Thursday, October 7, 2010

Who Is Really Winning the Smartphone Race?

Who Is Really Winning the Smartphone Race?



Apple fanboys vs HTC fandroids. Crackberry junkies vs Nokia cheerleaders. All of them have their arguments and neverending doses of absurdly blind faith in a corporation. But who is really winning this race? Who is really the dominant smartphone manufacturer?


It's hard to tell.
See, when you take into consideration more than one factor, you get a different picture of how things are. Here you can see that Samsung is gaining market share faster than all its competitors, but their profit share growth is going down. Then you can see that Apple is gaining market share at a good rate, but their profit share growth dwarfs everyone else. The iPhone is one popular smartphone, with a hefty profit.


Asymco, who produced these graphics, argues that you can pair manufacturers according to their current growth vectors (in the chart above, you can see those pairs by color). According to them, Apple is destroying Nokia, while RIM is crunching Sony Ericsson, and Samsung is doing the same with Motorola. HTC and LG are doing something down there too, but both are doing it slowly, so let's ignore them for a while.


The fight for true domination
When you look at their 2007 vs 2010 comparison, things get even better:
Who Is Really Winning the Smartphone Race?



Why better? Because despite its star status, Apple is still not the dominant player. Nobody is. Unlike with computers—where Microsoft still dominates—there is still no emperor in the smartphone empire. Apple is in a great position to claim that crown, but the game is still open.
One last thought: Looking at Nokia, I can't help to think that the CEO and his execs were complete imbeciles. If they had snatched Palm before Hewlett Packard—and scrap their stupid, outdated, horrible Symbian—they could have probably retained the dominant position they lost so quickly. Which is too bad, because they always made good hardware. [Asymco]

How Could This Photo of Saturn Be Real?

How Could This Photo of Saturn Be Real?



Take a look at this photo of Saturn's rings, taken by Cassini's wide-angle camera last month, 270,000 miles behind Saturn. When I first saw it, I thought it couldn't be real, but the explanation is easy.
Cassini was in a position similar to the one in which it took this photo, looking to Saturn from below:
How Could This Photo of Saturn Be Real?
However, the Sun was in a different place, which explains the hard black shadow over the part of the rings closer to the spacecraft:
How Could This Photo of Saturn Be Real?
The reason why we can see the rings over the planet itself, as Phil Plait explains inBad Astronomy, is because the rings on the right reflect light onto the back of the planet. What we are looking at on the left side is the silhouette of the rings against the dimly lighted back of Saturn.
How exquisite, how delicate this scene is... and yet, how immense—each of the pixels is 22 kilometers wide in real life—and overwhelming. Once again, the Universe leaves me in awe. [Ciclops via Bad Astronomy]


Star Wars '83, Star Wars '05, Star Wars '12

Star Wars '83, Star Wars '05, Star Wars '12


Star Wars, circa 1983: Full of incredible models, unprecedented effects, and general techno-wonder. Star Wars, circa 2005: Boring, plastic, and heartless. Star Wars, circa 2012: Boring, plastic, heartless and blurry. Fuck. [Reddit]