6 ms·

Somehow nobody really seems to acknowledge the real reason Android won to my mind: that it was open source. Not for end users, but for OEMs. The whole reason th

by zmmmmm 7y ago

Somehow nobody really seems to acknowledge the real reason Android won to my mind: that it was open source. Not for end users, but for OEMs. The whole reason they were willing to unify on Android as a platform was that it allowed hardware differentiation and innovation in a way that Windows Phone didn't, because they could actually create their own features and add them to the OS. So of course the best hardware and the most unique features and the biggest marketing budget and most aggressive carrier deals were always going to come on Android first. Because Windows Phone nullified part of the reason for OEMs to exist in the first place. Microsoft tried to control too much of the market, I assume out of Apple-envy - something they didn't even do with windows. I don't know why they expected it to work.

la_barba 7y ago
I don't think your argument works. The license is not relevant.. you need an API layer that allow customization via OS hooks, drivers and apps. Also, even if you had a closed source license, there is no reason you cannot share it with your partners.
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  In a perfect world, with nice roadmaps and planning and easy negotiations, yes Microsoft will develop hooks for you. In the world where you have two months to get some ridiculous feature out because your competitor announced they’re doing it, it helps to just have the source code and throw engineers at the problem.
  - la_barba 7y ago
    >In a perfect world, with nice roadmaps and planning and easy negotiations, yes Microsoft will develop hooks for you. I don't why you think this is some pie in the sky fantasy. What I said is _already_ happening. This is normal stuff. For e.g. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/ Or specifically - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/windows-embedded-ce-licensing-program.aspx https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/windows-embedde...
    - erikpukinskis 7y ago
      Sure, it does happen. The question is whether it happens frequently enough to satisfy OEMs desires for how often they want new API and how fast that API materializes. And just having the source isn’t really enough. There are no StackOverflow articles on how to work with MS shared source code. You’re thinking about best case scenarios, but markets move based on median case.
      - la_barba 7y ago
        >You’re thinking about best case scenarios, but markets move based on median case. I gave you data and evidence. Its your call if you want to continue dealing with hypotheticals.
rossdavidh 7y ago
Yeah, I think that the example of what happened to PC makers' profits after Microsoft became the definition of PC instead of IBM-compatible, was pretty informative to the phone companies. They didn't have to be too tech-savvy to see that they didn't want to have PC makers' kind of profit margin, and Microsoft above all was the company that they would be suspicious of.
- scarface74 7y ago
  And yet they have less than PC Makers profit margins. Besides Samsung, they are mostly losing money or barely above break even.
  - rossdavidh 7y ago
    No doubt, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been even worse if they were using a proprietary Microsoft OS for their phones.
carlivar 7y ago
Microsoft could have bought Android before Google though. But I guess that's part of the point. Microsoft of that era was too arrogant and Windows focused to consider such a thing.
- blub 7y ago
  Android was worthless back then, all existing OSes were better than it, it wouldn't make sense for anyone thay jad a mobile OS to buy it.
blub 7y ago
DannyBee (Google employee) has said in the past that OEMs were fighting the idea of open-source. It won because it was free for OEMs and it was subsidized by Google's clout and billions. Google destroyed the market for mobile OSes, like they typically do with their predatory pricing.
ineedasername 7y ago
Yeah, I wonder if it would have been different if, in the early days of Android (or post-iOS and pre-Android) Microsoft has released not just a mobile OS, but a flagship-quality reference design like what Google has done with its own phones. I think MS kind of tried that with Nokia, but the ship had already sailed by that point.
IggleSniggle 7y ago
You’re right. That said, I am still so sad about Windows Phone going away. To my mind, it is still one of the best Smartphone UX that has yet existed, bested only by voice/passive-screen Moto X 2013. The vision for Windows Phone was unified information, screen-time minimalism, and the most brilliant sound/rumble design I have experienced on any device. The Moto X was a close second by finding ways to avoid needing to look at your screen entirely. By contrast, Apple and Samsung have been focused on screen-addiction, not user efficiency/productivity. iOS Screen Time is the weirdest mea culpa, but works because efficient mobile experiences failed to sell.
- iforgotpassword 7y ago
  Agreed. They perfected the UI with 8.1. It appears Windows 8 was developed for mobile first and then shoehorned onto the desktop version of the OS. On desktop it felt like an ugly, unpolished incomplete mess, two OS running side by side at the same time. Windows 10 brought much more polish to the desktop, the modern apps integrate much better, more and more setting dialogs get ported to uwp. But at the same time the mobile version of 10 felt less optimized than 8.1, almost like a compromise between desktop and mobile. While that helped getting closer to the goal of a unified experience between desktop and mobile, this was ultimately the wrong vision anyways. And ironically now that mobile is dead, what is even the point in continuing to transform Windows 10 away from win32 to uwp? I'm aware they still have the Xbox which also supports uwp apps but here I see even less of a reason to create this cross platform experience.
scarface74 7y ago
The reason they were willing to unify on Android was because it was free - not because it was open source. As you can see with all of the crapware that PC OEMs put on Windows computers, it being open source had nothing to do with it - at least outside of China. What makes Android,Android to most users is all of the closed source Google Services.

by zmmmmm 7y ago

la_barba 7y ago

I don't think your argument works. The license is not relevant.. you need an API layer that allow customization via OS hooks, drivers and apps. Also, even if you had a closed source license, there is no reason you cannot share it with your partners.

erikpukinskis 7y ago
In a perfect world, with nice roadmaps and planning and easy negotiations, yes Microsoft will develop hooks for you. In the world where you have two months to get some ridiculous feature out because your competitor announced they’re doing it, it helps to just have the source code and throw engineers at the problem.
- la_barba 7y ago
  >In a perfect world, with nice roadmaps and planning and easy negotiations, yes Microsoft will develop hooks for you. I don't why you think this is some pie in the sky fantasy. What I said is _already_ happening. This is normal stuff. For e.g. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/ Or specifically - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/windows-embedded-ce-licensing-program.aspx https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/windows-embedde...
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    Sure, it does happen. The question is whether it happens frequently enough to satisfy OEMs desires for how often they want new API and how fast that API materializes. And just having the source isn’t really enough. There are no StackOverflow articles on how to work with MS shared source code. You’re thinking about best case scenarios, but markets move based on median case.
    - la_barba 7y ago
      >You’re thinking about best case scenarios, but markets move based on median case. I gave you data and evidence. Its your call if you want to continue dealing with hypotheticals.

rossdavidh 7y ago

Yeah, I think that the example of what happened to PC makers' profits after Microsoft became the definition of PC instead of IBM-compatible, was pretty informative to the phone companies. They didn't have to be too tech-savvy to see that they didn't want to have PC makers' kind of profit margin, and Microsoft above all was the company that they would be suspicious of.

scarface74 7y ago
And yet they have less than PC Makers profit margins. Besides Samsung, they are mostly losing money or barely above break even.
- rossdavidh 7y ago
  No doubt, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been even worse if they were using a proprietary Microsoft OS for their phones.

carlivar 7y ago

Microsoft could have bought Android before Google though. But I guess that's part of the point. Microsoft of that era was too arrogant and Windows focused to consider such a thing.

blub 7y ago
Android was worthless back then, all existing OSes were better than it, it wouldn't make sense for anyone thay jad a mobile OS to buy it.

blub 7y ago

DannyBee (Google employee) has said in the past that OEMs were fighting the idea of open-source. It won because it was free for OEMs and it was subsidized by Google's clout and billions. Google destroyed the market for mobile OSes, like they typically do with their predatory pricing.

ineedasername 7y ago

Yeah, I wonder if it would have been different if, in the early days of Android (or post-iOS and pre-Android) Microsoft has released not just a mobile OS, but a flagship-quality reference design like what Google has done with its own phones. I think MS kind of tried that with Nokia, but the ship had already sailed by that point.

IggleSniggle 7y ago

You’re right. That said, I am still so sad about Windows Phone going away. To my mind, it is still one of the best Smartphone UX that has yet existed, bested only by voice/passive-screen Moto X 2013. The vision for Windows Phone was unified information, screen-time minimalism, and the most brilliant sound/rumble design I have experienced on any device. The Moto X was a close second by finding ways to avoid needing to look at your screen entirely. By contrast, Apple and Samsung have been focused on screen-addiction, not user efficiency/productivity. iOS Screen Time is the weirdest mea culpa, but works because efficient mobile experiences failed to sell.

iforgotpassword 7y ago
Agreed. They perfected the UI with 8.1. It appears Windows 8 was developed for mobile first and then shoehorned onto the desktop version of the OS. On desktop it felt like an ugly, unpolished incomplete mess, two OS running side by side at the same time. Windows 10 brought much more polish to the desktop, the modern apps integrate much better, more and more setting dialogs get ported to uwp. But at the same time the mobile version of 10 felt less optimized than 8.1, almost like a compromise between desktop and mobile. While that helped getting closer to the goal of a unified experience between desktop and mobile, this was ultimately the wrong vision anyways. And ironically now that mobile is dead, what is even the point in continuing to transform Windows 10 away from win32 to uwp? I'm aware they still have the Xbox which also supports uwp apps but here I see even less of a reason to create this cross platform experience.

scarface74 7y ago

The reason they were willing to unify on Android was because it was free - not because it was open source. As you can see with all of the crapware that PC OEMs put on Windows computers, it being open source had nothing to do with it - at least outside of China. What makes Android,Android to most users is all of the closed source Google Services.