I'm guessing they are all sitting inside the deactivated shipping fleets which sit offshore of the various ports in China these days.
Or, they have already been recycled.
Here's another problem - Gartner, which is a firm that has been paid to tell consumers what businesses want them to hear for DECADES now, is not a good, trustworthy source for anything.
Where does Gartner get their sales numbers? They simply make them up - ie, they perform surveys and such, they use User Agent reports from sites nobody has heard of, and they also rely on various kinds of metrics software.
It's crazy. What's so hard about reporting the actual number of phones that you actually get into the hands of consumers for Android makers? None of them will actually tell us that information.
Somehow I find Google's figures difficult to believe, and more importantly they definitely have something to gain by inflating their activation numbers.
You believe incorrectly. Because no Android phone maker will actually admit how many phones are sold to the consumer, we can check here for the information:
If you look at Wikipedia's stat counter you will see that the iPhone is still way over half of the smartphone market. Nne of the Android phone makers will even tell you how many phones they sold, just how many ship.
Oh sure, the stock is worthless on the market and to most investors, but to the patent trolls that own the majority of shares it's worth a lot of money. Their intellectual property will allow many more frivolous lawsuits to be filed.
Just watch your ass and if you can't keep your fists to yourself, stay out of public.
Kinda sad that you didn't have the balls to post other than AC though, which kind of indicates that you wouldn't actually dare to punch somebody out anyway.
We know a lot of Android phones have been manufactured, but nobody will admit to how many are actually sold. Companies are hired by PR firms representing Google and Samsung to cook up numbers based upon statistics from very odd places, which they try to actually pass off as retail sales, but this is of course just a big giant trick.
Wikipedia's reliable because everybody uses it. These other "sales" figures count phones that are sitting in warehouses, destined to be sent back to whatever sweatshop they were built in and recycled.
Careful buddy, people pack heat these days. If you tried to lamp me, even if you thought I was somehow irritating your little shits, I'd permanently put your lights out. Then your little shits wouldn't be able to learn your doctrine of poor self control.
If you don't want random strangers acting in ways you feel are not approved by you, stay the fuck out of public places. Otherwise, you might be eating lead and directly causing you crotchlings to be orphans (naturally your wife would die of grief after viewing your mangled, broken corpse).
Let's argue instead about your very Catholic doctrine of the pious lie. Is it OK for you to mislead people as long as you are doing it because you now what's good for them? If so, do you reserve to right to be offended when you are lied to in turn? What if the person or organization lying to YOU in particular is doing it because they know better than you do, what is good for you?
Is it OK for a scientist to lie to the public in order to advance an agenda that they have? If that same scientist tells you their agenda is scientifically rooted in facts, but is instead a political or ideological or even religious agenda, does that lie become somehow less pious than it would be if their agenda was purely scientific?
It appears you've already decided that weather is becoming more extreme, despite data to the contrary (well if you go back to the 1950s or the 1880s) and you've already bought into the fairy tale idea that there is some point of no return.
The point of no return myth, tipping point, atmosphere boiling away catastrophism bullshit tale is meant to fool idiots into jumping when Mann and co. say jump. Don't be a useful idiot.
Oddly enough, if you use the oldest continuously monitored sea level measure, run by the Royal Navy for over 250 years, you see that sea levels have not risen more than 1 cm over the last century.
However, as everybody knows, once you give any data to a climatologist, even say, average kangaroo penis sizes in Queensland, they will manage to massage it into proving their AGW catastrophism.
But is Google really responding to Apple's anti-Samsung lawsuit here? To me it seems like another battle, not the same one, and in light of Google's promises not to be evil, not to use its patents except defensively, and the idea that Apple didn't sue "Android" but some corrupt gigantic Korean megacorp makes me feel that the Google supporters who condemned Apple's lawsuit then, but do not also condemn Google now, are hypocrites.
Is my old Apple IIGS keyboard. I still have the original one I got in third grade, it still works great with the USB ADB connector widget I bought years ago, and it's loud as hell.
Apple ditched Google, they weren't begging for anything. It makes sense, as the Google experience is custom-designed to sell Google ads on the Google phone OS.
In any event, I don't think that Google has even come close to catching up to Apple in smartphone market share. You can quote all the massaged numbers from IT consultancies, but the only ones that really matter (and the only ones are actually trustable, are the ones from Wikipedia's stat counter. They show Apple ahead by a clear margin, even after the cheap Droid phones have been dumped on the market for years now.
Nope, you have failed to understand. My logic says that the patent system is so fucked, that the more companies that get a death-grip on their competitors through the use of patents, the better, because only that will lead to reform of the system.
I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy that is displayed by Google fans, who have been claiming for a couple of years now that Google isn't "evil" and that they will use their patents "only defensively."
I guess if your rationale is that a good offense is the best defense, then you can claim that a pre-emptive defensive lawsuit is indeed consistent, but this is a sort of Jesuitical hair-splitting tactic that needs no further comment.
Your anonymous lies do not impress me. Yes, they had touch-based prototypes, but only AFTER Eric Shidt spied out Apple's plane.
Shit, even now, 5 years later, they are still struggling to catch up to Apple. See, when your only skill is copying, that's what you have to do to get by. The disadvantage of the copying tactic, though, is that you will never actually get ahead - you can simply shift down into neutral and wait to see what Apple does in its next rev of the iPhone, and then attempt to clone it before they release yet another iteration.
This is the same cycle that Microsoft has been stuck in for ages now - since the 80s.
These investigations were hardly independent. They were conducted by people who have everything to gain from the perpetuation of the AGW myth, and the doomy catastrophism predictions that these commies are trying to pass off as science.
Hell, in this patent climate, I think anybody should do anything. Declining to pay the patent fees was a business decision, and Googlearola's decision to sue was also a business decision.
Apple has the patents on multi-touch phone and tablet UIs, so I would expect this to work out very, very badly for Google and gang if Apple decides to assert those patents. I would love to see such a suit, whatever way it ended up.
Also, if you think Android is "OSS" you're mistaken. It's a Linux distro with many proprietary and non-free blobs attached to it. Some effort has been made at replacing those with Free software, but they only work on a select few older phones. Google is about as serious about Open Source and Free Software as Apple is - perhaps Apple is even more serious.
Motoroogle is looking for some quick cash to float their ledgers, anyway, so it seems to me that they'll settle in the end. Remember, Google's financial books are a bit funny smelling as of late, and they certainly can't afford to just waste endless cash.
Yes, and have you seen what Android looked like before Google's spy on Apple's board lifted their iPhone UI design whole cloth?
It was a fucking Blackberry clone, but only more half-assed. There wasn't any multitouch, hell there wasn't any touch at all! The thing had one of those awful little keyboards, one of those stupid trackballs (or a joystick, either way it was stupid) and it was just a massive pile of fail.
The Franklin clones actually ripped off the Apple ROMs - are ROMs hardware or software?
Google saw an opportunity to steal the entire iPhone concept while they had a spy on the Apple board. If you don't accept this then please look at one of the many before and after the iPhone images available on Google that show how Android looked before the iPhone (hint: Android was shit inn'it) and eat some humble pie with a side serving of crow jelly.
Apple has aggressively defended its look and feel probably since before you were born.
No, I'm afraid that you don't understand this correctly. I never said Apple or Google are in the wrong for subjecting each other to expensive and time-consuming patent litigation. I think it's wonderful actually - the only way this broken system will be fixed is if enough large companies totally cripple each other in the legal system. Only then will they eventually bribe Congress into a patent reform.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing they are all sitting inside the deactivated shipping fleets which sit offshore of the various ports in China these days.
Or, they have already been recycled.
Here's another problem - Gartner, which is a firm that has been paid to tell consumers what businesses want them to hear for DECADES now, is not a good, trustworthy source for anything.
Where does Gartner get their sales numbers? They simply make them up - ie, they perform surveys and such, they use User Agent reports from sites nobody has heard of, and they also rely on various kinds of metrics software.
It's crazy. What's so hard about reporting the actual number of phones that you actually get into the hands of consumers for Android makers? None of them will actually tell us that information.
Somehow I find Google's figures difficult to believe, and more importantly they definitely have something to gain by inflating their activation numbers.
You believe incorrectly. Because no Android phone maker will actually admit how many phones are sold to the consumer, we can check here for the information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
Android has gained market share compared to a year ago, but they are still way WAY behind Apple.
There was a bit of a rumor, a year ago, that Apple uses Azuer and Amazon's cloud services, but this has never been substantiated at all.
And yes, MS is dying.
If you look at Wikipedia's stat counter you will see that the iPhone is still way over half of the smartphone market. Nne of the Android phone makers will even tell you how many phones they sold, just how many ship.
Oh sure, the stock is worthless on the market and to most investors, but to the patent trolls that own the majority of shares it's worth a lot of money. Their intellectual property will allow many more frivolous lawsuits to be filed.
Seems like the normal state of Firefox to work terribly slow, but I can't really believe that it's not crashing.
Unless, of course, that it's working so slowly that it hasn't executed the buggy code YET...
Just watch your ass and if you can't keep your fists to yourself, stay out of public.
Kinda sad that you didn't have the balls to post other than AC though, which kind of indicates that you wouldn't actually dare to punch somebody out anyway.
We know a lot of Android phones have been manufactured, but nobody will admit to how many are actually sold. Companies are hired by PR firms representing Google and Samsung to cook up numbers based upon statistics from very odd places, which they try to actually pass off as retail sales, but this is of course just a big giant trick.
Wikipedia's reliable because everybody uses it. These other "sales" figures count phones that are sitting in warehouses, destined to be sent back to whatever sweatshop they were built in and recycled.
The tipping point myth is one of the most flagrant bits of bullshit pushed by a whole discipline of bullshit artists.
It's not going to happen.
Careful buddy, people pack heat these days. If you tried to lamp me, even if you thought I was somehow irritating your little shits, I'd permanently put your lights out. Then your little shits wouldn't be able to learn your doctrine of poor self control.
If you don't want random strangers acting in ways you feel are not approved by you, stay the fuck out of public places. Otherwise, you might be eating lead and directly causing you crotchlings to be orphans (naturally your wife would die of grief after viewing your mangled, broken corpse).
Let's argue instead about your very Catholic doctrine of the pious lie. Is it OK for you to mislead people as long as you are doing it because you now what's good for them? If so, do you reserve to right to be offended when you are lied to in turn? What if the person or organization lying to YOU in particular is doing it because they know better than you do, what is good for you?
Is it OK for a scientist to lie to the public in order to advance an agenda that they have? If that same scientist tells you their agenda is scientifically rooted in facts, but is instead a political or ideological or even religious agenda, does that lie become somehow less pious than it would be if their agenda was purely scientific?
It appears you've already decided that weather is becoming more extreme, despite data to the contrary (well if you go back to the 1950s or the 1880s) and you've already bought into the fairy tale idea that there is some point of no return.
The point of no return myth, tipping point, atmosphere boiling away catastrophism bullshit tale is meant to fool idiots into jumping when Mann and co. say jump. Don't be a useful idiot.
Oddly enough, if you use the oldest continuously monitored sea level measure, run by the Royal Navy for over 250 years, you see that sea levels have not risen more than 1 cm over the last century.
However, as everybody knows, once you give any data to a climatologist, even say, average kangaroo penis sizes in Queensland, they will manage to massage it into proving their AGW catastrophism.
But is Google really responding to Apple's anti-Samsung lawsuit here? To me it seems like another battle, not the same one, and in light of Google's promises not to be evil, not to use its patents except defensively, and the idea that Apple didn't sue "Android" but some corrupt gigantic Korean megacorp makes me feel that the Google supporters who condemned Apple's lawsuit then, but do not also condemn Google now, are hypocrites.
Is my old Apple IIGS keyboard. I still have the original one I got in third grade, it still works great with the USB ADB connector widget I bought years ago, and it's loud as hell.
What a fine piece of technology.
I bet Google's in receivership long before Apple dips under 500 billion.
Apple ditched Google, they weren't begging for anything. It makes sense, as the Google experience is custom-designed to sell Google ads on the Google phone OS.
In any event, I don't think that Google has even come close to catching up to Apple in smartphone market share. You can quote all the massaged numbers from IT consultancies, but the only ones that really matter (and the only ones are actually trustable, are the ones from Wikipedia's stat counter. They show Apple ahead by a clear margin, even after the cheap Droid phones have been dumped on the market for years now.
Nope, you have failed to understand. My logic says that the patent system is so fucked, that the more companies that get a death-grip on their competitors through the use of patents, the better, because only that will lead to reform of the system.
I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy that is displayed by Google fans, who have been claiming for a couple of years now that Google isn't "evil" and that they will use their patents "only defensively."
I guess if your rationale is that a good offense is the best defense, then you can claim that a pre-emptive defensive lawsuit is indeed consistent, but this is a sort of Jesuitical hair-splitting tactic that needs no further comment.
Your anonymous lies do not impress me. Yes, they had touch-based prototypes, but only AFTER Eric Shidt spied out Apple's plane.
Shit, even now, 5 years later, they are still struggling to catch up to Apple. See, when your only skill is copying, that's what you have to do to get by. The disadvantage of the copying tactic, though, is that you will never actually get ahead - you can simply shift down into neutral and wait to see what Apple does in its next rev of the iPhone, and then attempt to clone it before they release yet another iteration.
This is the same cycle that Microsoft has been stuck in for ages now - since the 80s.
These investigations were hardly independent. They were conducted by people who have everything to gain from the perpetuation of the AGW myth, and the doomy catastrophism predictions that these commies are trying to pass off as science.
Hell, in this patent climate, I think anybody should do anything. Declining to pay the patent fees was a business decision, and Googlearola's decision to sue was also a business decision.
Apple has the patents on multi-touch phone and tablet UIs, so I would expect this to work out very, very badly for Google and gang if Apple decides to assert those patents. I would love to see such a suit, whatever way it ended up.
Also, if you think Android is "OSS" you're mistaken. It's a Linux distro with many proprietary and non-free blobs attached to it. Some effort has been made at replacing those with Free software, but they only work on a select few older phones. Google is about as serious about Open Source and Free Software as Apple is - perhaps Apple is even more serious.
Motoroogle is looking for some quick cash to float their ledgers, anyway, so it seems to me that they'll settle in the end. Remember, Google's financial books are a bit funny smelling as of late, and they certainly can't afford to just waste endless cash.
Yes, and have you seen what Android looked like before Google's spy on Apple's board lifted their iPhone UI design whole cloth?
It was a fucking Blackberry clone, but only more half-assed. There wasn't any multitouch, hell there wasn't any touch at all! The thing had one of those awful little keyboards, one of those stupid trackballs (or a joystick, either way it was stupid) and it was just a massive pile of fail.
The Franklin clones actually ripped off the Apple ROMs - are ROMs hardware or software?
Google saw an opportunity to steal the entire iPhone concept while they had a spy on the Apple board. If you don't accept this then please look at one of the many before and after the iPhone images available on Google that show how Android looked before the iPhone (hint: Android was shit inn'it) and eat some humble pie with a side serving of crow jelly.
Apple has aggressively defended its look and feel probably since before you were born.
No, I'm afraid that you don't understand this correctly. I never said Apple or Google are in the wrong for subjecting each other to expensive and time-consuming patent litigation. I think it's wonderful actually - the only way this broken system will be fixed is if enough large companies totally cripple each other in the legal system. Only then will they eventually bribe Congress into a patent reform.