[dpaynewp]

Great read - makes a lot of sense.

thurrott.com/mobile/windows-phone/6746/your-fear-of-limited-lumia-availability-is-misplaced

[libra89]

It was an interesting read, thanks for sharing! It really makes a lot of sense. The thing I am pleased with is that Microsoft will be selling their own devices unlocked.

I found it really annoying that I would like a phone and then it goes to a carrier I don't have. Like the 735, I really like it but it only going to vz was a disappointment for me. I could go unlocked but I would have warranty concerns.

[Spectrum90]

The phones don't have universal radios.

With limited distribution and marketing spending, sales could fall of a cliff and many developers could leave the platform refusing even to publish their Android and iOS apps. A situation that BlackBerry 10 underwent.

Those saying that market share doesn't matter anymore are so wrong.

[Tim Stone]

So Paul is repeating what he has said all along. Having communicated with "both sides of the aisle" on this, I see why Microsoft will no longer invest effort into Verizon. That is a dead end. Verizon, without any doubt, has spent years effectively blocking sales of Windows phones, and contrary to their claims, it has nothing to do with technical issues. Microsoft made every overture to resolve this and received no cooperation in response.

With that said, many of us simply can't switch to AT&T. My phone is necessary for business, and AT&T coverage is too unstable in this area for me to have it as a reliable tool for communicating with my clients. The reality is in the system performance, not the benefit of the phone. As a result, I had to switch to an iPhone 6+ to meet those needs. I actually would prefer a Windows Phone, but that just isn't going to happen. I still have my Lumia Icon live on its own line, but that is not a justifiable expense.

Paul talks about a wise strategy, but not including the Verizon connectivity, when it has been there before, is the flaw in his thinking. It is not truly a universal phone, even though it is unlocked, it limits the potential market share growth significantly, and it is of absolutely no consequence to Verizon. The better strategy would be to have a phone that is capable of working on the Verizon network, without any concern for selling it in Verizon stores. This may be what he has encouraged MSFT to do, and from a columnist' viewpoint its a raspberry in the face of the Verizon execs prejudices, but from a business viewpoint, he just doesn't get it.

[Guzzler3]

The phones don't have universal radios.

Actually the radios are universal, and do support CDMA. Unfortunately, the CDMA side takes a "blessing" from the specific carriers that still use it world wide. So MS turned off the CDMA just to avoid the nightmare of getting the "blessings". Also once you go down that road of the official blessings, then you go back to a phone that is controlled by that carrier, which can stop updates, support, whenever they want.

[elindalyne]

Its entirely possible Verizon and Microsoft will open up the CDMA bands if they ever reach an agreement on updates and the phones sell well otherwise.

[Francis Amar Singh]

Great read - makes a lot of sense.

thurrott.com/mobile/windows-phone/6746/your-fear-of-limited-lumia-availability-is-misplaced

JAPAN there are no windows phone/8.1 or whatever....

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Sedp23]

Still makes no sense what so ever to me. Even if you are selling it unlocked there still is a lot of people that can afford the 950 XL. That will be a problem in the long run. You are alienating the carriers. But. People will be limited to how they can buy the device without the specific device financing programs that the carriers offer. Microsoft should offer some kind of financing so more people will be able to purchase the phones.

[RumoredNow]

Saying the phones need to be on "carrier X" (especially in the US) is like saying "she should stay with him, he only beats her a little."

[tangledW]

Lol

[Keith Wallace]

I have no issue with the actual sourcing and content of the article, but the premise of it is somewhere between pointless and unrelated. The only real "fear" has been that people (mostly Verizon customers) would be unable to get these phones onto their network. That appears to 100% be the case. This was also a general fear, as it didn't matter if it was Verizon or Microsoft rejecting a partnership, so I don't think there's anything to have "misguided."

Instead, the problem comes that Microsoft has a strategy, but only a vague one. Yeah, it's selling phones unlocked. However, you either have to wait days for shipping or drives hours to a MS Store, in many cases. You also have to drop the full price at once, something U.S. consumers aren't used to with their phones. They need a lease option like carriers have (and Apple recently started). They're supposedly CHOOSING to avoid certain carriers, but they won't say a word and leave customers in the dark, which makes them skip the platform.

Yes, Windows Phone 7 failed. Yes, Windows Phone 8 failed. Yes, this launch is likely to fail. However, none of that means Microsoft should be digging its own grave by failing to market, inform, or plan. Of course, that just leads back to Windows 10 itself, where Microsoft's most-unified feature thus far has been the half-finished nature of all of its software. If you're going to bring apps via external platform compilers, actually finish them for launch. If you're going to include and promote specific hardware (iris scanner), have the software (Windows Hello) working on the platform. If you're going to promote accessories (Continuum dock), announce pricing and availability.

[tangledW]

Whoooosh!