Thursday, May 3, 2012

Response to MG Siegler on TechCrunch

I was looking at my RSS feeds today and noticed an article entitled "Android Is Either "Winning" Because Apple Is Letting It, Or Losing" and I thought it sounded interesting so I decided to check it out. I was not surprised when the whole article was filled with fallacious arguments, biased ways of looking at things and other misleading things. Well I got nothing better to do so I might as well respond to it.


If you haven't read the article yet you might want to do that. You should be able to understand what's going on without reading the article, but it's best to read it, maybe we came to the same conclusions after reading it.

So my first question is, what does MG Siegler mean by "winning"? He keeps repeating this word 8 times in the article, and a few more times in the comment section. Since the article is about sale numbers and sale numbers only, I assume he means that whoever sell the most phones win. Now, this by itself is a pretty stupid, if you ask me, but whatever.

Okay so he wrong an article back in late 2010 about how Android is only as popular as it is because Apple is deliberately not selling the iPhone on any other carrier than AT&T. He then draw the conclusion that Apple is letting Android get popular by not selling the iPhone on more carriers. Now if you ask me, that doesn't sound like a logical conclusion. Manufacturers usually don't let the competitors get a big chunk of marketshare, and I really don't see Apple as being one of the companies who would do that. Now, you might say "but that's not what he is saying. What he is saying is that Android only became so popular is because the iPhone was only available on one carrier". Yes that is what he is saying, but the way he presents it by using words such as "Apple is letting Android become popular" is heavily implying that Apple wanted Android to get a sizable marketshare. That's obviously not true if you look at how Apple and Steve Jobs have treated Android manufacturers such as Samsung.

So basically the whole article is based on a an argument ad popular. The iPhone is the most sold phone and therefore Apple is "winning". He then goes on to talk about the number of phones sold:

>That’s 51 percent of all smartphones sold on the nation’s largest carrier (Verizon). 78 percent of all smartphone sold on the nation’s number two carrier (AT&T). And 60 percent of all smartphones sold on the nation’s number three carrier (Sprint). Jay Yarow of Business Insider did the math: all together, the iPhone accounted for 63 percent of the smartphone sales in the past quarter on the big three carriers. The 63 percent number is close to the 59 percent estimated by Raymond James analyst Tavis McCourt last week, as reported by Eric Savitz for Forbes.
While I agree that the numbers from the carriers such as AT&T are more reliable than those from survey sites, but MG Siegler doesn't seem to understand that they are measuring different things. The numbers he uses are total numbers of phones sold, while the numbers from the surveys are how many phones are actually used. I have noticed that iPhone users often buy more than one iPhone. For example a lot of people upgraded from the 3GS to the iPhone 4, and then to the iPhone 4S. That means that while the iPhone might have sold 100,000 units during a certain period of time, only 50,000 of those might actually be used (the other sold units might be updated and throw away).

Another flaw with his numbers are that he do not take into account phones bought from other carriers than the big 3 in the US. Not all people buy phones on contracts and those people are completely ignored in the numbers he uses.

>By now, I probably have the Android fanatics really upset, so let’s throw out all these rational numbers and instead continue on with the dream that Android is “winning” in the U.S. Not winning in revenue or profit mind you — you know, things that actually matter for business, and things which Android will likely never be winning in any sense of the word — but winning in terms of overall market share.
First of all, that comment about how your article have made "Android fanatics really upset" is completely unnecessary and was placed there just to annoy people. Secondly, I don't really see how your numbers are any more "rational" that those from the surveys. Like I said before, they are measuring different things and it seems like MG Siegler fails to understand that.
Thirdly, I don't see how one company earning lots in revenue is beneficial to the consumers (e.g. you, me and MG Siegler). It might matter for the companies, but it would be better for the customers if the total revenue was split more evenly between the different companies, instead of most of it going to Apple who just put it all in a big pile and spend next to nothing on R&D.

>Android’s only hope is to actually have a phone, or a set of phones, that are more appealing to consumers than the iPhone. But that hasn’t happened in the past four years, so what makes us think that will change this year? Or next year? All Apple has to do is say the word and they can win the market share battle in this country.
That will not happen anytime soon, because a lot of Apple customers buy the iPhone simply because of the brand. Apple has a cult like following which according to scientific tests, behave very similarly to people who are very religious. So no, it's not about the phone or the OS when it comes to Apple, at least not for a big portion of their customers. It is mostly related to the logo on the back of the phone.

>Actually, again, if you consider the numbers above, it sure looks like they already have won that battle.
Well if you only look at the revenue then yes, Apple has "won" the battle and I don't think anyone will deny that. However, I wouldn't say Apple have won the battle for "the overall best smartphone on the planet". Speaking of best smartphone on the planet, the Galaxy S 3 will most likely be announced today at 7pm (GMT), and chances are it will win that title.

No comments:

Post a Comment