Smartphone market unfazed by recession
Consumer demand for smartphones seems to be unstoppable.
In the third quarter, vendors shipped a record 43.3 million devices, up 4.2 percent from last year's third quarter and up 3.2 percent from this year's second quarter, says a report released Thursday by market researcher IDC.
(Credit:
IDC)
Among smartphone vendors, Nokia still enjoys the greatest market share, according to IDC, with a 37.9 percent slice for the third quarter. Though the company has struggled in North America, it commands a huge worldwide lead. Results were aided by Nokia's pricey but popular N97and E71 phones. IDC is also interested to see how Nokia's new N900 smartphone/tablet fares with high-end users.
The demand for BlackBerry devices helped Research In Motion's third-quarter market share jump 35.7 percent over the same quarter last year--the highest jump of any vendor. With a 19 percent chunk of the market, the company now trails Nokia in second place. Though RIM has done best in North America, it's also seen an improvement in buisness overseas, says IDC. During the third quarter, the company debuted two new smartphones--the Blackberry Tour and Curve 8520.
With the debut of the iPhone 3GS, Apple saw its highest sales volume yet for a single quarter. Apple fans replaced their old iPhones, while the lower-priced 3G appealed to customers looking for a bargain. For the quarter, Apple's market share rose 7.1 percent, putting it in third place with a 17.1 percent stake. Popular in major regions like the U.S., the iPhone hasn't made a big dent in emerging markets. But IDC believes the phone's introduction in China could help it achieve greater sales volume worldwide.
In fourth place, HTC enjoyed a gain in share of 14.7 percent for the third quarter and now holds a 5.6 percent slice of the market. The largest provider of smartphones running Windows Mobile, HTC has also been tapping into the Android arena with such devices as the Dream (G1), Hero, and Magic.
Samsung saw no growth in market share, though its third-quarter sales volume improved in Asia/Pacific, Latin America, and EMEA (Europe, the Middle East, and Africa). Like HTC, Samsung has run Windows Mobile on its smartphones but jumped over to Android for its new Moment and Behold II phones.
With Android appearing on so many new phones, the open-source operating system could pose a challenge to other smartphone operating systems, believes IDC.
"With the release of Android-based handsets from several different OEMs, most recently Motorola, but also HTC, Samsung LG, and Sony Ericsson, the buzz surrounding Android OS is reaching critical mass," William Stofega, research manager with IDC's mobile devices technology and trends team, said in a statement. "With an expanding portfolio of handsets and a just released update of the code, Android is poised to mount a serious challenge to the incumbent smartphone OEMs for the first time in its brief history."
Overall, IDC expects worldwide demand for smartphones to continue, outpacing the general cell phone market.
"As users expect greater functionality from their devices beyond telephony, we believe the converged mobile device market to grow faster than the overall mobile phone market," Ramon Llamas, senior research analyst with IDC's mobile devices technology and trends team, said in a statement.
A recent report from In-Stat echoed IDC's findings but focused specifically on Wi-Fi handsets. In-Stat found that Nokia still enjoys a leading slice of this market but has lost about 15 percent of its share over the past year to Apple and RIM.
Yet another recent report by ChangeWave Research, however, offered somewhat different findings in the smartphone arena. Though ChangeWave also forecasts a thriving smartphone industry, it pegs RIM as the top vendor with a 40 percent share of the market, with Apple quickly catching up.
To compile its data, IDC tracked smartphone shipments. By contrast, ChangeWave conducted a survey of 3,500 smartphone consumers and included RIM, Apple, and Palm but not Nokia.
Lance Whitney wears a few different technology hats--journalist, Web developer, and software trainer. He's a contributing editor for Microsoft TechNet Magazine and writes for other computer publications and Web sites. You can follow Lance on Twitter at @lancewhit. Lance is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and he is not an employee of CNET. 
1) they'd lose a lot of the income, and
2) they'd be tied to Microsoft, which I doubt they'd want.
Why would they not want to be tied to Microsoft? Back up your FUD for once. I dare you.
Syncing natively with Exchange means they will have to implement an EAS interface (Exchange Active Sync). It's proven to be an excellent protocol. It's licensed by Apple, Google, and many more. Google in fact licensed EAS so they could make available the option to sync gmail, calendar, and contacts with the iphone (see here: http://www.google.com/mobile/products/sync.html).
So I repeat, back up your FUD for once, or be exposed for the useless troll you are.
Oh you must be joking... but okay my dear fanboy, here's a few reasons why:
1) they'd have to slavishly follow every little revision and bump in ActiveSync in order to maintain connectivity.
2) they have to pay massive licensing fees to Microsoft, instead of charging massive licensing fees for BES as they do today... and guess who would be able to dictate those fees should RIM abandon BES?
3) Tying yourself to one vendor (ANY vendor) always puts you at the mercy of that vendor. Just ask Microsoft's former PlaysForSure partners how that one went for them.
4) Wanna add some features that ActiveSync doesn't have (e.g. app controls, phone policy pushes that are not related to email, and a whole horde of other features currently in BES)? Too bad.
Someday, you might realize that there are often solid business reasons for the things I type... and screaming "FUD" in a blustering reply doesn't make those reasons magically go away.
Of course, you are more than welcome to provide a rebuttal showing us what benefits there would be in RIM abandoning BES and becoming a Microsoft dependent.
Let's see if you're capable.
tsk tsk tsk.. your letting your emotions get the better of you..
1)
"they'd have to slavishly follow every little revision and bump in ActiveSync in order to maintain connectivity."
>>> Same as any protocol, don't you think? Any time you take a dependancy on a library / API / protocol / anything. Even their own protocols are subject to change. The question you always ask is "is this dependancy worth what it gains us?"
2)
" they have to pay massive licensing fees to Microsoft"
a) What makes sense for RIM is whatever makes them more money. If they add EAS support, they gain more customers. Companies that run Exchange already have EAS servers. These EAS servers will already work with Windows Mobile, iPhones, Android, Symbian, etc. Same case for any company that uses Google's hosted solutions (since Google licensed EAS to enable this very scenario). These companies will have to spend still more money to enable their employees to use RIM's Blackberrys. Some will opt to do that, some will not. RIM will basically sell more devices, and gain more mindshare if they choose to add EAS support.
b) They do not need to add EAS support *in place of BES* -- they could merely add it -- and give their users *choice*. For customers that like BES better, RIM still rakes in the licensing fees. For ones that don't, RIM does not get automatically disqualified as a candidate for enterprise purchases.
3)
"Tying yourself to one vendor (ANY vendor) always puts you at the mercy of that vendor. Just ask Microsoft's former PlaysForSure partners how that one went for them."
>>> Still more FUD? Did anyone suggest that RIM needs to use EAS and only EAS. RIM can add EAS. They can continue to support everything else they have as well (including POP, IMAP, etc. if they support that right now). Free your mind, fanboy.
4)
"Wanna add some features that ActiveSync doesn't have (e.g. app controls, phone policy pushes that are not related to email, and a whole horde of other features currently in BES)? Too bad. "
>>> You're so dumb it isn't even funny. That's exactly what they *should* do. Offer BES as an option. Distinguish that option from EAS by making it *feature rich*. That's their business case. You want all these lovely features? Awesome -- license BES from us. You already have EAS and don't wanna spend that much money? Ok - here, let us sell you our phones all the same, and you can settle for this (purportedly) inferior experience. Your lack of itelligence amuses me.
And finally: you have still not explained your FUD. Your exact statement was "they'd be tied to Microsoft, which I doubt they'd want". Which implies "RIM would not want to partner with Microsoft" or "Partnering with Microsoft is a bad idea". That's FUD you fanboy. Your points above, are not encapsulated in that little nugget you posted above. However wrong and naive they were, at least they are *something*. That little line you opened with was FUD.
Now run along..
We'll skip the pleasantries and get to the meat, if that's okay:
"Same as any protocol, don't you think?"
You do know the difference between an open protocol (TCP/IP, SMTP, et al), and closed ones owned/licensed by someone else (Microsoft's ActiveSync, MAPI, et al), right? Also, you forgot - RIM owns BES. Now why would they give that up in order to pay licensing for someone else's, especially considering that they already have the corporate world sewn up? (and before you say they wouldn't, bite your tongue and read on...)
"What makes sense for RIM is whatever makes them more money."
Ah, now we're stating to see some attempts at logic. Looks good on the surface. Almost pretty. However, you fail to answer one essential question: "more money"...from whom? From corporate users? They already have that segment of the market owned. the iPhone hasn't gone near making a dent in it, and Symbian keeps giving away whatever part of it they have left. Nobody else is even considered a contender these days (including WinMo, which is losing marketshare faster than almost anyone else).
Nobody outside of the corporate world uses Exchange. Consumers use whatever their ISP provides (hint: just SMTP/POP, and maybe IMAP if you're lucky).
So - you're proposing that RIM given up its BES-based money machinery, and put its whole business in thrall to a competitor (the owner of WinMo), just for a small-at-best increase in corporate customers? (as earlier, keep biting, and keep reading...)
"Did anyone suggest that RIM needs to use EAS and only EAS"
You did - read the thread:
Original poster says RIM should go with ActiveSync "instead of requiring their server software".
I responded that they'd be tied to Microsoft, which they would. Here's why:
Where you failed in this whole chain is to stop and wonder why I would say that. I'll clue you in: If businesses could use ActiveSync instead of BES to tie Blackberries to their Exchange installs, guess how long BES would continue to exist and be licensed by the corporate realm? (Hint: I'd give it six months to a year, tops - just long enough for world+dog to abandon BES in an orderly fashion, with only the telco carriers left behind, assuming they didn't decide to just bulk-license Exchange themselves). It would leave RIM stuck with only one viable option, being Microsoft's vassal.
Sure, RIM could try to make up the ocean of lost funds (and at the same time pay for that EAS license from Microsoft) by jacking up the price of, say, an Exchange-enabled smartphone, but competition in devices would kill that idea off in very short order as well (e.g. the iPhone would be cheaper and it can already do that).
QED: RIM would be tied to Microsoft.
(you can stop biting now).
This is an obvious outcome... and yet instead of thinking about it, you started screaming 'OAMG! You speak FUUUD!'
But let's continue on here... I'm genuinely curious to see what you've come up with:
"These EAS servers will already work with Windows Mobile, iPhones, Android, Symbian, etc."
At last check, Exchange has been able to do that for _years_ now. And yet, for some odd reason, RIM kept gaining while WinMo and Symbian kept getting slaughtered in the corporate smartphone marketplace.
You're going to have to do better than this...
"They can continue to support everything else they have as well "
...which would die in very short order, as detailed above. What part of this are you failing to grasp?
"Offer BES as an option. Distinguish that option from EAS by making it *feature rich*."
Finally! You've managed to come up with something resembling an argument!
Just one small problem with it, though - having just those features (and nothing else) would not justify the price - the current featureset would be worthless in the face of a lot of easy workarounds (which, if you look them up for iPhone corporate usage, would just as easily apply to a suitably-modified Blackberry). (hint: next time think in context - future versus present. ;) ).
So - you still haven't come up with anything to back up your own claim. Try again?
You do know the difference between an open protocol (TCP/IP, SMTP, et al), and closed ones owned/licensed by someone else (Microsoft's ActiveSync, MAPI, et al), right?
>>> To back up your initial FUD, you're using open vs. closed FUD? By that logic nobody else should license EAS either. But they do.
"Also, you forgot - RIM owns BES. Now why would they give that up in order to pay licensing for someone else's"
>>> Who said anything about giving up BES?
"They already have that segment of the market owned." .... "Nobody outside of the corporate world uses Exchange." "<.. other drivel..>"
>>> Are you even listening to the drivel you need to backup your FUD? Corporate email on mobile devices is a *huge* growth segment. That's a free tip -- go buy some stock.
"So - you're proposing that RIM given up its BES-based money machinery"
>>> No troll, for the Nth time, I'm not suggesting giving up BES
"Did anyone suggest that RIM needs to use EAS and only EAS"
"You did - read the thread: "
>>> Wonderful imagination! Original poster's exact words were "RIM would sell even better if the Blackberry could sync natively with Exchange instead of requiring their server software."
Now get this: when RIM only supports BES, BES becomes a *requirement*. When RIM supports EAS + BES, BES becomes an *option*. *Nobody* suggested RIM should only use EAS. The entire premise of your response is invalid. To the OP's point, strictly speaking, native exchange sync requires MAPI - and it's unlikely a mobile device would go that path since MAPI is designed for high-bandwidth high-availability connections, but we'll take native to mean EAS and move on. I'll leave you to argue silly semantics and insist that by some twisted logic, OP and I made a call for RIM to drop BES.
"If businesses could use ActiveSync instead of BES to tie Blackberries to their Exchange installs, guess how long BES would continue to exist and be licensed by the corporate realm? "
>>> If BES continues to distinguish itself as a better value than EAS, it will sell. EAS is not free per-se. It's a spearate service than the exchange server -- the cost of your exchange server varies based on whether you plan to use EAS. And even if BES was significantly more expensive, companies might prefer to license it depending on it's value and their needs.
See here btw: http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/2007/evaluation/editions.mspx. And now, since the entire premise of your argument is in shambles, I wouldn't blame you if you went back under your rock.
"Sure, RIM could try to make up the ocean of lost funds (and at the same time pay for that EAS license from Microsoft) by jacking up the price of, say, an Exchange-enabled smartphone, but competition in devices would kill that idea off in very short order as well (e.g. the iPhone would be cheaper and it can already do that)."
>>> And now this is just garbage based on premises that have been invalidated.
"(you can stop biting now)."
>>> You can take your foot out of your mouth now. Or better still -- leave it in there. Though I enjoyed the part where you thought you're setting up such a wonderfully potent argument, only to fall flat.
"These EAS servers will already work with Windows Mobile, iPhones, Android, Symbian, etc."
"At last check, Exchange has been able to do that for _years_ now."
>>> Oh really? When did you check last? Google licensed EAS in 8 months ago. The iphone added EAS support 1.5 years ago (March 2008). _years_ eh? Note that all EAS service implementations don't need an Exchange back-end.
"And yet, for some odd reason, RIM kept gaining while WinMo and Symbian kept getting slaughtered in the corporate smartphone marketplace."
>>> It's not that odd -- Symbian sucks and WinMo sucks worse. The iphone is good, and it's RIM's greatest threat right now. And guess what -- they implement EAS.
"What part of this are you failing to grasp?"
>>> Which part are *you* failing to grasp?
"Finally! You've managed to come up with something resembling an argument! "
>>> Thanks.. but I'm still waiting for you to graduate beyond FUD...
"Just one small problem with it, though - having just those features (and nothing else) would not justify the price"
>>> See the trouble with being a troll? You need to make silly blanket statements to back up silly claims. The justification would depend on the customer needs, features, and price delta between EAS and BES. You have no data.
"(hint: next time think in context - future versus present. ;) )."
>>> Next time, think. Future, present, anything -- just please try to think.
You do realize that starting off on a wrong premise isn't going to help you any... or are you just trying to convince yourself? ;)
"To back up your initial FUD, you're using open vs. closed FUD? By that logic nobody else should license EAS either. But they do. "
Nice strawman attempt, but still false. You claimed that all protocols are equal, when in reality they are not - some are more expensive to use than others, which is what any business has to pay attention to. Next...
"Who said anything about giving up BES? "
They won't have a choice in the matter courtesy of the market, as explained earlier.
" "They already have that segment of the market owned." .... "Nobody outside of the corporate world uses Exchange." "<.. other drivel..>"
>>> Are you even listening to the drivel you need to backup your FUD? Corporate email on mobile devices is a *huge* growth segment. That's a free tip -- go buy some stock. "
1) the attempt at discounting words shows your position to be weak, and...
2) Yes corporate mobile is growing. The part you fail to grasp is that RIM still owns it, and continues to gain growth in it above all comers, even as Symbian and Windows Mobile decline in that very segment. Don't take my word for it - Canalys, ComScore, et al... they all back me up. Even the inroads that the iPhone has made have been nominal at best in this segment.
So - the question still remains: If RIM is still the largest grower, in a segment that its competition has seen decline or (at best) a small trickle, where is the profit in adding a feature that would kill its largest money-maker (that money maker being BES licensing)?
You still fail to answer that simple question.
"I'm not suggesting giving up BES"
RIM won't have a choice, so their inclusion of EAS is a de-facto giving up of BES. What part of this are you failing to realize?
"Now get this: when RIM only supports BES, BES becomes a *requirement*. When RIM supports EAS + BES, BES becomes an *option*. "
You come so close to comprehending it... tantalizingly close...
"If BES continues to distinguish itself as a better value than EAS, it will sell."
So you're hinging your arguments on the word "if". In spite of a massive corporate drive to save IT money wherever and whenever possible, in spite of a near-ruthless habit of dropping excess tech unless absolutely necessary, and in spite of common sense, you assume that magically, the whole business world will somehow 'see' that keeping BES around in the face of a functional, existing, in-house, and license-free equivalent is somehow a "better value".
"See here btw: http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/2007/evaluation/editions.mspx.
In your rush to scramble for evidence, you just proved my point that EAS is free, without any work on my part. EAS is included free in a standard CAL. For enterprise licensing, it is not included in the enterprise CAL, but you have to have a standard CAL with each enterprise CAL anyway. From your cite:
'The Exchange Server Enterprise CAL is an additive CAL and requires that a Standard CAL is also purchased for each user or device.'
QED: You get EAS for free if you have Exchange. Thanks for proving my point. (Incidentally, I recently built an Exchange 2007 multi-site org @ work - with just shy of 2000 users, not counting service/room/dist-list accounts... I also have Exchange connectors between our North American site and two AD forests in Europe. You're in my house now. ;) )
""At last check, Exchange has been able to do that for _years_ now."
>>> Oh really? When did you check last? Google licensed EAS in 8 months ago. The iphone added EAS support 1.5 years ago (March 2008). _years_ eh? Note that all EAS service implementations don't need an Exchange back-end. "
I said that Exchange had the ability (since Exchange 2003 AAMOF), not all of the manufacturers. In your zeal to jump, you forgot to check the ground underneath you. ;)
So, you've still failed to answer the statement: Exchange has had that ability for years now, and WinMo and Symbian have had that ability for years now. ...and your best answer to it is apparently this:
"It's not that odd -- Symbian sucks and WinMo sucks worse. The iphone is good, and it's RIM's greatest threat right now. And guess what -- they implement EAS. "
The iPhone is a great consumer product. It is not however a great enterprise product. the iPhone's growth in the business sector is just enough to be detected, and is still well short of RIM's growth in the same sector. This may change over time, but predicting any impending explosion of growth in the business sector by the iPhone is best left to folks like Miss Cleo, and you lose credibility by relying on such a thing to hold up your argument.
Nice try, but you're going to have to try much, much harder. It also helps if you didn't rely on bad premises and insult where logic has failed you ;)
LOL! Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black! Random I'd like to call you the FUD master but you're not even good at it.
Dhavleak, thanks for the great rebuttles to Peguinisto. It was fun to watch you take him down. Peng, you got pwned.
Because it's a hardware comparison.... not software. Android happens to run on multiple pieces of hardware, while the iPhone is a single package.... unless I am misunderstanding your question. I'm assuming you want to compare the iPhone OS to the Android OS?
- by Jigolo- November 6, 2009 2:12 PM PST
- Because it's a hardware comparison.... not software. Android happens to run on multiple pieces of hardware, while the iPhone is a single package.... unless I am misunderstanding your question. I'm assuming you want to compare the iPhone OS to the Android OS?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(17 Comments)