Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Dumping License Fees For Windows Phone?

timothy posted about 8 months ago | from the as-price-approaches-zero dept.

Windows 125

Nerval's Lobster writes "For years, Microsoft remained adamant about its licensing fees for Windows Phone: if a smartphone manufacturer wanted to include the software on its devices, it would need to pay Microsoft a certain amount per unit. That was a logical strategy for Microsoft, which became a very big company thanks to licensing fees for Windows and other platforms. Unlike some of those other products, however, Windows Phone has struggled for adoption in its marketplace, which is dominated by Apple and Google. In response, suggests the Times of India, Microsoft may have dumped licensing fees for two Indian smartphone makers, Karbonn and Lava (Xolo). Microsoft's biggest rival, Google, gives its Android mobile operating system away for free, a maneuver that helped it gain spectacular market-share in a relatively short amount of time. If Microsoft pursues a similar strategy in different markets, it could encourage more smartphone manufacturers to produce Windows Phone devices, which could increase the platform's market-share—but there are no guarantees that scenario will actually play out. The smartphone market is increasingly saturated, and Microsoft's opponents have no intention of allowing Windows Phone to gain any ground."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Does this mean (2)

abednegoyulo (1797602) | about 8 months ago | (#46476455)

from MS' perspective, you are the product?

Re:Does this mean (3, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 8 months ago | (#46476495)

No, it means Microsoft shareholders should buy some Google stock...

Re:Does this mean (4, Interesting)

turgid (580780) | about 8 months ago | (#46476847)

No, it means Microsoft shareholders should buy some Google stock...

But Microsoft collect a "license fee" from all the major Android phone vendors for "patents" used in the Linux kernel.

I wonder what the various national courts around the world will make of this... giving your own OS away for free while running an extortion racket for protection money from your competitors?

Re:Does this mean (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 8 months ago | (#46477805)

If the US Supreme Court rules software patents invalid, that will be the end of that.

Re:Does this mean (1)

Thanosius (3519547) | about 8 months ago | (#46478963)

I wonder what the various national courts around the world will make of this... giving your own OS away for free while running an extortion racket for protection money from your competitors?

I used to think the same, but I've mellowed a bit after detaching my emotions and looking at it logically. Presumably Microsoft gets money from Samsung per Android phone sold. I'm pretty sure Samsung wouldn't just pay Microsoft without at least first checking to see if there's any validity in the patent claims. The fact they haven't tried taking Microsoft to court suggests to me that Microsoft might have some basis for their claims, even if they haven't been made public. It's not as if Samsung doesn't have the cash to challenge them if they really though Microsoft's claims were ludicrous.

So, with the situation of basically no-one challenging Microsoft regarding these Android patents in court despite the big guys being able to afford it if necessary, I ask you, what conclusion would you draw?

Re: Does this mean (1)

VTBlue (600055) | about 8 months ago | (#46479793)

This is Slashdot, leave your "logic" at the door.

Re:Does this mean (3, Insightful)

LordThyGod (1465887) | about 8 months ago | (#46477543)

No, it means Microsoft shareholders should buy some Google stock...

It actually means Ballmer has left the building, and reality is staring them in the face. They've spent too much time fucking themselves. And now it don't feel so good.

Re:Does this mean (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 8 months ago | (#46477709)

Insert Goat.cx here (pun intended)

Re:Does this mean (2, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | about 8 months ago | (#46476685)

I doubt it. I think it's just a temporary measure so that they can get some market share and then start charging again.

Just like CALS in early Windows Server (4, Informative)

MasterOfGoingFaster (922862) | about 8 months ago | (#46478113)

I doubt it. I think it's just a temporary measure so that they can get some market share and then start charging again.

Likely. When Windows Server first came out, it had no CALS. Novell Netware charged a price based on the number of users. Microsoft only charged for the OS, and was much cheaper. After they had sufficient market share, they added CALS.

Re:Does this mean (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46476697)

No. It means that Microsoft still does not understand what the word free really means.

Re:Does this mean (3, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | about 8 months ago | (#46477023)

it means that even when a salesman was in charge, they couldn't figure out how to sell their completely revamped product into a market with several mature competitors.

they are down to trying to be the low-cost competitor by dumping their OS for free, while still demanding royalties for one of their competitors os's [android].

Re:Does this mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46478543)

from MS' perspective, you are the product?

You have been for a long time now.

Microsoft is using your data to target political ads on Xbox Live

Microsoft is trying to persuade politicians to take out targeted ads on Xbox Live, Skype, MSN and other company platforms as midterm elections begin heating up around the country. To plug the idea, Microsoft officials handed out promotional materials Thursday at CPAC, the annual conference for conservatives.

It's the latest move by tech companies to seize a piece of the lucrative political ad market. The ads, which would appear on the Xbox Live dashboard and other Microsoft products, combine Microsoft user IDs and other public data to build a profile of Xbox users. Campaigns can then blast ads to selected demographic categories, or to specific congressional districts. And if the campaign brings its own list of voter e-mail addresses, Microsoft can match the additional data with individual customer accounts for even more accurate voter targeting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]

MS marketing just likes to pretend they're not so they can keep their nasty competitor-bashing Scroogling campaigns going. This is a very dirty, unethical company, people. Don't trust anything they say or do.

Of course, Slashdot won't post this is news, because Microsoft pays them not to.

Re:Does this mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46480045)

Of course, Slashdot won't post this is news, because Microsoft pays them not to.

No it is because it is a shill story planted by competitors, that is why there is no proof. Apparently they handed out materials yet nobody can seem to produce them, there is no evidence whatsoever that this happened at all.

Open source software makes Microsoft irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46476471)

Microsoft's fears of FOSS software (in the Halloween documents) came true when Android was released..

This is the only way they can retaliate. But since Android is so far ahead, things aren't looking good for them in the mobile space.

How to Falsify Evolution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46476591)

Any theory that does not provide a method to falsify and validate its claims is a useless theory.

Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right?

You couldn't and they can't. There is no method available to confirm or disprove what was said about the watermelon. Therefore we can dismiss the theory of the blue interior of watermelons as being pure speculation and guess work, not science. You can not say something is true without demonstrating how it is not false, and you can not say something is not true without demonstrating how it is false. Any theory that can not explain how to both validate and falsify its claims in this manner can not be taken seriously. If one could demonstrate clearly that the watermelon appears to indeed be blue inside, without being able to demonstrate what colors it is not, we still have no absolute confirmation of its color. That is to say asserting something is the way it is, without being able to assert what it is not, is a useless claim. Therefore, in order for any theory to be confirmed to be true, it must be shown how to both validate and falsify its claims. It is circular reasoning to be able to validate something, without saying how to falsify it, or vice versa. This is the nature of verification and falsification. Both must be clearly demonstrated in order for a theory to be confirmed to be true or false. Something can not be proven to be true without showing that it is not false, and something can not be proven to be not true, unless it can be proven to be false.

Unfortunately, Darwin never properly demonstrated how to falsify his theory, which means evolution has not properly been proven, since it has never been demonstrated what the evidence does not suggest. In the event that evolution is not true, there should be a clear and defined method of reasoning to prove such by demonstrating through evidence that one could not possibly make any alternative conclussions based on said evidence. It is for this reason we must be extremely skeptical of how the evidence has been used to support evolution for lack of proper method of falsification, especially when the actual evidence directly contradicts the theory. If it can be demonstrated how to properly falsify evolution, regardless if evolution is true or not, only then can evolution ever be proven or disproved.

It will now be demonstrated that Darwin never told us how to properly falsify evolution, which will also show why no one can claim to have disproved or proven the theory, until now. It must be able to be demonstrated that if evolution were false, how to go about proving that, and while Darwin indeed made a few statements on this issue, his statements were not adequate or honest. In order to show Darwin's own falsification ideas are inadequate, rather than discussing them and disproving them individually, all that needs to be done is demonstrate a proper falsification argument for evolution theory. That is to say if the following falsification is valid, and can not show evolution to be false, then evolution theory would be proven true by way of deductive reasoning. That is the essence of falsification; if it can be shown that something is not false, it must therefore be true.

So the following falsification method must be the perfect counter to Darwin's validation method, and would therefore prove evolution to be true in the event this falsification method can not show evolution to be false. As said before; if something is not false, it must therefore be true. This would confirm the accuracy of this falsification method, which all theories must have, and show that Darwin did not properly show how evolution could be falsified, in the event that evolution was not true. In order to show evolution is not false (thereby proving it to be true), we must be able to show how it would be false, if it were. Without being able to falsify evolution in this manner, you can not validate it either. If something can not be shown to be false, yet it is said to be true, this is circular reasoning, since you have no way of confirming this conclusion. Example; If we told a blind person our car is red, and they agreed we were telling the truth, the blind person could not tell another blind person accurate information regarding the true color of the car. While he has evidence that the car is red by way of personal testimony, he has no way of confirming if this is true or false, since he might have been lied to, regardless if he was or not.

So one must demonstrate a method to prove beyond any doubt that in the event that evolution is not true, it can be shown to be such. To say evolution is true, without a way to show it is false, means evolution has never been proven to be true. If evolution be true, and this method of falsification be valid, then by demonstrating the falsification method to be unable to disprove evolution, we would confirm evolution to be right. Alternatively, if the falsification method is valid and demonstrates that Darwin's validation method does not prove evolution, then evolution is false indeed.

Firstly, the hypothesis. If evolution is incorrect, then it can be demonstrated to be so by using both living and dead plants and animals. The following is the way to do so and the logical alternative to the theory. The fossil record can be used as well, but not as evolution theory would have us believe. In order to properly falsify something, all biases must be removed, since assuming something is correct without knowing how to prove its false is akin to the blind person who can not confirm the color of someones car. Since evolution has not correctly been shown how to be falsified, as will be demonstrated, we must be open to other possibilities by way of logic, and ultimately reject evolution by way of evidence, should the evidence lead us in such a direction.

If evolution be not true, the only explanation for the appearance of varied life on the planet is intelligent design. This would predict that all life since the initial creation has been in a state of entropy since their initial creation, which is the opposite of evolution. If this be true, then animals and plants are not increasing in genetic complexity or new traits as evolution theory would have us believe, but are in fact losing information. This would explain why humans no longer have room for their wisdom teeth and why the human appendix is decreasing in functionality. The only objection to this claim that evolution theory would propose is that evolution does not always increase the genetic complexity and traits of an organism, but rather, sometimes decreases them as well. This objection is only made because we have only ever actually observed entropy in living creatures, which suits the creation model far better than evolution, which shall be demonstrated.

If the creation model is true, we can make verifiable predictions that disprove evolution. For example; the creation model states that life was created diversified to begin with, with distinct "kinds" of animals, by a supernatural Creator that did not evolve Himself, but rather always existed. Without going into the debate on how such a being is possible to exist, it must be said that either everything came from nothing, or something always existed. To those who say the universe always existed; the claim of this hypothesis is that the Creator always existed, which is equally as viable for the previous logic.

In order to demonstrate that the Creator is responsible for life and created life diversified to begin with, the word "kind" must be defined. A kind is the original prototype of any ancestral line; that is to say if God created two lions, and two cheetahs, these are distinct kinds. In this scenario, these two cats do not share a common ancestor, as they were created separately, and therefore are not the same kind despite similar appearance and design. If this is the case, evolution theory is guilty of using homogeneous structures as evidence of common ancestry, and then using homogeneous structures to prove common ancestry; this is circular reasoning!

The idea of kinds is in direct contrast to evolution theory which says all cats share a common ancestor, which the creation model does not hold to be true. If evolution theory is true, the word kind is a superficial label that does not exist, because beyond our classifications, there would be no clear identifiable division among animals or plants, since all plants and animals would therefore share a common ancestor. The word kind can only be applied in the context of the creation model, but can not be dismissed as impossible due to the evolutionary bias, simply because evolution has not been properly validated nor can it be held to be true until it can correctly be shown to be impossible to falsify.

One must look at the evidence without bias and conclude based on contemporary evidence (not speculation) if indeed evolution is the cause of the diversity of species, or not. It must also been demonstrated if the clear and distinct species do or do not share a common ancestor with each other, regardless that they may appear to be of the same family or design. In order to verify this, all that needs to be done is to demonstrate that a lion and cheetah do or do not have a common ancestor; if it can be demonstrated that any animal or plant within a family (cats in this case) do not share a common ancestor with each other, this would disprove evolution immediately and prove supernatural creation of kinds.

However, since lions and cheetahs are both clearly of the same family or design, and can potentially interbreed, we must be careful not to overlook the possibility of a very recent common ancestor If such is the case, this does not exclude the possibility that the two are originally from two separate kinds that do not share a common ancestor previous to them having one. It is therefore necessary to build an ancestral history based on verifiable evidence (not homogeneous structures in the fossil record) that can clearly demonstrate where exactly the cheetah and the lion had a common ancestor. If no such common ancestor can be found and confirmed without bias, and this test is performed between two or more of any plant or animal life without ever finding anything to the contrary, we can confirm with certainty evolution did not happen, and that kinds do exist.

In the event that fossils are too elusive (compounded with the fact that they can not be used as evidence of common descent due to circular reasoning e.g. homogeneous structures), then there is a superior and far more effective way to falsify evolution. Evolution states by addition of new traits (new organs, new anatomy) that the first lifeforms increased in complexity and size by introduction of new traits, slowly increasing step by step to more complex life forms. Notice that the addition of such traits can not be attributed to the alteration of old ones, for obvious reasons, since detrimental or beneficial mutations are only alterations of already existing traits, and can not account for an increase in the number of traits any given life form possesses.

That means a bacteria becoming able to digest nylon is a mere mutation of already existing digestive capabilities, and can not be classified as an increase in traits. Evolution theory would predict that the process of gradual change and increase in traits is an ongoing process, and therefore should be observable in todays living animals and plants through new emerging traits that any given plant or animal did not possess in its ancestry. Those who say such changes take millions of years and can not be observed today only say so because no such trait has ever been observed to emerge or be in the process of emerging in contemporary history, which is what the creation model predicts. If evolution theory be true, we would expect that at least one animal or plant would contain a new trait or be in the process of growing such a triat over its known common ancestors (that is not simply a multiplication or alteration of a trait it already had).

At this point, the fossil record can not be used as evidence to prove that evolution can produce new traits due to the fact that two animals that appear to be of the same family (T-rex and Brontosaurus, dinosaurs), while they do indeed exhibit distinct trait differences, may not have a common ancestor, but rather were created differently with all their different traits. It is therefore of paramount importance to show a single instance of such an increase of traits exists within a provable ancestry (stress provable) in contemporary times, and not assume anything concerning where the traits in the fossil record owe their origin. If it can not be shown that any animal or plant living today (or very recently deceased) exhibits any trait variance that can clearly and thoroughly be proven to be a new addition over its (stress) provable ancestors, compounded with the reasoning that two similar animals (such as a penguin and a woodpecker) do not necessarily or provably share a common ancestor, then evolution is clearly absent entirely, and supernatural intelligent design and creation is thereby proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

In conclusion, should any two animals or plants within a family (a palm tree and a coconut tree) be proven to not share a common ancestor, or if no provable increase of traits can be demonstrated to be in its beginnings or actively present in the animals and plants living today over their provable ancestry, then The Bible is correct when it says God created all the animals and plants as distinct kinds with their traits to begin with. This is the only way to falsify evolution, and it is amazing (and convenient) that Darwin never encouraged people to attempt to falsify his theory in this manner.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46476635)

Any theory that does not provide a method to falsify and validate its claims is a useless theory.

See also: The entire bible.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46477693)

And the koran and the book of mormon and dianetics and every other religious tome.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (4, Interesting)

Amtrak (2430376) | about 8 months ago | (#46476783)

I didn't read all of your rant... because well it's long and i'm a slashdot user. But your argument about a watermelon being blue on the inside but turning red when cut open intrigues me. I think that it might be postulated that if a watermelon changes color when cut it must be because of some chemical reaction. Given this why not just put the watermelon in an air tight chamber filled with a noble gas and then cut it open from the inside. This should allow said watermelon hypothesis to be tested. An un-testable hypothesis isn't one at all. A hard to test hypothesis is just a challenge.

Physics Lesson (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46478029)

Your watermelon seems like Schrodinger's Cat of Quantum Mechanics.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 8 months ago | (#46477663)

Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right? You couldn't and they can't. There is no method available to confirm or disprove what was said about the watermelon.

I'll bite. You just cut open the watermelon and proved it wasn't blue. Logic seems not a strong point here.

Any theory that can not explain how to both validate and falsify its claims in this manner can not be taken seriously.

What kind of idiocy is this? Theories are based on numerous hypotheses. These can be proven or disproven but it is never up to the theory to explain how to validate or falsify the claims. Scientists validate or falsify the hypotheses. For example, Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren overturned decades of medical thinking that peptic ulcers were primarily caused by stress and lifestyle. Instead they argued that it was mainly due to a bacteria named Helicobacter pylori. To prove, it they gave ulcer patients antibiotics and they were cured. For this, they won a Nobel Prize [nobelprize.org] .

Unfortunately, Darwin never properly demonstrated how to falsify his theory

Neither did Newton, Galileo, Einstein, etc. No scientists is required to provide ways to falsify his theory. Faulty logic on your part. In fact, on the subject of Newton, his theory on gravitation was incomplete as it never fully described why Mercury wobbles. Yet it was accepted because it adequately described gravity for the most part. Einstein later refined Newton by showing that Newton's idea of gravity is a good approximation in situations of low mass and low speed (like on the Earth) whereas Einstein's General Theory of Relativity covered broader situations and adequately explained Mercury's orbit (and the rest of space-time).

which means evolution has not properly been proven, since it has never been demonstrated what the evidence does not suggest.

Only if you willing to ignore the collective work of many scientists in paleontology, biology, microbiology, genetics, etc.

So the following falsification method must be the perfect counter to Darwin's validation method

Again, faulty presupposition and logic on your part.

So one must demonstrate a method to prove beyond any doubt that in the event that evolution is not true, it can be shown to be such.

No you are creating unreasonable demands on a theory you don't like. By your logic, Newton's idea of gravity must be thrown out as well as atomic physics and relativity as they conflict with each other.

If the creation model is true, we can make verifiable predictions that disprove evolution.

Bill Nye said it best when he said in the debate that it would only take one fossil out of place to disprove evolution. So far no one has done it. By your logic, you're wrong then.

In order to demonstrate that the Creator is responsible for life and created life diversified to begin with, the word "kind" must be defined.

Ah, the creationists method of defining words to mean what it favorable to their argument.

A kind is the original prototype of any ancestral line; that is to say if God created two lions, and two cheetahs, these are distinct kinds. In this scenario, these two cats do not share a common ancestor, as they were created separately, and therefore are not the same kind despite similar appearance and design. If this is the case, evolution theory is guilty of using homogeneous structures as evidence of common ancestry, and then using homogeneous structures to prove common ancestry; this is circular reasoning!

That's not circular reasoning. That's your lack of understanding of science. If two species have Homologous [wikipedia.org] structures (not homogeneous structures), then they are more likely to have a common ancestor. But that is not the only tool that scientists use. Genetics can also shows the relationship between lions and cheetahs are related and any common ancestors.

However, since lions and cheetahs are both clearly of the same family or design, and can potentially interbreed, we must be careful not to overlook the possibility of a very recent common ancestor.

If you mean scientific classification family (below order and above genus), then you're wrong. Lions belong to family Felidae and cheetahs belong to Felinae. As such their common ancestor would be about 11M years ago according to this abstract [nih.gov] . Also lions and cheetahs are not known to interbreed.

It is therefore necessary to build an ancestral history based on verifiable evidence (not homogeneous structures in the fossil record) that can clearly demonstrate where exactly the cheetah and the lion had a common ancestor. If no such common ancestor can be found and confirmed without bias, and this test is performed between two or more of any plant or animal life without ever finding anything to the contrary, we can confirm with certainty evolution did not happen, and that kinds do exist.

Again, homologous structures do not absolutely prove that two species are related only that the likely they are related increases. Poor understanding of science. Second, genetics do exactly what you describe. Please read the abstract above. 11M years is the estimate. Thirdly, the lack of evidence is not proof of a negative. There are many families whose histories and heritages have been lost due to war, poor record keeping, etc. That does not mean that they didn't come from a certain place; it just means they can't prove their heritage.

The idea of kinds is in direct contrast to evolution theory which says all cats share a common ancestor, which the creation model does not hold to be true. If evolution theory is true, the word kind is a superficial label that does not exist, because beyond our classifications, there would be no clear identifiable division among animals or plants, since all plants and animals would therefore share a common ancestor. The word kind can only be applied in the context of the creation model, but can not be dismissed as impossible due to the evolutionary bias, simply because evolution has not been properly validated nor can it be held to be true until it can correctly be shown to be impossible to falsify.

Again lack of scientific understanding. Common ancestry does not mean there is only one common ancestor for all time. There are multiple common ancestors based which two species that are being compared. For example dogs are descended from wolves which is a direct lineage from about 100K. Common ancestor with a fox however goes back at least 7M and as high as 22M.

Evolution states by addition of new traits (new organs, new anatomy) that the first lifeforms increased in complexity and size by introduction of new traits, slowly increasing step by step to more complex life forms. Notice that the addition of such traits can not be attributed to the alteration of old ones, for obvious reasons, since detrimental or beneficial mutations are only alterations of already existing traits, and can not account for an increase in the number of traits any given life form possesses.

It's interesting to see how creationists blinding ignore the parts of science that refute their claims. While mutations is one means of evolution, the addition of new genes [howstuffworks.com] is possible and has been observed. One of the looming world health crises is the spread of antibiotic resistant superbugs which is due in part to bacterium gathering new genes like ndm 1 [wikipedia.org] .

If evolution theory be true, we would expect that at least one animal or plant would contain a new trait or be in the process of growing such a triat over its known common ancestors (that is not simply a multiplication or alteration of a trait it already had).

Again lack of understanding of evolution and how traits are added. Please read above.

At this point, the fossil record can not be used as evidence to prove that evolution can produce new traits due to the fact that two animals that appear to be of the same family (T-rex and Brontosaurus, dinosaurs), while they do indeed exhibit distinct trait differences, may not have a common ancestor,

No it doesn't. Your lack of understanding does prove your point.

In conclusion, should any two animals or plants within a family (a palm tree and a coconut tree) be proven to not share a common ancestor, or if no provable increase of traits can be demonstrated to be in its beginnings or actively present in the animals and plants living today over their provable ancestry, then The Bible is correct when it says God created all the animals and plants as distinct kinds with their traits to begin with. This is the only way to falsify evolution, and it is amazing (and convenient) that Darwin never encouraged people to attempt to falsify his theory in this manner.

So by your own points: we cannot prove evolution because there is no evidence of it (even though there is). The evidence cannot be trusted (because you misunderstood and misrepresented it). But we should trust only your word with no proof presented by you that God is the only true answer. That's what we call a contrived dualism.

Windows Store (2)

EndlessNameless (673105) | about 8 months ago | (#46476479)

If they get a cut of all the app purchases, this is an obvious win-win. Manufacturers get cheaper devices to the market, and Microsoft increase its user base.

I can't speak for everyone, but I have spent more on apps than the price of my phone over its lifetime. (The unsubsidized price, at that.)

Re:Windows Store (2)

lgw (121541) | about 8 months ago | (#46476657)

It does make a lot of sense. Windows phone outsells iPhone in the more price-sensitive areas of Europe, but hasn't seen the same traction in Asia. Getting app parity is a different story, of course, but MS did finally get the big commercial shops onboard. Now it just needs to be easy for the hobbyist to write apps, as it is for Android.

I really wish MS would step up and officially support C# on Android, and cross-platform dev in VS (third parties actually sell this today, c'mon MS). Anything I wrote at home I'd like to be as cross-platform as possible so my friends (the only audience for my hobby coding) could all use it! Much as I like C# in VS, I need at least Android side-loading as a target platform, and ideally iPhone too.

"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46477091)

You trolling piece of shit http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4885825&cid=46474817

APK

P.S.=> How many times do I have to show everyone you're a worthless piece of crap troll? This, is just yet another... apk

Re:"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46477787)

if so then he certainly trolled you good and proper, in fact he got you so good you're even replying to his other posts! damn it must suck to be able to be trolled so easily.

Re:"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46478413)

Ever wonder why your life is that of a loser? My God, you think 'trolling" is some 'accomplishment". Grow up, get a real life, loser.

"Run, Forrest... RUN!!!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46477475)

You trolling piece of undereducated useless shit http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4885825&cid=46474817

APK

P.S.=> How many times do I have to show everyone here that you're a worthless piece of crap troll? This, is just yet another... apk

Re:Windows Store (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 8 months ago | (#46476733)

Because Microsoft aping competitors' tactics years behind them has worked so well of late.

Re:Windows Store (1)

lexman098 (1983842) | about 8 months ago | (#46477149)

You must have a shitty phone. There's not that many apps worth purchasing.

Re:Windows Store (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46477699)

I can't speak for everyone, but I have spent more on apps than the price of my phone over its lifetime. (The unsubsidized price, at that.)

I estimate that you are the 1 percent.

Generic Hardware (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 8 months ago | (#46476487)

How about phone makers make generic hardware, like PC makers do? Then we can just install the OS of our choice on it.

Re:Generic Hardware (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | about 8 months ago | (#46476695)

I don't think Vodafone, AT&T, T-Mobile, or any other carrier would like that very much.

Re:Generic Hardware (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 8 months ago | (#46476801)

I don't think they get a say in the matter if consumers buy their own phones.

Re:Generic Hardware (1)

nojayuk (567177) | about 8 months ago | (#46477109)

That's great, consumers buy their own phones with their own OS on them. Who are the consumers going to call if none of the network providers will handshake with their RMS-OS phone? The network providers might well claim that unless the radio and network connection stacks are well-tested and not likely to cripple their towers by DDoSing them then they don't get to play in their sandbox and for that the stacks have to be "blobs" under their control.

Re:Generic Hardware (1)

jon3k (691256) | about 8 months ago | (#46478151)

Ever since the tethering settlement the open access rules require Verizon to allow any device on their network (the 700Mhz LTE block that is).

Re:Generic Hardware (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 8 months ago | (#46477129)

I'm sure the carriers are quaking in their boots for this to happen.

carrier sales completely dominate the industry vs direct consumer sales of phones. Probably by at least 2 orders of magnitude.

Re:Generic Hardware (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 8 months ago | (#46478611)

Only in the US.

Re:Generic Hardware (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 8 months ago | (#46477221)

They do. They can block your IMEI number, for one thing. For another, they can lean pretty hard on manufacturers who hope to sell phones in their stores.

Re:Generic Hardware (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 8 months ago | (#46476909)

No, because phone makers don't sell phones to us, they sell phones to the cell phone networks. And the cell phone networks don't want you to have control over your hardware. That's why you don't get root unless you crack the phone's security and force it to give you root.

Re:Generic Hardware (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 8 months ago | (#46477013)

I didn't buy my phone from a network operator. Unlocking the boot loader and rooting it is covered in the documentation.

Re:Generic Hardware (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 8 months ago | (#46477415)

Because of the discounts offered by the networks (in exchange for locking you into a contract), you are a very small minority. The market for directly bought phones is very small and no cell phone maker is willing to put effort into it.

Carriers are starting to itemize hardware (1)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#46477537)

Because of the discounts offered by the networks (in exchange for locking you into a contract), you are a very small minority.

These discounts for not bringing your own device are on their way out. Instead, the U.S. model has begun to shift toward the European model where the phone and plan are itemized as separate purchases. Instead of $20 per month subsidy spread over 24 months of a $70 per month contract, there's a $20 line item for the financed hardware and a $50 line item for the service. MVNOs were first to bring this model to the States, followed by T-Mobile, and three months ago even AT&T cut the price for BYOD and expired-contract customers [att.com] to keep T-Mobile and the MVNOs from eating its proverbial lunch.

Re:Generic Hardware (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 8 months ago | (#46477819)

Yeah awesome, I'm sure everybody would love chasing up drivers for all their hardware for the specific version of their particular OS of choice.

Re:Generic Hardware (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 8 months ago | (#46479527)

Well back when Symbian was king and before Kickstarter, there was a phone platform for tinkerers - Neo 1973/Freerunner.

Suffice to say it died. A main reason was software - few people wanted to pay for a half-finished platform. Today, numerous alternatives exist to windows phone and iOS. e.g. Android, Sailfish, Tizen, Firefox OS.

So a feasible crowd-funded project might be to hire, full time, a few kernel hackers to write blob replacements for replicant and integrate the free GPU efforts of rpi/lima/freedreno. Outsourcing the hardware to ZTE and Geeksphone, based on schematics from the Google/Moto modular smartphone project Ara.

Is that legal? (4, Insightful)

Guspaz (556486) | about 8 months ago | (#46476491)

Considering that Microsoft charges money for Android (anybody using Android has to pay Microsoft for patents), can they really get away with giving away Windows Phone for free?

Re:Is that legal? (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about 8 months ago | (#46476717)

Yes, it's legal and yes they can get away with it. There's no law, that I know of, titled "The fishy sounding business practices law".

Not "anybody", just those who Microsoft has succes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46476749)

Microsoft doesn't collect money from everyone, just those they've threatened successfully, which represents about 80% of the Android market.

Re:Not "anybody", just those who Microsoft has suc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46477917)

Microsoft doesn't collect money from everyone, just those they've threatened successfully, which represents about 80% of the Android market.

They claim patents on specific implementations in Linux, obviously Samsung (a company that continues to go toe-to-toe with Apple, a much more powerful and financed company than Microsoft, over patent claims) sees validity in those claims, Google also sees validity in those claims as it does not step up and defend companies using Android. It's not a matter of "threatening", it's a matter of paying license fees for patents which is what every company does for the many patents they use that are owned by various companies, just one of which is Microsoft.

Re:Not "anybody", just those who Microsoft has suc (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 8 months ago | (#46478041)

FWIW Apple collects $6-$8 from HTC [mashable.com] for every device sold for patent fees too. Nokia and Qualcomm [forbes.com] collect patent licensing fees as well. The point is that the innovators then cross-license, so the more you innovate the more you have to cross-license and the less you have to pay in licensing fees.

Re:Is that legal? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46476753)

When the Microsoft haters defend the old anti-monopoly lawsuit, they insist that regardless of the social effect of one company giving away a web browser for free, it was an abuse of an existing monopoly because they had most of the consumer PC market buying Windows. When challenged with comparisons to iOS doing exactly the same frelling thing (but on a cell phone), they argue that Apple lacks the 90% market share to qualify as a monopoly, and thus can get away with anything.

Since one of the favored memes of Slashdot is that no one uses Windows Phones, they clearly don't have a monopoly and thus are free to price their mobile software at whatever they want. Similarly, Google is free to write a version of Android that doesn't use Microsoft patents, removing that minor fee from their mobile OS.

Re:Is that legal? (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 8 months ago | (#46477863)

Sure. And they are free to integrate Bing, Bing maps, Office, Outlook.com and the kitchen sink. Good luck with that.

Re:Is that legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46480003)

What you're missing is that the laws aren't against monopolies, but against anti-competetive practices.

While having a monopoly lowers the limit of what you can do before getting a slap on your wrist, it's not strictly necessary.

In this case, MS should better allow other appstores (and whatever else brings them profits in WP), or they very well might be called out on predatory pricing. There were complaints about Android being free, which didn't go anywhere as you _can_ actually use it without giving a cent to Google.

If MS going to make WP "free" as in freemium, that'd be quite a different arrangement.

PS: Apple did actually get in hot water with anti-trust laws early on in mobile phase, even without a monopoly - it was for initial arrangement of only selling iPhones with AT&T contracts.

Charge one company but not another? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46476957)

I'm wondering if they can charge some companies to use their OS but not others. That sounds anticompetitive.

Re:Is that legal? (2)

nospam007 (722110) | about 8 months ago | (#46477191)

"Considering that Microsoft charges money for Android ...can they really get away with giving away Windows Phone for free?"

Come on, after all we're talking about 2 phones or so.

In other news.... (1)

XB-70 (812342) | about 8 months ago | (#46476523)

Microsoft open-sources it's code and goes to a support model of doing business.

The tides stop.

Republicans and Democrats dance together in the streets.

Re:In other news.... (1)

Amtrak (2430376) | about 8 months ago | (#46476825)

Does this mean that the cubs can finally win a world series and the lions a super bowl in the same year! GASP!

Re:In other news.... (1)

AlphaBro (2809233) | about 8 months ago | (#46479207)

The R's and D's already dance as one atop the lower classes.

Times of India? (1)

MurukeshM (1901690) | about 8 months ago | (#46476631)

Seriously, that's the source? They are like the Fox News of India.

gets paid for android (4, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | about 8 months ago | (#46476643)

Android right now has up to 80% of the world marketshare. MS has 5%. The number of phones MS sells is insignificant. They could afford to give them away for free if they wanted to build marketshare. It probably costs more to manage the Licensing program that the program collects in fees. At this point, the fees is purely a philosophical endeavor for MS. Cutting them to build market share makes sense, but it probably is not going to encourage others to start making MS phones. Nothing they have done in the past has worked.

In any case, remember that Samsung, which is what most people buy when they buy an android phone, pays MS $10-20 per phone. This is clearly where MS future lies, collecting patent fees. The only reason that it needs to have a phone is so it is not labeled as patent troll.

Other mobile OS? No, thanks (1)

spark89 (3569393) | about 8 months ago | (#46476647)

What MS WP could give customers that Apple iOS and Google Android cant? I'm seriously doubt that MS will obtain some impressive share of market in the near future.

Re:Other mobile OS? No, thanks (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | about 8 months ago | (#46476809)

Great performance on lesser hardware. Windows Phone is more responsive on comparable hardware than Android or iOS. If it's free to license, I think you'll see Windows Phone make a good run at the lower-end phone market......it already does fairly well there in Europe, we'll see what this does for their position in India.

Re:Other mobile OS? No, thanks (1)

LordThyGod (1465887) | about 8 months ago | (#46477459)

Great performance on lesser hardware. Windows Phone is more responsive on comparable hardware than Android or iOS. If it's free to license, I think you'll see Windows Phone make a good run at the lower-end phone market......it already does fairly well there in Europe, we'll see what this does for their position in India.

Yea, but a lot of people have tried MS products. Why would they then buy a phone from them when there is low cost options?

Remember Xbox (1)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#46477953)

a lot of people have tried MS products. Why would they then buy a phone from them when there is low cost options?

Probably for much the same reason that people who don't especially like Windows and Office bought an Xbox. If the new touch-controlled Halo game is exclusive to Windows, watch fanboys switch to this so-called Xboy.

"2-for-the-price-of-1" Tepples... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46478153)

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4895159&cid=46477883 + http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4895159&cid=46477951

* :)

(Sorry I don't "go for' playing the games that "politically correct" pieces of shit play man, I only speak my mind & use facts (especially vs. the piece of shit trolls around here)).

APK

P.S.=> I do, however, truly *think* you'll ENJOY (& understand) what I am working on to supplement hosts though - that's in the 2nd link, & yes, it really works (not sure WHY you think my hosts technique doesn't work for subdomains here - it does, & not only for ME, but for others also, vs. beta)... apk

Re:"2-for-the-price-of-1" Tepples... apk (1)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#46479657)

I saw them the first time and added them to my list of "interesting APK posts".

Digression posted without bonus.

Re:Other mobile OS? No, thanks (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 8 months ago | (#46477967)

So great on lower hardware that even Nokia is going Android to lower their BOM costs and get some emerging markets business.

Re:Other mobile OS? No, thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46478191)

Great performance on lesser hardware.

Second this. I'm in the Android camp for sure, with a Nexus phone replaced with the new version when I can afford it, but I've seen what people can do with cheap Windows Phones, and it really is quite something. As someone who would never touch a Windows desktop willingly, I would seriously consider a Windows Phone.

Re:Other mobile OS? No, thanks (1)

aybiss (876862) | about 8 months ago | (#46479403)

Great performance on lesser hardware... it might do, but I will never admit it nor will I care enough to find out for sure.

I've watched MS destroy performance in every area they've entered. (Anyone remember the MS game Monster Truck Madness?) Meanwhile they've failed to give a shit and have even pushed their multi-tasking operating system back to being a single task interface.

If anyone asks me, "Windows phones are slow and shit, just like Windows is on your PC." Also they crash more and are more expensive.

Am I lying? Only as much as MS has about performance... not even.

Re:Other mobile OS? No, thanks (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | about 8 months ago | (#46479457)

Go check out the Nokia 520. http://www.amazon.com/Nokia-Lu... [amazon.com]

That's not a contract price, that's to buy it straight out. If you play with the phone, it's responsive and for the money, the specs aren't bad (5MP camera, dual-core 1Ghz CPU, etc.). There are apps that won't run on it, but most will. And it's the Nokia design. If you want to play around with Windows Phone development, it's a great dev phone.

Now if they wanted to be truly evil (1)

MikeRT (947531) | about 8 months ago | (#46476679)

Put together a large team that targets Android phones, particularly lower end phones with no support, and make Windows Phone perpetually free along the same lines as the good custom Android distributions. If they made a serious effort to get Windows Phone working as a solid, stable, fast OS on such phones and made really slick installers, they'd probably see a sharp increase in marketshare within a year. Not even 10%, but enough to cause concern at Google. The best part is that if they were to just stick to Nokia as their "official" handset manufacturer and make it clear that they'll happily support Windows Phone on other companies' platforms it'd probably evade antitrust scrutiny. What would the regulators say? It's illegal for them to make Windows Phone freely available with regular support for phones from vendors that don't even buy Windows Phone licenses? If they were to do that, then they might as well make Windows on Arm illegal, tell Linux vendors to stick to no more than 2 CPU architectures, etc.

Re:Now if they wanted to be truly evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46478211)

Put together a large team that targets Android phones, particularly lower end phones with no support, and make Windows Phone perpetually free along the same lines as the good custom Android distributions. If they made a serious effort to get Windows Phone working as a solid, stable, fast OS on such phones and made really slick installers, they'd probably see a sharp increase in marketshare within a year.

Yes, that's good math. Let's go from small marketshare and a license fee, to big marketshare, and zero license fee. So that means small income to... zero income. But hot damn, we've got marketshare!

I like the Win8 Phone UI... but too few apps (4, Informative)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about 8 months ago | (#46476683)

I have to admit, I like the UI on the Windows 8 phones. While Windows 8 doesn't exactly translate well on the desktop... it works fine on the phone as far as I could see. It's at least drawn nicely and has a different design than iOS and Android.

Unfortunately there are just too few apps available. I went to their app store and only a small handful of my apps had a presence there... and Google's stuff was all third-party wrappers to offer some Google stuff. Honestly, that was enough to turn me off.

I guess it's circular... people won't want it if the app selection stinks, but the devs won't make apps because it's not popular.

Note: I got an Android instead.

What apps didn't they have? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46476777)

And when did you look?

Develop apps on the device (1)

tepples (727027) | about 8 months ago | (#46478059)

There are iOS-exclusive games and Android-exclusive games. Are there Windows Phone-exclusive games yet?

Apart from games, Android has AIDE, a Java IDE that works on a tablet with a Bluetooth keyboard. I haven't tried it on an Android phone, but I'm guessing it might work on a phone with a Bluetooth keyboard and an HDMI output when the touch screen emulates a trackpad. Does Windows RT have anything like Visual Studio, Eclipse, or anything else to develop apps on the device? Does Windows Phone even support HDMI out? Instead of HDMI out, Nokia phones have DLNA streaming [nokia.com] , which apparently has too much latency for actual interactive use [steamcommunity.com] because it's designed for movies, not apps or games.

"2-for-the-price-of-1", Tepples... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46478133)

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4895159&cid=46477883 + http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4895159&cid=46477951

* :)

(Sorry I don't "go for' playing the games that "politically correct" piece of shit play man, I only speak my mind & use facts (especially vs. the piece of shit trolls around here)).

APK

P.S.=> I do, however, truly *think* you'll ENJOY (& understand) what I am working on to supplement hosts though - that's in the 2nd link, & yes, it really works (not sure WHY you think my hosts technique doesn't work for subdomains here - it does, & not only for ME, but for others also, vs. beta)... apk

Re:Develop apps on the device (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 8 months ago | (#46478365)

Why does it matter if a game is exclusive to Windows Phone? Although I've seen some Xbox games available on the platform.

Maybe it's just the Lumia, but if games are not the central reason to have a phone, Windows Phone is just fine. Messaging is a breeze, and from their app store, I downloaded a bunch of simple apps that are genuinely useful - like using OneNote for shopping lists (I don't touch OneNote on a PC and had no idea what it was for, until I had the phone). In my experience, the typing experience on a Lumia 520 is a lot smoother than that on either an Android or iPhone. I've found myself using the phone a lot more than I used to use previous phones

If games are important, however, then iPhone or Android is the way to go

Re:Develop apps on the device (1)

fuzznutz (789413) | about 8 months ago | (#46479373)

In my experience, the typing experience on a Lumia 520 is a lot smoother than that on either an Android [...]

You need to try swype. You'll never peck out anything on an on-screen keyboard again. It's truly incredible. It's the killer app on Android. I cringe whenever I have to peck out anything on an iPhone or iPod touch now. Never used WP.

Re:Develop apps on the device (1)

cbhacking (979169) | about 8 months ago | (#46478577)

There have been WP-exclusive games since launch. I believe Wordament was exclusive when it launched two years ago, and it's only just recently appeared on non-MS platforms. A number of Microsoft/Xbox-franchise titles (like Halo and Fable) have WP-exclusive games that are either parts of the overall series, or companions to specific games in it. I'm sure there are tons of others.

Windows Phone has TouchDevelop, which is essentially a scripting IDE that allows the developer to select objects by touch rather than needing to type everything out. You can develop apps with it, and even publish them on the store. It's created by Microsoft Research, and was first launched on WP7 something like three years ago. https://www.touchdevelop.com/ [touchdevelop.com]

It ain't the price (3, Insightful)

Trailer Trash (60756) | about 8 months ago | (#46476699)

It's the crappy software. Free isn't cheap enough, especially when you're 5 years too late to the party and a million apps behind.

It ain't the price (1)

spark89 (3569393) | about 8 months ago | (#46476715)

Totally agree.

Re:It ain't the price (0)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | about 8 months ago | (#46476769)

Greatly exaggerated. I just got my first Windows phone (my Android-tablet-as-phone trial failed, so decided to get a real phone and try Windows) and the market is OK. I even found Grasshopper, an app to let me manage Micasa Verde's Vera.

'course no Puzzles and Dragons is an issue, but I'll just play that on my tablet.

Re:It ain't the price (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 8 months ago | (#46477165)

Agree. And then there is the integrated Bing, Outlook.com, inferior maps, and all the other "goodies" that aren't as good as the Google services you get on a $50 PAYGO Android phone.

Re:It ain't the price (1)

LordThyGod (1465887) | about 8 months ago | (#46477511)

Agree. And then there is the integrated Bing, Outlook.com, inferior maps, and all the other "goodies" that aren't as good as the Google services you get on a $50 PAYGO Android phone.

Just wondering if I could plug it into my Linux desktop, and copy files to/from easily or do I have to play for MS crapware to fully use. Just wondering, don't know, but that's part of the appeal for android for me, its pretty platform neutral. Including development tools.

Re: It ain't the price (1)

occasional_dabbler (1735162) | about 8 months ago | (#46477661)

It has many deficiencies, but MAPS? At least on the Nokia phones is by far the best out there. Bing? Yeah, I'll give you that, but half the point of WP8 is to drive Bing traffic.

Re:It ain't the price (1)

Chewy509 (1178715) | about 8 months ago | (#46477939)

Just wondering if I could plug it into my Linux desktop, and copy files to/from easily or do I have to play for MS crapware to fully use.

IIRC, the Windows Phone MTP stack works really well with libmtp (the main MTP client stack in FOSS land), so for any modern distro it should be plug-n-play... (providing it uses a modern version of go-mtpfs, gMTP, gvfs-mtp or kio-mtp).
I personally have an Android phone (HTC Desire X), so can't provide first hand experience with WP and Linux, but the libmtp mailing list/bug list has very few reports for WP8 issues.

Disclaimer: I am the lead dev for gMTP.

Re:It ain't the price (1)

cbhacking (979169) | about 8 months ago | (#46478587)

Good to know, thanks! WP7 used MTPZ (Zune-extended/encrypted MTP) and was very Linux-unfriendly, but WP8 appears to use bog-standard MTP. I hadn't tried it on Linux yet but am not surprised that it's reported to work well.

Re:It ain't the price (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about 8 months ago | (#46479159)

My iPhone came with Apple maps yet I use Google maps, I don't use an iCloud email and the default search engine just happens to already be Google, but I can change that.

So you do realise that just because something is the default doesn't mean you have to use it don't you? There is a simple browser setting [themobimag.com] to change the default search from bing to google. You also don't have to use Outlook.com just like on Android how you don't have to use Gmail. And you can use Google Maps through the website or through an app like Maps+. [windowsphone.com]

Re:It ain't the price (1)

xvan (2935999) | about 8 months ago | (#46477457)

Wasn't that the same thing people said when google launched the marketplace?

License fees come from Android deices (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46477075)

P.A.T.E.N.T.S.

The only question is, why it took the behemoth so long. Its downhill ends at XP yet its been coasting ever since.

Nokia (1)

occasional_dabbler (1735162) | about 8 months ago | (#46477113)

At the moment most of the really useful apps are Nokia's, and mostly only available on their handsets. The basic OS without these does not compare well with Android/iOS. It will be interesting to see if with the acquisition, MS makes these apps core, either for regularly licenced copies ir these free ones. I have a high-end Lumia925, more or less iPhone quality, and a Lumia520, which for less than £100 SIM free, is almost as good. WP8 really does run well on very cheap hardware.

LOL, they can't even give it away... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46477235)

LOL, Microsoft can't even give Windows Phone away. Just like Linux on the desktop.

(What, you were expecting your prejudices to be catered to? Too bad.)

Re:LOL, they can't even give it away... (1)

LordThyGod (1465887) | about 8 months ago | (#46477523)

LOL, Microsoft can't even give Windows Phone away. Just like Linux on the desktop.

(What, you were expecting your prejudices to be catered to? Too bad.)

Why would MS event want to give LInux on the desktop away? Its already "Free". They'd probably fuck it up anyway.

Re:LOL, they can't even give it away... (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 8 months ago | (#46477991)

"Ubuntu With Bing!" - shudder.

Probably a mistake. (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 8 months ago | (#46477583)

Instead of giving away WIndows, they should probably give royalty free apps store access to any entity for the first two years.
That will probably draw developers faster then dfoubling or even tripling a nonexistent base. Especially the young hungry ones which should become established developers over time.

It's not the OS, or the apps... (4, Insightful)

MasterOfGoingFaster (922862) | about 8 months ago | (#46478245)

As a Android user (Nexus 4) and a former iPhone owner, I'm not so sure the OS is the real problem.

When I used the iPhone, it was very obvious that I was outside the Apple ecosystem. ITunes on Windows sucks, and I could tell that Apple's goal was to push me away from Windows and join the Apple world, where things "just work".

Now that I've moved to Android, it is clear that Google wants all my systems to work together, regardless of what it is or who it came from. My files stay synced between all my PCs, laptops, tablet, phone and even my old iPhone (now being used as an iPod). This is the killer app for me. Both Apple and Microsoft want their stuff to work better if you stick with their products. Google changed that game.

Sorry Microsoft. Even if you fix the OS so it's the best, and give it away free, I'm still not interested. As Sun used to say, "The network is the computer", and Google gets that - while Apple and Microsoft want to build a walled garden. If Adobe and Solidworks ever offer a Linux version, I'm gone.

Re:It's not the OS, or the apps... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46478979)

Check out Seimans NX, runs in linux and arguably better then solidworks.

Seimens owns the kernel used in both Inventor and SW.

Walled Garden (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | about 8 months ago | (#46479847)

How is Windows Phone more of a walled garden than android? Can you give examples?

A lot of this saw it coming (1)

Shaman (1148) | about 8 months ago | (#46479695)

Honestly, Microsoft... why not just build some really nice Android apps and call it a day? NIH is a sickness.

Lava & Xolo (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | about 8 months ago | (#46479815)

In response, suggests the Times of India, Microsoft may have dumped licensing fees for two Indian smartphone makers, Karbonn and Lava (Xolo)

What the hell does Lava(Xolo) mean?
Lava and Xolo are different companies. The article doesn't mention Xolo.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?