Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 1st May 2013 21:35 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems "The Q1 2013 numbers from IDC, a technology and telecommunications research firm who keeps track of this sort of thing, show that Android tablets now lead the market with a 56.5-percent share. The 27,800,000 units shipped in the quarter is a 247-percent improvement from this time last year, when just 8,000,000 units were shipped. It's important to note that this increase doesn't come at the expense of Apple, who shipped 65.3-percent more tablets in Q1 2013 than they did in Q1 2012 - it shows the market is growing, and the lions share of new purchases are Android." While Android's market share growth scares me, it's good that it's not really harming the competition. Also, maybe this will be the carrot for developers to improve Android tablet applications.
Order by: Score:
Next Android Version
by kragil on Wed 1st May 2013 22:45 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

I really hope that the next version of Android will support split screen like WindowsRT.
That should also help with more apps that are build with Googles Holo guide lines in mind and work great on bigger screens.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Next Android Version
by Nelson on Thu 2nd May 2013 03:46 UTC in reply to "Next Android Version"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I think it will. Androids lax multitasking lends itself well to these sort of scenarios.

Reply Score: 2

v Skewed numbers
by WorknMan on Wed 1st May 2013 23:17 UTC
RE: Skewed numbers
by tylerdurden on Thu 2nd May 2013 00:27 UTC in reply to "Skewed numbers"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Congratulations, you just won the "worst analogy of the week" booby prize.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Skewed numbers
by Nelson on Thu 2nd May 2013 03:46 UTC in reply to "Skewed numbers"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I suppose you could lump things together into these huge piles, but it conveys little meaning.

It certainly doesn't give you a more accurate picture of how Android on tablets is doing.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Skewed numbers
by TemporalBeing on Thu 2nd May 2013 14:07 UTC in reply to "Skewed numbers"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

Since Kindle Fires are not Android tablets, they really shouldn't be lumping Amazon tablets into the Android numbers.


Kindle Fires are built on Android. Like the Nook, the only difference is the launcher used and they replace the Google Play Store with Amazon's MarketPlace App Store. So I see no issue with them counting Kindles or Nooks towards Android.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by BBAP
by Bringbackanonposting on Thu 2nd May 2013 01:50 UTC
Bringbackanonposting
Member since:
2005-11-16

That comment is hilarious.
It's great to see the numbers. As said and I agree - I want premium applications on my Android not to be looked at as second class to the competition.

Reply Score: 2

Android is scary?
by ozonehole on Thu 2nd May 2013 02:50 UTC
ozonehole
Member since:
2006-01-07

Thom said:

While Android's market share growth scares me...

Why does Android's market share growth scare you?

Well, actually scares me, but only because Microsoft extorts money for bogus patents on Android. But it's Microsoft that scares me, not Android. And Apple scares me too.

Google doesn't scare me at all. True, they're not all bunny rabbits and unicorns, but compared to most ruthless American corporations, Google plays relatively nice. Aside from being consistently friendly to open source projects, they sue almost no one unless they've been sued first. Microsoft and Apple executives would sue their own mother for copyright infringement for singing lullabies to them when they were infants.

Edited 2013-05-02 02:53 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Android is scary?
by Nelson on Thu 2nd May 2013 03:44 UTC in reply to "Android is scary?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Its because everyone benefits when there is a wealth of competition and choice. That's what drives the state of the art forward.

And how is it bad that Microsoft is being compensated for their intellectual property?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Android is scary?
by lemur2 on Thu 2nd May 2013 04:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Android is scary?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

how is it bad that Microsoft is being compensated for their intellectual property?


Because it is not Microsoft's "property". For example, Microsoft sued Tom Tom and Barnes & Noble over FAT patents, but it turns out that there was prior art (code written by none other than Linus Torvalds) for the exact same functionality.

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/03/ms-patent/

This patent (352) covers a technique for storing filenames with lots of characters in old filesystems such as the Windows FAT (File Allocation Table) filesystem that are designed to use very short filenames. Mobile phone makers use this type of technology so that their devices interoperate with other operating systems, including Windows.

“Motorola had found this posting of mine about long filenames used in a compatible manner with short file names… and it predated the Microsoft patent by three years,” says Torvalds.


This is absolutely typical.

So why should Microsoft get money from Android, for which they did not develop the code, did not help test, release, distribute or maintain the code, and did not even come up with original ideas for the code?

The ONLY reason Microsoft gets money from Android vendors is that Microsoft threatens to sue them and at the same time offers them a legally unnecessary near-zero-cost bogus "license" to avoid any expensive lawsuit, with the sole proviso that the Android vendor does not reveal the terms of the deal.

Rather than fighting a legal battle it is cheaper for Android OEMs to just agree to the license from Microsoft to make them go away.

Edited 2013-05-02 04:20 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Android is scary?
by Nelson on Thu 2nd May 2013 04:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Android is scary?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Because it is not Microsoft's "property". For example, Microsoft sued Tom Tom and Barnes & Noble over FAT patents, but it turns out that there was prior art (code written by none other than Linus Torvalds) for the exact same functionality.


Unfortunately for you and Linus, a German court was not persuaded and sided with Microsoft. That means that Microsoft won the case despite Motorola citing the supposed Torvalds prior art.

This is especially typical of you, and I don't think you understand how this works, you don't get to decide what is prior art. A court does. Not you. So things are not magically prior art because you claim they are or wish they are.


So why should Microsoft get money from Android, for which they did not develop the code, did not help test, release, distribute or maintain the code, and did not even come up with original ideas for the code?


I think that's a question you'd need to pose to Samsung, HTC and the 18 or so other licensees.


The ONLY reason Microsoft gets money from Android vendors is that Microsoft threatens to sue them and at the same time offers them a legally unnecessary near-zero-cost bogus "license" to avoid any expensive lawsuit, with the sole proviso that the Android vendor does not reveal the terms of the deal.


Near zero cost? Microsoft's Android business is expected to balloon to $8 BILLION DOLLARS by 2017. The terms are certainly not near zero.

I'd be willing to bet that if there even is an instance where money didn't change hands, there was likely an exchange of IP, which is equally as valuable. You can look at Apple and Microsoft's cross licensing agreements or such an example. Or Nokia and Apple. Same thing, really.


Rather than fighting a legal battle it is cheaper for Android OEMs to just agree to the license from Microsoft to make them go away.


I think this would've been believable the first few times, but this tired argument quickly loses its persuasiveness when they sign up Samsung, one of the largest, most profitable companies on the planet.

Samsung has very, very deep pockets and is no stranger to litigation. They refused to take a royalty bearing license from Apple. Why would they take one from Microsoft?

There are glaring inconsistencies in this narrative that OEMs are just paying Microsoft hush money.

I think the more likely scenario is that OEMs fully realize the value in Microsoft's patent portfolio and actually appreciate Microsoft licensing their patents on favorable terms.

If anything, Microsoft is a shining example of how you can resolve patent conflicts outside of litigation and exclusion orders.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Android is scary?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 2nd May 2013 06:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Android is scary?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Mafia. Nothing more, nothing less. Scumbag criminals who ought to be behind bars for the damage they do to the industry.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Android is scary?
by Nelson on Thu 2nd May 2013 06:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Android is scary?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

And just what damage have they done? Its easy to claim they've done harm, but its harder to show proof of such harm.

I'm just tired of this meme that these poor multinational corporations are being abused by the big bad Microsoft.

Maybe Florian wasn't wrong, maybe there isn't any serious prior art, maybe the courts aren't wrong. Maybe Microsoft's string of Android patent victories are not coincidental. Maybe, just maybe, there is merit behind Microsoft's IP claims.

If we're to believe lemur here, Microsoft makes a negligible amount of money off of Android. Lol. Right.

I also don't think I need to remind you that IP licensing is very pervasive and in no way exclusive to Microsoft. Maybe they're all criminals.

You have a very strange and broad definition of a protection racket.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Android is scary?
by WereCatf on Thu 2nd May 2013 06:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Android is scary?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I'm just tired of this meme that these poor multinational corporations are being abused by the big bad Microsoft.


I would say Microsoft also counts among those multinational corporations and that they all do a whole lot of abusing.

Maybe, just maybe, there is merit behind Microsoft's IP claims.


I personally do not believe that. Microsoft simply has the resources to tie up anyone they don't like in all sorts of legal shenanigans for decades and therefore it is simply more cost-effective for these companies to make a licensing deal with Microsoft -- if you get tied up in legal matters and if Microsoft manages to get a temporary injunction against you so that you can't sell your products then it simply doesn't matter anymore which party is right because you'll still be taking heavy losses. It's a matter of "Swallow your pride and take the cash."

If we're to believe lemur here, Microsoft makes a negligible amount of money off of Android. Lol. Right.


Aye, he obviously hasn't looked at Microsoft's revenue figures.

Reply Score: 6

RE[7]: Android is scary?
by Nelson on Thu 2nd May 2013 07:25 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Android is scary?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


I would say Microsoft also counts among those multinational corporations and that they all do a whole lot of abusing.


Sure. I'm just trying to counter the notion that it's "Microsoft vs. Everyone" or that what Microsoft does is especially nefarious relative to what others do.

Google actively harmed consumers by shutting off access to EAS, telling everyone to adapt the CalDAV suite, and then pivoting to their own proprietary API. It was funny watching the people who thought Google had altruistic intentions have to eat their words a few weeks later.

Emails revealed during court proceedings showed a deliberate disregard for the intellectual property of others.

Samsung is a serial copier and anti-competitive price fixer.

Motorola has asserted SEPs and tried to set a precedent which would've blown up every standard out there with any type of IPR disclosure. Just imagine if companies could start collecting exorbitant royalties from patents they had previously pledged to offer at a reasonable rate to all.

Apple behaves significantly worse than Microsoft, though not outside their legal rights, when it comes to patents as they often choose not to even offer a license. Microsoft in this regard, is much more reasonable and open to a constructive solution.

I just fail to see how facilitating the licensing of large amounts of IP is bad. Microsoft has won awards for their patent licensing program. They are an example of how to do things in the industry.

I think what offends people on OSNews is that Microsoft profits off of their much adored Android. It doesn't matter if the reasoning behind it is legitimate or not, that's completely aside from the fact that it infuriates people that Microsoft monetizes Android to the tune of several hundred million dollars a quarter.


I personally do not believe that. Microsoft simply has the resources to tie up anyone they don't like in all sorts of legal shenanigans for decades and therefore it is simply more cost-effective for these companies to make a licensing deal with Microsoft -- if you get tied up in legal matters and if Microsoft manages to get a temporary injunction against you so that you can't sell your products then it simply doesn't matter anymore which party is right because you'll still be taking heavy losses.


I don't think this is particularly true, and it is evidenced by the speed with which bad patents are invalidated by Government agencies or outright dismissed by a Judge. There is a process here and it works.

Preliminary injunctions require some degree of convincing, as it is a drastic step not taken lightly in many jurisdictions.

I don't think OEMs are short sighted, they're well aware that the implications of taking a license are more than monetary. I honestly doubt such decisions are made by means of cost effectiveness. Case in point being Samsung, who refused to take a license from Apple.

I'd really buy the "bullied into taking a license" from maybe HTC, but Samsung? No way in hell. They have the pockets to go up against Microsoft.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Android is scary?
by lemur2 on Thu 2nd May 2013 07:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Android is scary?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Near zero cost? Microsoft's Android business is expected to balloon to $8 BILLION DOLLARS by 2017. The terms are certainly not near zero.


Near-zero total cost. Microsoft often take in license money, which they publicise, but they keep quite other terms of the overall deals, such as advertising or license discounts on legitimate Microsoft software, such as WP8.

The total (unpublicised) cost of the deals with Microsoft (to companies who use Microsoft software as well as Android) is near-zero.

I'd be willing to bet that if there even is an instance where money didn't change hands, there was likely an exchange of IP, which is equally as valuable. You can look at Apple and Microsoft's cross licensing agreements or such an example. Or Nokia and Apple. Same thing, really.


You need to look at the cases where the company being sued does not use Microsoft software also. Barnes & Noble opposed Microsoft, Microsoft made a very sweet deal to kill the case and keep B&N quiet.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303916904577375502392...

http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/30/microsoft-barnes-noble-partner-up-...

"Rather than fighting a legal battle it is cheaper for Android OEMs to just agree to the license from Microsoft to make them go away.


I think this would've been believable the first few times, but this tired argument quickly loses its persuasiveness when they sign up Samsung, one of the largest, most profitable companies on the planet.
"

Samsung sells other products which include Microsoft software. Now at a better discount than before.

Samsung has very, very deep pockets and is no stranger to litigation. They refused to take a royalty bearing license from Apple. Why would they take one from Microsoft?


Samsung does not sell any products which use Apple software.

There are glaring inconsistencies in this narrative that OEMs are just paying Microsoft hush money.


The major consistency being that Microsoft only "wins" deals with Android OEMs where that same OEM uses Microsoft software in other products, and that Microsoft software might be offered to them at a deeper discount than before.

I think the more likely scenario is that OEMs fully realize the value in Microsoft's patent portfolio and actually appreciate Microsoft licensing their patents on favorable terms.


No, they realize the value in getting Microsoft software much cheaper if they agree to call (in PR) some of the cost an "Android license".

If anything, Microsoft is a shining example of how you can resolve patent conflicts outside of litigation and exclusion orders.


You are so funny, I often have a good chuckle at your posts.

Edited 2013-05-02 07:52 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Android is scary?
by Nelson on Thu 2nd May 2013 08:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Android is scary?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Near-zero total cost. Microsoft often take in license money, which they publicise, but they keep quite other terms of the overall deals, such as advertising or license discounts on legitimate Microsoft software, such as WP8.


That is assuming there's a 1:1 correspondence with Windows Phones, there isn't. Samsung sells more Android devices than Windows Phone. So even if your dubious claim was true, the net result for Microsoft is still non zero.

I don't know who exactly you think you're trying to fool by seemingly just making things up, but its not really working.


The total (unpublicised) cost of the deals with Microsoft (to companies who use Microsoft software as well as Android) is near-zero.


No. Many OEMs/ODMs are not Windows Phone OEMs, the ones that do are Samsung and HTC.

In addition to what I've said above about Microsoft still having a net profit off of Android, Microsoft's own financials confirm this. You know, the ones where they'd be in serious shit if they were lying.

Don't worry about those pesky facts though, you've lived care free thus far.



You need to look at the cases where the company being sued does not use Microsoft software also. Barnes & Noble opposed Microsoft, Microsoft made a very sweet deal to kill the case and keep B&N quiet.


I think they both saw the mutual benefit in both ending this litigation and teaming up to take on Amazon. Microsoft has an uncanny ability to rally its own former enemies against a bigger evil.


Samsung sells other products which include Microsoft software. Now at a better discount than before.


Samsung Windows Phone sales are pathetic, trading a license discount for WP in exchange for royalties for Android is so lopsided that its almost comical you bring it up.


Samsung does not sell any products which use Apple software.


Samsung is/was a major component provider for Apple. They had more business with Apple than with Microsoft. You're being ridiculous.


[q
The major consistency being that Microsoft only "wins" deals with Android OEMs where that same OEM uses Microsoft software in other products, and that Microsoft software might be offered to them at a deeper discount than before. [/q]

This is demonstrably false, only two of the 20 something licensees are Windows Phone OEMs.


No, they realize the value in getting Microsoft software much cheaper if they agree to call (in PR) some of the cost an "Android license".


.....

I just don't even have words for how monumentally ignorant of the facts at hand this is. I'd understand this excuse for a few companies, but over and over? Microsoft has signed up 80% of Android OEMs.


You are so funny, I often have a good chuckle at your posts.


Thanks. But on a more serious note, I'm almost impressed how consistent you are at being wrong.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Android is scary?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 2nd May 2013 09:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Android is scary?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This is demonstrably false, only two of the 20 something licensees are Windows Phone OEMs.


Uh, you do know Microsoft sells more products than just Windows Phone, right?

You're being exceptionally silly right now.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Android is scary?
by Nelson on Thu 2nd May 2013 10:03 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Android is scary?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I'm aware. Now tell me why you think that's relevant, along with a list of which specific other products said OEMs use.

As far as I'm aware, the OEMs which lemur was talking about don't do much beyond Windows Phone.

Its really cute how you two try to explain away the almost two dozen licensees, with most of them being in the last few months. Microsoft could sign up 100 OEMs and you'd come up with 100 excuses.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Android is scary?
by lemur2 on Thu 2nd May 2013 09:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Android is scary?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Samsung Windows Phone sales are pathetic, trading a license discount for WP in exchange for royalties for Android is so lopsided that its almost comical you bring it up.


I said Microsoft software. I did not say just Windows Phone.

Samsung does in fact sell many products which use Microsoft software. Here is an example:

http://www.samsung.com/au/support/win8upgrade/

They get a discount there, plus they get to avoid a lawsuit, all for the low, low price of agreeing (PR) to call some of their costs due to Microsoft an "Android license".

Edited 2013-05-02 10:02 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Android is scary?
by Nelson on Thu 2nd May 2013 10:10 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Android is scary?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Samsung has less than 5% market share. They don't even chart.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Android is scary?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 2nd May 2013 12:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Android is scary?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

This is especially typical of you, and I don't think you understand how this works, you don't get to decide what is prior art. A court does. Not you. So things are not magically prior art because you claim they are or wish they are


While patent law is a very confusing subject, that many arm chair lawyers get completely wrong, a court's interpretation of the law is what is enforced, it doesn't mean that a particular judgment was the correct interpretation of the law ( this is why every court system has an appeals system).

Sorry if that seems like I'm splitting hairs with your wording, but too many people don't understand that. And they furthermore equate legality with morality.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Android is scary?
by Nelson on Thu 2nd May 2013 16:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Android is scary?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Sure, I'll grant you that. I just don't personally think the court's decision was inconsistent with how its been applied in the past, or particularly unfair.

I'm glad there's a standard for prior art, because prior art is one of those things that the lay man thinks they have completely figured out only to miss the nuances of how the law is applied.

Morality is fine, but its worth being clear eyed when analyzing the strength of an IP portfolio. We can't play using imagined rules, we have to go by how the courts actually work.

So its nice that Thom and lemur7 and whoever else has a moral objection to what Microsoft does (though I think its more just anger that Microsoft monetizes their baby), but it doesn't make a difference.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Android is scary?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 2nd May 2013 17:05 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Android is scary?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

So its nice that Thom and lemur7 and whoever else has a moral objection to what Microsoft does (though I think its more just anger that Microsoft monetizes their baby), but it doesn't make a difference.


No, it does make a difference. If enough people are angry about the application of a law, they (theoretically) can change the law through their government's legislation. Morality/Anger/ whatever you want to call it certainly has been enough motivation to change laws in the past. I think its past time to reevaluate things like patents and see how to better tune them to promote the development of arts and sciences.

Reply Score: 9

RE[7]: Android is scary?
by Nelson on Fri 3rd May 2013 18:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Android is scary?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Sure. It can happen, but it is completely aside from trying to understand what's going on at this point in time. We don't have a hypothetical set of pie in the sky rules to go off of. We have current patent law.

Therefore it makes no sense to bring in the angle of morality into something which is inherently amoral.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Android is scary?
by JAlexoid on Thu 2nd May 2013 23:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Android is scary?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Unfortunately for you and Linus, a German court was not persuaded and sided with Microsoft. That means that Microsoft won the case despite Motorola citing the supposed Torvalds prior art.


Actually that German judge sided only on preliminary basis, that was not a ruling on validity of the patent. We are yet to see the patent be invalidated in US as well.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Android is scary?
by lemur2 on Fri 3rd May 2013 10:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Android is scary?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Unfortunately for you and Linus, a German court was not persuaded and sided with Microsoft. That means that Microsoft won the case despite Motorola citing the supposed Torvalds prior art.


Actually that German judge sided only on preliminary basis, that was not a ruling on validity of the patent. We are yet to see the patent be invalidated in US as well.
"

There might also be a problem in Germany related to "first to file" versus "first to invent".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent

AFAIK, in Germany, "first to file" applies. Even if Linux Torvalds did provably come up with the idea of long filenames for a FAT filesystem three years before Microsoft patented it, it possibly wouldn't matter in Germany that Microsoft hadn't invented it. The only argument that would be allowed in court would be that Microsoft's 352 patent was both obvious and non-original, because Linus had already invented it.

Another argument that should apply is that software is not patentable subject matter in Europe, but I doubt the court would listen to that argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentable_subject_matter#European_Pat...


The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:

(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;

(b) aesthetic creations;

(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;

(d) presentations of information.


Edited 2013-05-03 10:28 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Android is scary?
by Nelson on Fri 3rd May 2013 18:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Android is scary?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

JAlexroid is right and its worth noting that the particular jurisdiction at hand is especially tilted towards granting such injunctions. It probably explains the wave of litigation there.

However, you (as usual) provide an irrational and incorrect twist on things.

The concept of prior art still exists in a first to file world. You have a dangerous misunderstanding of patent law.

Edited 2013-05-03 18:03 UTC

Reply Score: 3

OK, fine, and now...
by franzrogar on Thu 2nd May 2013 09:41 UTC
franzrogar
Member since:
2012-05-17

...how much time 'till we read a new entry alas

"Android accused of monopoly by Microsoft, Apple, etc." ?


But, when that notice comes, people will forget the most basic truth that arised Android to the best-seller lists and that is:

1) The devices are cheaper than the competition.
2) 80% of people is not rich.
3) Cheaper phones + poor people = more sells

Or at least, that's one side of the 4-sided coin.

Reply Score: 2

RE: OK, fine, and now...
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 2nd May 2013 13:47 UTC in reply to "OK, fine, and now..."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Android accused of monopoly by Microsoft, Apple, etc." ?


I don't understand what you think Microsoft and Apple will accuse Android/google of doing. Being a monopoly, is usually not illegal. Governments typically do hold monopolies to higher standards than Non Monopolies. So do you think they will start arguing for the application of those higher standards? Or do you think that they other companies will accuse Google of abusing its Monopoly position?

In either case, the reasons for attaining that market position that you then list :

1) The devices are cheaper than the competition.
2) 80% of people is not rich.
3) Cheaper phones + poor people = more sells


Don't really matter, unless you think that they're going to say that the Monopoly on mobile device OS was obtained illegally somehow.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: OK, fine, and now...
by majipoor on Thu 2nd May 2013 19:14 UTC in reply to "RE: OK, fine, and now..."
majipoor Member since:
2009-01-22

"Android accused of monopoly by Microsoft, Apple, etc." ?

... Or do you think that they other companies will accuse Google of abusing its Monopoly position?
"

They already did: Microsoft accuse Google of monopoly abuse in EU.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/cloud-computing/22027/irony-alert-mi...

I would not say they are wrong or right: I personally think that Google is no better than Microsoft when dealing with their monopoly in their respective market.

Many think Google is the nice guy because they are more consumer-friendly (everything free and "open"), but they are more consumer-friendly because it is their business model, not because they are actually a nice guy.

Edited 2013-05-02 19:18 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: OK, fine, and now...
by lemur2 on Fri 3rd May 2013 11:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: OK, fine, and now..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Many think Google is the nice guy because they are more consumer-friendly (everything free and "open"), but they are more consumer-friendly because it is their business model, not because they are actually a nice guy.


Agreed.

Another point to make is that in their own best interests consumers should obviously support businesses with a consumer-friendly business model.

Another point to make is that governments should also support whatever is in the best interests of the majority of citizens. To my mind, it is therefore unarguably the case that governments should support businesses with a consumer-friendly business model over and above businesses with a rip-everybody-off+whatever-the-market-will-bear business model.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: OK, fine, and now...
by Nelson on Fri 3rd May 2013 17:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: OK, fine, and now..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I disagree, Google has shown a willingness to change this behavior when their business needs change. Its all a facade.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by twitterfire
by twitterfire on Fri 3rd May 2013 13:57 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

IDC results are not very accurate. While many people buy brand name tablets, there are also many millions who buy cheap chinese tablets. You can buy a cheap and decent chinese tablet for as low as 100USD or 75€ if you buy it directly from China or Hong Kong.

Half the price of a Nexus 7 for a tablet with specs as good as Nexus.

Maybe people in EU or US don't buy so many cheap tablets but I bet people in Asia and South America buy a lot of these cheap tablets.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by twitterfire
by Nelson on Fri 3rd May 2013 18:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by twitterfire"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Yes, but what's the point? That splinter off shoot ecosystems are selling at dirt cheap prices? Because that's really all the information provided by lumping "Android" and white label devices based on the Android OS together.

I think separating them out gives a good description of what's going on. Google is growing their Android ecosystem, the one with the Play Store. That's good news. I don't know why you'd want to mask that by lumping it in with a zillion chinese tablets.

Reply Score: 3