4 ms·

Please note that this should be a high quality web site. Don't "argue" by finding a random web page that claims something. I Googled market share smart phones

by berntb 14y ago

Please note that this should be a high quality web site. Don't "argue" by finding a random web page that claims something. I Googled market share smart phones 2012 quarter and got 16.9% for Apple in multiple sources, including Washington Post. In literally a minute. (Apple's market share in pads is much larger than this, so it would only increase the statistic.) http://www.bgr.com/2012/08/08/q2-2012-smartphone-market-share-idc/ http://www.bgr.com/2012/08/08/q2-2012-smartphone-market-shar... http://www.boston.com/business/technology/2012/08/29/worldwide-market-share-for-smartphones/JmyBJe5vkNmXtjCqBkqlFI/story.html http://www.boston.com/business/technology/2012/08/29/worldwi... http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/worldwide-market-share-for-smartphones-a-market-dominated-by-apple-and-android/2012/08/24/7d51fe0c-ee4a-11e1-b624-99dee49d8d67_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/worldwide-... Edit: I did learn something -- about AllThingsD. Which was the original source for your claim.

npguy 14y ago
Sure, Thanks for the links. How do these websites define market share? it must be market share by revenue, right? my original comment was based on units -> then revenue -> then profits.
- ZeroGravitas 14y ago
  No, they use units. Your 6% figure is clearly wrong (or 4 years out of date). For some reason Apple blogs regularly switch between smartphone and mobile phone numbers and get themselves and their readership mixed up. I don't know why, Apple's success in the smartphone market alone is impressive enough, but they seem to like to convince themselves that Samsung isn't making any money from Android smartphones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Wide_Smartphone_Sales_Share.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Wide_Smartphone_Sale...
Steko 14y ago
Save the lectures imho, the source of the quote was a analyst cited by All Things D, hardly a random webpage. Also 43% of "industry revenue" not smartphone/tablet revenue. Try not to confuse people with tangents and red herrings.
- berntb 14y ago
  >>43% of "industry revenue" not smartphone/tablet revenue. You're not touching the "6%" number, which was what I showed wrong? In what you comments on... Edit: Removed discussion of the revenue percentage, which wasn't so obviously wrong (I only questioned it in relation to the market share.)
  - Steko 14y ago
    Well you cited a different number, not the same as showing it was wrong. For the record I think your number is closer to right and I'm inclined to believe what's really meant was 6% of all phones but it could be a different definition on what constitutes a smartphone and/or the lower end of a broad range.
    - berntb 14y ago
      >>you cited a different number Sigh, it is not my number -- it is Washington Post's number (and the remaining top hits on Google). And if you're not familiar with the US news market and Washington Post [Edit: Removed wikipedia link since ZeroGravitas wrote a better one in a parallel comment.] Now, go troll someone else. Preferably not on HN.
      - slurgfest 14y ago
        The severity of your tone (go troll someone else, etc.) seems disproportionate... whether it is accurate or inaccurate, you seem to be actually offended by the 6% figure, yet looking over the thread I don't see anyone getting particularly personal with you, just discussing a topic.
        berntb 14y ago
        I pointed out unreasonsble claims that disagree both with Wikipedia and with media that have serious fact checking -- he keeps arguing. (I stopped checking after the three top results on Google) All that without any real point. Now you claim there is a point?

by berntb 14y ago

npguy 14y ago

Sure, Thanks for the links. How do these websites define market share? it must be market share by revenue, right? my original comment was based on units -> then revenue -> then profits.

ZeroGravitas 14y ago
No, they use units. Your 6% figure is clearly wrong (or 4 years out of date). For some reason Apple blogs regularly switch between smartphone and mobile phone numbers and get themselves and their readership mixed up. I don't know why, Apple's success in the smartphone market alone is impressive enough, but they seem to like to convince themselves that Samsung isn't making any money from Android smartphones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Wide_Smartphone_Sales_Share.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Wide_Smartphone_Sale...

Steko 14y ago

Save the lectures imho, the source of the quote was a analyst cited by All Things D, hardly a random webpage. Also 43% of "industry revenue" not smartphone/tablet revenue. Try not to confuse people with tangents and red herrings.

berntb 14y ago
>>43% of "industry revenue" not smartphone/tablet revenue. You're not touching the "6%" number, which was what I showed wrong? In what you comments on... Edit: Removed discussion of the revenue percentage, which wasn't so obviously wrong (I only questioned it in relation to the market share.)
- Steko 14y ago
  Well you cited a different number, not the same as showing it was wrong. For the record I think your number is closer to right and I'm inclined to believe what's really meant was 6% of all phones but it could be a different definition on what constitutes a smartphone and/or the lower end of a broad range.
  - berntb 14y ago
    >>you cited a different number Sigh, it is not my number -- it is Washington Post's number (and the remaining top hits on Google). And if you're not familiar with the US news market and Washington Post [Edit: Removed wikipedia link since ZeroGravitas wrote a better one in a parallel comment.] Now, go troll someone else. Preferably not on HN.
    - slurgfest 14y ago
      The severity of your tone (go troll someone else, etc.) seems disproportionate... whether it is accurate or inaccurate, you seem to be actually offended by the 6% figure, yet looking over the thread I don't see anyone getting particularly personal with you, just discussing a topic.
      - berntb 14y ago
        I pointed out unreasonsble claims that disagree both with Wikipedia and with media that have serious fact checking -- he keeps arguing. (I stopped checking after the three top results on Google) All that without any real point. Now you claim there is a point?