Precisely the markets targeted by the Android One program.
To clarify: the malware is available for download withinthird party app marketplaces - places like Amazon's Appstore or Cydia. The Android One program looks to be pushing Google-controlled devices into emerging markets, which will reduce the importance of those third-party app stores.
The google play apps are malware. The google computer programmer don't how to write their software apps. The google did not check their google play bad apps before sent google play App Store. So I never to buy the google products because their google play App Store are not good quantity apps.
The google play apps are malware. The google computer programmer don't how to write their software apps. The google did not check their google play bad apps before sent google play App Store. So I never to buy the google products because their google play App Store are not good quantity apps.
You again. Well at least your fake bad grammar is improving.
I guess we have to assume that $100 is the off contract price? I don't think I saw it stated explicitly.
What kind of margin are you going to get on a $100 phone? $20 a unit would be aggressive. Maybe $10 is more likely. Maybe $5 if you include marketing and distribution costs. So a manufacturer goes to all the trouble to manufacture these to generate almost nothing. Might as well sell cricket bats to the masses.
The only winner is Google. What a surprise.
Apple can make earphones for Android One (Beats branded!) and make more money than the handset manufacturer.
Is Apple making insane profits the only measure of success these days?
I imagine the biggest winner in all of this are developing markets - instead of $100 getting you a crappy, never to be updated phone, you can actually get one with modern software and that gets regular updates.
That is certainly great progress on a global scale, just not necessarily in 1st world countries.
I guess we have to assume that $100 is the off contract price? I don't think I saw it stated explicitly.
What kind of margin are you going to get on a $100 phone? $20 a unit would be aggressive. Maybe $10 is more likely. Maybe $5 if you include marketing and distribution costs. So a manufacturer goes to all the trouble to manufacture these to generate almost nothing. Might as well sell cricket bats to the masses.
The only winner is Google. What a surprise.
Apple can make earphones for Android One (Beats branded!) and make more money than the handset manufacturer.
Is Apple making insane profits the only measure of success these days?
I imagine the biggest winner in all of this are developing markets - instead of $100 getting you a crappy, never to be updated phone, you can actually get one with modern software and that gets regular updates.
That is certainly great progress on a global scale, just not necessarily in 1st world countries.
Profits don't have to be insane, just sustainable. Companies can't afford to lose money for ever and razor thin margins are a tough model for something that requires long term support. I don't see why these phones would have more than $50 or $60 in parts though.
Is that really what Google is doing, Appleinsider? Making a play against Apple's iPhone 4S? This is a big global confrontation against Google who is forming their business strategy to take on Apple's 4S phone? That is how you are framing this.
Google doesn't care about the 4S lol. They are dominant in the low end and they'll continue to be dominant. Google and Android will continue to grow.
And so will Apple and iOS. They'll also continue to grow.
And some day the analysts and bloggers will have to stop repeating the lie that the market is "saturated" and they will have to admit to the reality, that all our lives are being transformed by technology that is growing and changing so quickly, that there is room for both Google and Apple to be enormously successful.
Appleinsider will then quit framing every story like an epic battle where any company is doing whatever it's doing to take on, take down, or otherwise combat Apple.
You're referring to banking malware delivered via "phishing". All the mobile OS's are just as open to that, iOS included.
As for Android One it allows Google to deliver updates directly to those smartphones as they do with Nexus device and bypassing the carriers as Apple does. I don't see a downside to it.
Lies. iOS and Android (and WP) are all susceptible to malware, but to claim "All the mobile OS's are just as open" is an outright lie. Which makes you a liar, again. iOS is FIPS certified. Android is not. That right there speaks volumes for the security of both OS's.
Android One still doesn't get around the fact that many security updates are at the lowest levels of the operating system, and Android One (or Google Play Services) can't fix those. They still require an old-fashioned OS update, which would have to go through the OEM's and carriers.
To clarify: the malware is available for download withinthird party app marketplaces - places like Amazon's Appstore or Cydia. The Android One program looks to be pushing Google-controlled devices into emerging markets, which will reduce the importance of those third-party app stores.
I understood your post. I don't think you can leap to the conclusion that third party app stores will become less popular simply because of the Android One program. I didn't watch the keynote, but nothing in the article above states that manufacturers will be barred from making third party app stores the default option.
You again. Well at least your fake bad grammar is improving.
You again google fanboy I am call you idiot google guy. So what wrong you in the appleinsider? I am getting total piss off at the bullies google guys. So you don't like apple products. I want know a truth about you. I don't getting long with google guys.
Lies. iOS and Android (and WP) are all susceptible to malware, but to claim "All the mobile OS's are just as open" is an outright lie. Which makes you a liar, again. iOS is FIPS certified. Android is not. That right there speaks volumes for the security of both OS's
You sincerely love the word "lie" don't you? Seems to cover pretty much anything you don't like someone saying. I plainly said all the OS's were just as susceptible to "phishing" schemes. How does FIPS certification make iOS immune?
Meanwhile, in the real world, banking theft malware has tripled in 6 months.
Good luck Google for promoting something so insecure your customers could loose more in one hack that it cost them to buy your phone!
That is absolutely not true, I won't defend third party Android phone manufactures but phones that carry the Nexus name are extremely secure. iOS is just as vulnerable to phishing attacks as Android is, in fact my Apple .me is the only account that I have ever had that was hacked, not just mine but my mother's as well, though the two were probably linked. I'm not saying .me was any less secure then say my Gmail account just that there is no certainties when using online services. Malware, never had one, not a single one in all of my phones I've owned over the years and it's a big list. Why, because I follow the simple security guidelines implemented by the company who's products I am using. With Android that means not sideloading applications from unknown sources, I even go so far as to never install an app that isn't main stream. Though I'm sure there are lots of small independent app developers who are on the up and up and I just choose to stay with companies who have a reputation to uphold. Malware has a huge presence in a lot of these cutesy apps that provide no real world use other then to entertain the kids, i.e. sound effect apps, their passed around via social networks and always need to be side loaded. When I use small utilities, I get them from places like SourceForge and then compile them myself. These are just precautions that I take, the average user who stays under the default protection that Android provides shouldn't have a problem either.
Google needs to take back Android, forcing manufactures to adhere to a set of design rules is a good start. I realize manufactures think they need something to separate their products from the 100's of others but their actually hurting themselves and their customers with these over developed UI monstrosities. Leave the OS alone, focus on good hardware with intuitive features and then support it, that's it. The only Android products that I have and will only buy in the future have Nexus written accross the back of them. My Nexus 10 is an absolutely fantastic device, stable system, still fast despite being 2 years old now and will get updates for at least 5 years, yes at least 5 years, the first Nexus, the Nexus One still gets updates, latest is 4.3 but 4.4.4 was just announced as finished and being released in the Google Nexus forums. Companies like Samsung can barely cover 2 years of updates let alone 5, why, their version of Android is so heavily modified that it takes them at least 6 months to adapt their UI and modifications to any new Android version that Google releases. If they would have let Android alone and just used a custom launcher to convey their uniqueness their update turnarounds could have been split in half. No one wants their gimmicky crap that they embed into Android like a tick, almost every single special feature that they have released on their S flaship has gone to waste side, they use them to make a big marketing splash and forget about them. This isn't Google's fault though, an unmolested original version of Android is a very good OS and I know for an absolute fact that if every corporation used this version and nothing else they wouldn't have half the problems they currently have updating their products and they would be able to support their products longer. It costs a lot of money to have a group of programmers update these specially modified versions of Android for every single phone they manufacture, Samsung must spend a countries deficit on maintaining their gazillions of phones and tablets.
Anyway this is how you discuss something, not gunshot some generic snide comment about security. If you have concerns then tell us why, give us a a little story on how Android lost your families fortune or something. We really need an automated response bot that anytime their is a news article that pertains to any Apple competitor. It will grab the top 10 most generic negative responses pertaining to the company in the article, and post them into the forum when the thread is created just to get it out of the way.
Well, Google is setting pretty clear expectations on the phone price by announcing it already. Might be hard to charge more unless you move off of the reference design much.
Obviously there will be more expensive Android phones. S6's are not going to be $100. But it will interesting to see how an S6 is different than the reference design.
You again google fanboy I am call you idiot google guy. So what wrong you in the appleinsider? I am getting total piss off at the bullies google guys. So you don't like apple products. I want know a truth about you. I don't getting long with google guys.
Profits don't have to be insane, just sustainable. Companies can't afford to lose money for ever and razor thin margins are a tough model for something that requires long term support. I don't see why these phones would have more than $50 or $60 in parts though.
So $60 in parts, $10-15 labor, amortization of some engineering expense => $80 cost. Even with zero manufacture's profit you need $5 distribution, $20 retailer markup (at minimum). Already over $100. Add in $15 manufacturer markup you're at $120. Take the $15 manufacturer margin, try to support factory rent, utilities, management salaries, executive salaries, etc and there's not a lot let over.
I guess my labor might off and you get some prisoners to do if for $2 somehow.
The question is: Just how marginal of a manufacturer do you need to be to want to make this product?
And when it's all done, Google gets about the same revenue in mobile ads, etc, as when Samsung sells a $600 S6. Advertiser is not going to get a much lower rate from Google because that ad is being served to a cheap phone.
As I said, manufactures get nada. Google gets 500M more users to throw ads at. Just such a skewed ecosystem proposition.
That's why own googol stock and not HTC (or worse).
In what way? I've learned a lot from some of the members here with experience in fields I'm not as familiar with. This can be another opportunity. What phishing protection does iOS have that the other OS's are lacking?
Apparently unofficial app stores as the source isn't mentioned as Google Play (which of course they would if it was). It's a jungle out there. Take your link's suggestion: "Make sure you only get apps from trustworthy sources like the official Apple App Store and Google Play app store,"
Lies. iOS and Android (and WP) are all susceptible to malware, but to claim "All the mobile OS's are just as open" is an outright lie. Which makes you a liar, again. iOS is FIPS certified. Android is not. That right there speaks volumes for the security of both OS's.
Android One still doesn't get around the fact that many security updates are at the lowest levels of the operating system, and Android One (or Google Play Services) can't fix those. They still require an old-fashioned OS update, which would have to go through the OEM's and carriers.
These phones will get OS updates directly from Google. No carrier involvement. Just like Apple does and Google does with the Nexus and Google Experience phones do. This is a great thing.
Comments
Precisely the markets targeted by the Android One program.
To clarify: the malware is available for download within third party app marketplaces - places like Amazon's Appstore or Cydia. The Android One program looks to be pushing Google-controlled devices into emerging markets, which will reduce the importance of those third-party app stores.
You again. Well at least your fake bad grammar is improving.
I guess we have to assume that $100 is the off contract price? I don't think I saw it stated explicitly.
What kind of margin are you going to get on a $100 phone? $20 a unit would be aggressive. Maybe $10 is more likely. Maybe $5 if you include marketing and distribution costs. So a manufacturer goes to all the trouble to manufacture these to generate almost nothing. Might as well sell cricket bats to the masses.
The only winner is Google. What a surprise.
Apple can make earphones for Android One (Beats branded!) and make more money than the handset manufacturer.
Is Apple making insane profits the only measure of success these days?
I imagine the biggest winner in all of this are developing markets - instead of $100 getting you a crappy, never to be updated phone, you can actually get one with modern software and that gets regular updates.
That is certainly great progress on a global scale, just not necessarily in 1st world countries.
Profits don't have to be insane, just sustainable. Companies can't afford to lose money for ever and razor thin margins are a tough model for something that requires long term support. I don't see why these phones would have more than $50 or $60 in parts though.
Is that really what Google is doing, Appleinsider? Making a play against Apple's iPhone 4S? This is a big global confrontation against Google who is forming their business strategy to take on Apple's 4S phone? That is how you are framing this.
Google doesn't care about the 4S lol. They are dominant in the low end and they'll continue to be dominant. Google and Android will continue to grow.
And so will Apple and iOS. They'll also continue to grow.
And some day the analysts and bloggers will have to stop repeating the lie that the market is "saturated" and they will have to admit to the reality, that all our lives are being transformed by technology that is growing and changing so quickly, that there is room for both Google and Apple to be enormously successful.
Appleinsider will then quit framing every story like an epic battle where any company is doing whatever it's doing to take on, take down, or otherwise combat Apple.
You're referring to banking malware delivered via "phishing". All the mobile OS's are just as open to that, iOS included.
As for Android One it allows Google to deliver updates directly to those smartphones as they do with Nexus device and bypassing the carriers as Apple does. I don't see a downside to it.
Lies. iOS and Android (and WP) are all susceptible to malware, but to claim "All the mobile OS's are just as open" is an outright lie. Which makes you a liar, again. iOS is FIPS certified. Android is not. That right there speaks volumes for the security of both OS's.
Android One still doesn't get around the fact that many security updates are at the lowest levels of the operating system, and Android One (or Google Play Services) can't fix those. They still require an old-fashioned OS update, which would have to go through the OEM's and carriers.
To clarify: the malware is available for download within third party app marketplaces - places like Amazon's Appstore or Cydia. The Android One program looks to be pushing Google-controlled devices into emerging markets, which will reduce the importance of those third-party app stores.
I understood your post. I don't think you can leap to the conclusion that third party app stores will become less popular simply because of the Android One program. I didn't watch the keynote, but nothing in the article above states that manufacturers will be barred from making third party app stores the default option.
You sincerely love the word "lie" don't you? Seems to cover pretty much anything you don't like someone saying. I plainly said all the OS's were just as susceptible to "phishing" schemes. How does FIPS certification make iOS immune?
Grunting noises followed by loud proclamations of "LIAR!!" won't make you any more correct. If FIPS somehow keeps phishing attacks out of my mailbox I'm all for it. Blackberry offers it for the Android platform.
http://www.securityweek.com/blackberrys-secure-work-space-ios-and-android-gets-fips-140-2-certification
Incorrect.
That is absolutely not true, I won't defend third party Android phone manufactures but phones that carry the Nexus name are extremely secure. iOS is just as vulnerable to phishing attacks as Android is, in fact my Apple .me is the only account that I have ever had that was hacked, not just mine but my mother's as well, though the two were probably linked. I'm not saying .me was any less secure then say my Gmail account just that there is no certainties when using online services. Malware, never had one, not a single one in all of my phones I've owned over the years and it's a big list. Why, because I follow the simple security guidelines implemented by the company who's products I am using. With Android that means not sideloading applications from unknown sources, I even go so far as to never install an app that isn't main stream. Though I'm sure there are lots of small independent app developers who are on the up and up and I just choose to stay with companies who have a reputation to uphold. Malware has a huge presence in a lot of these cutesy apps that provide no real world use other then to entertain the kids, i.e. sound effect apps, their passed around via social networks and always need to be side loaded. When I use small utilities, I get them from places like SourceForge and then compile them myself. These are just precautions that I take, the average user who stays under the default protection that Android provides shouldn't have a problem either.
Google needs to take back Android, forcing manufactures to adhere to a set of design rules is a good start. I realize manufactures think they need something to separate their products from the 100's of others but their actually hurting themselves and their customers with these over developed UI monstrosities. Leave the OS alone, focus on good hardware with intuitive features and then support it, that's it. The only Android products that I have and will only buy in the future have Nexus written accross the back of them. My Nexus 10 is an absolutely fantastic device, stable system, still fast despite being 2 years old now and will get updates for at least 5 years, yes at least 5 years, the first Nexus, the Nexus One still gets updates, latest is 4.3 but 4.4.4 was just announced as finished and being released in the Google Nexus forums. Companies like Samsung can barely cover 2 years of updates let alone 5, why, their version of Android is so heavily modified that it takes them at least 6 months to adapt their UI and modifications to any new Android version that Google releases. If they would have let Android alone and just used a custom launcher to convey their uniqueness their update turnarounds could have been split in half. No one wants their gimmicky crap that they embed into Android like a tick, almost every single special feature that they have released on their S flaship has gone to waste side, they use them to make a big marketing splash and forget about them. This isn't Google's fault though, an unmolested original version of Android is a very good OS and I know for an absolute fact that if every corporation used this version and nothing else they wouldn't have half the problems they currently have updating their products and they would be able to support their products longer. It costs a lot of money to have a group of programmers update these specially modified versions of Android for every single phone they manufacture, Samsung must spend a countries deficit on maintaining their gazillions of phones and tablets.
Anyway this is how you discuss something, not gunshot some generic snide comment about security. If you have concerns then tell us why, give us a a little story on how Android lost your families fortune or something. We really need an automated response bot that anytime their is a news article that pertains to any Apple competitor. It will grab the top 10 most generic negative responses pertaining to the company in the article, and post them into the forum when the thread is created just to get it out of the way.
Well, Google is setting pretty clear expectations on the phone price by announcing it already. Might be hard to charge more unless you move off of the reference design much.
Obviously there will be more expensive Android phones. S6's are not going to be $100. But it will interesting to see how an S6 is different than the reference design.
That's more like it!
Profits don't have to be insane, just sustainable. Companies can't afford to lose money for ever and razor thin margins are a tough model for something that requires long term support. I don't see why these phones would have more than $50 or $60 in parts though.
So $60 in parts, $10-15 labor, amortization of some engineering expense => $80 cost. Even with zero manufacture's profit you need $5 distribution, $20 retailer markup (at minimum). Already over $100. Add in $15 manufacturer markup you're at $120. Take the $15 manufacturer margin, try to support factory rent, utilities, management salaries, executive salaries, etc and there's not a lot let over.
I guess my labor might off and you get some prisoners to do if for $2 somehow.
The question is: Just how marginal of a manufacturer do you need to be to want to make this product?
And when it's all done, Google gets about the same revenue in mobile ads, etc, as when Samsung sells a $600 S6. Advertiser is not going to get a much lower rate from Google because that ad is being served to a cheap phone.
As I said, manufactures get nada. Google gets 500M more users to throw ads at. Just such a skewed ecosystem proposition.
That's why own googol stock and not HTC (or worse).
In what way? I've learned a lot from some of the members here with experience in fields I'm not as familiar with. This can be another opportunity. What phishing protection does iOS have that the other OS's are lacking?
I think the overview on Android exploits is here:
http://www.cio.com/article/748604/6_Out_of_10_Android_Apps_a_Security_Concern
Apparently unofficial app stores as the source isn't mentioned as Google Play (which of course they would if it was). It's a jungle out there. Take your link's suggestion: "Make sure you only get apps from trustworthy sources like the official Apple App Store and Google Play app store,"
Lies. iOS and Android (and WP) are all susceptible to malware, but to claim "All the mobile OS's are just as open" is an outright lie. Which makes you a liar, again. iOS is FIPS certified. Android is not. That right there speaks volumes for the security of both OS's.
Android One still doesn't get around the fact that many security updates are at the lowest levels of the operating system, and Android One (or Google Play Services) can't fix those. They still require an old-fashioned OS update, which would have to go through the OEM's and carriers.
These phones will get OS updates directly from Google. No carrier involvement. Just like Apple does and Google does with the Nexus and Google Experience phones do. This is a great thing.