Hacker News Reader

Comment by guelo | Hacker News Reader

What I wonder is if Verizon will continue with their massive Android advertising, without it Android's U.S. numbers might slow down. It is very interesting that Motorola's best new Android phone, the Atrix, is an ATT exclusive.

Fun times!

View on HN

They probably will. AT&T seemed to spend a lot of time and effort promoting other non-iPhones. The people who want iPhones are probably already sold on them. Apple is also advertising it, too. The networks likely still feel a need to reach out to the people who don't care about the hardware itself and just want the services they offer, so they can use the other phones for that purpose.

I care very much about the hardware I use, I just don't care very much for the iPhone hardware. Your phrasing makes it seem like all those ruffians that don't care about hardware are relegated to the Android bin. In practice, I would say those that care about their hardware are more likely to choose an Android phone as they actually have a choice over their phone and its hardware, not to mention the better customization of their phone if they're into that sort of thing.

From an article I read a few weeks ago, the Atrix is just the name of the version they're selling AT&T, while the Bionic is the name of the version they're selling Verizon. One has more RAM, the other has more ROM, and the Verizon version supports LTE, but otherwise the same phone...

The media, desktop and laptop docks (and accompanying settop & webtop software) appear to be exclusive to the Atrix version.

Verizon advertises the Droid, not Android. And the Droid brand belongs to Verizon.

The fact that "Android" and "Droid" are becoming synonymous for many people is very, very good for Verizon.

The fact that "Android" and "Droid" are becoming synonymous for many people is very, very good for Verizon.

Is it? It seems to me that people (correctly) see them as equivalent so what's the value in owning the "Droid" trademark?

"I want a Droid."

"Come to T-Mobile, we have Androids!"

"OK!"

Interestingly enough, I think Verizon is paying Lucasfilm trademark rights for Droid; they don't actually own it. Not being pedantic, I just think it's interesting.

Consumer confusion between "Droid" and "Android" goes deep. I developed an Android app version of an existing iOS app, and the client wanted the splash screen & all marketing materials to refer to it as the "Droid" version. I explained to them that Droid is a trademark of Lucasfilm licensed to only Verizon, and both Lucasfilm and Verizon would probably not like to see it appearing on any old Android handset running the app. The designer said I was being needlessly pedantic and refused -- "Droid" was aesthetically more pleasing -- and the marketing people thought "Droid" was more commonly used.

I had to escalate it to the top to get them to drop it. And they still think I was wrong.

I'd love to see whether the average person realizes that Droid and Android aren't the same thing. It always seemed like a huge concession for Google to let Verizon essentially own the public face of Android, but I guess they were feeling the pressure when they made that call...

Can Verizon label a non-Android phone as a Droid?

Droid is a trademark, owned my Lucasfilm, for which verizon pays licensing rights.

It would be up to the terms of the licensing agreement, but it is possible.

Probably not. While the Droid mark is a distinct trade mark, it seems to me that Google would have a compelling argument that calling a non-Android Droid would lead to confusion amongst consumers.

Additionally, although unlikely, it may be the case that the licence Verizon has been granted by Lucasfilm relates only to Android phones. As the licence agreement is not public, it's difficult to know whether this is the case or not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com