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.
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.
And this distribution probably still holds today, since most users don't switch back and forth between both operating systems.
However, that acquisition was a while ago. I’m sure nothing is overnight. Still, not much is truly revealed about these numbers. This article still leaves me unsatisfied.
Then, I went to Tokyo, which is much more diverse, including not only Android and iPhones, but quite a few flip-style phones.
My hunch, areas that have high wealth inequality will favor one platform more than the other. Areas that have more of a gradient will be more 50/50.
i joke. i joke...