Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #325330 > unrolled thread

Micro$oft's smartphone debacle

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  Micro$oft's smartphone debacle chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-07 12:29 -0500
    You've got that wrong... it is LINUX that is deemed the kiss of death. GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-07 14:58 -0600
    Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-07 20:31 -0400
      Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-10-08 02:37 +0200
        Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-10-07 21:17 -0400
          Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-10-08 03:37 +0200
            Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-10-07 20:42 -0500
              Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-10-08 03:50 +0200
                Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-08 07:12 -0500
                  Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 12:48 +0000
              Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-10-08 12:14 +0100
                Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 12:13 +0000
                  Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-08 09:48 -0400
                    Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-10-08 16:50 +0200
                      Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-08 10:18 -0500
                        Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 16:14 +0000
                        Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-10-09 10:18 +0100
                          Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-10-09 09:58 -0400
                            Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-10-12 09:36 +0100
                          Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-09 11:05 -0400
                            Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-09 14:10 -0600
                          Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-09 14:09 -0600
                      Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-08 12:16 -0400
              Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-08 09:42 -0400
              Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-10-08 12:22 -0400
                Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 16:25 +0000
                  Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Onion Knight <onionknight@linuxmail.org> - 2015-10-08 12:33 -0400
                    Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Onion Knight <onionknight@linuxmail.org> - 2015-10-08 12:39 -0400
            Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-08 09:41 -0400
          Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-10-08 13:13 +0100
            Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Onion Knight <onionknight@linuxmail.org> - 2015-10-08 08:45 -0400
            Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-10-08 13:30 -0400
              Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 17:43 +0000
                Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-10-08 20:07 +0200
                  Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 18:10 +0000
                    Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-10-08 14:18 -0400
                      Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-08 23:36 -0600
                        Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-09 10:58 -0400
                  Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-10-08 14:22 -0400
                  Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-08 13:26 -0500
                    Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 20:10 +0000
                    Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 20:28 +0000
                      Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 20:57 +0000
                      Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Onion Knight <onionknight@linuxmail.org> - 2015-10-08 17:01 -0400
                        Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 21:03 +0000
                          Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Onion Knight <onionknight@linuxmail.org> - 2015-10-08 17:09 -0400
                            Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 21:14 +0000
                              Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Onion Knight <onionknight@linuxmail.org> - 2015-10-08 17:17 -0400
                          Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-08 17:40 -0400
                            Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 22:02 +0000
                              Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Onion Knight <onionknight@linuxmail.org> - 2015-10-08 18:21 -0400
                              Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 16:00 -0700
                        Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-10-09 10:20 -0500
                      Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-09 06:55 -0500
                    Says the phoney with his imaginary BSEE.  LOL!!! GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-08 23:36 -0600
                  Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 20:26 +0000
                    Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 21:01 +0000
                    Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Onion Knight <onionknight@linuxmail.org> - 2015-10-08 17:04 -0400
                      Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 21:06 +0000
                        Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Onion Knight <onionknight@linuxmail.org> - 2015-10-08 17:10 -0400
                    Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-10-08 19:38 -0400
                      Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Onion Knight <onionknight@linuxmail.org> - 2015-10-08 19:42 -0400
                      Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 00:07 +0000
                        Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Onion Knight <onionknight@linuxmail.org> - 2015-10-08 20:14 -0400
                          Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 00:19 +0000
                            Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-08 20:44 -0400
                              Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 00:53 +0000
                                Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Onion Knight <onionknight@linuxmail.org> - 2015-10-08 20:55 -0400
                                  Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-09 08:21 -0400
                                  Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-10-09 10:33 -0500
                                    Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 16:13 +0000
                                Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-08 20:57 -0400
                                  Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 01:18 +0000
                                    Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-09 08:23 -0400
                                      Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 12:27 +0000
                                        Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-09 11:09 -0400
                          Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-10-09 09:31 -0400
                          Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-10-09 10:25 -0500
                            Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-09 10:46 -0500
                              Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 16:17 +0000
                                Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-10-10 10:30 -0700
                              Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-09 19:19 -0400
                            Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Onion Knight <onionknight@linuxmail.org> - 2015-10-09 11:53 -0400
                              Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 16:18 +0000
                                Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Onion Knight <onionknight@linuxmail.org> - 2015-10-09 12:29 -0400
                                  Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-10-09 16:13 -0500
                                    Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-10-10 16:08 -0500
                                      Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-10-10 19:53 -0500
                                        Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-10-11 01:17 -0500
                                          Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Nobody <nobody@invalid.com> - 2015-10-11 02:34 -0500
                                Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 10:24 -0700
                                  Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 17:48 +0000
                                    Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 11:24 -0700
                              Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-10-09 12:32 -0400
                                Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Onion Knight <onionknight@linuxmail.org> - 2015-10-09 12:41 -0400
                                  Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-10-09 16:15 -0500
                                    Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-12 08:06 -0500
                                      Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 13:09 +0000
                            Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 16:15 +0000
                              Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-09 14:33 -0400
                        Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 00:17 +0000
                          Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 17:27 -0700
                            Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 00:30 +0000
                              Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 17:56 -0700
                                Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Onion Knight <onionknight@linuxmail.org> - 2015-10-08 20:58 -0400
                                  Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-10-09 10:35 -0500
                                    Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 16:12 +0000
                      Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-09 10:45 -0400
                        Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 14:59 +0000
                          Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-10-09 11:19 -0400
                            Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 15:24 +0000
                          Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-10-09 18:26 +0200
                            Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 16:27 +0000
                              Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-09 14:14 -0600
                            Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-12 09:26 -0500
                              Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 14:33 +0000
                                Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2015-10-12 09:16 -0700
                                  Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 16:29 +0000
                              Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-12 09:57 -0500
                    Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-09 19:52 -0400
                      Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Onion Knight <onionknight@linuxmail.org> - 2015-10-10 08:35 -0400
                        Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-10 11:13 -0400
                        Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-10 14:23 -0600
                          Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-10-10 15:40 -0500
                            Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-10 21:30 -0600
                              Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2015-10-11 07:30 -0500
                                Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-11 11:57 -0600
                                  Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 18:14 +0000
                                    Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-11 16:03 -0600
                                      Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 22:31 +0000
                                        Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> - 2015-10-13 13:51 -0600
                  Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-10-08 19:37 -0400
                    Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Onion Knight <onionknight@linuxmail.org> - 2015-10-08 19:41 -0400
                    Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 00:03 +0000
                    Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-09 07:35 -0500
                      Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 12:52 +0000
                        Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-10-09 09:38 -0400
                          Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-09 11:11 -0400
          Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-08 07:22 -0500
        Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-08 07:29 -0500
        Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-08 09:37 -0400
          Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-10-08 16:46 +0200
            Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-08 12:10 -0400
        Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-09 19:49 -0400
          Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-10 10:59 -0400
          Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-10-10 17:03 +0200
            Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-13 09:10 -0400
      Re: Micro$oft's smartphone debacle "A.M" <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-08 09:36 -0400

Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8  Next page →

#325655

On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 00:07:05 +0000, ronb wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 19:38:41 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 
>> ronb wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> 
>>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:07:12 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8 Oct 2015 17:43:31 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The one place you don't want to be in phones is with Android.
>>>>> Between Samsung sucking up the majority of the profits, the Chinese
>>>>> low quality mfgs picking up almost all of what's left, there just
>>>>> isn't any money to be made making an Android phone for anyone else.
>>>>> 
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> Where does the lemon-sucking, bitter old biddy "Lloyd" thinks iPhones
>>> are made? Elf Land?
>>>
>>> But "somehow" Android has managed to take 80% - 85% of the worldwide
>>> market. And Windows Phone is ... where? Under 5%? iPhones at about
>>> 12%?
>>> Yeah, Apple's and Windows' phones are taking the world by storm. NOT.
>> 
>> Well, Apple's phones are doing pretty well.
> 
> Not in market share worldwide compared to Android. Which was my point.

While market share certainly gives click-bait bloggers a lot to talk 
about, in the grand scheme of making profits and sales, it is nearly 
meaningless.




-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#325657

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 6:17:22 PM UTC-6, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 00:07:05 +0000, ronb wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 19:38:41 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > 
> >> ronb wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> >> 
> >>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:07:12 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 8 Oct 2015 17:43:31 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> The one place you don't want to be in phones is with Android.
> >>>>> Between Samsung sucking up the majority of the profits, the Chinese
> >>>>> low quality mfgs picking up almost all of what's left, there just
> >>>>> isn't any money to be made making an Android phone for anyone else.
> >>>>> 
> >>>> Bullshit.
> >>>
> >>> Where does the lemon-sucking, bitter old biddy "Lloyd" thinks iPhones
> >>> are made? Elf Land?
> >>>
> >>> But "somehow" Android has managed to take 80% - 85% of the worldwide
> >>> market. And Windows Phone is ... where? Under 5%? iPhones at about
> >>> 12%?
> >>> Yeah, Apple's and Windows' phones are taking the world by storm. NOT.
> >> 
> >> Well, Apple's phones are doing pretty well.
> > 
> > Not in market share worldwide compared to Android. Which was my point.
> 
> While market share certainly gives click-bait bloggers a lot to talk 
> about, in the grand scheme of making profits and sales, it is nearly 
> meaningless.


The nerve of them, huh?  These two almost sound as if this is a tech based newsgroup, instead of a financial one ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#325659

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 17:27:49 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:

> On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 6:17:22 PM UTC-6, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 00:07:05 +0000, ronb wrote:
>> 
>> > On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 19:38:41 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> > 
>> >> ronb wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> >> 
>> >>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:07:12 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 8 Oct 2015 17:43:31 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>> 
>> >>>>> The one place you don't want to be in phones is with Android.
>> >>>>> Between Samsung sucking up the majority of the profits, the
>> >>>>> Chinese low quality mfgs picking up almost all of what's left,
>> >>>>> there just isn't any money to be made making an Android phone for
>> >>>>> anyone else.
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>> Bullshit.
>> >>>
>> >>> Where does the lemon-sucking, bitter old biddy "Lloyd" thinks
>> >>> iPhones are made? Elf Land?
>> >>>
>> >>> But "somehow" Android has managed to take 80% - 85% of the
>> >>> worldwide market. And Windows Phone is ... where? Under 5%? iPhones
>> >>> at about 12%?
>> >>> Yeah, Apple's and Windows' phones are taking the world by storm.
>> >>> NOT.
>> >> 
>> >> Well, Apple's phones are doing pretty well.
>> > 
>> > Not in market share worldwide compared to Android. Which was my
>> > point.
>> 
>> While market share certainly gives click-bait bloggers a lot to talk
>> about, in the grand scheme of making profits and sales, it is nearly
>> meaningless.
> 
> 
> The nerve of them, huh?  These two almost sound as if this is a tech
> based newsgroup, instead of a financial one ;)

This is a troll based newsgroup apparently.  The linux loonies that hang 
out here mostly are not all that sharp, so that leaves tech pretty much 
out of the picture.  



-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#325664

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 6:30:32 PM UTC-6, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 17:27:49 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 6:17:22 PM UTC-6, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >> On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 00:07:05 +0000, ronb wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 19:38:41 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> ronb wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> >> >> 
> >> >>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:07:12 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On 8 Oct 2015 17:43:31 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>> 
> >> >>>>> The one place you don't want to be in phones is with Android.
> >> >>>>> Between Samsung sucking up the majority of the profits, the
> >> >>>>> Chinese low quality mfgs picking up almost all of what's left,
> >> >>>>> there just isn't any money to be made making an Android phone for
> >> >>>>> anyone else.
> >> >>>>> 
> >> >>>> Bullshit.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Where does the lemon-sucking, bitter old biddy "Lloyd" thinks
> >> >>> iPhones are made? Elf Land?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> But "somehow" Android has managed to take 80% - 85% of the
> >> >>> worldwide market. And Windows Phone is ... where? Under 5%? iPhones
> >> >>> at about 12%?
> >> >>> Yeah, Apple's and Windows' phones are taking the world by storm.
> >> >>> NOT.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Well, Apple's phones are doing pretty well.
> >> > 
> >> > Not in market share worldwide compared to Android. Which was my
> >> > point.
> >> 
> >> While market share certainly gives click-bait bloggers a lot to talk
> >> about, in the grand scheme of making profits and sales, it is nearly
> >> meaningless.
> > 
> > 
> > The nerve of them, huh?  These two almost sound as if this is a tech
> > based newsgroup, instead of a financial one ;)
> 
> This is a troll based newsgroup apparently. 

Well, that is the reason the dot advocacy hierarchy was created. Even so, like in the good old days of CSMA, there used to be a good number of decent discussions going on but that's mostly dried up.

 The linux loonies that hang 
> out here mostly are not all that sharp, so that leaves tech pretty much 
> out of the picture.  

Some of them look to be pretty Linux savvy from what I've seen... owl, Scott Doty, Melzzzzz and Peter, for example.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#325666

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:56:31 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote:

> On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 6:30:32 PM UTC-6, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 17:27:49 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 6:17:22 PM UTC-6, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 00:07:05 +0000, ronb wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> > On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 19:38:41 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> > 
>>>> >> ronb wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>> >> 
>>>> >>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:07:12 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On 8 Oct 2015 17:43:31 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com>
>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>> 
>>>> >>>>> The one place you don't want to be in phones is with Android.
>>>> >>>>> Between Samsung sucking up the majority of the profits, the
>>>> >>>>> Chinese low quality mfgs picking up almost all of what's left,
>>>> >>>>> there just isn't any money to be made making an Android phone for
>>>> >>>>> anyone else.
>>>> >>>>> 
>>>> >>>> Bullshit.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Where does the lemon-sucking, bitter old biddy "Lloyd" thinks
>>>> >>> iPhones are made? Elf Land?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> But "somehow" Android has managed to take 80% - 85% of the
>>>> >>> worldwide market. And Windows Phone is ... where? Under 5%? iPhones
>>>> >>> at about 12%?
>>>> >>> Yeah, Apple's and Windows' phones are taking the world by storm.
>>>> >>> NOT.
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Well, Apple's phones are doing pretty well.
>>>> > 
>>>> > Not in market share worldwide compared to Android. Which was my
>>>> > point.
>>>> 
>>>> While market share certainly gives click-bait bloggers a lot to talk
>>>> about, in the grand scheme of making profits and sales, it is nearly
>>>> meaningless.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The nerve of them, huh?  These two almost sound as if this is a tech
>>> based newsgroup, instead of a financial one ;)
>> 
>> This is a troll based newsgroup apparently. 
> 
> Well, that is the reason the dot advocacy hierarchy was created. Even so, like in the good old days of CSMA, there used to be a good number of decent discussions going on but that's mostly dried up.
> 
>  The linux loonies that hang 
>> out here mostly are not all that sharp, so that leaves tech pretty much 
>> out of the picture.  
> 
> Some of them look to be pretty Linux savvy from what I've seen... owl, Scott Doty, Melzzzzz and Peter, for example.

They are Linux savvy for sure but they are stuck in a world of geeks.
Geeks make up something like .001 percent of the market.
These loons are hanging their hats on a group of people that for all
practical purposes barely exist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#325800

On 2015-10-09, Onion Knight <onionknight@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:56:31 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 6:30:32 PM UTC-6, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 17:27:49 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 6:17:22 PM UTC-6, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 00:07:05 +0000, ronb wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> > On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 19:38:41 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>> > 
>>>>> >> ronb wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:07:12 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>> On 8 Oct 2015 17:43:31 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com>
>>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>> 
>>>>> >>>>> The one place you don't want to be in phones is with Android.
>>>>> >>>>> Between Samsung sucking up the majority of the profits, the

...yet Android continues to make Fanboys shit their pants.

   There's an obvious parallel between Android and PCs.

[deletia]

>>  The linux loonies that hang 
>>> out here mostly are not all that sharp, so that leaves tech pretty much 
>>> out of the picture.  
>> 
>> Some of them look to be pretty Linux savvy from what I've seen... owl, Scott Doty, Melzzzzz and Peter, for example.
>
> They are Linux savvy for sure but they are stuck in a world of geeks.
> Geeks make up something like .001 percent of the market.

...except all of those people using Android phones.

[deletia]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#325807

On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:35:15 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2015-10-09, Onion Knight <onionknight@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 17:56:31 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 6:30:32 PM UTC-6, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 17:27:49 -0700, Steve Carroll wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 6:17:22 PM UTC-6, Lloyd Parsons
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 00:07:05 +0000, ronb wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 19:38:41 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>> > 
>>>>>> >> ronb wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>> >> 
>>>>>> >>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:07:12 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>> On 8 Oct 2015 17:43:31 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com>
>>>>>> >>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>> 
>>>>>> >>>>> The one place you don't want to be in phones is with Android.
>>>>>> >>>>> Between Samsung sucking up the majority of the profits, the
> 
> ...yet Android continues to make Fanboys shit their pants.
>
LOL!  You are so full of shit!  A 2nd rate OS on phones that are causing 
most mfgs to think seriously about quitting the platform, that drags in 
the most malware on phones.

Yeah, that would make 'fanbois' shit their pants all right.  The only 
ones shitting their pants are the mfgs that are watching their bottom 
line dwindle away every day they make or sell them.
 
>    There's an obvious parallel between Android and PCs.
> 
> [deletia]
> 
>>>  The linux loonies that hang
>>>> out here mostly are not all that sharp, so that leaves tech pretty
>>>> much out of the picture.
>>> 
>>> Some of them look to be pretty Linux savvy from what I've seen... owl,
>>> Scott Doty, Melzzzzz and Peter, for example.
>>
>> They are Linux savvy for sure but they are stuck in a world of geeks.
>> Geeks make up something like .001 percent of the market.
> 
> ...except all of those people using Android phones.
> 
> [deletia]


What makes you think that Android users are mostly geeks?


-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#325760

On 10/8/2015 7:38 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> ronb wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:07:12 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 Oct 2015 17:43:31 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The one place you don't want to be in phones is with Android. Between
>>>> Samsung sucking up the majority of the profits, the Chinese low quality
>>>> mfgs picking up almost all of what's left, there just isn't any money
>>>> to be made making an Android phone for anyone else.
>>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>
>> Where does the lemon-sucking, bitter old biddy "Lloyd" thinks iPhones are
>> made? Elf Land?
>>
>> But "somehow" Android has managed to take 80% - 85% of the worldwide
>> market. And Windows Phone is ... where? Under 5%? iPhones at about 12%?
>> Yeah, Apple's and Windows' phones are taking the world by storm. NOT.
>
> Well, Apple's phones are doing pretty well.


Far better than "pretty well": Apple earned 92% of the smartphone 
industry's profit in 1Q15...


http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/07/apple-makes-92-percent-of-all-smartphone-profits/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#325766

On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:45:23 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 10/8/2015 7:38 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> ronb wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:07:12 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8 Oct 2015 17:43:31 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The one place you don't want to be in phones is with Android.
>>>>> Between Samsung sucking up the majority of the profits, the Chinese
>>>>> low quality mfgs picking up almost all of what's left, there just
>>>>> isn't any money to be made making an Android phone for anyone else.
>>>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> Where does the lemon-sucking, bitter old biddy "Lloyd" thinks iPhones
>>> are made? Elf Land?
>>>
>>> But "somehow" Android has managed to take 80% - 85% of the worldwide
>>> market. And Windows Phone is ... where? Under 5%? iPhones at about
>>> 12%? Yeah, Apple's and Windows' phones are taking the world by storm.
>>> NOT.
>>
>> Well, Apple's phones are doing pretty well.
> 
> 
> Far better than "pretty well": Apple earned 92% of the smartphone
> industry's profit in 1Q15...
> 
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/07/apple-makes-92-percent-of-all-
smartphone-profits/

While I know that is fact, it is also just nuts!  :)

Personally I don't like Android, but it isn't like it is horrible or 
anything.  You have to look directly at Google to see why Android can 
garner such a huge share of the market while making less than 8% of the 
profits.

They made it somewhat 'open and free' but not quite.  They didn't put any 
real controls in the distribution/update/upgrade methodology.  So you get 
this hybrid that is allowed on virtually anything from anybody, that will 
get updates/upgrades on whatever basis the device mfg or carrier decides 
is appropriate.  And since there are no teeth in the guidelines for 
providing Android to the mfgs, you get any and all into the mix.

Meanwhile back at the Google ranch, Google rakes in the profits from 
their product, that product being customer data.  If Android died 
tomorrow, Google would still be making those fat profits.  In the 
meantime mfgs are struggling to make any profits from screwing with 
Android.

For Google, Android was a way to get more eyeballs and fingers involved 
with Google, which explains why Android is in the mess it is.  Long term 
I'm not sure Android will survive.  Not because it isn't good enough, but 
because those that want to sell devices with it cannot sustain their 
goals by selling those devices.




-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#325783

"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:d7q326Fj2eU1@mid.individual.net...
> On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:45:23 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> On 10/8/2015 7:38 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> ronb wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:07:12 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8 Oct 2015 17:43:31 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The one place you don't want to be in phones is with Android.
>>>>>> Between Samsung sucking up the majority of the profits, the Chinese
>>>>>> low quality mfgs picking up almost all of what's left, there just
>>>>>> isn't any money to be made making an Android phone for anyone else.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> Where does the lemon-sucking, bitter old biddy "Lloyd" thinks iPhones
>>>> are made? Elf Land?
>>>>
>>>> But "somehow" Android has managed to take 80% - 85% of the worldwide
>>>> market. And Windows Phone is ... where? Under 5%? iPhones at about
>>>> 12%? Yeah, Apple's and Windows' phones are taking the world by storm.
>>>> NOT.
>>>
>>> Well, Apple's phones are doing pretty well.
>>
>>
>> Far better than "pretty well": Apple earned 92% of the smartphone
>> industry's profit in 1Q15...
>>
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/07/apple-makes-92-percent-of-all-
> smartphone-profits/
>
> While I know that is fact, it is also just nuts!  :)
>
> Personally I don't like Android, but it isn't like it is horrible or
> anything.  You have to look directly at Google to see why Android can
> garner such a huge share of the market while making less than 8% of the
> profits.

Those are pretty crazy figures. Fortunately for them, Apple is in the 
enviable position of not having to compete with dozens of other 
manufacturers who are making the exact same product. The financials are 
similar in the PC (desktop/laptop) market as well for Macs vs PCs.


> They made it somewhat 'open and free' but not quite.  They didn't put any
> real controls in the distribution/update/upgrade methodology.  So you get
> this hybrid that is allowed on virtually anything from anybody, that will
> get updates/upgrades on whatever basis the device mfg or carrier decides
> is appropriate.  And since there are no teeth in the guidelines for
> providing Android to the mfgs, you get any and all into the mix.
>
> Meanwhile back at the Google ranch, Google rakes in the profits from
> their product, that product being customer data.  If Android died
> tomorrow, Google would still be making those fat profits.  In the
> meantime mfgs are struggling to make any profits from screwing with
> Android.

Google doesn't care at all if all these Android manufacturers are 
cannibalizing each other selling the phones with practically zero profit 
margin. Why should they?  It doesn't matter to Google if the manufacturer 
makes $100/phone or a penny/phone or if they lose money.

As long as someone is pumping out Android phones into the hands of consumers 
then Google is getting what they want. Bummer for the companies that 
actually make the smartphones. Brilliant business move on Google's part.

> For Google, Android was a way to get more eyeballs and fingers involved
> with Google, which explains why Android is in the mess it is.  Long term
> I'm not sure Android will survive.  Not because it isn't good enough, but
> because those that want to sell devices with it cannot sustain their
> goals by selling those devices.
>

There will be someone making Android phones. There are only a very few 
number of handset makers who can afford to develop their own phone-OS to 
compete against Android. Creating the OS will be the easy part, creating the 
ecosystem and getting the partnerships and developers onboard to write apps 
is going to be much more difficult.

So Android will stick around for the foreseeable future. But most of the 
manufacturers won't. Companies like Sony, HTC, LG, Lenovo, etc will 
eventually get out and cut their losses. That will leave enough money for 
the others to get by. It'll become like the PC market. A few players all 
selling the same commodity item at razor-thin margins.

-- 
And why does Zeke think that taking Rex's name and converting to 
"Rexxie"would be an impossible act for someone other than "Rex"?  Is Zeke 
stupid, or a kook?

Anyway, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that that page is yet another faked 
frame-up job intended to further Microsoft's "Evangelism is War" goals...

So who's the k00k?  Obviously, a person that would go to such trouble to try 
to appropriate someone else's persona, post foulness or craziness as if it 
were from that person, and then point everybody to that manufactured 
evidence.


The ignorant Chris Ahlstrom kook. Unable to recognize the facts right in 
front of his face.
Feb 24, 2014
Message-ID: <legq8a$32v$2@dont-email.me>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#325786

On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 11:19:22 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d7q326Fj2eU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:45:23 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/8/2015 7:38 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> ronb wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:07:12 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8 Oct 2015 17:43:31 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The one place you don't want to be in phones is with Android.
>>>>>>> Between Samsung sucking up the majority of the profits, the
>>>>>>> Chinese low quality mfgs picking up almost all of what's left,
>>>>>>> there just isn't any money to be made making an Android phone for
>>>>>>> anyone else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where does the lemon-sucking, bitter old biddy "Lloyd" thinks
>>>>> iPhones are made? Elf Land?
>>>>>
>>>>> But "somehow" Android has managed to take 80% - 85% of the worldwide
>>>>> market. And Windows Phone is ... where? Under 5%? iPhones at about
>>>>> 12%? Yeah, Apple's and Windows' phones are taking the world by
>>>>> storm.
>>>>> NOT.
>>>>
>>>> Well, Apple's phones are doing pretty well.
>>>
>>>
>>> Far better than "pretty well": Apple earned 92% of the smartphone
>>> industry's profit in 1Q15...
>>>
>>>
>>> http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/07/apple-makes-92-percent-of-all-
>> smartphone-profits/
>>
>> While I know that is fact, it is also just nuts!  :)
>>
>> Personally I don't like Android, but it isn't like it is horrible or
>> anything.  You have to look directly at Google to see why Android can
>> garner such a huge share of the market while making less than 8% of the
>> profits.
> 
> Those are pretty crazy figures. Fortunately for them, Apple is in the
> enviable position of not having to compete with dozens of other
> manufacturers who are making the exact same product. The financials are
> similar in the PC (desktop/laptop) market as well for Macs vs PCs.
> 
> 
>> They made it somewhat 'open and free' but not quite.  They didn't put
>> any real controls in the distribution/update/upgrade methodology.  So
>> you get this hybrid that is allowed on virtually anything from anybody,
>> that will get updates/upgrades on whatever basis the device mfg or
>> carrier decides is appropriate.  And since there are no teeth in the
>> guidelines for providing Android to the mfgs, you get any and all into
>> the mix.
>>
>> Meanwhile back at the Google ranch, Google rakes in the profits from
>> their product, that product being customer data.  If Android died
>> tomorrow, Google would still be making those fat profits.  In the
>> meantime mfgs are struggling to make any profits from screwing with
>> Android.
> 
> Google doesn't care at all if all these Android manufacturers are
> cannibalizing each other selling the phones with practically zero profit
> margin. Why should they?  It doesn't matter to Google if the
> manufacturer makes $100/phone or a penny/phone or if they lose money.
> 
> As long as someone is pumping out Android phones into the hands of
> consumers then Google is getting what they want. Bummer for the
> companies that actually make the smartphones. Brilliant business move on
> Google's part.
>
Absolutely!!  Google is run by some very sharp cookies!!
 
>> For Google, Android was a way to get more eyeballs and fingers involved
>> with Google, which explains why Android is in the mess it is.  Long
>> term I'm not sure Android will survive.  Not because it isn't good
>> enough, but because those that want to sell devices with it cannot
>> sustain their goals by selling those devices.
>>
>>
> There will be someone making Android phones. There are only a very few
> number of handset makers who can afford to develop their own phone-OS to
> compete against Android. Creating the OS will be the easy part, creating
> the ecosystem and getting the partnerships and developers onboard to
> write apps is going to be much more difficult.
> 
> So Android will stick around for the foreseeable future. But most of the
> manufacturers won't. Companies like Sony, HTC, LG, Lenovo, etc will
> eventually get out and cut their losses. That will leave enough money
> for the others to get by. It'll become like the PC market. A few players
> all selling the same commodity item at razor-thin margins.

Sadly I think you are right.

I still have hope that MS can pull the hat out of the rabbit and get some 
traction for WP.  Personally I like WP better than both iOS and Android.




-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#325817

On 9 Oct 2015 14:59:18 GMT, Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote:
> For Google, Android was a way to get more eyeballs and fingers 
involved 
> with Google, which explains why Android is in the mess it is.  Long 
term 
> I'm not sure Android will survive.  Not because it isn't good 
enough, but 
> because those that want to sell devices with it cannot sustain 
their 
> goals by selling those devices.
More
Bullshit

-- 
Press any key to continue or any other to quit 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#325818

On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 18:26:27 +0200, Mel wrote:

> On 9 Oct 2015 14:59:18 GMT, Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote:
>> For Google, Android was a way to get more eyeballs and fingers
> involved
>> with Google, which explains why Android is in the mess it is.  Long
> term
>> I'm not sure Android will survive.  Not because it isn't good
> enough, but
>> because those that want to sell devices with it cannot sustain
> their
>> goals by selling those devices.
> More Bullshit

Yes, you do spew 'more bullshit'.  Ignorance is bliss so you must be the 
happiest person in the world.




-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#325882

On 10/09/15 10:27, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 18:26:27 +0200, Mel wrote:
>
>> On 9 Oct 2015 14:59:18 GMT, Lloyd Parsons<lloydp211@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> For Google, Android was a way to get more eyeballs and fingers
>> involved
>>> with Google, which explains why Android is in the mess it is.  Long
>> term
>>> I'm not sure Android will survive.  Not because it isn't good
>> enough, but
>>> because those that want to sell devices with it cannot sustain
>> their
>>> goals by selling those devices.
>> More Bullshit
>
> Yes, you do spew 'more bullshit'.  Ignorance is bliss so you must be the
> happiest person in the world.
>
>
>
>
Makes people wonder if these linux loons aren't a part of ISIS.

-- 
When told the reason for daylight savings time the Old
Indian said, "Only the government would believe that you
could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the
bottom, and have a longer blanket."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#326341

Mel wrote:

> Lying Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>
>> For Google, Android was a way to get more eyeballs and fingers 
>> involved with Google, which explains why Android is in the mess it is.  
>> Long term I'm not sure Android will survive.  Not because it isn't good 
>> enough, but because those that want to sell devices with it cannot sustain 
>> their goals by selling those devices.
>
> More Bullshit

Llying Lloyd is so ignorant of basic economics that he doesn't know
that if normal profits cannot be obtained in a market due to
oversupply, vendors will leave the market until equilibrium is
(roughly) obtained.

That's how free markets work, it happens all the time, and there's
nothing wrong with that.

Llying Lloyd is either too stupid understand, or too dishonest to
admit, there is not one thing that is usual about the Android-based
mobile-device market.

-- 
"I keep asking (chrisv) for examples of me being pro-MS but he fails
each and every time."  -  Hadron Quark, lying shamelessly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#326343

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:26:09 -0500, chrisv wrote:

> Mel wrote:
> 
>> Lying Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>>>
>>> For Google, Android was a way to get more eyeballs and fingers
>>> involved with Google, which explains why Android is in the mess it is.
>>> Long term I'm not sure Android will survive.  Not because it isn't
>>> good enough, but because those that want to sell devices with it
>>> cannot sustain their goals by selling those devices.
>>
>> More Bullshit
> 
> Llying Lloyd is so ignorant of basic economics that he doesn't know that
> if normal profits cannot be obtained in a market due to oversupply,
> vendors will leave the market until equilibrium is (roughly) obtained.
> 
> That's how free markets work, it happens all the time, and there's
> nothing wrong with that.
> 
> Llying Lloyd is either too stupid understand, or too dishonest to admit,
> there is not one thing that is usual about the Android-based
> mobile-device market.

What the hell are you babbling about?

The Android market from the business side is in deep trouble.  Profits 
are small and few in number with only Samsung making any real money off 
of it, and even they are seeing lower sales and profits over the last 7 
quarters.

The whole mobile market is really weird.  You've got Apple taking about 
90% of the profits in it and all the rest of the market fighting over 
that roughly 10% that's left.  

For Android that means that more mfgs will drop out of the market since 
it is not in their best interest to stick with it.  That will eventually 
mean that the premium end of the Android devices will go away and the 
only thing left will be the 'flip phone' of the Android market.  IOW, mid 
to low range phones where the profits are at their slimmest.

Samsung is fighting the good fight with their premium Android stuff, but 
for how long?  MS is trying like hell to penetrate the market and may 
very well succeed if they can get their 'universal' platform going well.


-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#326364

On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 10:33:21 AM UTC-4, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:26:09 -0500, chrisv wrote:
> 
> > Mel wrote:
> > 
> >> Lying Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> >>>
> >>> For Google, Android was a way to get more eyeballs and fingers
> >>> involved with Google, which explains why Android is in the mess it is.
> >>> Long term I'm not sure Android will survive.  Not because it isn't
> >>> good enough, but because those that want to sell devices with it
> >>> cannot sustain their goals by selling those devices.
> >>
> >> More Bullshit
> > 
> > Llying Lloyd is so ignorant of basic economics that he doesn't know that
> > if normal profits cannot be obtained in a market due to oversupply,
> > vendors will leave the market until equilibrium is (roughly) obtained.
> > 
> > That's how free markets work, it happens all the time, and there's
> > nothing wrong with that.
> > 
> > Llying Lloyd is either too stupid understand, or too dishonest to admit,
> > there is not one thing that is usual about the Android-based
> > mobile-device market.
> 
> What the hell are you babbling about?

Merely noise for his own echo chamber, to prevent hearing reality.

 
> The Android market from the business side is in deep trouble.  Profits 
> are small and few in number with only Samsung making any real money off 
> of it, and even they are seeing lower sales and profits over the last 7 
> quarters.
> 
> The whole mobile market is really weird.  You've got Apple taking about 
> 90% of the profits in it and all the rest of the market fighting over 
> that roughly 10% that's left.  
> 
> For Android that means that more mfgs will drop out of the market since 
> it is not in their best interest to stick with it.  That will eventually 
> mean that the premium end of the Android devices will go away and the 
> only thing left will be the 'flip phone' of the Android market.  IOW, mid 
> to low range phones where the profits are at their slimmest.
> 
> Samsung is fighting the good fight with their premium Android stuff, but 
> for how long?  MS is trying like hell to penetrate the market and may 
> very well succeed if they can get their 'universal' platform going well.

Well said.

What chrisv doesn't want to hear is that businesses have budgets with 
which to pursue strategic objectives, and as such, they can try & fail and
try & fail ... losing money ... until they decide that they've had enough.

For some companies, their patience is but one fiscal quarter; others have
greater timelines ... some companies are known for having 25 year plans
(and longer!).  As such, it very well may take years (or longer) for the 
inevitability of market forces to actually realize itself - - the pace of the 
market is not always nothing less than "instant gratification".   

For example, Google is known to be bankrolling Android OS development, and
the strategies of some of the hardware manufacturers can certainly well then be 
to persist in the market - - even if losing money - - to ride on Google's coattails, 
in an anticipation (right or wrong) that it will be a winning strategy which will pull 
them along with it to success.  Risky?  But of course...but that's business.
Bottom line to much of this is that market persistence depends on both how
deep one's pockets are, as well as the projection for the future,  It very well
may take another five (5) years to really shake out, even though there have 
already been some drop-outs, such as Amazon's Fire.  However, I do expect
that Amazon will probably try again.  


-hh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#326367

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:16:50 -0700, -hh wrote:

> On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 10:33:21 AM UTC-4, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 09:26:09 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>> 
>> > Mel wrote:
>> > 
>> >> Lying Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> For Google, Android was a way to get more eyeballs and fingers
>> >>> involved with Google, which explains why Android is in the mess it
>> >>> is.
>> >>> Long term I'm not sure Android will survive.  Not because it isn't
>> >>> good enough, but because those that want to sell devices with it
>> >>> cannot sustain their goals by selling those devices.
>> >>
>> >> More Bullshit
>> > 
>> > Llying Lloyd is so ignorant of basic economics that he doesn't know
>> > that if normal profits cannot be obtained in a market due to
>> > oversupply, vendors will leave the market until equilibrium is
>> > (roughly) obtained.
>> > 
>> > That's how free markets work, it happens all the time, and there's
>> > nothing wrong with that.
>> > 
>> > Llying Lloyd is either too stupid understand, or too dishonest to
>> > admit,
>> > there is not one thing that is usual about the Android-based
>> > mobile-device market.
>> 
>> What the hell are you babbling about?
> 
> Merely noise for his own echo chamber, to prevent hearing reality.
> 
> 
>> The Android market from the business side is in deep trouble.  Profits
>> are small and few in number with only Samsung making any real money off
>> of it, and even they are seeing lower sales and profits over the last 7
>> quarters.
>> 
>> The whole mobile market is really weird.  You've got Apple taking about
>> 90% of the profits in it and all the rest of the market fighting over
>> that roughly 10% that's left.
>> 
>> For Android that means that more mfgs will drop out of the market since
>> it is not in their best interest to stick with it.  That will
>> eventually mean that the premium end of the Android devices will go
>> away and the only thing left will be the 'flip phone' of the Android
>> market.  IOW, mid to low range phones where the profits are at their
>> slimmest.
>> 
>> Samsung is fighting the good fight with their premium Android stuff,
>> but for how long?  MS is trying like hell to penetrate the market and
>> may very well succeed if they can get their 'universal' platform going
>> well.
> 
> Well said.
> 
> What chrisv doesn't want to hear is that businesses have budgets with
> which to pursue strategic objectives, and as such, they can try & fail
> and try & fail ... losing money ... until they decide that they've had
> enough.
> 
> For some companies, their patience is but one fiscal quarter; others
> have greater timelines ... some companies are known for having 25 year
> plans (and longer!).  As such, it very well may take years (or longer)
> for the inevitability of market forces to actually realize itself - -
> the pace of the market is not always nothing less than "instant
> gratification".
> 
> For example, Google is known to be bankrolling Android OS development,
> and the strategies of some of the hardware manufacturers can certainly
> well then be to persist in the market - - even if losing money - - to
> ride on Google's coattails, in an anticipation (right or wrong) that it
> will be a winning strategy which will pull them along with it to
> success.  Risky?  But of course...but that's business.
> Bottom line to much of this is that market persistence depends on both
> how deep one's pockets are, as well as the projection for the future, 
> It very well may take another five (5) years to really shake out, even
> though there have already been some drop-outs, such as Amazon's Fire. 
> However, I do expect that Amazon will probably try again.
> 
> 
> -hh

Amazon dropped the Fire Phone, the Kindle Fire line is still very much 
intact.  I just bought the Fire HD 8 yesterday.  Good tablet though it is 
a bit laggy in doing some things.  I'll use it as an e-book reader 
primarily.  It is an 8" screen tablet.  I looked at their new 7" Fire 
($49) but even though the 8" one I got is just 1" bigger, it just felt 
right to me.

Also started an Amazon Unlimited subscription.  About a million books in 
its catalog and for someone like me that read a lot and really likes 
reading books from new authors, it is a bargain at $10/month.




-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#326347

chrisv wrote:

>Llying Lloyd is either too stupid understand, or too dishonest to
>admit, there is not one thing that is usual about the Android-based
>mobile-device market.

I meant to write that there is "not one thing that is *unusual* about
the Android-based mobile-device market."

-- 
"The negative feedback kept the circuit stable."  -  trolling fsckwit
"Ezekiel", putting his ignorance on display

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#325931

On 10/8/2015 4:26 PM, ronb wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:07:12 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
>
>> On 8 Oct 2015 17:43:31 GMT Lloyd Parsons <lloydp211@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The one place you don't want to be in phones is with Android. Between
>>> Samsung sucking up the majority of the profits, the Chinese low quality
>>> mfgs picking up almost all of what's left, there just isn't any money
>>> to be made making an Android phone for anyone else.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Bullshit.
>
> Where does the lemon-sucking, bitter old biddy "Lloyd" thinks iPhones are
> made? Elf Land?
>
> But "somehow" Android has managed to take 80% - 85% of the worldwide
> market. And Windows Phone is ... where? Under 5%? iPhones at about 12%?
> Yeah, Apple's and Windows' phones are taking the world by storm. NOT.


Windows Phone is a lot more successful in its market than desktop Linux 
is in its market.

It must suck to be wRonG all the time...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web