<Quote>
"I believe that Microsoft as we know it may not be around in another
decade--maybe not even in five years," Paul McDougall writes for
InformationWeek.

"There's hardly a single tech industry trend line pointing in
Redmond's favor right now, and some of those curves are about to get a
lot steeper, real fast," McDougall writes. "So it's hardly surprising
recent Microsoft-related news has been pretty much on par with where
things stand for the company these days=97mostly all bad."

McDougall writes, "Market research group NPD recently found that 13%
of iPad users bought the Apple OS-based device instead of a Windows
PC. That's a hugely significant number for a product that didn't even
exist a year ago. Just wait until it gets more features, and comes
down in price."

"Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 will hit stores in November, but most
analysts believe the offering, though slick in many respects, is too
little, too late to meaningful bolster the company's meager 5% share
of the mobile OS market," McDougall writes. "Where does all this leave
Microsoft? Out in the cold within just the next few years unless big
changes are made=97and those changes need to start at the top."
</Quote>

http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/microsoft_looking_lik=
e_an_end-stage_company/

Original article is in Information Week but is not accessible at this
moment.

>
>"nessuno" <nessuno7491@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:56281e04-b813-4903-bd08-a4d22f9e0ae2@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
><Quote>
>"I believe that Microsoft as we know it may not be around in another
>decade--maybe not even in five years," Paul McDougall writes for
>InformationWeek.
>
></Quote>
>
>http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/microsoft_looking_like_an_end-stage_company/
>
>Original article is in Information Week but is not accessible at this
>moment.


Blahh-blahh-blahh. For how many more years are you whiners going to keep 
predicting the demise of Microsoft?  It's been at least a decade already 
(that's 10 years for the idiots) and you have not been correct yet.

Meanwhile out in the real world....

<quote>
Microsoft Racks Up Another Jaw-Dropping Quarter

In Microsoft first quarter earnings call Thursday, the company reported 
profit of $5.4 billion, or 62 cents per share, a 51 percent jump from the 
$3.6 billion and 40 cents per share it racked up in the year-ago quarter. 
Microsoft also saw bookings rise 24 percent during the quarter.

Microsoft Q1 revenue grew 25 percent year-over-year to $16.2 billion. Wall 
Street analysts had expected revenue of 15.8 billion and earnings of 55 
cents per share, according to Thomson Reuters.
</quote>


http://www.crn.com/news/applications-os/228000316/microsoft-racks-up-another-jaw-dropping-quarter.htm

On 2010-10-31, nessuno <nessuno7491@gmail.com> claimed:
><Quote>
> "I believe that Microsoft as we know it may not be around in another
> decade--maybe not even in five years," Paul McDougall writes for
> InformationWeek.

> http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/microsoft_looking_like_an_end-stage_company/
>
> Original article is in Information Week but is not accessible at this
> moment.

Probably being DDOSed by the trolls and MICROS~1 Borg machine.

-- 
Hell, if you understood everything I said, you'd be me!
Aspire One, Peppermint Ice
Friends don't let friends use Windows

On Oct 31, 10:10=A0am, Sinister Midget III <fardblos...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 2010-10-31, nessuno <nessuno7...@gmail.com> claimed:
>
> ><Quote>
> > "I believe that Microsoft as we know it may not be around in another
> > decade--maybe not even in five years," Paul McDougall writes for
> > InformationWeek.
> >http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/microsoft_looki...
>
> > Original article is in Information Week but is not accessible at this
> > moment.
>
> Probably being DDOSed by the trolls and MICROS~1 Borg machine.

Yep.  The trolls are really thrashing about,  the news has been so bad
lately.  It would kind of make you feel sorry for them, if they
weren't such a nasty lot.

>
>"nessuno" <nessuno7491@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:7202f838-5a62-4964-8d72-be6200d38d7a@r29g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Original article is in Information Week but is not accessible at this
>> > moment.
>>
>> Probably being DDOSed by the trolls and MICROS~1 Borg machine.
>

>Yep.  The trolls are really thrashing about,
> the news has been so bad lately.

Nice "Schestowitz" tactic - throw the "troll" word around followed by some 
nonsense about news being bad latetly. Don't let things like facts or 
reality get in the way of your FUD.

Meanwhile out in the real world Microsoft announced record profits on top of 
record earnings. So much for Linux taking away desktop share or OpenOffice 
making a dent in MS-Office sales.

Windows7 had it's one year anniversary and sold 240 million copies in 12 
months. An sales record.

Meanwhile at the same time articles like this come out
  "Linux Today - Is the Linux desktop dream dead?"
  "Linux on the Desktop? Dead? Alive? Or Maybe Simply Irrelevant"


But feel free to keep spinning reality to suit your agenda. It never stopped 
Schestowitz so why should it bother you.

On Oct 31, 10:10=A0am, Sinister Midget III <fardblos...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 2010-10-31, nessuno <nessuno7...@gmail.com> claimed:
>
> ><Quote>
> > "I believe that Microsoft as we know it may not be around in another
> > decade--maybe not even in five years," Paul McDougall writes for
> > InformationWeek.
> >http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/microsoft_looki...
>
> > Original article is in Information Week but is not accessible at this
> > moment.
>
> Probably being DDOSed by the trolls and MICROS~1 Borg machine.

The link is working now:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/trends/showArticle.jhtml?art=
icleID=3D227600138

Ezekiel wrote:

> Windows7 had it's one year anniversary and sold 240 million copies in 12 
> months. An sales record.

Actually, I don't think that is true.
Granted. MS made a better-than-expected quarterly return, but the reports 
I've seen are very carefully worded, and make two statements:-

a) Microsoft claim to have sold 240,000,000 licences for Windows 7.
   Note that those are MS figures - no doubt a proportion of those 
   are "in stock".

b) It is 12 months since Windows 7 was released.

You will recall that Windows 7 was actually available for pre-order in July 
2009, and that we were being told of record sales PRIOR to release.
Also (and more significantly) from July 2009 virtually all Vista machines 
sold came with a "free upgrade to Windows 7 when it's released" option.

In other words, the 240M figure is rather high if we are talking about sales 
to the end users, and also the period is WELL over a year.  Hence, VERY much 
less than "240 Million a year"

Also, I note that PC sales for the most recent quarter were said to be 90 
Million - an annual rate of 360 Million.  That's a heck of a lot of PC sales 
NOT resulting in a Windows 7 sale.  Presumably a lot of the difference is 
corporates "buying bare" and using corporate XP licences.
Nevertheless, the "usual sources" show that Windows use went DOWN by 1.7% 
over the past year.

All that said, you will remember that just a year ago I was saying that 
(imo) MS needed with Windows 7 to have broken 10% by December 2009, and then 
1.5% per month thereafter.  In the event, it seemed to manage about 6% by 
end 2009, and is now running at about 1.1% a month.
No doubt a big chunk of the shortfall is due to the fact that corporates 
aren't buying into it yet, but at this rate Windows 7 will have less than 
50% by the time Windows 8 is out in 2 years time, - and we can start these 
discussions all over again :-)

"nessuno"  wrote in message 
news:56281e04-b813-4903-bd08-a4d22f9e0ae2@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

<Quote>
"I believe that Microsoft as we know it may not be around in another
decade--maybe not even in five years," Paul McDougall writes for
InformationWeek.

1
"Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 will hit stores in November, but most
analysts believe the offering, though slick in many respects, is too
little, too late to meaningful bolster the company's meager 5% share
of the mobile OS market,"

It will not be 5% six months from now.  The Windows Phone 7 will be the 
bomb.  It will even run Flash so you can use it on the internet. 

"nessuno" <nessuno7491@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:56281e04-b813-4903-bd08-a4d22f9e0ae2@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> <Quote>

>
> "Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 will hit stores in November, but most
> analysts believe the offering, though slick in many respects, is too
> little, too late to meaningful bolster the company's meager 5% share
> of the mobile OS market," McDougall writes. "Where does all this leave
> Microsoft? Out in the cold within just the next few years unless big
> changes are made�and those changes need to start at the top."
> </Quote>
>
A lot of crepe being hung by the anti-MS bunch these days in regard to MS in 
the phone market.  Or is it celebratory bunting?  I think more the latter.

What seems missing overall, though, is what it means to have a "meager 5% 
share" of the market.  Just how big is the market really?  I am not sure 
that there even is a market unless you are a phone manufacturer.  Does 
anyone ever pay anyone for the OS used?  Even if they are eventually ruled 
out in the cold in this venture, it is rather unlikely that it will put them 
into some inferior financial position vis-�-vis anyone.  And as a cautionary 
tale about what can go wrong if you do nothing but carp about how stodgy 
Microsoft cannot hope to cope, look as how Sony's private monopoly on games 
was ruined by the Xbox, now a colossus nearing $10B in annual sales and $2B 
in pure profits.  If the 195 million smart phones said to be made annually 
paid $50 each for its OS, that market would only begin to match the Xbox on 
its own.  And I do not believe that Google is getting $50 a pop for Android. 
AFAICT they are getting nothing at all and 5% of a zero market is pretty 
much indistinguishable from 100% of that same market. 

"nessuno" <nessuno7491@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:08046ccd-160d-4504-a9f7-b79c7607004d@r29g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 31, 10:10 am, Sinister Midget III <fardblos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 2010-10-31, nessuno <nessuno7...@gmail.com> claimed:
>>
>> ><Quote>
>> > "I believe that Microsoft as we know it may not be around in another
>> > decade--maybe not even in five years," Paul McDougall writes for
>> > InformationWeek.
>> >http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/microsoft_looki...
>>
>> > Original article is in Information Week but is not accessible at this
>> > moment.
>>
>> Probably being DDOSed by the trolls and MICROS~1 Borg machine.
>
> The link is working now:
>
> http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/trends/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=227600138
>

This MacDougal sez:

"Where does all this leave Microsoft? Out in the cold within just the next 
few years unless big changes are made-and those changes need to start at the 
top. The best thing Ballmer can do to preserve his legacy and ensure he's 
not Microsoft's last CEO is to start assembling a new management team that 
can build a foundation for real change--and rid the company of its 
PC-centric focus. "


What seems to be left out is just what prestigious B-school has hired 
MacDougal as its new Dean of Management Strategies.  I think he may just be 
a tin horn trying to stir up some "Amen!" commentary from the FLOSSers who 
lust for MS to catch its comeuppance. 

amicus_curious wrote:

> What seems missing overall, though, is what it means to have a "meager 5% 
> share" of the market.  Just how big is the market really?  I am not sure 
> that there even is a market unless you are a phone manufacturer.  Does 
> anyone ever pay anyone for the OS used?

I believe so.
I thought that a company called Microsoft charged for its phone OS.
Is that not the case?

Verily I say unto thee, that bbgruff spake thusly:

> You will recall that Windows 7 was actually available for pre-order in
> July 2009, and that we were being told of record sales PRIOR to
> release.

That's because few of those "sales" are to actual users, they're to
OEMs, and Microsoft had already established advance orders from the
"channel".

So nearly every Windows license Microsoft sells is to the channel, and
PC hardware in the channel is sitting gathering dust in warehouses due
to a severely depressed market (doubly so for PCs: luxury items during
a depression). IOW Microsoft has just offloaded the burden of liability
for their unwanted products onto retailers. Again.

This is why PC retailers are losing money hand over fist, and why
companies like Dell became susceptible to bribery to the tune of 76% of
their operating capital. They were caught in an "incentives" trap, to
commit to large volumes of licenses, but couldn't shift the boxes those
licenses were attached to, so ironically actually /lost/ money as a
result of that commitment, instead of making savings.

Meanwhile, Microsoft makes money no matter what. Their volume discount
agreements ensure nearly every PC is pre-installed with Windows, and
regardless of whether or not that PC ever sells - Microsoft have already
been paid by the OEM/VAR/ISV.

This may be an indefinitely sustainable business model for Microsoft,
but it clearly isn't so for retailers (look at what happened to Dixons,
for example). Even Dell would've been bankrupted had it not been for
Intel's bribes. Microsoft knows this too, which is why they're
frantically trying to break out of desktop dependency, into areas that
still generate consumer interest (low-cost devices) whilst attempting to
supplement the low revenue stream with advertising services.

But Microsoft is failing miserably to secure alternatives to their
primary revenue streams, and time (and retailers' patience) is running
out.  More and more companies are turning to Linux, and the only thing
Microsoft can do to stop this trend is litigate, or instil fear with the
threat of litigation (and thus unjustifiably extort "royalties" off the
competition).

The Windows monopoly is only sustainable as long as retailers actually
manage to sell PC's pre-installed with Windows, and right now they can't
at a sustainable level. This has finally given competing technologies
the chance to establish themselves, so if and when the recession ever
passes it'll be too late: the technology landscape will have changed
irreversibly. Microsoft has lost its vice-like grip on the market, and
is now indeed just an end-stage company, flailing around, clutching at
straws, and viciously lashing out like a cornered rat.

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 17 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

"bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:8j7d51F467U1@mid.individual.net...
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> What seems missing overall, though, is what it means to have a "meager 5%
>> share" of the market.  Just how big is the market really?  I am not sure
>> that there even is a market unless you are a phone manufacturer.  Does
>> anyone ever pay anyone for the OS used?
>
> I believe so.
> I thought that a company called Microsoft charged for its phone OS.
> Is that not the case?
>
It is wonderful to have faith and believe, but there seem to be no facts 
here.  Postulate that Google provides Android at no charge to its users. 
Apple doesn't supply its software to anyone other than itself.  What's left 
to make a market?  Apple certainly protects its features and uses its 
proprietary interest to differentiate itself from the others.  Everyone is 
expecting Microsoft to fail, so expect that they will and see where that 
leads.  Who gets an advantage? 

"Homer" <usenet@slated.org> wrote in message 
news:3he2q7-due.ln1@sky.matrix...
> Verily I say unto thee, that bbgruff spake thusly:
>
>> You will recall that Windows 7 was actually available for pre-order in
>> July 2009, and that we were being told of record sales PRIOR to
>> release.
>
> That's because few of those "sales" are to actual users, they're to
> OEMs, and Microsoft had already established advance orders from the
> "channel".
>
> So nearly every Windows license Microsoft sells is to the channel, and
> PC hardware in the channel is sitting gathering dust in warehouses due
> to a severely depressed market (doubly so for PCs: luxury items during
> a depression). IOW Microsoft has just offloaded the burden of liability
> for their unwanted products onto retailers. Again.
>
> This is why PC retailers are losing money hand over fist, and why
> companies like Dell became susceptible to bribery to the tune of 76% of
> their operating capital. They were caught in an "incentives" trap, to
> commit to large volumes of licenses, but couldn't shift the boxes those
> licenses were attached to, so ironically actually /lost/ money as a
> result of that commitment, instead of making savings.
>
> Meanwhile, Microsoft makes money no matter what. Their volume discount
> agreements ensure nearly every PC is pre-installed with Windows, and
> regardless of whether or not that PC ever sells - Microsoft have already
> been paid by the OEM/VAR/ISV.
>
> This may be an indefinitely sustainable business model for Microsoft,
> but it clearly isn't so for retailers (look at what happened to Dixons,
> for example). Even Dell would've been bankrupted had it not been for
> Intel's bribes. Microsoft knows this too, which is why they're
> frantically trying to break out of desktop dependency, into areas that
> still generate consumer interest (low-cost devices) whilst attempting to
> supplement the low revenue stream with advertising services.
>
> But Microsoft is failing miserably to secure alternatives to their
> primary revenue streams, and time (and retailers' patience) is running
> out.  More and more companies are turning to Linux, and the only thing
> Microsoft can do to stop this trend is litigate, or instil fear with the
> threat of litigation (and thus unjustifiably extort "royalties" off the
> competition).
>
> The Windows monopoly is only sustainable as long as retailers actually
> manage to sell PC's pre-installed with Windows, and right now they can't
> at a sustainable level. This has finally given competing technologies
> the chance to establish themselves, so if and when the recession ever
> passes it'll be too late: the technology landscape will have changed
> irreversibly. Microsoft has lost its vice-like grip on the market, and
> is now indeed just an end-stage company, flailing around, clutching at
> straws, and viciously lashing out like a cornered rat.
>
Keep on hoping for a Microsoft disaster, Homer, it is your ONLY hope!  lol!

You clowns have been making these sage pronouncements about MS doom for 
years now.  You made them about XP, you made them about Vista, and you're 
making them about Win7.  And they never seem to come true.  You are only 
fooling yourself and you can only do that because it is clearly so easy to 
do!

BTW, the recession was over 9 moths ago and the economy has had 15 
continuous months of growth.  Start using the English language more 
accurately and maybe you will eventually start to think more clearly. 

bbgruff wrote:

> rat wrote:
>>
>> What seems missing overall, though, is what it means to have a "meager 5% 
>> share" of the market.  Just how big is the market really?  I am not sure 
>> that there even is a market unless you are a phone manufacturer.  Does 
>> anyone ever pay anyone for the OS used?
>
>I believe so.
>I thought that a company called Microsoft charged for its phone OS.
>Is that not the case?

Not much, I'm sure.

Shows the true value of an OS, when the market is healthy and
competitive.

The trolls might start whining about "people just wanting to get paid
for their work".  And people will get paid the market rate.  If that
wage is not as much as they could make doing something else, they will
do something else, and the market will reach an equilibrium.  This is
how healthy markets work.

The (fair) path to high wages is innovation, as demonstrated by
companies like Google and Apple.

"bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:8j6dhqF87aU1@mid.individual.net...
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> Windows7 had it's one year anniversary and sold 240 million copies in 12
>> months. An sales record.
>
> Actually, I don't think that is true.

Seeing that the other two points were ommitted I'll assume that you 
generally agree on those.


> Granted. MS made a better-than-expected quarterly return, but the reports
> I've seen are very carefully worded, and make two statements:-

After all bills, salaries and expenses were paid they ended up with a 
quarterly *profit* of just $5.4 billion dollars. Not too bad.


> a) Microsoft claim to have sold 240,000,000 licences for Windows 7.
>   Note that those are MS figures - no doubt a proportion of those
>   are "in stock".

Well of course mainly because that's just how supply economics works. It's 
no different from when Campbell's Soup reports how many cans of soup they 
sold they only report the sales at their end. A grocer or distributor will 
almost certainly still have some of those soup cans sitting on the shelf.

It would be ridiculous to expect MS or Campbell's Soup to track every single 
item they sold through each of the thousands of different distributors and 
only count the sale once it gets into the hands of the end-user. Should 
Campbell's Soup only count soup-sales once the the shopper eats the soup?

Campbell's doesn't sell to consumers - they sell to distributors and grocery 
chains and those are the sales that count. Microsoft (generally) does not 
sell to end-users. They sell to companies and OEMs and when they sell to 
them the sale is complete.



> b) It is 12 months since Windows 7 was released.
>
> You will recall that Windows 7 was actually available for pre-order in 
> July
> 2009, and that we were being told of record sales PRIOR to release.
> Also (and more significantly) from July 2009 virtually all Vista machines
> sold came with a "free upgrade to Windows 7 when it's released" option.
>
> In other words, the 240M figure is rather high if we are talking about 
> sales
> to the end users, and also the period is WELL over a year.  Hence, VERY 
> much
> less than "240 Million a year"


The "pre-order" argument is rather weak in my opinion. The people who are 
willing to pre-order Win7 from Amazon or Newegg are big time fans who want 
to be the first to get it. That's why they are pre-ordering so that they can 
get the OS right away.

If pre-orders didn't exist then these same people would be the ones going 
down to the mall that morning and buying the product on the release date. 
The pre-order crowd is a group that wants the product as early as they can 
get it.

I don't see pre-orders skewing anything. These are the people who want the 
product badly enough to pay in advance and wait for it. If they didn't go 
the pre-order route they would be buying it on the release date so in the 
end it has a insignificant affect on sales figures.

"Homer" <usenet@slated.org> wrote in message 
news:3he2q7-due.ln1@sky.matrix...
> Verily I say unto thee, that bbgruff spake thusly:
>
>> You will recall that Windows 7 was actually available for pre-order in
>> July 2009, and that we were being told of record sales PRIOR to
>> release.
>
> That's because few of those "sales" are to actual users, they're to
> OEMs, and Microsoft had already established advance orders from the
> "channel".
>
> So nearly every Windows license Microsoft sells is to the channel, and
> PC hardware in the channel is sitting gathering dust in warehouses due
> to a severely depressed market (doubly so for PCs: luxury items during
> a depression). IOW Microsoft has just offloaded the burden of liability
> for their unwanted products onto retailers. Again.


Cute little theory - complete lack of evidence noted.

on 10/31/2010, RickyBobby supposed :
>
> "nessuno"  wrote in message 
> news:56281e04-b813-4903-bd08-a4d22f9e0ae2@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
<snip>

>
> It will not be 5% six months from now.  The Windows Phone 7 will be the bomb. 
>  It will even run Flash so you can use it on the internet.

WP7 most definately does NOT run flash.  Sorry.

nor does it multi-task.
nor does it support copy and paste (supposedly to be fixed in a future 
update).

-- 
Tom Shelton

amicus_curious expressed precisely :
>
> "nessuno" <nessuno7491@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:56281e04-b813-4903-bd08-a4d22f9e0ae2@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> <Quote>
>
>>
>> "Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 will hit stores in November, but most
>> analysts believe the offering, though slick in many respects, is too
>> little, too late to meaningful bolster the company's meager 5% share
>> of the mobile OS market," McDougall writes. "Where does all this leave
>> Microsoft? Out in the cold within just the next few years unless big
>> changes are made—and those changes need to start at the top."
>> </Quote>
>>
> A lot of crepe being hung by the anti-MS bunch these days in regard to MS in 
> the phone market.  Or is it celebratory bunting?  I think more the latter.
>
> What seems missing overall, though, is what it means to have a "meager 5% 
> share" of the market. 

I just read this morning that MS share in the phone market was 3% not 
5%.

-- 
Tom Shelton

Ezekiel wrote:

> 
> "bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:8j6dhqF87aU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> Windows7 had it's one year anniversary and sold 240 million copies in 12
>>> months. An sales record.
>>
>> Actually, I don't think that is true.
> 
> Seeing that the other two points were ommitted I'll assume that you 
> generally agree on those.
> 
> 
>> Granted. MS made a better-than-expected quarterly return, but the reports
>> I've seen are very carefully worded, and make two statements:-
> 
> After all bills, salaries and expenses were paid they ended up with a 
> quarterly *profit* of just $5.4 billion dollars. Not too bad.
> 
> 
>> a) Microsoft claim to have sold 240,000,000 licences for Windows 7.
>>   Note that those are MS figures - no doubt a proportion of those
>>   are "in stock".
> 
> Well of course mainly because that's just how supply economics works. It's 
> no different from when Campbell's Soup reports how many cans of soup they 
> sold they only report the sales at their end. A grocer or distributor will 
> almost certainly still have some of those soup cans sitting on the shelf.
> 
> It would be ridiculous to expect MS or Campbell's Soup to track every 
single 
> item they sold through each of the thousands of different distributors and 
> only count the sale once it gets into the hands of the end-user. Should 
> Campbell's Soup only count soup-sales once the the shopper eats the soup?
> 
> Campbell's doesn't sell to consumers - they sell to distributors and 
grocery 
> chains and those are the sales that count. Microsoft (generally) does not 
> sell to end-users. They sell to companies and OEMs and when they sell to 
> them the sale is complete.
> 
> 
> 
>> b) It is 12 months since Windows 7 was released.
>>
>> You will recall that Windows 7 was actually available for pre-order in 
>> July
>> 2009, and that we were being told of record sales PRIOR to release.
>> Also (and more significantly) from July 2009 virtually all Vista machines
>> sold came with a "free upgrade to Windows 7 when it's released" option.
>>
>> In other words, the 240M figure is rather high if we are talking about 
>> sales
>> to the end users, and also the period is WELL over a year.  Hence, VERY 
>> much
>> less than "240 Million a year"
> 
> 
> The "pre-order" argument is rather weak in my opinion. The people who are 
> willing to pre-order Win7 from Amazon or Newegg are big time fans who want 
> to be the first to get it. That's why they are pre-ordering so that they 
can 
> get the OS right away.
> 
> If pre-orders didn't exist then these same people would be the ones going 
> down to the mall that morning and buying the product on the release date. 
> The pre-order crowd is a group that wants the product as early as they can 
> get it.
> 
> I don't see pre-orders skewing anything. These are the people who want the 
> product badly enough to pay in advance and wait for it. If they didn't go 
> the pre-order route they would be buying it on the release date so in the 
> end it has a insignificant affect on sales figures.

I think that perhaps you are rather missing my point.
Those pre-orders, and much more significantly the licences which were in 
effect "sold" (free upgrades for Vista buyers) were in the period 
July/August/September, but are counted in the "one year since it launched" 
figure of 240M.
Thus, the 240M figure is sales over a period nearer to 15 months than 12 
months.

In addition, that quarter (ending a year ago) was a particularly slack/bad 
one for MS, I suspect - people holding off buying things in general, and PCs 
in particular because Windows 7 was about to be released.
IIRC MS was actually obliged to move these sales into the *following* 
quarter because of this?
The most recent quarters figures are being compared with that much-depressed 
quarter.
I grant, the figures are good from an MS perspective, but nowhere near as 
good as is being claimed by the comparison.

"bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:8j84ahFk00U1@mid.individual.net...
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>
>> "bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:8j6dhqF87aU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Windows7 had it's one year anniversary and sold 240 million copies in 
>>>> 12
>>>> months. An sales record.
>>>
>>> Actually, I don't think that is true.
>>
>> Seeing that the other two points were ommitted I'll assume that you
>> generally agree on those.
>>
>>
>>> Granted. MS made a better-than-expected quarterly return, but the 
>>> reports
>>> I've seen are very carefully worded, and make two statements:-
>>
>> After all bills, salaries and expenses were paid they ended up with a
>> quarterly *profit* of just $5.4 billion dollars. Not too bad.
>>
>>
>>> a) Microsoft claim to have sold 240,000,000 licences for Windows 7.
>>>   Note that those are MS figures - no doubt a proportion of those
>>>   are "in stock".
>>
>> Well of course mainly because that's just how supply economics works. 
>> It's
>> no different from when Campbell's Soup reports how many cans of soup they
>> sold they only report the sales at their end. A grocer or distributor 
>> will
>> almost certainly still have some of those soup cans sitting on the shelf.
>>
>> It would be ridiculous to expect MS or Campbell's Soup to track every
> single
>> item they sold through each of the thousands of different distributors 
>> and
>> only count the sale once it gets into the hands of the end-user. Should
>> Campbell's Soup only count soup-sales once the the shopper eats the soup?
>>
>> Campbell's doesn't sell to consumers - they sell to distributors and
> grocery
>> chains and those are the sales that count. Microsoft (generally) does not
>> sell to end-users. They sell to companies and OEMs and when they sell to
>> them the sale is complete.
>>
>>
>>
>>> b) It is 12 months since Windows 7 was released.
>>>
>>> You will recall that Windows 7 was actually available for pre-order in
>>> July
>>> 2009, and that we were being told of record sales PRIOR to release.
>>> Also (and more significantly) from July 2009 virtually all Vista 
>>> machines
>>> sold came with a "free upgrade to Windows 7 when it's released" option.
>>>
>>> In other words, the 240M figure is rather high if we are talking about
>>> sales
>>> to the end users, and also the period is WELL over a year.  Hence, VERY
>>> much
>>> less than "240 Million a year"
>>
>>
>> The "pre-order" argument is rather weak in my opinion. The people who are
>> willing to pre-order Win7 from Amazon or Newegg are big time fans who 
>> want
>> to be the first to get it. That's why they are pre-ordering so that they
> can
>> get the OS right away.
>>
>> If pre-orders didn't exist then these same people would be the ones going
>> down to the mall that morning and buying the product on the release date.
>> The pre-order crowd is a group that wants the product as early as they 
>> can
>> get it.
>>
>> I don't see pre-orders skewing anything. These are the people who want 
>> the
>> product badly enough to pay in advance and wait for it. If they didn't go
>> the pre-order route they would be buying it on the release date so in the
>> end it has a insignificant affect on sales figures.
>
> I think that perhaps you are rather missing my point.
> Those pre-orders, and much more significantly the licences which were in
> effect "sold" (free upgrades for Vista buyers) were in the period
> July/August/September, but are counted in the "one year since it launched"
> figure of 240M.
> Thus, the 240M figure is sales over a period nearer to 15 months than 12
> months.

You're missing my point - yes those pre-orders did happen during 
July/Aug/Sept and the sales were counted toward the 12 month period. But 
anyone who is gung-ho enough about Windows to go ahead and pre-order the OS 
months in advance just so they can get it first is the same type of person 
who would rush out on the release date and buy it then if pre-ordering 
wasn't available.

So assume there were 1 million pre-orders. Your concern is that these 
pre-orders happened as early as July but they count towards the 12-month 
sales. My point is that the same type of person who would pre-order in July 
is the same person who would rush out on the release date and buy the OS if 
pre-order wasn't an option. So whether they bought it in July or on opening 
day doesn't matter... these people were going to buy Windows7 no matter 
what. Pre-ordering simply made it more convenient for them to get it but it 
doesn't have a material affect on the number of copies sold.


> In addition, that quarter (ending a year ago) was a particularly slack/bad
> one for MS, I suspect - people holding off buying things in general, and 
> PCs
> in particular because Windows 7 was about to be released.
> IIRC MS was actually obliged to move these sales into the *following*
> quarter because of this?

It has nothing to do with this. It's something called GAAP and accounting 
regulations. Microsoft can sell a product and take payment anytime they 
want. But accounting regulations prohibit them from recording the sale until 
they've shipped/delivered the product to whomever bought it. Since Win7 
wasn't released until October - MSFT is prohibited from recording a single 
dollar of sales prior to October when the product was delivered.

The same holds true for every US company. Boeing can take an order and 
receive payment for a 777 and GE can take an order + payment for a dozen 
turbine engines. But until the actual item is delivered - neither company 
can record it as a "sale" on their books.


> The most recent quarters figures are being compared with that 
> much-depressed
> quarter.
> I grant, the figures are good from an MS perspective, but nowhere near as
> good as is being claimed by the comparison.

ALL financial figures for ALL companies are being compared to the same 
quarter of last year. Whether it's Microsoft, Apple, Google, Campbells Soup 
or Coca-Cola - this years figures are compared to last years figures. That's 
simply how it works for EVERYBODY.

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:ooftc6pilj0v083rp206lf16m96oe6ttg0@4ax.com...


"chrisv" is a liar. "chrisv" is a worthless piece of fscking shit.

"bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:8j84ahFk00U1@mid.individual.net...

> I grant, the figures are good from an MS perspective, but nowhere near as
> good as is being claimed by the comparison.
>
After all is said and done, though, the results for Windows 7 are vastly 
superior to any results for anyone else and they foreshadow a bright 
financial future for Microsoft.

Where would you set them as being "nowhere near as good"?  50% of the claim? 
75% of the claim?  90%?  The real proof is in the audited financials and 
those are very good indeed.
 

"Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton@comcast.invalid> wrote in message 
news:iamlqi$6vm$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> amicus_curious expressed precisely :
>>
>> "nessuno" <nessuno7491@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:56281e04-b813-4903-bd08-a4d22f9e0ae2@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>> <Quote>
>>
>>>
>>> "Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 will hit stores in November, but most
>>> analysts believe the offering, though slick in many respects, is too
>>> little, too late to meaningful bolster the company's meager 5% share
>>> of the mobile OS market," McDougall writes. "Where does all this leave
>>> Microsoft? Out in the cold within just the next few years unless big
>>> changes are made—and those changes need to start at the top."
>>> </Quote>
>>>
>> A lot of crepe being hung by the anti-MS bunch these days in regard to MS 
>> in the phone market.  Or is it celebratory bunting?  I think more the 
>> latter.
>>
>> What seems missing overall, though, is what it means to have a "meager 5% 
>> share" of the market.
>
> I just read this morning that MS share in the phone market was 3% not 5%.
>
Well, you better hurry up and tell McDougall, Shelton.  And it is so 
wonderful that you can now read. 

"One Shot-One Kill" <freddy@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:iamsc0$7uq$3@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:ooftc6pilj0v083rp206lf16m96oe6ttg0@4ax.com...
>
>
> "chrisv" is a liar. "chrisv" is a worthless piece of fscking shit.
>
You know that, he knows that, we all know that, so why keep repeating it? 

On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:17:19 -0600, Tom Shelton wrote:

> on 10/31/2010, RickyBobby supposed :
>>
>> "nessuno"  wrote in message
>> news:56281e04-b813-4903-bd08-
a4d22f9e0ae2@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>
> <snip>
> 
> 
>> It will not be 5% six months from now.  The Windows Phone 7 will be the
>> bomb.
>>  It will even run Flash so you can use it on the internet.
> 
> WP7 most definately does NOT run flash.  Sorry.
> 
> nor does it multi-task.
> nor does it support copy and paste (supposedly to be fixed in a future
> update).

I don't know if it was Freudian slip or not, but I see "RickyBobby" used 
the word "bomb" to describe Windows Phone 7. I have to agree with him. 

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

"RonB" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:iamv98$r2r$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:17:19 -0600, Tom Shelton wrote:
>
>> on 10/31/2010, RickyBobby supposed :
>>>
>>> "nessuno"  wrote in message
>>> news:56281e04-b813-4903-bd08-
> a4d22f9e0ae2@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> It will not be 5% six months from now.  The Windows Phone 7 will be the
>>> bomb.
>>>  It will even run Flash so you can use it on the internet.
>>
>> WP7 most definately does NOT run flash.  Sorry.
>>
>> nor does it multi-task.
>> nor does it support copy and paste (supposedly to be fixed in a future
>> update).
>
> I don't know if it was Freudian slip or not, but I see "RickyBobby" used
> the word "bomb" to describe Windows Phone 7. I have to agree with him.

I thought that OpenMoko owns the patent on phones that "bomb."

On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:10:13 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

> "RonB" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:iamv98$r2r$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:17:19 -0600, Tom Shelton wrote:
>>
>>> on 10/31/2010, RickyBobby supposed :
>>>>
>>>> "nessuno"  wrote in message
>>>> news:56281e04-b813-4903-bd08-
>> a4d22f9e0ae2@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>> It will not be 5% six months from now.  The Windows Phone 7 will be
>>>> the bomb.
>>>>  It will even run Flash so you can use it on the internet.
>>>
>>> WP7 most definately does NOT run flash.  Sorry.
>>>
>>> nor does it multi-task.
>>> nor does it support copy and paste (supposedly to be fixed in a future
>>> update).
>>
>> I don't know if it was Freudian slip or not, but I see "RickyBobby"
>> used the word "bomb" to describe Windows Phone 7. I have to agree with
>> him.
> 
> I thought that OpenMoko owns the patent on phones that "bomb."

But thanks to the "fractured" Linux market, Linux somehow came out on top 
with Android. Ain't that great!

Windows Phone 7 on the other hand... "Kin" you see where this going?

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

>trolling fsckwit Ezekiel wrote:
>> 
>> I thought that OpenMoko owns the patent on phones that "bomb."

Really?  

On which product, OpenMoko or Kin, was the most money invested, and
thus lost?

Idiot.

-- 
"You try to make it sound like creating the worlds largest software
company is no big deal."  -  trolling fsckwit Ezekiel, lying
shamelessly

RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:10:13 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "RonB" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:iamv98$r2r$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:17:19 -0600, Tom Shelton wrote:
>>>
>>>> on 10/31/2010, RickyBobby supposed :
>>>>>
>>>>> "nessuno"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:56281e04-b813-4903-bd08-
>>> a4d22f9e0ae2@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It will not be 5% six months from now.  The Windows Phone 7 will be
>>>>> the bomb.
>>>>>  It will even run Flash so you can use it on the internet.
>>>>
>>>> WP7 most definately does NOT run flash.  Sorry.
>>>>
>>>> nor does it multi-task.
>>>> nor does it support copy and paste (supposedly to be fixed in a future
>>>> update).
>>>
>>> I don't know if it was Freudian slip or not, but I see "RickyBobby"
>>> used the word "bomb" to describe Windows Phone 7. I have to agree with
>>> him.
>> 
>> I thought that OpenMoko owns the patent on phones that "bomb."
>
> But thanks to the "fractured" Linux market, Linux somehow came out on top 
> with Android. Ain't that great!
>
> Windows Phone 7 on the other hand... "Kin" you see where this going?


What are you talking about? No one cares about "Linux" in that
respect. You are aware that Android is a heavily rewritten and
restructured Linux aren't you? There are oodles of Android phones all
with different versions of the OS. Confusion is running rife. Many
Android users are far from happy.

"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:is2uc61a7lkcka7pitcdomg5ifkgpchpdi@4ax.com...

"chrisv" is a bald faced liar. "chrisv" is a stupid piece of shit.

Hadron stated in post ian4ci$q5m$2@news.eternal-september.org on 11/1/10
12:28 PM:

> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:10:13 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>> 
>>> "RonB" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:iamv98$r2r$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:17:19 -0600, Tom Shelton wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> on 10/31/2010, RickyBobby supposed :
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> "nessuno"  wrote in message
>>>>>> news:56281e04-b813-4903-bd08-
>>>> a4d22f9e0ae2@f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> 
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> It will not be 5% six months from now.  The Windows Phone 7 will be
>>>>>> the bomb.
>>>>>>  It will even run Flash so you can use it on the internet.
>>>>> 
>>>>> WP7 most definately does NOT run flash.  Sorry.
>>>>> 
>>>>> nor does it multi-task.
>>>>> nor does it support copy and paste (supposedly to be fixed in a future
>>>>> update).
>>>> 
>>>> I don't know if it was Freudian slip or not, but I see "RickyBobby"
>>>> used the word "bomb" to describe Windows Phone 7. I have to agree with
>>>> him.
>>> 
>>> I thought that OpenMoko owns the patent on phones that "bomb."
>> 
>> But thanks to the "fractured" Linux market, Linux somehow came out on top
>> with Android. Ain't that great!
>> 
>> Windows Phone 7 on the other hand... "Kin" you see where this going?
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? No one cares about "Linux" in that
> respect. You are aware that Android is a heavily rewritten and
> restructured Linux aren't you? There are oodles of Android phones all
> with different versions of the OS. Confusion is running rife. Many
> Android users are far from happy.

From the reports I have seen, iOS users are much happier with their products
than are users of Android.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

RonB pulled this Usenet face plant:

> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:10:13 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>> "RonB" <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:17:19 -0600, Tom Shelton wrote:
>>>
>>>> WP7 most definately does NOT run flash.  Sorry.
>>>> nor does it multi-task.
>>>> nor does it support copy and paste (supposedly to be fixed in a future
>>>> update).
>>>
>>> I don't know if it was Freudian slip or not, but I see "RickyBobby"
>>> used the word "bomb" to describe Windows Phone 7. I have to agree with
>>> him.
>> 
>> I thought that OpenMoko owns the patent on phones that "bomb."
>
> But thanks to the "fractured" Linux market, Linux somehow came out on top 
> with Android. Ain't that great!
>
> Windows Phone 7 on the other hand... "Kin" you see where this going?

LOL.

-- 
Well, it's hard for a mere man to believe that woman doesn't have equal rights.
		-- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Snit pulled this Usenet face plant:

> Hadron stated in post ian4ci$q5m$2@news.eternal-september.org on 11/1/10
>
> <who cares?>
>
>> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> writes:
>>> 
>>> But thanks to the "fractured" Linux market, Linux somehow came out on top
>>> with Android. Ain't that great!
>>> 
>>> Windows Phone 7 on the other hand... "Kin" you see where this going?
>> 
> From the reports I have seen, iOS users are much happier with their products
> than are users of Android.

They also paid a hell of a lot more.

-- 
Most places distinguish them merely by using the appropriate value.
Hooray for context...
		-- Larry Wall in <199708040319.UAA16213@wall.org>

Chris Ahlstrom stated in post ianat1$qsl$4@news.eternal-september.org on
11/1/10 2:19 PM:

> Snit pulled this Usenet face plant:
> 
>> Hadron stated in post ian4ci$q5m$2@news.eternal-september.org on 11/1/10
>> 
>> <who cares?>
>> 
>>> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> 
>>>> But thanks to the "fractured" Linux market, Linux somehow came out on top
>>>> with Android. Ain't that great!
>>>> 
>>>> Windows Phone 7 on the other hand... "Kin" you see where this going?
>>> 
>> From the reports I have seen, iOS users are much happier with their products
>> than are users of Android.
> 
> They also paid a hell of a lot more.

For what compared to what?  I got my iOS device for free (with a purchase of
a Mac)... and most comparisons of iPhones put them as being about the same
cost as comparable competitor phones.  So not sure who you think paid more
for what.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:19:22 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Snit pulled this Usenet face plant:
> 
>> Hadron stated in post ian4ci$q5m$2@news.eternal-september.org on
>> 11/1/10
>>
>> <who cares?>
>>
>>> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> 
>>>> But thanks to the "fractured" Linux market, Linux somehow came out on
>>>> top with Android. Ain't that great!
>>>> 
>>>> Windows Phone 7 on the other hand... "Kin" you see where this going?
>>> 
>> From the reports I have seen, iOS users are much happier with their
>> products than are users of Android.
> 
> They also paid a hell of a lot more.

We were talking about sales. Apple is losing here... time to move the goal 
posts.

Personally everyone I know who has bought an Android is very happy with 
their purchase. But there are Androids at all price points. One of T-
Mobile's Android phones is going to sell for less than $10 after rebates. 
Does any reasonable person expect a $10 phone to be as nice as a $250, 
$300 or $400 phone? Of course not, but that $10 phone user is still going 
to get the benefits of the Android platform.

That's the advantage of the "fractured" Android market. Many carriers, 
many models, many price points. 

Variety and choice... very good. 44% of the U.S. smartphone market good.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

Ezekiel wrote:

> 
> "bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:8j84ahFk00U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:8j6dhqF87aU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Windows7 had it's one year anniversary and sold 240 million copies in 
>>>>> 12
>>>>> months. An sales record.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I don't think that is true.
>>>
>>> Seeing that the other two points were ommitted I'll assume that you
>>> generally agree on those.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Granted. MS made a better-than-expected quarterly return, but the 
>>>> reports
>>>> I've seen are very carefully worded, and make two statements:-
>>>
>>> After all bills, salaries and expenses were paid they ended up with a
>>> quarterly *profit* of just $5.4 billion dollars. Not too bad.
>>>
>>>
>>>> a) Microsoft claim to have sold 240,000,000 licences for Windows 7.
>>>>   Note that those are MS figures - no doubt a proportion of those
>>>>   are "in stock".
>>>
>>> Well of course mainly because that's just how supply economics works. 
>>> It's
>>> no different from when Campbell's Soup reports how many cans of soup 
they
>>> sold they only report the sales at their end. A grocer or distributor 
>>> will
>>> almost certainly still have some of those soup cans sitting on the 
shelf.
>>>
>>> It would be ridiculous to expect MS or Campbell's Soup to track every
>> single
>>> item they sold through each of the thousands of different distributors 
>>> and
>>> only count the sale once it gets into the hands of the end-user. Should
>>> Campbell's Soup only count soup-sales once the the shopper eats the 
soup?
>>>
>>> Campbell's doesn't sell to consumers - they sell to distributors and
>> grocery
>>> chains and those are the sales that count. Microsoft (generally) does 
not
>>> sell to end-users. They sell to companies and OEMs and when they sell to
>>> them the sale is complete.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> b) It is 12 months since Windows 7 was released.
>>>>
>>>> You will recall that Windows 7 was actually available for pre-order in
>>>> July
>>>> 2009, and that we were being told of record sales PRIOR to release.
>>>> Also (and more significantly) from July 2009 virtually all Vista 
>>>> machines
>>>> sold came with a "free upgrade to Windows 7 when it's released" option.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, the 240M figure is rather high if we are talking about
>>>> sales
>>>> to the end users, and also the period is WELL over a year.  Hence, VERY
>>>> much
>>>> less than "240 Million a year"
>>>
>>>
>>> The "pre-order" argument is rather weak in my opinion. The people who 
are
>>> willing to pre-order Win7 from Amazon or Newegg are big time fans who 
>>> want
>>> to be the first to get it. That's why they are pre-ordering so that they
>> can
>>> get the OS right away.
>>>
>>> If pre-orders didn't exist then these same people would be the ones 
going
>>> down to the mall that morning and buying the product on the release 
date.
>>> The pre-order crowd is a group that wants the product as early as they 
>>> can
>>> get it.
>>>
>>> I don't see pre-orders skewing anything. These are the people who want 
>>> the
>>> product badly enough to pay in advance and wait for it. If they didn't 
go
>>> the pre-order route they would be buying it on the release date so in 
the
>>> end it has a insignificant affect on sales figures.
>>
>> I think that perhaps you are rather missing my point.
>> Those pre-orders, and much more significantly the licences which were in
>> effect "sold" (free upgrades for Vista buyers) were in the period
>> July/August/September, but are counted in the "one year since it 
launched"
>> figure of 240M.
>> Thus, the 240M figure is sales over a period nearer to 15 months than 12
>> months.
> 
> You're missing my point - yes those pre-orders did happen during 
> July/Aug/Sept and the sales were counted toward the 12 month period. But 
> anyone who is gung-ho enough about Windows to go ahead and pre-order the 
OS 
> months in advance just so they can get it first is the same type of person 
> who would rush out on the release date and buy it then if pre-ordering 
> wasn't available.
> 
> So assume there were 1 million pre-orders. Your concern is that these 
> pre-orders happened as early as July but they count towards the 12-month 
> sales. My point is that the same type of person who would pre-order in 
July 
> is the same person who would rush out on the release date and buy the OS 
if 
> pre-order wasn't an option. So whether they bought it in July or on 
opening 
> day doesn't matter... these people were going to buy Windows7 no matter 
> what. Pre-ordering simply made it more convenient for them to get it but 
it 
> doesn't have a material affect on the number of copies sold.

Agreed - it has absolutely zero effect on the total number sold.
The point I was making was that, prior to the official release of W7, many 
computers were manufactured which had a "upgrade to W7 for free when it's 
released" option.
Microsoft's main outlet for W7 licences to the consumer is as a bundled 
package with a new P.C.
A significant number of that 240 Million licences were distributed with 
P.C.s sold in July-October 2009, which is outside the "12 months since W7 
was released" window.
 
>> In addition, that quarter (ending a year ago) was a particularly 
slack/bad
>> one for MS, I suspect - people holding off buying things in general, and 
>> PCs
>> in particular because Windows 7 was about to be released.
>> IIRC MS was actually obliged to move these sales into the *following*
>> quarter because of this?
> 
> It has nothing to do with this. It's something called GAAP and accounting 
> regulations. Microsoft can sell a product and take payment anytime they 
> want. But accounting regulations prohibit them from recording the sale 
until 
> they've shipped/delivered the product to whomever bought it. Since Win7 
> wasn't released until October - MSFT is prohibited from recording a single 
> dollar of sales prior to October when the product was delivered.
> 
> The same holds true for every US company. Boeing can take an order and 
> receive payment for a 777 and GE can take an order + payment for a dozen 
> turbine engines. But until the actual item is delivered - neither company 
> can record it as a "sale" on their books.

Absolutely so, totally agree, and the system is quite right to do that......

>> The most recent quarters figures are being compared with that 
>> much-depressed
>> quarter.
>> I grant, the figures are good from an MS perspective, but nowhere near as
>> good as is being claimed by the comparison.
> 
> ALL financial figures for ALL companies are being compared to the same 
> quarter of last year. Whether it's Microsoft, Apple, Google, Campbells 
Soup 
> or Coca-Cola - this years figures are compared to last years figures. 
That's 
> simply how it works for EVERYBODY.

Granted.
I merely commented that the "comparison quarter" was a particularly 
depressed one, and for two reasons, a general slow-down in spending, and 
also a reluctance by the consumer to buy an old product when a new one was 
looming.
Also, and as you agree, for quite proper accounting reasons, some 
"production" (sales) was kept OUT of that quarter's figures and put into the 
next quarter.  Thus, the 240 Million is more like 15 months of sales than 12 
months.

I'm certainly not suggesting that anything improper took place - quite the 
contrary, in fact.  I'm merely pointing out that the latest MS quarterly 
return looks really good when compared with the quarter a year before, but 
IN PART because the quarter being compared was a particularly bad one.

RonB stated in post ianbas$jad$2@news.eternal-september.org on 11/1/10 2:26
PM:

> On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:19:22 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 
>> Snit pulled this Usenet face plant:
>> 
>>> Hadron stated in post ian4ci$q5m$2@news.eternal-september.org on
>>> 11/1/10
>>> 
>>> <who cares?>
>>> 
>>>> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>> But thanks to the "fractured" Linux market, Linux somehow came out on
>>>>> top with Android. Ain't that great!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Windows Phone 7 on the other hand... "Kin" you see where this going?
>>>> 
>>> From the reports I have seen, iOS users are much happier with their
>>> products than are users of Android.
>> 
>> They also paid a hell of a lot more.
> 
> We were talking about sales. Apple is losing here... time to move the goal
> posts.
>
> Personally everyone I know who has bought an Android is very happy with
> their purchase. But there are Androids at all price points. One of T-
> Mobile's Android phones is going to sell for less than $10 after rebates.
> Does any reasonable person expect a $10 phone to be as nice as a $250,
> $300 or $400 phone? Of course not, but that $10 phone user is still going
> to get the benefits of the Android platform.
> 
> That's the advantage of the "fractured" Android market. Many carriers,
> many models, many price points.
> 
> Variety and choice... very good. 44% of the U.S. smartphone market good.

How much market are they taking from iOS?  But I do agree it is good to have
competition for iOS.

-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

Hadron wrote:
> What are you talking about? No one cares about "Linux" in that
> respect. You are aware that Android is a heavily rewritten and
> restructured Linux aren't you?

Not true. The changes to Linux are minimal, and mostly related to device 
drivers and a /extraneous/ security module Google introduced.

> There are oodles of Android phones all with different versions of the OS. 
> Confusion is running rife.

The argument that there are many Android phones and that variety causes 
confusion, makes sense only if consumers use Android as one of the top 
selection criteria. 

In other words, if a consumer first chooses price range, then color/looks, 
then service provider, then with(out) keyboard, then size, and only then 
Android, the actual number of Android phones to choose from, would hardly 
cause any confusion.

I'm would even venture that most users buy a phone with little or no 
consideration for what OS the phone has, thus what confusion there may be it 
would not be restricted to Android phones.

Also, judging from the huge number of available smart and non smart phones, 
from the rapidly increasing number of sold Android phones, and from the fact 
that most people have one mobile phone (smart or not), I would consider that 
the current available offer is causing confusion to a small percentage of 
consumers, at most.

> Many Android users are far from happy.

The satisfaction numbers I have seen (a link to them was posted in COLA some 
time ago) for both iPhone's and Android's phone users are close, so the 
satisfaction or lack of it is not really that discriminative.

Regards.

Lusotec pulled this Usenet face plant:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Confusion is running rife.

Then educate yourself, troll.

> Also, judging from the huge number of available smart and non smart phones, 
> from the rapidly increasing number of sold Android phones, ...

Why can't "Hadron" see that?  He's bucking the tide here.

Why the hell did "Hadron" buy an Android phone?

Probably the same reason he "uses" Linux -- to seem more reasonable
as he praises it with faint damns (or vice versa :-).

> that most people have one mobile phone (smart or not), I would consider that 
> the current available offer is causing confusion to a small percentage of 
> consumers, at most.
>
>> Many Android users are far from happy.
>
> The satisfaction numbers I have seen (a link to them was posted in COLA some 
> time ago) for both iPhone's and Android's phone users are close, so the 
> satisfaction or lack of it is not really that discriminative.

Thanks, Lusotec.  You have far more patience than I.

-- 
Q:	Why did the germ cross the microscope?
A:	To get to the other slide.

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>Lusotec pulled this Usenet face plant:
>
>> Hadron quacked:
>>
>>> Confusion is running rife.

LOL  You lying sack of dirt, Larry.

*Sales* are "running rife", proving once- again how choice
best-satisfies the market.

>Then educate yourself, troll.

Thousands of people a *day* are choosing Android-based products.  It
seems they *like* all the choice!

>> Also, judging from the huge number of available smart and non smart phones, 
>> from the rapidly increasing number of sold Android phones, ...
>
>Why can't "Hadron" see that?  He's bucking the tide here.

Poor "Hadron".  He just *has* to attack Linux.

>Why the hell did "Hadron" buy an Android phone?
>
>Probably the same reason he "uses" Linux -- to seem more reasonable
>as he praises it with faint damns (or vice versa :-).

I'm sure you're right.

"bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:8j9190Fa9vU1@mid.individual.net...
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>

>>
>> So assume there were 1 million pre-orders. Your concern is that these
>> pre-orders happened as early as July but they count towards the 12-month
>> sales. My point is that the same type of person who would pre-order in
> July
>> is the same person who would rush out on the release date and buy the OS
> if
>> pre-order wasn't an option. So whether they bought it in July or on
> opening
>> day doesn't matter... these people were going to buy Windows7 no matter
>> what. Pre-ordering simply made it more convenient for them to get it but
> it
>> doesn't have a material affect on the number of copies sold.
>
> Agreed - it has absolutely zero effect on the total number sold.
> The point I was making was that, prior to the official release of W7, many
> computers were manufactured which had a "upgrade to W7 for free when it's
> released" option.
> Microsoft's main outlet for W7 licences to the consumer is as a bundled
> package with a new P.C.
> A significant number of that 240 Million licences were distributed with
> P.C.s sold in July-October 2009, which is outside the "12 months since W7
> was released" window.

I looked around some and it's hard to find any decent info on how many 
people took advantage of the Vista to Win7 upgrade offers.

From what I was able to find it appears that this was a program that the 
OEMs (not MS) offerred. But other than that there's no good figures on how 
many people went through with the program and installed the free upgrade. It 
could be 5% (or less) or it could be 40 or 50% - there's really no way to 
know for sure. The only thing I'm certain of is that it's more than 0.00% 
and less than 100.00%.



>> The same holds true for every US company. Boeing can take an order and
>> receive payment for a 777 and GE can take an order + payment for a dozen
>> turbine engines. But until the actual item is delivered - neither company
>> can record it as a "sale" on their books.
>
> Absolutely so, totally agree, and the system is quite right to do 
> that......

(snip)

> I'm certainly not suggesting that anything improper took place - quite the
> contrary, in fact.  I'm merely pointing out that the latest MS quarterly
> return looks really good when compared with the quarter a year before, but
> IN PART because the quarter being compared was a particularly bad one.

Ah - okay. I was expecting another round of people claiming how MS is 
"cooking the books" or "stuffing the channel" to inflate sales figures. It's 
happened before but thanks for clearing this up.

"Lusotec" <nomail@nomail.not> wrote in message 
news:iansiv$3je$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Hadron wrote:
>> What are you talking about? No one cares about "Linux" in that
>> respect. You are aware that Android is a heavily rewritten and
>> restructured Linux aren't you?
>
> Not true. The changes to Linux are minimal, and mostly related to device
> drivers and a /extraneous/ security module Google introduced.
>
That is a poor way to look at a product.  It is like saying that a Rolex is 
the same as a Timex because they are both mechanical.  Google has surrounded 
Android with a variety of product characteristics that make it as unique as 
Windows and they control its contents which makes it just as proprietary. 

chrisv wrote:

> Thousands of people a day are choosing Android-based products.  It
> seems they like all the choice!

To be more precise, over 240,000 a day (over 10,000 an hour!) for Android 
phones alone!

bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> chrisv wrote:
>
>> Thousands of people a day are choosing Android-based products.  It
>> seems they like all the choice!
>
> To be more precise, over 240,000 a day (over 10,000 an hour!) for Android 
> phones alone!

You dont really think they are "picking" Android do you? Most people
haven't got a clue. They  see a new phone for a good price with a
contract.

A few pick Android for it being Android. I did. But I am far from happy
with it. I have posted links as to why. The sooner 2.2 comes out the
better.

You idiots spanking your monkeys over something you know next to nothing
about borders in the insane.

Meanwhile Desktop Linux is going nowhere. Hell, Google and Android
Phones dont even support Linux properly!!!

Verily I say unto thee, that Lusotec spake thusly:
> Hadron wrote:
>> What are you talking about? No one cares about "Linux" in that
>> respect. You are aware that Android is a heavily rewritten and
>> restructured Linux aren't you?
>
> Not true. The changes to Linux are minimal, and mostly related to
> device drivers and a /extraneous/ security module Google introduced.
>
>> There are oodles of Android phones all with different versions of the
>> OS. 

This is about as relevant as saying there are "oodles" of GNU/Linux 
distros all running slightly different versions of the Linux kernel. 
Magically, this doesn't seem to have affected the availability of 
software for any of those distros.

>> Confusion is running rife.

In your mind, certainly.

>> Many Android users are far from happy.

Many?

How "many", exactly?

Is it as many as the proportion of people unhappy with the bug-riddled,
virus-infested, Microsoft slopware on their desktop?

> The satisfaction numbers I have seen (a link to them was posted in
> COLA some time ago) for both iPhone's and Android's phone users are
> close, so the satisfaction or lack of it is not really that
> discriminative.

Don't contradict Hardon the Android expert.

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 18 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

Hadron wrote:

> You dont really think they are "picking" Android do you?

How do you mean, hadron?
Do you mean "picking" in the same sense that people "pick" Windows on a 
desktop, or do you mean some other way?

bbgruff pulled this Usenet face plant:

> Hadron wrote:
>
>> You dont really think they are "picking" Android do you?

Nah.  They're only picking 'Droid.  :-D

> How do you mean, hadron?
> Do you mean "picking" in the same sense that people "pick" Windows on a 
> desktop, or do you mean some other way?

"Hadron" is picking the blackheads on his bottom.

-- 
Language is a virus from another planet.
		-- William Burroughs

Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:

> "Hadron" is picking the blackheads on his bottom.

It's hard to tell, I know, but that is actually his face.

-- 
K.                           | [ubuntu]
http://slated.org            | 
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   | 1. Ancient African word meaning
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 19 days  |    'I can't configure Debian'

Homer wrote:

> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>
>> "Hadron" is picking the blackheads on his bottom.
>
> It's hard to tell, I know, but that is actually his face.

As the Hadron troll talks out of it all the time, I'm a little surprised
that Chris didn't realize that! 

-- 
Shell - The hardest part of Linux, usually opened with Bash.
FreeBSD 8.1 64-bit; Kubuntu 10.04 64-bit
Kubuntu 10.10 64-bit; Scientificlinux 5.5 64-bit

amicus_curious wrote:
> Lusotec wrote:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>> What are you talking about? No one cares about "Linux" in that
>>> respect. You are aware that Android is a heavily rewritten and
>>> restructured Linux aren't you?
>>
>> Not true. The changes to Linux are minimal, and mostly related to device
>> drivers and a /extraneous/ security module Google introduced.
>>
> That is a poor way to look at a product.  It is like saying that a Rolex
> is the same as a Timex because they are both mechanical.  Google has
> surrounded Android with a variety of product characteristics that make it
> as unique as Windows and they control its contents which makes it just as
> proprietary.

All that has nothing to do with the fact that Android's Linux is very 
similar to other distributions' Linux.

Closed/proprietary are some Google applications and some of the hardware 
Android runs on. Android is very open.

Regards.

Hadron wrote:
> bbgruff writes:
>> chrisv wrote:
>>> Thousands of people a day are choosing Android-based products.  It
>>> seems they like all the choice!
>>
>> To be more precise, over 240,000 a day (over 10,000 an hour!) for Android
>> phones alone!
> 
> You dont really think they are "picking" Android do you? Most people
> haven't got a clue. They  see a new phone for a good price with a
> contract.

I do agree that choice of OS is low or non existent on most people's 
criteria to choosing a phone, but that statement is in clear contradiction 
to your statements about many Android phones causing confusion. You can't 
have it both ways. Either people choose Android and the many options may 
cause confusion or people don't choose Android and what ever confusion there 
is is not restricted to Android phones.

Regards.

"Lusotec" <nomail@nomail.not> wrote in message 
news:iaq8fc$93n$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> amicus_curious wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> What are you talking about? No one cares about "Linux" in that
>>>> respect. You are aware that Android is a heavily rewritten and
>>>> restructured Linux aren't you?
>>>
>>> Not true. The changes to Linux are minimal, and mostly related to device
>>> drivers and a /extraneous/ security module Google introduced.
>>>
>> That is a poor way to look at a product.  It is like saying that a Rolex
>> is the same as a Timex because they are both mechanical.  Google has
>> surrounded Android with a variety of product characteristics that make it
>> as unique as Windows and they control its contents which makes it just as
>> proprietary.
>
> All that has nothing to do with the fact that Android's Linux is very
> similar to other distributions' Linux.
>
> Closed/proprietary are some Google applications and some of the hardware
> Android runs on. Android is very open.


"Very open"  -  at least try some resemblence of reasonability.

Where in the Linux source tree can I find the Android kernel extensions? 
Things like wake-locks and etc that aren't in the kernel but Google claims 
it will "one day" merge. Where can you download the *latest* Android 
version - not just the latest released version. Contributors.... what 
percent of Android code contributions come from outside of Google and are 
incorporated into releases?

I'm not going to go to the other extreme and claim that Android is "closed" 
because that's certainly not the case. But "very open" isn't exactly the 
situation either.

"William Poaster" <wp@mylinux.machines.test> wrote in message 
news:7bk6q7-on7.ln1@alpha.mylinuxnet.org...
> Homer wrote:
>
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:
>>

>>> "Hadron" is picking the blackheads on his bottom.
(Lame personal attack)

>> It's hard to tell, I know, but that is actually his face.
(An even lamer "me too")


> As the Hadron troll talks out of it all the time, I'm a little
> surprised that Chris didn't realize that!
(Lamest of all - "Me too" of the "me too")

Okay kids... Recess is over. Time to get back to Mrs. Williams class.

On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:31:52 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> bbgruff pulled this Usenet face plant:
> 
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> You dont really think they are "picking" Android do you?
> 
> Nah.  They're only picking 'Droid.  :-D

People are choosing it because of the carrier(s) first and then
the interface. In comparison the number of people choosing an
Android because of the operating system itself is miniscule. At
best it's just due to the more advanced features of 2.2 and then
it becomes an interface choice. The same can be said of an iPhone
as well. 
 
I've played with a couple of them and they are really nice phones.
Not quite up to the level of an iPhone's interface but certainly
in the same league and getting better every day.

On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 00:05:14 +0000, Lusotec wrote:

> Hadron wrote:
>> bbgruff writes:
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>> Thousands of people a day are choosing Android-based products.  It
>>>> seems they like all the choice!
>>>
>>> To be more precise, over 240,000 a day (over 10,000 an hour!) for Android
>>> phones alone!
>> 
>> You dont really think they are "picking" Android do you? Most people
>> haven't got a clue. They  see a new phone for a good price with a
>> contract.
> 
> I do agree that choice of OS is low or non existent on most people's 
> criteria to choosing a phone, but that statement is in clear contradiction 
> to your statements about many Android phones causing confusion. You can't 
> have it both ways. Either people choose Android and the many options may 
> cause confusion or people don't choose Android and what ever confusion there 
> is is not restricted to Android phones.
> 
> Regards.

At least with Verizon, I stopped into one of their stores today
and the salesman I spoke with clearly knew the differences between
the various version of the Android operating system. I asked him
about bugs in 2.1 vs 2.2 and he said it's all application
dependent so some people will have problems while others will not.
Of course he wants to sell me a phone but I've dealt with this guy
in the past and he has always steered me straight so I do trust
him.

On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 00:05:14 +0000, Lusotec wrote:

> I do agree that choice of OS is low or non existent on most people's
> criteria to choosing a phone, but that statement is in clear
> contradiction to your statements about many Android phones causing
> confusion. You can't have it both ways. Either people choose Android and
> the many options may cause confusion or people don't choose Android and
> what ever confusion there is is not restricted to Android phones.

When I go to Sprint (my carrier) and look at phones, there is "check" box 
for choosing only Android phones. So obviously enough people chose Android 
that Sprint thought it was worth their while to make it easier for people 
to browse all their Android phones at one time. Android is the only 
category specifically tied to an OS. The other choices are more generic, 
"PDA phone", "touchscreen," etc. 

So, yeah, people do shop *specifically* for Android phones.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

Glenn Hall pulled this Usenet face plant:

> On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:31:52 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> bbgruff pulled this Usenet face plant:
>> 
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> You dont really think they are "picking" Android do you?
>> 
>> Nah.  They're only picking 'Droid.  :-D
>
> People are choosing it because of the carrier(s) first and then
> the interface. In comparison the number of people choosing an
> Android because of the operating system itself is miniscule. At
> best it's just due to the more advanced features of 2.2 and then
> it becomes an interface choice. The same can be said of an iPhone
> as well. 

So you're saying no one watched those Droid commercials by Verizon
and took note of the Google logo and decided, "Hey, look who's backing this
new kind of phone?"  You saying "Droid" had no "buzz"?

> I've played with a couple of them and they are really nice phones.
> Not quite up to the level of an iPhone's interface but certainly
> in the same league and getting better every day.

And don't forget about Palm/HP's WebOS  :-)

-- 
After twelve years of therapy my psychiatrist said something that
brought tears to my eyes.  He said, "No hablo ingles."
		-- Ronnie Shakes

"Lusotec" <nomail@nomail.not> wrote in message 
news:iaq8fc$93n$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> amicus_curious wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> What are you talking about? No one cares about "Linux" in that
>>>> respect. You are aware that Android is a heavily rewritten and
>>>> restructured Linux aren't you?
>>>
>>> Not true. The changes to Linux are minimal, and mostly related to device
>>> drivers and a /extraneous/ security module Google introduced.
>>>
>> That is a poor way to look at a product.  It is like saying that a Rolex
>> is the same as a Timex because they are both mechanical.  Google has
>> surrounded Android with a variety of product characteristics that make it
>> as unique as Windows and they control its contents which makes it just as
>> proprietary.
>
> All that has nothing to do with the fact that Android's Linux is very
> similar to other distributions' Linux.
>
But it has everything to do with the fact that Android's success in the 
telephone and potentially the pad markets has nothing to do with the 
physical bits and bytes of its construction.

> Closed/proprietary are some Google applications and some of the hardware
> Android runs on. Android is very open.
>
But outside of the Google presentation, it is ignored by OEMs, just like 
other forms of Linux. 

amicus_curious wrote:
> Lusotec wrote:
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>> Lusotec wrote:
>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>> What are you talking about? No one cares about "Linux" in that
>>>>> respect. You are aware that Android is a heavily rewritten and
>>>>> restructured Linux aren't you?
>>>>
>>>> Not true. The changes to Linux are minimal, and mostly related to
>>>> device drivers and a /extraneous/ security module Google introduced.
>>>>
>>> That is a poor way to look at a product.  It is like saying that a Rolex
>>> is the same as a Timex because they are both mechanical.  Google has
>>> surrounded Android with a variety of product characteristics that make
>>> it as unique as Windows and they control its contents which makes it
>>> just as proprietary.
>>
>> All that has nothing to do with the fact that Android's Linux is very
>> similar to other distributions' Linux.
>
> But it has everything to do with the fact that Android's success in the
> telephone and potentially the pad markets has nothing to do with the
> physical bits and bytes of its construction.

And again, that has *nothing* to do with what I wrote. Why are your replying 
to my posts with unrelated stuff?
 
>> Closed/proprietary are some Google applications and some of the hardware
>> Android runs on. Android is very open.
>
> But outside of the Google presentation, it is ignored by OEMs, just like
> other forms of Linux.

Again, completely unrelated to my post!

Regards.

"Lusotec" <nomail@nomail.not> wrote in message 
news:iaro0r$6aq$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>>
>> But it has everything to do with the fact that Android's success in the
>> telephone and potentially the pad markets has nothing to do with the
>> physical bits and bytes of its construction.
>
> And again, that has *nothing* to do with what I wrote. Why are your 
> replying
> to my posts with unrelated stuff?
>
Outside of the economic/financial/market impact of Android, nothing about it 
is at all important.  You cite some meaningless fact.  Presumably you were 
asserting that it mattered, and now you say that it did not.  Why did you 
bother?

>>> Closed/proprietary are some Google applications and some of the hardware
>>> Android runs on. Android is very open.
>>
>> But outside of the Google presentation, it is ignored by OEMs, just like
>> other forms of Linux.
>
> Again, completely unrelated to my post!
>
Same comment.  If you want to defend your remarks by saying that they were 
impertinent and had no real meaning, go ahead, but that makes you look 
rather odd. 

Ezekiel wrote:
> Lusotec wrote:
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>> Lusotec wrote:
>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>> What are you talking about? No one cares about "Linux" in that
>>>>> respect. You are aware that Android is a heavily rewritten and
>>>>> restructured Linux aren't you?
>>>>
>>>> Not true. The changes to Linux are minimal, and mostly related to
>>>> device drivers and a /extraneous/ security module Google introduced.
>>>>
>>> That is a poor way to look at a product.  It is like saying that a Rolex
>>> is the same as a Timex because they are both mechanical.  Google has
>>> surrounded Android with a variety of product characteristics that make
>>> it as unique as Windows and they control its contents which makes it
>>> just as proprietary.
>>
>> All that has nothing to do with the fact that Android's Linux is very
>> similar to other distributions' Linux.
>>
>> Closed/proprietary are some Google applications and some of the hardware
>> Android runs on. Android is very open.
> 
> "Very open"  -  at least try some resemblence of reasonability.

OK, after reading your post, I will downgrade my Android's openness 
perception and replace "very" with "quite".

> Where in the Linux source tree can I find the Android kernel extensions?
> Things like wake-locks and etc that aren't in the kernel but Google claims
> it will "one day" merge.

Information about Android's public source code repository and how to 
download the code (including Android's Linux branch) can be found at 
http://source.android.com/source/git-repo.html

> Where can you download the *latest* Android version - not just the latest 
> released version.

See the link above for the latest version, but you are probably thinking of 
Google's developers private repositories. These are usually merged to the 
public repositories on feature lumps.

> Contributors.... what percent of Android code contributions come from 
> outside of Google and are incorporated into releases?

I don't know the percentages but remember that upstream projects constitute 
a major percentage of both code size and patch count. If you are only 
considering patches for Android specific components from outside 
contributers then the percentage is probably much less significant.

> I'm not going to go to the other extreme and claim that Android is
> "closed" because that's certainly not the case. But "very open" isn't
> exactly the situation either.

I see three aspects that have a negative impact on Android's openness:
A) Google fully controls Android's evolution/development direction;
B) Google keeps initial feature development in private repositories;
C) Google controls the (outside) contributions.

Both *B* and *C* are relatively common in FOSS for practical reasons.

*B* is needed for development reasons. Developers experimenting with new 
ideas and features usually do it in private, and only merge once they have a 
reasonably fixed idea of the design and code structure. Also, it is 
difficult to experiment and still keep the code in release quality.

*C* is needed for control quality. Of course, Google may reject 
contributions for other reasons (e.g. legal, patents) thus reducing 
openness.

*A* is probably the most important aspect. Google has control of Android's 
helm, no doubt there, but do they accept direction ideas from outsiders or 
are they going about their way with only their interests in mind? Probably 
the later.

Regards.

On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 06:13:29 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Glenn Hall pulled this Usenet face plant:
> 
>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:31:52 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> bbgruff pulled this Usenet face plant:
>>> 
>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You dont really think they are "picking" Android do you?
>>> 
>>> Nah.  They're only picking 'Droid.  :-D
>>
>> People are choosing it because of the carrier(s) first and then
>> the interface. In comparison the number of people choosing an
>> Android because of the operating system itself is miniscule. At
>> best it's just due to the more advanced features of 2.2 and then
>> it becomes an interface choice. The same can be said of an iPhone
>> as well. 
> 
> So you're saying no one watched those Droid commercials by Verizon
> and took note of the Google logo and decided, "Hey, look who's backing this
> new kind of phone?"  You saying "Droid" had no "buzz"?

LMAO. Not at all.
I'm saying people will specifically shop for a Droid, but not
because it runs v2.1 or 2.2 or what have you.
The OS doesn't matter, but the interface does. They are OS clue
less just like they are with an iPhone.
There are always exceptions of course , like the people on Howard
Forums or Phone Scoop, but the average person wants a Droid
because it's a Droid.


>> I've played with a couple of them and they are really nice phones.
>> Not quite up to the level of an iPhone's interface but certainly
>> in the same league and getting better every day.
> 
> And don't forget about Palm/HP's WebOS  :-)
I'm not familiar with that one. My impression, and I'm probably
wrong, about Palm is they are far behind the times.

Glenn Hall <glennhall59.removemeat@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 06:13:29 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Glenn Hall pulled this Usenet face plant:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 17:31:52 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> bbgruff pulled this Usenet face plant:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You dont really think they are "picking" Android do you?
>>>> 
>>>> Nah.  They're only picking 'Droid.  :-D
>>>
>>> People are choosing it because of the carrier(s) first and then
>>> the interface. In comparison the number of people choosing an
>>> Android because of the operating system itself is miniscule. At
>>> best it's just due to the more advanced features of 2.2 and then
>>> it becomes an interface choice. The same can be said of an iPhone
>>> as well. 
>> 
>> So you're saying no one watched those Droid commercials by Verizon
>> and took note of the Google logo and decided, "Hey, look who's backing this
>> new kind of phone?"  You saying "Droid" had no "buzz"?
>
> LMAO. Not at all.
> I'm saying people will specifically shop for a Droid, but not
> because it runs v2.1 or 2.2 or what have you.
> The OS doesn't matter, but the interface does. They are OS clue
> less just like they are with an iPhone.
> There are always exceptions of course , like the people on Howard
> Forums or Phone Scoop, but the average person wants a Droid
> because it's a Droid.
>
>>> I've played with a couple of them and they are really nice phones.
>>> Not quite up to the level of an iPhone's interface but certainly
>>> in the same league and getting better every day.
>> 
>> And don't forget about Palm/HP's WebOS  :-)
> I'm not familiar with that one. My impression, and I'm probably
> wrong, about Palm is they are far behind the times.

Palm is dead. Chris has one...

"Lusotec" <nomail@nomail.not> wrote in message 
news:iarsos$mfv$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Ezekiel wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>>> Lusotec wrote:
>>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>>> What are you talking about? No one cares about "Linux" in that
>>>>>> respect. You are aware that Android is a heavily rewritten and
>>>>>> restructured Linux aren't you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not true. The changes to Linux are minimal, and mostly related to
>>>>> device drivers and a /extraneous/ security module Google introduced.
>>>>>
>>>> That is a poor way to look at a product.  It is like saying that a 
>>>> Rolex
>>>> is the same as a Timex because they are both mechanical.  Google has
>>>> surrounded Android with a variety of product characteristics that make
>>>> it as unique as Windows and they control its contents which makes it
>>>> just as proprietary.
>>>
>>> All that has nothing to do with the fact that Android's Linux is very
>>> similar to other distributions' Linux.
>>>
>>> Closed/proprietary are some Google applications and some of the hardware
>>> Android runs on. Android is very open.
>>
>> "Very open"  -  at least try some resemblence of reasonability.
>
> OK, after reading your post, I will downgrade my Android's openness
> perception and replace "very" with "quite".
>
>> Where in the Linux source tree can I find the Android kernel extensions?
>> Things like wake-locks and etc that aren't in the kernel but Google 
>> claims
>> it will "one day" merge.
>
> Information about Android's public source code repository and how to
> download the code (including Android's Linux branch) can be found at
> http://source.android.com/source/git-repo.html
>
>> Where can you download the *latest* Android version - not just the latest
>> released version.
>
> See the link above for the latest version, but you are probably thinking 
> of
> Google's developers private repositories. These are usually merged to the
> public repositories on feature lumps.
>
>> Contributors.... what percent of Android code contributions come from
>> outside of Google and are incorporated into releases?
>
> I don't know the percentages but remember that upstream projects 
> constitute
> a major percentage of both code size and patch count. If you are only
> considering patches for Android specific components from outside
> contributers then the percentage is probably much less significant.
>
>> I'm not going to go to the other extreme and claim that Android is
>> "closed" because that's certainly not the case. But "very open" isn't
>> exactly the situation either.
>
> I see three aspects that have a negative impact on Android's openness:
> A) Google fully controls Android's evolution/development direction;
> B) Google keeps initial feature development in private repositories;
> C) Google controls the (outside) contributions.
>
> Both *B* and *C* are relatively common in FOSS for practical reasons.
>
> *B* is needed for development reasons. Developers experimenting with new
> ideas and features usually do it in private, and only merge once they have 
> a
> reasonably fixed idea of the design and code structure. Also, it is
> difficult to experiment and still keep the code in release quality.

The explanation for *B* doesn't cut it. I'll quote Bruce Perens on this:

<quote>
Once the code is released, Android developers can download it and do what 
they want with it, but they have no way of seeing what's happening behind 
the scenes every day. If you want to know how Firefox changed last night - 
however esoteric those changes may be - you can study the changes on the 
Mozilla site. The same is true of the Linux kernel, Open Office and nearly 
every other open source project with a website.
</quote>

As far as "developers experimenting in private" goes - I'm a developer and 
in my sandbox I have code that's still in development and not ready to be 
checked in. But once it's ready it gets checked-in to the source tree and it 
becomes available to everyone else. That's how it works and I'm not 
suggesting that a developers "private experimental code" should be released 
to anyone. But once that developer checks in his/her code back into the 
source tree it should become available and visible right away - not at the 
next release date.


> *C* is needed for control quality. Of course, Google may reject
> contributions for other reasons (e.g. legal, patents) thus reducing
> openness.

Of course they will have final say as to whether to accept or reject a 
submission. But *B* pretty much keeps everyone out of the development 
process so because of *B* the ability for people to do *C* becomes extremely 
prohibitive.

> *A* is probably the most important aspect. Google has control of Android's
> helm, no doubt there, but do they accept direction ideas from outsiders or
> are they going about their way with only their interests in mind? Probably
> the later.
>


Here's a link to an article that discusses this - I've quoted some of the 
more interesting points:

<quote>
Is Android Open?
By Scott Gilbertson, Webmonkey  October 22, 2010

Google is famous in programming circles for redefining words to suit its 
ideas.
Now it's happening again over the term "open."


But whether Android actually qualifies as "open" in the purest sense is up 
for debate, since downloading and compiling code alone does not make a piece 
of software open. Bruce Perens, who coined the term "open source" and has 
been working on its behalf ever since, is suspect of Rubin's (Google's) 
definition.

It's the lack of community-based development that Android's critics say 
makes it no more "open" than Apple's locked-down, decidedly not-open iOS 
model. As Perens says, "most open source projects [include] instant access 
to changes as they are made . and an open door for anyone to participate."

Unlike major open source projects like Firefox or the Linux kernel, you can't 
see what's happening behind the scenes with Android, nor can small 
developers contribute to the project in any meaningful way. Google typically 
releases major updates to Android at press conferences, not unlike those 
Apple uses to show off new iPhone features.

Once the code is released, Android developers can download it and do what 
they want with it, but they have no way of seeing what's happening behind 
the scenes every day. If you want to know how Firefox changed last night - 
however esoteric those changes may be - you can study the changes on the 
Mozilla site. The same is true of the Linux kernel, Open Office and nearly 
every other open source project with a website.

It's not true of Android. While Android may have the legal licensing to 
qualify as open source, it utterly fails on the equally important issues of 
transparency and community.

Android basically gives you two options: Accept what Google gives you, or 
fork the entire codebase. Other than the ability to roll your own version of 
Android, it's really no different than iOS, which works on a similar "take 
what Apple gives you" model.

</quote>

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/10/is-android-open/

"Ezekiel" <no_zeke@fake-zeke.com> wrote in message 
news:iarvlg$m55$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Lusotec" <nomail@nomail.not> wrote in message 
> news:iarsos$mfv$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>> Lusotec wrote:
>>>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>>>> Lusotec wrote:
>>>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>>>> What are you talking about? No one cares about "Linux" in that
>>>>>>> respect. You are aware that Android is a heavily rewritten and
>>>>>>> restructured Linux aren't you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not true. The changes to Linux are minimal, and mostly related to
>>>>>> device drivers and a /extraneous/ security module Google introduced.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That is a poor way to look at a product.  It is like saying that a 
>>>>> Rolex
>>>>> is the same as a Timex because they are both mechanical.  Google has
>>>>> surrounded Android with a variety of product characteristics that make
>>>>> it as unique as Windows and they control its contents which makes it
>>>>> just as proprietary.
>>>>
>>>> All that has nothing to do with the fact that Android's Linux is very
>>>> similar to other distributions' Linux.
>>>>
>>>> Closed/proprietary are some Google applications and some of the 
>>>> hardware
>>>> Android runs on. Android is very open.
>>>
>>> "Very open"  -  at least try some resemblence of reasonability.
>>
>> OK, after reading your post, I will downgrade my Android's openness
>> perception and replace "very" with "quite".
>>
>>> Where in the Linux source tree can I find the Android kernel extensions?
>>> Things like wake-locks and etc that aren't in the kernel but Google 
>>> claims
>>> it will "one day" merge.
>>
>> Information about Android's public source code repository and how to
>> download the code (including Android's Linux branch) can be found at
>> http://source.android.com/source/git-repo.html
>>
>>> Where can you download the *latest* Android version - not just the 
>>> latest
>>> released version.
>>
>> See the link above for the latest version, but you are probably thinking 
>> of
>> Google's developers private repositories. These are usually merged to the
>> public repositories on feature lumps.
>>
>>> Contributors.... what percent of Android code contributions come from
>>> outside of Google and are incorporated into releases?
>>
>> I don't know the percentages but remember that upstream projects 
>> constitute
>> a major percentage of both code size and patch count. If you are only
>> considering patches for Android specific components from outside
>> contributers then the percentage is probably much less significant.
>>
>>> I'm not going to go to the other extreme and claim that Android is
>>> "closed" because that's certainly not the case. But "very open" isn't
>>> exactly the situation either.
>>
>> I see three aspects that have a negative impact on Android's openness:
>> A) Google fully controls Android's evolution/development direction;
>> B) Google keeps initial feature development in private repositories;
>> C) Google controls the (outside) contributions.
>>
>> Both *B* and *C* are relatively common in FOSS for practical reasons.
>>
>> *B* is needed for development reasons. Developers experimenting with new
>> ideas and features usually do it in private, and only merge once they 
>> have a
>> reasonably fixed idea of the design and code structure. Also, it is
>> difficult to experiment and still keep the code in release quality.
>
> The explanation for *B* doesn't cut it. I'll quote Bruce Perens on this:
>
> <quote>
> Once the code is released, Android developers can download it and do what 
> they want with it, but they have no way of seeing what's happening behind 
> the scenes every day. If you want to know how Firefox changed last night - 
> however esoteric those changes may be - you can study the changes on the 
> Mozilla site. The same is true of the Linux kernel, Open Office and nearly 
> every other open source project with a website.
> </quote>
>
> As far as "developers experimenting in private" goes - I'm a developer and 
> in my sandbox I have code that's still in development and not ready to be 
> checked in. But once it's ready it gets checked-in to the source tree and 
> it becomes available to everyone else. That's how it works and I'm not 
> suggesting that a developers "private experimental code" should be 
> released to anyone. But once that developer checks in his/her code back 
> into the source tree it should become available and visible right away - 
> not at the next release date.
>
>
>> *C* is needed for control quality. Of course, Google may reject
>> contributions for other reasons (e.g. legal, patents) thus reducing
>> openness.
>
> Of course they will have final say as to whether to accept or reject a 
> submission. But *B* pretty much keeps everyone out of the development 
> process so because of *B* the ability for people to do *C* becomes 
> extremely prohibitive.
>
>> *A* is probably the most important aspect. Google has control of 
>> Android's
>> helm, no doubt there, but do they accept direction ideas from outsiders 
>> or
>> are they going about their way with only their interests in mind? 
>> Probably
>> the later.
>>
>
>
> Here's a link to an article that discusses this - I've quoted some of the 
> more interesting points:
>
> <quote>
> Is Android Open?
> By Scott Gilbertson, Webmonkey  October 22, 2010
>
> Google is famous in programming circles for redefining words to suit its 
> ideas.
> Now it's happening again over the term "open."
>
>
> But whether Android actually qualifies as "open" in the purest sense is up 
> for debate, since downloading and compiling code alone does not make a 
> piece of software open. Bruce Perens, who coined the term "open source" 
> and has been working on its behalf ever since, is suspect of Rubin's 
> (Google's) definition.
>
> It's the lack of community-based development that Android's critics say 
> makes it no more "open" than Apple's locked-down, decidedly not-open iOS 
> model. As Perens says, "most open source projects [include] instant access 
> to changes as they are made . and an open door for anyone to participate."
>
> Unlike major open source projects like Firefox or the Linux kernel, you 
> can't see what's happening behind the scenes with Android, nor can small 
> developers contribute to the project in any meaningful way. Google 
> typically releases major updates to Android at press conferences, not 
> unlike those Apple uses to show off new iPhone features.
>
> Once the code is released, Android developers can download it and do what 
> they want with it, but they have no way of seeing what's happening behind 
> the scenes every day. If you want to know how Firefox changed last night - 
> however esoteric those changes may be - you can study the changes on the 
> Mozilla site. The same is true of the Linux kernel, Open Office and nearly 
> every other open source project with a website.
>
> It's not true of Android. While Android may have the legal licensing to 
> qualify as open source, it utterly fails on the equally important issues 
> of transparency and community.
>
> Android basically gives you two options: Accept what Google gives you, or 
> fork the entire codebase. Other than the ability to roll your own version 
> of Android, it's really no different than iOS, which works on a similar 
> "take what Apple gives you" model.
>
> </quote>
>
> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/10/is-android-open/

Just to be clear - I'm going to reiterate my earlier statement.

It is *NOT* my position that Android is closed. Windows, Adobe Flash, 
Photoshop, etc are "closed"

But at the other end there are projects that are "open" such as Firefox, 
Postgres and the Linux kernel. (OpenOffice intentionally omitted for now.)

Android is somewhere inbetween. Certainly closer to Firefox and the Linux 
kernel than to Windows/Flash but looking at how other projects are managed 
and run, Google appears to want to keep Android as barely open as possible 
but still be able to call it "open" with a straight face.

Glenn Hall pulled this Usenet face plant:

> On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 06:13:29 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> And don't forget about Palm/HP's WebOS  :-)
>
> I'm not familiar with that one. My impression, and I'm probably
> wrong, about Palm is they are far behind the times.

Nah, my Palm Pixi+ is pretty cool, with two-finger touch and a user
interface that I like a lot.  Can access a number of free services, like
Google Maps with GPS, and there's quite a bit of software out there for it
(Preware).

Gaining access to the Linux command-line on it is as simple as entering a
code.

It is pretty niche, though, and I hope HP/Palm can get a little traction
with it.

-- 
"Old age and treachery will beat youth and skill every time."
		-- a coffee cup

Lusotec pulled this Usenet face plant:

> amicus_curious wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>>> Lusotec wrote:
>>
>> But it has everything to do with the fact that Android's success in the
>> telephone and potentially the pad markets has nothing to do with the
>> physical bits and bytes of its construction.
>
> And again, that has *nothing* to do with what I wrote. Why are your replying 
> to my posts with unrelated stuff?
>  
>>> Closed/proprietary are some Google applications and some of the hardware
>>> Android runs on. Android is very open.
>>
>> But outside of the Google presentation, it is ignored by OEMs, just like
>> other forms of Linux.
>
> Again, completely unrelated to my post!

That's amicus's specialty -- redirect the "conversation" to the terms he
dictates.

The worst thing about this fscker is that he doesn't believe anything he
writes.   It's all a sophist's game.

-- 
"It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and I'm wearing Milkbone underware."
		-- Norm, from _Cheers_

On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 11:48:51 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:


> Nah, my Palm Pixi+ is pretty cool, with two-finger touch and a user
> interface that I like a lot.  Can access a number of free services, like
> Google Maps with GPS, and there's quite a bit of software out there for it
> (Preware).
> 
> Gaining access to the Linux command-line on it is as simple as entering a
> code.
> 
> It is pretty niche, though, and I hope HP/Palm can get a little traction
> with it.

Thanks. I don't really follow these things but I haven't heard
much noise from palm, at least not like the Droid, so I was
wondering.

RonB wrote:
> Lusotec wrote:
>> I do agree that choice of OS is low or non existent on most people's
>> criteria to choosing a phone, but that statement is in clear
>> contradiction to your statements about many Android phones causing
>> confusion. You can't have it both ways. Either people choose Android and
>> the many options may cause confusion or people don't choose Android and
>> what ever confusion there is is not restricted to Android phones.
> 
> When I go to Sprint (my carrier) and look at phones, there is "check" box
> for choosing only Android phones. So obviously enough people chose Android
> that Sprint thought it was worth their while to make it easier for people
> to browse all their Android phones at one time. Android is the only
> category specifically tied to an OS. The other choices are more generic,
> "PDA phone", "touchscreen," etc.
> 
> So, yeah, people do shop *specifically* for Android phones.

Some people yes, but I would bet that they are a small minority.

Regards.

On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 11:18:03 -0400, Glenn Hall wrote:

>> And don't forget about Palm/HP's WebOS
> I'm not familiar with that one. My impression, and I'm probably wrong,
> about Palm is they are far behind the times.

No, WebOS is nice. The "problems" with it are 1) Android was just ramping 
up when Palm released their first WebOS product (Pre) and 2) Palm didn't 
have the funds to really make boatloads of their phones. So they ended up 
not having nearly enough supply when buzz had created the demand. 

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 11:48:51 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> It is pretty niche, though, and I hope HP/Palm can get a little traction
> with it.

There was originally a question as to whether HP would even keep selling 
the phones. They mainly wanted Palm for WebOS so they could use it in 
their Internet printers. They have, however, announced a Pre 2, so they're 
not completely getting out of the phone business.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 18:17:50 +0000, Lusotec wrote:

> RonB wrote:
>> Lusotec wrote:
>>> I do agree that choice of OS is low or non existent on most people's
>>> criteria to choosing a phone, but that statement is in clear
>>> contradiction to your statements about many Android phones causing
>>> confusion. You can't have it both ways. Either people choose Android
>>> and the many options may cause confusion or people don't choose
>>> Android and what ever confusion there is is not restricted to Android
>>> phones.
>> 
>> When I go to Sprint (my carrier) and look at phones, there is "check"
>> box for choosing only Android phones. So obviously enough people chose
>> Android that Sprint thought it was worth their while to make it easier
>> for people to browse all their Android phones at one time. Android is
>> the only category specifically tied to an OS. The other choices are
>> more generic, "PDA phone", "touchscreen," etc.
>> 
>> So, yeah, people do shop *specifically* for Android phones.
> 
> Some people yes, but I would bet that they are a small minority.

Well, since Sprint sets up a search specifically for "Android," I would 
say there is enough interest in Android phones for them to do that. 
Android has a lot of buzz right now. The OS is a selling point.

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

On 2010-11-03, the following emerged from the brain of RonB:
>
> Well, since Sprint sets up a search specifically for "Android," I would 
> say there is enough interest in Android phones for them to do that. 
> Android has a lot of buzz right now. The OS is a selling point.

Most certainly. The term 'Android phone' is a very common one indeed.

-- 
Much will be your power by the essence of a flower
By seducement and cold rapture by abusing mother nature
	~ Helloween

RonB wrote on 11/3/2010 :
> On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 18:17:50 +0000, Lusotec wrote:
>
>> RonB wrote:
>>> Lusotec wrote:
>>>> I do agree that choice of OS is low or non existent on most people's
>>>> criteria to choosing a phone, but that statement is in clear
>>>> contradiction to your statements about many Android phones causing
>>>> confusion. You can't have it both ways. Either people choose Android
>>>> and the many options may cause confusion or people don't choose
>>>> Android and what ever confusion there is is not restricted to Android
>>>> phones.
>>> 
>>> When I go to Sprint (my carrier) and look at phones, there is "check"
>>> box for choosing only Android phones. So obviously enough people chose
>>> Android that Sprint thought it was worth their while to make it easier
>>> for people to browse all their Android phones at one time. Android is
>>> the only category specifically tied to an OS. The other choices are
>>> more generic, "PDA phone", "touchscreen," etc.
>>> 
>>> So, yeah, people do shop *specifically* for Android phones.
>> 
>> Some people yes, but I would bet that they are a small minority.
>
> Well, since Sprint sets up a search specifically for "Android," I would 
> say there is enough interest in Android phones for them to do that. 
> Android has a lot of buzz right now. The OS is a selling point.

Yes...  I agree that the word Android is a selling point.  But, I 
guarentee you that a large percentage - if not the majority - don't 
actually know what Android is.  They just have read or heard from 
friends that it's "cool".

It's like the poeple that call IE "The Internet" :)

-- 
Tom Shelton

On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 13:47:57 -0600, Tom Shelton wrote:

> Yes...  I agree that the word Android is a selling point.  But, I
> guarentee you that a large percentage - if not the majority - don't
> actually know what Android is.  They just have read or heard from
> friends that it's "cool".

Don't quite understand your point. Do you mean they don't realize Android 
is based on Linux? I would agree with that. But who knows the iPhone OS is 
based on BSD when it comes to that? Still people look for the iPhone 
brand, just as even more of them are now looking for the Android "brand."

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581 
CentOS 5.5 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0

RonB stated in post iaskc6$d73$2@news.eternal-september.org on 11/3/10 2:31
PM:

> On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 13:47:57 -0600, Tom Shelton wrote:
> 
>> Yes...  I agree that the word Android is a selling point.  But, I
>> guarentee you that a large percentage - if not the majority - don't
>> actually know what Android is.  They just have read or heard from
>> friends that it's "cool".
> 
> Don't quite understand your point. Do you mean they don't realize Android
> is based on Linux? I would agree with that. But who knows the iPhone OS is
> based on BSD when it comes to that? Still people look for the iPhone
> brand, just as even more of them are now looking for the Android "brand."

Are even more?  Not sure... but both are popular OSs.


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]