Slashdot Mirror
Android Passes BlackBerry In US Market Share
An anonymous reader writes "69.5 million people in the US owned smartphones during the three months ending in February 2011, up 13 percent from the preceding three-month period. For the first time, more Americans are using phones running Google's Android operating system than Research In Motion's BlackBerry, according to comScore. Having passed the iPhone in the preceding three-month period, this now means that Android has been crowned king in the US."
Android is an operating system available on devices from numerous manufacturers. It was only a matter of time, given the level of control that both RIM and Apple maintain over the hardware that their operating system is available on.
I'm a Droid user and a huge fan, but it is almost an unfair comparison. You're comparing an (relatively) open operating system with proprietary devices running proprietary software.
Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
Wake me up in six months, when the implications of Google's recent policy changes have been realized.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Who's up for a game of spot the fanboy? From either side of the fence.
IIRC, the same thing recently happened in Africa.
The fact that people so quickly bounce from Blackberry to iPhone to Android in business suggests to me that they use their 'phones for very little real work. I wonder if one day we'll return to, say, 15 years ago, when people had a much better chance to get hard work done (and rest outside hours) without a million devices to interrupt them.
Google knew what they were doing when they developed the android platform and even more so when they made it as open as they did. I am a broken record when it comes to Google and Android and make no apology for being so. I have never failed to get timely responses from Google support and excellent answers as far as I am concerned. RIM has lost sight of the game when it comes to smart phones and will fade fast if they do not get their head out of their rear. Google is Skynet and I am an Andriod Borg. Microslop and the Rotten Apple should be afraid, very afraid.
techcrunch: iOS of my beloved apple is not yet king
mg siegler
This is all just a rehash of the PC industry during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Back then, Apple had their proprietary hardware and software stack, and it did achieve a relatively high level of popularity, at least initially. There were other smaller players, like Amiga, Commodore and Tandy back then, and RIM and Nokia today, who offered their own platforms.
Android is best compared to MS-DOS, oddly enough. It was about being a flexible OS that ran on a wide range of hardware from a wide range of vendors, and in many ways it maximized the freedom of developers and users alike. It did very little to dictate how programs could be implemented, who may use them, and how they may be distributed.
We all know what happened. The most open of the platforms prevailed, and the rest were basically crushed into obscurity. Most went completely out of business. Apple, by far the strongest of them, only barely managed to survive the rest of the 1980s and early 1990s.
I suspect that the same thing might be happening today. Although not the first, Apple took a commanding lead within the market. But facing competition from more open hardware and software, they don't have a hope in hell of surviving in the long run. It remains to be seen what will happen with Jobs in the near future, but if he departs from Apple for whatever reason, it's likely that they'll face yet another dark period like that between 1987 and 1999.
While I love open source it's because there's a zillion phones that run android. I suspect if you compare any one Android model against RIM or Apple's offerings then it won't look so good. Combine that with the fact Android owners seem less keen on paying for apps and I think you end up with the iphone or even blackberry being more attractive to a developer despite android's growth.
What people miss is that most of those 30ish % are from low end devices. Those devices are mostly crap and give out a bad impression about the OS.
I'm not too confident that android growth will be as big in the following years. Google should set up some minimum specs for Android phones!
(I'm the proud owner of an HTC Desire, so I'm not bashing. Just stating something that has been on my mind lately..)
but not necessarily the consumer.
We all know what happened. The most open of the platforms prevailed
This is true among home computers. But whether the smartphone market shapes up to be like the home computer market (where open won) or the set-top video gaming market (where closed won) hasn't entirely been decided. Android is in the lead now, but I'm not sure how much of that comes from people avoiding the iPhone to avoid AT&T. This can change as more Verizon Wireless contracts hit their 24th month, and it can also change come iPhone 5 and Sony NGP. But on the other hand, Apple doesn't have a low-end phone for use with prepaid service, unlike Sprint's Virgin Mobile USA which has a few Android phones now, and Apple has historically chosen not to compete in the extreme low-end.
Remember that the majority of Android phone buyers do not care what OS it runs.
They care what applications it runs, and if their favorite apps are exclusive to one operating system, they'll choose that OS. For example, if HTC makes a Windows phone and an Android phone, but your favorite apps are for Android, you'll probably choose the Android phone.
Already 30% of cellphone users carry smartphones, so total smartphone growth will slow eventually.
But Android has been out for awhile now, and is a known quantity. And yet, in the 3 months measured by the comscore report, the growth in Android users was 3.25 times the growth in iPhone users.
Android growth could slow down a lot. Doesn't matter. They'll still be on top for a long time.
Android owners seem less keen on paying for apps and I think you end up with the iphone or even blackberry being more attractive to a developer despite android's growth.
It appears that BlackBerry developers earn more per app than iPhone and Android developers according to IHS Screen Digest, Feb 2011
You're completely correct. Right now, BlackBerry is a difficult platform for developers to ignore.
Required reading for internet skeptics
We all know what happened. The most open of the platforms prevailed, and the rest were basically crushed into obscurity.
That sounds a bit revisionist. Wouldn't saying the cheapest of the platforms prevailed be more accurate?
How were DOS's competitors less open?
Sort of, but MS-DOS was proprietary and ran on relatively open hardware, while Android is the other way around.
Not likely. Unfortunately, devices without locked bootloaders are the exception, not the rule. Most Android devices are not really any more open than the Blackberry in practice.
Caveat Utilitor
All the folks I knew that had Blackberries for work still have them. But I know a ton more people who bought Android/iPhone for personal use who never had a Blackberry/Palm/Windows phone in the past. That is why the market share is slipping; RIMs gross numbers are still increasing quarter after quarter, but not as quickly as the other phones.
Quarter after quarter, the only Android phones I see being introduced have faster processors, bigger displays, worse battery life and higher price. Which phones do you consider to be low end?
The summary makes the mistake of confusing market share (sales) with installed base ("user share"). Android has had leading market share for some time, which is why their share of the installed base is increasing. CRT televisions still have a very large installed base, but a very low market share - the vast majority of new TVs are LCD/plasma. Windows 2000 still has a significant installed base, but almost zero market share.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
May I add that the same thing happened in the hardware sector too. IBM-compatible PCs prevailed, because everybody could do with it whatever he wanted. :)
Interestingly, fragmentation was prevented, because if your hardware wasn't really 100% compatible, nobody liked it, for that exact reason.
I just hope there will be no incompatible fragmentation in Android after the initial “I’m the dominating standard” struggle. ;)
Oh well... as long as MS doesn't get into it...
I must be some kind of leader... Since Slashdot is following me to the grave.
Correct. What we need for mobile phones, is the same modular flexibility as for desktop PCs. So everyone can get into it, offering parts. But hopefully without the ugly generic gray cases. ;)
Otherwise I can just think of cars as an example. Luckily, there you can still "mod" your cars, no matter what the vendor expects. You'll only lose your guarantee. But modders offer you a new one. So other companies can make spare parts.
With phones that is obviously also true, no matter how much Apple would like to to think it's not.
If someone would create such a open modular phone, and get the Chinese/Taiwanese/Japanese/... on board, they'd flood the market with parts until the coolness of what phone you could get that way would crush the lock-in companies. (At least so I hope.)
I must be some kind of leader... Since Slashdot is following me to the grave.
The app store doesn't generate as much, because of the different set of mind. Google is all about advertising revenue, not direct sales to end-customers. How much did you pay for your 3 versions of Angry Birds on your iPhone? Yet Rovio are probably making way more off ads in the game on Android. Not a fact, just a guess. But since RIO is still free, I'm guessing the business model stands. (Think of it this way: on iPhone, new levels in any of the three = no extra income, but on Android, new levels = loads of ads displayed on user screens => revenue).
Does that mean that Nokia has turned into 1980s IBM and opted for the Bill Gates solution that's going to rule the world in 20 years time?
The Amiga was considerably cheaper, and superior to DOS based machines of the day.
Software competitors weren't less open than DOS, but they weren't more open either... On the other hand the hardware required to run DOS was considerably more open than the hardware that ran other systems, and software was considered a triviality alongside the price of hardware.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Remove free Apps from that average and it will tilt in the other direction.
We all know what happened. The most open of the platforms prevailed, and the rest were basically crushed into obscurity. Most went completely out of business. Apple, by far the strongest of them, only barely managed to survive the rest of the 1980s and early 1990s.
I suspect that the same thing might be happening today. Although not the first, Apple took a commanding lead within the market. But facing competition from more open hardware and software, they don't have a hope in hell of surviving in the long run. It remains to be seen what will happen with Jobs in the near future, but if he departs from Apple for whatever reason, it's likely that they'll face yet another dark period like that between 1987 and 1999.
i don't think anyone's going out of business, for several reasons. but the most important is what's the so-called "killer app". see, the "killer app" back at those days were what i call "the holy trinity" lotus 1-2-3, d-base and wordstar. later it wordperfect took the crown as editor, later it became all MS office. other plataforms had a snowball chanve in hell of being adopted by business without office applications that were interoperable with PC. and in those days, real money was in the office market. home market was considered a "toy market" or "hobyst market". apple found a comfortable niche in grpahics and publishing that kept them afloat until the home market became as big as the business market.
then in mid 80's things changed in the home market, the 'killer app" at home moved from games ang hobby to being able to bring work home, that's when the PC crushed all the other platforms at this market too.
the other change, in late 90's was that the "killer app" at the home market became being able to access the internet and playing MP3/video. that's what allowed the mac to make a come back, and this is where it still is on the computer market.
now, smartphones ? the "killer app" untill now was: contacts, phoning and messaging. now it's all this, plus e-mail, web browsing and small apps.
all of this is available in ALL plataforms. contact's, mail, phone, messaging and web, those are all standardized or licensed (information on how to interface with MS exchange is available to any manufacturer for a fee. so it's available for android, iOS, RIM, webOS and symbian).
so, the last "killer app" for mobiles: applications.
well, developing cross-plataform code is a lot easier today than it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago, so the same angry birds you play on android, you can play on iOS or even on windows.
the end result, don't expect apple, RIM or even MS to leave the market any time soon. even webOS may still have a future ahead of it, now that they have HPs deep pockets behind it.
What ? Me, worry ?
That came to bite some people when the computer advertised as IBM Compatible wasn't 100% compatible. Anybody that's tried to install a SoundBlaster into a Leading Edge knows exactly what I mean.
Also, I'd like to apologize for bringing up the bad memories from that hunk of crap maker.
Keep dreaming!
What most people need, is a phone that they can buy, and they can do stuff with. Most people want to tinker with and mod their phones as much as they want to tinker with and mod their cars, which is to say they don't want to tinker.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
I think everyone can get behind this. We have customers who have been bugging us to support Blackberry since we support iPhone and soon Android. A lot of ISVs are in the same boat. Nobody wants to deal with Blackberry, and now we can point at this downtrend and push back even harder.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
Seriously. All the tech-press yammering about Android's exploding market share makes my brain itch. It's overtaken vertical solutions (RIM, Apple) by running on a broad variety of hardware - it's gaining market share the same way Windows did back in the day, by running on COTS hardware instead of the more tightly-bound offerings from Commodore or Apple (or others). It would be more accurate to compare Android against, say... MeeGo, Symbian, etceteras. Marketshare comparisons are only really valid if the phone owner has a choice of operating systems - you're not going to be running iOS on a Nokia phone, for example.
I'm sure RIM and Apple aren't losing market share - these rapid gains are coming by handset vendors dropping an OEM OS for Android, or shipping the same handset with an Android option.
I switched from ATT to Verizon and purchased an HTC Thunderbolt. I love the phone and am really enjoying building apps for it. As a web developer it has been a fun and challenging experience learning bits of Java and the Android SDK.
I love the idea, but doubt it will happen. The N900 is pretty close to my dream phone, but I'm stuck with Verizon due to business and location. If one could order the mainboard, radio, screen, keyboard, enclosure, etc and assemble the thing then install some distro and register it on Verizon's network that would be really exciting. But other people who feel that way are uncommon, I guess... And of course it would buck the trend of your carrier effectively owning all devices and data on it's network. Now that they've gotten a taste of the mass market accepting that and even paying a premium for it, we're all screwed.
Caveat Utilitor
Back during the days of PC vs others, situation was the same. there were those who had tight control, there were those who were more relaxed. and today, 'computer' is basically 'pc', and even everyone forgot that it was 'pc'. it passes as 'desktop computer' universally.
rim and apple lost, because of precisely why competitors to ibm pc lost.
Read radical news here
You do realize that Android is based on the Linux kernel, right? You do also realize that there are far more mobile devices out there than there are PCs, notebooks, netbooks, tablets and servers combined, right? And you do realize that this article is about how Android's share of this market is becoming absolutely huge, and is growing at a very rapid pace, right?
This is a much greater win than domination of just the server or desktop markets ever could be. The mobile device sphere is much more significant. At this point, it's shaping up to be, at the very least, the decade of Linux on the mobile device.
but it did ? the pc gaming market, is the market that everything revolves around
This may be true for single-player and online multiplayer. But there aren't nearly enough set-top PCs (or home theater PCs or media center PCs) to make a viable market for games with a mode designed for set-top PCs. (Or so other Slashdot users tell me.) And some genres, such as fighting games and party games, don't work well on desktop or laptop PCs due to the smaller monitor not fitting two to four people around it.
oh geez.. you're argument sounds exactly like an elderly dude wishing for the yesteryear. No matter how much you wish you knew NOW what you knew THEN... it's not going to help. The future is not written, my friend (to whom I wish longevity!)
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
Once a handset company has invested in porting Android and learning how to port Android, that company has a lot less effort porting Android to its next phone.
While I like the idea of drawing an analogy between the computer scenario of the 80's and the smartphone scenario of today? I don't agree with the original poster's conclusions, or even some of the comparisons.
MS-DOS really isn't a great comparison to Android, IMO. MS-DOS was flexible and seen running on a wide range of hardware - but it was also copyrighted and licensed out to interested parties. This led to fragmentation of DOS, in fact. IBM had their own "PC-DOS" for a while, and there was the Digital Research DR-DOS too. Additionally, there were a lot of compatibility issues, early on. I remember Tandy selling a whole line of "PC compatibles" that weren't really quite compatible, for example. The fact you saw a DOS operating system on the hardware was no guarantee all your software was going to work right on it!
I see no reason to predict the death of Apple's iOS, even in the long haul -- because the smartphone market is more like gaming consoles than computers. Just as people develop allegiances to the Playstation or the XBox 360 or the Wii, they prefer the Blackberry or the Apple iPhone or Nokia's offerings. Unlike a computer, a phone only needs to really do specific things - and for the vast majority? The real reasons they want a "smartphone" over a regular cellphone revolve around the Internet connectivity - which has more to do with the carrier selected than the device. (They want to use Facebook on their phone, read the news, check email, surf random web sites, update a Twitter account, or upload some photographs someplace. They may want to tether too. Doesn't matter which OS your phone runs, really, to accomplish any of that stuff.)
I'm currently using an HTC Evo 4G myself, with Android 2.2 -- so I'm not "anti Android" by any means. But having owned an iPhone previously? I'd have to say I see far more similarities than differences, and I prefer iOS when it comes to the small details. (Easier to delete an app, less problems of system getting quirky and needing a power off/on to get it back to normal, etc.)
How do you like 'dem apples?
the set-top video gaming market (where closed won)
Was there even an "open" option there?
Before 1986, many 8-bit home computers supported TV out. Then IBM compatible PCs took off, most of which were incompatible with TV monitors. For the next two decades, a few PCs supported TV out. I can see why that failed, as not all video cards had composite or S-Video out, and the "scan converter" box to turn VGA into SDTV was incredibly obscure and fairly expensive. But starting around 2006, most new TVs have had VGA and HDMI inputs, suitable to display a PC's respective VGA and DVI-D outputs. The only thing I can think of that kept a media center PC from becoming the fourth console over the past five years is inertia combined with lack of advertising. So I guess small form factor PCs like the Dell Zino with Radeon graphics need something like the "Genesis does what Nintendon't" or "Droid does what iDon't" commercial.
I hate this idea that "Everything has to be really good, ultra high-end." No, it doesn't. Not everyone want sot buy something high end. Yes, it does mean compromising on something, that's ok for people.
Your netbook example is a good one. My dad just got a netbook recently. I do not care for it at all. The screen is too small, it is fine for surfing the web or writing documents but too slow for anything more intense and so on. However he likes it a lot. He likes that it is so small and portable. His needs are simple so it meets them just fine. However he really likes that it is cheap. Like (almost) everyone else my parents have a budget to deal with and they do not care to spend much of it on computers.
Turns out there is room in the market for all kinds of things. There is room for my dad's little network and my bigass Core i7 desktop.
Same shit with phones. Anyone who says that Android is only low end needs to pull their head out of their ass and go play with an HTC Thunderbolt/EVO/etv (they make the same thing for a number of carriers under different names). Faster, bigger, more storage, more features than the iPhone 4 and 4G to boot. It is a high end device, and carries a price tag to match. However there are also some nice lower end devices for people who don't wanna spend so much, but would still like a basic smartphone.
That is a great way for things to be.
the decade of Linux on the mobile device
Personally I hope it lasts another decade or two. Seriously, screw the desktop; in 20 years we'll all have "mobile" supercomputers with us everywhere we go.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not to mention that every TV in my house runs Linux also.
Not likely. Unfortunately, devices without locked bootloaders are the exception, not the rule. Most Android devices are not really any more open than the Blackberry in practice.
You shut your whore mouth!
All you android idiots are just sore losers. You unfairly compare all sorts of phones running various proprietary and closed versions of google's crappy OS to a SINGLE phone from Apple. Compared to any single Android phone, the iPhone is KICKING ANDROIDS ASS! And even if it didn't, my iPhone 4 still ROCKS OUT WITH MY COCK OUT and nothing you people say or do will ever change that. So suck on that google-zealots.
PS: Bing is a better search engine.
As a slashdot reader I have learned to simply take the opinons with a grain of salt for really only two reasons. 1). Most posters are tech-literate so some of their thoughts are way over the market. 2). Groupspeak runs rampant, if it isn't "openness" its fragmentation. Sorry, we're all not techno-anarchists.
That being said android is going to be dominant because ATT & Verizon offer 3 iPhones in 3 different speeds and the fastest is substantially expensive. Android is offered on all 4 major carriers & is offered on a dozen different phones. My aging MyTouch 3G slide is at 2.1 and would be considered a "low-end" phone now, still is very competitive with the iPhone 3GS & does the tasks I ask of it admirably.
The slow release cycles of the iPhone & blackberries hurt them but technologically & commercially because they don't get a dozen research departments building phones while marketing suffers from the lack of continuous releases. HTC, samsung, and Motorola all run independent commercials. Android is everywhere & is inevitably going to lead unless Apple offers variety or RIM/Windows opens development up to 3rd party companies. Nokia being bribed doesn't really count.
Here is how things are radically different back in the day. What you are suggesting is a false analogy and I'll explain why.
One hardware. Touch screen pads and phones can not be repaired and/or built from scratch by you average advanced computer user. In my day, I built up many desktops and servers from parts. If the video card went bad, I just replaced it. Most can't do that with an Android pad/phone (I have replaced the screen on an iPhone and horribly botched it. The second time I got it right, but felt I should have just sent it in for repair. Those screws are just so incredibly tiny). Plus mobile carriers carry phones from major manufacturers. It's not like when you could go to a computer fair and buy a case, mb, processor, RAM, hard drive, peripherals and have yourself a computer.....home brew phones don't exist (well not for most people). So these devices are more hardware dependent--that has always been Apple's advantage. Mating specific hardware and software avoiding fragmentation. Consequently 1000x easier to support (hey remember when you installed your favorite flavor of Linux with a "Wangtech"--or whatever vid card was the cheapest from Fry's? Those were the days. I'd like to have that time back please). I think that people are going to avoid cheap build quality on these lower end products where the difference between a cheaply built Android pad from China that has support issues and only going to last a year before it craps out with one that is made from decent hardware is only going to be $100 or $200 to mostly avoid the headache. I know I have. I used to work on my own cars in high school and college, but once I could afford a mechanic (or a car like a BMW that has a maintenance free warranty for 3 years) I stopped working on my own stuff. Also it has to be pointed out that since Apple is one of the biggest single manufacturers of phones and pad devices that they get much better pricing than say Motorola from their vendors. If Apple wants to compete on price at anytime they can go lower than most manufacturers can break even on (assuming they are making decent hardware ie Motorola, Samsung, etc.) and still make money. Apple is in what is known as the cat-bird seat. And a lot of these relationships go back to the millions of iPods they sold. These suppliers are very different than those that supply parts for computer companies like Dell and HP. Apple has a huge advantage here (unlike back when they were making computers in the 80s).
Secondly Apple took a page right out of Microsoft's playbook and have supported and made things profitable for developers. Developers make money easier in Apple's walled garden than Android marketplace. Since Google has based their whole mobile premise on the open source movement people are expecting everything to be free. Well the origins of the open source movement was that of a community of people that came together to make software that was better than what you could get commercially because it was made for people that were advanced users. These are people that didn't mind getting down and dirty with config files as opposed to using a wizard. It was also expected that since it was open source that you were going to contribute to the software and this 'sweat equity' paid for other people's work. Plus your work on large open source projects could land you a great job and it paid off this way in spades for many open source developers. With phone and pad apps this open source community spirit is not there. Why would you spend hours and hours working on something that other regular people expect to download for free and 99% of these downloaders aren't going to contribute back. Where is the profit motive of open source software in Android that isn't supported by advertising (which is a whole other issue)? From my point of view, Google is expecting developers to keep up the spirit of the dawn of open source and work for free.
Thirdly, the way that Google is handling their apps is setting themselves up for a malware issue way above and beyond the iss
Badges!?! We don't need no stinking badges!
No, it's the year of the "cloud" the web based application running in datacenters on commodity hardware running linux. Post-PC, remember? The desktop isn't relevant anymore.
The main driving force is always price. Always. That's why I believe Android will continue to win, and it's simply a huge perk that we have access to the source (even though delays frustrate the entitled folk).
Apple popularized the smartphone market, meaning they brought the 'taste' to the mainstream. They did the same with MP3 players. However, when comparing products, Android may not be optimal for everyone's tastes, but if it's 'good enough' then it's a formidable substitute. And at a lower cost, it will not lose.
What have you done for me lately?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Workers assembling Blackberries at Foxconn in Shenzhen will be replaced by workers making Androids at Foxconn in Shenzhen.
Gently reply
and I suspect that the mp3 player market is doomed long term as smartphones become cheaper and are decoupled from data plans
Smartphones decoupled from data plans? In these United States? Give me a break. T-Mobile, the only major U.S. carrier to offer plans designed for unlocked phones bought elsewhere, plans to sell its U.S. operations to AT&T, the only major U.S. carrier to require registration as a developer before sideloading.
Sort of, but MS-DOS was proprietary and ran on relatively open hardware, while Android is the other way around.
I would say the license of the OS is pretty irrelevant (which I suppose is what you mean with "open" hardware and software), the point is that MS-DOS and Android allow you to utilize the system's hardware whereas iOS doesn't (and thus isn't really worthy of the term "operating system". "App platform" would be more fitting). That's from the consumer perspective.
Android's hardware isn't in any way closed either. Sure, PC hardware is much easier to come by and much more customizable than phones are, but that's essentially a market situation. There's nothing stopping anyone with the engineering expertise from making their very own Android computer, and indeed there are many no-name tablets and phones from china doing just that.
I think the key truth in the post you replied to was, "Most Android devices are not really any more open than the Blackberry in practice", which is true. You can't install your distro of choice on any android device of which I'm aware. There might be one or two red herrings, that's about it.
Keep dreaming!
What most people need, is a phone that they can buy, and they can do stuff with. Most people want to tinker with and mod their phones as much as they want to tinker with and mod their cars, which is to say they don't want to tinker.
Yes, but you're entirely missing the point (one which Google gets, and demonstrated very clearly by releasing an open-source OS in the first place.) You're taking the Jobs approach that a phone's operating system is something that should never, ever, be under the user's control. Which is hysterical to me, because I guarantee you that if Microsoft or Apple or any other PC operating system vendor tried to impose that level of control upon you, you'd scream bloody murder and look elsewhere for your OS.
Android is an open source Linux distribution. Just like many, many other Linux distributions, but this one just happens to be designed to run on a cell phone. Are you saying that there should only be one officially-sanctioned Linux distro for personal computers, and that all the rest should be considered rogue? I think you can see the ridiculousness of that, and if you start to think of your smart phone as the personal computer that it is, you start to understand just how offensive this idea of preventing users from running the operating system of their choice really is.
So, yes, the average user has no interest in personally doing squat with the source code to his OS, but that doesn't mean that he may not want the results of other people's tinkering! For example, my G2 runs Cyanogenmod. I've been an avid user of Steve Kondik's work since it was first released, mainly because it was superior to the carrier's offerings and continues to be so to this very day. Have I ever looked at a line of Android source, or compiled it for myself? Of course not: but force me to go back to the stock firmware and I'll probably just go buy an iPhone. Just before I shoot myself in the head to put myself out of my misery.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
From my point of view, Google is expecting developers to keep up the spirit of the dawn of open source and work for free.
One word: ads.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
This comparison to MSDOS/PCs really bothers me. I see it all the time. There's a huge problem with drawing the comparison to MS-DOS--the lack of a standardized bios on android phones.
I could upgrade a PC with a new os without worrying about who made the PC. There's no situation like that with android devices. You're lucky if the manufacturer still supports upgrades on your device, then you fall back to community support if there is any, then you're stuck. There are several examples of android phones that were already end-of-lifed when they were still being sold new. When was that ever happening in the PC market?
So Larry Ellison is finally right about NetPCs?
Free Hans!
Hurray the so called open platform is in the lead all hail the ill upgradeable unsupported malware platform !
So, an OS is selling more than one product? Got it.
How about iOS sales compared to Android sales? I'd be curious to see that one.
"Stupid! Stupid stupid stupid stupid! I touched the hot wire right there - I'm an idiot!"
Ummm maybe because they have?
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/03/24/219221/Google-Delays-General-Release-of-Honeycomb-Source
Yesh...
Eh? Yeah, I've a biased perspective, but also have the experience to know that developing for BB isn't the horror show that people tend to think it is.