Could MS advertise Windows Mobile using apps on other platforms?

[Chintan Gohel]

A lot of windows mobile users are peeved that Microsoft apps on competing platforms are better in some cases than the native apps on windows 10 mobile.

I was wondering, what if Microsoft decided to advertise windows mobile devices using the apps on ios and android? Say you're using the mail app or groove on android and a pop up appears asking whether you would like a native experience?

This could be done when a new line of windows mobile devices are released

 

[Pete]

I personally don't see that really making any change at all. Microsoft has already accepted that throwing money at marketing hasn't really done much to increase mobile device sales, so directly adverting on other device platforms won't really make a difference.

Microsoft want their users to be happy with their software, regardless of the device platform they're using. Thrusting adverts on them will only serve to make those users migrate to apps that doesn't show apps.

 

[Chintan Gohel]

I personally don't see that really making any change at all. Microsoft has already accepted that throwing money at marketing hasn't really done much to increase mobile device sales, so directly adverting on other device platforms won't really make a difference.

Microsoft want their users to be happy with their software, regardless of the device platform they're using. Thrusting adverts on them will only serve to make those users migrate to apps that doesn't show apps.

you have a point there and I hadn't thought of it that way

 

[xandros9]

1. Advertising like that in apps probably will turn off some people, especially since it's supposed to be clean and all.

2. The native experience is inferior in many cases. And I'm not sure many people will be rushing to buy a Windows Phone for a better MSN News app.

 

[Guytronic]

Seen a number of Microsoft product ads in Android apps.

All in all the ads in apps that are desired I believe are ineffective.
Most users will uninstall ad riddled apps or pay to remove ad support if the option is made available by the app developer.

 

[Chintan Gohel]

1. Advertising like that in apps probably will turn off some people, especially since it's supposed to be clean and all.

2. The native experience is inferior in many cases. And I'm not sure many people will be rushing to buy a Windows Phone for a better MSN News app.

Seen a number of Microsoft product ads in Android apps.

All in all the ads in apps that are desired I believe are ineffective.
Most users will uninstall ad riddled apps or pay to remove ad support if the option is made available by the app developer.

I agree with what you've said.

So let's try a different tack: what could be done to convince other platform users to consider windows 10 mobile? Not now, not this year, certainly not before redstone 2 comes out next year, but after

 

[Pete]

In short, nothing.

The market share of Windows Phone just won't increase significantly over time because theirs too many factors at play to keep it where it is. The press/blogs repeat that it's almost dead, carriers don't really push the phones, Microsoft doesn't really want to spend money on pushing it.

We just have to accept that it's a minority choice and the only way to really promote it is by word of mouth. It's the Linux of mobile operating systems, but without needing a software degree to use it.

 

[Elitewolf]

Wouldn't be effective. The user would have to have experience with Windows Mobile and how those apps function. In my case I use both and already know the Windows Mobile apps are more reliable and stable then their Android counterparts in my use cases. The average user has no clue if they've never used them on windows mobile beforehand.

 

[thron]

Enticing app developers (paying them to develop) the most popular apps would have been worth their advertising dollars, versus spending money on product placement or traditional advertising venues. Then, once the app store has regularly updated, "popular" apps, throw money at traditional advertising.

It seems they ignored the elephant in the room and what most people complain about at this very site.

 

[xandros9]

Enticing app developers (paying them to develop) the most popular apps would have been worth their advertising dollars, versus spending money on product placement or traditional advertising venues. Then, once the app store has regularly updated, "popular" apps, throw money at traditional advertising.

It seems they ignored the elephant in the room and what most people complain about at this very site.

The issue though is that they tried that. I believe Snapchat turned down money entirely. (heck, they refused to take 6snap for free) Instagram at the time created Instagram Beta and left it to rot almost immediately.

 

[thron]

I didn't know that, that's interesting.

Perhaps there's an underlying reason beyond marketshare that's at play, that may be within Microsoft's control. Or, maybe not.. perhaps certain competitors are paying developers/companies to keep their apps off the Windows Phone platform.

Very conspiracy theory-ish, but for anyone to turn down large sums of cash strikes me as rather odd and I question the motive behind the refusal to build a simple app in exchange for payment.

 

[a5cent]

Enticing app developers (paying them to develop) the most popular apps would have been worth their advertising dollars.

This is a huge fallacy. Snapchat is a somewhat special case as they are run by someone who is a rich ****** rather than a serious business leader (isn't driven by business/market concerns). It's still a counterproductive proposal however, even if we ignore the few companies like Snapchat. This is why:
1)
Under those circumstances, companies will often create the most simplistic app possible that still allows them to cash MS' check and then let the app rot in the store (this is exactly what happened).
2)
Under those circumstances, many companies are incentivized to hold their WP app back, even if they would otherwise consider building one or even had built one (this is exactly what happened)! After all, why should a company pay developers to build an app, if holding back might eventually get the MS money man to pay for development (at least partially)? Every large company with a popular app that releases it without first extorting money from MS, is then not acting in their own best interest.
3)
Many people are quick to throw the word "socialist" at ideas or people who aren't, but can't recognize extreme socialist principles in proposals like "MS paying for apps". It's weird. The app store is basically a centrally managed mini economy, where MS controls all distribution channels, and imposes a very high tax rate (30% cut on all income). If MS also starts paying people to do actual development work, rather than fostering an environment where people would be compelled to do so by free market forces... well... it doesn't get much more marxist than that. Interestingly, the issues I mentioned as (1) and (2) were typical problems in socialist East Germany when they were still centrally managed from Moscow.

No, MS paying for apps is a terrible idea that is doomed to fail and already has failed.

 

[a5cent]

In short, nothing.

<snipped>

We just have to accept that it's a minority choice and the only way to really promote it is by word of mouth.

I disagree that it's hopeless.

The first step is to admit that W10M currently does suck and deserves to be exactly where it is. Its few redeeming qualities simply can't make up for all the issues it has (quality wise, missing functionality (particularly outside the U.S.), continually sacrificing good ideas to become almost the most generic smartphone OS imaginable, the app gap, etc).

With the exception of the app gap and becoming very generic, most of that can be fixed, and must be before it's worth taking the next steps. Advertising for something like W10M, in its current form, is pretty much equivalent to just throwing money away.

Then, and only then, MS must finally... finally... FINALLY... start thinking bigger!

For example, I'd start thinking about how W10M might work as a companion OS/device for HoloLens. Maybe most of the processing power could be built into a W10M tablet, with the glasses being nothing more than a very light WiDi display, or maybe a W10M device could act as an advanced controller for HoloLens based games? Maybe a W10M tablet could be used to provide a HUD to every car. Maybe W10M and Cortana could be put at the center of every Smart Home, not just as a way to interconnect the low-end junk, but also as a direct competitor to high-end Crestron or KNX based setups. All of the above and more would be my approach. MS just needs to start doing stuff that goes beyond the typical smartphone stuff. MS needs a few niches where W10M can become the dominant player, and then grow from there. Right now there is not a single thing W10M excels at, and nothing it does really breaks out of the smartphone mold. MS had a huge spur of innovation while creating WP7.0. Since then their track record for mobile OS innovation has been pathetic. Fix that and they can have their comeback.

The way the mobile division is currently being run I just don't see much hope for that happening.

 

[Chintan Gohel]

IMS just needs to start doing stuff that goes beyond the typical smartphone stuff. MS needs a few niches where W10M can become the dominant player, and then grow from there. Right now there is not a single thing W10M excels at, and nothing it does really breaks out of the smartphone mold.

I liked that part - you're right about it. Perhaps it had some nice innovations but then they weren't promoted as well as they should have been - right now continuum seems the biggest feature that out of the ordinary

 

[a5cent]

^ Yup, but Continuum isn't going to solve any of MS' or W10M's problems, because iOS can already offer the exact same possibilities. The only difference is that iOS developers must invest more time and money to achieve comparable results. That isn't a difference consumers care about.

 

[thron]

1)
Under those circumstances, companies will often create the most simplistic app possible that still allows them to cash MS' check and then let the app rot in the store (this is exactly what happened).

Good & informative post. Its understood why MS paying for apps is a bad idea; however, they are in a unique predicament being the underdog.. right now, there's little incentive for developers to work with their platform. One would think that MS' lawyers would ensure no half-assed apps are being developed under a bounty program. (Assuming as such happened with Instagram, somebody failed at their job.)

2)
Under those circumstances, many companies are incentivized to hold their WP app back, even if they would otherwise consider building one or even had built one (this is exactly what happened)! After all, why should a company pay developers to build an app, if holding back might eventually get the MS money man to pay for development (at least partially)? Every large company with a popular app that releases it without first extorting money from MS, is then not acting in their own best interest.

This is the best argument against paid-to-develop apps. But again, what is the lesser or two evils.. big companies are already leaving Windows Phone apps off the table. So it's not actually doing much damage short term by approaching the 'must have' app makers. If/when the platform becomes a big player, then anyone holding out on making apps shoots themselves in their own foot.

30% seems like a lot. Is that what other stores charge as well? Perhaps that model is something to look at, too. Maybe no 'MS tax' for the first $xxxx or first 6 months for the life of the app, as an incentive for developers to flood worthwhile apps to the store. (Few would pay for crap apps, so one would think the market would work things out.)

 

[a5cent]

30% seems like a lot. Is that what other stores charge as well?

Yes. It's the same everywhere. It's also by far the least important issue of those mentioned. The far bigger problems are the market dynamics created by the combination of existing and proposed policies.

One would think that MS' lawyers would ensure no half-assed apps are being developed under a bounty program. (Assuming as such happened with Instagram, somebody failed at their job.

This isn't something lawyers can solve. You're underestimating that task, as it's impossible to legally deal with the infinite number of things that could be considered half-assed. The only way to work against such outcomes is through motivated developers who are incentivized to offer the best possible user experience, and even then many apps end up being half-assed. More importantly, even a good app gets old after being neglected for a certain amount of time, and that's an even harder issue to solve.

But again, what is the lesser or two evils.. big companies are already leaving Windows Phone apps off the table. So it's not actually doing much damage short term by approaching the 'must have' app makers.

We'll have to disagree on which is the lesser evil. I don't want to get into all the minutiae. I'd end up writing a book.

I will say that despite your good intentions, and even if your proposals did work exactly the way you envision them to, you'd still not be solving a problem that actually matters. The problem you're hoping to solve matters to nobody but yourself and a few others in the 1% of W10M users (basically us). Nobody (figuratively) using iOS or Android will be convinced to switch to W10M, by it gaining the ability to run apps they have already been able to run for years (and usually in higher quality versions). The most you could hope to achieve is to stop W10M from bleeding more market share. That's nowhere near good enough, particularly not in comparison to what your proposal would cost MS.

No matter how you slice it, it remains an either irrelevant (at best) or counterproductive idea (at worst).

 

[thron]

Okay, maybe there's a simpler resolution: I seen in the 1% thread someone mentioned Apple showered celebrities with their products to gain pop culture status... perhaps following suit could have worked better in Microsoft's favor.

I'll play devil's advocate here and say, even if the app stores were comparable, many still wouldn't switch. I've never met anyone other than myself that was even aware Windows operates on mobile, until I showed them mine.

As well, their devices aren't even on display at many stores. Why is that? Are they not paying exposure fees to carriers? Not offering enough commissions on devices, so staff hide them?

 

[a5cent]

Okay, maybe there's a simpler resolution: I seen in the 1% thread someone mentioned Apple showered celebrities with their products to gain pop culture status... perhaps following suit could have worked better in Microsoft's favor.

Yeah, MS already tried that too. As soon as the celebrity's contract ran out they typically went back to using an iPhone. That looked reaaally bad.
I think that could have worked, or at least helped, if MS had brought WP7 to market a year or two earlier. Unfortunately, by the time MS was ready the iPhone was already established as the cool/luxury device. MS was just too late, so celebrities had already become used to their iPhones and didn't want anything else.

I'll play devil's advocate here and say, even if the app stores were comparable, many still wouldn't switch.

That's not playing devil's advocate. That's just reality ☺ Being equivalent isn't enough anymore. Not at this point. Moving the needle now requires MS to do something clearly and notably better!

As well, their devices aren't even on display at many stores. Why is that? Are they not paying exposure fees to carriers? Not offering enough commissions on devices, so staff hide them?

Yes, everything you mentioned and more. Sales staff are also "punished" for returns and WP devices are returned more often than others. Stocking something to only sell a few dozen units also rarely pays off. It's multifaceted.

 

[thron]

DId MS followup with the celebrities as to why they went back to their Iphones? I'd be interested to hear why... Apple paid them to do so?

Anyone I've known to own an Apple device either despises them, yet feels stuck due to a contract or due to how much they've spent on the device or sticks with it because "I don't want to learn anything else." -- None of which are factors to celebrities who are given a new device to change into.