Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses Cellphones Iphone Operating Systems Wireless Networking Apple

Android Sales Surpass iPhone Sales 668

Posted by Soulskill
from the battle-for-second-place dept.
gollum123 writes with this excerpt from VentureBeat: "Smartphones based on Google's Android mobile operating system outsold Apple's iPhone in the US during the first quarter of 2010, according to a report by research firm The NPD Group. The data places Android, with 28 percent of the smartphone market [last quarter], in second place behind RIM's Blackberry smartphone market share of 36 percent. Apple now sits in third place with 21 percent. NPD points to a Verizon buy-one-get-one-free promotion for all of its smartphones as a major factor in the first-quarter numbers. Verizon saw strong sales for the Motorola Droid and Droid Eris Android phones, as well as the Blackberry Curve, thanks to its promotional offer. Verizon launched a $100 million marketing campaign for the Droid when it hit the market in November 2009, which likely contributed to strong sales in the first quarter as well." Preston Gralla notes that it's not all bad news for Apple; this report could help their case in upcoming antitrust discussions.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Android Sales Surpass iPhone Sales

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Apple (Score:0, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 10, 2010 @03:02PM (#32160836)

    There's a reason why Windows is still 95% desktop share, while Mac OSX is only 4%

    That reason has more to do with inviting CEOs and CIOs to important industry events (and social functions) far away from home in very sunny hotels.

  • Re:Apple (Score:5, Informative)

    by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Monday May 10, 2010 @03:07PM (#32160916)

    There's a reason why Windows is still 95% desktop share, while Mac OSX is only 4%

    Investment in existing software plays a huge roll in that. Smartphones don't have that issue (though a very small percentage of people have spent a ton on app downloads).

  • Re:Apple (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 10, 2010 @03:11PM (#32160980)

    Maemo?

  • Re:surprising? (Score:3, Informative)

    by steelfood (895457) on Monday May 10, 2010 @03:15PM (#32161024)

    To be fair, AT&T has incredible 2G coverage. You might have trouble making calls in population centers, but they do cover as much of the remote and rural as Verizon.

    It's their 3G that's sorely lacking, which for smartphones is a problem, but not for phones under ordinary data-less plans.

  • by dingen (958134) on Monday May 10, 2010 @03:15PM (#32161036)
    There are RDP and VNC clients for both iPhone and Android.
  • Re:Apple (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 10, 2010 @03:17PM (#32161064)

    I see. So it's because the Mac was built for quick sales; and Windows was built for long-term quality. Thanks for setting the record straight.

  • by ircmaxell (1117387) on Monday May 10, 2010 @03:22PM (#32161144) Homepage

    Support remote desktop?

    Yes it does. There's an app (it's not free, maybe a few $$$) called "Remote RDP" that connects to both Windows RDP machines, and any Linux box running XRDP. It may work with VNC, but I've never tried it. I also have an app called "Connect Bot" installed which manages ssh connections. It supports full public key authentication and port forwarding.

  • Re:surprising? (Score:3, Informative)

    by sznupi (719324) on Monday May 10, 2010 @03:24PM (#32161182) Homepage

    By your logic, a mobile OS with, say, 98% of marketshare would "lose" to Apple if that 98% was uniformly distributed across 100 devices, and Apple had only 1%.

  • by e2d2 (115622) on Monday May 10, 2010 @03:38PM (#32161390)

    They have their work cut out for them. I understand the model they want, it's close to the model used by game console manufacturers to ensure quality on their consoles and also to reap the rewards of complete control. But what I've never heard of is a restriction on using a particular language that compiles to a native format using a published API. They're gonna have a hard time selling that one as something that offers value to the customer given they already have a fairly intense filtering process for their app store. Even console manufacturers don't dictate what code you compile in, as long as it compiles to a proper native image and meets all the checks and balances.

  • by Shatrat (855151) on Monday May 10, 2010 @03:57PM (#32161698)
    It has amongst educated consumers i.e. server admins, researchers, and the top500 [top500.org].
    Also, the Android platform is based on Java running on Linux. Where were the wince phones on this list again?
  • Re:Apple (Score:2, Informative)

    by Sinning (1433953) on Monday May 10, 2010 @04:28PM (#32162098)

    Couldn't this also be true of Android phones?

    Every day I read about a new Android phone that has better specs and features than anything previously released.

    I don't see how this thought is relevant.

  • Re:Apple (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 10, 2010 @04:48PM (#32162442)

    design illiterates...?

    so tell me, do you really think that the shiny web 2.0 icons that make up the interface for the iphone are sophisticated? have a look at them again...
    if its the shape of the phone that does it for you then have you never allowed yourself the luxury of some really nice jewelery?
    now you might think the glorious bright colour screen is lovely and who could take that away from you.

    but my friend, can you not consider that you might have been cleverly tricked into thinking that you're part of an elite, when this is not the case.

    it's not hostility that makes people like me want to let you know this kind of thing - it's just that you really ought to know how things might appear to others. and how this has nothing to do with having a developed or educated sense of what looks good or doesn't.

    apple is a very mean machine when it comes to marketing - they wouldn't deny they're the best in the business.

  • by daggre (631200) on Monday May 10, 2010 @05:05PM (#32162688)
    This is great news for both Apple and Android users. This is just the sort of news Apple needs to hear to make them tired of their single-carrier approach in the US. As with many AT&T users, their lack of supporting tethering on the iPhone and the inconsistent network coverage (although when it does work their 3G is MUCH faster than Verizon's) has made me long for another carrier to be available to iPhone users who don't want to jailbreak their iPhones. However we shouldn't forget that there are two MAJOR problems with Verizon on all their phones that make me not want to switch to Verizon even if they did have the iPhone: 1. Verizon's 3G network is NOT capable of voice and data at the same time. Once you're on the phone, all data connections are closed until you hang up. Not so great when you're trying to use maps and someone calls you, or while on the phone you try to find a nearby restaurant to meet the caller. As Verizon callers know, "I'll have to check that and call you back" is not an uncommon thing to say. In an age of Bluetooth headsets being the norm, we should be able to use our phone's data channel while we're on the phone. Verizon's 3G network is very 2G in this instance (and LTE, Verizon's 4G network will fix this but launch is not until mid-2011 at least) 2. Verizon only gives their 3G data users 5GB of use before they start levying HUGE overage charges (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/04/30/family_provider_far_apart_over_nearly_18000_phone_bill/). I personally have no intention of going over 5GB but I also don't want to WORRY about a limit at all. Again, very backward thinking by Verizon here, reminiscent of Compuserve and AOL charging hourly for Internet access back in the 1980s. Charge a fair price for unlimited data (I think $30 is fair but let the market decide) and then you'll have a shot at my business. In short, I'd love to see Verizon get the iPhone but not in an exclusive deal, not with 5GB data caps, and not unless they can support data and voice at the same time on their 3G network (which has excellent coverage).
  • Re:surprising? (Score:4, Informative)

    by EXrider (756168) on Monday May 10, 2010 @05:10PM (#32162760)

    but they do cover as much of the remote and rural as Verizon.

    I don't know what rural areas you're basing your observations on. But I've personally observed Verzon > AT&T in rural OH, IN, KY, WV, and TN in every instance.

  • Re:Apple (Score:3, Informative)

    by Dahamma (304068) on Monday May 10, 2010 @05:36PM (#32163090)

    Google does not get revenue directly from selling Android. However, they do indirectly get revenue from in-app advertisements, search advertisements, and app store purchases that are all tied to Android phones

    Actually, your statement is much more misleading, and in fact mostly untrue. Do your research next time.

    "Google denies a report that it is sharing advertising revenues derived from mobile applications on Android smartphones with carrier and handset partners. The search engine maintains the only revenue sharing it engages in is from paying carriers a cut of its search-related advertising sales."

    They only make money from good old search advertising revenue, which is really not Android specific anyway - they do the same thing on nearly every handset, including the iPhone.

    It's pretty much conventional wisdom in the industry that Google's goal right now is to get an open platform out there to compete with the closed ones like RIM and Apple. Which is very cool. But THEY aren't claiming to be making money on that project right now, so no need for you to pretend they are.

  • by tomhudson (43916) < ... <nosduh.arabrab>> on Monday May 10, 2010 @05:36PM (#32163092) Journal

    They also fail to mention that most of those Android phones were distributed by Verizon for free as an attempt to wrest away some of AT&T's iPhone advantage.

    Since when is "buy one, get one free - but you still need to sign them both up to a multi-year contract" free? Just like those $100 iPhones aren't really $100 once you look at the contract.

    If Apple ever starts allowing other U.S. carriers to offer the iPhone, I'll bet Android sales number will make a big u-turn in a hurry.

    Check out the Evo 4g and try to say that with a straight face - it's kit like that which will kill both the iPhone and iPad. Bigger, easier-to-read display than the upcoming iPhone 4g, much more portable than an iPad ... it's the face of the next generation of smartphone computing devices that people will actually be able to type on half-way decently.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 10, 2010 @05:51PM (#32163230)

    I keep hearing this from Apple Fan Boys. "Apple does not want to be the dominent player". This is typical Apple style, tell people the exact opposite of what your really doing. There is good reason not to be to dominent, (DOJ anti-trust issues that Apple are defiantly breaking and would be in trouble for if considered a monopoly)
    But looking at their online audio and video moves. They defiantly want to be as big as they can be without triggering anti-trust. Thats is what they are DOING. And if you have any brains, you listen to what people DO before what they say. (Usually what they say is the opposite to what they do. A big reason Google has so much trust. They have been aligning with what they say and do.. well most of the time and in the sight of consumers..)

    Dominance of the media gateway is dominance of the media platform. Apples knows this..

    I personally think there should be government laws that say you cannot own the gateway and the media platform and the companies have to be independent. Open competition using open standards.

    Its like most countries in that the Telco owns the back haul and the retail. History of abuse and inflated prices. The UK forced their telco apart to break this strangle hold. Here in Australia, the government is in a death match with Telstra.. trying to break this model..

    Its just bad for consumers. No company or individual should have or even need this responsibility.

  • by tpgp (48001) on Monday May 10, 2010 @07:16PM (#32163980) Homepage

    One thing Apple has, and nobody else does, is the ITMS (one stop shopping).

    And android has the Android Market [android.com]. The only difference is that you're not forced to sell your app through google if you don't wish to.

  • by mjwx (966435) on Monday May 10, 2010 @07:50PM (#32164242)

    What good is developing an Application if nobody can find it?

    Perhaps you've heard of the Android marketplace.

    It's not locked down like the Itunes store. You can browse it here [androlib.com], here [appbrain.com] and here [cyrket.com]. Androlib even has QR codes that you can scan with your Android phone that will take you directly to application in the Android Marketplace.

    To be honest, I don't trust iWhateverApp

    Because no phishing applications made it past the ever watchful censors at Apple?

    NoThankYou.jpg to gateway only security. I'd rather have on-device security which informs me which services (API's, but in simple terms like "can send SMS", "accesses your contacts/personal data" or "can write and delete from the SD card"). Even third party APK's do this (because it's part of Android, not the thrid party software).

    So stop spreading FUD and others stop modding up FUD.

  • Re:Apple (Score:3, Informative)

    by bledri (1283728) on Monday May 10, 2010 @08:28PM (#32164470)

    The iPad is just horrendously horrible for this due to Steve's obsession with locking it down and removing all the standard ports from it.

    Apple iPad Camera Connection Kit [apple.com]: $29
    http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=connect+camera+to+ipad [google.com]: priceless

  • Let's see. BB Bold vs.iPhone 3G (the two I have, carrier is the same)

    BB better phone reception
    BB keyboard better for email and im
    BB expandable memory
    BB camera flash
    BB plays AVIs without conversion
    BB simple USB memory interface, no need for "iTunes"
    BB records movies
    BB synchronizes with Evolution (important for me) and Google calendar
    BB doesn't NEED a base computer, it works as a stand-alone phone.

    (3G may also synch with Google, but I don't know how)

    3G display is better, but gets filthy.
    3G has better games.
    3G you can shake the phone to change mp3s

    So, for me, BB is better. YMMV. My wife uses a 3G -- my mother-in-law and I use the BB...

  • by KagakuNinja (236659) on Monday May 10, 2010 @09:49PM (#32165004)

    As an experienced J2ME developer... The real pain was not "writing apps for individual handsets", it was dealing with all the undocumented bugs and "novel" interpretations of the J2ME spec. A game coded perfectly to the J2ME spec might run great on one family of handsets, and crash mysteriously on others, or even fail to launch.

    Other major nightmares included: undocumented (and radically different) threading models, sound (which was not a part of the original J2ME spec), memory management and networking. And then you had to squeeze everything into a tiny JAR limit for the crappiest phones (64K when I started, later upped to 100K).

    Did I mention that each phone (of which there were hundreds) was potentially different, and almost completely undocumented?

An inclined plane is a slope up. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"

Working...