How can I continue to support Microsoft, when I no longer believe in them?

[Sean Hayes1]

I have been a Windows supporter since the very beginning. However, I have completely lost faith in them as a software company. It completely boggles my mind that a company so dedicated to software is making a phone with a competitor's operating system after announcing months ago a new internet browser using same said competitors technology as a basis for said browser. It's the apps man, the apps. Anyone who supports this is a fool. Google already has way to much power when it come to the internet and our privacy. Google has shown in many instances that it can't be trusted. I was hoping for a true Windows powered phone. One completely integrated into the Microsoft ecosystem. I believe this is just as much of a mistake as calling Windows Phone Windows Phone. It should have had it's own name, without Windows in it. It was just to confusing for consumers. I dont understand building Windows 10 X for the Neo and then using what looks like a fairly heavily skinned version of android on Duo. I absolutely believe that if you used Windows 10 X on the phone people will buy it and the apps will come. I believe using android is shortsighted and will eventually hurt Microsoft and the Windows brand as a whole. After all the future is mobile and you are a software company first and foremost. Using a competitor's mobile os instead of your own hurts your future. When everyone starts making smaller and smaller devices that are ultra portable and just as powerful as a PC? Where will you be then? In the same boat, yet further behind. You need your own mobile software now if you expect to compete in the future. Windows 10 X and the Neo looked bright. Then you casted a shadow over it with the Duo. So someone please tell me how I can still have faith in company that doesn't seem to have faith in its self?

 

[N_LaRUE]

The 'build it and people will come' attitude was already tried with Windows Phone. It didn't work. For developers of the apps that most people use the numbers have to be there. I doubt extremely that any Windows device will have the numbers to get developers to take notice.

There are many apps on the current Store that haven't been updated or abandoned. What makes you think a new device, regardless how neat it is, is going to change that? Keeping in mind there are 100's millions of users of Windows currently.

Not sure how many people you think will buy the Duo considering how pricey it's likely to be. It will at least have a chance with Android on it. If it only had Windows on it would likely be DOA.

 

[Renoktation]

It's unfortunate that we live in a world where no one listens to the minority. While Microsoft may claim that they want to be there where people are, what they really mean is that they want to be there where majority are!
More than apps, the thing that is more dangerous is app only service. Many startups today rely entirely on Android apps. They don't even have websites! This includes companies that provide wallet service, cab service and even government supported apps.

The websites of yesterdays are replaced with apps of today and this should be worrying sign for Windows!

 

[sd4f]

Buddy, they're a business, I may come across as harsh, but get over it, you as an individual don't matter to them. Don't invest your ego into a private company.

Microsoft has one goal, and that's to make money, along with every other company in existence. They're not doing any of this out of benevolence. With that said, I'm not saying that they're the worst, just pick and choose what suits you most at the time. These are tools and luxury goods rolled into one.

I watched some of the surface event, and by about the point of Panos Panay showing his daughter play on the piano, I just realised that he's employing Steve Job's level of reality distortion field; it's all sales puffery designed to make susceptible people feel like as if these devices make you a better person, when in reality it's just getting you to part with more money than you really should.

Only reason that I noticed that is because, as I'm a musician, his description clearly demonstrated that what he was talking about was grossly exaggerated, especially when the example presented was extremely ordinary. Doesn't really matter in a sales event, it's all about making a potential customer feel good.

I'm starting to think that these devices don't really improve productivity, if anything they might make you slightly less annoyed by using them. The real goal is to convince people that they need them, and ultimately, perception is reality; if the customer believes it, then what difference does it make.

Now excuse me while I return to my inspiring and perfect Microsoft® Surface™ and do perfect work all with in my highly intelligent and creative flow™ so that I can communicate with the colleague in the adjacent box through the information superhighway so that I don't lose that all important human interaction...

 

[N_LaRUE]

More than apps, the thing that is more dangerous is app only service. Many startups today rely entirely on apps.

There fixed. Apple has an app store too...

In any case. This has been the trend since apps were a thing. Most app developers don't bother with a website until they become popular.

Haven't heard of any government systems that don't have websites here in the EU. Though I can appreciate the idea of having apps as most people have a smartphone now. It's really the older people who don't use smartphones or even computers that have the hardest times now.

Regardless. There is no room for a third player in the mobile area. The developers are not going to change things now. There's still lots of apps on iOS that don't make it to Android even though Android has a much larger audience. Reason? Money. Ad revenues are crap and most Android users want free stuff and no ads. I can understand why those app developers don't bother.

 

[Renoktation]

Regardless. There is no room for a third player in the mobile area. The developers are not going to change things now. There's still lots of apps on iOS that don't make it to Android even though Android has a much larger audience. Reason? Money.

What do you think about web apps? Make one web app and it can run on any OS - Android, iOS, KaiOS, Windows or Linux, and thus reduce operational cost!

Most companies are not aware of web apps and that is the problem.

In India, government has launched BHIM payment service and this is available only on Android. Even Umang service that provides digital access to passport, educational certificates etc is only available on Android and not on websites!
That will eventually make the likes of Windows tablets or Neo pretty much useless.

 

[N_LaRUE]

What do you think about web apps? Make one web app and it can run on any OS - Android, iOS, KaiOS, Windows or Linux, and thus reduce operational cost!

Most companies are not aware of web apps and that is the problem.

In India, government has launched BHIM payment service and this is available only on Android. Even Umang service that provides digital access to passport, educational certificates etc is only available on Android and not on websites!
That will eventually make the likes of Windows tablets or Neo pretty much useless.

People have been talking about web apps for years and nothing has changed. I think they are aware and there must be some issue with using them. I have no idea what that would be.

Strange that they would make apps specifically for Android only. I can understand that most of the users would probably have Android but still seems silly. This is where having a web app would work of course.

 

[Sean Hayes1]

I don't believe in the build it and they will come philosophy. I said that was a problem with Windows Phone. They built an OS with the Windows name in it yet it couldn't run any Windows applications. That was a stupid move. It should have had it's own name and Microsoft should have had a less restrictive attitude toward liscensee's about skinning the OS. My point is still that Microsoft is using other companies OS's on products they are making. Mobile is the future. Using a direct competitor's software when you are a software company on your own hardware is a bad sign for consumers. Google is currently developing a desktop OS. It's not a matter of if but, when Google finishes its desktop OS and they have a complete software solution from desktop to mobile and use the same business practices that they did on mobile. Microsoft will be in a vulnerable postion. Google could give it to hardware partners for free, just like Android lowering cost to manufacturers and then as a result to desktop products. Many companies wanted Windows Phones until they realized it couldn't run any Windows legacy applications. Microsoft could have won the enterprise segment with a true Windows phone. There is room for a third player. Look how poor and stale iOS and Android development has been. Why? Easy. A total lack of competition. Just two players.

 

[N_LaRUE]

I don't believe in the build it and they will come philosophy. I said that was a problem with Windows Phone. They built an OS with the Windows name in it yet it couldn't run any Windows applications. That was a stupid move. It should have had it's own name and Microsoft should have had a less restrictive attitude toward liscensee's about skinning the OS. My point is still that Microsoft is using other companies OS's on products they are making. Mobile is the future. Using a direct competitor's software when you are a software company on your own hardware is a bad sign for consumers. Google is currently developing a desktop OS. It's not a matter of if but, when Google finishes its desktop OS and they have a complete software solution from desktop to mobile and use the same business practices that they did on mobile. Microsoft will be in a vulnerable postion. Google could give it to hardware partners for free, just like Android lowering cost to manufacturers and then as a result to desktop products. Many companies wanted Windows Phones until they realized it couldn't run any Windows legacy applications. Microsoft could have won the enterprise segment with a true Windows phone. There is room for a third player. Look how poor and stale iOS and Android development has been. Why? Easy. A total lack of competition. Just two players.

Having a third competitor and having consumers and developers care about the third competitor is a different thing altogether.

That's why Windows Phone failed. Developers simply don't want to spend the time and money on a third platform and they especially won't do it for one that has a minuscule user base. Not only that but the user base will need to spend money which is the current trend for most developers. The days of high ad revenue is long gone so unless you're selling user data it's going to be paid for (in some form) or subscription apps from now on. Very few developers are releasing free apps now.

We can discuss the naming issues and the teething problems that Windows Phone had (been discussed endless amounts of times on this forum) but that isn't going to change anything and having a phone with full Windows on it where the vast majority of apps for the ecosystem currently are NOT touch optimized is going to be pointless for most people. Most people DO NOT NEED full Windows. The vast majority just need the ability to surf the net. Most people do not use Windows software at home. They're mostly on their phones.

This is why having a pocket computer is rather pointless or even having it as a feature. Majority of people simply don't care about that.

As for your statement of iOS and Android. The majority does not care how boring the OS is. You can theme Android to your hearts content if you want. What people want is the ability to do things. That's all. If there's a popular app they want it. Etc. What keeps most people in iOS? iMessenger and the 'just works' thing. Lots of people go all out Apple after owning an iPhone because they like the idea of everything 'working' together.

Having MS and Google working together, regardless if Google is working on a desktop OS, is a good thing for the industry overall. It's good for MS and obviously good for Google otherwise they wouldn't do it.

Also for competition, having someone take on Windows wouldn't be a bad thing but they will have a rough road regardless. MS is pretty entrenched in enterprise.

Let's also keep in mind that MS has multiple successful income streams and they aren't reliant on their hardware to succeed. Their shareholders would prefer if they stayed away from hardware. So take it from there.

 

[Sean Hayes1]

I do agree with most of what you are saying. I just feel competition breeds innovation and better products for the consumer. I just feel like Microsoft is going to miss the boat. With the introduction of iPAD OS Apple has created a more productivity based iPAD. With Apple having a more integrated ecosystem it makes them a bigger threat to Microsoft in the enterprise segment. Google hasn't shown much interest in making Android better for tablets. Google has shown interest in a new OS though that can be scaled from mobile to desktop. With all three big tech companies heading in the same direction as a single OS to rule them all, it seems counter productive to release an Android phone. I do agree with most of what you are saying, just think it's a poor move for the future.

 

[N_LaRUE]

I do agree with most of what you are saying. I just feel competition breeds innovation and better products for the consumer. I just feel like Microsoft is going to miss the boat. With the introduction of iPAD OS Apple has created a more productivity based iPAD. With Apple having a more integrated ecosystem it makes them a bigger threat to Microsoft in the enterprise segment. Google hasn't shown much interest in making Android better for tablets. Google has shown interest in a new OS though that can be scaled from mobile to desktop. With all three big tech companies heading in the same direction as a single OS to rule them all, it seems counter productive to release an Android phone. I do agree with most of what you are saying, just think it's a poor move for the future.

But that's the whole point. There is competition.

It's obvious that MS is still in the mobile game but they're not crazy and realise that they can't just re-enter the game with nothing. Windows X is probably a testing ground but they may be looking into other things we simply don't know about and I'm not going to speculate about them. A fully integrated Android phone that works with Windows is not a bad idea when you think about it.

As for the one OS to rule them all. Any company, Apple, Google and MS realise that it's a very difficult thing to do. Out of all of them Google has the better chance here because they only have Android and Chrome OS. I forget what their new OS is called. Apple has three OS now and has indicated little desire to make them into one. Or maybe some form of Continuum like system of things.

As for MS. They now have Windows X and Windows. With some future thing about Core OS or whatever it's called.

All this stuff is swirling around but until there's some step forward we really don't have any idea who is where.

As for Google and Apple increasing their share in Enterprise. It really comes down to what you mean by that. Large corporations stick to MS as do a lot of mid size to smaller ones simply because of overall costs and dependent on what their business is of course. I've been working a long time and I have yet to see Apple or Google in any company I have worked for. Not counting mobile phones.

Microsoft enterprise solutions are what you see. Most companies use them because they're reliable and cost effective. I personally don't see this changing any time soon.

That's not to say there won't be some inroads from Google, most likely, but that's further down the track I think.

 

[ochhanz]

I do agree with most of what you are saying. I just feel competition breeds innovation and better products for the consumer. I just feel like Microsoft is going to miss the boat. With the introduction of iPAD OS Apple has created a more productivity based iPAD. With Apple having a more integrated ecosystem it makes them a bigger threat to Microsoft in the enterprise segment. Google hasn't shown much interest in making Android better for tablets. Google has shown interest in a new OS though that can be scaled from mobile to desktop. With all three big tech companies heading in the same direction as a single OS to rule them all, it seems counter productive to release an Android phone. I do agree with most of what you are saying, just think it's a poor move for the future.

, well even though Android is from Google, it is still partly open source so they don't have as much control over it as e.g. chromeos. Also I think MS wants to put Windows X on the Duo but it is still to early for that. Maybe a year later.
It also seems that stuff like chromeos (and Macbooks to a less degree) is mainly popular in the US compared to other parts of the world, so not sure how big a threat they are worldwide. Macbooks probably never since Apple doesn't work together with oems (/they would lose the optimization advantages) like Google or Microsoft do. IpadOS could be a bigger threat (in western countries) but it seems that Apple does not want to compete with their own Macbooks.
So at the moment chromeos is probably the only big threat but I am not sure how many companies would like to work with an OS owned by an advertisement company and Windows 10 is still better for laptops & desktops (which companies mostly use for work, besides phones for communication).

Than there is of course the booming pc/console gaming market, maybe stadia will get google some piece of the cake but it will face heavy competition with Steam+GOG+Epic+EA launchers etc, XCloud and the consoles. This is a big pro for still buying a Windows pc or laptop.

Thinking about it MS is doing pretty well actually, with only having no OS presence in the phone sector (but they do have popular mobile apps & hololens). If they can slowly make Windows 10 X interesting for mobile users, even if it is only for a niche or enterprise-only, than it already is a big win for them.

 

[Michael Zedalis]

The Surface line was almost dead at once like the Windows phone. After building a huge fanbase for the Surface line their clearly should be a 10x phone. If it was a cheap phone I would understand the android part but the DUO is not gonna be a huge seller and I bet is gonna cost a pretty penny. Alot of people who waited for years for this are not gonna buy this phone. I'm on the fence. Only if a windows continuum is included would I buy.

 

[N_LaRUE]

The Surface line was almost dead at once like the Windows phone. After building a huge fanbase for the Surface line their clearly should be a 10x phone. If it was a cheap phone I would understand the android part but the DUO is not gonna be a huge seller and I bet is gonna cost a pretty penny. Alot of people who waited for years for this are not gonna buy this phone. I'm on the fence. Only if a windows continuum is included would I buy.

I know that some people wanted Windows X but what's the point of it on the Duo when there's no apps for it and its small form factor?

You want to talk killing a product then doing that would be a good start. Only hard core fans may buy it and that's a pretty small group currently. Those who could afford it of course...

The only people wanting a so called pocket PC are the people I see posting about it on this forum. No one else really cares.

At least with Android there's a larger audience and we already know that this thing isn't going to be cheap. Also, Android phones come in a range of prices so Android doesn't equate to cheap.

We don't have much clue as to what MS and Google are up to with this so it's going to be a long year of speculation.

 

[Drael646464]

All this stuff is swirling around but until there's some step forward we really don't have any idea who is where.

Nice to agree with you man.

Google have fuschia, chrome, android, microsoft has core OS or whatever. MS has made more headway with theirs (in terms of they actually have a fully scalable app platform, however anemic, and a near release OS to match) but, we don't really know what these companies full game plan is, what motivates their decisions or what we will actually see on market.

Some of it experimental I think. ChromeOS supporting linux apps for example. See what works.

This Duo thing could just be a market placeholder - a foot in the door. Maybe they'll finally release 'the software bridge to end all software bridges' and have a one-click compile for every OS, so that all the dual screen apps on android run on the neo.

The Duo and Neo could just be a trojan horse to get android developers over to windows ahead of the big foldables play off.

Maybe PWA will continue to slowly take off. Maybe nothing will happen. Maybe apple will release an AI based search engine, and google will die.

Maybe AR will take off, and in ten years, phones will die. Futures are about maybes. Companies try to plan, not merely for now, but for many possibilities, and how they can adapt.

My advise to OP, would be to think in those terms; It's quite likely slab phones will die out eventually. Foldables could be an initial market mess, rather than success. AR is uncertain. Raise your eyes up, and see past phones - games are being played for bigger stakes 'the next thing'.

If your preference is for MSFT as a company versus google, that's fine, them releasing one niche android product doesn't mean they have sold their whole strategy down the river - wait and see.

Windows just hasn't scaled enough for phones. Not even a foldable. It's barely touch only, let alone 'small'. It's creeping that way, and faster than android is 'creeping up' but it's really not there.

If they can make neo a success story for development, the whole idea of a smaller touch only could be revisited. Everything is a long play, and none of us know who wins. Remember walkman? Nokia? Tech is every changing, despite how entrenched people are in the present.

I see why you stand where you stand OP: It's my opnion also that I prefer the ethics of microsoft, and one of these three are likely going to be more powerful than out governments very soon. At least we can take solace, in that their are still three, and not merely one.

 

[Drael646464]

What do you think about web apps? Make one web app and it can run on any OS - Android, iOS, KaiOS, Windows or Linux, and thus reduce operational cost!

Most companies are not aware of web apps and that is the problem.

In India, government has launched BHIM payment service and this is available only on Android. Even Umang service that provides digital access to passport, educational certificates etc is only available on Android and not on websites!
That will eventually make the likes of Windows tablets or Neo pretty much useless.

Dev changes slow. Apple doesn't have PWA support yet, and really even android and windows only rudamentary. There is take up. It's faster than one might have suspected, even if slower than some would have hoped. It does absolutely cost less in the long run, but requires people to scrap what they were doing. Which will take time to take off.

 

[Douglas H]

"Regardless. There is no room for a third player in the mobile area." I completely disagree, but the constant repeating of this refrain makes it more likely through the process of reification. MS was close with phone but lacked the market sense and the willingness to stick it out and become a player. Just because they did it badly does not prove that there is no room for others. Let us not advocate for the stunting of innovation.

 

[Douglas H]

And, on the DUO...why the heck no dual boot to Windows X?

 

[rodneyej]

This is the most annoying post..

 

[Drael646464]

"Regardless. There is no room for a third player in the mobile area." I completely disagree, but the constant repeating of this refrain makes it more likely through the process of reification. MS was close with phone but lacked the market sense and the willingness to stick it out and become a player. Just because they did it badly does not prove that there is no room for others. Let us not advocate for the stunting of innovation.

One could argue that KaiOS already is a third player.

Certainly most monopolies or duopolies come about for similiar reasons, price of entry, or early pre-adoption premium markets. It's not set in stone that android and ios rule forever.

Especially given that all touch slab smartphones as a form factor and mode of input will most likely be superceeded, by AR, folding devices, voice input and so on. The app markets, which are essentially the entire barrier for entry are solely dominant based on a particular size and mode of input. Few of the apps scale, or operate using alternate modes of input (although ios has a slight edge here).

Moment that changes, that disappears.

Certainly we should learn the lesson of PCs - computers have diversified and will continue to diversify. Neither of the two key platforms have any advantage really in that scenario, beyond existing market recognition, and we know enough dead OSes and hardware platforms/brands to know that only counts for a little.

I genuinely think that the smartphone market will be splintered further into folding/scrolling devices, AR glasses, and primarily voice AI systems. Having the current app market dominance doesn't really do much there.

It's also noteworthy that these companies are being pressed for anti-competitive lawsuits, based on only offering one app market. Either google, or apple could wind up with legal obstacles in the future based on the duopoly.