"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]
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.
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"?
FUD-ing indeed. I agree. That comment is almost something I'd expect more readily from Apple than Microsoft these days, given how Apple manages the iPhone/iTunes platform (disclosure, I have an iPhone and can't remember life as worth living before it).
What I find fascinating about the carriers clamouring to move to Android is that, yes, they're avoiding licensing fees and the cost of building their own solutions . . . but at the cost of basically eliminating all other mobile revenues other than bandwidth.
This revenue destruction will be at the hands of Google themselves and via the open nature of the Android marketplace. Google Voice kills SMS revenues today. It's free. I expect Voice to eventually include Skype-like functionality, but if it doesn't, Skype will do. It's as close to free as it needs to be. No cost for Skype to Skype calls, and 2 cents a minute to most of planet earth's landlines.
Throw in all of Google's other services that are enabled out of the box on Android (read: almost all of them) and the carrier is out of the services business altogether and is nothing but a pipe. Which is what they should be.
It's almost as if the carriers are collectively waving the white flag here (can't compete on applications and services), and since actually makes sense it leaves me wondering what the hell I'm missing?
"Users don't want all their X "experiences" coupled with their decisions about device and carrier (presuming that everything works together as advertised)"
I guess this is partially correct as Apple doesn't allow apps that compete with core services. Loopt (which I have never used) is an example of my point. Would I prefer to buy a device that is limited to a particular locate-people service or would I like to buy a device which can run any of N competing services?
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.
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"?