logoalt Hacker News

mrpippyyesterday at 8:00 PM6 repliesview on HN

That’s possible (never underestimate the bad decision-making of phone makers), but what would they have done instead? Windows Mobile 6 was the only licensable alternative, but it was a known quantity and obviously a generation behind Android and iOS.


Replies

edentyesterday at 8:35 PM

Symbian and LiMo were both available at the time. It is hard to say they were good alternatives though. Windows 7 - even with the weight of Microsoft behind it - wasn't able to attract enough hardware manufacturers.

SoftTalkeryesterday at 8:23 PM

Windows Phone was pretty nice, too bad Microsoft didn't follow their DOS and Windows strategy of getting it preinstalled on every consumer PC sold. There was really only the Nokia Lumia line that I recall, but everyone I knew who had one loved it.

show 2 replies
pmlnryesterday at 8:05 PM

Maemo.

show 1 reply
LTL_FTCyesterday at 8:28 PM

WebOS was pretty cool (Palm). But I’m not sure if Palm would have licensed it. Lg ended up with it.

thomasahleyesterday at 8:12 PM

Also Bada

cyberaxyesterday at 9:12 PM

There were several credible competitors: WebOS, Symbian, Maemo/MeeGo, Palm OS 6, and of course Windows Mobile. But they required cooperating with a single vendor and/or a lot of work to adapt.

Android won because it was available "right now" and easy to hack. Vendors could get a BSP (Board Support Package) from a chip manufacturer, slap Android userspace on top of it, and ship a phone within half a year. It was a glorious mess for a while.

Google then slowly tightened the reins and made the ecosystem more ordered.