Google's Andy Rubin thinks that Windows Phone 7 can be a success, advises Microsoft to be more open with OEM and Carrier customization

Google’s Andy rubin (the man behind Android and formely Danger before it was bought by Microsoft) is being interviewed by the WSJ’s Kara Swicher and Walt Mossberg and had some things to say about Microsoft’s Windows Phone 7 when asked about it:

Walt: “You were very nice about Apple… but there are other players. Microsoft has gotten back in the game… I think of your phones and iPhones as super smartphones… but can you talk about BlackBerry and Microsoft?”
Andy: “I don’t think it’s ever going to be just two… I do think that Android has a distinctive advantage, so does the iPhone. It’s new — we have no legacy.”
Kara: “That was the idea behind Palm.”
Andy: “Yeah, they cleared the slate. And that’s a big advantage. And some of these guys, Windows Mobile, there’s code in there that’s 20 years old.”
Walt: “You’re saying there’s 20 year old code in Windows Phone 7?”
Andy:“Yes, it’s built from the same codebase that Windows Mobile 1.0 was built on.”
Walt: “Is it bad code?”
Andy: “Well, I’ll bet a lot of the engineers that built that old code aren’t there anymore.”

This is 100% FUD

Walt: “Is there nothing praiseworthy in WP7? They obviously aware of you guys. There’s more in common with the iPhone and Android than with Windows Phone… is that going to work for them?”
Andy: “I think it’s a good 1.0 product. It does look good, it looks unique. And there are these services that we talked about.”
Walt: “And Microsoft has those..”
Andy:“Yeah, Xbox — huge potential there.”
Walt: “So you think they can have some success?”
Andy: “Well I can’t predict, but I think so… if I could advise them I would tell them to look into more carrier and OEM customization… to be more open…”

Well ,my advise to Microsoft would be not to listen to him….Anyway, I find ironic that what he wants MS to do is:1) What MS was doing before Android was ever created. 2) What everybody hates the most about Android: Carrier and OEMs messing with the OS and fragmenting the platform… It also contradicts his previous claim about the Mobile industry not needing an other OS…

transcript via engadget

  • Ivan

    LMAO, he probably didn’t even try WP7

  • Ef Jay

    Worst thing about his comments is, Microsoft wont even respond and before long his FUD becomes fact and turns into yet another stick to beat WP7 and Microsoft with.

  • Gust3

    Nobody should EVER listen to advice from their competitors. They always reserve the best advice for themselves. Andy is offering a ruse, a distraction. He would try to get the media to doubt MS, afterall, Google is doing much better now. Before long, Google would be revealed to be doing something else. Too late for MS if it took this horrible advice.

    Isn’t Android based on Linux? How old is this code?

  • Anon

    I strongly disagree with what Andy Rubin said about carrier and OEM customisation. There was a time when mobile operating systems were nothing to write home about, and OEMs produced their own, complete with gimmicks they thought would help differentiate them in the market.

    But the era of the smartphone is here bringing semi-serious operating systems with it. The big boys (Apple; Google; Microsoft) have now arrived in the market with some serious developing clout to produce these operating systems properly. The LAST thing I want is LG, Motorola or someone else tinkering with it. They do more to put me off their phones than anything else. Motorola’s schedule shows some phones in some markets getting Froyo in Q2 2011 !!!

    I would rather consumers got a timely update to the OS, that OEMs stuck to producing good hardware, and carriers stuck to improving their coverage and their customer service. If OEMs want to offer special Apps free to buyers of their hardware then that’s fine by me, but I’d like to see an end to their compulsory “adjustments” to the operating system which I think is a hang over habit from the old days when they were used to some software based product differentiation.

  • Anon

    I just want to add that I am more in agreement with his comment on “openness” in so far as that might apply to ordinary App developers. But even there, there may be a trade-off between openness and app quality. One possibility would be an official and un-official app market. Trouble is (for people like Apple), consumers would come to them with complaints about the effects of un-approved Apps, and wouldn’t take the answer “I told you so” very kindly. So instead they just make sure the App market is very tightly controlled or “closed”.