The Verge is reporting that Microsoft is considering making Windows RT and Windows Phone free for OEMs, to combat Android.
We understand that any decision to axe the license fees for Windows Phone and Windows RT would be backed by a push for revenue from Microsoft’s apps and services. Microsoft has been experimenting with ads in Windows 8 apps, and any associated revenue from those apps and the company’s built-in Bing search results would help offset the lack of license fees. Microsoft would also push consumers to subscribe to services like SkyDrive, Office, and Skype for additional revenue.
So, let me get this straight. In April this year, a Microsoft-sponsored antitrust complaint about Android had this to say:
Google's predatory distribution of Android at below-cost makes it difficult for other providers of operating systems to recoup investments in competing with Google's dominant mobile platform.
And we have the whole Scroogled campaign (I felt dirty just for visiting that site).
And now they're considering doing the exact same things they claim Google is doing unfairly? Does this company have any internal consistency whatsoever?
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2012-11-05
Member since:2009-05-19
Member since:2008-07-15
That's not why. iPhone has the whole iTunes ecosystem behind it and, in the states at least, iTunes is the largest online distributor of content. Music, Movies, TV episodes, you name it and iTunes probably has it. Even in the books department, where Apple lagged behind when iBooks first came out, they're catching up. Google has Google Play but, let's face it, their content library is nowhere near iTunes. Many iPhone users already had significant investment in the iTunes ecosystem before hand (via iPods usually) and those who didn't most likely do now after using iOS for a while. I'd say avoiding ads, while a part of it for some, is a significantly less reason on the whole than their investment in the ecosystem and the sheer convenience (as long as you use Apple devices at least) of iTunes content.
Member since:2005-11-13
That last part is key. If they want to put out a 'free' product and actually make money off it, there's always some features they have to leave out, even if it benefits end users, because it doesn't serve their bottom line. They'd also have to throw in some anti-features, regardless of whether it pisses off their users or not. Why do you think services like Facebook suck so much? There's a reason why my FB news feed randomly switches from 'Most Recent' to 'Top Stories', no matter how many times I set it. And you know it's not a bug either - you wouldn't see that kind of nonsense if it were a paid service.
Some people say that if we got rid of all the ads and bullshit, most of the 'free' internet would go away. To that, I say good riddance. Whatever is left, if it's of high enough value, I would be happy to pay for it.
Member since:2011-08-26
Member since:2007-11-24
Even though they could recoup the costs from sales and licenses of other products such as Windows and Microsoft Office to compensate for Windows Phone. And they supposedly have billions in cash reserves.
Member since:2005-11-09
Member since:
2011-08-26
This once again proves what they have been saying. Its difficult to compete with Google unless one gives the product for free and recoup the costs via intrusive ads.
Edited 2013-12-11 13:56 UTC