Google CEO Eric Schmidt has said today that about 200,000 new Android devices are now being sold daily, leading to huge growth in revenue for the search giant thanks to mobile search traffic.

When asked about the recent studies showing Android outpacing the iPhone handily, Schmidt added: "People are finally beginning to figure out how successful Android is. The number was about 100,000 (a day) about two months ago. It looks like Android is not just phenomenal but incredibly phenomenal in its growth rate. God knows how long that will continue."

While Google does not directly gain revenue from Android (which is free and open source), the more successful the operating system is, the more people are connected to the Web from their mobile phones, leading to an increase in search.

"Trust me that revenue is large enough to pay for all of Android's activities and a whole bunch more," Schmidt added, via Cnet. "I should also say that we love the success of the iPhone because the iPhone also uses Google's search and we get a chunk of that revenue when people search on the iPhone."

you flatly stated that Andriod is not a product.

Last time: I flatly stated Android is not

a

product.

Notice the asterisks around the *a*? That is in my ORIGINAL post. That was to show readers that *a* is the operative word in the sentence, not "product." It is there to differentiate *a* DENOTING SINGULAR product with my true claim that MULTIPLE products comprise the 200,000 manufacture number.

You went on a distraction with this "sell" thing. There is not any one "Android" that people buy. People buy Android phones made by many diferent manufacturers. Again, the CONTEXT goes to MANUFACTURING products that people buy, not the software that is loaded on to those products. It is not a comment on the larger philosophical issue of what a "product" is.

You must think you have succeeded with this little distraction away from all of the FLAT OUT FALSEHOODS you have made here. You know, like Google not making their own servers (proven false), the Newton being over 20 years old (came out in 1993), and that Google never made a consumer product before Android.

Same way an IBM mainframe is a product but then the same IBM mainframe is NOT a consumer electronics product. Most products are not consumer products. Get it?

IBM mainframe not consumer product. Got it. Agree.

Is all of Google search in that same classification? Is it only provided for businesses, governments and other such organizations? Or is it provided to consumers? Was it provided prior to the release of Android? If so, then by your own definition you were wrong about Google never having released a consumer product before Android.

Or you could just admit that you misspoke and meant "consumer electronics product." Of course Google's idea about consumer electronics has changed, or rather Google just lied. I remember back in late 2009 when they said they would not compete with their customers and release a Google phone. They must have been working on the Nexus One at the time, since it came out a few months later. They could take an idea from you and weasel, because they didn't actually make that phone -- it was a slightly customized HTC model.

You went on a distraction with this “sell” thing

Umm..no “distraction”. I already re-posted in chronological order, the entire relevant parts in this thread. You are the one that came up with the “but, but I can't go into the shop of a carier and buy Android, so therefore it's not a product” nonsense. I then pointed out to you that you can't go into a shop and buy Internet Explorer or Microsoft Security Essentials either, and they are both very solid products from Microsoft.
You have worked yourself into a corner, and are now reduced to on the one hand trying to deny your own words, and on the other hand calling any reference tpo your uettrely nonsensica statements a “distraction”. Its like 0bma calling any attacks on his very close assoicuaruons with arch Nazi racist Jeremiah Wright and terrorist Bill Ayers are “distractions”.
Same modus operandi, same aim.

For the umpteenth time, Android IS a product.

You are being dishonest. That is not the word I emphasized in my post. That word emphasized creates a comment on state of being. YOU emphasized that word, YOU are concentrating on the issue of whether Android has the state of being a product. I emphasized the word "A" in the original post. Look back, there it is "*a* product."

It would be good if you could even understand the context within a few words, and maybe basic English grammar. The sentence structure "Not X, but Y" is quite standard. I am contrasting Y and X. Emphasizing "a" ensures that my intent to contrast "a" is clear, and that I do not intend to contrast "product."

"I don't have *a* car, but two cars." Obviously it means I have two (plural) cars instead of one (singular) car.

"I don't *have* a car, but two cars." Using your meaning the sentence doesn't even make any sense.

It's really sad. The only way you can win is to dishonestly re-write and change the meaning of what I wrote. Either that or your reading comprehension is below a first-grade level.

You are being dishonest

Naaah.
YOU are.
You first of all claimed Android is not a product, then when challenged, you proceeded to dig yourself further into the hole by claiming that since you can't walk into the shop of a cell phone carrier and buy Android, so therefore Android is not a product.
I destroyed your puerile arguments by pointing out that you can't walk into a shop and buy Internet Explorer and Microsoft Security Essentials either, but then both are very solid products, that Microsoft spends millions of dollars on every year to develop, and which are used by more humans than most products that you have to pay for.
So now you are busy wiggling and trying to worm your way out of your own hole that you dug yourself into, reduced to accusing anyone who points out what you yourself said, of using a “distraction”.
Hmmmmmmmm now who does that remind us of?
0bama and his attempts to downplay any and all attacks on him over his racist Jeremiah Wright and terrorist Bill Ayers associations as “distractions”. You have taken a book right out of the 0bama/Alisnki playbook. You'd better apply for a job in the 0bama administration quick!

YOU are.

Show me where I have purposely misquoted you, changed the emphasis of a sentence to mean something else. Come on. I'm waiting. I'm going from my original post exactly as written in response to a post about the manufacture of Android devices. What are you going from? My post, altered to fit your needs.

I destroyed your puerile arguments by pointing out that you can't walk into a shop and buy Internet Explorer and Microsoft Security Essentials either, but then both are very solid products

You destroyed your own strawman. It's easy to destroy what you yourself built.

So, speaking of distrations, what's this about Google search not being a consumer product? What's this about Google not designing and making its own servers, instead buying from HP and Dell? If you aren't distracting from those then simply respond to them.

Show me where I have purposely misquoted you, changed the emphasis of a sentence to mean something else.

That is just the point isn't it?
You have NOT been misquoted. I chronologically listed all your pertaining previous posts in this thread.
You DID claim Android is not a product.
And when challenged, you DID declare that since you can't walk into a carrier's shop and buy Android, so therefore its not a product.
And..I did destroy your nonsensical arguments by using IE8 and Microsoft Security Essentials plus as examples of products you can't buy in a shop, plus direct definitions of what a product is from two dictionaries.
By claiming that you have been “misquoted”, while trying to dismiss your own previous quotres as “distractions”, your are pusposfully peddling falsehoods

“You destroyed your own strawman. It's easy to destroy what you yourself built. “

Naaah..I destroyed your “Android is not a product” mantra, and your “since you can't walk into a shop and buy Android” so therefore Android is not a product” nonsense.
In fact, I so effectively took you apart, that as at now, you are busy backpedaling as quickly as your legs can carry you, reduced to acting like a Democratic Party congressman who has been caught lying, with screams of “You are misquoting me”, and “this is a mere distractions”.
Like I said before, you'd better apply for a job in the 0bozo regime. you'd fit in like a glove.
Chortle!

That is just the point isn't it? You have NOT been misquoted.

"For the umpteenth time, Android IS a product." This shows you are not arguing against what I wrote. You are arguing against a bastardized version of what I wrote that puts the emphasis on "IS" instead of "A." Remember, WORDS MEAN THINGS. You changed the entire meaning of the sentence from a comment on device manufacture to something that doesn't make any sense.

I chronologically listed all your pertaining previous posts in this thread.

Conveniently leaving out the post I responded to in an effort to remove the context. Answer me this simple question: That post I responded to. Was it referring to making 200,000 copies of the Android OS per day, or was it referring to making 200,000 smartphones per day? There's your context.

And when challenged, you DID declare that since you can't walk into a carrier's shop and buy Android, so therefore its not a product.

You quote me in relation to buying (and selling) Android:

"You (Post # 50): Nobody sells Android. The dozens of phones loaded with Android are products, and they are sold.
You (Post # 62) : “If you walk up to your carrier and say “I want to buy Android,” the salesman will help you choose a phone that runs Android. He will not hand over a product called “Android.”

Nowhere in there do I say the Android OS itself is not a product. I correctly say Android is not a product that you can buy at a store. Basic logic. If I say "A penguin is not a bird that can fly," I'm not saying it's not a bird, I'm saying it's a bird that can't fly. Duh. Only a hostile, dishonest reading can produce any other result.

I destroyed your “Android is not a product” mantra

That's your mantra. Keep fighting against yourself. I only said that what is manufactured at 200,000 per day is not *a* (notice the emphasis on *a* as in one single) product called Android, but several different devices (still products, but PLURAL) by several different manufacturers.

Do you dare to challenge that assertion? Do you dare to drop your strawman and argue against the point I actually made? Nah, you're too chicken to fight me. You have neither the brains nor balls to take me on straight. You can only put a picture of my face on your own and punch yourself repeatedly, bragging "Nya, nya I hit you" as you bleed more and more.

You literally have not addressed one point I ACTUALLY MADE. I am through with you on this subject until you gain that ability, and hopefully some semblance of honesty. Until then, keep arguing against yourself, preferably in private.

“For the umpteenth time, Android IS a product.” This shows you are not arguing against what I wrote.

Naaah.
It proves I am arguing against what you wrote.
You DID claim that Android is NOT a product. After that, you dug yourself further into the hole by claiming that since you can't walk into hop and buy Android, so therefore, android is not a product.
It was only after I'd laughed at you out of court, and ridiculed your nonsense that you started backpedaling, and calming you had been “misquoted”.
I then suggested you become Democratic Party politician and join the 0bozo White House. You have the same ability to double talk and lie like the 0bozo White House do.

Conveniently leaving out the post I responded to in an effort to remove the context

Context?
You mean like how you defended your “Android is not a product” post, by claiming in your next posts that since you can't walk into a shop and buy Android, so therefore Android is not a product? That context? Your meaning couldn't be clearer. You are acting like the usual Democratic Party politician who has been caught with his pants down. Of course he “was misquoted”. *wink*

“Nowhere in there do I say the Android OS itself is not a product. “

Chortle!
You said that in your post before that.
The post # 50 and post # 62, were to buttress and support your “Android is not a product” post from earlier. You only started retreating when I kept hammering you on that point. At least be man enough to admit what your own words say, instead of trying to weasel out with the old politicians trick of “but, but I was misquoted”. You were not.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.