The uphill climb that Windows Phone faces

[N_LaRUE]

I made two mistakes lately.

The first was watching the Gadget Show. A program on Channel 5 (UK) that does reviews of gadgets. (tablets and smartphones as well)

The second was watching a video on The Guardian UK website that discussed the 'Best and Worst' smartphones of 2013.

You'll notice I'm not linking to either as I don't believe they deserve the links. If you're interested in either of the things I'm about to discuss you can find both on their websites.

So let's start with the Gadget Show.

They did a best of the budget 'unknown' smartphones. Here is the group of phones that most people won't buy simply because they don't know them, so low budget Androids typically with company names that no one really knows. But they included the Lumia 520 in the mix. Funny how Nokia is an unknown name....

They had three rounds. The 520 cruised through the first round, camera. The second round it squeezed through, which was audio being one of the last three and came in last in in the third round against two Android phones. The main reason behind it coming last? Windows Phone operating system being too confusing. The two guys they had using it were completely useless. I question the legitimacy the final round of course as it would appear that the users who had the Androids knew how to use them.

So that annoyed me to no end. It didn't make the L520 or Windows Phone look good at all.

Now onto The Guardian video.

Here we have a video from two of The Guardian's tech reviewers. I use the term reviewer loosely here as they don't deserve the term. In the video they go over a bunch of mobile phones from the year saying which ones they liked and didn't like. So why do I take issue with this? Simple, NOT ONE Windows Phone was in the video. It's like Windows Phone or Nokia didn't exist. This being in a country where WP has over 10% market share. They reviewed a bunch of Androids and of course the iPhone with my fav reviewer Charles Arthur drooling over it as usual. I'm surprised he didn't get the thing wet.

Now, I know a bunch of people will say, well it's just The Guardian. My problem is that this video was on their front page for a bit as the main headline and is still there as a story. Needless to say I have to wonder what's going on when a major news outlet completely shuns an OS and manufacturer.

To me this is indication that MS and Windows Phone still have a long way to go.

There are a lot of us who are happy with our choice but it would seem that the media has a major bias and the general public are still uninterested.

 

[Binoya Mathews]

the media has a major bias and the general public are still uninterested.

True but I guess we will see an all out move by MSFT in the coming years to bring it into prominence. Until then, these sort of things will just keep happening.

 

[dznk]

I agree with you on this and it doesn't look like this type of stuff is letting up. I have not seen these two 'reviews' and I don't need to either, because it seems to be the same old story everytime. I don't watch the Gadget Show anymore, but I know the type of 'reviews' and 'tests' they do and I wouldn't ever fully trust them. But as you mentioned, these are on front pages of websites and the TV where thousands and even perhaps millions will see these misguided 'reviews'. It's a shame because some people will decide not to buy a device based on one persons opinion. I'm not saying all reviews by newspaper writers, tech bloggers, tech TV shows etc are biased, they're not, but simply way too many of them are.

The trouble is, the less techy minded next door neighbour, work colleague etc doesn't pickup on the bias and they take it as the truth and will probably base their decision on a product by reading/watching these.

I really don't know what the answer to this is though. Biased reporting will always be around, you aren't going to end that. One problem that is linked to this in my opinion and which makes it 'easier' for these type of reviews to be accepted, is that Microsoft does not have the best brand image. It seems easy and comfortable for a reporter to make negative comments on Microsoft or Windows. Apple on the other hand are the opposite. When you have such a good brand image, it really does make the world of difference, especially with sales. Microsoft does not have this in it's favour. And with brand image, especially with younger people at school and college etc, this can earn you a lot of sales by being the brand to be seen with.

I think all Microsoft can do is knuckle down and try and make the OS itself, that good, it starts to sell itself from word of mouth and proper reviews. I think they are on the right track. I freely admit that WP needs to be better than it currently is, but also know that it has a lot going for it, however the positive stuff simply does not get reported to people often enough though.

 

[Shouvik Mazumdar]

Let me tell you something. Both Microsoft and its loyalists (read us) know that the scene wont change overnight. These kind of stupid reviews is a big PR failure of Microsoft and not the technical failure of the product. I have strongly maintained that MS does a bad job at marketing. I am not surprised if Apple / Google funds these reviews. MS is doing a great job with its OS but something is being done not right some where.

 

[squire777]

I have never understood why people who do tech reviews act as if they are utterly clueless about how Windows Phone works. There is too much personal bias in the tech media world and not enough objective reviewers.

 

[tgp]

To me this is indication that MS and Windows Phone still have a long way to go.

They're working on it. Have you seen the Scroogled ads? :winktongue:

 

[anony_mouse]

Does it really matter? It seems to me that there are far greater injustices in the world to get worked up about.

 

[Reflexx]

Does it really matter? It seems to me that there are far greater injustices in the world to get worked up about.

This is a Windows Phone forum where people talk about WP and related stuff.

 

[Simon Hinton]

I have strongly maintained that MS does a bad job at marketing. I am not surprised if Apple / Google funds these reviews. MS is doing a great job with its OS but something is being done not right some where.

My Zune HD can vouch for that. Best mp3 player out there (its fantastic UI got me into WP); yet MS brought it to market too late, botched the marketing, then killed it off to promote their rather lethargic first gen phones.

Mp3 players are a niche market now, but still. The iPod touch keeps selling.

I just hope Microsofts decision to remove Nokias name from future Lumia products isn't going to do any more damage to their horrendous marketing track record -_-

 

[anony_mouse]

My Zune HD can vouch for that. Best mp3 player out there (its fantastic UI got me into WP); yet MS brought it to market too late, botched the marketing, then killed it off to promote their rather lethargic first gen phones.

Mp3 players are a niche market now, but still. The iPod touch keeps selling.

I just hope Microsofts decision to remove Nokias name from future Lumia products isn't going to do any more damage to their horrendous marketing track record -_-

Agree with your last point. Microsoft is not a strong consumer brand (whatever they might believe). They should stick with Nokia for phones.

 

[Reflexx]

I too wish they'd keep Nokia branding on their smart phones for at least a few years.

 

[Simon Hinton]

Hear hear. No idea what they're trying to achieve by axing it - most people buy phones for the brand, not OS, and Nokia are no exception.

Especially when you need to spread the word about WP - Nokia are the sole reason its as successful as it is. People love Nokias hardware, and thus buy WP because of it.

 

[Reflexx]

Keeping the Nokia name also helps consumers feel confident in the quality being maintained during the transition.

After that quality has been proven for 2-3 yrs under MS, the Nokia name could be dropped.