Gartner

The iPad is still only slightly more than a year and a half old. Forecasting unit volumes has proven very difficult. But more than that it's proven very difficult to appreciate the impact on the market it's disrupting, PCs.

For some people this is obvious, but what if you don't live and breathe disruptive theory? What if you don't watch every data source like a hawk for hints of change? What if you are not even a technologist. How would you form an opinion on the effect of the iPad on PCs?

There are many industries and sectors about which I know nothing. If you asked me to analyze a market like industrial lubricants, I'd probably start by reading the consensus opinion put forward by the leading market analyst, an expert in that particular sector. That would form the baseline.

In the PC sector, that opinion is formed by Gartner (and IDC and Forrester perhaps). Gartner will get a lot of citations and its stats and opinion forms the baseline view. It may not be right, but we can expect it to be the "consensus". This is because Gartner surveys a lot of data and interacts with a lot of insiders in the industry. They collect and weigh these inputs and put out what is likely to balance them all.

If Gartner says that the iPad is a "media tablet" that is not a PC they may be wrong. But they are also repeating what the PC industry is saying. So I value Gartner as a reflection of the consensus. If there is a significant gap between Gartner and what I conclude to be reality then there is an interesting opportunity as well as evidence of incumbent ignorance.

Let's then look back on how Gartner has been reporting the iPad's rise and the PC's decline.[1]

Q2 2010

"The consumer PC market registered double-digit shipment growth, but consumer mobile shipment growth slowed. This was due in part to slower growth of mini-notebooks," Ms. Kitagawa said. "Surging popularity of Apple's iPad temporarily cannibalized mini-notebooks, as well as consumer notebook sales to some degree. It is not certain at this stage if the cannibalization will continue with the current price point of media tablets."

Q3 2010

"Media tablet hype around devices such as the iPad has also affected consumer notebook growth by delaying some PC purchases, especially in the U.S. consumer market. Media tablets don't replace primary PCs, but they affect PC purchases in many ways," Ms. Kitagawa said. "At this stage, hype around media tablets has led consumers and the channels to take a 'wait and see' approach to buying a new device."

Q4 2010

“U.S. holiday sales were not fantastic for most PC vendors, but the professional market did show healthy growth during the quarter,” Ms. Kitagawa said. “Media tablets undoubtedly intensified the competition in the consumer market. These devices do not replace primary PCs, but they are viewed as good enough devices for these who want to have a second and third connected device for content consumption usage. Mini-notebook shipments were hit the most by the success of media tablets.”

Q1 2011

"Weak demand for consumer PCs was the biggest inhibitor of growth," said Mikako Kitagawa, principal analyst at Gartner. "Low prices for consumer PCs, which had long stimulated growth, no longer attracted buyers. Instead, consumers turned their attention to media tablets and other consumer electronics. With the launch of the iPad 2 in February, more consumers either switched to buying an alternative device, or simply held back from buying PCs. We're investigating whether this trend is likely to have a long-term effect on the PC market."

Q2 2011

Overall shipments of media tablets took place late this quarter and volumes remained low, minimizing any impact of the media tablets for PC substitutions in the second quarter of 2011

Q3 2011

"The main contributor to the weak consumer PC market in the U.S. was intensified competition for consumers' money," Kitagawa said "Media tablets and smartphones took center stage in the U.S. retail sector, and the expectation is for continuing demand for these devices throughout the holiday season."

I've added emphasis for the key words describing the impact of the iPad (referred to as "media tablets").

Note how the message changed over time. At first the effect was thought to be temporary (presumably due to "hype"). Three months later the "hype" was leading to "hesitation" in the channel. Three more months and there was "a hit" on Mini-notebooks but only for those needing a second or third device for "consumption". In the fourth report it seems that "consumers" (vs. business users) are really interested in this. The fifth report suggests that the effect is "minimal". The latest report suggests that this is a "localized effect".

An external observer (or paying customer) reading this must conclude that five quarters in, these media tablets are having some effect but most probably a transient one. By keeping tablets separate from PC's Gartner is implicitly stating that the two products do not compete. If they have an effect it's on the discretionary spending by consumers. Similar to the effect game consoles or consumer electronics may be having on PCs.

However, if tablets were added to notebook totals the chart for 2011 would look like this:[2]

 

Notes:

1. The quotes are from periodic reports (every quarter) from the same analyst at the same firm using a consistent set of measurements about the market. In order to ensure the same context, I've selected the comments from press releases published using the same template.
2. Source: Digitimes Research, compiled by Digitimes, October 2011

Windows Phone is in limbo. The company acknowledged that it has performed below expectations. During the last quarter for which we have data (ending June) I have an estimate that Windows Phone sold only 1.4 million units (Gartner's sell-through analysis suggests 1.7 million). That gives Microsoft a 1.3% share of units sold (Gartner 1.6%), a new low.

At the same time, comScore data shows that user erosion in the US and EU5 has slowed and is holding at about 2.2% of all users.

For its part Microsoft has lain low during the last few months. It released version 7.5 (Mango) last month to manufacturers.  It has a number of Windows Phone SKUs in the market or recently announced (27 with version 7 and eleven with version 7.5)

It also sued Android vendors successfully and obtained royalties from the largest Android licensees Samsung and HTC. Patent royalties from Android are probably going to be higher than license revenues from Windows Phone for quite some time.

Something is missing from this analysis. Clearly Microsoft has a plan. It's always had a plan. The plan is not easily perceived because the market Microsoft addresses itself to is not directly to the consumer--we cannot read the message. Microsoft needs to work through partners. Device vendors and operators mainly. In order to persuade them Microsoft deploys its check book.

Put another way, the plan is that Microsoft intends to buy market share. Before we get into exactly how, we need to understand the most important but least discussed contributor to device sales: channel incentives.

Before a phone is sold it needs to get through a mine field of obstacles: it needs to appeal to operator or distributor priorities; it needs to fill a slot in a portfolio of products for the manufacturer and the channel; it needs to acquire shelf space; it needs to appeal to some end users and, unless it has a blindingly strong brand, it needs to offer incentives to the retailer.

This last piece of the puzzle is something of a mystery. Although not a universal practice, in many cases retail staff are paid commissions directly or indirectly by the device vendor. This relationship between the retailer and the vendor is not transparent. A buyer typically does not know what incentives are attached to a given device. Stories of salespeople steering people to and away from certain devices abound.

Microsoft acknowledges this:

Both Samsung and HTC Corp. have committed to increasing marketing budgets for the phones, said Andy Lees, president of Microsoft’s mobile unit, in an interview. While manufacturers will determine how the money is spent, some of it will probably go toward spurring retail staff to tout Windows Phone models, he said.

Microsoft Phones to Get More Marketing, Sales Incentives - Bloomberg.

In another interview:

Q: It seems like one of the challenges is getting the salesperson in the store to push the phone.

A: Absolutely. I think that's a number of things:

One — they get influenced by how good the product is. The reviewers have influence with that and also their own experience.

The second thing is the alignment with the operator. I think we're already pretty aligned and over the life of this release, we'll get even more aligned.

Much more here: Business & Technology | Windows Phone chief Andy Lees sees time ripe for Mango | Seattle Times Newspaper.

What's more, Microsoft and Nokia have a deal whereby at least one billion dollars from Microsoft are earmarked for the promotion of Nokia Windows Phones.

Even prior to the launch of the Nokia relationship, with the original Windows Phone launch exactly a year ago, Microsoft made clear that it had a budget for promoting Windows Phones ($400 million in fact). In the event, the money seems to not have been spent, or spent sparingly because LG made public its disappointment. The coded language can be interpreted as a snub to Microsoft for withholding promised funds.

Perhaps the funding was withdrawn because by the time the launch was scheduled, the Nokia deal was being negotiated. Perhaps Microsoft felt it better to put more effort behind the re-launch of the platform with Nokia on board. A re-launch which has yet to happen but seems to have already had $127 million allocated to it by Nokia alone.

Microsoft is proud of what it has accomplished with Windows Phone because they were able to update the OS in 11 months and took only about two years to completely rebuild Windows Mobile into Windows Phone.

But the dependence on a complex value network means that products do not reach users quickly enough and when they do the marketing message is weak, even when backed by large budgets. The real problem with Microsoft's approach is that it's neither viral like Android (because it has a price and a contract associated with it) nor is it focused and agile like Apple's. It seems to suffer from the worst aspects of modularity (market lag) without benefiting from the control over the ecosystem and end user experience that differentiates it.

Microsoft will muddle through but the 20% share that it says is "conservative" seems anything but.

Steve Ballmer stated and Andy Lees confirmed that Microsoft views iPad and other tablets as "just PCs". From a market measurement point of view Canalys agrees. IDC and Gartner don't, calling the new devices "media tablets."

Before deciding whether tablets belong with PCs in market metrics, it would be interesting to look at what the data shows. When seen as a combined market, the focus should be on platforms. The following chart shows the four main PC+tablet platform volumes since late 2008 [1].

The second chart shows the same data as share of total market:

This comparison allows for some fresh observations:

1. Excluding iPads, Apple is very close to being 5th largest global PC vendor. Global share likely to be above 5%. Including iPads, Apple would be 2nd.
2. Platform year-on-year growth was Windows: +1.3%, OS X: +26%, iOS: +170%. Android growth cannot yet be measured since Android tablets have not been on the market for more than 1 year.
3. In Q2 2011 one million more Windows PCs were sold than in Q2 2010. In same time, 903k more OS X PCs and 5.5 million more iPads.
4. Excluding tablets, nearly 50% of the global PC growth was due to the Mac. Including iPad, Apple was responsible for ~70% of the growth in the PC market in Q2.

The picture that emerges is that while Windows continues to be dominant with 84% of units sold in the last quarter, the growth belongs to tablets which captured about 90% of it. If Windows remains marginal on tablets, the "PC market" will likely tip away from Microsoft in two years (depending on how quickly Apple can build iPads.)

Microsoft is making the commitment to move Windows to a tablet form factor but they are doing it while retaining the user interaction model of a desktop. This may or may not work but they are also conceding that a separate experience is also necessary. By rejecting the notion that a mobile OS alone can do the job, they are essentially building a "hybrid" tablet/laptop/desktop product which may be challenging to use but preserve their presence in the form factor.

Whether Microsoft succeeds or not will depend on whether the new form factor is disruptive in more than user experience. In other words whether this is just a "new PC" or a "post-PC". The argument comes down to business model changes. For example the new model comes with different cycle time of product development (deep, integrated, yearly changes), different ecosystem (apps), different cost structures (high R&D in hardware), vast scale (device economics, components, ramps), and potentially new distribution (operators in the channel mix.)

Summed up, the real challenge for Microsoft is whether they can keep their business model (selling OS licenses to hardware vendors) as PCs become more device-like. Not only is iOS setting the benchmark for performance but Android is potentially ready to take share if the market turns slightly more modular. Microsoft's differentiation looks to be primarily its legacy of PC software.

It may also seem that much remains to be discovered in this market but I think the main bets have already been made. The PC market as we know it is in the end game.

---

Notes:

1. I used Gartner data for overall world-wide PC market and merged it with Mac and iPad data from Apple. Android data is estimated.

Charles Arthur of The Guardian writes that PC sales "may have passed their peak".  That's a powerful, concise statement. It's backed up by a quote from Gartner's Mikako Kitagawa:

"This was the third consecutive quarter of mobile PC shipment declines in the US"

IDC even lays part of the blame to something called "media tablets"[1]:

"While it's tempting to blame [PC] decline completely on the growth of media tablets we believe other factors [...] played equally significant roles."

But there are several problems with both IDC and Gartner's analysis of the market. It's hard to make out causality from their data. There is separation by vendor but not by operating system and there is exclusion of devices hired to do the same jobs as PCs.

For this reason, I need to do my own analysis. I retrieved Gartner's public statements on the overall market and layered actual Mac and iPad units sold. I also added my estimates for the Q1 2011 quarter just ended to complete the picture.

We can now get an understanding of how the industry behaves with and without various platforms. The chart at the left gives the various growth rates of the market with platforms isolated from each other. I apologize for the shape of the chart but the scale does not permit a concise visual.

Including the iPad, the total PC growth is shown by the blue line. It shows that the market peaked during the recovery but is now slowing considerably.

The green line shows the PC industry excluding both the Mac and the iPad. Although it might include Linux or computers sold without an OS, the label "Windows PC" is a fairly close approximation. It shows that the market excluding Apple entered contraction this quarter and is out of sync with overall economic recovery and growth.

The red line shows the behavior of the Mac franchise. It's well ahead of the overall market with 2x to 3x the growth. This has been a pattern for over 18 quarters.  I had some thoughts on this in a November 2010 hypothesis.

But the most telling line is the orange line which includes both the Mac and the iPad. In an industry where growth is usually measured in single digits, the iPad business brings growth in three digits.

This near tripling of unit sales is symptomatic of fundamental change that cannot be ignored. Although some analysts contend that the iPad is not causal to the decline in other PC sales, teasing out platforms data seems to show a divergent view.

The bottom line is that Windows-only computer units are down 2.0% while OSX-based computer units are up 272% (this excludes both the iPhone and iPod touch).

Correlation is not causation but tests or surveys where substitution can be proven do exist. For example, a recent survey shows that 77% of users reported that their PC usage decreased after getting a tablet. It also showed that 28% considered their iPad as their primary computer.

So coupling the sales data with the usage data does point an accusatory finger for the decline on the iPad.

In addition, some vendors are being hit harder than others which also hints at where substitution is happening. For example, IDC reports that Acer US unit shipments fell 42% in the first quarter and 16% globally (Gartner's numbers are less dramatic but in the same direction). Since Acer is known for its netbook computers it's another telling sign of possible substitution (Acer's own management has indicated as much.)

So the weight of evidence is beginning to be conclusive: the iPad is the new PC. It should be clear by now that the iPad moves computing into new contexts so it does not yet substitute the PC market but extends it and increases consumption. Substitution is happening in low-end grazing type of usage, a place where the PC was ill-fitting anyway. Incumbent vendors might actually be relieved that the lower margin netbook is finally being supplanted and they can concentrate on the higher end.

--

Notes:

1. Analysts like to call the iPad a "media tablet" but the same AdMob survey shows media consumption to be one of its least popular uses.

Three things stand out from Gartner's latest smartphones forecast:

1. They published a four year forecast with seven significant digits of precision (implying a margin of error of 0.00001%).
2. There is a linear growth in total market size.
3. There are no significant share changes after 2012.

The latter two claims are illustrated below:

Notwithstanding the defensibility of these claims Gartner analysts makes some further assumptions (quoted verbatim).

1. "Apple will be interested in maintaining margins rather than pursuing market share by changing its pricing strategy"
2. "RIM’s migration from BlackBerry OS to QNX which is expected in 2012"
3. "Nokia will push Windows Phone well into the mid-tier of its portfolio by the end of 2012"

These assumptions may be valid, but from where I'm sitting, the first assumption contradicts Apple's COO, the second would be an engineering marvel and the third would be an organizational miracle.

Putting together all the long term forecasts with what is already known about the market history gives the following combined forecast.

At the risk of repeating myself, the only thing I can summarize from this collective wisdom is that the over-riding assumption in forecasting seems to be that the future is an extrapolation of the present. That would indeed be a miracle.

 

Thanks to David Chu for forwarding the data that made this possible and reader Narajanan for spotting the divergence in platform efficiency.

iOS and Android are both growing rapidly. According to Gartner, during the first three quarters of 2010, about 44 million iOS devices and 36 million Android devices were put into use. That's 80 million devices. An amazing achievement for two platforms that did not exist 3 years earlier.

But obviously not all devices are used the same way. Devices which have unused capabilities limit network effects for a platform and for the category of product in general. Question is: how can we measure the "smartness" of a device; how much more likely is a device to be used as a mobile computer vs. being a regular phone?

The best proxy I can think of is a measurement of browsing use. The smarter the device, the more browsing is a joy and the more it is actually done. Browsing leads to more data load on the network and creates a virtuous circle of revenues for the mobile computing value chain.

If we could measure the increase in browsing generated by each additional phone, we could compare whether one platform is better (specifically, more efficient) at generating value asymmetric to voice.

Fortunately we have data from Netmarketshare.com (see sources below) which attempts to track browser consumption and hence allows us to measure this variable. What we need to pair that with is the incremental increase in the installed base of devices.

In the chart below I plotted how much browsing share increased for every phone sold by platform over the first three quarters of 2010.

The arrows indicate the sequence in time from Q1 to Q3. The vertical axis shows gain in share three months after the corresponding number of units shipped in the previous quarter on the horizontal axis. So, for example, the second circle means that in the second quarter approximately 10 million new Android devices created a gain of about 9% in browsing share. In the same quarter, 14.8 million iOS devices created about 37% gain in browsing share.

In the third quarter approximately the same number of iOS and Android devices shipped (iOS  including iPads and iPod touch) but the browser gain was 20% for iOS vs. 9% for Android.

A line drawn diagonally from lower left to upper right (0,0 to 30m,40%) could represent the average gain in share per units sold--the sort of measure we're looking for.

Measuring that slope tells us that, on average, every million devices sold should generate a gain of 0.75% share[1]. I took the additional step of labeling two quadrants which are orthogonal to the expected trend. If browsing increases dramatically faster than 0.75%/million units then I call those devices sold as creating "highly efficient" browsing gain. If browsing increase lags dramatically below 0.75%/million units then those devices added share with "low efficiency".

So four data points follow the trendline down the middle of the chart, however, there are two notable outliers. Finding the causes for these outliers gives clues to what's happening with the platforms.

I believe the explanation for iOS's second quarter's extraordinary efficiency is that was the quarter when the iPad launched. It seems to have yielded a very strong spike and the trajectory of iOS improved even into the next quarter as those iPads continued to be in use. iPad seems to be a very effective way to gain browser share.

I also believe that the cause for Android's fall in efficiency in the third quarter was that it began to be sold in large quantities in the developing world. The third quarter saw a rapid acceleration of sales without a proportional increase in what was measured as sales in the US (and Europe).

Interpretation

If this trend continues, and there is no guarantee that it will, then a question could be raised about Android's value to, of all people, Google.

The core value of Android to Google is the increased use of browsing and hence search. All the other Google services and in-app ads are tiny opportunities in comparison to the potential of search on mobiles. One could argue that the raison d'être for Android since day one was to create browsing consumption. In that regard it's not as good at doing that as iOS is.

Perhaps Google can justify the under-performance of consumption of browsing (and hence search) on Android devices as benign since there is no marginal cost added to supplying Android to non-consuming devices.

But I wonder. There is the problem of opportunity cost: Those iOS devices that create more browsing activity are going to take more share. The more they do that the more Google will have to pay Apple for placement as the default search in mobile Safari.

It may be a stretch, and perhaps the data is wrong, but that's what this exercise is all about: how much can we learn from fragmentary data? Without a hypothesis there is no discovery.

-----

Notes:

1. Since these platforms have very low shares (less than 2% for iOS and 0.3% for Android by November) almost all the gains can be assumed to be against other browsers (e.g. Internet Explorer) and not against each other.
2. Update: the original Unit estimates excluded iPad and iPod touch which have since been added.

Sources:

• Browser Share iOS (Netmarketshare.com)
• Browser Share Android (Netmarketshare.com)
• iOS Shipment data (Gartner): Q1, Q2, Q3.
• Android shipment data (Gartner): Q1, Q2, Q3.

Windows Phone 7 launched on 10 devices over 60 carriers in over 30 countries with 1.5 million of channel inventory in 6 weeks. Given the breadth of distribution, that number is not huge, amounting to less than 10k phones per operator.

Curiously, Windows Mobile was still selling in significant volumes last quarter. Maybe even higher than WP7 is selling now. In Q3 2009 Canalys reported 3.6 million WinMo units sold. In Q3 2010  Gartner estimated 2.3 million were sold through to end users. Even nine months ago Windows Mobile was running at 3.7 million units or over 1.8 million every six weeks.

Microsoft also announced they have 18,000 developers with 4,000 apps on the WP7 marketplace. That's one developer for every 83 devices in inventory.

Microsoft's Achim Berg:

our numbers are similar to the performance of other first generation mobile platforms...

We're comfortable with where we are, and we are here for the long run; Windows Phone 7 is just the beginning.

In terms of first generation platforms, I assume he is referring to Android and iPhone. That claim of similar volume growth is perhaps a bit too optimistic. However, he's very wrong about WP7 being the beginning for Microsoft's efforts in mobile. Not even close.

Microsoft has had mobile software products in the market for over a decade. In 2003 Gartner declared that Microsoft would sweep Symbian aside. In 2006 they were the odds-on favorites to win the mobile platform game on the basis of developer support.

Microsoft's Windows Mobile was selling more in 2003 than Microsoft's Windows Phone is selling in 2010. At the time, Microsoft also boasted of having a huge developer base (larger, in fact, than the number of users of the product; their .NET developer base being counted as mobile developers.)

Furthermore, prior to the launch of iPhone's App Store, Microsoft spokespersons scoffed at the idea that Apple could field a catalog larger than Windows Mobile which led with over 13,000 apps in August of 2008.

Dragging out these old figures isn't meant to deride Microsoft. They were not alone in failing to capitalize on early leads in mobile. Palm, Nokia, DoCoMo and Qualcomm all failed. RIM is arguably failing as we speak. Some have argued that Apple is also about to be undone by Android.

The point is that dramatic, violent change was possible even five years after foothold markets were established.

The question for today is: Is it still possible? Can a new platform still gain traction?

Microsoft is clearly betting that it can. Their seemingly quixotic attack on the market can only be justified on the basis that it's still early days. They must reason that un-penetrated markets are huge and that the existing platforms are not sticky enough to prevent switching.

At least one analyst agrees. IDC made the forecast that 32 million “Windows Mobile/Phone” devices will sell during all of 2011. I took issue with those forecasts at the time but if they deliver that volume they will get around 10% share, enough to stay on the map. If they don't then Microsoft will look more like Mobile Zune than Mobile Windows. The stakes are high.

So even though they may have airbrushed Windows Mobile from history, Microsoft's current strategy is a direct consequence of them having failed with a seemingly strong platform.

The latest mobile phone estimates from Gartner made a startling claim that "Others" vendors increased share from 16% a year ago to 33%. Doubling share in a year is possible if you're at 1% share but to double from a base of 16% is sounding improbable. They allege that the "Others" now sell more phones than Nokia. And Others don't even include ZTE and Huawei, the prototypical low end challengers.

They emphasize this point in their discussion and state that the incumbent vendors are being pressured by these low end entrants. They go on to explain that the same set of vendors will probably use Android to enter the smartphone space.

To illustrate, the growth of individual companies is shown here (all phones).

Also puzzling is that ZTE and Huawei did not share in this boom. They barely beat market growth and were growing at half of "Others". Until recently ZTE and Huawei were themselves Others, so the new vendors are truly unbranded "white box" vendors.

To put it in perspective, their year-on-year growth is astronomical: 176%, selling 87 million more phones this third quarter than last year's. This is equivalent to saying that a new company was born in the last year and has already become the second largest in the world. The growth in volumes is higher than the total units Samsung sold!

Mind the gap

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Can we check what other analysts estimated and do some form of validation of the claims?

Yes we can.

IDC reports the same data and they only reported 340.5 million phones sold (vs. Gartner's 417 million). Excluding ZTE and Huawei the total share for "Others" in IDC would be about 20%.

20% share vs. 33% share is a big gap.

IDC and Gartner both agree on smartphones, so the difference is even more glaring when you consider the "non-smart" comparisons:

Non-smart phones:

Total Market: millions of units sold____	3Q2009______		3Q2010
Gartner	268		337
IDC	244		260

For added emphasis, I added a comparison of last year's quarter. Last year the Gartner total estimate was about 10% higher than IDC. This year they are 30% higher.

How could the difference in the total phones sold be so big: 77 million phones?

If Gartner is right, how could IDC miss 77 million phones. If IDC is right how did Gartner conjure up 77 million phones in one quarter? That number is nearly as big as all the smartphones sold (81 million). This is not within any margin of error for whatever sampling method they use.

Perhaps they need to clarify this because until they do, neither is credible.

--

Note: My own models are built from individual company public reports. The only data I depend on from IDC and/or Gartner is this total market size which allows me to back out what the "Others" are doing. If the total market estimates disagree so much, I'll be forced to throw out the "Others" all together.

None of this should come as major surprises, but Gartner's data allows for a bit more granular detail in the overall view of the market. Here are new points derived from Gartner's sell-through data:

• The smartphone market is growing at nearly 100% (96%).

• The overall market is growing at 35%.
• The non-smartphone market is growing at 25%.
• Android grew at 1,340% y/y. iOS grew at 92%, Symbian at 61% and RIM at 40%.
• Platform market shares (below) shows a more even distribution of platform volumes between four main platforms:

• Non-branded mobile phones grew to 33% of the market, with 141% unit growth. This is an alarming figure for the low-end of the market. The unbranded market excludes ZTE and Hauwei which grew below the overall market growth (9.8%, 27% respectively). The implications were most dire for Motorola (-36% units growth), Sony Ericsson (-23%) and LG (-14%). Nokia grew but, at 3.5%, well below market growth.
• In 3Q 2009 41 million smartphones were sold. In 3Q 2010 80.5 million were sold. If we were to split the growth among platforms, nearly half the growth was Android. 27% of the additions were Symbian and 16% were iOS. Only 8.3% of the growth was RIM devices.
• Windows Mobile and Linux were the only smartphone platforms to shrink volumes. However, even though the platform is deprecated, 2.2 million Windows Mobile devices were still sold last quarter -- more than Android sold a year earlier.

Gartner released sell-through data for the handset market. In the release appears an estimate of total Android 3Q Smartphone sales (20.5 million). Combining this with what some of the vendors have reported in terms of units sold, we can estimate the share of Android by vendors.

Note that this is a rough estimate. We don't have data on Sony Ericsson's smartphone units sold and we don't know the mix of HTC's Windows Mobile vs. Android.  I'm also assuming LG as part of Others. The data from Gartner is claimed to be sell-through whereas vendors report sell-in so there is more roughness about each vendor.

Regardless of these potential sources of error, it's a very safe bet that Samsung and HTC are the largest Android vendors by a fairly large margin.

It's perhaps noteworthy that both are also committed Windows Phone vendors. According to pdadb.net here is the count of Windows Phone SKUs by vendor:

• HTC 12
• LG 5
• Samsung 2
• Dell 2
• Toshiba 1

Motorola is keeping its Windows Phone options open, leaving "Others" as the only likely exclusive Android vendors.

In the last article on the share of PCs highlighting the unwillingness of market analysts to categorize the disruptive iPad as a PC I imply that Gartner does not "get it".

This is partly willful and partly instinctive. The willful ignorance is due to a belief that their customers (IT managers mostly) do not want to hear about the iPad as a viable technology. Certainly there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that the iPad is unworthy of consideration as a business tool.

However, there is also increasing evidence that IT does in fact get it. I have met several senior IT managers who are whispering that the iPad will change everything. For us to decide which way the wind blows, we need to think harder about the process by which technology gets adopted in large IT organizations. Understanding how the technology is hired by IT managers to improve their career prospects unveils who wins and who loses in IT.

The main hypothesis I put forward is that IT is an example of "rule of man" not "rule of law". The idea that law or "standards" (as doctrine is known by the jargon,) defines the products in use is a conventional myth. Standards change and they change quite dramatically based on who's in charge. The "standard" during the 70's was the Mainframe, the "standard" in the 80's was the DOS PC and the "standard" in the 90's was client-server and in the 2000's it was the web. Each new standard was a violation of the previous standard. So how did this change happen?

Each evolution of technology standards affects the career of the IT manager. The adoption of technology is the primary driver for advancement in the profession. In most cases the technology being adopted is sustaining. In rare cases it's disruptive and can cause unforeseen re-distribution of IT power (and wealth).

As IT is a cost center, naturally, organizational behavior (or, in the vernacular "politics") dominates the decision process. Senior managers look at each technology and ask: how can this help me achieve my career goals? Let's try this exercise with various innovations that have come along in the last few years.

1. The Web in 1998. As IP based networking was catching on, the new technology offered a new way to tie existing assets together. It was also a completely new communication channel with customers. This was a great opportunity to increase IT consumption. It would lead to more work, more budget, more visibility and even a strong link between the profit centers of the company and the IT world. The web was an opportunity. It led to a firestorm of adoption.
2. OSX in 2004. As Windows PCs were widespread and, given the support infrastructure behind them, worked well enough, an IT manager would look at a Mac and see no opportunity to increase their value add. They could not offer new software tools with it, and the old tools would probably not work without debugging. They could not move a Mac to new use cases and could not increase headcount to support it. The Mac was not a career opportunity.
3. The iPad in 2010. As an IT manager looks at the iPad (and smartphones in general), he sees a similar opportunity to the Web ten years ago. The company users love their devices. Top executive love their devices. They see consumerization happening and there is no denying the explosive growth. There are challenges with integration but these devices are not a direct threat. The iPad is an opportunity to migrate to a completely new form factor and increase IT consumption.

What this means politically is that the manager who figures out a way to roll out mobility in the organization will get the same uplift in his career as his predecessors did when they brought in disruptive waves. Those periods have become the stuff of lore and legend. Every IT manager with ambition is looking to create and ride a new wave. If the person is a mid-level manager, they will scramble to be the champion of the new technology and become a rising star. If the person is a high-level manager, they will see it as a way to protect their empire by co-option. Jostling for a vehicle to bring in the technology will begin. These vehicles are typically vendor relationships. Small vendors (example) have a better chance as the traditional vendors (for example SAP) and integrators are not quick enough with product development and don't have the products to sell.

This IT manager's job-to-be-done analysis is crucial to understanding the adoption of IT technology.  Sustaining IT products do not sell themselves even if they are superior. Conversely, new products cannot be kept out of an organization even if they violate standards. What matters is whether they help the decision maker to achieve personal goals.

My own intuition, having worked in such an organization (albeit briefly), and after a few conversations, is that the iPad and the mobile devices it represents is going to influence a generation of IT spending.

Even though Gartner doesn't, IT goes get it.