Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Jan 2012 09:09 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "Android accounted for 39% of the market in the final three months of last year, up from 29% a year earlier, Strategy Analytics said. Apple's share fell to 58% from 68%. Microsoft's share stood at 1.5%." Really now.
Permalink for comment 504920
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Kindle Fire
by rhavyn on Fri 27th Jan 2012 16:00 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Kindle Fire"
Member since:

For your first claim - Android is mentioned on the front page twice. Once in a prominent quote by CNET, and the other is within Amazon's own description when it says "Amazon Appstore for Android". Wasn't hard to see at all, and most people out there actually know it's running Android. You can install any Android app (for Android 2.3 and prior) without any problems on it. It is Amazon that blocks Google's Market - not Google.

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?

To answer your last question - yes, absolutely. The Kindle Fire runs Android 2.3 with a customized UI (just as HTC customizes the UI to run Sense or Samsung's TouchWiz).

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?

Reply Parent Score: 0