“The Q1 2013 numbers from IDC, a technology and telecommunications research firm who keeps track of this sort of thing, show that Android tablets now lead the market with a 56.5-percent share. The 27,800,000 units shipped in the quarter is a 247-percent improvement from this time last year, when just 8,000,000 units were shipped. It’s important to note that this increase doesn’t come at the expense of Apple, who shipped 65.3-percent more tablets in Q1 2013 than they did in Q1 2012 – it shows the market is growing, and the lions share of new purchases are Android.” While Android’s market share growth scares me, it’s good that it’s not really harming the competition. Also, maybe this will be the carrot for developers to improve Android tablet applications.
I really hope that the next version of Android will support split screen like WindowsRT.
That should also help with more apps that are build with Googles Holo guide lines in mind and work great on bigger screens.
I think it will. Androids lax multitasking lends itself well to these sort of scenarios.
Since Kindle Fires are not Android tablets, they really shouldn’t be lumping Amazon tablets into the Android numbers. If they separated them like they should, I think the numbers would be about evenly split between the two.
And if you want to argue that the Kindle Fire IS an Android tablet, then I guess if the next Xbox comes out running Windows 8 core, then we should call that a Windows PC, since it would TECHNICALLY be running Windows, right?
Edited 2013-05-01 23:22 UTC
Congratulations, you just won the “worst analogy of the week” booby prize.
I suppose you could lump things together into these huge piles, but it conveys little meaning.
It certainly doesn’t give you a more accurate picture of how Android on tablets is doing.
Kindle Fires are built on Android. Like the Nook, the only difference is the launcher used and they replace the Google Play Store with Amazon’s MarketPlace App Store. So I see no issue with them counting Kindles or Nooks towards Android.
That comment is hilarious.
It’s great to see the numbers. As said and I agree – I want premium applications on my Android not to be looked at as second class to the competition.
Thom said:
While Android’s market share growth scares me…
Why does Android’s market share growth scare you?
Well, actually scares me, but only because Microsoft extorts money for bogus patents on Android. But it’s Microsoft that scares me, not Android. And Apple scares me too.
Google doesn’t scare me at all. True, they’re not all bunny rabbits and unicorns, but compared to most ruthless American corporations, Google plays relatively nice. Aside from being consistently friendly to open source projects, they sue almost no one unless they’ve been sued first. Microsoft and Apple executives would sue their own mother for copyright infringement for singing lullabies to them when they were infants.
Edited 2013-05-02 02:53 UTC
Its because everyone benefits when there is a wealth of competition and choice. That’s what drives the state of the art forward.
And how is it bad that Microsoft is being compensated for their intellectual property?
Because it is not Microsoft’s “property”. For example, Microsoft sued Tom Tom and Barnes & Noble over FAT patents, but it turns out that there was prior art (code written by none other than Linus Torvalds) for the exact same functionality.
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/03/ms-patent/
This is absolutely typical.
So why should Microsoft get money from Android, for which they did not develop the code, did not help test, release, distribute or maintain the code, and did not even come up with original ideas for the code?
The ONLY reason Microsoft gets money from Android vendors is that Microsoft threatens to sue them and at the same time offers them a legally unnecessary near-zero-cost bogus “license” to avoid any expensive lawsuit, with the sole proviso that the Android vendor does not reveal the terms of the deal.
Rather than fighting a legal battle it is cheaper for Android OEMs to just agree to the license from Microsoft to make them go away.
Edited 2013-05-02 04:20 UTC
Unfortunately for you and Linus, a German court was not persuaded and sided with Microsoft. That means that Microsoft won the case despite Motorola citing the supposed Torvalds prior art.
This is especially typical of you, and I don’t think you understand how this works, you don’t get to decide what is prior art. A court does. Not you. So things are not magically prior art because you claim they are or wish they are.
I think that’s a question you’d need to pose to Samsung, HTC and the 18 or so other licensees.
Near zero cost? Microsoft’s Android business is expected to balloon to $8 BILLION DOLLARS by 2017. The terms are certainly not near zero.
I’d be willing to bet that if there even is an instance where money didn’t change hands, there was likely an exchange of IP, which is equally as valuable. You can look at Apple and Microsoft’s cross licensing agreements or such an example. Or Nokia and Apple. Same thing, really.
I think this would’ve been believable the first few times, but this tired argument quickly loses its persuasiveness when they sign up Samsung, one of the largest, most profitable companies on the planet.
Samsung has very, very deep pockets and is no stranger to litigation. They refused to take a royalty bearing license from Apple. Why would they take one from Microsoft?
There are glaring inconsistencies in this narrative that OEMs are just paying Microsoft hush money.
I think the more likely scenario is that OEMs fully realize the value in Microsoft’s patent portfolio and actually appreciate Microsoft licensing their patents on favorable terms.
If anything, Microsoft is a shining example of how you can resolve patent conflicts outside of litigation and exclusion orders.
Mafia. Nothing more, nothing less. Scumbag criminals who ought to be behind bars for the damage they do to the industry.
And just what damage have they done? Its easy to claim they’ve done harm, but its harder to show proof of such harm.
I’m just tired of this meme that these poor multinational corporations are being abused by the big bad Microsoft.
Maybe Florian wasn’t wrong, maybe there isn’t any serious prior art, maybe the courts aren’t wrong. Maybe Microsoft’s string of Android patent victories are not coincidental. Maybe, just maybe, there is merit behind Microsoft’s IP claims.
If we’re to believe lemur here, Microsoft makes a negligible amount of money off of Android. Lol. Right.
I also don’t think I need to remind you that IP licensing is very pervasive and in no way exclusive to Microsoft. Maybe they’re all criminals.
You have a very strange and broad definition of a protection racket.
I would say Microsoft also counts among those multinational corporations and that they all do a whole lot of abusing.
I personally do not believe that. Microsoft simply has the resources to tie up anyone they don’t like in all sorts of legal shenanigans for decades and therefore it is simply more cost-effective for these companies to make a licensing deal with Microsoft — if you get tied up in legal matters and if Microsoft manages to get a temporary injunction against you so that you can’t sell your products then it simply doesn’t matter anymore which party is right because you’ll still be taking heavy losses. It’s a matter of “Swallow your pride and take the cash.”
Aye, he obviously hasn’t looked at Microsoft’s revenue figures.
Sure. I’m just trying to counter the notion that it’s “Microsoft vs. Everyone” or that what Microsoft does is especially nefarious relative to what others do.
Google actively harmed consumers by shutting off access to EAS, telling everyone to adapt the CalDAV suite, and then pivoting to their own proprietary API. It was funny watching the people who thought Google had altruistic intentions have to eat their words a few weeks later.
Emails revealed during court proceedings showed a deliberate disregard for the intellectual property of others.
Samsung is a serial copier and anti-competitive price fixer.
Motorola has asserted SEPs and tried to set a precedent which would’ve blown up every standard out there with any type of IPR disclosure. Just imagine if companies could start collecting exorbitant royalties from patents they had previously pledged to offer at a reasonable rate to all.
Apple behaves significantly worse than Microsoft, though not outside their legal rights, when it comes to patents as they often choose not to even offer a license. Microsoft in this regard, is much more reasonable and open to a constructive solution.
I just fail to see how facilitating the licensing of large amounts of IP is bad. Microsoft has won awards for their patent licensing program. They are an example of how to do things in the industry.
I think what offends people on OSAlert is that Microsoft profits off of their much adored Android. It doesn’t matter if the reasoning behind it is legitimate or not, that’s completely aside from the fact that it infuriates people that Microsoft monetizes Android to the tune of several hundred million dollars a quarter.
I don’t think this is particularly true, and it is evidenced by the speed with which bad patents are invalidated by Government agencies or outright dismissed by a Judge. There is a process here and it works.
Preliminary injunctions require some degree of convincing, as it is a drastic step not taken lightly in many jurisdictions.
I don’t think OEMs are short sighted, they’re well aware that the implications of taking a license are more than monetary. I honestly doubt such decisions are made by means of cost effectiveness. Case in point being Samsung, who refused to take a license from Apple.
I’d really buy the “bullied into taking a license” from maybe HTC, but Samsung? No way in hell. They have the pockets to go up against Microsoft.
microsoft was convicted of abusing its monopoly position in the PC industry. none of these other players come close and i lose nothing from buying a different android vendor and not giving money to google.
The “intellectual property” MS claims to hold is laughable and an abuse of the corrupt patent system which allows those with lots of money, resources and a creative legal department to bully emerging players and tie them up in court instead of actually competing in the market. This hurts the consumer in every way imaginable.
And I will repeat, their IP is crap and super obvious patenting of obvious concepts.
And yes the small comapny I work for has had veiled threats made against us by some trolls. One was granted a patent over a technique used in the civil war to photograph and survey enemy lines using hot air balloons. 2 more separate instances were granted patents that involved the use of vendorA and vendorB’s product together (method patent). Unfortunately for them we have the math to actually associate them. One case my associate was forced to create a patent on the actual implementation to surround the other patent, another we have ignored and another finally expired.
The only innovation in software and method patents are legal ones.
Samsung settled their price fixing suit, and Google settled their anti trust trial in the US and abroad by making large concessions.
Microsoft actively facilitates the licensing and resolution of IP conflicts, Microsoft’s goal is to *not* take you to court.
Again, the whole “obviousness” thing is quite funny, given that courts keep reaffirming the strength of the portfolios which are supposedly weak.
Near-zero total cost. Microsoft often take in license money, which they publicise, but they keep quite other terms of the overall deals, such as advertising or license discounts on legitimate Microsoft software, such as WP8.
The total (unpublicised) cost of the deals with Microsoft (to companies who use Microsoft software as well as Android) is near-zero.
You need to look at the cases where the company being sued does not use Microsoft software also. Barnes & Noble opposed Microsoft, Microsoft made a very sweet deal to kill the case and keep B&N quiet.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303916904577375502392…
http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/30/microsoft-barnes-noble-partner-up-…
Samsung sells other products which include Microsoft software. Now at a better discount than before.
Samsung does not sell any products which use Apple software.
The major consistency being that Microsoft only “wins” deals with Android OEMs where that same OEM uses Microsoft software in other products, and that Microsoft software might be offered to them at a deeper discount than before.
No, they realize the value in getting Microsoft software much cheaper if they agree to call (in PR) some of the cost an “Android license”.
You are so funny, I often have a good chuckle at your posts.
Edited 2013-05-02 07:52 UTC
That is assuming there’s a 1:1 correspondence with Windows Phones, there isn’t. Samsung sells more Android devices than Windows Phone. So even if your dubious claim was true, the net result for Microsoft is still non zero.
I don’t know who exactly you think you’re trying to fool by seemingly just making things up, but its not really working.
No. Many OEMs/ODMs are not Windows Phone OEMs, the ones that do are Samsung and HTC.
In addition to what I’ve said above about Microsoft still having a net profit off of Android, Microsoft’s own financials confirm this. You know, the ones where they’d be in serious shit if they were lying.
Don’t worry about those pesky facts though, you’ve lived care free thus far.
I think they both saw the mutual benefit in both ending this litigation and teaming up to take on Amazon. Microsoft has an uncanny ability to rally its own former enemies against a bigger evil.
Samsung Windows Phone sales are pathetic, trading a license discount for WP in exchange for royalties for Android is so lopsided that its almost comical you bring it up.
Samsung is/was a major component provider for Apple. They had more business with Apple than with Microsoft. You’re being ridiculous.
[q
The major consistency being that Microsoft only “wins” deals with Android OEMs where that same OEM uses Microsoft software in other products, and that Microsoft software might be offered to them at a deeper discount than before. [/q]
This is demonstrably false, only two of the 20 something licensees are Windows Phone OEMs.
…..
I just don’t even have words for how monumentally ignorant of the facts at hand this is. I’d understand this excuse for a few companies, but over and over? Microsoft has signed up 80% of Android OEMs.
Thanks. But on a more serious note, I’m almost impressed how consistent you are at being wrong.
Uh, you do know Microsoft sells more products than just Windows Phone, right?
You’re being exceptionally silly right now.
I’m aware. Now tell me why you think that’s relevant, along with a list of which specific other products said OEMs use.
As far as I’m aware, the OEMs which lemur was talking about don’t do much beyond Windows Phone.
Its really cute how you two try to explain away the almost two dozen licensees, with most of them being in the last few months. Microsoft could sign up 100 OEMs and you’d come up with 100 excuses.
LOL. Android is not Microsoft’s IP. There is not one iota of Microsoft effort in Android.
Microsoft only get to charge OEMs for Android because they go after the OEMs one by one, and for each one on its own it is less costly to make a “deal” which lets Microsoft continue to pretend that it does have IP in Android. Such a deal doesn’t end up costing the OEM much at all because Microsoft offsets it, and the cost of going to court against Microsoft, even given that the patent claims are utterly baseless, is very high in comparison.
Everybody knows this except you, apparently.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/28/microsoft-samsung-extortion-google…
Google: ^aEURoeThis is the same tactic we^aEURTMve seen time and again from Microsoft. Failing to succeed in the smartphone market, they are resorting to legal measures to extort profit from others^aEURTM achievements and hinder the pace of innovation. We remain focused on building new technology and supporting Android partners.^aEUR
Yes, they used the word ^aEURoeextort^aEUR. Wow.
Still, in relation to the thread topic, namely “IDC: Android now leads the tablet market with a 56.5% share”, it doesn’t matter much in the end. As trends continue and the Windows PC desktop market declines, Microsoft will be reduced to living off a tiny percentage of Android sales, and even that meagre take will dry up in a few years as Microsoft’s ageing patents expire.
Edited 2013-05-02 11:05 UTC
Android isn’t, but Android likely does infringe on many Microsoft (and other) patents. There are emails which show a callous disregard for intellectual property from management at Google, despite others within the company raising concerns.
That said, IP licensing is a common practice in the industry. Google is just grand standing here because it infuriates them.
This is like your third theory as to why OEMs sign up for a Microsoft license.
Microsoft, who is projected to make $8 billion dollars from Android apparently doesn’t make “much at all”. Ok.
A Google statement is not “everybody but you”. I have to admit, you’re the only one I know who has the gall to link almost directly to a Google press release and cite it as evidence.
*sigh*. During the YEARS you’ve been saying this, Microsoft has spawned like 5-6 more BILLION dollar businesses. Some of them are approaching the two billion dollar mark.
Microsoft is seeing insane growth in their business and enterprise offerings, while they’re already making positive inroads to the tablet market, and its business as usual on the Desktop.
Microsoft is to the point where *every single* Office product is a billion dollar business.
Microsoft has completely turned around their PaaS and IaaS efforts in the Cloud and turned Windows Azure into drumroll…a billion dollar business. Office 365? One billion.
Basically, Microsoft has successfully pivoted to a devices and services company. They have the highest tablet average selling price of any vendor, made hundreds of millions of dollars on the Surface, and have monetized many *new* services to the tune of a billion dollars.
They’re certainly not the same Microsoft which is singularly dependent on Windows.
I said Microsoft software. I did not say just Windows Phone.
Samsung does in fact sell many products which use Microsoft software. Here is an example:
http://www.samsung.com/au/support/win8upgrade/
They get a discount there, plus they get to avoid a lawsuit, all for the low, low price of agreeing (PR) to call some of their costs due to Microsoft an “Android license”.
Edited 2013-05-02 10:02 UTC
Samsung has less than 5% market share. They don’t even chart.
A Windows license costs more than a phone OS license. Even today, the Windows market is larger than the phone OS market. Ergo, a relatively small % discount on Windows licenses is enough to offset a small “Android license”.
Microsoft gets more than just phones. Microsoft makes money on Android phones and tablets.
But look, if you want to believe that Microsoft uses a Windows license price to negotiate a patent deal (despite the blatant anti-competitive overtones), then that’s on you. I’ll leave you to that. I really don’t think there’s any convincing you.
While patent law is a very confusing subject, that many arm chair lawyers get completely wrong, a court’s interpretation of the law is what is enforced, it doesn’t mean that a particular judgment was the correct interpretation of the law ( this is why every court system has an appeals system).
Sorry if that seems like I’m splitting hairs with your wording, but too many people don’t understand that. And they furthermore equate legality with morality.
Sure, I’ll grant you that. I just don’t personally think the court’s decision was inconsistent with how its been applied in the past, or particularly unfair.
I’m glad there’s a standard for prior art, because prior art is one of those things that the lay man thinks they have completely figured out only to miss the nuances of how the law is applied.
Morality is fine, but its worth being clear eyed when analyzing the strength of an IP portfolio. We can’t play using imagined rules, we have to go by how the courts actually work.
So its nice that Thom and lemur7 and whoever else has a moral objection to what Microsoft does (though I think its more just anger that Microsoft monetizes their baby), but it doesn’t make a difference.
No, it does make a difference. If enough people are angry about the application of a law, they (theoretically) can change the law through their government’s legislation. Morality/Anger/ whatever you want to call it certainly has been enough motivation to change laws in the past. I think its past time to reevaluate things like patents and see how to better tune them to promote the development of arts and sciences.
Sure. It can happen, but it is completely aside from trying to understand what’s going on at this point in time. We don’t have a hypothetical set of pie in the sky rules to go off of. We have current patent law.
Therefore it makes no sense to bring in the angle of morality into something which is inherently amoral.
I don’t think its aside from what’s currently happening in the courts, I think the morality of it all is highly relevant. Morality should *never* be aside from any court proceeding.
Court decisions should be judged not only upon how well they follow current laws, but also on the morality of those laws themselves.
I understand that the judges, juries, lawyers have to argue the case with the laws that currently exist ( except in extreme cases), that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying us, the people, can judge the outcome on our own basis of right and wrong and advocate for the laws upon which the outcome was reached to be changed to conform with what we believe to be just.
Actually that German judge sided only on preliminary basis, that was not a ruling on validity of the patent. We are yet to see the patent be invalidated in US as well.
There might also be a problem in Germany related to “first to file” versus “first to invent”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent
AFAIK, in Germany, “first to file” applies. Even if Linux Torvalds did provably come up with the idea of long filenames for a FAT filesystem three years before Microsoft patented it, it possibly wouldn’t matter in Germany that Microsoft hadn’t invented it. The only argument that would be allowed in court would be that Microsoft’s 352 patent was both obvious and non-original, because Linus had already invented it.
Another argument that should apply is that software is not patentable subject matter in Europe, but I doubt the court would listen to that argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentable_subject_matter#European_Pat…
Edited 2013-05-03 10:28 UTC
JAlexroid is right and its worth noting that the particular jurisdiction at hand is especially tilted towards granting such injunctions. It probably explains the wave of litigation there.
However, you (as usual) provide an irrational and incorrect twist on things.
The concept of prior art still exists in a first to file world. You have a dangerous misunderstanding of patent law.
Edited 2013-05-03 18:03 UTC
…how much time ’till we read a new entry alas
“Android accused of monopoly by Microsoft, Apple, etc.” ?
But, when that notice comes, people will forget the most basic truth that arised Android to the best-seller lists and that is:
1) The devices are cheaper than the competition.
2) 80% of people is not rich.
3) Cheaper phones + poor people = more sells
Or at least, that’s one side of the 4-sided coin.
I don’t understand what you think Microsoft and Apple will accuse Android/google of doing. Being a monopoly, is usually not illegal. Governments typically do hold monopolies to higher standards than Non Monopolies. So do you think they will start arguing for the application of those higher standards? Or do you think that they other companies will accuse Google of abusing its Monopoly position?
In either case, the reasons for attaining that market position that you then list :
Don’t really matter, unless you think that they’re going to say that the Monopoly on mobile device OS was obtained illegally somehow.
They already did: Microsoft accuse Google of monopoly abuse in EU.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/cloud-computing/22027/irony-alert-mi…
I would not say they are wrong or right: I personally think that Google is no better than Microsoft when dealing with their monopoly in their respective market.
Many think Google is the nice guy because they are more consumer-friendly (everything free and “open”), but they are more consumer-friendly because it is their business model, not because they are actually a nice guy.
Edited 2013-05-02 19:18 UTC
Agreed.
Another point to make is that in their own best interests consumers should obviously support businesses with a consumer-friendly business model.
Another point to make is that governments should also support whatever is in the best interests of the majority of citizens. To my mind, it is therefore unarguably the case that governments should support businesses with a consumer-friendly business model over and above businesses with a rip-everybody-off+whatever-the-market-will-bear business model.
I disagree, Google has shown a willingness to change this behavior when their business needs change. Its all a facade.
IDC results are not very accurate. While many people buy brand name tablets, there are also many millions who buy cheap chinese tablets. You can buy a cheap and decent chinese tablet for as low as 100USD or 75^a‘not if you buy it directly from China or Hong Kong.
Half the price of a Nexus 7 for a tablet with specs as good as Nexus.
Maybe people in EU or US don’t buy so many cheap tablets but I bet people in Asia and South America buy a lot of these cheap tablets.
Yes, but what’s the point? That splinter off shoot ecosystems are selling at dirt cheap prices? Because that’s really all the information provided by lumping “Android” and white label devices based on the Android OS together.
I think separating them out gives a good description of what’s going on. Google is growing their Android ecosystem, the one with the Play Store. That’s good news. I don’t know why you’d want to mask that by lumping it in with a zillion chinese tablets.