So why do carriers sell those devices as Android smartphones then? Why does Bell run a campaign advertising "Android superphones" as gifts for the holidays?
Because it's not a technical term, it's what people call devices that run Android. "My Android" like "My Mac" or "My iPhone. I would love to hear you argue that "Mac" or "iPhone" is a technical term.
In that scenario, they instantly roll Google Play, Gmail, and the various other apps that ship on all Google-approved Android devices into the mix.
> I don't think it is important to this discussion what the press/ "average" consumer think the word Android means, because they are not part of this discussion.
Yes, they are. That was the point of the "most of us" comment.
> Yet we can still use the original term here without getting confused.
Maybe die-hard Android fans can. Everyone else associates Android with the Market, Gmail and various other apps just like they associate iOS with the App Store.
> Samsung licensing Google Apps for their android-based operating system is not that different from Samsung licensing Adobe reader for their Android-based operating system.
That could be the dumbest thing I have ever read. Why don't you go ask Microsoft about the differences between shipping applications with the OS you build and negotiating with 3rd party software vendors and get back to me.
> And Amazon is not making a fork. Amazon's software is fully compatible with Android 4.0.3.
Compatibility with applications has nothing to do with whether or not software is a fork or not. It simply implies a split development path.
No, it isn't. It's a stripped down subset missing most things associated with Android as being good or useful, like the Market or Gmail. I personally call that AOSP, because that's what it is. Its own separate thing.
So why do carriers sell those devices as Android smartphones then? Why does Bell run a campaign advertising "Android superphones" as gifts for the holidays?
Because it's not a technical term, it's what people call devices that run Android. "My Android" like "My Mac" or "My iPhone. I would love to hear you argue that "Mac" or "iPhone" is a technical term.
In that scenario, they instantly roll Google Play, Gmail, and the various other apps that ship on all Google-approved Android devices into the mix.
> I don't think it is important to this discussion what the press/ "average" consumer think the word Android means, because they are not part of this discussion.
Yes, they are. That was the point of the "most of us" comment.
> Yet we can still use the original term here without getting confused.
Maybe die-hard Android fans can. Everyone else associates Android with the Market, Gmail and various other apps just like they associate iOS with the App Store.
> Samsung licensing Google Apps for their android-based operating system is not that different from Samsung licensing Adobe reader for their Android-based operating system.
That could be the dumbest thing I have ever read. Why don't you go ask Microsoft about the differences between shipping applications with the OS you build and negotiating with 3rd party software vendors and get back to me.
> And Amazon is not making a fork. Amazon's software is fully compatible with Android 4.0.3.
Compatibility with applications has nothing to do with whether or not software is a fork or not. It simply implies a split development path.
> Android is what you find at http://source.android.com/
No, it isn't. It's a stripped down subset missing most things associated with Android as being good or useful, like the Market or Gmail. I personally call that AOSP, because that's what it is. Its own separate thing.