> Microsoft has to do something that's _compellingly_ better, to someone, somewhere, on some basis that makes money.

$20 says Microsoft will take over the mobile enterprise market from the now weak grasp of RIM, by focusing on security and enterprise features.

Enterprises care about security. They want someone who owns the platform they can thump in the head when something goes wrong. They want complicated features to centralize control. They want the operating systems quickly patched when vulns are published.

The Android ecosystem is a disaster, in this regard. By separating the roles into OS developer, manufacturer and carrier (Google, HTC/Samsung/etc, Verizon/AT&T/etc respectively), it's created an environment with too many mixed incentives -- many that are at odds with the customer's needs.

Google produces the operating system, the manufacturer adds their customizations to differentiate, then also adds per-carrier tailoring. The carriers then have to validate/test and release.

Motorola detailed this process as an excuse/apology/statement in early December. [1]

New OS upgrades and security patches become the responsibility of the manufacturer, but the manufacturer's incentives to support the hardware platform for the long-term are weak -- in fact, if the platform is doing poorly, they are incentivized to do the opposite: cut their losses and move on. As customers, our influence is limited, since our relationships are with the carriers.

This if further complicated by the manufacturers rapid iterations with various hardware designs, to try and find the right price points to compete with the iPhone. They're shipping hardware platforms barely capable of running the current version of the OS, with no roadmap for future software upgrades.

Apple has done a great job managing the platform, but they do so in their typical Apple style: with little communication and inconsistent rapidity of responses. Being held at arms length and kept in the dark is not reassuring to any CISO whose enterprise data dependent upon the platform's security.

Of course, I think it's a safe bet those CISOs are more comfortable with Apple's silence than Android's clear security failures.

DeGusta's chart from October [2] captured much of this. There are hardware platforms where we sign two year agreements with the carrier, but receive only four months of security patches from the manufacturer. In whose world is that acceptable?

There are signs Microsoft recognizes the security updates problems and is putting the infrastructure in place to manage updates themselves, independent of carrier. [3] There are also signs they recognize the challenges Android's laissez faire hardware specs brings, and are more tightly controlling the hardware requirements. [4]

Microsoft's focus so far has been consumer-oriented, initial traction and to establish the ecosystem to allow _any_ platform. Ars had a writeup last week that captured current status in typical Ars completeness. [5] They'll work it out eventually. Microsoft can't fail in this, and the carrier and hardware manufacturers _want_ an alternative to the Apple gorilla. The next year will see some pivots, compromises and changes -- but ultimately they'll work it out.

And by then they'll have taken over the enterprise market.

1 - http://www.motorola.com/blog/2011/12/07/motorola-update-on-i...

2 - http://theunderstatement.com/post/11982112928/android-orphan...

3 - http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/11/windows-phone-...

4 - http://www.pcworld.com/article/243268/microsoft_quietly_chan...

5 - http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/12/is-windows-pho...