[clintonb11]

I think prices are lower than they would have been without android. Without debating the openness of the software, Android still gave phone manufacturers a huge code base for their smart phones that they would have had to develop otherwise, and their software probably wouldn't have been as good. Just look at the selection of "free" smart phones from T-mobile: http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/phones/?shape=smp

I doubt the diversity and quality of those phones would have been possible without Android.

[lftl]

I think the biggest thing Google brought to table isn't necessarily the code for the OS, but a platform with momentum that others could easily tap into. I'm sure Huawei could have developed their own mobile OS platform, but convincing a ton of developers to develop for it would have been hard.

[jballanc]

The cost of a Windows license was never a material factor in the cost of a computer. Windows just happened to work on the widest range of hardware, much like Android. Being "open" has little to nothing to do with that.

What I find lacking in all of this Android chest-bumping is the recognition of what made it possible for so many smart phones to be priced reasonably: the decreasing price of flash storage. If we're going to point to anything as the cause for smart phone ubiquity, shouldn't we consider what Apple has done to drive down the price of flash?

[clintonb11]

The difference in this case is that Android can be customized and tailored however a carrier or manufacturer wants, because the source code is in fact available. Windows never allowed for that.

[nextparadigms]

You can thank Microsoft for making them slightly more expensive than they should've been, though, with their "patent licenses".