Categories

Visualizing smartphone platform growth

None of this should come as major surprises, but Gartner’s data allows for a bit more granular detail in the overall view of the market. Here are new points derived from Gartner’s sell-through data:

  • The smartphone market is growing at nearly 100% (96%).

  • The overall market is growing at 35%.
  • The non-smartphone market is growing at 25%.
  • Android grew at 1,340% y/y. iOS grew at 92%, Symbian at 61% and RIM at 40%.
  • Platform market shares (below) shows a more even distribution of platform volumes between four main platforms:

  • Non-branded mobile phones grew to 33% of the market, with 141% unit growth. This is an alarming figure for the low-end of the market. The unbranded market excludes ZTE and Hauwei which grew below the overall market growth (9.8%, 27% respectively). The implications were most dire for Motorola (-36% units growth), Sony Ericsson (-23%) and LG (-14%). Nokia grew but, at 3.5%, well below market growth.
  • In 3Q 2009 41 million smartphones were sold. In 3Q 2010 80.5 million were sold. If we were to split the growth among platforms, nearly half the growth was Android. 27% of the additions were Symbian and 16% were iOS. Only 8.3% of the growth was RIM devices.
  • Windows Mobile and Linux were the only smartphone platforms to shrink volumes. However, even though the platform is deprecated, 2.2 million Windows Mobile devices were still sold last quarter — more than Android sold a year earlier.
  • http://www.notesark.com iphoned

    The Android march looks unstoppable, fragmentation notwithstanding. On top of that Samsung, #1 Android vendor, makes iPhone chips. Apple should at least shift the chip dependence away from its #1 competitor. I don't know if they can.

    • Joe_Winfield_IL

      The Flash in the Galaxy Tab is made by Sandisk, even though Samsung is itself one of only three global players in flash memory. The business of handset manufacturing is oddly incestuous, with competitors dependent on each other for IP, components, assembly, etc.. It may appear to be a conflict of interest, but unless manufacturing capacity was severely constrained for some reason, Samsung is more than happy to make chips for Apple. It is a profit opportunity for Samsung, plain and simple. If the business were a duopoly between Samsung and Apple, I would agree with your concern. But Samsung wouldn't pick up unit share one for one if they somehow crippled the iPhone production; instead they would be chasing two birds in the bush when they already have one in the hand.

      Besides this, I doubt that Apple views Samsung as threat #1. They are the handset maker leading the Android charge, but their Android volume was less than half that of the iPhone (32% of 20.5MM is 6.6MM vs. the iPhone's 14MM).

    • Joe_Winfield_IL

      The Flash in the Galaxy Tab is made by Sandisk, even though Samsung is itself one of only three global players in flash memory. The business of handset manufacturing is oddly incestuous, with competitors dependent on each other for IP, components, assembly, etc.. It may appear to be a conflict of interest, but unless manufacturing capacity was severely constrained for some reason, Samsung is more than happy to make chips for Apple. It is a profit opportunity for Samsung, plain and simple. If the business were a duopoly between Samsung and Apple, I would agree with your concern. But Samsung wouldn't pick up unit share one for one if they somehow crippled the iPhone production.

      Also, I'm not convinced that Samsung is enemy #1 for Apple. Even as the manufacturer leading the Android charge, Samsung's sold less than half as many Android devices as Apple sold iPhones (32% of 20.5MM is 6.6MM vs. iPhone sales of 14MM).

    • Steko

      If you look at profits by quarter you'd say the iOS march looks unstoppable. Or if you looked at the iphone growth from July 07 – July 09. Or RIM a few years prior.

      Everything looks unstoppable when it's at peak growth. That's why we got books like Dow 36,000 and Dow 100,000 at the peak of the tech boom.

    • Bob

      The Flash memory market is highly competitive and prices will only get lower over time. Samsung will want to keep its volumes up and will want to keep Apple happy. Smartphones are only one segment of this market. Apple sells almost as many iPod Touches as iPhones. iPads/Macbook Airs will also be huge drivers of flash storage sales over time. Apple has shown that it will drop manufacturers or bring chips in-house if needed.

    • Bob

      probably Samsung makes a lot more money making and selling galaxy phones than selling flash chips to Apple and just being a commodity player. Smart move by Samsung.

      • asymco

        Trading being a commodity chip supplier for being a commodity phone builder? Without software, Samsung is tomorrow's Sony.

      • Bob

        people know 'galaxy S' brand name, people know 'sony' brand name, that is a better position to be in than a key commodity supplier. Do Iphone owners know that samsung supplies key chips, a few years down the line, Apple will screw Samsung if they just remain a commodity supplier to Apple, but because Google and Samsung are interedependent on each other, Google cannot treat Samsung with disrespect(Samsung is the largest android phone manufacturer even bigger than HTC). Samsung has its own scale advantages, they build a lot of amoled screens as well, they have their own chip foundries etc. Far better to be a commodity phone builder with your own name in front of customers than a commodity chip supplier to Apple.

      • Bob

        you saw how Apple treated its supposed partner Adobe, you saw how Apple treated Google when they blocked google voice, how they treat developers by arbitrarily blocking applications on some vague grounds. And Apple directly blames AT&T for dropped calls issue. Nobody can trust Apple(I am not talking about consumers here).

      • FalKirk

        I don't believe your characterization of Apple's relationships with its partners is accurate at all. Apple once had a close relationship with Adobe, but that was some 30 years ago. If you look at the history of the two company's, it was not Apple who abandoned Adobe, but Adobe who abandoned Apple some 15 years ago. And what Apple is doing now is not so much anti-Adobe as much as it is pro-Apple. If Adobe had been able to make an adequately useful Flash product that would have worked on mobile devices even a year ago, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

        Google? Apple didn't have anyone sitting on Google's board of directors and then enter into Google's business.

        AT&T? And I've never heard Apple directly blame AT&T for dropped calls although you can correct me on that if I'm wrong.

        You say nobody can trust Apple. I'd say the opposite. You can trust Apple to do what's best for Apple. If you're expecting Apple to sacrifice their interests for some other companies' interests, then yes, you're going to be disappointed. But I don't see Apple as a company that goes out of their way to crush others. They're more of a company that will crush others if they won't get out of Apple's way.

      • WaltFrench

        “AT&T? And I've never heard Apple directly blame AT&T for dropped calls although you can correct me on that if I'm wrong.”

        I've noticed the same. By all accounts, Apple should be HIGHLY motivated to weasel out of the reported exclusivity contract with AT&T, yet the worst I've heard was Steve's comment that “sometimes when you're improving things, they get worse for a while, and by that measure, AT&T's network is going to get a LOT better for our customers.”

        It's bad business to badmouth competitors too much; badmouthing partners would be a guaranteed way for Verizon to demand that they put their logo and store on every iPhone and capture all the revenue because of a negative Apple halo effect.

      • Bob

        blocking flash runtime on account of battery issues is one thing, but banning flash cross-compiled apps which complies with all of apple's stringent requirement , while allowing cross compiled apps by all other companies like unity etc is another, it is a clear indication of Apple wanting to put Adobe out of business by any means. I am glad that Apple has now withdrawn this ban(no doubt because of sever competition from android), but it gives everybody an idea about how Apple is willing to kill its own partners. Apple does not operate in a vacuum, it needs to partner with a lot of companies even though they have hardware and software integrated unless they want to buy FoxConn and indulge in slave labour in China and/or buy AT&T, Verizon etc. I have some friends in Adobe and they were absolutely shocked when they banned cross compiled flash apps after Adobe put in a lot of efforts to build the cross compiler. Nobody can trust Apple. And as for as Google board member sitting in Apple, Google bought Android in 2004, Apple should have pushed out Eric then and there. Maybe SP Jobs thought Android would flop who knows. Here is Steve Jobs blaming AT&T.
        http://d8.allthingsd.com/20100601/d8-video-steve-

        But anyhow Apple's big problem really is that facebook and google are more popular with consumers and are a better brand name when it comes to consumer recall. IPhone may just become a vehicle through which facebook, google services are consumed or in other words a commodity

        So how come Apple is killing its own business interestes by entering into 5 year long partnership with a stupid company like AT&T and thus putting short-term money interests ahead of long-term company interests. The horse has bolted the stable, IPhone coming to Verizon will not kill Android. Google has succesfully commoditzed smartphone hardware and smartphone OS and the battle has turned to services/apps

  • Joe_Winfield_IL

    Who in the world was buying the WinMo phones, and why? This, combined with the 25% growth in "dumb" phones and 141% growth in non-branded devices, is to me the most amazing info from the latest report. This data only reinforces the notion that a rising tide lifts all boats.

    Horace's assertion about non-use as the main competitor comes to the fore, especially given that the "non-use" category is itself growing at a 25% rate. The sky is the limit on smartphones.

  • kevin

    What I find most interesting is the huge discrepancy between Gartner's totals and IDC's totals. Gartner estimated 417.1m cellphones, whereas IDC estimated 340.5m cellphones; that's a 77m or 23% difference. The difference is in the non-smartphone estimates.

    The top 5 are fairly similar though Gartner says Nokia sold 7m more than Nokia reported itself (this could be explained by sell-in vs sell-through, except that over the last 33 months, Gartner has reported 23m more Nokias sold than Nokia itself – hard to believe). In any case, the main difference is that IDC has 103.8m for Others, whereas Gartner has 175.1m for Others (non-Top 5). Someone needs to relook at their methodology.

    As for smartphones, Strategy Analytics reports 77.1m total, Gartner 80.5m, Canalys 80.9m, and IDC 81.1m. All in the same ballpark.

    • asymco

      That is indeed a huge difference. It would be great if we knew their methodology, but we don't.

  • Oh Blah Dee Blah Dah

    RE: "… The overall market is growing at 35%…"

    REPLY: According to the text, approximately 41 million smartphone units were sold in 3Q2009 and approximately 80.5 million smartphone units were sold in 3Q2010. This indicates that the smartphone market grew by approximately 100% year-over-year!

    • kevin

      By "overall market", Horace was referring to the overall cellphone market – both smartphones and non-smartphones. Above the chart, it already says that "the smartphone market is growing at nearly 100% (96%)."

  • http://twitter.com/_ChrisHarris @_ChrisHarris

    We must expect thatApple are aware of this data. I wonder if their strategy will ever shift to creating a price competitive iPhone. They have made a price competitive iPad from the start, and we now see that none of the competitors (the same as those in the smartphone space) can compete. If Apple simply delivers a 'iPod Nano' equivalent (the most successful iPod model I believe), it may be possible to turn around Android's march.

    The trouble with looking at this data, is that it's easy to imagine Apple will having no response beyond their current strategy, to gain marketshare.

    • dchu220

      Apple's version of the nano is the previous year's model for $100 subsidized. They can't just make a cheaper phone that is compatible with all the features they want to push.

      Apple's best bet to gain marketshare right now is to get on more carriers. After that, then they will probably consider reducing margins. The iPhone market is nothing like the mp3 market and shouldn't be used as a comparison.

      • kevin

        Based on the pricing of the iPod touch, I think Apple COULD make a cheaper phone (or sell last year's phone more cheaply). I think Apple simply CHOOSES not to, for reasons it's not sharing publicly. At this point in time, given the way Apple sees the smartphone market unfolding, their chosen strategy is to not sell a phone more cheaply.

    • asymco

      Let's not forget that users moving to Android don't have as much reason to stay with Android longer term as iPhone users have to stay with iPhone. In other words, many Android users might upgrade to iPhone. Android may be the "starter" smartphone for many but if Apple keeps their positioning, the iPhone will be what they aspire to.

      (the reason why I don't think Android is as "sticky" is partly the user experience, the fragmentation, the poor state of their marketplace and the brand itself)

      • Joe_Winfield_IL

        To add to your list of reasons…iTunes. Android does not have a universal central repository for all media the way that iPhone does. People aren't buying music, movies and shows in the same quantity on Android as iPhone. Also, the DRM on iTunes is a one-way street; outside content is allowed in, but on video nothing is allowed to leave. The audio gave up DRM a while back, but many users don't know this and won't bother to convert the existing files.

      • Bob

        I would say many android users use android phones because they like 'google' services, and so what if itunes is missing in android, there are other systems like Amazon MP3, Amazon VOD, pandora etc which perfectly fit the bill, not to forget that google itself is bringing in some kind of google music service.

  • http://www.notesark.com iphoned

    There is probably no point in reducing iPhone pricing until they spread to all carriers AND solve the manufacturing issues. (The latter may appear to be solved, except the white version.) Unless, of course, spreading to other carriers is somehow tied to the price reduction (i.e. accepting lower subsidies).

    The big problem is that in the all the top major markets – China, US, Japan, and Germany, iPhone is only sold through small-market-share carriers. So I don't know what are they waiting for to spread to NTT Docomo in Japan, Verizon AND Sprint AND T-Mobile and even MetroPCS in the US, and China Mobile in China. This delay seems very odd, especially in the face of their exclusive carriers ALSO selling Android.

    BTW. Just suddenly dropping iPhone prices will crush the stock, because iPhone represents 60+% of their profits. Hopefully such step will prove unnecessary. I can't help but observer how this is playing out just like Mac vs DOS/Windows in the late 80's…

    • asymco

      The ASP is not something that most buyers see. This is a completely different marketplace than what PC or consumer electronics are sold into. All prices are illusions, operators play gatekeeper and have significant skin in the game. It's a far, far, far bigger market with 5 billion accounts with widely varying use cases. Devices have relatively short lifespans (avg. 2 years). Production and distribution are far bigger constraints than rivalry between competitors. It's not going to be a monoculture.

      As I've stated before, the growth in the market is so enormous that quarterly market share (which implicitly assumes a zero sum game) is misleading. This is why I always show "share" as an evolution over time and as a stacked area chart. A pie chart is a snapshot in time without a sense of how much the whole pie has grown.

      • http://www.notesark.com iphoned

        >>the growth in the market is so enormous that quarterly market share (which implicitly assumes a zero sum game) is misleading

        I agree that things can change with the entry of Win Mobile 7 devices and iPhone (glacial) spread to other carriers. But calling these market share numbers "misleading" is misleading. We have a year's worth of data on these graphs and the trends are undeniable, and quite telling, and have a solid basis behind them. In fact, if anything, at this rate Android share over iPhone gain are only likely to increase in the next few quarters.

        (Not that iPhone is doing poorly – it is doing great. But to the extent that this is a battle of the platform/developer mindshare, market share rules. SJ himself indicated that he may view this as a long term zero-sum game. And in this context, it doesn't matter if Android hw/ suppliers make money or not or go out of business – as we've seen with Windows, there are plenty of drones to take their place.)

      • Joe_Winfield_IL

        The trend IS remarkable for Android, especially given the rate at which it got to 25%. But still, 25% does not exactly constitute a dominant share. RIM, Apple, and Nokia combined are still at 69% for the interdependent camp, and with WP7, competition has just arrived for the first time among the modular OEM's.

        It is tempting to take today's trends and draw a continuation of the existing lines going forward. But there are a lot of bullets left in the chambers of Android's competitors. Nobody, not even Nokia or RIM, is hitting the panic button. This is because virtually EVERY SINGLE COMPANY is experiencing record sales of smartphones. Symbian's 8% loss in share translated to a 61% YoY growth! That is why the pie charts are misleading.

  • Rob Scott

    Android looks amazing! Well done Google. iOS held its own, great for Apple. But Apple needs to move faster: more carriers and a wider phone range. Apple has an opportunity to sell well over 100 million phone devices next year maintaining or growing market share. Apple needs to move fast.

    • unhinged

      Except that Apple held relative share for the period. The ones losing out were RIM, Symbian, Windows Mobile, Linux and Others.

  • WaltFrench

    I like this debate about zero-sum versus growth issues.

    May I toss another notion into the mix for comments? Let's call it "value proposition." I'll hypothesize/assert that customers look for a limited mix of features that are important, and expect the rest to take care of themselves.

    Network quality would be one such, one that VZ currently owns and one where AT&T is in the running. The iPhone polish would be another. Flash, "Open/free," 4G, Apple per se, Enterprise-level security and support, Windows desktop tie-in, … would be others.

    Providers compete to strengthen the perceptions of these features' (a) importance, and (b) their firm's high relative standing on them. Network effects magnify the success of the various vendors' marketing and PR, and maybe actual capability. The network effects become vicious/virtual circles for features: app stores were irrelevant before 2008 but I predict will be killer barriers for consumer adoption of WinPhone and BlackBerry. The rise/decline of these features (memes?) help to predict the relative shares of vendors, AND the overall market. Is the average (desktop) facebook user now in the feature-phone space? Look for a powerful facebook function to drive new smartphones. Is the average twitter user already using iPhone? Only to the extent that twitter spreads to a new user base will it drive phone choices.

    And the relative importance of users wanting a facebook/twitter/foursquare/linkedin experience versus an email info-flow, will play out in combination with these feature networks.

    There are other big, important issues that Horace addresses as well as, or better than, anybody, such as the power balance between the carriers, the hardware firms, and the OS/app software shops. I would claim that the feature/power clusters I named above will help drive the power balance and the sources of innovation.

  • Steko

    Apple sold 14.10 mil phones not 13.48 as Gartner claimed. Add in 4.19 mil iPads and you only need 2.5 mil iPod touches to match Android comparing the two OS's in a broader category.

  • Iosweekly

    Here in NZ we have android phones selling for as low as $140 USD off contract (unsubsidized). They are older models, but compared to the $699 USD off contract unsubsidised price of the iPhone 3GS, I'm not surprised android is gaining so much market share.

  • Pingback: [KlimBim] Magic Fiddle, Gartner-Zahlen, GTA preisreduziert, Xing mit Handschlag, ‘The Incident’ am TV, Korg iMS-20 und Gorillamobile for iPhone 4

  • Piot

    Sure there may be a different methodology, but i have never seen such a wide gap. For the past 18 months or so… the difference has always been around, or less than 10%. Something seems to have changed this quarter.

    Sure you don't have any inside info for us Horace?

  • http://www.notesark.com iphoned

    For the sake of iPhone, Windows Mobile7 better succeed.

  • yet another steve

    Steve Jobs has $50 B in the bank, and has shown a commitment to great products and good products, but never to the stock price. He'd cut margins in a minute if it could gain considerable share.

    I'm guessing that either that $140 Android device is NOT a good software player, or you'll find significantly cheaper iPhones next year.

    My guess is that the growth of the market (which ironically they "ignited") has caught Apple off guard. Only a guess. What I do know is that the idea that Apple's moves in 2011 will just be an extension of Apple's moves in 2010 is ridiculous.

    Somehow I think SJ, Tim Cook, & Co. can solve manufacturing and distribution limitations. It's not like this is the Mac business where they suffer from entrenched competition and have an inferior ecosystem. And it's not like these guys were running Apple during the days when Apple put profits over share.

    Apple has the most resources and a CEO that can do anything he wants…. and this is mission critical. Anything is possible, except that he's going to care about XServe…

    • Iosweekly

      Yes, i'm certain the $140 android phone is a piece of crap, I was just pointing out that the smartrphone market. Is really starting to take over from feature phones, and the free android software will likely find it's way into these very cheap devices.

      My point was that android will likely be the OS platform of choice for low end phones, so the marketshare numbers for android are likely to break 50%. however this doesn't mean it will turn into profits for low end handset makers, and likewise for android app developers there aren't going to be many low end phones that can run the latest apps so the market might be smaller and definitely more fragmented than iOS.

      I think the only winner from android in the long run will be google, from the advertising & marketplace revenue.

      I also expect that the delay in chrome OS from google is because they are hurriedly merging it with android.

      • Bob

        140 $$ is a piece of crap, actually that shows your mentality I would say, why is 140 $$ android phone piece of crap, but a 150 $$ Ipod touch piece of art, Apple is already cutting margins on Ipad and Ipod touch, they don't want to cut margins on IPhones also as their itunes ecosystem is still not making significant money. Apple run-rate is already at 80 billion dollars per year, it is hard to see anybody really making significant money from software/apps side on mobiles for the next several years atleast. Even Google is making just 1 billion dollar from search ads and mobile ads per year

  • yet another steve

    *meant "great products and good PROFITS."

    I need to learn to proofread… apologies.

  • tonyswash

    I see that the Guardian Newspaper web site is borrowing from you but unfortunately with no attribution.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/no

    • asymco

      They rebuilt the charts themselves. No direct copying.

  • Iphoned

    Time for Apple to move CPU production away from Samsung. Why feed the mouth that bites you? I wish they could replace Google default search and maps also with Microsoft’s or their own…it is tough dealing with a non-convicted monopolist that wants into your business…

    • Bob

      microsoft wants to eat Apple too lol, in fact google is willing to live in a multiplatform world but not Microsoft because Microsoft makes most of its money from software licenses and for them to make meaningful money they need to hold 90 percent marketshare in OS market. Apple desperately wants to buy or partner with facebook, yet facebook wants nothing to do with Apple and they are busy partnering with microsoft, they have not even built a facebook app for Ipad. Right so google is wrong to enter into smartphone business because it is a monopolist(with 66 percent search share and losing steadily to facebook in traffic generation), but it is allright for Apple to crush Motorola, Nokia, Samsung by entering into the phone market. Man oh man. Apple a computer maker crushing others by entering phone market is ok but Google entering phone market is not ok. No doubt you would have enjoyed when the multi billion dollar company like motorola goes bankrupt due to IPhone and adds to woes of already jobless US. I for one am glad that Motorola is back in black. It is a huge joy to see Motorola rebound due to Android.

      • Joe_Winfield_IL

        For what it's worth, Motorola going out of business at the hands of another US company is not a net loss of jobs. As a Chicagoan, I'm glad to see Motorola back on its feet, but as a capitalist I'm indifferent to the gains and losses of individual companies (except those whose shares I own).

        @iPhoned – the flash memory inside Galaxy Tabs is made by Sandisk, even though Samsung is one of only three major makers of flash. I don't know why this is, but I'd guess there was a common efficiency gained between the two companies. Sometimes business is oddly incestuous, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Samsung is the low cost / high quality component maker for Apple's chips, and this gives Samsung a vested interest in the success of iProducts. If you view Samsung as a threat to Apple, think of their manufacturing as Apple's way of "keeping their enemies closer."

        As for moving away from Google, there is only one other valid choice, and the typical Apple consumer will NOT side with Microsoft over Google. The world seems to greatly prefer the mobile services that Google provides (search and maps in particular), so unless Apple can do it better in house they are best served to leave things alone.

  • berult

    iPhoned, Hi…,

    South Korea is fundamentally a Corporatocracy. Samsung stands at the very heart of this Political structure. There are very few markets in the world as well protected from fair competition, and Apple can certainly vouch for that burdensome reality. Geo-politics rules the day in the Korean Peninsula, therefore America's trade negotiators' hands couldn't be more tied up with political constraints if they were dealing with "Dear Leader" Himself.

    In other words, Korea's Economy free rides its own gruesome Political reality.

    iPhone and Apple siblings toil their way into this hermitic market. The trick here is to sneak your way into this "sheltered by design" market from the supply side rather than the sealed in demand side, and reach for your market aiming target from the "inside in". Korean regulators are but the Corporatocracy's managers of both Koreas' socio-political post-traumatic syndrome. Realistically, the end is nowhere in sight.

    Apple simply plays trump on a gamed system. Samsung performs as any nurtured and coddled system would, it over performs. Apple's in on it. And Samsung's in on Apple being in on it. And the whole Korean reality's in on Samsung being in on Apple being in on it. And consumers create a lagging demand that speaks with accrued insistence and relevancy.

    iPhone, iPad cannot be allowed to compete if they endanger the Power that be. Apple simply takes a bow to a foreigner's legacy, "mobilizes", with tapered Asian Patience and American Resiliency, Korean geniuses' pegged currency.

    • http://www.notesark.com iphoned

      Who is talking about Korean market? I am talking about worldwide. How can Apple be dependent on their now #1 hardware competitor for the supply of their CPUs? They clearly need to move to another supplier. (They were smart enough to buy the ARM SOC designer earlier this year forcing Samsung to the drawing board for their next gen smartphones – a tactical victory for Apple). But now they need to find another foundry, I am sure.

      I just wonder who else has the state of the art foundry to supply high-volume Apple's CPU/SOS needs.

      • http://twitter.com/Niilolainen @Niilolainen

        Lots of people.

  • gctwnl

    Apple seems to be planning something big in the mobile space. What I find amazing is that nothing concrete has hit the rumours and analyses sites what they are actually going to do with that large datacenter. Something is coming, but what?

    • Bob

      maybe people are getting bored of Apple

  • http://www.notesark.com iphoned

    Yes. One doesn't build a Battlestar Gallactica and not use it..I suspect the "big" is Apple will enter TV streaming content business – a kind of NetFlix-meets-Cable-Meet Disney-Meet Youtube provider. There is also the payment market – i.e competing with Mastercard/Visa if you will via Phones/Carrier billing, but I doubt that one explains the size of the data center. Nothing other then a Video business would seem to explain the size of that data center.

  • Iphoned

    @Joe Winfield

    >>iPhoned – the flash memory inside Galaxy Tabs is made by Sandisk, even though Samsung is one of only three major makers of flash.

    Sandisk is not competing with Samsung phones. Samsung is competing with Apple in phones and tablets. Soc performance is likely to be one of the major differentiator. Certainly this is why Apple brought SOC design in-house. Giving Samsung an early preview of your next SoC doesn’t make any sense from the competitive angle, let alone depend on your key competitor for the heart of your product.

  • http://bestsmartphone.biz I love SmartPhones

    Come to think of it, mobile phones updates a few times a year. Most people likes to have mobile phone. Smart phones, however, are growing very popular. Not only because that they are very smart, they resemble the latest and the best of our technology at present.

  • http://twitter.com/Niilolainen @Niilolainen
    • asymco

      This makes little sense. What is the OS for Sony Ericsson? Is Samsung an OS?

  • BenHill123

    I trust Gartner more than Apple in this regard as Gartner does not need to hype up or sex up the sales figures of any OEM, whereas Apple does need that.

    • asymco

      There are laws protecting shareholders from misrepresentation by public company officers. There are no laws protecting readers of market analyst reports.If you have reason to suspect company officers of lying, you have a strong case to bring to a prosecutor for criminal charges. You also have a great case for a civil lawsuit that could make you rich.

  • Pingback: » The Changing Mobile Landscape IUB Libraries Digital User Experience Blog