android feature JD Hancock

Android has truly become an authority in the mobile market. A powerful operating system that costs nothing to the manufacturer and brings unlimited options to the consumer is hard to beat, a fact that is confirmed by last quarter’s marketshare reports. Google’s mobile OS has reached another milestone during Q2 2014, during which the Mountain View giant shipped 85% of all smartphones!

This comes as great news to us Android aficionados, but the rest of the market is not very happy. Google’s victory can, in part, be thanked to iOS, Windows Phone and BlackBerry losing marketshare. As with anything else, such a substantial success is bound to turn some heads, and some of those may be holding eyes you don’t want looking at you.

European authorities are said to be looking into investigating the Search Giant for its overwhelming advantage over other mobile platforms. This investigation would carry through if Android was to ship over 80% of devices within the European nations, which currently isn’t the case. Android devices account for 73% of shipped devices within said continent.

Android Army securitycoverage

Google is walking on thin ice here. A full-blown investigation on Google’s possible monopoly could bring some serious consequences for the operating system we all love and treasure. How would this case conclude, though? We could argue Android’s monopoly is a natural succession of how great and convenient the OS is. Most of us would say Google does compete fairly.

In fact, the European market may not be so worried about how many Android smartphones are out there. Sources familiar with the matter tell Reuters European regulators are more worried about Google’s practices, inquiring they are abusing their obvious dominance in the market.

google apps nexus 5

A clear example is that Google does require that manufacturers pre-install certain applications, like Maps and Search. That is, unless they want to steer clear of Google services, much like Amazon has done with its Fire smartphones and tablets.

It’s hard for other manufacturers to offer a good experience with no official support, though, especially because Google Play Store accessibility requires that manufacturers follow certain standards (including the addition of said apps). Certain software updates also demand these pre-requisites.

Is Google taking advantage of its position? Some may believe they are, but we must also remember this is why Google created Android as a free, open ecosystem. They wanted to bring their services to as many users as possible, and offering Android as a free alternative proved to be a successful way to do so.

Edgar Cervantes
Edgar Cervantes has over 5 years of experience in tech journalism. Exploring the latest gadgets and constantly studying the industry are part of is daily drive. Regardless of what he is working on, you can be sure he is always trying his best to bring you the best content. He will be dead honest and will bend to nothing.
  • Qbancelli

    A problem for whom?
    Apple? M$?

    Yeah, probably.

  • MasterMuffin

    As long as the monopoly doesn’t mean less new ideas, it’s okay

    “by las quarter’s” :)

    • Crutchcorn

      Exactly, beat me by just a second.

      • Jayfeather787


    • Fixed. Thanks MasterMuffin!

    • Richard Sequeira

      I actually saw the Palm Pre Presentation from 2008, Android has borrowed so many ideas from WebOS. Matias Duarte’s influence is still letting Google to innovate. That’s why in some way I do want Tizen, Firefox OS, Jolla and other to start releasing their handsets. Their failure or success stimulates that innovation.

      • kg2105

        Duarte has certainly done a good job at Google, but if WebOS was so great why did it crash and burn so badly? I have an HP Touchpad so I’m certainly familiar with WebOS, this isn’t speculation. It was slow, lacked a lot of features, and was clunky/awkward to use. It was miles behind Android back then (gingerbread/ honeycomb) and it was even a little behind Apple (sad).

        • Richard Sequeira

          Because Palm made poor choices in hardware. WebOS was still advance in comparison to the early dark day of Android. Like I said before, Palm and later HP did not deploy the OS to other OEMs and bring in software developers into the picture. What HP did was buy Palm and ruin what was left of the company.

          • Mike Bastable

            And webOS, now owned by LG, is the awesome OS on my new television….. where it’s easy to use, smooth, fast and looks great.
            So hopefully webOS well continue to be developed and properly deployed to market by a company that really innovates, like LG.

          • Pete

            I love LG and think it’s a great thing they bought web os. For me android does monopolize but not to the extent where it becomes an issue. Android also gives the chance for oem’s to truly experiment and add things into android that many people did not get to see, and all of these things if not real innovation add flavours to android. For example split screen and dual window, Nock code and q slide apps and because there are so many manufacturers android becomes something that sets itself apart, every android is different, just one of the reasons I love android

          • Mike Bastable

            totally agree, couldn’t have said it better (i tend to ramble on a bit if you have read my other posts lol)

          • kld2009

            Amen. R.I.P. webOS. :(

          • Mike Bastable

            it is alive and well!, on LG TVs which are selling very well…:)

    • Mike Reid


      I believe that Google/Android IS a monopoly of sorts, but I’m not seeing that as particularly harmful, except to the profits of some competitors.

      Google made smart moves. MS made smart moves with their Windows monopoly too, but also many “ethically challenged” non competitive moves, eg forcing a Windows tax on every PC sold.

      I don’t see anti-competitive moves by Google.

  • Crutchcorn

    I’d perfer an Google open source takeover than an Apple one

    • rickrom

      amen! i just stumbled across my old ipad 2. after two minutes, i placed back inside the drawer. no wonder i stopped using that piece of shit. ios is horrible as fuck to use. LOL.

      • kld2009

        I just received an iPad 2 for work. It feels so odd and difficult in working with iOS for an extended amount of time(compared to my TouchPad with webOS and Android on it).

    • Agree with Crutchcorn google’ s android is nice but apple is best in market Government Job

  • Timothy Anderson

    This is ridiculous. Android is open software that manufacturers can either use or not use. It is not a product or a company. In fact, anyone (case in point Amazon) can alter it to their liking and strip out anything Google. Why don’t people call Windows a monopoly? That is closed and nobody can change it, other than M$. You buy almost any commercial PC, you are paying for it, whether you like it or not. I suspect the real people behind these claims are the ones who are trying to protect their own real monopolies.

    • Trysta

      “Why don’t people call Windows a monopoly?” – you know that this did happen right? It was a pretty big deal too.

      • mmmmmbop

        I don’t think a lot of younger people realize just how big microsoft was one upon a time.

        • Neo Morpheus

          Not only they don’t know how big they were, the fail to understand the damage they did to other companies with that monopoly and how they set back the advance in technology on the OS market.
          That’s why I’m glad they have no traction on mobile, because it will be the same crap all over again.

      • Timothy Anderson

        Yes, but in this case they are calling Android a monopoly because of market share. The case against M$ had to do with abusive practices to crush threats to it’s OS as well as hiding its latest interfaces so that M$ software ran better than the competition. Google does not do that. Google does not try to stop any other competition. They completely expose their OS to anyone who wants to see it. They allow you to make any changes you want to it. Solely based on market share, Windows is still, by far dominant. That settlement never changed that. Now android is the dominant OS in the mobile market only. same thing.

        • Arturo Raygoza

          Buuuut if they don’t approve your changes then, NO PLAY STORE FOR YOU!

    • Microsoft was actually sued for $1 million a day by the US government for monopoly practices (if I can say it like that)

    • Shark Bait

      I was about to post the exact same thing.totally agree

      Android has a similar marker share to Microsoft , which could be called a monopoly, except android is free and open source which in my opinion changes everything. At its heart android is a community project, just driven by google and anyone could use it to their advantage, google doent have any control over android. Hence I don’t think the traditional means of juduing a monopoly apply.

      Talking about pre installed apps, I believe it to be fair google gets some return for their hard work , after all android is free. And it isn’t forces on manurfacrueres, it would just be crap without it.

      Unfortunately some technology is best as a monopoly by nature. Facebook would be crap without it being a monopoly. Likewise platforms work best as a monopoly because of app support and user familiarity

      • md

        Excuse my wording but this is crap. A monopoly is NEVER EVER good for a free market.
        Facebook would be even better (to the users) if it was founded on open standards that everyone can implement. This way you could connect to other social media platforms without the need to choose facebook.

        This in general is a thing that I’m not happy with in the software world. There should be way more adoption of standards that can be implemented by everyone instead of locking users into a certain ecosystem…

        • Shark Bait

          yes, i agree with you. allow me to clarify….
          what I meant was in technology user adoption is often self perpetual. ie more people are on facebook so more people use is. Or more people use android so their are more apps for it so more people use it ect…. its not necessarily a good thing but it happens

          I completly agree with the open standards thing, which is why I invest my self into the android eco system isntead of iOS, at least i could jump ship to amazon ect if I so chose

    • Mike Sam

      How open is Android if you have to install google+ and those other GAPPS to have a usable Android? You can’t unistall the GAPPS.

      • vangeodee

        Actually, you can use Android without Google+ and the GAPPS. Look at Amazon. Also, most custom ROMs are released without the GAPPS pre-installed.

        I also don’t think it’s a problem, if you don’t want Google+ and GAPPS, then there’s Windows Phone and iOS. You can also root your Android device and remove google services if you want. Why do people keep complaining about it when it’s so easy to avoid in the first place?

        • Karly Johnston

          Look at every Android in China. They have their own services for everything.

      • Allanitomwesh

        You can use a phone without GApps
        Amazon Marketplace instead of Play Store
        Yahoo instead of Gmail
        Firefox instead of Chrome
        Tom Tom Places instead of Maps
        Video Tube instead of YouTube
        Facebook instead of G+
        LINE or BBM instead of Hangouts
        Evernote instead of Keep
        Spotify instead of Play Music etcetc
        Gapps is only desirable because a vast majority of Google’s apps are leaders in their segments but Google are not actively forcing you to not use the competition. And Google really don’t mind,as long as you are on the internet,you’ll probably end up on one of their sites if you open a browser(even if it’s not their browser)

    • CDavisUnlimited

      Microsoft used the same argument and still got the hammer brought down on them in regards to bundling IE into their OS. Google is doing the same thing with Maps,Search,Drive,Google+,Keep,Books,PlayGame,NewsStand, and all their other bloatware. I use CyanogenMod and therefore am an Android fan. But you can’t claim to be “Open”, and then require your bloatware; you can’t have it both ways. And as Microsoft learned, when you start engaging in practices like that, you will get the hammer brought down on you. Google is bringing this on themselves.

      • Kyle Kennedy

        I don’t think you understand what open is. Android is open…you can download it for free, compile it yourself, strip stuff out of it you don’t want, etc. Most roms don’t have GAPPS installed, most Chinese phones don’t, Amazon doesn’t, etc. MS was different in that the OS was NOT open, no one could see the source code, it was not free, you could NOT decouple IE from the OS, and the list goes on and on. Plus they had a monopoly on other stuff, like office software, that would only work on their OS, so you HAD to buy Windows. Then they would use the OS to purposefully make competitor software not perform as well, or withhold details about the OS so competitors could not build competing apps.

    • filaos

      Google services are absolutely not “open” and Google forces OEMs to build them in their phones. THIS is a monopoly.

    • john winner

      Android is open software good joke :D After google bought android they have removed option to install application on sd card. Why? Because they can.

      • Leslie LIm

        Because of safety concerns…..

  • ShockWave

    Unless competitors can give a better alternative I don’t think anyone can complain, there isn’t IMO a better less restrictive alternative, iOS and WP are too restrictive as for me.

  • Guest 123

    An open-source OS as a monopoly, interesting.

    • Blake Loring

      They are likely not targeting the operating system itself but the packaged Google services. If anything does come of this it’ll likely be a case of forcing Google to make alternatives more visible. Still silly though, Google isn’t directly manufacturing or even compiling the software which is packaged on these phones, all they are doing is licensing GApps to companies which want them.

      • Saying “Ni” to old women.

        There are some restrictions on GAPPs…you must join the OHA being the major one. The restrictions within the OHA on what you can do are even more intense (Samsung had to make Tizen because they were not allowed to fork Android without being kicked out of the OHA and lose their GAPPs licensing).

        Still don’t think Android is the bad-guy here, nor the OHA or Google’s licensing practices; but a point has been made that building a successful Android ecosystem outside of Google is nigh impossible for any but the enormously well-funded (Amazon).

        It’s an arguable point…

      • Javier Peralta

        True, they’ll probably ask Google to allow user to uninstall GApps if they so desire. The problem is not with android, it’s with the GApps, like it was with Windows and IE

  • xoj_21

    the reason microsoft monopoly was harmful was because they are closed, in case google turned nuts, people would see alternatives
    also u can choose the OS u want. unlike computers which not matter what brand you get windows. yes you could install linux
    but u have to buy windows anyway.
    the other thing is, microsoft got in that position with deals, they are also terrible at updating reason why IE 6 still some XP machines. thanks to chrome and firefox not in that many now.

  • Fer

    It is already a monopoly and already a problem, Android is a cancer that must disappear from this world

    • Jimmy Jamm

      Soooooooo, u think it’s a cancer yet u go out of ur way to type in and come to an android dedicated site and post a comment why?????

      • JD

        He be trollin’…

      • RusticKey

        Level 2 Forest Troll lad, just throw a rock at it.

    • Love android

      Lol lol lol, you must be clicking a wrong site. Try wpcentral or macrumors :D

  • Daaliso Chinkoyo

    Seriously, Google developed the OS, and if anyone else wants to use it, pay some homage by installing some Google apps. I’d totally do that too and not feel bad about it. If samsung want to develop their own OS, they are free to do so, but for as long as they are using android as a base, here comes Gmaps and all the other required apps from Google.

  • Carter Taylor

    How is google a monopoly if all its doing is succeeding at what other do not. Its not like there buying its compeiters, it is simply beating them.

    • TheGCU

      Exactly. That many Android devices are shipping because of consumer choice, not corporate practice. More people buy Android devices than other devices, it’s just that simple. There are competitors, and they’re not small; they’re just failing to compete.

      Before the iPhone, almost every smartphone was a Blackberry. Was that an illegal monopoly also?

    • Jesse Afolabi

      no….banging them hard in the ass!!

      • Carter Taylor

        I just now saw your comment after 2 years ???

        • Jesse Afolabi

          haha…that’s a long time!

    • kg2105

      Yup they even have Google Maps, Gmail, etc. on Apple products, the company that is directly competing with Android. It’s properly maintained too, What more do regulators want? They should keep any eye on companies that have been known to play dirty (Microsoft, Apple, Nvidia, etc.) because those companies blatantly abuse their power whenever they can.

    • DDT

      They succeed in all they do ? Like seriously ? Android failed to make any significant advertising revenue to google. Only thing they have are Ad’s on the PC and that business is collapsing as people are using tablets and aren’t browsing that much like before they use apps. Now everybody wants to make their own system, either by ripping off “open source” android or making an entirely new one. Samsung is for example also sinking a bit recently, they are searching for a new differentiator a system they could control. They are blaming android for that of course. Google was angry they are using Tizen on their smart watches, they want all of them to run android. Yeah an incredible open source system – you can’t use anything else but us, google Ad services. Entire android is failing to ultra low end territory, while Apple controls an overhelming share of all high-end phones, all android OEM’s aren’t making any or not much at all money, but samsung which profits are also dropping. They will have a lot of people to track and serve them some advertising, but will those poor people buy those things from the ads ? No
      Their entire business model is standing on Ads that everybody is ignoring and people are spending on google ads just because other people are also spending and such business model could crash at any time.

      • blueseeker

        Then we agree that Google’s “monopoly” doesn’t harm the competition because Apple has all the money. Right?

      • derp hurr-durr

        “Android failed to make any significant advertising revenue to google.”

        Source? (FWIW: it is possible that you could be more incorrect, but it’d be really, really hard.)

        What a huge load of crap you just posted. Fell better?

      • Carter Taylor

        I never said “they succeed in all they do”. Android has its flaws. But it is not a monopoly. Manufacturers have the choice to use them or not use them. And can alter it to there liking. Ex: Amazon.

        Barrowed words from: “Timothy Anderson”

  • daysofdre

    its not googles fault apple doesn’t want to sell cheap, affordable hardware to developing countries, samsungs tizen is a bust, and nobody wants to develop for microsofts dying windows platform…

  • seronac

    Not a monpoly, but a success.

    google has done something right, better than what Apple and Microsoft have done, and the users reap the rewards. Or in the case of Apple and Microsoft, the price.

    The EU is just a bunch of anti-capitalist, socialistic protectionists.

    • abazigal

      So as an iPhone user, what price am I reaping again? My phone still works great, I still benefit from the mature Apple ecosystem, the wide array of iOS apps, the huge selection of 3rd party peripherals and accessories available in the market…

      If there is some benefit to the consumer to be had from that 85% Android market share, I am not seeing it. ???

      • seronac

        Oh, I dunno, maybe being under Apple’s thumb, with all apps, peripherals and accessories subject to their approval and whims, a boring OS that always looks the same, with very few options for personalization or customization. If you’re Ok with that, then fine, but that doesn’t appeal to me.

      • michaelmicro

        There isn’t any benefit to the consumer from Android having an 85% share of the market.

  • MeanDroid

    Well… Android is open source.
    The manufacturers can put whatever software in it just like Amazon does.
    Samsung and other manufacturers also manipulates the OS to suit their own agendas.
    If they don’t do more? Is because there is no need to fix what is not broken!

    If the EU wants to investigate Android? They can, but they need to pay more attention to closed source Operating Systems such as rotten Apples and Square Windows first.

    • I love monday

      I didn’t know we have such OS named Rotten Apple and Square Windows :D

  • Alex Zhao

    Is youtube a monopoly?

    • Yes, and also owned by Google.

    • piececake

      Lol, no.


    As many of you have already pointed out, oem’s are free to choose Android or not. They are not forced to use it. Where’s the monopoly? How is Google preventing others from competing? Is it Google’s fault that people are choosing Android over Apple or Microsoft? Absolutely not. They just happen to have one hell of a business model and billions of people prefer it over the competition. Bottom line. All these investigations are complete bullshit.

    • RusticKey

      And one more thing that they forgot,
      Android is free, wait, not the right word, open source.

  • Tyrone_83

    I would rather Google than Apple or a next company since it’s open source which a lot of people like.

  • shantanu

    I am android user and loves the freedom offered by android….but a bit concerned about its market share…since it can create a monopoly….it will kill the healthy competition among different platforms…and finally it will lead to loss of android only….! Because at that time we may not get what do we want..but we will have to accept what is offered by android…..!

    • kg2105

      That’s fine when the competition comes out with mediocre/overpriced crap (Apple and Windows Phones). Android is dominating because of high quality hardware and software. Competitors have to create something better, or they will die out and that’s the way it should be. Ideally Apple and Windows Phones would create good devices, forcing Google to stay ahead of the curve but it’s not happening, and Google shouldn’t have to handicap itself.

    • RusticKey

      Well, Google ain’t forcin’ Android down every smartphone manufacturer’s throats, it’s available as an option, so technically Google’s not at fault here.
      If anything they’re dominatin’ the market in a good play.

      • abazigal

        Well, what choice is there? iOS can’t be licensed, Tizen is vapourware still (on a phone at least), Windows phones suck, so it’s either go with Android or get out of the smartphone business altogether. :/

        Though I agree this isn’t Google’s fault. It’s not their business to help foster a viable 3rd alternative to their Android OS to begin with.

  • A year back, I was hoping the new then-upcoming Tizen, Ubuntu, Jolla and Firefox would innovate the market.

    • RusticKey

      Yeah, I was actually, genuinely, excited for Sailfish OS and Ubuntu Mobile to appear, but they appeared with a bad timing sadly.
      Now they’re left in the dust, which is pretty sad for me.

  • michaelmicro

    I can see there being two issues that Google might run into with the European Commission. Firstly, there’s the issue that Google has given Android away for free, and propped up the development of that OS from an unrelated business (advertising). This can be seen as Google unfairly manipulating and distorting one market using proceeds from another unrelated business.

    The second are the restrictions that Google then place on manufactueres who make Android devices; if you want to make an Android device that features the Google Play Store, you cannot then make any other devices with your own forked version of AOSP. This means Google’s policies are artifically restricting the competitiveness and diversity of the market.

    Once Android ticks over whatever magic number is required to deam something a monopoly, I can see the regulators rushing in to abolish these practices. And that can only be good for us consumers; we don’t want a market controlled by any player, they should all be kept on their toes at all times.

    • blueseeker

      Wrong, we don’t want incompatible Android forks running in the wild. Hardware fragmentation is enough.

      • michaelmicro

        Well if you want healthy competition, you’ll have to.

      • michaelmicro

        You’ll have to if you want to foster a healthy, competitive environment.

  • wat

    It is tough but really Google can just get around this by letting CM etc release roms and enable people to install Google apps and the Play Store because everyone will anyway. This way they’ll still get all the store revenue and user data from their apps but lose access to some other data.

  • pizzamannetje

    Requiring the play store is a good thing imho. Google wants to put a big part of android in play store apps, so consumers aren’t dependent on manufacturers and providers for updates. Including security updates.

  • Will S.

    “Android” is simply a generic term. A huge part of that 85% is made up of AOSP & Amazon devices, that are simply out of Googles control. Also, despite Androids huge marketshare, it still hasn’t conquered key areas like enterprise and wealthier brackets.

    Android is not a monopoly.

  • MavDKM

    Somehow all Android new websites just fail to understand that market share is not benefiting anybody. Google is not generating revenue with just market share. They are facing serious threat from Facebook when it comes to making revenue from mobile ads. Desktop ads are losing its sheen. OEMs are losing money every quarter. Developers are still treating Android as a poor cousin. Android L is here and yet Kitkat share is not even 20%. SO MANY ISSUES BUT ANDROID WEBSITES JUST BRAG ABOUT MARKET SHARE.

    • Mike Bastable

      Market share distracts from the core problems for companies using Android, some of which you address. The lack of profitability will be Androids Achilles heel, Samsung became huge by spending huge in marketing… Good in a booming market, less so as the market develops.
      The play store still actually sells little, most are free downloads, developers see more profit in iOS. Dominance can make your product a commodity…it is sometimes better to have less market share but more profits.
      Most Android sites know this, AA certainly does, it is the readers who start these flame wars and boast about market share etc.

  • John-Phillip Saayman

    Monopoly inside android might be more of a problem.

  • Mike Bastable

    Market dominance is different to being, and behaving, as a monopoly. Android is very good and has grown to dominate the handset market, where Google has control and insists on certain terms if you want Google services. This is an area for concern since it does echo Microsoft’s behaviour in the browser wars…
    Google has been very successful in making android the Nr.1 in handsets, mainly because (initially) it was free.. It has developed into an excellent product… However it is not a very profitable product for most OEMs.
    There lies the problem, others will try to develop new systems, like Tizen, and it will be interesting to see if Google can avoid using android access to block these moves (abuse their monopoly position)
    Interestingly Android, despite huge investment, has yet to be a success on another platform..Android TV etc, it seems consumers only want it on their phones.
    If android does start to move onto new product segments with success, then the monopoly issue will grow and need to be addressed. Until then, as long as Apple continues to print money with its core of loyal customers, then monopoly does not exist only dominance.

  • rebirthofcool

    in a free market economy monopoly can only lasts unchecked if the competition don’t offer competitive products with compelling feature that offer differentiation from a leading product/service provider, and in mobile device space, a healthy competition can exist between the 3 OS platform iOS, Android (along with its forked versions), and Windows

  • Boonlumsion Piyapon

    there is amazon kindle as well as nokia x in the market.

  • ash

    I would love an android with only basic apps (like phone, messaging etc) plus play store. All the other apps must be removable, and un installable.

  • Roberto Tomás

    well those numbers include operating systems like miui, amazon’s aosp, and cyanogen. I don’t really think it is such a problem because google only actually controls a fraction of that 85%.

  • Fabian Taveras

    So Google is being flagged for pwning the market? Seems like apple and Microsoft are behind this.

  • Michael Russo

    Accept, Android kernel is under the GNU License and is freely
    download-able. The drivers are proprietary to the device it is on by
    the device manufactures. I am sure Google has some proprietary stuff
    like the GUI but the basic guts is a GNU/Linux kernel
    Here is the download page.

    Also Linux offers open source projects dedicated to small devices. So far, it is a win win.

  • Numan

    The thing is that Google is not forcing manufacturers to install Android in all theis devices, it is manufacturers’ choice whether they choose to pick up Android or not.

    Google offers Android at no monetary cost, but there’s a “cost” when it comes to the experience, which is the requirement to pre-install some Google apps.

  • Kyle Kennedy

    Not a Monopoly.
    There are other choices in mobile operating systems that are just as prevalent.
    Apps are usually cross platform, or have a good substitute, so you don’t NEED a particular OS to run a particular app.
    Services like web pages aren’t coded specifically for Android (like used to be the case with IE on Windows).
    Google services have plenty of alternatives, ie, other webmail, mapping, video, and other services. PLUS, you can still access the Google versions of these via the mobile web versions, regardless of having the app store or not.
    You can go without Google services just like Amazon, or nearly all the Chinese phones that use Android.
    Sideloading of apps from any store or simple download is allowed.
    The list goes on and on, but the simple fact is, Google is dominant because people like it, not because they are using monopolistic or predatory business practices.

  • Adon

    Will,Android biggest strengths is that its OS (and ALL google products and most services) are freely open. Blackberry,Apple,Windows,have higher quality OS’s or better designed but they aren’t open/free and the products/services are not as diverse as Android.

    But you know,there comes a time when commonality become cheap,which drives people to want different. Thats one area where Apple excels like a 3 head beast lol. And people are willing to pay two or three time for a product even if it not better. Now BB if gets there right, the game can change,they can do it,but they have to step up. Windows is fair game,almost every bloody has windows lol.

    Yes Android is become a monopoly. Out to exceed Windows.

  • Neo Morpheus

    Cmon apple fanbois, stop jumping ship, is crowded in here already.


  • abazigal

    The only reason I can think of that might be of concern would be Google hoarding a significant amount of the personal data of its users around the world. Who knows what they might do with that data, especially since they are an ad-driven company. I think there is something to be said about the consumer being the product, not the customer.

    At least with a company like Apple, there is no conflict of interests. Apple sells hardware, and since I am the paying customer, Apple has every incentive to make great products that appeal to me.

  • Jordan

    Yes, Android is monopoly of Market and so is the problem..I agree


  • google is evil ! must be destroyed