Microsoft was in the market for a lot longer and could command some exceptions. And maybe Jobs had a better negotiating position. After all Jobs was coming with

Microsoft was in the market for a lot longer and could command some exceptions. And maybe Jobs had a better negotiating position. After all Jobs was coming with his own phone and by all accounts the whole package was a compelling proposition. Google on the other hand came with a proposition that kept shifting, and some uncertain partnerships with OEMs. I guess Rubin and Google just saw this as an opportunity to fast track Android's evolution and decided to keep it open. Just as Rubin always intended as per his own words. As some apparent insider sources in Google said, open source gave carriers and OEMs confidence that Google wouldn't have absolute power over the Android ecosystem. Which is basically exactly what Google has now. The push to accept Android actually came (ironically) from the threat of Apple. They managed to upend the traditional model and have a relationship directly with the users (customers would switch carriers for the iPhone). This didn't make AT&T happy in the long run. On the other hand the iPhone was also an AT&T exclusive. Which didn't make other carriers happy. And on the third hand other OEMs had nothing to compete with. In about 2 years both carriers and OEMs had started embracing Android because it gave them some peace of mind: they could customize phones, they could brand them, and the customer relationship would still be with the carrier. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And that friend happened to be Android. And it was just the openness mentioned above that probably made the difference between Android and Windows.