[holymadness]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Can't they have their cake and eat it too? They're picking and choosing what elements to play, and here they have undercut the competition by a large margin but they still take a page from that same competitor's playbook to gain profit. Outside of the hardcore, they seem to have few complaints. Apple already conditioned people, and Google now can go "but the even the market leading iPad doesn't offer that!"

It seems like that's what they're trying to do, though I think the ultimate strategy is to get as many people as possible using Google services to generate mobile advertising revenue.

Have you heard of a browser extension called Privacyfix? It analyses your web activity on various online services and estimates your value to them in terms of ad revenue (and lets you turn off tracking, if you so desire). Apparently, I am worth $900 a year to Google. For that kind of contribution, Google ought to give me a tablet for free.

Originally Posted by pl001

This is mostly true. Google is ultimately responsible for their pricing. They aren't some white knight of goodness by any means. The point I was making is that if Apple had not made that memory pricing strategy acceptable to the masses, Google would probably not be doing it.

The correction I would make is that the Nexus devices are not targeting the population that rejected Apple's strategy. Samsung's Galaxy and HTCs EVOs do that. The Nexus models have always been positioned as Google's most direct competitors to Apple, which is probably a main reason why they are not the best selling Android devices. Or at least, the phones have not been in the past.

I don't think so. The Samsung Galaxy S3 is the clearest competitor to the iPhone.

Google's strategy with Nexus devices has been inconsistent, though, and therefore hard to follow. They began by trying to undermine the current cell phone business model by selling contract-free phones through their website. That failed for a variety of reasons and it seems that Google's more ambitious goals were supplanted by a desire to create a benchmark device that would pressure OEMs to move towards stock Android and upgrade their hardware. Now they are making a serious push for hardware market dominance by offering high-end products at rock-bottom prices, and yet they still charge premiums for things like memory, so they're not exactly selling at cost. And behind all this, remember that Google is not a hardware company, it is an advertising company. So is the play to make profits on device sales or on ad revenue from Google services? You can say "both" but in some respects they're mutually exclusive.

Then again, none of us has access to Google's balance sheets, so this is all speculation.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Or not. They freely chose to go high-margin and pocket the difference.
They made that intention clear when they let the word out that they were doing a "premium" 10incher.

Similarly, consumers freely choose to submit to that kind of strategy. Or not.
It's *their* money and neither Apple nor Google has kneecappers running around to enforce their pricing schemes. (Unlike certain BPHs who shall remain nameless until found guilty in federal court for exactly that, among other things.)

It's all about appealing to different customers.
The problems only appear when people delude themselves into thinking everybody is like them.
(Recent DNA studies indicate we're pretty much *all* of us mutants. Nobody is really like anybody else.)
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...arities_abound


Kinda explains the monkey, doesn't it?

What is a BPH?

Which I'm glad of, since I have no way of defending from all the personnel you can command.

"No authopsy, no foul."
I wouldn't have put the smiley in the reply if I'd taken it as a personal attack. In fact, I wouldn't have even replied directly. So we're cool there.

For the record (and newcomers), I was merely answering the question of why Google would choose to do limited-storage devices. The answer is to me clear that they do it because there is more money to be made that way. (And that *is* the name of the game. Android is no corporate hobby.) With Apple setting the example, as long as they find enough people willing to go along, they'll be golden.

The rest of us will have to "make do" with NookHD, Surface, the Win8Tabs and the assorted expandable android devices.

"It's not personal; it's just business."

Actually, that was in response to darksaber (read the quoted passage for the full effect of my reply). But I'm glad we're cool.