The Gap has enabled Google Wallet at 65 San Fransisco Bay Area stores (Gap, Old Navy, Banana Republic, Banana Republic Factory Stores and Gap Outlet). You can still only pay with MasterCard and a Google Prepaid Card, which you can fill with another credit card. Eventually Google wall "accept" all sorts of cards into Wallet.
To promote the initiative Gap is giving Google Wallet users 15% off. The deal is presented in the Google Wallet app, in the "offers" area.
Google doesn't "see" any of the transactions today (and may never see them precisely). It only knows a transaction was made and the city in which it was made. It doesn't know the amount, the item or the store. However the Gap, in this case, knows all that information.
Beyond the fact that this represents a convenience for the consumer it offers a powerful analytics capability to the marketer. In the not-too-distant future brands and marketers will be able to track promotions and ads to the point of sale with services like Google Wallet. In a lower-tech way Foursquare offers a similar capability through check-ins. The larger point is that NFC, check-ins and point of sale integration are starting to enable marketers to get more visibility on online-->offline transactions (or traditional media to POS). This is a major development and the arrival of a new form of analytics.
By the day there's some new mobile payments announcement it seems. Indeed, the world of mobile payments is starting to get pretty noisy and potentially confusing to merchants and consumers. Visa, Amex, Mastercard, Verifone, Google, Apple, mobile carriers, eBay/PayPal, Square, Intuit and others are all competing for consumer and merchant attention. While not all of these players are directly competing, many of them are.
On the merchant side there need to be standards or at least compatible systems to enable mass consumer adoption of mobile payments. Fragmentation or different standards and systems will confuse and frustrate merchants and consumers alike, and only delay adoption.
Very small merchants and service providers will likely turn to simple-to-adopt services like Square. Larger entities will ultimately adopt NFC-based systems I suspect. Broad adoption by retailers like the Gap helps the cause accordingly.
Local mobile ad network xAd has released its first quarterly report on local mobile user behavior and ads. I've done a general write-up at Search Engine Land. The company collected the data from its 10 billion monthly ad impressions and 90 million monthly local-search requests. The data in the report were captured between July and September.
A couple of highlights:
The top local search categories according to xAd data:
Most interesting to me was the discussion of ad performance and "secondary actions." CTRs on ads in apps were 8% vs. 5% for ads appearing in the browser.
When you consider that average online display ad CTRs are 0.09% you see that this performance is dramatically better. Indeed, InsightExpress and Dynamic Logic have both documented how mobile display outperforms online across all metrics.
In addition to browser vs. apps differences, xAd documents ad performance variations between iOS and Android. While CTR rates on the iPhone and Android are roughly comparable, "secondary actions" are greater on iOS: calls, map/directions lookups and review drill downs. Interestingly calls are happen more frequently in a browser context. But they're also the most popular "post-search" secondary action (62%) across the board, followed by maps and directions lookups (35%).
Previously xAd reported that its CPMs average $30. Other specialized US-based local-mobile ad networks include CityGrid, AT&Ti, Verve Wireless, Navteq, JiWire, LSN Mobile, Chitika, Marchex and Where.com.
According to Gartner, phones running the Android OS "sold" (read: shipped) at dramatically higher rates in Q3 than competing platforms. As the chart below reflects, Android's share of Q3 smartphone shipments more than doubled vs. last year. Nearly all others declined.
The iPhone was almost at parity with Symbian, which declined by more than 50% vs. 2010. RIM and Microsoft also declined.
Looking at overall mobile operating system share on a global basis, StatCounter shows Symbian still leading. Apple's iOS and Android are essentially tied about 10 points behind Symbian.
In the US, NPD Group said that in Q3 Apple had the top-two selling smartphones:
Appcelerator released its Q4 developer survey this morning (n=2,160 developers). It does the survey quarterly in conjunction with IDC.
There are a number of findings but the big ones are: Kindle Fire has rocketed past other tablets in terms of developer interest and Windows Phones similarly moved past RIM:
Despite their enthusiasm for Kindle Fire, developers expressed concern about increasing fragmentation in the Android universe.
It's important to keep in mind that these findings are based on perception and not an indication of actual market share; however they're correlated with consumer adoption in many cases. Developers are excited about the Kindle Fire's low price point and perceived demand. It also appears that developers have largely given up on RIM. However if new RIM devices showed consumer traction we'd see these figures change again. Consumer adoption and audience size are the key drivers of developer interest followed by capacity to monetize their apps.
Another finding of the report is that there's relatively little developer interest in "connected TV" (e.g., Google, Apple TV) -- at least until consumers show interest at scale.
In written testimony submitted to the US Senate Judiciary committee on antitrust, Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt identified Apple's voice assistant Siri as a competitor in mobile search:
Moreover, history shows that popular technology is often supplanted by entirely new models. Even in the few weeks since the hearing, Apple has launched an entirely new approach to search technology with Siri, its voice-activated search and task-completion service built into the iPhone 4S. As one respected technology site reported: “[E]veryone keeps insisting that Apple will eventually get into the search engine business. Well they have. But not in the way that everyone was thinking. Siri is their entry point.” Another commentator has described Siri more simply as intended to be a “Google killer."
The hyperbolic "Google killer" designation is invoked by Schmidt to show that Google is beset by competition on all sides. I've written previously that Siri may actually increase the number of Google searches coming from the iPhone, as people discover they can "search the Web for . . ." Siri can also be used to search Bing or Yahoo, though most people continue to have Google as their "default" search provider on the iPhone.
In the short term Siri doesn't to anything to degrade Google search query volumes. As I said it may increase them. Over time, as apps become integrated into Siri, people may use it as a tool to access their favorite vertical search or content providers for local, travel, health, weather and so on. In such a scenario (which is how the original Siri app was set up and intended to be used), Google could see less traffic. However that's speculative at this point.
The way that Siri "harms" Google today is by making itself and not Google the starting point for mobile search and discovery on the iPhone. It hasn't become that for most users but it could in short order. Siri sits "on top" of Google (or Bing) just as Google sits on top of third party sites and content on the PC.
In that way Siri supplants the Google brand and becomes the "go to" source for information for iPhone 4S owners. This is the way that Siri really damages Google, at least in the near term. It potentially does to Google what Google has done to so many third party content providers online.
I don't actually think that Siri is Steve Jobs' revenge -- he famously threatened to spend all Apple's cash reserves to destroy Android -- I just wrote that to get attention.
QR codes are proliferating yet it's not clear that consumers are "getting it." ScanLife, it is Q3 trends report, says that 2D or QR barcode scanning is growing dramatically:
However US and UK consumer surveys indicate that most consumers don't know what a QR code is and only between 6% and 11% have ever scanned one (in the UK it appears to be 19%). According to comScore data, QR code scanners are mainly men and younger people (18-34) vs. other market segments.
Somewhat strangely, QR codes seem to polarize marketers. There are some very vocal and aggressive QR code detractors that consider the technology a failure. And many see QR codes as some sort of interim step before NFC technology become mass market.
In a parallel vein there's augmented reality ("AR"), which is a "cool technology" chasing a mass market use case. AR continues to be more of a novelty than something really useful to consumers -- or marketers. But it has potential in many non-commercial and commercial situations.
Then there's NFC, which has been written about extensively in connection with the launch of Google Wallet and mobile payments. Beyond payments, NFC is also a marketing tool and can deliver content and marketing messages to a handset with a simple touch of the device on an NFC-enabled surface or receiver. Given that very close proximity is required to invoke NFC it's not a substitute in all situations for AR or QR codes, which can both work from a distance.
A category that will likely subsume and incorporate all these technologies and tools is "visual search." Exemplified by Google Goggles or Amazon's new "Flow" app, it simply asks consumers to position the handset/camera over or in front of an object and then delivers information: reviews, prices, nearby stores, additional content and so on.
The notion of "visual search" is conceptually simpler and much more consumer friendly than "Augmented Reality," "QR codes" or "NFC." For that reason I believe that visual search will become the metaphor or category name for a range of approaches and technologies that are collectively about getting information or content (whether commercial or non-commercial) into the handset through the smartphone lens.
NFC, AR and QR Codes all wear their complexity on their proverbial sleeves, while the term "visual search" buries the technological complexity behind a very descriptive and easy to understand concept.
I would argue that Android owes its success directly to the iPhone. Putting aside the claims that Android "stole" the iPhone's look and feel, carriers and hardware OEMs had no response to the iPhone in 2007 other than Android. Hence the carrier and OEM embrace of the Google OS. It was something of a marriage of convenience.
Despite the incredible success of Android, handset makers' relationships with the platform might be described as "ambivalent." They want to avoid becoming merely "commodity producers" of Android devices and reduced to the fate of their desktop brethren, which essentially became vendors of nearly indistinguishable "gray boxes" running PC Windows. Accordingly HTC, Samsung and Motorola have tried to develop, unsuccessfully I would argue, proprietary software on top of Android to differentiate from one another.
While the new Windows Phone OS represents an alternative to Android, none of the hardware makers other than Nokia has enthusiastically embraced it. If it sells well for Nokia we might see that change. But there are those who also argue that Microsoft risks alienating other hardware OEMs with its Nokia favoritism.
All this makes me wonder if the market wants yet another open-source OS as an alternative to Android. Reportedly Mozilla, maker of the Firefox browser, is working on a mobile operating system "based on the Web, as opposed to what the project’s wiki calls 'proprietary, single-vendor stacks.'” But this doesn't appear to be viable in the near term as an Android alternative.
What about WebOS? HP was going to kill it. But since the abrupt replacement of CEO Leo Apotheker with Meg Whitman many of his decisions are being reversed. The fate of WebOS is unclear right now and may be decided this year or early next. But what about making WebOS an open-source Android competitor?
I'm not a developer or engineer but WebOS was and is positively regarded by the developer community; it has just been mismanaged and poorly marketed. But my view is that if HP were to turn it into an open-source mobile operating system there would be takers and it could gain new life. My suspicion is that makers would be interested in a high-quality alternative to Android to further diversify their handset lineups and give themselves some additional leverage vis-a-vis Google.
WebOS's app ecosystem is paltry by comparison to iOS and Androids but that could be rectified over time.
I think an open-source WebOS is intriguing; however HP doesn't have a direct way to benefit from it as Google benefits from Android with advertising. Whatever it decides about the fate of WebOS I hope HP doesn't kill it outright.
With the caveat that these numbers are focused on "shipments" and not sales, IDC confirms other hardware-tracking firms' estimates showing that Samsung took the global smartphone crown from Apple in Q3. However, the firm said that the iPhone 4S should challenge the Korean company's newly established leadership position.
Samsung and Apple are engaged in an increasingly bitter, global legal dispute over patents, which has just become an EU anti-trust investigation as well. Amazingly, Samsung remains one of Apple's major suppliers.
According to the IDC data, Taiwan-based HTC also experienced triple-digit growth on the strength of its Android device sales.
In the chart above, Nokia is off nearly 40%. But this is "BW," before Windows Phones. The firm just released its first Microsoft-based phones, which have received positive but not spectacular reviews.
In the "others" category presumably is Windows Phones generally. In the US, Microsoft's mobile market share stands at either 7% or 5.7% percent according to Nielsen and comScore respectively.
Earlier this morning Nielsen released its latest smartphone data for the US market:
By comparison comScore says that 36% of mobile phone owners have smartphones. However the most recent comScore data show a comparable share distribution for Android and the iPhone (43.7% vs. 27.3%).
Nielsen also reported that smartphone ownership for those under 45 is much greater than the overall population: 54%. It goes even higher (62%) for those 25 to 34 years old.
The Pew Internet Project said in May of this year that 42% of US mobile users own smartphones. And in a release of new survey data yesterday, Pew found that 50% of all mobile phone users have downloaded apps (vs. 43% in May 2010). However, as we know, downloads and usage are not synonymous.
As the chart above indicates, 51% of mobile phone app downloaders use between 1 and 5 apps weekly. A substantial minority (31%) use 6 or more apps per week. Average weekly app usage is higher among tablet owners.
The following chart shows the general categories downloads by populatirty/penetration according to Pew. Curiously the most popular app download category, games, doesn't appear on this list. This is probably a flaw in Pew's survey question design.
Finally, Pew says that just under half (46%) of all app downloaders have paid for apps at some point, with most spending less than $5.
Appcelerator has secured $15 million in funding from a set of investors that is led by Mayfield Fund, TransLink Capital and Red Hat, with eBay, Sierra and Storm Ventures also participating. The proceeds a earmarked to cover global expansion for what the company already calls "the largest 3rd-party publisher in the Apple iTunes store and the Android marketplace. It claims to support a community of over 1.6 million developers who, over the years, have placed 30,000 mobile apps for more than 30 million different devices into its portfolio. The announcement contained other fascinating measures of growth at Appcelerator. For one thing, the firm has grown from 17 to over 100 employees in the space of 12 months. Some of the growth is the result of acquisitions. Aptana, with its mobile app IDE (Integrated Development Environment) was acquired in January as we reported here. On October 24, the company acquired Particle Code with expertise and a development platform focusing on HTML5 apps, especially for gaming.
Both the investments and the acquisitions aim at overcoming platform fragmentation. Far too much attention is paid to the battle between iOS and Android in a world where we all know that each brand, device type and form factor has its own specifications, extensions and design characteristics. Clearly it takes more than a village to provide the development platform and resources to enable application creators and developers to write their code once and see that it reaches the broadest audience (and monetization opportunities) possible. Appcelerator's approach to cross-platform application delivery has led to explosive growth (500% annually by its measure). Just as important, it has attracted high-visibility brands like NBC, Zipcar, ING, Merck, Medtronic, Michael’s Stores, Progressive, and GameStop to use its development and delivery mechanisms. The $15 million in additional capital will provide the wherewithal to take its act global.
There are two competing "memes" circulating simultaneously. The first, reaffirmed by the recent Samsung Q3 handset data and associated coverage, is that Android has "blown past" Apple/iOS to claim smartphone leadership across the board. The second, which flies directly in the face of the first is that Android is a distant second to iOS when it comes to mobile Web usage.
How does one reconcile these conflicting reports? Let's look at some of the data circulating today that illustrate these contradictions.
The Guardian in the UK published a chart showing Android handsets eclipsing everyone else in the smartphone space. RIM leads the iPhone and everyone else is well behind them. (iPads, iPod Touch devices aren't included in this data.)
Below is an IDC smartphone share graphic for the US market; it's quite similar to the UK chart above. It shows Android leading all challengers by a considerable margin, followed by the iPhone and then RIM.
Now take a look at StatCounter global smartphone data for the past month. The chart below shows mobile OS share of traffic. According to StatCounter, iOS and Android are almost dead even. That's a far cry from the data above, and the Net Applications data I discuss below.
The following two charts are from Net Applications. They reflect Internet access from mobile devices. They show something radically different that the data above, a very dominant iOS.
Here's the same data presented in another way. It shows Safari and iOS with a dominant mobile market share vs. Android.
There's a bit of "apples to oranges" in all this because the Net Applications data include all iOS devices, whereas the top two charts above only feature comparison of smartphones. However the StatCounter chart in the middle presumably includes iPads and iPod Touches in its "iOS" category. But if so why wouldn't these data be closer to the Net Applications data?
How can Android devices have such a marketshare lead and iOS be so dominant in terms of mobile Internet usage? This is a mystery that I'm waiting for someone to explain.
This morning Google has launched a new site (HowToGoMo) intended to educate marketers large and small about the importance of mobile, and direct them to vendors that can build sites for them. I've written up the announcement and initiative generally at Search Engine Land.
The site offers mobile case studies, data on why you need a mobile site ("61% of users are unlikely to return to a site that’s not mobile-friendly") and the ability to see what your site currently looks like on a smartphone.
The most interesting part of the site from my perspective is a vendor marketplace together with a set of filters that help you choose one. The questions or filter fall into three categories:
There are 12 vendors that are likely to see a bunch of new leads from this site (Google isn't making any money from the leads). It will definitely help SMBs and enterprises accelerate mobile site adoption. As I wrote yesterday, In March of this year Google reported that the overwhelming majority (79%) of its top advertisers didn’t have a mobile-optimized site. But a new report from a firm called the Acquity Group found that 37% of the Internet Retailer 500 now do.
Just nine months ago, the overwhelming majority of small business (SMB) owners didn’t consider mobile an important marketing channel. In February 2011 we found that SMBs had very limited understanding and usage of mobile. Roughly 83% said they were not doing any form of mobile marketing.
However a more recent survey by Borrell Associates, among 484 small business owners, found that “four out of every five plan to spend money on mobile marketing this year; [and] on average these businesses expect to devote more than 20 percent of their ad budgets to mobile initiatives.” The survey also reported that 56% of these SMB respondents had been pitched mobile marketing solutions by “vendors or media outlets.”
In the larger context of yellow pages publishers and other SMB sales channels pitching mobile, as well as widespread adoption of smartphones by small merchants, this Google initiative -- especially its vendor marketplace -- will help speed SMB mobile site adoption.
Earlier this year Google reported that the overwhelming majority (79%) of its top advertisers didn't have a mobile-optimized site. However, a new analysis from the Acquity Group found that a substantial number (37%) of the Internet Retailer Top 500 companies now have a mobile site.
This is up from a level of 12% last year and only 4% in 2009. Those are dramatic increases, reflective of retailers responding to massive consumer adoption of smartphones. The study also reported that roughly 26% of retailers have at least one mobile app; and 18% had both a mobile site and an app.
While 37% have a mobile site, about 26% have one or more apps -- with the iPhone leading the way:
The "Top 10" mobile retailers were: Amazon, Armani Exchange, Barnes & Noble, Buy.com, Cabela’s, Gilt Groupe, The Home Depot, Newegg, Walgreens and Wal-Mart. Here's the hierarchical ranking according to Acquity's scoring:
An interesting question is whether mobile revenues for these retailers are at all commensurate with their investments in the user experience. With Amazon at least, we know that has been true.
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.
Probably the most notable thing about the new Nokia Windows Phones (Lumia 710, 800) is that they generally look different than the iPhone and the gazillion Android models in the market. Most of the phones are colorful and stand out accordingly. This follows in the footsteps of the mostly unreleased N9 handset.
The specs are unremarkable and the software and apps ecosystem are not different or compelling enough (at this point) to grab significant adoption or attention. But the overall package, combined with color and generally nice design of the Lumia handsets, will attract some users to these phones over the blander and more generic Android handsets.
Nokia's new marketing campaign around these devices is "The Amazing Everyday." This is wrong. The campaign should focus on individuality, personality and customization -- how Nokia Lumia owners can stand out with their colorful handsets from a gray sea of other smartphone users. Nokia should emphasize the "sex appeal" of these devices. After all, handsets are fashion statements for many people.
In terms of the outlook for these new phones, I would say they are very definitely not Android or iPhone "killers." They may sell relatively well in Europe and developing markets. But they're not even being released in North America until 2012. This is a strategic mistake.
Price will be another factor in how successful they are. Nokia has fumbled on pricing in the past. If these phones show up in the US for more than $199 (subsidized) they won't sell at all. They won't sell unlocked in this market for $600 either.
This is a good first step for Nokia and Microsoft but not one that is going to dramatically alter or transform the mobile fortunes of either company at this stage.
Update: It appears that Nokia is doing some promotion around the idea of personalization and customization. This was part of an email I received today:
People speak of "three screens": TV, PC and mobile. We need to change that to four screens to acknowledge the growing importance of tablets. We already know that tablets (iPads) have the highest engagement metrics of any of the many screens and that the devices are much more significant for transactions -- "t-commerce" -- than smartphones.
Today the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism put out a report that shows tablet owners are huge news consumers, often to the detriment of other news mediums: PC, TV and print. They're also an older, more educated and more affluent bunch than other screen users.
You can read the full report, but here are a few top-level bullets:
The demographics of tablet ownership (right now) make them a way to target affluent and educated users more directly than on other screens. However all publishers and marketers will need both smartphone and tablet strategies going forward. Do you need an app or are you simply going to rely on your browser-based site?
Attribution and tracking become much more complicated as people bounce from real-world stimuli to PC to smartphone to tablet and back.
Not counting Nooks and Kindles there are 46 million tablet devices globally in market: 6 million Android devices and 40 million iPads. In the US more than 95% of tablet traffic is from iPads. Millennial Media said that iPad impressions on its network grew 456% year over year.
By the end of Q4 or early Q1 there should be several million Kindle Fires in the market and as many as 55 million iPads. Other than the Kindle Fire, however, none of the other full-fledged Android tablets are currently in a position to capture much market share.
This week Nokia is set to reveal its first batch of Windows Phones. Unless they're remarkable it's unlikely that they will dramatically alter the positions of either Nokia or Microsoft. However Microsoft has built a powerful "insurance policy" on the back of Android's success: patent licensing. The company continues to line up licensing partners in the Android ecosystem.
Yesterday Microsoft announced yet another company had licensed its patent portfolio, Taiwan-based Compal. More significantly, Microsoft also said that with this deal "over half of all Android devices have now entered into patent license agreements with Microsoft."
Google has reported that 550,000 Android handsets are activated daily. If Microsoft makes an estimated $5 per handset from 53% of all Android devices now being activated would mean Redmond is poised to take in roughly $501 million from Android on an annualized basis. As Android sales increase that number will only go up.
If Facebook wanted to turn on mobile advertising it would instantly become the largest "mobile ad network" on the planet. Indeed, I believe after the IPO Facebook will be all but compelled to run ads on its mobile apps and HTML site. But how much money might Facebook stand to gain from such a move?
A great deal is the short answer. Let's do some simple math to find out.
Facebook now has more than 1 trillion monthly page views on a global basis. In the US the number of monthly page views is 300 billion. According to an analysis by Hubspot in May, 2011 roughly 33% of Facebook's traffic was coming from mobile devices.
If that formula is correct, then approximately 99 billion of Facebook's monthly US page views come from mobile devices. This is mind boggling.
If we use a $2.50 mobile CPM ($2.50 per 1K impressions) to value this inventory it would mean that Facebook would be in a position to instantly add $247.5 million in US ad revenue to its coffers -- assuming 100% fill.
On a global basis, using the same crude formula, Facebook's inventory would be worth approximatley $2.5 billion, the annual mobile ads run rate that Google announced last week.
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: