This is basically what I've been saying about Android since it was announced. The iPhone comparisons and controversy over 'openness' were inevitable, but Google's motivation for Android was always to prevent Microsoft from acting as a gatekeeper for mobile search. I don't think they anticipated how quickly MS's position in mobile operating systems would deteriorate.
"That’s fine. But what are you going to do as your music experience? What will you do for your photos experience?" [Asking this question of carriers, not consumers]<p>Either this MS exec was just FUD-ing, or he really doesn't get the benefit of an open mobile platform. Users don't want all their X "experiences" coupled with their decisions about device and carrier (presuming that everything works together as advertised). I want an Android phone because it keep Verizon from limiting functionality as a means of attempting to maximize monthly revenue/subscriber. If the market is big enough, there will be twenty good music apps from which to choose.<p>What will the carriers do? Probably offer up a suite of open source apps as defaults or sell "space" on the out-of-the-box phone to 3rd party devs who have compelling apps. By selecting Android, carriers have already opted out of the user extortion game, so why would they be worried about a photo "experience"?
Microsoft is looking at it from the wrong angle.<p>Google has been honest about the goal of Android from the beginning: to address the billions of non-PC owning people out there that aren't using the web and, consequently, not using Google and it's services.<p>Google couldn't care less if they make a red cent off of the Android platform. What they DO care about is cornering the eyeballs and advertising dollars on mobile platforms. Since Microsoft's core business doesn't involve selling ads, it's totally off their radar.
I'm not sure I buy the premise that all of Android is just a blocking move to Microsoft. Microsoft had 10 years to make a dent in the mobile market and failed against Nokia and RIM, and that was before Apple jumped into the game and stomped everybody else. There was no danger of Windows Mobile, sorry, Windows Phone getting anywhere.<p>If Android is a loss-making strategic move against any company, then it's Apple -- having an open development platform in place from a credible company like Google keeps Apple honest and open, when they would otherwise tend to lock things down.
Does Windows Mobile really end up costing so much? I'm pretty sure at the business end of things, especially in larger deals the costs become negligable.<p>The fact that these manufacturers are so eager to try out Android pretty much illustrates how disappointed they are with WinMo/wince. It's alright but it is kinda meh.