

Why Windows Phone could beat Android - tristan_louis
http://www.tnl.net/blog/2012/04/21/windows-phone-to-beat-android/

======
latch
I run mogade.com. Most of the games that use the service are on Windows Phone.
The sense that I get is that Microsoft treats its indie developers pretty
poorly.

They essentially get no help in terms of promotion, services, and support.
Plus there's growing confusion over the future of the platform (fragmentation
caused by WP8, the future of Silverlight...)

Some people use mogade just for the very basic real time stats it provides,
which blows my mind. I mean, how can't Microsoft provide this kind of basic
service. It pretty much boils down to: hincrby app yyyymmdd 1

Until this is fixed, I wouldn't hold my breath. If it was me, I'd be
innovating on the developer service/support side at a painful pace. First
class facebook library. Great stats. XBox Live Lite/Indie (which would kill
the need for mogade, and would make me happy). Discovery and promotion tools.
Better store.

~~~
tristan_louis
That's very useful info. Thanks for bubbling it up. My goal in writing the
article was to get such things to surface as they're not visible today.

In listing my contrarian case for the rise of WP7, I was trying to get
opposing viewpoints so I could get a better sense as to what decision to make
from a prioritization standpoint at our startup. It's clear we have to do iOS
first but after that, where do we go: Android or WP? Android has more people
but we might get more press and more uptake from WP so it's a tough call.

Odd indies are treated poorly by MSFT. The FUD from MSFT is that they've been
working hard to get more developer over to their platform. Glad to have
evidence that that may not be entirely true.

------
ajross
Most of the arguments seem sane, if a bit superficial. The core point is
basically FUD though: Apple and Microsoft are more invested ("all in") in
their platforms than Google, so developers should think "if I develop for
Android today, what kind of guar­an­tees do I have that the OS will still be
sup­ported tomorrow." Yawn.

Most tellingly, the open source and zero-license-cost angle isn't treated at
all. It's as if the AOSP and the Kindle didn't exist, which seems strange.

Edit: for clarity, the point isn't that Android is free and therefore "best"
-- it's that an analysis of its expected lifespan like this one that _ignores_
the fact that the code is free for anyone is either wrong or incomplete.

~~~
fleitz
If Android has a zero license cost then why does HTC pay for it?

[http://www.gottabemobile.com/2011/05/27/htc-pays-5-per-
andro...](http://www.gottabemobile.com/2011/05/27/htc-pays-5-per-android-
license-to-microsoft/)

I understand that most developers don't like the current patent system but
that doesn't make it go away.

As well the licensing cost of the operating system is of little interest to
most app developers who are looking at the ROI of app development. Windows has
a $140 to $300 licensing cost yet it provides great developer ROI.

Similarly, iOS, OSX provide great ROI for consumer apps and Linux/Solaris
great ROI for server apps.

~~~
ajross
Not sure how that's responsive. Anyone making a phone would have to pay that,
either to MS directly for the platform or via a patent license. It's neither
an advantage nor a disadvantage to Android or iOS.

I'll say it again, the point wasn't about cost, it was about freedom. Android
apps work on Kindles. If Google goes belly up or gives up on Android, Amazon
can still make Kindles. That's not true of Apple or MS, yet this article
(which is premised on the idea that Android is a "risk" because Google might
dump it) ignores that point completely. That tells me the author is either
wrong or spinning.

~~~
fleitz
There are two trains of thought here that I think are important to
differentiate, there's the idea of developing software for yourself, and the
idea of developing software for others with the expectation that they pay you.

When developing software for yourself it's very important that if push comes
to shove that you can hack the OS to do whatever the hardware is capable of.
Yes, you can still make Facebook for Android but Photoshop won't be coming to
the platform with out a paying userbase, this is the same reason you don't
find Photoshop on Linux.

When developing software for others it's very important that there is a
userbase and that the userbase pays for software. It doesn't matter if the
reason that few buy software on Android is because of fixable UX issues with
the marketplace, I don't know how much of the UX issues are still relevant.

Another important factor is why Google might be dumping android (if they are
at all), if it's because of patents it's unlikely that Amazon or anyone else
will touch it. If Kindle is the only userbase left then it might not make a
whole lot of sense for developers to sink time and money into the platform.

Win Mo will pose a threat to Android and may cause them to dump it if it
becomes the alternative to iOS. There are a whole bunch of ifs in the article
and honestly I think it's unlikely that Google will dump Android, but the key
to it all is how much money developers can make from the platform.

Android isn't going to be very viable as a commericial dev platform if
hardware manufacturers aren't producing phones that come pre-installed with
Android.

~~~
tristan_louis
I agree with you on the need for a userbase. WP7 is currently at 2 million+
devices, which is pretty extensive but there is less competition than there
would be on Android as there are fewer apps. As a result, the uptake on people
buying your software might be higher in WP than on Android (a gut guess, I
must admit, but it's what's prompted me to write the article).

I don't think Google will drop Android completely but I think that the
fragmentation will get worse. For example, I'd develop for the Kindle Fire
version of Android before others. Why? Because monetization in the Kindle app
store seems to work better (there was an article on HN about this a few weeks
back).

I agree with your last line and that's where the Motorola acquisition is
puzzling. It strikes me that HTC, Samsung and others may start looking at WP
as an alternative now that Motorola is owned by Google. If Nokia shows sign of
strength (and early indications point that the Lumia 900 is heading in the
right direction), others might follow... and THAT is an issue for Android.

------
zalew
_Dur­ing this week’s pro­ceed­ings sur­round­ing Oracle’s law­suit against
Google over use of Java code in Android, Larry Page made a very curi­ous
remark: he said he wasn’t sure that Android was a crit­i­cal asset to Google
and saw it as mainly a vehi­cle to get Google prod­ucts to run on mobile
devices. This was an odd bit of sig­nal­ing as it seemed to imply that
sup­port for Android as a plat­form is far from guar­an­teed._

no it wasn't. it's context is from a few years ago. hint: " _was_ "

 _if I develop for Android today, what kind of guar­an­tees do I have that the
OS will still be sup­ported tomorrow._

this kind
[http://cdn1.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/3736479/Slide_57...](http://cdn1.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/3736479/Slide_57_gallery_post.png)

~~~
tristan_louis
A similar chart could have been produced a few years ago about RIM. If I were
to substitute RIM for Android and Android for WP and write the article in
2007, what would you be saying?

------
excuse-me
>Android ... mainly a vehicle to get Google products to run on mobile devices.

Isn't that the whole point !!!!!!

