To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Personally I don't see Android as a mature and high quality system, let alone don't see any good for it to move to desktop. It enjoys its success in the mobile sphere because it came in the right time, not because it's technically superior to possible mobile alternatives. I.e. regular desktop Linux as well as mobile one is technically superior to Android. Having Android spread into desktop and becoming "Windows #2" will not be pleasant. It's enough that it creates problems in the mobile already.
That aside, Windows desktop domination is already slowly deteriorating to other desktop alternatives (without considering any mobile shifts). It's just not rapid, but a slow process.
Edited 2012-11-11 21:36 UTC
Not mature and high quality compared to ...?
Android did hit the market at the right time but the reason they are still growing in market share, "sold" units and activations is that majority of customers seem to think its the best value for price, mature enough, of high quality enough for them then ANY other competitor out there.
I certainly agree that there could be better alternates. Meego was such a candidate. But its not there and those alternates that are there are not as good.
Whatever we think, feel or believe is better does not matter. Only the hard numbers do and they say: Android is the best OS out there in all terms that matter.
Edited 2012-11-12 04:49 UTC





Member since:
2012-08-01
No, They don't die by bullets, only fire.
That's what a monopoly is, people whether they like it or not, have to buy their stuff.
Unless Android moves to the desktop (I know a lot of people who would like that) it's unlikely anything will replace Windows.
Of course they could always take back that jack*** from Nokia and put him in Ballmer's shoes. Nothing burns hotter and brighter than greed fueled by stupidity.