Nielsen numbers- June 2011

Android is the top operating system in the United States, according to June data just released by Nielsen. Android hold a 39 percent share of the U.S. smartphone market, with iOS coming in second with 28 percent and Blackberry in third with 20 percent. Bringing up the rear is WP7 with nine percent, and Symbian and WebOS with 2 percent each.

Though Android is the OS to beat, Apple still holds the title of top smartphone manufacturer, claiming all 28 percent of iOS's market share. Among the devices running Android, HTC holds a slim lead with 14 percent market share, followed by Motorola at 10 percent, Samsung at 8 percent, and all other manufacturers accounting for the remaining 6 percent. Hit the source link for the Nielsen's full press release.

Source: Nielsen

 
There are 33 comments

Masheen says:

I like how the graph is broken down by manufacturers this time.

ren0vat0r says:

that title of "top smartphone manufacturer" isn't really anything to brag about. Operating System of Choice is. this is what makes fragmentation so great. we have CHOICE.

TreSupreme says:

Top smartphone manufacturer means nothing? Then why the hell does top MOBILE OS mean anything? iOS still has more dev support so what is the title "Top Mobile OS" any good for, nothing. Because all it is, is a title. At least as top manufacturer it shows that Apple is making some good as revenue.

Get over yourself.

Dhamp2g says:

Why are you even on a Android site?

TreSupreme says:

So because I point out facts and counter fanboy idiocy I don't belong on an Android site? LOL

I happen to own a OG Droid, DX, and Thunderbolt. Buy I didn't know being blind was a pre-requisite as well.

ScottColbert says:

No, but learning how to spell and write a coherent sentence would make you look like less of an idiot.

TreSupreme says:

So because I made a typo on my computer buy pressing the "y" character instead of the "t" on my keyboard I am now an idiot.

Looks like someone is a little butt hurt.

icebike says:

Well since there is an edit button with which you can fix typos, and you still haven't done so, yes, yes it does make you look like an idiot.

alecpierre says:

Its reaaaaal cheap when people resort to bashing on someone's typos.

dyinman says:

I think you mean "it's". A typo is not equal to bad grammar and spelling.

dyinman says:

Yes, and you spelled "by" wrong.

TheANARCHY says:

Kinda takes the shine off all of that boasting from Apple huh... "We sold 20 million iPhones!" Good for you, most were in markets outside the US and guess what, you still hold 2nd place there. Look for the iPhone to start the gradual decline to Mac status. Wanted by the elite who think it elevates them in some way as being better, shunned by the rest for more practical, sensible, & cost effective solutions.

TreSupreme says:

Why is this post necessary? Both OS are doing great. And you are the one who sounds like an elitist. Apple still has A LOT of reason to boast as does Google. Come off it.

eahinrichsen says:

THIS. The entire smartphone market is increasing drastically, and as long as that's the case, Apple's success is good for Android and Android's success is good for Apple and it's all great for the end user.

TreSupreme says:

Exactly! Honestly I'm tired of these stupid OS wars where people feel they need to justify their purchases by making others feel crummy if they made a different choice. If were going to have them why can't we do it without constant bashing.

icebike says:

Its long past justification, except for the 14 year olds that post here.

After all, most of us have bought both IOS and Android devices over the years.

Its all about the money grab. The greed of Apple is astounding, and largely hand waived away by the fanboys. They delight in pointing out how profitable Apple is compared to the others without it even occurring to them that by definition that means they are overpaying for their devices by at least 30%.

If all you do on your phone is make calls, emails, and tweets, and occasional surfing, you probably have no reason to prefer one over the other.

Pinky: Gee, Loid. What are we going to do tonight?
The Loid: The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world.

xxxxKylexxxx says:

I bet if Apple had gone to another service provider a lot sooner then they did, this graph would look completely different. Also, having pretentious TV advertising doesn't help either (ahem...If you don't have an iPhone, then you don't have an iPhone).

eahinrichsen says:

I think the long-term exclusivity deal with AT&T was a necessary evil for Apple. Apple's "no carrier bloatware or OS interference" policy was a big risk for AT&T to take (although one that clearly paid off pretty well), and I doubt that AT&T would've been willing to agree to that if they knew that they were going to have to compete against the iPhone on other carriers in just a year or two. Basically, I think that if they had structured their deals such that they could launch on other carriers sooner, the iPhone itself would look completely different.

xxxxKylexxxx says:

Good point :)

icebike says:

How well it paid off for Apple is dramatically different than how well it paid off for AT&T.

The iphone essentially ruined At&T's reputation, nearly destroyed their network, an cost them billions correcting problems that were essentially iphone only problems due to the cheap infineon chipset used by the iphone.

Look where the other networks are in the march toward LTE and higher speeds, and compare that to AT&T. The iPhone cost At&T dearly.

TreSupreme says:

Which is why Verizon's network is in shambles as well... oh wait...

MAYBE, and I might just be crazy here, but maybe AT&T has a shitty network?! Since none of the other 300 carriers that support the iPhone have this problem.

icebike says:

Which is exactly my point.

At&T network is mostly good. It is in my area anyway. But Verizon is much more extensive. (Although not faster once you wander out of their tiny 4g footprint).

Why?

Because Verizon could build their network rationally over time without being whipsawed by Apple trying to compensate for Apples cheap raidos and refusal to admit there was any problem with them.

At&T was getting the crap kicked out of their network, while Verizon and sprint and t-Mobile were able to build at their own pace. Verizon chose a plan of building their foot print to cover the most territory.

At&T had to build to cover Apple's ass, and keep the bitch level down, which means concentrating on the Cities, and to hell with any place under 75K population.

The networks are what they are because of what devices they allowed on them. Apple became the most profitable company on earth, while AT&T fell further and further behind in their network expansion.

Apple profited, and AT&T paid the price. And it had nothing to do with the network they started out with.

If AT&T has a shitty network, its because of the iPhone.

TreSupreme says:

So the iPhone magically dragged AT&T down dimply because it was the iPhone? Before the iPhone AT&t had no smartphone that used data like smartphones today, they couldnt handle it so their network went to crap. Had android been released on AT&T first, the same thing would have happened, but probably faster, as Android users we know the we use even more data than iOS users.

"Because Verizon could build their network rationally over time without being whipsawed by Apple trying to compensate for Apples cheap raidos and refusal to admit there was any problem with them."

This still doesn't justify why no other carrier on planet Earth went down with the introduction of the iPhone either. AT&T is shit. And even then there are iPhones on T-Mobile here in the states and it hasn't had that problem either.

icebike says:

Your quite wrong on your statement that no other carrier on earth went down with the introduction of the iphone.

First there was no other carrier on earth that had to handle the massive amount of iphone traffic that At&T dealt with. None.

Second, many European carriers had similar dropped call levels and network overload issues in the early days of iPhone introduction.

But even entire countries in Europe don't amount to 1/4 the traffic AT&T carries daily, and they are backed by National Government Subsidies to help them out. No fighting for a tower site approval from local government.

The infineon chip set was a disaster. Blackberries on the same network had no dropped calls, but iPhones dropped calls all over the place, and AT&T took the blame. Had VZW gotten the iPhone when they first wanted it, their network wouldn't have handled it either.

You just don't know your recent history.

TreSupreme says:

Your an idiot period.

"Blackberries on the same network had no dropped calls, but iPhones dropped calls all over the place"

Since when have Blackberrys ever been anything close to a data hog as an iPhone or Android? NEVER. What European carriers specifically give me one!

Your responses are so vague that it laughable.

uberspeed says:

All your previous statements were well thought out arguments, this one is not. The iPhone revolutionized usage and ATT was the first network to take its lumps and feel the pain, all others have learned from their mistakes. VZW spent years building their network up (kudos to them) to make sure that when they finally did get the iPhone they too wouldn't crumble. It's served them quite well for their other smartphone offerings, which Android has benefited from. ATT also gets a lot of bad press in the tech blog centric areas of NYC and SanFran where they seemingly have subpar coverage since it's purportedly very difficult to put up towers.
I have been carrying a work issued cellphone and a personal one since 1995, having had all providers in the South Florida area and for travel I would never give up ATT until I get international support and simultaneous data and voice from another provider. I have had the opportunity to compare side by side and in most datacenter facilities my ATT phone would work yet my VZW handset would not. Not empirical data, just my experiences. TMo and Sprint were horrendous for me, though I loved the idea of UMA. I'd love for the future to contain a great network with all the features I need and the ability to quickly switch devices via a SIM card change. Here's to hoping.

ioo says:

Add together HTC's Android and Win, and they are at 20%. Closing in on Apple. Thats why Apple is coming down on them so hard.

ChrisFricke says:

It's interesting to HTC doing so well. I would have thought Motorola would top the Android space. It's also interesting to note that HTC is up to half the market space of Apple. It's almost getting to the point where the discussed comparison will be manufacturer based instead of platform based. Maybe that will get us past the rabid IOS vs Android fanboi-ism. Yeah probably not...

I wonder what this will look like next year?

I think there's a mis-wording in the article. Among the devices running Android, HTC has 36%, Moto 28%, Samsung 21% and the rest 15%. The numbers in the colored segments are the percentages of that particular segment across the entire US smartphone market.

Interesting that HTC with 20% of all US smartphones is now tied for second with RIM. I've had HTC my entire smartphone life, and I'm glad to see them rise from the OEM of the carriers to a powerhouse in their own right.

DWR_31 says:

I like the way this graph lets you get an idea of how many handsets a manufacturer is pumping out.
Adding the percent numbers of each of the same color together gets a rough idea of how many handsets are being sold. HTC isn't far behind Apple from a manufacturing stand point.

Maybe thats why Apple is suing HTC.

smotrs says:

"HTC holds a slim lead with 14 percent market share"

Actually, if you look at the numbers, HTC has a 20% share if you include the WinMo devices as well from the far right column.

EDIT: Looks like ChicagoPete noticed the same thing a couple posts above me.

cys920622 says:

Not sure how credible this is when they can't even spell Android.