 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Not quite, but certainly things are looking very interesting:
The deal is part of an emerging Microsoft strategy to embrace Android rather than try and bury it, which given Android's world-wide dominance would be an impossible task in any event. Reuters reports that that Microsoft last month asked HTC to include Windows Phone on its Android smartphones. Microsoft wants the deal so badly, according to Reuters, that Terry Myerson, head of Microsoft’s operating systems unit, "discussed cutting or eliminating the license fee to make the idea more attractive," to HTC.
Is this newfound embrace of Android a way to extend Windows Phone's life or even go in an entirely new mobile direction, or is it covering up for Windows Phone's failure? A bit of both, really. Reuters says that one reason Microsoft is trying to get HTC to include Windows Phone on its Android line is that HTC has given up on Windows Phone, and won't manufacture any new phones based on it. In addition, Windows Phone sales have recently stagnated, maxing out at 10 percent in the largest European countries, and with a market share of only 5.1% in the U.S. and a dismal 0.7% in China, according to Kantar Worldpanel ComTech. That makes it seem as if Microsoft's embrace of Android is a desperate move.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/windows-phone/23604/microsoft-makes-it-official-were-all-android
Don't think so.
Microsoft needs to win the low-cost section of the market. Doesn't matter if that's Android or Windows, and in fact it's quite clever - get users tied into Microsoft services (Outlook.com is better than Gmail IMHO) yet have Google invest the money in developing half the product.
No licensing fees on Android because they're not going for the Google experience, and if you want a better camera / usability you go for Windows Phone.
I read about Nokia making Android phones. As above, it's aimed at the low-cost market where Android rules.
Microsoft needs to win the low-cost section of the market. Doesn't matter if that's Android or Windows, and in fact it's quite clever - get users tied into Microsoft services (Outlook.com is better than Gmail IMHO) yet have Google invest the money in developing half the product.
Most of the people buying the cheaper phones won't ever upgrade to a top end smart phone as they're just too expensive, so all MS is achieving is getting people to use their services for free.
The rich people, in developing countries, buy whatever phone has the highest social status rather than go by brand loyalty. Hence you see loads of iPhone 5ses amongst rich Nigeria (eg a business class flight to Lagos), just because it's expensive and considered a 'luxury' item.
Since Android licensing is where MS makes a significant portion of it's mobile OS income, then embracing the source of that income stream makes perfect sense.
Nokia should always have gone for Android years ago. Then they might have been a go to phone producer (again), rather than being raped for patents like Motorola.
Most of the people buying the cheaper phones won't ever upgrade to a top end smart phone as they're just too expensive, so all MS is achieving is getting people to use their services for free.
No different from Google and the entire Android platform, then...
No different from Google and the entire Android platform, then...
Except they make billions selling advertising on mobiles....