Microsoft has their own Windows Phone in the works(wpcentral.com)
wpcentral.com
Microsoft has their own Windows Phone in the works
http://www.wpcentral.com/microsoft-does-indeed-have-their-own-windows-phone
58 comments
>I can't imagine an OEM wanting to sleep in Microsoft's bed when they're going toe to toe with the people who build the OS themselves.
So, are you saying if Apple opened up and allowed OEMs to license iOS, no one would sign up?
I think every phone maker would jump on that.
So, are you saying if Apple opened up and allowed OEMs to license iOS, no one would sign up?
I think every phone maker would jump on that.
Honestly, if Apple opened up iOS to OEM licensees, but made clear that they were still going to ship their own devices? Who in the blue hell wants to go toe to toe with Apple on hardware?
Granted, you'd still have a few (insane) OEMs willing to cough up the money to try, but mostly on the notion that they will convert a portion of the coveted iOS userbase to their brand - a userbase that doesn't exist in WinPhone land. At all.
So really, where exactly will OEMs find the motivation to ship any WinPhones at all once Microsoft enters the hardware game for themselves? They'd be paying exorbitant sums to continue using an OS that already wasn't selling, just so they can now compete with a player that has every advantage available.
I'd be incredibly surprised if we don't see a mass OEM exodus from WinPhone if MS enters the hardware game. Not that there's really that big of an exodus to be had in the first place, though...
Granted, you'd still have a few (insane) OEMs willing to cough up the money to try, but mostly on the notion that they will convert a portion of the coveted iOS userbase to their brand - a userbase that doesn't exist in WinPhone land. At all.
So really, where exactly will OEMs find the motivation to ship any WinPhones at all once Microsoft enters the hardware game for themselves? They'd be paying exorbitant sums to continue using an OS that already wasn't selling, just so they can now compete with a player that has every advantage available.
I'd be incredibly surprised if we don't see a mass OEM exodus from WinPhone if MS enters the hardware game. Not that there's really that big of an exodus to be had in the first place, though...
>Who in the blue hell wants to go toe to toe with Apple on hardware?
Having owned 3 different iPhones, I can assure you there are other phones with better design and build quality. Not to mention phones with bigger screens. I know several people who want their iPhone bigger, smaller, with a removable battery, with a USB, with micro SD, etc...
There's plenty of ways to differentiate on hardware since Apple only offers one option.
Also, no OEMs have abandoned their Win8 tablet development since MS announced the Surface. I'm not sure why WP8 would be so different.
Having owned 3 different iPhones, I can assure you there are other phones with better design and build quality. Not to mention phones with bigger screens. I know several people who want their iPhone bigger, smaller, with a removable battery, with a USB, with micro SD, etc...
There's plenty of ways to differentiate on hardware since Apple only offers one option.
Also, no OEMs have abandoned their Win8 tablet development since MS announced the Surface. I'm not sure why WP8 would be so different.
To be fair, HP did drop out of the WinRT tablet race to focus only on Windows 8 x86 (non-ARM) hardware. I can't seem to find a link to back that up, but I do remember it being a story a few months ago.
iPhone is a relatively high-end smartphone. There is room for lower-end iOS phones in this hypothetical scenario.
I believe Apple is aware of that, which is why they currently sell not only the iPhone 5 but the iPhone 4S and iPhone 4 as well. Attacking the "lower-end iOS" market would still be toe-to-toe with Apple.
Are you saying WP is on the same level of popularity as iOS? It's ridiculous to even compare them like that.
How is this different than Google making its own phones?
Android is free. Samsung, LG, et al aren't paying for the privilege of competing with the OS-builder. Microsoft also has much stricter rules re: customization for WinPhone, presumably as a response to the craptastic custom UIs LG, Motorola, and Samsung have been implementing for Android.
In other words, OEM WinPhone users are already cornered into producing only the stock vanilla experience, and now they're competing against the platform owners themselves who are allowed to break whatever rules necessary to gain market share.
All on a platform that wasn't doing well to begin with - I can't imagine a sane OEM wanting to stick around. Maybe if WinPhone was selling like hotcakes you might expect OEMs to just bear it, but as it is MS in a poor place.
There is also another key difference to Nexus: the Nexus phones have never been heavily marketed, and even till now are the tools of developers and industry enthusiasts. I imagine if Google ever took the Nexus mass-market they'd see much more blowback from OEMs.
In other words, OEM WinPhone users are already cornered into producing only the stock vanilla experience, and now they're competing against the platform owners themselves who are allowed to break whatever rules necessary to gain market share.
All on a platform that wasn't doing well to begin with - I can't imagine a sane OEM wanting to stick around. Maybe if WinPhone was selling like hotcakes you might expect OEMs to just bear it, but as it is MS in a poor place.
There is also another key difference to Nexus: the Nexus phones have never been heavily marketed, and even till now are the tools of developers and industry enthusiasts. I imagine if Google ever took the Nexus mass-market they'd see much more blowback from OEMs.
>Android is free
As I noted in another comment in this story, this is wrong. AOSP is open and free, but it is not very useful without access to the half million apps in the Google Play store, Maps, Navigation, Youtube, Google Now etc.
>In other words, OEM WinPhone users are already cornered into producing only the stock vanilla experience, and now they're competing against the platform owners themselves who are allowed to break whatever rules necessary to gain market share.
Perhaps in the future, but right now the Microsoft Surface runs the exact same software as the equivalent OEM devices.
>There is also another key difference to Nexus: the Nexus phones have never been heavily marketed, and even till now are the tools of developers and industry enthusiasts. I imagine if Google ever took the Nexus mass-market they'd see much more blowback from OEMs.
Except for advertising it on the most heavily trafficked site in the world?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57501546-94/googles-nexus-7...
Also, I don't see how the Nexus is not competing with the OEMs like you say. Where are the $199 Android 7" tablets from the OEMs? Why does the Galaxy Tab 7 cost $250?
What's common among the three tablets in that price range? Kindle Fire, Nexus 7 and a Nook ? They're all subsidized by the ecosystem, which Acer, Samsung, HTC, Lenovo, Viewsonic etc. cannot duplicate and compete with.
As I noted in another comment in this story, this is wrong. AOSP is open and free, but it is not very useful without access to the half million apps in the Google Play store, Maps, Navigation, Youtube, Google Now etc.
>In other words, OEM WinPhone users are already cornered into producing only the stock vanilla experience, and now they're competing against the platform owners themselves who are allowed to break whatever rules necessary to gain market share.
Perhaps in the future, but right now the Microsoft Surface runs the exact same software as the equivalent OEM devices.
>There is also another key difference to Nexus: the Nexus phones have never been heavily marketed, and even till now are the tools of developers and industry enthusiasts. I imagine if Google ever took the Nexus mass-market they'd see much more blowback from OEMs.
Except for advertising it on the most heavily trafficked site in the world?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57501546-94/googles-nexus-7...
Also, I don't see how the Nexus is not competing with the OEMs like you say. Where are the $199 Android 7" tablets from the OEMs? Why does the Galaxy Tab 7 cost $250?
What's common among the three tablets in that price range? Kindle Fire, Nexus 7 and a Nook ? They're all subsidized by the ecosystem, which Acer, Samsung, HTC, Lenovo, Viewsonic etc. cannot duplicate and compete with.
It's not the same brand as open source "free", but access to the Google apps is indeed free.
It's not free (as in beer) to OEMs, who have to pay buy a license to put Google Play and/or apps onto their devices.
>but access to the Google apps is indeed free
It certainly is not free. Either the OEM who sold the device to you paid off Google for your access(i.e included in the hardware cost you paid the OEM) or you have to violate copyright(along with whoever uploaded them to the host who is vulnerable to a DMCA takedown) to get those apps.
Can you find me a legal link to some or any Google apps .apk file(s) to load on to, say the Kindle Fire?
It certainly is not free. Either the OEM who sold the device to you paid off Google for your access(i.e included in the hardware cost you paid the OEM) or you have to violate copyright(along with whoever uploaded them to the host who is vulnerable to a DMCA takedown) to get those apps.
Can you find me a legal link to some or any Google apps .apk file(s) to load on to, say the Kindle Fire?
You are right in that access to the core "gapps" is commercially restricted to whose who have deals in place with Google.
Speaking as a purely practical matter, as an end-used you can easily get "gapps" builds for virtually any Android device though technically you will be violating copyright (unless you are using those "gapps" as a replacement for a 'backup' of the distribution that came with your phone originally).
After a botched cease-and-desist on Cyanongenmod back a few years ago (2009?) Google turns a blind eye to this sort of sharing of gapps. I've never heard of them taking any action against any gapps provider since that whole C&D debacle despite the fact that these files are shared openly all over the place.
Speaking as a purely practical matter, as an end-used you can easily get "gapps" builds for virtually any Android device though technically you will be violating copyright (unless you are using those "gapps" as a replacement for a 'backup' of the distribution that came with your phone originally).
After a botched cease-and-desist on Cyanongenmod back a few years ago (2009?) Google turns a blind eye to this sort of sharing of gapps. I've never heard of them taking any action against any gapps provider since that whole C&D debacle despite the fact that these files are shared openly all over the place.
They definitely wouldn't turn a blind eye to an OEM distributing them illegally, though. OEMs shipping Android phones pay Google licensing for the Play Store, Gmail app, etc. From what I understand, most Android OEMs also pay Microsoft royalties per handset.
In other words, these are definitely not free to the end user, the cost is just incorporated into the overall price of the phone.
In other words, these are definitely not free to the end user, the cost is just incorporated into the overall price of the phone.
I don't know about legality (although I know they're widely distributed on reputable sites and Google hasn't taken them down), but my HP Touchpad has the Android market installed including access to all Google apps.
I have a Touchpad with Android on it too :)
I would disagree on the "reputable" part. Which reputable sites are they distributed on?
I would disagree on the "reputable" part. Which reputable sites are they distributed on?
I was linked to the apk on XDA, which, while it's a hacking site, I wouldn't describe it as disreputable. At the very least, it's high profile.
No. This is not true. It's not free as in freeware or shareware or open source, I already conceded that. But Google does not charge for access to the apps. If you want to package them with your device, all that they require is that you talk with them and ensure you pass the compatibility toolkit.
OEMs do not pay Google in exchange for bundling Google Apps.
OEMs do not pay Google in exchange for bundling Google Apps.
>If you want to package them with your device, all that they require is that you talk with them and ensure you pass the compatibility toolkit.
>OEMs do not pay Google in exchange for bundling Google Apps
Do you have a reference to those two points? A lot of the small Android tablet OEMs have a lot of trouble getting Google apps.
>OEMs do not pay Google in exchange for bundling Google Apps
Do you have a reference to those two points? A lot of the small Android tablet OEMs have a lot of trouble getting Google apps.
Exactly. What the above poster doesn't realize is that he has already been misproven. There are many companies willing to go up against the guys who make the operating system. It's not the end of the world, it's just the addition of strong competitor into the system.
You don't pay Google for Android.
...you pay Microsoft though! Microsoft has per-device fees for Android arranged with most major manufacturers (including Samsung), in exchange for which they don't sue for patent infringement.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/06/motorola_samsung_pat...
It has been suggested by some people (somewhat tongue in cheek) that in some cases the license fee for Windows Phone is less than the patent licenses for Android.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/06/motorola_samsung_pat...
It has been suggested by some people (somewhat tongue in cheek) that in some cases the license fee for Windows Phone is less than the patent licenses for Android.
It's not. HTC only pays $5 per phone for example. HTC pays up to $45 for other royalties (unrelated to Android), though, so it's not a big deal.
I think the articles were about Microsoft making more money(in total) on patent licenses on Android phones rather than the Windows Phone nascent platform.
If you want to call the phone an Android phone and include any of Google's apps or services, you do have to pay Google.
Actually you do, unless you're Amazon. For access to the Google Play store, GMail, Maps, Navigation, Youtube etc. etc. Those are neither free nor Free.
http://www.reghardware.com/2011/09/21/andy_pad_chief_admits_...
It's very telling that most people do not know this.
Google sent a C&D to the Cyanogen Mod folks for bundling these apps. If you install CM, you have to download the app store app from someone committing copyright infringement.
http://www.reghardware.com/2011/09/21/andy_pad_chief_admits_...
It's very telling that most people do not know this.
Google sent a C&D to the Cyanogen Mod folks for bundling these apps. If you install CM, you have to download the app store app from someone committing copyright infringement.
That doesn't say anything about cost. The deal on Google apps is (or used to be) membership in the OHA, which is about app level compatibility.
There are two possible impedients for cheap devices there: 1. minimum hardware requirements (which exploded over the last few Android releases), 2. Google might not care about herding a bunch of small vendors.
reghardware merely "implies" that it's about cash.
There are two possible impedients for cheap devices there: 1. minimum hardware requirements (which exploded over the last few Android releases), 2. Google might not care about herding a bunch of small vendors.
reghardware merely "implies" that it's about cash.
>It's very telling that most people do not know this.
Welcome to the HN info bubble.
Welcome to the HN info bubble.
"If true, this signals a huge shift in WinPhone strategy."
This is a huge shift in their phone strategy, but I don't find it particularly surprising post-Surface-announce.
If you asked me a year ago if Microsoft were more likely to produce their own hybrid laptop/tablet or phone I'd have said phone in a heartbeat and I'd have thought you crazy for even suggesting Microsoft would build a laptop. There are far fewer serious OEMs for them to piss off in the Windows phone market than there are in the laptop space.
This is a huge shift in their phone strategy, but I don't find it particularly surprising post-Surface-announce.
If you asked me a year ago if Microsoft were more likely to produce their own hybrid laptop/tablet or phone I'd have said phone in a heartbeat and I'd have thought you crazy for even suggesting Microsoft would build a laptop. There are far fewer serious OEMs for them to piss off in the Windows phone market than there are in the laptop space.
I would argue MS needed to disrupt the laptop space more than the phone one. The disparity in quality between Apple and the MS ecosystem is more pronounced in laptopland than with the phones, but that does say more about how bad most PC laptops are.
They have their 8X and 8S devices which was a partnership with HTC to make custom phones designed for Windows Phone 8.
Google tried to make their own phone with the S, etc but at this point the model that has worked for them in terms of bringing a phone to market and getting carriers even with the Nexus 7 on board has been working with a manufacturer to partner on building a phone rather than building it themselves. When Google built the Nexus One they only sold it online and unsubsidised and it flopped.
The question is, can Microsoft bring a smartphone to market with good margins, carrier deals, etc. When Windows Phone hasn't had much of a response from carriers thus far. It's a different game to a tablet and their relationships with Nokia and HTC don't seem to signal that they want to build a surface phone.
Google tried to make their own phone with the S, etc but at this point the model that has worked for them in terms of bringing a phone to market and getting carriers even with the Nexus 7 on board has been working with a manufacturer to partner on building a phone rather than building it themselves. When Google built the Nexus One they only sold it online and unsubsidised and it flopped.
The question is, can Microsoft bring a smartphone to market with good margins, carrier deals, etc. When Windows Phone hasn't had much of a response from carriers thus far. It's a different game to a tablet and their relationships with Nokia and HTC don't seem to signal that they want to build a surface phone.
After Microsoft's announcement of the Surface Tablet... people had to see this coming. I'm not debating the merits of doing this or not doing this... but if MS was willing to make their own tablet, surely they were willing to make their own phone.
What's interesting is the difference between the mobile and PC market. With PCs - there is no other (realistic) OS for OEM makers to use. I mean, they just have to keep using Windows. For mobile handset makers... they can (and might) move over to Android. Interesting gamble on MS's part.
Personally, I'm excited. I think MS has received the wakeup call that they need.
What's interesting is the difference between the mobile and PC market. With PCs - there is no other (realistic) OS for OEM makers to use. I mean, they just have to keep using Windows. For mobile handset makers... they can (and might) move over to Android. Interesting gamble on MS's part.
Personally, I'm excited. I think MS has received the wakeup call that they need.
The only OEM making Windows Phones that isn't already also making Android phones is Nokia. And given the resounding thud with which Nokia's Windows Phones have fallen (fairly or not), it seems unlikely that Nokia will exclusively pursue Windows Phone to its own demise, Elop or no.
So... there's really no risk to Microsoft here. It's just yet-another Hail Mary For Traction.
So... there's really no risk to Microsoft here. It's just yet-another Hail Mary For Traction.
If Nokia-built phones with Windows were unable to compete in the market then can Microsoft-built phones fare any better?
Seems unlikely
Seems unlikely
If Nokia has suffered about as much as its share-holders can stomach, but Microsoft still wants to push their platform, would Microsoft have any choice?
Anyway, the thing I haven't seen anyone consider is: whether the device being 'locked down' in the Entertainment/Devices group is more an iPod Touch competitor -- skewed toward gaming -- than iPhone.
That would make sense to me anyway. It would placate existing phone OEMs and serve as a Skunkworks "what do we do if the OEMs abandon us" project.
It's also a huge opportunity for Microsoft to build support for the winphone platform off their popular and functional consumer ecosystem in the XBox/Live/Marketplace/Content Deals/etc.
And with Nintendo potentially forcing the "second-screen" configuration, Microsoft needs to have a more-integrated first-party solution than even their current attempt.
Anyway, the thing I haven't seen anyone consider is: whether the device being 'locked down' in the Entertainment/Devices group is more an iPod Touch competitor -- skewed toward gaming -- than iPhone.
That would make sense to me anyway. It would placate existing phone OEMs and serve as a Skunkworks "what do we do if the OEMs abandon us" project.
It's also a huge opportunity for Microsoft to build support for the winphone platform off their popular and functional consumer ecosystem in the XBox/Live/Marketplace/Content Deals/etc.
And with Nintendo potentially forcing the "second-screen" configuration, Microsoft needs to have a more-integrated first-party solution than even their current attempt.
Microsoft is betting the farm on Windows 8 and it makes sense to me that they can leave nothing to chance. They have to have a plan B if hardware partners fail to come through. A company as big as Microsoft simply cannot pin their whole existence on a bunch of third party OEMs, especially when they are deeply in bed and arguably now far more invested with a bitter competitor. I would honestly expect there would be at least a skunk works project if nothing else. The news that the device is being tested, however, means it's come out of the skunk works - essentially, plan B has been "activated".
What I read from this, combined with the recent close partnering with HTC, is that MS is now heavily hedging their bets against Nokia failing, which can only mean they, with all their internal knowledge of their partnership with Nokia, now have strong doubts about whether Nokia itself is viable, or at least, viable enough to carry their flagship forward. So I wouldn't necessary read too much into this about the wider Windows8 strategy, but I'd read a lot of bad things for Nokia from it.
What I read from this, combined with the recent close partnering with HTC, is that MS is now heavily hedging their bets against Nokia failing, which can only mean they, with all their internal knowledge of their partnership with Nokia, now have strong doubts about whether Nokia itself is viable, or at least, viable enough to carry their flagship forward. So I wouldn't necessary read too much into this about the wider Windows8 strategy, but I'd read a lot of bad things for Nokia from it.
I don't see a reason why to be honest. The lumia seems great.
Agreed. Got aa 710 and an 800 here. Nice phones for the money.
I was really interested in the 920 until I saw that it has capacitive hardware buttons. Right now I have a Samsung Focus, and when someone else grabs my phone to look at a picture, I have to do the awkward "no don't hold it there, hold it here, oh no you touched one of the buttons here give it back while I figure out which one you touched now don't hold it there again" dance.
That's embarrassing to me and embarrassing to the brand. People see it and think "oh these Windows Phones are complex and finicky". Nope. Not touching any phone with capacitive buttons ever again. I'll be upgrading to the nicest WP8 device with actual, real buttons.
That's embarrassing to me and embarrassing to the brand. People see it and think "oh these Windows Phones are complex and finicky". Nope. Not touching any phone with capacitive buttons ever again. I'll be upgrading to the nicest WP8 device with actual, real buttons.
> Not touching any phone with capacitive buttons ever again.
I think that limits you to iOS.
> I'll be upgrading to the nicest WP8 device with actual, real buttons.
I don't think there are any WP8 devices currently announced that have only non-capacitive buttons. The Samsung ATIV S has physical "Windows" button, but the other two face buttons are still capacitive.
This is an interesting point, though. I've never heard of this complaint on Windows Phone or Android, but I can see how it could be an issue.
I think that limits you to iOS.
> I'll be upgrading to the nicest WP8 device with actual, real buttons.
I don't think there are any WP8 devices currently announced that have only non-capacitive buttons. The Samsung ATIV S has physical "Windows" button, but the other two face buttons are still capacitive.
This is an interesting point, though. I've never heard of this complaint on Windows Phone or Android, but I can see how it could be an issue.
If I have to wait, I will. Windows Phone 7 and my Focus are good enough for the time being. If I get tired of waiting, no matter how much I love the Windows Phone ecosystem, hate iTunes, and am not a big believer in the hype around the iPhone, if time comes and I need a new smartphone, the iPhone would win me over. I like Android as a tablet OS, but I'm not a fan of it on a phone for personal reasons.
Capacitive buttons are a deal-breaker. I feel that strongly about them, that they have no place on a premium handheld device, that they ruin the experience, and that they completely ignore user intentions. I feel that strongly that I would abandon the entire ecosystem just because I can't stand the buttons.
And this coming from a staunch defender of Windows Phone and loyal subscriber to the Zune Pass for years who has never said another word against the platform. Guys, stop making capacitive buttons!
Capacitive buttons are a deal-breaker. I feel that strongly about them, that they have no place on a premium handheld device, that they ruin the experience, and that they completely ignore user intentions. I feel that strongly that I would abandon the entire ecosystem just because I can't stand the buttons.
And this coming from a staunch defender of Windows Phone and loyal subscriber to the Zune Pass for years who has never said another word against the platform. Guys, stop making capacitive buttons!
I agree there. It's one of the things I liked about the 710 (the hardware buttons). It is also extremely cheap here in the UK now (£89!) so screw getting tied to a contract with it.
Because Microsoft wants to enter the hardware business, and every manufacturer who can't see that Microsoft wants to compete with them is simply naive.
I've stopped trying to figure out w.t.f. is going on at Microsoft with their phone these days. It's hard for me to imagine a more clownshoes couple of years.
If that's the case then MSFT will simply buy Nokia in year or two. Nokia are great at hardware. And they have already doubled down on windows phone OS. Not sure whether Nokia's all in strategy on windows phone OS worked or not. Looks like it is disaster in hindsight.
Don't get too excited just yet- they might just be making dev hardware for now. Nokia's "all in" on WP means that they have a great hardware partner for the time being, I'm not sure they'd want to jeopardise that just yet.
Seems like they already kicked Nokia in the face by giving HTC rights to call their 8X and 8S "Windows Phone" and basically saying it's their flagship at that event a few weeks ago. Wouldn't at all be surprised to see them make their own; they're already making their own tablet, so it's not like it's a big stretch.
It definitely benefits Nokia and MS to have more partners onboard with Windows Phone 8. I really liked the look of the 920, but I was worried it would never reach a critical mass of developer support with only Nokia building devices. If they could get one more major partner they could be a viable third platform, the way RIM was before they tanked. Unfortunately, Motorola is a no-go because of the Google acquisition, Samsung is enjoying great success with Android, and Sony is ... Sony. HTC already had a strong history of WP 6 devices before Android came along, and they're losing traction to Samsung in this space, so it makes sense that they would look to Microsoft for help.
Depending on how well it sells, MS might be solving the problem of finding a third partner by building a line of branded devices themselves.
Depending on how well it sells, MS might be solving the problem of finding a third partner by building a line of branded devices themselves.
Samsung is also producing Windows Phone 8 devices. Time will tell how committed they are to the platform, but I believe that a very large portion of WP7 devices were from Samsung.
Nokia's "all-in" strategy with WP, means it's "bye-bye Nokia" if Microsoft makes their own phone, though. The others can and will still rely on Android for the bulk of their sales anyway. What will Nokia rely on? Nothing.
The market problems faced by a phone and a tablet can be pretty distinct. If Microsoft is making a Windows Phone, I hope it serves to drive innovation and platform success, instead of just scaring away OEMs and cannibalizing what nascent platform there is.
If it's a foolhardy or hubristic attempt to grab imagined profits without consideration for carrier and other channel and customer obstacles, well... I'd regret the untimely / early demise of an innovative platform.
If it's a foolhardy or hubristic attempt to grab imagined profits without consideration for carrier and other channel and customer obstacles, well... I'd regret the untimely / early demise of an innovative platform.
If Microsoft is not categorically denying this rumor by the end of the week, then it's true. It might still be true if they give some vague PR statement that sort of says they are not making a phone yet, but not really.
I wonder how this rumor will hit their partners, since even most of their PC partners didn't know about the Surface tablets before they announced it.
I wonder how this rumor will hit their partners, since even most of their PC partners didn't know about the Surface tablets before they announced it.
Microsoft jumping in with their own devices would probably signal the end of that, and the whole business will become much more Apple-like (vertically integrated, no OEMs). I can't imagine an OEM wanting to sleep in Microsoft's bed when they're going toe to toe with the people who build the OS themselves.
IMO, the right move, and was the right move from the get-go. When you put the software at arms-length from the hardware, the results speak for themselves, and branding suffers.