That sounds like the opposite of what actually happens. The more you pay up front the lower your bill would be. That is, if telecoms actually cared about customers.
I’m sure that after six years of saying this it will finally be true once¡
You mock what I say but make no attempt to make any intelligent response to them. You find error in my statements? What specifically? And what is rule #4?
Your belly aching won't. If your input means squat then why do it? Complain about something you can actually change. It's like complaining about the weather; shut up, dress appropriately, suck it up, and go do what you have to do.
Sure thing. Those are all correct statements¡
Apathy is death.
Originally Posted by NachoKingP
You find error in my statements? What specifically?
Quoted the ones that were wrong.
Originally Posted by NachoKingP
I gave very specific examples why I felt the article was wrong.
Now you might want to argue that Samsung sells millions of higher-end devices that are very good Android-based phones (and I'd agree) and you may want to then argue that these clearly cheap, crap-Droid phones are don't sell in any decent volume so that 1000 different models might not equal the unit sales of a single Samsung Galaxy S3 (and you might be right), but note that hill60 merely used the word "most" so his comment could easily be construed as referring to models, not units, which becomes very difficult (if not impossible) for you to argue against.
Thank you for a small dose of reality. The credibility of the media is at an all time low, according to many polls. The media has become less about reporting and more about propaganda propagation, across the entire spectrum of our culture. Self censorship of truth and blatant misrepresentations of reality, are the new norm.
It takes no intelligence at all to say someone is wrong. What takes intelligence to actually backing up your statements with reasons and facts. Toss me a knowledge bone here, if I'm wrong, tell me why. I happen to disagree with you.
Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility was about the acquisition of patents, plain and simple. They weren't looking to enhance Google TV with Motorola's STB business, or stave off Motorola making Windows Phone devices. Google has no need to fear Windows Phone devices because the platform is no threat to them, it only accounts for 3% of all mobile sales. Google's hardware partners and Google themselves have been attacked in courts of late by many companies, including Apple, over patent issues, and they were trying to bolster their patent portfolio. The importance of patents in today's patent-troll era cannot be overvalued. Would Google have liked to see Motorola succeed more? Absolutely. But ultimately, Google isn't in the hardware business, they're in the services business. The Nexus lineup, the Google Play Experience device lineup, and the Moto X/G experiments were exactly that, experiments. They were never meant to bring in huge profits. Google also maintained Motorola's Advanced Research division when they sold Motorola Mobility to Lenovo, because there are some more experiments in the pipeline that Google is highly interested in, such as Project Ara. But don't be mistaken, ultimately, Google sells ads and uses that profit to try their hand at other things. They don't always succeed, as is obvious if you just look at their other offerings. For every Gmail and Google Maps, there are things like Google Buzz and Google Wave. Google can afford to lose money on projects like that because they have a sound business with their AdSense.
I could comment on all your other points, however, I will focus on this one since I know this subject the best.
Google originally went after Motorola as plan B to their screw up on the Nortel patent acquisition and Motorola was in fact in conversation with M$ again since they were afraid of the position Android was putting them with Apple. Motorola and M$ has a long relationship prior them dumping everything for Android. Apple and Motorola were involved in a battle of the patent themselves, and Motorola attempt to blackmail Apple in to licensing all there iphone non-essential to get access to the Motorola essential standard based patents. This came to light during the due process on the acquisition approval by the EU and FTC. When the EU and FTC found out what Motorola was attempting to do they bared Google from suing competitors with the Motorola patents. This requirement alone rendered most of the patents worthless. At this point Google was in the hardware business they had to make a go of it. To this day Motorola is the only cell phone manufacture which Apple has not paid the FRAND fees for the patents becuase Motorola and Google could not back down from the position on cost of their license.
They were in fact interested in the Motorola Home business, since it was the largest supplier to the video market place. They had a gem here and it played right into what they wanted to do. They we so interested in that business they spend more time with that business than they did with phone business prior to the acquisition being approved. Well this was short lived because the Cable industry step in and told the EU and FTC they saw google as competitor and did not want their largest hardware and software manufacturer being control by Google. As soon as the deal was done, google immediately went looking for a buyer for the home business they were not allow to touch it.
Back to Motorola, google wanted and need Motorola to be a success since Samsung was gaining too much power and originally what want to compete against Apple on the high end since Motorola in fact had success in that space before. But they realize too late they could not break back in , so they went for the middle ground since business tend to buy in the middle of cheap and expensive phone. Well this was not working either since Apple was picking up what RIM was losing. As a last ditch effort they attempt the lost leader idea of just getting volumes of product out there and hopes to gain revenue from adds on these phones. Samsung was treating to go with their own OS on future product and looking to dip in to the ad revenue space cutting google out.
Yes google some part of the Motorola stuff, but they will not capitalize on it their tract record on this subject it poor. Yes Google as come up with some neat stuff like street view (the mapping cars) and google earth this people like using and it helps them sell more ads. But form an overall technology stand point they are just really improving on what others have done before them. They definitely do it better when is comes to their service but all the money they put in to hardware has not returned a penny to the bottom line, they can not even claim to spin of ideas the let them grow by themselves.
I highly doubt your 19% revenue from mobile for Google, I am not going to chance the number number but it is low than that, and 80% to 90% of that was coming form IOS devices and is declining as people move away from the google ad products. There is plenty of article on this fact alone. I will also say PC are dead, yes companies are still buying them to replace what they have, but I can tell more and more people are using their Iphone and Ipads at work verse the PC. Most PC at work are not used to surf the internet and look at ads. As a whole, PC industry is declining and unless google can some how capture the mobile ad market they are going to be in serious hurt.
So to you point, Yes Google is not in the hardware business, they claim to fame is ads and service, but they seem to spend more money on hardware and fail miserably at it, but Wall Street seem to like this since they taking risks to grow.
Discussions with you are like discussions with a 2 year old except that the 2 year old would be smarter than you.
That’s funny, coming from someone who, again, explicitly stated he posts for the purpose of disagreeing with whatever is presented, regardless of if it’s correct.
In the argument between “don’t bother fighting for what is right” and “fight for what is right”, I’ll choose the latter and level anyone that disagrees.
That’s funny, coming from someone who, again, explicitly stated he posts for the purpose of disagreeing with whatever is presented, regardless of if it’s correct.
In the argument between “don’t bother fighting for what is right” and “fight for what is right”, I’ll choose the latter and level anyone that disagrees.
Newflash: crying on a internet forum does not fighting make.
Btw I did not expect to get stuck with 'naysayer extraordinaire'
You sound really arrogant for someone who hasn't really answered anything.
The $0 on contract phone has NOTHING to do with Apple. Apple still makes 100% of the cost of the phone. That is the carrier deciding to offer the deal, recouping the costs based on subsidies. That's why it's "on contract", it's not a contract with Apple.
Wow, offering up a 4 year old phone at $350 USD, that's taking a real risk.
"Disproves itself" means nothing.
According to this two-day-old article, Android accounts for 78% of global smartphone sales: http://bit.ly/1oJq2UF So yeah, I'm pretty sure my numbers are right.
You are 100% right, Apple's customer service and satisfaction are industry leading, I never said otherwise. I said they became uninnovative. The last few iPhones have all be iterative improvements. Samsung has at least tried adding a ton of features, and I admit many of them are gimmicks, but at least they're trying new things. Some of them are great, like the S Pen functionality of the Note 3.
Now you might want to argue that Samsung sells millions of higher-end devices that are very good Android-based phones (and I'd agree) and you may want to then argue that these clearly cheap, crap-Droid phones are don't sell in any decent volume so that 1000 different models might not equal the unit sales of a single Samsung Galaxy S3 (and you might be right), but note that hill60 merely used the word "most" so his comment could easily be construed as referring to models, not units, which becomes very difficult (if not impossible) for you to argue against.
Nope the problem is you believe hill60's comments are correct.
If you two are going to fight at least crack some jokes while you're doing it so the rest of us can be entertained
Cool it. The second half of your sentence is an ad hominem.
Nope the problem is you believe hill60's comments are correct.
Can you show that most Android-based phone models are quality smartphones on par with the iPhone?
Admittedly it's pretty fuzzy where smartphone ends and feature-phone begins but if you can't look at the list I provided and see nothing but smartphones on par with the iPhone for a comparative yearly release simply because it has Android in some form installed then I don't think you're being honest with yourself.
Comments
A laugh is always the best way to start the day.
Rule #4.
Ah, irony.
Not for smartphones, they don’t.
That sounds like the opposite of what actually happens. The more you pay up front the lower your bill would be. That is, if telecoms actually cared about customers.
I’m sure that after six years of saying this it will finally be true once¡
You mock what I say but make no attempt to make any intelligent response to them. You find error in my statements? What specifically? And what is rule #4?
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ioqgp5skDNo/TfGnhiWr8OI/AAAAAAAAHL4/Dny3LYHAzfk/s1600/TrollHunterUS2.jpg[/IMG]
Most Android phones sold are cheap pieces of junk that barely function as feature phones, let alone smartphones.
All iOS phones are sold as expensive pieces of junk that barely function as feature phones, let alone smartphones.
Troll response for a troll comment.
Sure thing. Those are all correct statements¡
Apathy is death.
Quoted the ones that were wrong.
And your content quoted… was wrong.
The problem is your comment is patently false where hill60's comment is correct.
Amazon has only a small sampling of these devices and there are a lot.
Now you might want to argue that Samsung sells millions of higher-end devices that are very good Android-based phones (and I'd agree) and you may want to then argue that these clearly cheap, crap-Droid phones are don't sell in any decent volume so that 1000 different models might not equal the unit sales of a single Samsung Galaxy S3 (and you might be right), but note that hill60 merely used the word "most" so his comment could easily be construed as referring to models, not units, which becomes very difficult (if not impossible) for you to argue against.
It's called intelligence, knowing when complaining will yield results, anything else is futile and a waste of time and energy.
Sure thing. Those are all correct statements¡
Apathy is death.
Quoted the ones that were wrong.
And your content quoted… was wrong.
It takes no intelligence at all to say someone is wrong. What takes intelligence to actually backing up your statements with reasons and facts. Toss me a knowledge bone here, if I'm wrong, tell me why. I happen to disagree with you.
Quote:
Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility was about the acquisition of patents, plain and simple. They weren't looking to enhance Google TV with Motorola's STB business, or stave off Motorola making Windows Phone devices. Google has no need to fear Windows Phone devices because the platform is no threat to them, it only accounts for 3% of all mobile sales. Google's hardware partners and Google themselves have been attacked in courts of late by many companies, including Apple, over patent issues, and they were trying to bolster their patent portfolio. The importance of patents in today's patent-troll era cannot be overvalued. Would Google have liked to see Motorola succeed more? Absolutely. But ultimately, Google isn't in the hardware business, they're in the services business. The Nexus lineup, the Google Play Experience device lineup, and the Moto X/G experiments were exactly that, experiments. They were never meant to bring in huge profits. Google also maintained Motorola's Advanced Research division when they sold Motorola Mobility to Lenovo, because there are some more experiments in the pipeline that Google is highly interested in, such as Project Ara. But don't be mistaken, ultimately, Google sells ads and uses that profit to try their hand at other things. They don't always succeed, as is obvious if you just look at their other offerings. For every Gmail and Google Maps, there are things like Google Buzz and Google Wave. Google can afford to lose money on projects like that because they have a sound business with their AdSense.
I could comment on all your other points, however, I will focus on this one since I know this subject the best.
Google originally went after Motorola as plan B to their screw up on the Nortel patent acquisition and Motorola was in fact in conversation with M$ again since they were afraid of the position Android was putting them with Apple. Motorola and M$ has a long relationship prior them dumping everything for Android. Apple and Motorola were involved in a battle of the patent themselves, and Motorola attempt to blackmail Apple in to licensing all there iphone non-essential to get access to the Motorola essential standard based patents. This came to light during the due process on the acquisition approval by the EU and FTC. When the EU and FTC found out what Motorola was attempting to do they bared Google from suing competitors with the Motorola patents. This requirement alone rendered most of the patents worthless. At this point Google was in the hardware business they had to make a go of it. To this day Motorola is the only cell phone manufacture which Apple has not paid the FRAND fees for the patents becuase Motorola and Google could not back down from the position on cost of their license.
They were in fact interested in the Motorola Home business, since it was the largest supplier to the video market place. They had a gem here and it played right into what they wanted to do. They we so interested in that business they spend more time with that business than they did with phone business prior to the acquisition being approved. Well this was short lived because the Cable industry step in and told the EU and FTC they saw google as competitor and did not want their largest hardware and software manufacturer being control by Google. As soon as the deal was done, google immediately went looking for a buyer for the home business they were not allow to touch it.
Back to Motorola, google wanted and need Motorola to be a success since Samsung was gaining too much power and originally what want to compete against Apple on the high end since Motorola in fact had success in that space before. But they realize too late they could not break back in , so they went for the middle ground since business tend to buy in the middle of cheap and expensive phone. Well this was not working either since Apple was picking up what RIM was losing. As a last ditch effort they attempt the lost leader idea of just getting volumes of product out there and hopes to gain revenue from adds on these phones. Samsung was treating to go with their own OS on future product and looking to dip in to the ad revenue space cutting google out.
Yes google some part of the Motorola stuff, but they will not capitalize on it their tract record on this subject it poor. Yes Google as come up with some neat stuff like street view (the mapping cars) and google earth this people like using and it helps them sell more ads. But form an overall technology stand point they are just really improving on what others have done before them. They definitely do it better when is comes to their service but all the money they put in to hardware has not returned a penny to the bottom line, they can not even claim to spin of ideas the let them grow by themselves.
I highly doubt your 19% revenue from mobile for Google, I am not going to chance the number number but it is low than that, and 80% to 90% of that was coming form IOS devices and is declining as people move away from the google ad products. There is plenty of article on this fact alone. I will also say PC are dead, yes companies are still buying them to replace what they have, but I can tell more and more people are using their Iphone and Ipads at work verse the PC. Most PC at work are not used to surf the internet and look at ads. As a whole, PC industry is declining and unless google can some how capture the mobile ad market they are going to be in serious hurt.
So to you point, Yes Google is not in the hardware business, they claim to fame is ads and service, but they seem to spend more money on hardware and fail miserably at it, but Wall Street seem to like this since they taking risks to grow.
And you’re wasting time and energy not complaining.
Takes even less to be wrong.
You already know, but ‘kay.
And you call the $0 on contract iPhone what, exactly? You call the iPhone 4 in India what, exactly?
Disproves itself.
They have a 40% use share of phones and 10% use share of tablets.
Disproves itself.
Worse reliability, worse customer service, worse customer satisfaction, worse software performance, worse hardware performance..
Yeah, they’re doing spectacular.
That’s funny, coming from someone who, again, explicitly stated he posts for the purpose of disagreeing with whatever is presented, regardless of if it’s correct.
In the argument between “don’t bother fighting for what is right” and “fight for what is right”, I’ll choose the latter and level anyone that disagrees.
Newflash: crying on a internet forum does not fighting make.
Btw I did not expect to get stuck with 'naysayer extraordinaire'
Takes even less to be wrong.
You already know, but ‘kay.
And you call the $0 on contract iPhone what, exactly? You call the iPhone 4 in India what, exactly?
Disproves itself.
They have a 40% use share of phones and 10% use share of tablets.
Disproves itself.
Worse reliability, worse customer service, worse customer satisfaction, worse software performance, worse hardware performance..
Yeah, they’re doing spectacular.
You sound really arrogant for someone who hasn't really answered anything.
The $0 on contract phone has NOTHING to do with Apple. Apple still makes 100% of the cost of the phone. That is the carrier deciding to offer the deal, recouping the costs based on subsidies. That's why it's "on contract", it's not a contract with Apple.
Wow, offering up a 4 year old phone at $350 USD, that's taking a real risk.
"Disproves itself" means nothing.
According to this two-day-old article, Android accounts for 78% of global smartphone sales: http://bit.ly/1oJq2UF So yeah, I'm pretty sure my numbers are right.
You are 100% right, Apple's customer service and satisfaction are industry leading, I never said otherwise. I said they became uninnovative. The last few iPhones have all be iterative improvements. Samsung has at least tried adding a ton of features, and I admit many of them are gimmicks, but at least they're trying new things. Some of them are great, like the S Pen functionality of the Note 3.
The problem is your comment is patently false where hill60's comment is correct.
Amazon has only a small sampling of these devices and there are a lot.
Now you might want to argue that Samsung sells millions of higher-end devices that are very good Android-based phones (and I'd agree) and you may want to then argue that these clearly cheap, crap-Droid phones are don't sell in any decent volume so that 1000 different models might not equal the unit sales of a single Samsung Galaxy S3 (and you might be right), but note that hill60 merely used the word "most" so his comment could easily be construed as referring to models, not units, which becomes very difficult (if not impossible) for you to argue against.
Nope the problem is you believe hill60's comments are correct.
It's deleted, and only out of respect to you.
I know myself pretty well so I can say that's not a very good reason to do it.
Can you show that most Android-based phone models are quality smartphones on par with the iPhone?
Admittedly it's pretty fuzzy where smartphone ends and feature-phone begins but if you can't look at the list I provided and see nothing but smartphones on par with the iPhone for a comparative yearly release simply because it has Android in some form installed then I don't think you're being honest with yourself.