In the past few days the rumour mill has ground in to overdrive.

At the start of July American ad industry trade magazine Adweek first reported that McCann Erickson had won the pitch “for a new Microsoft mobile offering” codenamed ‘Pink’.

On the same day ZDNet claimed “Pink is the codename for a Microsoft-branded phone and set of accompanying premium consumer services being developed largely by the Danger team that Microsoft acquired last year.”

At the time of their appointment McCann already handled the Windows Mobile advertising account.

Then a few days ago 9to5mac.com, a website whose self-proclaimed remit is Apple intelligence, revealed they had “gotten word that Microsoft will unleash two new Smartphones, probably at CES in January 2010.”

One device they explained, codenamed ‘Turtle’, “looks like a dressed up Motorola QA1” and “is ‘squircle’ in shape like the past Zune's buttons.  The slide out keyboard houses the mic at the bottom and it is meant to be open when being used as a phone.”

The other, codenamed ‘Pure’, is a “more traditionally-shaped candybar slider.”

According to 9to5mac.com Microsoft have appointed Sharp as the manufacturing partner, and the phones “will continue to use the App Store model that the Sidekick has employed with over-the-air applications appearing on your phone bill.”

Commenting on the 9to5mac.com story ZDNet said: “Last I heard, Pink was being built on top of the Windows Mobile 7 core, which is in development, but now not expected to be available on phones until late 2010.

“Does that mean it’s impossible that the Consumer Electronics Show in January 2010 will be the Pink launch pad, as one Mac site reported this weekend? I’d say it’s still possible that Microsoft could show off Pink (privately or publicly) at CES.”

Perhaps surprisingly, ZDNet omitted to say whether they thought ‘Pink’ might conflict with what they were suggesting was Microsoft’s mobile strategy, namely “to partner more closely with fewer vendors.”

Commenting on that strategy ZDNet explained: “That’s what the “chassis” model is all about. Microsoft creates a very detailed chassis spec and then allows partners to bid on making devices that comply with the spec.”

That explanation is credible, given that at the end of July Robbie Bach, president of Microsoft’s entertainment and devices division, was forced to admit: “To date, we haven’t done as good a job as I would like building relationships and getting the right integration with our hardware partners.”

At the time he promised “you’re going to see dramatic improvement in integration,” and the ‘chassis model’ would be one way of achieving that objective.

It also helps clarify how Microsoft can reconcile the comment made by Stephanie Ferguson, the general manager of the Windows Mobile Group, that as far as phones are concerned “there is no ‘one size fits all’ in this market,” with the very different operating system requirements of say a touchscreen and a would-be CrackBerry clone.

By requiring hardware partners to commit to producing devices that conform precisely to their own specification Microsoft is able to provide device-specific versions of Windows Mobile, optimised for the exact requirements of that device.

The same core programming code would be common to all Windows Mobile phones, with additional functionality provided by device specific plug-ins and components.

That way Windows Mobile 7 could continue to be positioned as the operating system for everybody, yet still offer bespoke handset specific versions offering optimal performance on each type of phone. And, by only including the code necessary for that specific device, the OS would be far less bloated.

In effect Microsoft would be saying to their hardware partners ‘This is the mobile you should be making and, if you agree, what are you prepared to offer us for the exclusive license?’

So, if that was the plan, why then have Microsoft created the specs for ‘Pure’ and ‘Turtle’ and licensed the manufacturing to Sharp, with the intention of marketing the handsets as Microsoft branded mobiles? Surely Sharp should be paying Microsoft for the privilege, and selling them under their own name?

The answer might be found in the fact that even as Robbie Bach spoke, it was clear that Microsoft’s strategy was in danger of disintegrating.

Because just as Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer, that ultimate manifestation of corporate testosterone, was in the process of describing Windows Mobile as "an area of major excitement and innovation for the company as we move forward”, critical reaction to the Toshiba TG01 was proving nothing short of disastrous.

Almost without exception the experts were arguing Toshiba should have dumped Windows and chosen Google’s Android as the TG01’s operating system.

Then, only a few days later, one Microsoft hardware partner very publicly announced it was doing just that. By choosing the Google operating system as the primary platform for its mid-tier to high-end phones, and saying it was planning to launch as many as 20 to 30 phones running the Android OS in the next 12 months, Motorola effectively rejected Windows Mobile.

Since then Palm has also decided to drop Windows Mobile and fully commit to its own WebOS.

Similarly other key Microsoft partners such as HTC, Samsung and LG are now including Android in their product line. In every instance their long-term commitment to Windows Mobile must be open to doubt.

Consequently it is perfectly possible that, having created the specs for ‘Pure’ and ‘Turtle’, Microsoft failed to find a hardware partner prepared to bid to both manufacture and market those devices.

Were this to be the case, and were it to become public knowledge, Windows Mobile 7 would effectively be dead in the water.

In other words Microsoft were left with no choice but to market the phones under their own name and pay somebody else to build them.

Leaking the information to the media also makes sense. After all, those phones will need apps. And, with all the bad news, prospective developers may have been asking for reassurance that the OS still has a future.

Todd Brix, Senior Director for Mobile Platform Services Product Management at Microsoft, is the man charged with persuading developers to write those apps. His feedback may have been instrumental in any possible change of strategy.

Consequently, with ‘Pure’ and ‘Turtle’, Ballmer and Microsoft may be sending out a message to both developers and potential hardware partners, reaffirming their commitment to Windows Mobile.

Hopefully it will not prove too little, too late.