It's becoming clear that "shipments" is a bogus metric that obscures whether products are actually selling to consumers. Accordingly it shouldn't be used to measure market share. Sales to consumer-end users is really the only valid market-share metric. Yet IDC, Strategy Analytics, Canalys and others persist in reporting "shipments." These numbers are easier to measure and capture than actual sales.
But OEMs can also manipulate the perception of market share by reporting "shipments." For example Samsung misrepresented their tablet sales by reporting "shipments." So did RIM. And Microsoft also did this early on with Windows Phone "shipments" to show momentum that had yet to really develop. And there are many other such examples.
It fair to say that in many cases there is a positive correlation between shipments and sales for popular products. However as the examples above suggest it's not always true. Samsung claimed 1 million Galaxy Tab (7") shipped but popular reports put actual sales at well below 100,000 units.
One of the big stories today is Samsung becoming the world's top smartphone vendor. That may well be true; Samsung has had enormous success with Android and it's the leading Android OEM in North America and now globally. According to numbers released by Strategy Analytics, Samsung shipped nearly 28 million handsets in Q3 vs. 17 million for the iPhone.
The only problem is that's an "apples to oranges" comparison. Apple actually sold 17+ million iPhones in the quarter (vs. shipped). Recently Strategy Analytics, using the same "shipped" methodology, incorrectly estimated tablet market share.
As tablet OEMs release their dismal numbers we're seeing just how off "shipments" can be as an indicator of true penetration. Accordingly hardware tracking firms should shift to a consumer-sales metric rather than the more manipulable and opaque "shipped" concept.
Having said all that I don't doubt that Samsung is selling millions of smartphones and may indeed have taken the top spot from Apple. We just don't know how many the company actually sold.
Another piece of interesting information related to Samsung Android sales involves the amount of patent-licensing fees that may be changing hands. I was told (caveat: double hearsay) that Samsung is now paying Microsoft $18 per Android handset in IP licensing fees. This is in contrast to the widely reported $15 figure. Eighteen dollars is apparently the same amount that HTC pays, according to the same source, while other Android vendors are paying less.
I don't know if all this is accurate information, but I was surprised by the relatively high $18 per handset figure. This is pretty close to what I understand Microsoft charges for its own Windows Phone license. As a colleague of mine remarked, "this is the best business model I can imagine." And if we assume that about 85% of Samsung's smartphone "shipments" are Android handsets (that may be conservative) and Microsoft is getting $18 per unit that means the company would have made approximately $414 million in Q3 on Samsung Android handsets alone. Impressive.
The dominant shopping paradigm is "research online, buy offline." However there's a growing segment of consumers who use local retail stores as "showrooms" for e-commerce sites and specifically Amazon (the dominant etailer). There have been many anecdotal reports and surveys documenting this behavior. It was even explicitly discussed on the previous Best Buy earnings call.
While this offline-->online shopping has long been possible, as long as the Internet has existed, the behavior is more common among smartphone owners, according to survey data from Retrevo.
According to the same survey the three dominant scenarios for in-store smartphone usage are: price comparisons, deals/coupon search and product reviews.
These findings are echoed by survey (n=1,000) released today by Performics showing how consumers use smartphones in retail stores. InsightExpress also has similar data.
Retailers need to invest both in strong customer service for their retail stores and offer high-quality mobile apps that can both answer questions for in-store shoppers and provide e-commerce options if the consumer doesn't want to buy in store or has to ship an item.
According to a new survey of 8,585 US adults, released by the National Retail Federation, consumers plan bring the full authority of their mobile and tablet devices to bear on the challenge and opportunity of holiday shopping. More than anything else the survey data reflect the degree to which people have come to rely on these relatively new tools for shopping.
Smartphones -- Almost 53% of smartphone owner-respondents said they will use their phones in holiday shopping in some form:
Tablets -- Just over 70% of tablet owners said they will use their "pads" for shopping and buying:
Jumptap is also out today with its monthly metrics newsletter on the heels of one from Millennial Media. The most noteworthy piece of data in this report involves the results of an examination of the relative performance of "standard mobile banners" vs. rich media ads:
We ran an experiment to see how close we could get to isolating rich media as a performance factor, reviewing over 300 million campaign impressions, across several major advertisers that ran both rich and standard media with similar creative and messaging.
As you might expect the rich media ads outperformed the banners. But they did so by a significant margin:
Jumptap acknowledges that this wasn't a perfect comparison ("similar creative and messaging") but I believe the data are reflective of a performance gap between the two media types or units.
Jumptap also reported that 56% of its advertisers used one form of targeting in September, while 8% used two forms and 2% used three or more types. By comparison, 34% used no targeting at all. Among the several forms of targeting location (by MSA) was the most common form (33%).
In terms of landing pages and actions: click-to-web (76%) and click-to-download (23%) were the "preferred actions." I wonder how many of that 76% have mobile optimized sites or landing pages. I'd wager at least 50% do not.
According to the Jumptap data, mobile ad clickers tend to be higher income ($50K+), male 2:1 over female and 35-75 years old, with the highest concentration in the 55 to 75 age range. In terms of platforms, Symbian sees the most clicks, followed by iOS, RIM and Android in that order.
Average mobile display CTR is 0.50; on the PC it's roughly between 0.1 and 0.3.
Like Millennial, Jumptap now sees twice as many Android devices on its network compared to iOS (47% vs. 23%). Millennial reported 56% of handsets were Android and 28% iOS.
Millennial Media's latest SMART report is out and the story is familiar: Android is the top platform, while the iPhone is the top individual device. RIM is still holding its own in the top 20 devices and Windows Phones still haven't shown meaningful growth.
In July of 2010 smartphones constituted 49% of the devices on Millennial's network (immediately below). Now smartphones represent 72% of all devices on Millennial's network. While they'll never reach 100% (because of tablets and other "connected devices"), by Q1 of next year the number of smartphones on the network will probably be closer to 90%.
Android devices represent 56% of all the handsets showing up for Millennial, while iOS has a 28% share. Accordingly, Android's share is now double iOS on Millennial's network. However Apple outperforms its relative share in terms of monetization, while Android under-performs: Apple devices generate 41% of monetized impressions on Millennial's network vs. 49% for for Android.
We've got way too many analyst firms estimating market share based on "shipped" rather than "sold" hardware devices. Joining that esteemed club, this morning Strategy Analytics put out tablet data saying that iPad and Android tablets combined for 94% marketing share in Q3:
Global tablet shipments reached 17 million units in the third quarter of 2011. Apple iOS and Android dominate the worldwide market with a combined 94 percent share . . . Apple shipped a record 11.1 million iPads and registered a healthy 67 percent global tablet market share during the third quarter of 2011. Apple iOS remains the world’s dominant tablet platform with the most established services ecosystem.
As the company's press release above says, Strategy Analytics estimated Apple's Q3 tablet market share at 67%. But that's not an accurate reflection of the iPad's market share overall -- though journalists and bloggers will report it that way.
Effectively Apple and Android combine to form 100% of the "tablet" market in terms of devices sold. If we include eReaders, which implicates Kindle and others, then the 94% figure is probably accurate or close. Strategy Analytics is estimating on the basis of tablets "shipped" rather than "sold," which leads to distortion of the numbers. Samsung shipped many more Galaxy Tab devices than it actually sold.
Let's look at the actual numbers.
Android boss Andy Rubin said this week at the "D" conference in Asia that there were "more than six million Android tablets out there." That also doesn't mean "sold to consumers." But it's helpful as a figure representing the total universe of Android tablets "in market." By contrast Apple has actually sold 40 million iPads to date.
If we exclude eReaders from the "tablet" market, the numbers above show Apple with an 85% market share and Android with 15%. But the Android figures also probably include tablets shipped but not actually sold (as with the Samsung G-Tab example). So Apple's market share is probably closer to 90%.
Indeed, in June of this year comScore put out data that argued the iPad delivers “89 percent of tablet traffic across all markets.” In the US the figure was 97 percent. We can safely assume that in the US the number is now somewhat lower -- but not much.
Kindle Fire is selling well and will greatly boost Android's share numbers. But the implication that more than 30% of the market is now controlled by non-Apple tablets is simply wrong.
You've all seen the discussion of Apple's "disappointing" $28.3 billion quarter yesterday. I've extracted just the numbers from the release and earnings call yesterday.
During the quarter Apple sold:
Totals in the market:
Google announced a "blockbuster" quarter yesterday: revenues of $9.72 billion which was an increase of 33% vs a year ago. Google handily beat analyts' revenue expectations.
There was also a blockbuster of a statement around mobile advertising. Google CEO Larry Page said that mobile had grown from an annualized run rate of $1 billion to $2.5 billion.
Here are the mobile-related comments and discussion from the earnings call:
Google CEO Larry Page:
I'm super pleased with Google Maps, it's a favorite with our users, especially on mobile devices. In August, we launched in 40 new countries, taking our total to 130 countries. The growth of Android is mind-boggling too. Over 190 million devices have now been activated globally. I'm super excited about the soon-to-be released new version of Android called Ice Cream Sandwich, that's right, Ice Cream Sandwich. You won't believe what we managed to get done in this release.
We're also seeing a huge positive revenue impact from Mobile, which has grown 2.5x in the last 12 months to a run rate of over $2.5 billion.
Nikesh Arora, Senior Vice President and Chief Business Officer:
Larry mentioned $2.5 billion as a run rate. Our revenue growth continues to accelerate even in Mobile, driven primarily by mobile search. This growth, obviously, is driven both by the underlying expansion of Android devices and of tablets, as well as stellar performance of our sales teams who are working closely with our customers to help them craft compelling mobile advertising solutions. Many advertisers have greatly increased the size and frequency of their mobile campaigns. Mobile is becoming a must-have. This includes clients like InterContinental Hotels Group, which spans pretty much across our entire portfolio of properties, including Mobile search, Mobile GDN and AdMob.
To repeat the nuggets:
Despite mixed reactions to the unchanged hardware the iPhone 4S sold out in US carrier pre-orders. Today the device is on sale in stores (as of 8am in the US) and there appear to be enthusisatic crowds waiting around the world. Some financial analysts are estimating that as many as 4 million iPhones could be sold over the course of the weekend.
Several surveys prior to the launch of the iPhone 4S indicated that if there were no hardware changes demand would be significantly less than for a device with a physical redesign (i.e., larger screen). However that doesn't seem to be playing out in practice.
A more recent consumer survey from Retrevo, post-launch, suggests who might upgrade or switch:
Most Android owners appear not to be persuaded by the new device but almost 25% of RIM owners are considering switching. The recent outages at RIM may push wavering BlackBerry users over the line.
The greatest disappointment among those disappointed appears to be lack of 4G speed capability. However the device is considerably faster than the iPhone 4 so that may turn out to be a non-issue for people in practice.
If we can extrapolate from the figures in the first chart above (24% of US smartphone owners) it suggests that as many as 20-25 million iPhone 4S units could be sold in the US market in the near term. Globally the figures could be much larger.
Yesterday comScore released its "digital omnivores" report, which is really about smartphone and tablet usage in major US and international markets. I covered it in preliminary form on Search Engine Land. The report is full of data but it makes the overarching point that smartphones and tablets are now critical platforms for publishers (as well as advertisers). Below I highlight some of the findings.
As a preliminary matter, comScore now says there is 36.1% smartphone penetration in the US (against a base of 234 million adult mobile subscribers). By comparison Nielsen says that smartphone penetration has reached 43%. That's a pretty big discrepancy. Nielsen's figure is probably somewhat more accurate in my view.
Either way, however, we've now crossed the 100 million mobile Internet user threshold. ComScore reported that "The mobile media user population (those who browse the mobile web, access applications, or download content) grew 19 percent in the past year to more than 116 million people at the end of August 2011."
ComScore adds that in the US and UK roughly 7% of Internet traffic is coming from non-PC devices.
It also shows how these devices reflect peaks and valleys at different times of day, with tablets being used much more heavily in the evening.
ComScore also discusses, that despite Android's now greater smartphone population, iOS overall has more users (including iPod Touch and iPad). But the most dramatic slide is the second one below that shows how much more Internet traffic comes from iOS devices.
The report has considerable information about tablet usage. And as the headline suggests, perhaps we should stop talking about "m-commerce" and start talking about "t-commerce" (for "tablet"). Consumers use smartphones for shopping and product comparison information, but they use tablets to buy. This is due almost entirely to the larger form factor. But tablets also beat conventional PC e-commerce in some ways too -- because their more engaging devices.
Retailers and e-commerce sites in particular need to focus on tablets even more than smartphones.
Ad networks Jumptap and Millennial Media are out with their respective data newsletters today. The Millennial missive this time focuses on CPG companies and their campaigns. According to Millennial, most of its CPG advertisers' focus was on branding and awareness, rather than driving people into stores to buy products or app downloads.
Yet one of the primary "post click actions" of CPG campaigns involved sending users to a Facebook page or other social media account. "Mobile Social Media represented 78% of the Post-Click Campaign Action Mix for CPG Advertisers in August," according to Millennial. "CPG advertisers utilized mobile campaigns to drive customers to social media outlets where they could engage with the brands and provide feedback on products."
Consistent with their branding objectives, CPG brands also over-indexed on mobile video as well.
Jumptap presented data on a fairly broad range of topics, from CTR rates by OS to demographics and device marketshare. Jumptap now says that Android devices now deliver almost 50% of the impressions its network and that the Google OS is close to having more than twice the share of the other operating systems combined.
For comparison purposes, here's what comScore said yesterday about smartphone OS share in the US: close but not identical to the Jumptap figures.
Most Jumptap campaigns (see below) appear to be sending people to the mobile Web ("click to Web"). What's not clear from the data is whether these campaigns are sending people to mobile-optimized sites/landing pages or whether they're simply going to conventional PC websites. More likely than not it's the latter, given Google's previous comment than nearly 80% of its top advertisers didn't have a mobile-optimized presence.
Jumptap said that "mobile users age 45-74 have the highest CTR" and that men have 2X CTR of women. Those earning over $50K click on ads 5X more than those under $50K, which Jumptap attributes to higher rates of smartphone ownership among more affluent consumers.
Among targeting methods -- and this is echoed by Millennial's data -- the top tactic was location targeting followed by device/handset targeting and demographic targeting.
Finally, Jumptap compared the top-spending verticals by CTR. The X-axis in the chart below shows spending and the Y-axis shows relative CTR. Entertainment is the vertical that sits in the sweet spot of both, followed by automotive, insurance and technology/electronics.
Prosper Mobile Insights released data from a recent US consumer survey (n=348 smartphone and iPad owners), conducted last month. The survey questions ask a range of things about mobile usage and mobile subscriber attitudes. Below I highlight a few coupon-related findings from the survey.
Q: To what extent do you agree with the following statements about location-based coupons on your mobile device?:
They are very convenient and useful
Those that fall into the "Somewhat/Strongly Agree" category equal 67% or 2/3 of respondents. These data simply confirm many other survey findings that have found consumers are interested in mobile coupons.
Interestingly marketing newsletter MarketingVox focused on the 18% (below) who said they didn't want coupons on their mobile devices, using the contrarian headline: "1 in 5 Mobile Users Don’t Want Coupons."
Q: How would you prefer to receive coupons on your smartphone or tablet? (Check all that apply)
One could group responses in the slide above generally into two categories: push and pull. Any category that requires "affirmative action" on the part of the consumer (e.g., search, QR code scanning) would fall into the "pull" category. Push categories would include email, SMS, geofencing ("automatically when I am near a store").
Social media check-in is more ambiguous but probably falls into the push category more than pull. Here the user is being presented with an offer as incentive to come to a location/store or is being shown an offer after checking in (e.g., "nearby offers").
Respondents were allowed to "check all that apply," so the numbers exceed 100%. Basically these responsdents appear to be saying they want to access coupons in multiple ways, actively and passively.
Using the percentages as points here's how the push vs. pull preferences broke down:
Even as many people are interested in searching for deals -- which is about inventory, relevance and control -- they're more interested in getting deals presented to them. Email was the preferred method of receiving deals information. This may be more about familiarity than anything else.
I am concerned about security issues and my location being tracked
Those who expressed moderate or strong concern about location tracking constituted 44.8% of respondents. This is generally consistent with other survey findings. For example, in Q2 WiFi ad network JiWire found that "53% of all respondents are willing to share location information in exchange for relevant content." That means 47% had concerns about location awareness or tracking.
Accordingly nearly half of the mobile users popular has some ambivalence or concern about giving up location information.
Earlier this month JumpTap released a mobile advertiser and publisher survey, which shows both the growth trajectory of mobile advertising and some of the pain points for marketers.
The survey data, collected from 611 agencies, advertisers and publishers, showed that 79% of respondents were doing some form of mobile advertising but most were spending less than 5% of their budgets; the average was 6%. However they expected to increase spending significantly in the coming year.
Targeting capabilities were the number one thing that advertisers were seeking in mobile, with local/geo and contextual the most desired forms. Most advertisers, seeking reach, went first to ad networks and then to publishers.
This week for in New York at Advertising Week Millennial Media is hosting a panel discussion that ask the question: Will mobile eclipse online? Eventually it may. Earlier this month Flurry Analytics showed that available mobile app inventory/impressions would in fact eclipse PC display if those impressions were fully monetized:
This morning eMarketer released new mobile ad projections that estimate US mobile ad revenues to hit $1.2 billion this year.
That's gratifying to me because the mobile ad forecast that Dan Miller and I did in 2009 ago showed North American mobile advertising to reach $1.4 billion in 2011 -- pretty close to the eMarketer forecast.
It's clear that mobile advertising is ramping very quickly, lead by search marketing but mobile diplay is a big driver of revenue and a money maker for many mobile publishers.
BIA/Kelsey has predicted that 70% of mobile advertising will be locally targeted. I have disputed this assumption; although it gets quickly into the question of "what is a local ad?" If it includes location on a landing page or a store finder, yes most ads will offer something like that. Local ad creative is a different matter, however.
At the Borrell Local-Mobile event yesterday publishers spoke about not making much money on mobile but it being a huge growth area and opportunity. The JumpTap survey data illustrates the challenges to publishers -- especially local publishers -- in providing reach and efficiency to advertisers in mobile.
Earlier this week Google released data showing daily usage patterns of PC, tablet and smartphone users. The data revealed that PCs are used throughout the day but usage peaks between 4pm and 6pm. Smartphones are also used throughout the day but usage steadily climbs and peaks between 9pm and 11pm. Tablets are primarily used at home during the evening.
Flurry Analytics recently compared similar platform usage trends but threw in TV. During traditional "prime time," between 7 pm and 11 pm, TV has the greatest reach. However iOS and Android app usage exceeds TV throughout the day: "compared to relative TV viewing and Internet usage, mobile app usage is higher from 6 am to 6 pm."
Flurry adds that "the combined number of active iOS and Android devices in the U.S. is approximately 110 million." This is a striking number.
Nielsen has said that 43% of US mobile subscribers now have smartphones. If we assume a US audience of roughly 250 million mobile phone users the Nielsen number would put the estimated mobile Internet audience at about 107 million. By contrast comScore assumes a mobile Internet audience of about 82 million based on a total audience of 235 million (35% with smartphones).
The total US Internet audience is roughly 216 million according to comScore. The mobile Internet audience is now about half the total PC audience. However from the data above it appears that mobile users are more active and engaged throughout the day.
Google has been a great source of data and evangelism around mobile usage and advertising. The company is now regularly releasing survey data and exposing some of the usage patterns it is seeing internally in an effort to accelerate awareness of the strategic importance of mobile.
One interesting piece of data released yesterday is on comparative usage of PCs, smartphones and tablets (iPads):
What the data above reflect is that PCs are used throughout the day but usage peaks between 4pm and 6pm. Smartphones are also used throughout the day but usage steadily climbs and peaks between 9pm and 11pm. Tablets are primarily used at home during the evening.
There are obvious implications for publishers and advertisers coming from this and other data that show similar usage behavior.
In a previous Google-AdMob survey 77% of tablet (iPad) owners said that they were using their PCs/laptops less often following their purchase of a tablet. What we can infer from that and the above information is that some of the Internet usage at home that would have been on the PC is now happening on tablets. And this substitution will probably continue and grow as tablet sales grow.
All the data indicate that Android is increasingly taking over in the US market and globally. Recent Nielsen survey data argue that 43% of US mobile phone owners have smartphones now. As an aside figure is quite a bit higher than comScore's 35% number. Nielsen also (confusingly) says that 43% of smartphone owners are Android users (43% of 43%).
Significantly, however, a dominant majority of recent smartphone purchasers are choosing Android devices. The iPhone represents 28% of smartphones -- and an equal number of recent purchases.
Data released last week by ad network Millennial Media showed that Android dominated the sources of ad impressions on the company's network: 54% were from Android handsets, while iOS impressions had a 28% share -- exactly in line with the Nielsen survey data above.
Smartphones and "connected devices" (everything else) accounted for 86% of ad impressions on the network; feature phones delivered 14% of ad impressions vs. 33% in August of last year.
Despite the Android surge, the iPhone remained the top device on the Millennial chart. Herein lies something of a paradox: the iPhone bar far and away the favorite individual device. Yet, in the aggregate, Android is overwhelming it.
A recent survey conducted on behalf of UBS (confirming earlier ChangeWave surveys) shows that the iPhone has the highest loyalty and retention rates of any smartphone. While current customers of other smartphone OEMs are far less loyal, with especially bad news for RIM and Nokia (charts via GigaOm).
The iPhone's "implied retention rate" from this relatively small survey of just over 500 smartphone users is 89%, down somewhat from a year ago but much greater than competing handsets.
On the cusp of iPhone 5's release, there's considerable speculation about the device's impact on the market. It appears that Sprint will finally get the iPhone in the US, although it's less certain to come to beleaguered T-Mobile. This will give the device a boost but probably won't do much to stop Android from continuing its climb to mobile OS dominance.
Comscore has released data this morning on smartphone usage across the "EU5," which encompasses France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. Symbian-based smartphones remain the most prevalent. However they're in decline, while Android devices have now passed the iPhone to become the second most common smartphone type in these five countries.
Comscore says there are roughly 88.4 million smartphone users in the EU5 (Spain and the UK have the greatest smartphone penetration). That compares to comScore's estimate of 81.9 million smartphone owners in the US. By contrast, Nielsen says US smartphone owners comprise 40% of the market or more than 93 million people.
Microsoft mobile operating system handsets (including Windows Phones) are off almost 5%, which is an ominous sign for the coming Nokisoft partnership. However great hardware-software integration could give Europeans a reason to switch or upgrade from existing Symbian handsets.
Below are lists of "mobile content" activities and penetration rates across the EU5, contrasted with the same data from the US market. With the exception of the UK market mobile app usage in Europe is considerably lower than in the US, while text messaging is lower in the US than Europe according to these data.
Nielsen is now measuring the penetration and reach of apps on Android and iOS handsets in the US. The idea is the measure "actual consumer behavior" (rather than survey responses) based on usage patterns of 5,000 US smartphone owners who've agreed to participate.
Other data captured will be: frequency, duration, and size of total audience. Below are some of the data released by Nielsen to promote the new service, showing reach of various apps on Android smartphones:
Between men and women there are some differences. For example, among female Android users, Facebook is the most heavily penetrated Android app after the Android Market itself.
IDC is modeling mobile Internet adoption and growth and its model says that in essentially three years there will be more mobile Web users than those accessing the Internet on PCs. Here's what the firm forecast earlier this morning:
By 2015, more U.S. Internet users will access the Internet through mobile devices than through PCs or other wireline devices. As smartphones begin to outsell simpler feature phones, and as media tablet sales explode, the number of mobile Internet users will grow by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 16.6% between 2010 and 2015 . . .
In addition IDC made the following predictions:
This mobile Internet access forecast may turn out to be aggressive in terms of timing but it will certainly turn out to be true. And it should wake up some complacent companies that still believe they can afford to delay building apps and/or optimizing their websites for mobile.
There are so many publishers and marketers that don't understand (or seemingly don't through their inaction) the poor user experience they present in the absence of a mobile website or smartphone app. Simply relying on mobile browsers to render their existing PC sites is insufficient. And everyone should dump Flash in the process of upgrading for mobile. (Tablets are a bit different because they operate more like PCs.)
Google previously indicated that 79% of its major advertiser-clients still don’t have an optimized mobile presence.
Everyone needs to get used to the idea that in less than a decade smartphones, tablets and other mobile devices will be the primary way the majority of people access Internet content. And, as IDC says, when that happens the Internet will become a very different place.
Several outlets are reporting, based on Net Applications data, that Safari has the largest mobile browser share by a considerable margin. But there's something that doesn't seem exactly right about the numbers.
According to Net Applications Safari has 53% of the mobile browser market compared to Android's 16%. Opera Mini is 21%.
Source: Net Applications
Given Android's recent surge and greater market share in North America (and increasingly outside the US) how could Android be so far behind? There's a comparable discrepancy between Apple's OS share (28%) and browser share (53%).
According to Nielsen Android has a 40% OS share, but Net Applications finds only a 16% browser share. Behaviors and engagement of iPhone and Android users are similar. If 40% of US smartphone owners have Android phones it seems strange that they're only generating 16% of the visits to websites. (The 16% may instead be a global browser share number, which would be even stranger.)
However Net Applications is also capturing tablet activity. Tablets are generally not included in the comScore and Nielsen mobile market share data. That could account for some additional browser share enjoyed by Apple.
For comparison purposes I looked at StatCounter and found this about mobile browser share in North America:
This chart shows that Android has a larger browser share than the iPhone: 29.5% to 25%. However if you combine the iPhone and iPod Touch, Apple's overall share increases to 36% vs. 29% for Android. The iPad isn't reflected in the StatCounter data, which would presumably boost iOS further.
Let's say, hypothetically, that the iPad adds in five more share points, lifting iOS to 44% (vs. 29% for Android). This still doesn't get us close to the 53% in the Net Applications figures above. And if we look at the international data, Apple's position weakens.
In the chart above Apple's devices together command 22% of the mobile browser market to Android's 17%. Again this is without the iPad; but the Apple tablet probably doesn't enjoy a larger share of the browser market than the iPod Touch. Even factoring in five more points for the iPad we can't get anywhere near the Net Applications 53% figure for iOS.
Some of these data are obviously incorrect. My sense is that the StatCounter data are probably closer to the truth.