Microsoft is not ready to do "whatever it takes" for Windows Mobile

[JohnIvory]

A lot of Windows fans are pissed that only a single North American carrier is officially going to support the new Lumias. Blame has been handed to every single person involved in this: Microsoft, the carriers, Google, and even Windows fans themselves for refusing to dump Verizon and Sprint and run over to AT&T to make a point to Verizon. Most people, however seem to think that this is Microsoft's fault, and while I agree I am much more sympathetic to Microsoft's predicament than many.

The poor state of Windows Phone is Microsoft fault the same way not being able to get your dream job because you had poor grades in college is your fault. By the time you're rejected for your job, it's probably too late for you to go back and get good grades. You could be the most hard working person in the world today, but if you flunked Physics in college no company is going to hire you to build a rocket. You were supposed to have foresight in the past so that you could secure your future. Microsoft lacked that foresight when the iPhone was launched, and was too slow when Android picked up steam.

Those that think Microsoft hasn't tried since then however, either have short memories or simply expect miracles. Remember the Windows Phone 7 launch? Dell (yes, Dell!) released a phone. Almost every single manufacturer released a Windows Phone 7 phone. Microsoft had a funeral for iPhone event. They splattered ads for their new OS on every medium. Every single carrier had a Windows Phone in their lineup. Momentum was great. It's funny when people say that had Microsoft advertised more, they would have been more successful. I don't want to know how much money it cost to get all those manufacturers and carriers on board, and to get all those ads airing everywhere. It was clear at launch that Microsoft was serious.

What Microsoft, wasn't, and still isn't to this day, is willing to do ANYTHING to make sure Windows Phone succeeds. And I don't blame them. Willing to do anything would have been taking resources from the Windows team in order to give Windows Phone faster release times. Apple has famously done this twice, once for the release of the original iPhone and again when they were writing iOS 7. Willing to do anything would have been striking ANY deal necessary with the carriers to ensure that they lost control over updates, including paying them ungodly amounts of money (because to this day only Apple has been able to give the carriers the middle finger and not shoot themselves in the process). Willing to anything would have been promising to handle ALL advertising costs for ALL the phones on ALL carriers because they (the carriers) didn't want to bet on an uncertain platform with their own money. In essence willing to do anything would have meant mortgaging the company just so that they could get a foothold in mobile market, and I honestly think that would have been stupid.

Microsoft already pulled out all the stops with WP7's launch, and they barely broke 3%. Why would they be willing to double down on this strategy when the market clearly doesn't WANT (or more importantly NEED) them. It's a money losing venture all around, and it seems Microsoft has finally come to their senses. Release phones unlocked so you can control the updates, let those enthusiastic about the platform support it, and ensure you stay in the minds of people everywhere by improving on the products that you can actually sell: Windows and Office. If the integration between Windows 10 and Windows Mobile 10 ever becomes something market-worthy, their phones would be there waiting. And if not, their phones would still be there; the 1-OS dream is kinda needs a mobile screen to make sense. But expecting Microsoft to do WHATEVER it takes to make sure Windows Phone succeeds is naive. They need to make money and it simply makes no sense to throw money away at something that has failed to make a noticeable dent in the market.

I admit this isn't a very popular opinion, but it's the truth. Those of us that can afford to stay on will stay, and those that won't won't. Just stop expecting Windows Mobile to be the primary focus of a company as large as Microsoft. It probably never will be.

 

[ayngling]

These Lumia phones are Nokia phones. I think they will really up their game when they launch a surface phone that is intel based and can run desktop apps.

 

[elindalyne]

Wall of text crits you for 9999. You die

Anyways... Continuum and the bridge projects are where Microsoft sees Windows 10 Mobile going. They know they aren't going to be able to compete in the US market with their current ecosystem so they're going above and beyond to basically create a new one. Their current offerings aren't even that bad if you consider the world as a whole and not just the US market.

At this current point in time, Microsoft is actually on the rise as a whole and while the situation with the 950s is kind of disappointing in regards to carrier support, this is definitely just phase one of their overall strategy.

In a year or two, a developer will be able to take an existing IOS or Android app and port it over with very little work to not only Windows 10 mobile, but also Windows 10 desktop, Xbox and potentially Hololens. The ecosystem will catch up and distinguish itself once x86 phones come out.

See Dan's post on the front page.

 

[paulxxwall]

A lot of Windows fans are pissed that only a single North American carrier is officially going to support the new Lumias. Blame has been handed to every single person involved in this: Microsoft, the carriers, Google, and even Windows fans themselves for refusing to dump Verizon and Sprint and run over to AT&T to make a point to Verizon. Most people, however seem to think that this is Microsoft's fault, and while I agree I am much more sympathetic to Microsoft's predicament than many.

The poor state of Windows Phone is Microsoft fault the same way not being able to get your dream job because you had poor grades in college is your fault. By the time you're rejected for your job, it's probably too late for you to go back and get good grades. You could be the most hard working person in the world today, but if you flunked Physics in college no company is going to hire you to build a rocket. You were supposed to have foresight in the past so that you could secure your future. Microsoft lacked that foresight when the iPhone was launched, and was too slow when Android picked up steam.

Those that think Microsoft hasn't tried since then however, either have short memories or simply expect miracles. Remember the Windows Phone 7 launch? Dell (yes, Dell!) released a phone. Almost every single manufacturer released a Windows Phone 7 phone. Microsoft had a funeral for iPhone event. They splattered ads for their new OS on every medium. Every single carrier had a Windows Phone in their lineup. Momentum was great. It's funny when people say that had Microsoft advertised more, they would have been more successful. I don't want to know how much money it cost to get all those manufacturers and carriers on board, and to get all those ads airing everywhere. It was clear at launch that Microsoft was serious.

What Microsoft, wasn't, and still isn't to this day, is willing to do ANYTHING to make sure Windows Phone succeeds. And I don't blame them. Willing to do anything would have been taking resources from the Windows team in order to give Windows Phone faster release times. Apple has famously done this twice, once for the release of the original iPhone and again when they were writing iOS 7. Willing to do anything would have been striking ANY deal necessary with the carriers to ensure that they lost control over updates, including paying them ungodly amounts of money (because to this day only Apple has been able to give the carriers the middle finger and not shoot themselves in the process). Willing to anything would have been promising to handle ALL advertising costs for ALL the phones on ALL carriers because they (the carriers) didn't want to bet on an uncertain platform with their own money. In essence willing to do anything would have meant mortgaging the company just so that they could get a foothold in mobile market, and I honestly think that would have been stupid.

Microsoft already pulled out all the stops with WP7's launch, and they barely broke 3%. Why would they be willing to double down on this strategy when the market clearly doesn't WANT (or more importantly NEED) them. It's a money losing venture all around, and it seems Microsoft has finally come to their senses. Release phones unlocked so you can control the updates, let those enthusiastic about the platform support it, and ensure you stay in the minds of people everywhere by improving on the products that you can actually sell: Windows and Office. If the integration between Windows 10 and Windows Mobile 10 ever becomes something market-worthy, their phones would be there waiting. And if not, their phones would still be there; the 1-OS dream is kinda needs a mobile screen to make sense. But expecting Microsoft to do WHATEVER it takes to make sure Windows Phone succeeds is naive. They need to make money and it simply makes no sense to throw money away at something that has failed to make a noticeable dent in the market.

I admit this isn't a very popular opinion, but it's the truth. Those of us that can afford to stay on will stay, and those that won't won't. Just stop expecting Windows Mobile to be the primary focus of a company as large as Microsoft. It probably never will be.

IManaged a metro pcs sto a few years back and only really remember iPhone and blackberry. Android was about a year old but only barely heard of a windows phone but for the most part it was iPhone and bb and android on its way . Saw way more bb and iPhones than any but also Nokia feature phones running Symbian

 

[JohnIvory]

Wall of text crits you for 9999. You die

Anyways... Continuum and the bridge projects are where Microsoft sees Windows 10 Mobile going. They know they aren't going to be able to compete in the US market with their current ecosystem so they're going above and beyond to basically create a new one. Their current offerings aren't even that bad if you consider the world as a whole and not just the US market.

At this current point in time, Microsoft is actually on the rise as a whole and while the situation with the 950s is kind of disappointing in regards to carrier support, this is definitely just phase one of their overall strategy.

In a year or two, a developer will be able to take an existing IOS or Android app and port it over with very little work to not only Windows 10 mobile, but also Windows 10 desktop, Xbox and potentially Hololens. The ecosystem will catch up and distinguish itself once x86 phones come out.

See Dan's post on the front page.

A lot of people are pinning their hopes on the x86 Surface Phone, but I'm not convinced. It's already hard to use x86 on the Surface without the pen. Getting x86 apps on the phone will probably not be the panacea we need. If the surface phone succeeds, it'll be because Astoria and Islandwood are done and MSFT has managed to get people to poet their apps. x86 on the phone is something only Windows fans seem to clamouring for.

 

[elindalyne]

I completely agree, wide adoption in the US of any Windows Mobile device will not occur until Islandwood/Astoria are completed. The x86 phones will just push it into a completely new category. People already think Continuum is pretty cool. Once Win32 apps get ported over it opens an entire new realm of possibilities.

 

[runamuck83]

In reality Microsoft has basically changed the game. The success of Windows Mobile (Phone) no longer rests on "Windows Phone" itself - all that must succeed now is Windows 10 / Universal Apps. If that succeeds, the next Windows Phone (aka Surface Phone) will have everything it needs for widespread success

 

[JohnIvory]

In reality Microsoft has basically changed the game. The success of Windows Mobile (Phone) no longer rests on "Windows Phone" itself - all that must succeed now is Windows 10 / Universal Apps. If that succeeds, the next Windows Phone (aka Surface Phone) will have everything it needs for widespread success

Exactly. I understand the frustration of a lot of fans as it feels like yet another reboot, but this is actually the best thing that could have happen to Windows Phone. It's development is now so closely tied to Windows that there is no chance on earth that Microsoft is going to abandon it.

 

[tgp]

A lot of Windows fans are pissed that only a single North American carrier is officially going to support the new Lumias.

What's interesting about the argument that the US carriers do not support WP is that WP's market share in the US is higher than the worldwide market share. The US's adoption of WP is above average. We compare it to a few countries in Europe and say it's bad, but those places are few and far between. The US is friendly to WP compared to the world at large.

 

[theefman]

These Lumia phones are Nokia phones. I think they will really up their game when they launch a surface phone that is intel based and can run desktop apps.

You guys need to let go of this fantasy that a "surface phone" running an Intel chip will make any difference. Even if it happens, in no way shape or form will it be powerful enough to compete against a dedicated tablet, so what will be the attraction?

 

[the1]

You guys need to let go of this fantasy that a "surface phone" running an Intel chip will make any difference. Even if it happens, in no way shape or form will it be powerful enough to compete against a dedicated tablet, so what will be the attraction?

It doesn't need to be as powerful as a dedicated tablet, just need to be powerful enough to simple day to day task. While I don't know ithe Surface Phone is a real thing, just think about the size of the Intel Compute Stick. If Microsoft can get with Intel and truly optimize an Atom CPU (while looking elsewhere for the GPU) for maximum performance and battery life with a lite weight version of Windows 10 (think IOT but with the mobile GUI), coupled with 4GB of RAM, we might have a plan.

 

[JohnIvory]

It doesn't need to be as powerful as a dedicated tablet, just need to be powerful enough to simple day to day task. While I don't know ithe Surface Phone is a real thing, just think about the size of the Intel Compute Stick. If Microsoft can get with Intel and truly optimize an Atom CPU (while looking elsewhere for the GPU) for maximum performance and battery life with a lite weight version of Windows 10 (think IOT but with the mobile GUI), coupled with 4GB of RAM, we might have a plan.

To do what, exactly? The phone wouldn't be cheap, and the dock is going to make it cost extra. Using the x86 apps on the phone itself would be a nightmare, meaning that for anyone to get any good use out of it it'll have to be plugged in to a display. This'll be a cool feature for businesses that want to cut down costs, but I really don't see it making any kind of dent in the consumer market. People CLEARLY don't want desktop style apps on their phones. If they did, Pocket PC would still be a thing.

 

[the1]

To do what, exactly? The phone wouldn't be cheap, and the dock is going to make it cost extra. Using the x86 apps on the phone itself would be a nightmare, meaning that for anyone to get any good use out of it it'll have to be plugged in to a display. This'll be a cool feature for businesses that want to cut down costs, but I really don't see it making any kind of dent in the consumer market. People CLEARLY don't want desktop style apps on their phones. If they did, Pocket PC would still be a thing.

I was just throwing the idea out there. I'm one of the few who is not and can not be productive on a phone.

Also, I'm not talking about using x86 programs on a phone, but having extra "umph" for the UWP apps, that will probably use more resources as the apps become more diversified. when docked.

But it's all about how each person use their devices. For what I do, a phone, tablet, or consumer laptop will not work for me.

 

[JohnIvory]

I believe the extra umph will come as phones get more powerful anyway. Still I don't think the Surface Phone is going to change much. Astoria/Islandwood and Windows 10 desktop users downloading from the store are the only things that can help Windows Phone. The ship sailed for us a long time ago and unless apps are ported soon, Windows 10 Mobile may well become a phone for businesses and enthusiasts.

 

[Bologwp]

A real PC in your pocket

 

[ayngling]

You guys need to let go of this fantasy that a "surface phone" running an Intel chip will make any difference. Even if it happens, in no way shape or form will it be powerful enough to compete against a dedicated tablet, so what will be the attraction?

Did you see the new Surface Book? It has a GPU in th base of the device, that gives extra power when plugged in. I believe a big reason Microsoft is doing this is a learn how to best add processing power dynamically when docking.

A Surface phone with x86 will have a docking station with extra processing power, I reckon. Your company will have flexible office spaces where people can dock their phones and it WILL be like a desktop machine, even in terms of performance. Imagine all the costs saved for the company, while ease of use is maintained for the employee.

Oh, and for those actually needing a laptop the will be a lapdock like the Motorola Atrix (cf. Motorola Atrix 4G Lapdock review - Engadget ) that can be shared between all employees when they need them. Same concept, with processing power in the base.

 

[a5cent]

Re: Microsoft is not ready to do "whatever it takes" for Windows Mobile

What's interesting about the argument that the US carriers do not support WP is that WP's market share in the US is higher than the worldwide market share. The US's adoption of WP is above average. We compare it to a few countries in Europe and say it's bad, but those places are few and far between. The US is friendly to WP compared to the world at large.

I'm not sure this statistic, where you compare to "the world at large", makes much sense.

China has 1.3 billion inhabitants, more than the U.S. and all of Europe combined. With your approach, China is the single most important factor in determining whether everyone else lives in a country that is friendlier or unfriendlier towards WP... compared to the world at large.

China has about 0% WP market share. As a result every other country is likely to figure as comparatively friendly towards WP. While true, I question the usefulness of that conclusion.

For what you are trying to do, we'd normally determine the median of the WP market share percentages of all countries. By doing so we'd conclude that most countries are in fact friendlier towards WP than the U.S. is. I think that's a more relevant conclusion.

 

[tgp]

Re: Microsoft is not ready to do "whatever it takes" for Windows Mobile

I'm not sure this statistic, where you compare to "the world at large, makes much sense.



China has 1.3 billion inhabitants, more than the U.S. and all of Europe combined. With your approach, China is the single most important factor in determining whether everyone else lives in a country that is friendlier or unfriendlier towards WP... compared to the world at large.

China has about 0% WP market share. As a result every other country is likely to figure as comparatively friendly towards WP. While true, I question the usefulness of that conclusion.


For what you are trying to do, we'd normally determine the median of all country's WP market share percentages. By doing so we'd conclude that most countries are in fact friendlier towards WP than the U.S. is. I think that's a more relevant conclusion.

You're grasping at straws here, but it kind of makes sense!

Either way, the US operates on a free market system (this will become another discussion I'm sure!), and the carriers are free to choose which phones they want to support. This discussion isn't even relevant for about 97% of the US smartphone users. I think we're making these things seem a lot more of a big deal than they are in the real world. Yes, technically it is true, but it affects almost nobody.

You've read this here before, but in case you forgot I'll reiterate: in the US, virtually everybody walks into a carrier store, chooses a phone on display, gets it set up, and leaves. This average customer is every bit as pleased as someone like you who buys the brand new Lumia 950XL directly from Microsoft, basking in the fact that no carrier is between you and updates. You can get a SIM card from any carrier and it will work fine. (By the way, how often do you switch carriers anyway?)

It seems to us of course that your way is better (which it is), but in the end, you are both pleased. The <insert carrier name here> customer has just as good of service as you do, and it works fine until it's time to get a new phone 2 years later. The average customer probably won't even install the OTA update if one does come through. And they will not switch carriers even if they could.

I know, everybody on this forum is a technophile. We're obsessed over the latest hardware and updates. But that applies to almost nobody. We're taking our POV and making it the POV of everyone. It isn't.

I get it; the US carriers don't like Windows Phone, and we're peeved because we do. That is the only reason this discussion is here in the first place. We bring in all these moral issues, using them to rationalize our ire. But in the end, it's because WP isn't pushed like we think it should be.

Go visit Android Central and iMore and look for threads like this one. They're not there, because the discussed phones are supported. The underlying issue is there, but it is not felt. It's a condition specific to WP and BlackBerry (about 3%), and nobody else.

 

[JohnIvory]

Re: Microsoft is not ready to do &quot;whatever it takes&quot; for Windows Mobile

You're grasping at straws here, but it kind of makes sense!

Either way, the US operates on a free market system (this will become another discussion I'm sure!), and the carriers are free to choose which phones they want to support. This discussion isn't even relevant for about 97% of the US smartphone users. I think we're making these things seem a lot more of a big deal than they are in the real world. Yes, technically it is true, but it affects almost nobody.

LOL, you're right about "another discussion". Free markets are supposed to generally mean free for the consumers, so that they have true choice, not free for the businesses, so that they have basically unfettered power. European cellphone markets are truly free. People can switch carriers as they like, not based on cellphone lineup.

It seems to us of course that your way is better (which it is), but in the end, you are both pleased. The <insert carrier name here> customer has just as good of service as you do, and it works fine until it's time to get a new phone 2 years later. The average customer probably won't even install the OTA update if one does come through. And they will not switch carriers even if they could.

Ignorance is bliss, and the iPhone contradicts your statement. Just because the average consumer doesn't know they need an OTA update doesn't mean they don't need it. Android is riddled with security bugs discovered everyday that will never be fixed for a good chunk of phones. That the consumer doesn't know this doesn't somehow make it better. And the fact that iOS phones have such a high update record shows that consumers will in fact update their phones if given the opportunity.

I get it; the US carriers don't like Windows Phone, and we're peeved because we do. That is the only reason this discussion is here in the first place. We bring in all these moral issues, using them to rationalize our ire. But in the end, it's because WP isn't pushed like we think it should be.
.

I disagree with this, and that's the crux of my post. Windows Phone was pushed very heavily by Microsoft in the beginning, and the carriers welcomed it with open arms. Every single carrier had at least one phone in their lineup, and it got store space. Microsoft sold ads for the phones. When the market failed to respond however, the carriers became unwilling to continue carrying Windows Phone at the same price point. I imagine for them to continue would probably have required something like what Samsung pulled with their Galaxy Series: Pay for store space themselves, market the phones directly to consumers themselves, set up displays booths everywhere themselves, and create a million different variants of the same phone for each carrier, while paying the carriers some amount of money in the interim to carry the phones. It is estimated that Samsung spent $12 billion a year at the height of their Galaxy ad campaign. That's the definition of doing "whatever it takes".

There's no way MSFT would have spent that kind of money on Windows Phone, and I'm glad they didn't. It would have been stupid and short-sighted, especially when the biggest reason people weren't buying their phones was the newness of the platform and its lack of apps. At least Samsung knew that if Android grew it would grow with it, and at the time Android was the only good alternative to the iPhone. Windows Phone was new and untested. Why would any company be willing to sink that kind of money into the platform?

 

[a5cent]

Re: Microsoft is not ready to do &quot;whatever it takes&quot; for Windows Mobile

@tgp
I wasn't disagreeing with you about anything directly related to this thread's topic. I agree with most of what you said. As far as your last post goes, I'd disagree only with the idea that the U.S. operates on a free market system. That is barely even true in theory anymore, but getting into that would definitely be going waaaaay too far off topic ;-)

I'd also add that U.S. telecom customers are only pleased because they don't know better. If U.S. customers had experience with another system, and were aware of what a free (ha!) telecommunications market actually looked like, they wouldn't be pleased at all. Ignorance is bliss...

edit: only saw the above post after posting my own. Apparently JohnIvory has similar views to mine. Sorry for making you read the same points twice.

You're grasping at straws here, but it kind of makes sense!

Okay, you've done it. You've finally made me go look up what that idiom actually means ;-)

definition: grasping at straws
Fig. to depend on something that is useless; to make a futile attempt at something.

Like I said, I agree with your position in regard to the thread's topic. I was only taking issue with your use of statistics. I'm not sure how I can be grasping at straws while simultaneously making sense, but I'll put that in my pocket as a win anyway ;-)