3 ms·
It only used the word "free" for Amazon's use of Android, which is factually accurate. It said that Apple gives iOS away, which again is an accurate statement.
by electrograv 14y ago
It only used the word "free" for Amazon's use of Android, which is factually accurate. It said that Apple gives iOS away, which again is an accurate statement. It doesn't seem disingenuous to me; in fact the wording implies that Apple is indeed "giving away" real value.
- mikeash 14y agoThe cost of iOS is accounted for in the cost of an iPad. Apple no more gives iOS away than they give the iPad's camera or flash storage away.
- Duff 14y agoNot really. Microsoft wants to make significant money on it's investment in developing operating system software. Samsung wants to make money on it's manufacturing operations. You have an extra layer of overhead with a Microsoft device vs. an iPad. Plus, because Samsung, HTC, etc are all making the devices, they cannot come close to the economies of scale that Apple does. Apple's model is very clever. As a niche player until recently, they had to be more clever to survive. Look at their product lines -- they all share lots of components.
- pdubs 14y agoThe article cites the Windows licensing price (~$90), then goes on to say how it would be "hard pushed to compete" at $10, then states Apple giving iOS for free and Amazon getting Android for free. The contextual implication is that Apple and Amazon pay ~$0 (certainly <$10) for their OSs.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]