361–370 of 573 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>There are a lot of people who would have picked up the attractive, well built, well engineered Nokia devices if they had the platform of Android. Yeah maybe. There is no guarantee that the outcome would have been more favorable than being bought out by Microsoft. >Apple obviously is very much in a battle with Android ... Apple already lost to Android. Last count, Android had 80% of the market. There is zero chance o…
> Apple already lost to Android. That's not true. Apple's mobile devices are more profitable than any single line of Android devices. Also, sales of the iPad vs any other line of Android tablets, ie. Samsung's are not even close. Your comparison is no different than comparing Windows Server vs Linux servers. Yes, it might have hurt the market for WinServer a little bit (and Apple's iOS devices), but it's not like any…
A few years ago there was a real risk that Apple would start dropping Google services (ref Apple Maps). Fortunately for Google, iCloud is a mess and Apple is so far away from Google in the services-game that it's not even funny.
Then they have the added hedge of Android which they have full control over.
Basically, Google already has Apple by the balls. In a power struggle between the two, Google will come out on top. Android is certainly an important piece to this puzzle, but saying that Android is "winning/losing" is framing the problem incorrectly.
To everyone speculating about what this means for the possibility of Elop succeeding Ballmer: this means that Elop is succeeding Ballmer. End of story. edit: I would love to know why this is getting downvoted. edit2: fair enough. Two key facts: 1. Microsoft needs a new CEO. They have a limited pool to choose from. The following are seemingly reasonable candidates: - Mark Zuckerberg (never going to happen, he wouldn't…
In other words, Microsoft gets to take chances that anyone else gets to learn from. More competition is a good thing.
This is a great move. There is no money in being an Android vendor except if you're Samsung and are totally vertically integrated. With Windows Phone, Nokia and Microsoft at least have some hope of carving out a profitable stake in the market. Anecdotally, I'm very impressed with some of the new Lumias. I got a 620 to replace my stolen iPhone, and for $200 unlocked its phenomenal phone. The build quality makes a flag…
There is no money in being an Android vendor except if you're Samsung and are totally vertically integrated. There are a lot of people who would have picked up the attractive, well built, well engineered Nokia devices if they had the platform of Android. The core problem with the "no money in Android" argument is that you can't choose not to compete with Android if you're in the smartphone game, which is pretty obvio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft is also a completely different company now than it was dozens of years ago when this was an issue. They're more safe now, less risky.
“Microsoft executives have proved, time and time again, to be inaccurate, misleading, evasive, and transparently false. ... Microsoft is a company with an institutional disdain for both the truth and for rules of law that lesser entities must respect. It is also a company whose senior management is not averse to offering specious testimony to support spurious defenses to claims of its wrongdoing.” –Judge Thomas Jacks…
Funny, replace Microsoft with Apple in this pull and it would still make sense (but not with the rest of the quote)