Exactly. They don't count it in their activations because it has no Google services, but that's not the same as Google saying it's not the same OS.
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
Exactly. They don't count it in their activations because it has no Google services, but that's not the same as Google saying it's not the same OS.
You're right, the unmatched success of Windows Phone UI is testament to how successful Android OEMs will be if they just release stock phones.
----------
Where did I or anyone here say it's not the same OS? You two are creating a discussion that doesn't exist.
So because the Fire doesn't show up in Google's "activations report" therefor it's not Android? Sorry, how does that make sense? It's just a count of activations. Doesn't mean anything with regard to devices that don't requie google activation.
Not that I think this proves anything, but where does Google state that the Fire is not an Android device?
Ok you know what guys ? You're right. You always were right, and we were just wrong. Kindle Fire is just another Android device, same as all those cheap crap chinese tablets running Android 1.6 and other crap.
They should all be counted under Android in the chart.
Can we move on to more productive discussion ? I'm kind of tired of the density in the air here now.
It's Android compatible since it can run any application developed with the Android SDK (V7 and V8).
Let's not kid ourselves and play dumb.
The Kindle Fire uses the Amazon Android Appstore.
Amazon Android Appstore has many of the same apps that the Android Market has with the obvious exception of any Google apps.
The devs on XDA have already ripped the KF's OS apart and it is Android.
Amazon tweaked the UI and stripped Google's crap out.
Why doesn't google want to advertise the Kindle Fire? Are you kidding? Because for every person who chooses the Fire on top of any other device, Google looses money. And you can't incluce the Fire in some of your marketing and then exclude it in others without running the risk of being called out. So they chose the safe route. Just leave it out so they don't have to publicize the Fire when people ask questions like "why were Android tablets so successful in Q4"?
I don't follow you at all.Hopefully, we can get away from the semantic argument for good. My question is why should they be counted together in a market analysis. Who does it benefit to count them together? There are actual benefits to counting them separately such as illustrating the size of the development platform or the consumer usage of exclusive software.
Fair enough and I agree the specs on the transformer prime are pretty impressive. But I think the kindle fire should only be compared to the Blackberry playbook or other 7" Tablets, just really a different experience.
Android Compatible:
http://source.android.com/faqs.html#what-does-compatibility-mean
"We define an "Android compatible" device as one that can run any application written by third-party developers using the Android SDK and NDK."
Can the Kindle Fire do this? YES. End of story!
----------
Nope, because it doesn't have Google's services. And, of course, nowhere does it state that an Android device is required to use Google's services.
"Android Compatible" is defined by the CDD, not by whether it can run a subset of Android apps. And since Amazon does not claim that the Kindle is "Android Compatible", there is no guarantee of current or future compatibility with Android apps.
No.
Google only makes money off of tablets that run Google services.
All the other Android powered tablets are irrelevant to Google and that is why Google doesn't count them.
They are still Android devices, but Google has no knowledge of their existence from a reporting perspective.
Remember vanilla Android is free. Android running Google services is not.
Hopefully, we can get away from the semantic argument for good. My question is why should they be counted together in a market analysis. Who does it benefit to count them together? There are actual benefits to counting them separately such as illustrating the size of the development platform or the consumer usage of exclusive software.
It's funny that you use the "size of the development platform" as an example. This is the primary reason why the Kindle Fire is an Android device. They run the same apps, built on the Android APIs.
Again, a line in a FAQ is not always the whole story. The CDD defines "Android Compatible."
Whatever, the link I provided is from Google themselves. So I'm not sure why your opinion should be trusted above the people who own the trademark!
If/when the Fire loses compatibility in the future, then it will no longer be "Android Compatible". Right now it is.
----------
Ok, fine, if you're right then just provide one "Android Compatible" requirement that is not met by the Fire.
nice discussion
I love your discussion... pleas keep it friendly...
We are talking in layers here... So lets set it out.
There are to many layers to describe them all.. so heres the shortcut.. in simple terms
-Bios
-Kernel
-"os" (basic set of instructions)
-frameworks/Plugins
-Applications
-GUI (interface)
But this not a definition by any means. It's just common.. Thing and ways get invented everyday... and they don't fit the "model"
So you discussion is relative to knowledge and interpretation.
I kind of feel like the kernel is the root, and the first layer is the OS...in your discussion.
So yes... they all have a Linux Kernel, and an Android OS. But they are defined by the plugins/frameworks/apps and GUI.
About the article....:
What Google measures, and what will count as android or not.. just doesn't really matter... The whole article is kind of useless. You are not able to compare an Multiple vendor and manufacturer product like android to Apple...
like.. EVERYTHING is different.
All the other variables in this research are even worse... We don't know anything about what is counted and where this product is... We don't know if its in storage.. or if they are in costumers hands.. Noted before is that Apple maybe has a shortage.. So they are not able to Produce AND ship more... Whatever graph you look at... they all have variables. I can't work with this...
When discussing keep it technical and refer to the layer you are talking about...
And keep it going!
I love your discussion... pleas keep it friendly...
We are talking in layers here... So lets set it out.
There are to many layers to describe them all.. so heres the shortcut.. in simple terms
-Bios
-Kernel
-"os" (basic set of instructions)
-frameworks/Plugins
-Applications
-GUI (interface)
But this not a definition by any means. It's just common.. Thing and ways get invented everyday... and they don't fit the "model"
So you discussion is relative to knowledge and interpretation.
I kind of feel like the kernel is the root, and the first layer is the OS...in your discussion.
So yes... they all have a Linux Kernel, and an Android OS. But they are defined by the plugins/frameworks/apps and GUI.
About the article....:
What Google measures, and what will count as android or not.. just doesn't really matter... The whole article is kind of useless. You are not able to compare an Multiple vendor and manufacturer product like android to Apple...
like.. EVERYTHING is different.
All the other variables in this research are even worse... We don't know anything about what is counted and where this product is... We don't know if its in storage.. or if they are in costumers hands.. Noted before is that Apple maybe has a shortage.. So they are not able to Produce AND ship more... Whatever graph you look at... they all have variables. I can't work with this...
When discussing keep it technical and refer to the layer you are talking about...
And keep it going!
Rememeber these are shipped, not sold numbers, we know just about every iPad shipped has been sold, but the same isn't true of Andriod.
What guarantee or evidence do you have that they are fully compatible? Amazon has provided no commitment to the Android CDD. How far do the have to drift from the official spec before they are not included by your reasoning?
And then to get away from the Kindle specifically, what about other devices that use an OS based on the Android source code but are not API compatible at all? Chinese smartphone variants that are incompatible with Android apps have been counted in Android numbers in the past. Not sure if they still are. Basically, where do you (or Strategy Analytics) draw the line?
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.
I think it is FAR more likely the selection and numbers of Android devices over 2010.
Oh, and an operating system for tables. Remember all those "oversize smartphone" comments IRT Android Tabs?
I bet a size by size comparison will show iPad is 80% in 10" size, while in the 7" class it is 0% (becuase Apple does not make 7"), but a weighted total splits to something to what you see.
Oh, and even if cheap tabs are crap, it is still cheaper!
Not quite true, there's plenty of iPad 2s in stock at all the Staples I've been to in the last month.
Just skimmed the CDD for 2.3.x and the Kindle Fire is missing a few things, but they are listed as "Should contain" vs. "Must contain" in the CDD for 2.3.x.
Things like accelerometers, cameras and such are not required in the CDD, just recommended.
http://static.googleusercontent.com...d.com/en/us/compatibility/android-2.3-cdd.pdf
Not my opinion. It's in the same FAQ, and the page the FAQ is linked from.
According to whom?
I have no idea. You're the one making the unsupported claim. If Amazon was claiming that it is Android Compatible, seems like they would mention that somewhere.
How many Galaxy Tab's were sold in the past quarter?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.
Well come on, there are no "guarantees" looking into the future. And if you look at the issue of Android fragmentation, then you'll see there are no guarantees that any Android app will work from one device to the next, or from one OS version to the next. It's a big problem for them. FWIW, the Amazon AppStore does state that for an app to be compatible with the Fire, it needs to be optimized for Android OS version 2.3.4.
As a developer, would I be feeling reasonable assured that the Amazon marketplace will continue supporting Android API's? Pretty sure, yeah. And would I consider the Fire as part of my market reach if I'm developing an Android app? Probably, yeah, especially if my app is suitable for the hardware (size, etc).
Amazon would be stupid not to continue supporting Android, since their appstore sells to a variety of Android device owners. They'd also be stupid to close off the Fire from supporting these apps that are made for the Android API's. I mean...why would they ever kill the Fire like that?
Well, as pointed out earlier by the guy who read the whole document, the Fire meets the mandatory requirements for being considered "Android Compatible".
And as I mentioned just now, Amazon does talk about Android to an extent. In fact they offer guidance for which version of Android an app should be optimized for in order to run on the Fire. They probably want to limit their references to Android, because they don't people confusing their app store with google's. I don't know.