Google don't charge for their software, they give it away - that's the point.

Google earn their money from services, in particular search. Charging for operating systems, particularly in the mobile space, has become a non-viable proposition... when will Microsoft realise this, only after they've thrown billions of dollars at the problem and failed?

Neither Microsoft nor Google make their own hardware, so the argument that Microsoft must base their business model around selling software is false.

Really?

In a marketplace dominated by open source mobile operating systems, why do you expect Microsoft to be any more successful than they have been to date in the mobile space? All the signs are that they are headed for further decline.

Microsoft don't manufacture their own product, consequently their business is entirely based around selling their operating system to hardware vendors who have a choice of at least two massively successful and FREE alternatives to what Microsoft are peddling.

What hardware manufacturer in their right mind will be willing to pay Microsoft for WM7 licences to be used on hardware that is difficult to shift, when Android devices will (and maybe Symbian too - don't write it off just yet!) be flying off the shelves?

I think the Gartner report is spot on - a slight increase of interest in WM7 in 2011 followed by steady decline as more manufacturers realise the return on investment isn't there for WM7.

While I am no fan of microsoft, I think that they are being badly underestimated here.

Source as in place of availability not source as in code.

IOS and RIM OS are only available from a single supplier.

It's called "closed source", not "single source".