Android/Linux Tablets Are Alive and Well

I should not have to write about this again but stories are popping up all over the web that Android/Linux tablets are not selling well against iPad and that iPad is pulling away. Nothing could be further from the truth:

The truth is that Android/Linux on tablets is doing very well considering that only a few tablets with the latest Android/Linux version are out there. They are selling well and by Christmas we will see suppliers maxed out with Android/Linux tablets. The truth is that Android 2.x kicked Apple’s butt on smart phones and Android 3.x will on tablets. Android 3.x is only on a tiny proportion of devices. Android 3.x has not even been properly released. The source code to much of it is not available. 3.0 first sold on Xooms in February, 2011. 4.0 is expected in Q4 2011 and should be released in source code for smart phones and tablets.

That Android/Linux tablets are doing so well using a release designed for smart phones is an indication of how robust Android/Linux will be when it is ready to meet iPad.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Android/Linux Tablets Are Alive and Well

  1. oiaohm says:

    “The only money to be made in open source is as janitor to your own code.”
    Most cases I am not janitor to my own code with open source stuff. Its repairing up solutions. Yes its janitor work but someone has todo it.

    Solutions might depend something GPL. Could be mysql, postgresql, libreoffice could be any number of things.

    If the bug happens to becoming from a GPL part I have to arrange for it to be fix. Items like that fixing up stream saves us money. The working solution brings us money.

    Simple point is you started something while we are in trouble. “we leave that to the developers who maintain and customize the enterprise applications.”

    Issue what do you think I do. I customize up enterprise applications to suit customers needs. So basically you don’t know what those developers are doing.

    So yes reason why we are not seeing eye to eye is we are working on two different levels. You level you cannot see the real world.

    I have to really deal with the source code and licensing hiding inside those enterprise applications. Being non moderate is not a option. Moderate I must tolerate closed and open source and the limitations both put on me.

    Lot of the closed source is depending on open source tech somewhere.

    So you might buy a solution from me or someone like me. Yes it has closed source and open source parts this is extremely common. Now I cannot say to you that I will not fix the bug in the GPL part because I will not release code as GPL when I have provided you with a solution. Simple point of the matter I have no choice. You are not going to tolerate me not fixing a bug with that excuse.

    Basically oldman you really need to spend sometime with the developers and you learn that you idea of not release as GPL is not a valid path.

    Preference to avoid GPL yes this is fine. That is workable. At times it means giving customer poor quality solution because the GPL code for something is better. Basically I will use the best where able and protect my code in the process where able.

    Its about time you move to being more moderate as well. Yes saying no GPL at all is a zealot just as much as saying no closed source. It simply does not work in the real world properly.

    Oldman I see bottom edge of moderate suiting you. “Will release to GPL if forced. Will try to avoid GPL but will give GPL parts for solutions a fair look.” Basically drop the zealot bit. Closed source always better argument does not fly.

    In fact you are almost doing a bottom edge of moderate already by the actions you describe doing. Just you have not admitted it to yourself.

    Being a zealot causes you to over look solutions that could be better. When someone says they will Never do something is normally not true. Right conditions they will.

  2. oldman says:

    “You are a fascist Mr. oiaohm.”

    Please excuse the intemperate remark. It was put down in a fit of pique. I do not like what you represent, Mr. oiaohm, and I will call it like it is when you choose to be nasty, but this is unwarranted and you have my apology.

  3. oldman says:

    “This is the problem with the Never you are tieing you hands. The world will send you curve balls. At times doing you job may require altering GPL code.”

    My job requires providing platforms to closed source commercial code. Other than the scripting I do for my own purposes, there is no need to code in general – we leave that to the developers who maintain and customize the enterprise applications.

    There is plenty of room in the closed source commercial world to make money were I so inclined. There is no need to go within a country mile of GPL’d code.

    “There is money in Open and Closed source. The choice is not always yours oldman.”

    Granted, the choice is not always mine, but then again it is not your either. Were you to find your self en an environment like mine, you would have no choice but to keep you hacker tendencies and your mouth to yourself and implement what you were told to implement.

    As far as I am concerned. The only money to be made in open source is as janitor to your own code. You can keep it Mr. Oiaohm. I’ll be content to earn my keep assisting in the design and planning of Red Hat Linux based environments.

    Should the opportunity come my way, I’ll be developing closed source – period.

    You are a fascist Mr. oiaohm.

  4. oiaohm says:

    oldman never starting a GPL project that is fine. If a stuff up happens and you have to release under GPL you must except that event. Fighting the legal requirements of GPL or any other license is what gets companies into trouble. So excepting one day to cure a legal stuff up you might have to pay your way out with code is something that must be accepted. Normally its better than trying to pay way out without cash or court battles.

    Having processes in place to see all source code you are using and making sure no taint has sneaked up on you is critical that you don’t have to pay out cash or code. FSF and does training courses covering how to set this up.

    Yes FSF will train companies how to avoid FSF ever coming to there door hostile or if FSF does having the paperwork to make them go away.

    Of course oldman I guess you would be happier paying softwarefreedom for the training than FSF. Results is the same of course. Its mostly having the right processes to keep track of all license requirements in projects.

    Yes a person running a BSD open source project has to be just as careful of GPL as a closed source developer. Lack of understanding of GPL gets companies or projects into trouble.

    Everyone has mistakes cross there path at some point.

    “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work”

    That is the problem. Most commercial programmers working on GPL stuff are paid in advance. So its not pretend to pay us.

    design and maintenance what about repair oldman. Yes paid to fix a defect that is effecting an enterprise application that just happens to be a problem in a section under GPL. Submitting upstream prevents having to keep on patching way around that issue.

    This is the problem with the Never you are tieing you hands. The world will send you curve balls. At times doing you job may require altering GPL code.

    So you must allow yourself some flexibility.

    There are other cases for GPL release. Lets say you have a block of code that you don’t have time to maintain or develop through to end. Releasing it as GPL it will either die or grow.

    So item you might never have made a profit from might be useful.

    Simple fact you are being narrow minded. If someone has paid you to fix a problem. They have paid you in full for the fix. Do you have the right to resell this.

    This is where GPL fits. Projects that are too big for any company todo themselves. Project that each company is paying to be maintained so it works to perform other profit making ventures for them. So there coders are in fact paid in full for the work.

    Yes most Open Source Projects are taken the code developers doing basically the same as blood diamonds. Yes they have been paid yet they are selling the item that is really not theirs any more.

    GPL projects are above board way to cope with spread maintenance.

    Of course most closed source developer want to sell a program unlimited number of times.

    Its really choose a path. Open Source=Sell support or be paid todo support full support including code customizing.

    There is money in Open and Closed source. The choice is not always yours oldman.

  5. oldman says:

    “Never say the word Never. You may get caught where someone screws up and you don’t have a choice if you don’t change. Its better to accept the fact that one day you just might have have to than the path you are going.”

    In the old communist bloc countries there was a saying about the communist governments that they were stuck with:

    “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work”

    No matter how much you sugar coat it Mr.oiaohm, as fat as I am concerned, this is what life under the GPL amounts to.

    I will continue to assist in the design and maintenance of a linux based environment that is used to host enterprise LOB applications, but I will never even think of developing under the GPL.

  6. oiaohm says:

    “So for you it would be okay if a developer released some samples as FOSS and makes money from the other stuff he releases as proprietary ?”

    Yes in fact I am. As long as the proprietary does not do infrignement IP of other parties.

    Trolltech that was behind QT before Nokia and Nokia today with QT uses the same model with it.

    Foss and Closed Source developers are more often one and the same. It really just who is paying the check for what is the difference.

    A coder who shows some religion bias against Foss or Closed Source should be fired on the spot.

    In fact its a common model to be part closed and part open. is one of thousands of examples of this.

  7. Ch says:

    “The small section you release to open source as long as its quality code can be used to demo the quality of your work.”

    “Ok you lose some secret sauce but you can make new sauce and keep on going.”

    So for you it would be okay if a developer released some samples as FOSS and makes money from the other stuff he releases as proprietary ?

  8. oiaohm says:

    Oldman yet you don’t get it you. I don’t think you have been on the receiving end yet.

    Having a infringement case of a closed source library can also have your special sauce released to the public. Best one was where the closed source library infringed on GPL. So yes the same thing can happen to you by using closed source libraries if they infringe so forced to become GPL. Evil part about the copyleft it auto chains through. That you did not know does not protect your source code.

    Or worse they pull there license from you. SO you now cannot sell anything that was using that closed source library not just the one that infringed. Also they then claim your code base is tainted by their IP. So you are complete screwed in the I paid for closed source library camp. Reason why they do this is to make an example out of you so no one else steals from them.

    The small section you release to open source as long as its quality code can be used to demo the quality of your work.

    Basically if you get a lemon make lemon-aid. Being force to release source code you can use it to your advantage for PR. So bring yourself more business.

    Basically there are two safe options. BSD/MIT/non copyleft licenses and copyleft licenses. Both you have a chance of living out the other side if something goes wrong. Ok you lose some secret sauce but you can make new sauce and keep on going.

    At least by seeing the source code you search to see if you are being screwed over. Yes GPL does not care who infringes. This is why you always want to see your complete code base and understand the legals just in case someone is doing something too risky for you.

    “In the end, it is your opinion Mr oiaohm, it is not mine, and the fact remains that I will NEVER contribute so much as a line of code into any FOSS project because of the IMHO confiscatory and coercive GPL.”

    Never say the word Never. You may get caught where someone screws up and you don’t have a choice if you don’t change. Its better to accept the fact that one day you just might have have to than the path you are going.

  9. oldman says:

    “GPL even in the worst event having to release code its not the worst outcome. You IP has not been stolen.”

    But my special sauce is out in the open Mr oiaohm, and wityh its exposure goes money, IMHO more money than it is worth to pursue the market.

    No matter.

    In the end, it is your opinion Mr oiaohm, it is not mine, and the fact remains that I will NEVER contribute so much as a line of code into any FOSS project because of the IMHO confiscatory and coercive GPL.


  10. oiaohm says:

    oldman there are examples if you look of companies doing something wrong releasing program open source 1 version. Then correcting the issue in the next version and returning to closed source.

    Again this is still fairly cheap compared to a closed source license breach. The issue you forget is that that your IP is still your IP todo with what you ever please even if it has been included in a GPL work.

  11. oiaohm says:

    Lets be trueful. Oldman Free Software Foundation is not the only one that will sue your ass off if you don’t obey terms.

    You can pay for a library all you like. Does not get you away with what some have been caught doing exceeding limitations started in the license. Like pay so much per user.

    Either way there is a minefield. Trying to claim there is not is foolish. Most closed source libraries are not aquired out right are so much per seat/server or something.

    Really GPL even with the condition to release code if you are really dependent on it is far simpler. No seat counting. No case of being in breach due to a miss count.

    So if GPL truly does have the best solution what you are saying is that you will not pay the bill. So you hate Free Software Foundation. Almost all cases of the Free Software Foundation taking offense to what a closed source developer has done. Has been settled out of court either found code not cover by gpl due to being a true independent work. Or has been found infringing and pony up the code with no cash payment required. But implementing better license management inside the company.

    Most case companies in breach of GPL have been in fact found in breach of other closed source licenses. Reason for the breach is poor internal policies on license condition tracking and management so they exceed the licenses.

    Really its better to be caught by FSF than by some of the closed source makers of libraries. Because they will want cash lots of cash.

    Basically do nothing wrong you have nothing to fear oldman.

    FSF makes it clear they will not tollerate closed source developers taken GPL code against the license they are also very reasonable enforcing it. Basically it will end up in court if you decide not to talk to them and address the issue they have found.

    oldman what is worse. Having to pay more cash than you company has and goes under that can happen by using paid for licenses.

    Or being forced to release some source code as GPL as FSF may require for payment for usage of some GPL code. Remembering since its your source code you are still free to use it in a future closed source program. But your competitors are not free to use that code in a future closed source program.

    Yes the release of code might cause your competitors to release some there code as well. So you know more how they are doing things.

    GPL even in the worst event having to release code its not the worst outcome. You IP has not been stolen.

  12. oldman says:

    “Use GPL correctly it is not out to steal your IP ever. You just don’t get any Idea of not paying for GPL IP if you depend on it.”

    The problem is Mr. oiaohm that the Ffree software foundation has made their hostility towards closed source software so well known that I and others simply steer clear of direct interfacing with GPL’d code.

    You can talk until you are blue in the face about the theory of GPL, but you cant get around the fact that the minefield is there. If you Find a library that would shortcut your development time only to discover that the only terms of use are GPL or nothing and you dont wish to play, you get to move on.

    After a while the miniscule market of paying customers for closed desktop applications running on Linux is so small that its hardly worth the effort to negotiate that minefield.

    Mr. oiaohm, its much cleaner to just pay to license whatever you need to get your code written, and leave the GPL morass to itself.

  13. oiaohm says:

    “Coerced giving because you linked to a gpl,d library is.”

    Depends on the library. “derived work” is a interesting clause in GPL.
    ” If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.”

    Key clause in fact. oldman. Its in all versions of GPL.

    Like if you are using libc library that was GPL without a linking acceptation. Yet your program would function perfectly fine connected to a different libc. Your program is not effected by GPL at all.

    GPL is only affects your code base if you are depending on features from the GPL work that you could not have sourced from another library or source code using the same code interfaces or has alternate matching interfaces. Yes if you use of the GPL work is optional without dropping features you are basically off the hook so far.

    Basically oldman GPL is only after your hide if you are depending on the GPL protected IP for something or distribute as a unified work.

    “distribute them as separate works” Yep static linking to GPL stuff you are kinda stuffed. Since they are no longer separate works right?. Nvidia has a loop hole to the distribute then as separate works. Link them at usage location. Distribute them all the way along as 2 parts. Nice bit they can be distributed as separate works on the same bit of media.

    It is a very fair license. LGPL removes the IP usage assessment on linked code so making IP status simpler to define also removing the need for link at destination hacks.

    oldman GPL is no where near as infecting as a lot of people make out. Most people who complain about GPL have never really read it and understood it limitations.

    Use GPL correctly it is not out to steal your IP ever. You just don’t get any Idea of not paying for GPL IP if you depend on it.

    Coerced is basically lack of legal understanding of what you have done.

  14. The top-level stuff is interpreted code in Android/Linux. No linking required.

  15. oldman says:

    Coerced giving because you linked to a gpl,d library is.

  16. Look at revenue for the client OS, the current subject…

  17. Voluntary giving is not theft.

  18. Contrarian says:

    “The growth in their bottom line is tiny”

    Tiny? You measure with an odd meter, #pogson!

    Microsoft revenue grew from $58B in 2009 to $70B in 2011 while their operating income grew from $20B to $27B and net income grew from $14.5B to $23B. And all of that growth was in the face of a waffling economy world-wide. You do not have a very conventional understanding of business, I guess.

    If perspective is needed, consider that Red Hat, the far and away leader in Linux sales and services, is less than even $1B in revenues and far less in net income.

  19. oiaohm says:

    Really GPL and LGPL is about IP sharing.

    It is also part a failure to fully understand copyright. Why it cannot be a thief.

    I write some code. I release it under GPL. As the author I am also free to release that same code as closed source or any other license I like. There is no clause in GPL preventing this. In fact a copyleft license cannot contain a clause containing this. Since you are free not to agree to the conditions of the copyleft and use the other copyrights you have. So the rights to use the IP I created was never removed from me.

    This is the key reason why GPL not a thief since the IP is still fairly the IP creators right to do with what they want. GPL only puts restrictions on those who did not create the IP. GPL is a way of allowing access to your IP while at the same time protecting you IP from being used in a competing product with extensions you cannot get.

    GPL is a form of barter. You have got user of source code for free. You pay for that right in code when you extend it and ship it to a external party by releasing the source code under the same rights. So they can extend it. So the cycle goes on. With each coder paying for the right to extend in code over and over again. Different payment system. Kind for Kind payment system. Yet the right to take your code back out a GPL project and re-license it was never lost. As long as it is truly your code.

    Remember the sum of the parts are greater than the individual parts. The IP shared brings its own advantages.

    The major issue here is that GPL gives no benefit to software only companies.

    Hardware companies sharing IP with each other is beneficial. Since they will be producing a final product for consumers. Better the final product is for the consumer the more product the Hardware company will move so more profit.

    Companies like Redhat that provide support having access to the source code to address bug effecting a customer is also beneficial so leading to more profit since the customer can pay them todo more for them.

    Notice something neither Redhat or hardware companies are really not stolen from by GPL since any improvement to the code can be a benefit to them for producing a better product or providing more complete support.

    As long as everyone is paying same price the price is fair.

    This is the other major difference about FOSS the price is more fair. You don’t have students having to pay 1/20 of companies for the same program.

    You want a true IP thief license get the license for the Windows kernel Source Code. Any extension to the core source code only Microsoft has the right to use or release. So Microsoft coders basically have their IP rights stolen from them by Microsoft.

    There is a reason why Copyright assignment is looked at with so much mistrust.

    Is that a copyright assignment issue is truly a risk of IP thief. Because someone holding the copyright assignment can be free todo what every they want with the IP even if its against your wishes.

    BSD is more a IP thief than GPL. Since you may never receive any payment of any form for the IP you created. GPL the payment is code and new features that others have created for the IP you gave.

    Exactly how is it sane to release code under BSD that you competitors can use and they will never have to pay a cent or a lines of code for it.

    Yes of course MS holds BSD as another less restrictive licenses up as perfectly fine license. Since BSD allows MS to steal IP from others without having to pay.

    I know this IP thieves methods first hand from the Wine project. Due to what happened to Wine when Wine was under the more open MIT license. As a company I would never ever release code as that far open of license due to what can be done and lack of payment for my IP.

    Yes the very licenses a lot of people push to counter the so called GPL IP thief problem are the very licenses that allows a IP thief to steal from you.

    Once hardware companies understand the true nature of GPL they have no reason to fear it. In fact they should embrace it since it leads to more sales.

    Yes the GPL being a IP thief is FUD and a lie basically.

    Of course BSD guys get upset that GPL prevents them from copying back without the author of patch to a GPL project permission who is using the BSD code. Sorry if you are going to use a license that allows IP thieves you should not complain when it happens.

    oldman when you work out who the IP thieves are GPL and LGPL are really good licenses to prevent being stolen from.

  20. oldman says:

    “Fears large enough some pushed by MS like GPL being a IP thief.”

    It isnt, Mr. oiaohm?

  21. oiaohm says:

    Most hardware makers I should have been more clear. Most Mobile Phone Hardware makers. Before Google was fearing items like FCC and others.

    Motorola own Linux on Phones also was heavy GPL free as well.

    Robert Pogson. The google sofering of there statement of position does follow company’s like sony and samsung and others softening their position.

    Yes google just started when making android what Mobile Hardware makers asked of them. Server world we had BSD break the ice. Android is basically the ice breaker.

    Robert Pogson “None of them want to rewrite Android/Linux” Exactly after a while with the freedom todo what every they like. Common sense kicks in. Of course you have to get them to that point. But at the start of Android the hardware makers had different fears. Fears large enough some pushed by MS like GPL being a IP thief.

    Android is changing the mobile hardware makers point of view. With the one exception Nokia. That is running like a scared rabbit to a more closed up location.

    Robert Pogson my statement of fears is what was the fears stopping the Linux Mobile OS’s from taking off.

    We are slowly getting past all the fears. Result is the mobile phones will become more open as time goes on. Less friendly to MS more open it is.

  22. Well, I remember when it took two people to shift a calculator. Pocket calculators were smaller and cheaper. PC’s will do the same. There will be less need for vacuum cleanser and hair-driers on the desktops and tiny boxes like thin clients and all-in-ones will be widely used. Other technologies will intrude. PCs won’t go away but they won’t stay Bill Gates’ work-horses. They will be frisky ponies.

  23. M$ is coasting, not accelerating. They are slowing down. The growth in their bottom line is tiny compared to growth in markets. 2011 client division was down 2% in revenue and 6% in operating income compared to 2010 while PC production was up. Wait a bit! PC consumption was down in USA. I guess that means PCs are cheaper or at least M$’s cut is thinner in the rest of the world and that is going to continue as USA is sluggish and the world bullish on IT. That is not a blip but a long-term trend that will continue to hurt M$.

  24. oiaohm wrote, “Most hardware makers would not put GPL in phones since they would want to make there phone look exclusive also feared getting regulator approval for products that could be altered.”

    I don’t see that at all. That’s what folks said about video drivers. It’s not true. Manufacturers love it when the Linux kernel group takes over the work of building drivers for Linux. You can run a non-GPL application on GNU/Linux or any other FLOSS system. If manufacturers wanted to make an interface/GUI that was proprietary they could without worrying about violating the GPL. People did that for years with the Nvidia drivers, for instance. The GPL would have prevented some linkage to non-Free software but manufacturers could always get around that by leaving a run-once script to install the non-Free stuff after the software was in the hands of the end-user. The end-user doesn’t usually have any interest in distributing the software running on his device. So, that’s all nonsense, thinking that manufacturers need non-GPL licensing for a Linux system of any kind.

    Further, despite the use of a non-GPL licence for much of Android/Linux, manufacturers are not making radical departures from Google’s release. They will provide links to their own services or their pet apps to help grow their share and that’s it. None of them want to rewrite Android/Linux. It’s too big a job and unnecessary.

    Google has given an improved “reason” for choosing non-GPL:
    “It is important to note that the ASL is only being applied to the assortment of user-space platform components that make up Android. The kernel itself is still licensed under the GPLv2, and third-party software that runs on top of the platform can be distributed under pretty much any license, including commercial and copyleft licenses.”, supporting my opinion above. Previously, Google just stated that they preferred not to use GPL, “Nonny! Nonny!”. Now, at least they are willing to be somewhat more expressive, even though their argument fails. It’s a bias, not a rational position. I don’t believe manufacturers hold that opinion. It’s just the bias of the leadership of the Android group at Google.

  25. oiaohm says:

    Contrarian no matter what Linux has won more than it was expected to so far. Desktop has really been the only area where there has been no major growth.

    Also it not the 12 year of Linux. Its the 20 year of Linux as a idea.

    Android was not the first Linux OS on phones. But out of all the Linux OS’s on phones is been the most successful.

    This should be a warning. Most of the other Linux OS’s on phones never crossed the 1 to 2 percent mark in the mobile phone market. Yet in a few years of android first release is dominating. Yes the Linux phone OS was exactly where the Linux Desktop is still.

    Android proves that 1 very well focused idea can have massive effects.

    Android winning does not make Android the end. Meego and others compete-ting against Android will be simpler than compete-ting against closed source OS’s.

    Why is Android main interface BSD based. Most hardware makers would not put GPL in phones since they would want to make there phone look exclusive also feared getting regulator approval for products that could be altered. This was a hurdle Linux Phones had to get past.

    Notice the battle now for the right to unlock the boot loaders. So freeing devices to be updated at end of life. This is alien this kind of stuff did not exist in the Mobile phone market.

    Android is nothing more than a stepping stone. Or another a foot in door. The door is only held part way open by the Android Foot. The question is how big of a market is behind the door when its fully opened.

    Suspected is if you get the door fully open its a battle for the ages. The end of desktop and mobile phone OS’s being two different OS’s. A major drop in OS price.

    Of course companies like Microsoft and Apple don’t want that door opened so are trying to use patents to close it.

    Key reason why the door is open is Google listened to hardware makers fears and designed to suite. Once hardware makers fears are gone the market will get even more interesting.

    Yes Microsoft got its market share by listening to what hardware makers wanted as well. Its really never changed. A cheep OS good enough OS to move their product with that people will buy. Note there were better OS’s than MS-dos/PC-dos at the time. But it was good enough.

    Android is the MS-Dos/PC-Dos of today. So yes I do expect it replaced with something else in future. Normally a decedent like meego or the like.

    Rule 1 of software. If you don’t have the hardware the software is worthless.

    The million dollar question is what will trigger the Linux Desktop to grow rapidly. Same has happened in every Linux market throw history. One particular event triggers massive growth.

    Enterpise server market Redhat subscription model. Yes redhat was the first to do software subscriptions with free upgrades in the time of the subscriptions. This triggered massive growth in that market.

    Problem is when it found it be like darn is that all it was that was really stopping rapid growth. Until then expect the Linux world to keep on hammering kinda random-ally looking for it. Its a simple matter of time.

  26. Contrarian says:

    Ah, again here comes #twitter the frustrated dweeb! Of course Microsoft is a complete failure and unworthy of any sort of consideration. It has no future in the face of the Android onslaught. Or so he says.

    This is about the 12th Year of Linux, iirc, and maybe that is the magic number. Maybe not.

  27. twitter says:

    Sorry, Clown, but you are just another Microsoft pushing nym here and I’ll attribute what you say to the other nyms that promote AD and other trash on Pogson’s Linux blog. That might not be fair but Microsoft promotion is an immediate credibility killer.

  28. I see the trolls have reached new lows here by insulting Pogson’s home town and calling him a peasant

    When I scroll up I never see him being called a peasant. I shot down Winnipeg but then I can do that because it’s my home town too so I’m allowed.

    That’s pretty funny coming from a group with the collective manners and knowledge of Somali pirate crew …

    You’re generalizing. It’s just me cupcake.

    … and who still think Windows is something useful

    Your powers of persuasion are limitless, don’t give up.

    The long term trend is that PCs are going the way of pocket calculators.

    Again, stunningly solid argument. Don’t give up cupcake.

  29. twitter says:

    I see the trolls have reached new lows here by insulting Pogson’s home town and calling him a peasant. That’s pretty funny coming from a group with the collective manners and knowledge of Somali pirate crew and who still think Windows is something useful.

    Pogson is right about cheap tablets, of course. Cheap and available is what sells and that’s what Android is. The long term trend is that PCs are going the way of pocket calculators. Microsoft and Apple lawsuits won’t stop that.

  30. The North End constantly changes. I have visited parts of it lately that are quite decent with well-kept homes and gardens.

  31. My needs are simple. I replace clothes and computer parts when they die.

    I suppose you should be commended for leaving such a small “carbon footprint” behind.

    Even now, I can buy a year’s supply of vegetables and dry and freeze them for about $200.

    True prairie living. Don’t forget about canning – which should be kicking in right about now due to the end of the season although Environment Canada said we’re going to have a bit of an Indian Summer.

    Winnipeg is not on the forefront of everything but it is a great city in which to live if you like cities

    Dunno about that. Winnipeg has some pretty dingy areas (most parts of the North End, St. Norbert) and really not a lot of touristy attractions. About all I can remember is Kildonan Park, U of M, a scenic view from one of the floodway bridges, and say the view from the Richardson building or whatever is tallest these days there.

  32. I don’t need a lot else except clothing and shelter. I get most of my clothing a block or two from the Wholesale Club at Value Village. My spring/fall jacket and coat came from there ten years ago and I still wear them. My needs are simple. I replace clothes and computer parts when they die.

  33. Dr Loser says:

    That’s not really “shopping,” Robert.

    That’s “subsistence.”

  34. Winnipeg is not on the forefront of everything but it is a great city in which to live if you like cities. The trees, American elms, and green ashes, are beautiful. Until this year it was very economical for the price of food. Even now, I can buy a year’s supply of vegetables and dry and freeze them for about $200. It’s still small enough you can walk to just about anywhere. I have many times walked from downtown to the airport or my former home in the outskirts. There are two rivers that meet at a spot where people have been meeting for 10K years. Did I mention shopping. I like Dino’s where I can buy corn-meal, instant mashed potatoesand beans by the 10kg sac. I like the Real Canadian Wholesale Club where I can buy stuff by the case.
    Real Canadian Wholesale Club

  35. Oh, I’ve seen plenty of products from Apple, just not tablets.

    I grew up in Winnipeg and so I know how backwards it is. Here in Vancouver all you need to do is go for a walk down Robson and visit your favorite coffee shop and you’ll see at least a half dozen people with iPads.

  36. Oh, I’ve seen plenty of products from Apple, just not tablets. For that matter I don’t know anyone who owns any tablet. They are still an “early adopter” thing.

  37. oldman says:

    “Well, color me red, #oldman!”

    For Shame Contrarian, that’s right up there with my FLOSS gaff 😉

  38. Ivan says:

    “China 0.003 stores per million”

    Is this with or without the counterfeit stores?

  39. I live in the real world and I have never seen one except on TV or Youtube.

    Pogson, you live in some squalor infested Northern Manitoban town where seeing a brand new toaster is big news.

    Even if you take the trek over the the armpit of Canada (AKA Winterpeg Manitundra), you’ll – at best – see 2G phones in the hands of the Winnipeg elite.

    Bottom line: your perspective and inductive reasoning offers nothing to do with “the real world”.

  40. Contrarian says:

    Well, color me red, #oldman! And my apologies to #pogson as well. I was making an assumption, based on Macintosh policies, that they applied to the iPad. After looking into it even further, they sell Macintosh computers in odd places, too. Not Walmart yet, though.

    As said on SNL, “Nevermind.”

  41. oldman says:

    “The fact that Apple has only one store near me suggests they don’t really sell that well here.”

    I think that the relative size of the canadian market versus the US market has more to do with this Pog.

  42. You give too much weight to iPad. I live in the real world and I have never seen one except on TV or Youtube. The fact that Apple has only one store near me suggests they don’t really sell that well here.

    According to Wikipedia there are only 21 Apple stores in all of Canada (34million people). There are many cities without one. USA has 243, 12 times as many for nine times the population (313million). Clearly USA loves Apple more than Canada. Australia with 21.8 million people has only 12 Apple stores. Apple is weakly global. China (1337million) has only 4 Apple stores. They are not even trying. There are whole countries without an Apple store. The world has 345 Apple stores for 6940 million people, 0.0497 stores per million people.

    USA .776 stores per million, Canada .617 stores per million, Australia .55 stores per million, China 0.003 stores per million

    If my own city is any indication, Android/Linux tablets have about 50 stores per million people.

  43. oldman says:

    “WalMart cannot sell them anyway due to Apple’s distribution policies.”

    Uh Contrarian:

    I hate to burst your bubble, have seen the iPad 2 for sale not only in our local Walmart, but in Target as well.

  44. Ivan says:

    Well, it certainly has nothing to do with the price. Thank the flying spaghetti monster that’s settled.

  45. Contrarian says:

    “So there you are…That lack of exposure …”

    Have it your way, #pogson, but you are doomed to wonder why things don’t go your way.

    As a hint, people don’t buy iPads at WalMart. WalMart cannot sell them anyway due to Apple’s distribution policies. Only Apple stores. People do not set out to “look for a tablet” either. They decide to get an iPad or not. If not, they may later decide to get an imitation if it is cheap enough, such as the HP going out of business firesale.

  46. The numbers don’t support iSuppli’s conclusion. non-iPad tablets are moving well. They have greater exposure to users. When I went to Walmart there was no iPad on display but there was an Android/Linux tablet. I don’t even know where to find an Apple store in Winnipeg. I have never seen one.

    I looked. There is an Apple store in the Polo Park shopping mall. One store for a city of 700K people 16 miles in diameter. There are six walmarts and I know where several of them are located. It’s been years since I have been in the Polo Park mall. So there you are. Local exposure to an Apple store is minimal. I guess they could have zero stores for all the difference it makes.

    That lack of exposure is one of the reasons Android/Linux will eat Apple for lunch once Android/Linux is more or less feature-complete in Q4. At the moment only a few tablets ship with Android 3.x . In Q4 everyone will have 4.0, source code and all. That will open the floodgates. Still, 2.x is selling well enough to catch Apple sooner or later. Apple should invest their earning wisely. They have peaked in tablets.

    Here are web stats from Wikipedia:

    iPad + iPhone – 5.15%

    all Android – 1.71%

    Rate of growth of Android is much higher than for Apple. In June iPad + iPhone was 4.4% indicating .75 increase in one month. Android/Linux had 1.39% indicating an increase of .32 in one month. Apple is growing 17% per month while Android grows 23% per month. The unit shipment are growing even faster as the installed base grows.

  47. oiaohm says:

    Phenom remember Apple is not the hardware maker of the ipad. Samsung is. Yes Samsung makes more profit selling there own pad directly than having the apple version sold. This is the reason why Apple is trying patents and other things to stop Samsung from going around them. Because Samsung is wanting large slice of pie.

    Also companies in the google circle if insiders on Android get kick backs on the google percentage of any application bought for their devices. Samsung gets no kick back from the ipad app sales.

    Yes hardware companies that work with google are getting kick backs from the app store.

    No hardware no device. There is a battle going on. Made worse by the fact google has aquired Motorola.

    Here why apple screaming foul.

    Motorola Mobile has the most key patents to making a Mobile phone. Yes the patents you need to make a 3g phone connection. Basically what is a iphone without a 3g connection. A pda.

    Using patents always risk triggering MAD. Google did very well acquiring Motorola Mobile it has the perfect MAD weapon. Patents that cannot be worked around that everyone requires.

    This is the same issue WP7 is facing. Hardware companies are getting very use to the idea of not paying for a OS.

    Motorola Mobile is armed to teeth and basically could patent wall MS and Apple out if they don’t back down on patent attacks.

    Motorola Mobile FRAND clearly states you are free to use the 3G patents as long as you don’t attempt to use Patents against them or their customers. Worse it requires letting people out who are now customers who signed a pay for patent deal for the parent company related product. Android is now basically protected by that including all users.

    Google might have won most of the patent war with the stroke of a pen. Result Android devices cheaper.

    Yes depending how the patent dispute between Apple and Motorola goes could make a very big difference how much ipads sell. Particularly if Motorola ends up getting a long term injection against the product from infringement. Remember Apple used patents against Motorola first. Apple also has applied to have Motorola and Samsung products blocked in places. So yes a settlement judgment against apple would be perfectly fine to include a 6 months restriction from selling product has punishment.

    This is why we cannot read to much into the forecasts there is a big o crud we have screwed it at Apple. Apple knows this so is trying to get USA anti-trust to save its ass from Motorola Patent MAD weapons. Check mate basically for apple if anti-trust does not step in. Google could operate with Motorola selling nothing if the result was that Apple and Microsoft both cannot release product into the phone market.

  48. Contrarian says:

    I think you are reading the tea leaves the wrong way, #pogson. For starters, Amazon itself is not selling the iPads, they are just hosting the offers from a gang of little guys. Around here, anyone wanting an iPad goes to one of the Apple stores at the big malls and consults with the blue shirted acolytes in attendance. Buying an iPad from a fly by night e-tailer isn’t the primary path.

    Second, you might take some notice of the iSuppli caveat from your cite:

    “All the momentum in the media tablet market is with Apple right now. The competition can’t seem to field a product with the right combination of hardware, marketing, applications and content to match up with the iPad. Furthermore, Apple’s patent litigation is serving to slow or complicate competitors’ entry into some key regional markets. With Apple lapping its competitors, many of whom are still struggling to get out of the starting gate, this remains a one-horse race.”

    You are relying on the report’s wild guess as to the future, provided in spite of their reservations, rather than the evidence of the here and now. Of course that fits your hopes, but it is hardly proof of any reality.

    All that the Register reference shows is that Apple totally dominates the tablet market.

  49. In Q4 2011 both strands of Android will be united in Android 4/Ice-cream Sandwich. The source will then be reopened without fear of further fragmentation because the code will run on smart phones and tablets.

  50. Phenom says:

    I am afraid you underestimate the marketshare of applications.

    It is the same story as with iPhone and Android smartphones. iPhones bring Apple serious money from AppStore, while Android smartphones bring only the margin to their hardware manifacturers. Heck, they even bring money to MS and to many others due to patents and OEM agreements. I’ve even seen an Android phone with Bing installed.

    However, Anroid faces a grave challenge. Android software fragmentation becomes serious to the point of having developers give up and move on to iOS and WP7. Just for fun, I created a simple Anroid app, and it run only on two of the four devices I tested it on. You will never see such thing on iOS or WP7.

    Btw, Google already closed Android pretty nicely. Probably that would bring some standartization, but some damage is done.

Leave a Reply