The power of Windows lies in your ability to create and market profitable applications using it.
Yes, there's a limit. Once Microsoft decides it wants your market, your cost of defending the market will likely exceed any incremental sales from that effort.
But Linux lacks Windows' ability to make software profitable. And that is why Windows, not Linux, will lead the next evolution in cellular equipment.
SSEYO MiniMix, noted previously, is just the tip of this iceberg.
Critics will point to big numbers for Symbian devices, and real growth in data applications like games and ringtones.
The ability of operators to restrict competition from Windows devices, combined with the increased cost of any Windows device (which includes the cost of licensing Windows) means there's a bigger lead here.
But in terms of time, I don't think that lead is decisive.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Small kernel, consumer electronics operating systems can't stand against large kernel, expandable operating systems. Large kernel systems can be built-on in ways small kernel systems can't handle.
Windows' domination of the cellular space, in other words, is just a matter of time.
Could you please explain this reasoning? For what reasons will Linux fail to support profitable applications? After all, Google seems to be doing fine. How is the cellular market different? Does the cellular market even particularily care what you have running under the hood, as long as it gets you from A to B in good time?
Are microkernel OSs inherently less easy to incorporate features than monolithic ones? That there is an insurmountable architectural barrier that prevents them from having equally attractive features?
Don't both systems have their own advantages? A microkernel system can be more modular. An open system would be cheaper and easier to code.
Permalink to Comment