http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/26/android_billing/

Now Google will be allowing phone operators to accept payments for
developers apps that are bought using the Google app market.  The same
phone operators who take a 70% cut of sales instead of a 30% cut
that's taken by Google, Apple, and Microsoft.

On Jul 27, 2:40=A0pm, KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/26/android_billing/
>
> Now Google will be allowing phone operators to accept payments for
> developers apps that are bought using the Google app market. =A0The same
> phone operators who take a 70% cut of sales instead of a 30% cut
> that's taken by Google, Apple, and Microsoft.

um, neither the article you linked to, nor the blog post that links
to, mentions a 70% cut- are you just assuming that it'd be a 70% cut?
if not, got a link?  carrier billing, in general, is an improvement
for the customer imo.

On Jul 27, 5:58=A0pm, ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2:40=A0pm, KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/26/android_billing/
>
> > Now Google will be allowing phone operators to accept payments for
> > developers apps that are bought using the Google app market. =A0The sam=
e
> > phone operators who take a 70% cut of sales instead of a 30% cut
> > that's taken by Google, Apple, and Microsoft.
>
> um, neither the article you linked to, nor the blog post that links
> to, mentions a 70% cut- are you just assuming that it'd be a 70% cut?
> if not, got a link? =A0carrier billing, in general, is an improvement
> for the customer imo.

This is how carriers generally operate......

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-reason-wireless-carriers-love-andro=
id-google-is-paying-them-to-2010-3?utm_source

(Carriers used to charge developers 50% or more from the apps they
sold on dumb phones like the Motorola Razr; that's revenue that the
iPhone App Store and others wiped out, which is one reason carriers
got scared of App Stores. But if Google is funneling that revenue
along to the carriers, it's going to make them happy.)



---------

You already see that once Carriers get their hands on Android devices
and without Google fighting them what they are doing to the devices
--- locking them down, forcing irremovable crapware, etc.  Do you
really think they are going to settle for a 30% cut or try to go back
to the good old days?

On Jul 27, 3:29=A0pm, KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 5:58=A0pm, ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 2:40=A0pm, KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/26/android_billing/
>
> > > Now Google will be allowing phone operators to accept payments for
> > > developers apps that are bought using the Google app market. =A0The s=
ame
> > > phone operators who take a 70% cut of sales instead of a 30% cut
> > > that's taken by Google, Apple, and Microsoft.
>
> > um, neither the article you linked to, nor the blog post that links
> > to, mentions a 70% cut- are you just assuming that it'd be a 70% cut?
> > if not, got a link? =A0carrier billing, in general, is an improvement
> > for the customer imo.
>
> This is how carriers generally operate......
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-reason-wireless-carriers-love...
>
> (Carriers used to charge developers 50% or more from the apps they
> sold on dumb phones like the Motorola Razr; that's revenue that the
> iPhone App Store and others wiped out, which is one reason carriers
> got scared of App Stores. But if Google is funneling that revenue
> along to the carriers, it's going to make them happy.)
>
> ---------
>
> You already see that once Carriers get their hands on Android devices
> and without Google fighting them what they are doing to the devices
> --- locking them down, forcing irremovable crapware, etc. =A0Do you
> really think they are going to settle for a 30% cut or try to go back
> to the good old days?

i don't deny that the carriers undoubtedly would like more of a cut.

but you apparently have nothing to support either the 70% cut you
quoted, nor anything to support that the android market cut is going
to change?  did you just make all that up?

In article 
<1eac3eb7-d8e9-4e24-bd2a-80eea532b979@f15g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
 KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/26/android_billing/
> 
> Now Google will be allowing phone operators to accept payments for
> developers apps that are bought using the Google app market.  The same
> phone operators who take a 70% cut of sales instead of a 30% cut
> that's taken by Google, Apple, and Microsoft.

It is increasingly clear that Google's _sole_ strategic goal with 
Android is to piss in Apple's cornflakes, to make sure Apple is never in 
a position to lock them out of some large fraction of the smartphone 
market. They don't really care what else happens. Horrible 
fragmentation? Fine. Hardware vendors who know nothing about software 
platforms screwing up user experience? Whatever. Carriers inserting 
themselves into revenue streams they have no business being part of? 
Sure. Companies cutting deals with Yahoo after building devices around 
Google's free software? OK.

As long as carriers and established handset push enough Android units to 
prevent Apple from achieving the same kind of dominance they did with 
music players, Google doesn't seem to care what else happens.

The big question is, if Google manages to undermine Android's quality 
throughly enough, will it even matter in the long run how many companies 
they have pushing handsets? I really have no idea.

-- 
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

In article 
<9c58dc03-a289-47ca-9e36-a61ef7483582@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
 ed <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> > > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/26/android_billing/
> >
> > > > Now Google will be allowing phone operators to accept payments for
> > > > developers apps that are bought using the Google app market. �The same
> > > > phone operators who take a 70% cut of sales instead of a 30% cut
> > > > that's taken by Google, Apple, and Microsoft.
> >
> > > um, neither the article you linked to, nor the blog post that links
> > > to, mentions a 70% cut- are you just assuming that it'd be a 70% cut?
> > > if not, got a link? �carrier billing, in general, is an improvement
> > > for the customer imo.
> >
> > This is how carriers generally operate......
> >
> > http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-reason-wireless-carriers-love...
> >
> > (Carriers used to charge developers 50% or more from the apps they
> > sold on dumb phones like the Motorola Razr; that's revenue that the
> > iPhone App Store and others wiped out, which is one reason carriers
> > got scared of App Stores. But if Google is funneling that revenue
> > along to the carriers, it's going to make them happy.)
> >
> > ---------
> >
> > You already see that once Carriers get their hands on Android devices
> > and without Google fighting them what they are doing to the devices
> > --- locking them down, forcing irremovable crapware, etc. �Do you
> > really think they are going to settle for a 30% cut or try to go back
> > to the good old days?
> 
> i don't deny that the carriers undoubtedly would like more of a cut.
> 
> but you apparently have nothing to support either the 70% cut you
> quoted, nor anything to support that the android market cut is going
> to change?  did you just make all that up?

First, he didn't "quote" anything. This was his claim:

    The same phone operators who take a 70% cut of sales

He supported that by linking to an article that claimed:

    Carriers used to charge developers 50% or more from the apps they 
    sold on dumb phones like the Motorola Razr

While 70% isn't specifically mentioned, it is certainly contained 
within the "or more" part of the above substantiation. So it's either 
an exaggeration, or KDT has personal non-linkable knowledge about 
carrier cuts.

But it's painfully obvious that he didn't "apparently have nothing".



-- 
Sandman[.net]

"ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message 
news:znu-CAC351.21552327072010@Port80.Individual.NET...
> In article
> <1eac3eb7-d8e9-4e24-bd2a-80eea532b979@f15g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
> KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/26/android_billing/
>>
>> Now Google will be allowing phone operators to accept payments for
>> developers apps that are bought using the Google app market.  The same
>> phone operators who take a 70% cut of sales instead of a 30% cut
>> that's taken by Google, Apple, and Microsoft.
>
> It is increasingly clear that Google's _sole_ strategic goal with
> Android is to piss in Apple's cornflakes, to make sure Apple is never in
> a position to lock them out of some large fraction of the smartphone
> market. They don't really care what else happens. Horrible
> fragmentation? Fine. Hardware vendors who know nothing about software
> platforms screwing up user experience? Whatever. Carriers inserting
> themselves into revenue streams they have no business being part of?
> Sure. Companies cutting deals with Yahoo after building devices around
> Google's free software? OK.
>
> As long as carriers and established handset push enough Android units to
> prevent Apple from achieving the same kind of dominance they did with
> music players, Google doesn't seem to care what else happens.
>
> The big question is, if Google manages to undermine Android's quality
> throughly enough, will it even matter in the long run how many companies
> they have pushing handsets? I really have no idea.

Apple will never dominate this market segment - too many good competitors. 

On Jul 27, 6:39=A0pm, ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 3:29=A0pm, KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 5:58=A0pm, ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 27, 2:40=A0pm, KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/26/android_billing/
>
> > > > Now Google will be allowing phone operators to accept payments for
> > > > developers apps that are bought using the Google app market. =A0The=
 same
> > > > phone operators who take a 70% cut of sales instead of a 30% cut
> > > > that's taken by Google, Apple, and Microsoft.
>
> > > um, neither the article you linked to, nor the blog post that links
> > > to, mentions a 70% cut- are you just assuming that it'd be a 70% cut?
> > > if not, got a link? =A0carrier billing, in general, is an improvement
> > > for the customer imo.
>
> > This is how carriers generally operate......
>
> >http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-reason-wireless-carriers-love...
>
> > (Carriers used to charge developers 50% or more from the apps they
> > sold on dumb phones like the Motorola Razr; that's revenue that the
> > iPhone App Store and others wiped out, which is one reason carriers
> > got scared of App Stores. But if Google is funneling that revenue
> > along to the carriers, it's going to make them happy.)
>
> > ---------
>
> > You already see that once Carriers get their hands on Android devices
> > and without Google fighting them what they are doing to the devices
> > --- locking them down, forcing irremovable crapware, etc. =A0Do you
> > really think they are going to settle for a 30% cut or try to go back
> > to the good old days?
>
> i don't deny that the carriers undoubtedly would like more of a cut.
>
> but you apparently have nothing to support either the 70% cut you
> quoted, nor anything to support that the android market cut is going
> to change? =A0did you just make all that up?

So do you really think that Google is not going to still want their
cut for running the Market on top of the carriers cut?

In article <u9U3o.3855$mW5.582@newsfe14.iad>, "XX" <zs@orangegrove.org> 
wrote:

> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:znu-CAC351.21552327072010@Port80.Individual.NET...
> > In article
> > <1eac3eb7-d8e9-4e24-bd2a-80eea532b979@f15g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
> > KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/26/android_billing/
> >>
> >> Now Google will be allowing phone operators to accept payments for
> >> developers apps that are bought using the Google app market.  The same
> >> phone operators who take a 70% cut of sales instead of a 30% cut
> >> that's taken by Google, Apple, and Microsoft.
> >
> > It is increasingly clear that Google's _sole_ strategic goal with
> > Android is to piss in Apple's cornflakes, to make sure Apple is never in
> > a position to lock them out of some large fraction of the smartphone
> > market. They don't really care what else happens. Horrible
> > fragmentation? Fine. Hardware vendors who know nothing about software
> > platforms screwing up user experience? Whatever. Carriers inserting
> > themselves into revenue streams they have no business being part of?
> > Sure. Companies cutting deals with Yahoo after building devices around
> > Google's free software? OK.
> >
> > As long as carriers and established handset push enough Android units to
> > prevent Apple from achieving the same kind of dominance they did with
> > music players, Google doesn't seem to care what else happens.
> >
> > The big question is, if Google manages to undermine Android's quality
> > throughly enough, will it even matter in the long run how many companies
> > they have pushing handsets? I really have no idea.
> 
> Apple will never dominate this market segment - too many good competitors. 

That's not a bad wild ass guess, but another not bad wild ass guess is 
that when/if the iPhone becomes available on more carriers in the US, it 
might.

-- 
Lloyd

On Jul 28, 4:30=A0am, KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 6:39=A0pm, ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 3:29=A0pm, KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 27, 5:58=A0pm, ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 27, 2:40=A0pm, KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/26/android_billing/
>
> > > > > Now Google will be allowing phone operators to accept payments fo=
r
> > > > > developers apps that are bought using the Google app market. =A0T=
he same
> > > > > phone operators who take a 70% cut of sales instead of a 30% cut
> > > > > that's taken by Google, Apple, and Microsoft.
>
> > > > um, neither the article you linked to, nor the blog post that links
> > > > to, mentions a 70% cut- are you just assuming that it'd be a 70% cu=
t?
> > > > if not, got a link? =A0carrier billing, in general, is an improveme=
nt
> > > > for the customer imo.
>
> > > This is how carriers generally operate......
>
> > >http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-reason-wireless-carriers-love.=
...
>
> > > (Carriers used to charge developers 50% or more from the apps they
> > > sold on dumb phones like the Motorola Razr; that's revenue that the
> > > iPhone App Store and others wiped out, which is one reason carriers
> > > got scared of App Stores. But if Google is funneling that revenue
> > > along to the carriers, it's going to make them happy.)
>
> > > ---------
>
> > > You already see that once Carriers get their hands on Android devices
> > > and without Google fighting them what they are doing to the devices
> > > --- locking them down, forcing irremovable crapware, etc. =A0Do you
> > > really think they are going to settle for a 30% cut or try to go back
> > > to the good old days?
>
> > i don't deny that the carriers undoubtedly would like more of a cut.
>
> > but you apparently have nothing to support either the 70% cut you
> > quoted, nor anything to support that the android market cut is going
> > to change? =A0did you just make all that up?
>
> So do you really think that Google is not going to still want their
> cut for running the Market on top of the carriers cut?

if i had to guess, i would suspect that google and the carriers would
split their cut.  we'll see though.  but you certainly don't have to
things up in the mean time (about the numbers, or about what i think).

ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
> what do you think supports the 70% figure? =A0"50% or more..." =A0that's
> seriously weak support- to the point that i say it's no support at
> all.


YMMV.   It should hardly be surprising to a reasonable individual that
there may perhaps be information availble to some of us that isn't
necessarily unlimited public knowledge.   For example, there's NDA's
(Non-Disclosure Agreements) which often may include a provision where
one isn't free to mention if an NDA applies or even exists on a
subject (until its expiration, for example).

As such, someone might point to some topic and suggest that August 2nd
might have some significance, and you won't find out why today...but
you very well might find out on August 3rd.  Or perhaps even further
removed than that.

As such, the cited reference that does clearly say "50% or more", does
IMO lend credence, even without it being exactly the same number
because if utterly nothing else, the reference at least doesn't
contradict the statement.  Yes, there's still uncertainty remaining,
but there's not a red light, either.



-hh

On Jul 28, 3:00=A0pm, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> =A0ed <n...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Well, what you say is support or not isn't all that interesting to me
> at all, really.

we're clearly not understanding each other, yet again, my comments are
not interesting to you, and i'm not that interested in what you have
to say either, so let's just end this conversation.

and as previously suggested, maybe we don't have conversations at all,
eh?  ;D

<snip>

In article 
<38b99b2b-9431-4697-b739-bd48a1719d43@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
 ed <news@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> > Well, what you say is support or not isn't all that interesting to me
> > at all, really.
> 
> we're clearly not understanding each other, yet again, my comments are
> not interesting to you

What you claim is support isn't interesting to me, no. Especially when 
you use that to disregard obvious support.

I'm just pointing out your incorrect statements, and ironicaslly - 
when you base your argument on your perceived implication of another 
poster (that was really fun) and I'm also obviously teaching you the 
English language.


-- 
Sandman[.net]

ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> =A0KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/26/android_billing/
>
> > Now Google will be allowing phone operators to accept payments for
> > developers apps that are bought using the Google app market. =A0The sam=
e
> > phone operators who take a 70% cut of sales instead of a 30% cut
> > that's taken by Google, Apple, and Microsoft.
>
> It is increasingly clear that Google's _sole_ strategic goal with
> Android is to piss in Apple's cornflakes, to make sure Apple is never in
> a position to lock them out of some large fraction of the smartphone
> market. They don't really care what else happens. Horrible
> fragmentation? Fine. Hardware vendors who know nothing about software
> platforms screwing up user experience? Whatever. Carriers inserting
> themselves into revenue streams they have no business being part of?
> Sure. Companies cutting deals with Yahoo after building devices around
> Google's free software? OK.
>
> As long as carriers and established handset push enough Android units to
> prevent Apple from achieving the same kind of dominance they did with
> music players, Google doesn't seem to care what else happens.
>
> The big question is, if Google manages to undermine Android's quality
> throughly enough, will it even matter in the long run how many companies
> they have pushing handsets? I really have no idea.

This might shed some light:

<http://mobile.venturebeat.com/2010/07/28/android-wallpaper-app-that-
steals-your-data-was-downloaded-by-millions/>


YMMV, but it is a pretty ringing endorsement for Apple's approach,
despite the so-called 'evils' of the 'Walled Garden'.


-hh