As always, Aysmco has a useful visualization of the market. Apple is making a ton of money on relatively few phones sold, while the Android miracle isn't actually making much money for anyone but HTC.....
I wish people would look at data like this with context. Those other companies (with the exception of RIM and HTC) make a lot of dumbphones which bring down their ASPs for phones. Apples makes smartphones only. Granted, Apple still has a huge lead on RIM and HTC, but that graphic is still quite misleading.
I wish people would look at data like this with context. Those other companies (with the exception of RIM and HTC) make a lot of dumbphones which bring down their ASPs for phones. Apples makes smartphones only. Granted, Apple still has a huge lead on RIM and HTC, but that graphic is still quite misleading.
If you filter out the dumb and feature phones all you do is shorten the horizontal line for that manufacturer-- it doesn't create more profits.
Motorola isn't making much money on phones, period, even with their vaunted Android successes. Nothing at all misleading about that. LG is, in fact, losing money in the handset market, even with their Android phones. Just a fact. Samsung sells a ton of feature and dumb phones, has some of big marquee Android handsets, and still makes very modest profits in the segment.
So I'm not sure what your'e complaint is. The graphic indicates where the profits are.
All I can say is duh. Why did it take 75 posts before someone else realized this reality? It seems common sense is not so common on these boards nor is the ability to critically think about the original article before parroting it on this web site.
I bet you're fun at parties:
"Hey everybody, this is Nubs, he's new!"
"Hi losers! Carry on with your'e tedious conversation, just thought I'd pop in and let you know you're beneath me!"
As always, Aysmco has a useful visualization of the market. Apple is making a ton of money on relatively few phones sold, while the Android miracle isn't actually making much money for anyone but HTC:
And possibly not much for the carriers, either. I heard an ad this morning for a Buy One get FIVE Free Android phone. ROTFLMAL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I've read every post...
Everyone seems to be looking at this from a political or technical perspective.
Unless I missed them, there weren't any posts from the practical perspective... surprisingly!
Here's an Article that I don't like, but I agree with:
That was a silly article. There was nothing there to support the allegations. The author believed that Motorola was foolish for looking at anything other than Android - and restated that point multiple times, but without a thing to back it up. Besides that, he glosses over the negatives (mostly just ignores them) and focuses solely on one or two things that he perceives as important.
Sorry, but if I wanted uneducated, unfounded, unsupported opinions, I can get plenty here. I'd expect better from fool.com.
If you filter out the dumb and feature phones all you do is shorten the horizontal line for that manufacturer-- it doesn't create more profits.
Motorola isn't making much money on phones, period, even with their vaunted Android successes. Nothing at all misleading about that. LG is, in fact, losing money in the handset market, even with their Android phones. Just a fact. Samsung sells a ton of feature and dumb phones, has some of big marquee Android handsets, and still makes very modest profits in the segment.
So I'm not sure what your'e complaint is. The graphic indicates where the profits are.
I don't think you're understanding the graph. This graph's vertical bars show profits per phone. The vertical bars are calculated with the equation of total profits divided by total phones. If you remove the non-profit dumb phones, you will decrease the horizontal width but the vertical will increase as a result too.
All this graph shows is that dumb and feature phone have no profits verse smartphones that do and manufactures like Motorola, Samsung, Nokia, and Lg need to ditch the non-profit dumb phones if they want to make more profits per phone.
It's so frackin' open that Google isn't releasing the Honeycomb source to the open sores community. So tell us, Mr. Snark, how "open" that is now?
Oh Lordy, that's delicious! How long have we been hearing: "iOS 5? I gotcher iOS 5 right here! Wait'll Honeycomb comes along! It'll clean Steve Jobs' clock for sure! Open! Walled Garden?! Control Freak! Something, something...."
Alright. Lots of hatin' on my lil' Droid. iPhone is more polished, sure. In some ways anyway. But Android has more options. Period. Not just software (widgets, Flash, mulitask, lots of other powerful stuff not even jailbreaking gets). But hardware options:
Just saw this. I was kind of hoping Apple would make something like this. Kyocera of all people beats them to this... Dual-screen Android phone! On sale April 17! Bam. http://www.pcworld.com/article/223114/commentsjump
Competition is good! iOS will get better, Android will get better. Hopefully they'll borrow from each other. Look folks, what we can all agree on here is to hate on Microsoft, right?
And possibly not much for the carriers, either. I heard an ad this morning for a Buy One get FIVE Free Android phone. ROTFLMAL.
That was a silly article. There was nothing there to support the allegations. The author believed that Motorola was foolish for looking at anything other than Android - and restated that point multiple times, but without a thing to back it up. Besides that, he glosses over the negatives (mostly just ignores them) and focuses solely on one or two things that he perceives as important.
Sorry, but if I wanted uneducated, unfounded, unsupported opinions, I can get plenty here. I'd expect better from fool.com.
It's so frackin' open that Google isn't releasing the Honeycomb source to the open sores community. So tell us, Mr. Snark, how "open" that is now?
They said right in that article they are withholding it for technical reasons. They don't want developers putting out unpolished apps on it. It needs to be tweaked for running on phones. I mean maybe they are lying. But I kind of doubt it. Why jump the gun John. B?
What's really funny about this is the fact that it's being reported as news even though the original article was completely opinion based with no confirmed proof whatsoever. The conjecture was based entirely on the fact that Motorola hired a bunch of new programmers and designers. The original author even admitted that his entire premise could be wrong and that it was more than probable that the new programers and designers were actually just working on a better version of their sad Motoblur launcher. Talk about bad reporting. FUD at its best here at AppleInsider.
This isn't strictly a news site, it reports on rumors too.
I thought the article was clear on who was speculating on Motorola's intentions and why, so I am not going to call it "bad reporting"... Sheesh, lighten up. If journalistic standards were so important to you, you wouldn't be on this site; you'd be getting your news from one of the many other tech sites out there. Until Moto ships something or announces a new OS, their official stance is: we support Android.
They said right in that article they are withholding it for technical reasons. They don't want developers putting out unpolished apps on it. It needs to be tweaked for running on phones. I mean maybe they are lying. But I kind of doubt it. Why jump the gun John. B?
Andy Rubin, who heads up the entire Android effort for Google, said in his famous first tweet that Google's definition of "open" was that anyone could compile the Android source themselves self in a matter of a handful of commands:
Code:
the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”
So this isn't some esoteric test we're unfairly expecting Android to meet, this is the head of the entire Android effort defining the litmus test for "open"... For themselves and everyone else (cough, cough, Apple, cough) to be compared to.
Then this morning I got wind of the fact that Google might be withholding the source code for the Android tablet OS indefinitely.
I had heard it was to prevent the Google-less forks of Android (the Chinese forks of Android and the rumored Facebook phone) from getting early access to the source for their tablet tweeks.
BusinessInsider is saying that it's to prevent Google's own development "community" from loading the blessed Android tablet OS on uncouth Android phone hardware. (Ignoring the fact that ROM locks by the wireless companies prevent 99.9999% of Android phone owners from using Andy Rubin's famous make script to actually load a custom Android build on their phones.)
In the end, it doesn't matter which reason is true. Google built an "open" litmus test that they themselves failed today.
And what do I get for scooping BusinessInsider by four hours on this? I get called an idiot on AI forums by people who claim that it's me that doesn't understand what "open" is...
Andy Rubin, who heads up the entire Android effort for Google, said in his famous first tweet that Google's definition of "open" was that anyone could compile the Android source themselves self in a matter of a handful of commands:
That's a good one, I'll remember and use it whenever someone else is trying to show off how 'open' Android is..
And what do I get for scooping BusinessInsider by four hours on this? I get called an idiot on AI forums by people who claim that it's me that doesn't understand what "open" is...
Never underestimate the delusional power of the fandroids.
Android (and webOS) does use the Linux kernel, but that's about it. What's usually referred to as "Linux distros" are most often "GNU/Linux distros" as they combine the Linux kernel with GNU userland (desktop environment, tools, etc). When it comes to UNIX certification, Linux itself (being just a kernel) can't qualify, though some distributions do get compliance (notably missing are Debian and derivatives - including Ubuntu). I highly doubt Google and HP are going to full POSIX compliance. OS X is compliant (as is QNX, which RIM is now using, but they're probably not worried about breaking compatibility), and it's very likely that iOS is as well (as it only differs from OS X in the GUI layer).
TL;DR - iOS, Android, webOS, and PlayBook are all Unix-derived, but only iOS is definitely compliant to the POSIX standards, PlayBook likely as well, but I don't know the extent of what they've done to QNX.
Never underestimate the delusional power of the fandroids.
I specifically aimed for an objective tone. I don't claim to have any inside info, moreover, I don't really know or even care about the minutae. All I know is I like my Android phone and I think the level of Apple-fanboi has jumped to new heights with iPhone. I mean it's just a product people. Competition is good. No need to slam the platform, much less, the people using and creating it. Unless it's Microsoft. Just kidding. I actually think Windows 7 is decent. Although I think Office is getting worse. But, it's all about the right tool for the right job, that is my philosophy.
Yeah, because "open" doesn't mean anything. The only "open" phones would be Freerunners that Stallman assembles in his Mom's basement out of components gleaned from dumpsters and hands out for free. What percentage of the market is that again?
Thanks for quoting me. The admin removed my "insult" but I still want everyone to see it.
Refer to my next comment if you're actually interested in open, and all the debated nonsense around it.
It's so frackin' open that Google isn't releasing the Honeycomb source to the open sores community. So tell us, Mr. Snark, how "open" that is now?
“While we're excited to offer these new features to Android tablets, we have more work to do before we can deliver them to other device types including phones. Until then, we've decided not to release Honeycomb to open source,” the company said.
In other words, it's not ready for open source yet, but they never said it won't EVER be. The insult was absolutely well deserved. ABSOLUTELY. A million times, yes, absolutely. You sit here posting the same nonsense over and over, and blatantly ignore WHY it's not open source at this point, all as an attempt to start arguments.
Anyone who spreads misinformation like that absolutely deserves to be called what they truly are. Thanks for proving my point entirely about yourself, and even about this entire site.
Never underestimate the delusional power of the fandroids.
SO Honeycomb gets released on the Xoom, Google says the OS isn't ready for other devices yet and so it won't be open source YET, someone comes here spreading misinformation and lies, and you tell the Android guys THEY'RE DELUSIONAL!?
Google also has a search engine you know, and it's actually pretty good. I suggest you and people like you start using it
Comments
As always, Aysmco has a useful visualization of the market. Apple is making a ton of money on relatively few phones sold, while the Android miracle isn't actually making much money for anyone but HTC.....
I wish people would look at data like this with context. Those other companies (with the exception of RIM and HTC) make a lot of dumbphones which bring down their ASPs for phones. Apples makes smartphones only. Granted, Apple still has a huge lead on RIM and HTC, but that graphic is still quite misleading.
I wish people would look at data like this with context. Those other companies (with the exception of RIM and HTC) make a lot of dumbphones which bring down their ASPs for phones. Apples makes smartphones only. Granted, Apple still has a huge lead on RIM and HTC, but that graphic is still quite misleading.
If you filter out the dumb and feature phones all you do is shorten the horizontal line for that manufacturer-- it doesn't create more profits.
Motorola isn't making much money on phones, period, even with their vaunted Android successes. Nothing at all misleading about that. LG is, in fact, losing money in the handset market, even with their Android phones. Just a fact. Samsung sells a ton of feature and dumb phones, has some of big marquee Android handsets, and still makes very modest profits in the segment.
So I'm not sure what your'e complaint is. The graphic indicates where the profits are.
Another idiot makes a complete idiot of himself, all over his misunderstanding of what open means. ROFL
Really? An ad hominem attack, and you don't even know what's going on around you right now:
Google Holds Honeycomb Tight - BusinessWeek
It's so frackin' open that Google isn't releasing the Honeycomb source to the open sores community. So tell us, Mr. Snark, how "open" that is now?
All I can say is duh. Why did it take 75 posts before someone else realized this reality? It seems common sense is not so common on these boards nor is the ability to critically think about the original article before parroting it on this web site.
I bet you're fun at parties:
"Hey everybody, this is Nubs, he's new!"
"Hi losers! Carry on with your'e tedious conversation, just thought I'd pop in and let you know you're beneath me!"
As always, Aysmco has a useful visualization of the market. Apple is making a ton of money on relatively few phones sold, while the Android miracle isn't actually making much money for anyone but HTC:
And possibly not much for the carriers, either. I heard an ad this morning for a Buy One get FIVE Free Android phone. ROTFLMAL.
I've read every post...
Everyone seems to be looking at this from a political or technical perspective.
Unless I missed them, there weren't any posts from the practical perspective... surprisingly!
Here's an Article that I don't like, but I agree with:
Motorola Mobility Must Have a Screw Loose
That was a silly article. There was nothing there to support the allegations. The author believed that Motorola was foolish for looking at anything other than Android - and restated that point multiple times, but without a thing to back it up. Besides that, he glosses over the negatives (mostly just ignores them) and focuses solely on one or two things that he perceives as important.
Sorry, but if I wanted uneducated, unfounded, unsupported opinions, I can get plenty here. I'd expect better from fool.com.
If you filter out the dumb and feature phones all you do is shorten the horizontal line for that manufacturer-- it doesn't create more profits.
Motorola isn't making much money on phones, period, even with their vaunted Android successes. Nothing at all misleading about that. LG is, in fact, losing money in the handset market, even with their Android phones. Just a fact. Samsung sells a ton of feature and dumb phones, has some of big marquee Android handsets, and still makes very modest profits in the segment.
So I'm not sure what your'e complaint is. The graphic indicates where the profits are.
I don't think you're understanding the graph. This graph's vertical bars show profits per phone. The vertical bars are calculated with the equation of total profits divided by total phones. If you remove the non-profit dumb phones, you will decrease the horizontal width but the vertical will increase as a result too.
All this graph shows is that dumb and feature phone have no profits verse smartphones that do and manufactures like Motorola, Samsung, Nokia, and Lg need to ditch the non-profit dumb phones if they want to make more profits per phone.
Really? An ad hominem attack, and you don't even know what's going on around you right now:
Google Holds Honeycomb Tight - BusinessWeek
It's so frackin' open that Google isn't releasing the Honeycomb source to the open sores community. So tell us, Mr. Snark, how "open" that is now?
Oh Lordy, that's delicious! How long have we been hearing: "iOS 5? I gotcher iOS 5 right here! Wait'll Honeycomb comes along! It'll clean Steve Jobs' clock for sure! Open! Walled Garden?! Control Freak! Something, something...."
Just saw this. I was kind of hoping Apple would make something like this. Kyocera of all people beats them to this... Dual-screen Android phone! On sale April 17! Bam. http://www.pcworld.com/article/223114/commentsjump
Competition is good! iOS will get better, Android will get better. Hopefully they'll borrow from each other. Look folks, what we can all agree on here is to hate on Microsoft, right?
And possibly not much for the carriers, either. I heard an ad this morning for a Buy One get FIVE Free Android phone. ROTFLMAL.
That was a silly article. There was nothing there to support the allegations. The author believed that Motorola was foolish for looking at anything other than Android - and restated that point multiple times, but without a thing to back it up. Besides that, he glosses over the negatives (mostly just ignores them) and focuses solely on one or two things that he perceives as important.
Sorry, but if I wanted uneducated, unfounded, unsupported opinions, I can get plenty here. I'd expect better from fool.com.
Dude where's that deal??
Really? An ad hominem attack, and you don't even know what's going on around you right now:
Google Holds Honeycomb Tight - BusinessWeek
It's so frackin' open that Google isn't releasing the Honeycomb source to the open sores community. So tell us, Mr. Snark, how "open" that is now?
They said right in that article they are withholding it for technical reasons. They don't want developers putting out unpolished apps on it. It needs to be tweaked for running on phones. I mean maybe they are lying. But I kind of doubt it. Why jump the gun John. B?
What's really funny about this is the fact that it's being reported as news even though the original article was completely opinion based with no confirmed proof whatsoever. The conjecture was based entirely on the fact that Motorola hired a bunch of new programmers and designers. The original author even admitted that his entire premise could be wrong and that it was more than probable that the new programers and designers were actually just working on a better version of their sad Motoblur launcher. Talk about bad reporting. FUD at its best here at AppleInsider.
This isn't strictly a news site, it reports on rumors too.
I thought the article was clear on who was speculating on Motorola's intentions and why, so I am not going to call it "bad reporting"... Sheesh, lighten up. If journalistic standards were so important to you, you wouldn't be on this site; you'd be getting your news from one of the many other tech sites out there. Until Moto ships something or announces a new OS, their official stance is: we support Android.
They said right in that article they are withholding it for technical reasons. They don't want developers putting out unpolished apps on it. It needs to be tweaked for running on phones. I mean maybe they are lying. But I kind of doubt it. Why jump the gun John. B?
Andy Rubin, who heads up the entire Android effort for Google, said in his famous first tweet that Google's definition of "open" was that anyone could compile the Android source themselves self in a matter of a handful of commands:
the definition of open: “mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”
So this isn't some esoteric test we're unfairly expecting Android to meet, this is the head of the entire Android effort defining the litmus test for "open"... For themselves and everyone else (cough, cough, Apple, cough) to be compared to.
Then this morning I got wind of the fact that Google might be withholding the source code for the Android tablet OS indefinitely.
I had heard it was to prevent the Google-less forks of Android (the Chinese forks of Android and the rumored Facebook phone) from getting early access to the source for their tablet tweeks.
BusinessInsider is saying that it's to prevent Google's own development "community" from loading the blessed Android tablet OS on uncouth Android phone hardware. (Ignoring the fact that ROM locks by the wireless companies prevent 99.9999% of Android phone owners from using Andy Rubin's famous make script to actually load a custom Android build on their phones.)
In the end, it doesn't matter which reason is true. Google built an "open" litmus test that they themselves failed today.
And what do I get for scooping BusinessInsider by four hours on this? I get called an idiot on AI forums by people who claim that it's me that doesn't understand what "open" is...
Andy Rubin, who heads up the entire Android effort for Google, said in his famous first tweet that Google's definition of "open" was that anyone could compile the Android source themselves self in a matter of a handful of commands:
That's a good one, I'll remember and use it whenever someone else is trying to show off how 'open' Android is..
And what do I get for scooping BusinessInsider by four hours on this? I get called an idiot on AI forums by people who claim that it's me that doesn't understand what "open" is...
Never underestimate the delusional power of the fandroids.
Android (and webOS) does use the Linux kernel, but that's about it. What's usually referred to as "Linux distros" are most often "GNU/Linux distros" as they combine the Linux kernel with GNU userland (desktop environment, tools, etc). When it comes to UNIX certification, Linux itself (being just a kernel) can't qualify, though some distributions do get compliance (notably missing are Debian and derivatives - including Ubuntu). I highly doubt Google and HP are going to full POSIX compliance. OS X is compliant (as is QNX, which RIM is now using, but they're probably not worried about breaking compatibility), and it's very likely that iOS is as well (as it only differs from OS X in the GUI layer).
TL;DR - iOS, Android, webOS, and PlayBook are all Unix-derived, but only iOS is definitely compliant to the POSIX standards, PlayBook likely as well, but I don't know the extent of what they've done to QNX.
Thanks for clarifying this.
Never underestimate the delusional power of the fandroids.
I specifically aimed for an objective tone. I don't claim to have any inside info, moreover, I don't really know or even care about the minutae. All I know is I like my Android phone and I think the level of Apple-fanboi has jumped to new heights with iPhone. I mean it's just a product people. Competition is good. No need to slam the platform, much less, the people using and creating it. Unless it's Microsoft. Just kidding. I actually think Windows 7 is decent. Although I think Office is getting worse. But, it's all about the right tool for the right job, that is my philosophy.
...
It's smart of Motorola to not depend on another company for its business...but still, who's going to buy an OS made by Motorola?!
Good luck to Motorola, Microsoft, HP, Nokia, and the gang.
If Motorola's OS ends up looking anything like one of their user manuals, they're gonna need all the luck they can get!
Yeah, because "open" doesn't mean anything. The only "open" phones would be Freerunners that Stallman assembles in his Mom's basement out of components gleaned from dumpsters and hands out for free. What percentage of the market is that again?
Thanks for quoting me. The admin removed my "insult" but I still want everyone to see it.
Refer to my next comment if you're actually interested in open, and all the debated nonsense around it.
Really? An ad hominem attack, and you don't even know what's going on around you right now:
Google Holds Honeycomb Tight - BusinessWeek
It's so frackin' open that Google isn't releasing the Honeycomb source to the open sores community. So tell us, Mr. Snark, how "open" that is now?
“While we're excited to offer these new features to Android tablets, we have more work to do before we can deliver them to other device types including phones. Until then, we've decided not to release Honeycomb to open source,” the company said.
Read more: http://www.itproportal.com/2011/03/2...#ixzz1I0p0KVvq
In other words, it's not ready for open source yet, but they never said it won't EVER be. The insult was absolutely well deserved. ABSOLUTELY. A million times, yes, absolutely. You sit here posting the same nonsense over and over, and blatantly ignore WHY it's not open source at this point, all as an attempt to start arguments.
Anyone who spreads misinformation like that absolutely deserves to be called what they truly are. Thanks for proving my point entirely about yourself, and even about this entire site.
Never underestimate the delusional power of the fandroids.
SO Honeycomb gets released on the Xoom, Google says the OS isn't ready for other devices yet and so it won't be open source YET, someone comes here spreading misinformation and lies, and you tell the Android guys THEY'RE DELUSIONAL!?
Google also has a search engine you know, and it's actually pretty good. I suggest you and people like you start using it