disolitude said:
Even without this patent fee, android isn't free. Windows phone 7 has a licensing fee of 15 dollars but it is pretty much maintenance free for the OEM after that. For android, the likes of Samsung and HTC have to spend resources developing the custom skin and UI and optimize it for every phone as well as deploying their own updates, keeping up with Android versions...etc. There is a lot more than this startup cost at play here. Microsoft has taken a bold move and told carriers and OEMs not to interfere with the OS which is the main reason why their sales are not where they should be. HTC, Samsung AT&T, Verizon... all want to trap consumers in their own ecosystem with their devices, apps, skins etc... and with Windows Phone, they really can't do that. WP7 is Microsoft's ecosystem, take it or leave it. Its rather ironic because both Samsung and HTC developed their touch UI's that they use for Android on Microsofts Windows Mobile 6...and back then everyone was bitching at microsoft for things not working that they had nothing to do with. |
Licensing cost is different from the other costs you describe though. Yes, maintenance is a cost but not a mandatory one. But the ability to customize the UI of the phone can be seen as an investment towards strengthening the brand of the manufacturer. The fact that WP7 is locked from a software perspective means that manufacturers have to try and create brand recognition through their hardware (and possibly apps).
Don't get me wrong, I much prefer the WP7 model, but I can see why manufacturers might not like it as much as Android. But there are of course advantages to WP7 that you mentioned as well, with lower maintenance, etc.
And just to be clear, I never said Android was free. 
