Except it has been proved that the figures for "Android (Google)" were NOT all smartphones, because they include all Android phones, Zhang Fei. The numbers reported for the makers of Android phones report all the phones they make. . . smart phones, feature phones, and just plain phones.
In 2013, in the Apple v. Samsung trial, Judge Lucy Koh forced Samsung to reveal their Android phone product mix. It turned out Samsung made 30% Android smart phones, 40% Android feature phones, and 30% Android plain phones. Economic researchers have taken that bit of information and researched the other major Android manufacturers and found the mix pretty close was mirrored by all of them because it was forced by market forces—yet their statistics are all merely reported under Android phones—and invariably that gets reported as Android smartphones.
The researchers also found that many of the smaller Android phone makers do not even make smartphones, but concentrate their product lines on the mid range to low-end plain phone market for the third world. In other words, Zhang, most of those "Other" phones made by "White Box Cellphone makers" are not even smartphones, and the Android "smartphone" market is extraordinarily inflated, both in numbers and in percentages. The actual percentage of SMARTPHONES is something less than 30% of that percentage of Android (Google), while the rest of the Android (Google) percentage is made of those Feature and plain phones.
Besides, your chart is total twaddle when it states that in 2010, Android phones had 53.26% of the market and Apple had 39.93% while Windows Mobile had 9.81%. . . WHERE ARE RIM's and NOKIA's 70% PLUS OF THE SMARTPHONE MARKET IN 2010????
Your chart is garbage. You can't just make up "facts" like Blackberry, Symbian are "APP-LESS" when they were not! Android was just getting STARTED in 2010 and yes Android was growing rapidly, but there is NO WAY they had garnered 53% of the market by 2010. . . I don't know where you got this junk but that's what it is. . . junk. Your chart shows Apple taking second place in 2010 excluding RIM and Nokia, but the actual historic record shows that only occurred in August of 2011.
Not making it up. BB and Symbian died because they lacked apps and never made any real attempts to attract developers. Look up any forum.
The raw data comes from Wikipedia. I excluded Symbian, PalmOS and BB because they lacked apps, and their makers never bothered to get developers interested. BB's focus was on data security, and apps by 3rd parties kind of monkey with that. Nokia thought it could do everything - instead of paying developers, it bought Navteq, paid over $10b in dividends and bought back billions of dollars of stock. PalmOS was always on the verge of death - it lost small sums of money year after year after year, and never had significant unit volume. So it came down to Apple, Google and MS. Before Apple and Android, MS was the only smartphone platform with a full suite of 3rd party apps.
Again, BB and Symbian had few appreciable 3rd party apps, and very limited in-house apps, so I don't consider them smartphones, which are functionally full-featured computers in a handset sans the desktop or laptop screen. At best, they were feature phones with a bit of additional functionality.