backtop


Print 44 comment(s) - last by TakinYourPoint.. on Jan 2 at 6:32 PM


  (Source: deviantart.net)
Apple took second place with 28.7 percent market share

The latest comScore report shows that Android is still dominating U.S. mobile subscriber market share ahead of Apple's iOS.

The report, which measures mobile market share for the U.S. during a three month period ending November 2011, provides an average among over 30,000 U.S. mobile subscribers.

According to comScore, 234 million Americans age 13 and over used mobile devices in the three month period, and 91.4 million of them are smartphone owners. Android-based devices took the lead position with 46.9 percent share in the smartphone market. Apple took second place with 28.7 percent, followed by RIM (16.6 percent), Microsoft (5.2 percent) and Symbian (1.5 percent).

Samsung, which creates mobile Android-based devices, was the handset leader during the three month timeframe with 25.6 percent market share. This was a 0.3 increase from the previous three month period ending August 2011. LG followed with 20.5 percent, Motorola had 13.7 percent, Apple had 11.2 percent and RIM fell in last place with 6.5 percent.

The results hardly seem surprising, since a report from earlier this month stated that Android claims nearly half of the U.S. smartphone market. Also, Android dominated comScore's report ending August 2011 with 43.8 percent market share, leaving Apple in second place with 27.3 percent.

Another unsurprising factor about comScore's report is that RIM has lost market share since the three month period ending August 2011, sliding from 19.7 percent to 16.6 percent in top smartphone platforms and also falling from 7.1 percent to 6.5 percent top mobile OEMs. More than likely, its tumble is due to RIM's October data outage that lasted four days and spanned the U.S., Canada, Europe, South America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

Source: comScore



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Holds on. Really?
By Tony Swash on 12/30/2011 7:47:01 PM , Rating: 0
quote:
Because it's just the early days of mobile, just the dawn. Remember that at the dawn of personal computers the Apple platform dominated too, by their uniformity, high profits and lack of choice. Then fragmented ubercheap and truly universal Windows came along and Apple bit the dust. Now history repeats itself - again Apple got new market with a new uniform expensive platform without any choice whatsoever and again ubercheap universal and very fragmented Android came by and took the market just like Windows did 20 years ago. Watch the history repeating itself Tony, this is gonna be fun!


Do mean like what happened with the iPod....uuhh....wait a minute....

Seriously though your response does not answer my actual question which is why, given that the Android market space is now bigger than the iOS market, do developers make nearly four times as much money from the iOS space?

Looking for the past to repeat itself may seem a reassuring way to deal with the novel and the uncertain but on the whole it is a poor way to analyse the world. Trying to crowbar the conditions and structure of the desktop PC market of the 1990s into the mobile device market of the early 21st century just does not work. Things seem to be different now but working out how they are different requires nuanced and new thinking. Good luck with that.


RE: Holds on. Really?
By Pirks on 12/30/2011 8:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do mean like what happened with the iPod
Well, you can't have apps on music player so then you can't play the "more apps is better" game with iPod. But you can play it with Mac, iPhone, iPad and Windows. Which is what I'm doing.
quote:
why, given that the Android market space is now bigger than the iOS market, do developers make nearly four times as much money from the iOS space?
For the same reasons developers made less money with Windows than with Apple back in those early PC days. This did not prevent Windows from winning in the end though.
quote:
on the whole it is a poor way to analyse the world
Yeah, sure, if you hate this particular piece of history which shows Apple's downfall you can ignore it when analyzing the world. However smart people always learn from history, you should know this. Even Apple learned a lot from its real bad past history. You'll never admit this but it's a fact. Jobs has changed a lot since his early days in 1980s, why? Because he LEARNED FROM HISTORY.
quote:
Things seem to be different now but working out how they are different requires nuanced and new thinking
Hey, you also should try new thinking if you want to stop pretending that history does not exist and that parallels with the past do not ever happen. I see this parallel already - another platform is quickly eclipsing the Apple's one in mind share and market share, this happened in the past and this happens again right in front of our eyes. Your own prejudices against this "bad" (for Apple) piece of history do not change the fact that now things are very similar to those in 1990s. You just afraid to admit this because you are afraid of this particular "bad" piece of history.


RE: Holds on. Really?
By Gio6518 on 12/30/2011 10:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your own prejudices against this "bad" (for Apple) piece of history do not change the fact that now things are very similar to those in 1990s. You just afraid to admit this because you are afraid of this particular "bad" piece of history.


Of course it's going to repeat, no one can dominate all areas of their product, thats what almost killed Apple in the 90's, just as that tight fisted control killed other products like Toshiba with HD-DVD or Sony with Betamax, I guess Apple stiil haven't grabbed a clue and changed their business practices...

quote:
For the same reasons developers made less money with Windows than with Apple back in those early PC days. This did not prevent Windows from winning in the end though.


Exactly, you can't make more more in the end by marketing to the few, lets say the 20% of Apple people how many of those 20% are going to buy the app...with Android you have almost 3x the people to market the app too...probabaly 4-5x more people in the near future to which they would make far more by sheer volume (Business 101). If indeed they actualy make more money on iOS, then why are developers feverishly porting their once exclusive iOS apps to Android, and Android Market almost at the same number of available apps...Simple marketshare.


RE: Holds on. Really?
By TakinYourPoints on 12/31/11, Rating: 0
RE: Holds on. Really?
By TakinYourPoints on 1/2/2012 6:22:44 PM , Rating: 2
TYP crits downvotes with facts: http://blog.flurry.com/bid/79061/App-Developers-Be...

So many mad people here. Don't blame me for better dev support on iOS than Android, it isn't my fault they think it's not worth putting all their effort into.


RE: Holds on. Really?
By Tony Swash on 12/31/11, Rating: 0
RE: Holds on. Really?
By Pirks on 12/31/2011 6:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
why in so many metrics does iOS seem to trounce Android
Hey, you didn't forget that Mac OS was ALSO trouncing Windows back in those early PC days, did you? ;)


RE: Holds on. Really?
By spread on 12/31/2011 1:42:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do mean like what happened with the iPod....uuhh....wait a minute....


The iPod doesn't matter from here on in because it's fading away into obscurity. These devices have limited uses and therefore a limited life. Everything a dedicated music player used to do, a tablet and a phone can do in the same form factors.

quote:
Seriously though your response does not answer my actual question which is why, given that the Android market space is now bigger than the iOS market, do developers make nearly four times as much money from the iOS space?


That's a good question. Why are developers making money on a shiny toy sold to every idiot with a credit card and his cat?

Hmmm... difficult question. Very complex.

quote:
Trying to crowbar the conditions and structure of the desktop PC market of the 1990s into the mobile device market of the early 21st century just does not work. Things seem to be different now but working out how they are different requires nuanced and new thinking.


You're not smart enough to use "nuanced". Let's stick to the basic language shall we?

The argument is very much the same. iOS will get decimated just like before. It's a numbers game and Android has the numbers, maybe not in profit but if you look at every other industry the most profitable companies are the ones with a whole variety of products and sales volumes. Look at the auto makers. Ferrari might be a luxury car but Toytoa makes sacks of money. Not that I'm comparing Apple's products to Ferrari. They look like Ferrari but under the hood the engine and transmission are made by Ford.

I think we've seen Apple peak in the mobile market which is why they must be moving to television and entertainment now. Just like they've abandoned computers, they will abandon the mobile market while they still can.


RE: Holds on. Really?
By Tony Swash on 12/31/2011 7:08:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The iPod doesn't matter from here on in because it's fading away into obscurity. These devices have limited uses and therefore a limited life. Everything a dedicated music player used to do, a tablet and a phone can do in the same form factors


I agree that the stand alone iPod is fading in significance although it's worth noting that all iOS devices come with an iPod built in so it's not so much died as mutated and merged with other things. And the iPod Touch remains a very useful and popular entry level device to get people (particularly kids) into the iOS ecosystem. I also agree - responding to pirks - that apps didn't play a role in the success of the iPod.

But all that does not address the point my flippant remark did allude to which was this: once Apple had shown that the iPod could be such a big and successful business and given that the iPod contained no unique features (other than the OS and the patented clickwheel) the whole of the rest of the electronics industry failed, utterly, over an entire decade to even remotely dent it's dominance. Why? For most of that decade we were promised over and over again that an iPod killer was around the corner, someone would put together something to undercut and steal the market lead from Apple. It never happened. Why? It was claimed on many occasions that Apple's 'closed' iPod design would inevitably be overtaken, in a rerun of the Mac versus Windows contest, by devices created by the 'open' electronic industry. It didn't happen. Why?

An interesting question and more so if it turns out that the tablet market, for example, is more like the music player market rather than the handset market.


RE: Holds on. Really?
By spread on 12/31/2011 11:36:08 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
iPod Touch remains a very useful and popular entry level device to get people (particularly kids) into the iOS ecosystem.


Because once you're in you can't leave. It's hard to change platforms like iTunes that have all sorts of proprietary bull that only play nice with their devices and even then, don't always play nice.

As far as kids, kids like what's popular. Android is becoming popular. Sure it's not the best OS, it's pretty messy and fragmented thanks to the phone makers but it's open and becoming more useful. It's even being used in specialized audio players like what Cowon is using. Looks like a phone, feel like a phone, but it's a high end mp3 player with a good DAC and ridiculous battery life.

quote:
once Apple had shown that the iPod could be such a big and successful business and given that the iPod contained no unique features (other than the OS and the patented clickwheel) the whole of the rest of the electronics industry failed, utterly, over an entire decade to even remotely dent it's dominance. Why?


I'll tell you why, Steve Jobs. With an almost cult like following the man at the top can try several times to get something onto the market. Look at the previous Apple TV device. First one was a failure, second one is a failure now they're trying again in 2012 with something TV related again. Other more corporate companies would have long abandoned it after 3 months. Like HP? Stupid fuckers who bought Palm and then ruined it.

Apple seems to have a more long term vision which is why they win over companies with short term vision and short term "planning". Their finances and cash hoarding are a perfect example.

Android will win because Android gives people freedom and choice, and it already is. Profitable or not it will squeeze this controlling company out of the market.


RE: Holds on. Really?
By Tony Swash on 12/31/2011 2:22:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's pretty messy and fragmented thanks to the phone makers but it's open


That pretty much sums up it up. It's crappy but open. I have yet to hear an explanation of how 'being open' translates into single tangible advantage for the end user.


RE: Holds on. Really?
By Pirks on 12/31/2011 7:10:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have yet to hear an explanation of how 'being open' translates into single tangible advantage for the end user
It's magic, man. People just prefer to buy open platforms like Windows over closed ones like Mac or open Android over closed iPhone, because they like it being open and free, and hence more popular as well, i.e. more of my friends got Android and Windows so I'll get the same. I guess that's why. Got any other hypothesis to explain this?


RE: Holds on. Really?
By spread on 1/1/2012 5:21:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have yet to hear an explanation of how 'being open' translates into single tangible advantage for the end user.


I get to install what I want when I want. I get to modify my device how I want and when I want without having Apple mess up my device with their control freak policies.

Also you can have many cool apps when you have an open system that insecure Apple wouldn't dare allow. Like Flash, tethering apps and so on. It's MY choice what I want to install.

It's freedom vs a fascist control. Which do you think is better?


RE: Holds on. Really?
By Tony Swash on 1/1/2012 7:46:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I get to install what I want when I want. I get to modify my device how I want and when I want without having Apple mess up my device with their control freak policies


As I understand it the Android world is full of pre-installed carrier apps that cannot be removed with out using the sort of technical work arounds that are exactly equivalent to jail breaking an iPhone. Plus you get the added Android bonus of not getting your OS updated to the latest version unless you are very lucky.

Really this whole 'I demand an open device' is pretty silly and of interest to a marginal number of people. As far as I can see the main difference between Android phones and iPhones is that the former are mostly just used as phones (hence Androids pathetic scores on the various usage metrics such as photos on Flicker, web browsing, app purchasing, etc) whilst iPhones are actually used as computing platforms. Presumably it's because Android is a fractured, chaotic platform space full of out of date OS versions, a bewildering array of strange hardware configurations and malware. Plus you cannot get proper peripherals for Android phones because they are not iOS compatible.

quote:
Also you can have many cool apps when you have an open system that insecure Apple wouldn't dare allow. Like Flash, tethering apps and so on. It's MY choice what I want to install.


Even Adobe have given up trying to develop a version of Flash for mobile that isn't crap, Flash is just a device de-optimiser. You are welcome to it. In a couple of years mobile Flash will be forgotten and Flash on the web will be in the terminal stages of it's life. It's a dead end technology going nowhere except in to the dustbin.

By the way you mention apps you can get that Apple won't allow and then you name two and say 'and so on'.

Care to share with us what other apps fall in to that category? The reason I ask is because as far as I can see Android has a far less rich app library that iOS. Android tablets have an astonishingly poor app library.

quote:
It's freedom vs a fascist control. Which do you think is better?


What a silly thing to say. Do you know what fascism is? iOS devices not only do not constrain their users but they actually empower them. The biggest constraint on the consumers of technology devices is not this or that system of management, or OS environment, it's bad design, it's devices built by committees, its devices that you actually need a manual to read to understand how they work. Have you seen the 'manual' for the iPad? It's a single card with a photo of an iPad and an arrow pointing at the 'on' switch. And you only ever have to use that switch once.


RE: Holds on. Really?
By TakinYourPoints on 1/2/2012 6:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's freedom vs a fascist control. Which do you think is better?


In practice, those poor Android users get slower hardware, fewer apps, more malware, more ads, and a hardware ecosystem built around handset makers and cell carriers pushing more frequent hardware upgrades because almost all phones don't get support for major OS updates.

But hey, you can tweak your homescreen.

Ah, freedom!


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki