Sidebar Sidebar
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

KnightWRX said:
Google. Activations. Counting.

3 words. 5 pages of threads. Grasp them already.
Click to expand...

What google decides to use for their numbers means absolutely nothing!

The only term here that has been defined is "Android Compatible", and guess what: By google's own definition, The Kindle Fire is indeed "Android Compatible".

Find me another document that says "only Android devices that show up in Google's activations counting can use be considered Android devices." It's a count, and it doesn't prove or disprove anything.
 
SPUY767 said:
Android tablet numbers are so high because those 89$ pantrash picture frames that run android are counted as tablets.
Click to expand...

Not in Google's activation numbers, hence why analysts should stick to Google activation numbers (and as such, not count the Kindle Fire as an Android tablet).
 
voonyx said:
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?
Click to expand...

The GApps are still separate from the ROM itself, so by the "no GApps means it's not Android" logic, it's not an Android ROM. Note that you can flash GApps on the Fire too.
 
thenerdal said:
I guess the number of actual tablets running Android are much, much higher.
Click to expand...
Yes, there are.
I see lots of cheap Android tablets out there that have no Android Market access. Hell, browse Best Buy online... they have tons of those cheap Coby, Sungale, itomic and Archos tablets. Dirt cheap too.
But none of them use Google services, so they are not counted in Google's reporting.
 
rjohnstone said:
Yes, there are.
I see lots of cheap Android tablets out there that have no Android Market access. Hell, browse Best Buy online... they have tons of those cheap Coby, Sungale, itomic and Archos tablets. Dirt cheap too.
But none of them use Google services, so they are not counted in Google's reporting.
Click to expand...

And frankly, most of those devices are a disgrace. Hence why I think if it's not counted by Google, it shouldn't part of Android numbers.
 
0dev said:
The GApps are still separate from the ROM itself, so by the "no GApps means it's not Android" logic, it's not an Android ROM. Note that you can flash GApps on the Fire too.
Click to expand...

Would you like to provide the link to the CM tablet? I'd like to buy one.

You're missing the point (or just drawing it out because you're bored at work and wanna waste time or something). If a tablet that has no Google Apps AND no Google Market AND is not counted by Google in activation numbers AND no Google Sync, AND no Google branding is an Android tablet, then yes, the Amazon Kindle Fire is the best selling Android tablet of all time.

Don't separate the whole into bits to make your point.
 
Ryth said:
I think it's already been proven that you want a consistent look and feel across all devices of your eco-system.

Android doesn't provide that because they just provide the OS and let the manufacturers tweak it.
Click to expand...

Calling android an OS is really stretching the definition of OS as far as smartphones and tablets are concerned. Android is more of a framework for an OS. The manufacturers take that framework and make an OS out of it, just like a builder takes a set of blueprints and builds a house from them. But just like two houses built for two different people from the same set of blueprints, while similarities are visible, they are both very distinct. That is why there is so much fragmentation and a hodgepodge sort of feel amongst different versions of android, or even the same version of android on two different phones. Google is trying to remedy that by making each version of android more and more elaborate and complete, but each manufacturer still has to compile it for their phone and get it running.
 
KnightWRX said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's because the core OS wasn't intended for Tablets. Of course a specialized version of an OS wouldn't be intended for anything other than what it is customized for. Windows itself wasn't intended for anything not controlled with a keyboard and mouse.
 
KnightWRX said:
Means everything to me.
Click to expand...

For the 100th time, you're just making up rules that you think make sense but have no legal or formal standing whatsoever. Google counts these numbers based on whatever the hell they want and they make no statements about whether it's conclusive or whether a device has to be included in their count in order to be considered Android.

The only things we've proven so far are this:
1. The fire is based on Android
2. The Fire meets google's definition of an "Android Compatible" device

Since Google doesn't define anything outside of "Android Compatible", I think it's fair to say that the Fire can easily be considered an Android Device". More importantly, no one can prove that it isn't.
 
rjohnstone said:
Yes, there are.
I see lots of cheap Android tablets out there that have no Android Market access. Hell, browse Best Buy online... they have tons of those cheap Coby, Sungale, itomic and Archos tablets. Dirt cheap too.
But none of them use Google services, so they are not counted in Google's reporting.
Click to expand...

I wish cheap android devices weren't put in this world. :( They make Android look bad lol.
 
voonyx said:
Would you like to provide the link to the CM tablet? I'd like to buy one.

You're missing the point (or just drawing it out because you're bored at work and wanna waste time or something). If a tablet that has no Google Apps AND no Google Market AND is not counted by Google in activation numbers AND no Google Sync, AND no Google branding is an Android tablet, then yes, the Amazon Kindle Fire is the best selling Android tablet of all time.

Don't separate the whole into bits to make your point.
Click to expand...

The HP TouchPad counts, right? :p

It has the Google services removed, we know this. But the actual underlying operating system, below all the Amazon mods, is still Android Gingerbread.
 
aperry said:
For the 100th time, you're just making up rules that you think make sense but have no legal or formal standing whatsoever. Google counts these numbers based on whatever the hell they want and they make no statements about whether it's conclusive or whether a device has to be included in their count in order to be considered Android.

The only things we've proven so far are this:
1. The fire is based on Android
2. The Fire meets google's definition of an "Android Compatible" device

Since Google doesn't define anything outside of "Android Compatible", I think it's fair to say that the Fire can easily be considered an Android Device". More importantly, no one can prove that it isn't.
Click to expand...

Again, you haven't proven that the Fire is "Android Compatible".
 
0dev said:
The HP TouchPad counts, right? :p

It has the Google services removed, we know this. But the actual underlying operating system, below all the Amazon mods, is still Android Gingerbread.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't think anyone is disputing that the Fire is built off the Android source. In fact, I know no one is. What people are disputing, and they are correct, is that it is not considered an Android tablet, by the very people who make Android and that's Google. That's all that matters.

When/If Google presents stats about their android tablets, the XOOM, Transformer, Galaxy Tab, and Flyer are all included. The Kindle Fire is not. This simply cannot be this difficult for you to understand.

We can do 18 more pages of semantics if you'd like, though.
 
ablashek said:
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. :confused:
Click to expand...

Amazing how an blog post on tablets includes total Android OS numbers, mostly phones ... Android OS tablets ... where are they?

Volume vs profit. Businesses die without profit. Who is profitable competing against iPad and iPad2 plus what is coming this year sometime.

Just Whacky numbers that are truly meaningless.
 
BaldiMac said:
:rolleyes: A line in a FAQ isn't always the whole story. Compatibility is defined by the Android Compatibility Definition Document (CDD). And compatibility is only a prerequisite for access to Android branding. Google does not publish their actual trademark license.
Click to expand...

And by that logic, most of the no-name manufacturers running vanilla Android 2.0 are not Android devices either.

So far no one can offer a shred of real evidence why an "Android Compatible" device (by Google's definition), which, just like everyone else, runs on a customized version of Android OS, shouldn't be considered an "Android Device".

So far we've heard:
* "but it looks a lot different". LOL.
* "but it doesn't use google's services". So what?
* "but it's not counted by google". Who cares? Where does it say that Google activation is a prerequisite for Android? They don't like the Fire because it's not making them money. They don't want to talk about it and they can choose whatever they want for their counting. Doesn't mean it's not Android!
 
thenerdal said:
I wish cheap android devices weren't put in this world. :( They make Android look bad lol.
Click to expand...
Very much so.
The issue with Android is that Google gave too much control over the look and feel to the vendors.
They turned it into a complete mess.
Google's trying to fix it with ICS and the Holo framework, but it will be years before the previous abominations disappear from the market.
ICS in its pure state is a fantastic OS. Let's hope the vendors keep their grubby hands out of the frameworks.
 
aperry said:
And by that logic, most of the no-name manufacturers running vanilla Android 2.0 are not Android devices either.

So far no one can offer a shred of real evidence why an "Android Compatible" device (by Google's definition), which, just like everyone else, runs on a customized version of Android OS, shouldn't be considered an "Android Device".

So far we've heard:
* "but it looks a lot different". LOL.
* "but it doesn't use google's services". So what?
* "but it's not counted by google". Who cares? Where does it say that Google activation is a prerequisite for Android? They don't like the Fire because it's not making them money. They don't want to talk about it and they can choose whatever they want for their counting. Doesn't mean it's not Android!
Click to expand...

And on the flip side from you we've heard:

"It doesn't matter if the company who makes Android doesn't consider it Android, it is Android"

You're not exactly wowing people with your argument either, sport.
 
voonyx said:
Again, I don't think anyone is disputing that the Fire is built off the Android source. In fact, I know no one is. What people are disputing, and they are correct, is that it is not considered an Android tablet, by the very people who make Android and that's Google. That's all that matters.

When/If Google presents stats about their android tablets, the XOOM, Transformer, Galaxy Tab, and Flyer are all included. The Kindle Fire is not. This simply cannot be this difficult for you to understand.

We can do 18 more pages of semantics if you'd like, though.
Click to expand...

Actually, all Google reports is "activations". So how does this prove that the Fire is not an Android device? Does google state somewhere that only activated devices are considered "android"?
 
rjohnstone said:
Very much so.
The issue with Android is that Google gave too much control over the look and feel to the vendors.
They turned it into a complete mess.
Google's trying to fix it with ICS and the Holo framework, but it will be years before the previous abominations disappear from the market.
ICS in its pure state is a fantastic OS. Let's hope the vendors keep their grubby hands out of the frameworks.
Click to expand...

That'll never happen. If everyone puts out stock ICS, where do they make their money? On hardware differences? Nope, because everyone is going to start putting out quad core (LOL) phones soon enough. The UI is the only thing that differentiates OEMs.

----------
aperry said:
Actually, all Google reports is "activations". So how does this prove that the Fire is not an Android device? Does google state somewhere that only activated devices are considered "android"?
Click to expand...

I'm just going on a hunch that if they don't include the activation numbers for a tablet in their assessment of activation of android tablets, that that tablet is not considered an android tablet by them.

It's the most "successful" android tablet, right? So why wouldn't Google want to include it? I mean...marketshare is king, right?
 
voonyx said:
That'll never happen. If everyone puts out stock ICS, where do they make their money? On hardware differences? Nope, because everyone is going to start putting out quad core (LOL) phones soon enough. The UI is the only thing that differentiates OEMs.
Click to expand...

Not really, Windows Phone's UI is the same for each OEM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back