As there are multiple uses for a smartphone, there is a spectrum of users whose peak usage statistics center around different combinations of apps. The analytics have been crude, but the rough division into two camps seems consistent across multiple reports.

It may well turn out that the iOS group are exactly those users who, more than with other platforms, value the shopping experience itself—ease of discovery and purchase, with a friendly UI, across multiple devices. The other group makes do with a crappy shopping experience or sticks to social networking and messaging.

Horace knows that feature phones cost half of what smartphones cost, and when subsidized with multi year carrier contracts, even become free.

Therefore, consumers are not merely in replacement mode. The cost of replacement is too high.

The smartphone is hired to do a different job than the old feature phone. Since the behavior of Android and iOS users is so different, we wonder why that is. More data are required to escape the smog of speculation.

I hear same thing so one day I challenged two Andiod users to Face Time …… It was funny, they finally got hooked up and then had to wait after each talked, it was kinda like a walkie talkie for face time ….. I laughed and then wife and I showed ours, it was great!

very cheap Android phones are simply replacing very cheap Symbian phones, for the humdred of millions of people who don’t really need a smartphone at all, and so use very little of what they can do.

duh.

I believe that usage patterns are no different from Android to iOS. Third party traffic data doesn’t lie. Effectively Apple has 60% and Android has 30% of the smart-phone market. With iPads, Apple has 80% and Android has 12%.

Why is IBM data important here? I trust IBM to be impartial and non-biased, they have nothing to gain or loose.

These phones are technically Android but cannot run mainstream Android apps and do not provide advertising revenue to Google. So the Android platform does not benefit in any from the sale of these phones and yet they are counted and accepted in the news without question as marketshare proof against iOS.

Add to these the domestically forked versions of Android like Kindle and the BOGO selling campaigns and you end up with little value and diminutive web presence.

Essentially Android is, for the most part, replacing Symbian as the default phone os for dumb phones and dumb people.

Same Day Loans and Bail Bonds.

There’s an (Android) app for that!

iOS users set out to buy a competent mobile computer that may also be a phone.

When you’ve got to dig through a couple of menus to get to the web, and then web experience is jittery/sloppy/insert your own, then people just don’t use it all that much.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been around friends with Android devices who tell me, “My phone does that, too, I just don’t use it.”

Google attempted to emulate MS Windows, but Google didn’t charge for Android, thinking they would make it up on ad $s.

Don’t think it is working for Google.

Are iOS users more engaged? Probably. Is Android vulnerable to eroding market share? Not currently. Will iOS falter in the face of increased competition? Yes.

Will Apple remain profitable in the face of all of this? Probably.

Maybe in the future well see

Kindle os , facebook os, Twitter os, samsung os!!! , all Android ( reskinned ) but not really android.

ANDROID WILL EAT ANDROID