4 ms·

This reads like a populist piece, trying to convince people with arguments that sound logical but are just wrong. Of course Apple had the market share lead wit

by mrich 14y ago

This reads like a populist piece, trying to convince people with arguments that sound logical but are just wrong. Of course Apple had the market share lead with the iPhone. But the category was not "smartphone". They had a dominating lead in the category "mobile phone with touch UI and great web browser" from 2007-2010. Nobody cared about Symbian anymore after the presentation of the iPhone. That category was left to die. The iPhone became the new state of the art for smartphone. Apple lost the lead around 2011 however due to the unwillingness to provide more than one model or innovate faster. Android was more flexible and could address more users. Now it may well be that Apple doesn't care about this at all. But please do not make arguments how technically Apple never led in the smartphone market.

justin66 14y ago
> This reads like a populist piece, trying to convince people with arguments that sound logical but are just wrong. I see you've discovered the writing of John Gruber.
guywithabike 14y ago
"Of course Apple had the market share lead with the iPhone. But the category was not "smartphone". ... The iPhone became the new state of the art for smartphone." You're contradicting yourself, there. Were pre-iPhone smartphones not smartphones? Were Windows Mobile 6 phones not smartphones? Where's your line? And anyways, Gruber's not talking about your personal definition of smartphone, he's talking about the commonly accepted category of smartphones. Besides, what in Gruber's piece is factually inaccurate? You said his arguments "sound logical but are just wrong" but don't actually point out any inaccuracies.
- kybernetikos 14y ago
  I don't think he's contradicting himself, he's not saying that there wasn't a smartphone category before iphone, he's saying exactly that people didn't buy iphone because it was a great 'smartphone' (it had fewer features - the way people would have evaluated smartphones before iphone - on launch than smartphones that had been around for years), they bought iphone because it was a great touchscreen phone and browser experience. I think he's roughly right about that. They created a new experience and that experience became necessary to sell advanced phones. The article talks about how apple pioneered the 'more computer than phone' over the 'more phone than computer'. That's nonsense revisionist history, there were plenty of 'more computer than phones' out there years before and the iphone was significantly behind some of them in terms of computer-like behaviour. What Apple did was create a swipe friendly experience that became mandatory. What 'smartphone' meant changed dramatically, to the extent that people don't classify phones that can run apps, browse the web, play mp3s, ssh into servers, etc as smart phones these days unless they have a swipe friendly UI. To be honest though, I find the whole article pointless. I don't care about whether the media is using the wrong metric to call winners and losers in the 'smartphone' market. I'm not really interested in the media's view on this matter. I am interested in which phone is right for me, and it's not an iphone.
ZeroGravitas 14y ago
Particularly as he himself used to argue that iPhone was like iPod and was going to remain dominant in market share. Its also worth nothing that no-one gives a damn about 'handsets' (I.e. all mobile phones including dumb phones), except Apple boosters who can use it to make Apple stats look better, or Samsung stats look worse (since unlike Rim and HTC they make both in great quantities.)
nell 14y ago
Apple never was a market share leader. They take a huge chunk of the profits from the mobile industry. And still do.
coldtea 14y ago
>This reads like a populist piece, trying to convince people with arguments that sound logical but are just wrong. Of course Apple had the market share lead with the iPhone. But the category was not "smartphone". They had a dominating lead in the category "mobile phone with touch UI and great web browser" from 2007-2010. Yes. I see how if you redefine words to mean some bizarro new concept you have made the article is wrong.
coldtea 14y ago
>Apple lost the lead around 2011 however due to the unwillingness to provide more than one model or innovate faster. Android was more flexible and could address more users. More users, but not more users that really matter. That is, more users that generate more profits. Hence the difference between Samsung and Apple. It's similar to how Apple can have ten times the profit of Dell even if Dell ships twice the units. The Android companies are like the PC companies: they have a commoditized OS and sell to all tiers, low and high, but mostly low and mid, and for smaller margins. Apple only sells to the higher end of the market, as they always did with their laptops and desktops. >Now it may well be that Apple doesn't care about this at all. But please do not make arguments how technically Apple never led in the smartphone market. Smartphone? I thought you meant "mobile phone with touch UI and great web browser". Which is BS btw. Apple made a smartphone. Competing with entrenched smartphones. The fact that none (or few) shared it's design and particular qualities at the time means nothing. In the smartphone market (which is a real market segment, instead of the "mobile phone with touch UI and great web browser" which is an ad-hoc thing you came up with), the iPhone was never top in market share. It was however top (and still is) in profits. Apple does not care about the lower end (or total market share) for the iPhone. They care for the same things they do in their PC department: capturing the upper end, the more expensive, better margins and more headroom for build quality, end of the market. That's why you have Android users be 3-1 to iOS users but iOS users still are 80% of those actively web browsing from their mobiles. Because beside the "tech-enthusiasts that don't like Apple" (a small-ish market) Android also caters to the lower end of the market, people who could not care less about mobile browsing or "computer-like phones", and just use it as a glorified phone that they get for free with their low-tier subscription.
- RyanZAG 14y ago
  iOS users still are 80% of those actively web browsing from their mobiles Please stop repeating false information with no source, it makes the rest of your post very difficult to believe. http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-201202-201302 http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-201202-20130...
  - othermaciej 14y ago
krichman 14y ago
I agree with your analysis and even if I didn't it seems to me that the news article at most made an exaggeration. It's ridiculous that Gruber would complain about an exaggeration because the only thing he's ever been able to do is exaggerate and rationalise.
simonh 14y ago
Ok, so if the other smartphones were not smartphones, we need to have a robust and objective measure of what a smartphone is. Any analysis based on features will degenerate into a nitpicky fight about which browsers count as proper mobile browsers, what it is about the iOS app store or Google Play make them proper app stores unlike Ovi on Synbian, etc. So lets not get bogged down with such minutia. Lets just look at how phones are actually used by actual users. If they are used as smartphones, then they count otherwise if they're used as dumb phones then lets count them as dumb phones. So, how do iOS, Android, Blackberry, Symbian, etc usage statistics pan out? Well, actually, it turns out pretty badly for Android. So yes Android leads in sales, but the vast majority of those are no more used as smartphones than the old Blackberries and Symbian phones. Also, they make their manufacturers no more money either. It;s only the flagship phones where any of the action is. So ok, if you want to rewrite the rules about what counts as a smartphone go ahead. Make Apple's day.

by mrich 14y ago

justin66 14y ago

> This reads like a populist piece, trying to convince people with arguments that sound logical but are just wrong. I see you've discovered the writing of John Gruber.

guywithabike 14y ago

"Of course Apple had the market share lead with the iPhone. But the category was not "smartphone". ... The iPhone became the new state of the art for smartphone." You're contradicting yourself, there. Were pre-iPhone smartphones not smartphones? Were Windows Mobile 6 phones not smartphones? Where's your line? And anyways, Gruber's not talking about your personal definition of smartphone, he's talking about the commonly accepted category of smartphones. Besides, what in Gruber's piece is factually inaccurate? You said his arguments "sound logical but are just wrong" but don't actually point out any inaccuracies.

kybernetikos 14y ago
I don't think he's contradicting himself, he's not saying that there wasn't a smartphone category before iphone, he's saying exactly that people didn't buy iphone because it was a great 'smartphone' (it had fewer features - the way people would have evaluated smartphones before iphone - on launch than smartphones that had been around for years), they bought iphone because it was a great touchscreen phone and browser experience. I think he's roughly right about that. They created a new experience and that experience became necessary to sell advanced phones. The article talks about how apple pioneered the 'more computer than phone' over the 'more phone than computer'. That's nonsense revisionist history, there were plenty of 'more computer than phones' out there years before and the iphone was significantly behind some of them in terms of computer-like behaviour. What Apple did was create a swipe friendly experience that became mandatory. What 'smartphone' meant changed dramatically, to the extent that people don't classify phones that can run apps, browse the web, play mp3s, ssh into servers, etc as smart phones these days unless they have a swipe friendly UI. To be honest though, I find the whole article pointless. I don't care about whether the media is using the wrong metric to call winners and losers in the 'smartphone' market. I'm not really interested in the media's view on this matter. I am interested in which phone is right for me, and it's not an iphone.

ZeroGravitas 14y ago

Particularly as he himself used to argue that iPhone was like iPod and was going to remain dominant in market share. Its also worth nothing that no-one gives a damn about 'handsets' (I.e. all mobile phones including dumb phones), except Apple boosters who can use it to make Apple stats look better, or Samsung stats look worse (since unlike Rim and HTC they make both in great quantities.)

nell 14y ago

Apple never was a market share leader. They take a huge chunk of the profits from the mobile industry. And still do.

coldtea 14y ago

>This reads like a populist piece, trying to convince people with arguments that sound logical but are just wrong. Of course Apple had the market share lead with the iPhone. But the category was not "smartphone". They had a dominating lead in the category "mobile phone with touch UI and great web browser" from 2007-2010. Yes. I see how if you redefine words to mean some bizarro new concept you have made the article is wrong.

coldtea 14y ago

>Apple lost the lead around 2011 however due to the unwillingness to provide more than one model or innovate faster. Android was more flexible and could address more users. More users, but not more users that really matter. That is, more users that generate more profits. Hence the difference between Samsung and Apple. It's similar to how Apple can have ten times the profit of Dell even if Dell ships twice the units. The Android companies are like the PC companies: they have a commoditized OS and sell to all tiers, low and high, but mostly low and mid, and for smaller margins. Apple only sells to the higher end of the market, as they always did with their laptops and desktops. >Now it may well be that Apple doesn't care about this at all. But please do not make arguments how technically Apple never led in the smartphone market. Smartphone? I thought you meant "mobile phone with touch UI and great web browser". Which is BS btw. Apple made a smartphone. Competing with entrenched smartphones. The fact that none (or few) shared it's design and particular qualities at the time means nothing. In the smartphone market (which is a real market segment, instead of the "mobile phone with touch UI and great web browser" which is an ad-hoc thing you came up with), the iPhone was never top in market share. It was however top (and still is) in profits. Apple does not care about the lower end (or total market share) for the iPhone. They care for the same things they do in their PC department: capturing the upper end, the more expensive, better margins and more headroom for build quality, end of the market. That's why you have Android users be 3-1 to iOS users but iOS users still are 80% of those actively web browsing from their mobiles. Because beside the "tech-enthusiasts that don't like Apple" (a small-ish market) Android also caters to the lower end of the market, people who could not care less about mobile browsing or "computer-like phones", and just use it as a glorified phone that they get for free with their low-tier subscription.

RyanZAG 14y ago
iOS users still are 80% of those actively web browsing from their mobiles Please stop repeating false information with no source, it makes the rest of your post very difficult to believe. http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-201202-201302 http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-201202-20130...
- othermaciej 14y ago

krichman 14y ago

I agree with your analysis and even if I didn't it seems to me that the news article at most made an exaggeration. It's ridiculous that Gruber would complain about an exaggeration because the only thing he's ever been able to do is exaggerate and rationalise.

simonh 14y ago

Ok, so if the other smartphones were not smartphones, we need to have a robust and objective measure of what a smartphone is. Any analysis based on features will degenerate into a nitpicky fight about which browsers count as proper mobile browsers, what it is about the iOS app store or Google Play make them proper app stores unlike Ovi on Synbian, etc. So lets not get bogged down with such minutia. Lets just look at how phones are actually used by actual users. If they are used as smartphones, then they count otherwise if they're used as dumb phones then lets count them as dumb phones. So, how do iOS, Android, Blackberry, Symbian, etc usage statistics pan out? Well, actually, it turns out pretty badly for Android. So yes Android leads in sales, but the vast majority of those are no more used as smartphones than the old Blackberries and Symbian phones. Also, they make their manufacturers no more money either. It;s only the flagship phones where any of the action is. So ok, if you want to rewrite the rules about what counts as a smartphone go ahead. Make Apple's day.