Smart Phone Stats

ABI Research has lately issued some numbers for Q2:

  1. 103 million smart phones shipped, steady with Q1
  2. Nokia is down to third place amongst OEMs with 16.7 million units shipped
  3. Apple is number one with 142% Y/Y quarterly growth and 20.3 million units
  4. HTC shipped 34% of Android/Linux units shipped with 500% Y/Y quarterly growth
  5. Android/Linux had 46.4% share of smart phones shipped while iOS had 20%

That’s a lot of data but what it boils down to is that consumers want small cheap computers and choice. No single business is going to get it all. What a refreshing difference. We need FLOSS in all of IT to keep the big players honest. They must compete on price/performance not lock-in and exclusive dealing.

In particular the OEMs and retailers of the world’s PCs need to know that if they will not diversify their products and offerings someone else will. The days of Wintel are over. OEMs shipped less than 90 million desktops and notebook PCs. Nothing prevents OEMs now producing smart phones running Android/Linux from cranking out PCs of all kinds running Android/Linux or GNU/Linux. Shipments of notebook/desktop PCs were only up 2.6% Y/Y in USA but down 4.2% globally.

See ABI Research – Samsung’s Q2 Smartphone Growth Shows that the Race Is Its to Lose

According to IDC, cell-phones of all kinds shipped 365 million units in Q2 wih Nokia still leading there.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Smart Phone Stats

  1. First quarter was Q4 2007, then Q1 2008 and Q2 2008 were all GNU/Linux. Quit beating a dead horse.

    M$ got ASUS to quit building GNU/Linux eeePCs. That caused retailers to quit stocking them which disabled consumers from choosing them…

  2. Contrarian says:

    You continue to pull numbers out of thin air, #pogson, even when there is no purpose in doing so. Remember that the issue was whether Microsoft exercised monopoly power in somehow killing the idea of a Linux netbook. That was clearly not the case since nothing that Microsoft could do would control the public’s uptake on Linux devices. The market rejected Linux devices on its own, having settled on the notion that a proper computer would have Windows OS, if not Macintosh OS.

    Also, do some research on when Asus introduced the eee PC. They didn’t even have 3 shipping quarters in 2007.

  3. Except they did ship millions of GNU/Linux netbooks before they shipped the first one with XP. ASUS only shipped any eeePCs for about 1/4 of 2007 so under a million was actually pretty close to a million. They maxed out their supply-chain for several months. It was something like 150K the first month, 300K the second, and 600K the third. That’s more than a million.

  4. Contrarian says:

    “that’s a million or two machines…shut up, unless you can provide better numbers”

    http://www.dailytech.com/Report+Acer+Steals+Top+Spot+Among+Netbooks/article13629.htm

    “Another interesting point is that ASUS, the creator of the netbook niche in late 2007 has fell from the top spot in netbook shipments. In 2007, the market for netbooks was under a million units…”

    In any case the original issue was your thesis that Microsoft controls the OEMs and made Asus somehow give up a lucrative market in “millions” of Linux based netbooks, thus proving they had some sort of monopoly control. That is what I am disputing. What Asus may or may not have shipped before they switched entirely to Windows products is not material to that point other than to note that their Linux business was not near as bountiful as you originally suggested.

  5. In 2007, ASUS shipped nothing but Linux eeePCs, that’s a million or two machines. In 2008 they shipped about 5 million with 30% Linux. Do the maths and shut up, unless you can provide better numbers.

    see http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS2045641099.html

  6. Contrarian says:

    A quarter, as in “a million units a quarter”, contains but one quarter down here in the south 48, #pogson. Since the production didn’t last that long overall and there was a majority of XP units shipped while production was in effect, it is not certain that total production of Linux units reached even one million based on the evidence you presented so far. In any case, it falls far, far short of the “GNU/Linux systems by the millions” that you offer as some sort of proof of Microsoft malfeasance. It was not the cash machine, killer product that you pretend that it was, and Asus, along with other OEMs, chose more profitable product paths to pursue.

  7. A year contains four quarters, twit!

  8. Contrarian says:

    #pogson, read your own cite. 700,000 in the quarter is not millions or even one million and according to Asus, they were projecting 60% of those units would be XP. As we now know, that prediction evaporated in a hurry and the Linux versions were discontinued in the fall of 2008, so the 60% became 100%.

  9. Contrarian, hundreds of thousands of units a month became a million units a quarter. Do the maths.

    Pathetic… 🙁

  10. Contrarian says:

    Fuss and bother, #pogson, but nothing you say can change the fact that Microsoft did not do anything illegal in regard to controlling the OEMs. That was established by the courts over several trials. Nothing illegal, #pogson. Certainly they are a strong competitor, but they did nothing illegal in regard to establishing their market leadership.

    Further, you originally claimed “millions of units” and now you say “hundreds of thousands of units”, eh? Regardless, the Linux netbook was such a hit that Asus discontinued the Linux models at the end of 2008. Blame it on Microsoft if you cannot face the fact that Asus decided that they were better without them. The buyers voted with their credit cards.

  11. The facts are that M$ made exclusive deals to suppress competition.

    see PCworld

    see PCworld

    “The company shipped 700,000 Eee PCs in the first quarter.” That was written in April 2008 when nothing but Linux units had shipped in Q4 2007 and Q1 2008. They started out thinking to ship 100K per month and redoubled repeatedly.

    Benchmarks of units with XP and Linux:
    “Startup
    Linux: 30 seconds – Windows: 54 seconds
    Launching Firefox
    Linux: 4 seconds – Windows: 16 seconds
    Shutdown
    Linux: 6 seconds – Windows: 68 seconds”

    see PCworld

    “We have heard that return rates have been higher for Linux-based netbooks. Can you share information on sales of the Linux Eee PCs versus Windows XP versions? What about return rates overall for Eee PC netbooks? I think the return rate for the Eee PCs are low but I believe the Linux and Windows have similar return rates. We really separate the products into different user groups. A lot of users like the Windows XP, but in Europe a lot of people want the Linux option. “

    see LaptopMag

    Quit trying to rewrite history. If you don’t like my data, publish your own.

  12. Contrarian says:

    “ASUS sold millions of units …”

    Where do you see that information, #pogson? Both ASUS and Acer announced discontinuance of the SSHD models with Linux due to low consumer demand and unacceptably high return rates due to user confusion over program compatibility.

    “The Findings of Fact…”

    Immaterial, #pogson. An educated sort such as yourself should know that. Read the judgement handed down by that judge, which was the finding of law. Most of that was discarded by the appeals court, of course, but not the finding that Microsoft did not violate any laws through exclusive dealing.

  13. Contrarian wrote, “the minimal hardware and the Linux OS were fatal factors in the product’s chances of success”.

    Yet, ASUS sold millions of units and could not keep the shelves stocked they moved so fast.

    Contrarian wrote, ” Microsoft was exonerated from the exclusive dealing charges by the original court.”

    The “Findings of Fact” include

  14. “Then in February 1997, Compaq committed itself to promote Internet Explorer exclusively for its PC products in exchange for Microsoft’s agreement to pay Compaq a bounty for each user that signed up for Internet access using a Compaq PC.”
  15. “Microsoft representatives again insisted that IBM distribute and promote Internet Explorer exclusively and again offered soft dollars, marketing assistance, and MDA reductions in return. Later that day, in a smaller meeting that Microsoft referred to as “secret discussions,” Ackerlind stated Microsoft’s desire that IBM promote Internet Explorer 4.0 exclusively and warned that if IBM pre-installed Navigator on its PCs, “We have a problem.”

    238. The IBM PC Company refused to promote Internet Explorer 4.0 exclusively, and it has continued to pre-install Navigator on its PCs. The difference in the ways that Compaq and IBM responded to Microsoft’s Internet-related overtures in 1996 and 1997 contributed to the stark contrast in the treatment the two firms have since received from Microsoft.”

  16. “Third, Microsoft offered OEMs valuable consideration in exchange for commitments to promote Internet Explorer exclusively.”
  17. “In February 1996, Cameron Myhrvold, the Microsoft executive in charge of the firm’s relations with ISPs, outlined the strategy in a memorandum to his colleagues and superiors within the company:

    It’s essential we increase the share of our browser. Network operators [(IAPs, plus the telephone and cable companies providing Internet access services)] are important distributors and we will license at no cost the Internet Explorer for distribution with their Internet access business to maximize the distribution/adoption of IE as browser of choice. We will attempt exclusive arrangements, fight for preferred status, but settle for parity with NetScape. Even offering IE for free will not win us every sale. In the U.S. we will offer IE broadly to net[work ]op[erator]s and IAPs including the many hundreds of smaller IAPs.”

  18. “Although it could have been exchanged for large bounties from IAPs, Microsoft decided to exchange placement in the Referral Server, along with other valuable consideration, for the agreement of the selected IAPs to promote and distribute Internet Explorer preferentially over Navigator and to convert existing subscribers from Navigator to Internet Explorer.”
  19. “Another provision in the agreement provided that “AOL and AOL Affiliates will, with respect to Third Party Browsers, exclusively promote, market and distribute, and have promoted, marketed and distributed, Internet Explorer on or for use by subscribers to the AOL Flagship Service.” “
  20. “The reason was Microsoft’s recognition that holding OLSs, particularly AOL, to exclusive distribution and promotion terms was more important to maximizing Internet Explorer’s usage share than holding ISPs to similar terms.”
  21. “Microsoft made clear that it would only accord such placement to OLSs that agreed to give Internet Explorer exclusive, or at least extremely preferential, treatment.”
  22. “Microsoft created an area on the ubiquitous Windows billboard for the promotion of ICPs and then exchanged placement in that area at no charge for the commitment of important ICPs to promote and distribute Internet Explorer exclusively and to create their content with technologies that would make it appear optimally when viewed with Internet Explorer.”
  23. “In exchange, the ICPs committed to distributing Internet Explorer exclusively (to the extent they distributed any browsing software), to promote Internet Explorer as their “browser software of choice,” to refrain from promoting any “Other Browser” (defined as in the other ICP agreements) on their Web sites, and to create content that could be accessed optimally only with Internet Explorer.”
  24. “The Channel Bar may not have attracted consumer interest, but the ICP agreements relating to the Channel Bar did attract controversy. Indeed, Gates faced pointed questions about them when he appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 1998. Microsoft took several measures to quell the public criticism in early April 1998. First, it waived the most restrictive terms in the Top Tier and Platinum agreements; ”
  25. “Microsoft therefore set out to convince developers that applications relying on APIs exposed by Navigator would not reach as many Mac OS users as applications that invoked platform technologies found exclusively in Windows. “
  26. “360. According to estimates that Microsoft executives cited to support their testimony in this trial, and those on which Microsoft relied in the course of its business planning, the shares of all browser usage enjoyed by Navigator and Internet Explorer changed dramatically in favor of Internet Explorer after Microsoft began its campaign to protect the applications barrier to entry. These estimates show that Navigator’s share fell from above eighty percent in January 1996 to fifty-five percent in November 1997, and that Internet Explorer’s share rose from around five percent to thirty-six percent over the same period.”
  27. So, I find Contrarian’s determined campaign to polish the image of M$ tired, wrong, and totally inconsistent with the opinions of the original trier of facts. Notice how many times the judge uses the term “exlusive*” or words equivalent to “exclusive”.