Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

With 'Virgin' Developers, Microsoft Could Fork Android

Posted by timothy on from the are-you-sure-this-is-a-shortcut? dept.

colinneagle writes "Amid all the talk about Microsoft forking Android for a smartphone OS, one suggestion involves a look back to Microsoft's DOS days. Microsoft DOS was designed per IBM's specification to run exclusively on IBM's PC hardware platforms. Phoenix Technologies employed software developers it nicknamed 'virgins,' who hadn't been exposed to IBM's systems, to create a software layer between Microsoft's DOS system and PCs built by IBM's competitors. This helped Microsoft avoid infringing on IBM's patents or copyrights, and subsequently helped fuel the explosive growth of PC clones. Microsoft could use the same approach to 'clone' the proprietary Android components in its own Android fork. This would prevent copyright infringement while giving Microsoft access to Google Play apps, as well as Android's massive base of developers." Microsoft (or anyone) could generate a lot of goodwill by completely replacing the proprietary bits of Android; good thing that doing so is a work in progress (and open-source, too), thanks to Replicant. (Practically speaking, though, couldn't Google just make access to the Play Store harder, if Microsoft were to create an Android-alike OS? Even now, many devices running Android variants don't have access to it.)

11 of 241 comments (clear)

  1. Author has obviously no clue at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Phonix bios clean-room implementation was necessary because - d'oh! - Phonix couldn't legaly use the IBM bios implementation. However, Microsoft can use the Android implementation. It's open source for FSM's sake. They can even verbosly copy the various Google APIs, APIs are not copyrightable after all. Google fought that out with Oracle.

    The author of this fine article has obviously no clue what he's talking about.

    1. Re:Author has obviously no clue at all by telchine · · Score: 4, Informative

      The author of this fine article has obviously no clue what he's talking about.

      Agreed.

      Here is an in-deph article on why forking Android won't work...

      http://arstechnica.com/informa...

    2. Re:Author has obviously no clue at all by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, Microsoft forks Android, makes it proprietary, and that does what for Android? Exactly?

      Here's a hint, it leaves Android completely free and open, and only locks Microsoft's brain dead locked up version to ... Microsoft. I could care less if Microsoft makes a fork proprietary, or not. Or anyone else for that matter. This is what FREE and OPEN really mean. Locking people into your own version serves only you, and smart people will avoid your version, and stay with the free non-copyleft versions.

      In summary, if you fork Android, make it proprietary, and think you'll survive long term, you're stupid. Even if your proprietary is vastly superior in function.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Author has obviously no clue at all by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No it is open like MacOSX is open.

      Google has things locked very tight on Android which will make compatibility difficult and a constantly changing targeting if MS were dumb enough to make an Android fork.

      Windows Phone would turn into a mobile version of OS/2 which is used by few and developers say "Oh it runs Android. Lets just target that only and ignore MS we will get both platforms etc", but in reality Google changes AOSP apis and viola it breaks on Windows Phone.

      Windows Phone is not a bad OS even if it is spouted here as the anti Christ from people who actually never ran it. If it were not made by Microsoft I think people would like it here seriously.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
  2. Virgin Developers by rossdee · · Score: 4, Funny

    So is Richard Branson involved in all this?

    1. Re:Virgin Developers by mseidl · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, just the standard virgin developers

  3. In my experience, many Microsoft developers are -- by QilessQi · · Score: 4, Funny

    -- oh, to heck with it, WAY too easy.

    --
    Koans and fables for the software engineer
  4. Virgin developers by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wait, aren't all devlopers virgins?

    /ducks

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  5. Microsoft's thinking... by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm sure that when Microsoft thinks about Android, it's first thought is usually: Fork Android!

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  6. Re:Oblig Gandhi quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    If that rule is universal, Windows 8.2 will be the OS of choice for Slashdot by year's end.

  7. The biggest problem with Windows Phone is the name by UpnAtom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And the second biggest is that everyone knows Microsoft makes it.

    People want phones that are chic. Microsoft are about as chic as homophobia. Looks, both of the phone and of the UI, are even more important.

    Apparent price/performance is another factor. Probably the main reason Android is doing so well is because those phones look good value in comparison to Apple (not hard with their 200% markup). The fact that interpreted Android apps make those quad cores as slow as dual cores doesn't come into the equation.

    Lastly, some people really believe they need 100,000 apps.