IDC has released updated numbers for its global smartphone forecast (2011- 2015). The firm expects nearly 50% growth in smartphone sales this year on a global basis:
Smartphone vendors will ship more than 450 million smartphones in 2011 compared to the 303.4 million units shipped in 2010. Moreover, the smartphone market will grow more than four times faster than the overall mobile phone market.
During the forecast period IDC expects Apple and RIM to stay flat in terms of overall share. It expects Android to be the big winner becoming the dominant smartphone platform globally by the end of this year and continuing to grow through 2015.
The company also expects that Windows Phones will gain share to reach 20% of the global market. That assumption is based on Nokia's embrace of Windows Mobile and it's global footprint.
Here are the projections:
Almost certainly these figures will turn out to be wrong in one or more ways. However the phenomenal growth of Android cannot be disputed.
Yet Samsung and Motorola, both key Android OEMs, are scheming to diversify their lineups and lessen their dependence on the Google OS. Samsung is pushing Bada and Motorola is contemplating its own OS. This is part of an broader effort to get out of the "commodity" Android realm. Thus far however Samsung has emerged as the global leader in Android handset sales.
If Android growth reaches the anticipated levels in this chart there are huge implications for mobile advertising revenues as well. Google already dominates mobile advertising in the US market. These growth projections would all but ensure continued and even increasing dominance, not only in North America but internationally as well.
They want to see it on a bigger screen -- so says NPD group. The company tracks sales of smartphones and found that those with screens measuring between 3.5 and 3.9 inches had flat sales volumes. But those larger than 4 inches saw significant gains in market share in Q4. According to NPD, the five best-selling handsets with screens over 4 inches were the following:
The iPhone currently has a 3.5 inch screen though rumors surrounding "iPhone 5" suggest the model will have a larger screen.
Screen size was cited in a recent UK and US consumer survey about mobile usability as a reason that some people were dissatisfied with the mobile Internet experience:
In February Antenna Software put out its second annual Mobile Internet Attitudes survey findings. The survey polled "a representative sample of 2,296 consumers, aged 18+ in the UK and 2,079 in the US."
Daily mobile Internet usage is growing but held back somewhat by an overall poor user experience (vs. the PC), slow rendering and perceptions of cost, according to the survey.
The survey found that "one in five Americans use the mobile Internet every day." However 44% "failed to use the mobile Internet, despite having access to it on their mobile phone." Emarketer has a nice chart summarizing the usage frequency data from this survey (US only in the chart):
Antenna found that UK mobile users are slightly more active than US users: 34% of UK mobile users and 33% of US mobile users access the Internet at least once a week, up from 27% and 28% (respectively) in 2010.
Beyond this, 44% of US users said that they would use the mobile Internet more regularly if it were "similar to using the Internet on their personal computer" -- in other words, offered an overall better user experience. Here are the complaints according to the survey:
Poor rendering and small screens:
Speed will improve with 4G, although I don't share that criticism of the mobile Interent. Screen sizes won't get much larger on smartphones but tablets, especially 7" tablets, may address that issue for many people. The cost factor unfortunately is just getting more complicated for consumers.
As carriers try to migrate to usage-based pricing they create confusion and inhibit usage of the mobile Internet, which is their intention. Consumers don't really understand what the usage tiers and data limits mean; they want unlimited usage pricing. Carriers are moving -- or seeking to move -- in the opposite direction. Here's to hoping they're thwarted by competition.
TeleNav has a subscriber base of more than 20 million people, distributed over 600 devices in many countries. The company has done a good job of surviving the free navigation push by Google, Nokia and more recently Mapquest. It has an enterprise business as well as a direct consumer business. TeleNav also powers many of the carrier navigation services.
Earlier this week the company put out an "infographic" with some top-level US data about navigation usage. (As an aside I wish companies would stop putting out these so-called infographics for PR purposes. People pick them up, just as I have, but they make reading and understanding the data more difficult than it needs to be. It's a gimmick that should come to an end in my view.)
The chart shows that the top places US TeleNav users are navigating to. It also stands as a kind of unintended indictment of Americans' tastes and behavior.
The most searched/navigated locations are Wal-Mart, Target, Starbucks, Best Buy. McDonald's is in there at number 6. Navigational queries like this (name-in-mind searches) represent about 60% of local searches coming from mobile devices currently. Collectively Pizza, American (food) and Burgers represent about 63% of restaurant-related queries. And among them McDonald's and Pizza Hut figure prominently.
Separately TeleNav conducted a survey of drivers and found, among other things, that:
Nearly 25 percent of both sexes reported sending at least one text message while driving per week. Men texted the most, with 36 percent of those who text while driving indicating they send an average of seven or more texts per week while on the road. In contrast, only 23 percent of women admitted to texting as frequently.
Below is a video demo of the current version of TeleNav (as AT&T Navigator):
Millennial Media's "Mobile Mix" report for February is out. It reflects device usage on Millennial's ad network, which the company says (per IDC) is the largest "independent" network, after Google and Apple. Among the stats offered by the company:
Moving on, there are a number of interesting observations to be made from the "Top 30 Mobile Devices" chart below.
The Galaxy Tab is the number 7 device on the list. In January Samsung announced that it had sold two million of the devices. However it was later forced to clarify that those were not sales to consumers but sales to distributors. The actual consumer sales figures are significantly less -- perhaps less than half the announced number. Indeed, while I've seen them in stores, I have not seen one in use in the world by an actual person.
Take a look at the "Google Insights for Search" chart below. This is for the last 30 days but it looks very similar going back. There is effectively no demand, as reflected in search volume, for the "Xoom" or the "Galaxy Tab." Accordingly, given all the available evidence, we can safely assume that almost all consumer sales of the Galaxy Tab have stopped or declined to a trickle.
There are likely relatively few Galaxy Tabs actually in the market. This probably means that to be in the seventh position on Millennial's chart those few devices are getting very heavy usage -- especially in comparison to other Android smartphones.
Alternatively it could mean that sales of those devices below the Tab on the chart were fewer than the Tab itself. That would probaby be an incorrect interpretation however. More likely the data reflect that the Tab is being used much more than other Android devices and all the BlackBerry handsets, for mobile Web access.
This brings to mind InsightExpress' comment in its recent consumer insights report that there's a new "a middle category" of mobile users who technically own smartphones but don't engage with them as fully as, for example, iPhone owners. InsightExpress equally observed that this middle group doesn't act like feature phone owners either.
Extrapolating from the position of the Galaxy Tab vs. other Android devices on Millennial's network it would appear that a large percentage of Android users fall into this new middle category.
Since I'm writing about all these smartphone user studies I might as well throw in another one from Chadwick Martin Bailey. It takes up a range of questions surrounding shopping an mobile commerce. The data were drawn from an online survey of 1,491 adults during the week of January 20, 2011.
The survey finds more than half of smartphone owners using them during shopping and the number jumps to 67% for those under 35. For iPhone owners the numbers are higher: 72% report they use their devices in-store. In addition, 41% of iPhone owners report making purchases on their devices.
The main things people are doing, according to this survey, are comparing prices, finding stores, seeking deals and reading reviews:
Here are the apps they report using on their smartphones. I'm a little surprised to see barcode scanning at the top:
Among the major platforms more iPhone owners buy things on their phones (if that's media or apps, it's because of iTunes):
What are they buying? Here is the hiearchy according to the study:
Finally many users express concerns about privacy and/or security with m-commerce and use of apps.
It seems like a perfect reverse bell curve: on one side are the 26% of users who will download and use an app once. On the other side are 26% of users who will become loyalists, using the app more than 10 times. The other 48% are in the middle and represent more casual users.
These data come from mobile analytics firm Localytics, which looked at thousands of new app downloads across smartphone platforms between July and September 2010. The firm then counted how many times the apps were used through March 2011.
It would thus seem that building up that active core of loyal users -- assuming that the app itself is worthy of usage -- is entirely a function of download volume. And download volume is a function of visibility and consumer awareness.
Yahoo released a mobile white paper called "Mobile Internet – Delivering on the Promise of Mobile Advertising." It's part one of a series. There's a great deal of mobile consumer data in the document. The report covers multi-screen usage (TV + mobile) and tablets in addition to laying out some general mobile consumer behavior numbers and trends.
Citing third party data the report asserts that by the end of 2011 there will be 126 million mobile Internet users. Currently there are more than 90 million in the US according to Nielsen. I would estimate that at the end of 2011 mobile Internet users will number closer to 150 million.
Yahoo cites survey data that shows about 50% of consumers claim they purchase an item after researching it on mobile, while "90% of mobile owners access the web from the retail store floor." Google has slightly different numbers but they're broadly consistent (79% of smartphone owners use their phones while shopping and 74% purchased something as a result).
Yahoo also identifies mobile Internet usage patterns, which appear to be largely parallel during week days and on the weekend. Google and others have argued that PC and mobile usage patterns are complementary.
Here's Google's data about PC and mobile Internet "daypart" usage (via Efficient Frontier). It shows a slightly different pattern than the Yahoo data above.
Mobile Internet use is high in the home, as well as on the go. Yahoo said that 89% of mobile users access the mobile Internet at home. In addition, "86% of mobile Internet users surf the Web while watching TV, often searching for information on advertised products."
Mobile devices thus need to be thought about by marketers and publishers in a more holistic sense. Consumers are using them in the home and in conjunction with other media. This media mutlitaksing was previously done via laptop in front of the TV. I would imagine laptops are quickly being replaced by smartphones and tablets.
Finally Yahoo says that when online and mobile advertising are combined there's a significant lift. This is the same argument that has been made about search and display: "1 + 1 = 3." In addition, in terms of effectiveness Yahoo cites case studies that show significant mobile performance gains over PC:
See related post: Report: 43% of Mobile Internet Usage Happening in Home
InsightExpress (courtesy of @jliuzzo) released some terrific mobile consumer survey data today. InsightExpress found that 40% of mobile phone owners under age 45 have smartphones. Overall more than a third of US mobile phone owners now have smartphones. In addition, InsightExpress identified a middle category of mobile users who technically own smartphones but don't engage with them as aggressively and fully as, for example, iPhone owners. However they don't act like feature phone owners either.
InsightExpress found that 43% of mobile Internet usage is going on at home, which is both very interesting and going to be somewhat challenging for marketers.
Top three activities done at least once per week by smartphone owners:
Eight seven percent (87%) of mobile phone owners have used their phones "in a store;" 56% of smartphone owners have visited a retail store website on their phones.
When it comes to receiving marketing messages, consumers appear to overwhelmingly favor email vs. other methods:
According to the survey, more than 1/3 of smartphone owners "look for or use coupons in-store." Grocery is the top category, followed by "general retail," "clothing" and restaurants. In terms of how they wanted to receive coupons on their phones, here were the top three preferences:
Interestingly only 8% (the smallest group) said they wanted to receive coupons as a reward for checking in. This no doubt reflects the smaller adoption of LBS/check-in applications vs. mobile email and SMS -- which people are much more familiar with.
In addition, "50% say they have made a special trip to a store after receiving a mobile coupon."
17% of smartphone owners have downloaded a QR reader application (concentrated in the 25-34 year old group, with males, and iPhone and Blackberry users).
18% of mobile phone owners have purchased something through their phones. The number jumps to 35% for smartphone owners.
As the chart below reflects, consumers will purchase over their mobile devices provided they have an incentive and/or the friction is taken out of paying, through a stored credit card or carrier billing -- so they don't have to enter 16 digits on the small screen.
Mobile ad network InMobi today released its "Mobile Insights Report: Global Edition January 2011." The report effectively covers all major regions of the globe and there's a trove of data from each continent. I'll focus only on North America and global data.
The company reports that smartphones now represent 36% of global ad requests on the InMobil publisher network, up from 24% -- just three months ago. Most of that growth has been driven by Android. But most ad requests (84%) are coming from mobile Web vs. apps (16%).
Unlike in the US where Android is now the top smartphone platform, Nokia and Apple outstrip Android on a global basis. However Android's growth is much greater than that of the iPhone and Nokia is declining by almost as much as Android is growing.
In North America operating system share appears like this to InMobi:
InMobi explains that Android has gained 21 share points in just three months to become the largest OS in North America.
These numbers are not an absolute reflection of market share but what InMobi sees in terms of handsets and operating systems making ad requests. In terms of individual handsets, the iPhone continues to dominate on InMobi's network globally and in North America.
Global device share:
North American device share:
It's clear from the totality of all the available data that Android's gains are coming through the sheer number of devices in the market. Windows isn't on the radar for InMobi in North America. And RIM appears to be getting overwhelmed by the Android onslaught.
There have been a flurry of reports from Nielsen and comScore that have now consistently established Android outselling the iPhone. But now Google has become the clear dominant smartphone platform in the US.
Last Friday when Nielsen put out mobile market share numbers showing that Android had topped RIM and Apple, comScore rushed out a chart showing something similar. However today comScore released its more complete mobile marketshare data:
The impact of the Verizon iPhone is still not reflected here -- the iPhone is flat on a percentage basis -- but Android's momentum continues to grow impressively. And look at RIM; it's slide continues.
Immediately below is December data for comparison purposes:
The following is comScore's data on mobile content usage, which is all pretty flat:
In the chart app usage is growing faster than browser usage, though browser penetration remains greater by a little under 2 points.
It would be interesting to discover whether these Android users are upgrading from feature phones or BlackBerry devices. It's curious to me that we have all these new Android handsets in the US market but not that much more mobile Internet usage.
Nielsen has released some new US data that shows, in terms of the OS, Android pulling ahead in the US of RIM and Apple:
- Android (29%)
- RIM Blackberry (27%)
- Apple iOS (27%)
However when the firm looks at hardware OEMs it finds that "RIM and Apple [are] the winners compared to other device makers." Apple and RIM have 27% share each, while HTC has the largest share of the individual Android OEMs.
Nielsen also reveals some smartphone demographics. It shows Android as generally more popular with younger users.
That's no doubt a function of the fact that Android offers a range of inexpensive devices and increasingly with prepaid carrier plans.
Here's comparable comScore data confirming the Android lead:
I presented yesterday at a conference called SEMpdx, which is a search conference in Portland. My presentation was on "Mobile Marketing Strategies & Tactics." Reid Spice of iCrossing was my co-presenter. Prior to the session we had an informal discussion about mobile search, CPC pricing and "inadvertent clicks" on mobile ads. The latter was tied to a survey that got fairly wide (and uncritical) attention at the end of last month. The survey was sponsored by mobile lead-generation company Pontiflex and conducted by Harris (in December, 2010).
There were a wide range of findings from the survey, which was conducted either twice or in two parts and had more than 4,000 total responses from US adults. The survey asked a number of questions about apps, advertising and mobile user behavior. However the big headline and finding that got all the attention was "47 percent of mobile app users say they click/tap on mobile ads more often by mistake than they do on purpose."
Other survey findings included the following:
The press release pulled out a piece of segmented data that is even more pronounced: "61 percent of mobile apps users ages 18-34 click/tap on mobile ads by accident more often than on purpose." The "message" conveyed by these findings is that people frequently click ads by mistake and so clicks are a false metric and unreliable as a measure of the efficacy of mobile advertising. Let me say that I absolutely agree with that statement; clicks are a false metric that mobile marketers should walk away from.
However there are a couple of problems here. Self-reported data and "behavioral data" are often inconsistent. In other words, what people say they do and what they actually do may not always line up. So as a fundamental matter we don't know whether people are in fact clicking by mistake more often than not. And we don't have a "control" or baseline metric for the PC to compare it against. It could well be that there's a high incidence of mistaken clicks online.
As an aside the audiences that click display ads online are "a small, unrepresentative portion of the total online population." According to comScore (2009), "4% of Internet users account for 67% of all display ad clicks." Thus clicks are a really bad metric for the efficacy of display ads on the PC. Yet lazy marketers still use CTR as a measure of ad effectiveness.
Most of the coverage of the Pontiflex survey turned into a kind of "telephone" game that ultimately distorted what the publicly released data said. The coverage, and especially the secondary coverage based on the first stories, turned into: "half of all mobile clicks are inadvertent."
In fact we don't have any sense of what percentage of mobile clicks, according to this survey, may be "bad." We know that 47% of these survey respondents think (key word) that more of their clicks than not are unintentional. It could be. But I'm surprised that nobody who covered this was critical or sought to drill into the data for more information.
I don't disagree with the argument that Pontiflex makes about engagement, lead capture and other KPIs being better vs. clicks. And if these Pontiflex data are supported by other findings from others we could see marketers make a push toward CPA (publishers prefer CPM of course). Networks like OfferMobi are also pushing CPA as a better mobile metric too. One might argue that mobile is better suited to CPA than online in many respects because mobile user behavior is more "action-oriented" than PC user behavior.
If CPA does become the standard in mobile display -- we'll probably see a mix of models however -- that, in turn, might influence online advertisers as well to demand or gravitate toward CPA. Search marketing, whether online or in mobile, will largely remain CTR-based however.
In Q4 and for the past six months Android handsets have outsold Apple's iPhone. However Apple still commands leadership in several areas, including mobile Web OS share in Europe and the US. And if you look at mobile app revenues the gap between iOS and Android is staggering.
The headline being trumpted today is "Android app store revenues grow 861 percent." But take a look at the 2010 actual share of revenues generated by the various app stores:
This again reflects the relatively poor monetization performance of paid apps in the Android market.
Security firm Lookout has put out its "App Genome Report" for February. There's a lot of interesting data about iOS and Android apps and apps stores in there. However I want to focus on two areas of the findings: location and advertising.
Under the heading "personal info," Lookout reports the following about apps that seek user contact information and location:
Apple apps individually request location at the time they're launched or initiated. Typically Android apps notify users of an intent to access location at the time of installation or an update. I would expect the Apple model (or something even more transparent) to become a standard that forthcoming privacy regulations seek to enforce.
Turning to advertising, Google's AdMob dominates monetization for both iOS and Android. However iAd seems to be growing for iOS.
It's striking to see how much more highly penetrated AdMob is than other networks, especially in the Android Market. Accordingly one could argue that Google owns both search and display in the two most important smartphone marketplaces.
Millennial Media put out its monthly "Mobile Mix" device and OS report reflecting the top operating systems and devices accessing publisher sites on its network. The report showed a renewed surge by Apple devices, but Android remained the top smartphone OS. The company also exposed some global OS metrics from Stat Counter.
Here are the highlights:
Here are the smartphone and OS share figures on Millennial's network for January:
Compare November, 2010:
Smartphone penetration has grown and Android has dramatically grown. Apple's OS now accounts for slighly more than half of the ad requests on Millennial's network. Below, however, is global OS market share, showing Android with about half the penetration of iOS.
Velti's Mobclix put out some data a couple of days ago that shows iPhone users are more "valuable" than Android users. Some apps categories are more valuable than others. But across the board, iPhone users buy more and spend more than Android users on apps. Part of that is the lack of a widely penetrated and easy to use payments infrastructure for Android however.
Here's the Mobclix "infographic" showing the differences in value between iPhone and Android users in various app categories:
Once again, it's iTunes that is largely the explanation behind the discrepancy here.
As a kind of related aside, I've seen it reported in several places that Android users "click more" than iPhone users. Mobile ad mediator/exchange Smaato reports on the display ad CTRs of the users of the various operating systems. (Note: CTR is the wrong metric to use to evaluate the efficacy of display ads.)
In December Smaato found that iOS users clicked much more than Android users. But mid-2010 data shows the opposite. Has Smaato has changed its methodology? Are iAds responsible for higher clicks/engagement on iPhones? Or, as Android has grown have CTRs simply become diluted?
It's a curious change. All the operating systems are in roughly the same position except iPhone and Android users, which changed places:
GSMA, the organization behind the Mobile World Congress, commissioned research in January that showed mobile apps generally beating the browser for time spent. The research had a global scope and was performed by European mobile analytics company Zokem.
However apps vs. browser access differed by category according to the findings:
News, search and commerce apps and sites receive much more usage still from mobile web browsers, with 86%, 85% and 66% of mobile web browser users using them monthly. Only 22% of web browser users access web-based email services, and only 18% use games through a web browser. For email, native apps reach 76% of smartphone users monthly, and games reach 45%.
Multimedia related services, like online music and video, are predominantly used through native apps rather than a smartphone web browser. Apps and web browsing usage patterns, therefore, are quite different, and the usage balance between browsers vs. native apps is driven by the type of app in question.
Mobile apps are responsible for 667 minutes of use per user each month according to Zokem. Compare messaging (671 minutes), voice (531 minutes) and web browsing (422 minutes).
Social networking apps (the category is not clearly defined) consume "almost 10 percent of all smartphone 'face time.'" Facebook and YouTube are the most heavily penetrated social media apps. (I disagree with YouTube being characterized as social media.)
The study found that iPhone and Android owners used roughly 15 apps per month; BlackBerry and Nokia owners used about half that number (8). The iTunes store and Android Markets enjoyed 95% reach with their users, while Blackberry App World has 50% reach and Nokia's Ovi store reached less than 30% of Symbian users. The data also showed that "iPhones generated more than 200 percent more traffic per month on average than Android devices."
Contradicting some other data and claims in the market the study found smartphone usage declined on weekends but "averaged more than 70 minutes per day with apps capturing more face time than any other activity at weekends."
Opera's state of the mobile web report is back. The company says that in January it had nearly 100 million users globally. It's interesting to note that no Android phone is in the top 10 in any of the three markets I present below. However this may only reflect Opera Mini and not Opera Mobile usage.
Nonetheless, it's curious that Android is now so large in the US but not among the top handsets for Opera. Opera Mini and Mobile are available on Android.
Does this reflect the sufficiency and general satisfaction with the Android browser or simply inertia on the part of Android users?
Comscore's newly released "digital year in review" report contains a number of charts and data points about mobile. It's basically a compilation of the material and data they regularly put out about market share and common mobile user activities.
There's no new or startling information here. It's merely a summary of the most recent data at the end of 2010 about OEM, mobile OS and carrier market share. The data should not be taken as completely accurate but rather directional and reflective of trends.
Here are a few of the charts: