Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Linux Kindle distro sells millions of tablets
5 views
Skip to first unread message
7
Dec 30, 2011, 7:44:11 AM12/30/11
to
Linux Kindle distro sells millions of tablets
---------------------------------------------
http://www.itproportal.com/2011/12/30/amazons-kindles-are-selling-strong/
Linux, Linux, Linux, its all Linux and all selling well.
Companies like Comet, Dixons and many electronics wholesalers
can learn from this and order up their own Linux PCs, Linux netbooks,
Linux tablets, and Linux products and turn the recession around
into a sales bonanza!
A large part of the current trend in tablet market is to fake
the cost of the tablet and pretend to be selling at a loss.
Thats not true. No one does that. The way appil and Amzon manage
this perception for the high prices they charge for tablets is to
use cretinous companies like iSupply to take retail prices of components
and then come up with a fictitious price for materials (instead
of factory prices for components) and then claim the tablets are being sold
at below cost.
Don't believe these cretins. Go direct to China, Taiwan or Korea
and start getting together quotations for your own tablets and
other Linux devices and go make plenty of money.
These tablets cost around USD50 to USD100 tops to make and are sold
for USD400 etc at 4x times the price.
There is nothing to stop you making your own tablets and computers
and selling it with Linux driving all its functionality.
If you are electronics company,
take an inventory of all your products that contain Linux and then
put thinking hat on and think of all the things these products could
be doing better. You will be surprised. All your printers contain Linux.
All your flat TVs and monitors contain Linux. Add to that list DVD players,
HD recorders, digital photoframes, IP webcams, set top boxes, MP3, MP4,
MP5 players, Android Smartphones, etc. etc. etc. and these are the
products that bring in most of your revenues.
Its never proprietary products like micoshaft or appil that bring
in the bulk of the revenue. They are for losers and a big cost overhead
managing those product lines. Chuck them out the door and fill your
retail space with even more Linux products to make more money!
Linux is about to attack the Desktop Market - so be sure to be ready
for that!
Send your product developers to China, Taiwan, Korea
and get them to get quotations for these best ideas and before you
know it you will be making and selling better products than your competitors
and making tons more money like google, Amazon etc.
Linux is free and its source code is free to download, modify
and incorporate into products because it has been donated and maintained
by open source developers around the globe.
---------------------------------------------
http://www.itproportal.com/2011/12/30/amazons-kindles-are-selling-strong/
Linux, Linux, Linux, its all Linux and all selling well.
Companies like Comet, Dixons and many electronics wholesalers
can learn from this and order up their own Linux PCs, Linux netbooks,
Linux tablets, and Linux products and turn the recession around
into a sales bonanza!
A large part of the current trend in tablet market is to fake
the cost of the tablet and pretend to be selling at a loss.
Thats not true. No one does that. The way appil and Amzon manage
this perception for the high prices they charge for tablets is to
use cretinous companies like iSupply to take retail prices of components
and then come up with a fictitious price for materials (instead
of factory prices for components) and then claim the tablets are being sold
at below cost.
Don't believe these cretins. Go direct to China, Taiwan or Korea
and start getting together quotations for your own tablets and
other Linux devices and go make plenty of money.
These tablets cost around USD50 to USD100 tops to make and are sold
for USD400 etc at 4x times the price.
There is nothing to stop you making your own tablets and computers
and selling it with Linux driving all its functionality.
If you are electronics company,
take an inventory of all your products that contain Linux and then
put thinking hat on and think of all the things these products could
be doing better. You will be surprised. All your printers contain Linux.
All your flat TVs and monitors contain Linux. Add to that list DVD players,
HD recorders, digital photoframes, IP webcams, set top boxes, MP3, MP4,
MP5 players, Android Smartphones, etc. etc. etc. and these are the
products that bring in most of your revenues.
Its never proprietary products like micoshaft or appil that bring
in the bulk of the revenue. They are for losers and a big cost overhead
managing those product lines. Chuck them out the door and fill your
retail space with even more Linux products to make more money!
Linux is about to attack the Desktop Market - so be sure to be ready
for that!
Send your product developers to China, Taiwan, Korea
and get them to get quotations for these best ideas and before you
know it you will be making and selling better products than your competitors
and making tons more money like google, Amazon etc.
Linux is free and its source code is free to download, modify
and incorporate into products because it has been donated and maintained
by open source developers around the globe.
Lloyd
Dec 30, 2011, 9:14:12 AM12/30/11
to
In article <vmiLq.67784$925....@newsfe16.ams2>,
Kindle Fires sold well because Amazon has amazing marketing expertise
and something to back up that tablet. All that content, the almost
complete lock in to purchasing from Amazon all add up to good sales.
And that is very similar to what Apple does with the iOS devices.
Just selling an Android tablet isn't the key to this market at all.
7 <email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> Linux Kindle distro sells millions of tablets
> ---------------------------------------------
>
>
> http://www.itproportal.com/2011/12/30/amazons-kindles-are-selling-strong/
>
>
>
> Linux, Linux, Linux, its all Linux and all selling well.
>
> Companies like Comet, Dixons and many electronics wholesalers
> can learn from this and order up their own Linux PCs, Linux netbooks,
> Linux tablets, and Linux products and turn the recession around
> into a sales bonanza!
>
False premise.
> Linux Kindle distro sells millions of tablets
> ---------------------------------------------
>
>
> http://www.itproportal.com/2011/12/30/amazons-kindles-are-selling-strong/
>
>
>
> Linux, Linux, Linux, its all Linux and all selling well.
>
> Companies like Comet, Dixons and many electronics wholesalers
> can learn from this and order up their own Linux PCs, Linux netbooks,
> Linux tablets, and Linux products and turn the recession around
> into a sales bonanza!
>
Kindle Fires sold well because Amazon has amazing marketing expertise
and something to back up that tablet. All that content, the almost
complete lock in to purchasing from Amazon all add up to good sales.
And that is very similar to what Apple does with the iOS devices.
Just selling an Android tablet isn't the key to this market at all.
chrisv
Dec 30, 2011, 9:38:08 AM12/30/11
to
Lloyd wrote:
>Kindle Fires sold well because Amazon has amazing marketing expertise
>and something to back up that tablet. All that content, the almost
>complete lock in to purchasing from Amazon all add up to good sales.
>And that is very similar to what Apple does with the iOS devices.
>
>Just selling an Android tablet isn't the key to this market at all.
False premise.
>Kindle Fires sold well because Amazon has amazing marketing expertise
>and something to back up that tablet. All that content, the almost
>complete lock in to purchasing from Amazon all add up to good sales.
>And that is very similar to what Apple does with the iOS devices.
>
>Just selling an Android tablet isn't the key to this market at all.
There is no "the" key. There's many ways to approach the portable
computing market. Amazon appears to have a good business plan, as
does Apple, but there are other ways of doing it. Yes, it is possible
to find a niche being "just" a hardware maker.
7
Dec 30, 2011, 10:01:57 AM12/30/11
to
had twice the market share of iPones in just one year.
Anyone can do same because Linux is cheaper and source code
is available to download and install on your gadgets
and make it do things that are important for retail customers.
Its free as well which means engineers are free to do this
without swallowing up a company's R&D budget.
The wishes of the engineers who donated all this free code
is that you use what they shared out for free.
There are a lot of good engineers like that around the globe.
A few of them get inundated with work as open source friendly
companies scramble to commercialize the good stuff and make money
from sharing.
http://www.livecdlist.com http://www.distrowatch.com
Lloyd
Dec 30, 2011, 10:21:59 AM12/30/11
to
In article <tvirf71h394anavo0...@4ax.com>,
Small niche yes. Not a problem. But it is becoming more apparent that
these other companies are finding that the key is the backend, that's
why Apple, Amazon and maybe even Barnes&Noble are finding bigger
successes in the market.
these other companies are finding that the key is the backend, that's
why Apple, Amazon and maybe even Barnes&Noble are finding bigger
successes in the market.
-hh
Dec 30, 2011, 10:10:08 AM12/30/11
to
On Dec 30, 9:38 am, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Lloyd wrote:
> >Kindle Fires sold well because Amazon has amazing marketing expertise
> >and something to back up that tablet. All that content, the almost
> >complete lock in to purchasing from Amazon all add up to good sales.
> >And that is very similar to what Apple does with the iOS devices.
>
> >Just selling an Android tablet isn't the key to this market at all.
>
> False premise.
>
> There is no "the" key. There's many ways to approach the portable
> computing market.
Certainly, there can be more than one single way to successfully skin
> Lloyd wrote:
> >Kindle Fires sold well because Amazon has amazing marketing expertise
> >and something to back up that tablet. All that content, the almost
> >complete lock in to purchasing from Amazon all add up to good sales.
> >And that is very similar to what Apple does with the iOS devices.
>
> >Just selling an Android tablet isn't the key to this market at all.
>
> False premise.
>
> There is no "the" key. There's many ways to approach the portable
> computing market.
a cat, but the mere existence of all of the _unsuccessful_ approaches
don't really matter much: businesses only want what actually works.
> Amazon appears to have a good business plan, as
> does Apple, but there are other ways of doing it.
being successful here. Naturally, when there wasn't being done with a
Linux (Android) product, the whole concept of "Walled Garden" was
consistently labelled as downright 'EVIL' on COLA. My, my how times
have changed.
> Yes, it is possible
> to find a niche being "just" a hardware maker.
no parachute and survive, too...
URLs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Magee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Alkemade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Chisov
But just because something is _possible_ doesn't mean that it is
_probable_ enough to make into a particularly good business plan.
-hh
chrisv
Dec 30, 2011, 10:51:24 AM12/30/11
to
Lloyd wrote:
> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> There is no "the" key. There's many ways to approach the portable
>> computing market. Amazon appears to have a good business plan, as
>> does Apple, but there are other ways of doing it. Yes, it is possible
>> to find a niche being "just" a hardware maker.
>
>Small niche yes. Not a problem. But it is becoming more apparent that
>these other companies are finding that the key is the backend, that's
>why Apple, Amazon and maybe even Barnes&Noble are finding bigger
>successes in the market.
Too early to tell. They've kick-started the market, but I'm not sure
why their hardware would be particularly popular, in the long-term.
Many will ask "Why buy a Kindle when I can buy something generic and
later install the Kindle app?"
> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> There is no "the" key. There's many ways to approach the portable
>> computing market. Amazon appears to have a good business plan, as
>> does Apple, but there are other ways of doing it. Yes, it is possible
>> to find a niche being "just" a hardware maker.
>
>Small niche yes. Not a problem. But it is becoming more apparent that
>these other companies are finding that the key is the backend, that's
>why Apple, Amazon and maybe even Barnes&Noble are finding bigger
>successes in the market.
why their hardware would be particularly popular, in the long-term.
Many will ask "Why buy a Kindle when I can buy something generic and
later install the Kindle app?"
Lloyd
Dec 30, 2011, 10:53:26 AM12/30/11
to
In article <bvmrf71msrtupbvsa...@4ax.com>,
I'm sure many will, but that 'many' won't be but a blip on the radar
screen when compared to the big boys with backend offerings, imo.
screen when compared to the big boys with backend offerings, imo.
JEDIDIAH
Dec 30, 2011, 11:10:38 AM12/30/11
to
competing platform. It's not like Apple where you can only use their
stuff on their brand of hardware.
--
Linux: Because I don't want to push pretty buttons. |||
I want the pretty buttons to push themelves. / | \
Lloyd
Dec 30, 2011, 11:47:22 AM12/30/11
to
In article <slrnjfroj...@nomad.mishnet>,
From a commercial standpoint, that hasn't been all that successful. The
buy through rate and money earned by developers is much lower on Android
than on iOS.
I know, you Linux types don't consider the commercial aspects to be
important though.
buy through rate and money earned by developers is much lower on Android
than on iOS.
I know, you Linux types don't consider the commercial aspects to be
important though.
chrisv
Dec 30, 2011, 12:25:13 PM12/30/11
to
Lloyd wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> Lloyd wrote:
dominance. In this transitional period to tablets and such, it's not
surprising that people take comfort in the "support" of someone like
Amazon.
After years of being subjects of the Micro$oft monopoly, people are
afraid of being somehow "left out in the cold" if they make an obscure
choice.
>The buy through rate and money earned by developers is much lower on Android
>than on iOS.
Which is one of the reasons Android will win, long-term. At least
from the consumer's perspective. The consumer cares not for which
company or developer makes the most profits. The consumer cares about
getting the best value for their money.
>I know, you Linux types don't consider the commercial aspects to be
>important though.
You Apple types misrepresent our positions. Of course "commercial
aspects" are "important".
And it's in the interest of companies like Samsung and HTC to not let
companies like Apple and Google have all the profits.
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> Lloyd wrote:
>> > chrisv wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Too early to tell. They've kick-started the market, but I'm not sure
>> >> why their hardware would be particularly popular, in the long-term.
>> >>
>> >> Many will ask "Why buy a Kindle when I can buy something generic and
>> >> later install the Kindle app?"
>> >
>> > I'm sure many will, but that 'many' won't be but a blip on the radar
>> > screen when compared to the big boys with backend offerings, imo.
>>
>> Except that "backend offering" is everywhere. It's even on the
>> competing platform. It's not like Apple where you can only use their
>> stuff on their brand of hardware.
>
>From a commercial standpoint, that hasn't been all that successful.
It's still a young market, only beginning to emerge from Apple
>> >>
>> >> Too early to tell. They've kick-started the market, but I'm not sure
>> >> why their hardware would be particularly popular, in the long-term.
>> >>
>> >> Many will ask "Why buy a Kindle when I can buy something generic and
>> >> later install the Kindle app?"
>> >
>> > I'm sure many will, but that 'many' won't be but a blip on the radar
>> > screen when compared to the big boys with backend offerings, imo.
>>
>> Except that "backend offering" is everywhere. It's even on the
>> competing platform. It's not like Apple where you can only use their
>> stuff on their brand of hardware.
>
>From a commercial standpoint, that hasn't been all that successful.
dominance. In this transitional period to tablets and such, it's not
surprising that people take comfort in the "support" of someone like
Amazon.
After years of being subjects of the Micro$oft monopoly, people are
afraid of being somehow "left out in the cold" if they make an obscure
choice.
>The buy through rate and money earned by developers is much lower on Android
>than on iOS.
from the consumer's perspective. The consumer cares not for which
company or developer makes the most profits. The consumer cares about
getting the best value for their money.
>I know, you Linux types don't consider the commercial aspects to be
>important though.
aspects" are "important".
And it's in the interest of companies like Samsung and HTC to not let
companies like Apple and Google have all the profits.
Lloyd
Dec 30, 2011, 12:32:53 PM12/30/11
to
In article <ivrrf7910c6ffjm8q...@4ax.com>,
Screwy way to look at it. With reduced profits to the developers from
Android app sales, you might expect that the number of developers will
dwindle over time. Which means fewer apps to not buy.
And that is the key, the Android users are not buying much other than
the device. Either just using what comes with the device, or only
taking the free apps. Not good for the developer community and not good
for the potential consumer.
But you are right, the consumer doesn't care about the profits of the
supporting developers. But they do care about having apps that are
valuable.
Face it, damn few people buy an Android device, or iOS one for that
matter, to develop anything themselves. The vast majority want to use
it and actually don't care at all if it is Android, Windows or iOS.
> >I know, you Linux types don't consider the commercial aspects to be
> >important though.
>
> You Apple types misrepresent our positions. Of course "commercial
> aspects" are "important".
>
> And it's in the interest of companies like Samsung and HTC to not let
> companies like Apple and Google have all the profits.
But that is what they are doing right now, or nearly so. The profits to
Apple from iOS devices far exceed those of those other companies you
mention in the same market space.
Android app sales, you might expect that the number of developers will
dwindle over time. Which means fewer apps to not buy.
And that is the key, the Android users are not buying much other than
the device. Either just using what comes with the device, or only
taking the free apps. Not good for the developer community and not good
for the potential consumer.
But you are right, the consumer doesn't care about the profits of the
supporting developers. But they do care about having apps that are
valuable.
Face it, damn few people buy an Android device, or iOS one for that
matter, to develop anything themselves. The vast majority want to use
it and actually don't care at all if it is Android, Windows or iOS.
> >I know, you Linux types don't consider the commercial aspects to be
> >important though.
>
> You Apple types misrepresent our positions. Of course "commercial
> aspects" are "important".
>
> And it's in the interest of companies like Samsung and HTC to not let
> companies like Apple and Google have all the profits.
Apple from iOS devices far exceed those of those other companies you
mention in the same market space.
chrisv
Dec 30, 2011, 1:11:24 PM12/30/11
to
Lloyd wrote:
> chrisv wrote:
The profits are only "reduced" from the perspective of a company which
is making *excessive* profits, due to some advantage, fair or unfair,
they have in the market.
A free and competitive market will achieve an equilibrium where
profits are *fair*, and the number of products (apps) will be
sufficient and correct for that market.
>And that is the key, the Android users are not buying much other than
>the device. Either just using what comes with the device, or only
>taking the free apps. Not good for the developer community and not good
>for the potential consumer.
You are claiming that what customers are choosing to do is "not good
for the (potential) customer". Talk about a "screwy way to look at
it"...
Look, the market doesn't need anyone's dictatorship. It will take
care of itself, if left alone.
>But you are right, the consumer doesn't care about the profits of the
>supporting developers. But they do care about having apps that are
>valuable.
The apps that are "valuable" will be provided. This is the inevitable
outcome in a healthy market.
>Face it, damn few people buy an Android device, or iOS one for that
>matter, to develop anything themselves. The vast majority want to use
>it and actually don't care at all if it is Android, Windows or iOS.
There's a straw-man if I ever saw one.
>The profits
The profits. The profits. The profits. Look at Apple's profits.
I suppose I shouldn't even mention that Apple is concerned-enough
about the situation to be suing everyone in sight...
> chrisv wrote:
>
>> Lloyd wrote:
>>
>> >The buy through rate and money earned by developers is much lower on Android
>> >than on iOS.
>>
>> Which is one of the reasons Android will win, long-term. At least
>> from the consumer's perspective. The consumer cares not for which
>> company or developer makes the most profits. The consumer cares about
>> getting the best value for their money.
>>
>Screwy way to look at it. With reduced profits to the developers from
>Android app sales, you might expect that the number of developers will
>dwindle over time. Which means fewer apps to not buy.
Not "screwy" at all.
>> Lloyd wrote:
>>
>> >The buy through rate and money earned by developers is much lower on Android
>> >than on iOS.
>>
>> Which is one of the reasons Android will win, long-term. At least
>> from the consumer's perspective. The consumer cares not for which
>> company or developer makes the most profits. The consumer cares about
>> getting the best value for their money.
>>
>Screwy way to look at it. With reduced profits to the developers from
>Android app sales, you might expect that the number of developers will
>dwindle over time. Which means fewer apps to not buy.
The profits are only "reduced" from the perspective of a company which
is making *excessive* profits, due to some advantage, fair or unfair,
they have in the market.
A free and competitive market will achieve an equilibrium where
profits are *fair*, and the number of products (apps) will be
sufficient and correct for that market.
>And that is the key, the Android users are not buying much other than
>the device. Either just using what comes with the device, or only
>taking the free apps. Not good for the developer community and not good
>for the potential consumer.
for the (potential) customer". Talk about a "screwy way to look at
it"...
Look, the market doesn't need anyone's dictatorship. It will take
care of itself, if left alone.
>But you are right, the consumer doesn't care about the profits of the
>supporting developers. But they do care about having apps that are
>valuable.
outcome in a healthy market.
>Face it, damn few people buy an Android device, or iOS one for that
>matter, to develop anything themselves. The vast majority want to use
>it and actually don't care at all if it is Android, Windows or iOS.
>The profits
The profits. The profits. The profits. Look at Apple's profits.
I suppose I shouldn't even mention that Apple is concerned-enough
about the situation to be suing everyone in sight...
7
Dec 30, 2011, 1:44:21 PM12/30/11
to
-hh wrote:
> On Dec 30, 9:38 am, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Lloyd wrote:
>> >Kindle Fires sold well because Amazon has amazing marketing expertise
>> >and something to back up that tablet. All that content, the almost
>> >complete lock in to purchasing from Amazon all add up to good sales.
>> >And that is very similar to what Apple does with the iOS devices.
>>
>> >Just selling an Android tablet isn't the key to this market at all.
>>
>> False premise.
>>
>> There is no "the" key. There's many ways to approach the portable
>> computing market.
>
> Certainly, there can be more than one single way to successfully skin
> a cat, but the mere existence of all of the _unsuccessful_ approaches
> don't really matter much: businesses only want what actually works.
That must be Linux.
> On Dec 30, 9:38 am, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Lloyd wrote:
>> >Kindle Fires sold well because Amazon has amazing marketing expertise
>> >and something to back up that tablet. All that content, the almost
>> >complete lock in to purchasing from Amazon all add up to good sales.
>> >And that is very similar to what Apple does with the iOS devices.
>>
>> >Just selling an Android tablet isn't the key to this market at all.
>>
>> False premise.
>>
>> There is no "the" key. There's many ways to approach the portable
>> computing market.
>
> Certainly, there can be more than one single way to successfully skin
> a cat, but the mere existence of all of the _unsuccessful_ approaches
> don't really matter much: businesses only want what actually works.
Businesses make more money from Linux than any other gadget maker.
An inventory check will show Linux is in all flat TV and monitors, printers,
IPWebcams, DVD players, DVD recorders, HD players and recorders, MP3, MP4,
MP5 players, set top boxes, routers, Android phones, android tablets, etc
that bring in the revenue.
Selling appil products and micoshaft products don't make them
anywhere near as much money.
-hh
Dec 30, 2011, 1:48:33 PM12/30/11
to
chrisv wrote:
> Lloyd wrote:
> > chrisv wrote:
> >> Lloyd wrote:
>
> >> >The buy through rate and money earned by developers is much lower
> >> >on Android than on iOS.
>
> >> Which is one of the reasons Android will win, long-term. At least
> >> from the consumer's perspective. The consumer cares not for which
> >> company or developer makes the most profits. The consumer cares about
> >> getting the best value for their money.
>
> >Screwy way to look at it. With reduced profits to the developers from
> >Android app sales, you might expect that the number of developers will
> >dwindle over time. Which means fewer apps to not buy.
>
> Not "screwy" at all.
>
> The profits are only "reduced" from the perspective of a company which
> is making *excessive* profits, due to some advantage, fair or unfair,
> they have in the market.
No Chris: Lloyd's point has nothing to do with profit margins.
> Lloyd wrote:
> > chrisv wrote:
> >> Lloyd wrote:
>
> >> >The buy through rate and money earned by developers is much lower
> >> >on Android than on iOS.
>
> >> Which is one of the reasons Android will win, long-term. At least
> >> from the consumer's perspective. The consumer cares not for which
> >> company or developer makes the most profits. The consumer cares about
> >> getting the best value for their money.
>
> >Screwy way to look at it. With reduced profits to the developers from
> >Android app sales, you might expect that the number of developers will
> >dwindle over time. Which means fewer apps to not buy.
>
> Not "screwy" at all.
>
> The profits are only "reduced" from the perspective of a company which
> is making *excessive* profits, due to some advantage, fair or unfair,
> they have in the market.
> A free and competitive market will achieve an equilibrium where
> profits are *fair*, and the number of products (apps) will be
> sufficient and correct for that market.
"excessive" (negative connotation for what is merely "higher") when,
as he just pointed out, a company has an advantage in the
marketplace...which as Chrisv also points out doesn't have to only be
an unfair advantage.
Of course, the attempted connotations here are that Apple's recognized
higher profits are coming from some supposedly "unfair" marketplace
advantage. That's an implied claim that lacks objective
substantiation.
> >And that is the key, the Android users are not buying much other than
> >the device. Either just using what comes with the device, or only
> >taking the free apps. Not good for the developer community and not good
> >for the potential consumer.
>
> You are claiming that what customers are choosing to do is "not good
> for the (potential) customer". Talk about a "screwy way to look at
> it"...
connotations and what might be appealing in the short term may in fact
be quite bad in the long term. For a real-world example, keep your
home warm for yourself tonight by setting it on fire. Good luck
finding shelter for yourself tomorrow night.
> Look, the market doesn't need anyone's dictatorship. It will take
> care of itself, if left alone.
that some 'dictator' must be meddling with the current marketplace.
The marketplace hasn't been disrupted by regulation and the business
reality that's being demonstrated - - first by Apple, and emerging by
Amazon - - is that a holistic product system solution is what
consumers will buy and support, which is what makes the more viable
(eg, profitable) business model. Sure, there can be other means to
scratch away at the edges with simple "commodity" hardware products
running on Linux/Android, but that approach lacks the product
differentiation which fosters higher profit margins and thus, better
ROIs.
> >But you are right, the consumer doesn't care about the profits of the
> >supporting developers. But they do care about having apps that are
> >valuable.
>
> The apps that are "valuable" will be provided. This is the inevitable
> outcome in a healthy market.
App developer. Give him a dozen different flavors of OS to support
and 40 different hardware devices to customize for and all other
factors being equal, his ROI is invariably inferior to a platform with
only a few OS versions and a few hardware devices to support.
> >Face it, damn few people buy an Android device, or iOS one for that
> >matter, to develop anything themselves. The vast majority want to use
> >it and actually don't care at all if it is Android, Windows or iOS.
>
> There's a straw-man if I ever saw one.
stare at the Operating System.
> >The profits
>
> The profits. The profits. The profits. Look at Apple's profits.
pointed out (but you snipped), the profits from iOS devices ...which
are being shared with App developers, mind you ...far exceed those of
those other companies you mention in the same market space. That's
going to attract even more and better App developers to the iOS
ecosystem, which will make that product even more appealing to
customers.
> I suppose I shouldn't even mention that Apple is concerned-enough
> about the situation to be suing everyone in sight...
-hh
chrisv
Dec 30, 2011, 1:56:09 PM12/30/11
to
7 wrote:
>-hh wrote:
what they need to take-on and beat the likes of Micro$oft and Apple,
with their limited and expensive product offerings.
>Businesses make more money from Linux than any other gadget maker.
>
>An inventory check will show Linux is in all flat TV and monitors, printers,
>IPWebcams, DVD players, DVD recorders, HD players and recorders, MP3, MP4,
>MP5 players, set top boxes, routers, Android phones, android tablets, etc
>that bring in the revenue.
>
>Selling appil products and micoshaft products don't make them
>anywhere near as much money.
Indeed, it's more difficult to quantify how much money as saved by
companies (and thus consumers) by the use of Free software, but it is
a tremendous amount.
>-hh wrote:
>>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> There is no "the" key. There's many ways to approach the portable
>>> computing market.
>>
>> Certainly, there can be more than one single way to successfully skin
>> a cat, but the mere existence of all of the _unsuccessful_ approaches
>> don't really matter much: businesses only want what actually works.
>
>That must be Linux.
You are absolutely right, Mr President. Linux gives manufacturers
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> There is no "the" key. There's many ways to approach the portable
>>> computing market.
>>
>> Certainly, there can be more than one single way to successfully skin
>> a cat, but the mere existence of all of the _unsuccessful_ approaches
>> don't really matter much: businesses only want what actually works.
>
>That must be Linux.
what they need to take-on and beat the likes of Micro$oft and Apple,
with their limited and expensive product offerings.
>Businesses make more money from Linux than any other gadget maker.
>
>An inventory check will show Linux is in all flat TV and monitors, printers,
>IPWebcams, DVD players, DVD recorders, HD players and recorders, MP3, MP4,
>MP5 players, set top boxes, routers, Android phones, android tablets, etc
>that bring in the revenue.
>
>Selling appil products and micoshaft products don't make them
>anywhere near as much money.
companies (and thus consumers) by the use of Free software, but it is
a tremendous amount.
Lloyd
Dec 30, 2011, 3:24:23 PM12/30/11
to
In article <4surf792i4moonh8m...@4ax.com>,
been for many years.
> >And that is the key, the Android users are not buying much other than
> >the device. Either just using what comes with the device, or only
> >taking the free apps. Not good for the developer community and not good
> >for the potential consumer.
>
> You are claiming that what customers are choosing to do is "not good
> for the (potential) customer". Talk about a "screwy way to look at
> it"...
>
> Look, the market doesn't need anyone's dictatorship. It will take
> care of itself, if left alone.
>
Oh yeah, the free market takes care of itself right. I guess you forgot
about the recent meltdown that isn't over yet, huh?
> >But you are right, the consumer doesn't care about the profits of the
> >supporting developers. But they do care about having apps that are
> >valuable.
>
> The apps that are "valuable" will be provided. This is the inevitable
> outcome in a healthy market.
>
> >Face it, damn few people buy an Android device, or iOS one for that
> >matter, to develop anything themselves. The vast majority want to use
> >it and actually don't care at all if it is Android, Windows or iOS.
>
> There's a straw-man if I ever saw one.
>
> >The profits
>
> The profits. The profits. The profits. Look at Apple's profits.
>
> I suppose I shouldn't even mention that Apple is concerned-enough
> about the situation to be suing everyone in sight...
Apple isn't the only one to be suing over IP these days, or do you only
read about it when it is Apple.
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Lloyd wrote:
>
> > chrisv wrote:
> >
> >> Lloyd wrote:
> >>
> >> >The buy through rate and money earned by developers is much lower on
> >> >Android
> >> >than on iOS.
> >>
> >> Which is one of the reasons Android will win, long-term. At least
> >> from the consumer's perspective. The consumer cares not for which
> >> company or developer makes the most profits. The consumer cares about
> >> getting the best value for their money.
> >>
> >Screwy way to look at it. With reduced profits to the developers from
> >Android app sales, you might expect that the number of developers will
> >dwindle over time. Which means fewer apps to not buy.
>
> Not "screwy" at all.
>
> The profits are only "reduced" from the perspective of a company which
> is making *excessive* profits, due to some advantage, fair or unfair,
> they have in the market.
>
> A free and competitive market will achieve an equilibrium where
> profits are *fair*, and the number of products (apps) will be
> sufficient and correct for that market.
>
Utter crap! Apple is very much in a fair and competitive market and has
> Lloyd wrote:
>
> > chrisv wrote:
> >
> >> Lloyd wrote:
> >>
> >> >The buy through rate and money earned by developers is much lower on
> >> >Android
> >> >than on iOS.
> >>
> >> Which is one of the reasons Android will win, long-term. At least
> >> from the consumer's perspective. The consumer cares not for which
> >> company or developer makes the most profits. The consumer cares about
> >> getting the best value for their money.
> >>
> >Screwy way to look at it. With reduced profits to the developers from
> >Android app sales, you might expect that the number of developers will
> >dwindle over time. Which means fewer apps to not buy.
>
> Not "screwy" at all.
>
> The profits are only "reduced" from the perspective of a company which
> is making *excessive* profits, due to some advantage, fair or unfair,
> they have in the market.
>
> A free and competitive market will achieve an equilibrium where
> profits are *fair*, and the number of products (apps) will be
> sufficient and correct for that market.
>
been for many years.
> >And that is the key, the Android users are not buying much other than
> >the device. Either just using what comes with the device, or only
> >taking the free apps. Not good for the developer community and not good
> >for the potential consumer.
>
> You are claiming that what customers are choosing to do is "not good
> for the (potential) customer". Talk about a "screwy way to look at
> it"...
>
> Look, the market doesn't need anyone's dictatorship. It will take
> care of itself, if left alone.
>
about the recent meltdown that isn't over yet, huh?
> >But you are right, the consumer doesn't care about the profits of the
> >supporting developers. But they do care about having apps that are
> >valuable.
>
> The apps that are "valuable" will be provided. This is the inevitable
> outcome in a healthy market.
>
> >Face it, damn few people buy an Android device, or iOS one for that
> >matter, to develop anything themselves. The vast majority want to use
> >it and actually don't care at all if it is Android, Windows or iOS.
>
> There's a straw-man if I ever saw one.
>
> >The profits
>
> The profits. The profits. The profits. Look at Apple's profits.
>
> I suppose I shouldn't even mention that Apple is concerned-enough
> about the situation to be suing everyone in sight...
read about it when it is Apple.
chrisv
Dec 30, 2011, 3:46:26 PM12/30/11
to
Lloyd trolled:
> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Lloyd wrote:
>>
>> > chrisv wrote:
>> >
>> >> Lloyd wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The buy through rate and money earned by developers is much lower on
>> >> >Android
>> >> >than on iOS.
>> >>
>> >> Which is one of the reasons Android will win, long-term. At least
>> >> from the consumer's perspective. The consumer cares not for which
>> >> company or developer makes the most profits. The consumer cares about
>> >> getting the best value for their money.
>> >>
>> >Screwy way to look at it. With reduced profits to the developers from
>> >Android app sales, you might expect that the number of developers will
>> >dwindle over time. Which means fewer apps to not buy.
>>
>> Not "screwy" at all.
>>
>> The profits are only "reduced" from the perspective of a company which
>> is making *excessive* profits, due to some advantage, fair or unfair,
>> they have in the market.
>>
>> A free and competitive market will achieve an equilibrium where
>> profits are *fair*, and the number of products (apps) will be
>> sufficient and correct for that market.
>>
>Utter crap! Apple is very much in a fair and competitive market and has
>been for many years.
I didn't claim otherwise.
A company can be in a competitive market and still have advantages.
For example being the first to market with a popular new product (like
Apple was in smart phones and tablets). Nothing wrong with that.
>> >And that is the key, the Android users are not buying much other than
>> >the device. Either just using what comes with the device, or only
>> >taking the free apps. Not good for the developer community and not good
>> >for the potential consumer.
>>
>> You are claiming that what customers are choosing to do is "not good
>> for the (potential) customer". Talk about a "screwy way to look at
>> it"...
>>
>> Look, the market doesn't need anyone's dictatorship. It will take
>> care of itself, if left alone.
>>
>Oh yeah, the free market takes care of itself right. I guess you forgot
>about the recent meltdown that isn't over yet, huh?
Good grief. So the exception disproves the rule, does it?
OK, I admit it. Some regulations are required. The banking industry,
with their incestuous relationship with the government, successfully
screwed the masses out $trillions, and nothing was done about it.
Anti-trust laws are needed, as well. Laissez-faire doesn't work.
>> >But you are right, the consumer doesn't care about the profits of the
>> >supporting developers. But they do care about having apps that are
>> >valuable.
>>
>> The apps that are "valuable" will be provided. This is the inevitable
>> outcome in a healthy market.
>>
>> >Face it, damn few people buy an Android device, or iOS one for that
>> >matter, to develop anything themselves. The vast majority want to use
>> >it and actually don't care at all if it is Android, Windows or iOS.
>>
>> There's a straw-man if I ever saw one.
>>
>> >The profits
>>
>> The profits. The profits. The profits. Look at Apple's profits.
>>
>> I suppose I shouldn't even mention that Apple is concerned-enough
>> about the situation to be suing everyone in sight...
>
>Apple isn't the only one to be suing over IP these days, or do you only
>read about it when it is Apple.
Evasion of my point noted.
If Apple shared your disdain for the threat that Android poses, they
wouldn't be behaving as they are.
> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Lloyd wrote:
>>
>> > chrisv wrote:
>> >
>> >> Lloyd wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The buy through rate and money earned by developers is much lower on
>> >> >Android
>> >> >than on iOS.
>> >>
>> >> Which is one of the reasons Android will win, long-term. At least
>> >> from the consumer's perspective. The consumer cares not for which
>> >> company or developer makes the most profits. The consumer cares about
>> >> getting the best value for their money.
>> >>
>> >Screwy way to look at it. With reduced profits to the developers from
>> >Android app sales, you might expect that the number of developers will
>> >dwindle over time. Which means fewer apps to not buy.
>>
>> Not "screwy" at all.
>>
>> The profits are only "reduced" from the perspective of a company which
>> is making *excessive* profits, due to some advantage, fair or unfair,
>> they have in the market.
>>
>> A free and competitive market will achieve an equilibrium where
>> profits are *fair*, and the number of products (apps) will be
>> sufficient and correct for that market.
>>
>Utter crap! Apple is very much in a fair and competitive market and has
>been for many years.
A company can be in a competitive market and still have advantages.
For example being the first to market with a popular new product (like
Apple was in smart phones and tablets). Nothing wrong with that.
>> >And that is the key, the Android users are not buying much other than
>> >the device. Either just using what comes with the device, or only
>> >taking the free apps. Not good for the developer community and not good
>> >for the potential consumer.
>>
>> You are claiming that what customers are choosing to do is "not good
>> for the (potential) customer". Talk about a "screwy way to look at
>> it"...
>>
>> Look, the market doesn't need anyone's dictatorship. It will take
>> care of itself, if left alone.
>>
>Oh yeah, the free market takes care of itself right. I guess you forgot
>about the recent meltdown that isn't over yet, huh?
OK, I admit it. Some regulations are required. The banking industry,
with their incestuous relationship with the government, successfully
screwed the masses out $trillions, and nothing was done about it.
Anti-trust laws are needed, as well. Laissez-faire doesn't work.
>> >But you are right, the consumer doesn't care about the profits of the
>> >supporting developers. But they do care about having apps that are
>> >valuable.
>>
>> The apps that are "valuable" will be provided. This is the inevitable
>> outcome in a healthy market.
>>
>> >Face it, damn few people buy an Android device, or iOS one for that
>> >matter, to develop anything themselves. The vast majority want to use
>> >it and actually don't care at all if it is Android, Windows or iOS.
>>
>> There's a straw-man if I ever saw one.
>>
>> >The profits
>>
>> The profits. The profits. The profits. Look at Apple's profits.
>>
>> I suppose I shouldn't even mention that Apple is concerned-enough
>> about the situation to be suing everyone in sight...
>
>Apple isn't the only one to be suing over IP these days, or do you only
>read about it when it is Apple.
If Apple shared your disdain for the threat that Android poses, they
wouldn't be behaving as they are.
Lloyd
Dec 30, 2011, 4:28:39 PM12/30/11
to
In article <rl7sf7d4vee98uh0d...@4ax.com>,
Bullshit! They will protect their IP, you may disagree with whether or
not it is valid protection, but take that up with the lawmakers, they
put the laws in place.
Apple protects all their IP, not just the stuff the Android makers are
copying as fast as they can... :)
not it is valid protection, but take that up with the lawmakers, they
put the laws in place.
Apple protects all their IP, not just the stuff the Android makers are
copying as fast as they can... :)
JEDIDIAH
Dec 30, 2011, 4:39:23 PM12/30/11
to
On 2011-12-30, Lloyd <lloydp...@me.com> wrote:
> In article <rl7sf7d4vee98uh0d...@4ax.com>,
> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Lloyd trolled:
>>
>> > chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Lloyd wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > chrisv wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Lloyd wrote:
[deletia]
> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Lloyd trolled:
>>
>> > chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Lloyd wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > chrisv wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Lloyd wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I suppose I shouldn't even mention that Apple is concerned-enough
>> >> about the situation to be suing everyone in sight...
>> >
>> >Apple isn't the only one to be suing over IP these days, or do you only
>> >read about it when it is Apple.
>>
>> Evasion of my point noted.
>>
>> If Apple shared your disdain for the threat that Android poses, they
>> wouldn't be behaving as they are.
>
> Bullshit! They will protect their IP, you may disagree with whether or
it's ethical or good for the industry or ultimately good for the end user
or even Apple itself.
Of course you want to gloss over the ethical issues of being a patent
troll. Your pet brand has devolved into one.
chrisv
Dec 30, 2011, 5:22:34 PM12/30/11
to
Lloyd wrote:
> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> If Apple shared your disdain for the threat that Android poses, they
>> wouldn't be behaving as they are.
>
>Bullshit!
From you and Apple, yes.
> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> If Apple shared your disdain for the threat that Android poses, they
>> wouldn't be behaving as they are.
>
>Bullshit!
bbgruff
Dec 30, 2011, 5:32:44 PM12/30/11
to
When you say "IP" though, I think that we are talking mainly patents here?
You say "take it up with the lawmakers", but personally I have no problem
with the lawmakers or the courts in this respect. What *does* concern me is
the sheer number of patent-violation claims that are being made, and the
huge proportion of those that are being dismissed - after considerable time,
and at great expense.
i.e. I don't think it's the lawmakers or the courts that are at fault, but
rather the patent issuing authorities.
From where I sit, and re. Apple, the only thing that seems to have happened
is that Apple has spent a lot of money in court, caused its competition to
spend a lot of money, and has in several instances (e.g. Galaxy Tab in Oz)
caused a delay in bringing competing products to the shops.
Presumably Apple considers that delay to be worth the cost?
Homer
Dec 30, 2011, 6:27:19 PM12/30/11
to
Verily I say unto thee that Lloyd spake thusly:
tablets, that use both the Kindle service and sideloaded e-books, or 200
million Android devices from competitors, all of which also have access
the Kindle service?
Hardware is a zero-margin business (except for extortionate profiteers
like Apple, who tap into the "more money than sense" minority market).
The profit in Kindle is the service, the sale of e-books, which is
provided by an application, an application that can and does run on
pretty much any device. Amazon's biggest (e-book) profits will therefore
come from its biggest demographic - its "competitors'" 200 million
Android devices. But those 200 million devices also have access to
competing services. In that sense, the Kindle Fire is little more than a
courtesy product and a tool for promotion, albeit a very good one.
Please explain how that is a "lock-in".
> And that is very similar to what Apple does with the iOS devices.
This is entirely different to Apple's racketeering operation, which
forces people to use Apple content with Apple software on Apple hardware
(except iTunes for Windows, which is little more than a management
application for Apple hardware), and forces third-parties (and
subsequently customers) to pay a protection fee to Apple. It even
requires a warranty-voiding "jailbreak" before it's possible to sideload
other parties' content. At one point Apple even claimed such activity
was "illegal", until it was laughed out of court.
Android OTOH encourages an equal opportunities business ecosystem, that
can be capitalised on by anyone, and benefits everyone - including Apple
(to the tune of an extortionate 30%).
> Just selling an Android tablet isn't the key to this market at all.
Yes it is, because Android is a facilitator to a Free Market, in which
the vendor can also participate on equal terms, with his own services
and/or third-party deals. Without an open platform like Android, the
vendor would just end up being Apple's bitch. Good for Apple, bad for
everyone else.
[quote]
Apple to book readers: Our way or the highway
By Philip Elmer-DeWitt July 27, 2011: 7:20 AM ET
Over the weekend, the Kindle, Nook and Google Books apps got crippled.
Thanks, Steve.
"The fact is," Steve Jobs famously told the New York Times in 2008,
trying to convince them that Amazon's (AMZN) Kindle was a nonstarter,
"that people don't read books anymore."
What Jobs really meant, we discover three years later, is that people
don't get to read books on his iPads or iPhones unless they buy them
from his iBookstore.
In the past few days, Apple (AAPL) made good on the threat it issued in
February when it revealed its so-called "subscription model." Publishers
and book resellers that wanted to do business on the App Store had to
fork over 30% of every sale or take their business elsewhere. Putting a
button on an app that took readers out of the App Store to make a
purchase -- as Amazon, Barnes & Noble (BKS) and Google (GOOG) had been
doing -- would, as of June 30, no longer be permitted. (See: Steve Jobs
to pubs: Our way or highway.)
Profit margins being what they are in the book business, 30% was never
going to fly. So rather than abandon the App Store entirely, the major
third-party book-buying apps -- Kindle, Nook, Kobo, Google Books etc. --
disappeared and came back with their easy-to-use buttons removed. (See
SplatF's Kindle screenshots, above.)
As someone who has purchased and read several dozen books on the Kindle
app in the past year, I have to say that this sucks.
[/quote]
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/27/apple-to-book-readers-our-way-or-the-highway/
Android literally rescued the market from Apple's Draconian and
monopolistic clutches, and now consumers and businesses alike are
reaping the benefits. This was only possible because Android is a Free
Software open platform, which in turn was only possible because of a
Free Software operating system kernel called Linux.
Trying to claim Android/Linux is purely coincidental to the success of
the Free Market it facilitates, is disingenuous at best.
--
K. | "UNIX is basically a simple operating
http://slated.org | system, but you have to be a genius
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | to understand the simplicity"
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 221 days | ~ Dennis Ritchie
>
> Kindle Fires sold well because Amazon has amazing marketing expertise
> and something to back up that tablet. All that content, the almost
> complete lock in to purchasing from Amazon all add up to good sales.
Which do you suppose Amazon finds more profitable: 4 million Kindle Fire
> Kindle Fires sold well because Amazon has amazing marketing expertise
> and something to back up that tablet. All that content, the almost
> complete lock in to purchasing from Amazon all add up to good sales.
tablets, that use both the Kindle service and sideloaded e-books, or 200
million Android devices from competitors, all of which also have access
the Kindle service?
Hardware is a zero-margin business (except for extortionate profiteers
like Apple, who tap into the "more money than sense" minority market).
The profit in Kindle is the service, the sale of e-books, which is
provided by an application, an application that can and does run on
pretty much any device. Amazon's biggest (e-book) profits will therefore
come from its biggest demographic - its "competitors'" 200 million
Android devices. But those 200 million devices also have access to
competing services. In that sense, the Kindle Fire is little more than a
courtesy product and a tool for promotion, albeit a very good one.
Please explain how that is a "lock-in".
> And that is very similar to what Apple does with the iOS devices.
forces people to use Apple content with Apple software on Apple hardware
(except iTunes for Windows, which is little more than a management
application for Apple hardware), and forces third-parties (and
subsequently customers) to pay a protection fee to Apple. It even
requires a warranty-voiding "jailbreak" before it's possible to sideload
other parties' content. At one point Apple even claimed such activity
was "illegal", until it was laughed out of court.
Android OTOH encourages an equal opportunities business ecosystem, that
can be capitalised on by anyone, and benefits everyone - including Apple
(to the tune of an extortionate 30%).
> Just selling an Android tablet isn't the key to this market at all.
the vendor can also participate on equal terms, with his own services
and/or third-party deals. Without an open platform like Android, the
vendor would just end up being Apple's bitch. Good for Apple, bad for
everyone else.
[quote]
Apple to book readers: Our way or the highway
By Philip Elmer-DeWitt July 27, 2011: 7:20 AM ET
Over the weekend, the Kindle, Nook and Google Books apps got crippled.
Thanks, Steve.
"The fact is," Steve Jobs famously told the New York Times in 2008,
trying to convince them that Amazon's (AMZN) Kindle was a nonstarter,
"that people don't read books anymore."
What Jobs really meant, we discover three years later, is that people
don't get to read books on his iPads or iPhones unless they buy them
from his iBookstore.
In the past few days, Apple (AAPL) made good on the threat it issued in
February when it revealed its so-called "subscription model." Publishers
and book resellers that wanted to do business on the App Store had to
fork over 30% of every sale or take their business elsewhere. Putting a
button on an app that took readers out of the App Store to make a
purchase -- as Amazon, Barnes & Noble (BKS) and Google (GOOG) had been
doing -- would, as of June 30, no longer be permitted. (See: Steve Jobs
to pubs: Our way or highway.)
Profit margins being what they are in the book business, 30% was never
going to fly. So rather than abandon the App Store entirely, the major
third-party book-buying apps -- Kindle, Nook, Kobo, Google Books etc. --
disappeared and came back with their easy-to-use buttons removed. (See
SplatF's Kindle screenshots, above.)
As someone who has purchased and read several dozen books on the Kindle
app in the past year, I have to say that this sucks.
[/quote]
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/27/apple-to-book-readers-our-way-or-the-highway/
Android literally rescued the market from Apple's Draconian and
monopolistic clutches, and now consumers and businesses alike are
reaping the benefits. This was only possible because Android is a Free
Software open platform, which in turn was only possible because of a
Free Software operating system kernel called Linux.
Trying to claim Android/Linux is purely coincidental to the success of
the Free Market it facilitates, is disingenuous at best.
--
K. | "UNIX is basically a simple operating
http://slated.org | system, but you have to be a genius
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | to understand the simplicity"
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 221 days | ~ Dennis Ritchie
Lloyd
Dec 30, 2011, 11:03:58 PM12/30/11
to
In article <nvt1t8-...@sky.matrix>, Homer <use...@slated.org>
wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee that Lloyd spake thusly:
> >
> > Kindle Fires sold well because Amazon has amazing marketing expertise
> > and something to back up that tablet. All that content, the almost
> > complete lock in to purchasing from Amazon all add up to good sales.
>
> Which do you suppose Amazon finds more profitable: 4 million Kindle Fire
> tablets, that use both the Kindle service and sideloaded e-books, or 200
> million Android devices from competitors, all of which also have access
> the Kindle service?
>
> Hardware is a zero-margin business (except for extortionate profiteers
> like Apple, who tap into the "more money than sense" minority market).
> The profit in Kindle is the service, the sale of e-books, which is
> provided by an application, an application that can and does run on
> pretty much any device. Amazon's biggest (e-book) profits will therefore
> come from its biggest demographic - its "competitors'" 200 million
> Android devices. But those 200 million devices also have access to
> competing services. In that sense, the Kindle Fire is little more than a
> courtesy product and a tool for promotion, albeit a very good one.
>
> Please explain how that is a "lock-in".
>
The lock in isn't on Android devices, it is specifically on the Kindle
Fire. If you don't see that, it is because you don't want to.
Personally I think Amazon made a very good move.
> > And that is very similar to what Apple does with the iOS devices.
>
> This is entirely different to Apple's racketeering operation, which
> forces people to use Apple content with Apple software on Apple hardware
> (except iTunes for Windows, which is little more than a management
> application for Apple hardware), and forces third-parties (and
> subsequently customers) to pay a protection fee to Apple. It even
> requires a warranty-voiding "jailbreak" before it's possible to sideload
> other parties' content. At one point Apple even claimed such activity
> was "illegal", until it was laughed out of court.
>
> Android OTOH encourages an equal opportunities business ecosystem, that
> can be capitalised on by anyone, and benefits everyone - including Apple
> (to the tune of an extortionate 30%).
>
So you think developing for Android devices is a better deal? Then
develop for them.
In the meantime, the developers for iOS apps will continue to see more
opportunity in the iOS space for profit.
> > Just selling an Android tablet isn't the key to this market at all.
>
> Yes it is, because Android is a facilitator to a Free Market, in which
> the vendor can also participate on equal terms, with his own services
> and/or third-party deals. Without an open platform like Android, the
> vendor would just end up being Apple's bitch. Good for Apple, bad for
> everyone else.
>
LOL! Android and 'free market' what a load of horseshit!
That was the funniest article, thanks for posting it. You did get
permission from the owners of that article I'm sure.
I use an iPad and read books from all over the place with all sorts of
apps. Nary an issue. The article is just BS.
wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee that Lloyd spake thusly:
> >
> > Kindle Fires sold well because Amazon has amazing marketing expertise
> > and something to back up that tablet. All that content, the almost
> > complete lock in to purchasing from Amazon all add up to good sales.
>
> Which do you suppose Amazon finds more profitable: 4 million Kindle Fire
> tablets, that use both the Kindle service and sideloaded e-books, or 200
> million Android devices from competitors, all of which also have access
> the Kindle service?
>
> Hardware is a zero-margin business (except for extortionate profiteers
> like Apple, who tap into the "more money than sense" minority market).
> The profit in Kindle is the service, the sale of e-books, which is
> provided by an application, an application that can and does run on
> pretty much any device. Amazon's biggest (e-book) profits will therefore
> come from its biggest demographic - its "competitors'" 200 million
> Android devices. But those 200 million devices also have access to
> competing services. In that sense, the Kindle Fire is little more than a
> courtesy product and a tool for promotion, albeit a very good one.
>
> Please explain how that is a "lock-in".
>
Fire. If you don't see that, it is because you don't want to.
Personally I think Amazon made a very good move.
> > And that is very similar to what Apple does with the iOS devices.
>
> This is entirely different to Apple's racketeering operation, which
> forces people to use Apple content with Apple software on Apple hardware
> (except iTunes for Windows, which is little more than a management
> application for Apple hardware), and forces third-parties (and
> subsequently customers) to pay a protection fee to Apple. It even
> requires a warranty-voiding "jailbreak" before it's possible to sideload
> other parties' content. At one point Apple even claimed such activity
> was "illegal", until it was laughed out of court.
>
> Android OTOH encourages an equal opportunities business ecosystem, that
> can be capitalised on by anyone, and benefits everyone - including Apple
> (to the tune of an extortionate 30%).
>
develop for them.
In the meantime, the developers for iOS apps will continue to see more
opportunity in the iOS space for profit.
> > Just selling an Android tablet isn't the key to this market at all.
>
> Yes it is, because Android is a facilitator to a Free Market, in which
> the vendor can also participate on equal terms, with his own services
> and/or third-party deals. Without an open platform like Android, the
> vendor would just end up being Apple's bitch. Good for Apple, bad for
> everyone else.
>
permission from the owners of that article I'm sure.
I use an iPad and read books from all over the place with all sorts of
apps. Nary an issue. The article is just BS.
JEDIDIAH
Dec 31, 2011, 8:22:04 PM12/31/11
to
On 2011-12-31, Lloyd <lloydp...@me.com> wrote:
> In article <nvt1t8-...@sky.matrix>, Homer <use...@slated.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Verily I say unto thee that Lloyd spake thusly:
>> >
>> > Kindle Fires sold well because Amazon has amazing marketing expertise
>> > and something to back up that tablet. All that content, the almost
>> > complete lock in to purchasing from Amazon all add up to good sales.
>>
>> Which do you suppose Amazon finds more profitable: 4 million Kindle Fire
>> tablets, that use both the Kindle service and sideloaded e-books, or 200
>> million Android devices from competitors, all of which also have access
>> the Kindle service?
>>
>> Hardware is a zero-margin business (except for extortionate profiteers
>> like Apple, who tap into the "more money than sense" minority market).
>> The profit in Kindle is the service, the sale of e-books, which is
>> provided by an application, an application that can and does run on
>> pretty much any device. Amazon's biggest (e-book) profits will therefore
>> come from its biggest demographic - its "competitors'" 200 million
>> Android devices. But those 200 million devices also have access to
>> competing services. In that sense, the Kindle Fire is little more than a
>> courtesy product and a tool for promotion, albeit a very good one.
>>
>> Please explain how that is a "lock-in".
>>
> The lock in isn't on Android devices, it is specifically on the Kindle
> Fire. If you don't see that, it is because you don't want to.
> Personally I think Amazon made a very good move.
Nothing that Amazon offers in the Kindle fire is limited to the Kindle
> In article <nvt1t8-...@sky.matrix>, Homer <use...@slated.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Verily I say unto thee that Lloyd spake thusly:
>> >
>> > Kindle Fires sold well because Amazon has amazing marketing expertise
>> > and something to back up that tablet. All that content, the almost
>> > complete lock in to purchasing from Amazon all add up to good sales.
>>
>> Which do you suppose Amazon finds more profitable: 4 million Kindle Fire
>> tablets, that use both the Kindle service and sideloaded e-books, or 200
>> million Android devices from competitors, all of which also have access
>> the Kindle service?
>>
>> Hardware is a zero-margin business (except for extortionate profiteers
>> like Apple, who tap into the "more money than sense" minority market).
>> The profit in Kindle is the service, the sale of e-books, which is
>> provided by an application, an application that can and does run on
>> pretty much any device. Amazon's biggest (e-book) profits will therefore
>> come from its biggest demographic - its "competitors'" 200 million
>> Android devices. But those 200 million devices also have access to
>> competing services. In that sense, the Kindle Fire is little more than a
>> courtesy product and a tool for promotion, albeit a very good one.
>>
>> Please explain how that is a "lock-in".
>>
> The lock in isn't on Android devices, it is specifically on the Kindle
> Fire. If you don't see that, it is because you don't want to.
> Personally I think Amazon made a very good move.
fire or any Amazon hardware for that matter.
[deletia]
There is a lock in for Amazon's app, but not their hardware.
Amazon is in the "software" business and selling hardware just helps that.
-hh
Jan 3, 2012, 10:40:27 AM1/3/12
to
On Dec 30 2011, 1:44 pm, 7
However, making that observation based on a specific use case and then
trying to generalize it into a universal claim is a clear fallacy.
> Businesses make more money from Linux than any other gadget maker.
An interesting claim...where's the substantiation?
Of course, it also begs many follow-on questions:
a) Is this "make more" a representation of Gross income, or is it
germane to the Net profits? This is an important distinction because
most enterprises would prefer to have a high ROI rather than simply be
pushing big numbers around with no profit margin.
b) Is this 'Businesses' genealized to the total world economy, or is
it merely the IT segment?
c) No Enterprise is simplistically monolythic to not have many
elements that contribute to their operations, so precisely how are
these factors parsed into significant versus insignificant factors?
For example, we could say that "Businesses make more money from Hard
Drives than any other..." because the vast majority of businesses use
a PC somewhere and that PC has a hard drive in it. The point here is
that a Reducio Ad Absurdium based claim of Linux can be applied just
as readily to other "contributors". For example, as important as
Linux is, I venture to say that Oxygen is more important ... afterall,
without O2 to breathe, your employees will all be dead within 20
minutes. Yup, sounds rediculous, but it is pedantically correct and
true .. which is detailing exactly why & how any single item is
"contributing" to an enterprise is critical to the claim.
> An inventory check will show Linux is in all flat TV and monitors, printers,
> IPWebcams, DVD players, DVD recorders, HD players and recorders, MP3, MP4,
> MP5 players, set top boxes, routers, Android phones, android tablets, etc
> that bring in the revenue....
What about businesses that merely use these products, such as the
"Services" sector?
Keep in mind that well over 50% of the Worldwide GDP today stems from
the "Services" sector, which aren't "Gadget Makers". All gadgets
combined fall into the manufacturing sector, which in the West today
is roughly only 20% of the total GDP...which really kinda makes the
math hard to work out to show that Linux is bigger than eveyone else,
even if it had 100% penetration of the Manufacturing sector.
-hh
<email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 9:38 am, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> Lloyd wrote:
> >> >Kindle Fires sold well because Amazon has amazing marketing expertise
> >> >and something to back up that tablet. All that content, the almost
> >> >complete lock in to purchasing from Amazon all add up to good sales.
> >> >And that is very similar to what Apple does with the iOS devices.
>
> >> >Just selling an Android tablet isn't the key to this market at all.
>
> >> False premise.
>
> >> There is no "the" key. There's many ways to approach the portable
> >> computing market.
>
> > Certainly, there can be more than one single way to successfully skin
> > a cat, but the mere existence of all of the _unsuccessful_ approaches
> > don't really matter much: businesses only want what actually works.
>
> That must be Linux.
In some cases, it certainly is.
> -hh wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 9:38 am, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >> Lloyd wrote:
> >> >Kindle Fires sold well because Amazon has amazing marketing expertise
> >> >and something to back up that tablet. All that content, the almost
> >> >complete lock in to purchasing from Amazon all add up to good sales.
> >> >And that is very similar to what Apple does with the iOS devices.
>
> >> >Just selling an Android tablet isn't the key to this market at all.
>
> >> False premise.
>
> >> There is no "the" key. There's many ways to approach the portable
> >> computing market.
>
> > Certainly, there can be more than one single way to successfully skin
> > a cat, but the mere existence of all of the _unsuccessful_ approaches
> > don't really matter much: businesses only want what actually works.
>
> That must be Linux.
However, making that observation based on a specific use case and then
trying to generalize it into a universal claim is a clear fallacy.
> Businesses make more money from Linux than any other gadget maker.
Of course, it also begs many follow-on questions:
a) Is this "make more" a representation of Gross income, or is it
germane to the Net profits? This is an important distinction because
most enterprises would prefer to have a high ROI rather than simply be
pushing big numbers around with no profit margin.
b) Is this 'Businesses' genealized to the total world economy, or is
it merely the IT segment?
c) No Enterprise is simplistically monolythic to not have many
elements that contribute to their operations, so precisely how are
these factors parsed into significant versus insignificant factors?
For example, we could say that "Businesses make more money from Hard
Drives than any other..." because the vast majority of businesses use
a PC somewhere and that PC has a hard drive in it. The point here is
that a Reducio Ad Absurdium based claim of Linux can be applied just
as readily to other "contributors". For example, as important as
Linux is, I venture to say that Oxygen is more important ... afterall,
without O2 to breathe, your employees will all be dead within 20
minutes. Yup, sounds rediculous, but it is pedantically correct and
true .. which is detailing exactly why & how any single item is
"contributing" to an enterprise is critical to the claim.
> An inventory check will show Linux is in all flat TV and monitors, printers,
> IPWebcams, DVD players, DVD recorders, HD players and recorders, MP3, MP4,
> MP5 players, set top boxes, routers, Android phones, android tablets, etc
What about businesses that merely use these products, such as the
"Services" sector?
Keep in mind that well over 50% of the Worldwide GDP today stems from
the "Services" sector, which aren't "Gadget Makers". All gadgets
combined fall into the manufacturing sector, which in the West today
is roughly only 20% of the total GDP...which really kinda makes the
math hard to work out to show that Linux is bigger than eveyone else,
even if it had 100% penetration of the Manufacturing sector.
-hh
0 new messages