Interestingly, this means the only manufacturer-neutral smartphone OS is now Windows Phone 7. iOS is on Apple, Android is on Motorola/Google, Blackberry on RIM, and webOS on HP/Palm. I wonder if this means we'll see an increase in WP7-based phones from HTC, Samsung, and LG...
Isn't it questionable whether WP7 will be manufacturer-neutral? The level of cooperation between Nokia and Microsoft remains to be seen, but a possible outcome is that Nokia ends up looking like a subsidiary of Microsoft.
It might become a subsidiary instead of just looking like one, Nokia's stock jumped up over 10% here just now due to the speculation that Microsoft might be eying them especially after this move.
How would this fit in with a Nokia-WP7 Special Relationship though? Would MS kill off old and new BlackBerry OSes and just use RIM's old sales contacts to sell more WP7 phones or what?
That's a great question. I would expect MS to maintain the BlackBerry brand, which I think still has some clout in the enterprise. That and MS/RIM have a somewhat long-standing relationship too. As I understand it, BlackBerry is the only way to get end-to-end encryption from an Exchange server to a smartphone, although I'd be surprised if that's not added to WP7.
But basically, I think RIM is screwing up so much that they'll be an acquisition target soon, and MS seems like the most likely buyer to me.
I think the MS brand has more clout than RIM; if for no other reason than most large companies will have a relationship with MS for other products. In all of the large companies I've worked at buying from an existing vendor was preferable if the products were roughly comparable.
Android is platform neutral in a way no other can aspire to: it's open-source.
What Google did was to gain access to Motorola Mobility's patent portfolio in order to defend HTC and Samsung from Apple and Microsoft. Google will own the company, but it will not become Google Mobility - it'll continue to exist as a separate entity.
They will probably manufacture the reference implementations. In order to reassure other phone manufacturers, Google will probably improve their code release schedule.
Portions of Android are open source. I can't go to android.git.kernel.org, download the complete source and compile it into an identical image of what's on my phone.
Additionally, vanilla Android on a consumer device is fairly rare. Most are molested with Sense or BLUR or whatever tragic "vendor-added experience" Samsung inflicts. So in reality, most consumer Android phones aren't really that open source at all, holistically.
Android is open-source. What is not open-source is Sense or Blur, or the Gmail or Maps clients. You can't assemble the bundle that is preinstalled on your phone just like you can't download the TiVo software and turn your PC into one, even though the little gizmo runs Linux (as does your Panasonic, LG or Sony TVs, all of which run some flavor of Linux).
>Android is platform neutral in a way no other can aspire to: it's open-source.
In practice, is the platform that much different from Windows? Anyone can slap it on any hardware and sell it as Windows and pre-install their own software. In fact, with Windows they don't have to follow the rules OEMs need to follow to bundle things like Maps and Android Marketplace with the phone.
>Android is platform neutral in a way no other can aspire to: it's open-source.
I was comparing that to other platforms, both desktop and mobile (the difference is largely irrelevant to the argument, isn't it?).
With Android, the openness is exploited by the OEMs and carriers to install applications and always running services that CANNOT be uninstalled by the user, unless you root it(not easy for average user, and tough for even geeks because of locked bootloaders). These services and apps take up space and suck down battery. With Apple, you don't get such unremovable crap. With Windows 7, you can somehow uninstall it using tweaks and workarounds. With WP7, nothing can run in the background, and OEMs/carriers get a bigger tile on the main screen that can be removed with a long press and even uninstalled. How is the openness of Android helping here?
OEMs HAVE to abide by certain rules to get access to premium Google programs like Maps and to the Android Marketplace(try selling a phone without those).
So you say the openness of Android was used to customize the UI? Most people hate the UI customization since it further lags the phone and sucks down battery.
>And Windows OEMs can't change Windows itself - they can only slap things on top of it
True, but you can install things into the kernel itself and Dell ships a OS X like dock.
Do you have any examples of Android customisations that the OEMs made as a result of it being Open Source that improved the user experience that wouldn't be possible with, say desktop Windows?
WP7 is not exactly neutral anymore after the "special" deal they've made with Nokia, where they give them a lot more liberties than to the other manufacturers.
I don't see how Bada is relevant. First, is it available to non-Samsung OEMs? Second, Bada is in the same situation as Symbian/Android is in now, a major h/w manufacturer leading the development, unlike WP7.
True, but it's not as though Microsoft bought Nokia. As crazy as that sounds, though, that would have been less crazy than Google's buying Motorola and how now they've suddenly become a mass-market hardware manufacturer. I really fear that things that Google has historically been bad at (support, etc) will come back to bite them hard.
How so? I see this bandied about as truth, especially by Linux fans and the anti-MS folk, but he was given charge of a sinking ship and is trying to do the best for the company.
>By burying the one that was actually good (and whose kernel could power an Android device easily)
Did you even read the article I linked?
Meego/Maemo was not ready on time. Even though the N9 may look okay, there's a lot of things missing that will make it very hard for Nokia to push the OS to devs etc. and have it on enough devices to make a difference in Eurasia.
And what advantage will having a kernel that could power an Android device do? It's not as if Android's kernel sucks or something. It's Linux underneath too. I don't get your point. Also, Google told them to take a hike during Nokia's discussions about switching to Android.
Anyway what happened to WebOS? It's a decent OS built on Linux but there's no uptake because of lack of a ecosystem and people wondering if it will be around in a few years.
> and has MORE customer satisfaction than Android phones.
Something which is yet to translate into phones sold.
> Did you even read the article I linked?
Sure. There is only a handful of WP7 devices out there and they are all very high-end. Android phones cover a much broader spectrum - there are low-end Android phones - and the number of disappointed users is going to be much higher.
From TFA: "The data might be skewed because of the limited number of Windows Phone 7 users out there"
> Meego/Maemo was not ready on time.
And we can see the difference now that Nokia is selling devices running WP7.
> And what advantage will having a kernel that could power an Android device do?
It means it's mostly ready - all hardware is supported by the Linux kernel and the effort to make it run Android is almost nothing. The N9 could have launched with Android.
> Anyway what happened to WebOS?
It's a fine OS that lacks a significant developer ecosystem. There is a finite number of phone developers and now they are all very busy writing software for iOS and Android. Only a few developers have chosen to target WebOS, which has a smaller user base but very little competition.
I meant the Businessweek article, not the ZDNet one.
>Something which is yet to translate into phones sold.
That doesn't still warrant the 'phone OS that no one wants'.
>And we can see the difference now that Nokia is selling devices running WP7.
They announced the deal in Feb and they're going to release devices in Sep/Oct, is that not fast enough for a huge company like Nokia and with phone hardware that takes years to make?
>It means it's mostly ready - all hardware is supported by the Linux kernel and the effort to make it run Android is almost nothing. The N9 could have launched with Android.
And the N9 would now play second fiddle thanks to competition from Google itself.
>It's a fine OS that lacks a significant developer ecosystem. There is a finite number of phone developers and now they are all very busy writing software for iOS and Android. Only a few developers have chosen to target WebOS, which has a smaller user base but very little competition.
That's EXACTLY my point. Meego/Maemo risked ended up being like WebOS, thanks to competition from Android/iOS/WP7,especially if the OS and multiple phones weren't ready. Getting an dev friendly ecosystem ready is not a joke. RIM's platform sucks for devs even after
And Meego wasn't, that's why the board fired the previous CEO and hired Elop. You think you know more than them and that they're all fools? Nokia is Finland's biggest company. If you think MS can 'install' a trojan horse just like that resulting in thousands of needless layoffs, then you're either deluded or paranoid. You should really read that Businessweek article.
And that's why I wouldn't suggest going with it. The fact remains, however, that the transition from MeeGo to Android would be much easier and that Nokia would have a competitive Android phone (and a very good one) now instead of a WP7 phone in September or October.
> You think you know more than them and that they're all fools?
No. I don't think Elop is an idiot. Obviously, he is doing what his board perceives as the most profitable thing to do. What I don't think is that it will lead to Nokia making great phones as this is not a precondition to making a profit and Nokia has demonstrated, over and over again, this wouldn't be the safest bet.
I was talking about the board decision to replace their current CEO. If things were all going to be hunky-dory as you claim, that would be an idiotic decision.
>the transition from MeeGo to Android would be much easier and that Nokia would have a competitive Android phone (and a very good one) now instead of a WP7 phone in September or October.
You have no idea about how fast a company like Nokia would move. Even carriers take months to test devices and look at how fast OEMs are able to release updates to Android.
To come to the bigger picture, Nokia just didn't want to be another Android OEM, they tried to pitch to Google, Google declined to play ball, but MS agreed. They made deals with MS for funding for ads, also some 'synergy' deals like Navteq maps etc. that MS needs for Bing(which is weak in Europe/Asia) and got a cash infusion of upwards of a billion for that. All this was needed for survival interim while they rush out new devices. Android would've provided none of that.
> What I don't think is that it will lead to Nokia making great phones as this is not a precondition to making a profit and Nokia has demonstrated, over and over again, this wouldn't be the safest bet.
Why not? What's inherently wrong with WP7 that's right with Android? Atleast with WP7, Nokia is not competing with bargain basement Chinese phones running the exact same OS and software as them as they would do with Android.
