Yesterday at the Web 2.0 Summit, Morgan Stanley Internet analyst Mary Meeker did her annual data dump slide presentation, this year focusing on the growth prospects of the mobile Web. As usual, there were 3 or 4 slides that really captured the trends she was talking about, particularly the ones around iPhone adoption and how that phone in particular is catapulting mobile Web usage into the mainstream.
You can see her full slide show below (all 68 of them), but let me pull out the three iPhone slides that helps put its growth into perspective. The first one above shows the growth of data traffic on AT&T’s mobile network. It is 50 times higher than it was just three years ago. I added two arrows to show when the first iPhone launched in June, 2007 and the iPhone 3G in July 2008.
AT&T saw massive pops in data usage following those two launches as consumers discovered the unadulterated mobile Web for the first time. And it is not just the iPhone. With the ubiquity of WiFi, the iPod Touch offers pretty much the same experience without AT&T’s monthly fees. Taken together, the adoption of the iPhone and iPod Touch is outstripping the early adoption the desktop Internet, as represented by AOL and Netscape in Meeker’s chart below. It is also outstripping the early growth of NTT Docomo’s imode, which was the most successful example of the first generation of mobile Web adoption in Japan.
The chart overlays the first 20 quarters of user growth for each product. Only eight quarters after launch, the iPhone and iPod Touch has more than twice as many users (57 million) as imode (25 million), five times as many as Netscape (11 million), and eight times as many as AOL (7 million) at a comparable points in their histories.
The iPhone/iTouch combo is also the fastest-growing consumer electronics product of all time. Its adoption ramp is even steeper than videogame consoles including the Nintendo Wii, Nintendo DS, and Sony PSP. The original iPod and Blackberry aren’t even in the same league.
As right as she is, she lost a lot of credit when she went and called the iPod Touch the iTouch.
It causes me to groan audibly and experience physical pain whenever I hear someone say that. That’s what we need someone to research; why two discrete words is too much for Americans to internalize and pronounce.
iPod Touch? Or do you mean iPod touch?
I’ll second that. Getting kinda sick of n00bs calling it an iTouch. *sigh*
Apparently, the “i” stands for internet. Niceeee
iI iResent iThat iInsinuation!
Saying iPod Touch is about as useful as iPod Phone.
Maybe Apple is reserving the name for a tablet device but I think that the name should be iTouch. But I am one of the few people that probably do not care one way or another.
She lost credit for other slides. Shortening the name to iTouch to the audience that she was likely presenting was probably not a big deal. Should could have probably simply called it the Touch as some simply refer to the iPod Nano as Nano. Sticking an i in front of a word and declaring the naming process over for a product is a bit lame in my view. I am sure that Apple will milk this for what it is worth but it cannot last forever. God, I hope not.
iNanuNanu!
LMAO
If your going to comment and report on Apple have the decency to use Keynote vs. Powerpoint. This data could look ONE BILLION times better. Currently, SNORE. Seriously Mary, get a mac quick and head down to your local Apple Store for some one-to-one training sessions. Even your PC buddies will wonder why the hell your presentations look so much better.
Why don’t you try commenting on the data instead of focusing on the naming of the product or which software the presenter used to make the slides?
This presentation raises a lot of very interesting issues and that’s what you guys are focused on?!
Exactly. Simple minds focus on irrelevant details, because they can’t grasp the big picture message. Children. LOL@them!
Or save your money!
Slide 67 sais it all.
When you think back to what there was before the iPhone in terms of mobile browsing… There wasn’t much of anything worth wasting time on. Slow, mobile view…
It makes sense and it’s pushing all the other manufacturers in the right direction.
Man you are milking Mary Meeker’s work for all it is worth.
How about doing some original journalism yourself?
Well, it’s all very nice, but what happened to the theory that “was goes up fast…” ? These are all short-term post-launch graphs.
Two things – love how even Morgan Stanley calls it itouch. Also its still. not quite the “unadulterated mobile web” because then there would be no need for iPhone optimized sites
I hate iPhone or mobile optimized sites. I do everything possible to avoid them. (espn.com mobile sucks hardcore monkey balls, for example, and I always have to click away from that to see the “real” site. very annoying)
I agree with acidboy. The only time you actually need an iPhone “optimized” site is if the primary site is poorly developed. In many cases these “optimized” sites are simply formatted so you don’t have to make use of pinch and pull.
This is kind of pointless.
She’s comparing the launch of products on brand new infrastructures – the web through dial up which much later evolved into broadband for example – against the iPhone’s piggyback on the existing and mature 3G/Wi-Fi networks.
It’s a pretty silly comparison with no real validity if we’re being honest.
Meanwhile, back in reality, iPhone sales this quarter were 7.4 million roughly split 50% US/ex-US. Given that Nokia – who don’t compete in the US – sold about 12 million smartphones in the same ex-US markets (I’m excluding Nokia’s Chinese sales as Apple doesn’t sell there) it’s looking like Apple are gettign outsold by a factor of three. Of course, the equally amsing “let’s include a totally diferent product (i.e. a PMP)” in the stats to bolster the figures is always amusing. You know despite the fact it actually only runs on WiFi so isn’t exactly mobile.
So, who’s blowing who away?
You know, in reality once we move beyond they hype and look at the actual number of units being sold?
Hmm?
Yes, @mark, numbers *are* important. Here are two more to consider:
Oct. 16 — Nokia Posts $1.36 Billion Loss as Sales Fall 20%: http://www.nyti...es/16nokia.html
Oct. 19 — Apple Reports $1.67 Billion Profit and Record Mac and iPhone Sales: http://www.appl.../19results.html
Yes that’s fabulous but as the Nokia loss is due to a write of of over one billion Euros on Nokia Siemens Networks – a totally separate division from Nokia Services who make the handsets and who made a profit of 750 million Euros – and that profits are great if you’re a stockholder but meaningless when we’re talking dominance as expressed by volume of units what has that got to do with my post?
I mean you do understand that, right?
Call it what you like. In every market that the iPhone is introduced, it kicks ass on the other phones.
I have an iPhone, and a Nokia e71. The Nokia model is like using Windows 3.1 on a modern computer — clunky, and it just plain SUCKS.
I agree with Jim Cramer – Nokia makes DUMB phones.
“In every market that the iPhone is introduced, it kicks ass on the other phones.”
Except it doesn’t. Read the damn numbers.
You forgot Pol… I mean, Japan.
Yeah, i think it’s a distortion of the evolution of internet usage structure, current iPhone (mobile internet) growth was a natural evolution from it’s predecessors. Netscape and AOL grew slowly because the internet was new, iPhone was just a transition from home to mobile.
I think it speaks volumes for how much people want to take the net with them, and iPhone was a catalyst, but I don’t think all the praise is the iPhone model (in fact with it;s restrictions I’d say the opposite is true.
I agree. I have to point out that I think that the iPhone is a fantastic device but ‘dominant’? Nope.
Mark, we know you hate everything Apple, but now you’re just sounding like someone who’s chosen to bury their head in the sand rather than believe the facts. Have a look at the worldwide web traffic charts here: http://bit.ly/1aZo5S
This one is dated now, but I’m sure that it’s swung even more heavily in Apple’s favor by now, considering it’s ONLY been increasing over time.
Apple is ABSOLUTELY 100% blowing everyone else away in mobile web usage. There’s not even a contest in the those numbers. As shown, it’s even more lopsided in the US.
Steve, don’t say things like “we know you hate Apple” because you’ll just upset my Macbook. She’s quite sensitive that way.
As for your link, you can read why that’s rubbish in my response to Raul further down the page. If you want facts then get off your fat arse and do some research. It’s not difficult and it’s certainly better than accusing people who aren’t quite as gullible and unquestioning as you are of being haters.
I agree with Mark. I too own a mac, iPod touch, but do think that the iPhone is pretty restrictive. Primarily the reason, I am waiting for a better android device
You do make me laugh. Mark A has some common sense and shows it. You talk smack and show it. Have a close look at those tables you link to…
Now go and have another look…
Try again until you see the most glaringly obvious point.
Isn’t in interesting to see all the iPhones lumped together yet not all Nokias, RIMs, WM devices, etc.
Start totting them up and try again.
Then realise that the research in those tables disputes most other research I have seen before or since then.
Use one source with your slanted point of view and you can believe anything. I’ll agree with Mark and his evaluation. I guess you Steve are one of the reasons I don’t want to be associated with Apple fanboyism other than that Apple have some great rpoducts, however nowhere near as dominant as made out.
Next device from apple is iCar.
Those are some ugly slides.
What’s a Blackberry again?! Impressive growth but also a concern as Apple have such a stranglehold on the mobile web at the moment!!!
You can make statistics and pretty graphs to show whatever conclusion you want. The iPhone is great and is certainly the benchmark but you could show numbers that paint the iPhone as a mere blip in the overall market of cell phone usage (for example have they passed WinMo install base yet?)
Not knocking Apple or the iPhone but when you pick statistics you always pick data that backs up your point, rarely do you see graphs showing any negativity.
This is for smartphones, not regular cell phones. Apple does not compete in the general cell phone market.
and considering that most cellphones aren’t competing**, I wish someone would compete in the general cell phone market.
** where are the cells that don’t go dead in a couple days despite no active usage (send or recv)? I’d like a cell that doesn’t make butt calls or grope calls or take photos of the inside of your pack|purse|whatever? the cell I’ve got suddenly begins playing some crap emo payola from 2006 (guesstimate). and the payola plays rather loud even relative to noisy locations.
In summary: I’d like a cell phone that’s *at minimum*, just a cell phone. just be a cell phone, then maybe try being iWorld iDictator or whatever your iAspirations may be.
If they haven’t already, they probably will in a day or two …
iSupply claims that Windows Mobile is on 27.7 million phones in 2009.
In their last quarter report, Apple said they sold 7.4 million iPhones, the last installed base estimate I saw was for roughly 28 million iPhones worldwide.
Apple saw a 7% increase in sales from the same quarter last year while licensees are dropping WinMo models like they were virulent (see HTC and Moto)
Looks to me like Meeker is sucking up to Apple in hopes of Morgan Stanley landing some M&A or corporate finance business.
This growth won’t last too much longer, but anyone with eyes can see Apple is killing it. The iPhone is everywhere. Talk to anyone that has one. Have you ever heard anyone say something bad about it? Don’t need 60 something slides to figure that out, but then I guess she needs to justify her huge salary.
“Looks to me like Meeker is sucking up to Apple in hopes of Morgan Stanley landing some M&A”.
What?!
The M&A fees of every acquisition that Apple has ever done do not amount to a “hill of beans”. What makes you think that Apple is suddenly going to start spending their $34G USD cash on making large purchases?
Doubtful, since Apple does so little M&A or CorpFin that it wouldn’t be worth the trouble. Sometimes facts are facts, and remember Techcrunch cherrypicked three slides out of how many, 60+, that’s not sucking up to anyone.
I totally agree with Mark A. These slides are so skewed it isn’t even funny. You are comparing so many different markets and so many different products, this article loses all validity.
Let’s also not forget that AT&T merged with cingular 3 years ago. So of course when AT&T is to release 3G capable device to a wider market segment, you are expect to see the type of traffic increases that their network saw. That doesn’t mean the iPhone didn’t play a part, but not as much as this article claims.
The fact that they are including the iTouch (a seperate product without cellular technology) into the numbers is just laughable.
Would you please stop calling it “iTouch”. Do you call the iPod Classic “iClassic”? or the iPod Nano the “iNano”? or the iPod Shuffle i… I don’t think so.
Most of the trends this data represents is useless…
Also, why is the iphone and itouch grouped together?
will be interesting to see if / how the slope changes when the batch of android phones hit the market.
Ha ha now AT&T knows that Steve Jobs is there Tech GOD, both smart phone , high bandwidth connection and attractive software is very rare.
I’m not convinced the iPod touch should be in this comparison – it’s not a phone and the comparison is against a whole list of regional and global products and platforms. A bit of a mess really.
From a broad perspective of mobile devices that connect to net vs desktops/laptops iPod touch should be included. However, I would like to see a breakout by mobile phones vs mobile devices like the iPod touch.
This might answer your question: http://gs.statc...0809-200910-bar, though it doesn’t include the amount of time spent online, which — I suspect — favors the iPhone and iPod Touch over Opera and Nokia.
Actually it seems to favour Opera according to that graph.
Not surprising since it’s pre-installed on most WinMo devices and a download for Symbian.
True, but when you consider there are multiple phones and smart phones running Opera and put that up against the iPhone ONLY, then you see the significance of it. Or, you can just keep burying your head in the sand and pretend you don’t see what the rest of the world sees, your choice.
No response necessary, don’t really think you’re going to enlighten me in any way, but hopefully I have convinced you to accept it for what it is, phenomenal, considering the short time the iPhone has been on the market.
Jim, you can ‘bury your head in the sand’ too.
The sales numbers don’t support your theory and since the measurements Meeker uses are fundamentally flawed they’re not really that relevant.
I like the iPhone and I think it’s the best mobile browser out there but it isn’t dominant and doesn’t rule the airwaves – at least globally.
Now if you have any stats to back up why you think I’m wrong then lets see them otherwise I’m not really that interested in your subjective ramblings.
For fun, dropped into a phone store like Verizon and try out their various smartphones. You will cry at the poor iClones and clunky devices.
So true… I returned the BlackBerry my employer gave me, gifted my WinMo phone to a friend and put my Nokia Symbian smart phone in the drawer.
Now I just wish someone would launch something that actually competes with the iPhone and isn’t just the next-best choice for contrarians.
As Stephen so VERY rightly says, the iPod Touch should NOT be in the chart. Its stats give the iPhone a give boost, I’m sure. I bought an iPod Touch specifically *because* it’s not a phone, and it has nothing to do with (yuck) AT&T. We’ll stick with the iPod Touch in the future. Period.
Why not, it’s a mobile internet device that is made by Apple. It has nothing to do with AT&T either. The only thing lacking is the fact you can’t make calls with it. If you look at the graph, it’s not comparing phones, it’s just a comparison of significant handheld devices, which the iPhone and iPod Touch are. Duh!
In that case why not look at the uptake of of some browser at a time when the internet was more mature. Like maybe FireFox? That would be unfair to the pro iPhone charts in the article though.
Or maybe we should include FireFox + ThunderBird, etc? Wake up to what people with sense are posting about how biased these slides are!
The iPhone and iPod Touch are different devices for different markets and therefore should not be in the same chart unless you are comparing Apple products to other companies products. Which I really don’t think you want to see in those charts!
Look at the uptake of the iPhne 3G or 3GS and compare that to the launch of Firefox 3.1 / 3.5.
If you want to try and tell me that Apple sold well over a million phones in a day I’ll call you a liar.
The mobile browsing experience was pretty bad until Apple raised the standard. It will be interesting to see who others will try to compete.
Good information but some of the charts are useless comparisons. Comparing the growth and adoption of the iPhone, et al. to AOL is just plain stupid. These events occurred 13 years apart. People’s interest are different – more use and rely on the internet; personal economics are different – more people are willing to part with income for phones and for additional services.
People lose credibility in my opinion by trying to show something dramatic using data irresponsibly.
Seems that Apple is using a big part of their U$34bi in the bank to pay press to spread good news about them and bad news about the competitors…
Let me make a correction for the comment above: mobile browser was very good before iPhone, but US operators was not allowing their customers to get the hands on the cool devices sold in Europe and Asia. When finally AT&T gave iPhone for US if obviously was a hit because you were in the stone age compared to the rest of the world, thanks to your operators. The issue still, there are much better devices then Iphone out there running Android, Maemo and Symbian, but AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc still refusing to bring these devices to USA.
Here are numerous reasons why the iPhone and iPod Touch can’t be grouped together for the cumulative units shipped graph.
If you buy an iPhone, then chances are you are not going to buy an iPod Touch. Most people who buy a DS, won’t also have a PSP. People when they decide to buy these products will likely choose between one or the other. So it would be like the graph grouping the DS and the PSP together. You can’t group an entire market together in one category and then seperate others. It is like comparing apples and oranges. Sure, Apple makes both of those products, but those products essentially are the same product, but marketed to different buyers. As one of the commenters here said, he bought his iPod Touch because he didn’t want to use an AT&T phone.
Furthermore, the iPod Touch and iPhone have different release dates. So the span of time that these units are all shipped out in don’t equal the same 10 quarters that all the other products are limited to. By grouping two different products into the same graph you are essentially “expanding” the total 10 quarter span that the number of units are being calculated in. It basically gives the iPod Touch + iPhone graph line 20 quarters worth of data where as all the other products are limited to 10 quarters.
Lastly, because the markets for all of these products are different and NO model numbers are specifically given for any of the graph lines, it greatly diminishes the ability to compare any of these. For example, RIM Blackberry is shown there. But, RIM Blackberry isn’t an actual device model. What are we comparing? Not to mention Blackberries are targeted toward businesses originally, so the market adoption of these products were slower. But, if you look at the business world, the market share of blackberries is much greater than the market share for iPhones.
Also, the graph that shows adoption of iPhone compared to desktop internet. To compare the two is obsurd!!! They are comparing 1994 and 1999 technologies to a 2007 technology?!?! That is like comparing the amount of people that bought Model Ts in the first 10 quarters since their release compared to the number of people who bought a Ford Taurus in the first 10 quarters since its release. Apples and Oranges!! The adoption rate of a new technology will ALWAYS be slower compared to the adoption rate of an existing technology!
I said it earlier and I’ll say it again. This article is trash.
Although I do believe that iPhone has made a significant contribution towards the increased popularity of 3G mobile web, wouldn’t it be more useful to examine how the wider category of Webkit based browsers are contributing to the growth?
Agree with many above that the numbers are strange and not making a good point. The growth is exponential in all the examples (Blacberry, ipod, netscape, etc) and that should come as no surprise. But the charts are about growth *rate* correct? If so, a good comparison would be to rebase the initial points. There are two ways to do that:
1) Pick the point in time where iPhone had 10M units and plot out the 2 years leading up to that. Then pick the point when Nokia had 10M units and plot the 2 years leading up to that. Overlay the two graphs. That would show you which of the two products had strongher growth as they approached the 10M mark. (The one with the smaller base 2 years befor reaching 10M is the faster grower)
2) Start with iPhone’s and Rim’s first quarter after launch of a significant product (and no, for RIM that product would not be their original green-screen two way messaging device. It wuold be their first smartphone.) Rebase at that level, and plot the chart to the future.
Apple started out being competitive in the desktop, but now Windows dominate. Apple is happy being profitable with its miniscule marketshares. With the Google Android ramping up, Nokia, the global mobile leader, might maybe now have a credible challenger.
I love this analogy. Windows has marketshare, everybody else should just stop.
How much marketshare did GM have? And is it the “king” any longer?
Drawing analogies from the past is just that — the past. It has no impact on what will happen in the future.
Everyone misses the point – if Apple broke out the iPhone from iTouch you’d see how growth is really with iTouch (as a mobile gaming / app device). To me that is not the smartphone market at all and not showing an accurate pictute of Apple’s market share.
I didn’t read through all the latest quarterly reports but was the iTouch part of the iPhone or iPod sales? To me it should be iPod no matter how close it comes using WifI and VOiP.
They are talking about the “mobile Internet”, if you leave wifi usage via the Touch out of the Apple numbers, then you’re ignoring a meaningful chunk of “mobile Internet” usage on Apple devices.
Except, as mentioned, in reality WiFi isn’t really mobile at the moment.
Mobile means small enough to carry around.
Pretending to work on your laptop sitting in Starbucks counts as mobile computing.
OK. We best put netbooks in there too. How many have they sold and what’s their growth rate like?
I’m betting it’s f**king astronomical.
If you really want to add Apple’s laptop to the mix you would have to concede even more. So for your delusional argument, its best you keep Apple laptops out of the mix, for your own good that is. This way you will give the appearance that you are credible.
@Mark A
Why is this a problem?
If a netbook is used in Starbucks via Wi-Fi, it is mobile.
Or you prefer the wording “handheld device” to be specific?
I think the difference between iPhone/iPod touch and laptop/netbook categories is obvious enough not to cause any confusion unless intended to.
@Arsense
Sure, but if we’re talking about the new portability then lets include all devices – the purpose of a netbook is to be a small format portabel device that can go in a large purse or a manbag.
@Jim
Sure, let’s add Apple’s laptops into the equation – since there were 3.05 million Macs sold out of 75 million computers last quarter that percentage is… err… sub 4%. I’ll be kind and say that since Apple focus on laptops and not desktops that the lappy figure might push, say, 8%.
Which is less than 1 in 12 laptop owners.
Still think we should include them?
Mark A – Quite simply put, you’re a blind fool.
Chris,
Your name will look better if you remember to turn the CAPS LOCk off.
Your arguments suck though.
@ Mark A
I agree with you.
@ All the others
Take a reality check. You can argue all you want those numbers in the charts are trash. I can pick up and carry my computer and plug it in at Starbucks – shall we include all PCs?
No wait lets make the comparison fair, in your deluded minds, and compare worldwide iPhone + iPod Touch usage Vs Netbooks running Windows + WinMo devices + Notebooks running windows Vs All Symbian devices (Which I guarantee outsold iPhones).
Who would win that? Microsoft by miles followed by Nokia with Symbian. Lets look at user experience – which gives you the best mobile internet experience – Windows as you can choose your browser and don’t get compatibility web sites.
Yes my examples are apples Vs oranges. For a good reason – those slides mean nothing useful.
Funny I didn’t know there was a nationwide WiFi network one could tap into.
WiFi is great for home and those places with open access but it’s hardly mobile like a smartphone.
You missed the most important and revealing slide, page 38, which demonstrates the dramatic contrast in usage scenarios in the different platforms.
The charts for iPhone, Pre and Android are the exact opposite of Nokia, RIM and Windows, showing how the latter platforms could be left behind as web usage explodes on mobile devices.
iPhone has just11% shipments while internet usage is at 65% compared to lets say Nokia which has 49% shipments and a piddling 7& internet usage.
Which just goes to show how Nokia were holding the industry back with ‘feature rich’ phones with zero usability, you can’t use the net on slow, memory crippled and small screen devices never mind the 3g chipsets. Nokia doesn’t care about usability or user experience and the stagnation of Symbian for 5 years from the 6600 to N95 just shows that. What’s the point of 3g on N73 for instance, or even N95 or N97? So what were the super expensive premium prices for? 5x cameras? Thank god that model of ‘innovation’ and gimmickry is over. Nokia need to realise where the industry is going and deliver a better value preposition or they will continue to lose their significance.
Typo, that should be page 39
Raul, sorry but that’s nonsense.
Firstly, Nokia’s browsers do not default to optimised mobile sites like the iPhone does – it could but a lot of developers divert Nokia’s webkit browser to other pages, not the mobile site. Generally, if there’s a mobile site available it’ll take it, if not it’ll load the desktop version. The comparison is therefore shaky at best.
http://opensour...cts/S60browser/
Secondly, Nokia’s 360 survey showed that 88% of Nokia smartphone users access the internet on their phones. Given Nokia’s sales you can see the obvious problem with the stats quoted.
Your other comments are also ill informed at best. Firstly Nokia phones are equivalent or cheaper than, say, the iPhone on unsubsidised PAYG deals. This also applies to subsidised deals which, unfortunately, aren’t generally offered on Nokia’s smartphones in America. Please don’t make incorrect generalisations based on local circumstances.
Also, Symbian is better optimised for mobile than Mobile OS X precisely because it is designed for that platform, not cut down from a desktop OS. That’s why it runs better on lower spec hardware and has better power management.
Finally, if people don’t care about things like cameras or don’t like variation then why do Nokia outsell Apple by a factor of 3 in the markets they both compete in?
People need to stop and do some research before coming to erroneous conclusions.
Lol, wow. Now I have heard it all. Nokia is junk and will continue diving downward as they are now. You were sounding slightly credible until your moronic attempt to speak about hardware and software. Symbian? Now I know you are delusional. I got a good laugh at this one. Maybe thats why Nokia is abandoning Symbian for a Linux based OS you moron. Do a little research before you spout out your nonsense.
Jim, you’re either trolling or just not clever enough to play this game. I’ve told you exactly why the figures are flawed so instead of throwing random insults about you could try coming up with a robust counter argument.
I won’t hold my breath though.
Oh yeah, I should mention the Linux base OS is Maemo (currently v5 although v6 is in the works) which is benign moved towards high end devices. Symbian will still run on the mid tier although the S60 layer will be revamped.
See, it’s easy when you actually know what you’re talking about!
@Mark
Seriously nice to hear you’re not going to hold your breath – I would hate for someone who makes sense to die waiting for an idiot to find a mindless retort.
Really appreciating your input man, nice to have someone talking sense on here.
Thanks,
Mike.
You do know who makes WebKit, right? And, the actions you describe about not going to the mobile websites is exactly what alot of developers do on the iPhone as well.
As for Nokia’s own surveys, well, they couldn’t be biased, could they?
And, if Symbian is so great and optimised, why is Nokia going to use Maemo for their high-end smartphones?
And, it’s well known that camera quality is not measured solely by megapixels. Megapixels are a marketing tool. And, how is Nokia doing in Japan? Ooops, they pulled out. And, doesn’t the iPhone have 40% marketshare of smartphones in France? Does Nokia have 120%?
@KenC
Apple made WebKit. It’ a great browser framework. It’s also not Safari – it underpins it, but it’s neither Safari nor S60 Browser.
So, uh, anyway what’s the relevance of your point?
Sure, Nokia’s survey could be biased just as Apple’s could. But then again, why would they be? The survey was conducted to understand trends and usage in mobile devices. It would be pretty stupid to bias a survey that’s going to determine the shape of your product line and your marketing for the next few years, wouldn’t it?
Nokia are using Maemo for their high end tablet devices. It’s a great OS and one for the future although I think Maemo 5 needs some work. That said, their mid tier range – which if you’d been paying attention you would have noticed drives the majority of Nokia’s smartphone sales – will be using Symbian for quite some time to come although the S60 layer will be replaced by Direct UI and Qt.
Japanese market is a tough one – NTTDoCoMo are the dominant Symbian users over there – I mean you did know that they use Symbian, right? – so Nokia don’t get a look in. That’s why I mention ‘markets they both compete in’.
Tell you what? I’ll strip out some sales from the iPhone’s totals for Japan as well and then we’ll have an even starker comparison to look at at?
Shall I? Hmm?
Finally, sure the iPhone got 40% of sales in France… in one quarter. However, and this may come as a surprise to you, ‘one quarter’ isn’t ‘in perpetuity’ and ‘France’ isn’t ‘Europe’.
Let’s look at last quarter’s figures – you know, the one where the 3GS has most of its launch sales and where Nokia have a pretty mediocre line up and look at the comparison…
Yup, Nokia still outsell Apple on average by a factor of 3 in the markets they both compete in.
Now if you and Jim want to go away and do some research we can carry this on otherwise I think we’re done here.
Oh should have mentioned…
Some sites do allow the iPhone to go to non optimised sites. Most with specifics do not.
Guess how ad heavy most of those sites are?
I really don’t understand why people get defensive, the data is there, the facts speak for themselves. If you think the data is flawed or biased please provide alternative facts that disprove the Morgan Stanley analyst. Making poor excuses for Nokia or diminishing the importance of the internet is laughable.
“Also, Symbian is better optimised for mobile than Mobile OS X precisely because it is designed for that platform, not cut down from a desktop OS. That’s why it runs better on lower spec hardware and has better power management.”
Is that an argument, it betrays all logic, are you saying the iPhone OS is not designed for the iPhone? Have you used any Symbian S60 device? Do you know how laggy and memory starved these devices are? Do you really feel their usability can compare to modern platforms like iPhone, Android and Palm Pre?
Nokia doesn’t share their profits with users, they have been profiteering for a long time and have yet to come up with anything to challenge the growing dominance of the iPhone and Android. The politics of hating companies is irrational and cannot help informed discussion, they need to be held accountable.
Apple’s control freakery, locked business model, significant premiums has put off many folks and they are being held accountable and in the long run will diminish their platform, the shortcoming of iPhone, Android and Palm pre are extensively discussed and acknowledged. Nokia needs to be held accountable for the cheaply built expensive devices with low ram and tiny screens that have zero usability they have been passing off to the public for ages now, that one has to concede has held back mobile innovation.
If folks want to defend this and the awful stagnation of Symbian which could have been a great platform has Nokia cared about user experience then one really has to wonder whether they are really supporting Nokia. Currently the lack of innovation and inability to deliver any excitement and innovation is glaring given their resources and dominance.
Before the iPhone and Android even in strong Nokia markets like India and China, when looking for a premium phone one would think of Nokia, now it doesn’t event figure. It doesn’t take a market expert to see the future doesn’t look good. Look at the value proposition of the N97 which shows they are not learning their lessons and with camel in the sand approach of supporters who refuse to see the facts things can only get worse.
“I really don’t understand why people get defensive”
Raul, I’m not being ‘defensive’ I’m ‘rebutting the factually incorrect statements you posted’.
“the data is there, the facts speak for themselves. If you think the data is flawed or biased please provide alternative facts that disprove the Morgan Stanley analyst.”
Uh… I did.
“Making poor excuses for Nokia or diminishing the importance of the internet is laughable.”
Well since I’m not doing either I guess I’m OK then.
“Is that an argument”
No it’s a fact.
“it betrays all logic, are you saying the iPhone OS is not designed for the iPhone?”
It is. It’s just not as good at power management as Symbian is.
“Have you used any Symbian S60 device? Do you know how laggy and memory starved these devices are? Do you really feel their usability can compare to modern platforms like iPhone, Android and Palm Pre?”
Yes. I’ve used Nokia, SE, LG, Samsung, RIM and Apple devices. Some Nokias are really crap, others are very, very good. The iPhone 3GS is awesome and has the best UI however since I’m not arguing that point – rather that your generalism about Nokia phones is wrong – then it’s irrelevant.
“Nokia doesn’t share their profits with users”
So? Neither does Apple or have they started paying dividends lately?
“The politics of hating companies is irrational and cannot help informed discussion, they need to be held accountable.”
Yup. Agree with that.
“Apple’s control freakery, locked business model, significant premiums has put off many folks and they are being held accountable and in the long run will diminish their platform, the shortcoming of iPhone, Android and Palm pre are extensively discussed and acknowledged. Nokia needs to be held accountable for the cheaply built expensive devices with low ram and tiny screens that have zero usability they have been passing off to the public for ages now, that one has to concede has held back mobile innovation.”
You were fine up until the last line and even then you’re only partly wrong. Nokia have pushed phone innovation a very long way and it’s only since, say, early 2008 that they’ve lost the plot.
“If folks want to defend this and the awful stagnation of Symbian which could have been a great platform has Nokia cared about user experience then one really has to wonder whether they are really supporting Nokia. ”
Raul, Symbian is under development. That’s the point – Symbian^2 is in the works and will be followed by ^3 and ^4. In addition the S60 layer is being replaced by Direct UI and Qt.
Now I think that Apple’s emergence into the market has given Nokia a well deserved kick up the arse but they have taken the hint now. They’ve been caught out badly but are now getting up to speed.
“Currently the lack of innovation and inability to deliver any excitement and innovation is glaring given their resources and dominance.”
The N900 seems to be creating quite a bit of excitement. It’s not Symbian but when we talk about ‘innovation’ it’s got to be right up there.
“Before the iPhone and Android even in strong Nokia markets like India and China, when looking for a premium phone one would think of Nokia, now it doesn’t event figure. ”
Sorry, market share and sales disagree with you. You shouldn’t make spurious statements like that without back up.
“It doesn’t take a market expert to see the future doesn’t look good.”
Well since Nokia are selling more smartphones now than they did in 2008 I’d say they’re looking better than they did. That said, they need to do better. Much better.
The point is they’re not doomed and are going to be dominant for a long time yet. Well unless they get into more silly ventures like NSN that is.
“Look at the value proposition of the N97 which shows they are not learning their lessons and with camel in the sand approach of supporters who refuse to see the facts things can only get worse.”
The N97 is rubbish but it’s pretty obvious that Nokia are shifting from Symbian to Maemo for future top end devices and, as mentioned, the N900 looks pretty awesome. Symbian will continue to boss the mid-tier market.
I think the point everyone’s missing is this:
The iPhone is a very, very successful device but it’s a high end, premium product that will probably reach a peak of about 25-30 million a year. In the meantime Nokia will flood the mid-range market and transfer their current sales – about 105 million or so a quarter – from dumbphones to feature phones.
Apple are going to have a nice niche but that’s what it is -a niche. Meeker is absolutely right about one thing – it has a period of grace of maybe another year or two before it’s caught. Once that happens it becomes a competitor for the high end throne, not the automatic choice it is now.
When that happens it’ll be interesting to see if they can maintain momentum or if they’ll have a Motorola moment and try to pimp the same tired old product out when nobody wants it anymore.
Actually, the only thing that the graph shows is that the people who buy iPhones are buying them to surf the web. The graph does nothing to show the actual capability of any of those devices those companies make.
Once again, this graph is comparing apples to oranges. They are comparing the iPhone (a model of phone) to either companies or operating systems of devices. That is a major difference that should be noted.
Symbian phones, the market share leader is a market share leader because it has been around for a much longer period of time than the iPhone. It has established itself in many markets globally. Same with RIM Blackberries and Windows devices. They are have all been around for a very long time. Because of this, there is probably a much larger percentage of people who own these devices yet don’t fully utilize their phones to its greatest potential. I can’t tell you how many people who own one of those smartphones and yet don’t realize that they even have the capability of surfing the web on them.
Because the market share is greater for these devices/companies, you will have a much larger percentage of people who use them as strictly cell phones.
Moreover, people who pay the money to buy an iPhone are obviously going to want to take advantage of its capability.
If you look at each of the categories: iPhone, Android, Palm, Windows, RIM, and Symbian. 3 of those categories have only current generation phones available that can render full HTML webpages (iPhone, Android, Palm). That is also in part why they have much lower market share, yet a much higher web usage percentage. The other three (Windows, RIM, Symbian) have had phones out much longer that are not current generation that can render full HTML webpages. So there will be a much greater percentage of users on those phones in the market that use their phone strictly for phone calls.
I think if you were to include only current generation phones in those graphs, then you will find the numbers much different.
Once again, people are too quick to accept the numbers in these graphs without actually looking at what any of it means.
“there is probably a much larger percentage of people who own these devices yet don’t fully utilize their phones to its greatest potential. I can’t tell you how many people who own one of those smartphones and yet don’t realize that they even have the capability of surfing the web on them.”
maybe the iEvidence of the iFeatures is the iAdvantage of iPhones? perhaps its web features are prominent? (but i wonder can you use an iphone to make a cell call? that’s the critical feature, imo… lets call cell phoning the “killer app!” i’m an iMarketing iGenius!)
The iPhone and iPod touch should be grouped together because the comparison isn’t about phones. It’s about global platform adoption and usage. The slide about sales growth is there to show how unprecedented the iPhone OS is.
The biggest difference between user experiences for iPhone and iPod touch is location-based. iPhone can be used anywhere that has supported coverage. iPod touch has WiFi only. But when the iPhone user goes home and connects to his home network, guess what he’s using? WiFi. So where’s the demarcation there?
Yes, you are right, the graph is about platform adoption. But, that is just it. Why is the graph even comparing the adoption of an old technology from the 90s when the internet was just getting off the ground to a platform that utilizes that same internet that has already established itself as the ultimate means of information? You can’t compare the two.
As I said, it is like comparing the adoption rate of cars when a network of gas stations weren’t even abundant yet to the adoption rate of a current generation car when gas stations are at every corner.
They are incomparable and irrelevant to each other. The internet has been establish as the ultimate source of information and communication. So anything that allows you to use that source from an expansive location is going to be gobbled up today. You can’t compare that to the adoption rate of an ancient (SLOW!)technology that utilized a weak internet in its infancy.
The charts aren’t making any commentary on the circumstances that led to a platform’s growth. If they did there’d be another two slides explaining the context ad nauseum. Knowing the context, the comparison is somewhat trivial. Still, growth is growth. These numbers don’t lie. It’s also not some Apple fanboy preso considering how slide 38 shows how iPhone obliterates the original iPod.
There’s a lot of missing the forest for the trees in this comments thread. The slides on mobile internet in Japan and the UK are fascinating. Most of the preso has nothing to do with Apple. Apple just happens to have its star shining brightest right now.
And they left out FireFox because? Oh yeas it would make iPhone look silly and small.
Mozilla got more downloads of Firefox 3.1 or 3.5 (A new platform as it had a new javascript engine) in a quarter than Apple have sold iPhones total.
Apples and Oranges are really worth comparing aren’t they?
Or maybe we should compare the uptake of Intel processors or ARM processors to the iPhone + iPod Touch?
I can name dozens upon dozens of stupid things to compare that make the iPhone look bad – that doesn’t mean anything unless the comparison is useful – which the charts above are not.
Hope Mike is listening on this
, I like to see his opinion on these
Lets be honest its the best thing since sliced bread
.
pha! the shoephone was way better than sliced bread
this is just a DUH, of course.
I don’t think any comparisons to historical internet/web adoption from 15 YEARS ago, or even 10 YEARS AGO can be taken seriously.
The move to a better MOBILE platform from an entrenched INTERNET/WEB platform is merely a confirmation of how WELL the platform works AS A SUBSTITUTE
Entertainment but Business and medical, Not for long
http://www.kevi...dical-apps.html
Mass adoption of smart phones is happening for sure with iPhone leading the pack. iPhone sales in the UK are set to explode this Christmas as exclusivity with O2 comes to an end (and about time)
I disagree with Aaron’s comments on 3 points:
1) Are you sure that “growth is growth”? Last time I checked it wasn’t as evidenced by the contraction of our own universe. Very illusory. Refer to the works of Noble Laureate, George Akerlof’s, prize work, “Growth is Not Growth”
2) I differ with you in your opinion that “too many people are too quick to accept the numbers in these graphs without actually looking at what any of it means.” U of M released in a study in April showing that, in fact, too many people are VERY SLOW to accept number and thus look at them.
3) I do not understand how gas stations are relevant here. I mean, come on, we are talking high-tech segments here, not old world commodities. Welcome to the millenium (it was 9 years ago by my calendar).
First off, the gas station comment was an analogy. You know what an analogy is correct? It was a very relevant comparison between how many things can affect the adoption rate of different technologies and how you can’t compare the adoption rate between the technologies that they are comparing.
Other than that, your comments were very irrelevant to anything I commented on. Who cares about the study done by U&M…I was talking about the people in this thread, not the ones in that study.
It’s a mistake to add up the iPhone and iPod Touch sales.
Ive had meh IPhone since day one (have since upgraded to 3G) and there is NUTHIN like it (if you jail break it) out there. Absolutely NOTHING compares to the IPhone.
Jess
http://www.anonymous.ua.tc
I think the first graph is the most powerful for me. The AT&T mobile data usage also naturally cuts out the iTouch (since that doesn’t touch that network) which I see a lot of consternation about in the comments above.
The truth in the mobile data usage numbers is that Apple created the unique breakthrough in device and usability and data plan pricing and apps. It created a whole new level of explosive growth in mobile Internet and computing use and I agree with Mary that it is a harbinger of a lot of future growth for Apple, regardless of whether Android explodes onto the scene as well. It’s going to be a big pie with lots of room and Apple will deservedly have a big piece of it.
As a personal anecdote, there have been many times when I have sacrificed my laptop to turn it into a giant USB charger for my iPhone…that says it all for me.
Just about all carriers have seen that type of growth of data usage on their networks. It is the natural progression of things from each generation of technology. Not to mention that AT&T merged with Cingular 3 years ago greatly expanding the size of their network.
People are naturally using data more on their phones and this trend will continue. To say that Apple is what brought this on is just silly.
Sorry, this data is not very valid.
Slide1: the increase in data transfer doesn’t mean anything more than people are transferring more data. Yes, that is meant to be redundant. You can have a decrease in subscribers, but still have an increase in data transfer.
Slide2: Comparing an iPhone to Netscape and AOL doesn’t make sense. You don’t need a state-of-the art computer to run an iphone. Anyone can buy one. Back then, you had to shell out $2k to run AOL.
Slide3: Why would you compare an Iphone to a Wii? you can’t make calls on a Wii. The only thing reasonable in this chart is showing that Apple is beating RIM pretty badly, but in all fairness, RIM products aren’t geared for everyone.
Is slide 4 comparing how much better the iPhone displays pictures than a toaster?
pha to you too, agent Smart! a chromed steel toaster reflects images far more clearly than even a well-polished shoephone ever could!
Come on this is the disgraced Mary Meeker hawking the mobile moniker so that she can start the next bubble.
3 questions that need to be answered.
1) Who benefits from this research?
2) Who is the audience for this research?
3) What is the aim of this research?
What a flawed comparison and flawed graphic. As it has been pointed out:
Mary Meeker is such a smug deceiver.
Facts != Truth.
This report is a stupid numbers game to show that volume is the determining factor in how succesful a product is over another. Mary, why are we comapring Apple’s complete line up (iPod Touch + iPhone) and a single BB, Wii, PSP, DS? Comapring 2 products against the competitor’s single product–when the competitors also have multiple product offerings.
If you compare a competitor’s multiple product offerings, then Nokia or Samsumg would easily trump Apple.
Against, 2 Billion apps serve, 90K apps, millions of iPhones…. Well it all means nothing if your apps constantly crash your phone, push email is shotty, you need a desktop app to do stuff, and the device lasts 5hrs a day.
With great Apple marketing, people are lemmings. Lemmings I say.
The slides in question demonstrate the systemic impact of discontinuous change. The iPhone does not simply provide access to the Internet but will, as a class of devices, force the evolution of the Internet itself. One hundred thousand apps, and counting not to mention copying, has begun to create a new space. Drawing upon but going beyond the Internet. As for the Phone, itself an ‘old’ and increasingly irrelevant technology. It will linger as will Microsoft and Nokia, but…
The launch of the iPhone has changed the mobile ecosystem so dramatically that we almost need a new way to measure time in mobile. You can’t really describe how the ecosystem works without specifying if you are referring to the time Before the iPhone (Bi) or After the iPhone (Ai) in the same way that historians refer to BC and AD to date historical events.
I’m not all that impressed by her comparisons. I would expect that you can see similar growth rates for internet access on other carriers as well. The reason it’s growing so fast has a lot to do with the fact mobile data has been suppressed for most of the decade by U.S. carriers. So the infrastructure was in place, the technology was fairly mature, and there was a pent-up demand for affordable mobile data. I’m sure you’d see a much slower uptake of mobile in Europe and Japan, starting many years earlier, and a much smaller spike with the introduction of the iPhone.
Back in 2007 when the product was just released I predicted that this was agame changer for telecommunications. I wrote on this very blog that this was the start of a new era. Everyone laughed me off the blog. I have included the link here for you to see.
http://www.tech...evice/#comments
My students think I have a pipeline to the future in my house somewhere…. I am telling you now once iTablet hits the stores the Kindle and every other eReader is dead. Bezos got it right with content but the devices will die. I bought version 1 and I love it but there is nothing that is going to compare to the iTablet. Laugh again if you want but watch what happens in 3 years.
Only NEWBS & idiots call the iPod Touch an “iTouch”.
I am agree with you Thanks for sharing meaningful information