A Quarter of U.S. Handheld Users Are Wireless

First, how do we know this is wireless? I access the internet with my PDA using ethernet and a 56K CF modem all of the time if it is cheaper than using my cell phone or thre is no WiFi available. 25% are "connected" but that doesn't mean wireless.

Second, of the 19.1M handheld (PDA) users (thankfully the old Palm Pilots and other 4-5 year old devices have finally been dropped off so Palm is going to have to dump their 26M user market share mantra) how many are PalmOS vs other? Your 93.2% smartphone PalmOS number is irrelevant to this calc. THe MediaMetrix report broke that out from the 67M Cell users and 5.8M using their phone to access the internet. Again, the 93.2% number is irrelevant here as many of these are WAP users on just about any cell phone from SprintPCS, Verizon, Voicestream, etc.

Interesting that the IM stats show that MS Messenger is the largest at 14%. Sounds like the "connected" side isn't so PalmOS biased.

I think you have misread the article and the study results. This wasn't a study of Internet access over handhelds, it was a study of WIRELESS Internet acess with phones and PDAs.

> Palm is going to have to dump their 26M user market share mantra

19.1 million in the U.S. I can easily believe there are many millions more in the entire rest of the world.

> Your 93.2% smartphone PalmOS number is irrelevant to this calc

You misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying that 93% of all wireless handhelds and mobile phones run the Palm OS. The study makes a clear separation of mobile phones with Internet access and handhelds with wireless access. The 93% figure is for that latter category.

This issue is confused by what is it that makes a mobile phone or a handheld a "smartphone". Not everyone agrees on the definition.

I sincerely hope that, in their study, comScore Media Metrix made it clear they were speaking of wireless access. If not, then their results are totally invalid. If they allowed wired Internet access, then anyone who uses AvantGo qualified.

---
News Editor

"While 11 percent of instant-message users access the Internet via a cell phone or PDA, that figure is 14 percent for MSN "

I think the higher percentage for MSN is because they have really pushed to be the main portal for Verizon and other wireless web phones. So I think it has little to due with winCE vs PalmOS. They should have broke down that 14% by phone vs pda to make any reliable conclusion.

I think this report is misleading.

They probably include those BlackBerry in the
handhelds. And since all those Berries access internet
through wireless, the percentage is kind of high.

On just Palm and PPC, these numbers can't be
true, even include those SmartPhone and Treos etc.

ted

Absolutely---don't forget about the wired internet users---

Their estimate of 19.1 million PDA users in the U.S. is inflated. That is probably close to the total number of PDAs ever sold in the U.S. and does not take into account all of the PDAs retired from use. Many users have bought (or own) more than one PDA. Current number of PDA users in the U.S. is probably closer to 12 million, with about 15 million PDAs in use today.

They did NOT say that 5 million of those PDA users access the Internet via wireless, although many in the media interpreted this press release to mean that.

"They probably include those BlackBerry in the
handhelds. And since all those Berries access internet
through wireless, the percentage is kind of high."

I'd disagree with you and say the numbers would rightly contain those. Except that the number of blackberrry users is not tremendous anyway so as not to have a huge effect. For example previous releases have shown a larger number of Palm VII/i705 users alone than blackberry users. And the number of Blackberries that qualify as a PDA (rightly so) is an even smaller fraction of those numbers.

Much of the RIM line DOES consist of wireless PDA's, and *should* be a constituent of these numbers.

Ed,

I think the way you've framed this story, and particularly your headline, does not correctly capture what the actual report said. It did not say that 26% of U.S. handheld users are wireless. What is says is (direct quote from the site):

"This analysis – which includes U.S. persons age 18+ who used the Internet from a PC in the first quarter of 2002 – determined that among the 19.1 million users owning a PDA, 5.0 million access the Internet with those devices."

So 1/4 access the Internet with their handhelds. I think that clearly can include AvantGo, Vindigo, syncing mail, iSilo, plucker, etc. The report does NOT say that all these people are using their handhelds to WIRELESSLY access the internet, only that they are USING them to access the internet.

That's a pretty big distinction, especially given most PIC readers' assumptions about what wireless Internet access means.

Everyone, please get in the habit of reading all the comments under a story before you post your own. The previous comment makes a good point... one which several people have already made. The fact that it wasn't posted in the thread with the other comments making this same point really seems to indicate he hadn't read the thread. I have moved this comment to be with that thread so all discussion about this one point will be together.

Sorry, I'm not particularly picking on this one person; this happens fairly often here. I'm hoping that by pointing it out we can reduce the number of redundant comments.

---
News Editor

> "Although wireless Internet usage is still in its relative infancy, these data
> prove there already is a significant wireless Web audience,” said Peter
> Daboll, division president of comScore Media Metrix.

So if this study isn't about wireless access, why does the man in charge keep talking about wireless access? If half the people he's talking about aren't wireless, then what he says here makes no sense. Is the study messed up or just comScore Media Metrix's report on it?

Ed,

Actually, I had read this thread. The point of this thread was to debate what "wireless Internet access means." It seemed to me that this debate was engendered by your headline which says that a quarter of U.S. handheld users are wireless.

My point was different. My point was that this is not actually what the article which you were reporting on said. The article said that 26% of of PDA users use their PDAs to access the Internet. It did NOT say that the access was through wireless. Thus, my point was that all this debate as to whether the report was really accurate - were 25% of PDA users really using wireless? - was erroneous, because the comments were debating something that the report did not say, but which only your headline said.

My point, frankly, was that you report, and especially your headline, was a misleading summary of the orignial report.

that is really random.
but maybe its because a palm wouldnt have temporary internet files?
sounds paranoid, but being in the closet can do that.
also, studies have long proven that gay men have a great deal of disposable income, or at least they did in the mid-late 90's...
and since wireless is expensive, it would make sense that a wealthier group would have higher numbers with it.
NOTE: the study im referencing compared gay men to lesbians, gay men to straight men without families, and lesbians to straight women without families.
While straight men make slightly more than gay men, gay male couples without children have more disposable income because two men have a higher combined salary.

We do have a large amount of wireless traffic. However most if it is from avantgo so it's hard for us to accurately measure the number of people that connect to our handheld site without wires. To give you a rough idea we typically see over 3 million hits a month on our wireless page, but that # is a bit inflated because 1 avantgo session picks up 12 pages.

-Ryan
webmaster@palminfocenter.com

You are quite correct and I have changed the article.

---
News Editor

OK... so I can't spell "pole"...

U try spellin stuff when u is drunk and when you write when it aint underlined in red if it dont spell wright!

---
russ@russb.fsnet.co.uk

Actually I though it a humorous pun...