This is so funny. Android is gaining it's share and everyone is trying to create iPhone killer. Noone is doing an Android killer:)
To create an android phone, means writing an OS, giving it away, and trying to get hardware developers, app developers, and advertisers on board. That is not going to be easy, Microsoft might have a chance, if they started to give away their OS, but probably not.
I think Intel would be the company to give it a shot. They were part of thing Nokia walked away from.
Android uses Linux, you don't have to write an OS from completely from scratch.
It's because all Android has done is blurred the line between smart phone and feature phone. It's Android phones now that are the free and BOGO phones and that's exactly what Google wants--a base out there that they cannot be excluded from for their primary business, advertising. ex.: http://macdailynews.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/110303_andro...
Dear US writers: $0 Upfront is not a "free" phone. $50 Upfront is not a "Cheap" phone. I can get a "Free" iPhone 4 32GB on any carrier I like in Australia. // This doesn't mean that Android isn't undercutting apple on price -- but that $0 / $50 / $200 upfront are not meaningful in any way
To reinforce this point: advertisement's like the linked ones would be illegal in Australia, and the vendor would be heavily fined and/or forced to deliver the phones for free.
Ads here have to display the minimum cost over the terms of the contract, which makes it slightly easier to compare them.
Of course, this means that telcos do stuff like making plans that include "$300 of value for $30/month", which is an absurd claim when they set the calling costs too, and vary them depending on the plan.
Somewhat off-topic: is there any reason not to get Virgin Mobile's $150 LG Optimus V for the purpose of exploring Android development? Aside from smaller memory and lower-res camera, it looks like I don't miss out on anything from top of the line models.
I just wish I could afford one. Can you still use the pay-as-you-go plans with this one?
More or less. Virgin Mobile is a no contract provider, you pre-pay for each month of service as you go. All the plans are unlimited (~5gigs) data/ unlimited texts - $60 gets you unlimited voice, $25 gets you 300 minutes, and there is something in the middle at $40/mo. The $25/mo is the best US deal for a capable android phone that I know of. You do need to pick from these plans though, you can't use their x cents a minute pay as you use it plan afaik.
EDIT: Link to the thread (thanks georgie) about it being $129 w/ $20 gift card at target. Damn good deal, note the one I played with worked fine over wifi before it was activated with VM. Sale started yesterday: http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?sduid=0&t=27...
These data spell significant trouble for Microsoft in the smartphone market. Despite launching Windows Phone 7 (WP7) with great fanfare in November 2010, Microsoft's market share in smartphones has in fact declined 1.7% from October 2010 through January 2011.
The data spell bad news for RIM as well: nearly all Android's gains came out of RIM's market share.
These data spell significant trouble for Microsoft in the smartphone market. Despite launching Windows Phone 7 (WP7) with great fanfare in November 2010, Microsoft's market share in smartphones has in fact declined 1.7% from October 2010 through January 2011.
They weren't many phones supporting WP7 until recently. I think you will see that number grow slowly. They're a bit late to the party. I think it's a better OS than Android in my view. That said, the only people I know with WP7 are .NET developers ;)
iPhone is only one small piece of the iOS puzzle, though - iPod touches and iPads add a not-small chunk to iOS' marketshare.
Yes, but that does not invalidate the data presented here. It is worth comparing smartphones, to see how others are fairing in this market segment, and it is worth comparing entire OS marketshare, to see what everyone is using. Apple is doing well, and Android is doing amazingly well.
I don't know about amazingly. It seems entirely predictable: phone makers desperate for something to rival iOS, and Google provide it for free. Why would they turn it down? Android's popularity, in a funny sort of way, is actually indicative of the iPhone's lack of serious competition. What would be amazing is if one of the Android handsets outsold the iPhone.
Yes, but that does not invalidate the data presented here. It is worth comparing smartphones, to see how others are fairing in this market segment, and it is worth comparing entire OS marketshare, to see what everyone is using. Apple is doing well, and Android is doing amazingly well.
I don't know about amazingly. It seems entirely predictable: phone makers desperate for something to rival iOS, and Google provide it for free. Why would they turn it down? Android's popularity, in a funny sort of way, is actually indicative of the iPhone's lack of serious competition. What would be amazing is if one of the Android handsets outsold the iPhone.
I don't think it was that predictable a year ago for most people. There were still many people thinking Android would have no chance against iPhone, and the last argument I heard about this was that iPhone would kill Android once it goes to Verizon, too. And this was only a couple of months ago when Android was already surging. A year ago when Android had 4% market share, ideas like that were a lot more popular.
Somewhat off-topic: is there any reason not to get Virgin Mobile's $150 LG Optimus V for the purpose of exploring Android development? Aside from smaller memory and lower-res camera, it looks like I don't miss out on anything from top of the line models.
The main problem, at least for me, is that it is on Sprint's CDMA network so it doesn't work if you travel out of the country. Another issue for some people is it doesn't have flash.
#1 in volume doesn't always mean #1 in profit. I'm guessing Apple is trying to grab hard onto the market segment that brings in the most profit, while Google is going for the commodity, high volume, low margin option. The good news is that both models can coexist in the same market. After all, Nintendo's strategy is a bit like Google's, while Microsoft and Sony's are more like Google's. Nintendo has been quite profit…
> #1 in volume doesn't always mean #1 in profit.
Unless you're an Apple shareholder why does that matter? As a developer #1 in market share is a very significant milestone.
I don't know about amazingly. It seems entirely predictable: phone makers desperate for something to rival iOS, and Google provide it for free. Why would they turn it down? Android's popularity, in a funny sort of way, is actually indicative of the iPhone's lack of serious competition. What would be amazing is if one of the Android handsets outsold the iPhone.
I don't think it was that predictable a year ago for most people. There were still many people thinking Android would have no chance against iPhone, and the last argument I heard about this was that iPhone would kill Android once it goes to Verizon, too. And this was only a couple of months ago when Android was already surging. A year ago when Android had 4% market share, ideas like that were a lot more popular.
I know some people thought otherwise but short of Apple open sourcing iOS, this was the only realistic outcome. There are quite a lot of phone makers out there who would need years to develop there own iOS, meanwhile phones have been improving year on year for as far as I remember. Therefore, the 'smartphone' would become ubiquitous, basically just the next step up for feature phones (fist they got smaller, then they got screens, then they got mp3 players, then they got WAP, then they got touch screens and proper internet etc.). Android was the clear option for all these companies to start producing smart phones. I think a better measure of what's going on would be consider how iPhone's share of the total mobile phone market has grown.