AfterDawn: Tech news

More smartphones with Android than iOS by 2012, says iSuppli

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 05 Aug 2010 15:51 User comments (13)

More smartphones with Android than iOS by 2012, says iSuppli According to the research firm iSuppli, more smartphones will be using the Android operating system by 2012 than are using the Apple iOS.
Google recently announced 200,000 Android phones being activated each day.

iSuppli says Android will be used in 75 million smartphones in 2012, up 1500 percent from 2009, when 5 million Android devices were sold.

In the same period, Apple iOS devices will jump to 62 million from 25 million.

At that time, Android would control 19.4 percent of the global smartphone market while Apple would have just under 16 percent.

"The flexibility Android offers for hardware designs and its appealing business model in terms of revenue sharing have attracted vigorous support from all nodes in the value chain, including makers of high-end smart phone models," says iSuppli senior analyst Tina Teng.

Previous Next  

13 user comments

15.8.2010 17:43

Well this is very obvious, their are different manufacturers that are using the android OS and only two devices that run the iOS. So why is their always a comparison????? If the iOS was on different devices I could understand but this just makes me mad.

25.8.2010 22:49

Yeah...the end of the article does go into Apple bashing a bit, but the main point of the article is that Apple is trying to take on the world all at once...and it is blowing up in their face. If iOS was available to other companies, Android would still have a chance, but not as much of one, simply because iOS would have been there first.

36.8.2010 0:56

Oh and just to be clear I'm not a fanboy lol. But I have to say its good to seeing things slightly falling apart for apple just like you said killerbug. Just need to get them some nice well known viruses and everything would be right in the world and I will finally be free of dumb comments from small minded computer users.

46.8.2010 1:40

Originally posted by KillerBug:
... the main point of the article is that Apple is trying to take on the world all at once...and it is blowing up in their face. If iOS was available to other companies, Android would still have a chance, but not as much of one, simply because iOS would have been there first.

I think Android would have more than just a slight chance...what do you think most companies would choose to put on their devices, a limited, proprietary, closed OS, or an open Android? Even companies that already have their own proprietary OS have devices that run Android.


56.8.2010 2:27

Originally posted by cyprusrom:
Originally posted by KillerBug:
... the main point of the article is that Apple is trying to take on the world all at once...and it is blowing up in their face. If iOS was available to other companies, Android would still have a chance, but not as much of one, simply because iOS would have been there first.

I think Android would have more than just a slight chance...what do you think most companies would choose to put on their devices, a limited, proprietary, closed OS, or an open Android? Even companies that already have their own proprietary OS have devices that run Android.


Honestly? I think they prefer closed, proprietary software...otherwise Linux would be more common on OEM machines than Windows. In fact, if windows mobile was any good, I think android would have failed miserably. Very few people care about open source software, and Android isn't really open source anyway.

66.8.2010 6:13

Originally posted by KillerBug:
Originally posted by cyprusrom:
Originally posted by KillerBug:
... the main point of the article is that Apple is trying to take on the world all at once...and it is blowing up in their face. If iOS was available to other companies, Android would still have a chance, but not as much of one, simply because iOS would have been there first.

I think Android would have more than just a slight chance...what do you think most companies would choose to put on their devices, a limited, proprietary, closed OS, or an open Android? Even companies that already have their own proprietary OS have devices that run Android.


Honestly? I think they prefer closed, proprietary software...otherwise Linux would be more common on OEM machines than Windows. In fact, if windows mobile was any good, I think android would have failed miserably. Very few people care about open source software, and Android isn't really open source anyway.
That is an inherently flawed argument - the two are completely different. Android is essentially a Java environment running on top of a Linux kernel; as a regular user you don't have to have any contact with a terminal or any knowledge of basic Linux (which is not the case if you wish to use it as your daily OS on a computer).

If very few people cared about open source software on phones then forums such as xda-developers wouldn't be around. Android is open sourced to enough of an extent for all intents and purposes. I fail to see what more "developers" could do if it was all fully open sourced anyway..

I'm not going to comment on the article itself because, well, stating the obvious really isn't it?!
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 06 Aug 2010 @ 6:31


76.8.2010 8:42

Originally posted by KillerBug:

Honestly? I think they prefer closed, proprietary software...otherwise Linux would be more common on OEM machines than Windows. In fact, if windows mobile was any good, I think android would have failed miserably. Very few people care about open source software, and Android isn't really open source anyway.
I think the only thing holding things like Linux back is ease of use. I doubt anyone would dispute Windows and evidently the Mac stuff is easier to use. I used a lot of Linux in scholl and etc but never really considered running it at home.

86.8.2010 9:59

Ease of use is the main issue for any Linux OS, however, as Linux over time does get easier to use, the most annoying I found in my experience is ease of Installation. Like what a farking pain in the arse; seriously installations never go the same twice even on the same computer, sometimes its easy to get the drivers you need for your hardware, other times you have to search until you ready to pull your freaking hair out. And that's assuming they have the drivers already for your NIC to get online, then there's an entirely new headache. I found tho that once the installation is finished, it usually plays out really nice.

96.8.2010 11:23

Originally posted by KillerBug:
Originally posted by cyprusrom:
Originally posted by KillerBug:
... the main point of the article is that Apple is trying to take on the world all at once...and it is blowing up in their face. If iOS was available to other companies, Android would still have a chance, but not as much of one, simply because iOS would have been there first.

I think Android would have more than just a slight chance...what do you think most companies would choose to put on their devices, a limited, proprietary, closed OS, or an open Android? Even companies that already have their own proprietary OS have devices that run Android.


Honestly? I think they prefer closed, proprietary software...otherwise Linux would be more common on OEM machines than Windows. In fact, if windows mobile was any good, I think android would have failed miserably. Very few people care about open source software, and Android isn't really open source anyway.

If OEM machines would come pre-installed with Linux and Windows, what do you think most of the people would choose to use? You think the average consumer, which is not member of the "Geek Squad" or some Admin., would choose to use command lines and such, or an easy GUI, with "click and run"?
The simple fact that not just it's owner, Google,but MANY manufacturers embraced Android OS and chose to use it on their hardware, at the same time when plenty other operating systems were available, speaks for itself about Android's "virility" as an OS.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 06 Aug 2010 @ 11:33

107.8.2010 0:19

People gladly pay more for a windows XP netbook vs the exact same netbook with Linux on it, already setup, and a far, far better option. I can't explain it, but that is how it goes.

Also, in order to do anything on android, you end up at the terminal emulator...it is not a full GUI OS yet...the GUI features don't do much more than the GUI features of desktop versions of linux.

I really don't think Android would have taken off like it did if you could get an iPhone from any carrier, and with many different hardware configurations. I know that (at first) the only things that kept me from buying the first iPhone were the lack of a physical keyboard and the network...if there had been a Verizon version with a keyboard, 3G, and maybe even a microSD slot, then I probably would have had it.

117.8.2010 4:33

Originally posted by KillerBug:
People gladly pay more for a windows XP netbook vs the exact same netbook with Linux on it, already setup, and a far, far better option. I can't explain it, but that is how it goes.

Also, in order to do anything on android, you end up at the terminal emulator...it is not a full GUI OS yet...the GUI features don't do much more than the GUI features of desktop versions of linux.

I really don't think Android would have taken off like it did if you could get an iPhone from any carrier, and with many different hardware configurations. I know that (at first) the only things that kept me from buying the first iPhone were the lack of a physical keyboard and the network...if there had been a Verizon version with a keyboard, 3G, and maybe even a microSD slot, then I probably would have had it.

Nothing for me to add but +1

127.8.2010 8:02

Originally posted by KillerBug:
Also, in order to do anything on android, you end up at the terminal emulator...it is not a full GUI OS yet...the GUI features don't do much more than the GUI features of desktop versions of linux.

I really don't think Android would have taken off like it did if you could get an iPhone from any carrier, and with many different hardware configurations. I know that (at first) the only things that kept me from buying the first iPhone were the lack of a physical keyboard and the network...if there had been a Verizon version with a keyboard, 3G, and maybe even a microSD slot, then I probably would have had it.
"To do anything" - what exactly are you trying to do? On a basic user level, Android phones function in as satisfactory manner as an iPhone. When you start talking about advanced functions and, say, compare jailbreaking an iPhone to being able to customise an Android ROM/kernel, the possibilities with Android are infinitely better than that of the iPhone. Have you used/owned an Android phone?

Why do you keep comparing Android to a desktop Linux OS? We are talking about phones. iOS is not a replacement for OSX (or whatever the latest one is). I totally agree that Android shouldn't be slapped on netbooks either, but that's not what the article is about?

You have just described exactly why Android will continue to increase in market share - none of those things are ever going to happen. People in a few years time who want an iPhone will buy one because it is an iPhone and not because it is the fastest phone, most functional phone, or prettiest phone; someone who wants an Android device will be able to browse at their leisure through a whole collection of probably hundreds of varying phones.


138.8.2010 0:03

Everybody knows that Google is trying to take over the world, so this is a natural step. Haha.

Changing thoughts, it's fairly obvious why Android is gaining steam: it's more open than the iPhone.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive