By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
dallas on 03 April 2012
Edit Thread
rocketpig said:
dallas said:

1. Android requires less phone memory allowing the phones to pack more in and still have more left for the customer

2. Android doesn't charge carriers to use its product.  The advertising model that was mentioned may just be the better idea.

3. Android has waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy more apps, so the carriers will know that they will get a lot more money by encouraging android sales

1. But Android is still miles behind iOS in that regard. I haven't read enough about the capabilities of WP7 to know if this is true.

2. Windows charges carriers? Why and how?

3. Since when do carriers get money for app sales?

1. Well, the larger memory requirements of wp7 have been discussed around here before.  If a smartphone has a limited amount of memory, then having a paired down OS like android would allow a manufacturer to put more stuff on the phone, and allow the carrier to sell more apps.

2.  Windows has done this for a while now.  I'm not sure if the do it through the manufacturer and the cost to carriers is indirectly passed on, but regardless this is still a bite that MS is taking out that google leaves in.

3.  Carriers get a percentage of app sales, sorry if you didn't know that.