[runamuck83]

Would allowing developers complete and unfettered access to Win10 Mobile increase adoption? Think similar to Android where devs can do whatever they want?

Even go so far as allowing people to download and install apps right from the internet rather than via the store?

[Pete]

No
No
Noooooooooo

If that's the kind of fragmentation, instability, and insecurity you want, then you may as well buy an Android phone...

[msnawe]

Would allowing developers complete and unfettered access to Win10 Mobile increase adoption? Think similar to Android where devs can do whatever they want?

Even go so far as allowing people to download and install apps right from the internet rather than via the store?

You mean jumping 10 years and joining Apple, Google and blackberry in 2015?

Now we are talking. Is it not faster using Meego or as that is already open source? Or even partner with Samsung on tizen?

That got more legs than showing Windows with all its 20 years legacy I the open...

[jmshub]

You mean jumping 10 years and joining Apple, Google and blackberry in 2015?

Now we are talking. Is it not faster using Meego or as that is already open source? Or even partner with Samsung on tizen?

That got more legs than showing Windows with all its 20 years legacy I the open...

Dude...

Apple CERTAINLY isn't giving developers access to iOS. Their APIs have plenty of their own limitations. As Google attempted to reign in customization and fragmentation, they started to lock down their APIs somewhat as well. I have no idea what access Blackberry does with their devs, and judging by the numbers, neither does anyone else... So, Microsoft is hardly behind the times, or differing from the competition by limiting API access to third party apps.

You continue to post arguments that Microsoft would be better off going with ANY mobile platform that isn't Windows Phone, now adding Tizen into the mix. As we finally seem to be approaching the finish line of Windows 10 mobile, how would it be faster for Microsoft to switch platforms, and have to trash all of their existing work and begin all over again on a new platform. Open source isn't any magic wand here, Microsoft already owns the source for Windows.

[colinkiama]

Would allowing developers complete and unfettered access to Win10 Mobile increase adoption? Think similar to Android where devs can do whatever they want?

Even go so far as allowing people to download and install apps right from the internet rather than via the store?

And that is how we get viruses.

[msnawe]

This is missing the point. The question that was asked is not about APIs but about opening the operating system .

Not all the operating systems of the competition are open but they are mostly derived from an open source foundation that is already opened.

This is what has given android the edge despite being late in the party compared to earlier Windows mobile attempts. Indeed samsung went for tizen which is derived from meego which MS/Nokia failed to pursue. If samsung takes over smart tv with it, don't have regrets.

Yes W10 is looking better than earlier attempts. It might work but Microsoft will have to keep the pace and open source is always going to lead to more rapid development and innovation. This is why Linux has been so easily adapting to different kind of devices more easily than MS could ever do it with all these reboots..

[colinkiama]

This is missing the point. The question that was asked is not about APIs but about opening the operating system .

Not all the operating systems of the competition are open but they are mostly derived from an open source foundation that is already opened.

This is what has given android the edge despite being late in the party compared to earlier Windows mobile attempts. Indeed samsung went for tizen which is derived from meego which MS/Nokia failed to pursue. If samsung takes over smart tv with it, don't have regrets.

Yes W10 is looking better than earlier attempts. It might work but Microsoft will have to keep the pace and open source is always going to lead to more rapid development and innovation. This is why Linux has been so easily adapting to different kind of devices more easily than MS could ever do it with all these reboots..

So what you are saying is, you want windows apps to be installed without the store and you want an open source windows 10 for everyone who can modify it however they wish?

Also you have to remember the other reason why android rose. Not everyone could afford an iPhone

[Nogitsune Micah]

Pass on that. Its not android nor should it ever try to be that mess.

[920Walker]

No.

[jmshub]

This is missing the point. The question that was asked is not about APIs but about opening the operating system .

Not all the operating systems of the competition are open but they are mostly derived from an open source foundation that is already opened.

This is what has given android the edge despite being late in the party compared to earlier Windows mobile attempts. Indeed samsung went for tizen which is derived from meego which MS/Nokia failed to pursue. If samsung takes over smart tv with it, don't have regrets.

Yes W10 is looking better than earlier attempts. It might work but Microsoft will have to keep the pace and open source is always going to lead to more rapid development and innovation. This is why Linux has been so easily adapting to different kind of devices more easily than MS could ever do it with all these reboots..

I think you are confusing "open source" with "open access". You can have open access without opening the source.

For instance, Windows desktop OS has been open, in that developers had access to write applications that took full access of the PC's hardware and software, even when it was detrimental, as in the program could have been buggy and cause system crashes, or intentionally malicious, like viruses and other malware. This is open access without opening the source.

Going back to the OPs question, you can give something similar to "complete and unfettered access" to a phone's operating system without handing over the source code, which Microsoft won't do, as this is sharing common code with Windows 10.

[msnawe]

Its not my question initially, I just pointed out that it is related to the increased reliance on open source by most modern companies.

Generally it's faster to get to a better solution by using open source than trying to do it all in house. Microsoft is starting to understand and is going in this direction for their cloud solution.

[jmshub]

Its not my question initially, I just pointed out that it is related to the increased reliance on open source by most modern companies.

Generally it's faster to get to a better solution by using open source than trying to do it all in house. Microsoft is starting to understand and is going in this direction for their cloud solution.

I understand you didn't pose the original question, I was pulling that tangent back into the topic of this thread.

I support the idea of open source, I use many great open source programs on a regular basis. But open source isn't necessarily faster or better. If Microsoft has thousands of developers working on Windows 10, they have more resources working on the code than most open source coded projects.

[msnawe]

This remains to be proven. So far, most companies leveraging open source technologies have demonstrated a faster time to market.

There are many employees of major high tech companies including Microsoft, Google, Amazon, HP, Facebook and others who are open source contributors and the scale are definitely there.

In just 10 years, linux or bsd has effectively become a quality choice on virtually any type of device faster than Microsoft has attempted to enter the phone or set top box market.

With cloud services, again open source technologies are most often used as foundation.

It's just cheaper and faster to do it that way and Microsoft will start doing it. They will probably use open source or initiate open source projects themselves.

[Bagzton]

*emphatic* N O ! ! !

Whether you are taking open source or open access, no!

[msnawe]

No without an argument to explain it is a bit disappointing.

Just saying no without explanation is what allowed Google to take over 80% market share with the blink of an eye. Easily.

The market has said 'yes' emphatically.

[jmshub]

Just saying no without explanation is what allowed Google to take over 80% market share with the blink of an eye. Easily.

The market has said 'yes' emphatically.

The thing is, for much of your argument in support of open source, I agree with you. Open source and open standards is how the Internet was able to explode into what it is today from it's roots.

But, in regard to your argument with Android, remember that correlation does not imply causation. Yes, Android is open source, and Android is the vast market leader in the mobile computing operating systems, but its hard to argue that being open source is specifically why Android leads the pack.

[Pete]

No without an argument to explain it is a bit disappointing.

I summarised these negative points above, but let me expand a little.

Google retains ownership of the core services for the OS, but manufacturers/developers can add fluff around the outside to work with a particular hardware device or need.

There's therefore no centralised update mechanism. Each manufacturer has to rebuild and test the OS image before releasing to customers. As you're doubtless aware, the vast majority of devices aren't updated regularly to anything approaching the latest core OS. As of 2015, roughly 90% of all Android devices have unpatched and known security vulnerabilities.

Microsoft has a reputation of being secure (yes, vulnerabilities are identified, but they're swiftly patched via a centralised update mechanism).

So, open source creates fragmentation and implies a built in obsolescence(you might buy the latest and greatest phone, but you have to accept that you probably won't get core OS updates anytime soon) and you'll just have to buy the next cool device when it's released a year later.

There's also an inconsistency of performance, stability, and looks from one device to another. Microsoft are instead offering the same general experience across a wide variety of form factors and hardware (screen sizes will differ, and some smaller phones are a little slower, but on the whole it's the same experience).

[msnawe]

This has nothing to do with open source, it's just the business models and partnerships that are different.

[msnawe]

Manufacturers of cheap hardware probably prefer that you have to upgrade to new hardware and want it that way.

The delay in releasing updates is mostly due to manufacturers wanting to compete by adding their own customisation which are not the open source part of the software.

Google doesn't want to push updates to all devices even if there was no customisation because this is a cost they don't need to bear.

Again this example shows how companies are saying time on the core system and spend their main effort adding value on top

[msnawe]

On a previous post, I would also say:

Yes the choice of open source is why android leads the pack.

If Google didn't go open source and tried to do it all in house, they would probably arrive even later than Microsoft to the party.

[runamuck83]

I think what I was getting at with my original question was to treat Windows 10 Mobile, pretty much the same way Windows 10 is treated. (Beside the app store) Developers are capable of writing programs/applications that have a lot of access. UAC is there to keep them in line, but they can really push the envelope because they have that access. Windows 10 Mobile is quite locked down. For example, Facebook can't make a Messenger app where the chatheads popup on your homescreen - because they don't have access. They can do this on Android because they have more access.

My thinking is that perhaps unfettered open access in this regard would attract more developers who want to see what it is capable of. Of course, there would be pros/cons. Maybe more cons than pros - but just figured I'd throw it out there for all you fine folks to chew on

Hopefully that clarifies my question.

[msnawe]

Yes the main reason I chose an Intel based Windows tablet over Android is because I can install and run any Windows software. It's really useful.

Now this is more difficult to use on a smartphone screen.

[xandros9]

On a previous post, I would also say:

Yes the choice of open source is why android leads the pack.

If Google didn't go open source and tried to do it all in house, they would probably arrive even later than Microsoft to the party.

They did all the work in house, they just release Android as open source for people to build upon after they finish it.
Even then Google is closing it off:
Google?s iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary | Ars Technica

They just threw it out into the wild for manufacturers to use freely etc.

[jmshub]

Good post, Xandros. Android is a very odd case study in open source, it is widely hailed as a particularly successful story for the open source world, but as the article from Ars says, Google is tightening the grip, and Google's Android (the Android experience we most often talk about when we talk "Android") is a proprietary experience that is quite different from AOSP.

[albert730]

In every market a company has to offer choice to the customers. If Microsoft goes open just like android then why buy a windows device, go for android.
It is this strategy of keeping the OS closed that has given the customer there choice to either go for a stable and protected OS like windows or an open or unstable OS like android.
If u need a good android phone u need to but a nexus, rest all are just cheap having low quality hardware.
I love windows becuz it provides a smooth experience through all devices. They have good build quality especially the devices from Nokia are unparalleled.