Microsoft to Charge for Windows Phone 7
The best things in life are free, right?
The Web is buzzing about Microsoft's new mobile OS, Windows Phone 7. With a sexy and sleek UI, it seems Microsoft has finally gotten it right and is now able to compete with the bigger players like Apple and Google (Android). However, design aside, it would seem Microsoft's WP7 is at a disadvantage already; it's not free.
The Business Insider reports that, during his keynote speech, Steve Ballmer said Microsoft's business model for Windows Mobile would remain the same. Yes, despite the fact that the company was introducing a completely new operating system that couldn't be more different from Windows Mobile, the company would be sticking with the WinMo business model. This includes imposing a fee upon phone manufacturers who wish to license WP7.
"I think there's something clean and simple and easy to understand about our model," Ballmer said. "We build something, we sell that thing." He added, "I think it's not only in our best interests, but it's ... a simple model that's easy for developers, handset manufacturers, and our operator partners to deal with, to understand, and to build from."
You'd assume that choosing to charge would be a deterrent for manufacturers but according to Ballmer, several WP7 partners already have phones in the works; on Monday, Microsoft has said Dell, Garmin-Asus, HTC, HP, LG, Samsung, Sony Ericsson, Toshiba and Qualcomm are all on board. HTC will release its first WP7 phone before the end of the year.

Google can afford to give much of their software away for free because they have a very different business model; the vast majority of their profits comes from advertising revenue.
Despite the comments that I'm sure are coming as always, this difference does not make Microsoft evil. It does make Google's software look quite appealing, though.
Google can afford to give much of their software away for free because they have a very different business model; the vast majority of their profits comes from advertising revenue.
Despite the comments that I'm sure are coming as always, this difference does not make Microsoft evil. It does make Google's software look quite appealing, though.
Google is the only other company that sells a viable multi-platform smart phone OS and they have an expectation of recovering development costs with the added ad revenue from more people being online.
By multi-platform I mean allowing manufacturers to install it on just about any device they can fit the OS with minor restrictions. Palm, Apple, and RIM all have multiple phones but very controlled platform releases.
Another problem with selling the software is that it's bad business to compete with your customers so that eliminates a Microsoft phone from ever happening. They could easily sell premium versions of WP7, give away ad versions of WP7, and build their own phone using the ad based versions. With no free versions though they would never build their own phone.
Either way, poor decision from where I'm standing. WP7 looks interesting but I wouldn't be willing to pay an extra $50 to own an exact phone with WP7 over Android.
Its not like AT&T is ran by a bunch of dumb smelly hippys who say "Google is free dude lets go with it."
Google isn't free. It forces people who use it to funnel advertising dollars to Google. If another company wants to benefit from those advertising dollars then they need to use a different system. Rather than attempting be an advertiser, Microsoft just sells the software and lets the buyer do with it what they want.
This is a good question. On this front, I think most people can agree that Microsoft is very kind to developers and offers some great tools and API's. Especially considering you can now get free trimmed down versions of Visual Studio (C# Express, Web Express, ect...). So yeah, I will be curious to see what they have planned for developers. I hope they will have the phones be able to run Silverlight and .NET apps.
Anyway, it's their business model, let them be. If it works for them and they ain't breaking any laws, I see no wrong in it. If they product sucks, it's gonna show in the profit (at least with no superb marketing campaign it will, lol).
Cheers!
I have a droid, I can tell you this much, I don't have banner ads on it generating revenue for Google.