You see, this is an issue I have. Maybe Windows Mobile wasn't the best, or they couldn't explain it well enough, but when they moved away from WM for WP that does not mean they get to behave like this is the first product they ever designed.
The first WP version was WP 7, so Microsoft clearly acknowledged that WP was the newest version of their OS, rebranded and with new code, but not a 1.0 product by any means.
By the time that they designed WP 7, they should have taken all that user experience with prior versions of their OS and parlayed it into an absolutely great mobile OS, especially since they also had access to the OS of two major competitors in iOS and Android that were already in the marketplace. They didn't have to think all of this up, they could simply go into a store and buy competing products to see what features they should include. Where they should have had the edge was in knowing form their WM experience how to do a feature better than iOS or Android.
No, this is incredibly misguided.
The market changed A LOT from when Windows Mobile was around to when Windows Phone 7 was released. Microsoft's experience in the market literally meant nothing. When WM was popular, most people used their cell phones to talk on and Smart Phone users were mostly business folk who expected their devices to be like PDAs and controlled them with styli or trackballs and keyboards. They used them to communicate and do business type stuff, no play games or browse Facebook. When the iPhone hit, it completely changed the market, and Palm, Blackberry and Microsoft were left scrambling. People didn't want to use Styli, and they didn't care about emailing their coworkers, they wanted to play games, browse the web, mess with apps, and use something with an attractive interface. Palm adapted first with WebOS, but they never got a foothold on the market, and HP mishandled them so badly, they vanished. BB relied on their stranglehold on the business market to stay afloat, and by the time they started adapting, it was too late. MS also scrambled, and was able to deliver Windows Phone 7, which was built on a version of the CE Kernel used in Windows Mobile. Of the three (Palm, BB, MS), they have the best chance of succeeding.
Windows Phone required a complete rethink of how people use, and interact with their phones. MS basically went back to the drawing board, and you can argue they pushed 7 to market. Windows Phone 8 is significantly different from its predecessors, including Windows Phone 7... about the only thing they share is the similar looking interface. MS's experience in the market prior to WP was useless, they were going after a different target market using different input methods on different hardware. It actually would be to MS's favor for them to completely forget what they did in the past and start with a blank slate (and I wouldn't be surprised if that's what they did).
Microsoft made a ballsy move pushing Windows Phone 7 out and then changing the kernel like they did, but they wanted to get the interface in front of people. It makes sense, push it out and try and steal some mindshare from iOS and Android. They also wanted to get the core functionality working well, which I actually applaud. You can either release a feature packed OS filled with features that mimic their competition but is plagued with performance issues and bugs, or you can release a slimmer OS with a rock solid core to build on. You wouldn't build a house on a shoddy foundation would you?
Apple did pretty much the exact same thing, don't forget, when iOS was released it was missing core functionality that people using flip phones were accustom to. Apple wanted to get the phone in front of people betting they'd be sucked in to the new interface, and they were right. Time will tell if it works for MS.
P.S. Android basically did the opposite. They crammed the OS with features and only recently began working to slim it down so it runs well.