Android Passes BlackBerry In US Market Share 250
An anonymous reader writes "69.5 million people in the US owned smartphones during the three months ending in February 2011, up 13 percent from the preceding three-month period. For the first time, more Americans are using phones running Google's Android operating system than Research In Motion's BlackBerry, according to comScore. Having passed the iPhone in the preceding three-month period, this now means that Android has been crowned king in the US."
Surprised? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm a Droid user and a huge fan, but it is almost an unfair comparison. You're comparing an (relatively) open operating system with proprietary devices running proprietary software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it might be better to consider that The Apple app market saw over 17x the sales of the Android Market last year.....
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20032012-37.html [cnet.com]
Sure, better for somebody... (Score:2)
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
I saw it personally with a couple small apps I built and released for iPhone and Android. Despite more downloads of the free version on androids, over 85% of my sales were for iPhone. Given the time tweaking for the different versions of Android vs iOS, the apps I'm building this year are all for the iPhone.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I saw it personally with a couple small apps I built and released for iPhone and Android. Despite more downloads of the free version on androids, over 85% of my sales were for iPhone. Given the time tweaking for the different versions of Android vs iOS, the apps I'm building this year are all for the iPhone.
The issue is, most developers follow that thought path. However, what I found is that the apps I want to pay for are better on iPhone. I don't want to pay the same price for fewer features, or pay more for the same features, just because I'm on Android. So, my options become paying them for an inferior product and reinforcing the practice.. or not buying the app.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with the NDK? I doubt it, but please, prove it (or at least cite it)... :)
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit.
I have some android apps that are low resource and very simple. Their interfaces are intuitive and polished. The problem is that many android apps are mostly functional, but lack any polish and the interfaces/documentation is abysmal. Putting that extra effort to make your software desirable makes a big difference in whether the average joe purchases the app. Apple and many of the App Store devs have realized that style sells as much as substance.
Re:Surprised? (Score:4, Informative)
Android means choice, Apple is still the control-freak run company it always has been. Apple products have always appealed to those who just have to have the newest tech no matter what. Which means Apple products probably appeal to people with cash which means those people are probably willing to drop lots of bucks in the Apple store.
It has always seemed like iDrones like having very little choice and doing what Apple says. I think doing any real thinking for themselves hurts too much.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which infers that people prefer the Android phones (didn't say it was better, I said prefer) than Apple phones.
People don't necessarily buy the product they prefer. Price is a consideration. And the vast number of cheap Android phones from many manufacturers explains the market share.
So the 'fact' the Apple app market sells more than the Android market doesn't mean anything to me.
Well maybe not. But it means everything to the developers. Which means most develop first for the iPhone, and then possibly port to Android.
Android means choice
Not of Apps it doesn't. iPhone has more and better choice of apps than Android for the reason stated above.
It has always seemed like iDrones like having very little choice and doing what Apple says. I think doing any real thinking for themselves hurts too much.
Hey whatever it takes to make you happy that you bought a cheap copy.
Re:Surprised? (Score:4, Informative)
Hey whatever it takes to make you happy that you bought a cheap copy.
Funny, as I've got an iPhone (3GS) and an Android phone (HTC Desire). I need both for testing mobile websites.
The iPhone now gets used *solely* for testing websites.
The Android phone is just better in most respects; gmaps/navigation, ability to play *any* video format, better reception (GSM and wifi), faster to navigate the UI (it's got a 'back' button!), vastly superior home screens and widgets, better battery life (and the option of a spare battery), better camera, bluetooth that's not intentionally crippled, SDcard support, hotspot that works out-of-the-box... Just better.
All that goes to make me 'happy that I bought a cheap copy'.
The iPhone wins hands-down on style and sound quality (holy shit the sound on the HTC is crap) but nothing else I can think of.
I'm not an Apple-hater; I'm typing this on my MacBook and I've owned Macs for 20 years (SE/30 FTW!)
Re: (Score:2)
If I were choosing to develop for a platform, why would I choose one with only 5% of the sales?
People don't necessarily "prefer" Android. They prefer to stay with their own carrier. On AT&T where people had a choice between Android and iPhone, they chose the iPhone 14 to 1.
Have you notice that Verizon completely dropped their Droid Does campaign as soon as they got the iPhone? Now if you go to Verizon's website, you see three categories of phones - iPhones, smart phones, and feature phones. They've rel
Re:Surprised? (Score:4, Interesting)
If I were choosing to develop for a platform, why would I choose one with only 5% of the sales?
Actually... I was presented with the choice of developing our apps for Apple's Application Store, or Google's Android Marketplace. Not really liking the choice much we opted for the 3rd choice: Distribute the application ourselves and in one of the proprietary marketplaces. So, naturally the application will be an Android application.
Granted, our applications are more specialized for use by noise abatement engineers, mapping problematic sources of noise via triangulation, overlaying 3D sound models in real-time (altered reality), etc.
Our apps will be supplemental to our other products. We didn't want to spend time making the apps, then not be able to sell them for whatever reason. Our only real choice is Android OS.
They've relegate Android to the bargain bin.
Yes, that means our mobile applications will be available to more people. Also, why would a developer take so much pride in a platform brand? We don't make more money based on who sells the best phones -- We make more money based on how many people can access and purchase our apps...
However, you must be able to see that sales alone is not the sole deciding factor when a developer decides which mobile platform to support... There are many factors, one of which is "Are we sure that we'll even be able to sell the app at all?" Android is the only smart-phone platform where the answer to this question is Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
So let's do a little probability calculation here.....
Despite the big fuss that is made over Apple's rejections, let's say 1% of apps that follow the guidelines are rejected arbitrarily (an extremely high, unrealistic number). But app store sells are 1700% greater on the Apple store. Isn't it worth the risk?
And do you think the people who are buying the buy one get one free are the most desirable demographic? It's already been shown that statistically, Android users don't buy apps.
Re: (Score:3)
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2011/03/more-app-store-economics-case-study-of-10m-download-game-monetized-through-ads-how-much-money.html [blogs.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's just a rehash of the PC world of the 1980s! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is all just a rehash of the PC industry during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Back then, Apple had their proprietary hardware and software stack, and it did achieve a relatively high level of popularity, at least initially. There were other smaller players, like Amiga, Commodore and Tandy back then, and RIM and Nokia today, who offered their own platforms.
Android is best compared to MS-DOS, oddly enough. It was about being a flexible OS that ran on a wide range of hardware from a wide range of vendors, and in many ways it maximized the freedom of developers and users alike. It did very little to dictate how programs could be implemented, who may use them, and how they may be distributed.
We all know what happened. The most open of the platforms prevailed, and the rest were basically crushed into obscurity. Most went completely out of business. Apple, by far the strongest of them, only barely managed to survive the rest of the 1980s and early 1990s.
I suspect that the same thing might be happening today. Although not the first, Apple took a commanding lead within the market. But facing competition from more open hardware and software, they don't have a hope in hell of surviving in the long run. It remains to be seen what will happen with Jobs in the near future, but if he departs from Apple for whatever reason, it's likely that they'll face yet another dark period like that between 1987 and 1999.
PC world or video game console world? (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know what happened. The most open of the platforms prevailed
This is true among home computers. But whether the smartphone market shapes up to be like the home computer market (where open won) or the set-top video gaming market (where closed won) hasn't entirely been decided. Android is in the lead now, but I'm not sure how much of that comes from people avoiding the iPhone to avoid AT&T. This can change as more Verizon Wireless contracts hit their 24th month, and it can also change come iPhone 5 and Sony NGP. But on the other hand, Apple doesn't have a low-end phone for use with prepaid service, unlike Sprint's Virgin Mobile USA which has a few Android phones now, and Apple has historically chosen not to compete in the extreme low-end.
Re:PC world or video game console world? (Score:5, Insightful)
My bet is sadly on the closed one winning. Most people view phones* as appliances and as such they should just work.
*I keep thinking of mine as a mini-laptop, but that still makes me a bit grumpy as i'd like to be able to script it, and tinker with it even more than CyanogenMOD will let me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My bet is sadly on the closed one winning. Most people view phones* as appliances and as such they should just work.
I think that's a very accurate assessment (though I don't even have a smart phone). I'm all for toys and openness; I cut my teeth on Slackware (using Debian currently), don't take my car to the mechanic for trivial stuff, fix my audio gear myself (picked up a Dyna ST-70 for free a while back...score!) etc. But I can see a day when I'll want a system -- be it an entertainment system, a car or a smartphone -- that "just works." And sadly, this is more easily achieved when a single manufacturer controls the ha
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But whether the smartphone market shapes up to be like the home computer market (where open won) or the set-top video gaming market (where closed won) hasn't entirely been decided
'hasnt been decided' ?
man. it is the way human social dynamics work - the easiest, most accommodating, most open gets adopted eventually. EVERYthing after this mobile thing will unfold in the exact same way.
Re: (Score:2)
the easiest, most accommodating, most open gets adopted eventually.
Then why hasn't this happened in set-top video gaming? More specifically, what distinguishes phones from game consoles and from dedicated gaming handhelds in this respect? Or are we still waiting for "eventually"?
Re: (Score:2)
yes, there is a closed ecosystem of consoles, but, these had been pretty much built over the ancient gaming consoles of late 70s. the companies so far kept quite a hold on their own turf -> but that's because no 'open initiative' like google did with android came forward : there was no need to - anyone needing open, customizable or more powerful, went pc gaming already.
that aside, if you count
Re: (Score:2)
So it is your contention that the majority of gamers, and the majority of gaming dollars spent, are in the PC gaming arena, not the consoles?
Re: (Score:2)
But there are hardly any set-top PCs (Score:2)
but it did ? the pc gaming market, is the market that everything revolves around
This may be true for single-player and online multiplayer. But there aren't nearly enough set-top PCs (or home theater PCs or media center PCs) to make a viable market for games with a mode designed for set-top PCs. (Or so other Slashdot users tell me.) And some genres, such as fighting games and party games, don't work well on desktop or laptop PCs due to the smaller monitor not fitting two to four people around it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Dedicated gaming handhelds" is getting partially eaten up by smartphones and the like now--the exception is cases where the smartphone isn't appropriate
I can think of plenty of game genres that work better with a physical directional pad and physical buttons than with a virtual directional pad and buttons on a multitouch screen. The only phone I can think of with a physical directional pad and physical buttons is Sony Ericsson's Xperia Play.
When was there an easy, accommodating, and open set-top video gaming setup (can replace that with dedicated gaming handhelds to make the same point) on the market?
Among dedicated gaming handhelds, there have been GP2X and GP2X Wiz. Why haven't they gained traction?
Compared to Linux, BSD, etc. Windows isn't very open
But as a set-top gaming PC operating system, Windows is far more open than the major video game consoles' operating s
Re: (Score:2)
For one, how easy is it to find something specifically for gaming to set up and plug into your HDTV that runs Windows?
All modern HDTVs have HDMI in, and most have VGA in. All PCs made in the past two decades have VGA out. Some newer ones have HDMI out; others have DVI-D out, which is compatible with HDMI. I could go into Best Buy, get any slim PC, toss in a video card, and have a gaming HTPC. It's just that it isn't advertised, and indie game developers are hurting because of this.
Furthermore, it's considerably more complicated to run a game or really anything on a Windows PC than it is most gaming consoles, where you just put in the disc you want to play and go.
Windows games have autorun and mandatory installs. PS3 games have autorun and mandatory installs. Windows has an app store (Steam). Consoles hav
Re: (Score:2)
it is the way human social dynamics work - the easiest, most accommodating, most open gets adopted eventually.
Exactly, that's why 10+ years into the MP3 player market, the vast majority of devices sold are Archos, SanDisk or iRiver devices. Just like the PC OS market is dominated by the "easiest ... most open" product, Microsoft Windows DOES NOT COMPUTE DOES NOT COMPUTE NOMAD WILL SELF DESTRUCT
Re: (Score:2)
In Europe there is no carrier lock, you can get the iPhone from several companies, in some countries this has been the case for several years. And yet, Android is exploding in popularity. Biggest losers in Europe are Apple and Nokia, where Nokia is more or less equivalent to RIM in the US in terms of previous market share and demography of its users.
http://www.greatereader.org/?p=19211 [greatereader.org]
Re: (Score:2)
the set-top video gaming market (where closed won)
Was there even an "open" option there?
Android is in the lead now, but I'm not sure how much of that comes from people avoiding the iPhone to avoid AT&T.
That's a very US-centric view - keep in mind that Android grows worldwide.
Zino does what Nintendon't (Score:2)
the set-top video gaming market (where closed won)
Was there even an "open" option there?
Before 1986, many 8-bit home computers supported TV out. Then IBM compatible PCs took off, most of which were incompatible with TV monitors. For the next two decades, a few PCs supported TV out. I can see why that failed, as not all video cards had composite or S-Video out, and the "scan converter" box to turn VGA into SDTV was incredibly obscure and fairly expensive. But starting around 2006, most new TVs have had VGA and HDMI inputs, suitable to display a PC's respective VGA and DVI-D outputs. The only th
Re:It's just a rehash of the PC world of the 1980s (Score:5, Insightful)
Sort of, but MS-DOS was proprietary and ran on relatively open hardware, while Android is the other way around.
Not likely. Unfortunately, devices without locked bootloaders are the exception, not the rule. Most Android devices are not really any more open than the Blackberry in practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep dreaming!
What most people need, is a phone that they can buy, and they can do stuff with. Most people want to tinker with and mod their phones as much as they want to tinker with and mod their cars, which is to say they don't want to tinker.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's just a rehash of the PC world of the 1980s (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We all know what happened. The most open of the platforms prevailed, and the rest were basically crushed into obscurity. Most went completely out of business. Apple, by far the strongest of them, only barely managed to survive the rest of the 1980s and early 1990s.
I suspect that the same thing might be happening today. Although not the first, Apple took a commanding lead within the market. But facing competition from more open hardware and software, they don't have a hope in hell of surviving in the long run. It remains to be seen what will happen with Jobs in the near future, but if he departs from Apple for whatever reason, it's likely that they'll face yet another dark period like that between 1987 and 1999.
i don't think anyone's going out of business, for several reasons. but the most important is what's the so-called "killer app". see, the "killer app" back at those days were what i call "the holy trinity" lotus 1-2-3, d-base and wordstar. later it wordperfect took the crown as editor, later it became all MS office. other plataforms had a snowball chanve in hell of being adopted by business without office applications that were interoperable with PC. and in those days, real money was in the office market. ho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I like the idea of drawing an analogy between the computer scenario of the 80's and the smartphone scenario of today? I don't agree with the original poster's conclusions, or even some of the comparisons.
MS-DOS really isn't a great comparison to Android, IMO. MS-DOS was flexible and seen running on a wide range of hardware - but it was also copyrighted and licensed out to interested parties. This led to fragmentation of DOS, in fact. IBM had their own "PC-DOS" for a while, and there was the Digita
Re: (Score:2)
The Amiga was considerably cheaper, and superior to DOS based machines of the day.
Software competitors weren't less open than DOS, but they weren't more open either... On the other hand the hardware required to run DOS was considerably more open than the hardware that ran other systems, and software was considered a triviality alongside the price of hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
That came to bite some people when the computer advertised as IBM Compatible wasn't 100% compatible. Anybody that's tried to install a SoundBlaster into a Leading Edge knows exactly what I mean.
Also, I'd like to apologize for bringing up the bad memories from that hunk of crap maker.
Re: (Score:2)
The success will have to be looked at long term. Will OEM stick with Android if they are not allowed to equally compete. WIll they tolerate Google choosing one favorite a season. WIll they risk getting sued by Google for misbehaving. The
Re: (Score:2)
Really, the fragmentation argument? The phones have been insanely profitable to OEM, have you looked at samsung [talkandroid.com] and other companies profits reported? HTC is laughing all the way to the bank.. [bbc.co.uk]
OEM's are already competing, and have been competing. Openness has only upsides in the long term, and the only threat is a supposed patent threat which has not been proven in a single court case including the android vs oracle case.
Re: (Score:2)
Really "insanely profitable"
http://www.asymco.com/2010/08/17/androids-pursuit-of-the-biggest-losers/ [asymco.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A large number of the phones sold are for under $100.
A 20% profit margin, on average, is pretty sizeable.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your comment makes no sense at all, and is a sidetrack to the issue.
If we add up all the iphones and all the android phones, the answer is simple and straightforward: android is selling more, and the market has spoken. It doesn't matter if iphone creates 7 models or 100. It's still a "who sells the most of the major brand", and that has been answered. It's not MS, it's not apple, it's google.
Re: (Score:3)
You just made his point for him, unless you're claiming your own post makes no sense.
Multiple manufacturers selling Android-based phones, vs one manufacturer selling the iPhone, in a market that has Blackberry's OS, iOS, Android and WP7 as the major operating systems.
If Android was even half decent (ie, better than Blackberry and WP&, which it is), then it will overtake iPhone marketshare by eating into other smartphone maker's shares (and with new users coming on board).
Both Android and iOS [in iPhone
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, those poor widdle proprietary products. Is the big nasty-wasty Slashdot editor being mean to you again, making unfair comparisons?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... No.
Droid is just a brand name, essentially, which Verizon licensed from LucasFilms to name some of their flagship Android phones (the Thunderbolt, for example, does not use the Droid name at all). And actually, there's more "Droid" Motorola phones than there are HTC. The Droid Incredible, Droid Eris, and the Droid Incredible 2 on its way are the only ones from HTC with the Droid name, where as Motorola has had Droid, Droid 2, Droid 2 Global, Droid X, and Droid Pro, with the Droid 3, Droid X 2, and Droid
No it isnt. (Score:2)
rim and apple lost, because of precisely why competitors to ibm pc lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Android is an operating system available on devices from numerous manufacturers. It was only a matter of time, given the level of control that both RIM and Apple maintain over the hardware that their operating system is available on.
Not trying to start a flame war but it never stopped comparisons between Apple and MS operating systems. Granted Windows wasn't "open" but it's the same general comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is: is Apple still taking more than 50% of the revenues of the smartphone market with less than 5% marketshare, as they were a few months ago [economist.com]? This story becomes interesting when Android starts taking significant revenue, although I doubt any individual manufacturer will be as profitable as Apple is at the moment.
Yawn. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yawn. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm wondering if this will only help actually.
Where else are the phone makers going to get an OS/that many apps quick enough to compete with Apple?
And if they don't like to be told the interface, they going to go to Microsoft that's even more restrictive?
Don't know. Still too early to tell, but I don't think it'll be as doom and gloom as some are saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Wake me up in six months...
So you're sleeping or hibernating? Anyway, it's just a joke. Here's what I wanted to say.
Remember that the majority of Android phone buyers do not care what OS it runs. All they want is a phone of great value or from a particular OEM.
I personally, will avoid Motorola no matter what phone they develop, and will seek out HTC or Samsung whenever I can. What OS will come with the phone I choose will be a question I ask just before I pay.
That's me and I an not a lone.
Apps dictate the OS choice (Score:2)
Remember that the majority of Android phone buyers do not care what OS it runs.
They care what applications it runs, and if their favorite apps are exclusive to one operating system, they'll choose that OS. For example, if HTC makes a Windows phone and an Android phone, but your favorite apps are for Android, you'll probably choose the Android phone.
Re:Yawn. (Score:4, Informative)
I assume you are referring to the continued feet dragging with the Honeycomb source.
I would like to start by saying that many of the people complaining about this are people with little knowledge of the Android development cycle. For starters, the newest version of Android is always released closed source so that Open Handset Alliance partners get premium access. Eventually the versions are all released under the Apache license. The only difference between Honeycomb and previous versions is that Google is slowing down the release a bit. They have not reversed their commitment to open source it, they just delayed it.
One of the most common complaints about Android is the fragmentation. This is one way that Google can slowly rein this in. If they are completely closed the source and locked the platform they will be much more like Apple. If they are completely open it will be more like Linux (Android distributions anybody?). It is in the middle ground where they can be both a little open, yet still control the platform and keep quality and homogeneity high.
Re: (Score:2)
Also hasn't google been saying that Honeycomb will be a tablet only(officially) version? If I am remembering that correctly, i'm not sure how the 3.0 stuff has much to do with with this discussion.
We already have a community distribution of android, CyanogenMOD. As for fragmentation it's more that there hasn't really been much in the way of a "screen shall be X by Y resolution, and the CPU shall be xxx speed ARM or equivalent." Thats about all they are doing now, is setting the hardware minimum higher than
Re: (Score:2)
If Google wants to be open they need to actually be open. Otherwise they'll end up being supplanted by something like
Re: (Score:2)
True, but there's way too much money in the Android market for the products to dry up that much. I'd be surprised if it ever drops below 10 or so handsets without Google deliberately burning down the OS or hiring a soft drink exec to run the project.
bouncing around (Score:2)
The fact that people so quickly bounce from Blackberry to iPhone to Android in business suggests to me that they use their 'phones for very little real work. I wonder if one day we'll return to, say, 15 years ago, when people had a much better chance to get hard work done (and rest outside hours) without a million devices to interrupt them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You underestimate the amount of momentum in the smartphone market. As with MS software in the 90's and early 00's, you have platform lock-in due to third party apps. With i(phone/pad)OS and Android, you have the same in the AppStore/Market. This is significant and users will be unwilling to change platforms if most of their software investment is in a particular platform.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought all of the major platforms had angry birds now....
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't look as if people are bouncing from iPhone to Android but rather from Palm and Microsoft and Blackberry to Android. Apple's numbers flattened out a lot but they still had a slight climb whereas Android seems to be killing RIM, MS and Palm.
Re: (Score:2)
Way more users now. (Score:2)
All the folks I knew that had Blackberries for work still have them. But I know a ton more people who bought Android/iPhone for personal use who never had a Blackberry/Palm/Windows phone in the past. That is why the market share is slipping; RIMs gross numbers are still increasing quarter after quarter, but not as quickly as the other phones.
Android and the common human (Score:4, Insightful)
What people miss is that most of those 30ish % are from low end devices. Those devices are mostly crap and give out a bad impression about the OS.
I'm not too confident that android growth will be as big in the following years. Google should set up some minimum specs for Android phones!
(I'm the proud owner of an HTC Desire, so I'm not bashing. Just stating something that has been on my mind lately..)
Re: (Score:2)
(I'm the proud owner of an HTC Desire, so I'm not bashing. Just stating something that has been on my mind lately..)
Have you had chance to compare that phone to another Android phone? What are your impressions?
Growth (Score:2)
Already 30% of cellphone users carry smartphones, so total smartphone growth will slow eventually.
But Android has been out for awhile now, and is a known quantity. And yet, in the 3 months measured by the comscore report, the growth in Android users was 3.25 times the growth in iPhone users.
Android growth could slow down a lot. Doesn't matter. They'll still be on top for a long time.
Moore's Law says the low-end phones matter too (Score:2)
Once a handset company has invested in porting Android and learning how to port Android, that company has a lot less effort porting Android to its next phone.
What low end? (Score:2)
Quarter after quarter, the only Android phones I see being introduced have faster processors, bigger displays, worse battery life and higher price. Which phones do you consider to be low end?
Re: (Score:2)
I looked at the Wildfire and my first thought was "that doesn't look bad; basically the same as the Magic" which is pretty responsive with the latest cyanogen, then I saw it was still running Eclair. WTF, why would they be selling a low-end phone with a slower version of the OS?
Re: (Score:2)
But it's good, not bad. It's quite similar to those cheap Windows netbooks - sure, if you compare them with Macbook they suck, but many people would still take them for the price alone. If your competitor sticks to only one market segment, while you cover them all, you will dominate the market - simply because low/mid-range has more users.
No kidding (Score:2)
I hate this idea that "Everything has to be really good, ultra high-end." No, it doesn't. Not everyone want sot buy something high end. Yes, it does mean compromising on something, that's ok for people.
Your netbook example is a good one. My dad just got a netbook recently. I do not care for it at all. The screen is too small, it is fine for surfing the web or writing documents but too slow for anything more intense and so on. However he likes it a lot. He likes that it is so small and portable. His needs ar
Market share != user share... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a very good point. I wonder how market share will be when Apple updates again. If market share isn't amortized annually then it's not really relevant. Most of Apple's market is waiting to buy or bought a 6-9 months ago when the iPhone 4 was released. So sure you've got a giant surge of Android "market share" between the total eclipse that happens the weeks following iPhone releases.
Installed base is a better number anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly how do you conclude that?
Are you thinking Apple makes money from app sales, not hardware sales? Google makes money from use. Consider the other examples I gave. How much money is MS making from W2K (which still has a considerable installed base)? How many people are developing for W2K?
Installed base looks to the past, market share is an indicator of the future.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an OS, not a vertical product. (Score:2)
Seriously. All the tech-press yammering about Android's exploding market share makes my brain itch. It's overtaken vertical solutions (RIM, Apple) by running on a broad variety of hardware - it's gaining market share the same way Windows did back in the day, by running on COTS hardware instead of the more tightly-bound offerings from Commodore or Apple (or others). It would be more accurate to compare Android against, say... MeeGo, Symbian, etceteras. Marketshare comparisons are only really valid if the
Re: (Score:2)
One thing I'd be interested in seeing is iOS versus Android, WP7, and RIM OS market share numbers. That would be an interesting piece of information for developers considering investing in another platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. For handsets, it looks like it's cooking down to iOS, Android, RIM (ultimately strictly corporate, then fading away if they can't stay in front for value added... using the iOS email interface, all I can say about it is if mail were my bread and butter, anything would be an improvement, and this is allegedly RIM's strong point), and Microsoft's various half-assed attempts to buy Windows Whatever into the marketplace.
For my money, I think the "now" will get More So over the next couple of years - bu
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure RIM and Apple aren't losing market share - these rapid gains are coming by handset vendors dropping an OEM OS for Android, or shipping the same handset with an Android option.
Yes, they both are losing market share, since that metric takes the respective percentages of all sales. Apple may be selling more devices in absolute terms, but in proportion to Android, it is selling less. This is because the market itself is growing very rapidly.
HTC Thunderbolt (Score:2)
Hey Steve! (Score:2)
How do you like 'dem apples?
Re:This is a no-brainer. (Score:5, Interesting)
Really, RIM made Blackberries for people who use their enterprise system, and for corporate people who check their e-mail every 5 seconds, and not as the general purpose smartphones that Android and iOS devices are. So when Android started gaining marketshare, it made sense for the people who simply got a Blackberry because it was cheap and had a Facebook app and a browser to migrate to Android.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a salient point. Android is eating RIM's non-enterprise market; where the phone of choice used to be a WM or nonpremium BlackBerry, now it's a year-old and/or bottom-grade Android phone.
Android, out of the box, has nothing even close to Exchange's mobile policy, let alone what BES can offer. Even iPhones implement some of it. Android requires bolt-on software, at a premium, in order to supply a very poor equivalent. This isn't saying that it won't, some day, but Google et al aren't showing inter
Re: (Score:2)
hmm? i hooked my android phone up to my work e-mail without any more work than it took to set up outlook. I seem to have most/all of the same features outlook has as well. Granted I use very few of the advanced exchange features, heck he hardly use the calendar for meetings at work.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people used to have Blackberries because they were the cheapest smartphone you could get.
Not really. Until recently, Blackberry was a status symbol, not the low-end option. (BB was cool, Treo was not.) It was also virtually the only player in the smartphone market. (Much like the iPad was late last year in the tablet market.)
After Apple made it "okay" for the rest of the world to carry smartphones, the whole market changed. While it's true that RIM offers lower-end smartphones for the masses now (Curve, Style), that wasn't really the case just a few years ago as your post seems to imply.
Re: (Score:3)
Android didn't start out as the phone you see now. In fact, the early SDK resulted in something that looked like a Blackberry/WinMo clone. Quickly after iPhone, Android was being redesigned to mimic the iPhone. Having Google execs cancel the Kogan Agora sealed the fate of the old form factor.
Manufacturers only started jumping on the Android bandwagon after seeing the iPhone's success, their own smartphone failures, and that Google bought Android to provide them a platform.
We'll never find out what would hav
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Look at that! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Android owners seem less keen on paying for apps and I think you end up with the iphone or even blackberry being more attractive to a developer despite android's growth.
It appears that BlackBerry developers earn more per app than iPhone and Android developers according to IHS Screen Digest, Feb 2011 [bacononthego.com]
You're completely correct. Right now, BlackBerry is a difficult platform for developers to ignore.
Re: (Score:2)
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
I think everyone can get behind this. We have customers who have been bugging us to support Blackberry since we support iPhone and soon Android. A lot of ISVs are in the same boat. Nobody wants to deal with Blackberry, and now we can point at this downtrend and push back even harder.