Microsoft's Anti-Android FUD Campaign in Full Swing

[jakem1]

Of all the FUD mentioned on this thread I don't see any of it coming from Ballmer.

I believe that makes you a shill :laugh:

[PreKe]

Where does it saying using WP7 keeps you from getting suied for patent violation in other areas?

Microsoft announced that using WP7 would make you safe from lawsuits, and then proceeded to sue Motorola, which did not use WP7.

Licensing WP7 means MS protects you, the OEM, from getting sued over something used in WP7.

Yes. Even if you use other mobile operating systems.

And Android isn't "free" at all, Ask HTC how much money it spends on Sense for Android and any other support costs and things that they have to take care of because there's no one else to.

Nice Microsoft talking point there. Android is free. That HTC chose to build something on top of Android doesn't mean that Android itself (which works perfectly fine without HTC Sense and stuff like that) isn't free.

Also do you even know how google gets it's cut in all this?

Yes. Ads.

[PreKe]

He means that Android is not free.

Android itself is indeed free. Of course you can choose to add stuff to Android, which you don't have choice to do with WP7, but Android is still free.

By the time OEMs have paid their license fee to MS, spent money developing a usable GUI, added all the missing but necessary applications that Google should have included

Stock Android works perfectly as a mobile operating system, and is only getting better. And it's free.

[HawkMan]

Stock Android works perfectly as a mobile operating system, and is only getting better. And it's free.

Except you know, it's not.

you CAN NOT make a mobile operating system today without licensing stuff from Nokia, Ericsson, at the very least, and then they're just talking a mobile OS with nothing but the ability to dial numbers. add a rudimentary GUI and everything Android has, and you also need to license patents from Apple, MS, Motorola, Xerox at the very least on top of that again.

Android doesn't magically avoid the patents for technologies it uses.

[Melfster]

Don't blame Microsoft for the Lawsuits. The Lawsuits are flying all over place in the mobile space. It's not just Microsoft its everyone jockeying for position.

There is rumor that Windows Phone maybe cheaper then Android It subsidize the phone. There are things that Android does better and Frankly there things that Windows Phone 7 does a lot better then Android. For instance the App store experience is likely to better then Android, the Music experience may be better its wait and see. Everybody just needs to take chill pill. Let these guys compete against one another.

[Subject Delta]

No license fees to Google no.

But that's because google is lazy and wants to try to maintain the image that android is free. instead of doing what MS does, taking care of patents themselves for the customer(oem) and protecting them.

instead each OEM has to deal with licensing all the technologies used in android. so no Stock is not free, every OEM needs to pay a pile of patent fees to MS, Apple, Nokia Ericsson and a few others, of those the biggest pile is probably Nokia and Ericssonin fact.

You don't have a clue how licensing works, do you? Software developers are responsible for patents in software, and hardware developers for patents in hardware. If there where legal issues with Android, Google would not legally be allowed to distribute it, even in source code form. Most of the licensing deals are to do with custom UI elements, like Sense, Motoblur ETC. Anyone can grab the Android source, build it, and use it on any platform they wish, in fact you can get stock versions of Android that are freely distributable on a normal PC with no licensing fees attached at all.

You pay to use Google apps don't you? You also have support costs and any IP issues, ask HTC how free stock Android is right now.

My point isn't moot at all, my point was that Android isn't free, you're proving my point for me perfectly, thanks.

Android is free, the Google Experience apps are not. You don't have to offer them with a device to be able to use Android on it.

That's because Microsoft did not make a genuine effort in the last few years to improve Windows Mobile 6.x, and obviously they can't sell iOS. But it's all going to change once Windows Phone 7 - the greatest smartphone OS ever - is released.

Yeah, another piece of locked down restrictionware with a butt ugly UI is going to be the best smartphone platform ever. Or not.

(6) Vista/7. Verdict XP, a ten year old OS, is still beating these without breaking a sweat,

Rubbish. In terms of volume of sales, Windows 7 is selling new copies at a rate faster than any other commercially released OS in history. Of course it isn't going to overtake an OS that has been on the market steadily selling for nearly 10 years, but nobody reasonable, or knowledgeable about how the computing market works would have expected it to, however it is on course to equal XP's market share, and it will eventually outstrip it. And hell, it had a higher desktop marketshare than any Linux distro within a couple of days of release, so I don't know what point you are attempting to prove exactly.

[HawkMan]

You don't have a clue how licensing works, do you? Software developers are responsible for patents in software, and hardware developers for patents in hardware. If there where legal issues with Android, Google would not legally be allowed to distribute it, even in source code form. Most of the licensing deals are to do with custom UI elements, like Sense, Motoblur ETC. Anyone can grab the Android source, build it, and use it on any platform they wish, in fact you can get stock versions of Android that are freely distributable on a normal PC with no licensing fees attached at all.

and that's what google sneaks out of. they don't really release anything. they just offer code, hence they push the responsibility off on the OEM's as opposed to google licensing the techs and then protecting their OEM's.

of course if they did that, they couldn't maintain the illusion that android is free. and they couldn't trick gullible people into actually believing it's free.

[Subject Delta]

and that's what google sneaks out of. they don't really release anything. they just offer code, hence they push the responsibility off on the OEM's as opposed to google licensing the techs and then protecting their OEM's.

of course if they did that, they couldn't maintain the illusion that android is free. and they couldn't trick gullible people into actually believing it's free.

The point is THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DISTRIBUTE THE CODE if it contained patented material. Geez.

[Bengal34]

The point is THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DISTRIBUTE THE CODE if it contained patented material. Geez.

Yes, you could. You just couldn't directly charge for it. Hence the patent lawsuits are against the OEMs that are making money directly from the software.

[PreKe]

Except you know, it's not.

Why, yes it is. Do you pay for Android? No, you don't.

you CAN NOT make a mobile operating system today without licensing stuff from Nokia, Ericsson, at the very least, and then they're just talking a mobile OS with nothing but the ability to dial numbers. add a rudimentary GUI and everything Android has, and you also need to license patents from Apple, MS, Motorola, Xerox at the very least on top of that again.

So you are saying that "Android might infringe on patents, and therefore it is not free"? Fail.

[Bengal34]

So you are saying that "Android might infringe on patents, and therefore it is not free"? Fail.

How is that a fail? Initially it's free but google apps aren't and neither are patent agreements or support from google.

[Gutierrez]

Phone 7 is failure by definition. next

[Soulsiphon]

Phone 7 is failure by definition. next

But not quite to the level of your reply. Next.

[Brody McKee]

What a awfully written article that was...it literally pained me to read it...

I know! And people complain when I mispell a word or two at 2am in the morning :p

Also, the article content is garbage.

[Joshie]

Android is free, the Google Experience apps are not. You don't have to offer them with a device to be able to use Android on it.

Android is not ultimately free, regardless of whether you develop on top of it.

Any OEM that wants to put Android OS on a device has immediately inherited the cost of supporting it. The OEM has to invest in developers for bugfixes, building new releases of Android for each individual device, etc. Google offers zero direct support to anyone who owns any HTC, LG, Motorola, Samsung device, and if you have a Nexus 1, apparently they might just ignore your complaints anyway.

Every OTA update, every maintenance release, every single thing to do with Android OS after the OEM acquires the base code from Google is paid for by the OEM.

So yeah, WP7 will be ultimately cheaper. :p

[TDQuiksilver]

Ha! Try again Microsoft!

[evo_spook]

I think WM7 is very interesting, they opted to take a different path then ios & Android platforms in being icon based, it'll be interesting how it'll get taken up.

[Subject Delta]

Android is not ultimately free, regardless of whether you develop on top of it.

Any OEM that wants to put Android OS on a device has immediately inherited the cost of supporting it. The OEM has to invest in developers for bugfixes, building new releases of Android for each individual device, etc. Google offers zero direct support to anyone who owns any HTC, LG, Motorola, Samsung device, and if you have a Nexus 1, apparently they might just ignore your complaints anyway.

Every OTA update, every maintenance release, every single thing to do with Android OS after the OEM acquires the base code from Google is paid for by the OEM.

So yeah, WP7 will be ultimately cheaper. :p

The same does actually apply to WP7 you know. Microsoft aren't going to write their hardware drivers for them, and the licensing cost added will offset any small cost saving they get from having support from Microsoft.

[MindTrickz]

There seems to be a quite a bit of confusion in this thread about Android. The OS as developed by Google is completely free, but what isn't free is some of the cost that comes from licensing technologies from the companies that have the patents on some of the most essential software and hardware in mobile technology; such as Nokia, Motorola, Erricson, Apple and Microsoft. The problem comes Ballmer trying to imply Andriod is not free when it in fact is by grouping the patent licensing with it. That is wrong.

A company using Windos 7 Mobile OS would still have pay Nokia, Motorola, Erricson, Apple and Microsoft to license their software PLUS the cost to license Windos 7 Mobile OS, so there is really no benefit to Microsoft OS, and that is why they are threating companies that do not use their OS.

[Joshie]

The same does actually apply to WP7 you know. Microsoft aren't going to write their hardware drivers for them, and the licensing cost added will offset any small cost saving they get from having support from Microsoft.

Not to nearly the same degree. Development and deployment are expensive. Drivers will rarely need to be updated to keep OTA WP7 updates satisfied. On Android, however, vendors are responsible for drivers, Android builds, the entire debugging process, all of it.

Actually sit down for a second and think about every single aspect of your phone's maintenance over its lifespan. Microsoft will handle all of it except bandwidth (your carrier) and drivers (your OEM). Google handles...uh, lemme think...

/HTC is, of course, determined to make sure its customers have to wait an extra month or four to experience up-to-date 'uniquely customized' experiences

//yeesh

[Mr. Gibs]

Who said they have patents they can sue MS for?

The fact is that Microsoft did the following: They first promised that they would not sue companies that used Windows Phone 7. They then proceeded with suing Motorola because they are not using WP7.

What an amazing business model: Use our product, or we'll sue your ass! Extortion.

Microsoft just can't handle real competition, so they resort to FUD and lawsuits.

Pathetic.

What? They sued HTC, one of their gold partners, but settled out of court. So they aren't just suing companies that aren't using WP7.

Microsoft cannot sue Google since they don't implement anything. OEMs take the blame but in the case of WP MS defends them, in the case of Android...Google doesn't.

This article is a load of trash, and it's posted by Lechio so go figure, and while I dislike software patents I don't see why its FUD when MS sues someone. In the case of Apple, MS and Apple have a cross licensing deal so it doesn't apply to them.

[MindTrickz]

Not to nearly the same degree. Development and deployment are expensive. Drivers will rarely need to be updated to keep OTA WP7 updates satisfied. On Android, however, vendors are responsible for drivers, Android builds, the entire debugging process, all of it.

Actually sit down for a second and think about every single aspect of your phone's maintenance over its lifespan. Microsoft will handle all of it except bandwidth (your carrier) and drivers (your OEM). Google handles...uh, lemme think...

/HTC is, of course, determined to make sure its customers have to wait an extra month or four to experience up-to-date 'uniquely customized' experiences

//yeesh

HTC is reporting RECORD revenue and profit and so I do not think that the cost of development and deployment is that expensive. In any case Andriod has been fantastic for HTC.

HTC Posts Record Revenue, Profit on Android Phones

[Subject Delta]

Not to nearly the same degree. Development and deployment are expensive. Drivers will rarely need to be updated to keep OTA WP7 updates satisfied. On Android, however, vendors are responsible for drivers, Android builds, the entire debugging process, all of it.

Actually sit down for a second and think about every single aspect of your phone's maintenance over its lifespan. Microsoft will handle all of it except bandwidth (your carrier) and drivers (your OEM). Google handles...uh, lemme think...

/HTC is, of course, determined to make sure its customers have to wait an extra month or four to experience up-to-date 'uniquely customized' experiences

//yeesh

Not really. If you add your own stuff in, of course extra work will be needed, but if you build a phone with a stock Android installation, it is simply a matter of writing the drivers, and compiling the source.