
Map the iPhone Users In Any City, And You Know Where the Rich Live - kumarski
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/06/map-iphone-users-any-city-and-you-know-where-rich-live/5961/
======
nostromo
Super interesting.

However, iPhone appears to have been rendered last, obfuscating Android users.

Example:

iPhone only:
[http://d.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/enf.iphone/11/327/791.png](http://d.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/enf.iphone/11/327/791.png)

Android only:
[http://d.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/enf.android/11/327/791.png](http://d.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/enf.android/11/327/791.png)

iPhone and Android:
[http://d.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/enf.android,enf.iphone/11/327/7...](http://d.tiles.mapbox.com/v3/enf.android,enf.iphone/11/327/791.png)

~~~
omni
Sure, but why let proper data visualization get in the way of link bait?

The original source, which I'm assuming you got your images from directly, is
much more interesting: [http://www.mapbox.com/labs/twitter-
gnip/brands/#9/40.1358/-7...](http://www.mapbox.com/labs/twitter-
gnip/brands/#9/40.1358/-74.2676)

------
jack-r-abbit
I don't see how this matches. Is owning an iPhone a symbol of being rich more
than other smart phones? I know people that can easily afford an iPhone but
don't have one. I know people that have an iPhone but probably should have
paid their rent instead. My wife has an iPhone. We can also afford for me to
have one. I choose Android instead.

It is also only geotagged tweets. I don't geotag my tweets. My wife doesn't
use Twitter. So we're both completely out of this "study". It would be
interesting to see stats on how many Android users geotag their tweets vs
iPhone users. I believe there is a certain mental difference between iPhone
users and Android users (not better or worse... just a different type of
person) which could have a bias toward geotagging vs not.

Do the results take into account multiple tweets from the same person? One
"rich" person with an iPhone that tweets 50 times a day is going to make a
bigger mark on an area than 5 "poor" people with a Blackberry that might only
tweet 1-2 times a day.

I'm not convinced there is anything useful here.

~~~
matt-attack
> I'm not convinced there is anything useful here.

Well there is indeed _something_ here. The charts are clearly correlated with
rich and poor areas (at least for cities I'm familiar with).

Now whether or not it's tied solely to iphone vs android remains to be seen.
The results deserve some sort of explanation.

~~~
corresation
The charts are of dubious value. As others have send, the z-order puts the
iPhone on top, occluding Android. In the "rich" areas, Android and the iPhone
are close to identical.

Which, of course, makes sense, as there are high end and low end Android
devices.

~~~
pessimizer
But outside of the "rich" areas, although iPhone tweets are rendered on top of
Android tweets, Android dominates. To me this indicates that iPhones are
concentrated in the "rich" areas as opposed to Androids, which are more evenly
distributed. What am I missing?

~~~
corresation
You aren't missing anything. Androids are available from premium Galaxy S4s,
to discount pay-as-you-go discount devices. Android is a device for everyone
and every demographic, and the charts reflects that.

However by using the layering, it suddenly seems like the iPhone is the phone
used in the rich areas, when in reality if you compare layers Android and the
iPhone have very similar distributions in those areas as well.

------
hanspeide
How are the color pixels indicating device stacked in the map? If I only check
Android I will see large green areas, but when I then check iPhone the same
green areas will be red. Does that simply mean that there have been more
iPhone than Android tweets in that particular spot?

~~~
enf
I made the map tiles, but Tom did the UI and compositing, so I'm not sure how
the layers are combined. There are more iPhone tweets than any other source,
so they will tend to be the most visible if they are given equal priority.

~~~
sswezey
And this right here invalidates the article's conclusion, the simple number of
iPhone tweets overwhelms the Android tweets. The map just shows who is more
chatty, versus actual income disparity.

As a side note, I do find the map very interesting - it's just the article's
conclusion that I'm not convinced of.

~~~
enf
But they don't overwhelm the Android tweets everywhere, only in some places.

I agree that it is too big a leap to say that phone choice always indicates
wealth, but I do think there is a connection.

------
jackhammer2022
Obligatory:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy)

------
smileysteve
Being from Atlanta, this maps is drastically incorrect as to our wealth
distribution. The locations on I20 East and just above 285/75on the south side
have distinctly the lowest incomes and most crime. (Though, there is an
amphitheater at the south hotspot)

~~~
jcizzle
I'm not seeing the same thing. The big chunk of red on the south side of the
city is the ATL airport. ("Checking in! #delta #hartsfield) Georgia Tech,
Downtown, Midtown, VaHi, Morningside, Druid Hills, Buckhead, Brookhaven,
Marietta, Lake Claire, west side of Decatur and the south end of Sandy Springs
are the areas I see in red here. These are all wealthy areas. All along the
northern perimeter - which is mostly just white-collar businesses, is mostly
red tinted and all along the rest of the perimeter is green. Other than
Hartsfield Jackson, there is a pretty solid cone of red emanating from
downtown into the north. I would say this is 100% spot on with mapping wealth
to iPhones, although, I am not sold on the numbers that generated the map.

------
sswezey
Or you can tell where university students are. Checking Atlanta, GA, you can
see where Spellman college and Georgia Tech are. Check Seattle, WA, and you
can see very clearly where UW is.

Also, in Savannah, GA, you can look and you'll see a lot of iPhones in the
"projects".

This is a neat project, but it's not as clearcut as the author is trying to
make it out to be.

~~~
stephengillie
In Seattle, it's interesting to see Downtown a sea of Blackberrys surrounded
by iPhones. More Blackberrys and iPhones in Bellevue. Like you said, UW is
another cluster of iPhones and so is Seatac airport. But the rest of the area
is Android.

Tacoma looks just like the surrounding region, despite being WA state's 2nd
largest city (tied with Spokane).

~~~
clauretano
I'm not seeing it. It's a sea of red in downtown Seattle (and up into Lower
Queen Anne i.e. where the Space Needle is). Yeah there's some purple in there
but as it has been pointed out, surely those are Windows Phone devices.

The neighborhoods south of downtown do appear to be majority Android, which
does agree with the assertions of The Atlantic.

~~~
stephengillie
Where was it pointed out that these purple dots are likely Windows Phones?

Maybe the shades of purple are too close for me to tell. Or maybe nobody uses
Blackberrys anymore?

------
atto
Cool pictures, but knowing about some of these cities, isn't this basically a
population map? Obligatory xkcd:
[http://xkcd.com/1138/](http://xkcd.com/1138/)

It seems to miss very wealthy areas that have a lower population.

~~~
rayiner
It's not just a population map, because you're effectively looking at the
_relative_ usage of each platform in different geographical areas. If it were
a map of just iPhone users and you went: "look, all the iPhone users are in
rich Manhattan" then the XKCD comic would be relevant.

------
nilsbunger
It looks to me like they are drawing the iPhone pixels on top of the Android
pixels... so any location that would have _both_ ends up showing iPhone only!

~~~
pessimizer
Yes, but their argument is that iPhones are concentrated in the enclaves of
the rich i.e. _less_ widely distributed than Android. The way that they
presented the data is actually biased _against_ their thesis.

------
peapicker
Doesn't work in Denver. The richest area, Cherry Hills Village, has such
massive houses on relatively massive lots that there are hardly any data
points, and those that are there look like an even mix of iPhone and Android.

Looks more like people tweet while out and about during the day from the
patterns I see in Denver.

Looking at Albuquerque, the biggest iPhone cluster is around the UNM campus,
mostly students.

------
quackerhacker
I love stats. I must say, that this is a very clever metadata scraping and
analysis! I do have to point out that the purpose of a mobile device though is
to be able to conduct work (or the basis of this article...a tweet) from
anywhere, with that said, I don't think the geo location reflects where
someone lives.

Side Note: I may own an iPhone, but my wallet doesn't agree with this title.

------
austinl
Chicago resident here - I think the map of Chicago is fairly accurate. It's
also interesting to see a number of red dots along the blue line (part of
Chicago's public transit system that runs from O'Hare to downtown)

------
ianstallings
I knew it! Bushwick and Broadway near the 24-7 Popeyes/Dunkin Donuts as I
suspected.

------
everyone
Interesting, what about the poeple who dont tweet or have a smartphone?

Also I reckon it is certainly not just income we are seeing in the ios vs
android broad pattern. I would guess age and tech-savviness are a large factor
in this divide aswell.

------
hawkharris
The author presupposes that rich people buy more expensive things. Some rich
people are rich because they are frugal consumers.

~~~
mikeash
And yet, the iPhones show up in the wealthier areas just the same.

~~~
hawkharris
See the comment thread above. The author didn't just present the data; she
suggested that mobile phones are linked to socio-economic status.

~~~
mikeash
Yes, and "linked to" is just another way of saying "correlated". I don't
understand why you seem to be OK with one term but not the other.

------
superuser2
This is making an implicit assumption that iPhones are symbols of wealth where
other smartphones are not.

The real cost of smartphone ownership is in the contract. The ~$100 savings
you could get in buying an Android phone (not always there - when S3 was
introduced, it cost the same as the iPhone - $200) doesn't mean much when you
consider $100+/month over two years. There shouldn't be a real difference in
the wealth of Android owners and iPhone owners.

~~~
ajross
Not everyone has a Galaxy S{2,3,4}. "Android" phones are pretty routinely
available free-with-contract and with limited plans these days. This isn't
mapping high end smartphone users with iPhone-equivalent handsets. It's
showing you that Apple has nothing to sell into poorer demographics, but that
those demographics still want smartphones.

~~~
superuser2
>with limited plans

I'm just pointing out that $2600 for an iPhone over 2 years (Verizon Share
Everything, 2GB data) is only 8% more expensive than a "free" low-quality
Android handset on the same plan ($2400).

Limited and prepaid plans would explain the class difference. If it weren't
for the shitty suburban/rural coverage, I'd strongly consider Nexus 4 on
T-Mobile.

~~~
ajross
But again: the ability to amortize a big upfront payment over a two year
contract is _also_ a characteristic of "rich" consumers. Not everyone has $200
in the bank when they need a new phone. These people end up with Gingerbread
handsets.

------
bnastic
Ah, London... The City is all covered in Blackberries, as expected.

------
BigBalli
this is stupid. 1) accuracy of data 2) having an iPhone ≠ being rich.

------
rorrr2
This assumes that people mostly phone-tweet from their home, and not, let's
say, from work or restaurants or clubs.

~~~
paulhodge
There's still a decent correlation between a restaurant's location and the
wealth of its customers. People who live in Manhattan aren't typically going
to go to a club in Newark or vice versa.

Anyway you can see on the map that tweets come from a huge number of
locations; there's not that many restaurants and clubs.

