Eric Schmidt has done a talk at Dive Into Mobile today, and knowing Schmidt, we’re in for quotable stuff. First, Android activations are up to 1.5 million per day now – which is insane. That’s one The Netherlands every eleven days. Or, what takes Windows Phone a holiday quarter, Android does in four days. Schmidt also touched upon Facebook Home; a journalist asked him a question about it, referencing a Microsoft statement about Google most likely wanting to block Home, and in reply, Schmidt called Home a “tremendous endorsement” of Android’s Play Store strategy.
Involountary activation is not an endorsement. Just as checking your inbox at youtube automatically creates a google plus account for you and post everything you do to boost google plus usage. You have to delete the google plus account manually after the youtube update for it no longer to be posted.
Google should really stop forcing people to use the less liked products like picasa and google+, if it stands on merit and price people will use it.
Not sure how that relates to Android. They’re basically talking about devices that are activated b/c of purchases; whether you use a Google account for that or not is a wholly other matter.
While I agree that things done to push up numbers should not be…I’d still have to disagree that G+ and Picasa don’t stand up on their own due to merit…but then, I like G+, far more than I like FB; and I also found it strange that when I logged into FB the other day (after many months away), I thought “this looks just like G+”.
The article is about Android, why do you bring up G+?
So do people involuntarily activate Android phones now?
I’ve reinstalled cyanogenmod on two phones using different gmail addresses each time and installed another firmware on my tablet using another gmail address.
Maybe I signed in google servers about 10 times with different emails after os reinstalls. So maybe they count it as 10 activations if they don’t use some form of hardware id.
I’m not 100% sure but I think they at some time stated that they were counting each device only once no matter if it was flashed or resold, so I guess they would be using the IMEI or some hardware based ID.
“…and for those wondering, we count each device only once (ie, we don’t count re-sold devices), and “activations” means you go into a store, buy a device, put it on the network by subscribing to a wireless service.”
https://plus.google.com/112599748506977857728/posts/Kkjf8oESTZs
*Even* if they don’t use any type of hardware ID (IMEI, MAC, etc), people such as yourself count for 0.0000…..000% of the total activation.
Case of point, both me and a fairly large number of Android users around replace ROMs on a regular basis. This is the first time I heard about someone that also replaces the registration gmail address with each ROM.
Futhermore, given the fact that play/gmail combination helps you re-install your previous applications automatically (leaving you only the fairly small task of restoring “data” for a small number of applications), I can’t really see the a wide use-case for using a different gmail address for each ROM…
– Gilboa
Does it show as 10 different devices on your Google Play page? I bet not.
Any quote on how many infections per day?
*Sigh*.
Please ignore the troll.
– Gilboa
Did it ever occur to you that I’m an Android user (Nexus 7) and am just sick of the way Google curates its Play Store?
See, this is what I don’t get. In the old days, it was normal and completely acceptable to criticize the product you paid for. Now, all of a sudden, the customer has become the cocksucker. You pay money to give them head? WTF!!
1. Your comment of was OT (What does infections have to do with the number of activation per day?)
2. Your comment didn’t include any type of factual information to back up your claim (if there was a claim to begin with).
3. Your next comments is simply rude (not to me personally, but to anyone else).
Surely, if you have a point to make, it can be done in a civilized, factual manner, am I wrong?
– Gilboa
And what does this have to do with “infections”?
Don’t stick your head in the sand, he has a point. Even CNN recently ran a little clip on how bad Android malware has gotten so it’s not as if his question has no merit.
… And yet I simply fail to see how Android malware is connected to this news story – unless, of-course, you claim that 750,000 of said activation-count was triggered by malware?
Edited 2013-04-18 15:53 UTC
You mean the supposed infection rate not supported by any evidence whatsoever?
Oh, okay.