You Are Here:

Community: Blogs

Gabor Torok's Forum Nokia Blog

Smartphone OS market share in 2006

tote_b5 | 20 February, 2007 15:07

An article on smartphone OS market share by region (between 2004 and 2006) made me think. Since I'm an analytical mind and also interested in this topic I've automatically started to compare the two figures. And as the author of the aforementioned article has left the analysis part to us (or was he just too lazy?:), I've taken the effort to draw some conclusions from the figures.



So, let's take the regions one by one as shown on the figures!
- European, Middle-East and Africa (EMEA): Symbian still rules smartphone OS market here.
- In Japan almost the whole market was ruled by Symbian in 2004. This has significantly changed by 2006 since Linux has appeared on the horizon with its ~40%! I bet Symbian is not too happy about it, even if they have shipped lots of new phones in Japan recently.
- China: first, let's start with that Microsoft was present on the market in 2004. In contrast, their market share has dramatically shrunk almost to non-existent by 2006. Second, Linux is yet again an important factor that analysts and more importantly phone manufacturers must take into account in 2006. Its roughly 40% market share is very considerable. Third, the strange thing is that Symbian's market share has remained intact during these two years - it's still around 60%.
- North-America: one of the strangest markets - at least from our analysis' point of view! In 2004, Palm phones were dominating the smartphone market (~50%). Their market share, though, has dramatically shrunk to less than half of their previous share (now ~20%). The same pattern can be observed with regards to the popularity of Symbian OS - but with different numbers. In 2004, Symbian was the second smartphone OS vendor dominating 30% of the market - in contrast they're now the fourth with their ~10%! Who won then? Surprise-surprise: Microsoft! They were the third most popular OS vendor in 2004 (~10%) and now they're the #1 with ~30%! The last observation is that RIM has pretty much gained position - they're the second now.
- Finally, the rest of the world (ROW): well, similarly to EMEA market Symbian phones are in monopoly.

As a brief summary my findings are as follows. Symbian's hegemony is noticable all around the world. In most places more than half of the smartphone OS market is in their hand(held)s. :) With one exception, though: North-America. There are couple of interesting articles (on SymbianGuru, Darla Mack's and Tommi's blogs) as to why Symbian, most notably S60 phones are not present in North-America so it wasn't surprising for me to see the trend. It came as no surprise, either, that Microsoft is just there in North-America - what I found interesting, though, that basically this is the only market where they are taken into account at all. Finally, it's already a cliche that Linux phones are coming. LiMo, MontaVista's Mobilinux and TrollTech are just a few keywords everybody blessed with a little foresight might want to memorize. Japan and China are two countries where experiments are being made with mobile linux - and their success seems to be tangible. But let's not continue the debate on which mobile platform is the best and more importantly who will win in the long run. On the one hand, that's impossible to predict, on the other hand it's worth another article. :)

Anything to add?

Tote

RSSComments

Re: Smartphone OS market share in 2006

mgroeber9110 | 20/02/2007, 16:33

One thing I find a bit misleading about this type of statistics from a developer perspective is that some distinctions that are important for "us" are not made here (of course, in addition to the perennial discussions about what exactly should be counted as a smartphone):

- Symbian smartphones in Japan, as well as (probably) many Linux phones are fairly locked-down systems that can only be developed for in very close co-operation with a manufacturer

- Recently, what has struck me even more is the complete absence of Brew as a development platform in most statistics: in many respects, I think it would qualify sufficiently as an "open" platform, albeit being mainly on mid-range phones, and with comparatively heavy signing requirements. But with Symbian tightening access controls somewhat in 3rd Edition, while moving into the mid-range themselves, I think the distinction becomes progressively more difficult to make in a meaningful way.

- A similar argument could be made for including RIM, but excluding all other J2ME phones.

Of course, the exact numbers you would be interested in eventually depend very much on your business model, and also the point you want to make - but I always find it amazing how difficult it seems to be to segment this market in a way so that everyone agrees.

Re: Smartphone OS market share in 2006

tote_b5 | 20/02/2007, 22:23

tote_b5 I found the following definition of smartphones on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone. I'm not sure how much we can rely on its accuracy, though. Nevertheless, it explicitly mentions that a BREW device is *not* a smartphone, but more like a feature phone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_Phone).

And indeed, I agree that it's very difficult to define a sharp line between smartphones and non-smart ones. For example, why is a Linux phone a smartphone if it's basically entirely closed? And on the other hand, BREW is not considered a smartphone even though it's open. There's just no single feature that makes a phone smartphone, and the definition still remains so vague that there is still room for different interpretations.

Re: Smartphone OS market share in 2006

JOM | 28/02/2007, 10:41

JOM Everyone has a different definition for smartphone, therefore statistics are just... Well :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

What I would like to see is statistics of all possible devices which can use 3rd party software, no matter whether it is "smartphones", BREW or Nokia S40 phones. On the other hand partially closed systems would still be difficult to categorize: you can install sw into japanese phones, but only if you are approved by operator. Getting that approval is close to impossible, even for japanese companies, so from my european point of view those phones are not "open".

Btw Access is also important player in mobile linux world.

--jouni

Re: Smartphone OS market share in 2006

tote_b5 | 28/02/2007, 12:00

tote_b5 Well,

The report was about smartphones only, that's something I cannot change. But I would say that maybe even the value of such a report that considers 3rd party support in general would be less than this report. You know, 3rd party applications can do much less on a phone that is "not smart enough". People won't buy those phones, because they have 3rd party support, but most probably as they're cheaper than smartphones. Nevertheless, I would also like to see such a detailed report or some figures at least that shows these phones regardless of how "smart" they are.

As to Access: the report treats Linux phones as a package so maybe Access is also included in that package. I doubt it, though, as Palm is mostly popular in North-America and I also suspect that those phones are not based on Linux yet.

Re: Smartphone OS market share in 2006

mathiastck | 30/08/2007, 01:18

In terms of market share, J2ME vastly outnumbers BREW, which vastly outnumbers Symbian, last I checked.

I would say J2ME is the only "open" platform, and many handsets run proprietary versions of java, or handicap the JVM with so many layers of required signing that even java is effectively closed on the handset.

I definitely wouldn't call BREW an "open" platform, there are lots of barriers to entry in developing in BREW, and getting a BREW app on a development handset. There are even more barriers in trying to get your finished app to consumers.

Re: Smartphone OS market share in 2006

tote_b5 | 30/08/2007, 10:50

tote_b5 Well, as seen in the figures neither J(2)ME nor Brew is mentioned, I guess, due to the fact that they're NOT considered as "smartphone" OSes. Actually, Java itself is not an OS - I guess it's not surprising for anyone. For these reasons, it does not make sense to make comparisons between these systems in terms of *smartphone* operating systems.

Although I have not used (nor seen) any Brew phones yet, I've heard that it's really difficult to develop for it. And although I'm not a JME expert, either, I have heard that it's not trivial to write a cross-brand Java application. Despite this, I don't think that JME phones (i.e. phones having some sort of JVM running) are effectively closed phones. In this respect I think they're as open as S60 and UIQ phones are.

Tote

testing this one...

Dog training | 25/11/2007, 22:42

Very interesting... as always! Cheers from -Switzerland-.
You must login to post comments. Login
 

Rate This

 
 
Bookmark this page: DeliciousDiggFacebookGoogleYahooStumbleUponRedditDiigoTechnocratiTwitter  Share this page Share this page Print this Page Print this page Invite a friend Invite a friend
京ICP备05048969号    Email Newsletters Press Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy Sitemap Contact Us © 2009 Nokia 
RDF Facets: qdcZidentifierQSxhttpE3aE2fE2fblogsE2eforumE2enokiaE2ecomE2fblogE2fronE2dliechtysE2dforumE2dnokiaE2dblogE2f2009E2f09E2f22E2fbriefE2dforumE2dnokiaE2dmaintenanceX qdcZtypeQUqfnZE45E78cludedFromGeneralE4cistingsQ qdcZtypeQUqfntypeZBlogContentQ qdcZtypeQUqfntypeZBlogE45ntryQ qdcZtypeQUqfntypeZCommunityContentQ qdcZtypeQUqfntypeZE52esourceQ qdcZtypeQUqfntypeZWebpageQ qdcZtypeQUqmarsZManagedE52esourceQ qdcZtypeQUqwebZInformationE52esourceQ qdcZtypeQUqwebZPageQ qdcZtypeQUqwebZE52esourceQ qdcZtypeQUqrdfsZE52esourceQ qfnZtopicQUxhttpE3aE2fE2fswE2enokiaE2ecomE2fFNE2d1E2fBlogTopicE2fgeneralX qfnZtypeQUqfntypeZBlogContentQ qfnZtypeQUqfntypeZBlogE45ntryQ qfnZtypeQUqfntypeZCommunityContentQ qfnZtypeQUqfntypeZE52esourceQ qfnZtypeQUqfntypeZWebpageQ qmarsZlanguageQUxhttpE3aE2fE2fswE2enokiaE2ecomE2flanguageE2d1E2fenX qrdfZtypeQUqfnZE45E78cludedFromGeneralE4cistingsQ qrdfZtypeQUqfntypeZBlogContentQ qrdfZtypeQUqfntypeZBlogE45ntryQ qrdfZtypeQUqfntypeZCommunityContentQ qrdfZtypeQUqfntypeZE52esourceQ qrdfZtypeQUqfntypeZWebpageQ qrdfZtypeQUqmarsZManagedE52esourceQ qrdfZtypeQUqwebZInformationE52esourceQ qrdfZtypeQUqwebZPageQ qrdfZtypeQUqwebZE52esourceQ qrdfZtypeQUqrdfsZE52esourceQ
User Rating: qfnZuserE5FratingQNx2E2E5000X
RDF Facets: qfnZuserE5FtagQSxreX