Am 13.03.2013 13:53, schrieb Louigi Verona:
Android is Googles OS with a Linux-Kernel, so is ChromeOS. And it has no
real impact regarding issues like hardware-support because Android does
not need to run on PC-Hardware, it does not even have a real USB-port.
So some may ask: But it is still some sort of Linux no? Does that not
mean, that Linux in general has arrived on the markets to get its share?
It has not, nobody who speaks about Android to sell it, mentions Linux.
Because Android is a product and more than 90% of the money, that Google
spends to develop Android as a product is for marketing. Names matter in
marketing, more than much else. Android is the brand to be pushed on the
market, nothing else.
Last time I checked, Canonical did the same about Ubuntu. End-user
oriented media adapts that gratefully, they speak about Ubuntu and many
do not even mention Linux in articles about Canonicals Distro. The money
to promote Ubuntu is spent to promote Ubuntu, nothing else. This is, how
marketing for end-users/consumers works.
Quality does not sell, stability does not sell, freedom does not sell at
all -- marketing does.
Real bad quality and stability and maybe even severe lack of respect for
the user can, in some cases, contradict marketing to some extent. But
only, if there is an alternative, that is pushed to the market real hard
with billions of Dollars behind it.
MacOSX is such a competitor and it comes with better quality so nobody
is bothered too much by the fact, that it slaps the face of the user
even harder than Microsoft. Android is another and Ubuntu is a dwarf- if
not microscopic player in that ring.
Imagine, all the devs, that write free software *would* be payed
decently for their good work. Sum up all the salaries and apply a
multiplicator such as 100 and you got the figure needed to really push
GNU/Linux on the market.
Linux-audio-user mailing list