Bass said:elmer said:*snip*
I don't disagree with your four bulletpoints, but keep in mind: Android is royalty free.
It's not just free, you don't even need Google's permission to put Android on a device. It's open source!*
So Google wins on "Price", and they probably did this on purpose. They saw Apple doing well in placement/promotion. They saw Microsoft makes money using OEM royality deals that are per handset. So they went with royalty-free pricing in a scorched earth strategy. To lock Microsoft (and more importantly, Bing) out of this market.
Microsoft COULD play the same game but it's not good enough to be free, you also have to be BETTER then Android. Also consider that Microsoft might not also have the same kind of ad/service tie-ins Google can pull off to make a free product sustainable.
Also Microsoft could do is make the price negative (give OEMs $$$ for each device they ship), but that's very unsustainable.
Competition is awesome, anyway. In the end of the day, consumers will win.
* You do need Google's permission for using their name in advertisements, as well as for access to the Android marketplace and some very interesting Google apps (like the GPS turn-by-turn directions that even iOS doesn't have).
I don't know what the price for a Windows Phone 7 license may be, but considering the pricing of a Windows CE license (between 3$ and 15$ depending on the SKU, before any volume discount), I would be surprised if having a free OS would turn out to be significant commercial advantage.