08-12-2018 03:00 AM
44 12
tools
  1. TgeekB's Avatar
    Yep, Documents To Go. I bought it from DataViz for my Treos and my T/X way back when. I still have it on the PDA.
    Bringing back memories.
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    07-23-2018 04:32 PM
  2. nate0's Avatar
    My first phone was a WinPhone and I loved the OS, but jumped over to Android when I got my next phone due to lack of WinPhone apps. I'll be due for another phone this fall; is WinPhone basically dead or dying? Any change in the status of apps? I thought I heard of an architecture that would be able to run Android apps... anything to that?
    Dying. Unless you are a Windows Phone enthusiast it is not worth it much to migrate over. If you do buy one (**note** They are much cheaper than even some of the midrange Android phones of today...) keep your Android device close buy.
    Laura Knotek and aximtreo like this.
    07-23-2018 08:37 PM
  3. AgentTheGreat's Avatar
    I think the main reasons why Windows Phone isn't living today are pretty straightforward:

    1) They got to the market significantly later than the competition: 3 years and 4 months too late, and by that time you've already lost. There is no doubt in my mind that if Microsoft came to the market with Windows Phone 7 around the same time Android was taking hold, they would have become the 2nd mobile platform as Android was a total mess for quite some time.

    2) They never committed. In contrast with what Apple did, Windows on phones was never Micrsoft's primary focus. They missed the whole mobile thing, thinking Windows on PC will always rule. As a result, Windows Phone always played catch-up feature-wise, getting released for example with a single volume control, getting late to resolution and dual-core chipset wars and responding to criticism regarding its music player with empty "updates". They assigned a small team to phones and no amount of Nokia's marketing could make up for Microsoft's laziness in mobile.

    As a thought experiment, go back in time and solve these two issues and try to imagine the outcome. See if Microsoft wouldn't have become a primary mobile player if they released Windows Phone 7 within a year of the original iPhone and focused their energy on making sure their platform had every feature you'd expect of a mobile device at that time.
    aximtreo likes this.
    07-29-2018 05:26 PM
  4. Drael646464's Avatar
    I think the main reasons why Windows Phone isn't living today are pretty straightforward:

    1) They got to the market significantly later than the competition: 3 years and 4 months too late, and by that time you've already lost. There is no doubt in my mind that if Microsoft came to the market with Windows Phone 7 around the same time Android was taking hold, they would have become the 2nd mobile platform as Android was a total mess for quite some time.

    2) They never committed. In contrast with what Apple did, Windows on phones was never Micrsoft's primary focus. They missed the whole mobile thing, thinking Windows on PC will always rule. As a result, Windows Phone always played catch-up feature-wise, getting released for example with a single volume control, getting late to resolution and dual-core chipset wars and responding to criticism regarding its music player with empty "updates". They assigned a small team to phones and no amount of Nokia's marketing could make up for Microsoft's laziness in mobile.

    As a thought experiment, go back in time and solve these two issues and try to imagine the outcome. See if Microsoft wouldn't have become a primary mobile player if they released Windows Phone 7 within a year of the original iPhone and focused their energy on making sure their platform had every feature you'd expect of a mobile device at that time.
    Hindsight is always 20/20. What if, under the current trend, smartphone markets continue to shrink, profits fall dramatically in the premium sector, and we decide apple overcommitted to mobile later on, and failed to diversity? It's an entirely possible scenario, to some degree even inevitable.

    The vast wave that increasingly _was_, is only good if you can take the cash and catch the next one. Google has search, Microsoft games and business - both software and service businesses. Apple is a hardware company in part - if they are to even tread water, they have to not just win one round, but to win every round, forever. I don't know if I see that in them yet. Profitable - highly - but maybe a one trick pony? Google seems to be doing a better job at diversifying.
    07-29-2018 07:03 PM
  5. TgeekB's Avatar
    The vast wave that increasingly _was_, is only good if you can take the cash and catch the next one. Google has search, Microsoft games and business - both software and service businesses. Apple is a hardware company in part - if they are to even tread water, they have to not just win one round, but to win every round, forever. I don't know if I see that in them yet. Profitable - highly - but maybe a one trick pony? Google seems to be doing a better job at diversifying.
    I do not claim to be an expert but will try my best to recreate, in simple terms, what Apple has done.
    Developed (arguably) the first home computer when the big boys said “computers are for businesses, no one wants one in their home”.
    Then developed the iPod.
    Then the iPhone.
    Then the iPad.
    It seems they have done a fair job of moving from round to round pretty well. Will it continue forever? Probably not but they are certainly not a one-trick pony.
    07-29-2018 08:33 PM
  6. Drael646464's Avatar
    The mac almost sunk their company. They were bailed out by bill gates and the return of their founder. I doubt it is considered the first home PC (apple 2 I mean - it was really around Amstrad, vic20, amiga all that that they home PC thing took off, and there were other home PCs before the apple II).

    I won't disagree that they got on a roll from the ipod onwards, although all those ideas are relatively related in concept.

    And perhaps they have other tricks up their sleeve yet. But what I meant was - their run away _financial_ success has been on the back of the iPhone. They wouldn't be the biggest consumer tech company in the world if they only had ipads and ipods and macs. 90 percent of their profit is from the phone alone. If they didn't have the phone they'd have 1/10th of the profit.

    In order for them to be a tiny fraction of the relevance they have now, all that would need to happen is for the iPhone to lose popularity and sales without any new "iPhone mark 2", next big boom/wave product.

    In fact the smartphone market boom, was sort of an economic and technological anomaly. Adoption for new tech is usually slower, often not quite as premium focused/faddish. It's usually more of a slow burn. Think of the computer or TV as an example.

    It might be reasonable to expect that their is no next product that will produce as much short term profit as premium smartphones. Whether it be VR, AI, IoT, it might be reasonable to expect those are slower developers, take more time, and have less explosive financial returns.

    And if that, as might be reasonable to assume, is the case - the fade of the smartphone boom, might be, financially, apples slow fade into "regular tech company" status, and they might need to start to behave more like an OEM, like say, LG or Samsung and make everything that can be made, rather than relying on cultural fashion impetus, tech widgets and consumer uptake.
    Last edited by Drael646464; 07-29-2018 at 09:40 PM.
    07-29-2018 09:13 PM
  7. fatclue_98's Avatar
    I do not claim to be an expert but will try my best to recreate, in simple terms, what Apple has done.
    Developed (arguably) the first home computer when the big boys said “computers are for businesses, no one wants one in their home”.
    Then developed the iPod.
    Then the iPhone.
    Then the iPad.
    It seems they have done a fair job of moving from round to round pretty well. Will it continue forever? Probably not but they are certainly not a one-trick pony.
    I don't consider them a one-trick pony either but their business model is scary to me since they hedge all their bets on the iPhone. They simply don't sell enough iPads and Macs to sustain themselves if something ever went wrong with the iPhone.

    Samsung is much more diverse than Apple and they took a beating with the Note 7. Second hand prices have sent a clear message that their quality is not what it once was in the eyes of the buying public. There are a boatload of mint S8+ Galaxys out there for under $400. They were $850 at release less than a year ago.
    07-29-2018 09:23 PM
  8. Drael646464's Avatar
    I don't consider them a one-trick pony either but their business model is scary to me since they hedge all their bets on the iPhone. They simply don't sell enough iPads and Macs to sustain themselves if something ever went wrong with the iPhone.

    Samsung is much more diverse than Apple and they took a beating with the Note 7. Second hand prices have sent a clear message that their quality is not what it once was in the eyes of the buying public. There are a boatload of mint S8+ Galaxys out there for under $400. They were $850 at release less than a year ago.
    Exactly. Google is over-reliant on search, but they put major effort into diversifying, and also that product would at least likely fade slower, were it to be replaced by something else. Apples reliance on the iPhone seems....almost niave. (Again, unless they have some vast, secret plans).
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    07-29-2018 09:38 PM
  9. Free-Spirit's Avatar
    Internal politics.
    07-30-2018 09:31 AM
  10. TgeekB's Avatar
    I don't consider them a one-trick pony either but their business model is scary to me since they hedge all their bets on the iPhone. They simply don't sell enough iPads and Macs to sustain themselves if something ever went wrong with the iPhone.

    Samsung is much more diverse than Apple and they took a beating with the Note 7. Second hand prices have sent a clear message that their quality is not what it once was in the eyes of the buying public. There are a boatload of mint S8+ Galaxys out there for under $400. They were $850 at release less than a year ago.
    I agree that is is a bit less diversified than others, but I wanted to point out their success in doing so. They seem to be able to either come up with the next best thing or perfect it. We’ll have to see if that continues.
    07-30-2018 04:28 PM
  11. TgeekB's Avatar
    Exactly. Google is over-reliant on search, but they put major effort into diversifying, and also that product would at least likely fade slower, were it to be replaced by something else. Apples reliance on the iPhone seems....almost niave. (Again, unless they have some vast, secret plans).
    Yet it’s hard to argue with their success........thus far.
    07-30-2018 04:28 PM
  12. AgentTheGreat's Avatar
    Hindsight is always 20/20. What if, under the current trend, smartphone markets continue to shrink, profits fall dramatically in the premium sector, and we decide apple overcommitted to mobile later on, and failed to diversity? It's an entirely possible scenario, to some degree even inevitable.

    The vast wave that increasingly _was_, is only good if you can take the cash and catch the next one. Google has search, Microsoft games and business - both software and service businesses. Apple is a hardware company in part - if they are to even tread water, they have to not just win one round, but to win every round, forever. I don't know if I see that in them yet. Profitable - highly - but maybe a one trick pony? Google seems to be doing a better job at diversifying.
    The question was "Why Microsoft's mobile efforts failed", and I answered that. Pretty much any answer given in this thread could be met with "hindsight is 20/20". Yes, it is. But when asking what went wrong, you have no choice but to respond with things that if known back then, would have meant success instead of failure.

    Still, the second reason I mentioned is in fact what I screamed in the comments on many posts on WPCentral. I wasn't there for Microsoft's late entry, but I certainly was there when they were fumbling the ball on bad and insufficient support.
    08-01-2018 04:15 PM
  13. Free-Spirit's Avatar
    It did not fail. Microsoft thought that it would fail and decided to put an end to it. WP may have gained traction later on. There is no way of knowing. But Microsoft lacked conviction in their ability to change market trend and that's why WP failed to survive.
    Timbre70, aximtreo and NYCMetsPDX like this.
    08-10-2018 05:18 AM
  14. TgeekB's Avatar
    It did not fail. Microsoft thought that it would fail and decided to put an end to it. WP may have gained traction later on. There is no way of knowing. But Microsoft lacked conviction in their ability to change market trend and that's why WP failed to survive.
    Easy to say if it’s not your money.
    They never had a chance, took a go at it and failed. Nothing to be ashamed of, many others failed also. Timing was wrong and the consumers spoke. End of story.
    08-10-2018 03:49 PM
  15. Free-Spirit's Avatar
    Easy to say if it’s not your money.
    They never had a chance, took a go at it and failed. Nothing to be ashamed of, many others failed also. Timing was wrong and the consumers spoke. End of story.
    MS failed, not WP. There is a difference.

    Do you think if Steve Jobs was in charge of Windows phone division, it would have failed? I don't think so.

    Forget about apps, there was so much scope for improvement in the strategy itself. A phone with continuum without a portable 10" touch display or something, are you kidding me? How am I supposed to use that feature? I cannot carry a 22" monitor with me everywhere. I mean what was Microsoft's thinktank even doing?

    People could have used that portable display as a e-reader or may be to write on it with surface pen. At least it made some sense.
    08-11-2018 02:23 AM
  16. TgeekB's Avatar
    MS failed, not WP. There is a difference.

    Do you think if Steve Jobs was in charge of Windows phone division, it would have failed? I don't think so.

    Forget about apps, there was so much scope for improvement in the strategy itself. A phone with continuum without a portable 10" touch display or something, are you kidding me? How am I supposed to use that feature? I cannot carry a 22" monitor with me everywhere. I mean what was Microsoft's thinktank even doing?

    People could have used that portable display as a e-reader or may be to write on it with surface pen. At least it made some sense.
    The iPhone came out followed by Android and took over the market. It hasn’t changed 10 years later. I had a Windows device, a Palm, a BlackBerry....all good devices but it didn’t matter because they couldn’t compete. BlackBerry owned the business model but consumers decided they wanted something too. The timing was just right.
    Some day the next thing will come along and all this will start over again.
    08-11-2018 06:01 AM
  17. Free-Spirit's Avatar
    The iPhone came out followed by Android and took over the market. It hasn’t changed 10 years later. I had a Windows device, a Palm, a BlackBerry....all good devices but it didn’t matter because they couldn’t compete. BlackBerry owned the business model but consumers decided they wanted something too. The timing was just right.
    Some day the next thing will come along and all this will start over again.
    Consumers did not decide. Microsoft did. Many people still wanted to use Windows phones. Look at countries like Germany, England, India. WP market share expanded to as high as 10% in those countries.


    If WP was allowed to sprint, it would have left Android and iOS way behind. But it's wings were clipped just at the right time.
    08-11-2018 06:07 AM
  18. TgeekB's Avatar
    Consumers do not decide. They just follow. The important question is where you want to lead them? Think about it...
    I agree, it’s a two way street.
    Apple produced a device but had to show (market) how it could be used by consumers. It didn’t happen immediately but when it did it exploded. My point being at that time Microsoft and BlackBerry, for instance, didn’t have time to switch gears. You can’t develop and change technology overnight. The fight was over. Apps, music, etc became the norm.
    Interesting conversation. Steve Jobs was brilliant. Who will be the next one to lead the way?
    08-11-2018 06:13 AM
  19. Free-Spirit's Avatar
    Steve Jobs was brilliant. Who will be the next one to lead the way?
    Certainly not the one who doesn't believe.
    08-12-2018 03:00 AM
44 12

Similar Threads

  1. Surface Go Will Fail in the Education Market
    By darrell reimer in forum Microsoft Surface Go
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 08-16-2018, 09:54 AM
  2. Why is my tablet keeping bluescreening?
    By Elian Enache in forum Windows 10
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-20-2018, 02:06 AM
  3. Why isMicrosoft Edge Beta messing up pages
    By Dixon Babe in forum Edge
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-14-2018, 07:15 PM
  4. Microsoft Store - London, UK
    By Ryan ODonnell in forum Microsoft News & Rumors
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-13-2018, 05:49 PM
  5. Microsoft urges government to regulate facial recognition tech
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-13-2018, 01:00 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD