SuperSite Blog Daily Update: October 5, 2010

Microsoft MUST sue Android aggresively, because they have to make a case that Android is "not free". They're being remarkbly candid about their objective, which is a direct assault on free (as in beer) software. There must be a cost to the vendors for Android, because it is the only way Microsoft can eliminate the glaring asymmetry between Android and Windows Phone. This is a much larger threat to Microsoft than the iPhone (at least unless/until the iPhone gets off of ATT exclusivity), and Microsoft must respond very aggresively.

The interesting question is: What will deep-pockets Google do in response? I think they have to stick up for their partners or it is a technological castration and a lot of the weaker, smaller hardware manufacturers will be afraid to use Android without paying protection money, oh, I meant to say "licensing fees" to Microsoft.

The whole "partners" thing is pretty funny, in the sense that the "partners" are either paying protectin money to use Android or paying license fees to avoid lawsuits from Microsoft. Of course, Apple does this too, but less aggresively because they have different business model than Android, while Windows Phone and Android are on a direct collision course.

This is a 3-cornered game in two ways. The obvious one is the Apple/Google/Microsoft fight, which is fascinating because they all have deep pockets, secure revenue streams and want to poach on each other's territory.

But the other 3-way game is the software vendors/hardware vendors/carriers fight. The hardware vendors are by far the weakest of the three, and I think Microsoft and Google are missing a key point, which is who controls the game, the software vendors or the carriers?

From my perspective as an end user, the dominance of the carriers is what concerns me the most. The abuses of Verizon and ATT are legion and well-documented. The Android/iPhone/Windows Phone competition is a healthy fight; I just hope that collectively the software vendors push back on the carriers who should function as just dumb pipes.

If an OEM was smart, they would just pay the licensing for WP7, which not only gives them more options, but also gives them patent litigation protection anyway. Microsoft protects its partners from outside patent litigation concerning their products, but Google doesn't. If it takes this for Google to start protecting it's partners, then it's a win for Microsoft, because however way they do it, Google will have a red eye with the FOSS community, since it would prove that they hold patents in Android, while at the same time, it will likely lead to them charging OEM's for free software to insure them. This would totally back up Microsofts stance. If Google does nothing, then Microsoft is more attractive because they offer a better option: license WP7 and your litigation protection comes free, killing two birds with one stone.