[kfcm]

+100.

I split my time between a large metro, a smaller metro and rural farmland. My unscientific breakdown is this.

Metro areas are serviced by multiple carriers, many of which offer both iPhones and Android smartphones. In my metro areas, I think iPhones beat Android devices by a few percentage points (10-15% maybe) as more and more Android smartphones hit the market.

Rural areas are serviced by 2-3 carriers, max. Often it's just one primary and one secondary carrier. None of these carriers--in the areas I frequent--offer the iPhone. It's safe to say Android devices are near 100% market penetration.

Were you to do a county-by-county breakdown (or metro vs rural), I think you'd see a huge difference. Were I developing an app for agriculture, iPhones wouldn't even come into consideration.

[Samuel_Michon]

“Were you to do a county-by-county breakdown (or metro vs rural), I think you'd see a huge difference. Were I developing an app for agriculture, iPhones wouldn't even come into consideration.”

Before I saw this report, I would've thought the same. However, it's states like the Dakotas, Montana, Maine, and Vermont where there are (apparently) more iPhone users than Android users. Those states aren't exactly known for their sprawling metropolises.

[mikeash]

I'm a little confused by "None of these carriers--in the areas I frequent--offer the iPhone." Before today, three of the four national carriers had the iPhone, with the fourth, T-Mobile, catching up today, and also being the least relevant since their rural coverage is pretty bad. Are these 2-3 carriers available in rural areas actually regional carriers, with no penetration by national carriers?