As a person who recently switched from Android to a Windows Phone, I believe they can. The platform itself is fantastic. Once people start using the OS they fall in love with it. The problem is that most people don't even know that the OS exists. Most people I talk to think that it's Windows Mobile and that's very difficult to get the past. Now that I have had this phone for over a month, I must admit that I am not sure I could go back to Android. Android seems to be missing a certain polish that WP7 and iOS have. It also doesn't help that from a design perspective Android doesn't seem to have an identity. Many Android phone interfaces look and act differently. As a programmer this can be a nightmare but more so as a consumer I can't just tell someone to buy an Android phone. I have to qualify it with a specific model since they are all so different. Windows Phone almost has the opposite problem since there is so little variance in design from one phone to the next, but I appreciate that. It's like the way I wish PCs were shipped - without all of that OEM garbage that can make a fast computer as slow as a netbook out of the box.
I agree that the problem doesn't seem to be quality so much as mindshare. Seems like the same thing that happened with the Zune. The product was compelling enough, but was ultimately too little, too late.
Many Android phone interfaces look and act differently. As a programmer this can be a nightmare
I've had a few Android phones, and I wouldn't call the differences drastic. I don't see how visual tweaks to the interface would make a big difference to developers. Seems like hardware and OS version differences would be a much bigger issue.
but more so as a consumer I can't just tell someone to buy an Android phone.
What? I wouldn't even ever recommend someone to just get any old iPhone. When I recommend a phone, I recommend the specific model that I think would fit their needs. Would you recommend someone to get any old Windows computer? Any old Mac, even? Dishonest argument.
Even as a Google fanboy, I recognize that Android has plenty of drawbacks. You've named only imaginary ones.
Playing devil's advocate here, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend any new Mac or any new iPhone to an average computer or phone user. Even Apple's lowest priced options are up to the task of all but the most demanding applications (state of the art 3D games, video editing, multi-track music processing, etc.).
So, you'd say, "Just grab any Mac in the Apple Store."? or any iPhone?
I just recently advised a friend very carefully on whether she should get a Macbook Air or a Macbook Pro. It was a tough decision with a lot of considerations.
There are now 3 iPhones available at different price points with substantial differences in speed and capability.
This really doesn't seem like a line of reasoning worth advocating.
I guess I'm comparing it to what it was like in the early 2000s and 1990s. If someone asked me what computer they should get, I'd have to think about the quality of the manufacturer, the processor speed, the memory, the hard drive space and the type of removable storage (floppy, cd, dvd).
These days you can go into an Apple Store and buy the cheapest Mac Mini they make and know you'll walk out with a good computer. You simply can't buy a severely compromised Mac anymore. Computer hardware just isn't getting better at fast enough pace to worry about it.
I think we're reaching that point with phones as well. The 3GS may be a tougher sell, but I still have one and it's snappy with IOS5 and does everything I need it to do. There are very few reasons someone would "need" an iPhone 4 or 4S. The same can't be said for something like the iPhone 1 or 3G, those both became dog slow.
It's true that there is a much greater diversity of Android handsets than there are iOS or Windows Phone handsets. You can read that as a feature or a bug.
I, for one, would never simply tell anyone to just get the cheapest Mac Mini at the Apple Store. If someone is coming to me for advice, it's because they want my informed opinion, and my advice is going to be considered in the light of their needs.
If you're saying that you're simply tired of having to think about things like that, then, sure, Android is too hard. I disagree that that's a problem with Android.
Same here. After using android (CM6 and 7) for a year and a half I changed to windows phone mainly because of it was cheap and seemed more fluid. But after using it for a few months now I do feel its better than Android in most respects.
One thing which I like the most is that the OS itself in invisible most of the time. In Android I had a constant feeling of managing the OS e.g. installing advanced task manager to control processes running in back ground, rooting it to CM6-7 because HTC upgrade to 2.2 made it near useless.
Windows phone unfortunately has become the "Zune" of MP3 players. It was better than iPod, the software was killer. The Zune pass was more conveniet than clunky old itunes but nobody cared. The brand associated with it was not cool and hence a superior product died a premature death.
As the article says, Windows phone is in the same boat. The interface is innovative and functional. The app library has most of the essential apps. Performance is pretty good and the reviews are great but the users don't crave it.
Microsoft's marketing and partner efforts have clearly failed here.
I agree - I'm a proud owner of a Windows phone, but it was hard to even find a store that sold one. I wonder if having the Metro UI in Windows 8 will help Microsoft out with a little cross-pollination.
This is the thing I don't understand - my wife owns a Windows Phone, and it's a pretty great phone. It's fast, it has a decent selection of apps, it's quite pleasant to use. Yet, you look in the stores and it's completely marginalized.
People want to express themselves with the device they use. Branding is extremely important. Even well after a few cycles of the iPhone, people held onto their Blackberries, because of what it meant to have one (even when people would consider their software miles behind everything else in the market).
Windows and RIM could easily come back into the game if they focused on the whole corporate-I-like-to-look-busier-than-I-am crowd, but instead, everybody's playing catch up with Apple in a demographic they no longer have much of a footing in.
There is an element to the Microsoft brand which not only lacks "coolness" but is also actively "uncool". I'd trace this phenomenon back to the antitrust lawsuits and the overall craptastic experience of Windows prior to XP.
XBox was brilliant because it avoided associations with the uncool Microsoft and Windows brands. Sure you knew deep down it was a Microsoft product, but you never said to your friends "Come over and play Halo with me on my Microsoft Xbox". Wouldn't you feel almost apologetic about showing off your Windows Phone 7 Phone?
Specifically, stacking means that that blackberry's dip makes symbian's drop look far too drastic. Windows ~10% (eyeballing it) to ~0% seems significant and relevant to the article, but it gets washed out in the graph.
No. They have a fundamentally broken model. They're trying to sell a product that is being given away for free by their competitor who has the lion share of the market. Windows Mobile OS needs to be a step function better than its competitors to justify the premium, and it just simply isn't that good. We have to remember that smart phones these days are not only the user experience of the OS, but also the apps.
I actually do think there is a way to salvage the Windows OS. And Microsoft is not going to like it. It is to build the OS on top of Android and leverage Android apps. Then offer a premium experience for enterprise and high-end consumers. But Microsoft would never admit defeat in this way, and because of that, they will fail.
Actually, that's not entirely accurate. Competitor's 'free' OS comes with 'patent fees' to MS. So if you are a HW manufacturer choosing between Android and WP7 you will pay either way.
And the advantage of going with WP7 is that it keeps Apple and random patent trolls from coming after you since Microsoft indemnifies OEMs against software patents. Not to mention the estimated fees are only about $12 to $15 which weakens GPs argument that cost is a big factor.
The OEMs and carriers do lose the freedom to develop a UI skin (which delays updates) and load always-running and uninstallable junkware though which might count for something against WP7.
Patents are only a short term advantage and they know it - Google doesn't have lots of patents but they have cash and, surprise, they have gone shopping already.
Just wait until Google, Samsung, HTC, LG and maybe smaller players like Acer form a coalition and go after Microsoft - a company that is not a patent trol, that can be attacked and that will take a stock market hit in the case of failure.
What really works for Microsoft at this point is just plain old FUD, but that doesn't lasts long.
>Just wait until Google, Samsung, HTC, LG and maybe smaller players like Acer form a coalition and go after Microsoft
Google has never filed an offensive patent suit. Also, MS can retaliate against almost every Google product out there.
Samsung, HTC are MS patent licensees and make Windows Phones. In fact, HTC came into the world phone market by making WM phones.
LG makes Windows Phones.
Acer's biggest business is being a Windows OEM.
Why would they waste tens of millions of dollars trying to shake down MS?
If you think these are going to come together and file a patent lawsuit against the biggest patenter, I suspect you're wrong.
>..will take a stock market hit in the case of failure
The dent in MS's revenues even in the case of successful patent suits against it, compared to the cash brought in by their cashcows will be a blip on the radar.
You are aware Android is an operating system right (the same domain where Microsoft holds most of its patents) and not hardware (where Microsft holds the rest of there patents)?
Tell that to Samsung and HTC. Microsoft's patent position was strong enough that it managed to force each of them to pay Microsoft a license fee for every Android device they sell.
Fact is Android is anything but free, except it's Microsoft, not Google, who's collecting on every incremental Android sale.
I know you're looking at this from the handset maker's point of view but I think it's equally applicable to the consumer. Exactly why should I chose a Windows Phone over an iPhone or Android phone? At this point, you can get Android phones and iPhones for free with a subsidy, so they can't compete on cost.
Windows Phone may be nice, hell it may be better than Android, but there is no "OMG that is so cool I have to have it" feature. Until Microsoft can find a way be not only better but different, they won't regain marketshare.
It would seem like some sort of cosmic justice if MS failed to make a perhaps fundamentally superior product* successful due to the inability to fight against the network effect of competing platforms.
If we agree that eventually (within 15 years or so) all phones will be smartphones and that almost everyone on earth older than 10 will own one, you can see why I'm still bullish on RIM and MS. A relatively small number of companies (Apple, Google, RIM, MS) are fighting over a huge market which will grow from millions today to hundreds of millions to billions in time. Managing to capture or hold onto even 10% of that market will pay off handsomely.
But if we learned anything from the desktop wars, we learned that one company can very realistically come to dominate large portions of the market. The opportunity for a monopoly definitely exists. Not that I want it, but it's eminently possible.
The problem with that thinking is that this has become a war of ecosystems from a battle of devices (to paraphrase Nokia's CEO). Only a few platforms can hold developer attention and if you're a 10% player in 2015, the developers might not care enough to make a version of an app for you. If the ecosystem is not there, the users aren't, too. The desktop market exploded in the 90s, but where were the incumbents in the mid 80s like Amiga?
This lead to Palm/HP's exit from the mobile business inspite of having a nice product, the lack of ecosystem is quite damaging. This is the reason RIM is in trouble too. MS has a better shot with their developer tools, developer relations and perseverance(see XBox). Not to mention Android licensing fees and the Windows/Office/Server cashcows. They were able to get developers to write ~30,000 apps in less than a year for a nascent platform with zero users one year ago.
Nokia wasn't going anywhere with Symbian, wanted to get Meego going, but it wasn't ready fast enough on enough phones and wasn't confident on seeding yet another new ecosystem, so they took the drastic decision of ditching it and aligning with the WP ecosystem.
RIM is a one trick pony with nowhere to go, and the attempt to come out of the decline with the Playbook seems to have gone badly wrong. BBM works for only so long as a lock-in mechanism.
In the first phase of modern smartphones the core applications were enough of a selling point: mail, browser, and maps. Now there are plenty of low-cost phones which do all 3 of those well enough they aren't a differentiator, so the decision point has switched to games, apps, and other features which has put more emphasis on the ecosystem.
Be careful not to fall into the same fallacious reasoning as plagued the original dot-com boom (and was partly responsible for the bust). No amount of marketshare comes for free. Whether it's 10%, 1%, or even 0.0001% of any market that business has to be earned.
> Managing to capture or hold onto even 10% of that market will pay off handsomely.
I can't remember who said it, but it goes something like this: whenever someone tells me that all they need is 1% of some big market, I wonder if they realize that there exists a number smaller than 1%.
In other words, considering how MS (and RIM for that matter) have squandered their significant market share over the last decade or so, what evidence exists that you think they're going to turn it completely around?
Coming at this from another angle, consider that even having large market share does not equate to profits; just look at Nokia. So how will either survive with small market share? Especially if their margins aren't iPhone-esque?
It's not just the quality of the platform. Look at PalmPre for why that's not the most important aspect. There are lots of complicated reasons why a platform becomes popular or not.
Also, there very much is an aspect of trust involved. Apple and google built up a lot of trust in different ways in providing excellent experiences to users. Apple with OS/X and the iPod. Google with gmail, search, maps, chrome, etc. When presented with the idea of an iPod phone or a google-apps phone a lot of people had enough trust to buy into it. As those platforms have matured that trust has only grown.
MS has the opposite problem. MS has built up distrust with its previous, clunky iterations of windows mobile, and it hasn't built up sufficient trust in its ability to even deliver reliably. The problems with the Kin, Zune, and Vista haven't helped.
I agree, but that's actually an argument for persevering with the platform. That trust problem can only be fixed with time and continuing investment, and dropping platforms if they don't succeed right away would only compound the trust deficit (especially with developers).
It appears that the software is well received but my question is where are the handsets? I am looking forward to seeing Nokia's offerings as the LG and HTC phones have not been very appealing.
Think there is room for one more player in the market. Think Amazon, Facebook, or a partnership between the two could really make a splash. Eventually when the HTML5 frameworks become more developed and there's more fluidity between the app stores, who knows how that will change the landscape. But I don't think Microsoft can move fast enough anymore to compete in the ever quickening marketplace.
I'm waiting to see what Nokia comes up with before making a call one way or the other. Personally I'm really intrigued by what I've seen of WP7 and would definitely consider it for my next phone. The main thing holding me back at the moment though is that the choice of hardware is very limited and the little that does exists is rather uninspiring and quite expensive compared to Android phones. HTC and Samsung seem totally uninterested in WP7 and are only going through the motions with their handsets. Hopefully a company that is 100% behind the platform can breathe some life into the hardware side of the equation.
"...the only thing standing in the way of Microsoft’s ascendency is price when compared to similarly outfitted Android and iOS models"
Uh, author just kind of threw that in there, unsupported. You could have said the same thing about Apple back in about 1997, but it wouldn't have been true, either.
Like the article states, WP7 is a great OS with a polished user experience and it should have more market share than it does, but why doesn't it? I blame marketing.
For one, it's fucking called Windows Phone 7. Glad Microsoft didn't call the XBox the Microsoft Windows Game Box. I also wonder how much of Android's success in the US can be atributed to Verizon's Droid branding.
Secondly, Microsoft can't seem to sell coolness. Every laymen knows about the latest hot Android or iPhone, but few know about a cool WP7 phone. You don't have celebrities selling WP7 phones. Once again, look at Verizon and Droid.
And lastly, WP7 has very poor carrier support. Walk into any store and you'll have Android phones lining the walls with maybe one or two WP7 phones in some corner somewhere. Microsoft needs to convince/pay the carriers to support their devices as first class citizens. Verizon and Android is another great example. Or MS can pull a play from Apple's play book and sell from their own retail stores.
41 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 78.5 ms ] threadMany Android phone interfaces look and act differently. As a programmer this can be a nightmare
I've had a few Android phones, and I wouldn't call the differences drastic. I don't see how visual tweaks to the interface would make a big difference to developers. Seems like hardware and OS version differences would be a much bigger issue.
but more so as a consumer I can't just tell someone to buy an Android phone.
What? I wouldn't even ever recommend someone to just get any old iPhone. When I recommend a phone, I recommend the specific model that I think would fit their needs. Would you recommend someone to get any old Windows computer? Any old Mac, even? Dishonest argument.
Even as a Google fanboy, I recognize that Android has plenty of drawbacks. You've named only imaginary ones.
I just recently advised a friend very carefully on whether she should get a Macbook Air or a Macbook Pro. It was a tough decision with a lot of considerations.
There are now 3 iPhones available at different price points with substantial differences in speed and capability.
This really doesn't seem like a line of reasoning worth advocating.
These days you can go into an Apple Store and buy the cheapest Mac Mini they make and know you'll walk out with a good computer. You simply can't buy a severely compromised Mac anymore. Computer hardware just isn't getting better at fast enough pace to worry about it.
I think we're reaching that point with phones as well. The 3GS may be a tougher sell, but I still have one and it's snappy with IOS5 and does everything I need it to do. There are very few reasons someone would "need" an iPhone 4 or 4S. The same can't be said for something like the iPhone 1 or 3G, those both became dog slow.
I, for one, would never simply tell anyone to just get the cheapest Mac Mini at the Apple Store. If someone is coming to me for advice, it's because they want my informed opinion, and my advice is going to be considered in the light of their needs.
If you're saying that you're simply tired of having to think about things like that, then, sure, Android is too hard. I disagree that that's a problem with Android.
I'd still give someone advice about which Mac to buy, but I don't think an uninformed buyer is going to go wrong with any of the options.
One thing which I like the most is that the OS itself in invisible most of the time. In Android I had a constant feeling of managing the OS e.g. installing advanced task manager to control processes running in back ground, rooting it to CM6-7 because HTC upgrade to 2.2 made it near useless.
[I work for Microsoft, not on WP7 though]
As the article says, Windows phone is in the same boat. The interface is innovative and functional. The app library has most of the essential apps. Performance is pretty good and the reviews are great but the users don't crave it.
Microsoft's marketing and partner efforts have clearly failed here.
Windows and RIM could easily come back into the game if they focused on the whole corporate-I-like-to-look-busier-than-I-am crowd, but instead, everybody's playing catch up with Apple in a demographic they no longer have much of a footing in.
XBox was brilliant because it avoided associations with the uncool Microsoft and Windows brands. Sure you knew deep down it was a Microsoft product, but you never said to your friends "Come over and play Halo with me on my Microsoft Xbox". Wouldn't you feel almost apologetic about showing off your Windows Phone 7 Phone?
I actually do think there is a way to salvage the Windows OS. And Microsoft is not going to like it. It is to build the OS on top of Android and leverage Android apps. Then offer a premium experience for enterprise and high-end consumers. But Microsoft would never admit defeat in this way, and because of that, they will fail.
[1] http://www.gottabemobile.com/2011/05/27/htc-pays-5-per-andro...
[2] http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/09/samsung-takes-androi...
The OEMs and carriers do lose the freedom to develop a UI skin (which delays updates) and load always-running and uninstallable junkware though which might count for something against WP7.
Just wait until Google, Samsung, HTC, LG and maybe smaller players like Acer form a coalition and go after Microsoft - a company that is not a patent trol, that can be attacked and that will take a stock market hit in the case of failure.
What really works for Microsoft at this point is just plain old FUD, but that doesn't lasts long.
Google has never filed an offensive patent suit. Also, MS can retaliate against almost every Google product out there.
Samsung, HTC are MS patent licensees and make Windows Phones. In fact, HTC came into the world phone market by making WM phones.
LG makes Windows Phones.
Acer's biggest business is being a Windows OEM.
Why would they waste tens of millions of dollars trying to shake down MS? If you think these are going to come together and file a patent lawsuit against the biggest patenter, I suspect you're wrong.
>..will take a stock market hit in the case of failure
The dent in MS's revenues even in the case of successful patent suits against it, compared to the cash brought in by their cashcows will be a blip on the radar.
Also don't under estimate the power of the enterprise and company issued phones.
Fact is Android is anything but free, except it's Microsoft, not Google, who's collecting on every incremental Android sale.
Windows Phone may be nice, hell it may be better than Android, but there is no "OMG that is so cool I have to have it" feature. Until Microsoft can find a way be not only better but different, they won't regain marketshare.
* Not that I'm saying it is.
This lead to Palm/HP's exit from the mobile business inspite of having a nice product, the lack of ecosystem is quite damaging. This is the reason RIM is in trouble too. MS has a better shot with their developer tools, developer relations and perseverance(see XBox). Not to mention Android licensing fees and the Windows/Office/Server cashcows. They were able to get developers to write ~30,000 apps in less than a year for a nascent platform with zero users one year ago.
Nokia wasn't going anywhere with Symbian, wanted to get Meego going, but it wasn't ready fast enough on enough phones and wasn't confident on seeding yet another new ecosystem, so they took the drastic decision of ditching it and aligning with the WP ecosystem.
RIM is a one trick pony with nowhere to go, and the attempt to come out of the decline with the Playbook seems to have gone badly wrong. BBM works for only so long as a lock-in mechanism.
I can't remember who said it, but it goes something like this: whenever someone tells me that all they need is 1% of some big market, I wonder if they realize that there exists a number smaller than 1%.
In other words, considering how MS (and RIM for that matter) have squandered their significant market share over the last decade or so, what evidence exists that you think they're going to turn it completely around?
Coming at this from another angle, consider that even having large market share does not equate to profits; just look at Nokia. So how will either survive with small market share? Especially if their margins aren't iPhone-esque?
Also, there very much is an aspect of trust involved. Apple and google built up a lot of trust in different ways in providing excellent experiences to users. Apple with OS/X and the iPod. Google with gmail, search, maps, chrome, etc. When presented with the idea of an iPod phone or a google-apps phone a lot of people had enough trust to buy into it. As those platforms have matured that trust has only grown.
MS has the opposite problem. MS has built up distrust with its previous, clunky iterations of windows mobile, and it hasn't built up sufficient trust in its ability to even deliver reliably. The problems with the Kin, Zune, and Vista haven't helped.
Uh, author just kind of threw that in there, unsupported. You could have said the same thing about Apple back in about 1997, but it wouldn't have been true, either.
For one, it's fucking called Windows Phone 7. Glad Microsoft didn't call the XBox the Microsoft Windows Game Box. I also wonder how much of Android's success in the US can be atributed to Verizon's Droid branding.
Secondly, Microsoft can't seem to sell coolness. Every laymen knows about the latest hot Android or iPhone, but few know about a cool WP7 phone. You don't have celebrities selling WP7 phones. Once again, look at Verizon and Droid.
And lastly, WP7 has very poor carrier support. Walk into any store and you'll have Android phones lining the walls with maybe one or two WP7 phones in some corner somewhere. Microsoft needs to convince/pay the carriers to support their devices as first class citizens. Verizon and Android is another great example. Or MS can pull a play from Apple's play book and sell from their own retail stores.