I've used all of them myself, and as I told you, they all have different skins, but they also all run the same OS underneath. The HTC Flyer and Motorola XOOM are completely different when you use them, but they're still both Android.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPad Grabs 58% of Tablet Shipments in 4Q 2011
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've used all of them myself, and as I told you, they all have different skins, but they also all run the same OS underneath. The HTC Flyer and Motorola XOOM are completely different when you use them, but they're still both Android.
The requirements are only for companies that want to use the trademark, not the OS itself. For instance, if a company wants to advertise their tablet as running Android, then they have to meet those requirements. If they don't want to, like Amazon, they don't have to meet them. They can still use Android as their OS.
Not hard to accept at all. You can combine things in a lot of different ways. The question is why they would be combined in a market analysis. Your answer appears to be, "Why not?" If that is what we are going by, why not combine all OS that contain the letter "i" into one category?
I'm betting the reason why lies in Strategy Analytics' customer list.
Yep
Their OS is not Android if they don't meet those requirements. It is based on the Android source code.
I've made my points, and you've dismissed them. Would you like to tell me what you want me to say, to appease you? Would that further your point?
So that talks about the term "Android Compatible". And, not that I care, but the Kindle Fire meets those requirements. It also talks about how companies can optionally "license the Android Market client software". Interesting how this is not mandatory to be "Android Compatible".
Soooo, care to share how this proves the Fire is not an Android device?
Apple: -10%
Android: +10%
Just a matter of time before more android tablets, just like what happened with phones. Apple should keep a good niche for the amateur users, but people who like customization and freedom will move on.
Android: +10%
Just a matter of time before more android tablets, just like what happened with phones. Apple should keep a good niche for the amateur users, but people who like customization and freedom will move on.
Are we going to go back and forth on this when we're saying the same thing ? Again, I'll make it simple : If Google doesn't count it in Android activation numbers, I don't think it's Android, nor that it should be counted as an Android device.
Amazon doesn't state in the tech specs what OS it's running, but they do clearly use and reference the Amazon Android Appstore.
So they do acknowledge it in a round about way.
Technically speaking though, since it doesn't use any of the Google apps (Android Market, GMail, Google Maps, etc) and doesn't require a GMail account to use, Google doesn't count it as an activated device.
You will also not find a Google logo or Android logo on a Fire either.
Their OS is Android even if they don't meet it the requirements. The requirements are only for the trademark, not the OS.
If the Kindle Fire isn't Android because it's been customised, then surely the same goes for all phones with HTC Sense, Samsung TouchWiz, etc?
Phones with TouchWiz or Sense still use the Google services and are counted in Android activations. The Kindle Fire, again, does not use Google services and is not counted in Android activation.
I can't believe this is such a hard concept to grasp for some.
Actually, yes it does meet the requirements. This is the single requirement:
"We define an 'Android compatible' device as one that can run any application written by third-party developers using the Android SDK and NDK."
The Fire obviously meets this requirement.
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition is not intended for anything other than Tablet PCs. That is again why I don't get your point. You're saying Windows XP Tablet PC edition was not intended for... Tablet PCs ? Makes no sense to me.
----------
Is it using Google services or is it counted in activations ? That should answer your question is what I think.
Nowhere does it state that an Android device is required to use google services. Sorry, I know you think it "should" work this way, but you're just making things up right now.
Source?
"In other words, compatibility is a prerequisite to participate in the Android apps ecosystem. Anyone is welcome to use the Android source code, but if the device isn't compatible, it's not considered part of the Android ecosystem."
I don't see why you bring up CyanogenMod. It's a ROM, which only separates Google Apps from the ROM itself, because Google cried copyright infringement. But they provide their gapps.zip file along with their ROM itself, because you're going to be using CM on a phone or tablet which uses Google Services. When you flash CM and then flash gapps.zip, you are connected to Google's services and your device that you run CM on is an Android device that has the Market, Google Sync, Google Services and Google Branding. Or are you saying you just flash CM and don't flash the google apps right after?
Not all. Some companies stopped shipping entirely, and will never ship again, but they sold the remaining inventory off.
And it is compatible, because it meets this requirement:
http://source.android.com/faqs.html#what-does-compatibility-mean
Sorry bud. You're just wrong.
I love it how everybody is missing the obvious, Apple slipped from 68% Market Share to 57% Market Share!! While Android Gained 10%!
Android is growing fast, and I don´t think Fire has much to do with it, its probably more Samsung Galaxy Tab, which for some reason everybody loves.
Android is growing fast, and I don´t think Fire has much to do with it, its probably more Samsung Galaxy Tab, which for some reason everybody loves.
Android tablet numbers are so high because those 89$ pantrash picture frames that run android are counted as tablets.