AAPL death watch

[BergeLSU]

I think he's got a point. Samsung makes really crappy low quality electronics and their stuff would never make it into any Apple products.

There is a huge market for people who cannot afford or just do not want a $500 phone. I cannot make a $50,000 tablet, sell one, and proclaim myself the highest selling tablet for super rich people because that is my only product. (I own an iPhone)

 

[Lonyo]

And 10M S3s *to date*, so for Q2 it's something less than 10M, which means the majority of Samsung phones sold last quarter were the old phones and bottom feeders, not the S3.

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/tec...AEN20120722002300320F.HTML?nr_email_referer=1),

While Apple are only heading upwards, right? Which is why the increase in revenue of 22% was lower than the increase in unit sales of 28%, because Samsung are selling bottom feeders, while Apple ASPs are only on the rise!

 

[MrDudeMan]

I'm a bit of a fanboy of both platforms. Currently I have an iPhone 4S because all of the Android phones were total shit in comparison. When the iPhone5 comes out, I'll take another look at the Android offerings again.

There are a lot more variables at play here than what is being discussed. Android definitely has some advantages, but there's no doubting the fierce loyalty of many Apple customers. That isn't a credential all by itself, but I know very few people who fiercely love an Android product. Makes all the jokes you want, but a product that commands that kind of loyalty from it's customer base deserves some respect. My biggest gripe is how restricted Siri is. It's definitely capable of more, but they won't allow her to do things for some reason. Pisses me off...

I've owned two different iPhones and three different Android phones. I also own a Xoom and an iPad1. The Xoom is a complete piece of garbage that my two year old won't even use, but she plays the shit out of the iPad. When it comes to phones, the decision for us was really about Facetime and overall stability. I definitely miss some Android features, but my iPhone 4S has never needed to be restarted for something other than an OS update. I was pulling the battery out of my Android phones multiple times per week. Quality = shit. I have not used the newest version of Android, so maybe the situation has improved, but it's going to be really hard for me to switch back because I'm so used to my phone behaving the way I expect.

The other angle is development. I developed and sold quite a few apps on Android. I bought a mac mini and started doing some iPhone development shortly after I got my 4S. iOS app development is _much_ easier than Android. I don't want to use Eclipse and other open source bullshit. I want to work quickly and efficiently. I'm a professional programmer and it took me a few hours to get a bouncy box on the screen on Android (mostly because of the retarded installation process). Within 10 minutes of opening my mac mini, I had a bouncy box on my 4S. There's a lot to be said for good tutorials and an effective, albeit annoying, IDE (Xcode).

Regardless of your opinion of the company or products, a HUGE amount of the planet loves them. Saying Apple is on the way out is simply moronic. IF, and that's a big if, they are on their way out, it's going to be a good 10 years before it happens.

 

[pelov]

Haha, I think you're being intentionally funny, but in case anyone didn't get the joke :

http://news.yahoo.com/samsung-makes-quarter-parts-iphone-4-infographic-170804275.html

I was

And it's not just the iPhone. In the laptops it's the SSD as well as the screen.

http://gizmodo.com/5892912/samsung-makes-the-new-ipads-screen-because-no-one-else-could

Apple recently got some chip designers (from AMD, though Iirc they were GPU and server CPU architects), but they still rely on others for nearly all of the actual "work." Apple just plays with whiteboards and throws ideas around then settles on one and Foxconn, LG/Samsung and ARM do the rest -- OS/environment aside. You can favor iOS or OS X, that's fine, but whenever I hear this bullshit about Apple having better hardware it makes me want to slap-a-hoe.

 

[blankslate]

The Mac ads are terrible but that's somewhat do to the fact the the current Windows iteration isn't a turd and they can't smack talk it. Even then it's doing a terrible job explaining what the product is, which the iCloud ads in particular have done a good job

Vista was a turd before the service packs, Win7 wasn't. Win8 looks interesting but I'll stick with win7

 

[MrDudeMan]

I was

And it's not just the iPhone. In the laptops it's the SSD as well as the screen.

http://gizmodo.com/5892912/samsung-makes-the-new-ipads-screen-because-no-one-else-could

Apple recently got some chip designers (from AMD, though Iirc they were GPU and server CPU architects), but they still rely on others for nearly all of the actual "work." Apple just plays with whiteboards and throws ideas around then settles on one and Foxconn, LG/Samsung and ARM do the rest -- OS/environment aside. You can favor iOS or OS X, that's fine, but whenever I hear this bullshit about Apple having better hardware it makes me want to slap-a-hoe.

Why are you being condescending about that model? They are making money hand over fist, so obviously it works just fine. Also, creativity doesn't mean you have to create all of the constituent parts. If they really are doing nothing, then why haven't you taken all of the parts other companies produce and made something better? After all, it's just a bunch of writing on a whiteboard.

Don't act like tons of other companies don't do the same thing.

 

[Oyeve]

I'm a bit of a fanboy of both platforms. Currently I have an iPhone 4S because all of the Android phones were total shit in comparison. When the iPhone5 comes out, I'll take another look at the Android offerings again.

There are a lot more variables at play here than what is being discussed. Android definitely has some advantages, but there's no doubting the fierce loyalty of many Apple customers. That isn't a credential all by itself, but I know very few people who fiercely love an Android product. Makes all the jokes you want, but a product that commands that kind of loyalty from it's customer base deserves some respect. My biggest gripe is how restricted Siri is. It's definitely capable of more, but they won't allow her to do things for some reason. Pisses me off...

I've owned two different iPhones and three different Android phones. I also own a Xoom and an iPad1. The Xoom is a complete piece of garbage that my two year old won't even use, but she plays the shit out of the iPad. When it comes to phones, the decision for us was really about Facetime and overall stability. I definitely miss some Android features, but my iPhone 4S has never needed to be restarted for something other than an OS update. I was pulling the battery out of my Android phones multiple times per week. Quality = shit. I have not used the newest version of Android, so maybe the situation has improved, but it's going to be really hard for me to switch back because I'm so used to my phone behaving the way I expect.

The other angle is development. I developed and sold quite a few apps on Android. I bought a mac mini and started doing some iPhone development shortly after I got my 4S. iOS app development is _much_ easier than Android. I don't want to use Eclipse and other open source bullshit. I want to work quickly and efficiently. I'm a professional programmer and it took me a few hours to get a bouncy box on the screen on Android (mostly because of the retarded installation process). Within 10 minutes of opening my mac mini, I had a bouncy box on my 4S. There's a lot to be said for good tutorials and an effective, albeit annoying, IDE (Xcode).

Regardless of your opinion of the company or products, a HUGE amount of the planet loves them. Saying Apple is on the way out is simply moronic. IF, and that's a big if, they are on their way out, it's going to be a good 10 years before it happens.

You're so full of shit. How can you possibly be a fan of android when your post just calls it a piece of shit in pretty much every regard. You are definitely not a partial fan of android and just another apple preacher posting to spew your android hate.

 

[MrDudeMan]

You're so full of shit. How can you possibly be a fan of android when your post just calls it a piece of shit in pretty much every regard. You are definitely not a partial fan of android and just another apple preacher posting to spew your android hate.

I said the Xoom is a piece of garbage and it is. I also said Android has features I miss, but the phones simply weren't as stable. There's nothing nice to say about app development, so I won't even try, but the other things are just opinions. Android has a much better platform in an ideal world, but this isn't an ideal world. Like I said, I'll take another look when the iPhone 5 comes out because there will likely be newer Android phones as well. I'll switch back if the situation has improved.

I find comments like yours to be funny because of the extreme level of hypocrisy. I made no emotional or sensational claims about Apple being better and, in fact, I even stated things that Apple does poorly. However, you glanced over all of that because you are obviously an Android zealot. I'm not biased about either platform. I picked the one that currently has the least number of disadvantages for my uses. iMessage allowed me to save $10/month and Facetime has no easy parallel. We use the hell out of those features and so do most of the people I know with iPhones. It's a huge selling point, but if Android comes up with something similar (maybe it already has, I've been out of the loop for a few months), I'll take a look at it. I want the features, not the brand. Go crawl back under your bridge.

 

[Dominato3r]

Vista was a turd before the service packs, Win7 wasn't. Win8 looks interesting but I'll stick with win7

Yeah that's what I meant. Windows 7 was solid, widely praised and the Mac vs. PC ads go off the air.

 

[pelov]

Why are you being condescending about that model? They are making money hand over fist, so obviously it works just fine. Also, creativity doesn't mean you have to create all of the constituent parts. If they really are doing nothing, then why haven't you taken all of the parts other companies produce and made something better? After all, it's just a bunch of writing on a whiteboard.

Don't act like tons of other companies don't do the same thing.

Because of idiotic posts like this:

Oh, and if you want to see an ugly phone look no closer than the S3:

Samsung needs to stick to designing refrigerators.

Might do you good to scroll up and read through the thread. And mind you, this drivel is on Anandtech where forum-goers are generally the knowledgeable type. You'd figure an Apple fanboy would know that Samsung creates a large portion (and the most important bits, might I add) of nearly every single Apple device on the market. Not to say their refrigerators aren't amazing and better than any SoC or SSD+controller Samsung possibly makes. Though it does beg the question of whether Apple should consider just shrinking Samsung's refrigerators and sticking them in their next iPad.

I'm not being condescending to their business model, I'm just pointing out the stereotypical response by hypocritical and uninformed Apple fanatic. Even you must admit that there's quite a few. All it takes is a quick glance at engadget or mac-rumors or wherever the hell they congregate.

The walled garden approach is doing very well for them. So much so that even Microsoft is looking to copy it (Hello, Metro ). With a monopoly on hardware compatibility and software you dictate pricing <~~ that's why, btw. Apple makes money hand over fist because of their software, NOT their hardware! Apple tried hardware ages ago and they failed miserably... along with a clothing line).

I like the iPhone and the tablets are sweet too, but don't be fooled into thinking that their shit is somehow superior. You can prefer the software/OS and that's a legitimate preference. I can understand that. What you can't claim, though, is that Samsung (or LG or AOC or anybody) makes shitty hardware when Apple relies on everybody else to make it for them.

If they really are doing nothing, then why haven't you taken all of the parts other companies produce and made something better? After all, it's just a bunch of writing on a whiteboard.

"Well why don't you do it" *sticks out tongue* isn't a legitimate point. Apple does it through marketing and complete control of hardware/software. That's how they roll and Android is the polar opposite of that. I prefer the latter on principle because I don't like Apple's OS (customization doesn't exist) and the hardware isn't any better (derp). They're just expensive.

 

[jpiniero]

While Apple are only heading upwards, right? Which is why the increase in revenue of 22% was lower than the increase in unit sales of 28%, because Samsung are selling bottom feeders, while Apple ASPs are only on the rise!

People could be buying, say, the 16 GB 4S versus the 32 GB. Part of Apple's "problem" is that the 3gs/4 isn't selling because you can do much better with Android at that price point.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Because of idiotic posts like this:

Might do you good to scroll up and read through the thread. And mind you, this drivel is on Anandtech where forum-goers are generally the knowledgeable type. You'd figure an Apple fanboy would know that Samsung creates a large portion (and the most important bits, might I add) of nearly every single Apple device on the market. Not to say their refrigerators aren't amazing and better than any SoC or SSD+controller Samsung possibly makes. Though it does beg the question of whether Apple should consider just shrinking Samsung's refrigerators and sticking them in their next iPad.

I'm not being condescending to their business model, I'm just pointing out the stereotypical response by hypocritical and uninformed Apple fanatic. Even you must admit that there's quite a few. All it takes is a quick glance at engadget or mac-rumors or wherever the hell they congregate.

The walled garden approach is doing very well for them. So much so that even Microsoft is looking to copy it (Hello, Metro ). With a monopoly on hardware compatibility and software you dictate pricing <~~ that's why, btw. Apple makes money hand over fist because of their software, NOT their hardware! Apple tried hardware ages ago and they failed miserably... along with a clothing line).

I like the iPhone and the tablets are sweet too, but don't be fooled into thinking that their shit is somehow superior. You can prefer the software/OS and that's a legitimate preference. I can understand that. What you can't claim, though, is that Samsung (or LG or AOC or anybody) makes shitty hardware when Apple relies on everybody else to make it for them.



"Well why don't you do it" *sticks out tongue* isn't a legitimate point. Apple does it through marketing and complete control of hardware/software. That's how they roll and Android is the polar opposite of that. I prefer the latter on principle because I don't like their OS and the hardware isn't any better (derp). They're just expensive.

I read the entire thread. There are people slinging crap on both sides of the fence and I never claimed otherwise. I totally agree about why Apple is making money - I'm not saying it's hardware. I do happen to like the current Apple offerings in the hardware department because I want a high res screen, but I don't want a physically large screen. I have no preference of the underlying components because all I care about is how the device feels in my hand and how it performs. I don't have a dog in this fight, so I just want a good phone for my uses. Your second to last paragraph is :thumbsup:.

Regarding your last paragraph, that was a serious question. Other companies have access to the same parts. Android also isn't the polar opposite, but I know what you mean. They are all trying to make money, but Google is doing it under the facade of being open and free. Apple is definitely more annoying about their model, but their shit always works when I use it, so I'm willing to pay for that at the moment. $ vs. time for me. E.g.: I miss not being able to FTP into my phone every few months, but not at the expense of the dialer app crashing mid-call.

 

[pelov]

Google is doing it under the facade of being open and free

It's not a facade. Android is open and free, neither is it entirely Google's.

There will always be more bugs in Android and Android software. It's the nature of having a variety of hardware and applications for that hardware. When you have an open environment (Android is based on Linux. Google couldn't sell it even if they tried, btw) you have to expect that. Where Apple is able to control their hardware and software with the Bro-fist of Stalin, the Android companies battle amongst themselves and you get cheaper devices. There are obviously crappy devices (there's a lot of them), but you also get some awesome ones that cost a fraction of an iPad yet they're just as capable (and often share the same hardware). The Nexus 7 is cheap as shit and Anand loves it. The Kindle Fire is also an incredible tablet and that's cheap as hell too. This extends into PCs and phones as well.

Apple specifies hardware, gets it made by (insert company here), and is then able to charge a very high margin on their products because they don't compete with anybody but themselves within their own environment. You'll get less apps crashing suddenly, but you also have higher prices for the same exact hardware (and sometimes you'll get even better hardware for almost half the price outside of Apple).

The software/OS issues that supposedly plague Android are blown out of proportion, particularly in the smartphone segment of the market. As far as PCs go, I can't think of a single reason why someone would buy an overpriced MBP over a competing laptop for half the price. Does OS X really offer any advantages over Windows? Image quality? Retina class displays are classified as 108 DPI on laptops/desktops. That's not exactly a difficult barrier to cross on a laptop. There are already a plethora of Windows-based machines that carry a "Retina display," and they can be had for under $700.

 

[MrDudeMan]

It's not a facade. Android is open and free, neither is it entirely Google's.

You have to pay a licensing fee to use Android, so it's not truly free. Also, you can see the source, but you can't contribute to it because Google is still subsidizing the development. It's certainly more open than Apple's platform, but it's not like I can go make a change and push it out like I can with binutils. Changes have to be submitted and they are either accepted or declined by Google. I contribute to several open source projects including Fedora, none of which have anything close to that level of scrutiny from a big-brother style entity. They have every right to do it and I think they should do it more, but it's not truly open or free.

There will always be more bugs in Android and Android software. It's the nature of having a variety of hardware and applications for that hardware. When you have an open environment (Android is based on Linux. Google couldn't sell it even if they tried, btw) you have to expect that. Where Apple is able to control their hardware and software with the Bro-fist of Stalin, the Android companies battle amongst themselves and you get cheaper devices. There are obviously crappy devices (there's a lot of them), but you also get some awesome ones that cost a fraction of an iPad yet they're just as capable (and often share the same hardware). The Nexus 7 is cheap as shit and Anand loves it. The Kindle Fire is also an incredible tablet and that's cheap as hell too. This extends into PCs and phones as well.

That is pretty much my entire point. Android has more bugs and they were causing me a lot of issues. If you enjoy playing with your phone a lot and not trying to do business on it, then the bugs may not be a showstopper. I use my phone for business and the bugs were driving me nuts. This isn't a point that can be glossed over. Yes, many people are competing which drives the price down, but that makes the bugs worse, not better. It's a double edged sword. Less money up front but more in the long run because of lost time in my case. I also understand the iPad has a higher price tag, but that has something to do with the software, so it's not exactly a level playing field.

Apple specifies hardware, gets it made by (insert company here), and is then able to charge a very high margin on their products because they don't compete with anybody but themselves within their own environment. You'll get less apps crashing suddenly, but you also have higher prices for the same exact hardware (and sometimes you'll get even better hardware for almost half the price outside of Apple).

But that's the whole point. I will pay more at this point in my life for something that crashes less. I think a lot of people make jokes about anyone with an Apple product because they think the person doesn't realize it costs more. We aren't retards. I can see the number of dollars on my receipt is higher. I'm paying for exactly what you said - less apps crashing on the same or even inferior hardware. Faster hardware didn't do me any good on my Android phones because that was not and still is not a concern for my usage scenarios. The general public doesn't need phones for anything other than email, text, twitter, facebook, etc. Both phones can do that stuff well and at this stage of the game the underlying hardware isn't nearly as important. Battery life is king, not core frequency, as long as you are above the critical performance line. Neither of them have good battery life, but I can go a few days without charging my 4S, which is good enough for now.

The software/OS issues that supposedly plague Android are blown out of proportion, particularly in the smartphone segment of the market. As far as PCs go, I can't think of a single reason why someone would buy an overpriced MBP over a competing laptop for half the price. Does OS X really offer any advantages over Windows? Image quality? Retina class displays are classified as 108 DPI on laptops/desktops. That's not exactly a difficult barrier to cross on a laptop. There are already a plethora of Windows-based machines that carry a "Retina display," and they can be had for under $700.

I agree that Android bugs are blown out of proportion. The problem is that it's still an embedded device which comes with a much different expectation. You definitely wouldn't tolerate a router that needed to be reset once a week, so why would you tolerate a phone that does? I understand not every Android phone suffers from this problem, but some do.

PCs need to be restarted far more frequently than I'd like, but users have been acclimated to that behavior. Because a phone doesn't come with the same expectations, little bugs turn into a big deal if they require an annoying fix like pulling the battery or restarting. I've had to restart my iPad twice and it annoyed the shit out of me both times, but I didn't get mad enough to stop using it because that's once per year so far. The average just has to be below a certain level for people to be okay with it. A little more money can buy a device that crashes far less, which is worth it to a lot of people. That doesn't mean its better in every way, but it's a relevant point.

 

[zerocool84]

Android is free, if you want to use Google's services like Maps, Gmail etc then you pay.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Android is free, if you want to use Google's services like Maps, Gmail etc then you pay.

"Free" because of Google's subsidies vs. something like *nix, which is actually free. Even if you want to argue about free, it's still not open. Also, I'd love to see someone sell an Android phone without maps or gmail.

 

[jpiniero]

I still think Android at some point will get closed, especially once Google shareholders gets pissed enough that Google is making nothing and Samsung is making tons.

 

[pelov]

You have to pay a licensing fee to use Android, so it's not truly free.

There is no licensing fee for Android. It's built upon Linux, which means if Google ever decide that they wanted to charge for their OS they would be in breach of contract. It won't happen because it can't happen. Red Hat is a billion dollar corporation that's built upon Linux and doesn't charge for their server OS because they can't charge for it. Red Hat charges for support and remote access and all of their other goodies (tutorials, etc) just like Google charges for Google Maps.

PCs need to be restarted far more frequently than I'd like, but users have been acclimated to that behavior. Because a phone doesn't come with the same expectations, little bugs turn into a big deal if they require an annoying fix like pulling the battery or restarting. I've had to restart my iPad twice and it annoyed the shit out of me both times, but I didn't get mad enough to stop using it because that's once per year so far. The average just has to be below a certain level for people to be okay with it. A little more money can buy a device that crashes far less, which is worth it to a lot of people. That doesn't mean its better in every way, but it's a relevant point.

Those Android OS bugs are few and far in between, particularly if you buy a popular device and aren't jumping on the newest OS as soon as its released. And it's not like Apple is exempt from ironing out issues after an OS update is released. For example... now.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/366771/20120725/mac-os-x-mountain-lion-apple-issues.htm?page=2

Apparently a good portion of third-party applications are suffering from compatibility issues and just won't work with Mountain Lion. Basically, the same issues that people claim Apple is mostly exempt from are affecting Apple just like they do Android and for the same exact reasons. It happens; Apple isn't immune. It'll happen far less with them, but most users won't notice a significant increase in bugs and crashes between Android and iOS.

The biggest issue plaguing Android atm is the perception that it's somehow "cheaper" because it's cheaper. In reality it isn't "cheaper," it's just cheaper

 

[MrDudeMan]

I still think Android at some point will get closed, especially once Google shareholders gets pissed enough that Google is making nothing and Samsung is making tons.

I wonder what will happen if that situation arises. Android is currently working well because Google is footing the bill to maintain control of what features make it into builds. If they drop Android, someone has to either pick it up and do the same thing or it will start to fragment for real I think. That would suck for consumers as a whole.

 

[Phokus]

Video/pictures of the iphone 5's housing surfaced today, confirming the schematics that were leaked before:

http://9to5mac.com/2012/07/29/new-p...one-part-photos-show-fully-assembled-device/#

LULZ, what a terrible phone. This thread was a great idea. The day they decided THAT would be the design for the new iphone is the day that Apple died.

 

[lxskllr]

There is no licensing fee for Android. It's built upon Linux, which means if Google ever decide that they wanted to charge for their OS they would be in breach of contract. It won't happen because it can't happen. Red Hat is a billion dollar corporation that's built upon Linux and doesn't charge for their server OS because they can't charge for it. Red Hat charges for support and remote access and all of their other goodies (tutorials, etc), just like Google charges for Google Maps.

I wanted to correct this. "Linux" isn't free as in price, or rather it doesn't have to be. There's no prohibition on selling free software. I could sell copies of Debian for $100, or any other amount I chose to anyone who would pay for it. The Free in free software refers to liberty, not price. You can get non-free software gratis, and you can pay for free(libre) software. Free software gives you 4 freedoms. If these standards are met, your software is free. Note that price is never mentioned...


The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

 

[pelov]

I wonder what will happen if that situation arises. Android is currently working well because Google is footing the bill to maintain control of what features make it into builds. If they drop Android, someone has to either pick it up and do the same thing or it will start to fragment for real I think. That would suck for consumers as a whole.

Tizen. Samsung and Intel are apparently looking into it. I guess that counts? Though it's also Linux-based.

The "locking down" of Android is partly due to the issues we're discussing here in this thread. Google wants to limit the compatibility issues facing Android or at least mitigate them by carefully sifting through the upstream flow. In order to have a better "out of the box" user experience you pretty much need to do that.

I wanted to correct this. "Linux" isn't free as in price, or rather it doesn't have to be. There's no prohibition on selling free software. I could sell copies of Debian for $100, or any other amount I chose to anyone who would pay for it. The Free in free software refers to liberty, not price. You can get non-free software gratis, and you can pay for free(libre) software. Free software gives you 4 freedoms. If these standards are met, your software is free. Note that price is never mentioned...

Many distros sell their discs for a small sum of money, but if those same distros weren't available via torrents or in other ways then you'd have to question how "Linux-y" their approach is. Though, yes, I should've clarified ;P

 

[zerocool84]

I still think Android at some point will get closed, especially once Google shareholders gets pissed enough that Google is making nothing and Samsung is making tons.

What do you mean Google making nothing? I don't think people still understand how Google makes money off Android.

 

[Phokus]

Hahahahaha, look at how desperate apple fanboys are getting:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1414247

To counter the fact that android is dominating market share, some idiot posted that the iphone has 90% of the 'cool'/'rich' market while only poor people use android, hahahahahaha.

 

[MrDudeMan]

There is no licensing fee for Android. It's built upon Linux, which means if Google ever decide that they wanted to charge for their OS they would be in breach of contract. It won't happen because it can't happen. Red Hat is a billion dollar corporation that's built upon Linux and doesn't charge for their server OS because they can't charge for it. Red Hat charges for support and remote access and all of their other goodies (tutorials, etc) just like Google charges for Google Maps.

Those Android OS bugs are few and far in between, particularly if you buy a popular device and aren't jumping on the newest OS as soon as its released. And it's not like Apple is exempt from ironing out issues after an OS update is released. For example... now.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/366771/20120725/mac-os-x-mountain-lion-apple-issues.htm?page=2

Apparently a good portion of third-party applications are suffering from compatibility issues and just won't work with Mountain Lion. Basically, the same issues that people claim Apple is mostly exempt from are affecting Apple just like they do Android and for the same exact reasons.

The biggest issue plaguing Android atm is the perception that it's somehow "cheaper" because it's cheaper. In reality it isn't "cheaper," it's just cheaper

You can download the Android source code for free, but put it on a phone and then let me know what bills you have to pay. Android is not free to put on a phone - not even close - which is what I meant since that's the point of this discussion. As the consumer, you are paying to have Android on your phone. It's even more not-free if you take away Google's influence because it wouldn't exist. No youtube, gmail, google maps, latitude, or any of the other Google-centric, non-free additions to Android that make it what it is.

You can stop telling me that Android is built on Linux. I use Linux 12 hours a day, every day, so I get it. I am an active contributor to the Fedora project and several other real open source projects. The licenses on the kernel have nothing to do with IP infringement on phones, which is where the cost is generated and the point of this discussion.

I'm a supporter of Google and Android. It's better for everyone if they continue to support and improve Android. But, don't kid yourself - it isn't free and it shouldn't be free. They release Android source code, which is basically useless without the proprietary apps everyone wants.

Google has complied with the requirements of the GNU General Public License for Linux, but the Apache license on the rest of Android does not require source release. Google has said it will never publish the source code of Android 3.0 (aside from Linux), even though executables have been released to the public. Android 3.1 source code is also being withheld. Thus, Android 3, apart from Linux, is non-free software, pure and simple.

Edit: removed a few accidentally inflammatory statements. Also, I'm not even sure what my point is anymore.