Ars Technica is quoting Microsoft’s Robbie Bach today, suggesting that Google’s move to make its own branded phone while still distributing Android to partners is a mistake.
I couldn’t agree more. And who would know this better than Microsoft, the company that screwed its Plays for Sure partners with the Zune and suffered greatly for it? As I’ve said many times, Google is following a strategy that clearly failed for Microsoft. And now even Microsoft is agreeing with me.
In other news, [snow is predicted in Florida](http://www.weather.com/). Not exactly hell freezing over, but close.
Ars’ Emil Protalinski suggests that this move is not the same as Microsoft’s, of course, because Android is free, while Microsoft always charges licensing fees. True, but I do think that fuzzing up the brand by having some phones simply running Android while others are stamped with the official “Google” seal of approval is a crappy business model. If you’re Joe Consumer, and you have the choice between two phones, one that is called a “Google” phone, and one that is called a Droid, how would you know that they’re both running the same software, or that the Droid phone will be able to run some of those apps you already bought for your old Google phone? It’s confusing, and it gives clear favoritism to certain manufacturers.
And there’s also the fact that Google specifically said it never intended to brand its own phones. What’s to stop them from charging for the OS five years from now? Who wants to be dependent on an unpredictable partner? Someone who can pull the rug out from under you at any moment? Ask Dell, HP, Compaq how they feel about the way Microsoft has treated them over the years.
Maybe that’s why Samsung has decided to develop its own OS. And Palm stopped licensing Windows Mobile for its own custom OS.
The idea of licensing an OS, free or not, is getting antiquated. Too many bad memories out there. Apple’s model of controlling both the hardware and software makes a lot of sense.
