Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 1st May 2013 21:35 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems "The Q1 2013 numbers from IDC, a technology and telecommunications research firm who keeps track of this sort of thing, show that Android tablets now lead the market with a 56.5-percent share. The 27,800,000 units shipped in the quarter is a 247-percent improvement from this time last year, when just 8,000,000 units were shipped. It's important to note that this increase doesn't come at the expense of Apple, who shipped 65.3-percent more tablets in Q1 2013 than they did in Q1 2012 - it shows the market is growing, and the lions share of new purchases are Android." While Android's market share growth scares me, it's good that it's not really harming the competition. Also, maybe this will be the carrot for developers to improve Android tablet applications.
Thread beginning with comment 560288
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Android is scary?
by ozonehole on Thu 2nd May 2013 02:50 UTC
Member since:

Thom said:

While Android's market share growth scares me...

Why does Android's market share growth scare you?

Well, actually scares me, but only because Microsoft extorts money for bogus patents on Android. But it's Microsoft that scares me, not Android. And Apple scares me too.

Google doesn't scare me at all. True, they're not all bunny rabbits and unicorns, but compared to most ruthless American corporations, Google plays relatively nice. Aside from being consistently friendly to open source projects, they sue almost no one unless they've been sued first. Microsoft and Apple executives would sue their own mother for copyright infringement for singing lullabies to them when they were infants.

Edited 2013-05-02 02:53 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Android is scary?
by Nelson on Thu 2nd May 2013 03:44 in reply to "Android is scary?"
Nelson Member since:

Its because everyone benefits when there is a wealth of competition and choice. That's what drives the state of the art forward.

And how is it bad that Microsoft is being compensated for their intellectual property?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Android is scary?
by lemur2 on Thu 2nd May 2013 04:08 in reply to "RE: Android is scary?"
lemur2 Member since:

how is it bad that Microsoft is being compensated for their intellectual property?

Because it is not Microsoft's "property". For example, Microsoft sued Tom Tom and Barnes & Noble over FAT patents, but it turns out that there was prior art (code written by none other than Linus Torvalds) for the exact same functionality.

This patent (352) covers a technique for storing filenames with lots of characters in old filesystems such as the Windows FAT (File Allocation Table) filesystem that are designed to use very short filenames. Mobile phone makers use this type of technology so that their devices interoperate with other operating systems, including Windows.

“Motorola had found this posting of mine about long filenames used in a compatible manner with short file names… and it predated the Microsoft patent by three years,” says Torvalds.

This is absolutely typical.

So why should Microsoft get money from Android, for which they did not develop the code, did not help test, release, distribute or maintain the code, and did not even come up with original ideas for the code?

The ONLY reason Microsoft gets money from Android vendors is that Microsoft threatens to sue them and at the same time offers them a legally unnecessary near-zero-cost bogus "license" to avoid any expensive lawsuit, with the sole proviso that the Android vendor does not reveal the terms of the deal.

Rather than fighting a legal battle it is cheaper for Android OEMs to just agree to the license from Microsoft to make them go away.

Edited 2013-05-02 04:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7