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."
Is that legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that Microsoft charges money for Android (anybody using Android has to pay Microsoft for patents), can they really get away with giving away Windows Phone for free?
Re:Does this mean (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it means Microsoft shareholders should buy some Google stock...
Re:Does this mean (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt it. I think it's just a temporary measure so that they can get some market share and then start charging again.
It ain't the price (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the crappy software. Free isn't cheap enough, especially when you're 5 years too late to the party and a million apps behind.
Re:Does this mean (Score:3, Insightful)
it means that even when a salesman was in charge, they couldn't figure out how to sell their completely revamped product into a market with several mature competitors.
they are down to trying to be the low-cost competitor by dumping their OS for free, while still demanding royalties for one of their competitors os's [android].
Re:Does this mean (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it means Microsoft shareholders should buy some Google stock...
It actually means Ballmer has left the building, and reality is staring them in the face. They've spent too much time fucking themselves. And now it don't feel so good.
It's not the OS, or the apps... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Android user (Nexus 4) and a former iPhone owner, I'm not so sure the OS is the real problem.
When I used the iPhone, it was very obvious that I was outside the Apple ecosystem. ITunes on Windows sucks, and I could tell that Apple's goal was to push me away from Windows and join the Apple world, where things "just work".
Now that I've moved to Android, it is clear that Google wants all my systems to work together, regardless of what it is or who it came from. My files stay synced between all my PCs, laptops, tablet, phone and even my old iPhone (now being used as an iPod). This is the killer app for me. Both Apple and Microsoft want their stuff to work better if you stick with their products. Google changed that game.
Sorry Microsoft. Even if you fix the OS so it's the best, and give it away free, I'm still not interested. As Sun used to say, "The network is the computer", and Google gets that - while Apple and Microsoft want to build a walled garden. If Adobe and Solidworks ever offer a Linux version, I'm gone.