Smartphone Sales Fell Almost 10 Percent in 2020

Posted on February 22, 2021 by Paul Thurrott in Android, iOS, Mobile with 41 Comments

Smartphone makers sold 1.32 billion handsets in 2020, a decline of 9.6 percent when compared to the 1.46 billion units sold in 2019. But sales rebounded a bit in the fourth quarter, thanks largely to strong iPhone 12 sales, with the market growing about 2 percent overall.

“The sales of more 5G smartphones and lower-to-mid-tier smartphones minimized the market decline in the fourth quarter of 2020,” Gartner’s Anshul Gupta says. “Even as consumers remained cautious in their spending and held off on some discretionary purchases, 5G smartphones and pro-camera features encouraged some end users to purchase new smartphones or upgrade their current smartphones in the quarter.”

“The majority of the world is either in some form of lockdown or still waiting to return to normal day-to-day life, yet smartphone sales are rebounding as though nothing ever happened,” IDC’s Ryan Reith says. “This illustrates the importance of smartphones in everyone’s life and provides a strong foundation for market demand. As the world progresses towards a post-pandemic environment, IDC believes demand will grow and the market recovery will accelerate.”

For the full year, Samsung was again the world’s biggest maker of smartphones, with approximately 260 million units sold, good for almost 18 percent marketshare. But Samsung saw sales plummet by 12 percent in 2020: It had sold 296 million units the previous year.

By comparison, Apple finished strong in the fourth quarter of 2020, and was, in fact, the biggest smartphone maker in that quarter. In the fourth quarter, Apple sold 85 million iPhones, achieving an incredible 22 percent marketshare with 385.25 handsets sold by all hardware makers overall. For the full year, Apple sold 203 million iPhones, for about 14 percent marketshare, and representing growth of 5.4 percent year-over-year (YOY).

Huawei, as expected, fell hard in 2020 and dropped to second place behind Apple for the first time in two years. Huawei sold 186 million handsets in 2020, down 12.8 percent from the 240.6 million units it sold in 2019.

Xiaomi came in fourth place with about 146.5 million units sold, and two other Chinese firms, vivo and OPPO, were tied for fifth place.

As always, this data is averaged between Gartner and IDC estimates.

Join the discussion!

BECOME A THURROTT MEMBER:

Don't have a login but want to join the conversation? Become a Thurrott Premium or Basic User to participate

Register
Comments (46)

46 responses to “Smartphone Sales Fell Almost 10 Percent in 2020”

  1. scovious

    I'm happy for Apple. The better they perform with their smartphones, the more culpable they get in the eyes of the law. It won't be much longer until they have to start behaving themselves with their App store.

    • Jorge Garcia

      In reply to scovious:

      The Supreme court doesn't even care a lick about an obviously fraudulent election, and Congress doesn't care at all about twitter and Facebook blatantly flaunting FCC code 230 and acting as censors/publishers without accepting the responsibilities of being such (lawsuits)...illegal acts by these larger-than-government behemoths that most certainly changed the outcome of an election...so you think they'll EVER get around to caring about Apple's app store abuses (and Google's abuses)???

      • RobertJasiek

        In reply to JG1170:

        Since the US election law belongs to the states, the Supreme court rejected to hear a related trial. The state courts have judged that the elections have been according to the state laws. Since the USA abide by the principle of law, whether elections have been just or fraudulent is not decided by personal opinion (even if repeated countless times by a politician) but by jurisdiction, even if the elections have been close, like this time.

    • toukale

      In reply to scovious:

      I think you are going to have a long wait for that if ever. Apple basically have a great con going that's going to make it though for regulators to win in courts. They don't have a monopoly in any of the market they compete in and that is by design. Where Apple dominates is in the premium market, last time I checked they held 60% share of the premium market. Its not by accident the Appstore makes more than playstore despite its 15% overall market shares. They have the users with the most disposable income and since they control the platform, they maximized everything on the platform. No other company have such a setup.


      I see a lot of folks getting upset with Apple to which I say (are you kidding me?). Apple did not get there by accident, they changed the market with the iPhone and the market rewarded them for it. If anyone or any company have an issue then they need to reshape the market like Apple did. If there is anything to learn from the Huawei debacle is that its easy for a hardware vendor to be on top today then be at the bottom in a year or two. To borrow a phrase from some folks ("the market have sorted it out" and they picked Apple.) The crazy thing about what Apple have been able to do is the fact they are doing this with an ASP that's 3x that of their closest competitor, now that's dominance.

      • nbplopes

        In reply to toukale:


        Imagine two roads, one leading to place A and the other to place B. The people that you need to meet can be in either of them, its their choice ... that is indeed what means iOS vs Android market share. So you need to meet them wherever they are, like you do in your town. One road you don’t pay a toll the other one you are force to, it not even faster, its mostely like the other road .... you don’t need monopoly to extract value out of something you did not make, case in case, the persons that you need to meet. Worst, neither of these persons know that someone is making you pay to meet them. Especially after they payed to be in the place of choice $$$ What they are told, is that they are safer and happier there than anywhere else.


        This is weird. Well, let’s say, an innovative situation.


        This is not the same as Amazon. With Amazon the people come to meet you. Furthermore, they can easily meet you somewhere else with a click of a button, 0 cost.

        • Saarek

          In reply to nbplopes:

          It’s a tough one. Despite the relatively huge world wide difference in market share between iOS and Android it’s always iOS first and Android second for major apps.


          There is a good reason for that, of course, and that’s that there is a lot more money to be made on iOS.


          Ironically the locked down nature of the platform that certain people bemoan is a large part of the reason for the App Store being so profitable for developers in the first place. You’re not going to find a pirated copy of your successful App in the App Store, unlike the open Android. And you have a captive market with money to spend all in the same place.


          Personally I think Apple’s recent drop in fees was a step in the right direction and I wish they’d done it before the Epic Lawsuit.


          10% for the smaller guys and 15-20% for the big fish sounds like a better arrangement long term.

          • b6gd

            In reply to Saarek:

            Yes money is a good reason, but there are other reasons. The Android hardware market is a giant mess with very loose standards.


            My company has an app for our customers and its on iOS and Android. We get 100x more complaints about the Android app turned into us. It's a combination of reasons but it boils down to very loose hardware/software standards that Google puts out there.


            A simple example is the screen UI elements not fitting properly, because there are way too many screen resolutions from different Android vendors and you run into this kind of issue all the time. Its a Wild West junk-fest of hardware out there for Android.

            • Jorge Garcia

              In reply to b6gd:

              That's just the way an open mobile operating system is. Those problems will exist for as long as there is Android or anything else "open" that can slapped onto an infinite amount of computers (because you can slap android on laptops and desktops too). Given what it is expected to do, Android works surprisingly well on almost any screen, and I personally have found very few problems with app scaling. Yes, there used to be a ton of issues like that, but I feel most are gone now. I also think the problem will diminish as tech advances and even the junkiest of hardware becomes "capable enough" to run everything well.

              • b6gd

                In reply to JG1170:

                I see what I see in those bug reports. Same 3rd party vendor (big name) makes both of the apps. Our Android app has more issues with users. Maybe that is because there are more Android users?

              • ianbetteridge

                In reply to JG1170:

                The Android that people actually want to buy - the version you find on almost all phones - is no more 'open' than iOS

                • Jorge Garcia

                  In reply to ianbetteridge:

                  Now that is patently false and ridiculous. Android Messages can be installed on ANY Android phone and so can Duo. Not to mention every other mainstream communication app. If You have a Samsung and I have a OnePlus, there is nothing at all we can't do in unison, save for some oddball Samsung ecosystem apps that almost no one uses and no one is forced to use. Now compare that to Grandma leaving the At+T store with an Android phone only to later realize that she cannot use imessage anymore nor facetime. So she is effectively cutoff from her grandkids unless she obligates her family and friends to install secondary apps just for her, which some will do and some won't. That's the criminal part. I am totally a free-marketer but there need to be controls to avoid abuse. In order to have a free market the consumer has to reasonably be able to shop around for the best product at the lowest price, without any induced "platform pain" influencing the decision. When I have to choose between a Ford and Chevy I (generally) don't have to worry about whether the choice I make will ALIENATE me from my family friends. Apple is pure evil and everyone knows it.

                • Paul Thurrott

                  When I look at Messages in the Play Store, it says "This app is available for some of your devices," not "all of your devices." Also... Apple is ... "pure evil"? Dude. Come on.
          • nbplopes

            In reply to Saarek:


            Today do you think its is the App Store that converts the lead into a sale or is the developer that does it and the App Store mostly processes it?


            Because it used to be that the App Store would indeed generate leads and convert it into a sale. Back in the day, App Store was feed with an increasing number of visitors, astronomical, whilst the resources, apps were scarce. This alone allowed the App Store to have a strong influence in the conversation of a visitor into a sale. That granted the 30% revenue share.


            But not anymore. It mainly serves a directory of existing iOS Apps and a conversion processor offering the visitor some assurances while offering devs a cloud service to deploy and update a bunch of files / app, and process payments. That is how it manages to get such huge profit margins, over 90% or more. Cloud services offering devs the same ability cost “1/1000” less.


            Today, wether app sale or digital service sale, lead generation and conversion happens elsewhere on the Internet. Google search, reviews, podcasts, videos casts, TV, so on and so forth. When the a person visits the App Store is already ready to buy a specific App or subscribe to a specific service. That is a cost that developers did not have when the App Store was still a green field.


            Furthermore, the reality today, is that digital services have no control over where their users / customers are, Place A or Place B. So indeed it works as a funnel within the software business global revenue in 2020, 513B . There is no other reason for such a service effectively be 15%/73B of the overall software business revenue around the globe in 2020. It’s not that customers buy more on iOS, its because customers in iOS have less price options on their smartphone, 50% of American population using smartphones.


            You may not know this, but a few years Apple started pushing developers to adopt a subscription model. Why? Because developers where complaining that the one time sell was not driving enough value anymore, considering that the App Store was no longer a green field, they customer base stagnated and competition was ... well now normal. This subscription model incited by Apple drove prices up. How can more competition between suppliers drive prices up you say? Well, it can if the owner of the store wants it. Harming users first, and eventually will eclipse many devs. Just compare for instance say MS office subscription, with a combination of say, Ulysses and Notion subscription. The price of these two services are way inflated considering the market. Like them you have many many others, charging more for less found in software markets were competition exists with no limitations.


            Just the other day, Apple forbid its users accessing digital services such as xCloud and Stadia by offering these interested suppliers requirements that were next to impossible to meet. Effectively telling developers cannot deploy their apps on the App Store, they should use web browser for that effect. Now Safari, is no way close to be ready to offer a app like experience required. Considering their market share in the mobile space, this is clear market control measure. These digital services have no control over what users choose to access their services, something Apple has with 50% market share. Now, these moguls have the resources to fight back, but the smaller devs do not by any means.


            Another argument is that people in the iOS users more willing to pay than in other users of others. That is a fallacy. Because the users are mostely the same. Meaning a user of Windows or macOS is the same as in iOS. People psychology do not change . Check for instance the macOS. It offers a hybrid model, a combination of App Store and certified developer downloads. Apple does not release values of this store specifically, I think, but it can be revealing. The same users are more willing to pay through other channels as they compare the pros and cons of their options. That is why Apple does not want to move iOS App Store policies closer to macOS App Store giving them more options ... has nothing to do with user preference ... but controlling the funnel.


            Cheers.

            • b6gd

              In reply to nbplopes:

              Using your logic, then let's open up Xbox and let all Xbox users get games and services from anywhere on the internet, skipping Microsoft's fees and opening the Xbox up to hacking, same for Sony and the PS products??


              How is Neflix so successful when they offer a free app and I would imagine a lot of Netflix consumption happens on Apple devices (all of it at my house)? Netflix gave the finger to Apple, and as a Netflix user I must go outside the App to sign up for a subscription?


              I believe in free market. If you don't like the price the Ulysses subscription model then don't use the product...I think it's a rip off for that product, but I am not a writer. I think even Office 365 for personal/home is not a bad price and offers many great value, but I simply do not get the value out of it and have since canceled my subscription. Maybe that is because I have it through work and when I retire some day, I will have no need for Office or OneDrive. I have a GamePass Ultimate sub, I think its a fantastic deal and I will be on board with that service for a long time.


              I have choices and I choose where my money goes. You do too, and I bet our choices do not align. Having the government force companies that are not doing anything illegal to change their business practices is just wrong.

              • nbplopes

                In reply to b6gd:


                “then let's open up Xbox and let all Xbox users get games and services from anywhere on the internet, skipping Microsoft's fees and opening the Xbox up to hacking, same for Sony and the PS products??”


                Well, your logic goes on the premises that the iPhone context is the same as the XBox. You fall on that fallacy by eschewing the reasoning to things they have in common and disregarding what they don’t. For instance, Caravans share similarities with say a House. By that premises than seatbelts should not be required in a Caravan or required in Houses.


                I believe in a free market and democracy probably more than you do, who knows. What I don’t believe is an non regulated free market. Because when the s* hits the fan everyone runs to the State money, people’s money, pensions etc, to reastablish balance. Not to mention CHINA MONEY. All while the people that created the problem in the first place are un-toucheable. No I don’t believe in free market like that. I also don’t believe in a free market that when someone buys stock shorted by other are the persecuted as criminals.


                So the idea that the free market regulates its self, balances it self out, is a mirage. This entire idea is absurd. Do you believe that a free society could exists with laws and regulations? Never. Heck, probably American would be sectarian country still. What is the problem of a black person not being able to go to a specific restaurant, just go to the other. There are plenty of choices right?


                These romantic visions of “free” make me giggle.

                • b6gd

                  In reply to nbplopes:

                  I 100% support laws and regulations.


                  I do not support breaking up a company or forcing it alter its business practices (provided they have broken no law) because they are successful and those that don't like are simply whining.


                  It's a game of jealous billionaires wanting to be in the trillionairs club and to get there they want the government to take down the successful company blocking them.


                  This analogy.....


                  "What is the problem of a black person not being able to go to a specific restaurant, just go to the other. There are plenty of choices right?"


                  is wrong in so many ways. Nice attempt to take this down some woke path FFS. You failed, miserably. We are talking electronic devices and the respective app stores that support them.


                  You have choices and you are free to exercise them. I have had lots of smartphones, from Blackberries, windows mobile, Windows Phone 7, Android and iOS phones. All my choice. No one forced me to choose any of them. I knew the pro's and con's of all of them.


                  Next time I buy a new car, say another Ford 150, should I demand that it comes with a Chevy Radio? Maybe get my lawyer to make those demands? Class action lawsuit maybe? Yes force Ford to offer other choices???



                • nbplopes

                  In reply to b6gd:


                  "is wrong in so many ways. Nice attempt to take this down some woke path FFS. You failed, miserably. We are talking electronic devices and the respective app stores that support them."


                  The analogy was an example that just because the market provides options freedom of choice may not be there enough to establish a fair platform of competition.


                  The business objective of a company is to make money. Competition is simply an annoyance so if they can it will try to remove competition anyway possible. Only the losers in this game claim for competition. The objective of the gov is to provide a platform where competition is fostered, considering that it was often demonstrated historically as the most effective approach to progress. Even though some companies like Apple today claim the opposite :) (competion against the App Store in iOS will destroy the platform, such a progressive one, they say).


                  "You have choices and you are free to exercise them. I have had lots of smartphones, from Blackberries, windows mobile, Windows Phone 7, Android and iOS phones. All my choice. No one forced me to choose any of them. I knew the pro's and con's of all of them."


                  So the choice is for one to buy lot's of different devices that supposedly do more or less the same thing?


                  I don't remember the exact name of the psychology strategy to lead entities to do what you want while proving them with lot's of options.


                  At its core the objective of the strategist is to create an environment that appears to give the other options while the entity want's them to choose specifically one. It's something that I practice with my kids some times when I loose patience. What you do is create a set of options that includes the option you want the entities to take as well with a bunch of negative options for decoration purposes. Effectively reducing their freedom of choice. The trick is that the others are or appear to be way more negative.


                  This is often used by marketers to the point that that integrated in the people default reasoning abilities.


                  "I do not support breaking up a company or forcing it alter its business practices (provided they have broken no law) because they are successful and those that don't like are simply whining."


                  This is a perfect example of that. I'm arguing that the App Store policies along with its market share aren't in the medium term good for competition, the effects can be seen now but one needs to look at the value chain. You suggest as the core option, breaking up the company to regulate the policy.


                  Breaking up the company is of course not the solution. An extreme counter example of such a solution is regarding distribution of apps with macOS. The company was not broken up for that measure. I say an extreme counter example because there are still other options before opting for such an approach to the App Store.


                  I'm thrilled with Apple success, its inspiring. Also I think that Apple is doing what it should do for its business.


                  "Next time I buy a new car, say another Ford 150, should I demand that it comes with a Chevy Radio? Maybe get my lawyer to make those demands? Class action lawsuit maybe? Yes force Ford to offer other choices???


                  Don't understand the analogy in this context. What its being discussed is not arbitrary as you imply here.


                  But again, falls into the class of negative options. You are suggesting that another option would be requiring by law the the company to satisfy all customers and suppliers arbitrary demands. Of course an impractical one.


                  Fluff. Simply fluff.


                  The crux of the matter is that while customers can choose whatever device they want, Place A, B, C, digital services need to be wherever they are, Apple has nothing to do with this need. A need that is further strengthened in a 50/50 market split in mobile and a Windows/macOS. If they aren't they will loose customers. So these don't have options. When suppliers as a whole don't have options, systematically end up getting worst services given time.


                  With the risk of spoon feeding another example where this trivial psychological strategy is being played with mastery by Apple. Recently Apple denied xCloud and Stadia on the App Store. These are game streaming services, meaning that games aren't installed in the device, but streamed. Apple denied its customers access to these services on the App Store, the place where customers go to install apps and offered suppliers two choices. One is publish each game stream separately in the store and sell users access to each through there, collecting the 30% while being able to veto each game separately influencing third party catalogues, again interagir on things that aren't theirs, including customers devices. The other was, just do it through the web browser. Now, Apple knows that the second option is technically and from a user experience point of view not good, so it will harm the business as far iOS market goes. The first ... well the first we already know what is all about, share 30$% with me and prosper *giggle*. So considering that in the medium to long term the first is bad option, would give Apple power over their business, their product catalogue, they have chosen the second, the one Apple wanted them to choose. Why? Because Apple does not want competition with their Game service on their customers devices. 50% of mobile market, again, devices that the company supplied but no longer owns.


                  Another negative option for digital service suppliers that people tout around, is well. Build your own devices. This option is for 99% of the digital services providers impractical. Especially small ones. The big ones might have that option. So again conditioning the market towards competition in digital services possible without restrain only to major companies, a few, eliminating competition from small players. This is why both Google, MS and Amazon aren't making such a fuss, They benefit from this reduction in competition, and if Apple can do, so can I and probably will.


                  The problem society faces as regarding freedom of choice is that the level know how of politicians is extreme low on how technology can provide options while reducing freedom. There is indeed a difference between freedom of choice and having choices. To know this one just needs to watch a hearing in congress. Most were more concerned assuring that get more broadcasting bandwidth on these companies services for their party than actually the freedom of citizens and organisations. Indeed some may be inclined to limit them. When Tim Cook stated, the App Store is an economical miracle ... they did not have a clue about it. They looked at the numbers ... oh yes oh yes lot's of billions, it must be.


                  Cheers.




            • Saarek

              In reply to nbplopes:

              You have some fair points, I think though that the balance lies somewhere between our two views.


              The App Store is, provably by a high margin, far more profitable for developers than all of the Android stores combined. There are various reasons for this, iPhone owners are more affluent, there is rampant piracy on Android, iOS is a lot less fragmented than Android and the number of devices to cater to is far smaller making it easier to test and deploy, etc.


              Users are free to choose between the iPhone and all of the competing Android handsets, along with the pros and cons that each platform brings. Would I as a customer like to save money on the apps that I buy and download them from wherever I want? Sure. Would I be willing to swap the curated, secure, wall gardened approach with all of the benefits that brings to save a few pounds a year...... No, no I would not.


              That Apple makes a huge, some might even say almost obsene, profit off the back of developers on the app store is also a fact. But then that's arguably the same for many companies. From Microsft to Sony to Steam.

              • nbplopes

                In reply to Saarek:


                “The App Store is, provably by a high margin, far more profitable for developers than all of the Android stores combined. “


                If you consider only mobile apps, probably. But if you consider apps in general, than no, You see, the game is moving multi platform, multi device. Look at Procreate, any of the Adobe products are probably more profitable. Yet, Procreate is the best selling app in the App Store. How can that be? Well, very few are buying Adobe in the iPad or iPhone. The same goes for Ulysses so on and so forth. So indeed, less profitable businesses are subsidizing the distribution of apps of more profitable ones! The absurdity!!!!


                I find it weird that no major global software houses emerged from the mobile app Store. Much less reaching the 100.


                https://www.thesoftwarereport.com/the-top-100-software-companies-of-2020/


                Now, there are many successes. You know 5% that manage to reach over a million year revenue is a lot of people. As some might say, you don’t really have a business before you reach a million a year. But diz aside, at the center of their success is not the App Store ability to sell, but their idea for which Apple collects 30%.


                https://thenextweb.com/growth-quarters/2020/09/07/are-the-benefits-of-apples-app-store-worth-30-of-your-revenue/


                If this console based ecosystems get traction and is not regulated, soon will have that in cars, houses, entire cities.

            • ianbetteridge

              In reply to nbplopes:

              "Just the other day, Apple forbid its users accessing digital services such as xCloud and Stadia by offering these interested suppliers requirements that were next to impossible to meet. Effectively telling developers cannot deploy their apps on the App Store, they should use web browser for that effect."


              And yet, developers are meeting exactly those requirements.

          • ianbetteridge

            In reply to Saarek:

            "There is a good reason for that, of course, and that’s that there is a lot more money to be made on iOS."


            But that doesn't explain why apps which are free to the end user still follow the same pattern. Why did Clubhouse or Instagram arrive first on the iPhone? It's not because of money.

        • b6gd

          In reply to nbplopes:

          Your post is visualized by a dog chasing its own tail.

    • b6gd

      In reply to scovious:

      Clearly looking at the numbers provided in this blog post, Android is successful. Combining total sales of all Android handsets, and framing the discussion correctly (iOS vs Android, not Apple vs Samsung or whatever vendor) we can see that Android handsets dominate the market.


      No one forces anyone to buy either type of device. You have the free will to choose and if you do not like the way one company does its business then take your business somewhere else.


      Apple is culpable of making a product that many want and they have been successful doing so. I and many others want to get our apps ONLY in the App Store that is controlled by Apple for many reasons.

      • Truffles

        In reply to b6gd:

        Exactly. There's nothing captive about smartphone customers. Even the App Store isn't a barrier because we live in an era where 99.9% of users of either Android or iOS can install a full suite of software for a couple of dollars.

      • Jorge Garcia

        In reply to b6gd:

        I bet you there are a lot of people who felt they were pretty darn "forced" to buy an iPhone due to the reality and legitimate fear of not being able to communicate with friends and family via imessage and FaceTime. Once these companies reach a certain scale, they really do become almost like public utilities and the lock-in practices they use (mostly Apple, then google) stink to high heaven. I am a free market conservative but there does come a point when the power a company wields is simply unfair to the unsuspecting consumer. For anti-trust reasons, I'd personally force apple to make imessage and facetime cross-platform (probably ad-supported on non-Apple platforms). That way, they'd sink or swim on their own merits, not by tying people's hands.

        • b6gd

          In reply to JG1170:

          That is the craziest logic I have read so far. Are you being sarcastic?


          "For anti-trust reasons, I'd personally force apple to make imessage and facetime cross-platform (probably ad-supported on non-Apple platforms). That way, they'd sink or swim on their own merits, not by tying people's hands."


          Hello cancel culture!!!!


          Apple has swam....on their own merits more than any other company. Remember when Steve Ballmer mocked the iPhone, or how much fun was made of the first iPad, aka the Maxi Pad. I owned a Windows Mobile phone when the first iPhone came out. Its rotting in a land fill right now, along with the rest of them. They sank.


          Apple products are a choice. No ONE is forcing anyone to buy them. There are LOTS of high end Android devices, Samsung makes a bunch of them.


          I do not buy anything because it's popular. I buy Apple products for many reasons. They are an American company and I want to support American companies, they value privacy a 1000x more than Google ever will, they have the best ecosystem hands down. They are a consumer focused company. They have great "family" options for sharing content. My son in the Marines, 1500 miles away has an Apple TV in his dorm room and can share our "family" content. Yes I do love the iMessage feature that works between devices. Sitting on my Mac at work using iMessage on my Mac and seamlessly moving to my iPhone is a super fantastic feature that no other company has seemed to master as well as Apple has.


          I also see real value in "Walled Garden" systems. I DO NOT want the government messing with my Xbox and forcing Microsoft to let Xbox's get software from any source out there. I quit PC gaming this year when I got my XSX, because the openness of PC gaming lets massive cheating exist and has ruined the MP experience of more than few AAA games for me.

  2. crunchyfrog

    There's a whole story behind these numbers, I'm sure. Nothing to fear though, sales will rebound.

  3. rbwatson0

    Paul,

    I don't understand the statement 'Apple sold 85 million iPhones, achieving an incredible 22 percent Marketshare with 385.25 handsets sold overall'. Is that 385.25 per day, not overall?

    Also, wouldn't Huawei be in third place behind Apple if Samsung is first?

  4. Jorge Garcia

    Get Stimulus check...go to Apple.com...click buy. It's a lot easier to turn your nose up at Android when Uncle Sam is treating.

  5. Cdorf

    Seems like a mix between a maturing market and the COVID financial situation for many, with a little "minor flagship refreshes" sprinkled on top

  6. reefer2

    Apple are evil. No trolling, just a fact of life. Unless the government bitch slaps them like they did Microsoft 20 years ago this bullshit will go on forever.

  7. ianbetteridge

    In reply to Bob_Shutts:

    The key question, as always, is "where is the consumer harm?" Are phone prices high? No, you can easily pick up cheap and very capable Android phones. Even if you want an iPhone, for $699 you can get a very capable phone which will last you five years if you want.


    Do consumers have a wide choice of applications? Yes, there are millions of apps on both Android and iOS.


    Are prices of applications too high? No, in fact arguably they are too low.


    Is Apple using its market share to stifle competition? Hard to see how it is. It has a lower market share to Android, for one thing, so defining the market in such a way as Apple has a dominant position would take a couple of decades of legal arguing.


    There's a lot of noise about this, but most of it is from developers who want the ability to exploit users in ways that actually they wouldn't approve of (for example by tracking everything they do on their phone and selling that data to third parties). And unfortunately for the developers who are shouting loudest, the argument that "we could make more money if the world was different" doesn't cut much legal ice.

    • Jorge Garcia

      In reply to ianbetteridge:

      The harm is in the ecosystem cynical platform lock-in of imessage and facetime. A smartphone is not the same as a proprietary coffeemaker or video game console that is just a pastime and a non-critical function of human life. People buy phones with the full intention of that phone serving all their critical and basic communication needs, conecting them to all other "connected" human beings. The fact that the decision to purchase an iPhone over any other phone can easily hinge on the ability to use face time and imessage with friends and family who already use those services exclusively is just plain wrong and anti-consumer/antitrust. Refusing to see that for what it is means someone has a horse in the race one way or another.

Leave a Reply