Measuring iPhone progress

Speaking of boats, there were recent claims that the iPhone is “dead in the water“. As someone who has done some sailing I can say that being dead in the water is dangerous. Not only are you not going anywhere but you also don’t have steering control. It’s movement through the water that allows a rudder to work so being stationary means that you can’t orient the boat when waves or wind might threaten stability.

This implied inability to gain directional control is what makes the accusation so powerful. How valid is it? That claim certainly was not made because the iPhone did not grow. iPhone grew at 113% year on year. It even grew sequentially in a post-holiday quarter and the growth is not slowing materially.

The claim was made that iPhone was not gaining share. But share of what? If we look at the iPhone share of all phones and share of smartphones, it’s still growing. It reached 5% share of all phones sold in the quarter and fourth most popular vendor in the world. Beating RIM, HTC, Motorola, Sony Ericsson and ZTE.

So what makes the iPhone dead in the water?

The claim was made relative to the (a) share of (b) mobile platforms (c) installed base (d) in the US. In other words, if one adds all Android phones in use vs. the iPhones in use in the US (while ignoring iOS devices other than iPhone) while the market is growing at nearly triple digit rates, then the iPhone is not gaining (much) share.

That’s the most obtuse way of suggesting a slowing product. If something is dead in the water, it isn’t going anywhere or making any progress.

On a unit basis and one the basis of vendor comparison, iPhone is doing very well. On the basis of value capture and profitability it’s doing even better. More about that later.

  • Eliot

    That article appears to be nothing more than a cheap ploy to garner page views. The author is no stranger to ethical "transgressions." He is barred from the securities industry. In 2002 the NY Attorney General published emails showing the author giving assessments about stocks which conflicted with what was publicly published.

    • Steve

      *cough* ad hominem *cough*

      • gslusher

        Sort of, Steve, though it's more like the "genetic fallacy," since Eliot isn't arguing with Blodget. However, when a source has been proved to be dishonest in the past, it makes sense to be even more skeptical of that source's statements than one otherwise would be. That does NOT mean that one should reject the statements out of hand, just that one should be more careful in checking them than one might with a "trusted" source. Eliot's language is a bit inflammatory, but he makes a good point.

        This may not fit the strict rules of rhetoric (which aren't always–indeed, seldom are, sufficient for making decisions), but it is reality. The feeling of "trust" may be one of the things that allows human societies (and others, including chimps) to work. I've read some anthropologists and cognitive scientists who think that one (not ONLY) of the primary evolutionary/adaptive benefits of having a large, energy-sucking brain was to keep track of social relationships, including who could be trusted.

    • Alan

      Took me a second…at first I thought you were accusing Horace! What a difference 'this' vs. 'that' can make.

      • honkj

        just so people are clear on who was barred, for "ethical transgressions" it was Henry Blodget the author of the "dead in the water" article.

        what Henry was doing was publishing things that were false in order to run a stock up or down so he could profit or tell others to profit by doing the opposite. since he is barred from doing that,
        now he is publishing false articles on anything popular to get "page hits" to show advertisers these page hits, collecting money by being a … what's the word i'm looking for.. oh right wh$%re…..

        on Henry's blogs all comments relating to him being actually a fake are flagged as offensive.

        get the word out so the last 5 people on the planet who don't know this already can figure out who Henry is.

    • OpenMind

      Your comment is graded as F. Pronoun confusion. Back to grammar school before you comment again.

      • Oddly, I found it perfectly clear.

      • foljs

        Exactly: it's "Odd" that you found it perfectly clear.

    • asymco

      That may be but the argument can be disproved without knowing who made it.

    • KenC

      Blodget is just being a rational hitwhore. He posted his website's financials a while back. I vaguely recall they are just starting to turn a small profit, about $200k or so. He knows the more hits the better his financials look, so the more inflammatory the post, the more hits. Classic hit-whore behavior. Notice that when Henry is feeling the financial pressure it's not one of his writers who pen the inflammatory pieces, it's Henry himself. He doesn't trust his minions to do the dirty work.

      Or maybe I'm wrong, and giving Henry too much credit, and he really is that stupid.

  • Eliot

    You really think a history of saying what benefits him despite what he believes is not relevant?

    • rattyuk

      Nope – I think we are saying that Henry Blodget did it for page hits, knowing full well it was bollocks.

      • Eliot

        "Nope – I think we are saying that Henry Blodget did it for page hits, knowing full well it was bollocks."

        Isn't that exactly what I said in the opening sentence? I guess my writing really is bad.

      • rattyuk

        Sorry Eliot what you said and how it read are different metrics. Wasn't trying to slag you off just what I read came across differently… If you meant the same thing I am sorry I misread.

  • newtonrj

    Does Google/Android sepearte non-phones from activation numbers? I mean, if they are excluding other iOS devices like iPod Touch, iPad and Apple TV for the sake of demonstrating superior activations, it would only be fair to exclude non-phones from Android activations.


    • CndnRschr

      Who cares? The Android non-phone activations are trivial numbers unlike iOS non-phone activations. 400K activations a day is an impressive number, nonetheless.

  • rattyuk

    Nope it is a favorable count in one direction. Google are only interested in "Activations". If you reboot your machine it is "activated" again. If you update the OS (doesn't happen very often on Android) then it gets counted as a new Activation.

    • Drew

      FWIW, here's Google's claim: “The Android activation numbers do not include upgrades and are, in fact, only a portion of the Android devices in the market since we only include devices that have Google services.” That doesn't address the reboot question. It also doesn't say when a device is first activated. Does the manufacturer, carrier or end-user activate a device? Finally, if a device has Google maps, but none of the other "services" (Android market, search, voice, etc.), does it still count as an activation?

      Many questions, few answers. One thing is clear: Google wants to give the impression that Android is thriving more than it actually is. More solid metrics like actual unit sales numbers, Android market revenue and breakdown by OS version (1.5, 1.6 … 3.1) would reveal a much bleaker reality.

      • Ravi

        I think requires a very strained interpretation to say that an unequivocal quote from Google that they do not count handset upgrades implies that they left the "reboot" (I presume you mean factory reset and or ROM installation like flashing CyanogenMod?) question open.

        How would such a counting scheme work? Let's suppose I have device A and factory reset it twice. Under a "reboots count" interpretation, that's 3 activations. Next I upgrade to device B. Google's said that isn't counted. Then I factory reset device B. Is that counted or not? If it is counted, then it looks like we're counting an upgrade. If not, then it is a deeply weird counting scheme (reboots count on the first device, but not future devices?)

        I suspect what Google is doing is actually counting something like the number of distinct Google accounts that have activated an Android device (i.e. a number they have easy access to that they have reason to believe is a good proxy for the number of distinct users they have).
        There are certainly issues that complicate the count (e.g. Do they adjust for things like Google accounts that are only used to try out a device in a store?), but I don't think "reboots" are one of them.

      • Drew

        Your guesses and speculations simply highlight the fact that Google has refused to clearly define what they mean by an activation. Apple reports actual sales and channel inventory numbers each quarter. With the exception of iPod touch numbers, these are explicit. No confusion or ambiguity. Why does Google not want to offer the same clarity?

        Even the report that they've reached 400k activations per day is ambiguous. Was that the average this past week, month or quarter? Why not simply report how many devices they activated each quarter?

        Their hardware partners follow the same pattern. Samsung shipped 2 million Galaxy Tabs last year. That's sales to the channel and not to the end user. Have these Tabs been activated even though many of them are sitting idle on the shelves? How many are still in the channel? Samsung doesn't say.

        Fuzzy numbers vs clear numbers. We know exactly how iPhone and iOS are progressing. We do not really have a clear picture of how Android is progressing. It is undoubtedly doing well, but how well and who is benefitting is still unclear.

      • Ravi

        Huh? Google can't report sales and inventory numbers for Android devices the way Apple does for iPhones, whether they want to or not. With the exception of prototypes, developer phones and the Nexus One, Google has never manufactured or sold Android phones.

        I counted 20 handset manufacturers in the OHA and there are more than a few outside of it (e.g. Casio). Do you seriously think it is feasible for Google to demand detailed sales and inventory data from all of these partners (some of whom might not want to share that for competitive reasons) and then integrate it in real-time (adjusting for each partner's differing reporting conventions) to provide the clarity you're asking for? Do you expect Microsoft to do the same for Windows PCs?

      • Drew

        What I said was that Google AND their hardware partners all fail to give clear data. It's obvious Google does not have access to data the manufacturers have. Google can give the data they are already giving in a much clearer and comprehensive way. Same goes for their hardware partners.

        I understand the hardware manufacturers do not want to provide too much detail about their sales numbers. Apple does not break out iPhone 4 & 3GS sales. But gross unit sales numbers with channel inventory estimates is not sensitive data. The only reason to withold such data is to mislead shareholders.

        Horace is writing about how data can be misinterpreted or misrepresented. That can be done even with the very clear data that Apple provides, which is what he was pointing out. It is even easier to twist the fuzzy data provided by Google and its hardware partners.

        The meme is that Android is on the fast track to Windows-like dominance; with $billions in profit accruing to Google and their partners. Meanwhile, the iPhone is supposedly on its way to insignificance; with dwindling profits for Apple. Blodget, et al claim this is what the data show.

        Horace, et al are simply interpreting the data more accurately. Put more crudely, they're calling out bullshit when they see it.

      • Jones

        Do you expect they don't already know these numbers? They have to know these numbers if they are expected to know how many phones to produce. If not, they will either have too much inventory on hand or not enough. Both options are extremely expensive especially with so many units being shipped out. Google already has the detailed sales and inventory data from all of these partners. Count on it. If they didn't they would be drifting aimlessly through production and supply chain operations. They have to have some form of measurement and accountability. Assuming anything else would be silly.

      • Ravi

        I should also add that Google regularly publishes the OS breakdown of devices that access the Android Market. Currently over 90% of devices are on Android 2.1 or later (interestingly Android 1.5 and 1.6 show up, but not 2.0) and over 2/3 of devices are on Android 2.2 or later. The fraction on 2.3 or 3.x is very small, unsurprisingly.

    • Ted_T

      @Ratty, do you have evidence for this? I suspect it, but can we need something better than mere suspicion.

      @Drew — what is the source for your quote?

    • althegeo

      Don't you just love comparing the OS provider to one of the rival manufacturers. Microsoft Windows copies sold verses Apple's computer sales. Microsoft's plays for sure licenses verses iPod sales. Android OS activations verses Apple's iPhone, iPod touch and iPad sales.

      Why aren't we comparing Apple computer sales to HP sales? Apple iPad sales to Motorola sales? Apple iPhone sales to Samsung sales?

      Apple is kicking butt and taking names and some idiots think they are sliding into bankruptcy.

  • claimchowder

    The original article about iPhone being "dead in the water" shows just how desparate the Android camp is to come up with a favorable statistic. I definitely prefer Horace's :).

    • Hamranhansenhansen

      The most popular phone is iPhone 4 and the second-most popular phone is iPhone 3GS, and iOS has twice the installed base of Android, and Apple by itself makes over 10 times the handset profits of all Android manufacturers put together, and of course there is App Store, iTunes, Netflix, Hulu. So yes, they really have to work hard to say something positive about Android.

      What they should be saying is that Android has accomplished its mission of displacing Windows Mobile and upgrading feature phone users so that they have Web features on their free phones. Done and done.

      • iosweekly

        its entirely possible that apple makes up the 4 most popular 'mobile computing devices' .

        In order of sales:
        1. iphone 4
        2. iPad
        3. iPod touch,
        4. iPhone 3GS
        5. highest selling android device (probably the samusng galaxy).

        (i presume the ipod touch sells more than the iphone 3GS, but its possible its the other way around)

      • gslusher

        In the interest of clarity, what do you mean by "most popular"? Sales? Installed base? Active users (e.g., measured by website hits)? Apple has sold a lot more iPod touches than iPads.

        "5. highest selling android device (probably the samusng galaxy). "

        It could be a BlackBerry. RIM sold about 30% more smartphones than Samsung in the last quarter.

  • Luis Masanti

    In a twisted way, I must admire the "death in the water's" author: How much thinking did he put to find the exact combination of exclusion (as noted by Horace) to find an hipotetical niche in which the iPhone fails.

    On the other hand, I just take into account cell phone maker revenues to know if something works.
    Maybe, also data usage.

    But it is clear that something is wrong with Android if they need to be so convoluted to find a place to claim success.

  • honkj

    it is very easy to find out what is really going on, you simply look at the 18.67 million iPhones Apple sold last quarter, and compare that to the other manufactures, when you add up the top 5 Android manufactures, it does not come up to 18.67 million, it is more like 1/2 to 2/3rds…

    obviously if Google is willing to lie about how many real apps are available through obfuscation, they will lie about how many "activations" through obfuscation…

    • Paul

      Not really – looking at the IDC numbers, the big three non-Android suppliers (Nokia, Apple, RIM) account for 57% of shipments. Add a very generous 10% for Windows (it hasn't been near 10% for a couple of years now) devices and you still have 33% left over.

      There are other OSs (Bada, MeeGo etc) but they account for a tiny fraction of the total, so Android is likely > 30%

      Disclaimer: I own an iPhone.

      • KenC

        Samsung supposedly shipped 3.5M Bada phones last quarter, which is not a "tiny fraction", it's starting to be a real factor when looking at Samsung smartphone shipments.

    • davel

      Not true.

      the reports are that samsung + htc for the qtr add up to iphone.

  • Pingback: Measuring iPhone progress | asymco()

  • Ted_T

    Apple still does have a U.S. specific iPhone/Android problem — they are still not on T-Mobile & Sprint. Those two carriers tend to have more user friendly plans, and many customers refuse to leave them even for the iPhone, buying Android devices instead. Going on all four major carriers (and even some minor ones) would radically undercut Android.

    Anecdotal evidence: a non-techie, heretofore dumb-phone owning friend has been desperate to get an iPhone for some time. A few weeks ago she got a brand X Android phone on T-Mobile — no matter how badly she wanted the iPhone she couldn't justify the cost of AT&T's unlimited calling plan vs. T-Mobile's. The first Android phone she got was defective, she switched to another Android phone. Had a T-Mobile iPhone been available, she would have jumped all over it. Carrier loyalty in the U.S. can run very deep.

    Sure T-Mobile is getting eaten by AT&T, but by the time the sale goes through, an eon in smart-phone sales time will have passed. If Apple does go completely carrier neutral and sell a full priced, unlocked GSM iPhone for good measure it will make a huge difference. It will greatly alter the perception of the iOS vs. Android battle in Google and Apple's home market and change the media narrative as well.

    • Hamranhansenhansen

      That problem is the same all over the world. Android has something like twice Apple's addressable market. Apple is the new kid on the block, they did not even sell a phone 4 years ago. They had only 1 carrier relationship 3 years ago. Motorola and Samsung have been making phones for decades and have all kinds of carrier relationships.

      The truth is, if Android were at all competitive with iPhone, the Android installed base should be many, many times larger. Just Samsung's Android phones should be selling more than Apple's phones, because Samsung has so many more potential customers.

  • Brenden

    "And the more dominant the platform becomes, the more valuable it becomes and the harder it becomes to dislodge. The network effect kicks in, and developers building products designed to work with the platform devote more and more of their energy to the platform. The reward for building and working with other platforms, meanwhile, drops, and gradually developers stop developing for them."

    I think we've seen the opposite effect as well–developers writing apps for platforms other than the dominant one because they have a better chance of getting noticed in a smaller pool of offerings. And it's interesting that his deduction from the rise of Android is that dominant technology platforms are difficult to unseat.

  • Famousringo

    I think it's pretty fair to assume that usage is very different between the two platforms. Just look at the app stores. Roughly the same number of software options on both stores now, but last I heard, Android Market revenues are still an order of magnitude smaller than the App Store.

    Makes one suspect that many Androids are being used as very powerful feature phones.

  • You're obviously really on your game right now and writing great stuff.

    Much better than your mid-quarter silly season stuff about sellout times of developer events 🙂

    (I'll get me coat…)

  • Hamranhansenhansen

    If Apple ships a low-end smartphone based on iPod OS, you can bet that tech pundits won't add all Apple phones together like they add all Android phones together. They will say, "that is a different OS" and count them separately. However, I think such a device would outsell all Android devices within a couple of years.

    • Kizedek

      I think you are right about the results if such a thing were to happen, but I am not so sure Apple would do this. After all, what is the "iPod OS" now? The Touch and Nano are taking over increasing percentages of all iPod sales.

      I am pretty sure the latest Nano is iOS based, just as ATV is. The Nano is showing a Touch scene with four app icons, it's iOS, right?

      With Lion, OS X is getting some convergence with iOS and I think Apple is bringing up their lower end products to meet it, too.

      I imagine any "low end" phone is going to definitely run iOS, just as the Touch, Nano and ATV. What Apple could drop to make it cheaper is cameras, gps, compass, gyroscopes, glass on the back, stuff like that. Obviously, certain apps would not work on it, but many would.

      Leaving out iOS wouldn't necessarily make it "cheaper", it would simply make it harder for Apple to profit from it — less independent device that simply synch some iTunes media like an iPod, without generating more spontaneous app and media sales on the device itself. It would just be something else for Apple to have to maintain and update. I think they want to get away from "iPod OS" altogether, especially as all devices and appliances are getting smarter and smarter all te time anyway.

      Then there are cloud services from Apple to consider: whatever the new Mobile Me or iCloud is like, I would think iOS would be required for interaction.

      I do hope for a low end, mass Market phone from Apple, but I really hope it includes iOS. If Apple stuck a 3G chip in an iPod Nano I would be all over it for my kids.

  • chandra

    Why give oxygen to a dishonest doofus who is long past his sell-by date?
    It doesn't move us forward.
    Dare I say it makes us dead in the water?
    Let's move on and Blodget no more.
    Leave him to the oafs who continue to be impressed by his disinformation and purposeful misdirection.

  • Hamranhansenhansen

    Android has always been mysteriously low in Web server logs, even at technically-oriented sites like TechCrunch where you would think you'd find more Android users. iPad passed Android after like 3 months.

  • Thomcarl

    Android is free, hence every cheap phone on the market has it. The assumption that large numbers equals quality is a bad one, since the majority of Android phones are basically crap. Just because android is installed on your phoned doesn't make it the equal of an iPhone. The bottom line is money which Apple continues to make in large amounts. This is not so in the android world as its share of the pie is split many times amongst all of the wannabes, who will never be number one as long as they continue to play catch up.

  • Batfink

    Like most iOS users, I grew tired of Blodget's chicanery long ago and have stopped visiting his site altogether. Last week I saw elsewhere that SAI had noticed this trend, which they then tried to turn into a story about how iOS clicks were slowing while android's were growing. They are the feckless national inquirer of the tech world.

    Great article as always Horace. Appreciate your output.

  • As someone who has sat there with my sail luffing in the breeze, and the boom rocking back and forth with the waves, Apple is not dead in the water. Being dead in the water sucks. Some people (the spectators on shore) will say Apple sucks, but from where Apple sits, they are not dead in the water.

    Apple may be trying to decide whether the best breeze is towards shore, or away from shore. Perhaps they will launch a lower end phone and go in one direction, and take the iPhone in the other direction. Apple may not win the race, but they are far from dead in the water.

    • But what is the race exactly? As Horace stated Apple is very profitable and I think it has the highest margins in the industry. As an investor, I cannot understand the fascination with activation numbers, especially if those don't directly correlate to profit. How do the activations reported from Google and Apple regarding phones relate to the profits? If there is no direct correlation, garnering market share for the sake of it does not equal winning the race.

  • debugger

    iPhone is not losing market share. But it may be increasingly more difficult for it to maintain the momentum that it experienced in the first 3 years of its life (from zero to midteens). Yes, it's growing volume at triple-digit rates, but it's also amongst the boats (not a leaking boat obviously) that were lifted by the rising tide of smartphone growth shown in the previous post. However, it is also beyond evident that combined android devices consisting of a consortium of many hardware manufactures has overtaken Apple in terms of growth rate.

    • Kizedek

      Again, it's "iPhone" versus "Android". And yet the boats mentioned are hardware manufacturers. Of course a flotilla of leaky boats can be cobbled together into one big flotilla or raft in order to stave off sinking — but they are still as dead in the water en masse as they are alone… with even less steerage way. What little leeway they did have in terms of customizing Android, etc. has quickly turned into an Albatross around their necks.

      In what sense are the producers of phones running Android a "consortium"? They have little choice but to jump on any OS option that will offer them competitive opportunity. Against Apple certainly, but also against each other.

      Anyway, if "they" have "overtaken Apple in terms of growth" (perhaps in unit number, but not revenue or profitability), so they should… one way to look at this is: Android is not new. It's just a reassertion of the old status quo in phone OS's when there were two dominant platforms — Windows Mobile and some kind of linux with a java layer. You can look at Android as just a rebranding of the same old java on linux stuff that has long been a major player and has now grown at the expense of MS.

      Android is always touted as a new answer to iOS that has arisen since iOS and has "overtaken" it. On the contrary: Linux/Java type platforms had lost their way until Apple showed them the direction to go in to achieve some kind of resurrection… after Google bought Android to keep its search from disappearing on Windows Mobile or Windows Phone. The iOS platform didn't even exist four years ago. [thoughts in this and previous paragraph courtesy of Daniel Eran Dilger]

      Where is Android going next? I guess we have to wait and see what is up Apple's sleeve and then we will know where everyone is going in their mad scramble to cast off their rotting life lines and follow, by using every little tin and bucket they can to bail with one hand while paddling furiously with the other.

  • debugger

    iPhone (or iOS) vs Android is not a completely fair comparison. Apple is fighting a group of manufactures that in many cases copied their design and approach to user interface. There is stil a gap in quality and ease of use between these two platforms, but that gap is closing very fast. Androids cannot compete in the strength of brand recgonition, but on the other hand the iPhone is also charging premium prices (almost a factor of 2 in the case of a contract-free device). In places where phones are subsidized, the price gap is not so apparent to consumers, since most of it had to be swallowed by the operators. The demand created by this technology/quality gap helped maintain the price gap, but how long can this last? In the US, it's obvious that the two biggest carriers are now promoting non-iOS device with much more emphasis, and understandly so. Apple needs to act very quickly to change this distribution structure and will feel the pain when these operators have the power to say no to apple. Another option for apple is of course to move down market and compete with the android on price. But what will happen to their profitability in this case, and how much will the lower end product cannibalize their sales and brand value?

    • asymco

      The only manufacturers Apple is fighting are those it has contracted to build iPhones. They are not good enough by a long stretch.

  • debugger

    Apple is a great company and probably the best run company in the world right now. The stock is also trading at very reasonal valuation given the growth that it will experience. But valuation based on historical performance is not enough. As an investor, one needs to think more about how the industry will envolve, and how the competitive environment will change over time, and how that should be evaluated in valuing this company. One's best hope is of course, that the talent and value that are imbued in this company will continue to thrive and help it lead the industry in the fronier of innovation. Perhaps I just don't have the vision to see the future of technology and it's the reason that I'm reading this blog.

    • kizedek

      And despite the almost universal recognition of your first sentence, it's funny how the subdued and thoughtful beard-stroking in your following remarks are again almost universally applied… to Apple alone.

      …and yet, this "historical performance" goes beyond mere success and well running by any metric anyone cares to mention — it's historical performance opens new markets and sets the trends, the business models and the direction for whole industries to follow. Astounding really.

    • asymco

      The stock is trading at a very unreasonable valuation given the growth that it has or will experience.

  • James Katt

    Marketshare doesn't mean much when the price of smart phones (other than the iPhone) are going downhill, are being sold two for one, buy-one-get-one-free, or are being given away for free. These phones have become commodity products.

    What means more is that there are an increasing number of iPhone users each year. Thus, Apple is not saturating the market with iPhones. There is room to grow, ever more profitably.

  • With Apple current strategy, would it be possible for the iPhone to reach a market share (of all phones) similar to that of the iPod in the US?

    As stated before, the challenge for Apple is to meet demand and the fact that the iPhone is only available with 2 carriers doesn't help. I guess I have already answered my own question – but what has to change?

    Anyway, good work Horace! One thing I really like about your blog is the quality and depth of discussions ensuing your post.

    • Famousringo

      Possible in the sense that anything's possible, but with their current strategy? Not bloody likely.

      Apple would need to broaden their range beyond two phone models and somehow reduce powerful competitors like Samsung and LG to mere component foundries. Apple would need to source, assemble, and distribute over a hundred million devices a quarter.

      This market is just too damn big for any single manufacturer to control a 70% share. Can you imagine one auto company building 70% of the world's cars?

      Now, tablets on the other hand…

  • Dave

    Henry Blodget (born 1966) is an American former equity research analyst, currently banned from the securities industry. (From wikipedia) Why does anyone care what that crook Henry Blodget thinks?

  • WTE

    Yes, and maybe just take the 4 or 5 largest brands that use Android added together and then compare that number to the overall Android activiation claims. Also, on the brands that sell Android, do the manufacturers provide their unit sales numbers broken down by OS?

  • iphoned

    The "green" share after the initial surge, is showing alarming slowdown trends – stalling out at under 20%?

    • famousringo

      I find it less alarming when I consider that:

      1. Apple is keeping pace with a market that's growing at a breakneck pace of 80-90% per year.

      2. Almost all of Apple's competitors are facing price erosion. Apple is not.

      In other words, now is simply not a good time for Apple to go for market share.

  • davel

    Regardless of the honesty of Mr. Blodget, the fact is all the reports point to a greater and growing share of Android vs all comers.

    Apple sells all it can make so there is a limit to what it can do. Google does not have that problem as they don't make anything.

    I recently read that the Danger team is back together at Google.

    That bears watching.

  • Pingback: What’s This About The iPhone Being “Dead”? : Mac Plazza – Super Sale for Mac()

  • Pingback: What’s This About The iPhone Being “Dead”? | Apple iPhone News()

  • basically the fact is that iphone is leading the world and captured all the markets.