Yes it is, or microscopic profits in good quarters, and so is Motorola mobility, but to be fair to Android, they were both basket cases before they switched to it - it actually gave them a last lease on life.
This is a really common phenomenon in the phone industry. A handset maker hits hard times and the channel will still take the phones off them but demands increasingly aggressive prices till eventually you're left with a zombie firm, which finally merges with another zombie and they try again. Market share tends to get lost slowly, due to the nature of the channel, but margins degrade fast, and once gone they do not return.
That reminds me - didn't the original Motorola Razor sell for as much as $399? Or was it $499?
I dont think anybody suggested that only one Android phone was sold. To customer Page, or anybody else.
Really? it sure sounds like that's what half the people here have to believe in order to feel secure their iPhone was the right choice. Just be happy with your decision and your passion; no need to feel threatened by any good news about the "competition".
"The Android activation numbers do not include upgrades and are, in fact, only a portion of the Android devices in the market since we only include devices that have Google services."
Nothing I have been told by a Google Engineer contradicts this. Note: Show me the indication that "resets"/phone changes are counted/not counted.
If I understand some of the brilliant minds here, there is exactly one Android phone sold (or made?). But, as Android is so crappy, customer Page has had to reset the activation half a million times a day? Did I get that right?
Luckily, you don't seem too smart because no one has even remotely asserted that only 1 Android device has been sold.
"The Android activation numbers do not include upgrades and are, in fact, only a portion of the Android devices in the market since we only include devices that have Google services."
Nothing I have been told by a Google Engineer contradicts this. Note: Show me the indication that "resets"/phone changes are counted/not counted.
HINT: You can't.
What do you mean by a "reset"? A reboot? An upgrade?
If the device has a unique id then there is never a reason to count it twice, "reset" or not.
Actually because it does not include access to the real androidarket or the google Apps it is not counted as an android device. Similar to how the archos tablets do not count as already stated.
What do you mean by a "reset"? A reboot? An upgrade?
If the device has a unique id then there is never a reason to count it twice, "reset" or not.
I think he means this:
I buy an Android phone. It is activated. That's one activation.
Within 30 days, I return it because I don't like it or it doesn't work right. I get a new Android phone. It is activated. That's two activations.
The phone I returned is reset and sold to someone else. It is activated. That's three activations.
Three activations. But only two phones sold.
I don't know if this is true. But when companies use terms that aren't clearly defined, I am suspicious. It's like when companies say that "shipped" x amount of devices. It sounds like that's how many they sold, when it's not that clear.
As an advertiser, Google knows that hard, auditable numbers are important and carry more weight. So why do they use a vague term that leaves room for doubt?
The first consumer Android phone wasn't available until months AFTER the iPhone went on sale, TMobile's G1 in late Oct/2008 , not years before. And that was on one carrier only. In addition the first iPhone-comparable Android phone (original Droid) wasn't released until late in 2009.
But Google was developing Android, the software, years before Apple revealed iOS on an iPhone. But none of the phone makers showed any interest until Apple released their multi touch iPhone. One of the rumored reason why Eric Schmidt was kicked out of the Apple board in 2009 was because of how fast Google Android went from being a QWERTY buttons device interface to a touch screen device interface in only a year after the release of the iPhone. People figured he must have been leaking iPhone and iOS development news to his Android team back at Google.
That reminds me - didn't the original Motorola Razor sell for as much as $399? Or was it $499?
I wasn't paying attention back then, but according to Gizmodo it was $600 with a $100 rebate from cingular. I just remember it basically saved the firm, which had brought out a run of bad models before it.
I buy an Android phone. It is activated. That's one activation.
Within 30 days, I return it because I don't like it or it doesn't work right. I get a new Android .
As an advertiser, Google knows that hard, auditable numbers are important and carry more weight. So why do they use a vague term that leaves room for doubt?
I see. Yes, that is serious. If the number of phones activated include new activations by new users of old phones then the stats are misleading. Were Apple to do that then sales of 20M phones in a quarter would map to 30M activations assuming 50% of phones were handed to a new person who activated on iTunes. ( And 50% is a low estimate).
But Google was developing Android, the software, years before Apple revealed iOS on an iPhone. But none of the phone makers showed any interest until Apple released their multi touch iPhone. One of the rumored reason why Eric Schmidt was kicked out of the Apple board in 2009 was because of how fast Google Android went from being a QWERTY buttons device interface to a touch screen device interface in only a year after the release of the iPhone. People figured he must have been leaking iPhone and iOS development news to his Android team back at Google.
That is highly incorrect. Android was being developed as a blackberry like os before iOS was released on the iphone in 2007. However if you actually use android os other then the fact Apps can be placed on the home screen and both are optimized for touch based screen the similarities stop there. Android stores applications in an app draw not across the home screen. If you are to just open your eyes you can see the difference between these OSs is are mainly features of sambian and BlackBerry OS. Google simply took what they had and addressed it to a change in demand and made it a touch based os. You can say that iOS paved the path for android to become be what it is today. But to say that it copied is just ignorance.
Copied the entire thing perfectly? Obviously not, but stayed very close to the sense of iPhone, definitely. Then the OEMs took that OS and slapped icons all over it that were lifted straight from the iPhone, frequently used a form-factor that aped the iPhone and so we were left with an iOS like UI on an iPhone like slab sporting iPhone like icons. Coincidence? Really?
Let's just consider a tiny picayune feature - the phone icon.
Back in olden times phones had keypads, and keypads had 'call' buttons
Moto RAZR:
Classic Nokia:
About the only thing that you could be sure of about the call button was that it was green or grey, might plausibly resemble a phone and would be on the left. In fact the two keypads look exceedingly different. Moto is using a very stylized font, while Nokia is using a very understated one. Above the main number-pad the navigation buttons are very very different. Moto & Nokia for years competed in feature phones but they very rarely resembled each other's offerings - especially not in the small details.
Apple:
Samsung:
Believe it or not icons can be trademarked, and that one is. Samsung had a huge choice of options for a phone icon that wouldn't copy the iPhone, but they made a conscious decision to stay as close to the iPhone icon as they thought they could. Not a bit for bit copy of course, but enough that the message is there. Funniest of all, Samsung's feature phones and Bada phones didn't even generally have a green call button, their call button was a grey angular elongated horizontal receiver. What was wrong with that?
Android isn't a perfect copy of the iPhone, but Android phones are frequently filled with design elements gratuitously lifted from the iPhone, and you have to work quite hard at it to not notice.
Believe it or not icons can be trademarked, and that one is. Samsung had a huge choice of options for a phone icon that wouldn't copy the iPhone, but they made a conscious decision to stay as close to the iPhone icon as they thought they could. Not a bit for bit copy of course, but enough that the message is there. Funniest of all, Samsung's feature phones and Bada phones didn't even generally have a green call button, their call button was a grey angular elongated horizontal receiver. What was wrong with that?
Android isn't a perfect copy of the iPhone, but Android phones are frequently filled with design elements gratuitously lifted from the iPhone, and you have to work quite hard at it to not notice.
I think Apple has a strong case insofar as there are too many similarities for it to be a coincidence. The question is what, if any, consequences would Samsung suffer. Is there any precedence for this?
I think Apple has a strong case insofar as there are too many similarities for it to be a coincidence. The question is what, if any, consequences would Samsung suffer. Is there any precedence for this?
Yep - it would be classed as a trademark infringement, Apple would be granted an injunction and Samsung would have to stop shipping till they replaced the icons. Conceivably also damages might be awarded for the infringement. Unlike patents where injunctions are no longer assured, with trademarks they still are. Apple could choose to license the trademarks to Samsung of course, but somehow I can't see them doing so.
Copied the entire thing perfectly? Obviously not, but stayed very close to the sense of iPhone, definitely. Then the OEMs took that OS and slapped icons all over it that were lifted straight from the iPhone, frequently used a form-factor that aped the iPhone and so we were left with an iOS like UI on an iPhone like slab sporting iPhone like icons. Coincidence? Really?
Let's just consider a tiny picayune feature - the phone icon.
Back in olden times phones had keypads, and keypads had 'call' buttons
Moto RAZR:
Classic Nokia:
About the only thing that you could be sure of about the call button was that it was green or grey, might plausibly resemble a phone and would be on the left. In fact the two keypads look exceedingly different. Moto is using a very stylized font, while Nokia is using a very understated one. Above the main number-jpad the navigation buttons are very very different. Moto & Nokia for years competed in feature phones but they very rarely resembled each other's offerings - especially not in the small details.
Apple:
Samsung:
Believe it or not icons can be trademarked, and that one is. Samsung had a huge choice of options for a phone icon that wouldn't copy the iPhone, but they made a conscious decision to stay as close to the iPhone icon as they thought they could. Not a bit for bit copy of course, but enough that the message is there. Funniest of all, Samsung's feature phones and Bada phones didn't even generally have a green call button, their call button was a grey angular elongated horizontal receiver. What was wrong with that?
Android isn't a perfect copy of the iPhone, but Android phones are frequently filled with design elements gratuitously lifted from the iPhone, and you have to work quite hard at it to not notice.
Have you ever used an android phone other then thirty seconds at a display kiosk. Your example is app icons mainly the ones that where added by manufacturers on their skins. You did not however talk about the native android icons found on Vanilla android. Look at the nexus line..
Comments
With regards to Sony-Ericsson
Yes it is, or microscopic profits in good quarters, and so is Motorola mobility, but to be fair to Android, they were both basket cases before they switched to it - it actually gave them a last lease on life.
This is a really common phenomenon in the phone industry. A handset maker hits hard times and the channel will still take the phones off them but demands increasingly aggressive prices till eventually you're left with a zombie firm, which finally merges with another zombie and they try again. Market share tends to get lost slowly, due to the nature of the channel, but margins degrade fast, and once gone they do not return.
That reminds me - didn't the original Motorola Razor sell for as much as $399? Or was it $499?
I dont think anybody suggested that only one Android phone was sold. To customer Page, or anybody else.
Really? it sure sounds like that's what half the people here have to believe in order to feel secure their iPhone was the right choice. Just be happy with your decision and your passion; no need to feel threatened by any good news about the "competition".
My God, upgrading the os RESETS the phone and Google, as I have linked before, has said that OS upgrades doesn't count as activations.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/...g-accusations/
"The Android activation numbers do not include upgrades and are, in fact, only a portion of the Android devices in the market since we only include devices that have Google services."
Nothing I have been told by a Google Engineer contradicts this. Note: Show me the indication that "resets"/phone changes are counted/not counted.
HINT: You can't.
If I understand some of the brilliant minds here, there is exactly one Android phone sold (or made?). But, as Android is so crappy, customer Page has had to reset the activation half a million times a day? Did I get that right?
Luckily, you don't seem too smart because no one has even remotely asserted that only 1 Android device has been sold.
Luckily, you don't seem too smart because no one has even remotely asserted that only 1 Android device has been sold.
You're kidding me, right?
You're kidding me, right?
No. You suggested that half the people here say that only one android phone has been sold. That's not true.
"The Android activation numbers do not include upgrades and are, in fact, only a portion of the Android devices in the market since we only include devices that have Google services."
Nothing I have been told by a Google Engineer contradicts this. Note: Show me the indication that "resets"/phone changes are counted/not counted.
HINT: You can't.
What do you mean by a "reset"? A reboot? An upgrade?
If the device has a unique id then there is never a reason to count it twice, "reset" or not.
The Maylong M-150
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/revie...oid-tablet.ars
This is a pretty old article, but it shows what can count as an Android activation.
The Maylong M-150
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/revie...oid-tablet.ars
Actually because it does not include access to the real androidarket or the google Apps it is not counted as an android device. Similar to how the archos tablets do not count as already stated.
AAPL: 505,545,728.00 ( +0.01 )
Darn, it was fixed, just when I was starting to get used to the idea of being a billionaire.
What do you mean by a "reset"? A reboot? An upgrade?
If the device has a unique id then there is never a reason to count it twice, "reset" or not.
I think he means this:
I buy an Android phone. It is activated. That's one activation.
Within 30 days, I return it because I don't like it or it doesn't work right. I get a new Android phone. It is activated. That's two activations.
The phone I returned is reset and sold to someone else. It is activated. That's three activations.
Three activations. But only two phones sold.
I don't know if this is true. But when companies use terms that aren't clearly defined, I am suspicious. It's like when companies say that "shipped" x amount of devices. It sounds like that's how many they sold, when it's not that clear.
As an advertiser, Google knows that hard, auditable numbers are important and carry more weight. So why do they use a vague term that leaves room for doubt?
This is a pretty old article, but it shows what can count as an Android activation.
The Maylong M-150
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/revie...oid-tablet.ars
No, this device doesn't account for Google
The first consumer Android phone wasn't available until months AFTER the iPhone went on sale, TMobile's G1 in late Oct/2008 , not years before. And that was on one carrier only. In addition the first iPhone-comparable Android phone (original Droid) wasn't released until late in 2009.
http://www.htc.com/www/press.aspx?id=66338&lang=1033
But Google was developing Android, the software, years before Apple revealed iOS on an iPhone. But none of the phone makers showed any interest until Apple released their multi touch iPhone. One of the rumored reason why Eric Schmidt was kicked out of the Apple board in 2009 was because of how fast Google Android went from being a QWERTY buttons device interface to a touch screen device interface in only a year after the release of the iPhone. People figured he must have been leaking iPhone and iOS development news to his Android team back at Google.
That reminds me - didn't the original Motorola Razor sell for as much as $399? Or was it $499?
I wasn't paying attention back then, but according to Gizmodo it was $600 with a $100 rebate from cingular. I just remember it basically saved the firm, which had brought out a run of bad models before it.
I think he means this:
I buy an Android phone. It is activated. That's one activation.
Within 30 days, I return it because I don't like it or it doesn't work right. I get a new Android .
As an advertiser, Google knows that hard, auditable numbers are important and carry more weight. So why do they use a vague term that leaves room for doubt?
I see. Yes, that is serious. If the number of phones activated include new activations by new users of old phones then the stats are misleading. Were Apple to do that then sales of 20M phones in a quarter would map to 30M activations assuming 50% of phones were handed to a new person who activated on iTunes. ( And 50% is a low estimate).
Clarity on this would be very important.
But Google was developing Android, the software, years before Apple revealed iOS on an iPhone. But none of the phone makers showed any interest until Apple released their multi touch iPhone. One of the rumored reason why Eric Schmidt was kicked out of the Apple board in 2009 was because of how fast Google Android went from being a QWERTY buttons device interface to a touch screen device interface in only a year after the release of the iPhone. People figured he must have been leaking iPhone and iOS development news to his Android team back at Google.
That is highly incorrect. Android was being developed as a blackberry like os before iOS was released on the iphone in 2007. However if you actually use android os other then the fact Apps can be placed on the home screen and both are optimized for touch based screen the similarities stop there. Android stores applications in an app draw not across the home screen. If you are to just open your eyes you can see the difference between these OSs is are mainly features of sambian and BlackBerry OS. Google simply took what they had and addressed it to a change in demand and made it a touch based os. You can say that iOS paved the path for android to become be what it is today. But to say that it copied is just ignorance.
But to say that it copied is just ignorance.
Copied the entire thing perfectly? Obviously not, but stayed very close to the sense of iPhone, definitely. Then the OEMs took that OS and slapped icons all over it that were lifted straight from the iPhone, frequently used a form-factor that aped the iPhone and so we were left with an iOS like UI on an iPhone like slab sporting iPhone like icons. Coincidence? Really?
Let's just consider a tiny picayune feature - the phone icon.
Back in olden times phones had keypads, and keypads had 'call' buttons
Moto RAZR:
Classic Nokia:
About the only thing that you could be sure of about the call button was that it was green or grey, might plausibly resemble a phone and would be on the left. In fact the two keypads look exceedingly different. Moto is using a very stylized font, while Nokia is using a very understated one. Above the main number-pad the navigation buttons are very very different. Moto & Nokia for years competed in feature phones but they very rarely resembled each other's offerings - especially not in the small details.
Apple:
Samsung:
Believe it or not icons can be trademarked, and that one is. Samsung had a huge choice of options for a phone icon that wouldn't copy the iPhone, but they made a conscious decision to stay as close to the iPhone icon as they thought they could. Not a bit for bit copy of course, but enough that the message is there. Funniest of all, Samsung's feature phones and Bada phones didn't even generally have a green call button, their call button was a grey angular elongated horizontal receiver. What was wrong with that?
Android isn't a perfect copy of the iPhone, but Android phones are frequently filled with design elements gratuitously lifted from the iPhone, and you have to work quite hard at it to not notice.
[?]
Believe it or not icons can be trademarked, and that one is. Samsung had a huge choice of options for a phone icon that wouldn't copy the iPhone, but they made a conscious decision to stay as close to the iPhone icon as they thought they could. Not a bit for bit copy of course, but enough that the message is there. Funniest of all, Samsung's feature phones and Bada phones didn't even generally have a green call button, their call button was a grey angular elongated horizontal receiver. What was wrong with that?
Android isn't a perfect copy of the iPhone, but Android phones are frequently filled with design elements gratuitously lifted from the iPhone, and you have to work quite hard at it to not notice.
I think Apple has a strong case insofar as there are too many similarities for it to be a coincidence. The question is what, if any, consequences would Samsung suffer. Is there any precedence for this?
I think Apple has a strong case insofar as there are too many similarities for it to be a coincidence. The question is what, if any, consequences would Samsung suffer. Is there any precedence for this?
Yep - it would be classed as a trademark infringement, Apple would be granted an injunction and Samsung would have to stop shipping till they replaced the icons. Conceivably also damages might be awarded for the infringement. Unlike patents where injunctions are no longer assured, with trademarks they still are. Apple could choose to license the trademarks to Samsung of course, but somehow I can't see them doing so.
Copied the entire thing perfectly? Obviously not, but stayed very close to the sense of iPhone, definitely. Then the OEMs took that OS and slapped icons all over it that were lifted straight from the iPhone, frequently used a form-factor that aped the iPhone and so we were left with an iOS like UI on an iPhone like slab sporting iPhone like icons. Coincidence? Really?
Let's just consider a tiny picayune feature - the phone icon.
Back in olden times phones had keypads, and keypads had 'call' buttons
Moto RAZR:
Classic Nokia:
About the only thing that you could be sure of about the call button was that it was green or grey, might plausibly resemble a phone and would be on the left. In fact the two keypads look exceedingly different. Moto is using a very stylized font, while Nokia is using a very understated one. Above the main number-jpad the navigation buttons are very very different. Moto & Nokia for years competed in feature phones but they very rarely resembled each other's offerings - especially not in the small details.
Apple:
Samsung:
Believe it or not icons can be trademarked, and that one is. Samsung had a huge choice of options for a phone icon that wouldn't copy the iPhone, but they made a conscious decision to stay as close to the iPhone icon as they thought they could. Not a bit for bit copy of course, but enough that the message is there. Funniest of all, Samsung's feature phones and Bada phones didn't even generally have a green call button, their call button was a grey angular elongated horizontal receiver. What was wrong with that?
Android isn't a perfect copy of the iPhone, but Android phones are frequently filled with design elements gratuitously lifted from the iPhone, and you have to work quite hard at it to not notice.
Have you ever used an android phone other then thirty seconds at a display kiosk. Your example is app icons mainly the ones that where added by manufacturers on their skins. You did not however talk about the native android icons found on Vanilla android. Look at the nexus line..