Comments

• twitter

  2010-11-29 03:36:34

  I suspect this is a cheap advertising stunt, aimed at the DIY crowd but it is brimming with hypocrisy and unintentional humor that backfires right away. Years ago, Microsoft used the same trick with Xbox and I know people who bought them thinking that was a good way to get a cheap computer and cause Microsoft a small loss. I told them at the time that Microsoft would suffer a bigger loss if no one bought Xbox and that they should their money was better spent on hardware that was less hostile. The same logic applies here, except no one thinks Windows Phone is worth owning. People interested in software freedom should look to less hostile, better spec phones from companies like Motorola who don't pay the Microsoft tax. Everyone else is going to buy a cheap Android or expensive hype phone. Five minutes of consideration from the DIY perspective quickly eliminates Windows Phone from consideration.
  
  The more I think about this, the more typically Microsoft it is. It is sadly amusing but predictable that a person at Microsoft would think that an ancient heraldry and architectural symbol could be owned by an oil company by virtue of advertising, and judicial abuse. It is doubtful that people would confuse a software project with an oil company unless the programmers also appropriate the trademarked logo. This is almost as amusing as the bald faced hypocrisy of Microsoft having complained about the "closed" nature of hype phone only to launch their own, worse model not to mention Microsoft's use of intentionally confusing terms like "Office Open XML" What's really funny though, is that no one is going to care. People remember how poorly previous generations of Microsoft phones performed and will go for the alternatives that work well no matter how much money Microsoft wastes on advertisements and hardware give away. That kind of expensive failure is becoming a synonym for Microsoft.