or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by auxio

 It's all about return-on-investment.  They'll push whichever phone gives them the highest.  If they have to pay a $500 subsidy and they make $1000 profit over the 2-year contract, it's no different than if they paid $100 subsidy and only made $600 over the 2-year contract.
 I didn't say that.  It's just that many of the companies manufacturing these phones have a history of working around patents rather than fairly licensing technology (especially when only distributing products in China, where patents tend to be difficult to enforce). So I was a bit skeptical when I first looked that the fingerprint sensor technology used in the Ascend, but after a quick look at the FPC site, I see that they've publicly announced it.  So I'm satisfied that...
 Not shipping yet. Why is the fingerprint sensor on the back of it?  It also just started shipping this month and it's not available in the US. And keep supporting companies that reverse-engineer technology and figure out ways to work around patents.  Apple may not always invent things themselves, but at least they play by the rules and either buy the company that did or license the technology from them.
 What if a government agency tasked with preventing electronics waste from making it's way into landfills (as many feature phones did when they fell out of favour) subsidized it?  If you're referring to a cellular service provider, then they aren't the ones profiting when someone buys a higher end phone unless they also buy a higher end service plan.  In fact, they have to pay a higher subsidy (and thus have to force you onto a more expensive plan to recoup their...
 But it only went that way after it became a choice between a $0 feature phone and a $0 low-end smart phone.  Of course people are going to pick the best device they can get at the same price point. What I'm talking about is something like: a feature phone with a $100 rebate on your first 3 months of cellular service vs a $0 low-end smart phone with no such rebate.  Are people going for low-end smart phones (like the vast majority of Android phones being sold) willing to...
 Man is it hard to get some people to see a point here. Forget the fact that it doesn't make sense for anyone to do this: my question is whether the low-end phone buyers would go for it?  If so, then it shows that this is the reason why most Android phone users (i.e. the low-end market) are clueless about features like Google Wallet: because they simply don't care and money is the main thing they care about.
There's some confusion about my argument here.  It's this:   If you gave financial incentives for someone to choose a dumb phone over a free smart phone, how many would opt for it?   We're talking about whether money is a bigger factor than features.  Regardless of whatever philosophy you think people may have about moving from a dumb phone to a smart phone, supply/demand, whatever.   Android enters into the equation here because the vast majority of the Android...
 My original thought was: if you gave the low-end phone buyers enough monetary incentive (i.e. a big rebate on choosing a dumb phone), would they choose it over the free low-end Android smart phones?  Given that, from what I've seen, cost is the main factor in many low-end phone buying decisions (and that those people generally only use features which were available on dumb phones).
 Yeah, and that covers another aspect of device choice: kickbacks to the reseller and the resulting pressure tactics used by salespeople to convince customers who don't really have a strong preference or level of knowledge.  Again leading to customers who don't really know about their phone's features.
hehe, you pulled that post in time.  I was just about to reply with: now divide the overall per-OS web traffic by the number of phones out there running Android vs iOS and my point is still valid. 
New Posts  All Forums: