New Linux Mobile Stats Showcase Smartphone Frustrations

Written by Evan Schuman
July 14th, 2010

The mobile space is nothing if not nuanced. That point was driven home Wednesday (July 14) when ABI Research released its latest batch of mobile marketshare figures.

Those stats showed that Linux-based mobile devices “will outstrip growth of the entire mobile device market” by 2015, with Linux controlling 62 percent of the mobile OS space. For a retailer looking to select which mobile platforms to prioritize, that’s important. Ahhh, but then the footnotes start.

Those stats are limited to non-smartphones. For smartphones in 2015, ABI only gives Linux 33 percent of the mobile market. But in 2015, won’t all mobile devices be smartphones, at least by 2010 definitions? Not according to ABI, which puts today’s percentage of smartphones at 18 percent, a figure it estimates will grow to only 30 percent by 2015.

Only 30 percent? Victoria Fodale, ABI’s senior analyst for mobile devices, offered the firm’s smart definition: “ABI’s definition of a smartphone is fairly broad: the inclusion of a high-level operating system and the ability of the end user to install third-party applications. The core definition of a smartphone includes access to data, but the application mechanism is not specified. Today that application is most likely to be a browser. Tomorrow, it could possibly be something else.”

A common definition includes some sort of a keyboard (on-screen or physical) along with Internet access, but the third-party app download is a fair addition. Still, it seems quite likely that capability will be something almost all phones will be able to master by 2015. The high-level OS, though, is the tricky part.

That requirement could be considered a goal that would, by definition, never permit smartphones to be dominant marketshare-wise. It’s saying a smartphone is simply among the most sophisticated phones at the time. That’s a fine definition. But if not everyone uses it, it becomes meaningless.

Even more frustrating is a fact that ABI stressed: Quite a few application environments ride atop Linux (it properly cited Google’s Android and Chrome OSs, MeeGo and Palm’s webOS). So even if Linux does achieve overwhelming marketshare, deployment decisions will more likely need to be focused on those top environments.

This fact gets us into the question of mobile standards. If ever an area needed a standard, mobile in 2010 is that area.


One Comment | Read New Linux Mobile Stats Showcase Smartphone Frustrations

  1. Fabien Tiburce / Compliantia Says:

    I agree with your conclusion. The operating system is a non-issue. More important is the language the app is written in (Objective-C for iPhone, Java for BlackBerry and Android, etc…). Yet more important is the “ecosystem” and delivery mechanism. The BlackBerry platform is one of the only I know of that allows the developer to bypass an app store and deliver over-the-air. Personally I don’t understand why an enterprise would want to put their proprietary client on a mobile vendor’s app store. Fast forward 5 years (a long time in mobile years), and I would expect even these issues to be moot. HTML5 will most likely eclipse app stores with web delivered apps having much of the same capabilities as today’s mobile apps.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.