numbers are useless"
Member since:

Oh! Really, does it?

Lets create a hypothetical setting where we had the following market share on some unspecified time and then regularly update it with hypothetical constant sales by period:

Total sales / period (for example months or years)
Android Apple Microsoft
20 10 5

Total sales (accumulated) and initial set
Android Apple Microsoft
20 50 0
40 60 5
60 70 10
80 80 15
100 90 20
120 100 25

Market Share %
Android Apple Microsoft
28.57 71.43 0.00
38.10 57.14 4.76
42.86 50.00 7.14
45.71 45.71 8.57
47.62 42.86 9.52
48.98 40.82 10.20

Note how the initial (trend) growth of MS is staggering! Like people said, it derives from the fact that it did not had a market presence. Android is looking to be running out of gas even though it is at every period putting 4 times more phones than Microsoft! Who would thought!? The final situation after infinity time?

Market Share %
Android Apple Microsoft
57.14 28.57 14.29

Now, before you jump to conclusions, let me start arguing that, at least to me, the worst case scenery is to see Google achieve the same market dominance that MS once had on desktops. I would like to see them, Microsoft, succeed, first and foremost, to have a more balanced market and to improve competition, what is good for us all, and not only stockholders minority.

I also think that MS has a nice development tooling and a strong business appeal but, unluckily to them, and I am talking from a business customer perspective, their later steps on licensing generated a lot of dissatisfaction between their very own installed base. I used to like them when their only worry was to sell "good" products by fair values but it all changed under MS Ballmer umbrella. Also, their politics toward Android manufactures is despicable, to say the least. Lets hope they have the time and willingness to correct their steps. I am not standing still for that, though.

Edited 2013-12-19 16:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

Nelson Member since:

No. How about we don't create a hypothetical and actually use real numbers from real financials of the companies I mention. Those were their growth rates.

People trot out the "from a low base" argument which is probably because its the last leg they have to stand on.

What they leave out is that Nokia had similar volumes to all of these OEMs individually, but is still growing more strongly. LG especially was flat QoQ and Sony had anemic growth.

I will also point out that Nokia had strong 19% sequential growth during what traditionally is their slowest quarter, and Q4s growth trajectory could be even higher.

I understand fully that the 150% YoY growth comes from a low base initially, but that's precisely why o eont cite them (seriously, look at my comment history) and instead cite Nokia's volume shipments compared to the other Android OEMs.

Reply Parent Score: 3

acobar Member since:

And where are we going to get the real numbers from? Apple, Microsoft, Samsung and all others use "shipment", "produced" or "available to customer purchase" instead of really "sold to final customers" numbers, what is understandable from strategy / tracking POV. The problem is that we only get the real results when they have to make available their balance.

Also note that my main argument is that at any period what counts is the proportion of each shipment and not what it was before, like yourself asked for. The other things are not "for real" as market is something that keeps changing all the time.

Anyway, what is really important to know is who can keep timely shipping improved and desired devices to an ever evolving market, and to this point this important "index" is not all set yet but, and I guess you agree, Google has showed an impressive track to now.


Ops, my bad, looks like on Android case we can get numbers of "activated" devices directly from Google. Forgive my naiveness on this case.

Edited 2013-12-19 17:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

segedunum Member since:

People trot out the "from a low base" argument which is probably because its the last leg they have to stand on.

Microsoft has never had more than around 3% market share for Windows Phone, or whatever its various incarnations were called at various times.

When figures like 50%, 100%, or 150% growth are trotted out that's the only leg 'they' have to stand on because it's pure number play.

What they leave out is that Nokia had similar volumes to all of these OEMs individually

Of course you'll say that, and insert Nokia for Windows Phone and vice versa where it suits you.

.....and instead cite Nokia's volume shipments compared to the other Android OEMs.

....and you're doing it again. This is about Windows Phone.

Android has the benefit of much greater supply and suppliers, which is why Android has such a large market share. Microsoft is not going to get anywhere by trying to make Nokia their personal 'iPhone' division and throwing cheap phones at marginal markets to try and boost their sales numbers and apparent growth.

I predict in a few months we'll see a several hundred million dollar writedown and a whole bunch of losses, because that is all that can be happening here. If you have lower volumes you need higher margins. If you have higher volumes then you might be able to make selling phones in Mexico profitable. Otherwise, it's creative accounting.

Edited 2013-12-19 20:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1