Hi Stu, Sometimes this may be true but some issues which are not apparent, when reviewed - this model may not favour us at all. We wont get across all carriers (within a country) distribution of our apps. For example, Apple has engaged in an agreement with 1 carrier for country X that has 4 carriers. Apple pays out 70/30 in favour of developer. But as a developer we're missing out on getting our apps on the other 3 carriers, so in essence 1/4 of the 70 is what we're getting. If they worked with carriers & mostly its close regional allies (aggregators) we will get complete coverage of our worthy apps. I would hope this is part of what the 'OPEN' means in the OHA term ;)
There is a value chain, and this is much harder to change. So to adapt with a new open model is key. For sure we don't want any of them to think we're stepping on their toes ;) We don't want limiting the distribution scope of our apps in a closed system, and this is not what 'Android Open' should be about either. George On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:10 PM, stu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Android is a clever operating system with great potential. This system > will make the mobile phone companies wealthy with the added cost to > use Android over their wireless systems. Maybe Google can convince the > mobile companies to set a flat rate for Android services and > applications so that all can enjoy Android benefits at a reasonable > cost. > Stu > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
