Clicky, a real-time analytics service, recently updated their global dashboard stats (aggregate data from nearly 150,000+ web sites) that includes a special report on the Motorola Droid.
Currently, the Droid holds 1.86% of mobile web usage. Android devices across the board have a total of 5.12% mobile web market share. Compare this to the iPhone, which holds a 49.6% mobile market share. The Droid and all other Android based devices seem to be posing no threat to the iPhone, at least for now.
I must admit, I am a bit disappointed in Android as a whole when looking at these numbers. Nearly every U.S. network has a device comparable to the iPhone (and in some ways, surpassing it), so why isn’t the Android gaining mobile market share?
Because the Android browser is excruciatingly painful to use.
As a G1 owner, and someone that has played with the Droid extensively, I can safely say that the browser is unpleasant. Features such as pinch and zoom that made browsing on the iPhone so pleasant are not available in U.S. based Android devices. In general, the browser feels slow and clunky, not good for a device that touts its ability to go mobile.
This makes me avoid using the browser, while on my iPod Touch I find excuses to use it. It’s the little things like this that will keep Android down.
You either provide a great experience in the mobile world or you don’t. The iPhone is still providing a superior experience, and it shows in the numbers.
Well, the iPhone has nearly a 2.5 year head start on the Droid, and a 1.5 year head start on Android in general, so it’s gonne take a while for Android to make serious headway – but there’s no doubt it will happen.
Also, the iPhone has serious marketing behind it. Prior to the Droid, I never saw any ads for an Android phone on TV or the internet. The Droid finally marketed itself and it’s obviously succeeding, with ~1/3 of the total Android marketshare in the US.
I agree the browsing isn’t as good the iPhone but I find the experience good enough. Also, pages load a lot faster for me on the Droid than my iPhone, so that more than makes up for it.
Agreed on all points mostly, except the last one.
I have used the Droid phone numerous times (don’t own one though) and it just seemed slower than my 32 gig touch.
Of course, this isn’t an official test by any means.
Sorry but your story is ridiculous. Droid has only been out for a few weeks….you can’t compare it to the iPhone which has been out for 3 years!
And as cool as some of the Android phones have been, the Droid is the first real, full on competitor to the iPhone.
Give it some time….
Oh but I can bro.
You forget, that is a bloggers job :D
Have you ever used the internet browser on the Droid? I’ve heard it gets a 93/100 on the acid test and the iphone browser gets 97/100. So yes, the iphone’s browser is better, but only loads pages faster about a couple seconds faster than the droid. Now, what does your browser on the G1 score on the acid test?
I have used the Droid many times, as I have mentioned in the post.
The Droid and G1 would get the same results on the Acid3 test (they are both running a simplified version of chrome might I add). Just ran an Acid3 test, 93/100.
And there’s a lot of proof backing up that merely seconds of differences in load times make a huge difference.
Desktop Chrome gets an 83/100 on the Acid3 test, I believe. But the iPhone, droid, and Chrome all have browsers based off of Webkit HTML 5. Not sure about the G1. Would be glad to be informed as to whether it is or not.
I fundamentally believe the iPhone’s success will not be surpassed by Android powered devices. In a sense the entire comparison is not a valid one as the iPhone is a *single device* while Android is an open mobile telephony platform which is used by *many* device manufacturers to power their *many* devices.
Somebody at Apple Insider has put it the right way and I simply love and agree with his quote:
“Google only wants to give phone makers and providers enough code to allow them to deliver their own customized, distinguished products so that it can continue its core business of selling ads and paid search to mobile users. Those partners actually want to have control over differentiated, compelling features that they can use to sell their Android phones in competition with other Android makers.
So rather than Android being a platform being pushed forward by Google, it will largely be advanced by Motorola, HTC, Sony Ericsson, and other makers who all have a history of making dozens of phones with terrible user interfaces and bizarre bundled apps and hardware features that are poorly implemented.
The commonality between these devices will be that they all run Dalvik bytecode and have an open source kernel, something that few Android users will care anything about.
Essentially, Android isn’t Google’s phone platform, it’s an open alternative for failing hardware makers to use in place of Symbian, Windows Mobile, and Linux to create the same type of convoluted, fractionalized, and poorly integrated products they’re already making. This is also why Symbian, Windows Mobile, Motorola, and Sony Ericsson are all failing commercially.
Google’s primary and most significant contribution won’t be any major innovation in the core Android platform but rather in its own bundled apps, where Google plans to earn its revenues from via, to put it bluntly, adware and spyware. It should not be a surprise to see that Google is motivated to do things that advance the company’s profitability rather than create free value for other companies at monumental expense to itself.
Google has no interest in making Android phones work well with a media app like iTunes because it doesn’t have one; it has no motive to develop hardware integration with home theater or WiFi products because it doesn’t sell them; it has no need to line up major software vendors or games developers for Android because it doesn’t make any money selling hardware, and there’s really very little money involved in creating and maintaining a third party software store.”
I agree just about 100% with what Ralf above says; and have a few points to add:
Like the Mac, where Windows is (and always has been) a poor knockoff, the iPhone is the original, and the Droid/Google platform is a cheap knockoff.
Unlike the Mac, the device is not significantly more expensive, or in a minority marketshare with a monolithic platform of comparable devices, and is not in immediate (or even near future) danger of being edged out by a knockoff, as the Mac was with Windows.
I truly don’t care that Droid’s phone has 5Mpx camera, removable battery, open (much more hackable) development platform. Me and my partners develop quite fine on iPhone, thank you very much, have paid our dev fee to Apple (or have the choice of going the hacked route if that’s your passion). It certainly isn’t enough to make me switch to a klunkier device that looks and feels like a poor imitation of the iPhone with half its software features.
Do I wish the iPhone had the features above? Sure, of course, but why stop at 5Mpx camera and removable battery? Why not an HD video recorder and 12Mpx, and large capacity/slimline batteries, and a host of other features that WOULD be a compelling switch to another device, when combined with comparable software and UI responsiveness.
I frankly think the Palm Pré would have had a better chance, if it wasn’t so limited in its feature set, and lack of access to its hardware or real programming language.