> Windows Phone 7 is about to be released (and after seeing it in action during a short trip to Redmond earlier this week, I’m convinced that it will be a huge hit).
That's the first time I've heard someone positively speak about Windows Phone 7. Everyone I know (myself included) seems to think it will be a disaster. But as I've said before, I haven't actually seen it in person yet - the marketing videos online make me think I'll hate it, but perhaps I should reserve judgement until I can use one.
If the Microsoft Tanker is actually turning around, then why is Windows losing more and more of the consumer markets every single day? MS is about three years late to the phone party, and they don't have a damn clue about tablets or anything mobile. Windows 7 is a "huge success" only because it works properly; that's no innovation, and that's not going anywhere for the future. MS is doing well with IE9, but you will still need Windows to run it! One of their main competitors is about to release an OS (I'm referring to Chrome OS), and Chrome (the browser) has been gaining and gaining market share while IE loses and loses.
I do not agree with the conclusions of this article at all. MS is still fumbling and bumbling about, with no clear path for the future. They're still mostly ignoring the web (sure, IE9 and Bing are great, but why are they so forcefully shoving Silverlight plugins everywhere?! That's not the web!) and they're ignoring the fact that consumers won't care what OS they're running in the next few years.
Microsoft will grip the business world for a very long time, but they haven't got long to live in the consumer market.
Edit TL;DR: Microsoft isn't turning around because they're still mostly ignoring the Internet.
I wouldn't say they're mostly ignoring the web. Once they finally made it a priority, they went from irrelevant to a serious competitor in the single most important business on the web in a remarkably short time (search, that is). If they apply the same focus to other areas, watch out.
I've seen the WP7 stuff and I've got to say it is a pretty slick interface. The ability to publish SL apps will likely be very popular with .NET devs as well. That doesn't mean I'm totally sold on the device, but it certainly has as much potential as any out there.
> TL;DR: Microsoft isn't turning around because they're still mostly ignoring the Internet.
I would suggest that Microsoft's floundering around in the mobile space is a bigger deal than ignoring the internet. e.g. it's not like Apple gets the web either.
I really wouldn't consider Chrome OS a threat to Windows. It's geared toward a niche hardware market (netbooks), centered on a paradigm that almost no one really understands (cloud computing), and underneath it all it's still Linux (which has made leaps and bounds in user-friendliness, but it's still the hacker OS... some people can't even seem to learn OS X). I'm not even betting on Chrome OS to overtake Ubuntu.
Do you not read Engadget or ZDNet ever? Both have been pretty complimentary about WP7. But everyone is also waiting until release. There's just too much we don't know... in particular the strength of their app ecosystem.
Why is having a plugin incompatible with the web? Sure it's not THE web, but getting the web doesn't mean that you ignore all other methods of delivering experiences. It's like saying that Apple doesn't get computers, because they also make phones.
And I'm sure MS does get that the OS is becoming less relevant. They've probably known this for longer than most people here have been devs.
That statement you made is one of the naive statements I often see from kids who just got out of college. The issue isn't if they know that the OS is becoming less relevant, but the real question (the one that is actually hard to answer) is what do you do about it when you generate $30B/year revenue from it? I'm sure from your perspective they should just drop Windows and move everything to Linux starting yesterday. They'll make that $30B back on ads, right?
> Why is having a plugin incompatible with the web?
The very basis of the web is open protocols and open access: anyone running any networked computer can access any web content. That's how the web grew to be so big: it didn't matter if you were running UNIX or Windows or Mac, you could access the same information as anyone else, and you could contribute back.
Content that is produced with Silverlight is Microsoft-only, so if you are in an environment where you can't install closed plugins, or if you just don't want to, then you can't see the content. The same goes for Flash of course: the only reason it took off is because it could do things that the regular web couldn't. That's slowly becoming less and less true now, and Silverlight is just not needed.
However, Microsoft is pushing Silverlight because it locks people into their software: if enough people use it to build content, then everyone will have to continue using Microsoft software. That is completely incompatible with The Web and all it stands for.
I don't know how Microsoft should make money. But the way they're aiming themselves into the future is doomed to fail. I get that they probably understand their space is dying, but the problem is that they're not looking for alternatives. They're just pushing the same products they have been for decades.
If they know that won't work, why are they trying it? Look, I haven't got the answer and if I did I'd be rich. But pushing your users into anti-Web, locked-in environments is going to fail in a web-driven world run by Google.
I think you misunderstood my post. My point was that Silverlight was NOT the web, but was not incompatible with it. By this I meant that having Silverlight doesn't destroy the web. The same way gay marriage doesn't effect your marriage. They can both coexist. And you can choose what you want to use.
I disagree about your reason why the web because so big. Frankly, I think what caused to become so big was ease and speed of deployment. If the web was PC only it would have grown on marginally slower.
I don't know how MS is trying to make money, but I think I see what they're doing:
1) Focus on Bing Search. Search revenue is a huge chunk of money and allows them to move to the web more easily.
2) Make IE the BEST browser experience. I think they've finally decided that the web can actually have differentiated experiences, and I think they want IE/Windows to be the best platform for it.
But at the same time they continue to also focus on business users. And the fact that a lot of consumers still need a desktop OS. I spend a fair bit of time editing movies, and while I'm sure there's a web app that will render BluRay movies from HD video, I've yet to find one as good as the desktop tools I have.
You don't leave money on the table when you're a business. Just like Google won't leave money when it comes to selling your eyeballs.
The last time I recall the metaphor of the slow, lumbering giant turning around to - at long last - deliver the dreaded fatal blow was when the internet appeared and they eventually responded by delivering enough versions of IE (culminating in version 7) to dominate the market for web browsers.
In order to do so, they had to leverage the ubiquity of their desktop operating system, which they then used to lock in web developers to a broken implementation (a pain that we're still feeling to day every time we need to ensure stuff works in IE6) so they they could further solidify the dominance of Windows, which has has always been their one, true, and unwavering goal: "Windows Everywhere".
How could they do this with phones & tablets? It's not like they can just bundle a phone or tablet with every desktop PC that gets sold, thereby leveraging their existing channel like they did with IE.
"What’s interesting is that most of these apps and services are only one or two iterations removed from really horrible products like Windows Mobile 6.5, Internet Explorer 7, Live Search."
Microsoft uses a 3-year release cycle for most of its products. Only 2 years ago did they switch to a 1 year release cycle for the internet services division.
One or two iterations is actually 4 to 6 years. That is a long time to make Messenger not slow. And they are still not there.
But I agree it's not a sinking ship. WM7 is pretty good interface and sdk wise. The licensing terms will have to convince device makers to adopt it instead of free android. That's where it gets interesting.
See, this is the thing about Microsoft and the Web. You can't release software that's web-based in cycles measured in years! Microsoft is still completely stuck in the '90s. Google is releasing Chrome on something like a 6-week development cycle. That's how it should be done. The web changes all the time, and Microsoft's products don't. That's the problem.
Also, from other comments on this story, I've discovered that Windows Phone 7 won't be HTML5-capable. If IE Mobile isn't even near IE9's level of sophistication, it seems unlikely that they'll ever update it to be compatible. Otherwise, why not ship something at least as good as IE8?!
In two to three years, much of the web will be HTML5. And Windows Phone 7 devices will be left in the dust.
I think you may be surprised at how fast MS revs the phone. They've already hinted that IE9 will be on the phone. One of the reasons why MS said no skins to the OEMs is that they want to be able to rapidly rev all phones.
I wouldn't be surprised if less than a year after launch they have IE9 on the phone.
17 comments
[ 10.2 ms ] story [ 142 ms ] threadThat's the first time I've heard someone positively speak about Windows Phone 7. Everyone I know (myself included) seems to think it will be a disaster. But as I've said before, I haven't actually seen it in person yet - the marketing videos online make me think I'll hate it, but perhaps I should reserve judgement until I can use one.
If the Microsoft Tanker is actually turning around, then why is Windows losing more and more of the consumer markets every single day? MS is about three years late to the phone party, and they don't have a damn clue about tablets or anything mobile. Windows 7 is a "huge success" only because it works properly; that's no innovation, and that's not going anywhere for the future. MS is doing well with IE9, but you will still need Windows to run it! One of their main competitors is about to release an OS (I'm referring to Chrome OS), and Chrome (the browser) has been gaining and gaining market share while IE loses and loses.
I do not agree with the conclusions of this article at all. MS is still fumbling and bumbling about, with no clear path for the future. They're still mostly ignoring the web (sure, IE9 and Bing are great, but why are they so forcefully shoving Silverlight plugins everywhere?! That's not the web!) and they're ignoring the fact that consumers won't care what OS they're running in the next few years.
Microsoft will grip the business world for a very long time, but they haven't got long to live in the consumer market.
Edit TL;DR: Microsoft isn't turning around because they're still mostly ignoring the Internet.
I would suggest that Microsoft's floundering around in the mobile space is a bigger deal than ignoring the internet. e.g. it's not like Apple gets the web either.
"Just tested Windows Phone for the first time. Not bad, Microsoft, for all that you're using IE7."
http://twitter.com/ppk/status/25159727435
> Windows Phone 7 features a version of Internet Explorer Mobile with a rendering engine that is "halfway between IE7 and IE8"[32].
I think this will be the first smartphone that isn't HTML5 capable. Incredible.
Really? I think only Google and webkit phones are HTML5 capable. Blackberry just jumped on this train like a month ago.
It's designed to be more idiot-friendly than Android.
Why is having a plugin incompatible with the web? Sure it's not THE web, but getting the web doesn't mean that you ignore all other methods of delivering experiences. It's like saying that Apple doesn't get computers, because they also make phones.
And I'm sure MS does get that the OS is becoming less relevant. They've probably known this for longer than most people here have been devs.
That statement you made is one of the naive statements I often see from kids who just got out of college. The issue isn't if they know that the OS is becoming less relevant, but the real question (the one that is actually hard to answer) is what do you do about it when you generate $30B/year revenue from it? I'm sure from your perspective they should just drop Windows and move everything to Linux starting yesterday. They'll make that $30B back on ads, right?
The very basis of the web is open protocols and open access: anyone running any networked computer can access any web content. That's how the web grew to be so big: it didn't matter if you were running UNIX or Windows or Mac, you could access the same information as anyone else, and you could contribute back.
Content that is produced with Silverlight is Microsoft-only, so if you are in an environment where you can't install closed plugins, or if you just don't want to, then you can't see the content. The same goes for Flash of course: the only reason it took off is because it could do things that the regular web couldn't. That's slowly becoming less and less true now, and Silverlight is just not needed.
However, Microsoft is pushing Silverlight because it locks people into their software: if enough people use it to build content, then everyone will have to continue using Microsoft software. That is completely incompatible with The Web and all it stands for.
I don't know how Microsoft should make money. But the way they're aiming themselves into the future is doomed to fail. I get that they probably understand their space is dying, but the problem is that they're not looking for alternatives. They're just pushing the same products they have been for decades.
If they know that won't work, why are they trying it? Look, I haven't got the answer and if I did I'd be rich. But pushing your users into anti-Web, locked-in environments is going to fail in a web-driven world run by Google.
I disagree about your reason why the web because so big. Frankly, I think what caused to become so big was ease and speed of deployment. If the web was PC only it would have grown on marginally slower.
I don't know how MS is trying to make money, but I think I see what they're doing:
1) Focus on Bing Search. Search revenue is a huge chunk of money and allows them to move to the web more easily.
2) Make IE the BEST browser experience. I think they've finally decided that the web can actually have differentiated experiences, and I think they want IE/Windows to be the best platform for it.
But at the same time they continue to also focus on business users. And the fact that a lot of consumers still need a desktop OS. I spend a fair bit of time editing movies, and while I'm sure there's a web app that will render BluRay movies from HD video, I've yet to find one as good as the desktop tools I have.
You don't leave money on the table when you're a business. Just like Google won't leave money when it comes to selling your eyeballs.
In order to do so, they had to leverage the ubiquity of their desktop operating system, which they then used to lock in web developers to a broken implementation (a pain that we're still feeling to day every time we need to ensure stuff works in IE6) so they they could further solidify the dominance of Windows, which has has always been their one, true, and unwavering goal: "Windows Everywhere".
How could they do this with phones & tablets? It's not like they can just bundle a phone or tablet with every desktop PC that gets sold, thereby leveraging their existing channel like they did with IE.
The successes mentioned (outside of Windows 7) barely show up on the MSFT revenue chart:
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-microsoft-op...
Microsoft uses a 3-year release cycle for most of its products. Only 2 years ago did they switch to a 1 year release cycle for the internet services division.
One or two iterations is actually 4 to 6 years. That is a long time to make Messenger not slow. And they are still not there.
But I agree it's not a sinking ship. WM7 is pretty good interface and sdk wise. The licensing terms will have to convince device makers to adopt it instead of free android. That's where it gets interesting.
Also, from other comments on this story, I've discovered that Windows Phone 7 won't be HTML5-capable. If IE Mobile isn't even near IE9's level of sophistication, it seems unlikely that they'll ever update it to be compatible. Otherwise, why not ship something at least as good as IE8?!
In two to three years, much of the web will be HTML5. And Windows Phone 7 devices will be left in the dust.
I wouldn't be surprised if less than a year after launch they have IE9 on the phone.