Microsoft Dumping License Fees For Windows Phone? 125
Nerval's Lobster writes "For years, Microsoft remained adamant about its licensing fees for Windows Phone: if a smartphone manufacturer wanted to include the software on its devices, it would need to pay Microsoft a certain amount per unit. That was a logical strategy for Microsoft, which became a very big company thanks to licensing fees for Windows and other platforms. Unlike some of those other products, however, Windows Phone has struggled for adoption in its marketplace, which is dominated by Apple and Google. In response, suggests the Times of India, Microsoft may have dumped licensing fees for two Indian smartphone makers, Karbonn and Lava (Xolo). Microsoft's biggest rival, Google, gives its Android mobile operating system away for free, a maneuver that helped it gain spectacular market-share in a relatively short amount of time. If Microsoft pursues a similar strategy in different markets, it could encourage more smartphone manufacturers to produce Windows Phone devices, which could increase the platform's market-share—but there are no guarantees that scenario will actually play out. The smartphone market is increasingly saturated, and Microsoft's opponents have no intention of allowing Windows Phone to gain any ground."
I like the Win8 Phone UI... but too few apps (Score:5, Informative)
I have to admit, I like the UI on the Windows 8 phones. While Windows 8 doesn't exactly translate well on the desktop... it works fine on the phone as far as I could see. It's at least drawn nicely and has a different design than iOS and Android.
Unfortunately there are just too few apps available. I went to their app store and only a small handful of my apps had a presence there... and Google's stuff was all third-party wrappers to offer some Google stuff. Honestly, that was enough to turn me off.
I guess it's circular... people won't want it if the app selection stinks, but the devs won't make apps because it's not popular.
Note: I got an Android instead.
Re:Is that legal? (Score:3, Informative)
When the Microsoft haters defend the old anti-monopoly lawsuit, they insist that regardless of the social effect of one company giving away a web browser for free, it was an abuse of an existing monopoly because they had most of the consumer PC market buying Windows. When challenged with comparisons to iOS doing exactly the same frelling thing (but on a cell phone), they argue that Apple lacks the 90% market share to qualify as a monopoly, and thus can get away with anything.
Since one of the favored memes of Slashdot is that no one uses Windows Phones, they clearly don't have a monopoly and thus are free to price their mobile software at whatever they want. Similarly, Google is free to write a version of Android that doesn't use Microsoft patents, removing that minor fee from their mobile OS.
Just like CALS in early Windows Server (Score:5, Informative)
I doubt it. I think it's just a temporary measure so that they can get some market share and then start charging again.
Likely. When Windows Server first came out, it had no CALS. Novell Netware charged a price based on the number of users. Microsoft only charged for the OS, and was much cheaper. After they had sufficient market share, they added CALS.