Well, by “make” I suppose I include “brand” regardless of whose factory it comes out of.
My point being that I don’t know their plans with Android but the Windows phone platform seems to be dead or very close to it.
Agreed - the corpse of WP is still warm and twitching, but it’s only a matter of time now, I think. They could have limped on a few more years with a ‘surface’ rework of the Windows phone platform (either as an extension of WP, or as a slimmed-down tablet version of full-blown Win10 - with app convergence in either case) - but they’ve put that off until ‘maybe 2018’, which might as well be never - might actually be never.
Why don’t they do with phones what Microsoft does best? Install quality operating systems and software on commodity hardware? Customers could take their Samsung or HTC or Motorola phones to a Windows store, pay a fee, and have Windows or a Windows-like ROM installed on their device.
It could come with Office apps preinstalled, maybe Paint and Minesweeper for the nostalgia factor. It could be Android underneath, or not, but the idea would be the “consistency of experience” for those who desire it, heavy emphasis on office productivity (easy printer setup, exchange emails, timesheets, customer and project management, maybe a fax app, and maybe even docking compatibility so your phone can be your desktop computer too), and branding of course. If they could find a way to make that phone software work seamlessly with Windows computers, I could see it being a successful venture.
You know that Microsoft actually bought Nokia’s entire phone division, right? They sold off the feature-phone division, but they recently took a heck of a write-down on the rest.
P.S. Read that link in my earlier post, I don’t have time to selectively quote from it.
I think at this point Microsoft is focusing on Surface Pros, Books, laptops, etc. as they’ve hit quite a home run. The Surface Pro/Book is the most innovative thing done in laptops since the MacBook Air. And the Surface Laptop is arguably the best looking laptop out there today, which is resulting in the almost unheard of regular tech blogs (like Verge) suggesting that the is the laptop to buy (and not some Apple one). FWIW, my Surface Pro 4 is my absolutely favorite piece of tech I’ve ever owned - oh, and quite sexy contrary to what others may assume ;).
Anyways, MS could do the Samsung or Amazon thing, make the hardware and put their own software layered over an Android base, but we’ll see if they are interested in that or if they’d rather focus on taking all their plaudits and sales in the Surface tablet/laptop line and going further with that.
It’s still not exactly clear to me who was wearing the trousers in the Microsoft-Nokia deal. It was announced as ‘Microsoft buys Nokia’ at the start, but later on, I heard a lot of talk to the effect that actually, it was Nokia’s smart way of dealing with a loss-making section of their business. Not sure.
Sadly, Cyanogen is dead. 
But yes, something like that.
A key part of it, in my mind, is that they install it for you. A big reason Linux never made it on desktops is that to the average person, installing an operating system is a “computer genius” level skill. So they either need to sell commodity phones with CyanogenWindows installed, or provide an install-while-you-wait service at malls and cellphone stores around the country, or preferably both.
And they really need to go heavy on the office productivity angle. Apple is eating their lunch right now, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Windows is still the king of office computing, but it always seemed like their mobile focus was general consumer stuff like music and games, when they should have been trying to sell Windows phones to CEOs, VPs and IT departments instead.
Why does Microsoft want to get into the phone manufacturing business?
I understand why they wanted to a decade ago. Start off with a Windows Phone, even at a very low market share, and then just relentlessly grow that share. Now you’ve got a Microsoft ecosystem that you can leverage in all sorts of ways.
But the Windows Phone is dead. Years ago they used to give out Windows Phones to employees, and people who had them were at least supposed to pretend to be dogfooding them. Nobody does that anymore.
So Microsoft won’t control a mobile OS. Is that such a horrible thing for them? Google apparently makes money from Android, but not in a straightforward way like Microsoft makes money from Windows and Office.
I’m sure Microsoft would like it if every time you looked at your phone you saw Microsoft logos everywhere. But they don’t have that and can’t get it. Why would anyone want an android skin that just makes everything look Windows-y?
If it was just a skin, then there’s not much to want (although I have to say, I like the metro UI - but I am in a minority there) - what people are more likely to want is integration with Office apps and Microsoft services, if they are already using them elsewhere on desktop and tablet format devices…
What you see as pruning or trimming was simply me asking you “how” having the Android app store would solve the problem. In other words, having an app store is your thesis, great, now back it up by explaining how that would solve the problem. Asking you where the profit is was asking you to tell me how Microsoft could make money on what you’re describing.
You haven’t answered either question.
Sure, but why does that require that Microsoft control the operating system?
Microsoft just makes their mobile Office apps integrate with desktop apps. You already can save documents to Sharepoint, so you can bring up the same docs on your phone. The integration is on the app level, not the OS level.
I can understand why Microsoft would wish that you were doing all this on a Windows Phone using all Microsoft services, but what would be the benefit to the end users?
Respectfully, you really don’t know what you talking about. I sell and build Microsoft solutions every day as a partner. Microsoft Azure and Amazon AWS are the two dominant hyper-scaled cloud partners. Google and IBM are trailing by far.
Azure is growing with new services faster than I can keep up with it, and this my job!
Microsoft is not Windows and Office alone.
I’m not suggesting that they would control it beyond imposing some defaults, in a similar way that Google apps/services come preinstalled (and not easily removable) with many extant examples of android.
OK, maybe we can do this one piece at a time.
[ul]
[li]Windows phone is a failure - agreed?[/li][li]The key contributing factor to that failure is a woeful lack of apps - agreed?[/li][/ul]
If you think it was otherwise, let’s just disagree on that first.
Is what I think about the success or failure of Windows Phone or its app store going to change why you think that Microsoft Android wouldn’t necessarily be a bad idea? I’d certainly hope not, so please just answer my questions irrespective of whatever I may think.
If you won’t explain yourself, I think we’re just talking past each other. My position is this:
[ol]
[li]Windows phone was a failure[/li][li]The most significant factor in that failure, is a very painful lack of apps[/li][li]Users would probably have embraced the platform, the UI, the embedded Microsoft services, the default Microsoft apps, but ONLY IF there had been the same general level of app support as there is on one of the other two major competing solutions. Games are ten a penny - but if your bank only supports iOS and Android, it’s a dealbreaker[/li][/ol]
Therefore - item 2 is the hinge - it’s the stumbling block. It’s the reason, more than anything else, that WP failed. By eliminating this shortcoming - piggybacking on the existing pool of apps already available in the Google Play store, everything else becomes possible.
That could be achieved by:
[LIST=A]
[li]inserting some sort of Android app compatibility layer into WP[/li][li]discarding WP and layering MS services and apps over an Android core[/li][/LIST]
BOTH of those things have been attempted, in various forms, so it’s not even as though I dreamed them up - they began - there were already steps made in the direction of a Microsoft Android phone - but the journey was cut short*
Microsoft could (or could have) gone through with the cyanogen project - marketed an Android phone with Windows branding and Microsoft services and apps baked in (but still eseentially Android in any way that matters) - this would probably have been satisfying to the (admittedly tiny) pool of existing WP users, as well as being a relatively trouble-free way to remain a player in the phone market. With a little extra engineering for security etc, such an offering could become the new ‘business’ phone, capable of integrating with MS-based corporate networks.
The profit/advantage for this is upkeep and promotion Microsoft’s services such as Bing, Azure, O365 and other premium, chargeable products
*all I am, and have been asking, in this thread, is “How likely is it that Microsoft would complete the journey that has already been started”
Also, “Is it sensible/profitable that Microsoft would do that?” isn’t even a relevant question. Is it sensible that Microsoft pitched Zune as a limp assault on the iPod? Of course not.
I’m not asking ‘should they?’ - I’m asking "will they?’
Here’s the problem I think you are not addressing- everything you just mentioned is like 95% already here, on a multitude of Android phones or iOS. There just isn’t any way around that. Unless there is a killer feature I’m unaware of that could only be totally exclusive to a Microsoft Android, something that would make a significant portion of Android and iOS users switch for? I’m guessing not.
I am confused how your admittedly tiny pool of existing WP users allows Microsoft to remain a player. To me, that’s pretty self-contradictory. If you want to be a player, the first step is probably to get out of the tiny pool. The only way to do that is to make a better than me-too phone. Not only is that a tall order in any event, it will cost billions. Sure, Microsoft has money to burn and, sure, Microsoft has often proved it’s willing to burn capital to capture a market. But lately, (Windows Phone, for example) that hasn’t worked out too well for them. So you want them to spend billions basically to get access to a competitor’s app store? While using that competitors OS, one they have virtually no control over? While the customers they hope to win over can get virtually the same exact experience on the Androids and iPhones they already have? Does any of that really seem like a sound strategy?
You mention it could have a special place as a business phone- well, something like 60% of US companies already have Bring Your Own Device policies and that number is probably only going to go up (couldn’t find the worldwide number, which is undoubtedly lower, but it’s pretty clear BYOD is the future), so in that light, what makes Microsoft Android special? In fact, where is the corporate desire for a Microsoft Android at all? That is the kind of thing I’m asking you for, actual examples that can back up your position. Like is there a story going around that, say, BP is asking Microsoft to make them Androids? Because if there is, great, post it, shove it in my face and wiggle it around. But I don’t think there is, is there?
Oh and to go back to coherence in branding? We haven’t even begun to discus UWP. How would that look, Microsoft pushing UWP with one hand and Google Play with the other?
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say Microsoft Android is unlikely to create brand new first-time smartphone buyers, so anyone who wants to pay for Microsoft mobile services already is (or will in the future), on Android and iOS. The profit/advantage/upkeep/promotion is already here, live, today, on iOS and Android, they don’t need a phone of their own for that. Making an Android phone to grab those customers would be robbing Peter to pay Paul, a fairly zero-sum game. No wait, it would be less than zero-sum because Microsoft had to invest billions to get the phone out in the first place.
Please don’t try to frame this like I’m the bad guy and all you’ve done is innocently ask questions because you’ve done more. You’ve taken a position. On a board that encourages discussion, it is entirely proper, I think, to ask you to back up your position.
tl;dr
- everything can already be done on current Androids and iOS
- designing, building, marketing a new phone costs billions
- no evidence a significant segment of the market is asking for it
- completely at the mercy of a competitor’s OS
- UWP
- you’re basically asking Microsoft to half ass it and Microsoft still has pride
You yourself have already answered the question you think you’re not asking as to why they should, so please don’t castigate me for telling you why they shouldn’t.
But if you still think you’re only asking “will they?” then the answer “no, they will not, because it is highly unlikely to be profitable” is entirely relevant.
And of course it was sensible for Microsoft to release the Zune. Why on earth would it not be? One, their PlaysForSure approach was dying a horrible death, two, iTunes was smothering any chance Microsoft had of making wma and wmv the de facto internet standards for media, three, Apple was making obscene profits with the iPod and everyone in the business was thinking “Fuck, if Apple can do it, so can we,” leading to four, Microsoft had until then a very successful history of copying Apple and then eating their lunch.