Windows Phone more free than Android
Saw a tweet today saying basically the same thing as the title of this post. As I, and others mentioned yesterday, Microsoft has apparently announced free Windows and Windows Phone OEM licensing for devices with screens under 9' in size. Which effectively (supposing the phablet craze doesn't get too crazy) means all Windows Phone licenses are now, and will be for the foreseeable future, free.
Android is free as well. In theory. The reality however is that virtually every Android OEM has a licensing deal in place with Microsoft and pays MS a per device royalty. Basically, Microsoft has been in the OS game a VERY long time. They were the dominant force when the internet emerged, they were the dominant OS for well over a decade and unsurprisingly, the hold one of the most valuable patent portfolios in the world around software and OS technologies. And this is what Android OEM's are paying Microsoft a license for.
For OEM's Android isn't free and Windows Phone is cheaper.
I somehow forgot about this fact when I wrote my last post. I don't think it changes much, but what it does change could make a difference. OEM's aren't going to stop using Android any time soon. The market is too big and momentum too strong. People aren't going to stop buying Android devices any time soon either.
What this does do though, is make the things I postulated OEM's might do even more likely. Adding support for a new OS is not actually free, and if you have 2 platforms that cost the same (even free) you can make many arguments against the less popular platform. But, since they aren't the same price, and the less popular platform is cheaper, a lot of those arguments disappear.
Now if you sell both a Windows Phone and Android version of a phone and at the same price, you make more money off of the Windows Phone device. This gives OEM's a stronger reason to look seriously at the platform and integrate it more into their overall strategy. It also gives them a reason to invest advertising dollars in promoting Windows Phone. Historically, if a commercial by either an OEM or carrier mentioned a phone name, it was basically guaranteed to be an Android phone or an iPhone. But if you have two versions of the same phone you can easily justify selling to consumers at the same price, and one has a higher profit margin, that is the one that you want people to want.
Lets get things straight. OEM's want OS customization rights to differentiate the devices which they hope will sell more. In other words, the end game is profits. Not OS customization. OEM's only hate WP8's lack of openness because they believe it is hurting their device sales on that platform. They don't want to customize the OS, that costs money. They feel they need to. And that is a hurdle that a cheaper OS may help them get over.
For dual-booting, you were going to design the phone with Android anyway, so you have already decided to eat that cost. With Windows Phone being free, you might hope to snag a few extra consumers by giving them more flexibility baked in.
The same things goes with the notion of a software or service to switch OS's. Most OEM's and carriers are going to assume that the lions share are going to end up using Android long term so it makes sense to just eat the Android licensing fee on every device anyway and get a WP license as well, and hope the flexibility draws in new customers to your product.
Honestly, while I hate the notion of wasting space on my phone with 2 OS's, I think either the OS swapping or dual-booting truly would help OEM's push units. Even if a significant number of them never actually use WP8. People like knowing they have options or flexibility even if they don't plan to use it. Dual-booting, while a waste of space is the most convenient for the average user. OS swapping on the other hand could be provided as a carrier service with profit baked in for them as well.
That is actually why I think the ability to have the carrier re-flash the phone is the best move here. OEM's will have provided a reason for customers to buy their phone and a reason for the carriers to help promote it.
Android is free as well. In theory. The reality however is that virtually every Android OEM has a licensing deal in place with Microsoft and pays MS a per device royalty. Basically, Microsoft has been in the OS game a VERY long time. They were the dominant force when the internet emerged, they were the dominant OS for well over a decade and unsurprisingly, the hold one of the most valuable patent portfolios in the world around software and OS technologies. And this is what Android OEM's are paying Microsoft a license for.
For OEM's Android isn't free and Windows Phone is cheaper.
I somehow forgot about this fact when I wrote my last post. I don't think it changes much, but what it does change could make a difference. OEM's aren't going to stop using Android any time soon. The market is too big and momentum too strong. People aren't going to stop buying Android devices any time soon either.
What this does do though, is make the things I postulated OEM's might do even more likely. Adding support for a new OS is not actually free, and if you have 2 platforms that cost the same (even free) you can make many arguments against the less popular platform. But, since they aren't the same price, and the less popular platform is cheaper, a lot of those arguments disappear.
Now if you sell both a Windows Phone and Android version of a phone and at the same price, you make more money off of the Windows Phone device. This gives OEM's a stronger reason to look seriously at the platform and integrate it more into their overall strategy. It also gives them a reason to invest advertising dollars in promoting Windows Phone. Historically, if a commercial by either an OEM or carrier mentioned a phone name, it was basically guaranteed to be an Android phone or an iPhone. But if you have two versions of the same phone you can easily justify selling to consumers at the same price, and one has a higher profit margin, that is the one that you want people to want.
Lets get things straight. OEM's want OS customization rights to differentiate the devices which they hope will sell more. In other words, the end game is profits. Not OS customization. OEM's only hate WP8's lack of openness because they believe it is hurting their device sales on that platform. They don't want to customize the OS, that costs money. They feel they need to. And that is a hurdle that a cheaper OS may help them get over.
For dual-booting, you were going to design the phone with Android anyway, so you have already decided to eat that cost. With Windows Phone being free, you might hope to snag a few extra consumers by giving them more flexibility baked in.
The same things goes with the notion of a software or service to switch OS's. Most OEM's and carriers are going to assume that the lions share are going to end up using Android long term so it makes sense to just eat the Android licensing fee on every device anyway and get a WP license as well, and hope the flexibility draws in new customers to your product.
Honestly, while I hate the notion of wasting space on my phone with 2 OS's, I think either the OS swapping or dual-booting truly would help OEM's push units. Even if a significant number of them never actually use WP8. People like knowing they have options or flexibility even if they don't plan to use it. Dual-booting, while a waste of space is the most convenient for the average user. OS swapping on the other hand could be provided as a carrier service with profit baked in for them as well.
That is actually why I think the ability to have the carrier re-flash the phone is the best move here. OEM's will have provided a reason for customers to buy their phone and a reason for the carriers to help promote it.
Comments
Post a Comment