How about letting customer's decide? I cannot wait until carriers (and ISPs) are dragged kicking and screaming down to the level of basic utility pipe providers they really are.
According to this article [1], it is the customers deciding. Carrier rejection is just a reflection of customer rejection. It happens like this: customers buy windows phone, get disappointed because it's worse than the old nokia n9. Return it to store. Stores get scared of high number of returns, which are bad for their business. Stores avoid selling them in the first place.
From my limited experience all I've heard is the people who have them love them but the people who sell them push people to other platforms. I've always heard talk of kickbacks for selling one phone over another.
For the vast majority of people out there just about any of the decent smartphones will work for them, they just have to play with them to decided which one they like best. Arguments over things like "not enough apps" or "too much fragmentation" is most likely not an issue (knowingly or unknowingly) to most shoppers.
It seems logical to assume that the sales guy will push you towards the phone he needs to sell, whether due to kickbacks, quotas, or management pressure. This is done regardless of the wants and needs of the customer. Part of my reasoning behind this is just the general behavior of these companies towards their customers to begin with.
The 'kickbacks' usually come in the form of retail 'educational programs'. The most effective of these are of the form: (pretend to) read some articles, take a quiz, earn some points and then redeem them for branded gadgets.
I once worked retail as a computer 'technician' for three months and I made as much in free stuff as I did in wages. (I was quite up front about my limited tenure there but I later found out why HR took no issue with that: at three months you can be the senior non-mgmt employee.) I would assume these loyalty programs are becoming even more aggressive towards retail workers and that you could even quintuple your 'salary' for the lowest paid computer/phone positions.
If you've ever wondered why Craigslist was flooded with $1000 CPUs priced to $300, now you know.
The reality for app developers is that supporting a third platform is really stretching it. Even in the PC vs. Mac desktop world, the Mac often gets forgotten. It only has 5-7% market share so it's not worth the effort for many developers. Linux? Not a chance. I'd pay for Photoshop on Linux, really! Anyway, Linux might take off as an appliance someday, but I'm digressing.
At this point, Microsoft is probably too late. It'll sell phones to people who just want phones, but I think it's too late for the whole ecosystem. Not to worry for fans, I doubt if they'll ever give up.
I cannot wait for the day when developing for mobile will mean a decent/optimized/design-once-play-on-every-platform's browser mobile site rather than a native app. It seems a no brainer, but the current state of mobile browsers forces native development efforts for every platform.
It isn't the fault of mobile browsers, but browsers in general. Despite all the advances in browsing technologies, it's still an app world, both on the desktop and on mobile devices.
I wouldn't rush that claim until Windows 8 is released. Despite the prejudice thrown at it by the Internet community (despite the product not actually being out), people will buy it. New computers will come with it. Developers will make software for it. And that software will be able to run on Windows Phone with only slight modifications.
So unless you're predicting imminent death for the company with the overwhelming majority of marketshare, people will be developing apps for Windows, which puts them 90% of the way towards having an app for Windows Phone.
>> And that software will be able to run on Windows Phone with only slight modifications.
I'd bet accomplished mobile devs would take exception to that. Changing the UI, inputs metaphors, device capabilities, etc. may not be significant to some apps, but those are are in the minority.
I was coming here to say that; this is true for crap apps. The apps which has 10 downloads in it's life and then the dev writes a post-mortem on Reddit proclaiming you cannot make money with mobile apps. UI is getting more and more important and switching from desktop to mobile is definitely not changing 10%.
And more to the point, if it does require slight modifications, how many app developers are going to bother if they're dragging along at 2-5% of the phone market?
Better off spending that time and effort on some polish for your iOS or android apps.
Sure. Heard the same story in terms of Android phone apps running on tablets. Size matters, as does interface/input devices etc.
To blithely say that it will only require "slight modifications" for the apps to run doesn't mean that they'll run well, or be suited towards touch interfaces etc.
For example, I have Citrix on my iPad. So in theory I can connect to my companies Citrix farm, and RDP to my desktop. Even with a Retina Display, it's painful.
Microsoft actually wrote the native WP7 Facebook app. It's probably the best mobile FB app I've seen. But... it's still missing features and less responsive than just loading facebook.com in the browser.
> Not to worry for fans, I doubt if they'll ever give up.
If WP7 fans are anything like us WebOS fans, you're probably right. But who says it's too late for Microsoft? When DOS (and more importantly, Windows) came about, Apple was already the established king of its market. It could happen again, right?
Curious thing is that you'll need a Mac to develop for iOS. There's lots of people developing on Windows who would probably target primarily Android and WP.
He said Microsoft's software worked nicely with PCs and allowed you "to do tons of cool things" but few customers knew this.
Isn't this what the sales reps are supposed to do? Help the customer make an informed decision? Or are they just paid to be hand the customer a phone?
Why wouldn't the conversation go like this:
Do you own a Mac or a PC?
Mac: buy an iPhone, unless you care about...
PC: Do you like to listen to a lot of music/are you active on Xbox Live/etc... do you use iTunes/have a lot of friends playing iPhone games... do you like (whatever mainstream aspect Android has over the competition)...
Fill in the blanks with what sales reps are paid to do. Find what your customer wants and needs, show them the phone that covers that aspect, show them the competition, make a recommendation, then let them choose. If the customer doesn't go into the store knowing 100% what they want, it's the reps place to help them understand. Not to sell them an iPhone or a Galaxy.
Because then it's a discussion and sales process. If the rep simply hands the customer the iPhone (or top Android), he's out the door happy and the rep can sell the next phone. Apple and Google have taken care of education and creating customer desire by the time the customer arrives at the store; Microsoft is failing at this.
Presumably it has a lot to do with the ecosystem that the customer has already bought into. If they already use Google's products, then Android phones are the natural option, if iTunes then Apple. Nokia's shoved themselves into a specialist category by opting for Windows-only.
According to wiki Hotmail has more users than Gmail [1]. You and I might think they are just tools and they don't know what they are doing since gmail just blows hotmail out of the water in every respect, but it is popular. I don't think there is any other Google product that would be as popular as gmail.
Office does run on the phone! It's not full featured of course but you can do basic editing and reading... see [2] for early version
There are plenty of games on the phone which have some connection to similar games on xbox through Xbox Live - achievements. I think that Microsoft could do more to improve the standing of WP7 in the Xbox live - it's available on other platforms and some games are released even first for iPhone and then for WP7
But overall I think WP7 has quite some association with the ecosystem.
Windows has little in common with WP7 aside from the name. There are very few synergies that matter in the real world for a Windows user, selecting WP7 over an Android phone. For example existing Windows skills do not transfer in any way. Windows programs, legacy or current, do not run on WP7.
Similarly, the Xbox is a different platform in of itself, might just as well be made by a different company.
I'd say a large proportion of the carrier sales boycott of WP is simply fallout of the MS acquisition of Skype. The carriers are scared shitless about being reduced to dumb pipes, and purchasing Skype was pretty much an open declaration of war from MS.
Aren't they dumb pipes already? I struggle to remember any examples of their contribution to the user experience. I can remember dozens of stories where they took advantage of their clients or harmed them in other way, tho.
The cost of entering the market is truly staggering. I'd be ready to make the case that last-mile ISPs (which the carriers really are, they just operate with wireless) should be utilities, with all the baggage that entails, for exactly the same reason water and electricity are utilities.
I actually wish the local gas / electric company would start running fiber to people's homes. They are ok with the economics of commodity products and already have access to the home.
If that's part of the reason, it's probably very small. Google was always a threat with Google Voice. Which is much better integrated into Android phones, and easier to use as a call replacement than anything Skype has to offer into Windows Phones. Yet, every carrier store is filled with Android devices.
"No one comes into the store and asks for a Windows phone."
Of course not. People come into the store and ask for a phone the does "the email and stuff", and walk out with some Samsung model they've previously never heard of.
Microsoft is currently paying AT&T to push the Nokia Lumia. The rest of the carriers have zero incentive to push Windows Phone devices when companies like Samsung and LG are so willing to customize their Android devices to each carrier's whim.
it's not a selling point. a selling point is something that a salesperson can take advantage of to make a sale, and "my employer hasn't fucked this phone up as much as they have those other ones" isn't something a salesperson can tell a customer.
lack of carrier crap is a feature, but it's not an advertisable one. even microsoft can't advertise it, because they have relationships with carriers to maintain.
If it's the same "carrier" who put crap-load of useless, buggy malware with every android phone they sell, then who cares what they say. They clearly have no clue what is even "good enough" to weight in an opinion about Nokia.
It's the same argument that Microsoft reps made against using Mac OS, Linux, BeOS, NeXTSTEP, etc. on the desktop. "You need to go with the most installed base / most apps to not waste your money".
I get the feeling that Microsoft / Nokia is going to have to aggressively go after the pre-pay and feature phone market. They need something that undercuts the price and makes money for all the independents that sell phones. Android and iPhone are not players in the pre-pay market.
That would be a really great strategy. I love the pricing style of prepaid plans, but the phone selection is horrible. I always end up unlocking a smartphone and hacking it onto a prepaid plan.
If Microsoft could also make data more available/affordable for prepaid plans, it would definitely be a hit.
I am actually surprised one of the Android-based companies who isn't winning doesn't make an attempt at that market. It gets you the market share and makes it easier to upsell customers on your "premium" versions.
Not sure how the phone selection is where you live at. But android is huge in the pre-pay market at where I live. Samsung has some extremely low end stuff that is so bizarre that you never read about on blogs, but they exist. There are also the less known chinese brands that are slowly building a brand by selling very low end android stuff as well. It's very easy to buy an unlocked android smartphone for less than $100, and customers looking for those usually are not looking for brand name in the first place.
Entering the pre-pay smartphone market wouldn't be a new strategy that no one came up with before. This market is already competitive and completely dominated by android.
It’s amazing to realize that it took only five years for a giant like Nokia to become irrelevant in the market. That says a lot about the competitiveness and the speed of progress in the computing world.
51 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 98.8 ms ] thread[1] http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/03/brutal-...
For the vast majority of people out there just about any of the decent smartphones will work for them, they just have to play with them to decided which one they like best. Arguments over things like "not enough apps" or "too much fragmentation" is most likely not an issue (knowingly or unknowingly) to most shoppers.
It seems logical to assume that the sales guy will push you towards the phone he needs to sell, whether due to kickbacks, quotas, or management pressure. This is done regardless of the wants and needs of the customer. Part of my reasoning behind this is just the general behavior of these companies towards their customers to begin with.
I once worked retail as a computer 'technician' for three months and I made as much in free stuff as I did in wages. (I was quite up front about my limited tenure there but I later found out why HR took no issue with that: at three months you can be the senior non-mgmt employee.) I would assume these loyalty programs are becoming even more aggressive towards retail workers and that you could even quintuple your 'salary' for the lowest paid computer/phone positions.
If you've ever wondered why Craigslist was flooded with $1000 CPUs priced to $300, now you know.
At this point, Microsoft is probably too late. It'll sell phones to people who just want phones, but I think it's too late for the whole ecosystem. Not to worry for fans, I doubt if they'll ever give up.
So unless you're predicting imminent death for the company with the overwhelming majority of marketshare, people will be developing apps for Windows, which puts them 90% of the way towards having an app for Windows Phone.
I'd bet accomplished mobile devs would take exception to that. Changing the UI, inputs metaphors, device capabilities, etc. may not be significant to some apps, but those are are in the minority.
Better off spending that time and effort on some polish for your iOS or android apps.
To blithely say that it will only require "slight modifications" for the apps to run doesn't mean that they'll run well, or be suited towards touch interfaces etc.
For example, I have Citrix on my iPad. So in theory I can connect to my companies Citrix farm, and RDP to my desktop. Even with a Retina Display, it's painful.
In short, I wouldn't hold your breath.
If WP7 fans are anything like us WebOS fans, you're probably right. But who says it's too late for Microsoft? When DOS (and more importantly, Windows) came about, Apple was already the established king of its market. It could happen again, right?
Isn't this what the sales reps are supposed to do? Help the customer make an informed decision? Or are they just paid to be hand the customer a phone?
Why wouldn't the conversation go like this:
Do you own a Mac or a PC? Mac: buy an iPhone, unless you care about... PC: Do you like to listen to a lot of music/are you active on Xbox Live/etc... do you use iTunes/have a lot of friends playing iPhone games... do you like (whatever mainstream aspect Android has over the competition)...
Fill in the blanks with what sales reps are paid to do. Find what your customer wants and needs, show them the phone that covers that aspect, show them the competition, make a recommendation, then let them choose. If the customer doesn't go into the store knowing 100% what they want, it's the reps place to help them understand. Not to sell them an iPhone or a Galaxy.
Because then it's a discussion and sales process. If the rep simply hands the customer the iPhone (or top Android), he's out the door happy and the rep can sell the next phone. Apple and Google have taken care of education and creating customer desire by the time the customer arrives at the store; Microsoft is failing at this.
Unless you depend on Office, which doesn't run on the phone anyway. And they already have Xboxes - they don't need matching phones.
Office does run on the phone! It's not full featured of course but you can do basic editing and reading... see [2] for early version
There are plenty of games on the phone which have some connection to similar games on xbox through Xbox Live - achievements. I think that Microsoft could do more to improve the standing of WP7 in the Xbox live - it's available on other platforms and some games are released even first for iPhone and then for WP7
But overall I think WP7 has quite some association with the ecosystem.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gmail
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drbjT2dUtQA&feature=fvst
Similarly, the Xbox is a different platform in of itself, might just as well be made by a different company.
Nice rock you tied yourself to, Nokia.
They better stay pipes.
They should naturally be just dumb pipes. They are fighting tooth and nail to not to be forced to that role.
Does the fact that someone isn't wildly successful doing this indicate a market failure?
I doubt that's a strong reason.
Of course not. People come into the store and ask for a phone the does "the email and stuff", and walk out with some Samsung model they've previously never heard of.
Microsoft is currently paying AT&T to push the Nokia Lumia. The rest of the carriers have zero incentive to push Windows Phone devices when companies like Samsung and LG are so willing to customize their Android devices to each carrier's whim.
lack of carrier crap is a feature, but it's not an advertisable one. even microsoft can't advertise it, because they have relationships with carriers to maintain.
http://ceklog.kindel.com/2011/12/26/windows-phone-is-superio...
I get the feeling that Microsoft / Nokia is going to have to aggressively go after the pre-pay and feature phone market. They need something that undercuts the price and makes money for all the independents that sell phones. Android and iPhone are not players in the pre-pay market.
If Microsoft could also make data more available/affordable for prepaid plans, it would definitely be a hit.
Entering the pre-pay smartphone market wouldn't be a new strategy that no one came up with before. This market is already competitive and completely dominated by android.