Not quite. In personal computers, Windows dominates in both install base and development resources. The wide variety of software creates a network effect, attracting users, which in turn attracts more development. This is the tide that the Mac has been swimming against since the early 90s.

Even though iOS doesn't have a majority of mobile users, it still enjoys the vast majority of mobile development, which will attract users, which will attract more development. The odd thing about Android is that it doesn't enjoy the network effects that a dominant platform usually brings with it. Part of this is due to the average Android user being a lot less engaged that than the average iOS user (they browse less, buy fewer apps), and another part I think has to do with how different companies are bending Android to their own purposes with UI skins, bundled apps or total forks.

For example, if I buy a Galaxy Nexus, all the software is designed to integrate deeply with Google's software and services. If I buy a Fire, all the software is designed to integrate deeply with Amazon's software and services. Are these two devices really the same platform? Some people have described Android as a platform for building platforms, rather than a platform itself.

I don't know what else msft can do.  They already had the huge marketing push and all.  All that is left is for msft to start subsidizing Nokia even more, but that's hardly a winning solution.   Windows phone has worse marketshare than RIM so it's not looking well at all.

My last 3 phones were Iphone 3g > BB Torch > HTC One X
The Blackberry was meh, but you can life with it.
The Iphone has a great appstore and was pretty nice, but missing the pushmail (germany, bb won a lawsuit and apple isnt allowed to offer pushmail in my country) but dont know if its still the case.
The Android one tech wise is impressive, but less apps and incompability problems because every manufactor is doing its one hw spec. The pushmail service is as good as the BB one and the whole sync with calendar, contacts and so on is very nice too.

If I have to buy another one it would be an Android or Iphone. Somehow I dont like the WP and lol at Symbian,

Come iPhone5! :)

Aren't there new Nokia/Windows phones that were released in Q2? or made available in huge countries like China? I'll wait for Q2 results.

Honest question: why did Android succeed? It's just another shell on top of a Unix core. I know it's as solid as iOS now but that wasn't true when it started.

1. Faster operating system

2. Smaller OS, in terms of memory, leaving more available for whatever else the carrier or oEM wants to throw in

3. More efficient business model, with more ads, and a large number of users feeding people to google.com, thus enhancing the core product.  So, that's why google can afford to keep it free, which the OEMs really like.

these sales are before lumia 900 release right? everyone knew windows phones won't sell more before the release of that phone, didn't we have a thread about that some weeks ago? until we get the sales of that phone stats are not very interesting, if lumia 900 will fail, then i don't see how windows phones will get successful anytime soon (ok no clue about windows 8 phones). at least amazon users seem to love the phone. 4.8 out of 5 stars is impressive. btw it's still not on the market in many european countries like germany

It gave the carriers and the OEMs what they needed: Software development expertise. Dismissing Android as "just another shell" is rather underselling the difficulty of developing a good set of dev tools, APIs, default programs and user interface, not to mention all the back end services and infrastructure that a good smartphone relies on.

Carriers have next to no expertise in making good software, and OEMs have only a little (see their constant bungling of software updates and their clunky custom UIs). Android gave carriers and OEMs those tools at very little cost in terms of licensing fees or control over the relationship with the end user. When the iPhone was exclusive to some carriers (and came with that crucial loss of control) and there was no way that Blackberry OS or Symbian was going to compete, Android was simply a deal they couldn't refuse.

I'm not quite sure what motivates people to buy an expensive Android over an iPhone.

However, many people buy Androids because they are the only cheap smart phones on the market and they work well. For example, if you're on a pre-paid plan Android is really your only smart phone option. This is definitely part of the reason their market share is growing so quickly.

Look at it this way: MS makes money with 61.2% of the smartphones sold. :D

Anyway, MS just had a great launch in China even outperforming iOS. I still think it will be a 3 way market iOS, Android and WinPhone. RIM is screwed. They are the only one with decreasing smartphone sales.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/05/23/microsoft-passes-apple-in-china-as-nokia-cheers/