Android grows faster than iPhone, RIM slips as smartphone wars continue

Android grows faster than iPhone, RIM slips as smartphone wars continue

Summary: Research in Motion may have the largest share of the smartphone market in the U.S but the real smartphone battle to watch is featuring Apple and Google.

SHARE:

Research in Motion may have the largest share of the smartphone market in the U.S but the real smartphone battle to watch is featuring Apple and Google.  to watch is the battle  in on two others - Apple and Google.

The latest Comscore numbers on smartphone market share are in for the quarter ending October 31 - the first full quarter since the iPhone 4 hit the market - and Google and Apple were the only two to report growth. The other big players in this space - RIM, Microsoft and Palm - all lost market share.

As those three "other" players continue to work on reinventing themselves to keep up with the bar that Apple raised, Google, with its Android devices, is the only player that's been able to challenge Apple's sudden rise in dominance. In fact, the most recent numbers suggest that Google is not only growing faster than Apple and the others but is also gearing up to leapfrog over Apple's No. 2 spot.

During the quarter, Google saw its smartphone market share grow by 6.5 percent, compared to Apple's growth of 0.8 percent, and that's left the two pretty much neck-and-neck in the race to overtake RIM. Google's 23.5 percent share is a mere 1.1 percent behind Apple's 24.6 percent share.

RIM's share slipped by 3.5 percentage points, tumbling from 39.3 percent to 35.8 percent during the quarter.

Here's the other thing to remember: iPhone saw its growth with just one carrier as a partner; Android's was the result of partnerships across multiple carriers. If Apple starts offering the iPhone on the Verizon network, what sort of market share shift will that create?

On the other hand, that's one of those "what-if" questions that's probably not even worth asking anymore. For longer than I care to think about, there's been rumor and speculation about an iPhone for Verizon. As we head into a new year, the rumors and speculations continue, with no new news about when and if that product will ever surface.

Until Apple goes multi-carrier in the U.S., the only real projection that can be made from this most recent set of data is that Android will continue to grow faster than iPhone, presumably taking the No. 2 spot from Apple by the end of the quarter.

Topics: iPhone, Android, Google, Hardware, Mobility, BlackBerry, Smartphones

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

81 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • This is nicking pits...

    Android is an OS. iPhone is a piece of hardware. Android in the US is made available to every carrier and every hardware manufacturer. iPhone is available to only one US carrier at this time and the iPhone is made by only one manufacturer ie Apple. Android is new like what one year old? iPhone is new but has a few years on Android. So the growth of Android being faster than iPhone is well a DUH. Android started from Zero while the iPhone being a few years older has an established base already due in large part to it's amazing sales from day one. So again DUH!!!

    Pagan jim
    James Quinn
    • Android started from zero???

      @James Quinn
      Didn't they have about 3 years to "learn" from the iPhone?
      Userama
      • RE: Android grows faster than iPhone, RIM slips as smartphone wars continue

        @Userama They did indeed and much more closely than the Google Android fanbois want to admit to - after all Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board of directors for quite some time and had access to the development data and information on the iPhone. Originally the Android OS much more closely resembled the Blackberry OS until the success of the iPhone (which occurred while Schmidt was on the BOD) THEN it became much more like the iPhone OS. So they actually had more than 3 years to learn from the iPhone and at a level of detail that no other competitor ever could hope to achieve.
        athynz
    • RE: Android grows faster than iPhone, RIM slips as smartphone wars continue

      @James Quinn If iphone slipped to 10th place, you come on here telling us that it couldn't be so because Steve Jobs didn't approve of the survey.

      You kinda' remind me of the democrats who claim that unemployment payments are a boon to the economy.
      sackbut
      • Not a boon but economically sound yes.

        @sackbut
        Unemployed people spend the money given to them. They pay Rent and Utilities, buy food and pay other bills. Where as Tax cuts to the rich mean little economically cause well rich people tend to save their monies cause well they can afford to do such. Now as the unemployed spend the money given to them they keep other people employed cause well if you have millions of people all of a sudden not paying bills then those people who benefit from bills being paid are eventually forced to cut back like say letting people go and so forth and so on a vicious circle.

        Now as for your absurd statement where was I wrong?

        Pagan jim
        James Quinn
      • I should have known

        @James Quinn This kind of idiocy is what got the country into the shape that it's in. You fudge-packers are all alike.
        sackbut
      • And yet on both points you fail to give any kind of argument:)

        @sackbut
        Instead you choose childish insults. Sad really and for my part a tab bit amusing. I'm a lazy man you see and shooting fish in a barrel is far easier than actually going out and having to catch them. BANG!

        Pagan jim
        James Quinn
      • James Quinn: Actually, your economics knowledge is pretty lacking and

        you suggestions about unemployment and unemployed people sparking or stimulating the economy is, well, pretty dumb.<br><br>I have to run, but, I'll be back tomorrow to expand on how dumb your ideas are.
        adornoe
      • Who said anything about &quot;sparking&quot; or &quot;stimulating&quot;?

        @adornoe@
        What I said was this. If one is able to spend money in a consumer economy that helps keep the economy going. Which by the way seems pretty common sense. Should we be an economy based on the consumer that is a good question. Still having millions of American who are unemployed through no fault of their own being able to pay their bills seems not only the right and sensible thing to do but the Christian thing to do. After all Jesus Christ was all about the poor and not so impressed with the rich.
        An actual stimulus to the economy would ge a heavy investment in our infrastructure which was state of the art many years ago but is in terrible decline and shameful now a days. i await your informed reply with bated breath.

        Pagan jim
        James Quinn
      • James Quinn: Extending unemployment as a stimulus is how democrats have

        been selling extending those unemployment "benefits".

        Now, when it comes to helping people out when they're down, I'm all for that. But, unemployment benefits were meant as temporary assistance until they could get back on their feet.

        With unemployment benefits being extended way past the originally intended period of six months, and now going into 99 weeks and more, it's become a monster that many people have become dependent on. Dependence on the largess of government tends to get expensive and harmful and unsustainable and, generally, damaging in the long-run, not only for the economy, but for those that have been unemployed for a long time.

        When somebody is unemployed for many months, and in some cases, years, then, they tend to become unemployable when they actually do start looking for a job, because they either will lose their skill-set or their experience won't be current, and they will be looked upon as lazy and undependable by prospective employers. The longer people remain unemployed, the harder it becomes for them to ever find a job again, especially when the pool of employees is always adding younger and better educated people, or at least, people more eager to find a job.

        Now, to pay those benefits, the "funding" has to come from somewhere. And, the fact is that, no matter how much people pay when they're employed for "unemployment insurance", it's not enough to cover the current amount of benefits being paid out. That money if being taken out of the economy and from whoever is still working, or even worse, it's being paid for through borrowing or the printing of money. None of those are helpful towards recovery from a devastated economy. When you stimulate on one side at the expense of another side, especially when the other side happens to be businesses and those that are still working, then it's not really stimulative at all. At best, it's a wash, but, more realistically, when those who collect unemployment for such lengthy periods of time become unemployable, then they will become more dependent upon government services. Now, that might be what democrats want because those people tend to vote democrat because they're the big government advocates, but in the long run, those ideas are unsustainable. When you take out of the economy to re-distribute to another side, the totality of the economy suffers and growth is stifled and we end up with economic downturns.

        Government cannot create jobs. The only thing it can do to help the economy is to allow businesses to grow, but, big government is dependent upon taking from the economy. When government has to tax to sustain its growth, then the economy cannot grow, and when the economy cannot grow, businesses will have to cut back on expansions or will have to downsize or just shut down altogether, and when any of those happen, jobs are inevitably lost, and with those lost jobs, more unemployment is the result. With higher unemployment and with less economic growth, then the prospects for those unemployed ever finding a job again, will dwindle or will become almost impossible, and thus, more extensions for the unemployment benefits will be needed. It's a vicious cycle and very damaging.

        Simple-minded thinking that disregards the long-term consequences of extending unemployment, will just make things a lot worse.

        Furthermore, people who have been on unemployment for a long time, tend to get used to that life-style, and won't be "working" hard to go and find a job. Thus, the problem feeds upon itself. Also, there are many instances where staying on unemployment or getting unemployed, is more desirable for many, since they will probably be "earning" the same amount from unemployment as they would from holding down a job. I know a bunch of people in that situation and they will milk unemployment for as much as they can for as long as they can. But, they also know that they could become unemployable in the future, and I've heard at least a couple of them state that, "they'll worry about that when they can no longer get unemployment payments". Nice. The problem continues feeding upon itself and making things worse.

        Now, again, some people believe that, people who collect unemployment will have to spend it and because of that, it tends to stimulate the economy. That is undeniable. But, only on one side of the equation. The other side, that being the economy and the businesses and people still employed, they will feel a negative stimulation since it is they who will have to provide for those payments for unemployment. In the economy, just like in physics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Nothing is without consequences. Basically, taking from Peter to pay Paul is not going to alleviate any problems.

        People on unemployment are not productive, and government needing to tax more to sustain unemployment and other government services, will make the economy, in general, also less productive.

        It is the thinking that, government is the solution, that has gotten this economy into such dire straits. And, the thinking that, unemployment benefits are stimulative in any sense, will just continue to make things worse.

        It is never economically sound to extend unemployment benefits. People should live with the knowledge that, those benefits were meant to assist them for a short period of time, and only until they found a new job, even if that job paid less than what they had before.

        I could go on forever, but, I have a fence to replace in my backyard.

        I'll check in later.
        adornoe
      • James Quinn: Extending unemployment as a stimulus is how democrats have

        double post...

        sorry
        adornoe
      • Never tried to &quot;sell&quot; it as stimulative myself...

        @adornoe@...
        I also understand the original terms of unemployment but the facts are this that the collapse was terrible and unusual in size and scope. It might have been even worse still, but that can be argued as to how bad it could have been and lets keep this simple shall we? To keep it simple lets just agree that this recession is one of the biggest ever seen if not the biggest so what do you do when the circumstances are unusual? Do you keep on keeping on with the same old answers or do you adjust to the circumstances? I would argue that to have millions of our citizens unable to pay their bills would bring further decline to our economy because those people who depend on the bills being paid will find themselves unable to pay their bills. So the house of cards continues to decline More unemployed and less demand so less productivity. As for big government vs small government I think the Greeks had it correct when they said "All things in moderation" I would argue that a government for the people meaning of course all the people is best. Our economics based on the free market and capitalism has proven to be the best but it is NOT PERFECT. That is where the government has to come in to fill the holes for those who would be unfairly crushed by our system. The simple fact is that in our system of capitalism there will be losers, NOT SLACKERS that's another issue, but losers those who try and fail weather it be dumb luck, and illness, a turn in the economy, or the simply fact that to have a healthy capitalism one needs a rather large base of "poor" to support a smaller but healthy "middle class" and on top of that a smaller "rich" class. The poor are vital to this economy as are the unemployed to keep labor costs down. Yet we can't starve them or toss them onto the streets they are the bedrock of our economy and they are needed even vital to it's continued health. Still my original point I think is a valid one. In a very unusual situation the "usual" answers are foolish.... And creative, yes even extreme measures are required to match the given situation.

        Pagan jim
        James Quinn
      • What a tard

        Conservative intelligence an oxymoron. Go back to school if you can find a remedial program that will accept you and take a basic econ class. Then you might have a clue.
        @sackbut
        GoPower
      • RE: Android grows faster than iPhone, RIM slips as smartphone wars continue

        @ adornoe

        Unemployment benefits are "government largesse?" Really?

        I've had a money deducted from my paycheck every week for the last 32 years for unemployment insurance. Are you saying that if I were to actually get the benefits I've been paying for that I'm getting a handout from the government?

        Don't just parrot talking points; think about it first.
        msalzberg
      • msalzberg: Yes, for the most part, it's government largess...

        <i>Unemployment benefits are "government largesse?" Really?</i><br><br>Yes! Really!<br><br><i>I've had a money deducted from my paycheck every week for the last 32 years for unemployment insurance. </i><br><br>While you might be "entitled" to receive unemployment checks if YOU become unemployed, not everybody has contributed to the system for 32 years. There are more people receiving unemployment benefits for total amounts that those people have not "contributed" to unemployment, and for certain, there are people who, when they finish collecting whatever they do collect, will have received a lot more than they could ever contribute for their entire life in "unemployment insurance". <br><br>So, bottom line, the government is "giving" or gifting to the unemployed. And, that money is not in a bank account or a "safety box" or a "lock box" where the government has been saving whatever "contributions" have been collected. The government uses that money, just like it uses our social security "contributions". There is no "lock box" and there is no bank account where your money has been safely stashed away until you or somebody else needs it. <br><br><i>Are you saying that if I were to actually get the benefits I've been paying for that I'm getting a handout from the government?</i><br><br>If you've never collected unemployment benefits before, then perhaps you are "entitled", but that's not exactly what we're talking about here, is it? What we're talking about is where people get extensions up to 99 weeks for collecting, and when the government gets to that level in payments, then the money is "government largess" to which those people have not paid enough. When it comes to collecting benefits for so long, then it does become government handouts, because the money is coming from outside of the "unemployment insurance" payments people make each paycheck. Get it?!?!<br><br><i>Don't just parrot talking points; think about it first.</i><br><br>The one not doing any thinking about this matter is quite obviously, you. <br><br>I too, collected unemployment benefits for a short period of time, and I too felt "entitled" because I had paid into the system. However, when what's happening now is way beyond what was intended with "unemployment insurance", then we're talking about government reaching into other areas to pay for those benefits. And, who pays for those benefits? It is the people who are still working and the businesses which are still trying to survive. <br><br>Your ignorance is beyond simple-mindedness. It is you that can't think beyond the simple.
        adornoe
      • Incomplete post; sorry... removing contents

        n/t
        adornoe
      • GoPower: When it comes to &quot;economics&quot; there is nobody more retarded than

        a liberal.

        <i>What a tard</i>

        Yet, what is it that you've contributed except an insult. That's the lowest form of intelligence. When somebody can't contribute anything of value and their only retorts are insults and shouting, then they've already lost the argument.

        <i>Conservative intelligence an oxymoron.</i>

        Yet, we are the only ones using logical arguments against the lunacy of the left, especially when it comes to economics matters. The left only knows how to tax and spend without examining the consequences, long or short term, for their actions. That's sheer stupidity.

        <i>Go back to school if you can find a remedial program that will accept you and take a basic econ class.</i>

        Actually, the ones needing economic lessons are the idiots who believe that government largess and government control and government regulations, and higher taxes and higher spending, are what makes a country prosperous. It's quite the contrary to what you believe. I'll bet you have never, ever, taken a class on economics or even business.

        <i>Then you might have a clue.</i>

        After having been a liberal, with virtually the same beliefs that you and a lot of other people have regarding the functions of big government, I believe that I know a lot better than you what it means to have a "clue". You are still in your infancy in your understanding of sound economic practices should be; in fact, you have no clues at all about what you're talking about.
        adornoe
      • James Quinn: Yes you did try to sell it as &quot;stimulative&quot;...

        though you might not have realized it or are denying it now.<br><br>Your first post in this sub-thread was about how the people receiving the unemployment checks would spend it and would keep other people employed, while the rich would just "save it" because they could afford it. That is re-stating the same talking points that democratic leaders use in order to extend the unemployment benefits. <br><br><i>I also understand the original terms of unemployment but the facts are this that the collapse was terrible and unusual in size and scope.</i><br><br>Size and scope are, indeed, worrisome. Yet, if you were to think long-term about the consequences of the current government actions to help the unemployed, like I laid-out in my previous post, you'd realize that the longer-term effects could turn out to be more destructive.<br><br><i> It might have been even worse still, but that can be argued as to how bad it could have been and lets keep this simple shall we?</i><br><br>No, we can't keep it simple and we can't overlook anything. The consequences of the current actions will have to be confronted in the future. Unemployment benefits are being paid with credit or with higher taxes or with "monopoly money", all of which always end up hurting the economy.<br><br><i>To keep it simple lets just agree that this recession is one of the biggest ever seen if not the biggest so what do you do when the circumstances are unusual?</i><br><br>The recession is one of the biggest economic downturns in our history, but, we can't just turn around and do what seems to be a short-term fix just because it seems like the "right thing to do". Like I've said before, nothing comes without consequences.<br><br><i>Do you keep on keeping on with the same old answers or do you adjust to the circumstances?</i><br><br>When "adjusting", on the part of the democrats, is to just open up the government wallet, then, that's a short term fix, with dire consequences to be paid later. We're just kicking the can down the street and not facing the problems head on with real solutions.<br><br><i>I would argue that to have millions of our citizens unable to pay their bills would bring further decline to our economy because those people who depend on the bills being paid will find themselves unable to pay their bills.</i><br><br>Giving or "gifting" them the money is just kicking the can down the street. The problems are not being solved. Solutions to economic problems come from the free-market system, not government. Government is just making the problems worse because the government bills are eventually going to have to be paid, and when those bills keep being stacked-up, we're compounding the problems. The national debt keeps climbing, and unemployment checks keep adding to it and to the yearly deficits.<br><br><i>So the house of cards continues to decline</i><br><br>The biggest house of cards is the unsustainable big government which continues digging a bigger hole from which it will be impossible to get out of. If you think our problems are big now, they will be a lot bigger when the government becomes unable to pay it's bills because tax revenue dries up even more, and national and international creditors, like the Chinese, stop lending us the money to pay those bills. The federal government, in case you hadn't noticed, is using credit to pay it's bills, and the national debt is about 14 trillion dollars right now. The unemployment checks are being paid with "monopoly" money, and if government tries to get more funding through higher taxes, then that's when the economy will actually turn into a deep depression.<br><br><i>More unemployed and less demand so less productivity.</i><br><br>Mumbo-jumbo.<br><br><i>As for big government vs small government I think the Greeks had it correct when they said "All things in moderation" I would argue that a government for the people meaning of course all the people is best.</i><br><br>The Greek economy, right now, is in default and in ruins. The Greeks don't have any lessons from which we can draw anything good right now. And, the only thing that we're getting ready to do that the Greeks have done is to, become insolvent as a country. We're getting towards the point where the federal government might have to declare itself "bankrupt", just like the Greeks. And, we don't have anybody that can rescue us. like the Greeks were "helped" by the Europeans. But, the Greeks, like Ireland and Portugal and Spain, are just kicking to can down the street and the whole mess will have to be declared "insolvent".

        <i>Our economics based on the free market and capitalism has proven to be the best but it is NOT PERFECT.</i>

        Nothing is ever perfect.

        But, our "free-market" system is not really free, not since big government started its intrusions with regulations and heavy taxation and heavy spending and government control over many aspects of the economy. So, if we failed in any areas of the free-market, it's mostly due to big government getting in the way.
        adornoe
      • James Quinn: Yes you did try to sell it as &quot;stimulative&quot; (continued...)

        <i>That is where the government has to come in to fill the holes for those who would be unfairly crushed by our system.</i><br><br>If anybody is being crushed, it's mostly due to big government intrusion into every aspect of our lives, including trying to run the economy. The free-market didn't create the problems we have now; big government created those problems. <br><br><i>The simple fact is that in our system of capitalism there will be losers, NOT SLACKERS that's another issue, but losers those who try and fail weather it be dumb luck, and illness, a turn in the economy, or the simply fact that to have a healthy capitalism one needs a rather large base of "poor" to support a smaller but healthy "middle class" and on top of that a smaller "rich" class.</i><br><br>Boy, you sound really confused!<br><br>Look, if you don't know how an economy works, don't try to argue about it. Economics matters are best left to those who know what they're talking about. Dumb luck, as an example, is not a "free-market" or capitalist concern, nor one that capitalism, or any other economic system, is equipped or designed to handle. <br><br>Being socially responsible to its citizens is one thing, having to take care of their every need is something that government should not be in the business of handling.<br><br><i>The poor are vital to this economy as are the unemployed to keep labor costs down.</i><br><br>Baloney!<br><br>No matter how hard anybody or any government tries, there will always be the "poor" and the less well off. It's none of government's business to try to equalize matters for everybody, not is it its business to make sure that people don't fail. People have to learn to be responsible for themselves. <br><br>Having people unemployed or poor is a consequence of decisions made by those people. Lack of education, as an example, is why there are so many poor, and lack of jobs is why there are so many unemployed. Government intervention into the free-market system is one of the biggest reasons why there are so many unemployed. Without so much government intrusion, we might never get into recessions. <br><br><i>Yet we can't starve them or toss them onto the streets they are the bedrock of our economy and they are needed even vital to it's continued health.</i><br><br>But, we can't continue to support them, not with the economy not bringing in enough revenue to keep the government operating with no problems. Those problems continue to get progressively worse with each extension of the unemployment benefits.<br><br><i>Still my original point I think is a valid one. In a very unusual situation the "usual" answers are foolish.... And creative, yes even extreme measures are required to match the given situation.</i><br><br>The extreme measures are needed. Continuing to do what has proven to fail in the past is the foolish side of this whole mess. With government getting so big and so intrusive, our problems built up, and the solutions from big government has been to continue making those problems even bigger. That's unsustainable and, though I might feel sorry for so many unemployed, drastic measures might be needed, including telling people that, we just can't continue extending their unemployment benefits forever. Like I said before, extending those benefits just extends the misery for those people, and government just gets deeper into debt, which compounds the problems for the economy, and, with an even weaker economy, more people become unemployed. It's a vicious cycle which always happens in "socialistic" economies, and eventually, the economy completely crumbles and the country and government becomes insolvent. We are headed in that direction.<br><br>BTW, you mention the poor and the middle-class, and how important they are to capitalism. Yet, you are not looking at the most important segment for a free-market/capitalist system, that being the rich and the well-off and the business class. It is the rich and the business owners that create jobs, even if they're 2-5% of the population. They are the ones with the initiatives and the drive and the funding to create businesses and jobs. You will never get a job from a poor person, and most of the middle-class either works for somebody else or have small-businesses of their own. It is businesses and the rich which drive a capitalist economy. When you hurt the rich, you hurt the economy, and when the economy is hurt, then the "lower classes" suffer the most. People may want to demonize the rich, but the simple fact is that, they are the driving force for any good or great economy. Anytime government tries to displace the rich as the driving force, the economy takes a dive, and everybody suffers. I had a hard time swallowing those facts at the time when I was still a liberal, but I eventually came to understand and now, I'm not a liberal anymore. People have to start thinking away from politics and away from political parties and away from preconceived ideas.

        Logic is not on the side of socialism, nor on the side of big government. Socialism, wherever it's been tried, has always failed, even if it seems to have some successes in the beginning. So, why should we continue doing the same things which have failed in the past?
        adornoe
      • RE: Android grows faster than iPhone, RIM slips as smartphone wars continue

        @adornoe@...


        Umm...if you don't pay into the system, you don't get unemployment benefits. The amount you get is based on the amount you put into the system.

        Do you also feel that insurance companies shouldn't pay out to customers with legitimate claims?

        The system doesn't work the way you seem to think it does.
        msalzberg