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.
Thread beginning with comment 504920
To view parent comment, click here.
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"
rhavyn
Member since:
2005-07-06

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

RE[8]: Kindle Fire
by OMRebel on Fri 27th Jan 2012 16:43 in reply to "RE[7]: Kindle Fire"
OMRebel Member since:
2005-11-14

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 RIM Playbook doesn't run Android. The Kindle fire does. Invalid correlation. You can run some Windows applications in Linux using Wine, yet, the operating system is still Linux. Since we know that Linux isn't a Windows kernel, companies don't brand it as such, and it's obvious, then such a claim would be dumb.

The fact that Amazon blocks Google's Market and all Android branding is the point, Amazon doesn't call it an Android device.


Yes they do. Jeff Bezo, Amazon's CEO, even stated such several times in the unveiling of the Kindle Fire. Repeating an inaccuracy over and over again will not change reality. Watch the announcement here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfpWDyL7BFY&feature=relmfu

Furthermore, they even brand their app store as "amazon appstore for Android".

So, that means the following:
1. It runs Android (that is a fact).
2. They claim it runs Android (that is a fact).
3. Their app store is branded as being for Android (that is a fact).

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?


We are talking about Android's market share - not Google. Chrome OS isn't included in this discussion. The focus is on Android, which is exactly what Amazon is running. You're really grasping at straws here man.

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?


See, you keep going back to making a false claim that has been proven as untrue already. Amazon claims it runs Android, it really does run Android, and they brand their store and being "for Android". They brand it as such, say it as such, and reality it is such.

Again, since Amazon clearly doesn't label this an Android device, why are so many people insisting that it be counted as one?


Wow, what are you wanting? The words Android flashing on the front of the device? Again, let's review:
1. They claim it runs Android.
2. We all know it does run Android.
3. They even brand their app store as being "for Android".

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[9]: Kindle Fire
by rhavyn on Fri 27th Jan 2012 23:26 in reply to "RE[8]: Kindle Fire"
rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

From: http://blog.laptopmag.com/analyst-kindle-fire-nook-tablet-have-40-o...

"We asked the author of the study, Peter King, to estimate what percentage of Android’s tablet share is comprised of the Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet, and he told us it’s about 40 percent of that 39 percent number."

"If you back out the Fire and Nook Tablet from the latest numbers, King says the Android tablet market grew about 100 percent. That seems decent, but iPad sales grew 111 percent year over year. So even when you add together Samsung, Motorola, LG, ASUS, Acer, Toshiba, and everyone else who makes an Android tablet, they couldn’t surpass the iPad."

"For King, it’s an open question as to whether Amazon’s and Barnes & Noble’s success is really helping or hurting Google. “These tablets are loosely based on Android, which is not accessing Google services and not accessing Google apps at market.” In other words, devices like the Fire are really helping Amazon more than Android."

Looks like the author of the study this article is based on agrees with me.

Reply Parent Score: 1