First reported in CNET, a reputable technology publication, news reports foreboding iPhone’s impending demise have since been circulating. “More people are trading their iPhones in for Androids”, “New report shows that iPhone loyalty is as low as it’s ever been“, “iPhone loyalty is reportedly dropping like a rock” read the headlines.
At the centre of it all is a lone source cited by these news outlets: BankMyCell, an internet-based company that earns revenue from smartphone trade-ins.
A common thread amongst these sources is the fact that iPhone users are switching in droves to Android phones, with the converse was not as severe. In particular, the narrative goes, the top-of-the-line iPhone XS suffers from the lowest loyalty. CNET goes on to corroborate this with research from Kantar that indicated that iOS sales in 2019 accounted for 2.4% less than in 2018.
While plain common sense easily slices through these audacious, spurious claims, a rudimentary understanding of how these “studies” are conducted further shows how much of a stretch these claims are.
1. Sources, sources, sources
The reliability of sources is of paramount concern when examining any extreme claim made by anyone. In this furore, tech sites have all centred in on a “study” by BankMyCell, and a preliminary scan reveals several areas of limitation.
Before we even begin, BankMyCell speaks of 2019 as Apple’s worst performing year in terms of brand loyalty. 2019 hasn’t ended yet; Apple has not had any smartphone launches this year and will not have any until September. That might be a huge reason why iPhone “loyalty” is falling. That’s just irresponsible reporting.
Now we can begin. Firstly, the site has only collected data for only a few meagre months since October 2018.
That means to build a comparative trend of smartphone loyalty through the years, they have gone on to use a mix of unrelated third-party sources. For fields since 2011, BankMyCell has cited everything from Statista, bgr.com, Business Insider and Constant Contact to build their graphic before appending their own one-year “research” for 2019.
That’s the second issue – the jumble of sources used to build a year-on-year picture of smartphone loyalty. It’s highly unlikely that the different sources would match up sufficiently to be presented for comparison on the same chart. Being unaffiliated, they would have gotten information through drastically different ways.
Are they limited regionally like to the US only or are they worldwide in scope? How big were their sample sizes? Were they measuring resale volumes like BankMyCell did, or did they perform consumer surveys? Do they measure by units sold, value of total units sold or deal in resale values?
Thirdly, each of the publications in turn solely cited BankMyCell. BankMyCell isn’t known for unbiased market research, and clearly has an agenda as an online trade-in company. Audacious claims are great for virality, which is great for getting your brand name out there. Score for marketing.
Lastly, BankMyCell clearly states their information isn’t to be taken as bible truth. With a gender bias (60% toward females) and age bias (a whopping 62.4% between 18-35 years). That’s a tough sell even with a sample size of 34,785 – BankMyCell is limited to the USA, and is used by a limited group of millennials who are mostly women.
2. Hidden agenda?
I’m enough of a cynic, but my background in Economics has well convinced me that anyone can cite “data” to prove literally any point. Select the right sources, the right sampling method, the right metrics, the right method to present your “findings”, and any data trend can reflect anything you want it to.
You’ve arguing about something and you’ve got a point to prove. You obviously only state facts that back up your claims, or otherwise feign recognition of your shortcomings. The same way, BankMyCell gets to pick and choose its cited sources without any explicit justification to build its point.
Clickbait is one thing, but it’s an important thing. The desire to gain views and virality can inspire some pretty radical headlines like “iPhone sales are the worst in years” – while barely clinging on to any modicum of truth as media outlets down the content pipeline eagerly lap up the attention from writing yet another sensational piece on the world’s most scrutinised tech company.
Might as well write headlines like “Apple’s dead, here’s why”, “the iPhone 11 just got CANCELLED” and make it up with a weak disclaimer stating that your source taken alone might not tell the whole story. If the source acknowledges its dire shortcomings, why not fix them and present a more accurate picture?
In any case, BankMyPhone stands to gain from the marketing attention brought by the relentless pursuit of clickbait.
3. Confounding Factors
The timeline of the “study” introduces a whole bevy of confounding factors. Firstly, it is safe to assume that phone sales generally peak closer to their actual launch. Thus, by beginning their “study” from October 2018, BankMyPhone has missed the iPhone September iPhone Xs and Xs Max launches only capturing the iPhone XR which had not enjoyed the same popularity as its pricier sibling.
Samsung, on the other hand, had launched no less than the flagship Galaxy S10e, S10, S10+ devices, along with the Galaxy A9 Pro, A10, A20, A30, A40, A60, A70, A80, Galaxy Fold, Galaxy 5G and the S10 5G, amongst a few additional launches in 2019 alone thus far (at the time of publishing, 21 July 2019).
With such a wide range of Samsung Galaxy smartphones to choose from, it is little wonder then that BankMyPhone would have recorded more switches to Galaxy Phones from iPhones. Imagine if it were the other way around: a dozen iPhone models and a single Samsung device. It would then not be unreasonable to expect more Galaxy owners to trade-in in exchange for the latest iPhones at launch.
Furthermore, BankMyPhone had also released an earlier “study” delineating how Samsung devices held on to their value more poorly than equivalent iPhone devices. A quick scan for top of the line iPhone XS Max fetches hundreds of dollars more than the equivalent Samsung S10+ model despite being released months prior.
That could possibly mean that iPhones retain more value on such trade-in platforms and are thus iPhone owners are more likely to use their services than Samsung owners would. If Samsung phones depreciate much faster, owners might opt to trade on alternative platforms or even retain handsets as back-up devices.
Who’s to blame?
Journalists and their editors bear a huge responsibility to their readers. Fake news is a perennial concern, but copying leads from dominant figures in the industry isn’t a guarantee of their authenticity.
A quick browse on the topic shows most second-rate news organisations literally copying talking points from CNET; CNET itself does little to refine bullet points provided by “study” in exchange for a snappy, clickable, potentially viral headline.
To be clear: BankMyCell is not at all at fault here. They have in their means the ability to collate a reasonably large sample of resale figures, albeit across a very limited time frame.
However, they chose an extremely poor time to conclude these findings – without even waiting for a full year to smoothen the staggered device launches. This brings into question the validity of the study as a whole.
They’ve done a smashing job, though. Clearly, even the most reputable tech publications the world over have swallowed their narrative – hook, line and sinker.