It can be good or bad news depending on your views.

On one hand, Microsoft getting this money from manufacturers utilizing an open smartphone OS could make closed OSs more popular and possibly stall innovation.

On the other hand, Microsoft increasing the cost of Android could make their own WP7 OS more attractive to manufacturers, which is excellent for both Microsoft and the competition in the smartphone market.

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.

I'm glad it makes you happy.

This is all very true. I was shocked when Sprint started carrying WP7 because they love to fill a phone with bloatware. This also means that the Windows phones will never be a flagship phone for any of the carriers unless it's popularity really takes off a la the iPhone.

Didn't mean to irk you, sorry. Okay.

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.

It seems Sprint had a change of heart since about Windows Phone.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398768,00.asp

But it's ok as Tmobile and new HTC Radar seem to be doing well.

http://www.neowin.net/news/radar-4g-is-t-mobiles-3rd-best-selling-device-2-months-in-a-row

I'm saddened by that because I have Sprint and want a Windows phone. The problem is I don't want a phone with a keyboard. I would rather something fully touch-screen. However I have tried the Arrive and it's great, I just don't understand why they would only release one phone for the entire line and judge it from that.

it makes me happy.

its funny as hell and i dont give a fuck.

I sense that Sprint has alterior motives as HTC Arrive is definetly not a bad phone and infact its very well rated on their website.

Besides, they really need to offer choice to make that kind of call. Not all phones are created equally for every persons taste.

Take me for example...I got to play around with many phones in the last year and a half due to my adiction to technology as well as my work providing me with some.

As of september 2010 I used:

Iphone 4 (2 months)-->Motorolla Milestone (2 months)-->LG Optimus 7 (8 months)-->LG Optimus Quantum(less than a month)-->Iphone 4 (2 month)-->Samsung Focus (last 2 weeks)

If all I tried form the Windows Phone camp was LG Quantum, I would have hated Windows Phone. That phone really didn't appeal to me at all despite the smooth WP UI. However LG Optimus 7 was much better and the newly bought Samsung Focus is absolutely awesome.