Microsoft sneaks onto Android while Android sneaks onto Windows Two parallel trends bubbled away at MWC this year – but without getting much attention. When Android and Microsoft converge, it’s going to be the next big platform battle, and one Microsoft can’t afford to lose. Firstly, without anyone really noticing, Microsoft has an Android platform play. A Microsoft-friendly Android OS is …
I saw an article this week on WindowsLatest which stated that Windows Mobile devs earn on average twice the income of Android devs and 50% more than IOS devs. So whilst the platform might not be exactly top of the pops, there are some good financial reasons to consider skilling up on it!
"In 2 - 10 years, Microsoft is going to gobble Cyanogen "
Only if it annoys Google - and can add revenue...
nb - I now note that Microsoft are apparently opening the path to incrementally upgrading the Xbox One hardware by potentially making it modular / PC like. So hopefully we can get a console like "always works" and predictable experience but with PC levels of performance:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/03/01/xbox-one-could-require-pc-style-hardware-upgrades-to-run-advance/
I was hoping they would too... until they brought out the slurping W10. I was hoping privacy would be their USP.
Now I hate them all and just retreat into doing as little as I can online and processing everything locally or off my home server.
Apple is like Disney world - looks lovely but is basically a big tiresome advert for tat you don't want or need. Android is the wild West. Windows is the wannabe and doesn't know which way it should go so tries a bit of both.
'Microsoft-friendly Android OS' .. is that microSpeak for totally controlled?
"A Microsoft-friendly Android OS is coming to market, in the form of Cyanogen OS, and weirdly, and it hasn’t cost Microsoft a penny in equity investment."
"Cyanogen .. just announced a strategic partnership with Microsoft that .. will now come with Bing, Skype, OneDrive, OneNote, Outlook, and Microsoft Office out of the box. ref
In that parallel universe where the rest of us live. Microsoft is extracting revenue from downstream Android hardware manufacturers and now have suceeded in cloning Android and at the same time prevented google apps space on the [open?] Cyanogen [touch] screen.
"the height of desperation that Microsoft has to clone Android in order to get traction in the mobile market"
That's not what they are doing at all. They are making Microsoft's key products and services available on the Android platform whilst avoiding paying Google (or the Playstore) for doing so.
(Microsoft have dropped plans to port Android apps to Windows Mobile - instead going for IOS portability only. IOS apps are usually better than Android ones and have more exclusives so it makes sense...)
Once it was clear Microsoft were done with Windows Phone on the Lumia, it more or less implied they were working on something else.
It doesn't seem beyond the realms of probability that they're working on an Android phone with a metro-esque launcher, xbox live, cloud storage etc. Maybe they'll even bung in their universal platform API, store, business friendly life / business modes.
Things that might differentiate their device and make it more Windows friendly but still allow it to benefit from the Android ecosystem. I think they'd be nuts if they don't include the Google play store. Amazon demonstrates that it's very hard to attract developers or users to another store when it only has a subset of the same apps.
It doesn't seem beyond the realms of probability that they're working on an Android phone
Microsoft aren't going to ship[1] an Android phone.
At present, they make a load of cash and a lot of publicity from alleged[2] infringements of MS-owned patents. But as soon as they become an Android distributor, they are of necessity a Linux distributor, and thus bound by the GPL in that respect. And the GPL v2, uder which the kernel is distibuted, has this to say (in section 7) :-
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
So as soon as Microsoft distributes Android - even once - all that patent FID and money is history. I don't see them going for that[3].
Vic.
[1] Although I can see them doing some sort of arm's-length collaboration with a puppet organisation
[2] We can argue about whether or not those allegations are true - but that actually makes no difference. It is the *fear* of litigation that means success here, rather than the litigation itself.
[3] I do live in hope, though :-)
They've already shipped one Nokia phone with Android:
https://www.microsoft.com/en/mobile/phones/nokia-x/?order_by=Latest
So I don't see why not.
And all telco manufacturers, Apple, Microsoft, Google and assorted others have patents and claim others infringe on them. They make a big noise about it, sue and then they settle or cross-license their tech.
I reckon that's up for debate
Not serious debate. Android sits atop Linux, so if you distribute Android you are distributing LInux. Android doesn't sit on any other kernel.
I'm not sure whether the clause would stand up in court.
It doesn't need to. If MS doesn't want to be held to the licence, it doesn't need to accept it. But if it chooses that path, then it would be making unauthorised copies of copyrighted materiel, which is an offence in most jurisdictions. And being called out as a "pirate"[1] or "software thief"[1] wouldn't do their public relations any good.
Vic.
[1] Yes, I know these are inaccurate terms. But they're the ones often used in such circumstances.
> And being called out as a "pirate"[1] or "software thief"[1] wouldn't do their public relations any good.
They have been called that before: with MS-DOS 1.0 (by DRI over CP/M code); with Doublespace (stolen from Stacker); with Windows NT (MS paid a settlement of $100million to DEC); Burst.com; ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation
It doesn't need to. If MS doesn't want to be held to the licence, it doesn't need to accept it.
Nope. This is a standard area of contract law and underpins discussions of licensing such as FRAND patents. Clauses like this are routinely struck out by courts as too onerous and here possibly even irrelevant to the implicit contract of the licence.
As an extreme example: a licence for my code might include a requirement for a particular religious affiliation. It's unlikely that such a clause would withstand judicial scrutiny. This is why so many real contracts have clauses at the end that prevent nullification in case that any individual clause is held to be invalid.
Add to this the way the dual-licensing that Google already applies to Android: there's AOSP and then there's the stuff for manufacturers and it's fairly clear that Android is not Linux.
Whatever, with Microsoft apparently exiting the handset business, it's unlikely for them to start becoming an Android distributor. Providing an alternative to Google Play services is probably sufficient.
Nope. This is a standard area of contract law and underpins discussions of licensing such as FRAND patents. Clauses like this are routinely struck out by courts as too onerous
You are completely wrong. This has been tested in court, and the contract held correctly. This is a matter of record.
The GPL clearly states :
You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works
And that's the end of it - if you don't like the clause, you don't accept the licence - but nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works, meaning any redistribution is simply a breach of copyright.
Westinghouse thought they could redistribute GPL code without complying with the licence. That didn't end well for them. There are other instances - you are completely wrong when you say that courts strike down such clauses because, to date, every single GPL case that has gone to court has been successful. The only reason there aren't more court victories is that, in every other case, there has been a pre-court settlement, with the defendant coming into compliance with the GPL. Look it up - there are numerous examples.
Add to this the way the dual-licensing that Google already applies to Android: there's AOSP and then there's the stuff for manufacturers and it's fairly clear that Android is not Linux.
Oh, where to start.
Android contains Linux. Linux is the kernel upon which Android sits. This is simply a matter of fact - see, for example, the Android Common Kernel build tree.
If you look at the COPYING file in there, you will see it contains the GPLv2. That is because it is licenced under the GPLv2, exactly the same as every other copy of the Linux kernel, since tha tis the only licence under which it is available3.
Now that does not make the entirety of Android GPL - that's what's known as a "mere aggregation" - but nonetheless, there is a copy of the Linux kernel within Android, licenced under the GPLv2.
So, as I said earlier, anyone redistributing Android is necessarily redistributing Linux, and is thus bound under the terms og the GPLv2 in respect of that Linux redistribution. If you want to argue that any further - you'll need to find counter-examples where someone is shipping Android on a different kernel, or (legally) shipping Linux under a licence other than the GPLv2. I'll save you some effort - that's a null set.
It's unlikely that such a clause would withstand judicial scrutiny.
It already has. It has never failed to do so.
Whatever, with Microsoft apparently exiting the handset business, it's unlikely for them to start becoming an Android distributor
That's what I said. There appears to be an exception - it remains to be seen where that rabbit hole will go.
Providing an alternative to Google Play services is probably sufficient.
And that has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand.
Vic.
> Nope. This is a standard area of contract law
A licence is not a contract (though a contract may include licences) and thus is not subject to contract law. The underlying property that is the subject of the licence is covered by property law. If the terms and conditions of the licence are not followed then the licence may become nullified and and the licensor will be in breach of copyright, or trademark, or patent rights.
> implicit contract of the licence
There is no "implicit contract in a licence". There may be an explicit contract that grants a licence for a consideration: eg: "pay me $x and I will grant you a licence". That forms the offer and acceptance that is required for it to be a contract. But the licence itself is not an "offer and acceptance", it is a one sided grant of rights under certain conditions.
https://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/law/contractvlicense.html
> it's fairly clear that Android is not Linux.
Android sits on top of Linux (though it theoretically could sit on top of other kernels, such as QNX). It is true that the licences for Android and for Linux are separate but an implementation of an Android device currently _requires_ Linux and thus requires a Linux licence. Your argument is spurious.
> it's unlikely for them to start becoming an Android distributor.
They already have been. When Microsoft purchased Nokia phone division they were distributing 'Nokia X' phones, which contained Android code and Linux kernel. Approximately a million were made and sold. They can be found on Microsoft's web site.
So Skype will work on _this_ Linux. Grr. Stupid M$ will never realise that their rich kid nonsense is so last millenium. (And the Skype thing was made way worse by Bill saying he supports science. Git.)
I used to run Cyanogen *sigh*. It was so nice that a few years back Samsung poached their lead dev iirc. Another one bites the dust.
Still, was nice to see an article on phones that didn't mention Apple once. Dead company walking.
They can afford to bankrupt you, me and anyone else who felt like taking them to court over their patent claims.
I very much doubt their lawyers would allow that.
If they're distributing under GPL, they have an obligation to distribute under either section 3(a) or 3(b) - and 3(a) means shipping source with the binaries, which is very unlikely to happen. 3(b) gives any third party the right to redistibute - including the implicit patent grant - and 3(a) gives the immediate recipient the right to redistribute - including under section 3(b). Thus, with a little planning or investigation, everyone has a patent grant from Microsoft, with a guaranteed provenance.
Were Microsoft to try to assert those patents, a single letter should dissuade them. If they tried to take this to court after being shown the patent licence they have granted, the Court will likely see the entire suit as frivolous - and that's how lawyers end up getting sanctioned and disbarred. They don't like that.
Vic.
Eventually, most OSes will just run each other's apps (possibly interpretively), or each other, or layered-on copies of themselves. How about sharing hardware and running multiple OSes at once in parallel? Future CPU speeds will certainly allow almost anything.
Last time I posted this sort of prediction, I was heavily down-voted by the near-sighted.
Would it help if I clarified that 'eventually' is likely at least ten years out? Maybe 15-ish. Certainly less than 20.
To me the trends are crystal clear. Emulation. Virtualization. Moore's law. Etc. It all comes together in a few years into a big schmozzle where stale-thinking OS-as-religious-beliefs get utterly trampled.
Most apps will run under any of several OSes, unpacking themselves accordingly. OSes will accept apps from other OSes. OSes will themselves be apps. Apps may bring along their own OS. None of this requires more than a couple steps past where we are now. Obviously.
Cheers.
I had such a machine, a heavily modified Amiga 2000. MS-DOS, C-64, Atari ST, Windows, Mac, Z-80, BSD, you get the idea. Extremely fast but on the Motorola side it was a 16 MHz 68030, 68882, 4 MB 32-bit RAM, Retina graphics card. On the x86 side it was a a fast 80386SX (be damned if I can remember the speed), of course taking advantage of the Bridgeboard to do that.
Downsides were: cost, integration problems but doable, promotion since Commodore couldn't market their way out of a wet-paper bag....
Nadella & The Bollisoft crew probably think they're still in 1995. You can't change now developers frameworks and tools every year and believe they will have to follow you because there are no other platform to develop for. Even .NET didn't pay off as much as Microsoft hoped.
It looks they are working hard to alienate as much as Microsoft support that was left. Who would invest and bet on platforms which get every time axed still in their infancy?
If Nadella believes it can find the magic one that will get a 30% market share in a few months, he's chasing rainbows and unicorns, or any Indian equivalent.
You could argue that Microsoft already had a Microsoft friendly Android platform with the Nokia X - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_X
By default it had Skype, Microsoft Office including the Outlook App, Here Maps and its own Nokia android store. Bizarrely it also had BBM as standard, which I didn't mind as my wife uses a BlackBerry Z10.
I bought and ran one last year, apart from the shockingly bad camera it wasn't a bad phone at the £49 unlocked it cost to purchase. I gave it to my Mum who's Asha phone finally gave up the ghost and she loves it.
I now run a Firefox OS phone, I seem to have a habit of picking dying OSs......
"Performance under AmiDuOS is excellent."
Well, my experience is different. On my Dell Venue 11 Pro with i5 CPU AmiDuOS was a pain to set up, is slow, and crashes every once in a while. (And no, that's not due to some underlying problem with Windows. The Windows installation itself is rock-solid.)
Jide's Remix OS looks a lot better, but it's not "Android on Windows" but Android side-by-side with Windows.
I'm looking forward to tomorrows beta release.
On the other end, Cyanogen OS looks promising for Microsoft. But I read a lot of negative comments regarding the direction that Cyanogen Inc. is going into. Making Cyanogen OS into a Microsoft-Android might just cost them what little goodwill they have left.
The whole WinPho thing has turned into such an epic own goal, and after such a promising start, too.
I mean, here we are with Microsoft being all "Hey we built these really good native apps for Android! Use our stuff on your existing phone!" and that's great, well done Microsoft, you should have done that years ago - but answer me this: If you can build excellent native office/skype/whatever apps for Android, how come you couldn't do that for Windows Phone?
Seriously, how did you fuck that one up? It's like admitting that you've screwed up the WinPho development API so badly that it's easier to write your client software for someone else's platform than it is to use your own - despite the fact that the developers of Office for WinPho should be better placed than _anyone_ to get the very, very best out of the underlying OS.
You're absolutely correct.
If you only knew how bad the strategic view is for their other products and services...
All those clever people - led into a war by complete idiots that are only bothered about a short-term gain (which they get a bonus on).
I do know a few people who work for Microsoft, both full time and as contractors, and the one thing they have all said at some point is "The company is so huge no one ever seems really sure who's actually making the decisions for the $PRODUCT team." Which kinda leaves the impression that perhaps whoever that is supposed to be got lost in the bureaucracy somewhere and as a matter of fact, nobody is.
"The company is so huge no one ever seems really sure who's actually making the decisions for the $PRODUCT team."
But, but, but, they only have half a dozen products that anyone cares about and they only have a few thousand employees. There are *much* bigger companies out there with *much* wider product ranges. How hard can it be?
All those clever people - led into a war by complete idiots that are only bothered about a short-term gain (which they get a bonus on).
This is why I think the term "Applicants with MBAs need not apply" should be put on the bottom of every job advert, ever...
TheVogon wrote:
> People keep overlooking that Windows tablets are fully capable PCs that can run millions of popular Windows apps. Android and iPad run mobile/limited apps only.
Windows touch tablets run "millions of popular Windows [programs]" very poorly. This is because most of those program never considered use of touch and fingers don't have single pixel resolution. Also, in most cases, the program's UI does not fit well with the on-screen keyboard.
Android and iPad apps have been designed to work well with phones and tablets. So for touch tablet usage you can have millions of unusable 'apps', or Android/iPad.
Except that the ARM-based Windows tablets couldn't run those apps, because MS couldn't be bothered to include a suitable translation layer, despite having written and deployed one about a decade ago for machines with a fraction of the power of a modern ARM tablet.
"Except that the ARM-based Windows tablets couldn't run those apps, because MS couldn't be bothered to include a suitable translation layer"
Not true - Surface RT ran Win32 apps just fine. Microsoft just didn't want you to run Win32 apps as the experience on a tablet was poor as they were not designed for the UI.
This is now being addressed via "Universal Windows Apps" - but I expect it to be a few years before most apps for Windows also work well on a tablet or phone format.
> Not true - Surface RT ran Win32 apps just fine. Microsoft just didn't want you to run Win32 apps as the experience on a tablet was poor as they were not designed for the UI.
No it did/does not. You have a strange idea of what 'just fine' means.
First of all RT was on ARM CPUs and x86 programs do not run on ARM. So the program would need to be recompiled to ARM so source code would need to be available, and an appropriate ARM compiler used.
Next the Win32 API on RT is a subset or that on x86, not only are some functions missing but there are some differences in the ones that do exist. So there are many porting issues. Programs also run in a sandbox so accessing files may be an issue.
Then the binary will need to be signed by Microsoft because RT will not run unsigned programs. There is a hack that uses a vulnerability to allow a specially coded program to be sideloaded and run. Win32 programs are rejected by checks in the app store.
While RT does run a handful of specially ported and recoded Microsoft programs that use a subset of Win32, it has made sure that others do not run.
See discussions on this issue instead of making more of your usual uninformed blather:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8254846/does-windows-8-arm-a-k-a-windows-rt-have-the-winapi-win32-available-for-th/8259020#8259020
And the battle will really heat up once Atom-powered phones arrive later this year.
Intel has been successfully losing market share by pouring money into x86 phones for the past few years. And things are getting worse as more and more developers go native. How does Intel expect to compete with Mediatek, et al. in the budget segment? Intel has lost so much money that it's resorted to hiding the mobile division in with the PCs.
The RPi3 today handily provides a comparison as to what to the improvements power at a constant price with ARM: 2012 weedy single-core v6; last-year reasonable quad-core; now 64-bit. And that's nowhere near high-end or SoC prices.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
