Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 19th Oct 2012 13:56 UTC
Permalink for comment 539289
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 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
While I am finding this entire thread ridiculous, I can't resist giving my 2c.
First off, the playbook is more akin to one of the previous posters saying "would you call linux running wine windows?" that anything. Since it is just a compatibility layer on top of blackberries OS that allows android apps to function.
The xbox analogy is horrible. As you just said "modified windows 2000 kernel". *modified* and *kernel*. The fire is running the full set of Android APIs and just has a different launcher running. That is MASSIVELY different and claiming otherwise is disingenuous at best.
Now, as for the Kindle. There is a HUGE difference between whether something is actually NOT something or whether you cant call it something simply because it isn't officially supported...
The Fire *is* running Android. It just isn't sanctioned/supported by Google. You all basically just killed a huge portion of the Android usage statistics by claiming otherwise because ANY device not running Google apps is now "not Android". Like my Entourage eDGe ereader that is running Android 2.2 or any number of cheap tablets/phones that have been spit out.
This entire argument is smacking of people that are anal retentive and have too much time on their hands.