Nielsen's blog, Nielsenwire, publishes audience measurement data on TV viewership, smartphones, social media and online habits in the US.
HN commenters cite it as a third-party source for claims about smartphone market share, teen texting, Twitter churn and TV viewership.
TV lost? While I agree with many of the points PG brings up, I feel something is missing.
According to Nielson, TV viewership is at an all time high (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/tag/total-us-television-viewers/). Also, Oscars had a 13% increase from last year with 36.3M viewers. 50+M viewers watched Obama's inauguration on TV.. not on their computers. And of course, we know that those teenagers who are using social apps still cast more votes for their favorite american idol contestant than the sum of adults cast for president. (btw, if anyone knows where to get an annual histogram of viewership in US, that is what I was really looking for). TV viewership may indeed plummet in the future, but as of right now its at an all time high.
Then, I can't help but notice that I still procure my internet from my cable provider. And that same cable provider is not only actively fighting against network neutrality, but they are also blocking my ability to download anything from Torrent. They are far from beaten.
Lastly, what is the real difference between watching shows on my TV verse Computer. They are both using digital pipes, they both have microprocessors, memory and HDs - one has a bigger screen than the other (usually). The only real difference, and increasingly so, is that one is proprietary, and one is open. TV has not lost.. their content is (unfortunately) as relevant and abundant to the average American as ever.
All TV has lost is utter dominance - much…
That's a different source though, and figures for the world not the US, so not directly comparable.
Neilsen do update the figures every so often in items on their blog, but that was the latest historical graph.
This entry from last month has the figures for June (so six months since the last figures shown on the graph) Android up 14 points to 40%, RIM down 8 points to 19% and Apple still steady at 28%:
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/40-percent-of-u-s-mobile-users-own-smartphones-40-percent-are-android/
I believe someone on hacker news was copying these monthly updates into a spreadsheet so they could make their own graphs without having to buy the full report and sharing the results, you might be able to find a link if you search.
"Millions? Really? I don't think so."
106.5 million people in the US viewed the last Superbowl. According to Nielsen (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/survey-most-super-bowl-viewers-tune-in-for-the-commercials/) 51% enjoy the commercials more than the game. Of the ~54 million viewers who enjoy the commercials more than the game, how many have no interest in the game at all? I'd wager it's a number rightly measured in "millions".
Going back to the original point: the claim was made that people don't want to see ads. Yet ~54 million U.S. Superbowl viewers wanted to see the ads more than the game. The problem isn't with "ads" per se, but with the way advertising is conducted on the internet (which is the point the original article made.)
Unlimited Voice and SMS to other carriers is expensive. Look at Twilio's pricing or Skype's pricing, or any other voip provider. Text and calling to your own network is essentially free, but off network gets expensive. Granted, I don't know how big of a cut these voip providers take, but I can't imagine it's that high.
Put it together with usage data, you quickly get over $19:
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/u-s-teen-mobile-report-calling-yesterday-texting-today-using-apps-tomorrow/
Edit: Just want to point out, I'm not saying this is a bad bet to make. They can attract a ton of consumers with a super low cost, and if those consumers do most of their communication in-network, eventually they'll be in the green.
No. You are wrong. Anecdotally, my older father is a way heavier user of apps than me. He listens to a lot of radio (NPR and even Pandora!) and loves the tip calculator and about a million other apps.
Kids loving playing games so much on their parents phones that Nintendo actually acknowledged the iPhone as a competitive threat on their earnings call.
Statistically, 75% of iPhone users use apps, which is 5x more than other phone users. Nielsen: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/iphone-users-watch-more-video-and-are-older-than-you-think/ .
Be careful about assuming things. Apple's iPhone is important because for the first time ever there is an incredibly simple, usable interface to a full-powered computer.
I would hazard more people have access to a scanner (even the one at work) than own a smartphone.
That's probably not true; Reading The US smartphone landscape (http://www.asymco.com/2011/11/06/the-us-smartphone-landscape/).
Also, Nielsen points out that 43% of all cell phones in the US are smartphones; it's just a matter of time before every cell phone sold is going to be a smartphone. Apple's iPhone 3GS is free with a two-year contract.
62% of users 25-34 years old own smartphones: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/generation-app-62-of-mobile-users-25-34-own-smartphones/
So requiring a smartphone (iOS and Android have a combined installed base of 63 million devices in the US) isn't as whacky as it sounds.