I don't like where MS is going...

[kristalsoldier]

OK. So here is a bit more of an explanation (and eventual rationalization). First, take a look at this:

In an appearance at an annual luncheon at the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce—which was nicely transcribed by Geekwire's Todd Bishop, thank you very much—Mr. Nadella was asked what he was doing to improve Windows Phone's market share, which is in the very low single digits and shows no signs of improving anytime soon.

Nadella didn't talk about "making the market" for Windows Phone. He didn't explain that many new hardware partners have signed on with Windows Phone thanks to "zero dollar" licensing in 2014, and that their devices would improve matters. He didn't vaguely speak of future synergies between Windows Phone and "big" Windows. Instead, he offered up a surprising response.

He said that Windows Phone's market share doesn't matter.

He said that Microsoft's broader goal is to deliver productivity experiences across all of the devices that people use. That you will find "Microsoft icons"—i.e. apps—on any phone. The goal, he said, was to ensure that platforms like Office, Skype, and others are broadly available everywhere.

Source: Satya Nadella Explains the "Mobile" in "Mobile First, Cloud First" | Mobile content from Windows IT Pro

Thurrott then goes on to quote the MS CEO:

Devices and device sizes will come and go, even within a single year, you will be changing multiple phones," he said. "It's more about the mobility. In fact, if there's anything central to our vision, it's don't think of the device at the center, think of the individual, the people at the center. And then have the platforms and productivity experiences get built with that at the center.

So you will have many devices, you will have small devices, large devices, and devices that have not yet been created that will come in time. But what's going to be the constant? Your digital memories, your productivity experiences across all of those devices. That's really the center of how we think about innovating today and into the future.

And also we are very grounded on this cross-platform world. One of the things that you'll find is Microsoft icons on any phone—irrespective of whether it's a Windows Phone or not. That's our core goal: Things like Office, things like Skype are broadly available

Source: Same as above.

If you stop for a moment to think about it, it would appear that the MS CEO is trying to take MS back to its roots, that is, to be a pure software company. Just think about that for a minute. In the PC space, MS did not (and does not) care whether you use a ThinkPad or an Acer or a Dell or an Asus. They are simply interested in what drives the hardware, which is Windows.

The dominance that MS experienced in the PC space could not be replicated in the mobile space for a variety of reasons. One of these reasons was the complacency that had set into MS as a company. The mobile space posed (and continues to pose) a strategic problem for MS. First, they don't have the command over the space as they did (and arguably continue to do) in the PC space. Second, with Apple and Android focusing on apps and alternate distribution channels for apps, MS suddenly found themselves caught on the wrong foot on two counts - first, they did not have an adequate (some would argue, relevant) OS and second, they had no apps. Their attempt to shoehorn an existing OS (Windows CE, I think it was at one point) as a mobile OS was a disaster when they were suddenly confronted by Apple with iOS and later by Google with Android. Suddenly, MS found themselves losing the battle for mindshare - mind you, mindshare because in the enterprise space, no one could (and still can) challenge MS.

Then came a couple of disastrous decisions. First, the powers that be at MS decided that to make its presence felt in the mobile space a hardware component was necessary. And since MS is not strapped for cash, they hunted down Nokia. Now they had a hardware capability. Second, MS decided on developing a mobile OS. In my opinion, the second decision was better than the first because if they could convince their partner OEMS that they (MS) would bear the development costs for a mobile OS, then pushing out the OS through those OEMs would make a difference. But there were a number of preconditions (some of which MS has only lately recognized). The first of these was the decision to give away the OS (which they have effectively done now). In this they took a page out of Google's book. Same principle, but executed differently. But having invested in a hardware capability and probably driven by the need to show a positive ROI, they had to push their own hardware. This was and remains a problem. Why? Because MS hardware is an in-house product and carries with it significant prestige value. An alternative would have been to treat the Nokia acquisition as being a co-incidental event and a platform simply to showcase the OS and to produce limited reference designs (again, this is a Google model with the acquisition of Motorola). In addition to this, they could have used Nokia patents to augment the capabilities of their partner OEMs (for a fee, of course). But MS did not choose this option. As a consequence, they built up a small and dedicated fan following (me included) but they also attracted the attention of tech pundits and bloggers who have been less than kind to them and the negative fallout has also had an effect.

As all this was going on, MS found (and finds) that their original PC model of having their software on a wide variety OEMs was falling by the wayside in the mobile space. Recall the "devices and services" mantra? That was the last rallying cry for justifying the Nokia acquisition and for the Surface line (which at that time was seriously floundering). Then comes Satya Nadella who probably - with a lot of help from the MS board - decides to take MS back to its roots. And what are those roots? Have MS software on every platform possible. Nadella understands that the mobile space is an expanding one and it will be so in the foreseeable future. He wants MS software on all devices that are populating this space. In this scheme of things, Windows Phone is actually irrelevant (as the text of his interview suggests). Thus, the push to have the cutting edge MS apps on the dominant platform. In effect, MS is not playing the mobile hardware game, but they are playing the mobile game. Thus the current mantra "cloud first, mobile first".

Two questions remain: (1) What about the Surface line? And (2) what about Windows 10?

The Surface - particularly, the SP3 - will probably serve as a reference design and a platform to showcase cutting edge MS apps. It will also be a niche product - both in the consumer and enterprise space, but it will not take on the role of a being a critical product in MS' scheme of things. Windows 10 has, in my opinion, a dual purpose - (1) to transform the hitherto PC-centric mindset of the enterprise and consumer space (this is, to put it tongue-in-cheek, MS' "transformational" gambit) and (2) if MS continues to give away its mobile OS freely to its partner OEMs, then we can expect the mobile component of Windows 10 to also be given away for free. By doing this MS opens up a one-half front war in the mobile space - the half front is a defensive war that MS is (or will wage). This will involve a mobile-oriented OS which it will give away for free to its OEM partners. The full front is an offensive war where MS will attempt to dominate the application market (in a targeted way) across platforms.

Where does this leave the small group of Windows Mobile OS enthusiasts like me/ us? Nowhere really. I'd like to sue MS for wasting my money on two generations of phones - the latest being the 830. My only consolation is that the 830 is the swan song of an excellent hardware company (Nokia) and for me that is important. But come October, if what I have written above holds true, I will be looking at some other eco-system (or maybe not).

My apologies for this very long post!

 

[Greywolf1967]

OK. So here is a bit more of an explanation (and eventual rationalization). First, take a look at this:



Source: Satya Nadella Explains the "Mobile" in "Mobile First, Cloud First" | Mobile content from Windows IT Pro

Thurrott then goes on to quote the MS CEO:



Source: Same as above.

If you stop for a moment to think about it, it would appear that the MS CEO is trying to take MS back to its roots, that is, to be a pure software company. Just think about that for a minute. In the PC space, MS did not (and does not) care whether you use a ThinkPad or an Acer or a Dell or an Asus. They are simply interested in what drives the hardware, which is Windows.

The dominance that MS experienced in the PC space could not be replicated in the mobile space for a variety of reasons. One of these reasons was the complacency that had set into MS as a company. The mobile space posed (and continues to pose) a strategic problem for MS. First, they don't have the command over the space as they did (and arguably continue to do) in the PC space. Second, with Apple and Android focusing on apps and alternate distribution channels for apps, MS suddenly found themselves caught on the wrong foot on two counts - first, they did not have an adequate (some would argue, relevant) OS and second, they had no apps. Their attempt to shoehorn an existing OS (Windows CE, I think it was at one point) as a mobile OS was a disaster when they were suddenly confronted by Apple with iOS and later by Google with Android. Suddenly, MS found themselves losing the battle for mindshare - mind you, mindshare because in the enterprise space, no one could (and still can) challenge MS.

Then came a couple of disastrous decisions. First, the powers that be at MS decided that to make its presence felt in the mobile space a hardware component was necessary. And since MS is not strapped for cash, they hunted down Nokia. Now they had a hardware capability. Second, MS decided on developing a mobile OS. In my opinion, the second decision was better than the first because if they could convince their partner OEMS that they (MS) would bear the development costs for a mobile OS, then pushing out the OS through those OEMs would make a difference. But there were a number of preconditions (some of which MS has only lately recognized). The first of these was the decision to give away the OS (which they have effectively done now). In this they took a page out of Google's book. Same principle, but executed differently. But having invested in a hardware capability and probably driven by the need to show a positive ROI, they had to push their own hardware. This was and remains a problem. Why? Because MS hardware is an in-house product and carries with it significant prestige value. An alternative would have been to treat the Nokia acquisition as being a co-incidental event and a platform simply to showcase the OS and to produce limited reference designs (again, this is a Google model with the acquisition of Motorola). In addition to this, they could have used Nokia patents to augment the capabilities of their partner OEMs (for a fee, of course). But MS did not choose this option. As a consequence, they built up a small and dedicated fan following (me included) but they also attracted the attention of tech pundits and bloggers who have been less than kind to them and the negative fallout has also had an effect.

As all this was going on, MS found (and finds) that their original PC model of having their software on a wide variety OEMs was falling by the wayside in the mobile space. Recall the "devices and services" mantra? That was the last rallying cry for justifying the Nokia acquisition and for the Surface line (which at that time was seriously floundering). Then comes Satya Nadella who probably - with a lot of help from the MS board - decides to take MS back to its roots. And what are those roots? Have MS software on every platform possible. Nadella understands that the mobile space is an expanding one and it will be so in the foreseeable future. He wants MS software on all devices that are populating this space. In this scheme of things, Windows Phone is actually irrelevant (as the text of his interview suggests). Thus, the push to have the cutting edge MS apps on the dominant platform. In effect, MS is not playing the mobile hardware game, but they are playing the mobile game. Thus the current mantra "cloud first, mobile first".

Two questions remain: (1) What about the Surface line? And (2) what about Windows 10?

The Surface - particularly, the SP3 - will probably serve as a reference design and a platform to showcase cutting edge MS apps. It will also be a niche product - both in the consumer and enterprise space, but it will not take on the role of a being a critical product in MS' scheme of things. Windows 10 has, in my opinion, a dual purpose - (1) to transform the hitherto PC-centric mindset of the enterprise and consumer space (this is, to put it tongue-in-cheek, MS' "transformational" gambit) and (2) if MS continues to give away its mobile OS freely to its partner OEMs, then we can expect the mobile component of Windows 10 to also be given away for free. By doing this MS opens up a one-half front war in the mobile space - the half front is a defensive war that MS is (or will wage). This will involve a mobile-oriented OS which it will give away for free to its OEM partners. The full front is an offensive war where MS will attempt to dominate the application market (in a targeted way) across platforms.

Where does this leave the small group of Windows Mobile OS enthusiasts like me/ us? Nowhere really. I'd like to sue MS for wasting my money on two generations of phones - the latest being the 830. My only consolation is that the 830 is the swan song of an excellent hardware company (Nokia) and for me that is important. But come October, if what I have written above holds true, I will be looking at some other eco-system (or maybe not).

My apologies for this very long post!

Let me sum it up like this............

If indeed The Windows Phone User is not the important thing to Microsoft, again The Windows Phone user takes a slap in the face.

I am not someone who buys my phones on Contract.....I pay my money out right and up front. So this way of thinking is troublesome to me !!!!

I have been slapped in the face now by Microsoft a few times, and I am almost about to stop being the battered spouse here!!!!!

I have money to spend on my Toys and I normally like to stay loyal to my brands, but if Microsoft does not want my money, then I am sure Samsung can enjoy it should I dump my full Eco system for all Android.

! Game PC ( Windows 7)
1 Net-top ( Windows 8.1)
2 Tablets 8.1 and a Surface RT
1 Nokia Lumia 1020

As I have now stopped playing Diablo 3 I could switch the Game Rig for a Quad-core Android Mini PC tp use on my 37" TV. The Net-top can be replaced with a Chromebook and the Tablets switched for Samsung Android Tablets....an 8" Galaxy Note is looking nice.

I could also replace the 1020 with a Galaxy Note 3 and be done with Microsoft and it's services as well.

I could also dump my Xbox 360 and go back to my Dreamcast or maybe a Wii U.

As I am not a person who needs office, I could get by using Polaris Office on the mobile devices.

There is no Microsoft Service I would need to keep.

So if others like myself walk away, we walk away fully, not half way.....so how does that help the business model then?

 

[kristalsoldier]

@Greywolf1967...

I empathize. But the fact remains that - and here I am assuming that Thurrott is reporting this accurately and the quote id a direct quote - when seen from MS' point of view, conceptually, the strategy makes sense.

Of course, to us Windows Phone users, it is - as you put it - a slap in the face.

Take me for example, My 830 is barely a week old (like you I always buy my phones off contract and only sign up for a 11-month SIM-only contract) and I was just at the local Apple store checking out the iPhone 6 Plus. I have no intention of scrapping my use of MS services and apps. But I can sure as hell access those services through the apps that MS is making available via the two dominant platforms. So, lets say I dump MS phone hardware. And, lets also assume that all of the 3% of mobile phone users also dump MS hardware (and that of their OEMs), what really is the loss to MS? 3% of the market? And, what do they retain and/ or get in return? Access to 97% of the mobile market.

My only question in all of this is how the hell is MS planning to monetize this in the long run? Today the apps and services are free, but they can't be free for ever. So, where is the cash going to come from? To say that MS will rely on the Enterprise segment to fund this would be unsatisfactory. So, the question stands - where is MS planning to fund this "cloud first, mobile first" strategy? Google has its advert revenues. Apple gets its funds from its (overpriced) hardware (Gosh!! In the UK the larger of the two iPhones costs just ?250 less than the rent I pay for my apartment!!!! and it can actually pay for a return economy-class air ticket to Asia!!!!). So, where is MS getting the money from (or, where will they get their money from in the future)?

 

[fatclue_98]

To the OP, you may not like where MS is going but apparently investors do. Insider trading is illegal, wink wink, but it seems that people with more money than me know what direction MS is taking and they seem fine with it. For the last time, for the VERY last time, Microsoft is not in the position to appease to a user base that constitutes only +/- 3% of the market. They will hone their craft and offer their services for the 97%. That be where the money be. It's not a difficult concept to comprehend.

Let's put it another way. Microsoft released Windows Phone in 2010 to a less than enthusiastic public. There were plenty of reviews touting what it could and could not do, yet people bought them. This was not an invitation-only situation where you didn't know what you were getting until the device landed in your hands. If the device did not suit your needs, why did you purchase it? You don't buy something based on speculation of what could happen, you go on the here and now. That's no different than marrying a skinny chick and hoping she'll get a boob job and some buttocks implants.

 

[Ruined]

I am the OP, and I am not a moaner. I have bought five different WP phones, dammit! I just want WP to be not just a "me, too" platform, but a credible alternative to the iOS/Android experiences.

If by raising the flag on the shortcomings of the WP platform you are criticizing me, then you make my point even more valid.

Windows Phone had Office exclusively for *years* while iOS/Android had absolutely *nothing.* So now you want to jump ship because you don't have the latest and greatest for 6 months until Win10 comes out when once again WP will get the goods? Silly argument IMO, and the article you linked is similarly short-sighted from a traditionally anti-WP website.

 

[Greywolf1967]

@Greywolf1967...

I empathize. But the fact remains that - and here I am assuming that Thurrott is reporting this accurately and the quote id a direct quote - when seen from MS' point of view, conceptually, the strategy makes sense.

Of course, to us Windows Phone users, it is - as you put it - a slap in the face.

Take me for example, My 830 is barely a week old (like you I always buy my phones off contract and only sign up for a 11-month SIM-only contract) and I was just at the local Apple store checking out the iPhone 6 Plus. I have no intention of scrapping my use of MS services and apps. But I can sure as hell access those services through the apps that MS is making available via the two dominant platforms. So, lets say I dump MS phone hardware. And, lets also assume that all of the 3% of mobile phone users also dump MS hardware (and that of their OEMs), what really is the loss to MS? 3% of the market? And, what do they retain and/ or get in return? Access to 97% of the mobile market.

My only question in all of this is how the hell is MS planning to monetize this in the long run? Today the apps and services are free, but they can't be free for ever. So, where is the cash going to come from? To say that MS will rely on the Enterprise segment to fund this would be unsatisfactory. So, the question stands - where is MS planning to fund this "cloud first, mobile first" strategy? Google has its advert revenues. Apple gets its funds from its (overpriced) hardware (Gosh!! In the UK the larger of the two iPhones costs just ?250 less than the rent I pay for my apartment!!!! and it can actually pay for a return economy-class air ticket to Asia!!!!). So, where is MS getting the money from (or, where will they get their money from in the future)?

From ads that will appear in future updates to apps, plus the sales of data collected from services. In other words what Google does so well now.

I don't have an issue with iPhone/Android getting Microsoft apps, heck who knows maybe in the long run some will come over.

I do have an issue with the other platforms getting the new Touch Friendly app before the Windows Platform sees anything.

It would be the same if Ford sold millions of Mustangs then went back and improved the Motor to double it's HP, but then told Mustang owners, just wait a bit, as we want to put the new Motors in Chrysler/GM cars first, but don't worry yours is coming just wait.

Ford would be dead in the water, and would never be able to sell another car again.

 

[neo158]

The only thing i remember them doing with the ONE update it ever had was remove support for
.doc documents so you could only open .docx

Still can't edit .docx files with special formatting and still can't edit password protected files.

 

[neo158]

Windows Phone had Office exclusively for *years* while iOS/Android had absolutely *nothing.* So now you want to jump ship because you don't have the latest and greatest for 6 months until Win10 comes out when once again WP will get the goods? Silly argument IMO, and the article you linked is similarly short-sighted from a traditionally anti-WP website.

Actually you're wrong, iOS has iWork and Android has Docs, Sheets and Slides so, no they haven't had "absolutely *nothing.*"

 

[Jas00555]

Actually you're wrong, iOS has iWork and Android has Docs, Sheets and Slides so, no they haven't had "absolutely *nothing.*"

I think we can all agree that Docs and iWork might as well be nothing ;p

 

[neo158]

To the OP, you may not like where MS is going but apparently investors do. Insider trading is illegal, wink wink, but it seems that people with more money than me know what direction MS is taking and they seem fine with it. For the last time, for the VERY last time, Microsoft is not in the position to appease to a user base that constitutes only +/- 3% of the market. They will hone their craft and offer their services for the 97%. That be where the money be. It's not a difficult concept to comprehend.

Let's put it another way. Microsoft released Windows Phone in 2010 to a less than enthusiastic public. There were plenty of reviews touting what it could and could not do, yet people bought them. This was not an invitation-only situation where you didn't know what you were getting until the device landed in your hands. If the device did not suit your needs, why did you purchase it? You don't buy something based on speculation of what could happen, you go on the here and now. That's no different than marrying a skinny chick and hoping she'll get a boob job and some buttocks implants.

The problem is that with no focus on the ~3% it just won't grow so, yes they are in a position to and if fact NEED to appease that ~3% in order to gain any significant market share. It's perfectly fine to have your services on ALL platforms but when that is at the expense of your own platform then that's a problem.

My point is that most of the ~3% won't wait indefinitely so it's all well and good saying wait for Windows 10 but what happens if it doesn't deliver?

 

[gapost]

I used to recommend Windows Phone to all my friends and as the Verizon handler for our company, put WP in a lot of user's hands. I can't recommend Windows Phone anymore and let people get whichever Android or iPhone they want.

 

[neo158]

I think we can all agree that Docs and iWork might as well be nothing ;p

True but it doesn't change the fact that Android and iOS actually have something!!!

 

[tgp]

Windows Phone had Office exclusively for *years* while iOS/Android had absolutely *nothing.*

Not really. They had nothing official, but there were plenty of 3rd party Office apps, and some of them were, and still are, better than Microsoft's Office apps.

 

[kristalsoldier]

The problem is that with no focus on the ~3% it just won't grow so, yes they are in a position to and if fact NEED to appease that ~3% in order to gain any significant market share. It's perfectly fine to have your services on ALL platforms but when that is at the expense of your own platform then that's a problem.

My point is that most of the ~3% won't wait indefinitely so it's all well and good saying wait for Windows 10 but what happens if it doesn't deliver?

I see what you are saying, but it appears that the current disposition at the highest levels at MS don't agree with the point of view that you are espousing. To then, the cost of 3% of the market is minimal and whatever they imagine the payoff from the rest of the 97% is much more valuable. Another way to put this would be to say that for the movers and shakers in MS, we - you, me and the rest of the WP fan-base, if I can call us that - are irrelevant, that is to say, collateral damage and not really worth a second thought. Its really a harsh and cold world in the spreadsheets and forecast reports of financial analysts, you know!

 

[Jas00555]

Not really. They had nothing official, but there were plenty of 3rd party Office apps, and some of them were, and still are, better than Microsoft's Office apps.

Ironically, that exact same argument ("well, its not official, but it's 3rd party and better!") is a notion that many WP users use to defend the platform, yet it is apparently dismissed.

 

[cbreze]

Wait for 7.5
Wait for 7.8
Wait for 8.0
Wait for 8.1
Wait for 10

we been waiting much?:wink:

 

[theefman]

To the OP, you may not like where MS is going but apparently investors do. Insider trading is illegal, wink wink, but it seems that people with more money than me know what direction MS is taking and they seem fine with it. For the last time, for the VERY last time, Microsoft is not in the position to appease to a user base that constitutes only +/- 3% of the market. They will hone their craft and offer their services for the 97%. That be where the money be. It's not a difficult concept to comprehend.

No one will dispute that its a beneficial move to Microsoft and so the money markets being pleased with it is not a surprise. But is it a requirement to ignore the 3% userbase they cultivated? Apart from Office wouldn't you get a higher proportion of WP users actively using MS services vs the percentage of ios and android users who already have access to services they are used to? E.g. Skype vs Facetime? Isn't that a reason to make sure their own platform is well served and kept competitive so it can grow?

Let's put it another way. Microsoft released Windows Phone in 2010 to a less than enthusiastic public. There were plenty of reviews touting what it could and could not do, yet people bought them. This was not an invitation-only situation where you didn't know what you were getting until the device landed in your hands. If the device did not suit your needs, why did you purchase it? You don't buy something based on speculation of what could happen, you go on the here and now. That's no different than marrying a skinny chick and hoping she'll get a boob job and some buttocks implants.

No new platform is born complete, there will always be areas where they have to catch up. ios and android required updated to get where they are today (and still do receive updates today), why should WP at its inception have been any different? If no one invested in a new platform would any mobile platform exist at all? WP7 was introduced over 4 years ago and at the time, as with any new platform it was a reasonable expectation that Microsoft would release updates that would improve the experience so that is no argument against buying into the platform back then.

But when you look at the situation today with Microsoft and 3rd party developers basically giving it the cold shoulder then yes, anyone looking at WP now should have pause before buying into it. Because the overwhelming message being sent today and the reality of Microsoft's new strategy is that WP has no value to Microsoft and there is no advantage to going with the platform as you will get the best of Microsoft, along with the best of everything else, if you go with the other platforms.

Another way to put this would be to say that for the movers and shakers in MS, we - you, me and the rest of the WP fan-base, if I can call us that - are irrelevant, that is to say, collateral damage and not really worth a second thought.

Pretty much what I'm trying to say.

 

[tgp]

Ironically, that exact same argument ("well, its not official, but it's 3rd party and better!") is a notion that many WP users use to defend the platform, yet it is apparently dismissed.

That crossed my mind when I wrote the post, but I didn't want to fuel the flame!

Sent from whatever device I happen to be using today using Tapatalk

 

[fatclue_98]

The problem is that with no focus on the ~3% it just won't grow so, yes they are in a position to and if fact NEED to appease that ~3% in order to gain any significant market share. It's perfectly fine to have your services on ALL platforms but when that is at the expense of your own platform then that's a problem.

My point is that most of the ~3% won't wait indefinitely so it's all well and good saying wait for Windows 10 but what happens if it doesn't deliver?

In the grand scheme of things, Microsoft - or any other company, wouldn't give 2 sh**s about such a low user base. It's always been the argument for dev support and I can't blame them. I'm not defending MS but we live in a real world that has been taken over by greed and profits. I don't like it but there ain't much I can do except learn how to make it work for me. Call me a ho but I'm not married to any company or technology.

 

[neo158]

In the grand scheme of things, Microsoft - or any other company, wouldn't give 2 sh**s about such a low user base. It's always been the argument for dev support and I can't blame them. I'm not defending MS but we live in a real world that has been taken over by greed and profits. I don't like it but there ain't much I can do except learn how to make it work for me. Call me a ho but I'm not married to any company or technology.

I would completely agree if we were talking about a competitors platform like BB10 but we're talking about a Microsoft platform.

Yes, they should have their services on other platforms but WP should be first with new features with other platforms following.