No, unlike you, I use my real name-- rather than hide behind an alias. I also use my brain and put my money where my mouth is!
What is key to Android's longevity is its ability to deliver search and/or ad revenue to Google.
That has yet to be proven as a viable business investment. I suspect that it never will & when Google realizes this-- they will bail on Android!
Whereas, Apple's, RIM's, Nokia's, (maybe HP's), etc. mobile business model is based on revenue from sales of hardware, facilitated by their proprietary OSes.
Microsoft's mobile business model is based on revenue from sales of mobile OS (that ties-in to proprietary desktop/server apps and services).
The other hardware manufacturers' mobile business model is based on sales of hardware. These have no particular loyalty to any OS-- rather whatever moves the iron! So, when Android stops moving the iron, they will abandon it, (as easily as they jumped on the bandwagon), for the popular mobile OS du jour.
I suspect, that we will see a renaissance of Win Mobile, some home-grown OSes by smart phone manufacturers...
The big unknown is WebOS! Will HP:
-- limit WebOS to HP devices only?
-- license/sell WebOS to other mobile device manufacturers?
-- OpenSource WebOS?
There are some significant events about to take place, likely, early 2011, which have the potential to redefine mobile as we know it. There are some opportunities here!
The "Android vs Everybody" battle of 2009-2010 will be but a minor scuffle from an historical perspective.
No, unlike you, I use my real name-- rather than hide behind an alias. I also put my money where my mouth is!
What is key to Android's longevity is its ability to deliver search and/or ad revenue to Google.
That has yet to be proven as a viable business investment. I suspect that it never will & when Google realizes this-- they will bail on Android!
Whereas, Apple's, RIM's, Nokia's, (maybe HP's), etc. mobile business model is based on revenue from sales of hardware, facilitated by their proprietary OSes.
Microsoft's mobile business model is based on revenue from sales of mobile OS (that ties-in to proprietary desktop/server apps and services).
The other hardware manufacturers' mobile business model is based on sales of hardware. These have no particular loyalty to any OS-- rather whatever moves the iron! So, when Android stops moving the iron, they will abandon it, (as easily as they jumped on the bandwagon), for the popular mobile OS du jour.
I suspect, that we will see a renaissance of Win Mobile, some home-grown OSes by smart phone manufacturers...
The big unknown is WebOS! Will HP:
-- limit WebOS to HP devices only?
-- license/sell WebOS to other mobile device manufacturers?
-- OpenSource WebOS?
There are some significant events about to take place, likely, early 2011, which have the potential to redefine mobile as we know it. There are some opportunities here!
The "Android vs Everybody" battle of 2009-2010 will be but a minor scuffle from an historical perspective.
.
How do you know my name isn't Bob? And that I'm not Asian? You don't any more than I don't know for sure that your name is Dick. But all this is besides the point, as my joke clearly went over your head.
As for the "money where my mouth is", it's kind of pointless to say that when you haven't actually put any money down anywhere that I can see.
From the article below, it doesn't seem like Google is going to give it up any time soon. A 300% increase in searches indicates that Android is doing something right for Google. Add to that that the CFO says that Android development costs "isn't material" for Google.
What is key to Android's longevity is its ability to deliver search and/or ad revenue to Google.
That has yet to be proven as a viable business investment. I suspect that it never will & when Google realizes this-- they will bail on Android!
"When questioned if the revenue coming in from Android was enough to make the whole project worthwhile, Schmidt said that it absolutely was. He noted that the idea behind Android is that it drives search ? and that search is still their primary means of revenue. ?Trust me that revenue is large enough to pay for all of the Android activities and a whole bunch more,? he noted."
He also noted that they are activating 200,000 devices a day.
The process of making money is not exempt from morality. One can make money morally, or one can be evil. Corporations don't make decisions. Individuals who work in corporations do. So, if those individuals decide to act immorally, the corporations "actions" become immoral. The old, "It's just business," is a lie: a rationalization that individuals make to soothe their consciences for their own personal immoral behavior. It's as simple as that. If you can't understand it, then you simply have no moral sense yourself, otherwise, it would be quite apparent.
The only thing that is apparent is your delusional thought process when it comes to anythnig regarding Apple. What is really pissing you off is Apple can't rule the world and it just gets under your skin that as soon as you think they are going to take over the entire tech industry someone else come around and steals their thunder.
You know Adobe is evil, Microsoft is evil, Google is evil, RIM is evil but Apple they are as pure as newly fallen snow.
You're a joke. Yeah like Steve Jobs never knew anything about the securities fraud. I am sure he was totally innocent in that case.
After years of preaching the virtues of net neutrality, to their benefit, naturally, Google now does an abrupt about-face and goes into negotiations with Verizon to get priority for their traffic. Whatever happened to do no evil? I guess they don't think they need to keep up that charade any longer.
There has never been a company in my lifetime, so hypocritical, with so little respect for either laws or personal freedom and privacy as Google. The minute it's to their advantage to abandon net neutrality, under the bus it goes. This is a company utterly devoid of any principles, moral or otherwise.
And this is the company you Android fans think is so great, and are so eager to see succeed?
Perhaps anyone who passes such broad, damning judgement based solely on rumors and speculation is a fool as well?
That's exactly what he said... "you can't have it both ways" and you then counter with "Actually, you can't have it both ways" (jragosta post #131) -
It is very simple.
A number of AI'ers have been claiming that Android and Blackberry sales were "juiced" up by BOGO deals. But the iphone has also been "juiced" up by the carriers' unprecedented massive amount of handset subsidies (that required AT&T to issue a profit margin warning).
How many would a $400 iphone (instead of a $200 iphone) sold? That's a $200 handset subsidy --- which is pretty much the normal amount in the industry.
Both sides are juiced up by the carriers eating the subsidy.
After years of preaching the virtues of net neutrality, to their benefit, naturally, Google now does an abrupt about-face and goes into negotiations with Verizon to get priority for their traffic. Whatever happened to do no evil? I guess they don't think they need to keep up that charade any longer.
There has never been a company in my lifetime, so hypocritical, with so little respect for either laws or personal freedom and privacy as Google. The minute it's to their advantage to abandon net neutrality, under the bus it goes. This is a company utterly devoid of any principles, moral or otherwise.
And this is the company you Android fans think is so great, and are so eager to see succeed?
And another article with both Google and Verizon representatives denying a deal in writting.
So much for your "hypocritical" Google argument eh? Do you really hate all things Google that much to jump the gun and try to report rumors as fact? Next time, be sure to wait for the other side to make a comment to the matter before breaking out your spray can to condemn them.
funny, you speak as though Android developers are less capable software engineers than, *clear throat-chin up* Apple software developers. The thing is that iPhone apps are coded in Java as are Android apps. They use the same language with the exception that as an Android developer, I have more CHOICE (PC, Linux, Apple) of what I want to work in. As an iPhone dev. (once again...) I don't.
A number of AI'ers have been claiming that Android and Blackberry sales were "juiced" up by BOGO deals. But the iphone has also been "juiced" up by the carriers' unprecedented massive amount of handset subsidies (that required AT&T to issue a profit margin warning).
How many would a $400 iphone (instead of a $200 iphone) sold? That's a $200 handset subsidy --- which is pretty much the normal amount in the industry.
Both sides are juiced up by the carriers eating the subsidy.
You keep saying this and it’s still BS. Repeating it doesn’t make it any more true. Phones in the US are subsidized. It’s how Americans* like to buy their phones and since most phones from all MNOs in the US are subsidized it makes your point moot.
On top of that, any successful release of a device that is subsidized will have a carrier issue such a warning since the payout to the vendor will come long before the carrier can recap that cost from the consumer. I assume they pay Apple on a monthly basis. What is so hard to understand about this? This is why AT&T liked the profit sharing.
Other phones cost just as much without a subsidy but Apple can command more money because it’s the only smartphone on the market that the carriers and customers actually care about. When a single Android phone from one vendor on one carrier can sell 1 million in the first week then you’ll see that carrier also note a profit margin warning.
* Americans, as it is the only country with America in the name. If I am referring to all people of all countries on two continents I will be very clear to point that out.
You keep saying this and it’s still BS. Repeating it doesn’t make it any more true. Phones in the US are subsidized. It’s how Americans* like to buy their phones and since most phones from all MNOs in the US are subsidized it makes your point moot.
On top of that, any successful release of a device that is subsidized will have a carrier issue such a warning since the payout to the vendor will come long before the carrier can recap that cost from the consumer. I assume they pay Apple on a monthly basis. What is so hard to understand about this? This is why AT&T liked the profit sharing.
Other phones cost just as much without a subsidy but Apple can command more money because it’s the only smartphone on the market that the carriers and customers actually care about. When a single Android phone from one vendor on one carrier can sell 1 million in the first week then you’ll see that carrier also note a profit margin warning.
* Americans, as it is the only country with America in the name. If I am referring to all people of all countries on two continents I will be very clear to point that out.
Subsidized by what amount?
Link one instance where an American carrier (other than AT&T's iphone) issued a SEC filing on profit warning on handset subsidy. You are repeating saying I was wrong without giving us some sort of concrete evidence.
How many iphones would have been sold if it is priced at something like $400 (instead of $200)? That's AT&T doing a $200 handset subsidy --- which is about the amount for the other smartphones.
funny, you speak as though Android developers are less capable software engineers than, *clear throat-chin up* Apple software developers. The thing is that iPhone apps are coded in Java as are Android apps. They use the same language with the exception that as an Android developer, I have more CHOICE (PC, Linux, Apple) of what I want to work in. As an iPhone dev. (once again...) I don't.
No. This is wrong. Android uses Java and, with the NDK, other compilable languages (though I'm not sure many people outside the hacking community do this), and iOS makes you use C, C++, or Objective-c/Cocoa.
That said, regardless of whether some phones are BOGO or whatever, the fact remains that 200k Android phones are activated every day and are being sold at an insane rate. And even if throwing the BOGO phones out of the picture, in other words the ones that are in the same league as the $99 iPhone offering, it would be valid to throw out the $99 iPhone as well. As neither are valid, we can't just throw out certain phones from the picture and say "Oh well if you don't count the ones that are just a really good deal, I am sure the iPhone would still be on top." The fact of the matter is that $99 for an iPhone is also a good deal. Also, this doesn't affect your walled garden. Why do you care?
Link one instance where an American carrier (other than AT&T's iphone) issued a SEC filing on profit warning on handset subsidy. You are repeating saying I was wrong without giving us some sort of concrete evidence.
How many iphones would have been sold if it is priced at something like $400 (instead of $200)? That's AT&T doing a $200 handset subsidy --- which is about the amount for the other smartphones.
I don?t to supply concrete evidence to point out your conclusion as being unsubstantiated. You claim that it?s only because Apple can claim a higher subsidy because it?s handset is more desirable than any other vendors, but you?ve failed to note or consider the excessive number of iPhones that AT&T is pushing all at once. Can you prove that if the subsidy was cut in half that the shear number of iPhone sales would still not have led to a profit margin warning? Of course you can?t, because your argument is flawed.
I don?t to supply concrete evidence to point out your conclusion as being unsubstantiated. You claim that it?s only because Apple can claim a higher subsidy because it?s handset is more desirable than any other vendors, but you?ve failed to note or consider the excessive number of iPhones that AT&T is pushing all at once. Can you prove that if the subsidy was cut in half that the shear number of iPhone sales would still not have led to a profit margin warning? Of course you can?t, because your argument is flawed.
Your argument is flawed, not mine.
It doesn't matter whether AT&T would still have to issue a profit margin warning or not --- if the subsidy was cut in half.
It only matters that demand is a function of price. A $400 iphone would have sold less units.
It doesn't matter whether AT&T would still have to issue a profit margin warning or not --- if the subsidy was cut in half.
It only matters that demand is a function of price. A $400 iphone would have sold less units.
Now it doesn?t matter yet your entire argument is that AT&T issued a profit margin warning over the update of device that 3 sold millions of units in 21 days to only 5 countries? No, the excessive number of sales in a short time would have absolutely no barring on the total payout to Apple. Gee, what was I thinking?¡
How do you know my name isn't Bob? And that I'm not Asian? You don't any more than I don't know for sure that your name is Dick. But all this is besides the point, as my joke clearly went over your head.
As for the "money where my mouth is", it's kind of pointless to say that when you haven't actually put any money down anywhere that I can see.
From the article below, it doesn't seem like Google is going to give it up any time soon. A 300% increase in searches indicates that Android is doing something right for Google. Add to that that the CFO says that Android development costs "isn't material" for Google.
Comments
Just out of curiosity, you have:
1) 4 Tablets (Archos 5IT, Archos 7HT, iRobot aPad, iPad)
2) 3 Smart Phones (DROID, DROID X, iPhone)
3) 1 iPod Touch
Why?
What so you do with them?
How many ATT contracts do you have?
How many Verizon, Sprint T-Mobile contracts do you have?
.
I'm only with Verizon (DROID, DROID X, Palm Pre Plus/hotspot) and AT&T (iPhone3GS, iPhone4(spouse's), iPad 64/3g), and I never stated otherwise
As for my use for them... To Communicate As I See Fit.
I hope that clears things up for you.
I think Ballmer said the same thing when Android first came out two years ago...
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10083590-94.html
Is that you Ballmer?!
No, unlike you, I use my real name-- rather than hide behind an alias. I also use my brain and put my money where my mouth is!
What is key to Android's longevity is its ability to deliver search and/or ad revenue to Google.
That has yet to be proven as a viable business investment. I suspect that it never will & when Google realizes this-- they will bail on Android!
Whereas, Apple's, RIM's, Nokia's, (maybe HP's), etc. mobile business model is based on revenue from sales of hardware, facilitated by their proprietary OSes.
Microsoft's mobile business model is based on revenue from sales of mobile OS (that ties-in to proprietary desktop/server apps and services).
The other hardware manufacturers' mobile business model is based on sales of hardware. These have no particular loyalty to any OS-- rather whatever moves the iron! So, when Android stops moving the iron, they will abandon it, (as easily as they jumped on the bandwagon), for the popular mobile OS du jour.
I suspect, that we will see a renaissance of Win Mobile, some home-grown OSes by smart phone manufacturers...
The big unknown is WebOS! Will HP:
-- limit WebOS to HP devices only?
-- license/sell WebOS to other mobile device manufacturers?
-- OpenSource WebOS?
There are some significant events about to take place, likely, early 2011, which have the potential to redefine mobile as we know it. There are some opportunities here!
The "Android vs Everybody" battle of 2009-2010 will be but a minor scuffle from an historical perspective.
.
No, unlike you, I use my real name-- rather than hide behind an alias. I also put my money where my mouth is!
What is key to Android's longevity is its ability to deliver search and/or ad revenue to Google.
That has yet to be proven as a viable business investment. I suspect that it never will & when Google realizes this-- they will bail on Android!
Whereas, Apple's, RIM's, Nokia's, (maybe HP's), etc. mobile business model is based on revenue from sales of hardware, facilitated by their proprietary OSes.
Microsoft's mobile business model is based on revenue from sales of mobile OS (that ties-in to proprietary desktop/server apps and services).
The other hardware manufacturers' mobile business model is based on sales of hardware. These have no particular loyalty to any OS-- rather whatever moves the iron! So, when Android stops moving the iron, they will abandon it, (as easily as they jumped on the bandwagon), for the popular mobile OS du jour.
I suspect, that we will see a renaissance of Win Mobile, some home-grown OSes by smart phone manufacturers...
The big unknown is WebOS! Will HP:
-- limit WebOS to HP devices only?
-- license/sell WebOS to other mobile device manufacturers?
-- OpenSource WebOS?
There are some significant events about to take place, likely, early 2011, which have the potential to redefine mobile as we know it. There are some opportunities here!
The "Android vs Everybody" battle of 2009-2010 will be but a minor scuffle from an historical perspective.
.
How do you know my name isn't Bob? And that I'm not Asian? You don't any more than I don't know for sure that your name is Dick. But all this is besides the point, as my joke clearly went over your head.
As for the "money where my mouth is", it's kind of pointless to say that when you haven't actually put any money down anywhere that I can see.
From the article below, it doesn't seem like Google is going to give it up any time soon. A 300% increase in searches indicates that Android is doing something right for Google. Add to that that the CFO says that Android development costs "isn't material" for Google.
http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/...0-market-apps/
I too am curious to see how webOS develops in the hands of HP.
There will always be some major events to be played in the mobile OS field. It's true every year. Kind of takes the wind out of that "prediction".
What is key to Android's longevity is its ability to deliver search and/or ad revenue to Google.
That has yet to be proven as a viable business investment. I suspect that it never will & when Google realizes this-- they will bail on Android!
"When questioned if the revenue coming in from Android was enough to make the whole project worthwhile, Schmidt said that it absolutely was. He noted that the idea behind Android is that it drives search ? and that search is still their primary means of revenue. ?Trust me that revenue is large enough to pay for all of the Android activities and a whole bunch more,? he noted."
He also noted that they are activating 200,000 devices a day.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/04/android-activations/
Never let facts get in the way of your post, right davesw?
how much money is Google getting from all these Market share? NEAR ZERO!
Google: The search party is over
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/07/...party-is-over/
Why is it that the trolls have no understanding of anything but literal prose? Is it that your soul is a black pit of depravity?
Was there some specific point to your post, or have your personal attacks merely become even more random?
Was there some specific point to your post, or have your personal attacks merely become even more random?
Yes, there was a specific point, which you apparently failed to grasp.
The process of making money is not exempt from morality. One can make money morally, or one can be evil. Corporations don't make decisions. Individuals who work in corporations do. So, if those individuals decide to act immorally, the corporations "actions" become immoral. The old, "It's just business," is a lie: a rationalization that individuals make to soothe their consciences for their own personal immoral behavior. It's as simple as that. If you can't understand it, then you simply have no moral sense yourself, otherwise, it would be quite apparent.
The only thing that is apparent is your delusional thought process when it comes to anythnig regarding Apple. What is really pissing you off is Apple can't rule the world and it just gets under your skin that as soon as you think they are going to take over the entire tech industry someone else come around and steals their thunder.
You know Adobe is evil, Microsoft is evil, Google is evil, RIM is evil but Apple they are as pure as newly fallen snow.
You're a joke. Yeah like Steve Jobs never knew anything about the securities fraud. I am sure he was totally innocent in that case.
Here's an example of the number one reason why anyone who supports Google, in any endeavor, is a fool:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/te...ref=technology
After years of preaching the virtues of net neutrality, to their benefit, naturally, Google now does an abrupt about-face and goes into negotiations with Verizon to get priority for their traffic. Whatever happened to do no evil? I guess they don't think they need to keep up that charade any longer.
There has never been a company in my lifetime, so hypocritical, with so little respect for either laws or personal freedom and privacy as Google. The minute it's to their advantage to abandon net neutrality, under the bus it goes. This is a company utterly devoid of any principles, moral or otherwise.
And this is the company you Android fans think is so great, and are so eager to see succeed?
Perhaps anyone who passes such broad, damning judgement based solely on rumors and speculation is a fool as well?
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...100048489.html
Hmmm?
That's exactly what he said... "you can't have it both ways" and you then counter with "Actually, you can't have it both ways" (jragosta post #131) -
It is very simple.
A number of AI'ers have been claiming that Android and Blackberry sales were "juiced" up by BOGO deals. But the iphone has also been "juiced" up by the carriers' unprecedented massive amount of handset subsidies (that required AT&T to issue a profit margin warning).
How many would a $400 iphone (instead of a $200 iphone) sold? That's a $200 handset subsidy --- which is pretty much the normal amount in the industry.
Both sides are juiced up by the carriers eating the subsidy.
Here's an example of the number one reason why anyone who supports Google, in any endeavor, is a fool:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/te...ref=technology
After years of preaching the virtues of net neutrality, to their benefit, naturally, Google now does an abrupt about-face and goes into negotiations with Verizon to get priority for their traffic. Whatever happened to do no evil? I guess they don't think they need to keep up that charade any longer.
There has never been a company in my lifetime, so hypocritical, with so little respect for either laws or personal freedom and privacy as Google. The minute it's to their advantage to abandon net neutrality, under the bus it goes. This is a company utterly devoid of any principles, moral or otherwise.
And this is the company you Android fans think is so great, and are so eager to see succeed?
And another article with both Google and Verizon representatives denying a deal in writting.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2367436,00.asp
So much for your "hypocritical" Google argument eh? Do you really hate all things Google that much to jump the gun and try to report rumors as fact? Next time, be sure to wait for the other side to make a comment to the matter before breaking out your spray can to condemn them.
Sad. Really.
You can keep most of the Android developers...
funny, you speak as though Android developers are less capable software engineers than, *clear throat-chin up* Apple software developers. The thing is that iPhone apps are coded in Java as are Android apps. They use the same language with the exception that as an Android developer, I have more CHOICE (PC, Linux, Apple) of what I want to work in. As an iPhone dev. (once again...) I don't.
It is very simple.
A number of AI'ers have been claiming that Android and Blackberry sales were "juiced" up by BOGO deals. But the iphone has also been "juiced" up by the carriers' unprecedented massive amount of handset subsidies (that required AT&T to issue a profit margin warning).
How many would a $400 iphone (instead of a $200 iphone) sold? That's a $200 handset subsidy --- which is pretty much the normal amount in the industry.
Both sides are juiced up by the carriers eating the subsidy.
You keep saying this and it’s still BS. Repeating it doesn’t make it any more true. Phones in the US are subsidized. It’s how Americans* like to buy their phones and since most phones from all MNOs in the US are subsidized it makes your point moot.
On top of that, any successful release of a device that is subsidized will have a carrier issue such a warning since the payout to the vendor will come long before the carrier can recap that cost from the consumer. I assume they pay Apple on a monthly basis. What is so hard to understand about this? This is why AT&T liked the profit sharing.
Other phones cost just as much without a subsidy but Apple can command more money because it’s the only smartphone on the market that the carriers and customers actually care about. When a single Android phone from one vendor on one carrier can sell 1 million in the first week then you’ll see that carrier also note a profit margin warning.
* Americans, as it is the only country with America in the name. If I am referring to all people of all countries on two continents I will be very clear to point that out.
You keep saying this and it’s still BS. Repeating it doesn’t make it any more true. Phones in the US are subsidized. It’s how Americans* like to buy their phones and since most phones from all MNOs in the US are subsidized it makes your point moot.
On top of that, any successful release of a device that is subsidized will have a carrier issue such a warning since the payout to the vendor will come long before the carrier can recap that cost from the consumer. I assume they pay Apple on a monthly basis. What is so hard to understand about this? This is why AT&T liked the profit sharing.
Other phones cost just as much without a subsidy but Apple can command more money because it’s the only smartphone on the market that the carriers and customers actually care about. When a single Android phone from one vendor on one carrier can sell 1 million in the first week then you’ll see that carrier also note a profit margin warning.
* Americans, as it is the only country with America in the name. If I am referring to all people of all countries on two continents I will be very clear to point that out.
Subsidized by what amount?
Link one instance where an American carrier (other than AT&T's iphone) issued a SEC filing on profit warning on handset subsidy. You are repeating saying I was wrong without giving us some sort of concrete evidence.
How many iphones would have been sold if it is priced at something like $400 (instead of $200)? That's AT&T doing a $200 handset subsidy --- which is about the amount for the other smartphones.
funny, you speak as though Android developers are less capable software engineers than, *clear throat-chin up* Apple software developers. The thing is that iPhone apps are coded in Java as are Android apps. They use the same language with the exception that as an Android developer, I have more CHOICE (PC, Linux, Apple) of what I want to work in. As an iPhone dev. (once again...) I don't.
No. This is wrong. Android uses Java and, with the NDK, other compilable languages (though I'm not sure many people outside the hacking community do this), and iOS makes you use C, C++, or Objective-c/Cocoa.
That said, regardless of whether some phones are BOGO or whatever, the fact remains that 200k Android phones are activated every day and are being sold at an insane rate. And even if throwing the BOGO phones out of the picture, in other words the ones that are in the same league as the $99 iPhone offering, it would be valid to throw out the $99 iPhone as well. As neither are valid, we can't just throw out certain phones from the picture and say "Oh well if you don't count the ones that are just a really good deal, I am sure the iPhone would still be on top." The fact of the matter is that $99 for an iPhone is also a good deal. Also, this doesn't affect your walled garden. Why do you care?
Subsidized by what amount?
Link one instance where an American carrier (other than AT&T's iphone) issued a SEC filing on profit warning on handset subsidy. You are repeating saying I was wrong without giving us some sort of concrete evidence.
How many iphones would have been sold if it is priced at something like $400 (instead of $200)? That's AT&T doing a $200 handset subsidy --- which is about the amount for the other smartphones.
I don?t to supply concrete evidence to point out your conclusion as being unsubstantiated. You claim that it?s only because Apple can claim a higher subsidy because it?s handset is more desirable than any other vendors, but you?ve failed to note or consider the excessive number of iPhones that AT&T is pushing all at once. Can you prove that if the subsidy was cut in half that the shear number of iPhone sales would still not have led to a profit margin warning? Of course you can?t, because your argument is flawed.
Yes, there was a specific point, which you apparently failed to grasp.
Enlighten us: kindly explain how the number "666" relates to Google in any way that would materially demonstrate some sort of inherent "evil".
I don?t to supply concrete evidence to point out your conclusion as being unsubstantiated. You claim that it?s only because Apple can claim a higher subsidy because it?s handset is more desirable than any other vendors, but you?ve failed to note or consider the excessive number of iPhones that AT&T is pushing all at once. Can you prove that if the subsidy was cut in half that the shear number of iPhone sales would still not have led to a profit margin warning? Of course you can?t, because your argument is flawed.
Your argument is flawed, not mine.
It doesn't matter whether AT&T would still have to issue a profit margin warning or not --- if the subsidy was cut in half.
It only matters that demand is a function of price. A $400 iphone would have sold less units.
Your argument is flawed, not mine.
It doesn't matter whether AT&T would still have to issue a profit margin warning or not --- if the subsidy was cut in half.
It only matters that demand is a function of price. A $400 iphone would have sold less units.
Now it doesn?t matter yet your entire argument is that AT&T issued a profit margin warning over the update of device that 3 sold millions of units in 21 days to only 5 countries? No, the excessive number of sales in a short time would have absolutely no barring on the total payout to Apple. Gee, what was I thinking?¡
How do you know my name isn't Bob? And that I'm not Asian? You don't any more than I don't know for sure that your name is Dick. But all this is besides the point, as my joke clearly went over your head.
As for the "money where my mouth is", it's kind of pointless to say that when you haven't actually put any money down anywhere that I can see.
From the article below, it doesn't seem like Google is going to give it up any time soon. A 300% increase in searches indicates that Android is doing something right for Google. Add to that that the CFO says that Android development costs "isn't material" for Google.
http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/...0-market-apps/
I too am curious to see how webOS develops in the hands of HP.
There will always be some major events to be played in the mobile OS field. It's true every year. Kind of takes the wind out of that "prediction".
...wait for it...
.