I want to like the article, because the idea that Microsoft should fork Android is kinda silly. The idea that nobody should do it is even sillier, though.
The article, in the course of explaining why it can't be done, names two major examples of where it already has been done successfully -- Amazon's Kindle ecosystem and any number of Chinese OEMs. It doesn't mention other (admittedly less successful) forks, like B&N's Nook tablets or the Ouya. It also doesn't mention how far along the road Samsung was to having the ability to ship Android without Google Mobile Services, until Samsung and Google made a peace treaty that involved sending Motorola off to live with Lenovo.
Yes, if you fork Android, you lose Google's ecosystem. It's not impossible to duplicate, though -- Amazon's done it, Samsung just about did it. And Microsoft already owns all the things it'd need to do it -- that's how Windows Phone has an ecosystem. Losing Google's ecosystem isn't the downside of forking Android, it's the entire point.
Once you've done it, though, you need to convince people to use your fork instead of Google's. Microsoft's success at prying people towards Windows Phone and away from Android can basically boil down to:
1) The ability to run on lower-powered and thus cheaper hardware and still provide a polished experience, and
2) Nokia's build quality.
Switching OS cores to AOSP instead of the current Windows Phone OS wouldn't entirely solve Microsoft's app problem (look at the Amazon app store), and it would piss away the only competitive advantage their platform (as opposed to their OEM partner) has against Google's Android experience. Microsoft isn't Amazon -- they aren't a cloud company looking for an OS to give to consumers, they already have an OS. They just need to make their ecosystem more appealing, and giving up on Windows Phone now wouldn't do that.
> 1) The ability to run on lower-powered and thus cheaper hardware and still provide a polished experience, and 2) Nokia's build quality.
The Moto G has put a price floor on things. Even if Microsoft/Nokia could limbo under it, why would anybody buy a basically-the-same Nokia for $150 instead of $179 Real Android? Its too late, these are commodities.
When you're dealing with budget phones, you're talking about super price sensitive buyers. The 520 goes for what, $70 or so? And it's actually a good experience, and a nice phone for that money. Sure, the Moto G is at least 2X better, but with the consumers we're talking about here, that doesn't matter. It's a fascinating area to watch!
From "developed" countries? No. From countries with subsidized handsets, maybe. But Europe is certainly "developed," and that's where Windows Phone is making its biggest inroads:
"They just need to make their ecosystem more appealing"
You say "just" but that is literally the hardest thing to do. They've been trying very, very hard to make their ecosystem more appealing with tremendous amounts of money and manpower.
> It also doesn't mention how far along the road Samsung was to having the ability to ship Android without Google Mobile Services, until Samsung and Google made a peace treaty that involved sending Motorola off to live with Lenovo.
Do you have a source on that? When I think about it seems logical but it never occoured to me that Google could have been "forced" into leaving motorola. Clearly any sane exec would choose Samsung having google apps over mororola under different owner. But I would like to know where you got the idea from.
The most germane part to the author's premise is the graphic that illustrates how Samsung has apps to duplicate pretty much every app Google has. (With, admittedly, the very notable exception of Maps. Even Apple has had a rough time of getting away from Google Maps, I think that'd be a very difficult piece for Samsung without going to Nokia for help.)
Just about the smartest thing Microsoft could do is port Windows to run on the Android/Linux kernel.
Ironically, they would buy themselves a tremendous amount of hardware support that way. They'd lose very little in the process. The Windows kernel is pretty decrepit.
The article, in the course of explaining why it can't be done, names two major examples of where it already has been done successfully -- Amazon's Kindle ecosystem and any number of Chinese OEMs. It doesn't mention other (admittedly less successful) forks, like B&N's Nook tablets or the Ouya. It also doesn't mention how far along the road Samsung was to having the ability to ship Android without Google Mobile Services, until Samsung and Google made a peace treaty that involved sending Motorola off to live with Lenovo.
Yes, if you fork Android, you lose Google's ecosystem. It's not impossible to duplicate, though -- Amazon's done it, Samsung just about did it. And Microsoft already owns all the things it'd need to do it -- that's how Windows Phone has an ecosystem. Losing Google's ecosystem isn't the downside of forking Android, it's the entire point.
Once you've done it, though, you need to convince people to use your fork instead of Google's. Microsoft's success at prying people towards Windows Phone and away from Android can basically boil down to:
1) The ability to run on lower-powered and thus cheaper hardware and still provide a polished experience, and 2) Nokia's build quality.
Switching OS cores to AOSP instead of the current Windows Phone OS wouldn't entirely solve Microsoft's app problem (look at the Amazon app store), and it would piss away the only competitive advantage their platform (as opposed to their OEM partner) has against Google's Android experience. Microsoft isn't Amazon -- they aren't a cloud company looking for an OS to give to consumers, they already have an OS. They just need to make their ecosystem more appealing, and giving up on Windows Phone now wouldn't do that.