Linked by kristoph on Thu 8th Sep 2011 17:48 UTC
Legal Microsoft has announced today that it has reached patent licensing agreements with Acer and ViewSonic that cover Android smart phones and tablets. These companies join HTC [and several others] in paying Microsoft for each deployed Android device. Microsoft's strategic approach to Android is very different from Apple's. Where Apple is attempting to stop or otherwise delay the deployment of Android devices Microsoft is lining their coffers with royalties paid by OEMs for the privilege of shipping them. It's a strategy that is already generating more profit for Microsoft the its less then successful Windows Phone platform and could contribute dramatically to Microsofts bottom line going forward.
Thread beginning with comment 488919
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Wakeup call
by _txf_ on Thu 8th Sep 2011 23:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wakeup call"
Member since:

( Personally I've always wondered why Apple didn't adopt Linux. It's presence as the base of their platform would attract enterprise customers and it's not like they would lose anything. )

They lose control... and that is EVERYTHING to Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[4]: Wakeup call
by kristoph on Fri 9th Sep 2011 04:11 in reply to "RE[3]: Wakeup call"
kristoph Member since:

Why would they lose control? It's open source so they can do whatever they want with it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Wakeup call
by lemur2 on Fri 9th Sep 2011 04:44 in reply to "RE[4]: Wakeup call"
lemur2 Member since:

Why would they lose control? It's open source so they can do whatever they want with it.

Linux is not owned by (written by) Apple and it is GPL so whatever Apple did with it, they have to give the source code to whomever asks for it. This is a condition of Apple being allowed to re-distribute Linux to other people. This condition applies to Apple because Apple did not write Linux, and those who did write Linux have placed this condition on permission to re-distribute it. This in turn means that whatever Apple tried to do with Linux, other parties could un-do.

If Apple had to give out source code for its core OS, as they would if they used Linux, then Apple would effectively lose the ability to add user-constraining features, such as DRM, to that OS. Apple could add such an anti-feature, but other people could easily take it straight back out again.

Having access to the source code of the core Mac OS, one could, for example, write a music management application so that people did not have to use iTunes in conjunction with their iDevice. In general, as soon as Apple tried to force users to confirm to one Apple policy restriction or another, someone would be able to write alternative software so that users were not constrained by whatever it was that Apple wanted.

Edited 2011-09-09 04:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4