Got a lot of flack from people for the quality of the article and arguments over the nuances of the words of the article that are completely throwing the discussion off-track.

Here is a much more recent, much more professional article on the subject of Angry Birds revenue:
http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2011/04/features/how-rovio-made-angry-birds-a-winner?page=all

Let's discuss this one instead:

One of the top-selling apps ever on the iPhone generates similar revenues on Android. Here, the wording is vaguer so maybe the iPhone is making slightly more, maybe Android is making slightly more, but with regards to my conclusions these tiny ticky-tack details doesn't matter.

I maintain my original conclusion, which is that while Battleheart's developer could not make their business model work on Android, some people are making tons of money by switching to different business models in a changed environment. In light of this, I state again, it's not Android that's unsustainable, it's their business model on Android that appears to be unsustainable.

Not necessarily disagreeing with your substantive points, but that is a mildly hilarious way to disagree with the argument that we should pay attention to history because it repeats itself...

What are you talking about?

My conclusion that Angry Birds makes more money on iOS than Android is directly from the article's title (hint the paid ones referred to in the title are clarified in the body to refer to "selling the game like on the iPhone").

What you call "speculation" that predicts they will make $1m in ad revenue per month is directly from the CEO of Rovio, the company behind Angry Birds. I quote: "The Android version of the game has been downloaded 5 million times and Rovio is on track to generate $1 million in revenue per month by the end of the year, according Rovio's Peter Vesterbacka."

The article says, "Angry Birds Makes More Money from the Free Android Version than from Paid Ones".

It continues, "But one of the most popular apps of all time, Angry Birds, is actually seeing quite a lot of success from its ad-supported version versus the paid app...On Android devices though, the game's maker, Rovio, went with an ad-supported model rather than selling the game like on the iPhone."

The only "paid ones" or "paid app" referenced in the article is the iOS version, so that makes the statement into free Android version makes more money than iOS version.

Of course, other developers have had the opposite experience. For example, Angry Birds makes more money from Android than iOS:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Angry-Birds-Makes-More-Money-from-the-Free-Android-Version-than-from-Paid-Ones-170596.shtml

While their business model may work fine on Apple market, sometimes it takes changes to make money in a different environment.

It's not Android that's unsustainable, it's their business model on Android that appears to be unsustainable.

Sounds like T-Mobile doesn't do so well around where you live, but it's great where I live. Mobile service quality rankings is pretty heavily dependent on location.

I get voice coverage everywhere I've gone, 5-10mbps down, and I think around 3 up. Fast enough for my mobile uses.

I'm also happy enough with their 5GB 4G unlimited 2G cap I get in return for my $30 a month.

This is just not true.

"83 percent of current iPhone users intend to buy an iPhone again this holiday season; 81 percent of Android OS users said the same."

Source:
http://allthingsd.com/20111212/youth-is-wasted-on-the-young-and-so-are-consumer-electronics/

If you assume 5% interest on $400 for 2 years, that's going to be only $441 after 2 years.

That's still a decent savings.

T-Mobile is the single company doing this unilaterally.

They're the only American major carrier to offer cheaper plans if you bring your own phone.

Their most impressive cheaper plan for those of us that don't do a lot of talking on our smartphones anymore is an impressive attempt to bring European-style bring-your-own-smartphone plans to America. $30 a month, no additional taxes or fees, no contract for 5GB of HSPA+ 4G, unlimited 2G, unlimited text, and 100 minutes. That's not many minutes, but you can go pretty heavily over on minutes and still have it be a great deal. It doesn't take a long time on $30/month for your smartphone to start saving over a traditional American carrier smartphone plan.

From Charles Kane, OLPC president's own mouth: "the mission is to get the technology in the hands of as many children as possible."

Somehow, they seem to run the one consumer electronics project that doesn't benefit from additional customers. It is probably not a coincidence that this is the one consumer electronics project run by a non-profit.

I used to be a huge OLPC project fan, now I think they're a bit of a joke. The democratization of computers is not going to come from a top-down project like OLPC. They had their chance, and due to the lack of market pressures because of their educational non-profit status, that ship sailed a long time ago.

The democratization of computers is going to come from real companies that are creating real products that are shipping into real peoples' hands right now. The cost of a Chinese-made Android tablet is frequently significantly lower than $100. And they don't have to deal with the baggage of living in some sort of bizarro world where more sales is a liability.

The only benefit that OLPC provided over commercial projects to sell low-cost computers was the open-source nature of Sugar OS specifically designed to teach children about how computers worked and how they could be programmed, thus teaching fishing instead of giving fish. Then they jettisoned that, and clarified their mission is just to be fishmongers that sell special fish for kids, and it escapes me how they could do a better job with this than their for-profit competition.

So are you suggesting that McDonalds, Walmart, etc. are a flash in the pan, and that by pursuing "cheap and good enough" they have no long term sustainable gain?

What is the audience for Windows Phone at this point?

If you want a smooth, uncomplicated user experience and don't mind lock-in with a tyrannical corporation, get an iPhone.

If you want things like freedom and openness and ethics and value and don't mind not having the "cool" phone that gets all the buzz, get an Android.

What exactly is the core audience for Windows Phone, and what are the traits that they value? I can't really think of anyone for whom Windows Phone would make more sense than either iOS or Android.

There really is no logical causation between having many models and marketshare, no matter how often it is repeated.

If there were, everyone would just release more models.

There are many models of tablets that run non-Apple operating systems. Apple out sells them combined by 2-1.

Interesting and insightful pair of posts all around, but I have to ask. What's the deal with the capitalization? Subliminal messages? Adam West Batman impression?

No doubt, these things seem great for niche-markets. Color, motion-capable e-readers seem awesome.

I do hope that they find their niches, and get the funds to continue to improve the technology. Because if you could get the resolution/angles/contrast of modern mobile displays onto something like a Mirasol display that is low power and daylight-readable and low-eyestrain, obviously that would be the best case scenario.