Android now powers 75% of all smartphones sold

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/139458-android-now-powers-75-of-all-smartphones-sold-are-we-heading-towards-a-google-monopoly

by 11031a • 14 years ago

124 179 14 years ago

extremetech.com

Quekster• 14 years ago

Actually, it powers 75% of all smartphones sold in the third quarter: http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2012/11/01/android-grabs-75-0-m...

rbii• 14 years ago

Yeah, and 75% of all smartphones being sold today. And tomorrow :)

gte910h5• 14 years ago

This feels a bit cheerleadery?

This is actual PHONE MARKETSHARE being delivered (not necessarily sold, as many of them are subsidized to $0).

Additionally, looking at just phones is a myopic view of the mobile landscape, when tablets and mini tablets (aka, iPodTouches and sub 6" android tablets) are a huge source of gaming revenue.

Steko14• 14 years ago

No it's 75% in the quarter when Apple's sales are always the lowest. Last year Apple sales went from 17 million the quarter before 4S launch to 37 million in the holiday/launch quarter. There's a week and change of iphone 5 launch in the prior quarter numbers for Apple but you'd still expect them to deliver 40-50 million phones in this quarter.

Don't get me wrong the % of Android sales today is high. But simple math tells you that it's not going to be as high as it was in August.

moolcool• 14 years ago

I think this is just low end Android phones becoming cheaper than feature phones.

ajross3• 14 years ago

Those are the current, just-released numbers (in an analysis from IDC). To argue that those don't represent "now" seems to be to be a silly semantic quibble -- there will never be sales numbers for "now" if these aren't them.

gte910h5• 14 years ago

This title feels a bit cheerleadery?

This is actual phone handset market being delivered (not necessarily sold, as many of them are subsidized to $0).

Additionally, looking at just phones is a myopic view of the mobile landscape, when tablets and mini tablets (aka, iPodTouches and sub 6" android tablets) are a huge source of gaming revenue as well as advertisement revenue.

I think the ecosystem is still a vibrant multiplayer arena.

Kylekramer2• 14 years ago

I honestly don't see how you get cheerleadery out of "Android now powers 75% of all smartphones sold". That is about as factual as it gets.

gte910h5• 14 years ago

Because it's not true?

Android is the OS loaded on 75% of the phones shipped in Q3. Not sold.

For instance: iPhone5 was not shipped for the vast majority of people who purchased it when released in Q3, even though they purchased it in Q3.

This is lying with stats. It's annoying as hell.

Goronmon• 14 years ago

The title makes a clear statement, and the article itself questions whether a Google dominated smartphone landscape is a good thing.

I'm not seeing the "cheerleadery" side of this.

gte910h5• 14 years ago

The title says sales, the data says shipped. The title says "smartphones" the actual software platforms (aka Android vs iOS vs whatever else) are mobile devices, not phones.

The first part alone really screws up the numbers, as tons of iPhone5s were sold, but not shipped, in Q3.

jonknee• 14 years ago

> This is actual phone handset market being delivered (not necessarily sold, as many of them are subsidized to $0).

Sold is sold, subsidies just change who is doing the buying.

jlgreco3• 14 years ago

Alternatively, subsidies don't change who is doing the buying, but rather obscure the buying behind a built in camouflaged payment plan.

gutnor• 14 years ago

The article assume smartphone makers will continue to battle on hardware for tiny margin and let Google handles the software.

That is possible, as we see with Amazon, that they focus on their software ecosystem and keep Google largely out of the picture. That is not as unlikely as it seems, the Nexus line and Amazon have broken the taboo against cheap quality hardware and that is like a red carpet for the cheap chinese makers. Hopefully the current manufacturers will want to avoid a second serving of the Windows OEM market, so they may decide to focus on their software ecosystem instead.

That is the best scenario, one where Microsoft and RIM both will have a chance to bring diversity. The market is too young to settle on a single OS.

dquigley• 14 years ago

Clay Christensen in the Innovators Solution lays out an explanation for what is happening here. Apple used vertical integration to make a giant leap forward with their iPhone that you couldn't have made in a non-integrated company. They ended up overshooting the typical consumer's needs though in the following iterations of the iPhone. And the technology that was at first difficult for competitors to reproduce became easier to replicate (thanks in part to Android). Samsung, HTC, and others were able then to provide good enough devices (and in certain ways, better devices) to consumers at a lower price point.

Apple's response has been to move up market towards tablets, and have been able to use their vertical integration to produce devices that no other Android manufacturer could match at first. Microsoft is building their own device to have similar quality, but they are doing it as a vertically integrated company. Amazon showed you could do a partial vertical integration (heavily customized Android and integration into their own media resources) to take away the low end of the tablet market from Apple. And slowly the Android tablet manufacturers are catching up to Apple.

So what this makes me ask is what will be next for Apple? They haven't been good at playing the high-volume, low-profit electronics game, so they'll need another "blockbuster", highly innovative device, and I am excited to see what that will be. It drives the industry forward, and creates exciting new technology we all get to benefit from eventually.

cloudwalking2• 14 years ago

You are absolutely right in what you say regarding integration.

I disagree with your final analysis of where this leaves Apple. I think Apple will continue to hold a significant chunk of the "high-end" luxury market. iOS will maintain high price points and Apple will maintain its polish--and consumers with expendable income will keep their sales strong. I suspect their market share in Europe, USA, Japan, and wealthy Chinese won't drop too much (30% of market? 45%?). Android will claim the entire low-cost market--the rest of China, India, South America.

I think Apple will maintain its profits, but Android will secure the majority of the world market. Apple is trying to maximize percentage of industry profit rather than percentage of industry sales.

nestlequ1k• 14 years ago

Sure, Apple is trying to maximize profit. But how does that help me?

We're developers right? We need to find the market with the most potential. If I'm developing for a platform where the platform holder is laser focused on maximizing their profit, but not their marketshare... it seems like I've made the wrong choice.

I see a lot of iPhone devs (not you specifically) try to justify Apple's shrinking marketshare by saying it's fine since Apple is still taking the total profit in the industry. Either they've heavily invested their earnings into AAPL, or they're trying to pull any stat they possibly can to justify their platform choice.

eta_carinae4• 14 years ago

> iOS will maintain high price points

What high price points? iOS devices (phones and tablets) are pretty much at the same price as the competition.

technotony• 14 years ago

There's a slide in here which shows apple has ten times the app download revenues that android has: http://www.businessinsider.com/state-of-internet-slides-2012...

ajross3• 14 years ago

It's worth pointing out that very similar things were said about Apple computer c. 1990, as comparatively primitive[1] windows 3.0 boxes were being increasingly sold into the PC market at volumes dwarfing what Apple was seeing with their more polished and higher-margin macintosh line.

That didn't work out so well.

[1] And it really was. Comparing System 6 to Windows 3.0 was night and day to any observer, even people with very little market knowledge. Android is, relatively, much, much closer to iOS in polish (even granting that iOS is the "better" choice, which lots of smart people don't).

bitcartel2• 14 years ago

I don't think Apple are really in the "high-end" luxury market otherwise you'd see an iPhone as often as you see someone driving a Rolls-Royce Phantom or wearing an Audemars Piguet watch.

I think it would be fair to compare Apple products to consumer level fashion items from luxury brands. Whether it's Armani jeans, Calvin Klein boxers or Gucci handbags, people are willing to spend a little more because of perceived value or identity with the brand, even though they can get the same product for less at Banana Republic or GAP.

However unlike Apple, the likes of Louis Vuitton and Gucci do sell high-end luxury items at ridiculous prices, often unique bespoke pieces, which ordinary consumers would never be able to afford. Were Apple to be comparable, they would be selling boutique devices at $10k-$20k like a gold-plated iPhone with 5" screen, 8-core 64 bit ARM processor, 32GB ram, 512GB storage.

jusben13694• 14 years ago

One nitpick is the tablet isn't "up market" but rather a new market. A device that sits between an PC and a mobile phone.

sinnerswing6• 14 years ago

Nothing impressive with this. I know of a few companies that sold crappy devices with crappy OS's. RIM, Nokia, etc. and they dominated the market.

Android has become the new Nokia.

Big Market Share. Worthless user-base.

drivebyacct213• 14 years ago

Yep, 75% of the market loves to buy crappy devices with crappy OSs. The fact that high end Android devices are popular and sell well (SGSIII? Samsung's profits being damn impressive next to Apple's?) is just a weird inconvenient fact.

eta_carinae4• 14 years ago

> Big Market Share. Worthless user-base.

You sound exactly like these people standing in line for iPhones in the Samsung commercial.

RivieraKid6• 14 years ago

I agree that most of Android phones are crappy. Mostly because of Android customizations, old versions of Android and boring-looking hardware. But Nexus 4 is on par with iPhone 5 (while being 2 times cheaper).

jusben13694• 14 years ago

Why are you being so defensive and dismissive to the point of making a number of really inaccurate generalizations?

bane2• 14 years ago

I'd bet that Apple is taking Glass very seriously. Or at least the wearable, always on, always connected computer.

Steko14• 14 years ago

The first NYT article on Glass reported that Apple was also doing a lot of research on wearables. Predictably when they come out with whatever they do everyone will say they are "reacting to Google" but I'm sure many companies have been hard at work on this for years. If I had to bet I would bet on a startup that just takes bluetooth accessories to the next level and leverages the phone in your pocket for the connection/cpu/gpu. Bluetooth headset with a camera and custom voice control app. It's not near what Project Glass promises but you could build it today and sell millions for $99/$149.

rogerbinns2• 14 years ago

Asymco (highly recommended analysis site for the mobile industry) has an excellent article on this "over serving" issue http://www.asymco.com/2012/09/18/is-the-iphone-good-enough/

One thing he notes is that Apple sell the current (new) generation device at the same time as they sell the previous generation for less. By looking at sales they can tell if they are over serving - people will buy the previous generation because the new generation doesn't add sufficient value to their needs.

mtgx• 14 years ago

And yet, even with that strategy being implemented for the past few years, the iPhone is losing in global market share, and Android is 5x bigger now. So it's not very effective in this context.

sputknick• 14 years ago

Sounds a lot like the PC market circa 1986. Except with Google playing the "good enough device" role.

mongol• 14 years ago

I think it could be a better TV experience ("smart tvs"), or something related to wearable computing, such as watches.

drivebyacct213• 14 years ago

I don't see why they demonize this: "If Google decides that HTML5 web apps are the way forward, making them a first-class citizen in future versions of Android, then other mobile OSes will have no other option than to follow suit."

azakai• 14 years ago

They don't demonize it, they are just showing how much power Google will have. Power that could be used for good or for bad from the world's perspective, but will always be used for Google's benefit.

atirip• 14 years ago

So now that one company is Google, that one man is Andy Rubin and that one phone is Android. Thats the future we wanted. Thank God Google acted.

eta_carinae4• 14 years ago

Android is not a phone.

If we standardize on one operating system, I definitely prefer a future where we have thousands of phones to choose from and not just five.

Thank you Google for saving us from an Apple monopoly.

Steko14• 14 years ago

Talk of an Apple monopoly is silly. Apple has shown no interest in building budget smartphones. That market, which is hundreds of millions of phones per year, was always going to go to whichever competitor which managed to both copy the iphone the best and kowtow to the carriers. WebOS only met the first criteria, Nokia only the second, Android checked both boxes.

sinnerswing6• 14 years ago

Thank God for giving us a shitty alternative to iOS.

arrrg• 14 years ago

I think there is no chance in hell that an Apple monopoly would ever happened. Apple has never shown interest in that. Even with their tablets they do not.

diminish• 14 years ago

Andy Rubin as a startup founder of 10 years ago is to be congratulated, too. His vision of an open source, Linux-based mobile OS has wiped away the competition and is now the dominant player. Android has stolen most superlatives from competitors in just 4 years.

That said, I believe it is time for start-ups to get ready for a post-Android world where the forking, customization power of open source software, combined with the diversity and power of mobile chips, will come into play. New categories of devices, solutions based on powerful mobile chips may open up new horizons for aspiring startups.

nchomsky• 14 years ago

So if Apple has 70% of the market share, how does Android make up 75%? It can only be less than 30%. Can anyone clarify?

daenz• 14 years ago

I think that because the sentence includes "of all smartphones sold", the discrepency is describing a shift in market share. Apple could have 70% now, and 75% of all new devices sold now could be Android. They were in the game first, and aggregated a huge market share, but now it is shifting.

neya3• 14 years ago

This is seriously good news. What many people don't realize is how powerful Android is. Open Source doesn't mean shitty quality software, contrary to popular belief. Android can do so many things that other Operating systems still cannot provide. All Android needs is some time, and some iterations and no one can even dream of killing it (like many plan to). Because, if anything history has taught us, Open Source will eventually win the war.

I own a 42" Sony Bravia LCD TV. When I first purchased it, I got a hard copy of the GNU/GPL license. Wondering, I did a quick search and found out that my TV runs on Linux! Now, here's the sad part - Since I'm somewhat techie, I know my TV is powered by Open Source software. But the average end consumer doesn't know and doesn't care much, he just wants a good TV. So, the main area where open Source is weak at is marketing. And this too, is only a matter of time, till it catches up, I believe.

Imagine if the Linux foundation advertised on TV like Apple did, for their Mac vs PC commercials? Then the average consumer would probably care. If you have a good product, you should let people know about it. Sadly, even the Nexus 10 and Nexus 4 have poor marketing in this context (Michael Arrington wrote a wonderful article on this[1]).

One day, Android will reach 95%+, and I will live to watch it happen and I will tell my kids and my grandchildren without hesitation - "This is the future."

[1] http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/31/hey-google-your-nexus-7-mar...

briandear2• 14 years ago

Android is open source? Cool! Where's the source code?

neya3• 14 years ago

http://source.android.com/

shinratdr8• 14 years ago

> Because, if anything history has taught us, Open Source will eventually win the war.

How does that work? Where is the open source OS that "won" the desktop war? Where is the open source codec that "won" the codec wars?

biomechanica• 14 years ago

I'm unsure I agree with it also. Android has Google's wallet to fall back on. That could be one reason why it's successful.

Mobile devices fill a different "comfort", I think. Desktop OS's out there try to fill a broad spectrum of wants (and needs). I think Linus has been quoted as saying something like, "Desktop is a hard problem to solve", and that the Linux world hasn't even come close to solving it (yet).

I know a lot of people who would otherwise be lost on a Windows machine be completely comfortable with iPhone or Android devices simply because it fills that niche. Computer illiterate people seem to gravitate to, not desktop, but mobile devices.

So maybe Android is the new "desktop" for those types of users. Power users are now left to fill their own comforts. Maybe Linux powered desktops will eventually be the winner in the future. We'll see.

Open source codec race is, as far as I'm concerned, not over yet. Opus shows a ton of potential for audio related streaming/recording. Webm is supported by most browsers (except for Safari and IE). It's not a bad container, too. Compared to mp4, it's not that great, but I really can't tell the difference when watching something online anymore.

So, the wars aren't over. Android with Google's backing will be, and is, a force to be reckoned with. However, I wouldn't cancel out the possibility of another open source and free alternative coming around the corner to change that. Perhaps Firefox OS, who knows?

mey• 14 years ago

Open source has won the enterprise. (Servers and platforms)

bitcartel2• 14 years ago

I am guessing the original poster is referring to GNU/Linux beating Solaris to win the server market.

EDIT: Regarding the desktop, just saw this: "Ubuntu will account for roughly 9% of all global PC shipments by 2014" http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/11/ubuntu-pc-sales-skyrocket...

ZeroGravitas• 14 years ago

x264?

SiVal• 14 years ago

And will HCJ (HTML5/CSS/JavaScript) ultimately win the mobile app platform war?

Right now, native apps do a better job than Web apps, so they tend to be Plan A. You do one if the market justifies it. Plan B is a Web app for market segments too small to write a native app for. But if Android takes enough total market share with its motley crew of incompatible devices, it could push iOS into being just another of the small fragments, and mobile development could become dominated by HCJ.

I would like to see Google use its leverage to actively, explicitly work toward making HCJ the Plan A for the great majority of mobile apps. If they reached the point where enough devices used HTML5/CSS as essentially the native UI, they could even make the Plan A for native apps be browserless HCJ on the client with an option to use compiled Go instead of JavaScript (behind the HTML/CSS UI) where it made sense. The Web app and the native app become nearly the same stack.

glomph• 14 years ago

LAME, FLAC and x264 all won in a sense.

ConstantineXVI2• 14 years ago

The Android codebase may not be killable, but Android as a platform certainly is. Google is the only thing holding Android together; if they pull out or a major OEM or carrier grows balls, they'll fork and the ecosystem will shatter. Remember Android is mainly [edit: Apache] licensed so there's no requirement for forkers to stay open; I have serious doubts OEMs and carriers are interested in helping their competitors.

myko8• 14 years ago

Actually it's Apache: http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html

credo• 14 years ago

>>Open Source will eventually win the war.

You're neglecting to mention one important fact. Open Source often relies on subsidies and handouts from companies/organizations(that use open-source software to compete with (and attack) software companies that created the original software product). Sun is a good example that comes to mind here

In case of Android, Google is an ad company and don't need to earn money by selling mobile OS software.

I have had Android phones since the G1 (and wrote a prototype Android app long before the first Android phone (G1) was in the market). However, that doesn't blind me to the fact that Google's business model (free software that obtains user information and monetizes users through ads) is very different from the business model of companies like Microsoft and Apple.

rbanffy• 14 years ago

I don't think a monopoly made on top of an open-source platform makes any sense.

danielrhodes• 14 years ago

This whole article reads like Google is announcing it's dominance, as if it's some Christian crusader claiming a conquered land in the name of the Pope and Christianity.

Here's my interpretation of some of what I read:

"If Google decides that HTML5 web apps are the way forward, making them a first-class citizen in future versions of Android, then other mobile OSes will have no other option than to follow suit."

(We claim absolute power)

"Conversely, Google could decide to cease development of the stock Android browser — much like Microsoft did with IE4 — and push alternative technologies like Native Client or Dart, forcing other mobile OSes to embrace Google’s tech."

(You must all submit to our new power)

"And what about the other platforms? It seems like Apple is destined to occupy a tiny corner of the market — no doubt making fat profits, but losing control of the market and all-important mind share in the process."

(Your former leader has been dethroned and never had your interests in mind anyways)

"You may point to the fact that Android is open source, thus making such a monopoly rather toothless. This might be theoretically true, but in practice Google still holds all the keys."

(Don't question Google's power)

"Over the next few years, Google will develop unprecedented control of the fastest growing tech market in the world. Will Google use this power to gently steer and cajole the web and mobile computing markets towards green pastures, or will it cave like Microsoft and squeeze as much money as it can from Android?"

(Will Google be a benevolent leader or a ruthless dictator? You will find out.)

wutbrodo• 14 years ago

Apparently you're unaware that extremetech.com is not a part of Google (and unaffiliated with them, as far as I know). All of those quotations are from the article, which Google didn't write...so I fail to see how any of this is "Google announcing its dominance" (as opposed to ExtremeTech announcing their perception of Google's dominance, which is a VASTLY different thing).

jusben13694• 14 years ago

What Apple does well: Take a nascent but exploding market and create a fantastically superior experience via vertical integration. Get way out of in front of the competition and own the consumer mindshare: PC/iPod/iPhone (almost Newton)

What Apple doesn't do well: Own the mass market. The one place they have - music players - has really collapsed as a stand alone market and merged in with smart phones. (ie no one in the right mind today would launch a stand alone music/video player)

Why Apple is in trouble: 47% of all revenue comes from the iPhone and it's clear that that market has moved past their sweet spot.

What Apple needs to do: Understand that (to them) this market is mature. It's not about fighting Android. It's about finding the next PC/Music Player/Phone where the potential is huge and the vertical integration of hardware and software will blow away the competition for 3 - 5 years. What is that? I don't know or I'd be running the place! My fear is Steve would have known but Tim does not seem like he would.

Steko14• 14 years ago

"Why Apple is in trouble: 47% of all revenue comes from the iPhone and it's clear that that market has moved past their sweet spot"

This is not clear at all. Selling tiny computers with mobile broadband is clearly going to be the biggest hardware business for the next 10+ years and 10 years from now the device that generates the bulk of Apple's revenues will probably still be called an iPhone. It may bear little similarity to the current slab/multitouch input phone of today but will serve all the same purposes. And Android based competitors may be 90% of the market then and Apple may still be the most profitable company in the world.

I have a hard time believing the story that 'Apple is in trouble' because they have the highest margins in one the biggest markets which is still rapidly growing.

drivebyacct213• 14 years ago

>Selling tiny computers with mobile broadband is clearly going to be the biggest hardware business for the next 10+ years and 10 years from now the device that generates the bulk of Apple's revenues will probably still be called an iPhone.

It is completely my opinion, but I also suspect the opinion of others that if that's Apple's strategy, they're in for a very rude awakening. They're taking an increasingly smaller portion of the pie and there is a lot of pie left to take.

jusben13694• 14 years ago

Steko ask yourself this question. What portion of the smartphone market did they have 3 years ago? What % is that today? What happens when the pie stops growing in 3 years? It's feeling pretty much like PC vs Mac again where they're at less than 10% permanently. Anyway, the point is they need to go find another space now. They shouldn't exit phones they just should acknowledge that the vertical integrated offerings strengths become it's weakness.

ricw• 14 years ago

Couldn't agree more with this. What apple needs to do is not necessarily only innovate with features, but also with price. Otherwise they'll lose the market share (happening), devs won't prioritise iOS anymore, the iOS ecosystem advantage will become less relevant and well see the same pan out as we've seen when w95 hit the market.. In the end, it'll all boil down to marketshare.

drp4929• 14 years ago

The title is misleading. It should read :

"Android now powers 75% of all smartphones sold <b> in 3rd quarter of 2012 </b>"

panabee• 14 years ago

Apple has designed its business model to cede the mass market. It focuses on capturing the majority of industry profits, not sales. It should surprise no one that more phones ship with Android than iOS.

As a platform company, this strategy exposes a vulnerable flank since historically the platform company with the most market share attracts the best software and the most end users.

The greatest difference between mobile devices and PCs? There is no IBM, which essentially standardized a powerful alternative to the Apple PC within a year or two. Android is not a single alternative but more an umbrella term encompassing several alternatives. There is still too much fragmentation today in the Android ecosystem, and its structure fosters fragmentation -- not standardization. The device manufacturers saw how commoditization destroyed the PC manufacturers, and they are intent to avoid the same fate. Unless something changes, Android devices from one manufacturer will continue to vary from other Android devices in terms of size and functionality.

For developers, the right way to segment operating systems is not Android vs iOS vs Windows 8, but by code reach. In other words, how many devices can be reached with the same code base? My hunch is iOS will have an impressive lead in this metric, but I'm happy to be proven wrong if someone has contradicting data.

Apple is content to yield marginally profitable customers to "Android," provided Android remains as fragmented as it is today. If Android were to unite, or some other OS emerges, allowing devs to target 75% of the market with (fundamentally) the same code base, the threat to Apple becomes far more dangerous.

bdcravens3• 14 years ago

This was more true 2 years ago. I think they are trying to capture back some of that "mass market" where people expect a cheap or free phone as opposed to the high end where we are used to paying $200-400:

http://www.apple.com/iphone/compare-iphones/

(4: free, 4S: $99)

Steko14• 14 years ago

These are contract prices. The unlocked iphone 4 still sells for $450+ which is around what carriers pay.

What we talk about when we talk about the "mass market" is the half a billion plus smartphones sold this year that range anywhere from less then $100 to $350. Apple has thus far refused to compete in this part of the market.

bdcravens3• 14 years ago

I keep thinking this will be a bit antitrust concern in future years. I'm not even going to get into the FTC's recommendation to sue over patents:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ftc-staff-said-to-for...

1) To make use of many Android device features, you typically are required to have a Google account. (Ditto with the iPhone, but it's a bigger deal the more you control the market) 2) The pressure exerted on Aliyun 3) By default, Google search in the browser. How long before there's pressure for a "search engine ballot" screen?

Kylekramer2• 14 years ago

Google already offers a ballot for desktop Chrome, I wouldn't be too surprised if they offer one for Android at some point.

Android now powers 75% of all smartphones sold

Related Stories