Google makes biggest gain in smartphone market share

[maflynn]

Ars Technica has an interesting article on phone marketshare. I'm sure *LTD* will get a kick out of it, wait no he won't because it's showing google doing well

In all seriousness it is interesting, RIM, Palm and MS losing market share but apple and google gaining.

The majority of mobile users are still using standard handsets, but when it comes to smartphones, RIM remained the leader with 41.6 percent of the smartphone segment in December of 2009. This number was down a full percentage point from September, however, while Apple's share (25.3 percent in December) was up by 1.2 percentage points—a trend that RIM has been battling with Apple for some time now.

Equally fearsome is Google's comparatively huge 2.7 percentage point jump (to 5.2 percent), while both Microsoft and Palm also lost points over the same time period. Although RIM still has a long way to go before giving up the lead to Apple, and Google still has plenty of share to gain before it overtakes Microsoft's number three spot, the trends show that consumers are warming more to the iPhone and Android phones than those traditionally marketed towards enterprise users. (Palm, in the fourth spot at 6.1 percent, looks like it will be surpassed by Google within months if the two companies continue on their current trajectories.)

 

[*LTD*]

Ok, good!

With RIM doing next to nothing with their phones, Nokia a non-player in the US, Windows Mobile no longer really a factor, and Palm trying to just to stay alive, I'd certainly expect Android to gain some share, as it's the only viable (more or less) alternative to an iPhone, though it's no iPhone.

 

[ravenvii]

With the iPhone 3GS aging (relatively) and nothing new until July-ish, this is definitely a ripe time for Android to gobble up marketshare, especially with the Droid and friends.

RIM deserves to lose marketshare to be honest - they're sitting on a rapidly aging OS, and doing nothing major to revitalize it. Microsoft and Windows Mobile? Not even relevant anymore.

I do feel bad for Palm though - they created an amazing GUI and an innovative OS in webOS. It's just the hardware that's mediocre.

 

[kjanice2009]

recently i read some news concern about the sales in 2009, i was doubt that the news is ture or not, but apple's products did attact many people.

 

[NT1440]

I believe Android will be the next windows (computer version) of the cell phone world. By that I mean that it is being put on some really great phones, and some terrible ones, but the main idea is to flood the market and eat up share as much as possible.

 

[maflynn]

I do feel bad for Palm though - they created an amazing GUI and an innovative OS in webOS. It's just the hardware that's mediocre.

I agree, they had generated a lot of "noise" before the PRE was released but it failed to capitalize on the excitement. There was a rumor floating around a few months ago that Nokia may buy Palm. Given the poor results and sinking fortunes of Palm, they may be a prime take over candidate.

I believe Android will be the next windows (computer version) of the cell phone world. By that I mean that it is being put on some really great phones, and some terrible ones, but the main idea is to flood the market and eat up share as much as possible.

I think Android has a huge advantage over the iPhone and that's an open architecture. Google has tons of money and patience to make it work and developers willing to write apps. I'm not saying they'll over take apple but they're a serious contender. Apple continues to piss off developers by their undocumented inconsistent rules on approving apps.

 

[JNB]

I think Android has a huge advantage over the iPhone and that's an open architecture. Google has tons of money and patience to make it work and developers willing to write apps. I'm not saying they'll over take apple but they're a serious contender. Apple continues to piss off developers by their undocumented inconsistent rules on approving apps.

How is an "open" architecture an advantage in a consumer appliance? Although I'm not going to toss a unprovable and unsourced percentage, I'd bet a dollar to a donut that the overwhelming majority of purchasers of any smartphones (or TV's, toasters, DVR's, what have you) to give two hoots about the "openness" of the device, nor care whether they can develop on it or the rules of what they can develop on it. They buy it, they can get an app for it that suits their needs, and that's pretty much the end of it.

I'm not saying open architecture is a bad thing (actually, I think it's a very good thing), but I do think that its value to the general public is massively overstated, and in a marketplace competition between the two, the relative openness will have no effect on the average purchase decision.

Apple last catered to the hobbyist in the early 80's. They are a consumer electronics company now, like Sony, et al. Their track record in this arena is fairly well documented, and their success—with a closed ecosystem—is fair proof that they're not wrong in judging their market.

 

[belvdr]

With the iPhone 3GS aging (relatively) and nothing new until July-ish, this is definitely a ripe time for Android to gobble up marketshare, especially with the Droid and friends.

RIM deserves to lose marketshare to be honest - they're sitting on a rapidly aging OS, and doing nothing major to revitalize it. Microsoft and Windows Mobile? Not even relevant anymore.

I do feel bad for Palm though - they created an amazing GUI and an innovative OS in webOS. It's just the hardware that's mediocre.

RIM, however, has the most secure device on the market from an enterprise perspective. For example, if someone loses their device, we can remotely wipe the device, which can't be done currently on any of the other devices listed. Of course, this is a business perspective, which I'm not sure Google or Apple are pursuing with great effort.

 

[maflynn]

How is an "open" architecture an advantage in a consumer appliance?

While its only my personal opinion, we're not talking about a consumer appliance as much as a small computer that can make phone calls. That being the case, a computer platform's success is directly associated to its ability to run many different and varied programs. One major issue that OSX faced early on was the dearth of native applications. Apple got around this by having the ability to run the "classic" OS.

Fast forward to 2010 and we have smart phones that can run programs. I believe the success of a phone platform, iphone, android, palm will be based partly on their ability to run programs as well. While Apple has a HUGE set of programs that have made it difficult for developers to publish their works by applying inconsistent undocumented rules. Android on the other hand, has little of that type of issues (if I'm understanding things correctly). This gives android an advantage that in time could pay dividends. Apple cannot rest on its laurels and think that they're untouchable because they have a gazillion apps available.

Sony thought they were untouchable with their walkman, they were king of the heap back in the 80s, look at them now.

 

[JNB]

While its only my personal opinion, we're not talking about a consumer appliance as much as a small computer that can make phone calls. That being the case, a computer platform's success is directly associated to its ability to run many different and varied programs. One major issue that OSX faced early on was the dearth of native applications. Apple got around this by having the ability to run the "classic" OS.

Fast forward to 2010 and we have smart phones that can run programs. I believe the success of a phone platform, iphone, android, palm will be based partly on their ability to run programs as well. While Apple has a HUGE set of programs that have made it difficult for developers to publish their works by applying inconsistent undocumented rules. Android on the other hand, has little of that type of issues (if I'm understanding things correctly). This gives android an advantage that in time could pay dividends. Apple cannot rest on its laurels and think that they're untouchable because they have a gazillion apps available.

Sony thought they were untouchable with their walkman, they were king of the heap back in the 80s, look at them now.

Truthfully, all phones today are small computers, but I see your point. Again, the average purchaser (some 60 million or so of the iPhone), still likely doesn't care whether the platform can be openly developed on. In fact, one might argue that its very closed nature is one reason for its success; Palm had a wide-open means for developing and distributing apps, and they ended up a jumbled, craptastic mess (which I regret, I loved all my Palms). Granted, there were no fart apps for Palm.

Interestingly, many developers working with both Android and iPhone platforms are finding the Android marketplace to be less than impressive (LarvaLab's own experience). It's early in the game still, but already some of the differentiation and market fragmenting within the Android realm is creating challenges. Sometimes, open architecture = free-for-all, and unless Google creates—and enforces—some standards early on, the whole thing will turn into a furball and lose consumer acceptance.

Will the Android model influence Apple to modify their approach? One may hope, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them create a more open means of self-managing the iPhone once it's reached the maturity phase, but from current trends—and industry history—I don't think there's sufficient incentive to do so.

I only mentioned Sony as they were—and still are—a major consumer electronics concern, not to imply that any particular division, product, or strategy is an example to be followed. Truth be told, the Walkman was killed less by bad decisions or hubris as it was the changes to media and delivery.

 

[maflynn]

I see your point regarding sony, but they continued to fail at various segments because they have a closed proprietary approach.

As for being too early in the game, I agree and I also agree consumers don't look at what platform is open. Instead they want what's hot, exciting, sexy. Right now the iPhone is and it also has a ton of apps. As other competitors catch up apple needs to continue to innovate but also make the developers happy and not frustrate them or they'll leave if they can make the same amount of money elsewhere easier.

 

[JNB]

make the developers happy and not frustrate them or they'll leave if they can make the same amount of money elsewhere easier.

QFT. I think that's going to be the biggest underlying issue between the platforms. In this case though, it's openness of the marketplace as opposed to openness of the platform that's at play.

 

[OllyW]

Remember this is just for the US market.

Nokia and RIM (and of course Apple) are still doing well worldwide.