Edit: That is, from iTunes Connect. Maybe your pals use some sort of usage logging/statistics from within the app.

The biggest gains for me have been:

1. when I could discontinue previous OS version (3.x) support because most of my users had transitioned to 4.x

2. It lets me know which features my users are actually using so that I can focus on enhancing and refining them.

3. It lets me know how many installs vs. sales that I have. And yes, this includes any pirated copies.

Most stats from various sources and markets over the last year, like sales and installed base, have Android behind but growing (much) faster than iPhone/iOS. So phone sales only exceeded Apple's in the US 2 or 3 quarters ago, and we only had data showing that about 1 quarter ago. Installed base is estimated to be moving above iPhone right about now, iOS (including iPads and Touches) will obviously take longer. Android share of the tablet market (the Galaxy Tab basically) is already at 25% for the last quarter apparently.

So in summary, anyone claiming Android was already ahead of iOS wasn't using any reliable figures, and mostly I've seen this in reverse (i.e. if Android is so far ahead where are all the quality games). Claims that Android looks like the future are (despite being predictions) on much firmer ground given the historical trends in the data.

"Music products: 19.45 million iPods. iPod touch sales grew 27% year-over-year. Now over 50% of iPod sales."

Over 50% of 19.45 million must be around 10 million.

If its true: Who buys all these iPod touch? Where I live (Sweden) iPhones are very common and touch is not. They are not very cheap either.

1. An iPhone is prohibitively expensive for me. I want my cheap prepaid phone, thank you.

2. iPhones only have up to 32GB of space, I need 64GB.

3. I need some kind of portable music device anyway that can save all my music.

I paid 350€ for it which is certainly relatively cheap, a great price for what it does.

Pedantic reply: half ≠ most, half = half

But that aside, I see your point: clearly iOS can still be influential regardless of the shift in the cellphone market space. What will be interesting to see is how (or if) that changes when Verizon gets the iPhone...

That's a terrible assumption. The problem with 'most' is it doesn't imply an exact number, it could be 0.01% more or 99.9% more and either is 'most'.

Nothing about that statement tells you it's near a 50:50 ratio.

Since we're not dealing with exact numbers (obviously 17 and 16 million units is rounded off) and because the difference is fairly small ~5%, it's less confusing to note a more specified relationship rather than an ambiguous and potentially confusing 'most'. Esp if later it's quoted out of context: "Most iOS device sales are not iPhones," (how many is most? how close is the margin?) is less informative than, "IDevices excluding the iPhone comprise about 5% more sales, with iPhones selling 16m units and other devices selling 17m."

Take “most” for what it is and always has been, a simple description of plurality or relative majority.

(You are quite correct that I cannot just assume that the gender ratio in North America is close to 50:50 but you are at the same time also completely missing the point. Context matters and context makes “most” a useful word. It’s alright to make use of term “most” in the context of gender ratios of geographic areas because everyone knows that gender ratios are always close to 50:50. “Most” is a very broad term but if used in the right context perfectly appropriate and not confusing.)

This is simply wrong.

When dealing with numbers, esp financial data, it is poor form to not make specific analysis in the descriptions of the data.

Saying 'Most iOS sales are not iPhones' is actually very misleading even if generalized sales numbers are included in the same context.

Ugh, this quarter you will receive 'most' of your bonus. Oops, I hope you didn't assume that 'most' meant 95% or even 75% because it actually meant 51%.

> Context matters and it is prudent to assume that HN readers possess basic reading skills.

There is absolutely no reason to not be more specific. You're just defending poor form at this point and it wasn't even your comment.

Lastly, it's always bad to assume. Why should we assume that this won't be quoted out of context? Assumptions lead to bad things in my experience. It's never prudent to assume.

Why are you assuming that “most” must be at least a 75% or so majority? If we are talking about wrong and bad assumptions then that is the one.

You might argue that it’s not exact enough (I don’t agree at all because the comment includes specific numbers) but to say that using most in that context is wrong is just mind boggling to me.

I'm not. The rules aren't arbitrary, they're based on the grammatical roots of the word.

Your consistent problem is your assumptions, which run rampant throughout your comments, as evidenced here.

The colloquial meaning and usage of a term will always trump the technical reality.

Commonly, 'most' is used to mean there is more than a simple majority, e.g. a supermajority.

"Most senators voted in favor of the bill," this isn't said when 'most' refers to 51 senators voting in favor of a bill because journalists understand that that would cause confusion. Instead something like, "The Senate was nearly split on the vote, 51 to 49," is used because it is far more descriptive of that actual situation.

The relative position of numbers matters, whether you want to accept that or not. However you sound like a fool promoting ambiguity of information and obfuscation of data.

Where does your assumption come from that colloquially, “most” means “large majority”?

Now for a quick lesson in grammar, sorry it had to come to this but besides the colloquial instinct, the grammatical roots of 'most' will show, unequivocally, 'most' should not be used as it was.

'Most' is the superlative form of 'many' or 'much'. 'Many' is defined as 'a large number of' and 'much' is defined as 'a large amount'. This naturally implies a statistically significant large majority, not a simple majority such as 51 to 49.

When there is a close division we don't say, 'most of the Senators' we say 'just more than half of the Senators'. This is because we haven't reached a point where we can adequately say that a 'a large number' (as compared to those voting against) 'has voted for'. For this reason we reserve 'most' for situations where more than a simple majority, e.g. often a supermajority, comprises one of the two or more things we are comparing.

Actually, grammatically speaking, superlative adjectives should _only_ be used when three or more things are being compared, however this is a commonly ignored rule.

There is one final point, when one of the two or more things you are comparing reaches a point where it is greater than two thirds of the total, we begin to say 'nearly all,' "Nearly all of the Senators voted to pass the finance reform bill today, voting 89-11."

17 million as compared to 16 million is not 'a large quantity' more as compared to 16 million.

If you understand that 'most' is the superlative form of 'much' or 'many' you understand that you're saying there is a large amount (more) of iDevices being sold as compared to the number of iPhones being sold, when all things considered that number is less 10%! Hardly a supermajority and very much in the realm of "simple majority."

I brought this up on Freenode in ##English. They were absolutely appalled by your claim, "half plus one is most."

If you have further questions I highly recommend the erudite discussions they can provide. They are quite well versed in English grammar and usage, I think you will find their comments instructive.

Edit: Also I took the liberty of consecrating the discoveries made in the form of a blog post --> http://voxinfinitus.net/blog/articles/2011/01/usage-most

If your boss told you that you would be getting "not all, but most of your bonus this year" and you got half plus one dollars (or whatever you're paid in), chances are you'd be feeling cheated, no matter how 'technically right' your boss was.

'Most', at least colloquially, seems slightly misleading to me. The difference after all is less than 10%.

It's like the idea of significant. All too often, people confuse significant with majority. This is not the case. Significant rarely means majority, except when used in the all too cumbersome "significant majority".

Finally, most people would agree even a 5% different is a significant difference. =)

I don’t agree at all. It’s usually a good idea to summarize data and in the process of doing so being less specific. Most is perfectly understandable in the context. It actually is very surprising and interesting that most iOS devices that were sold in the last quarter are not phones so saying just that is perfectly fine.

There is no strange and arbitrary 5% condition for the usage of most and there never has been. Most is an exact term.