Comments on: Windows Mobile licensing fees to remain intact

With mobile operating systems from Google and Nokia available free to handset makers, one would expect software maker Microsoft to respond with price cuts.

[SururD]

Nokia already has ubiquity. RIM with its ancient Os will never make it. The iPhone is too closed, android too immature. WM is where its at, and you will have to pay for the features it has which are not present on the other platforms (for free at least) like exchange Activesync integration and full device encryption.

Read more here. http://wmpoweruser.com/?p=1194

[MisterMeister]

Windows Mobile only has a 12% share world wide so there is no monopoly in the mobile space ala Microsoft. The greatest growth for smartphone platforms? That would be Symbian, RIM, Apple, and Linux in that order:

http://www.thetelecom.co.uk/20080919/windows-mobile-market-share-flatlining/

Somebody forgot to read the memo today.

[MisterMeister]

Windows Mobile only has a 12% share world wide so there is no monopoly in the mobile space ala Microsoft. The greatest growth for smartphone platforms? That would be Symbian, RIM, Apple, and Linux in that order:

http://www.thetelecom.co.uk/20080919/windows-mobile-market-share-flatlining/

Somebody forgot to read the memo today.

[SururD]

You must have missed the memo where Nokia's market share fell 2.5% and Symbian's market share by 8.5% over the same period while Windows Mobile market share grew and HTC's market share nearly doubled.

Did you also miss where Linux market share dropped 2.8%, with actual shipments dropped 16%.
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=754112

Funny how these facts get underreported while everyone picks on Windows Mobile.

[MisterMeister]

"In the same period, Microsoft increased its market share by only 0.5%."

http://www.thetelecom.co.uk/20080919/windows-mobile-market-share-flatlining/

You call this "growth"? Not much to sing about.

[Remo_Williams]

I'm just curious, on what basis does the author rate the Android OS as "decent"? Has he developed many operating systems, worked in many? From what I can see, Android as an OS has yet to be rated, and Mr. Rosenberg lacks the reputation necessary to confidently label the OS.

-R

[daverosenberg]

I have done development on pretty much every mobile operating system. What have you done?

[Remo_Williams]

I've done development on Palms, Win CE/ Mobile, and Symbians; UNIX System V, SunOS, Motorola 6502 and 68000 processors, mainframe development, HP/UX, and Power5/6 development on AIX. Now that we're done measuring... you haven't written an OS (and neither have I), so just because you've written on a few platforms doesn't make you an authority on a good or bad OS. Clown.

[NewsReader_]

Hogwash.

$15 for WM is still a great deal. People who know anything about smartphones will recognize the value if they see a Windows mobile phone for $115 and an iPhone/RIM/Symbian/Andriod phone for $100. That is if they wind up at that speculative price point. Put another way, there is nothing that you can do on any of the other OS's that you cannot do on Windows Mobile. So far, MS and its partners have not pushed the envelope the way Apple has with hardware and apps running on the OS. That will likely change since Apple has raised the bar with the iPhone.

Andriod is likely free because it cannot offer the same value as the other mobile OS's; plus the business model is different. I have yet to hear anything about a free offering from Symbian.

This is typical anti-Microsoft rhetoric.

[Tuankoi]

Typical Anti-Microsoft rhetoric is correct, Microsoft still has one of the best development platforms out there. Businesses who use their software and I am pointing to business applications such as Office, Outlook (same package), Exchange, Windows Server, MS SQL, etc... are not going to just switch models like that.

For instance, Linux was an up and coming player in the Operating System Market but never really gained ground with some businesses, well, that was until Open Office was born. My point being if you can't see it, you have to cover the businesses and make the migration easy by supporting MS Software in one way or another to make the transition appeal more tasty for competitors and potential customers you are aiming for.

If Android can deliver on this and much more then they might well do some serious damage, until then Microsoft is fine and that will be the case for some time. Many people underestimate the challenge it takes to create such OS's and Applications, it takes money, time, research and of course the most important, manpower w/ brains.

Hate it or not, Microsoft is still king even if their Market Share in some markets aren't top notch.

[stigmattaman]

Umm, Symbian is going open source and royalty free with the Symvian Foundation. Remember that whole big, possibly game changing thing a few months ago?

[SururD]

Are you saying Symbian was forced to go open source to shore up their falling market share, because people did not think it was worth the license fee and would not buy it any more, unlike Windows Mobile which grew its market share?

[maverick_nick]

What the heck are you talking about - less than stellar operating system? Windows mobile has more functionality and capability than any mobile OS on the market. $8 - $15 is a drop in the ocean for an OS. Let's face it, nobody really cares about open source... they just want free stuff. It's just typical for a guy with limited intelligence to make such an outrageous comment. Then again, most of the guys like yourself have a problem with everything Microsoft. Little do you know that Microsoft is the best tech company!

[kboateng]

Maverick_nick I concur...Microsoft has repeatedly proved that, although considered dull and old, it is still the best software and best tech company out there. Windows is better than MAC and WinMo has more functionality than any of the other phones out. There is a great deal of interest in the iPhone and Android but none of them offer programs such as the mobile version of Office Suite and anyone willing to use Exchange has to go through Microsoft anyway so they're better off just paying them upfront. I don't see anything wrong with that.