Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android Cellphones

Smartphone Sales: Apple Squeezed, Blackberry Squashed, Android 81.3% 390

Posted by samzenpus
from the leader-of-the-pack dept.
mrspoonsi writes "Engadget reports: Smartphone market share for the third quarter...as you'd imagine, the world is still Android's oyster. Strategy Analytics estimates that the OS has crossed the symbolic 80 percent mark, reaching 81.3 percent of smartphone shipments by the end of September. Not that Google was the only company doing well — Nokia's strong US sales helped Windows Phone grow to 4.1 percent of the market, or nearly double what it had a year ago."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Smartphone Sales: Apple Squeezed, Blackberry Squashed, Android 81.3%

Comments Filter:
  • by symbolset (646467) * on Friday November 01, 2013 @03:34AM (#45297925) Journal

    Samsung alone accounts for 1 million of those, leaving 1.3 million per day for others. Here are the per-company numbers. [engadget.com]

    It will be interesting to see if LG can deliver enough of the Nexus 5 to bump their numbers over the holidays.

    • by the_B0fh (208483)

      Uh, does any phone vendor other than Apple release actual unit sales numbers?

    • by wvmarle (1070040) on Friday November 01, 2013 @06:52AM (#45298563)

      Actually I'm more surprised wiht Nokia taking 4.1% of the market.

      While a small market share, 4.1% of a big market still means lots of phones. And for a single manufacturer to have >4% market share is pretty impressive, considering how they messed up their existing position.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Actually I'm more surprised with Nokia taking 4.1% of the market.

        I'm not.

        Telcos over here are flogging 520s like they were being given kickbacks for every unit sold. They're being pushed as the default phone on corp deals and other promotions. I'm not sure who's making money off them, but somebody's surely spending a lot.

      • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

        The Nokia brand is still strong with people who want a quality dumb phone. It's mostly older people who want something cheap that they only have to charge once a week and which is simple to operate, and Nokia is the only brand they know is supposed to be good.

  • by etash (1907284) on Friday November 01, 2013 @03:41AM (#45297949)
    with smartphones as in the 80s with the computers. It followed a practice of a closed ecosystem, keeping everything proprietary and trying to control everything. Android today is what IBM and compatible was back in the day. The same way apple computers became just a niche market back then, iphones are becoming right now.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01, 2013 @03:53AM (#45297981)

      I don't think the closed ecosystem has anything to do with it : i have an iPhone, and while my teenage kids love it and wouldn't stop dreaming about one, they just CAN NOT AFFORD it. So they jumped ship and bought a cheap 150€ android. While their phone is inferior, it is "good enough" for all they need to do. Now that they bought it, they're stuck in the android world partly because of the apps they bought, partly due to pride in defending their choice, but mostly because they see that their cheap phone can do EVERYTHING my iPhone can do at a quarter of the price.

      apple is losing the youth, and doesn't give a shit.

      • It's all related; Apple's iron grip on their ecosystem is what allows them to position their device as "premium" and charge so much for it. If they'd done what IBM/Google did, and opened their OS so that everyone could make compatible clones, competition would drive the price down.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01, 2013 @05:21AM (#45298225)

          What on earth are you talking about? IBM didn't "open up" the PC design. Compaq reversed engineered it using a clean room process to avoid legal issues. (http://computemagazine.com/the-history-of-the-ibm-personal-computer/)

      • by servies (301423) on Friday November 01, 2013 @04:48AM (#45298133) Homepage

        ....

        While their phone is inferior, it is "good enough" for all they need to do

        ....

        but mostly because they see that their cheap phone can do EVERYTHING my iPhone can do at a quarter of the price.

        So with that last sentence you're saying it's superior to your iPhone....

        • by crimson tsunami (3395179) on Friday November 01, 2013 @05:09AM (#45298189)
          Cut him some slack.
          He's just bitter that he's stuck in the apple world partly because of the apps he bought, partly due to pride in defending his choice.
        • by Sockatume (732728)

          If your phone needs are the same as a teenager's, sure.

        • Unless you're talking about games or other apps with high computing requirements, he's right. A cheap, modern Android phone can do everything a modern iPhone can do, even if it takes an extra second to load up the calendar.
        • ....

          While their phone is inferior, it is "good enough" for all they need to do

          ....

          but mostly because they see that their cheap phone can do EVERYTHING my iPhone can do at a quarter of the price.

          So with that last sentence you're saying it's superior to your iPhone....

          I was thinking along the same lines until I noticed that his kids paid 150 Euro. It's my understanding that phones are sold without being subsidized in Europe, unlike the US. In the US a $150 phone after subsidies is really a $250 to $300 phone. So, it does sound like they bought a lower end Android phone. While it may have much of the same functions as an iPhone, it wouldn't be as smooth or as high resolution, etc.

          Personally, I think that anyone who thinks that iDevices are superior to today's higher e

      • by Bert64 (520050) <bert@NoSPaM.slashdot.firenzee.com> on Friday November 01, 2013 @06:01AM (#45298375) Homepage

        Same thing happened with computers, Apple only really competed at the higher end with SCSI drives and color screens, while crude ibm-compatible clones could be had for a fraction of the price. People are quite ok with inferior so long as its cheaper and "good enough", especially during tougher economic times. And once you've bought into one system, the cost of escaping it for another incompatible system is high because you'd need to reacquire all your applications.

      • by AmiMoJo (196126) * <(mojo) (at) (world3.net)> on Friday November 01, 2013 @06:21AM (#45298465) Homepage

        These days it's the opposite. The Nexus 5 beats the iPhone 5S in pretty much every area. Better screen, NFC, wireless charging, full 1080p video output, better camera, and arguably better software. Yet it costs half the price.

        At one point you could reasonably argue that it was worth paying extra for an iPhone, but these days unless you are already locked in I think it's going to be hard to justify paying double for an inferior or at best equal product.

        • by ph0rk (118461)
          It has always seemed to me that an iPhone only really made sense if you were already an almost completely Apple shop. If you already use OSX everywhere, have a few apple TVs or airport speakers lying around, an iPhone is tops for integration.

          I've never understood why anyone would buy one that didn't already have at least one OSX machine.
        • Ok, my iPhone 4S does 1080p out through HDMI and so has every iPhone since [apple.com]. Better screens in some models, usually the more expensive ones. Personally, I see NFC as just another attack vector and would never use it. Better camera is subjective. Does it take better pictures or just bigger pictures? Again, I think the person behind the camera makes a big difference as well. Better software is also subjective as Android has proven to be less secure as an OS. [businessinsider.com] Yep! costs less but so did VHS but that didn't make
          • by AmiMoJo (196126) * <(mojo) (at) (world3.net)> on Friday November 01, 2013 @09:52AM (#45299651) Homepage

            Actually no, your iPhone 4 doesn't do 1080p. It scales its SD screen up to 1080p, except for video which can be higher resolution. Even then it isn't really 1080p because the image is heavily compressed. The HDMI adapter cable is basically an AirPlay receiver, and the image quality is awful [arstechnica.com].

            Personally, I see NFC as just another attack vector and would never use it.

            But wifi, the mobile network, Bluetooth, BTLE, SMS and the Lightning connector are all fine.

            Better camera is subjective. Does it take better pictures or just bigger pictures?

            Better. Aside from anything else it has optical image stabilization.

      • by StripedCow (776465) on Friday November 01, 2013 @07:53AM (#45298797)

        If these companies could put their greed aside, we'd already be running apps from one OS on another OS, and the interoperability would be seemless.
        The technology is there.
        Everything would be simpler.
        And less development effort would go to waste.

        Capitalism is just working against us here.

      • by StripedCow (776465) on Friday November 01, 2013 @08:03AM (#45298829)

        Here's the true problem:

        Apple put all their effort in building "the perfect" user interface.
        However, people are getting more educated and tech-savvy in general.
        They don't need Apple to hold their hand anymore.

        There's this saying:
        Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.
        (George Bernard Shaw)

        Now, older people may still depend on easy one-button interfaces. However, this group of people clashes with the "image" that Apple tries to associate itself with.
        The youth understands this and is not falling for their marketing tactics anymore.

        There's another saying:
        Once your parents use a particular technology, it has lost its coolness.

        • by ph0rk (118461)

          However, people are getting more educated and tech-savvy in general.

          That is false: familiarity with facebook does not mean tech-savvy.

          A surprising portion of even the very best and brightest 18-22 year olds would still hold a floppy disk completely level if you told them the bits might fall off.

        • So you're saying that as people become more familiar with something, they want it to be harder to use, and more obtuse?

          Are you cracked?

      • I don't think the closed ecosystem has anything to do with it : i have an iPhone, and while my teenage kids love it and wouldn't stop dreaming about one, they just CAN NOT AFFORD it. So they jumped ship and bought a cheap 150€ android. While their phone is inferior, it is "good enough" for all they need to do. Now that they bought it, they're stuck in the android world partly because of the apps they bought, partly due to pride in defending their choice, but mostly because they see that their cheap phone can do EVERYTHING my iPhone can do at a quarter of the price.

        apple is losing the youth, and doesn't give a shit.

        Except that when we look at the most popular Android smartphones, it's always the high end Galaxy S series and such arriving on top. 150 euros phones alone do not explain how Android gets over 80% of world-wide sales during a quarter. High end Android phones certainly get over 13% anyways.

        But I agree that when you have the choice between an iPhone 5C or a much cheaper Nexus 5, the decision isn't hard for a teenager. Only, the later is superior in every point despite being cheaper!

        The closed ecosystem has ev

      • they're stuck in the android world partly because of the apps they bought, partly due to pride in defending their choice, but mostly because they see that their cheap phone can do EVERYTHING my iPhone can do at a quarter of the price.

        Sounds more like you're sticking with your iPhone to defend the choice of spending four times as much as you needed to :p Did you ever consider that the "Android world" might just be a nice place to be? Android is nicer for the always-there-back-button alone.

    • Niche market (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Udo Schmitz (738216) on Friday November 01, 2013 @03:59AM (#45297995) Journal

      [] apple computers became just a niche market back then, iphones are becoming right now. []

      Both are/will be very profitable niche markets though:

      http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/10/30/apple-earned-more-than-samsung-lg-nokia-huawei-lenovo-motorolas-mobile-shipments-combined [appleinsider.com]

      And regarding Androids ubiquity, fragmentation or open-source-ness, this article suggests Google wants more control:

      http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/ [arstechnica.com]

      • Re:Niche market (Score:5, Insightful)

        by aiadot (3055455) on Friday November 01, 2013 @05:26AM (#45298253)
        Yeah, from my perspective I can't help but to notice the huge boner most people on internet have towards market share and mainstream market acceptance, regardless if it's for smartphones, computers, game consoles and accessories or services. People just seem to forget that business are about making money. Having a huge share may have some help with it, but that is not always true.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anne Thwacks (531696)
          Obviously you do not have an MBA. Perhaps you even think common sense is a better guide to life?
          • by Sockatume (732728) on Friday November 01, 2013 @05:51AM (#45298343)

            The user with "a million lemmings can't be wrong" as their sig thinks that popularity is more important than profitability. Classic.

            • by shilly (142940)

              And repeats a line about MBAs that's only been said about .... a million times already.

          • by Bucc5062 (856482)

            It would be nice if they applied that thinking now and then. It seems to be trained out of them at some point so the end product is a profit driven asshat who cannot see much past the next quarter or consider what may really matter in life until its too late.

        • Re:Niche market (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Gunboat_Diplomat (3390511) on Friday November 01, 2013 @06:37AM (#45298523)

          Yeah, from my perspective I can't help but to notice the huge boner most people on internet have towards market share and mainstream market acceptance, regardless if it's for smartphones, computers, game consoles and accessories or services. People just seem to forget that business are about making money. Having a huge share may have some help with it, but that is not always true.

          Depends on whether you are thinking as an investor or consumer I guess. I find it puzzling when consumers have a huge boner for the extreme profit margin a manufacturer is extracting from them ;)

      • by Sockatume (732728)

        Half of all the profit in the smartphone market goes to Apple, the other half to Samsung. [businessinsider.com]. Everyone else is losing money. It's an alarming situation for smartphones. Google can afford to stay in the game to keep Android going - they're basically selling the Nexus line at cost- but I'm not sure that the rest can. The idea of a Samsung-Apple duopoly controlling smartphones does not appeal.

        • Re:Niche market (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anne Thwacks (531696) on Friday November 01, 2013 @05:54AM (#45298351)
          Only because dickheads like HTC keep making phones which dont have removable SD cards and batteries because they believe the moron that told them that is why iPhones sell.

          Hell, as a real world user, and not a paid reviewer, I prefer Samsung's plastic case, because it is harder to damage, and my phone rarely leaves its leather case anyway.

          All my family has Samsung phones, and every single one will change brand next contract if another brand has a better offering.

          Some had iPhones b4, but poor reception and broken screens led to a change of heart.

          • by Sockatume (732728)

            They're good phones, but I'm just saying, it's not Android that's doing well right now, it's Samsung. And I dare say that Samsung's more interested in boosting the Samsung ecosystem than Google's.

      • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

        That Ars article doesn't seem to understand the difference between the OS and the applications that are bundled with it by the manufacturer.

        • by rasmusbr (2186518)

          That Ars article doesn't seem to understand the difference between the OS and the applications that are bundled with it by the manufacturer.

          Did you read the article? Put simply, Google has set up a system where it is impossible to fork Android and grow a market share. That's fully within their rights to do, but let's not pretend that Google is working on a free mobile OS.

          Google is working on an OS that will prevent total and utter dominance by Apple. A worthy goal IMO since a duopoly is vastly better than a monopoly.

          • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

            How is it impossible to fork? Amazon continue to maintain their fork without issues. You can fork the OS as much as you like, it's just that some of the apps are closed source. There are open source versions of those apps but they are not quite as good in most cases.

            The OS is fully open source and easy to fork. If you want Google apps bundled with it then you need to agree to Google's terms for including those apps.

            • You might indeed be able to fork the OS, but you also would have to go your own way with an earlier version of the SDK, or build your own, as clause 3.4 of the Android SDK license says:

              3.4 You agree that you will not take any actions that may cause or result in the fragmentation of Android, including but not limited to distributing, participating in the creation of, or promoting in any way a software development kit derived from the SDK.

            • by rasmusbr (2186518)

              It's not impossible to fork Android. It's nearly impossible to fork Android and grow a market share, even if you're a big corporation with lots of cash to spend. And Google is making harder with every new update.

              Again, there's nothing wrong with this, but let's not pretend it isn't happening.

          • They haven't made it impossible, but they've made some very large barriers to entry. Amazon can afford to maintain replacements for all of the Google applications, and even its own app store. Few other companies can. Using Google-Android is a lot cheaper than using OHA-Android, because you don't have so much in-house development costs. Google doesn't want to prevent Apple dominance to avoid a monopoly, Google wants a monopoly in mobile phone software.
    • by antifoidulus (807088) on Friday November 01, 2013 @04:01AM (#45298003) Homepage Journal
      Um, if you want define "mistake" as "making lots of money", then yeah, they made a "mistake". If you look at usage stats though what you see is a very different picture. For instance, iPhones still dominate in mobile web usage [macdailynews.com], as well as app usage etc.

      Apple is actually selling more iPhones than ever, even if their market share is falling. A big portion of the Android increase is coming in the form of people replacing "dumb" phones with smart phones, but as the usage stats show, many of them are still treating them like dumb phones. Apple has carved out a niche, and seems to be doing quite well in that niche without the need to sell an iPhone to every single user on the planet(which given their business model won't necessarily make them more money).

      Apple's situation now is not really comparable to the situation in the 80s. Maybe when large #s of devs start jumping ship, but you will still be hard pressed to find a large # of apps(note the pedants, I didn't say 0) that are available for Android but not iPhone.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by narcc (412956)

        Apple is actually selling more iPhones than ever, even if their market share is falling.

        Just like BlackBerry was not very long ago...

      • by Solandri (704621) on Friday November 01, 2013 @05:06AM (#45298185)

        Um, if you want define "mistake" as "making lots of money", then yeah, they made a "mistake". If you look at usage stats though what you see is a very different picture. For instance, iPhones still dominate in mobile web usage, as well as app usage etc.

        No it doesn't. Those stats are for iOS (iPhone + iPad) vs Android phones and tablets. And it's only for wifi traffic. On web traffic over cellular networks, Android devices generate slightly more traffic than iOS devices [allthingsd.com]. Basically your link cherry-picked the one chart favorable to iOS.

        If you limit the comparison to just iPhone vs Android phones [statcounter.com], Android generates more web traffic. And before you pull out the NetMarketShare data showing iPhone still leading: (1) NetMarketShare gets data from only a few tens of thousands of sites, while StatCounter gets its data from millions of sites. And (2) NetMarketShare's figures are normalized to unique visitors per month. i.e. Someone who visits a site once in a month counts as much as someone who uses the site every day. StatCounter counts web hits, so is measuring actual web usage rather than counting number of users. In other words, more iPhone users browse the web on their phone than Android users, but they don't do much browsing. The hardcore phone browser users are on Android and they generate more web traffic than the larger number of iPhone users who use the browser..

        Basically the only lead Apple still has is the iPad in the tablet market, and it's rapidly losing that too. Their share of quarterly tablet sales dropped from a commanding 60% in 2012 to 33% in 2Q2013, and now 29% in 3Q2013 [cnet.com]. Those are quarterly sales, so iPads probably still comprise the majority of tablets in use, which match with your initial stats showing iOS dominating in wifi-based web traffic.

      • by etash (1907284)
        just because apple sells more iphones than before doesn't mean it's going well. That just happens because the market itself is expanding and has not reached yet its maximum. the minute the market saturates - since there can't be infinite growth - apple will sell for that moment MORE IPHONES than before and will own like 5% of the marketshare. From that point and on it can only go downwards. That's why hard figures YOY or QOQ don't matter, but marketshare.
    • You, the lay man, can't build a smartphone from components.

      Their only mistake was not shipping a cheaper phone model around 2009. make it out of plastic and all that.

      • by Sockatume (732728)

        In 2009 all the available iPhone models were made out of plastic. They didn't switch to metal until 2010.

    • by 91degrees (207121)
      Aple do have the second largest market share in the smartphone market. I doubt they'd have anything likethat share if they made Android phones.
    • Android is what IBM was? You mean doomed to become totally obsolete in the phone business the same way IBM was?

      I could understand what you meant if you had likened Android to Microsoft or even Compaq but to a company who no longer makes PC's and whose PC OS (OS/2) was dead on arrival seems you either think Android is doomed, or have a shaky grasp of IT history.

    • by gutnor (872759)

      The "control everything" (or in a positive light "integration"), is what Apple is selling and what they are good at. Apple cannot compete head to head with Android, history taught them that - they failed until Jobs came back and started to focus on their niche. After a decade of restructuring, Apple is simply not ready to compete on many fronts, like Samsung is for example.

      That is what is amazing with Apple this time. They had the whole smartphone market by the balls, but they let it go to stay focused o

      • The "control everything" (or in a positive light "integration"), is what Apple is selling and what they are good at. Apple cannot compete head to head with Android, history taught them that - they failed until Jobs came back and started to focus on their niche. After a decade of restructuring, Apple is simply not ready to compete on many fronts, like Samsung is for example.

        Apple doesn't have to, nor do they want to, compete on every front. They have focused on what they believe is a profitable market segment and develop products for that segment. By focusing, they can build a product set that is very profitable and not waste time and money on less profitable commodity products.

        That is what is amazing with Apple this time. They had the whole smartphone market by the balls, but they let it go to stay focused on a smaller number of products.

        The early smartphone market was for high end devices; an area that Apple competes in quite well. As the market expanded and cheaper phones came out, Apple chose not to go into the more price sensitive a

    • by msauve (701917)
      "Apple made the same mistake with smartphones as in the 80s with the computers. It followed a practice of a closed ecosystem,"

      What are you babbling about? Sure, iPhone is closed, what with the company store and all. But Macintosh never was. Development info was freely available (Inside Mac, etc.), software sold on the open market without needing Apple's approval, hardware was mostly based on standards like SCSI and NuBus (AppleTalk and ADB were exceptions, but there were no comparable standards based alte
    • 1993 all over again. Replace Apple vs Windows with Apple vs Android and it is pretty much history repeating. Shiney only gets you so far, the market will always choose price and flexibility over the long run.
    • by poetmatt (793785)

      Android is IBM? Uh, no. Not even close. They never went from controlling everything to outsourcing ala IBM. Android was open source from the start, and would have been a 100% GPL'd product had it not been for Sun in the first place. This is something they stated themselves in lawsuits.

      Your comparison of "android today" instead of google simply highlights a shortcoming in your thought process. IBM basically stagnated in the 80s, while android is continually expanding and innovating and leading the market.

  • by Udo Schmitz (738216) on Friday November 01, 2013 @03:47AM (#45297967) Journal

    Strategy Analytics is the company Samsung uses to push the numbers they like to the press, while at the same time avoiding any regulatory oversight. Strategy Analytics‘ Korean headquarter even is in the same building as Samsungs.

  • Expensive Apple (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01, 2013 @03:54AM (#45297985)

    Here in Australia, Apple have completely priced themselves out of the market.
    iPhone 5S 16 GB: $869
    Compared with a brand-spanking-new:
    Google Nexus 5 16 GB: $420 (inc. shipping)
    It's hard to justify _double_ the price for effectively the same thing.
    Needless to say ... I just bought the Nexus 5.

    • by Nerdfest (867930)

      Those prices are in line with North America as well. The Nexus 5 is a much better value than most Android phones though. The Samsung Galaxy S4 is in the same ballpark as the iPhone5. It's not just price, it's choice. You don't _have_ to buy a really expensive phone to get good performance, battery life, etc. Connectors follow standards. You can install software from different sources if you want. If you look at the iPhone 5c sales, I don't think price is what's hurting them, I think it's lock-in awareness

      • by Sockatume (732728)

        The Nexus is so much cheaper than the S4 and iPhone 5 because it's sold basically at cost. Don't expect that pricing from companies that are trying to turn a profit on the hardware.

        • by rjstanford (69735)

          Even more - compared to Apple, Google is selling the Nexus 5 at hardware cost and taking a very large loss on Android itself, selling it for nothing, in order to get their hands on your data.

      • Those prices are in line with North America as well.

        America is an unusual market that has a business model by carriers that allows for highly subsidised phones. So Price has less impact as well. It has allowed the iPhone which is a cheap phone with an expensive selling price to be massively profitable (The same model in china means it commands 1%). Samsung is selling phones with more expensive features (large screen, more memory, faster processor) at a cheaper price...as a direct competitor to Apple, something you perpetuate here, and it has also made it ver

  • by Time_Ngler (564671) on Friday November 01, 2013 @03:59AM (#45297993)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01, 2013 @06:03AM (#45298387)

    Ahh, another no-name two-bit "analytics" firm! It's really hard to pry numbers out of anybody but Apple regarding the number of phones that are in the hands of actual consumers. Google likes to pussyfoot around with "activations" and Samsung will tell you how many they loaded into shipping crates, but nobody actually thinks they are purposefully this obscure regarding their phone numbers for no reason. And let's not even talk about Microsoft's dishonesty regarding their sales numbers.

    These analytics firms all have serious issues, as well. They may pay a developer peanuts to throw their shitware / bloatware into a free game (or even a paid app, yikes!) and they might be able to get some of the more idiotic "home page" type setups like Gawker to put their scripts up, but they only ever manage to sample a small, small number of the actual smartphone users out there.

    The most reliable numbers come from the Wikipedia, a resource used by most everybody. The Wikimedia Traffic Analysis Report obviates the need for shitty poo-butt bloatware "analytics" firms whose job it is to obscure an already obscure statistic, and the numbers for smartphones in September 2013 break down thusly:

    Total Mobile: 29.5%, all Apple mobile OS versions: 18.1%, all Android versions: 8.47%, all Blackberry: 0.47%, all Windows Mobile: 0.33%.

    Since we're only dealing with 29.5% of the total traffic to Wikimedia-related sites in the mobile category, a burst of quick math will tell us what percentage of all mobile devices are running which OS's. 61.78% of the mobile devices are Apple devices, 28.62% are Androids of ANY MAKE, 1.59% are Blackberries, and a whopping 1.11% are Windows Mobiles. This only totals to 93.1%, the rest being a bunch of other amalgamated nonsense brands like Sony or Symbian and "Linux Other" aka Nokia.

    Quite a different story than the fuckin' crapware two-bit "analytics" firm's tale.

    "But WAIT, RocketRabbit," you say, "We're talking third quarter here!" And to that I laugh, a big hearty har har har, as you are such a fuckin' twit that you don't realize that most of the companies out there are either flat-out lying about their numbers, aren't telling, or are going by some bullshit made-up statistic like Google's shady "activations." Oh, I know the numbers guys at lame ass investment firms need these percentages to justify quarterbacking loser companies for the next quarter, but they live in their own little fantasy world and real life facts are not important to their economic calculations.

    So what's all this tell you? You're an idiot of the highest order if you think anybody but Apple is actually telling you how many phones they actually sold into the hands of consumers. And there's a reason they're not telling you, dummy!

    • by shilly (142940)

      Your analysis may be disputable but props for the writing flair and wit.

    • Ahh, another no-name two-bit "analytics" firm! It's really hard to pry numbers out of anybody but Apple regarding the number of phones that are in the hands of actual consumers. Google likes to pussyfoot around with "activations" and Samsung will tell you how many they loaded into shipping crates

      Ironically for you Apple also publish "shipped" figures and they do so because they are confident they can sell their products, and I agree with them. Here is them defending their massive sales drop in iPads "Regarding iPad, Oppenheimer said the year-over-year drop in iPad numbers from 17 million to 14.6 million units was in part the tough comparison with last year’s debut f the third-generation model, with no such revamp this past spring, and also the reduction in channel inventory last quarter of 70

      • by Sockatume (732728)

        Err, the very article you link to seems to indicate that Apple publishes "sold" figures and not "shipped" figures.

As long as we're going to reinvent the wheel again, we might as well try making it round this time. - Mike Dennison

Working...