...even though during the trial here in early 2013, Samsung,s shipment numbers as estimated by these companies was again shown to be far off the mark, when both Apple and Samsung had to show actual sales numbers of the products under dispute. Of the estimated 1 million Samsung tablets supposedly shipped here of models under dispute, Samsung had only sold 38,000 one quarter. Of their smartphones, they on,y sold between one third and one half the number.
Mel, IIRC the numbers submitted as evidence for the trial were US only, but AI and other blogs tried to use worldwide shipment numbers to prove Samsung lied about their shipments and/or companies like Gartner were way off the mark. Are you perhaps making the same mistake now or is there something else I missed?
Because Android is a mess of different versions, interfaces, processors and screen sizes that would make it impossible to give a consistent look and feel that would not make Microsoft look bad. Besides, most of the majority of Android share are probably cheap Chinese or Korean small screen units running version 4.3. They would have to specifically choose one manufacturer to fully support and one specific model (i.e. Samsung) and now the numbers don't look the same anymore. In addition, it's no secret that the iPad is king of the enterprise and education system, the two markets Microsoft is planning to capture. Although I think the per year charge is crazy. Microsoft still thinks they are the only game in town and can charge anything they want.
So Angry Birds used to be a paid app for Android but they were forced to make it free? Did not know that. How much does it cost on iOS?
Yes, it was. Rovio made a big point about it back then. Android users are very resistant to paying for apps. I don't remember how much Angry Birds cost me, as it was some time ago. I have several versions of the game. It's just a small amount though. But the ad supported version on Android has done well.
It's possible that now they've gone to the in app purchasing model, as that's proving very successful on both platforms.
Yes, it was. Rovio made a big point about it back then. Android users are very resistant to paying for apps. I don't remember how much Angry Birds cost me, as it was some time ago. I have several versions of the game. It's just a small amount though. But the ad supported version on Android has done well.
It's possible that now they've gone to the in app purchasing model, as that's proving very successful on both platforms.
Even the company's October ads for touch-based PCs running Window 8.1, carrying the tagline "honestly, it works for work," are fading away.
Not to say that tagline is suddenly false, the T100 does come with Office H&S 2013 for free and the device itself can do quite a bit more than an iPad.
So Angry Birds used to be a paid app for Android but they were forced to make it free? Did not know that. How much does it cost on iOS?
The paid iPhone version is $0.99, there is an ad-supported free version. The paid iPad version (Angry Birds HD) is $2.99, with its own free ad-supported version.
The publisher made both paid versions free for about a week earlier in this month.
As melgross mentioned, Rovio has moved to a freemium distribution model, making the initial app download free, but charging extra via in-app purchases for full functionality and game credits.
Many app publishers -- particularly game developers -- have moved to this distribution model since it provides more regular revenue over the life of the app. iOS app store metrics show the number of downloads plus in-app purchase revenue, and each developer can figure out if in-app purchases results in higher average revenue per user than upfront one-time app purchases + ad revenue from ad-supported free versions.
^ I just looked at getting a subscription of Office 365 and noticed the MS website calls it "Office 365 Home Premium" whereas the in-App purchase on the iPad calls it "Office 365 Home". They both charge $99.99 per year.
I think they're the same, and what intrigued me is that you not only get up to 5 users, but each user gets their own 20GB extra storage included (combined with the free 7GB it means each person gets 27GB). That's a significant amount of storage.
Not really concerened with getting an extra 0.5GB when I'll get 27GB x 5 with my Office subscription.
The paid iPhone version is $0.99, there is an ad-supported free version. The paid iPad version (Angry Birds HD) is $2.99, with its own free ad-supported version.
The publisher made both paid versions free for about a week earlier in this month.
Mel, IIRC the numbers submitted as evidence for the trial were US only, but AI and other blogs tried to use worldwide shipment numbers to prove Samsung lied about their shipments and/or companies like Gartner were way off the mark. Are you perhaps making the same mistake now or is there something else I missed?
Well, as estimates for the USA were a million tablets shipped for the models under dispute, which the actual number sold were just 38,000, I would think that everyone would pause at any numbers being mentioned when it comes to Samsung. And interested,y, when a top executive at Samsung was asked in early 2013, I think it was, about how Samsung tablet sales were going, he said; very poorly.
Samsung hasn't lied about shipments since the last quarter of 2010, because during the first quarter 2011, financial conference call, they announced that they would no longer give quarterly tablet and smartphone shipment numbers. So the on,y numbers we ever see are odd ones for their top phones, at strange intervals. Such as Galaxy S4 numbers, where in stead of giving out a normal quarterly number, they gave the number for the first 100 days. Who does that? Why? Because the phone sold far better in the first week then it did at any other time. Actually, even with conflated estimates from these companies, the G S4 didn't do all that well. In fact, now we're seeing numbers that show the maligned iPhone 5C sold in significantly better numbers than did the S4. How can that be? We're also reading that the S4 sold in fewer numbers than did the SIII!
And what about those tablets again? What evidence do we have that Samsung is selling more than a fraction we see estimated? And we need to remember that without confirming numbers from a manufacturer, these companies have absolutely no way of verifying their methodology. I remember in 2012, iSupply estimated that Samsung shipped 33 million smartphones one quarter. They were the first to come out with a number. It wasn't widely quoted. Then either Gartner or IDC, I forget which came out with 38 million. That was widely quoted. Then another company said 42 million, and so that number became the one mentioned everywhere. That some very small Canadian company that no one had ever heard of said 49 million, and that became the buss word.
Why such a wide discrepancy? And why weren't those numbers questioned by everyone? Why was the highest number the one quoted? The discrepancy was because there was no way to verify any of those numbers. Why they weren't questioned is a mystery to me. They certainly should have been.
Well, as estimates for the USA were a million tablets shipped for the models under dispute, which the actual number sold were just 38,000, I would think that everyone would pause at any numbers being mentioned when it comes to Samsung
Mel, you could be absolutely right but as I said before I don't recall that. No doubt I miss a lot, one reason AI is one of my favorite sites to find info. Would you mind giving me a link to it?
People can argue about whether Angry Birds is free or not, but that doesn't change the fact Android users do not spend nearly as much as iOS users do. This is a FACT.
As of September 2013 iOS had hit around 700 million devices while Android had hit 1 billion (1 billion that Google can track as activations which means they have Google Play access).
Despite Android having a larger share of users, their App revenue is still only now at 1/2 that of the App Store. Adjusted for the number of users, and iOS users are generating 2.85x as much per user compared to Android users.
Even worse, Google Play digital content (music, movies, TV...) is still around 1/6th of iTunes. Adjusted per user and that's 8.6x. Truly pathetic. And people still make the false claim that Google is in a better position to bring streaming TV or similar services to the public. With that kind of revenue per user, I don't know how anyone could think Google has an advantage over Apple when it comes to dealing with content providers.
I specifically pointed out the original Angry Birds apps (Angry Birds and Angry Birds HD).
As both melgross and I have mentioned before, Rovio has subsequently moved to a freemium distribution model in later episodes of the Angry Birds franchise. Both Angry Birds Rio and Angry Birds Rio HD are now free in the iOS App Store with in-app purchases.
Remember, the free version of Angry Birds (iPhone edition) was published a year after the paid version has been out. Rovio made lots of money just offering the paid version. Their experience on Android was frustrating because they offered the same app at the same price, yet the download numbers were abysmally low, which is why they went free on Android with ad support since that's the nature of the many Android users.
The main lesson here is that iOS users spend more on apps than Android users and iPad users spend way more more on apps than smartphone app buyers or other Android tablet buyers.
People can argue about whether Angry Birds is free or not, but that doesn't change the fact Android users do not spend nearly as much as iOS users do. This is a FACT.
...that no one disputes AFAIK. Have you ever seen a claim otherwise? I haven't. But just because most developers came make more money on iOS doesn't mean there's not good money to be made on GooglePlay too is it? With it being a whole lot easier to develop an app for both at the same time (ie Corona, Xamarin) than it used to be why not do both? I can't think of a serious downside to it.
EDIT: iOS now has both free and paid versions of Angry Birds as does Android. Thanks MPantone
No, that's definitely wrong. Actually, what happened, as I remember it, was that first they had an ad supported version on some Android phones(they said they couldn't support all because of fragmentation), then they came out with a paid version after, I think some large number of free downloads was done. But the paid version did very poorly.
Ugh. More of this "Apple versus cheap low end devices" nonsense that has never been true and never will be true. It is a rant about the monoculture that existed when Microsoft was at its peak, but it ignores two things:
1. Corporate managers and workers aren't stupid. If the Wintel "cheap low end devices" were incapable of reliably doing the heavyweight task-intensive work in corporate America (not just word processing but programming, CAD/CAM and lots of other heavy duty stuff) they never would have adopted it wholesale and stuck with it to this day.
2. The reason why Apple never really made a dent into the corporate market was that until recently it wasn't suited for it. Even the companies that were willing and able to pay the premium for Apple products found it unsuitable for most corporate tasks. This isn't the case now, but it was certainly the case in the 1990s and the 2000s. Work was either done on Windows machines, or if Windows machines were unsuitable, on workstations running some flavor of UNIX (Linux wasn't much of a player back then because Fedora and Ubuntu weren't out yet, so it was more likely to be Sun Solaris, HP-UX or something like that). The only people using Apple machines for work were using it for things like desktop publishing, animation, graphic arts, music etc. not business, programming, tech etc. because at the time the Windows machines - and the UNIX workstations - were better at it. It was not due to the Apple hardware, of course, but back then the Apple interface was difficult to work with (the ability to customize Windows and MS-DOS and UNIX was necessary for work back then) and there was a real lack of software tools to do work available because most of the software development was for Windows.
3. The dichotomy between the "great Apple machines and the $500 Windows machines" NEVER EXISTED. The cheap Wintel machines with the slow CPUs, barely adequate RAM and tiny disk drives were only bought by home users for playing games and word processing (usually with the free Microsoft Works, not Word.) Corporate users always bought good machines with hardware that was at least ballpark with Apple machines. A corporate Windows machine today likely has 4-8 GB of RAM, a 500 GB hard drive, and an I-5 Intel processor running at about 2.8 GHz. In other words, similar to the specs that those MacBooks that the side panel of this site is advertising. The difference is that you can get a $1000 Toshiba or HP machine for that very capable hardware instead of having to pay $1800. If anything, Windows is holding the hardware manufacturers back these days. It was certainly the case with Windows Vista, and is also the case with Windows 8.
4. Likewise, the $50 tablets that you are showing is nonsense. Samsung's enterprise tablet, 12.2 inches, great specs and capabilities and $750 price, goes unmentioned here. Why? It doesn't fit the "low end Android with bad hardware" agenda. Neither does the many $200-$350 tablets that are much more capable than 600 MHz kids toys. So "The result is a commodity market where all you can buy is junk, and any efforts to compete with better products are undermined by price dumping that effectively destroys innovation" never has been true and never will be true. It is just garbage to make people who make the CHOICE to spend $800 more on a PC or $100-$150 more on a tablet or phone feel better about themselves. You want to feel better about buying a $500 I-Pad instead of a $350 Android device, so you tell yourself that the only Android products are either Samsung copyright infringements (when Apple isn't even challenging the newer Samsung models, just the older ones) or garbage. Look, I don't know why people aren't buying the Google Nexus, the HP Slate or the other quality tablets, but there is no denying that they are capable tablets with hardware comparable to the older I-Pad models.
5. Proof of this? That Microsoft is making Office for the Android AT ALL. Had Microsoft come out and said that they were only going to do Office for the I-Pad, THEN you would be able to claim that Android is unviable because the hardware on the Android devices that actually sell is incapable, and the Android devices that have capable hardware do not sell. But that is not the case at all. Instead, Microsoft merely released Office for I-Pad FIRST and will come out with it for Android LATER THIS YEAR. Why? Because they know that it will make money. As Microsoft does have these internal sales figures, they know that enough mid-range ($200-$350) and high end (pricing comparable to Microsoft) Android devices sell to justify the not-too-insignificant cost of developing and maintaining Office for the Android platform while undercutting their own.
6. More still: the Android platform is about to go through a major "next phase", of which Microsoft is fully aware. In 2015, Google is ending the Nexus brand, which Google was primarily using as a "demo" for other Android OEMs to follow. In other words, it was used to "introduce" the product. The introductory phase is over. In 2015, Google is going to discontinue their Nexus line in favor of their just-launched Google Play tablets (and phones). They are also going to start taking tighter control over Android itself (making it less "open") including coming up with a superior update process. That is going to make the platform more viable for those who have a bigger interest in it than as a child's toy. It will have to be in order for Google to continue to compete with Microsoft. That's right. Microsoft is wounded but by no means dead. Android tablets aren't competing with Apple tablets or (giggle, giggle) Windows tablets, but with Windows PCs. So people aren't choosing between a Galaxy/Nexus and an I-Pad. They are deciding between an Android tablet (or a Chromebook) and a low end Windows PC. For that to continue - especially now that Windows is fighting back by practically giving away Windows 8 to low end OEMs to keep the cost competitive with Chromebooks as their "Scroogled" campaign was a total failure (great idea Ballmer!) - Android is going to have to be as good as or better than the low end Windows PCs that still to this very day dominate the consumer PC market (fewer such PCs are selling, but of the ones that do sell, 7 out of 10 of them run Windows 7 or Windows 8).
Again, stuff like this is just propaganda to make Apple consumers feel better about themselves. It is not reality. If it were, Microsoft wouldn't bother with Office for Android at all. They WOULD NOT give anyone a reason to spend $300 on a quality Galaxy or upcoming Google Play tablet instead of a low end second Windows laptop that people are going to carry to meetings and whatnot while their primary device - be it a Windows PC or MacBook - remains tethered to their desk, but that is EXACTLY what they are doing.
I specifically pointed out the original Angry Birds apps (Angry Birds and Angry Birds HD).
As both melgross and I have mentioned before, Rovio has subsequently moved to a freemium distribution model in later episodes of the Angry Birds franchise. Both Angry Birds Rio and Angry Birds Rio HD are now free in the iOS App Store with in-app purchases.
Remember, the free version of Angry Birds (iPhone edition) was published a year after the paid version has been out. Rovio made lots of money just offering the paid version. Their experience on Android was frustrating because they offered the same app at the same price, yet the download numbers were abysmally low, which is why they went free on Android with ad support since that's the nature of the many Android users.
No. Mel claimed Angry Birds was originally paid on Android but their users weren't buying it so they were forced to change to free. You are erroneously saying the same thing. I believe you and he are confusing it with some other game as that didn't happen unless you have some evidence to the contrary. Angry Birds never started out as a paid app on the Android Market, now Google Play.
Since then Rovio has found the best balance for maximum revenue to be a mix of both paid and premium versions, and they do the same for both Android and iOS users. I have no idea what you're actually disagreeing with.
No, that's definitely wrong. Actually, what happened, as I remember it, was that first they had an ad supported version on some Android phones(they said they couldn't support all because of fragmentation), then they came out with a paid version after, I think some large number of free downloads was done. But the paid version did very poorly.
Citations always help when you claim another poster is wrong Mel.
^ I just looked at getting a subscription of Office 365 and noticed the MS website calls it "Office 365 Home Premium" whereas the in-App purchase on the iPad calls it "Office 365 Home". They both charge $99.99 per year.
I think they're the same, and what intrigued me is that you not only get up to 5 users, but each user gets their own 20GB extra storage included (combined with the free 7GB it means each person gets 27GB). That's a significant amount of storage.
Not really concerened with getting an extra 0.5GB when I'll get 27GB x 5 with my Office subscription.
Edited: reply to DCJ001
They're going g to offer a Home version for $69 a year that includes, I believe, one computer and possibly one iPad.
Comments
Mel, IIRC the numbers submitted as evidence for the trial were US only, but AI and other blogs tried to use worldwide shipment numbers to prove Samsung lied about their shipments and/or companies like Gartner were way off the mark. Are you perhaps making the same mistake now or is there something else I missed?
Which statement Soli?
Microsoft OneDrive is needed to store Office files for smartphones and tablets. OneDrive is really pretty good - a lot like Dropbox.
If you sign up through this referral link, you will receive an additional 0.5GB of online storage:
https://onedrive.live.com?invref=943cc0b11ce9ff04&invsrc=90
Yes, it was. Rovio made a big point about it back then. Android users are very resistant to paying for apps. I don't remember how much Angry Birds cost me, as it was some time ago. I have several versions of the game. It's just a small amount though. But the ad supported version on Android has done well.
It's possible that now they've gone to the in app purchasing model, as that's proving very successful on both platforms.
I don't believe it was ever anything BUT free for Android Mel, at least not according to the original press reports when it first became available.
http://mashable.com/2010/10/15/angry-birds-android-2/
Perhaps you've confused it with some other game.
EDIT: iOS now has both free and paid versions of Angry Birds as does Android. Thanks MPantone
Even the company's October ads for touch-based PCs running Window 8.1, carrying the tagline "honestly, it works for work," are fading away.
Not to say that tagline is suddenly false, the T100 does come with Office H&S 2013 for free and the device itself can do quite a bit more than an iPad.
So Angry Birds used to be a paid app for Android but they were forced to make it free? Did not know that. How much does it cost on iOS?
The paid iPhone version is $0.99, there is an ad-supported free version. The paid iPad version (Angry Birds HD) is $2.99, with its own free ad-supported version.
The publisher made both paid versions free for about a week earlier in this month.
For current pricing, please consult AppShopper: http://appshopper.com/search/?search=angry+birds
As melgross mentioned, Rovio has moved to a freemium distribution model, making the initial app download free, but charging extra via in-app purchases for full functionality and game credits.
Many app publishers -- particularly game developers -- have moved to this distribution model since it provides more regular revenue over the life of the app. iOS app store metrics show the number of downloads plus in-app purchase revenue, and each developer can figure out if in-app purchases results in higher average revenue per user than upfront one-time app purchases + ad revenue from ad-supported free versions.
I think they're the same, and what intrigued me is that you not only get up to 5 users, but each user gets their own 20GB extra storage included (combined with the free 7GB it means each person gets 27GB). That's a significant amount of storage.
Not really concerened with getting an extra 0.5GB when I'll get 27GB x 5 with my Office subscription.
Edited: reply to DCJ001
So like it is on Android with both free and "premium" versions then at the same $2.99 pricing
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rovio.angrybirdsstarwarshd.premium.iap
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rovio.angrybirdsspaceHD
Samsung hasn't lied about shipments since the last quarter of 2010, because during the first quarter 2011, financial conference call, they announced that they would no longer give quarterly tablet and smartphone shipment numbers. So the on,y numbers we ever see are odd ones for their top phones, at strange intervals. Such as Galaxy S4 numbers, where in stead of giving out a normal quarterly number, they gave the number for the first 100 days. Who does that? Why? Because the phone sold far better in the first week then it did at any other time. Actually, even with conflated estimates from these companies, the G S4 didn't do all that well. In fact, now we're seeing numbers that show the maligned iPhone 5C sold in significantly better numbers than did the S4. How can that be? We're also reading that the S4 sold in fewer numbers than did the SIII!
And what about those tablets again? What evidence do we have that Samsung is selling more than a fraction we see estimated? And we need to remember that without confirming numbers from a manufacturer, these companies have absolutely no way of verifying their methodology. I remember in 2012, iSupply estimated that Samsung shipped 33 million smartphones one quarter. They were the first to come out with a number. It wasn't widely quoted. Then either Gartner or IDC, I forget which came out with 38 million. That was widely quoted. Then another company said 42 million, and so that number became the one mentioned everywhere. That some very small Canadian company that no one had ever heard of said 49 million, and that became the buss word.
Why such a wide discrepancy? And why weren't those numbers questioned by everyone? Why was the highest number the one quoted? The discrepancy was because there was no way to verify any of those numbers. Why they weren't questioned is a mystery to me. They certainly should have been.
Mel, you could be absolutely right but as I said before I don't recall that. No doubt I miss a lot, one reason AI is one of my favorite sites to find info. Would you mind giving me a link to it?
People can argue about whether Angry Birds is free or not, but that doesn't change the fact Android users do not spend nearly as much as iOS users do. This is a FACT.
As of September 2013 iOS had hit around 700 million devices while Android had hit 1 billion (1 billion that Google can track as activations which means they have Google Play access).
Despite Android having a larger share of users, their App revenue is still only now at 1/2 that of the App Store. Adjusted for the number of users, and iOS users are generating 2.85x as much per user compared to Android users.
Even worse, Google Play digital content (music, movies, TV...) is still around 1/6th of iTunes. Adjusted per user and that's 8.6x. Truly pathetic. And people still make the false claim that Google is in a better position to bring streaming TV or similar services to the public. With that kind of revenue per user, I don't know how anyone could think Google has an advantage over Apple when it comes to dealing with content providers.
So like it is on Android with both free and "premium" versions then at the same $2.99 pricing
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rovio.angrybirdsstarwarshd.premium.iap
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rovio.angrybirdsspaceHD
I specifically pointed out the original Angry Birds apps (Angry Birds and Angry Birds HD).
As both melgross and I have mentioned before, Rovio has subsequently moved to a freemium distribution model in later episodes of the Angry Birds franchise. Both Angry Birds Rio and Angry Birds Rio HD are now free in the iOS App Store with in-app purchases.
Remember, the free version of Angry Birds (iPhone edition) was published a year after the paid version has been out. Rovio made lots of money just offering the paid version. Their experience on Android was frustrating because they offered the same app at the same price, yet the download numbers were abysmally low, which is why they went free on Android with ad support since that's the nature of the many Android users.
The main lesson here is that iOS users spend more on apps than Android users and iPad users spend way more more on apps than smartphone app buyers or other Android tablet buyers.
...that no one disputes AFAIK. Have you ever seen a claim otherwise? I haven't. But just because most developers came make more money on iOS doesn't mean there's not good money to be made on GooglePlay too is it? With it being a whole lot easier to develop an app for both at the same time (ie Corona, Xamarin) than it used to be why not do both? I can't think of a serious downside to it.
No, that's definitely wrong. Actually, what happened, as I remember it, was that first they had an ad supported version on some Android phones(they said they couldn't support all because of fragmentation), then they came out with a paid version after, I think some large number of free downloads was done. But the paid version did very poorly.
Ugh. More of this "Apple versus cheap low end devices" nonsense that has never been true and never will be true. It is a rant about the monoculture that existed when Microsoft was at its peak, but it ignores two things:
1. Corporate managers and workers aren't stupid. If the Wintel "cheap low end devices" were incapable of reliably doing the heavyweight task-intensive work in corporate America (not just word processing but programming, CAD/CAM and lots of other heavy duty stuff) they never would have adopted it wholesale and stuck with it to this day.
2. The reason why Apple never really made a dent into the corporate market was that until recently it wasn't suited for it. Even the companies that were willing and able to pay the premium for Apple products found it unsuitable for most corporate tasks. This isn't the case now, but it was certainly the case in the 1990s and the 2000s. Work was either done on Windows machines, or if Windows machines were unsuitable, on workstations running some flavor of UNIX (Linux wasn't much of a player back then because Fedora and Ubuntu weren't out yet, so it was more likely to be Sun Solaris, HP-UX or something like that). The only people using Apple machines for work were using it for things like desktop publishing, animation, graphic arts, music etc. not business, programming, tech etc. because at the time the Windows machines - and the UNIX workstations - were better at it. It was not due to the Apple hardware, of course, but back then the Apple interface was difficult to work with (the ability to customize Windows and MS-DOS and UNIX was necessary for work back then) and there was a real lack of software tools to do work available because most of the software development was for Windows.
3. The dichotomy between the "great Apple machines and the $500 Windows machines" NEVER EXISTED. The cheap Wintel machines with the slow CPUs, barely adequate RAM and tiny disk drives were only bought by home users for playing games and word processing (usually with the free Microsoft Works, not Word.) Corporate users always bought good machines with hardware that was at least ballpark with Apple machines. A corporate Windows machine today likely has 4-8 GB of RAM, a 500 GB hard drive, and an I-5 Intel processor running at about 2.8 GHz. In other words, similar to the specs that those MacBooks that the side panel of this site is advertising. The difference is that you can get a $1000 Toshiba or HP machine for that very capable hardware instead of having to pay $1800. If anything, Windows is holding the hardware manufacturers back these days. It was certainly the case with Windows Vista, and is also the case with Windows 8.
4. Likewise, the $50 tablets that you are showing is nonsense. Samsung's enterprise tablet, 12.2 inches, great specs and capabilities and $750 price, goes unmentioned here. Why? It doesn't fit the "low end Android with bad hardware" agenda. Neither does the many $200-$350 tablets that are much more capable than 600 MHz kids toys. So "The result is a commodity market where all you can buy is junk, and any efforts to compete with better products are undermined by price dumping that effectively destroys innovation" never has been true and never will be true. It is just garbage to make people who make the CHOICE to spend $800 more on a PC or $100-$150 more on a tablet or phone feel better about themselves. You want to feel better about buying a $500 I-Pad instead of a $350 Android device, so you tell yourself that the only Android products are either Samsung copyright infringements (when Apple isn't even challenging the newer Samsung models, just the older ones) or garbage. Look, I don't know why people aren't buying the Google Nexus, the HP Slate or the other quality tablets, but there is no denying that they are capable tablets with hardware comparable to the older I-Pad models.
5. Proof of this? That Microsoft is making Office for the Android AT ALL. Had Microsoft come out and said that they were only going to do Office for the I-Pad, THEN you would be able to claim that Android is unviable because the hardware on the Android devices that actually sell is incapable, and the Android devices that have capable hardware do not sell. But that is not the case at all. Instead, Microsoft merely released Office for I-Pad FIRST and will come out with it for Android LATER THIS YEAR. Why? Because they know that it will make money. As Microsoft does have these internal sales figures, they know that enough mid-range ($200-$350) and high end (pricing comparable to Microsoft) Android devices sell to justify the not-too-insignificant cost of developing and maintaining Office for the Android platform while undercutting their own.
6. More still: the Android platform is about to go through a major "next phase", of which Microsoft is fully aware. In 2015, Google is ending the Nexus brand, which Google was primarily using as a "demo" for other Android OEMs to follow. In other words, it was used to "introduce" the product. The introductory phase is over. In 2015, Google is going to discontinue their Nexus line in favor of their just-launched Google Play tablets (and phones). They are also going to start taking tighter control over Android itself (making it less "open") including coming up with a superior update process. That is going to make the platform more viable for those who have a bigger interest in it than as a child's toy. It will have to be in order for Google to continue to compete with Microsoft. That's right. Microsoft is wounded but by no means dead. Android tablets aren't competing with Apple tablets or (giggle, giggle) Windows tablets, but with Windows PCs. So people aren't choosing between a Galaxy/Nexus and an I-Pad. They are deciding between an Android tablet (or a Chromebook) and a low end Windows PC. For that to continue - especially now that Windows is fighting back by practically giving away Windows 8 to low end OEMs to keep the cost competitive with Chromebooks as their "Scroogled" campaign was a total failure (great idea Ballmer!) - Android is going to have to be as good as or better than the low end Windows PCs that still to this very day dominate the consumer PC market (fewer such PCs are selling, but of the ones that do sell, 7 out of 10 of them run Windows 7 or Windows 8).
Again, stuff like this is just propaganda to make Apple consumers feel better about themselves. It is not reality. If it were, Microsoft wouldn't bother with Office for Android at all. They WOULD NOT give anyone a reason to spend $300 on a quality Galaxy or upcoming Google Play tablet instead of a low end second Windows laptop that people are going to carry to meetings and whatnot while their primary device - be it a Windows PC or MacBook - remains tethered to their desk, but that is EXACTLY what they are doing.
No. Mel claimed Angry Birds was originally paid on Android but their users weren't buying it so they were forced to change to free. You are erroneously saying the same thing. I believe you and he are confusing it with some other game as that didn't happen unless you have some evidence to the contrary. Angry Birds never started out as a paid app on the Android Market, now Google Play.
Since then Rovio has found the best balance for maximum revenue to be a mix of both paid and premium versions, and they do the same for both Android and iOS users. I have no idea what you're actually disagreeing with.
Citations always help when you claim another poster is wrong Mel.
They're going g to offer a Home version for $69 a year that includes, I believe, one computer and possibly one iPad.