>>So MS needs a real game-changer, fast.

Why?

Point #1:

When you think about it, the $ potential for the manufacturer of the phone O/S won't approach that of the desktop O/S anytime soon,if ever, especially if one of the leaders is giving it away.

Point #2
With some rare exceptions MS traditionally lags, and their initial offerings are usually trial balloons. You usually find out how serious
they are when version 2 or 3 comes out, if ever.
Being out front isn't always a good thing - just ask any Infantry platoon leader or squad leader.

Point 3#
Remember Visicalc?
Remember Netscape?
Remember AOL?
Remember Yahoo search?
Again, with a few notable exceptions - early leadership in a fast changing technology rarely means anything over time.









>>The gist was, if they are selling what they report, then everyone in the US would have and android now, and everyone in the wold in a couple of years...

300K activations per day is a measurable figure that isn't easy to fudge... unlike sales figures to phone carriers that may not say much about actual users. In my honest opinion activations is the better figure. 300K/day can be maintained if people and mobile providers continue their current phone upgrade habits.

One way for MS to catch up would be to merge with Symbian, but the Android flood can erode even that. By way of example, see this: http://www.techieinsider.com/news/5199 ... at this rate, Samsung all by itself is becoming a competitor to iPhone. So MS needs a real game-changer, fast.