tech

Android gets record 87.5% of smartphone market: survey

42 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2016 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

42 Comments
Login to comment

For those who like their numbers, another report says Apple took 104% of smartphone profits in the same quarter. (Investor's Business Daily)

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Add another 1-2% to that Android number if not for the Galaxy Note 7's heating up and melting.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Add another 1-2% to that Android number if not for the Galaxy Note 7's heating up and melting.

These statistics come from before Galaxy Note meltdown. I dare say it will be different in the next quarter.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Apple took 104% of smartphone profits in the same quarter.

It doesn't surprise me that Apple is infinitely more profitable, but what does that say about the average Apple user?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

These statistics come from before Galaxy Note meltdown. I dare say it will be different in the next quarter.

There will be an effect, but I don't think it will be so drastic. The number of Note 7s as a percentage of the overall use of Android as an OS on phones is probably fairly minimal.

The comparisons between android and iPhone always seem wrong to me. iPhones essentially only have two given models at any time, though I guess sometimes there is an additional type like the 5c when it came out. To compares this against an OS that is used by many companies on a huge range of phones and qualities seems like an apples to oranges comparison. I think the accurate comparison would be to compare iphones to any other company's lineup of android phones.

It's like saying Mercedes has a much smaller market share than all other cars combined.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Yeah, sorry iPhone believers, you're on a sinking ship. Only in Japan, the numbers are vice versa. Only in Japan, that should tell you a lot about its folks and believers ;)

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Yeah, sorry iPhone believers, you're on a sinking ship.

Please explain further, are you saying that Apple is about to go bankrupt and stop selling/supporting iphones? Because I can't think of any other meaning to 'sinking ship'.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

It's like saying Mercedes has a much smaller market share than all other cars combined.

It isn't, because it's not intended to be a manufacturer comparison, it's an OS comparison. Apple once dominated in this area, but that was before Android was released - in effect, when it was the only smartphone manufacturer in the market. Obviously the release of Android didn't go down too well at Apple:

"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this" bla bla yawn...

Jobs's puny rage notwithstanding, Android hasn't been destroyed or even dented - rather the opposite.

There's more than one way to operate in a market. Apple's, in which a proprietary OS is to be used only with Apple hardware, and Apple hardware must run an Apple OS, is one way to do it. This has many advantages and (considerable) drawbacks. One of the drawbacks is that iOS and OSX operate in a world dominated by other operating systems, and always will.

You may disagree with the survey above, but the manufacturer ranking, in which Apple outperforms most others, is not the only way to assess a market. The fact that iOS is in fact just a small part of a huge market is quite important. If you look around you some time, you'll see that in many areas, Apple's computers are almost nonexistent: it's Windows and Linux in offices, stores, laboratories, schools, etc, and it's no surprise that OSX has a tiny market share:

<http://1u88jj3r4db2x4txp44yqfj1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/mac_market_share_november_2015.png >

This is the road that Apple has chosen, and the people who analyze markets are going to continue looking at OS market share.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Quality not quantity is what's important. The article misses out what all other outlests are reporting that Apple took over 100% of smartphone profits.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

It isn't, because it's not intended to be a manufacturer comparison, it's an OS comparison.

Sure, but when one OS is only on phones created by one company, and the other OS is open-source and available to any company that wants to use it, of course the open-source one is going to have a wider proliferation.

So to refine my statement: It's like saying Mercedes engines have a much smaller market share than all other car engines combined.

There's more than one way to operate in a market. Apple's, in which a proprietary OS is to be used only with Apple hardware, and Apple hardware must run an Apple OS, is one way to do it. This has many advantages and (considerable) drawbacks.

Ok, I'm with you, except for maybe the use of the word 'considerable'.

One of the drawbacks is that iOS and OSX operate in a world dominated by other operating systems, and always will.

How is that a drawback?

If you look around you some time, you'll see that in many areas, Apple's computers are almost nonexistent:

Fair enough, but in other areas, Apples are the dominant computer by far. Macs are by far the dominant leader in any design and most production firms. In Japan, this used to not be true, but in recent years it's even happening in Japan.

What I have always liked about Apple is that they aren't trying to be everything to everyone. That's what Windows is for. Windows definitely has its place (just not in my offices). Android definitely has its place too.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

It doesn't surprise me that Apple is infinitely more profitable, but what does that say about the average Apple user? more gullible to PR hype

0 ( +4 / -4 )

more gullible to PR hype

What PR hype? I don't read any of Apple's PR. Occasionally I see one of their commercials on TV, but it's always after I've bought whatever the ad is for - with the exception of the ipad, which I haven't owned one in years as I found my phone is more than enough for me.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

So to refine my statement: It's like saying Mercedes engines have a much smaller market share than all other car engines combined.

That sounds to me like repetition rather than refinement, and car analogies are singularly pointless anyway. An iPhone isn't a car, and it most certainly isn't a Mercedes.

How is that a drawback?

Well why did Steve Jobs lose his shit when Android was released? Evidently he didn't appreciate a powerful competitor suddenly appearing in his market, and the Android OS was certainly that: it opened the floodgates for all the non-Apple smartphones. Today, most smartphone owners don't own an Apple phone. Same goes for tablets. Same goes for PCs.

Fair enough, but in other areas, Apples are the dominant computer by far. Macs are by far the dominant leader in any design and most production firms.

Er, great if true, I guess. If only those were the sole areas of commerce known to mankind, perhaps that would count for something. But there is a real world out there.

What I have always liked about Apple is that they aren't trying to be everything to everyone.

That's rather meaningless. A smartphone or a computer is the ultimate "everything to everyone" device, capable of handling everything from pornography and games to astrophysics. Apple just happened to totally lose control of certain markets. Like office software. Computer games. Servers. In the areas where it does dominate, it very much tries to - or has to - be all things to all people. Look at iTunes, the "kinda everything" application.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Smartphone market share for Apple has always been dominated by Android because of cheaper phones. Any search for years will show this. However different countries have different cost and quality preferences so while the report isn't anything unusual it doesn't help understanding the differences.

It's interesting for me that it's more profitable to be an independent self business with iOS than selling Android apps. You learn both of course to maximize your potential, like I am, but you don't discount Apple because you want to be profitable.

There is an expectation with iPhone users that although there are free apps, they tend to pay for them far more often than Android users who will accept more ads rather than pay for an app. It works out better for the developer to do both, of course, but earn off the Apple system more than Android. Otherwise to do well with Android alone you have to work for a company and be on a larger team.

I'm taking classes so I'll learn both systems, but this is the trend so far. I can see a future where I'm using both systems and Android is certainly all around me more than iPhone but I want to make a living without needing a company. I'm an agnostic computer user (LinuxMint, MBP10.11, Android phone haha)

However in spite of all this Apple keeps disenfranchising its users handling user lawsuits, or fewer options, and now no headphone jack. Samsung is on fire plus the cost of recalls. 2016 not a great year for smartphones.

It'll be interesting to see how this all shakes down with so much insecurity on newer models over the holidays. Google's Pixel is expensive but their users are not Apple users so given all the volatility I think I would forego the expense and risks until something more stable emerges

2 ( +2 / -0 )

That sounds to me like repetition rather than refinement, and car analogies are singularly pointless anyway. An iPhone isn't a car, and it most certainly isn't a Mercedes.

It's an analogy. Analogies are never what they say they are, if they were, they wouldn't be an analogy. That's how analogies work. And as far as iPhones go, they are the upper end of phones. So maybe you can choose a different upper end car, but being an analogy, as long as it's upper end, the analogy fits.

Well why did Steve Jobs lose his shit when Android was released?

Because he had a big ego and a bad temper? I don't really care either to be honest. The attitude of the creator doesn't matter to me when picking out a product, unless they are blatantly racist or something like that.

But ignoring that, you didn't answer the question, you just said something about Steve Jobs. Again, how are iOS and OSX operating in a world dominated by other operating systems a drawback?

Er, great if true, I guess. If only those were the sole areas of commerce known to mankind, perhaps that would count for something.

So designers and production firms should stop using Macs because these areas aren't the sole areas of commerce? I'm not getting the logic there.

there is a real world out there.

Design and production aren't part of the real world? Am I just imagining that they exist? Which world are they part of?

That's rather meaningless. A smartphone or a computer is the ultimate "everything to everyone" device, capable of handling everything from pornography and games to astrophysics.

No, they aren't. For Apple to be everything to everyone, they would have to be affordable to everyone. Everything would have to be customizable. They'd have to be as good at anything as Windows is - and if you've ever been into Gaming, Windows is by far preferable over Apple.

Apple focuses on those of us who want to use something that works, without having to download drivers, tweak registries, find fixes. We don't need a million options, just the most important ones that are necessary for usage. We don't want to compile things, we just want to install it from the app store, and have it work.

Apple just happened to totally lose control of certain markets. Like office software.

While I agree with you on this, as I use Office even on my Macs, the OSX office spread is actually coming of age, and is becoming quite full fledged. If Apple continues in this direction, I'll probably use their native suite (which is free) rather than Office.

Servers.

Say what? The only servers windows computers are good for are windows servers, which are by far the minority of servers. Most are Apache or Nginx, both of which are a huge hassle to interact with natively through Windows, since it doesn't run on Unix. Apple, being built on Unix can interact natively with these servers, using the same software as these servers.

Servers is an area where Windows most definitely is not in the lead.

Look at iTunes, the "kinda everything" application.

Well, not really. It's the management application for iphones and building apps. I pretty much never use it myself though, other than to back up my iphone. And that's only because I'm paranoid and don't want to back up to the cloud - people who back up to the cloud literally don't even need itunes.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

This happens because there're very cheap android phones, For example, I have a second phone (android) that cost me US$55 without contract. My Iphone6s P was 650, also, Most Android users never pay for anything on Playstore

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I use an Android phone but I can see the benefits of iOS for certain people.

We bought my mother an Android phone and it was a nightmare. She could barely figure out how to set it to silent mode let alone install a widget, use gestures or activate the splitscreen mode. She ended up having something like 100 chrome browser tabs open because she didn't know how to close them. Now she has an iPhone and we haven't had too many problems. The simplicity and limited functionality of the iPhone is a virtue for many older people.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The simplicity and limited functionality of the iPhone is a virtue for many older people.

The simplicity is what I like. I'm not one who wants to tweak stuff a bunch, or who wants to have a million different options. I've had the same picture my main screen for like 4 years. I don't want to have to search for settings or what not. I just want my phone to do a few simple things:

1) Let me use a browser

2) Let me watch video

3) Let me take pictures

4) Let me use the 2-3 apps (like facebook) that I use regularly.

I'm curious though, what do you see as the limited functionality of the iphone? (honest question) There is nothing I want to do on my phone that I can't, so I'm wondering how others are limited.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Also interesting to note that the hardware on Android is better but it has to run a complied Java file versus Apple that runs Objective-C / Swift compiled file. Since the software size and performance results are different the memory and chip differences in the phone are handling difference scales of program. Therefore direct hardware comparisons are moot unless it's a specific task, like wireless charging or payments or phone jacks!

The product is the message, therefore what the product does is the market it holds.

It's good to have competition to keep the players honest but with so much market share with Android it would seem to be ready for another product. With Google and the too expensive Pixel that just helps third parties like Samsung. Who can produce another competitor? China? Europe? California? Where ever it comes from they'll use Android or another Linux base since iOS is not available. So no matter the competitor, it's still lumped in with Android market share even though there are many phone types out there.

If however Apple would release iOS to be freely available to more hardware, given the compiler differences it would be interesting to see the value in providing that new competitor. With cheaper hardware it could out cheap Android in emerging markets.

Apple would have to accept that the consumer of that product would not be an Apple user anyway, so that's the only way it could draw off Android support. It would also lose it's main support if someone had iOS devices that were cheaper. Since Android app development is largely ad based Google is happy because it doesn't sell Android. However Apple can't work in and ad based model with a free OS. Therefore Apple has instead opted for more expensive with fewer devices versus less expensive with more.

Given the billions in Apple's account it's hard to argue with success, but it does leave itself continually open to remarkably small market share and keeps the company in an ever harder to innovate everyday silo. Thus it follows behind in new hardware standards and market share, but not in users and especially not in profits

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Fair enough, but in other areas, Apples are the dominant computer by far. Macs are by far the dominant leader in any design and most production firms. In Japan, this used to not be true, but in recent years it's even happening in Japan. yeah thats why nearly all high end computers for science office and gaming are PC based. Apple just doenst have the huge aftermarket, motherboards, video cards , fast processors to compete with PCs.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

thats why nearly all high end computers for science office and gaming are PC based.

What does that have to do with design and production?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

As the article points out, the Android phone sellers don't make much of a profit at all. Instead of operating system, if the charts were about profits Apple would be ahead since all the other manufacturers are competing on price while Apple is not. In Dec 2015 almost a year ago Apple claimed 92% of global smartphone profits ( https://www.statista.com/chart/4029/smartphone-profit-share/ ) . Samsung 14%. It would be interesting to see 2016.

Same with PC's. As to the Windows PC's in offices and in schools they are not the same manufacturer every year. You go into a school with design however and it indeed has large screen Apple computers. Wacom computers with large 20"+ screens are the first ones I had ever seen with Apple iOS on them and not specific Apple hardware. Other than that it's all Apple hardware for Apple computers. So profit to them.

With Windows 10 being free, the only way Microsoft makes profit is with their agreement with any PC manufacturer and peripherals. Apple with free iOS gets people directly on hardware and peripherals.

The profits of Apple are consistently higher per user while PC's may be more around but keep going out of favour and new manufacturers emerging. As far as the user is concerned it's the same, but if you worked for a PC company, it isn't.

The lesson Apple shows is that computer companies didn't have to compete on price. That might be worthwhile noting if we ever want to have workers paid a good salary in computer companies manufacturing back in North America ever again. As long as price is the focus everything will be made in Asia. Apple could still make a profit if made in the USA (after a decade of retooling and setup) but it wouldn't be as incredibly high.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Strangerland

I'm curious though, what do you see as the limited functionality of the iphone?

Fair enough. I guess it all depends on which features you use. Personally, I can't live without the splitscreen mode where I can have two apps open. I can type an email in the bottom half of the screen while scrolling through a document or pdf, or watching a video on top. I use the smart-stay feature when I'm eating lunch and slowly reading an article, so my screen won't automatically shut off as long as it can recognise my face every one in a while. The fact that I can arrange my folders, create new ones and use my phone as a big flash drive is a great. It's much easier to flip through open apps on android. The physical back button on most Android phones makes it easy to use the phone with one hand. The widgets on the homescreen are extremely useful. The wireless charging on my S6 is great (although I guess that's a Samsung feature). Being able to have multiple Google and other accounts registered on the same tablet that is shared between family members is also very convenient (I think it's still one account per phone at any one time with Apple?). From a visual perspective, the ability to customise the icons and the entire launcher is always something that iPhone users seem to find interesting, along with the 3D wallpapers. There are alot of other features (including many ridiculous and useless ones), but I'm not really a smartphone power user.

To be fair, the gap always seems to be closing between the two phones. for example, I think now you are able to install third party keyboards on iPhone which allow you to edit the size and layout of the keys? You can also copy and paste on the iPhone now (which didn't used to be the case years ago).

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As long as price is the focus everything will be made in Asia. Apple could still make a profit if made in the USA (after a decade of retooling and setup) but it wouldn't be as incredibly high. price is always the focus otherwise why would Apple continue to manufacture in China. Apple don't give two shites about loyalty to the country that they spawned from, just how much they can screw their customers on price under the guise of quality and innovation! Also the main reason why Apple customers have very little aftermarket / external manufacturers for their products, so they can continue to screw customers without the stress of added competition. PC aftermarket parts are huge with multiple manufacturers .

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Personally, I can't live without the splitscreen mode where I can have two apps open. I can type an email in the bottom half of the screen while scrolling through a document or pdf, or watching a video on top.

Yeah, that would definitely be nice.

You can also copy and paste on the iPhone now (which didn't used to be the case years ago).

That must have been many years ago, this has been a feature since I've had an iphone (6 years now). Now you can even copy on the iphone, and paste on your Mac, or vice versa, as long as you are in the same general vicinity with both devices. Really cool feature - I use it regularly.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Google has mixed up the signals by selling their Pixel at Apple prices. Naturally had more profit on their Nexus line since it's not relying on ad revenue like with another phone and its Android apps. With the Apple-like prices they are not competing on price anymore.

Google is essentially confirming that the Apple profit model is a better approach for stability. Now if Apple would just release its iOS to hardware manufacturers it could even out the Google market share with cheaper iOS devices. Apple shouldn't fear internal iOS based competition if the end result is incremental better hardware choices.

It'll come down to the profit comparison of general loses to cheaper hardware compared to a larger pie of market share? Maybe Apple could go Google's way while Google goes Apple?

Harder for Apple to leave the protection of their silo though. We'll see how the Pixel does and maybe it'll help Apple come out of its iOS shell

1 ( +1 / -0 )

“Its low-cost services and user-friendly software remain attractive to hardware makers, operators and consumers worldwide.”

I conced it's really low-cost. But it makes me angry calling it user-friendly. I have the misfortune of being forced to use a Samsung at my job. First, I receive warnings of virus on a daily basis, thus I never, ever, will buy anything using this device. Second, it's so slow it's irritating, and, mind you, I don't even have videos or photos to make it lighter - to no avail. Third, there are places I don't want people to know I am using a Samsung, and Android as a colateral. It makes me feel a second-class person. Thanks godness, when my job is finished I can forget this duo somewhere.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

just how much they can screw their customers on price under the guise of quality and innovation!

If customers are willing to pay for the product even when there is perfectly acceptable competition, then they aren't getting screwed.

Also the main reason why Apple customers have very little aftermarket / external manufacturers for their products, so they can continue to screw customers without the stress of added competition.

No, that's not the reason. One of the things that makes Apple work so well is that they aren't trying to make their OS run on any device with any screen size and any hardware. They know exactly which devices it will be run on, exactly what their screen size is, and exactly what the hardware will be. This makes it easier for them to make a product that is more consistent, running smoothly on almost every device it is run on. They can run tests on the exact hardware that their OS will exist on, and know exactly how it will perform.

Once they start creating an environment in which they control the hardware, they have to alter their OS to be able to work with any hardware. This means more problems and less consistency.

This is almost definitely the same reason why they don't offer their OS for other developers. If they did, they would open themselves up to people saying that iOS sucks, because it doesn't work well, when people used it on devices for which it wasn't made to run.

PC aftermarket parts are huge with multiple manufacturers .

For people to whom this matters, this is a plus. But everything comes with a cost - some hardware just doesn't work as well in combination as other hardware. This isn't an issue Apple owners ever have to deal with. Ever.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Design and production aren't part of the real world? Am I just imagining that they exist? Which world are they part of?

There's a real world out there in addition to design and production companies. Design and production companies are neither the entirety of the real world, nor the majority of it.

Say what? The only servers windows computers are good for are windows servers, which are by far the minority of servers [...] Servers is an area where Windows most definitely is not in the lead.

I don't believe I mentioned Windows servers. I said Apple totally lost control of certain markets, including servers. They offered server hardware until a few years ago. It is to be assumed that by being in a market, they intend and would like to actually sell some products in that market. They modified the servers offered in 2010 and dropped them altogether in 2013. They do not produce any model marketed as a server now. In short, they were in the server market and got out of it. Throughout Apple's history, they have done well in some areas and badly in others. Servers are not one of their success areas.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

There's a real world out there in addition to design and production companies. Design and production companies are neither the entirety of the real world, nor the majority of it.

Ok? I'm not sure what you're arguing against here.

It is to be assumed that by being in a market, they intend and would like to actually sell some products in that market

Yeah, that's a fair assumption. It didn't work out for them, so they dropped it. What's the problem here?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

for sheer computing power , latest Intel or AMD processors, or the latest 4K graphics at 100+fps video cards there is no replacement for PCs at a reasonable price. thats what real competition gets you, not some illusion of competition.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

And a lot of people will go to Denny's over a sushi shop because it's cheaper and the volume greater. Ultimately has about the same effect as a Galaxy 7 in the end, though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, that's a fair assumption. It didn't work out for them, so they dropped it. What's the problem here?

None really. I mentioned it three comments ago, you hit that with a "say what?", which if I understand the idiom correctly, expresses surprise and/or disbelief, and after you spun off into a tangent about the flaws of Windows PCs as servers, and I nudged you back within hailing distance of my original point, we both agree that Apple exited the server market. Which is what I said in the first place.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

more gullible to PR hype

Not really. I have an Xperia and it came loaded with all kinds of crap I'll never use...it's the same as buying a laptop here, loads of apps with their icons all over the place and constant reminders to update. It's just so cluttered! Open an Apple device, whether it's a desktop, iPad, or a phone, you can just start using it without having to clean it up.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

few Android device vendors make profits

Focus on volume share is a meaningless distraction when low barriers to entry (for makers through resellers to consumers) and commoditization have created a perpetual state of hyper competition.

What's the value share?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It doesn't surprise me that Apple is infinitely more profitable, but what does that say about the average Apple user?

Actually - It's what it says about the average Android handset manufacturer - -

They are giving their phones away in order to saturate the market & while in many industries this would be considered illegal in almost every company it is considered a poor choice and an unsustainable business model by investors

1 ( +1 / -0 )

".....in effect, when it was the only smartphone manufacturer in the market."

Nope. The Blackberry was the hit status-symbol product at the time. Then there's Japan's own i-mode, in the late 90s.

One of the great myths is that Apple invented the smartphone. It didn't. Not by a long shot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One of the great myths is that Apple invented the smartphone. It didn't. Not by a long shot.

Yes and no. They didn't invent the mutli-function phone, but they were the first ones to create the style that we call smart-phones now, the full-screen touch screen phones, without a keypad. The term smartphone did not exist before that, and calling blackberries and phones like that is retroactively fitting the phones into the name we came up with after Apple created the iphone.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"but they were the first ones to create the style that we call smart-phones now, the full-screen touch screen phones, without a keypad."

Wrong. There are several "smartphone" models today with physical keyboards Blackberries have always been in the "smartphone" category, due to their enhanced functionality, not keyboard config, long before the iPhone existed. Also, the term "smartphone" was coined in 1995.

http://thedroidguy.com/2016/09/top-7-android-smartphones-physical-qwerty-keyboards-87556

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ok, then I'll rephrase my comment. They were the first ones to make the full-screen touch-panel smartphones without a keypad.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

One of the great myths is that Apple invented the smartphone. It didn't. Not by a long shot.

I'm aware of that. However, they were first to bring out a smartphone for the all-purpose average consumer, basically in the form we know it in today. Which made them, for a while, the only choice for people who wanted a smartphone. The Blackberry was nothing close to that - I never even met anybody who used one (yeah I know, I lead a sheltered existence, but still).

If that still ruffles your feathers, fine, I'm not exactly wedded to pushing the point that Apple invented the smartphone. They were, though, once, the undisputed market leader in that area, took it into new places that Blackberry wasn't going, and were very pissed off indeed when an operating system became available that made serious competition and a rash of me-too models inevitable.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites