What a preposterous idea. I think mobile phones are locked enough already. And when Apple released the iPhone, they took a step in the wrong direction by over limiting consumers.

The phone has a built in iPod to play mp3s. I have hundreds of mp3s on my phone, but it does not let me use any of them as ringtones. You have to buy a ringtone from iTunes.

It is things like this, that we as American consumers have been made used to yet something like this would never fly in Japan, or parts of Europe.

I can understand what you are saying about the possible short term benefit for a corporation like Apple to lock their devices but there are over 30 major mobile phone makers in the Open Handset Alliance for Google Android. Apple, and any one else trying to release phones with all the features locked are going to get brushed under the rug when a new breed of phones running Google's Android are released allowing the consumer to take full advantage of the hardware we paid for without absurd limitations like not being able to use an mp3 on my phone as ringtone.

No.... No... No... No...

The iPhone is a fine product but one of it's (relatively few) problems is the fact that Apple HAS tried to take control of the network side.

This strategy isn't working. Whilst O2 is proud to say its sold more iPhones than any other device. It's silent on the number that have actually been activated on O2. I've been speaking with someone from T-Mobile UK and they reckon theres a Huge amount of them on their network and they were spotting them months before the UK launch.

The fact that so many users actually jailbreak them as a first step means
1) Apple don't get their revenue share
2) People want to be in control of their own devices. Not the Network, Not Apple... but the Owner of the device.

Now I realise that in the US market the networks have used their powers to squash innovation, and in some ways anyone who kicks the network is a 'good guy' but all this does is change the overlord that you must serve.

If Microsoft tried to implement a strategy that even Apple have (partially) failed with it would be a suicide note for windows mobile.

Now where I agree with you.. and where I think Apple have got it right is the synergy between the Hardware and software... and the flair for design that Apple is famous for. Just as the touch interface has raised the bar for Mobile UI designers, and safari has given the mobile brower industry a kick... what we really need is a premium brand Windows Mobile Device to give HTC a wake up call. Whether this is an official Microsoft product or just heavily supported by them isn't the issue. But I really want someone to sit down and work out the design instead of running it off the existing HTC templates and cutting it to fit.

I voted "Yes, definately" although I am not sure it would work.

What would work is if Microsoft made their own phone as is rumored as part of the Danger acquisition but still offered Windows Mobile to everyone else as they already do.

Then, they could have the best of both worlds: a phone with Windows Mobile the way they see fit sold unlocked and still let OEMS/Carriers have and muck up WinMo however they want.

If Microsoft was to release a decent looking phone like a Windows Mobile Sidekick II or qwerty keyboard like the new iPaq (or both), I'd buy my next phone directly from Microsoft to use on my carrier.

At least it would have Windows Mobile as designed instead of as tampered with by OEMs and carriers.

Microsoft will not have the muscle to do this. Apple's success with the iPod led to a desire on the part of the carriers to get some action when Apple finally released a phone with iPod features, giving Apple the leverage to demand specific contractual elements - visual voice mail, shared revenue, required data contracts.

Microsoft does not have that leverage. Their business is one of slow growth rather than blistering growth in almost every segment. The news is filled with disappointing news for Microsoft: Vista is hated, people want MS to continue to sell and support XP for longer that Microsoft is planning, which they refuse to do. The Zune struggles against the iPod, the Xbox 360 is generally a good brand but lags the Wii in market excitement. Office remains a market leader, but there are a lot of competitors suddenly that will not threaten Microsoft's market leadership, but will lead to some share erosion. Google cleans Microsoft's clock in search and online presence. And, to top it off, Microsoft really, really wants the carriers to support WM. If they try to use leverage that they do not actually have, the carriers will likely call their bluff and just go to RIM instead (and perhaps even Palm, which is the last thing Microsoft should want; Palm OS seems almost dead).

In short, Microsoft has a lot to lose as an established OS brand in the market by trying to flex muscles if a company like RIM is ready to continue flexibility, while Apple was able to take the risk at startup of waiting for just the right deal before they launched, and AT&T was desperate enough to give them what they wanted. (Though I think that it has been a good deal for AT&T, too.)

Either Microsft or the OEM needs to. But Apple does both and has only one streamlined device. Microsoft needs to get its own house in order (the WM OS) before it starts telling the carriers and OEMs they can't "customize" it.

Then you wouldn't have the mess of HTC putting their Home screen on the Tytn II and AT&T leaving it off the Tilt, and then everyone using hacked ROMs, 3rd party programs, etc.

While I wanted to say 'yes', I had to go with 'never work' because I think it is already too late. Every device has a half-dozen special releases to make the various carriers happy - but seldom does any single release have all of the features that anyone wants.