Some of the statements and "facts" Microsoft uses are valid, others are questionable and some are just out right false. Gizmodo has a breakdown of the good, not-so-good and bad statements Microsoft has made.
Good:
- WP7 manufacturers are protected against IP lawsuits, unlike Android licensees.
- WP7 architecture allows for easy customization, using a plug-in architechture independent of underlying OS. Microsoft claims this reduces the cost for the OEM as they don't have to re-tinker the whole thing every time Microsoft releases an update.
- WP7 supports automated testing. Microsoft claims Android does not, so the quality assurance phase is more expensive on Android.
Not-So-Good:
- Android manufacturers have to tailor the OS to their devices, creating drivers for various components, incurring additional development cost. WP7 is plug and play according to Microsoft. Google can argue that manufacturers need to differentiate from each other and customization will always be needed.
- Android manufacturers must be licenses for must-have features standard in WP7. That argument is not so strong because you can argue that Windows Office integration is not a must-have feature. Audio and video codecs, or location services are must-have features that Microsoft argues that Android manufacturers need to license.
Bad:
- Android manufacturers need to spend extra money to create "user experiences" comparable to Microsoft's own Metro UI, Zune or Xbox Live. While it is true WP7 has a nice user interface, Android manufacturers don't need to re-create this. They can happily use Google's own stock Android or ignore some features, which are not required for a phone to be successful.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.