5 ms·

The manufactures that put Android on their devices are not mom and pop electronics firms. So the implication that this is somehow shifting money to poorer peopl

The manufactures that put Android on their devices are not mom and pop electronics firms. So the implication that this is somehow shifting money to poorer people is kind of ridiculous. Unless you mean the top 1% richest people in those countries. Because I don't think the manufacturers will go to their labourers and pay them any more money just because some hardware was designed in house (hardware design doesn't employ many people either). It's not Tom's shoes. In fact I find it hard to believe that even Tom's shoes are Tom's shoes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

rbanffy 15y ago
> The manufactures that put Android on their devices are not mom and pop electronics firms And this has no effect on treeface's reasoning > the implication that this is somehow shifting money to poorer people is kind of ridiculous. Again, there is no implication money is shifting hands. What treeface said is that a massive amount of value is being generated by lowering the cost of building smartphones, thus reducing prices and allowing more people to use them and (he/she didn't say that) by offering a convenient standard software writers can write against, creating a market larger and less fragmented than any other player had managed to create.
- napierzaza 15y ago
  Are consumers in third world countries really saving tons of money on android? Anyone with subsistence living won't buy a smart phone. You're inevitably implying that you're saving the money of someone middle class somewhere. Hardly as noble as you might have thought originally. These companies are much more ethically inert than you think. It's just a new sort of marketing that uses the lifestyles of the CEO's or the employees as a selling point. The change in economics, or straight out charitable donations as a selling point. Android is shifting things for certain, but it's not one laptop per child.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    There is a lot of middle-class people in the third world. Also, don't forget every market benefits from cheaper smarter phones and a software stack everyone can contribute to and benefit from is a huge gain in efficiency.
  - gautamc 15y ago
    Here in India, I was able to get an Android smart phone for half the price of an iPhone. I can also build Android apps on my Debian Linux machine without incurring any additional costs. The fact that the devices cost lesser(even before the phone company subsidizes it) and yet have GPS and an accelerometer enables me to at least attempt certain kinds of applications that target the mass market here in India. Also, the ability to read the source code allows me to learn about a smartphone operating system in the same way I got know about a PC operating system by reading Linux's source code. I would never want Android to be like OLPC. Android is more like a free market. OLPC was charity. Apple has every right to protect its intellectual property. I think it is equally important for Americans to debate about, and review, the American patent system (where required). Overall, if HTC can pay royalties to MS, then I guess they can do the same with Apple.
    - fpgeek 15y ago
      If it gets that far, the question is whether Apple will let HTC pay royalties or will they refuse to sell a license at any price?
  - cageface 15y ago
    Here in Vietnam I see tons of people with smartphones, and more Android than iPhone. Most of these people are living on well under $1000 USD a month.
- GHFigs 15y ago
  Again, there is no implication money is shifting hands. "It's actually a transfer of wealth from the coffers of Apple, RIM and MS to mostly developing-nation consumers..." --http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2777354 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2777354
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    That's not the comment you replied to.
  - chc 15y ago
    Wealth is not money. Money is just a store of wealth. http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html
    - chopsueyar 15y ago
      Money is a store of value, a medium of exchange, and a unit of account. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money#Functions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money#Functions

rbanffy 15y ago

> The manufactures that put Android on their devices are not mom and pop electronics firms And this has no effect on treeface's reasoning > the implication that this is somehow shifting money to poorer people is kind of ridiculous. Again, there is no implication money is shifting hands. What treeface said is that a massive amount of value is being generated by lowering the cost of building smartphones, thus reducing prices and allowing more people to use them and (he/she didn't say that) by offering a convenient standard software writers can write against, creating a market larger and less fragmented than any other player had managed to create.

napierzaza 15y ago
Are consumers in third world countries really saving tons of money on android? Anyone with subsistence living won't buy a smart phone. You're inevitably implying that you're saving the money of someone middle class somewhere. Hardly as noble as you might have thought originally. These companies are much more ethically inert than you think. It's just a new sort of marketing that uses the lifestyles of the CEO's or the employees as a selling point. The change in economics, or straight out charitable donations as a selling point. Android is shifting things for certain, but it's not one laptop per child.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  There is a lot of middle-class people in the third world. Also, don't forget every market benefits from cheaper smarter phones and a software stack everyone can contribute to and benefit from is a huge gain in efficiency.
- gautamc 15y ago
  Here in India, I was able to get an Android smart phone for half the price of an iPhone. I can also build Android apps on my Debian Linux machine without incurring any additional costs. The fact that the devices cost lesser(even before the phone company subsidizes it) and yet have GPS and an accelerometer enables me to at least attempt certain kinds of applications that target the mass market here in India. Also, the ability to read the source code allows me to learn about a smartphone operating system in the same way I got know about a PC operating system by reading Linux's source code. I would never want Android to be like OLPC. Android is more like a free market. OLPC was charity. Apple has every right to protect its intellectual property. I think it is equally important for Americans to debate about, and review, the American patent system (where required). Overall, if HTC can pay royalties to MS, then I guess they can do the same with Apple.
  - fpgeek 15y ago
    If it gets that far, the question is whether Apple will let HTC pay royalties or will they refuse to sell a license at any price?
- cageface 15y ago
  Here in Vietnam I see tons of people with smartphones, and more Android than iPhone. Most of these people are living on well under $1000 USD a month.
GHFigs 15y ago
Again, there is no implication money is shifting hands. "It's actually a transfer of wealth from the coffers of Apple, RIM and MS to mostly developing-nation consumers..." --http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2777354 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2777354
- rbanffy 15y ago
  That's not the comment you replied to.
- chc 15y ago
  Wealth is not money. Money is just a store of wealth. http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html
  - chopsueyar 15y ago
    Money is a store of value, a medium of exchange, and a unit of account. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money#Functions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money#Functions