There's not a lot in it for the consumer. Surprise!

For Samsung, however, moving away from Android likely gets them out of an expensive and pointless proxy war with Apple. That's a big deal for Samsung.

Apple's Android vendetta has been about Holy Vengeance Upon Google from the beginning, not really about Samsung. If Samsung could gain a platform that they won't be sued over for including basic functions, Samsung could get back to the business of making smartphones, rather than being a professional defendant.

Making smartphones is actually something Samsung does phenomenally well. Also, Tizen is targeted at other gadgets (read: tablets and smart TVs), other areas of Samsung strength.

The downside for Samsung is that Tizen does not yet have an app-building community like iOS or Android, and it would take years to build one. This looks like Samsung testing waters to me.

Also, the "stone's throw" is like about an hour at highway speeds. Some throw. ;-)

There's nothing that forces the device to use Android Market. Cell companies can and do provide alternatives, sometimes making them the dominant app store or eliminating the Android Market entirely.

(Sigh).

Does it really have to be this way?

Despite your mean-spirited assertion, clicking the link DOES NOT provide any information about whether this is market share by: total browser views, unique browser, etc. It just asserts the nebulous term "market share" without any real explanation of what that meant or how it's calculated. When you click on the table link as you suggest, it just shows a breakdown by month. Click on the browser type, and it just shows the first table again, except only for whatever browser you chose. It doesn't answer my question at all.

Kind of like you.

Obviously, the Slashdot summary doesn't seem backed up by the document linked. You'd think you'd have noticed this since you read so diligently, but maybe flaming is more important to you.

The only thing dumber than a stupid RTFA flame is a RTFA flame where the flamer didn't really read the article or bother to understand the post. Grow up.

They would be. Do you think the numbers of Android tabs versus iOS tabs are so close as to be a wash?

Where does it say this is about web site views?

I'm not sure how you get that conclusion based on this. This metric appears to be saying nothing about how much devices are being used to do specific stuff, but we just don't know.

The metric here is, "Mobile/Tablet Top Operating System Share Trend", which is a pretty nebulous title. Share of what? Market share? How was it determined -- sales? Web access traffic at specific websites? IP traffic through certain ISPs? Which ones?

If they're talking about traffic VOLUME, how can you possibly compare internet access by Android when all those iPads are being lumped in here with the mobile phones? Surely iPad internet use-- streaming, for example, absolutely crushes internet use on smartphones.

I find it disappointing that NetMarketShare doesn't explain what it is they are measuring. If we knew what they were REALLY measuring, these numbers would provide some insight. But without knowing what these numbers are actually based on, it's just an excuse for everybody to just repeat what they always say anyway about iOS / Android / whatever.

This is flamebait but the parent isn't? Give me a break.

The above post made a legitimate point-- Apple is ALONE among the handset manufacturers in putting this crapware on their phone. We know this for many reasons, not least because Apple explicitly says they don't allow carriers to mitigate the Apple experience. It's possible some of the other manufacturers have done this, but since the carriers have the ability to do this themselves on the other platforms, it makes a lot of sense that they put this on when they put all their other junk on.

On the flip side, CIQ appears less nefarious on iOS and is certainly easier to disable. I can't believe I've got to root and mod my Samsung Vibrant to get this crapware off it.

I don't get why you're complaining. It's clear that the users were holding their iTunes accounts wrong.

>Apple and Microsoft pundits worry about this deal more than Google analytics. I'm not
>saying that Google did it with ease in heart, but more or less they outplayed Billy and Jobs.

Billy is semi-retired. Google outplayed The Steves.

> For a tiny fraction of what they spent to buy MM they could have designed a new
> mobile OS from the ground up and gotten some great press.

And what would have stopped AppleSoft from suing this NEW phone OS into oblivion using the same BS patents? Anyone? Buehler?

You can't engineer around patents that cover obvious functions. Apple has made it, uhm, patently clear they were going to destroy Android with BS patent litigation. Now that Google has tons of mobile patents-- some of the earliest and most basic in the business-- destroying Android via litigation just went from foregone conclusion to longshot.

Was it worth 12.5 billion to save a whole ecosystem? Now that's a reasonable debate. With so many enemies teaming up against Google to beat them by any means necessary, I say yes. Google needed weapons in the patent war. Badly. Now they've got them.

Amen. Even this Google fanboy is having a hard time seeing this as anything but evil.

This is pretty pathetic.

I do know that by Constitutional mandate, the Senate cannot create legislation, they can only amend it. However, the Constitution places no limit on how thoroughly they can amend it.

Frequently, the Senate will just strike the entire contents of a bill, fill it with something entirely different, which the gets sent to the House. This is something the House is understands and accepts, and frequently encourages, particularly in times when the Senate is the big hurdle to clear.

Obviously, they should at least name the friggin' bill.

I heard that right before the Senate recessed, the Senate passed the bill to get money to the states. Could this be it?

Hey, it's just coincidence that the Tea Party happens to be 89% Republican (or voters that voted Republican) in the last 5 elections.

And who weren't against ridiculous spending and waste 3 years ago.

Dictionary.com defines zero-day as an unpatched bug. When I went to OneLook, half the sites that had definitions listed zero-day as unknown-to-provider bugs, half as unpatched.

Seems there's some ambiguity in the term.