Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Dumping License Fees For Windows Phone?
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."
from MS' perspective, you are the product?
If they get a cut of all the app purchases, this is an obvious win-win. Manufacturers get cheaper devices to the market, and Microsoft increase its user base.
I can't speak for everyone, but I have spent more on apps than the price of my phone over its lifetime. (The unsubsidized price, at that.)
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
How about phone makers make generic hardware, like PC makers do? Then we can just install the OS of our choice on it.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
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?
The tides stop.
Republicans and Democrats dance together in the streets.
*** Don't be dull.***
Seriously, that's the source? They are like the Fox News of India.
In any case, remember that Samsung, which is what most people buy when they buy an android phone, pays MS $10-20 per phone. This is clearly where MS future lies, collecting patent fees. The only reason that it needs to have a phone is so it is not labeled as patent troll.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
What MS WP could give customers that Apple iOS and Google Android cant? I'm seriously doubt that MS will obtain some impressive share of market in the near future.
Put together a large team that targets Android phones, particularly lower end phones with no support, and make Windows Phone perpetually free along the same lines as the good custom Android distributions. If they made a serious effort to get Windows Phone working as a solid, stable, fast OS on such phones and made really slick installers, they'd probably see a sharp increase in marketshare within a year. Not even 10%, but enough to cause concern at Google. The best part is that if they were to just stick to Nokia as their "official" handset manufacturer and make it clear that they'll happily support Windows Phone on other companies' platforms it'd probably evade antitrust scrutiny. What would the regulators say? It's illegal for them to make Windows Phone freely available with regular support for phones from vendors that don't even buy Windows Phone licenses? If they were to do that, then they might as well make Windows on Arm illegal, tell Linux vendors to stick to no more than 2 CPU architectures, etc.
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.
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.
Do you have ESP?
Totally agree.
I didn't read all of your rant... because well it's long and i'm a slashdot user. But your argument about a watermelon being blue on the inside but turning red when cut open intrigues me. I think that it might be postulated that if a watermelon changes color when cut it must be because of some chemical reaction. Given this why not just put the watermelon in an air tight chamber filled with a noble gas and then cut it open from the inside. This should allow said watermelon hypothesis to be tested. An un-testable hypothesis isn't one at all. A hard to test hypothesis is just a challenge.
At the moment most of the really useful apps are Nokia's, and mostly only available on their handsets. The basic OS without these does not compare well with Android/iOS. It will be interesting to see if with the acquisition, MS makes these apps core, either for regularly licenced copies ir these free ones. I have a high-end Lumia925, more or less iPhone quality, and a Lumia520, which for less than £100 SIM free, is almost as good. WP8 really does run well on very cheap hardware.
"Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
LOL, Microsoft can't even give Windows Phone away. Just like Linux on the desktop.
(What, you were expecting your prejudices to be catered to? Too bad.)
Why would MS event want to give LInux on the desktop away? Its already "Free". They'd probably fuck it up anyway.
Because of the discounts offered by the networks (in exchange for locking you into a contract), you are a very small minority.
These discounts for not bringing your own device are on their way out. Instead, the U.S. model has begun to shift toward the European model where the phone and plan are itemized as separate purchases. Instead of $20 per month subsidy spread over 24 months of a $70 per month contract, there's a $20 line item for the financed hardware and a $50 line item for the service. MVNOs were first to bring this model to the States, followed by T-Mobile, and three months ago even AT&T cut the price for BYOD and expired-contract customers to keep T-Mobile and the MVNOs from eating its proverbial lunch.
Instead of giving away WIndows, they should probably give royalty free apps store access to any entity for the first two years.
That will probably draw developers faster then dfoubling or even tripling a nonexistent base. Especially the young hungry ones which should become established developers over time.
Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right? You couldn't and they can't. There is no method available to confirm or disprove what was said about the watermelon.
I'll bite. You just cut open the watermelon and proved it wasn't blue. Logic seems not a strong point here.
Any theory that can not explain how to both validate and falsify its claims in this manner can not be taken seriously.
What kind of idiocy is this? Theories are based on numerous hypotheses. These can be proven or disproven but it is never up to the theory to explain how to validate or falsify the claims. Scientists validate or falsify the hypotheses. For example, Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren overturned decades of medical thinking that peptic ulcers were primarily caused by stress and lifestyle. Instead they argued that it was mainly due to a bacteria named Helicobacter pylori. To prove, it they gave ulcer patients antibiotics and they were cured. For this, they won a Nobel Prize.
Unfortunately, Darwin never properly demonstrated how to falsify his theory
Neither did Newton, Galileo, Einstein, etc. No scientists is required to provide ways to falsify his theory. Faulty logic on your part. In fact, on the subject of Newton, his theory on gravitation was incomplete as it never fully described why Mercury wobbles. Yet it was accepted because it adequately described gravity for the most part. Einstein later refined Newton by showing that Newton's idea of gravity is a good approximation in situations of low mass and low speed (like on the Earth) whereas Einstein's General Theory of Relativity covered broader situations and adequately explained Mercury's orbit (and the rest of space-time).
which means evolution has not properly been proven, since it has never been demonstrated what the evidence does not suggest.
Only if you willing to ignore the collective work of many scientists in paleontology, biology, microbiology, genetics, etc.
So the following falsification method must be the perfect counter to Darwin's validation method
Again, faulty presupposition and logic on your part.
So one must demonstrate a method to prove beyond any doubt that in the event that evolution is not true, it can be shown to be such.
No you are creating unreasonable demands on a theory you don't like. By your logic, Newton's idea of gravity must be thrown out as well as atomic physics and relativity as they conflict with each other.
If the creation model is true, we can make verifiable predictions that disprove evolution.
Bill Nye said it best when he said in the debate that it would only take one fossil out of place to disprove evolution. So far no one has done it. By your logic, you're wrong then.
In order to demonstrate that the Creator is responsible for life and created life diversified to begin with, the word "kind" must be defined.
Ah, the creationists method of defining words to mean what it favorable to their argument.
A kind is the original prototype of any ancestral line; that is to say if God created two lions, and two cheetahs, these are distinct kinds. In this scenario, these two cats do not share a common ancestor, as they were created separately, and therefore are not the same kind despite similar appearance and design. If this is the case, evolution theory is guilty of using homogeneous structures as evidence of common ancestry, and then using homogeneous structures to prove common ancestry; this is circular reasoning!
That's not circular reasoning. That's your lack of understand
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
a lot of people have tried MS products. Why would they then buy a phone from them when there is low cost options?
Probably for much the same reason that people who don't especially like Windows and Office bought an Xbox. If the new touch-controlled Halo game is exclusive to Windows, watch fanboys switch to this so-called Xboy.
"Ubuntu With Bing!" - shudder.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
FWIW Apple collects $6-$8 from HTC for every device sold for patent fees too. Nokia and Qualcomm collect patent licensing fees as well. The point is that the innovators then cross-license, so the more you innovate the more you have to cross-license and the less you have to pay in licensing fees.
There are iOS-exclusive games and Android-exclusive games. Are there Windows Phone-exclusive games yet?
Apart from games, Android has AIDE, a Java IDE that works on a tablet with a Bluetooth keyboard. I haven't tried it on an Android phone, but I'm guessing it might work on a phone with a Bluetooth keyboard and an HDMI output when the touch screen emulates a trackpad. Does Windows RT have anything like Visual Studio, Eclipse, or anything else to develop apps on the device? Does Windows Phone even support HDMI out? Instead of HDMI out, Nokia phones have DLNA streaming, which apparently has too much latency for actual interactive use because it's designed for movies, not apps or games.
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.
Place nail here >+
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.
Place nail here >+
I saw them the first time and added them to my list of "interesting APK posts".
Digression posted without bonus.
Honestly, Microsoft... why not just build some really nice Android apps and call it a day? NIH is a sickness.
...Steve
What the hell does Lava(Xolo) mean?
Lava and Xolo are different companies. The article doesn't mention Xolo.
How is Windows Phone more of a walled garden than android? Can you give examples?
If Microsoft is really playing serious to make people switch to Windows Phone, they will have to somehow make syncing contacts, emails and calendars between Windows PC and Apple/Android not work as well as with Windows Phone.
It would likely open themselves up to anti-trust suits but they already know how to handle that.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
and most manufacturers and user would take it for free...
"Something can not be proven to be true without showing that it is not false, and something can not be proven to be not true, unless it can be proven to be false."
Since science is not concerned with proving things true or false, this is completely irrelevant. Evolution is a model based on observation, and it works. That's all that matters.
If you can use the model of intelligent design to predict how disease will develop and other such questions in biology, then by all means, do so. So far the track record of intelligent design on the furthering of any and all fronts of biology is rather dismal. And that is what matters.
Yes, a paltry 5% of the one billion cell phones sold in 2013.
5% of 1B...let's see...carry the knot...I make it a truly pathetic 50,000,000 units sold. Insignificant indeed. Especially when you compare it to the gargantuan sales of personal computers in 2013 (82M units). No comparison at all.
My last three laptops cost about $300 each. Last cell phone (Nexus 5) cost $400. No comparison there either.
I come here for the love
Sadly, attempts to cut open the cat in a room filled with a noble gas to test the hypothesis was met with severe condemnation by PETA, eventually causing the experiment to be scrapped.
Microsoft has always tried to position their phones and tablets as "premium" devices, selling for more than comparable competitors. That's really hard to do when you are the disruptor, trying to break into an established marketplace. Google played the game right, coming into a smartphone marketplace that was dominated by iPhone, as a lower cost option that was "just as good." Over time, Android earned the respect of the marketplace, and eventually they gained dominance.
Microsoft devices were, from the beginning, more expensive than comparable phones and tablets from other vendors. But they had no killer app, and a lot less apps to offer. So why should we all pay more for less?
If Microsoft is serious about making inroads into the mobile market, they are going to have to push bargain-basement devices, until they, like Google, can gain enough market share to get a foothold with pricier models.