- Jan 20, 2010
- 7
- 0
- 0
It appears that Microsoft has a fantastic mobile operating system. I rarely see a review of a Windows Phone device that is anything less than glowing, heaping praise upon the uniquely smooth and aesthetically pleasing mobile OS, and impressed at how it is able to best competing devices in speed and fluidity with arguably inferior hardware. There must be some reason for an operating system and the platform overall to be gaining so little traction in the market.
The problem is easy to see. They forgot to make us want it. They see the beauty of their product, as do we as consumers, and the assumption is that just seeing it will be enough. It is not. Microsoft knows Windows Phone is usually faster at completing most common tasks and the assumption is that we will see this and that will be enough. It?s not. Microsoft and their Windows Phone partners forgot to try. Being faster and smoother is not enough. A pretty OS is not enough.
Aspirational devices sell a platform. Consider past high-end smartphones like the Palm Treos, various BlackBerrys, Pocket PC Phones (before becoming Windows Mobile), Nokia?s N95 and many others. People wanted them. I had a Treo because I just wanted to have a Treo, then I found uses for it, and this was back in college. The BlackBerry was a must have as the Treo was on the way out, as they provided an even better keyboard, better email, a better everything. Windows Mobile was the most powerful so I had to own that as well, and I loved it, as I was able to type my notes cleanly and have them waiting at home by the time I was done. Then there is the iPhone that initially had a $600 price tag and no carrier subsidies or the Nexus Android devices. These devices were so well liked that even if people could not quite buy the one they really wanted they would by the more affordable model that offered much of the same. Those who could not really afford the iPhone often bought one anyway just to be one of the people to own one.
The nicest Windows Phone devices are not aspirational. The supposed best of them, the Nokia Lumia 900, arrived late to the platform, has a mediocre camera, and barely more inspiring specifications than most other Windows Phone devices. It offers the same screen resolution as all other Windows Phone devices are currently limited to, which is significantly lower than what is available on competing platforms, plus it offers only 16GB of storage and that is not upgradeable. There has not been a ?Wow!? moment for Windows Phone. Some might argue that the Titan II from HTC is a better phone than the Lumia 900, but it is limited to the same screen resolution, the storage is not expandable, the battery is not replaceable, and otherwise has the same limitations as the Lumia 900. No true advantage.
I am not knocking Windows Phone as an operating system or platform here. Without question or qualification it is the best looking, most thoughtfully organized, smoothest operating, most reliable, fastest, and most polished mobile operating system I have used to date. The hardware that Microsoft is allowing, or forcing, their hardware partners to release it on is currently Windows Phone?s biggest hurdle. If I can buy a Samsung Galaxy Nexus with a 4.7? screen at 1280x720 resolution, a fast dual-core processor, a relatively good camera, and the best version of Android yet, how can I justify a purchase of a device for the same price that is limited to 800x480 resolution on the same size screen, a disappointing camera, and a single core processor, even if all of the praise I lay upon the OS is valid? A Porsche motor in a Porsche versus a Ferrari motor in a Honda? Great hardware and really good software versus acceptable hardware and excellent software? Maybe the car metaphors mean little to you, but my point is that Windows Phone needs to be delivered on something that makes me want it. Something impressive needs to happen. Android devices are exciting us with ever-faster processors, increasing screen resolutions and quality, and just some great hardware overall. Apple is swaying people with really good hardware that looks fantastic, competitive processors, and a consistently simple experience. Both of them are managing this while offering features that Windows Phone still does not, but more importantly, they are using better hardware.
There is no way around it and I feel like I cannot say it too much: Windows Phone needs better phones. Right now, it seems like they are only going through the motions, releasing devices to the market only to be a part of that market rather than try to win a significant share of it. The Lumia 800 is not available with a US carrier. The Lumia 710 is only for T-Mobile. The Lumia 900 is only for AT&T. The Titan was largely ignored by AT&T, the only carrier to offer it for a few months, and the same appears to be happening for the Titan II. There has been nothing released remotely recently for Verizon or Sprint. Worst of all, as nice as some of these devices may be, they have yet to give me a reason to get excited.
Microsoft is now the underdog and they have forgotten to fight for the win.
The problem is easy to see. They forgot to make us want it. They see the beauty of their product, as do we as consumers, and the assumption is that just seeing it will be enough. It is not. Microsoft knows Windows Phone is usually faster at completing most common tasks and the assumption is that we will see this and that will be enough. It?s not. Microsoft and their Windows Phone partners forgot to try. Being faster and smoother is not enough. A pretty OS is not enough.
Aspirational devices sell a platform. Consider past high-end smartphones like the Palm Treos, various BlackBerrys, Pocket PC Phones (before becoming Windows Mobile), Nokia?s N95 and many others. People wanted them. I had a Treo because I just wanted to have a Treo, then I found uses for it, and this was back in college. The BlackBerry was a must have as the Treo was on the way out, as they provided an even better keyboard, better email, a better everything. Windows Mobile was the most powerful so I had to own that as well, and I loved it, as I was able to type my notes cleanly and have them waiting at home by the time I was done. Then there is the iPhone that initially had a $600 price tag and no carrier subsidies or the Nexus Android devices. These devices were so well liked that even if people could not quite buy the one they really wanted they would by the more affordable model that offered much of the same. Those who could not really afford the iPhone often bought one anyway just to be one of the people to own one.
The nicest Windows Phone devices are not aspirational. The supposed best of them, the Nokia Lumia 900, arrived late to the platform, has a mediocre camera, and barely more inspiring specifications than most other Windows Phone devices. It offers the same screen resolution as all other Windows Phone devices are currently limited to, which is significantly lower than what is available on competing platforms, plus it offers only 16GB of storage and that is not upgradeable. There has not been a ?Wow!? moment for Windows Phone. Some might argue that the Titan II from HTC is a better phone than the Lumia 900, but it is limited to the same screen resolution, the storage is not expandable, the battery is not replaceable, and otherwise has the same limitations as the Lumia 900. No true advantage.
I am not knocking Windows Phone as an operating system or platform here. Without question or qualification it is the best looking, most thoughtfully organized, smoothest operating, most reliable, fastest, and most polished mobile operating system I have used to date. The hardware that Microsoft is allowing, or forcing, their hardware partners to release it on is currently Windows Phone?s biggest hurdle. If I can buy a Samsung Galaxy Nexus with a 4.7? screen at 1280x720 resolution, a fast dual-core processor, a relatively good camera, and the best version of Android yet, how can I justify a purchase of a device for the same price that is limited to 800x480 resolution on the same size screen, a disappointing camera, and a single core processor, even if all of the praise I lay upon the OS is valid? A Porsche motor in a Porsche versus a Ferrari motor in a Honda? Great hardware and really good software versus acceptable hardware and excellent software? Maybe the car metaphors mean little to you, but my point is that Windows Phone needs to be delivered on something that makes me want it. Something impressive needs to happen. Android devices are exciting us with ever-faster processors, increasing screen resolutions and quality, and just some great hardware overall. Apple is swaying people with really good hardware that looks fantastic, competitive processors, and a consistently simple experience. Both of them are managing this while offering features that Windows Phone still does not, but more importantly, they are using better hardware.
There is no way around it and I feel like I cannot say it too much: Windows Phone needs better phones. Right now, it seems like they are only going through the motions, releasing devices to the market only to be a part of that market rather than try to win a significant share of it. The Lumia 800 is not available with a US carrier. The Lumia 710 is only for T-Mobile. The Lumia 900 is only for AT&T. The Titan was largely ignored by AT&T, the only carrier to offer it for a few months, and the same appears to be happening for the Titan II. There has been nothing released remotely recently for Verizon or Sprint. Worst of all, as nice as some of these devices may be, they have yet to give me a reason to get excited.
Microsoft is now the underdog and they have forgotten to fight for the win.
Great post, though! Love the title.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram