>(not necessarily sold, as many of them are subsidized to $0).
Why does that matter? [Samsung, Moto, etc] get that money. The subsidy doesn't just make the phone magically free. Besides, either way, it's NOT an iOS sale, or an WP7 sale, and that matters just as much.
It implies a consumer preference that isn't necessarily there and appears to show android at a higher share of device use than is likely a real picture of actual user behavior.
Information that is wrong makes people make poor decisions. I would feel bad if someone overvalued this marketshare number when choosing to make apps, for instance.
Additionally the actual statistic gathered is "shipments" not "sales" which is a different definition. One KEY point there is TONS of iPhone 5's didn't ship in Q3, even though they were purchased then.
Lastly, quoting "shipments of smartphones" then talking about the iPad mini as if it's in these numbers makes the article itself dubious (it is not taken into account in these numbers).
I just want people to stop cheerleading and report facts. Android is leading in # of screens, I just want someone to quote accurate, non-bullshitty numbers about it, instead of fake sliced up numbers about it that give a false picture of the landscape because it ignores members of the ecosystem (Ignoring small tablets such as the galaxy S 5"/iPod Touches is like ignoring PCs that just don't happen to have a 802.11b card installed in them: A weird way to slice statistical data).
Why does that matter? [Samsung, Moto, etc] get that money. The subsidy doesn't just make the phone magically free. Besides, either way, it's NOT an iOS sale, or an WP7 sale, and that matters just as much.