Cell Phones

1.5 million activation's per day

  • Last Updated:
  • Apr 18th, 2013 10:10 am
Tags:
None
Deal Addict
User avatar
May 18, 2012
1910 posts
119 upvotes

1.5 million activation's per day

http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/16/eric ... tions-per/

1.5 million activation's per day. Putting that at a realistic number, say conservatively 500,000/day of actual new users or devices it's still mind boggling. 46 million per quarter and accelerating.

Is there danger of a 90's like Monopoly?
10 replies
Deal Fanatic
Sep 28, 2010
9260 posts
1884 upvotes
Irregular Heptagon
HandsomeRob wrote:
Apr 17th, 2013 8:08 am
http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/16/eric ... tions-per/

1.5 million activation's per day. Putting that at a realistic number, say conservatively 500,000/day of actual new users or devices it's still mind boggling. 46 million per quarter and accelerating.

Is there danger of a 90's like Monopoly?
That's a lot of activations.

As far as a 90's MS-like monopoly, it is possible. Just ask Acer and Alibaba what happens to the benevolent hand of google when you cross their business interests. That hand turns into a fist. That is not much different from MS strong arming their partners back in the day. What might keep google in check from further abuses of their position is Samsung. Android mindshare is quickly being subsumed by Samsung mindshare. Samsung certainly is not going out of their way to promote Android anymore. The S4 launch event didn't mention Android at all, other than as a passing reference in the tech specs segment. Samsung has gone way beyond dominating Android. For all intents and purposes, Samsung is Android to the world at large these days. That in and of itself might be enough to force Google to mind their manners when dealing with partners, so as to keep others in play beyond just Samsung.
2015 wins: Trip for 2 to NYC with airfare, limo, hotel and insurance ($3700); Maple Leafs tickets($250); 32GB HTC One M9 ($700), Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1($200), Samsung Galaxy Note 5($850), Aukey 2 port fast car charger($23), Fitbit Flex ($120), Blue Piston Bluetooth Speaker ($30). 2016 wins: nada
Deal Addict
Aug 10, 2010
2635 posts
161 upvotes
ceredon wrote:
Apr 17th, 2013 9:19 am
That's a lot of activations.

As far as a 90's MS-like monopoly, it is possible. Just ask Acer and Alibaba what happens to the benevolent hand of google when you cross their business interests. That hand turns into a fist. That is not much different from MS strong arming their partners back in the day. What might keep google in check from further abuses of their position is Samsung. Android mindshare is quickly being subsumed by Samsung mindshare. Samsung certainly is not going out of their way to promote Android anymore. The S4 launch event didn't mention Android at all, other than as a passing reference in the tech specs segment. Samsung has gone way beyond dominating Android. For all intents and purposes, Samsung is Android to the world at large these days. That in and of itself might be enough to force Google to mind their manners when dealing with partners, so as to keep others in play beyond just Samsung.
Google didnt put a gun to acer's head. They don't want to follow OHA rules, they can leave and do whatever. Does google pull android away from amazon? No.

Rules are rules. You don't like them, make your own and play yourself. The rest of them aren't doing what acer did, and hence "google is evil for crushing aliyun" is just a silly thing to say.
Owner of hunks of metal, silicon, glass, plastic with 1s and 0s and some electrons powering them.
Deal Fanatic
Sep 28, 2010
9260 posts
1884 upvotes
Irregular Heptagon
desidealer49 wrote:
Apr 17th, 2013 12:17 pm
Google didnt put a gun to acer's head. They don't want to follow OHA rules, they can leave and do whatever. Does google pull android away from amazon? No.

Rules are rules. You don't like them, make your own and play yourself. The rest of them aren't doing what acer did, and hence "google is evil for crushing aliyun" is just a silly thing to say.
How is that any different than what MS did? Don't want to follow their rules and install their browser as the default and avoid installing any other browsers from the OEM, then make your own and play yourself. That is exactly what MS did and their market dominance made that anti-competitive illegal monopoly behavior. With Android approaching similar dominance, that similarities to what they did to Alibaba and Acer are very close.

Acer's dalliance with Alibaba was a side track for them. What google did was then threaten Acer's Android business if they continued with their side business. That is heavy handed. Rules are rules, until you achieve a monopoly position. At that point they can turn into a hammer.
2015 wins: Trip for 2 to NYC with airfare, limo, hotel and insurance ($3700); Maple Leafs tickets($250); 32GB HTC One M9 ($700), Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1($200), Samsung Galaxy Note 5($850), Aukey 2 port fast car charger($23), Fitbit Flex ($120), Blue Piston Bluetooth Speaker ($30). 2016 wins: nada
Deal Addict
Aug 10, 2010
2635 posts
161 upvotes
ceredon wrote:
Apr 17th, 2013 12:26 pm
How is that any different than what MS did? Don't want to follow their rules and install their browser as the default and avoid installing any other browsers from the OEM, then make your own and play yourself. That is exactly what MS did and their market dominance made that anti-competitive illegal monopoly behavior. With Android approaching similar dominance, that similarities to what they did to Alibaba and Acer are very close.

Acer's dalliance with Alibaba was a side track for them. What google did was then threaten Acer's Android business if they continued with their side business. That is heavy handed. Rules are rules, until you achieve a monopoly position. At that point they can turn into a hammer.
Lol what? You mean you want to use google's AppStore but not pay for it or stay with the rules? Even when you signed at the dotted line and know what it means? Does tizen or do amazon kindles use google play or gapps?

Lol.

And no, same as MS? Nope. Google isn't punishing anyone for making their own OS. Otherwise they would have punished lg, Samsung and Sony long ago for going with windows phone 7 and maintaining their separate OS on the side.

Stop pretending that butchering the licensing terms for cheap gains is same as competition against "evil google". Sorry but acer is at fault here, not google.

By that logic Apple is anti competitive for making it illegal to use OS X on non-apple made and sold hardware. And they are anticompetitive for pushing their own maps and mobile safari and not allowing changing them in favor of another app (unless you jailbreak, which isn't apple sanctioned anyway). Funny how google is always the bad guy for not letting someone abuse the completely voluntary rules.
Owner of hunks of metal, silicon, glass, plastic with 1s and 0s and some electrons powering them.
Deal Fanatic
Sep 28, 2010
9260 posts
1884 upvotes
Irregular Heptagon
desidealer49 wrote:
Apr 17th, 2013 12:57 pm
Lol what? You mean you want to use google's AppStore but not pay for it or stay with the rules? Even when you signed at the dotted line and know what it means? Does tizen or do amazon kindles use google play or gapps?

Lol.

And no, same as MS? Nope. Google isn't punishing anyone for making their own OS. Otherwise they would have punished lg, Samsung and Sony long ago for going with windows phone 7 and maintaining their separate OS on the side.

Stop pretending that butchering the licensing terms for cheap gains is same as competition against "evil google". Sorry but acer is at fault here, not google.

By that logic Apple is anti competitive for making it illegal to use OS X on non-apple made and sold hardware. And they are anticompetitive for pushing their own maps and mobile safari and not allowing changing them in favor of another app (unless you jailbreak, which isn't apple sanctioned anyway). Funny how google is always the bad guy for not letting someone abuse the completely voluntary rules.

If Apple was in a monopoly position, certainly some of their actions would be anti-competitive. But they aren't a monopoly, so there would be no anti-trust case.

You need to remember that actions that are perfectly acceptable and legal for a company to engage in become problematic when they are a monopoly. You can undercut and flood a market with your product, but not if you hold monopoly power. You can force your partners to abide by heavy handed rules, but not when you are a monopoly. I am not saying google is being evil. Morals and ethics are not in my equation here. I am saying that there is very little difference between how MS enforced their business rules on their partners and how google does the same. When MS did it, it was only illegal or anticompetitive because of who they were and their position in the marketplace. The same goes for any company that achieves market dominance. The real question is not whether Google is engaged in similar tactics. I don't think they would have a problem admitting it. The question is whether their position in the market is high enough to make a claim that they have achieved a monopoly position similar to the one the MS had in the 90s.
2015 wins: Trip for 2 to NYC with airfare, limo, hotel and insurance ($3700); Maple Leafs tickets($250); 32GB HTC One M9 ($700), Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1($200), Samsung Galaxy Note 5($850), Aukey 2 port fast car charger($23), Fitbit Flex ($120), Blue Piston Bluetooth Speaker ($30). 2016 wins: nada
Deal Addict
Aug 10, 2010
2635 posts
161 upvotes
ceredon wrote:
Apr 17th, 2013 1:43 pm
If Apple was in a monopoly position, certainly some of their actions would be anti-competitive. But they aren't a monopoly, so there would be no anti-trust case.

You need to remember that actions that are perfectly acceptable and legal for a company to engage in become problematic when they are a monopoly. You can undercut and flood a market with your product, but not if you hold monopoly power. You can force your partners to abide by heavy handed rules, but not when you are a monopoly. I am not saying google is being evil. Morals and ethics are not in my equation here. I am saying that there is very little difference between how MS enforced their business rules on their partners and how google does the same. When MS did it, it was only illegal or anticompetitive because of who they were and their position in the marketplace. The same goes for any company that achieves market dominance. The real question is not whether Google is engaged in similar tactics. I don't think they would have a problem admitting it. The question is whether their position in the market is high enough to make a claim that they have achieved a monopoly position similar to the one the MS had in the 90s.
And google is not a monopoly.

And when it comes to android, they certainly haven't done anything to show that otherwise amazon would be fighting lawsuits. Their kindle fires surpassed other android tablets in sales remember?

Bottom line is, and my final stance on this, is that acer was bending the rules, not going against a "monopoly".

And as I said earlier, saying google has a monopoly on "google play" and "google apps" is like saying apple has a monopoly on OS X....
Owner of hunks of metal, silicon, glass, plastic with 1s and 0s and some electrons powering them.
Deal Fanatic
Sep 28, 2010
9260 posts
1884 upvotes
Irregular Heptagon
desidealer49 wrote:
Apr 17th, 2013 2:39 pm
And google is not a monopoly.

And when it comes to android, they certainly haven't done anything to show that otherwise amazon would be fighting lawsuits. Their kindle fires surpassed other android tablets in sales remember?

Bottom line is, and my final stance on this, is that acer was bending the rules, not going against a "monopoly".

And as I said earlier, saying google has a monopoly on "google play" and "google apps" is like saying apple has a monopoly on OS X....
It was never about their monopoly on Play. And certainly never about the threat of being sued by google.

They can't go after Amazon because they don't have a kludge to use against them. MS could withhold marketing payments or other benefits if their partners crossed them by working with others. Google could threaten Acer's position in the Android fold if they looked to work with a splinter Android. Acer needs Google's benevolence and good graces for their main Android line. Google has no such clout over Amazon as Amazon doesn't have the exposure to "approved" Android that Acer does.

The question is that with 1.5 million activations per day, are they approaching MS type of dominance, based purely on market control. Certainly they are not there yet, but at those numbers, as we looking at it soon? As the OP asked, "Is there danger of a 90's like Monopoly?" (not as a statement that we are there, but a question of a possibility).
2015 wins: Trip for 2 to NYC with airfare, limo, hotel and insurance ($3700); Maple Leafs tickets($250); 32GB HTC One M9 ($700), Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1($200), Samsung Galaxy Note 5($850), Aukey 2 port fast car charger($23), Fitbit Flex ($120), Blue Piston Bluetooth Speaker ($30). 2016 wins: nada
Deal Addict
Aug 10, 2010
2635 posts
161 upvotes
Of course part of it had to do with google play. Aliyun featured apps taken from google play as pirated apks and features them as legit apps for their own AppStore. I would not hesitate to smash them either.
Owner of hunks of metal, silicon, glass, plastic with 1s and 0s and some electrons powering them.
Deal Fanatic
Sep 28, 2010
9260 posts
1884 upvotes
Irregular Heptagon
desidealer49 wrote:
Apr 18th, 2013 2:20 am
Of course part of it had to do with google play. Aliyun featured apps taken from google play as pirated apks and features them as legit apps for their own AppStore. I would not hesitate to smash them either.
Google may have used play and apps as their excuse, but Google's control of Play is not the potential monopoly position we are talking about. It's control of the market. And with 1.5 million activations per day, they could easily be on their way to controlling the mobile market. If you are willing to forgo the benefits of playing nicely with Google, as Amazon is, they have no way to make you obedient. But if you rely on them, then you had better fall in line, even with side businesses and other ventures, because they will hammer you. As you say, you would not hesitate to smash them and Google was doing what any business would. But if they achieve a monopoly position, then that type of behavior becomes anti-competitive. That was the question.
2015 wins: Trip for 2 to NYC with airfare, limo, hotel and insurance ($3700); Maple Leafs tickets($250); 32GB HTC One M9 ($700), Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1($200), Samsung Galaxy Note 5($850), Aukey 2 port fast car charger($23), Fitbit Flex ($120), Blue Piston Bluetooth Speaker ($30). 2016 wins: nada
Deal Addict
Aug 10, 2010
2635 posts
161 upvotes
ceredon wrote:
Apr 18th, 2013 8:02 am
Google may have used play and apps as their excuse, but Google's control of Play is not the potential monopoly position we are talking about. It's control of the market. And with 1.5 million activations per day, they could easily be on their way to controlling the mobile market. If you are willing to forgo the benefits of playing nicely with Google, as Amazon is, they have no way to make you obedient. But if you rely on them, then you had better fall in line, even with side businesses and other ventures, because they will hammer you. As you say, you would not hesitate to smash them and Google was doing what any business would. But if they achieve a monopoly position, then that type of behavior becomes anti-competitive. That was the question.
With so many other competitors out there (nokia and blackberry are HUGE in many african and asian countries, even android lags behind in market penetration) and especially Apple still maintaining a healthy market share AND growing their user base, i doubt google will be able to become the MS of mobile.

Even if google's android did have 95% of market share, not allowing an Open Handset Alliance member to fork their proprietary stuff is still valid. The only time it is "anti competitive" is if google revokes android source code from the open database and intentionally creates code that breaks all hell loose if such a member wanted to use it. They don't have the power to say "hey you are not allowed to give users the ability to run apps", because it is a core function and part of the open source code. They are fully entitled to block access to google play which is you know, a proprietary app store, or google apps for that matter. I would be pissed too if someone else wanted to use my stuff that required licensing without me giving them permission, unless of course i made that stuff open for everyone and then i wouldn't care.

Again, this is still different from MS not allowing other browsers on THEIR operating system. Whether you have 10% or 90% market share, crippling other browsers on your OS/hardware, desktop or mobile, is more dumb than illegal because you are making your users hate you. I doubt google thinks they want to do that.
Owner of hunks of metal, silicon, glass, plastic with 1s and 0s and some electrons powering them.
× < >

Top