Everyone is of the opinion that Google Android operating system is free. They do not charge a licensing fee and anyone is free to use it. So it is free right?
Well, Microsoft says not quite. According to Microsoft, Android has many hidden costs and if all these costs are combined Android cost more than Windows Phone 7. Incidentally Microsoft is charging $15 for each Windows Phone 7 license. Microsoft argues that their $15 license is a better deal for OEMs.
These are the reasons why Android is costlier than Windows Mobile 7 according to Microsoft are:
- OEMs are not using the stock Android build. All Android OEMs are bearing costs beyond free.
- Lawsuits over disputed Android IP have been costly for Android OEMs.
- The Android landscape is fragmented with all sorts of hardware. OEMs have to spend resources into developing drivers for these hardware.
- The update architecture of Android means that OEMs having to sink engineering resources into each and every Android update.
- Android OEMs need to pay for licenses for many must-have features that are standard in Windows Phone 7. For example audio/video codecs.
- Quality Assurance on Android devices are more expensive than Windows Phone 7 because Windows Phone 7 has automated testing.
- Creating equivalents of Zune, XBox LIVE etc. on Android devices will be costly.
There are some good points there. But I think some are flawed. For example, I do not agree with the first point. Yes many OEMs do not use the stock Android and that costs resources. But it is the OEMs which choses to customize it; Android (or should I say Google) is not forcing them to do it. It is called freedom – something which Microsoft will never understand.
What do you think? Do you think Windows Mobile 7 is cheaper than Android?