Edit: That is, from iTunes Connect. Maybe your pals use some sort of usage logging/statistics from within the app.
The biggest gains for me have been:
1. when I could discontinue previous OS version (3.x) support because most of my users had transitioned to 4.x
2. It lets me know which features my users are actually using so that I can focus on enhancing and refining them.
3. It lets me know how many installs vs. sales that I have. And yes, this includes any pirated copies.
Most stats from various sources and markets over the last year, like sales and installed base, have Android behind but growing (much) faster than iPhone/iOS. So phone sales only exceeded Apple's in the US 2 or 3 quarters ago, and we only had data showing that about 1 quarter ago. Installed base is estimated to be moving above iPhone right about now, iOS (including iPads and Touches) will obviously take longer. Android share of the tablet market (the Galaxy Tab basically) is already at 25% for the last quarter apparently.
So in summary, anyone claiming Android was already ahead of iOS wasn't using any reliable figures, and mostly I've seen this in reverse (i.e. if Android is so far ahead where are all the quality games). Claims that Android looks like the future are (despite being predictions) on much firmer ground given the historical trends in the data.
"Music products: 19.45 million iPods. iPod touch sales grew 27% year-over-year. Now over 50% of iPod sales."
Over 50% of 19.45 million must be around 10 million.
If its true: Who buys all these iPod touch? Where I live (Sweden) iPhones are very common and touch is not. They are not very cheap either.
1. An iPhone is prohibitively expensive for me. I want my cheap prepaid phone, thank you.
2. iPhones only have up to 32GB of space, I need 64GB.
3. I need some kind of portable music device anyway that can save all my music.
I paid 350€ for it which is certainly relatively cheap, a great price for what it does.
Pedantic reply: half ≠ most, half = half
But that aside, I see your point: clearly iOS can still be influential regardless of the shift in the cellphone market space. What will be interesting to see is how (or if) that changes when Verizon gets the iPhone...
That's a terrible assumption. The problem with 'most' is it doesn't imply an exact number, it could be 0.01% more or 99.9% more and either is 'most'.
Nothing about that statement tells you it's near a 50:50 ratio.
Since we're not dealing with exact numbers (obviously 17 and 16 million units is rounded off) and because the difference is fairly small ~5%, it's less confusing to note a more specified relationship rather than an ambiguous and potentially confusing 'most'. Esp if later it's quoted out of context: "Most iOS device sales are not iPhones," (how many is most? how close is the margin?) is less informative than, "IDevices excluding the iPhone comprise about 5% more sales, with iPhones selling 16m units and other devices selling 17m."
Take “most” for what it is and always has been, a simple description of plurality or relative majority.
(You are quite correct that I cannot just assume that the gender ratio in North America is close to 50:50 but you are at the same time also completely missing the point. Context matters and context makes “most” a useful word. It’s alright to make use of term “most” in the context of gender ratios of geographic areas because everyone knows that gender ratios are always close to 50:50. “Most” is a very broad term but if used in the right context perfectly appropriate and not confusing.)
This is simply wrong.
When dealing with numbers, esp financial data, it is poor form to not make specific analysis in the descriptions of the data.
Saying 'Most iOS sales are not iPhones' is actually very misleading even if generalized sales numbers are included in the same context.
Ugh, this quarter you will receive 'most' of your bonus. Oops, I hope you didn't assume that 'most' meant 95% or even 75% because it actually meant 51%.
> Context matters and it is prudent to assume that HN readers possess basic reading skills.
There is absolutely no reason to not be more specific. You're just defending poor form at this point and it wasn't even your comment.
Lastly, it's always bad to assume. Why should we assume that this won't be quoted out of context? Assumptions lead to bad things in my experience. It's never prudent to assume.
Why are you assuming that “most” must be at least a 75% or so majority? If we are talking about wrong and bad assumptions then that is the one.
You might argue that it’s not exact enough (I don’t agree at all because the comment includes specific numbers) but to say that using most in that context is wrong is just mind boggling to me.
I'm not. The rules aren't arbitrary, they're based on the grammatical roots of the word.
Your consistent problem is your assumptions, which run rampant throughout your comments, as evidenced here.
The colloquial meaning and usage of a term will always trump the technical reality.
Commonly, 'most' is used to mean there is more than a simple majority, e.g. a supermajority.
"Most senators voted in favor of the bill," this isn't said when 'most' refers to 51 senators voting in favor of a bill because journalists understand that that would cause confusion. Instead something like, "The Senate was nearly split on the vote, 51 to 49," is used because it is far more descriptive of that actual situation.
The relative position of numbers matters, whether you want to accept that or not. However you sound like a fool promoting ambiguity of information and obfuscation of data.
Where does your assumption come from that colloquially, “most” means “large majority”?
Now for a quick lesson in grammar, sorry it had to come to this but besides the colloquial instinct, the grammatical roots of 'most' will show, unequivocally, 'most' should not be used as it was.
'Most' is the superlative form of 'many' or 'much'. 'Many' is defined as 'a large number of' and 'much' is defined as 'a large amount'. This naturally implies a statistically significant large majority, not a simple majority such as 51 to 49.
When there is a close division we don't say, 'most of the Senators' we say 'just more than half of the Senators'. This is because we haven't reached a point where we can adequately say that a 'a large number' (as compared to those voting against) 'has voted for'. For this reason we reserve 'most' for situations where more than a simple majority, e.g. often a supermajority, comprises one of the two or more things we are comparing.
Actually, grammatically speaking, superlative adjectives should _only_ be used when three or more things are being compared, however this is a commonly ignored rule.
There is one final point, when one of the two or more things you are comparing reaches a point where it is greater than two thirds of the total, we begin to say 'nearly all,' "Nearly all of the Senators voted to pass the finance reform bill today, voting 89-11."
17 million as compared to 16 million is not 'a large quantity' more as compared to 16 million.
If you understand that 'most' is the superlative form of 'much' or 'many' you understand that you're saying there is a large amount (more) of iDevices being sold as compared to the number of iPhones being sold, when all things considered that number is less 10%! Hardly a supermajority and very much in the realm of "simple majority."
I brought this up on Freenode in ##English. They were absolutely appalled by your claim, "half plus one is most."
If you have further questions I highly recommend the erudite discussions they can provide. They are quite well versed in English grammar and usage, I think you will find their comments instructive.
Edit: Also I took the liberty of consecrating the discoveries made in the form of a blog post --> http://voxinfinitus.net/blog/articles/2011/01/usage-most
If your boss told you that you would be getting "not all, but most of your bonus this year" and you got half plus one dollars (or whatever you're paid in), chances are you'd be feeling cheated, no matter how 'technically right' your boss was.
'Most', at least colloquially, seems slightly misleading to me. The difference after all is less than 10%.
It's like the idea of significant. All too often, people confuse significant with majority. This is not the case. Significant rarely means majority, except when used in the all too cumbersome "significant majority".
Finally, most people would agree even a 5% different is a significant difference. =)
I don’t agree at all. It’s usually a good idea to summarize data and in the process of doing so being less specific. Most is perfectly understandable in the context. It actually is very surprising and interesting that most iOS devices that were sold in the last quarter are not phones so saying just that is perfectly fine.
There is no strange and arbitrary 5% condition for the usage of most and there never has been. Most is an exact term.
Say whatever you want about Apple, but they know how to print money.
They can talk dividends when their shares are near Microsoft's level and their product pipeline is less stacked and hype machine is dying.
Buybacks reduce the number of shares outstanding in the market and thereby increase earnings per share, which boosts the share price, rewarding existing investors. So we may see Apple engage in buybacks.
They have made it very clear that they are reserving that cash for a big acquisition. IMHO that means that they are waiting for the moment when someone innovates in a way that threatens them and they can bring the talent and assets aboard. Like the Google process, except you pay with cash.
Actual results: 7.33 million just last quarter.
Philip Elmer DeWitt at Apple 2.0 already has you covered, every quarter he rounds up all the analysts' predictions and after actual results are announced, he writes about the outliers. He also tracks how often the analysts are right/wrong.
Apple Q1 2011 earnings preview: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/01/18/apple-q1-2011-earning...
Hell, people were giving Leo Laporte a hard time because he came in with one of the highest estimates, at (I think) over 5 million.
Word on the street is that Jobs had already shown up less at Apple in the last few weeks, the announcement was obviously timed to coincide with a bank holiday.
But, if Apple's quarterly results turned out lower than Apple's guidance and the Street's expectations, I bet Jobs' sick leave would have been announced at an earlier date, so that the two shocks wouldn't have amplified one another.
(Instead, at today's closing bell Apple's stock was back to the level of a couple days a go. An hour later, when Apple's Q1 results were in, trading actually went up to an unprecedented height. So Apple's cunning plan worked out quite nicely.)
But on a more fine grained timescale a few days more or less in the timing of the announcements might make quite a difference in how people perceive this. If they had announced a month ago instead of right next to record quarterly earnings it might have hurt the stock more at the time than it does today.
The market is in theory 'efficient', but in the short term it tends to overreact to bad news, so combining bad news with extremely good news may be a viable method to offset the effect of the bad news on the stock.
Savvy investors will have priced Steve Jobs health in to their stock holdings already, those that are on edge might panic and sell unless there was a second factor.
This is getting down to near half Android's claim of 300,000 / day (not all phones, but one would presume nearly all).
Of course, add in the other iOS devices and Apple is back in front, but it's interesting to see how far behind Android they are in the phone market now.
In any case, sales volume for the entire platform is more interesting to developers, as an iPhone app will also work on iPhone touch and iPad. Combining sales of all iOS devices that allow 3rd party apps, Apple sold 375,000 a day in the last quarter. (33.57m/90)
What I found especially interesting in today's conference call was the figure for iOS' installed base: 160 million. Android has a long way to go.
On Dec 6, Andy Rubin blogged that there were 200,000 activations a day. On Dec 8, Andy Rubin tweeted there were 300,000 activations a day.
You take a similar line about Android - eg: why did Google not support an iPod Touch like devices? We could say, "sure, iOS looks more successful than Android overall but that's just because Google doesn't support non-phone devices yet" - perhaps it explains why Android doesn't have overall more market share yet, but it doesn't change that facts of the situation - in overall marketshare iOS wins hands down.
It is notable that between Q4 2010 and Q1 2011 (the latter includes the holiday season), the growth areas were the iPod [115%] and the iPad [75%]. Macs increased 6%, but actually decreased by 7% in the Americas.
It's hard to hold it as a "bad" result, but among such stellar results the relatively small 15% growth of the iPhone does stand out. Tomorrow the talking heads will probably play that up despite the incredible scale of these results.
There's also different bits of the product lifecycle to consider. Ipods were refreshed in September, (probably in anticipation of the holidays), but they're down year on year. Iphones are nearing the mid point of the yearly cycle, and I'd expect them to be relatively flatish until summertime. (except for that whole verizon thing). Ipads should be mostly flatish, since world + dog expects a refresh in April. The fact that the ios devices aren't flat is saying that there's a huge demand for these things that hasn't been filled yet.
I wouldn't expect that, at least not this year in the US. The iPhone goes non-exclusive here in a week or so as it hits Verizon stores. Most people are expecting a big jump in sales from Verizon customers who wanted iPhones but didn't want to switch to AT&T.
1) During the conference call, CFO Peter Oppenheimer stated  that Apple still can't handle demand for iPhone and they continually have to increase production.
2) Apple keeps adding partnerships with operators in various countries, the US is just a piece of the pie. They currently have agreements with 185 operators in 90 countries, but that's probably not even half of the major operators out there.
3) Sales are growing fastest in the Asia-Pacific region and Japan. IPhone sales doubled year over year in those regions and I doubt that's going to slow down, also because of Apple's marketing efforts there. For instance, Apple plans to open another dozen Apple Stores in China in 2011. It was also stated that the China retail stores are the ones with the highest revenue per store.
I would expect certain parts of the IOS ecosystem to be flatish based on the product cycles. They're apparently undergoing a runaway chain reaction instead, without a corresponding change to the average sale prices to engage that part of the demand curve.
Therefore, there's a hell of a pentup demand, and we ain't seen nothing yet.
Sure, but in this case the input in question is the renewed competition courtesy of Android. The natural question everyone will have is how that impacts the iPhone.
For reference, for the same quarter over quarter of 2009, iPhone sales increased 68%.
Iphones are nearing the mid point of the yearly cycle, and I'd expect them to be relatively flatish until summertime
I wouldn't expect this at all. While we might get a sense that everyone is like us, most consumers aren't planning their purchase around Apple's update cycle. They decide they want a smartphone so they go and buy one. We all know that the smartphone market is exploding, and there is a huge untapped reserve of potential customers, so the numbers now are generally big.
Regardless, the iPad and iPod more than make it up. While everone was talking about the 300,000 Android devices activated per day, over this quarter the combined iOS devices hit a simple division rate of almost 360,000 per day. That is amazing.
Samsung recently announced that Galaxy Tab, the most popular Android tablet, hit the 1 million mark.  Sales of Android devices by Archos, Meizu and B&N -- even when combined -- are flat-out negligible compared to Apple's sales volume.
I'd be surprised if there are more than 5 million non-phone Android devices sold a month. Also keep in mind that the "300,000 Android phone activations a day" is not at all verified, let alone that it applies to the present. Even if the figure was correct, it may well have pertained to a peak during the holiday season.
EDIT: My math was off. 30*75k=2.25m, not 22.5m. So yes, I have to agree, there may be non-phone Android sales of over 75k a day.
Why so? If I am a developer and my app runs the same on iPhone and iPod touch (and probably on iPad if I took time to make it universal) then I care not only about the iPhones.
I guess where you are getting at is Android == Google and nothing else and it is somehow OK to compare Phone numbers to 3 separate categories put together because of your assumption that Android=Phones=Google. That's clearly not true but I guess from the down voting that I am disturbing a good number of fans with numbers so don't be worried - pick the number that makes you happy ;)
Even though the iPad is on a refresh pattern two months earlier than iPhone, I don't think it's going to hamper performance for FQ2, especially since enterprise makes up an increasingly large part of sales.