Google activating 700,000 new Android devices daily

Last night, Google Android chief Andy Rubin announced  via tweet and Google+ posting that Android has surpassed 700,000 daily activations. He further clarified what he meant by activations in a later posting on Google+:

For those wondering, we count each device only once (ie, we don't count re-sold devices), and 'activations' means you go into a store, buy a device, put it on the network by subscribing to a wireless service.

700,000 is certantly an impressive number, one boosted by the recent launch of devices like the the Droid Razr, Galaxy Nexus and the rest of the Samsung Galaxy S II line. Back in December of 2010, Rubin tweeted that Android had reached a level of 300,000 daily activations.

By June of 2011, that number had reached 500,000 and that it was growing by 4.4% worldwide. Assuming he meant per month, Google has actually exceeded that previous growth rate and more than doubled in one year.

It's estimated that Apple currently activates around 450,000 devices per day, according to Flurry.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft won't exhibit or hold keynote speech at CES 2013

Next Story

Verizon data outage in United States fixed

35 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

So Android is only getting 700K to 450K to iOS despite having 100 to 3 devices? Looks like the iPhone rules again.

Remember Apple makes 66% of mobile industry profits based on the previous quarter. This quarter is might go up to 70%.

KingCrimson said,
So Android is only getting 700K to 450K to iOS despite having 100 to 3 devices? Looks like the iPhone rules again.

Remember Apple makes 66% of mobile industry profits based on the previous quarter. This quarter is might go up to 70%.

Yeah but more and more people are jumping on Android. That's what really counts.

Remember, Google makes 90 - 95% of its profits from Ads. Android is just one way how they get ads into your phone by some of the free apps out there.

cralias said,
So the activation sends IMEI or something? Or re-flashing ROM still counts?

I highly doubt the people flashing are anywhere near that amount.

FalseAgent said,
Andy Rubin is ****ing retarded, always touting these irrelevant activation numbers

Why is it irrelevant? Please explain your meaningless statement.

CMG_90 said,
...

Incorrect. Different licensees pay different fees.

I was simply guestimating based on the lowest fee to be announced, less the estimated devices produced by non-licensees.

It's not just HTC, but also Samsung, Hauaii, and others. And if other news stories floating around, soon to be Motorola Mobility, um, I mean Google.

nowimnothing said,
Lots of royalty monies for Microsoft

Yeah somebody at MS must be laughing there a** off when they read this article.
MS is getting rich on the back of Android, love it

nowimnothing said,
Lots of royalty monies for Microsoft

Yup, it's the only meaningful way Microsoft profits off of the mobile industry. God know Windows Phone is not helping them.

ccoltmanm said,
At this rate, they will have the entire adult phone buying population using Android in less than 1 year.

Kids only use Android to fit in and be cool. Deep down they still liike apple.

It would be more interesting if they had a way of stating what % were net-new Android users or just existing Android users getting new devices.

scorp508 said,
It would be more interesting if they had a way of stating what % were net-new Android users or just existing Android users getting new devices.

Either way, it's an important figure. As long as the number keeps growing you have to assume it's going to be a healthy chunk of new users, if you figure people replace their phones every 18-24 months and yet the level of activations only continues to rise each month.

Marshalus said,

Either way, it's an important figure. As long as the number keeps growing you have to assume it's going to be a healthy chunk of new users, if you figure people replace their phones every 18-24 months and yet the level of activations only continues to rise each month.

I don't disagree, it would just be a lot more meaningful to have a better picture of what makes up that number overall.

In general more people are turning to smart phones than did in the past since carriers (US carriers at least.) hose you no matter what you get. You pay a data fee for a "feature" phone or a data fee for "smart" phone, so many go for the upsell.

still1 said,
That is incredible growth.. Andy was spot on clearing the doubts people were having about activation.

I'm actually glad he said that, as there has been a debate going on for a while about what Google considers an activation.

techbeck said,
Probably higher cuz of the holidays and may drop after. But still nice to see.
People gift phones? That is literally one of the worst things to give as a present.

necrosis said,
People gift phones? That is literally one of the worst things to give as a present.

Depends. If I was telling my GF I wanted a new phone and what I wanted and she gave that as a present...good! But if she randomly pics a phone then not good.

And may not be gift phones. Carriers offer better discounts a lot of times around the holidays for phone upgrades or phones for signing a contract/new carrier.

necrosis said,
People gift phones? That is literally one of the worst things to give as a present.

I guess that's why smartphones have been so high up on the top lists of what people put on their wish lists the last few years.

necrosis said,
People gift phones? That is literally one of the worst things to give as a present.

Why is that? do you serously want socks or a toaster?

CMG_90 said,

Why is that? do you serously want socks or a toaster?

"Here, have a phone... oh, and btw your monthly bill will be $100/mo and you are now committed to this phone for at least 2 years."

CMG_90 said,

Why is that? do you serously want socks or a toaster?

The gifter can buy a phone with a contract as a gift for you and 99% of the people in the US won't pay full price for the phone [, which is why they buy phones with contract]. It is the price you have to pay as the giftee that comes later. You would be forced to accept the contract, being socially compliant and all, just because you got the phone as a gift.

Secondly, phones are common place now. Most people know what phone they want for what purposes, so they just go get it. If you go buy me a stupid phone, which I can't return without a receipt, it's a waste.

Toasters and socks have present and future value regardless. Once you get it, you know you have them for life.

Obviously, materialists are not thinking about value of the gifts, so phones continue to be a gift item. The goal of gifting has merely become a formality that you have to complete by hook or crook.

Edited by Jebadiah, Dec 21 2011, 8:52pm :

Shadrack said,

"Here, have a phone... oh, and btw your monthly bill will be $100/mo and you are now committed to this phone for at least 2 years."

And how do you know its not something thats asked for or if that person already had a phone plan? Also, phone gifts dont have to be on a contract and the person could of paid full price for it. Unless there is a specific break down...no telling what kind of gift it is.

necrosis said,
People gift phones? That is literally one of the worst things to give as a present.

1) How do you buy a phone for someone without paying full price for the phone? You would need there account info to upgrade them.
2) Almost everybody has a phone (dumb phone or smartphone). In order to buy them this "gift" wouldn't they want to port their number?

It's is more likely that more phones have come out in the 4th quarter that is worth to upgrade. On Verizon, three really good phones came out alone that I have seen in the stores people buying like crazy. The Droid RAZR, HTC Rezound and the Samsung Galaxy Nexus. I can't speak of other networks in the US but in general, world wide the Samsung Galaxy II phones are selling pretty well.

NesTle said,
Kindle Fire is not in this number since they do not have Google Apps

After I wrote it, I second guessed my original inclusion. I've removed it from the article because I think you're right.