Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Jan 2012 09:09 UTC
Permalink for comment 504920
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
Both of the mentions of Android are for the kinds of applications it can run. The RIM Playbook is (in theory) supposed to be able to run Android applications too, does that mean it should be counted towards Google's market share? The fact that Amazon blocks Google's Market and all Android branding is the point, Amazon doesn't call it an Android device. Why should the Fire get counted towards Google's market share (because, let's be honest, that is what being called an Android device means) instead of being able to see Amazon's platform on it's own?
Except HTC and Samsung say they are selling Android devices. Amazon does not one time say the Fire is running Android. If the manufacturer doesn't want to be associated with Android, why are they forced to be associated?
Again, since Amazon clearly doesn't label this an Android device, why are so many people insisting that it be counted as one?