2 ms·

If Android has a zero license cost then why does HTC pay for it? http://www.gottabemobile.com/2011/05/27/htc-pays-5-per-android-license-to-microsoft/ http://ww

by fleitz 15y ago

If Android has a zero license cost then why does HTC pay for it? http://www.gottabemobile.com/2011/05/27/htc-pays-5-per-android-license-to-microsoft/ http://www.gottabemobile.com/2011/05/27/htc-pays-5-per-andro... I understand that most developers don't like the current patent system but that doesn't make it go away. As well the licensing cost of the operating system is of little interest to most app developers who are looking at the ROI of app development. Windows has a $140 to $300 licensing cost yet it provides great developer ROI. Similarly, iOS, OSX provide great ROI for consumer apps and Linux/Solaris great ROI for server apps.

ajross 15y ago
Not sure how that's responsive. Anyone making a phone would have to pay that, either to MS directly for the platform or via a patent license. It's neither an advantage nor a disadvantage to Android or iOS. I'll say it again, the point wasn't about cost, it was about freedom. Android apps work on Kindles. If Google goes belly up or gives up on Android, Amazon can still make Kindles. That's not true of Apple or MS, yet this article (which is premised on the idea that Android is a "risk" because Google might dump it) ignores that point completely. That tells me the author is either wrong or spinning.
- fleitz 15y ago
  There are two trains of thought here that I think are important to differentiate, there's the idea of developing software for yourself, and the idea of developing software for others with the expectation that they pay you. When developing software for yourself it's very important that if push comes to shove that you can hack the OS to do whatever the hardware is capable of. Yes, you can still make Facebook for Android but Photoshop won't be coming to the platform with out a paying userbase, this is the same reason you don't find Photoshop on Linux. When developing software for others it's very important that there is a userbase and that the userbase pays for software. It doesn't matter if the reason that few buy software on Android is because of fixable UX issues with the marketplace, I don't know how much of the UX issues are still relevant. Another important factor is why Google might be dumping android (if they are at all), if it's because of patents it's unlikely that Amazon or anyone else will touch it. If Kindle is the only userbase left then it might not make a whole lot of sense for developers to sink time and money into the platform. Win Mo will pose a threat to Android and may cause them to dump it if it becomes the alternative to iOS. There are a whole bunch of ifs in the article and honestly I think it's unlikely that Google will dump Android, but the key to it all is how much money developers can make from the platform. Android isn't going to be very viable as a commericial dev platform if hardware manufacturers aren't producing phones that come pre-installed with Android.
  - tristan_louis 15y ago
    I agree with you on the need for a userbase. WP7 is currently at 2 million+ devices, which is pretty extensive but there is less competition than there would be on Android as there are fewer apps. As a result, the uptake on people buying your software might be higher in WP than on Android (a gut guess, I must admit, but it's what's prompted me to write the article). I don't think Google will drop Android completely but I think that the fragmentation will get worse. For example, I'd develop for the Kindle Fire version of Android before others. Why? Because monetization in the Kindle app store seems to work better (there was an article on HN about this a few weeks back). I agree with your last line and that's where the Motorola acquisition is puzzling. It strikes me that HTC, Samsung and others may start looking at WP as an alternative now that Motorola is owned by Google. If Nokia shows sign of strength (and early indications point that the Lumia 900 is heading in the right direction), others might follow... and THAT is an issue for Android.

by fleitz 15y ago

ajross 15y ago

Not sure how that's responsive. Anyone making a phone would have to pay that, either to MS directly for the platform or via a patent license. It's neither an advantage nor a disadvantage to Android or iOS. I'll say it again, the point wasn't about cost, it was about freedom. Android apps work on Kindles. If Google goes belly up or gives up on Android, Amazon can still make Kindles. That's not true of Apple or MS, yet this article (which is premised on the idea that Android is a "risk" because Google might dump it) ignores that point completely. That tells me the author is either wrong or spinning.

fleitz 15y ago
There are two trains of thought here that I think are important to differentiate, there's the idea of developing software for yourself, and the idea of developing software for others with the expectation that they pay you. When developing software for yourself it's very important that if push comes to shove that you can hack the OS to do whatever the hardware is capable of. Yes, you can still make Facebook for Android but Photoshop won't be coming to the platform with out a paying userbase, this is the same reason you don't find Photoshop on Linux. When developing software for others it's very important that there is a userbase and that the userbase pays for software. It doesn't matter if the reason that few buy software on Android is because of fixable UX issues with the marketplace, I don't know how much of the UX issues are still relevant. Another important factor is why Google might be dumping android (if they are at all), if it's because of patents it's unlikely that Amazon or anyone else will touch it. If Kindle is the only userbase left then it might not make a whole lot of sense for developers to sink time and money into the platform. Win Mo will pose a threat to Android and may cause them to dump it if it becomes the alternative to iOS. There are a whole bunch of ifs in the article and honestly I think it's unlikely that Google will dump Android, but the key to it all is how much money developers can make from the platform. Android isn't going to be very viable as a commericial dev platform if hardware manufacturers aren't producing phones that come pre-installed with Android.
- tristan_louis 15y ago
  I agree with you on the need for a userbase. WP7 is currently at 2 million+ devices, which is pretty extensive but there is less competition than there would be on Android as there are fewer apps. As a result, the uptake on people buying your software might be higher in WP than on Android (a gut guess, I must admit, but it's what's prompted me to write the article). I don't think Google will drop Android completely but I think that the fragmentation will get worse. For example, I'd develop for the Kindle Fire version of Android before others. Why? Because monetization in the Kindle app store seems to work better (there was an article on HN about this a few weeks back). I agree with your last line and that's where the Motorola acquisition is puzzling. It strikes me that HTC, Samsung and others may start looking at WP as an alternative now that Motorola is owned by Google. If Nokia shows sign of strength (and early indications point that the Lumia 900 is heading in the right direction), others might follow... and THAT is an issue for Android.