Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 11th Nov 2012 15:49 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 542251
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 13th Nov 2012 05:49
in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by Morgan on Tue 13th Nov 2012 07:25
in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
I guess it depends on the region. Here in the southeastern United States, it seems that metonyms are much more common than in the rest of the country. I know that there's also a divide between techie types who call them "Android phones" or even by the actual device name, and your average user who tends to call any smartphone that's not an iPhone a "Droid". I've even heard someone call a BlackBerry Torch a "Droid" because it was a touchscreen device.
Of course, down here most people refer to wireless headsets as "Bluetooths" which is wrong on so many levels!




Member since:
2005-06-29
I think Motorola deserves some credit for the Android adoption numbers here in the US, due to their huge "Droid" advertising campaign. In the same vein as metonyms like "Kleenex" for tissues, "Coke" for carbonated soft drinks, and "Tylenol" for pain relievers, Android phones of any make are known as "Droids" around here.