Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 5th Oct 2013 11:34 UTC
Windows

Microsoft is talking to HTC about adding its Windows operating system to HTC's Android-based smartphones at little or no cost, people with knowledge of the matter said, evidence of the software maker's struggle to gain ground in the mobile market.

Terry Myerson, head of Microsoft's operating systems unit, asked HTC last month to load Windows Phone as a second option on handsets with Google's rival software, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private. Myerson discussed cutting or eliminating the license fee to make the idea more attractive, the people said. The talks are preliminary and no decision has been made, two people said.

I hope HTC and every other Android OEM flips Microsoft the bird. The shoe's on the other foot now, Redmond.

Thread beginning with comment 573967
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Hayoo!
by Hayoo! on Sun 6th Oct 2013 03:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Hayoo!"
Hayoo!
Member since:
2013-04-13

It all depends on what kind of deals are available. What most of vendors will try to avoid is "locking" i.e., to strongly attach its fate to one single platform. I fail to see how "dual boot" would not be a good compromise if the right incentives are provided.

I considered your idea quite a bit but still can't even imagine what incentives would be reasonable in this particular case. Dual-booting definitely is not a good idea due to the increased complexity it will add into the design, engineering, and after-sales stages.

Self-respecting vendors can't just provide two operating systems and leave them plagued with bugs. That, on the other hand, means they will have to come up with a way to partition both operating systems effectively such that whatever happens to one (e.g. full update, user-initiated factory reset) will not affect the other but, at the same time, both operating systems should be able to expose and access the same set of user data (contacts, messages, media, and other files). Otherwise, dual-booting will be pointless, users will be confused, and disappointment will follow right after the out-of-the-box excitement subsides.
Also, it is clear by now that what Nokia can do is limited. They have a known brand on Europe but probably will not have the same kind of favor among potential customers on other places of Earth, so, it does make sense to Microsoft to pursue regional alliances where it can leverage their presence and, perhaps this is exactly what they are doing.

Nokia still has prominence outside of North America, Antarctica, and the Arctic; but probably not for much longer, now that Microsoft is in charge.
On an old post, I said that MS should try to make OEM more than just that, they should try to enlist them as investors also by offering a participation on sales on MS stores by phones sold (like 1 to 2% of each item sold, for example), same with carriers. I still think it would be a good incentive for most of them.

Unfortunately, I'm an engineer, so my business analyses have to be taken with a grain of salt. However, I don't think investing or even participating in a competitor's endeavors would resonate well in the ears of business people, unless acquisition is part of their plan. My wife's former employer, one of the biggest processed food producers in the world, refused to take part in a joint Katrina aid campaigns initiated by a group of indirect competitors. It chose to kick off its own campaign instead and take all the media exposure to itself.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Hayoo!
by acobar on Sun 6th Oct 2013 14:04 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Hayoo!"
acobar Member since:
2005-11-15

Self-respecting vendors can't just provide two operating systems and leave them plagued with bugs.

Vendors are out to make money. It has nothing to do with self-respecting. They will make alliances when they see fit, i.e., when it boost their chance to make money now or in future and lowers the risk associated to their business by searching for better position themselves on an ever evolving "battle field".

That, on the other hand, means they will have to come up with a way to partition both operating systems effectively such that whatever happens to one (e.g. full update, user-initiated factory reset) will not affect the other but, at the same time, both operating systems should be able to expose and access the same set of user data (contacts, messages, media, and other files).

Multimedia data: yes; the other things: I am not so sure. First, it is not that hard to have more than one operating system on new devices, they have plenty of storage and we have years of experience. Microsoft regularly did make things harder than should be but it is the underdog on phones. Most of people use webmail on phones, so no problem there, social media is stored on web by default. Contacts are also not that hard to share.

However, I don't think investing or even participating in a competitor's endeavors would resonate well in the ears of business people, unless acquisition is part of their plan.

Aside from Amazon, Google and Samsung which other Android vendor can provide a good app store to their customers? Probably none. They don't have the leverage to offer music, movies, books and other things nor the needed infra-structure. So it leaves the manufacturer to make money only from devices sales (or bundled apps that give almost nothing and are "one-time" income) on a very disputed market. They don't make a lot of money from sales, for sure, and every new model brings a new round of uncertainty. Would you try to improve your situation by attaching to a new source of income that is not an "one-time" type? Yes, that is roughly speaking what most of us are doing on software. Vendors are migrating from the "on-time" income model to something that is spread on time. The difference is that on software, they use training, support, customization, maintenance and updates. On devices, it would be what consumers may use their devices for: consume data (i.e., music, video, books and all) and services (apps, support and updates). I actually think that in the end it could foster the quality of the devices and this is also why I call it an investment, vendors would commit their time and resources and even sacrifice part of their "on-time" income to get a better reward through time.

The problem with this reasoning? What incentive a top vendor has to use this kind of strategy? None, it would try to get most for itself. But this is not the position MS is on now, is it?

Edited 2013-10-06 14:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2