Apple was the only smartphone manufacturer whose handsets saw an increase in usage in the US and Canada during the just-ended holiday season – though only a minor one. But its fortunes declined in the tablet market, where Amazon and Microsoft led the usage-gain pack. These conclusions aren't based on hard sales numbers – it will …
Is it conceivable that Chitika's ads are not the whole of advertising on the net? If -for example- Apple is one of Chitika's customers then ads overall will be biased towards Apple's products and therefore won't of interest to non-appleites.
Without knowing more about what advertisers we're talking about and context in general; these figures say absolutely bugger-all about anything.
How much time do Fanbois spend browsing on Apple's website? Yes probably more than the amount of time Fandroids spend on it, but in any case I don't think Apple has any third party advertising on their website.
They will be looking at newspaper websites, and shopping sites for all sorts of other kit, and that's where the third party advertising is.
"Is it conceivable that Chitika's ads are not the whole of advertising on the net?"
Of course you know the answer to that already. They are nothing like the whole of advertising on the web. But it's clear what you are trying to suggest is a little disengenious as the relevant question is if there is any reason to suppose there will be any bias in their numbers. Since Chitika's figures come from ad impressions served via the web, the answer is, "not particularly." There may be some subtle biases based on if Chikita ads tend to be placed more with websites appealing to a particular demographic. For example research has shown iPhone use is higher amongst young, higher educated professionals with higher levels of income (true) so if Chitika ad packages are preferred by websites catering more for this demographic, there will be a bias in the result.
Rik Myslewski: "should tamp down some "Peak Apple" rumblings"
What is this, civil war in The Register's editorial dept? Either that or it's a bit of a cheek considering it is The Register that has been publishing an ongoing stream of articles with the "Peak Apple" phrase in the headline, not anyone else.
If -for example- Apple is one of Chitika's customers...
Conversely, what does it say if Apple aren't but Samsung are?
"But it's clear what you are trying to suggest is a little disengenious as the relevant question is if there is any reason to suppose there will be any bias in their numbers."
The entirety of my point was that without context the numbers tell you nothing.
...Apple ad-blocking isn't as good
I was going to say the same thing - I have AdBlock on my Android, so I don't recall looking at any ads on a phone over Christmas. Or before or after Christmas.
Of course, my Kindle tries to bombard me with ads, but I couldn't honestly tell you what any of them were for.
I actually quite like this metric as it seems to give an idea of how much a device is being used. OK, we are only talking browsing, but that is what most tablets are used for (and maybe smartphones too - I know I am the dinosaur who thinks the screen is too small, but I accept that I am outnumbered).
Even if you want to say Chitika's ads are not completely representative of the web as a whole, they will still give a good idea of trends as opposed to absolutes. And at least these are talking about use - not sales or distribution numbers which are not all they are cracked up to be.
And it provides some fun column inches (and maybe even starts an Apple/Android bun-fight to boot!)
Re: Interesting metric
Not an interesting metric really, as most users do their best to avoid ads.
Best metric is empirical; I've seen many arty-farty, die hard ifanboys ditch the iphone for the S4 and the "buzz" following the switch is loud. Apparently, it's just a better phone!
I've run the gamut of work phones: <insert whatever brand you like, I've had em all> but watching my, positively ancient, brother in law eulogising about his new S4 only tells me to ignore the "pundit's" advice that Samsung's share price is set to tumble.
PS gone back to using my trusty 7 year old Nokia. Can get a signal on that bugger when nowt else can, and as I'm away from urban centres most of my time, that matters !!
Re: Interesting metric
Best metric is empirical; I've seen many arty-farty, die hard ifanboys ditch the iphone for the S4 and the "buzz" following the switch is loud.
Here's some similarly useful empirical metric for you.
I haven't heard anyone tell me they bought an Android device for themselves or someone else this Xmas. Yet, myself included, I know 7 friends (not sure how that stands up to your scientific 'many') who bought at least one Apple iDevice.
Those 6 friends aren't arty-farty types, we all work in IT.
Hmm, strange way to spin it
iPhone up to 54% of the market = good
iPad down to 76% of the market (in a season where tablet sales are expected to hit a new high) = bad? I'm betting Apple are far from unhappy with the numbers sold.
Re: Hmm, strange way to spin it
It's a lot easier to use a phone when you're bored visiting the relatives, without causing offensive that you are obviously bored. Whereas whipping out a tablet is rather making it clear that you don't want to talk to any of them.
Who moved Xmas?
Post Xmas as imprints from December 20th to 29th......that analysis says it all.
Next time a touch more realism please.
It's like the stat from IBM done at Christmas that showed of 29% of purchased done using mobile devices - of that 23% of purchases were on iOS devices, 4.6% via Android and about 1% for other mobile devices. So that's about 5x more via iOS regardless of claims of reduced market share - i.e. showing (again) that on average people use their iOS devices far more (as web / shopping is pretty universal and measurable).
Then the average sale value was also (almost) double on iOS device.
Basically it seems a lot of Android devices are shipped but they are 'used' far less. I'm sure plenty will disagree and argue that perhaps they are used as e-readers, gaming and NOT for web browsing / purchasing but you could argue the same of some iOS devices as well.
It just demonstrates that iOS users spend more money on tat bought online, and they visit more websites that deliver shed loads of ads, like facebook for example.
I think his boils down to the fact that far more Android devices are sold on PAYG and they are the sort of users that tend not to increase their mobile spend by using data when out and about, they may be more inclined to use WiFi when available but I think it is more about the fact that even your cheap "I just want a phone to make calls and send texts" crowd will end up with an Android phone regardless of the features.
I always remember the day someone said to me I don't want a camera on my phone, my reply was, soon you won't be able to buy a phone without a camera. Fast forward a few years and replace camera with smartphone. Some of these stats are just completely pointless.
For clarity, I'm not an iOS fan and Android has it's faults, I'm currently using a Note 2, not because it's Samsung but because it has the S-Pen and I use it for that purpose quite heavily.
In shock news.......
Apple devices pull down more adverts from non google service than google devices do......
Now unless I'm wrong then DUH.......
My android phone will I expect pull down almost all the ads on it from google whereas Apple gets them from another source.
Wheres the surprise here ? Also nowhere does it mention that these are only from browsing and not in ap ads....
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You can read anything you want into figures if you wish, if there is either a) no concrete way they were gathered or, as here, b) no concrete correlation between what was measured (ad impressions) and what you're supposing (number of devices used at Christmas).
For example: Ad impressions for iPads would, I guess, cover *all* iPads. A lot of people already have iPads. The percentage of overall "iPad owners" opening a new one on Christmas morning as a percentage of the entire user base was, I'm guessing, much lower (as a percentage of total ownership) than other platforms. Those existing owners of iPads are probably likely have opened other toys on Christmas morning and not bothered playing on their iPads for a bit. I for one spent Christmas with family, watching TV, reading real books, and shooting my son's new Nerf gun. My iPad hardly had a look in for a couple of days. Now, if I'd had a new tablet (of any type) I guess maybe I'd have been surfing with it. But it's all 'maybes'...
The problem with the tablet market is that, practically speaking, Apple went straight to near-as-dammit 100% marketshare overnight. It only takes one other vendor to finally get a little traction of any size and... shock, horror, Apple's market share goes down. Market share means crap (unless you're being sued by Governments for being a monopoly). New Product X suddenly selling loads more than Long Established Product Y this month doesn't mean the end (yet) of Product Y if it's installed base is a) massive and b) happy. Too many variables.
(PS: I have both iOS, Android and WebOS tablet devices, so I really don't care as long as they bloody work and have the apps I want. Pity about WebOS though, it was cute and I liked it...)
Misleading figures again, as only USA ads are counted. The rest of the world doesn't exist for biased fanboi reporting.
Come on El Reg, give worldwide data rather than limited guessing from only one country.
Its because non-iTards actually got together with friends and family over the break and enjoyed each others company, instead of taking pictures of the ham/turkey/potato salad and uploading them to share with all of the "friends" they have never actually met.
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Did Apple's iOS make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked
- Pics Indescructible Death Stars blow up planets using glowing KILL RAY