Posted on 09/01/2010 10:13:18 AM PDT by SmokingJoe
It was all touched off by a classic bit of know-nothing blogosphere silliness: A prominent Silicon Valley blogger claimed that Microsoft's mobile business was "fatally flawed" because—get this—the software giant actually charges handset makers a small per-unit fee for its Windows Phone software. "That game is over for good," he-who-shall-remain-nameless claimed.
As proof, he cited Google giving away its Android software—one reason why Android is "rapidly taking over the smartphone world." Meanwhile, Microsoft is charging about $15 per unit. How in the world will Redmond ever compete?
How, indeed. As is typical of such insular, one-sided arguments, it conveniently leaves out the more important part of the discussion—that is, the other costs involved.
-snip-
In response to this bizarre blog post, Microsoft has apparently issued an anonymous retort to the blogger, which—you guessed it—was published by the same blogger. That's an interesting combination of "the tail wagging the dog" and "milking the same cow twice," if you'll excuse the animal idioms. But then, blogging is inherently lazy.
Anyway, here is Microsoft's alleged explanation of why Android is actually more expensive than Windows Phone.
1. No handset makers use the free, stock version of Android on their devices. Instead, they must independently improve the software and add their own applications, incurring the cost of doing so.
2. Based on Linux, Android is subject to the same (Microsoft-based, it should be noted) intellectual property infringement lawsuits as any other Linux version. And these lawsuits are so expensive to infringers, Microsoft notes, that most simply license the technology separately from Microsoft. Meanwhile, Microsoft indemnifies all Windows Phone partners against IP suits. Google doesn't offer any legal protection for Android customers.
(Excerpt) Read more at windowsitpro.com ...
Microsoft reminds me of obama. Cannot believe anything they say when it comes to things like price or resources of their systems.
So, their argument boils down to being a (patent) troll?
Notice MS doesn’t try to say why their stuff is better for the user, or provides a better customer experience, only that the risk of lawsuit and IP costs are lower.
Gee. Makes ME want a MS phone ....
Dunno about the rest, but arguing based on incompatibility with the Zune is like arguing based on incompatibility with an 8-track tape deck.
Couldn’t help but notice they didn’t visibly promote interoperability with Ford’s SYNC ( a MS software-based service ) which I have come to love ... which interfaces expertly with my DROID ;-)
Yep. I may or may not get a Windows smartphone next time I upgrade, but none of these arguments is even slightly relevant (and the fact that Microsoft offers this sort of smoke and mirrors instead of relevant arguments is offputting).
LMAO. Great catch !!
The Zune service is better than people think. It got a bad rap with the ugly, mediocre players they initially released.
The Zune pass is $15/month. For that, you get 10 MP3 downloads of your choice, plus subscription downloads of anything in the catalogue for use on a Zune compatible player, which includes almost any music you want. On top of that, there is a web streaming interface for all the music in their library and you can stream purchased or subscription content from one computer to any other computer or Xbox on your network.
The Windows Phone will have the ability to stream almost any song you ever want if you have the Zune Pass. It’s not for everyone, but it is a way to keep your kids music budget in line and prevent them from using pirate sites.
Unfortunately, MS reflects the state of our economy and society and why we are going downhill.
Businesses base their decisions on how it will play in the beltway with the politicians and bureaucrats.
Forgotten is how business decisions will play with the customers ... or employees and stockholders.
It’s all about gaming the system on taxes and regulations.
IOW, it’s more expensive because we make it more expensive. Microsoft already gets a chunk of HTC phone sales.
If you buy a Windows server you can hire a $45k kid out of school to administer it instead of a $80k+ UNIX admin with some experience.
However that one UNIX admin can handle hundreds of boxes while you need one Windows guy to point ‘n’ click on every ten boxes.
From the article's lead paragraph:
A prominent Silicon Valley blogger claimed that Microsoft's mobile business was "fatally flawed" because—get this—the software giant actually charges handset makers a small per-unit fee for its Windows Phone software.
The issue under discussion is cost to the OS licensees, not OS features.
Nope.
I suggest you read the article. I quote:
“3. The Android market is already hugely fragmented, with multiple OS versions and multiple, unique devices with unique hardware and device driver issues. “Mobile devices need drivers for their various components—screen, GPS, WiFi, Bluetooth, 3G radio, accelerometer”—device drivers that Android partners need to author for themselves, incurring additional upfront and support costs. Microsoft authors and supplies device drivers for Windows Phone.
4. Unlike Windows Phone, Android doesn't have a plug-in architecture for those partners that wish (or need) to add code to the system. So, when it comes time to deliver Android OS updates or other updates, every single Android device requires unique development, and many partners are simply skipping adding updates because of the costs. Windows Phone partners don't have to roll their own updates.
5. Although the core Android OS is “free,” many of the features that Microsoft includes in Windows Phone aren't available for free on Android, so Google partners would need to find and integrate, license and pay for, or even independently develop alternatives. Examples include office productivity software for viewing and editing, audio and video codecs, and high-level location services.”
If I do it's because of the apps I've bought.
I travel a bit (too much) and the WinMob6 boot time really annoys me. Last two landings I turned on the phone when we were down on the runway, and when we got to the gate (seatbelt light off, etc.) it STILL hadn't fully booted.
But I am also unwilling to be assimilated into and ruled by the Apple Collective.
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.