Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Apr 2013 15:30 UTC
Google Eric Schmidt has done a talk at Dive Into Mobile today, and knowing Schmidt, we're in for quotable stuff. First, Android activations are up to 1.5 million per day now - which is insane. That's one The Netherlands every eleven days. Or, what takes Windows Phone a holiday quarter, Android does in four days. Schmidt also touched upon Facebook Home; a journalist asked him a question about it, referencing a Microsoft statement about Google most likely wanting to block Home, and in reply, Schmidt called Home a "tremendous endorsement" of Android's Play Store strategy.
Order by: Score:
Involountary
by judgen on Tue 16th Apr 2013 16:11 UTC
judgen
Member since:
2006-07-12

Involountary activation is not an endorsement. Just as checking your inbox at youtube automatically creates a google plus account for you and post everything you do to boost google plus usage. You have to delete the google plus account manually after the youtube update for it no longer to be posted.

Google should really stop forcing people to use the less liked products like picasa and google+, if it stands on merit and price people will use it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Involountary
by TemporalBeing on Tue 16th Apr 2013 17:25 UTC in reply to "Involountary"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

Involountary activation is not an endorsement. Just as checking your inbox at youtube automatically creates a google plus account for you and post everything you do to boost google plus usage. You have to delete the google plus account manually after the youtube update for it no longer to be posted.


Not sure how that relates to Android. They're basically talking about devices that are activated b/c of purchases; whether you use a Google account for that or not is a wholly other matter.

Google should really stop forcing people to use the less liked products like picasa and google+, if it stands on merit and price people will use it.


While I agree that things done to push up numbers should not be...I'd still have to disagree that G+ and Picasa don't stand up on their own due to merit...but then, I like G+, far more than I like FB; and I also found it strange that when I logged into FB the other day (after many months away), I thought "this looks just like G+".

Reply Score: 6

RE: Involountary
by fatjoe on Tue 16th Apr 2013 17:29 UTC in reply to "Involountary"
fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

The article is about Android, why do you bring up G+?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Involountary
by ichi on Tue 16th Apr 2013 19:27 UTC in reply to "Involountary"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

Involountary activation is not an endorsement.


So do people involuntarily activate Android phones now?

Reply Score: 7

Not accurate
by twitterfire on Tue 16th Apr 2013 17:28 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

I've reinstalled cyanogenmod on two phones using different gmail addresses each time and installed another firmware on my tablet using another gmail address.

Maybe I signed in google servers about 10 times with different emails after os reinstalls. So maybe they count it as 10 activations if they don't use some form of hardware id.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Not accurate
by ichi on Tue 16th Apr 2013 19:29 UTC in reply to "Not accurate"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

I've reinstalled cyanogenmod on two phones using different gmail addresses each time and installed another firmware on my tablet using another gmail address.

Maybe I signed in google servers about 10 times with different emails after os reinstalls. So maybe they count it as 10 activations if they don't use some form of hardware id.


I'm not 100% sure but I think they at some time stated that they were counting each device only once no matter if it was flashed or resold, so I guess they would be using the IMEI or some hardware based ID.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not accurate
by hackbod on Tue 16th Apr 2013 19:37 UTC in reply to "Not accurate"
hackbod Member since:
2006-02-15

"...and for those wondering, we count each device only once (ie, we don't count re-sold devices), and "activations" means you go into a store, buy a device, put it on the network by subscribing to a wireless service."

https://plus.google.com/112599748506977857728/posts/Kkjf8oESTZs

Reply Score: 5

RE: Not accurate
by gilboa on Tue 16th Apr 2013 20:00 UTC in reply to "Not accurate"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

*Even* if they don't use any type of hardware ID (IMEI, MAC, etc), people such as yourself count for 0.0000.....000% of the total activation.

Case of point, both me and a fairly large number of Android users around replace ROMs on a regular basis. This is the first time I heard about someone that also replaces the registration gmail address with each ROM.

Futhermore, given the fact that play/gmail combination helps you re-install your previous applications automatically (leaving you only the fairly small task of restoring "data" for a small number of applications), I can't really see the a wide use-case for using a different gmail address for each ROM...

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 3

RE: Not accurate
by JAlexoid on Wed 17th Apr 2013 10:17 UTC in reply to "Not accurate"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Does it show as 10 different devices on your Google Play page? I bet not.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by gan17
by gan17 on Tue 16th Apr 2013 17:57 UTC
gan17
Member since:
2008-06-03

Any quote on how many infections per day?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by gan17
by gilboa on Tue 16th Apr 2013 20:02 UTC in reply to "Comment by gan17"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

*Sigh*.

Please ignore the troll.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by gan17
by gan17 on Wed 17th Apr 2013 04:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by gan17"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

Did it ever occur to you that I'm an Android user (Nexus 7) and am just sick of the way Google curates its Play Store?

See, this is what I don't get. In the old days, it was normal and completely acceptable to criticize the product you paid for. Now, all of a sudden, the customer has become the cocksucker. You pay money to give them head? WTF!!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by gan17
by gilboa on Wed 17th Apr 2013 07:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by gan17"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Did it ever occur to you that I'm an Android user (Nexus 7) and am just sick of the way Google curates its Play Store?

See, this is what I don't get. In the old days, it was normal and completely acceptable to criticize the product you paid for. Now, all of a sudden, the customer has become the cocksucker. You pay money to give them head? WTF!!


1. Your comment of was OT (What does infections have to do with the number of activation per day?)
2. Your comment didn't include any type of factual information to back up your claim (if there was a claim to begin with).
3. Your next comments is simply rude (not to me personally, but to anyone else).

Surely, if you have a point to make, it can be done in a civilized, factual manner, am I wrong?

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by gan17
by JAlexoid on Wed 17th Apr 2013 10:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by gan17"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

am just sick of the way Google curates its Play Store?

And what does this have to do with "infections"?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by gan17
by ilovebeer on Thu 18th Apr 2013 15:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by gan17"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

*Sigh*.

Please ignore the troll.

- Gilboa

Don't stick your head in the sand, he has a point. Even CNN recently ran a little clip on how bad Android malware has gotten so it's not as if his question has no merit.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by gan17
by gilboa on Thu 18th Apr 2013 15:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by gan17"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't stick your head in the sand, he has a point. Even CNN recently ran a little clip on how bad Android malware has gotten so it's not as if his question has no merit.


... And yet I simply fail to see how Android malware is connected to this news story - unless, of-course, you claim that 750,000 of said activation-count was triggered by malware?

Edited 2013-04-18 15:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by gan17
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 17th Apr 2013 13:53 UTC in reply to "Comment by gan17"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You mean the supposed infection rate not supported by any evidence whatsoever?

Oh, okay.

Reply Score: 5