I don’t understand how Android is the dominant phone platform.

[hestermofet]

What I’m saying, and this is not anecdotal, is: iPhones have a usable lifespan several times that of any Android phone except a small handful of the higher-end ones.

Maybe, I haven't seen evidence of that.

This is reflected in the fact that about half of refurbished phone sales worldwide are iPhones.

This to me just demonstrates that used iPhones are more desirable than used Androids. The most likely explanation is simply that new iPhones are priced to be unattainable by the average person, but the demand is still there, so more people are willing to buy used. Androids are available at a lower price point, so people don't need to resort to used phones to get a phone with all the features they want.

You'll have to explain why you think there's a causal relationship with durability and resale. I could see how an inverse relationship could exist. A phone that lasts a long time doesn't need to be resold. Maybe people use Androids for 5 years instead of trading in their iPhone after 2, and that's why there are more iPhones available on the secondhand market?


That doesn't explain why you think a used iPhone is supposed to be a replacement for a budget entry in the iPhone line, though. iPhones have very tiny marketshare in countries where budget phones dominate. If used iPhones were acceptable to the average consumer as equivalent to a brand new budget phone, you'd see more iPhones in countries where budget phones are more popular. But you don't. Generally, the wealthier the country, the higher marketshare the iPhone has. You claimed anecdotally you saw a lot of used iPhones while travelling in Egypt, but at the end of the day, iOS' marketshare in that country is only 15%.

Apple doesn't sell budget phones. That's fine. Used iPhones are not a "strategy" to address the budget market. Which again, is fine. Apple's budget phone strategy is "we don't target that market". But because there is no budget iPhone, Androids outnumber iPhones 3:1 worldwide.

Or… you can spend the exact same amount of money on a brand-new in-warranty A14 from Samsung, with a bigger brighter screen, likely better performance, and no issues running all the apps you want.

Yeah, I don't get why you would buy used when you can get new with components that aren't worn out, and has a complete manufacturer's warranty.

 

[cogwheel]

Don't kid yourself, the iPhone is a rich person's phone. "Let them eat half-eaten cake" doesn't adequately describe how Apple has completely failed to even address emerging markets.

You write this like Apple is shirking a responsibility to serve the lowest end. Do you really feel this way, and if so, why?

 

[analogika]

Are you basing your assertion that “Android outnumbers iPhones 3:1” on market share, or the actual number of phones in use?

Because, you know, I just showed that for refurbished sales, they’re on parity.

And that iPhones are supplied with system updates for five to seven years, with security updates occasionally reaching back a full decade, while select few Androids do get three years of updates, is thoroughly documented.

The data I’ve found puts the industry average usable lifespan at 2.6 years, with iPhones twice to four times that, and Samsung at about 1.2 to 2.5 times the average.

 

[hestermofet]

Are you basing your assertion that “Android outnumbers iPhones 3:1” on market share, or the actual number of phones in use?

Does it matter? I didn't realize they were two separate things.

Because, you know, I just showed that for refurbished sales, they’re on parity.

Sure. But what does that have to do with overall marketshare, and therefore, which of the two is objectively the dominant platform? i.e. the whole topic of this thread. Are you claiming their dominance in market penetration is "on parity"? Because that is objectively not true in almost every country on Earth, refurbished iPhones notwithstanding.

Apple doesn't sell budget phones, so they don't have the marketshare that Android does. Refurbished phones will never give Apple the marketshare that budget options give Android, because people don't buy a refurbished iPhone instead of a budget Android.

And that iPhones are supplied with system updates for five to seven years, with security updates occasionally reaching back a full decade, while select few Androids do get three years of updates, is thoroughly documented.

Ok, but who freaking cares. This thread is about why is Android the dominant phone platform. Despite the shorter OS support window (which is different from a software support window), most people don't care, so Androids outsell iPhone 3:1. This is a platform feature that most people don't care about, though you seem to be really fixated on it for some reason. 1st party OS support is a red herring, because at the end of the day, hundreds of millions of people are using outdated versions of Android just fine. Their phones still support the latest apps.

The data I’ve found puts the industry average usable lifespan at 2.6 years, with iPhones twice to four times that, and Samsung at about 1.2 to 2.5 times the average.

Which data? Can you present it?

 

[hestermofet]

You write this like Apple is shirking a responsibility to serve the lowest end.

Of course not. After all, I also wrote this:

Apple doesn't sell budget phones. That's fine. Used iPhones are not a "strategy" to address the budget market. Which again, is fine. Apple's budget phone strategy is "we don't target that market". But because there is no budget iPhone, Androids outnumber iPhones 3:1 worldwide.

Do you really feel this way, and if so, why?

No I don't feel this way.

I just don't get why when it's explained that Android phones can be up to 20x cheaper than an iPhone, people are scratching their heads asking "Hmmm, I wonder why iPhone is not the dominant platform despite being clearly superior". iPhones aren't sold as cheaply as Androids, so they have a much smaller marketshare. As simple as that.

 

[hestermofet]

For Android, 3rd party ROMs can be ignored since you're talking about the average user.

I think this whole argument about which platform has the longest OS update window can be ignored, TBH, because almost nobody cares. Most people choose Android which apparently drops OS support the day after you buy it, from what I'm hearing. You can still run apps updated today using an OS as old as Android 5.1 Lollipop, and that's all people really care about. Can I run my apps?

 

[DaveB]

I think this whole argument about which platform has the longest OS update window can be ignored, TBH, because almost nobody cares. Most people choose Android which apparently drops OS support the day after you buy it, from what I'm hearing. You can still run apps updated today using an OS as old as Android 5.1 Lollipop, and that's all people really care about. Can I run my apps?

That's why I had to replace my old LG G6 running Android 8, some of my apps upgraded and required Android 9. The app version I had was no longer functional and I could not install the updated version. So, I picked up an unlocked Google Pixel 7 running Android 13. They promise 3 years of OS updates and 5 years of security updates which should be fine. I run it on Tracfone for $25 for 60 days of service.

 

[analogika]

I just don't get why when it's explained that Android phones can be up to 20x cheaper than an iPhone, people are scratching their heads asking "Hmmm, I wonder why iPhone is not the dominant platform despite being clearly superior". iPhones aren't sold as cheaply as Androids, so they have a much smaller marketshare. As simple as that.

Market share only tells part of the story. "Dominant" means what?
Numbers SOLD?
Numbers IN USE?
Most money made?
Biggest mindshare — whatever that means?

My point, IIRC, was that iOS may have a market share (i.e. plain numbers sold) of 27% globally, and you may attribute this "weakness" to the fact that they only offer upmarket phones, BUT due to support and apparent longevity 3x-4x that of budget Android phones, actual usage share is much higher, with the lower-priced segments being disproportionately served by refurbed and used iPhones.

 

[DaveB]

Why does anyone give a shit which is the "dominant" platform. Use whatever floats your boat, the opinions of others be damned. I don't care for either Apple or Google but you have to pick one. My second-hand 2017 LG android still works fine, but app developers are obsoleting it by requiring Android 9 as a minimum for updates. So, I had to move on for my financial apps to work. I don't use any social media apps at all.

 

[Shavano]

Market share only tells part of the story. "Dominant" means what?
Numbers SOLD?
Numbers IN USE?
Most money made?
Biggest mindshare — whatever that means?

My point, IIRC, was that iOS may have a market share (i.e. plain numbers sold) of 27% globally, and you may attribute this "weakness" to the fact that they only offer upmarket phones, BUT due to support and apparent longevity 3x-4x that of budget Android phones, actual usage share is much higher, with the lower-priced segments being disproportionately served by refurbed and used iPhones.

There's more than twice as many android phones in use as iPhones. So Android is dominant by units sold and by number of users.

Most money made? Apple, for sure. But that's not what people mean by dominant platform.

 

[Son of a Beach]

There's more than twice as many android phones in use as iPhones. So Android is dominant by units sold and by number of users.

According to Counterpoint Research, as reported by the Financial Times, the active installed base for iOS has been higher than for Android, in the US, since last year.

I expect that Android is still dominant globally, but it is an interesting development.

(By the way, please link to the source of the "more than twice as many" statistic.)

From Financial Times, 2 Sept, 2022:
Apple has overtaken Android devices to account for more than half of smartphones used in the US, giving the iPhone maker an edge over its rival as it pushes into sectors including finance and healthcare. The 50 per cent landmark — the iPhone’s highest share since it launched in 2007 — was first passed in the quarter ending in June, according to data from Counterpoint Research ... The numbers are based on smartphones in use, known as the “active installed base ... This is a wider and more meaningful category than new phone shipments...

 

[YoHo]

Why does anyone give a shit which is the "dominant" platform. Use whatever floats your boat, the opinions of others be damned. I don't care for either Apple or Google but you have to pick one. My second-hand 2017 LG android still works fine, but app developers are obsoleting it by requiring Android 9 as a minimum for updates. So, I had to move on for my financial apps to work. I don't use any social media apps at all.

Sir, this is the Battlefront.

 

[analogika]

There's more than twice as many android phones in use as iPhones.

Source please. I haven’t been able to find that info.

 

[wrylachlan]

There's more than twice as many android phones in use as iPhones. So Android is dominant by units sold and by number of users.

Most money made? Apple, for sure. But that's not what people mean by dominant platform.

I wouldn’t consider units, users, device revenue or device profits good measures of dominant as a platform. What makes a platform different from one off devices is the ecosystem. That’s the measure of a platform - ecosystem profit. The App Store has higher revenue than the Play Store. I don’t have much insight into peripheral sales (AirPlay speakers, etc.) but if you consider Apple Watch a peripheral then clearly the iPhone has a massively larger peripheral market.

Here’s a thought experiment. Imagine Google and Apple came out with the same exact phone at the same exact low price. The Google phone only supports Play and the Apple device supports the App Store. So you need to chose between the devices solely on the ecosystem. Which do you chose?

I’d argue that the Apple ecosystem is unambiguously better than the Google ecosystem and that’s why Apple is the dominant platform.

 

[CommanderJameson]

Why does anyone give a shit which is the "dominant" platform. Use whatever floats your boat, the opinions of others be damned. I don't care for either Apple or Google but you have to pick one. My second-hand 2017 LG android still works fine, but app developers are obsoleting it by requiring Android 9 as a minimum for updates. So, I had to move on for my financial apps to work. I don't use any social media apps at all.

r/lostarsians

 

[Shavano]

Source please. I haven’t been able to find that info.

https://www.demandsage.com/android-statistics/"Today, it is most widely used by mobile phone users from all over the world with 3.3 billion users."
vs.
https://www.demandsage.com/iphone-user-statistics/"There are more than 1.5 billion active iPhone users worldwide as of 2023."

 

[Shavano]

I wouldn’t consider units, users, device revenue or device profits good measures of dominant as a platform. What makes a platform different from one off devices is the ecosystem. That’s the measure of a platform - ecosystem profit. The App Store has higher revenue than the Play Store. I don’t have much insight into peripheral sales (AirPlay speakers, etc.) but if you consider Apple Watch a peripheral then clearly the iPhone has a massively larger peripheral market.

Here’s a thought experiment. Imagine Google and Apple came out with the same exact phone at the same exact low price. The Google phone only supports Play and the Apple device supports the App Store. So you need to chose between the devices solely on the ecosystem. Which do you chose?

I’d argue that the Apple ecosystem is unambiguously better than the Google ecosystem and that’s why Apple is the dominant platform.

You believe whatever makes you happy.

 

[hestermofet]

I wouldn’t consider units, users, device revenue or device profits good measures of dominant as a platform. What makes a platform different from one off devices is the ecosystem. That’s the measure of a platform - ecosystem profit. The App Store has higher revenue than the Play Store. I don’t have much insight into peripheral sales (AirPlay speakers, etc.) but if you consider Apple Watch a peripheral then clearly the iPhone has a massively larger peripheral market.

Here’s a thought experiment.

Ok, by your own rules, let's play this game about which one is the "dominant" platform.

Imagine Google and Apple came out with the same exact phone at the same exact low price. The Google phone only supports Play and the Apple device supports the App Store. So you need to chose between the devices solely on the ecosystem. Which do you chose?

We know which one exactly people choose, based on the way that real people have actually made real purchasing decisions. Android, by a factor of 3:1 or 2:1. I'm not going to play a game of "which one WOULD be dominant hypothetically, if reality were different and made things easy for Apple and handicapped Android". Apple doesn't sell phones at a low price. Android does. That's the reason Android is dominant.

You can't dismiss that, and then say "Haha! iOS wins!" That would be like saying "Let's do a thought experiment where the App Store doesn't exist but the Play Store does. Which would you choose, Android or iPhone?"

I’d argue that the Apple ecosystem is unambiguously better than the Google ecosystem and that’s why Apple is the dominant platform.

That's great for you, and makes iPhone better in your opinion. But that doesn't make it dominant in reality. Objectively, there are between 2 to 3 more Androids in the world than iPhones. That makes Android by far and away "dominant" in actual fact, not just in your opinion. People don't seem to agree with you about the importance of all the other iOS platform features you mentioned. At least, they don't think it's as important as the very important platform feature that Android offers that iOS does not, which is prices that you can actually afford. The best product in the world is never going to dominate if nobody can afford it, which is why Lamborghinis and Ferraris are not the dominant cars in the auto market.

 

[hestermofet]

Source please. I haven’t been able to find that info.

Yes, let's ignore reality because it doesn't fit my opinion. This is a fact that is very trivial to verify. Android phones absolutely outsell iPhones, and are used by way more people by a factor of at least two.

 

[ant1pathy]

I can't believe we're still having the market share argument in 2023. Android moves a lot of volume, but all the money and the lion's share of the attention flows to iOS. They're both healthy platforms, with absolutely no challenger in 3rd place.

 

[hestermofet]

Market share only tells part of the story. "Dominant" means what?
Numbers SOLD?

Android

Numbers IN USE?

Android.

Do you think people buy an Android, and then immediately stuff it in a drawer because they refuse to use it?

Most money made?

Android.

Android is multi-vendor, unlike iOS, so don't forget devices like set top boxes and car infotainment systems.

Biggest mindshare — whatever that means?

If you don't even know what it means, why even bring it up other than to spread FUD?

My point, IIRC, was that iOS may have a market share (i.e. plain numbers sold) of 27% globally, and you may attribute this "weakness" to the fact that they only offer upmarket phones,

Your point seems to be "I don't like the fact that Android is the dominant platform by pretty much any definition that everyone else agrees to, so I'm going to make up some metric that nobody cares about where iOS IS dominant". You've even said "In a foreign country, I saw a lot more used iPhones than marketshare would lead you to believe", pretty much proving you're willing to ignore factual evidence in order to satisfy yourself that your gut feelings are correct. But the objective facts are that in that country you made your observation, iOS marketshare is only 15%.

BUT due to support and apparent longevity 3x-4x that of budget Android phones, actual usage share is much higher

No it's not. You need to prove the shit you are saying, especially if you keep saying it and being rebutted every time you say it. Actual usage of Androids is 2:1 globally compared to iOS, since there are 2:1 as many Androids.

with the lower-priced segments being disproportionately served by refurbed and used iPhones.

You've repeated this several times. Prove it.

 

[hestermofet]

According to Counterpoint Research, as reported by the Financial Times, the active installed base for iOS has been higher than for Android, in the US, since last year.

I expect that Android is still dominant globally, but it is an interesting development.

The US is just one market. Your expectation is correct. As I've been saying consistently, there are between 2:1 and 3:1 as many Androids as there are iOS, depending on market. Globally, the figure is 2:1. This is trivially easy to independently verify.
https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide
Can we as a group agree to move past arguing basic reality, "What does dominant REALLY mean", and move to the more interesting question of "Why is one more dominant than the other?"

 

[hestermofet]

You believe whatever makes you happy.

++

This is what these arguments basically boil down to. "I don't like objective reality, so I'm going to redefine the word 'dominant' itself so it fits my predefined conclusion".

 

[lithven]

I continue to be amused that the argument wrt to iPhone marketshare seems to shift depending on context. If it's to argue which OS or devices are more popular because they are "better" then iPhone is clearly dominant and any statistics that don't reflect that must be missing something (e.g. second hand sales, device longevity, etc.). Meanwhile, if it's in relation to possibly regulating Apple due to their market position and the power that enables in any single market then Android is way more popular worldwide while Apple is practically a small family business by comparison.

 

[hestermofet]

I can't believe we're still having the market share argument in 2023.

If you don't like discussions about mobile OS marketshare, don't enter a thread explicitly about OS marketshare and then declare that this discussion is dumb.

Android moves a lot of volume, but all the money and the lion's share of the attention flows to iOS. They're both healthy platforms, with absolutely no challenger in 3rd place.

Nobody is stopping you from making a Battlefront thread about "Why does iOS get the lion's share of attention?"

 

[hestermofet]

Sir, this is the Battlefront.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sir-this-is-an-arbys

 

[Louis XVI]

Can we as a group agree to move past arguing basic reality, "What does dominant REALLY mean", and move to the more interesting question of "Why is one more dominant than the other?"

"Why is one more dominant than the other" isn't a more interesting question, though, because you answered it perfectly in one sentence, above:

"iPhones aren't sold as cheaply as Androids, so they have a much smaller marketshare."

That's really all there is to it.

iPhones and Androids are both perfectly fine phones, that serve slightly different populations and slightly different desired feature sets. Neither of them are going anywhere, and they both get plenty of software support. Therefore, it simply doesn't matter which one is "dominant" or even why.

It's an empty discussion, which probably explains why the participants in this thread are so irritable, and why the Battlefront has been a moribund relic for years now.

 

[wrylachlan]

f you don't like discussions about mobile OS marketshare, don't enter a thread explicitly about OS marketshare and then declare that this discussion is dumb.

I think the disconnect is “why the heck would they want to argue about marketshare when that’s a basic fact…???”. There’s no contention there. Of course Android has more marketshare.

So giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you don’t want to argue about the dumbest possible take we have to assume you’re more interested in whether that marketshare leads to actual… you know… dominance (narrator: it doesn’t).

 

[Shavano]

In the US, about 307 million people have smart phones. That means the market is at or possibly above saturation.
Annual smart phone sales were about 128 million last year. Those new sales all replaced old smartphones, or they replaced (dead or for some reason no longer using) smart phone users.

So average usage lifetime of a smart phone has to be about 307M / 128M or 2.4 years.

That doesn't mean some people don't keep their phones much longer, but they're the tail of the distribution. The bulk of the distribution is centered around 2.4 years.

To me that explains quite well why Google and the carriers have been pretty uninterested in extending support for longer than 2 years. By that time, most users are already looking to upgrade, even though there are no honestly compelling technology reasons to do so. They're not going to be dissuaded by longer support lifetimes, nor would a sensible company want them to be. The upgrade makes you money. You want them to upgrade. Even Apple, with their longer support lifetimes, wants you to upgrade. They gain no financial benefit from that longer support lifetime.

If anything, they maybe gain a little bit of customer goodwill, but frankly that's not such a compelling thing these days compared to other factors, which I'll get to in the next paragraph. We often see comments about Apple being more secure and having better privacy practices. These things are largely true, but I contend the market does not care about those things. If they did, they wouldn't have social media apps on their phones, but practically all of them do. To a rounding error.

So what DOES matter? First, there's the price difference, but also importantly, Android users by and large don't want to switch to Apple because they're comfortable in the Google ecosystem (e.g. they like some app, or the UI, or the layout of the store) and the same for Apple users. At the same price, I'd buy an Android phone over an iPhone just for that. I certainly wouldn't switch, short of Google doing something that made Android just suck from my perspective and for the record I don't think it does. When I have to use my wife's iPhone, it's with a strong distaste for the UI. I think those two factors, between them, account for nearly 100% of the choices between iOS and Google phones.

For that reason I think Apple's not selling a bargain basement phone is an unforced strategic error. Poor people who won't always be poor are getting comfortable with Android phones they can afford, and when they upgrade, it will most likely be to a higher tier Android phone, not the unfamiliar Apple UI and ecosystem.

 

[analogika]

https://www.demandsage.com/android-statistics/"Today, it is most widely used by mobile phone users from all over the world with 3.3 billion users."
vs.
https://www.demandsage.com/iphone-user-statistics/"There are more than 1.5 billion active iPhone users worldwide as of 2023."

Thank you! I’d been unable to find this — it kept throwing up the same market share stuff. “Active users” is the magic phrase, apparently.

So it seems that there are only slightly more active iPhone users than they have global market share.

Interesting.

 

[wrylachlan]

Poor people who won't always be poor are getting comfortable with Android phones they can afford, and when they upgrade, it will most likely be to a higher tier Android phone, not the unfamiliar Apple UI and ecosystem.

Except Apple’s marketshare is growing. And Apple also outperforms with the largest demographic of temporarily poor people - students.

I’d also question the idea that people who get themselves out of poverty retain brand loyalty to products they used while poor. I think the opposite is much more likely. Someone who gets a windfall doesn’t replace their 20 year old beater Volkswagen Jetta with a newer Volkswagen - they replace it with a Mercedes.

 

[YoHo]

Lol, in the US, Volkswagen itself is not a luxury brand, but certainly isn't what anyone considers a poor person brand. YOu're already a step up if your ancient used car was a jetta instead of a Civic or bottom end Ford/GM product.

Really telling to use that brand as an example.


Regardless of that though I actually agree with the sentiment. At least some portion of folks who move from the low end to high will switch. Just as they will stop shopping at Walmart for clothes and move up the brand chain.


I also want to talk about whether people value Apple's supposed superior security and Privacy.

I think there are 2 things there worth considering.
1: Apple's superiority there is true, but not as significant as it's made out to be. It's not profound as all that
2: I think people do value this from a marketing perspective even though the undermine it quickly with how they use the phone.

So, I think it's almost entirely a marketing gimmick at this point, because as noted, most people immediately undermine it, but I do think as a marketing tool it works. I think there are Apple users who assume that somehow they'd be less secure on Android even though all the insecurity is due to the User.

 

[wrylachlan]

Lol, in the US, Volkswagen itself is not a luxury brand, but certainly isn't what anyone considers a poor person brand. YOu're already a step up if your ancient used car was a jetta instead of a Civic or bottom end Ford/GM product.

Really telling to use that brand as an example.

??? The cheapest trim of a Jetta is 10-15% cheaper than the cheapest Civic. Not sure where you’re getting that it’s upmarket.

 

[YoHo]

Well, the Civic is probably 10 years older and running better then the jetta.

The Civic is also a bad example, because it has cache as a rice rocket.

None the less, Jetta's are the car of upper middle class suburban teenagers. (teenage girls specifically)

And based on the hell service and repairs were for my mom's previous jetta late 2000s era. No actual poor person would want that car. They couldn't afford the upkeep.

A better example would be an old Volvo. Which are also expensive to repair, but they were traditionally considered tanks that didn't break.

Though I'm not sure even that's true for anything newer than 2000.

But really, we're talking about Chevy Malibus, Ford Focus (and in the old days, the Escort) really really old Dodge/Chrysler minivans.

 

[analogika]

If you don't like discussions about mobile OS marketshare, don't enter a thread explicitly about OS marketshare and then declare that this discussion is dumb.


Nobody is stopping you from making a Battlefront thread about "Why does iOS get the lion's share of attention?"

You seem confused and feel the need to reduce „discussion“ to arguing about established (or easily establishable) facts (I was discussing them, since I had to work partially on assumptions for lack of Google-fu).

But this is the actual thread starter:

Ars just published a front page article on how Google broke Google pay and I’m struggling to understand why that matters, fundamentally because I don’t understand why anybody would use a Google product. Google is the least reliable tech company. They constantly relaunch products on new codebases which results in an inability to deal with bugs or issues because they break as many working things as they fix with each new release. I no longer own an Apple computer but am still happily ensconced in their ecosystem because it’s stable. I don’t really understand how Microsoft dropped the ball so bad or why Amazon wasn’t able to launch a competing platform, but Android users seem relatively happy with the platform

It is anything but explicitly about market share.

It’s also nine pages ago, so the topic has naturally meandered.

 

[wrylachlan]

None the less, Jetta's are the car of upper middle class suburban teenagers. (teenage girls specifically)

Where are you getting this demographic data? It sounds suspiciously like anecdata to me…

 

[hestermofet]

I think the disconnect is “why the heck would they want to argue about marketshare when that’s a basic fact…???”. There’s no contention there. Of course Android has more marketshare

I've just been arguing for two pages with iOS fans about what "dominant" means, with people trying to convince me that a phone with as little as 15% marketshare is dominant. So you tell me why people would want to argue basic facts, where there is no contention.

My original argument wasnt even about marketshare, it was that Android is so dominant because they are way cheaper. But the rebuttal was that iPhones are used just as much because there are so many used iPhones out there that they equal the number of budget Androids. Which is factually untrue, but the truthiness of even that was called into question, with demands for proof. Even the 2:1 ratio of Android to iPhone was questioned, so NO, there is definitely a contention about the settled fact of marketshare. Why people disagree on something you can easily look up on Google, I'm just as confused as you are.

It's funny, marketshare becomes a settled fact that there is no point in discussing once it's proven that Android does in fact have more marketshare than Apple by a factor of 2. Until it's proven, it's an open question if there really ARE more Androids than iPhones out there, because aha! You didn't consider used iPhones! Once it's proven that used iPhones don't contribute significantly to the imbalance of Androids to iPhones, it becomes something that is meaningless and not worth discussing.

What factors in Android's dominance should we discuss next, so that we can determine it's not worth discussing since it doesn't show the iPhone in a favourable light? Affordability? Number of vendors who offer it? Open licensing?

 

[hestermofet]

You seem confused and feel the need to reduce „discussion“ to arguing about established (or easily establishable) facts (I was discussing them, since I had to work partially on assumptions for lack of Google-fu).

But this is the actual thread starter:



It is anything but explicitly about market share.

It’s also nine pages ago, so the topic has naturally meandered.

You are conveniently ignoring the thread's title. If you are interpreting dominant as anything other than marketshare, which is what 99% of what people mean when they say Android is the dominant platform, you are using motivated reasoning to explain that no, iOS is in fact the dominant platform. OP goes on to question why anyone would even buy an Android, which is really questioning why Android has the marketshare that it has.


https://www.fallacyfiles.org/redefine.html
If you truly believed marketshare was a settled fact, you wouldn't be arguing so hard that iOS has more marketshare than it would seem, because of used phones and a longer "usable life". You also wouldn't demand proof that Androids outnumber iPhones 2:1. That wouldn't matter if you agreed on marketshare numbers, or if you thought marketshare was unimportant in establishing which is the dominant platform.

It is anything but explicitly about market share.

I'm actually curious, what do you think OP meant by "dominant platform" when OP asked "why is Android the dominant platform"? Apparently, this thread isn't about marketshare, so what is your guess on what OP meant when they said Android is the dominant platform. How else is Android the dominant platform? In which other way does Android dominate iOS? I'd love to hear the answer to this question from an iPhone user.

 

[cateye]

In which other way does Android dominate iOS?

Choices. Even if I grant Wrylachlan his argument about the "dominance" of the iOS ecosystem, it represents a single set of choices controlled by a single entity. And there's a measure of that in Android, with Google as somewhat of a benevolent dictator, but that does not negate the fact that its ecosystem does not aspire to a one-size-fits-all approach.

 

[wrylachlan]

I've just been arguing for two pages with iOS fans about what "dominant" means, with people trying to convince me that a phone with as little as 15% marketshare is dominant. So you tell me why people would want to argue basic facts, where there is no contention.

If your definition of “dominant” is marketshare then there’s no argument. Android has more marketshare worldwide. People are arguing because they don’t agree that marketshare by itself is a meaningful measure of dominance. It’s that simple.