| theprof00 said: @adinniken You ask, who in their right mind would continue licensing android? Any company that wants their phone to be popular? Phone prices dont matter. who wants to use windows 7 phone when it has like 4% market share? Not seeing how you can value a price over a desirable good. thats like saying who would buy an ipod when you can buy a creative zen for half. At least thats what i think youre saying. Correct me if im wrong. |
The point I was making is not why would anyone pay the licensing fees, but why would anyone pay more in licensing fees than a license for another OS? It doesn't make sense. The only reason why Samsung is still using Android is because the fees aren't as expensive as the reports and so it doesn't make Android more expensive than Windows Phone 7.
No, it isn't the same. The wholesale price affects the amount of profit. The more licensing cuts into it, the more likely a company will decide to go with the least expensive option to maximize profits. As long as you're providing the same or similar functionality, consumers aren't going to care.
The reason why the iPod succeeded over the Creative Zen was a very simple reason, the iPod offered a store you could purchase music with. With the Zen, there was no service that Creative offered. You could either buy CD's and burn them, or you could use any number of the services that were being sued by the RIAA.
