An update on Android activations

Two days after I posted a reminder that Google had not updated their Android activations for five months, Google updated their Android activations.

The new total is 750 million. My expectation (based on a rate of activation acceleration of 30,000 activations/day/week) was 800 million. Google did not update their download rate but it can be derived. Between September and March the average has been about 1.4 million/day. I had previously estimated that the rate of activation was 2 million/day.

This is a modest increase from the 1.3 million/day that was reported in September implying that activation acceleration has slowed.

After resetting the acceleration to 5,000 activations/day/week my new forecast for 1 billion activations moves to the end of August.

Coincident with this update on activations, Google reported that Andy Rubin has stepped aside as the head of Android and that Android and Chrome would be under the same management.

Putting aside the exit of the founder, the implications of the merger with Chrome will need significant contemplation.

  • Extremely modest if there was a surge over the holidays. If there was, then current activation rate is probably back down to around 1.3M/day (or lower). If not, then nobody got Android devices for Christmas. Either way, Android growth has really cooled off.

  • Alen Teplitsky

    700 million total android activations. say 300 million iphone activations.

    1 billion people have smartphones. considering most people around the world live in poverty, how many people are left who can afford a smart phone and service?

    • I’ve seen estimates that smartphone penetration will probably reach 50% by 2017. It’s about 20% now. I think it might happen more quickly.

    • You can’t add those two numbers and arrive at the number of smartphone users. Presumably each user activating a new device bumps up the number of activations, so for example I alone am responsible for something like 5 so far (Android in my case).

    • jwoodgett

      Value is relative. If a smartphone has a perceived value that is affordable, people will prioritize it over other things. Smartphones may even enable people to improve their situation. Also, the service costs vary widely. PAYG and other models are much more common in developing countries.

  • Jambani

    Horace in your opinion are activations the best metric to understand demand (units sold) and the relative market shares between iPhone and android devices?

    • The best metric is reported shipments. We have that information from Nokia and Apple and sometimes Sony. No other smartphone vendors report shipments (although some used to.) Since we have no other data, activations are the only summary statistics on Android. It’s a very poor measure but it’s the only one.

  • Walt French

    Well, until you complete your always-compelling “significant contemplation,” perhaps we can have some tin-foil-hat fun.

    Entirely in that spirit, I’ll “forecast” …

    that Google continues to let Android go native, accepting that there will be forks by Samsung, Amazon, FaceBook and about two thousand others around the globe. In direct contrast to Ben Bajarin’s belief that this will dismay Google, I expect they’ll embrace the utter destruction of the mobile OS’s role in the value stack… that the type of garage entrepreneurship that Ben Evans has documented in China is part of the plan.

    Perhaps even announce that “our work here is done” (as they did just yesterday with Reader), maybe spinning out OHA as a free-standing, open-source non-profit — after ensuring that OHA will ONLY offer royalty-free products.

    But only after they submit Android to the W3C as a royalty-free applet standard for all web browsing, and make it trivial to run Android apps inside Chrome®, a 100% Google-proprietary product, which they may continue to license to others to get all the reach with none of the issues around “openness.”

    By commoditizing the OS, the hardware and even the ecosystem values to zero, Google leaves access/content as the only values; of course both are increasingly dependent on Google’s monopoly of online ads for their monetization. It would be the most asymmetric move that Google could take against Apple, the sole non-niche competitor that offers consumers a “portal” to the internet. The moves free up consumer dollars for the part of the stack that Google controls.

    OK, back to reality: anybody care to explain why this wouldn’t be a slightly-brilliant, typically Googlish destructive innovation? Or why it wouldn’t work pretty well?

    • Tatil_S

      How would a stand alone OHA finance the development of the mobile OS? Even desktop development still requires a lot of investment, wouldn’t mobile OS still need some R&D for a long time to come?

      • Walt French

        Every company depending on Android® would need to toss in some resources.

        The history of such consortia doesn’t bode well for the success/stability of the group, but OTOH, what choice do LG, HTC and others have? Eventually, Samsung might walk away with its own fork, Motorola a Chrome-based product that included Android, and OHA turn into an effort more like linux. It is in fact appropriate that as the software matures, the need for new features in the core OS drops, too.

      • Tatil_S

        Choice? I am sure MS would be happy to supply them an alternative. If OHA becomes a dysfunctional consortium and consortia usually do, WP will look a lot better, not to mention other options such as Tizen or Firefox OS. A good chunk of Android’s success and quick evolution comes from the decisive leadership of Google.

      • jwoodgett

        The spin-out model may have had a chance a year or so ago but the profit split among Android partners is now so uneven (basically Samsung owns all the profit) that the idea that each partner of the OHA would chip in is a dead dream. Moreover, the big brother threat of Google over the OHA partners would be lost. My bet is that Samsung would simply say “sayonara” and reveal its in-house fork. Heck, Samsung could easily strong-arm the sector retaining compatibility for Android apps but severing the revenue flows to Google wherever it had the opportunity. Given Samsungs main threat is not Apple but the cheaper clones (in China, India, etc) it needs to put air between itself and the rest of the Android devices.

        Google’s play (sic) maybe be to Chromatize Motorola with a similar motive to Samsung, with Chrome being the inner shell that hooks to add-on services that may exist now in Android, but will be deprecated. It’s not as though Google is reticent about killing services – especially those that either don’t have their own contribution to search revenue streams or are strategically important.

        Samsung is the top dog right now but is certainly self-aware of the threats and its own strengths and vulnerabilities. The S4 launch (in 20 minutes) may well be uninspiring – but surely won’t take the crown from the Sony PS4 non-event. Adding a few mm to screen size + extra megapixels isn’t going to impress anyone. It’s the services/software that differentiates.

    • obarthelemy

      More precisely:
      1- Chrome (the browser) and Chrome OS (the OS) are 2 distinct things
      2- Chrome OS is already open-source, see Chromium OS
      3- Chrome is already mostly open-source, see Chromium
      4- Android is an OS, not an applet, and doesn’t have much to do with web browsing and almost nothing to do with the W3C, except for being able to run browser like any worthy OS can. It is a fork of Linux + a specialized JVM + a set of APIs + an ecosystem. Android the OS is mostly open-source already; Android the ecosystem (Playstore…) is controlled by Google.

      Since Google don’t make any direct money from Android, I’m sure they wouldn’t be adverse to pawning off Android, but that creates the risk of stagnation, fragmentation, and divergence from Google’s goals.

      Right now Google is enforcing Android discipline via access to their own value-adds for Android (Playstore, Maps, Now, Gmail app, Mail App…). Anyone that diverges from Google-set standards loses access to those goodies: Amazon, chinese tablets that don’t conform to specs (no GPS, no accelerometer…). One exception is CyanogenMod which gets a free pass, though Google recently flexed their muscle and threatened CM with loss of their access the the Google goodies if they went ahead with changes that would have broken many market apps.

      So, I’m not sure Google think Android the OS is done yet, nor that Android can keep being so tremendously successful w/o Google’s “benevolent dictatorship”, nor am I sure that Google would like to relinquish control of the PlayStore, which is a separate but linked issue.

      • Walt French

        Thanks for the thoughts, but I was imagining an official extension of the browsing environment where they would be able to run Android apps in the same way that javascript runs. So no, not confused about the relationships between browser, OS, etc.

        It’s not too hard to envision a Chrome “desktop window” with a bunch of resizable Android apps scattered across it, the same way as any multi-window OS does today.

      • That would be pretty much back to the original Java web applet model, as far as I understand your thesis — with the Android Java-oid VM and its libraries embedded in the browser. I think the only real difference would be that it wouldn’t be a plug-in.

        I’m not sure if they’d need anything from W3C to do this that isn’t already present to support Java applets, except possibly some extensions to make off-line use work better.

      • Walt French

        Yes, that sounds about right. Except that an “endorsement” that Android was an official web standard, one that browsers “should” implement, would be a huge cudgel.

      • obarthelemy

        don’t forget Android also supports native code, not just Java.

      • Walt French

        It does, with the caveat that it is devilishly difficult to port to different Android implementations. GPU differences especially, which of course would be a key area to try to speed up. And there is at least ONE X86 Android phone, utterly incompatible.

        I don’t know how many apps would go to the trouble, and therefore, who would worry about “native” Android code inside Chrome. Any stats?

      • Given all the security problems that the regular Java plug-in has had recently, I think it would be *very* hard to push this though any sort of standards body. Google could argue that their implementation of a second language/VM wart in the browser is better than the original Java, but I’d frankly doubt it. The Java designers spent a lot of time on the security architecture, and Java *still* wound up with holes in it.

        Also, if the plug-in for other browsers comes from the same single source, we’d have the same security problem as today with the Java and Adobe Flash plug-in monocultures — low-hanging fruit for attackers wanting a cross-platform attack, and a complex updating issue. And if the plug-in is not single-sourced, then there are serious compatibility and standardization issues. Either way, it’s a major problem, and I can’t see any sensible standards body seeing enough value here to justify the costs and risks.

        I could see them setting up optional HTML mechanisms to invoke Android apps just like they did for Java applets, but I can’t see them mandating support, any more than W3C required browser makers to include Java in the browser directly.

      • obarthelemy

        There’s an interesting discussion on Ars Technica today about whether Android should run under Chrome OS, or whether Chrome OS should run under Android.

        There’s good arguments for both sides, though I think in the end Chrome OS’s security requirements preclude it from running under Android… at most as a separate VM; maybe side-by-side each in its own VM, but Chrome OS as an Android app would destroy Chrome OS’s huge security advantage. OTOH, a sandboxed Android could run under Chrome OS with little chances of compromising Chrome, assuming the sandbox is…sandproof.

      • Walt French

        Thanks… I should have noted that!

      • Kizedek

        Fantasy or nightmare?

      • Walt French

        I know a lot of people here are heavily invested in Apple’s success, and I, too, am a long-term Apple user/fan.

        But my objective here — same as Horace’s, I think — is to UNDERSTAND what is going on in the computer/communications landscape. I struggled for a long time to understand Google’s basic strategy; they seem to be surprisingly detached from so many of their initiatives. I was trying to work out a scenario that could unfold based on the hypothesis that Google truly believes in rapid transformative forces at play in the hardware/software side, while they continue to consolidate control in the transformation of user info into gaining superior ad pricing.

      • Kizedek

        Sure, I think some more interesting, even encouraging, things about Google are coming to light lately. Perhaps they are maturing in some way, attempting to appear more transparent, starting to think about consumers, I don’t know. I am all for it.

        Still, as a website developer, I can’t help but cringe at any talk of a proprietary web that harkens back to the dark ages of IE and Flash that we are just now escaping.

    • The trouble is that you can’t just wish commoditization onto something. It commoditizes on the basis of what is or isn’t good enough. The OS may be good enough but the whole product may not be, or it may morph into something else as the PC did.

      • Walt French

        Ben Evans’ reporting has shown that garage shops in China can assemble rock-bottom Android phones; that sure sounds like commoditization in THAT market.

        The US and other more developed markets, I quite agree, have more demanding users — LTE and other high-speed data networks make (IMHO) a huge difference in expectations.

        Yesterday’s announcement provokes an interesting thought: perhaps Google Android is now headed for the #3 position in smartphones, behind Apple and Samsung (!) and actually not that terribly far ahead of Microsoft and BlackBerry. I understand that “Android” was mentioned exactly once — just enough to make Schiller look foolish — and separately, Samsung announced Q3 availability of Tizen phones in developed markets. Despite having no reason to prematurely cut its ties to Google, Samsung’s doing everything that you’d expect if its goal is to return to a fully free-standing status, including demolishing its OHA partners.

        If that’s the case, then it’s doubly true that the US is far from having reached a commodity status in cellphones.

      • I’m skeptical as to how successful Samsung can be with Tizen. First, is the question of what kind of developer support they will get. Second, developing a new OS from the ground up to serve hundreds of millions of users is no cake walk. The foundation of iOS is OSX, which means the foundation of iOS was laid around 12 years ago and there’s still room for improvement.

        The long-term war will be won with software & services and this is something Apple knows much better than Samsung.

      • Walt French

        It’s not my intention to tout Tizen, but Samsung and Intel have been working on it a while; the combo of Linux and Webkit give it a fairly good start.

        And as you say, Samsung does not need it to take over the world in its first quarter of release.

        It appears that Samsung’s intent is to run Tizen on some pretty minimal hardware—maybe down a notch from minimal Androids—for potentially a huge user base in developing economies. The option of retrofitting it with Android libraries for easy app porting would also seem possible, allowing it to move up, into the Android territory.

        Given Samsung’s current strong market share, there’s exactly zero reason why they couldn’t be aiming to become the next Apple. Again, I am not arguing that they will succeed, but they sound like the best candidate for Horace’s question of why nobody has yet copied Apple — it just isn’t obvious yet how much Samsung really is.

      • Johnny

        While I mostly agree with you, I think (from the S 4 PR) that Samsung in building its own apps to include in all their phones. Samsung seems to be displacing the need for an App Store/Play, if their apps are well made. These could be carried over to Tizen, with only a Samsung apps store. This could raise Samsungs brand in emerging markets. Who needs Google Play in those markets if Google doesn’t have license deals for Music, Books, and Movies.

        I don’t expect Tizen to start out great, but it could be good enough vs Nokia, and other companies that make smartphones and feature phones.

        On the high end the S4 aims to compete with Apple, HTC, Nokia Lumia.

        On the mid to low end, Samsung is targeting Nokia, ZTE, etc, but with possibly their own App Store and cloud services.

        It seems Samsung is going after market share and hoping for future brand loyalty?

        Anyway, I enjoy this site because the discussion is as good as the articles, contrary to tech blogs.

      • Allotrope

        The foundation for IOS was really NeXT which is where Mac OS came from, so it is far more mature in that context.

    • berult

      Android has not been thrown around cyberspace as a creativity facilitator per se. It was thought out as a commodity-market space-builder wherein Apple’s unmatched creative instinct couldn’t possibly be rewarded at real value. The great Napoleonic and German armies marching head-on into Tsar and Comrade’s scorched-earth tactics and strategies have taught Google a thing or two about gambits, pawn sacrifices, …and local ‘weather patterns’, to mitigate an enemy’s…an opponent’s…a competitor’s dynamic march onward.

      As I posited more than two years ago on this very forum, Android stands as a place-holder, anchored in pseudo-solid algorithmic ground, and built to withstand the onslaught on continuity by the genesis of a once-in-millennium paradigm. When you stick intelligence alongside mobility and entangle them into a braided lifeline, you have the making of a once-before-experienced quantum leap in human evolution. And Apple happens to be setting the pace, and synthesizing the event horizon.

      So no. Android ‘alchemizes’ as much of the market as it can…into a wasteland. Android can no more be shut down than the Russian soil, as spoilt and decrepit as one may have, on purpose, ‘undermined’ it to be, can be forsaken as a sacred repository for the Russian soul, …ill-fated to remain forever part and parcel of the Motherland. Holy and indivisible Russia. These guys up Mountain View would never let go of what territory they have ‘apple-ly’ sterilized from a creeping…all too empowering…viral infection. For this land has always been, is, and forever will be indivisible Geek’s Land.

      Beside, …contextual abstraction not withstanding, at the seemingly fair price of its Brand’s own, Google has boosted A-fold…its blank souls inventory. For whoever wishes to make a bid on a fool’s errand, …on a wandering soul…

  • Android phones become obsolete very quickly. Poor OS upgrades and hardware fragmentation are helping Google’s activation numbers. I know many people still on older iPhones with the latest iOS version from Apple. No plans to upgrade, but are very happy with the OS.

    Maybe if Apple made crappy hardware and made upgrading difficult it would help iOS activations too….hopefully they don’t

  • So if Android activations are sloping off, a few questions occur to me:

    Is this a sign that Android phones aren’t still vacuuming up former featurephone users? (My guess would be “no”)

    Is this a sign that an increasing proportion of “Android” users are buying not-technically-Android phones from the low-end white box vendors vs. “officially Android” phones from the larger players? — as far as I understand it, Google never sees these phones.

    Since activations are new phones, not new users, what is the expected contribution to the activation rate from replacements? If we assume a 2-year lifespan, and assume all Android users buy a new Android phone (conservative, but not necessarily probable), we should be able to roughly estimate what the activation rate from replacements is, versus new users, based on the incremental number of Android phones in service two years ago. Given that the data isn’t very precise, and we have to make additional assumptions, this estimate is likely to be very noisy, but it might be interesting nonetheless. A sloping off in the activation increase rate could be worse for Google than it appears, since the number of replacement activations is very likely still increasing sharply, tracking increasing sales to new users two years ago…. We might be looking at an actual decrease in the number of *new* users, at least for “officially Google Android” phones.

    • bloftus

      Phone activations are already dropping since android activations includes tablets and phones. Things are getting worse for google.

    • obarthelemy

      Google only sees the activations of Android devices that support the Playstore. From looking at Chinese devices on geek reseller sites, almost all phones do, and some tablets don’t but fewer than before: the likes of Ainol, Onda, Cube, even Archos used to not offer the market, and now do offer it.

      A slopping off of the activation rate could also mean that Google is inflating the number nowadays by less than they used to :-p

    • theothergeoff

      my guess would be yes, but the overall conversions from feature/dumb to dumb is slowing, likely due the combo platter of cost of bandwidth, lack of available 3G signal, and literally no use for an Internet connection.

      I think the usage numbers (websites reporting android users vs PC vs Mac vs iOS vs Other) tell me that the motivation to get an android phone is likely only cost and physical form factor for ‘the one app’ they want to use. reversing that logic… those that use lots of apps/internet… go iOS… those that have few/1 app, Android, and now those that have ‘no’ app, stay feature phone.

      my view of these numbers are that iOS will continue increase (user wants a better experience across many apps, will move to iOS), Android will flatten, and the conversion curve will as well… moving from the ‘bike’ feature phone, to the cheap Ford Fusion/Tata Nano (not fair I know) Android, then to the iOS BMW, when they finally desire a multi-function car (family, personal, business, comfort, speed, safety, durability).

    • Laurent Giroud

      It could simply be due to the fact that Google is running out of low hanging fruits.

      There are two limits to Android’s growth: one at high prices and the second at low ones.

      At high prices, (geeks aside) customers will put much more emphasis on quality, feature set (in terms of jobs do-able to piggy back on Horace/Christensen’s terminology, not specs) and my intuition is that iOS still wins that match so above a given price (in a broad sense, including plan and phone together) Android stops selling or with a very high churn rate (the more you pay, the more you expect, the more you switch if unsatisfied). So I think that this limit has already been reached long ago.

      This high threshold might increase though since – as Gruber noted – Google learns to do Apple’s job well faster than Apple does the reverse. Android keeps getting closer to iOS’s usability with time so people might be willing to pay more for it.

      The low price threshold is simply dictated by the interaction of the purchasing power of low income people/countries with the minimum costs of hardware and manufacturing needed to produce an Android phone. People who earn 50$ a month probably can afford an Android phone if they derive some obvious benefits from it but I feel that below this threshold Android stops selling (that obviously goes for iPhones too).

      Other factors come into play which limit which population are accessible to Android devices such as network coverage (and prices) and the fact that distribution networks are obviously going to concentrate first on the low hanging fruit first before filling as many niches as is profitable, not to mention that in many countries the distribution networks might not even be there yet (I might be wrong but that doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume). So even if the total potential market is important and will increase as hardware costs go down, there are multiple friction causes which restrict how much of it is physically accessible *now*.

      If this is what happening (no idea if what I’m suggesting makes sense) it would be interesting to see if Apple can bring hardware costs down at the high end (and keep its margins) faster than the others will do at the low end.

    • Woochifer

      As someone else mentioned, the low hanging fruit has already been picked. In the U.S., the overall cellphone penetration has stalled, and most people who want a smartphone already have one. The remaining consumers are likely ones (like me) who resist getting tied to a contract or having to pay for a data plan.

      I use a prepaid cellphone, and even with only a $25 refill every 90 days, I rarely use up my minutes. For my purposes, I’d much rather use a rock solid feature phone with decent reception and voice quality, than a poorly made Android phone with lag galore. I don’t think I’m alone here.

      I will likely migrate over to an unlocked iPhone when I’m ready to upgrade, but I’m waiting for more prepaid options to become available.

      • jb

        “In the U.S., the overall cellphone penetration has stalled, and most people who want a smartphone already have one.”

        Where are you getting the latter information from? I haven’t seen anything that would suggest that.

      • jb

        Here’s a couple of charts from @asymco about US smartphone adoption. Where do you see stalling here?

  • bloftus

    I can see why Schiller is frustrated. Comscore shows android activated 400,000 net new users in the US in January and there are no headlines – Android user growth the slowest in 3 years, iPhone with fastest new user growth ever.

    In fact, Horace is being generous, growth could be as slow as 1.36 million/day and since 6 months ago it was greater than 1.3 million/day – the headline could read – Despite Christmas holiday buying season, Android growth stalls in last 6 months.

    • I find it more interesting that Android Tablet web share usage has not only stopped growing but has started to rapidly contract. All the while, the iPad is still growing at Holiday growth levels.

      And not a single headline in the news except Android tablets are overtaking the iPad. The kicker is, no one seems to be using them.

  • Hosni

    Horace, your final two sentences deserve comment: “Google reported that … Android and Chrome would be under the same management … the implications of the merger with Chrome will need significant contemplation.”

    Given the heavy patent fees that Google is already paying to Microsoft and possible new penalties associated with infringing Oracle and Apple patents, it strongly appears that Google is contemplating a wholesale shift in Android.

    A new Android would no doubt also make it far more difficult if not impossible for device makers to adopt Android while excluding Google search, as the Kindle Fire and others have been doing with increasing frequency. Finally, it is likely that the new Android would available first on Google’s Motorola phones, and that could provide valuable first-mover status to Moto that would show up on Google’s bottom line — possibly for years.

    • Is Google really paying anything to MS for Android? I thought Motorola was the only major holdout in paying MS for phone patents for Android. Also, there doesn’t seem to be any issue with Oracle patents with Android anymore, Oracle seems to have stopped pursuing those in favor of copyright claims on the Java API, which is currently the issue on appeal.

      I’m not so sure we’re seeing a shift in Android as much as a shift *away* from it. That would eliminate all the IP issues with Android if Google feels they’re becoming a liability.

      Moving forward towards a ChromeOS phone might make the most sense for Google — it eliminates most of the IP issues (“See, it’s only a web browser that implements standards, you can’t block importation of a device that does that. Oh, it has standard web-apps, but those download from the cloud after the user first starts it — they aren’t imported.”)

      Basically, this would be Palm’s WebOS strategy all over again. And gee, WebOS was open-sourced, which means Google just can take it and use it, right? Just like Java….

      I do think that a Javascript-based phone (or maybe based on Google’s own new proposed web language) plays right into Google’s main strengths, in web browser and web app development. It also eliminates the problems with forks, since all the code of value resides in Google’s cloud, like it does with Google Docs. Other vendors can’t subvert them without building out their own version of Google’s infrastructure, including all the apps.

      Disclaimer: the notion of Google moving phones to ChromeOS isn’t mine, I think it was first advanced by Daniel Dilger over at I recall that he predicted that Google would abandon Android in favor of Chrome some time ago.

  • sparticle

    I work at a Tmobile USA store, and I see feature phones have been largely replaced by cheap android phones, see Tmobile concord phone built by ZTE, retail $100. Most features cost that much. but the thing is, Concord is such a crappy phone, doing anything is so slow, even slower than the original iphone that came out five years ago. Maybe not really slower, since i have no original iphone to compare with, but it feels so s….l….o….w…. I would just pull my hair out if I am forced to use apps on it on a daily basis. Sure it counts as an activation for google, but does it really mean anything at all? The user could not possibly install more than 10 apps without going over the storage. It’s like those netbooks, it’s same windows, but seriously constrained. Putting this in the same smart phone category as GS4 or iPhones is a joke.

  • bloftus

    Horace, you probably already thought of this but just in case…

    Google has provided a nice estimate of total combined activations for Q4 2012 and Q1 2013. Giving a generous estimate of 1.4 MM/day activations of android devices – then for 182 days (2 quarters) I get 254.8 MM units. IDC estimated 186.2 MM android smart phone sales in Q4 along with 26.4 MM tablet sales. This leaves only 68.6 MM units combined for Q1 2013. Q1 2012 estimates were 89.9 MM android smartphone units and 4.9 MM android tablets. If tablet sales are unchanged – we will see a 30% slowing in Android smartphone sales. Of course – this assumes inventory on the shelf entering Q4 2012 is the same as inventory on the shelf entering Q2 2013.

    As a reality check – I note HTC revenue is down 6.5% for January, 44% for February.

  • wonder how many people want a pizza with their phone.

  • Rogers

    When does Apple get to 1B iOS?

  • obarthelemy

    I’m wondering if non-touch Android devices aren’t becoming significant, Android USB-keys in particular, which might explain some of the discrepancy.
    I just got one out of curiosity, and discovered in the process that there are a lot of different products, a very active community, and strong hints that we’re not even seeing most of the action that takes place in poorer countries, were the concept of a $40 PC is even more alluring than in our richer climes.
    As an aside, the thing is surprisingly good. Handles with no hiccup browsing and HD video (local, steaming, dlna), and there’s a whole cottage industry of games and classic console emulators, to be played with an xbox or PS pad.
    Those devices have market access.

  • Pingback: Ballmer's Latest Blunder: No Office For iOS And Android Till 2014 - IT Clips()

  • Pingback: Ballmer’s Latest Blunder: No Office For iOS And Android Till 2014 – ReadWriteWeb | Everyday News Update()

  • Pingback: Ballmer's Latest Blunder: No Office For iOS And Android Till 2014 |

  • Aurora

    This is an aplikasi facebook android that you can use in your smatphone android like samsung, xiaomi, lenovo and others