Microsoft will charge for Windows Phone 7 Series OS

Microsoft said that they will be charging for Windows Phone 7 Series operating system, when it is released, according to toptechnews.com.  Despite Google providing its Android operating system for free, Microsoft announced it will charge a small fee, per phone.

Strategic Analytics predict the mobile operating system will cost roughly between $8 and $15 per phone, an added cost for manufactures that want to produce a Windows based phone.  Although Microsoft never officially announced how much it would be selling the software for, Steve Ballmer did mention it would not be free:

"I think there's something clean and simple and easy to understand about our model," Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said. "We build something, we sell that thing ... I think it's not only in our best interests, but it's a simple model that's easy for developers, handset manufacturers, and our operator partners to deal with, to understand, and to build from."

More details of what Windows Phone 7 Series will include will come later this year, as Microsoft hasn’t unveiled all of the details about the operating system just yet.  Microsoft will also be supplying built-in applications like Office Hub, including Word, Excel, and PowerPoint, an added feature that other phones don’t supply.

More so, Apple supplies their operating system with their own hardware, where Google does have the Nexus One, but also supplies their OS to other smartphones in the market for free.  Microsoft has yet to release their own smartphone hardware.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Sprint confirms first 4G phone due this summer

Next Story

New Windows Live Messenger 2010 screenshot reveals social features

101 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

SO not only does their Operating System occupies the most expensive phones on the market at this point in time, but now they want to charge even more money to license it?

Gaara sama said,
M$ is all about money thats all

right! they should give away everything for free!
Tell me a company which isn't about money. How do you think the whole world works? Charity?
Get real!

(walks into a cellphone store)

hi, can i get a phone that runs that iPhone OS that is not an iPhone? ...... what? it doesn't exist??!!!

I just got myself a HTC Touch HD2 on the understanding that WM7 will be free - I hope HTC stick to what they say !

If not, i'm sure I can manage $8 (Which must be about £6 ?)

Ferret said,
I just got myself a HTC Touch HD2 on the understanding that WM7 will be free - I hope HTC stick to what they say !

If not, i'm sure I can manage $8 (Which must be about £6 ?)

I would assume HTC would cover that cost for you if that was advertised as being upgradeable to WP7... I noticed HTC advertising that on several of their phones. The few bucks per OS license must really be no big deal for them at all for them to use it like that to gain market share (Which had to have been the plan)...

Buy our phone and get an upgrade to the next OS version...

Windows Phone 7 to cost between $8 and $15?

So I guess it will be:
Windows Phone 7 BASIC...$8
Home...$10
Professional...$12
Ultimate...$15

:P

omar8 said,
When a phone costs $500 anyway I am sure $10 isn't really going to affect anything.

Even if the phone manufacturers don't charge an extra $10 they'll still have a profit margin. They'll price it to whatever they think its worth, regardless of the license fee from MS.

That's why the whole idea of an 'MS tax' doesn't make sense. (Besides the fact that MS has probably helped the computer market in the long run and helped lower costs).

Edited by brianshapiro, Feb 20 2010, 1:04am :

Oh NOOOO!!!!
What will become of XDA-DEV's windows mobile section.
CUSTOM windows 7 ROMS better not be gone!!!

I hope microsoft will allow them to freely mod roms, as long as the users have licenses for windows phone 7 in general. Then again, if the developer friendly side is streamlined, and there is no limit to customizing windows phone 7, I'm all for it!

ekw said,
Oh NOOOO!!!!
What will become of XDA-DEV's windows mobile section.
CUSTOM windows 7 ROMS better not be gone!!!

I hope microsoft will allow them to freely mod roms, as long as the users have licenses for windows phone 7 in general. Then again, if the developer friendly side is streamlined, and there is no limit to customizing windows phone 7, I'm all for it!


Technically... are they even legally allowed to do that now?

M$ and Apple both started their companies by stealing from others. Apple really liked the Xerox mouse and thanked them for allowing him and his people to "tour" the product at the behest of the company president, developers weren't too pleased though.

Nothing wrong with getting paid for work. Trouble is, every company mentioned here wants TOO MUCH for it. M$ wants money and control. Google wants control first, knowing the money will follow.

Wouldn't it be nice to pay a fair price for a product and get SOME reliable support guarantees afterwards. Maybe I'm just being naive.

Just to repeat what other users are saying: Apple does not sell its OS on non-Apple hardware. They do sell the upgrades for iPod Touch users, which is absolute backstabbing of the customer (I say that as both an iPhone 3GS owner, and an iPod Touch 1G user).

RIM gives away its OS because BlackBerry is tied directly into its services. In other words, it's subsidized.

Google gives away its OS to encourage tie-in with its free, ad based services. If you're using GMail and Google Calendar, then chances are you are using it online from time to time as well. That's ad revenue.

Microsoft is following a business model that should be surprising to no one. Most of their services are not locked into the device--except maybe the tie-in with social networking services like Facebook, which Microsoft owns stock in, and I believe does the advertising for, and definitely the Zune Music service tie-in, which can be used with other music, but benefits from Zune features (such as the Zune Unlimited Plan and their version of Music Genius that can automatically download music for you if you have the unlimited plan). Unlike Google, their service is not inherently tied into one email service, or calendar service. You are simply using software that can generically connect to other services through common interfaces (interfaces represent computer signatures here, and not a user interface). In addition, Microsoft is putting Office utilities on here, which provide more tools to do very generic work. Basically, Microsoft is providing an iPhone-like experience without providing the hardware at all, so of course they are going to charge hardware makers to use the OS.

Personally, and again, as an iPhone owner, I and pretty excited about the WP7 OS. As long as the hardware is good, and the Marketplace does not disappoint (using Silverlight or XNA would be a huge plus), then I will be getting out of my service agreement with AT&T early and likely dumping the carrier altogether. Amusingly, I have heard that a lot of my AT&T problems related to dropped calls are the fault of my iPhone improperly handling the switch-off from 2G to 3G (although, as a long time Cingular customer, this is not completely true--AT&T has always had very bad dead zones and a dropped call issue, which I have always questioned if it has to do with stealing more minutes by requiring a callback, and thus starting with fresh new minutes and an always rounded up minute at the end of the dropped call).

+1 to the stuff about Microsoft and the OS..

I have never had issues with AT&T.. but then again.. I live in Vermont! lol

Edited by dimithrak, Feb 19 2010, 7:45pm :

It amazes me that some of the people saying this is fine, rip apple for doing the same thing with their iPod's.

Blasius said,
It amazes me that some of the people saying this is fine, rip apple for doing the same thing with their iPod's.
MS does not make the phones. MS does not make the phones. MS does not make the phones.

Clear now?

Edited by Kirkburn, Feb 19 2010, 8:03pm :

Kirkburn said,
MS does not make the phones. MS does not make the phones. MS does not make the phones.

Clear now?

Does google make all the android phones?

Blasius said,

Does google make all the android phones?

No, but Google gets money through a license fee for their bundled apps from what I understand...

In any event, that's off your original topic...

@Julius Caro: Uh, because they are free? You can go to the Blackberry website and download the latest installment of the Blackberry OS for free. You can also go to your carriers website and often they offer downloads for the Blackberry OS as well. It's as simple as downloading the latest desktop manager and running it to see if there are updates. If there are, it just downloads them builds it. Far as the iPhone OS goes, I'm not sure on that one, as I've never owned an iPhone.

Microsoft is doing everything but the right thing, and their sales are starting to show. Not to mention, the Windows Mobile OS series is nothing short of a pile of crap.

ToastedJellyBowl said,
@Julius Caro: Uh, because they are free? You can go to the Blackberry website and download the latest installment of the Blackberry OS for free. You can also go to your carriers website and often they offer downloads for the Blackberry OS as well. It's as simple as downloading the latest desktop manager and running it to see if there are updates. If there are, it just downloads them builds it. Far as the iPhone OS goes, I'm not sure on that one, as I've never owned an iPhone.

Microsoft is doing everything but the right thing, and their sales are starting to show. Not to mention, the Windows Mobile OS series is nothing short of a pile of crap.

1. You're still missing the point that has been mentioned multiple times. RIM and Apple include the "licensing" cost (cost of development) for their OS in the price of the hardware, whether the updates are free or not is irrelevant to that point.

2. I'm pretty sure MS is doing something right, Windows 7 is the fastest selling OS in history.

ToastedJellyBowl said,
@Julius Caro: Uh, because they are free? You can go to the Blackberry website and download the latest installment of the Blackberry OS for free. You can also go to your carriers website and often they offer downloads for the Blackberry OS as well. It's as simple as downloading the latest desktop manager and running it to see if there are updates. If there are, it just downloads them builds it. Far as the iPhone OS goes, I'm not sure on that one, as I've never owned an iPhone.

Microsoft is doing everything but the right thing, and their sales are starting to show. Not to mention, the Windows Mobile OS series is nothing short of a pile of crap.

No, BB makes their money off of the hardware. The hardware side of their business supports the software side of their business. MS does not sell WinMo hardware (yet).

ToastedJellyBowl said,
@Julius Caro: Uh, because they are free? You can go to the Blackberry website and download the latest installment of the Blackberry OS for free. You can also go to your carriers website and often they offer downloads for the Blackberry OS as well. It's as simple as downloading the latest desktop manager and running it to see if there are updates. If there are, it just downloads them builds it. Far as the iPhone OS goes, I'm not sure on that one, as I've never owned an iPhone.

Microsoft is doing everything but the right thing, and their sales are starting to show. Not to mention, the Windows Mobile OS series is nothing short of a pile of crap.

Sorry to say, but this post is just full of fail...

Apple and RIM as MANY have mentioned make money on the OS as it is factored in to their hardware costs. Google makes their money from a license for their bundled apps, and doesn't provide anywhere near the support that Microsoft does to OEM's and carriers for the OS...

Also, Windows Mobile is a solid OS. The only missing from Windows Mobile 6.1 is a flashy UI, all of the necessary functionality is, and has been, there. When other mobile OS makers are struggling to finally add features like MMS support. Now with Windows Phone 7 they added that flashy UI that seems to be the most important thing to people... It's hardly a pile of crap...

So Neowin is also parroting this drivel now? No-one thought it was news when Ballmer answered the question on Monday, who cares that this analyst is surprised that the license will cost?

Unlike Google, Microsoft is not an ad company. Unlike Apple and RIM, Microsoft is not a smartphone hardware company. They sell software, and provide licensees with support and SDKs and such that are unmatched, while Google builds Android for its own phones before allowing developers to taste it.

The partners have been paying the $10-$15 forever, why would they suddenly stop when demand increases for Windows devices?

burnblue said,
So Neowin is also parroting this drivel now? No-one thought it was news when Ballmer answered the question on Monday, who cares that this analyst is surprised that the license will cost?

Unlike Google, Microsoft is not an ad company. Unlike Apple and RIM, Microsoft is not a smartphone hardware company. They sell software, and provide licensees with support and SDKs and such that are unmatched, while Google builds Android for its own phones before allowing developers to taste it.

The partners have been paying the $10-$15 forever, why would they suddenly stop when demand increases for Windows devices?

You were doing good until the "Google builds Android for its own phones before allowing developers to taste it" bit... While the Nexus One got v2.1 before other phones, that is their first phone, so how is it that they build it for "their own phones" when until now they didn't have any of "their own phones"?

dodgetigger said,
Didn't they license the previous versions of Win mobile also to manufacturors, and thus also charged money for it?

Indeed they did... LOL

Julius Caro said,
How can you claim that iPhone OS and the blackberry one are free?

You really can't, because it's not true. Since Apple and RIM make the OS and the phone(s) when they sell them they factor in the cost of developing the OS and apps from the start.

Android might be free, but MS said they will be taking more of an interesting in the creation of the devices, by setting minimum hardware, and writing and optimising drivers, so it will cut their costs slightly, and it will mean that mobile operators wont have to work on their own interfaces like HTC Sense or Moto Blur which could save them considerable costs.

Also $8 - $15 is hardly a significant part of their per a device profits

Lloyd Sparkes said,
Android might be free, but MS said they will be taking more of an interesting in the creation of the devices, by setting minimum hardware, and writing and optimising drivers, so it will cut their costs slightly, and it will mean that mobile operators wont have to work on their own interfaces like HTC Sense or Moto Blur which could save them considerable costs.

Also $8 - $15 is hardly a significant part of their per a device profits

You're right, I mean $15 for a top of the line HTC phone that goes on sale unlocked for like $700! And people think the OEMs are taking a hit or something because of the small license fee? Keep in mind what these phones cost to make, it sure as hell isn't anywhere close to the unlocked retail price! If the phone costs $300, with the OS cost, and they sell it for double that unlocked then they really don't care at all.

As someone posted, what are apples margins on the iPhone? 50% Whats that sell for unlocked? If you can get it unlocked that is. $400? So it costs around $200 to make etc. And Apple factors in the cost of developing the OS as well, not just the hardware.

Well, I think my interest, time and money from now on will only be invested in devices running android or from nokia.

Digitalx said,
Well, I think my interest, time and money from now on will only be invested in devices running android or from nokia.

Because Microsoft gets a few bucks for installing their OS on the phone? Seems rather silly...

Jack E said,
What's the problem, they already charge for their 6.5 OS and have done from the start.

They've been charging for Windows Mobile long before 6.5... This isn't news to be honest...

Um, RIM and Apple are free? Really? What about the 56% profit of the device? Are we sure there's not an "OS Charge" anywhere in there???

http://www.neowin.net/news/apples-iphone-profit-margin-greater-than-50

Nightwind Hawk said,
Um, RIM and Apple are free? Really? What about the 56% profit of the device? Are we sure there's not an "OS Charge" anywhere in there???

http://www.neowin.net/news/apples-iphone-profit-margin-greater-than-50

HAHAHAHA

And Apple does charge for OS updates for iPod Touch users (What is it? $ 25?), so that's more than Microsoft is charging too...

Edited by M_Lyons10, Feb 20 2010, 12:37am :

SweetRiverBaynes said,
Microsoft's favorite thing is licensing their OS. Why stop at just PCs?

You are probably sarcastic, but it is actually their business model. This is how they built up the first software company of the world.

ricknl said,
You are probably sarcastic, but it is actually their business model. This is how they built up the first software company of the world.

Bahahahahahaha you must be a youngster. "First software company". Have you ever heard of IBM or Xerox? How about Unix?

vaximily said,

Bahahahahahaha you must be a youngster. "First software company". Have you ever heard of IBM or Xerox? How about Unix?

There are two flaws in your argument. Number one Unix is an operating system, not a company. Number two IBM and Xerox are Hardware companies first and foremost.

So, yes, Microsoft was the first company to focus on making software and not hardware.

ricknl said,

You are probably sarcastic, but it is actually their business model. This is how they built up the first software company of the world.

It may have worked for Microsoft to license their OS in the early 80s, but these days you have developers that offer a free, quite exceptional, OS.

This Windows Phone 7 Series has to really be worth the money for phone manufacturers. Microsoft MUST also keep their software more rapidly up to date with competitors. Windows Mobile 6 didn't cut it. Hopefully this license to cell phone makers will give them that incentive that they need.

neo158 said,

There are two flaws in your argument. Number one Unix is an operating system, not a company. Number two IBM and Xerox are Hardware companies first and foremost.

So, yes, Microsoft was the first company to focus on making software and not hardware.

Those were bad examples, and all three of you are wrong. Lotus was the first software company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Software

SweetRiverBaynes said,
It may have worked for Microsoft to license their OS in the early 80s, but these days you have developers that offer a free, quite exceptional, OS.

This Windows Phone 7 Series has to really be worth the money for phone manufacturers. Microsoft MUST also keep their software more rapidly up to date with competitors. Windows Mobile 6 didn't cut it. Hopefully this license to cell phone makers will give them that incentive that they need.

Android might not have a license fee, but it's not "free", you have to get it working, you have to spend R&D and support it directly, the same "cost" for unix/linux on the desktop/server. How do you think Red Hat makes money?

People toss around the word "free" like nothing nowadays, and it's a bit funny. What Ballmer said is true, the rest of his quote is missing in the above article though.

And MS, well, one of the MS managers anyways, said that MS is calling it WP7 "Series" and not something like "Version" 7 because they're dumping the version number idea for brands and will be offering more steady updates to it from here on out. That's why WM has had OTA support for some time but it never got used (blame the carriers/OEMs for that one I bet).

cowlick said,
Those were bad examples, and all three of you are wrong. Lotus was the first software company.
]

Haha yeah they were bad examples, Lotus was the one I was trying to remember and couldn't get it to come out of the catacombs of my brain.

cowlick said,

Those were bad examples, and all three of you are wrong. Lotus was the first software company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Software

Microsoft predates Lotus by 7 years though.

SAP predates Microsoft by 3 years, so they could be the first software company.

Should-have said,

Microsoft predates Lotus by 7 years though.

SAP predates Microsoft by 3 years, so they could be the first software company.

They weren't really making software products at that time. By products I mean things like Word, Excel, etc., and by that measure they weren't first at anything. Come to think of it, the same is true now... Microsoft has always been late to the game.

Edited by cowlick, Feb 19 2010, 9:09pm : Removed formatting tag as I didn't realize they weren't usable in comments.

cowlick said,
Come to think of it, the same is true now... Microsoft has always been late to the game.
Even if that were true, which I make no comment on, doesn't seem like it hurt them.

Edited by Kirkburn, Feb 19 2010, 9:55pm :

neo158 said,

There are two flaws in your argument. Number one Unix is an operating system, not a company. Number two IBM and Xerox are Hardware companies first and foremost.

So, yes, Microsoft was the first company to focus on making software and not hardware.


What? Are you just making this up on the fly now? Have you read this somewhere?

http://www.softwarehistory.org/history/ec_50s.html

Computer Usage Corporation (CUC)
Year Founded: 1955

"CUC was the first company formed specifically to provide software development services to computer users. "

Dozens of software companies followed it, before Microsoft.

Edited by Northgrove, Feb 19 2010, 9:35pm :

GP007 said,

Android might not have a license fee, but it's not "free", you have to get it working, you have to spend R&D and support it directly, the same "cost" for unix/linux on the desktop/server. How do you think Red Hat makes money?

People toss around the word "free" like nothing nowadays, and it's a bit funny. What Ballmer said is true, the rest of his quote is missing in the above article though.

And MS, well, one of the MS managers anyways, said that MS is calling it WP7 "Series" and not something like "Version" 7 because they're dumping the version number idea for brands and will be offering more steady updates to it from here on out. That's why WM has had OTA support for some time but it never got used (blame the carriers/OEMs for that one I bet).

Exactly. Good post. Just because the OS itself doesn't cost anything doesn't mean it doesn't cost the OEM / carrier anything... I'll bet if Microsoft supports WP7 with OTA Updates and such as planned, this will be a very attractive option for OEM's... The few bucks for the OS will be NOTHING compared to what it costs to get Android running.

thealexweb said,
Well in this economic climate phone makers want to cut costs anywhere to maximize profit, Android anyone?

Yet, again, quit trolling Alex. Google doesn't SELL Android, it's open source and completely free for anyone to use / modify as they see fit.

vaximily said,

Yet, again, quit trolling Alex. Google doesn't SELL Android, it's open source and completely free for anyone to use / modify as they see fit.

That's not trolling it's pointing out that OEMs like to make as much profit anywhere they can. And it's the OpenHandset alliance who's the official maker of Android anyway.

thealexweb said,
That's not trolling it's pointing out that OEMs like to make as much profit anywhere they can. And it's the OpenHandset alliance who's the official maker of Android anyway.

If you were trying to make a point there, I must have missed it. Google isn't an OEM, they don't manufacture phones. OEM = ORIGINAL Equipment Manufacturer. The closest they come is the Nexus One which is just an HTC phone with Google branding.

(snipped)

Edited by Eric, Feb 19 2010, 6:08pm :

vaximily said,

If you were trying to make a point there, I must have missed it. Google isn't an OEM, they don't manufacture phones. OEM = ORIGINAL Equipment Manufacturer. The closest they come is the Nexus One which is just an HTC phone with Google branding.

(snipped)

I think what they where trying to say is that Microsoft wants to charge the handset manufacture a fee just for them to put Windows Moble 7 on the phone. According to the article Google charges nothings. You can put the android OS on your phone for free. That's why thealexweb made the point that, the companies who make phones could make more money just going with android.

Edited by Eric, Feb 19 2010, 6:23pm :

warwagon said,
I think what they where trying to say is that Microsoft wants to charge the handset manufacture a fee just for them to put Windows Moble 7 on the phone. According to the article Google charges nothings. You can put the android OS on your phone for free. That's why thealexweb made the point that, the companies who make phones could make more money just going with android.

Do you mean I misread Alex's comment? Maybe he meant to imply that OEM's would move to Android because it's free? That's quite possible... I read it as him believing that Android was trying to cut costs and maximize profit.

Alex, chime in here, what did you mean to say?

vaximily said,

Do you mean I misread Alex's comment? Maybe he meant to imply that OEM's would move to Android because it's free? That's quite possible... I read it as him believing that Android was trying to cut costs and maximize profit.

Alex, chime in here, what did you mean to say?

Sorry for poor english at times I was writing it in a rush, I the OpenHandset Alliance gives Android away for free, I was trying to say is that companies could make a greater profit per phone if they went for Android it would be logical for them to do it, if that makes sense. I know Android's aim isn't to make a profit.

thealexweb said,
Sorry for poor english at times I was writing it in a rush, I the OpenHandset Alliance gives Android away for free, I was trying to say is that companies could make a greater profit per phone if they went for Android it would be logical for them to do it, if that makes sense. I know Android's aim isn't to make a profit.

Ahh I see, that actually makes more sense now that I read it that way! Sorry for the misunderstanding.

thealexweb said,
Well in this economic climate phone makers want to cut costs anywhere to maximize profit, Android anyone?

I really want to question that, and I hope you aren't just trolling, because that would mean I have no hope of getting an answer.


As an actual user of an Android phone, and a follower of new releases and both sides of the community (the hacker-enthusiast side as well as the vendor-supported side), I want to know how much money is actually being saved. At an average cost of $10 per unit for WP7, how does that weigh against the Android cost of employing software developers at the OEM/carrier level to actually build, test, and publish every new version--plus the cost of carrier employees spending time applying updates (Sprint, for example, requiring its users to visit a service desk for a ~45 minute update process)?


Microsoft's offerings might come with a fee per license, but once the phone is purchased, it looks like the carrier can wipe their hands of it beyond the usual customer service for any dumbphone. Math that up against the added cost of supporting Android and find out if one is cheaper than the other, or if they even out.


The argument has already been made moot for RIM and Apple, and it just might be moot for Google as well.

Joshie said,

I really want to question that, and I hope you aren't just trolling, because that would mean I have no hope of getting an answer.


As an actual user of an Android phone, and a follower of new releases and both sides of the community (the hacker-enthusiast side as well as the vendor-supported side), I want to know how much money is actually being saved. At an average cost of $10 per unit for WP7, how does that weigh against the Android cost of employing software developers at the OEM/carrier level to actually build, test, and publish every new version--plus the cost of carrier employees spending time applying updates (Sprint, for example, requiring its users to visit a service desk for a ~45 minute update process)?


Microsoft's offerings might come with a fee per license, but once the phone is purchased, it looks like the carrier can wipe their hands of it beyond the usual customer service for any dumbphone. Math that up against the added cost of supporting Android and find out if one is cheaper than the other, or if they even out.


The argument has already been made moot for RIM and Apple, and it just might be moot for Google as well.

Well... That may be the case with Windows Phone 7, we'll have to see. That has not been the case with Windows Mobile 6 and before, as the OEM's and carriers basically took the source and customized it to their needs. Additionally, it was their responsibility to support the OS and release updates as necessary. Now, of course core functionality was built by Microsoft, so they didn't have to build that and Microsoft developers also helped and supported the OEM's and carriers, so it was a bit easier than building an Android OS I would imagine...

Now, with Windows Phone 7, it does sound like Microsoft is going to be more involved in the OS itself, as they are not allowing as much customization, and are supposed to be handling updates themselves over the air (Which will be GREAT). So it sounds like the OEM's and carriers will not need to invest as much in the OS going forward, so I imagine that would be VERY attractive to them and would likely (Rather easily) offset the cost of the OS...

The original article is obviously idiotic. Since when Apple licensed its mobile OS to any other manufacturer?

Fedr0 said,
The original article is obviously idiotic. Since when Apple licensed its mobile OS to any other manufacturer?

Also it says the iPhone OS is free, well iPod Touch owners have to pay whenever they want a major update.

Fedr0 said,
The original article is obviously idiotic. Since when Apple licensed its mobile OS to any other manufacturer?

+1, what a stupid statement to include.

Fedr0 said,
The original article is obviously idiotic. Since when Apple licensed its mobile OS to any other manufacturer?
Apple should be charging themselves for it, naturally. :)

I find the whole thing ridiculous - I mean, if they didn't charge for it, what on earth would be their income? It makes zero sense.

Fedr0 said,
The original article is obviously idiotic. Since when Apple licensed its mobile OS to any other manufacturer?

It surely is. Dumbest statement I have ever heard. When you buy an IPhone or a blackberry, the cost of the software is already included. Besides none of these companies license their OS.

also they left out part of that quote 'other OS's are free, but free comes at a cost... and you have to ask yourself where that cost lies'
gets you thinking

Kirkburn said,
I find the whole thing ridiculous - I mean, if they didn't charge for it, what on earth would be their income? It makes zero sense.

and yeah, its not like they are making their own Hardware as of this moment, gotta make $ somehow, Google has cash to throw away raping your privacy

both Apple, RIM don't license or give away their OS.
this article is kind of dumb

Edited by dingl_, Feb 19 2010, 5:21pm :

artfuldodga said,
also they left out part of that quote 'other OS's are free, but free comes at a cost... and you have to ask yourself where that cost lies'
gets you thinking

Exactly, when it comes to android the costs, IMO, are in the OEMs having to support it on their own. As it is, if someone like HTC can't get something to work, or needs something in WM they can ask MS and MS sends out a team of devs to work with them on the spot to get it fixed or get it working etc. The license fee means you have MS's devs on your side whenever you need help.

Also in another news story it was said by some other MS VP iirc, that WP7 series will have reguler updates OTA much like iPhone and Android coming from MS directly!

thealexweb said,

Also it says the iPhone OS is free, well iPod Touch owners have to pay whenever they want a major update.

iPod Touch users don't have to pay for for OS updates. direct download links can usually be found on the net within an hour of the update being published to itunes

timster said,
iPod Touch users don't have to pay for for OS updates. direct download links can usually be found on the net within an hour of the update being published to itunes

Oi, that's the illegal method of getting it.

timster said,
iPod Touch users don't have to pay for for OS updates. direct download links can usually be found on the net within an hour of the update being published to itunes
Strangely enough, we're not talking about illegal methods of doing things. It's not like Windows is "free" because you can crack it.

Edited by Kirkburn, Feb 19 2010, 8:55pm :

Fedr0 said,
The original article is obviously idiotic. Since when Apple licensed its mobile OS to any other manufacturer?

When did neowin users become so impolite? Just because it's the Internet does not mean you have so rude. A simple "The iPhone OS is kinda included in the price of the phone" would have done.

GP007 said,

Also in another news story it was said by some other MS VP iirc, that WP7 series will have reguler updates OTA much like iPhone and Android coming from MS directly!


I didn't know that. If that's true, you have no idea how effectively that sells me on WP7. I heart my Android phone, but the frustration of how inaccessible updates are makes me an easy target for that kind of offer.

Kirkburn said,
I find the whole thing ridiculous - I mean, if they didn't charge for it, what on earth would be their income? It makes zero sense.

Exactly. And how would this be news anyway? Microsoft has ALWAYS charged for Windows Mobile... Why would Windows Phone be any different?

GP007 said,

Also in another news story it was said by some other MS VP iirc, that WP7 series will have reguler updates OTA much like iPhone and Android coming from MS directly!

Yes, exactly. That's one of the features I'm most looking forward to. And that support does have a cost...