How Much is Riding on Andromeda?

[drewsuruncle]

I'm just wondering how much is riding on andromeda from a consumer perspective, and what your thoughts are. Since MS killed W10M to try and leapfrog current mobile phones I think it better be a homerun or MS may just go drop the consumer side and be a backend cloud/enterprise software company.

What happens if Andromeda is a flop, how many more stabs is MS going to take at consumer? The gap just keeps getting wider and more difficult to close.

 

[TechFreak1]

Personally I feel the arguments have been rehashed so many times that people are frankly exhausted.

Simply put, Microsoft needs their own Windows based mobile play as without it PWAs and UWPs fall flat thus completely wasting the decades of work unifying the Windows Core.

No company can survive in the long term without a consumers, it's profoundly naive to think that solely relying on the enterprise is sustainable.

Enterprises and corporations do not buy devices every single year let alone upgrade every single year. A product cycle generally spans several years.

In terms of mobile devices, as their employees rely on these for productivity and if they don't want to use the devices then productivity suffers along with morale. Case in point enterprises, corporations, government departments et al at one point solely used blackberry devices but as productivity through mobile devices became mainstream they switched to the iphone.

The NOAA (The United States’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) is just one example,
https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/noaa-iphone/

Unfortunately for Blackberry they didn't have a diverse portfolio to leverage from so they had to charge too much to cover their overheards as a result they drove their customers away. At one point everyone had a blackberry phone and BBM was practically everywhere but in a short of span of time it went kaput. The reason why Microsoft has been around for this long is that they have been able to offset losses, sure there are other reasons but if you cannot break even to even off set your overheards then your going to go bankrupt.

So going back to point of does Micrsoft need consumers?

Yes, they absolutely do if they want to see out the next decade beyond that it's anyones guess.

 

[theefman]

So far they seem to be doing ok without a strong consumer presence beyond Xbox. More importantly consumers are getting along fine without a Microsoft mobile hardware offering and i suspect nothing will change that. And with profits continuing to roll in Microsoft themselves don't seem too bothered.

Sent from mTalk

 

[Ryujingt3]

Personally I feel the arguments have been rehashed so many times that people are frankly exhausted.

Simply put, Microsoft needs their own Windows based mobile play as without it PWAs and UWPs fall flat thus completely wasting the decades of work unifying the Windows Core.

No company can survive in the long term without a consumers, it's profoundly naive to think that solely relying on the enterprise is sustainable.

Enterprises and corporations do not buy devices every single year let alone upgrade every single year. A product cycle generally spans several years.

In terms of mobile devices, as their employees rely on these for productivity and if they don't want to use the devices then productivity suffers along with morale. Case in point enterprises, corporations, government departments et al at one point solely used blackberry devices but as productivity through mobile devices became mainstream they switched to the iphone.

The NOAA (The United States’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) is just one example,
https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/noaa-iphone/

Unfortunately for Blackberry they didn't have a diverse portfolio to leverage from so they had to charge too much to cover their overheards as a result they drove their customers away. At one point everyone had a blackberry phone and BBM was practically everywhere but in a short of span of time it went kaput. The reason why Microsoft has been around for this long is that they have been able to offset losses, sure there are other reasons but if you cannot break even to even off set your overheards then your going to go bankrupt.

So going back to point of does Micrsoft need consumers?

Yes, they absolutely do if they want to see out the next decade beyond that it's anyones guess.

I agree that this is just being repeated over and over, ad nausem. We get it. MS have pretty much their entire consumer reputations riding on Andromeda. MS may talk big about focusing only on enterprise but as @TechFreak1 has said, every company needs consumers. It remains to be seen though if the consumers still need MS - early signs point to no. I want Andromeda to succeed but I, like many others here, have been burnt by MS and we have either chosen to switch platforms willingly or, like me, been forced too by MS's blatant abandonment of their own platform and loyal fans.

 

[a5cent]

No company can survive in the long term without a consumers, it's profoundly naive to think that solely relying on the enterprise is sustainable.

MS may talk big about focusing only on enterprise [snipped] but every company needs consumers.

I disagree.

Consumers are hype and fad-chasing, high-risk and low-margin customers. Only if your business model relies primarily on high volume sales must you target consumers. Otherwise you'll be better off ignoring them.

IBM or SAP are two huge software corporations that have been around for a long time. Neither of them have cared about consumers in decades but they reliably generate huge profits and are absolutely sustainable. IMHO their existence proves software companies can get on just fine without consumers.

MS doesn't need consumers. Some of MS' offerings do however, foremost Windows and UWP.

MS has spent two decades restructuring Windows so it can run on a very wide range of hardware, large and small, from cloud server farms, to tablets, to gaming consoles and to IoT devices. That is a high-volume low-margin platform strategy that can't succeed without consumers. That represents at most 1/3 of MS' revenue however. Losing that would hurt, but it's no longer essential.

 

[nate0]

I disagree.
MS has spent two decades restructuring Windows so it can run on a very wide range of hardware, large and small, from cloud server farms, to tablets, to gaming consoles and to IoT devices. That is a high-volume low-margin platform strategy that can't succeed without consumers. That represents at most 1/3 of MS' revenue however. Losing that would hurt, but it's no longer essential.

...and in that they have just about positioned themselves to operate with less of a consumer facing approach today. Lets face it though, Windows/Desktops got them where they are today. They can't, at this point in time completely wipe themselves clean of the consumers they have served for the decades past. However, in futures time that could eventually make itself into a 180...

 

[a5cent]

They can't, at this point in time completely wipe themselves clean of the consumers they have served for the decades past.

Well, MS could, but obviously they won't. ;-)

Windows still brings in billions of dollars in revenue annually. MS will either milk Windows for what it's worth (until the trouble isn't worth the effort, which is still decades off), or find a way to leverage the yet unrealized potential in UWP.

I'm just wondering how much is riding on andromeda from a consumer perspective

I assume that "Andromeda" refers to MS' foldable mobile device (I'll call it FMD).

We currently know next to nothing about the FMD's hardware or OS. Even if we did, and it is aimed squarely at the consumer market (which I doubt), it's very unlikely to be a silver bullet, nor does it have to be. As a guage for judging MS' consumer focus, I think it's worthless, or only indirectly of any importance.

For example, assume PWAs turn out to be the exclusive means by which developers provide user-facing features to FMD users. In this scenario, FMDs aren't achieving much for MS. At best, assuming they could eventually replace people's Android devices (unlikely), it would help in weakening Google's hold on the mobile market, but it wouldn't strengthen MS' position at all. It might motivate MS to continue fighting somewhat longer, but if UWP never gains traction then the likelihood that MS will focus more on consumers becomes smaller, despite potentially great FMD sales numbers.

If MS' FMDs utterly fail in the market, but UWP suddenly becomes very popular for game development, then the likelihood that MS will focus more on consumers becomes larger, despite miserable FMD sales numbers.

OP, to answer your question, you should be looking at UWP's popularity as a development platform. Not FMD sales.

 

[BajanSaint69]

If Andromeda works out it will change everything. If it flops it won't break Microsoft. I do think you should be thinking of it more as an extension of the Surface computer line and less as a phone.

I also do think that when it is unveiled the "abandoning of mobile" will make more sense.

A bigger question is, what does "success" for Andromeda look like? I personally think "surface 1" not iPhone is what we are looking at. I think we might go through an update or two before it gains traction.

 

[anon(10440410)]

As much as I hate to admit it MS will probably be fine financially for some time (at least a decade) without releasing Andromeda. They have their existing Enterprise customers signing up in droves for Azure to thank for that. But it will not be a MS most of us on this site will be interested in or proud of. And I think it's rather shortsighted on MS' part financially too.

Without a real presence in mobile they run the real risk of losing the interest of young people looking into a career as a developer. I mean seriously, if a kid asked me today what programming platforms he should learn for a long, productive career in IT, right now I'd have to say learn how to program for iOS, Android, and Alexa. Why? One reason... MS has zero mobile presence.

And without developers you lose innovation. Without innovation you begin to decay. So yeah... a lot is riding on Andromeda.

 

[techiez]

I dont Ms has anything riding on Andromeda, but seems Windowscentral has a lot riding on it, they have given it unnecessary hype, this device may not be a phone replacement at all but rather a ceo device which ppl might carry as an ipad replacement.

 

[techiez]

iOS, Android, and Alexa.

I dont think thats all to programming, there's a lot lot lot of programming on the enterprise side that has nothing to do with IOS, Android and Alexa, its not as if those groups are losing developers or facing crunch because ppl cant see beyond IOS, Android and Alexa.

 

[drewsuruncle]

Sorry if this has been rehashed over and over again, I don't get on the forums too often.

I don't think MS is going away anytime soon, but I think they will struggle to be anything other than another IBM if Andromeda doesn't catch on. Plus it makes me wonder how many more times will they try to capture the mobile/smaller screen market? Either way it will be interesting to see how it all unfolds.

 

[a5cent]

... but I think they will struggle to be anything other than another IBM if Andromeda doesn't catch on. Plus it makes me wonder how many more times will they try to capture the mobile/smaller screen market?

More interesting than your opinion would be the reasoning that lead you to it.

• What is so magical about a 5" screen that MS must sell millions of such devices, or almost invariably become irrelevant to consumers, i.e. drop XBox, kill off PC-gaming, stop selling Office to non-corporations? That's what you're saying, so you'd have to explain where that magical link is between small screens and all of MS' other consumer efforts.
• Do you really think the entire consumer strategy of a 100'000 employee SOFTWARE company hinges on the fate of a single HARDWARE device? Such an extraordinary claim requires some extraordinary reasoning IMHO.
• What exactly do you mean when you say "capture the mobile/smaller screen market". It sounds like you think these FMDs will compete directly with iOS and Android, but MS has already told us that they will not. What exactly is, in your view, the difference between FMDs catching on and them not catching on (in numbers), and why does one lead to the demise of MS' consumer efforts while the other does not?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying MS can't shutter their consumer efforts. They can and they might. What I am saying is that the success of MS' FMD, measured in sales numbers, particularly in comparison to iOS or Android is entirely irrelevant in this regard.

The UWP is the development platform for MS' consumerized OS. There is no long-term future for Win32 in the consumer world, as it no longer provides what consumers expect from an OS and Win32 can't be extended in that way without sacrificing compatibility. Creating a path for the two billion or so Windows users and all Windows developers to transition from Win32 to UWP is what this is all about. That transition is what MS' FMDs must help achieve. If that transition fails, then MS will eventually say goodbye to their consumer efforts, as they don't have a viable ecosystem to bring those consumers into.

There are many ways MS could help that transition along. Whatever approach MS takes, this time it may not rely on very high sales volumes and taking a cut from dinky $1.50 apps. When MS states that FMDs will not be smartphones, I suspect that difference is the gist of what they are referring to. In contrast to smartphones, which exist in their own isolated ecosystem, laptops, desktops and FMDs will all exist in one single and unified ecosystem. FMDs just represent the ultra-mobile arm of that single ecosystem. So, in contrast to iOS and Android, FMDs also aren't required to carry the UWP ecosystem entirely on their own.

The main point of all this is, as always, economics. The way developers make profitability projections for UWP software will (hopefully) be very different from how they make them for smartphone apps. How that affects the degree to which developers engage with the UWP, and the degree to which FMDs contribute to that, is what we must understand in order to judge whether FMDs are successful or not.

I doubt I've made this simple enough that everyone can understand it. It's a large topic, but I hope it makes sense to at least some people.

 

[a5cent]

iOS, Android, and Alexa.

I dont think thats all to programming, there's a lot lot lot of programming on the enterprise side that has nothing to do with IOS, Android and Alexa, its not as if those groups are losing developers or facing crunch because ppl cant see beyond IOS, Android and Alexa.

All good points.

To program iOS, Android or Alexa apps is actually rather poor career advice. Pretty much nobody developing software for those platforms is doing anything of strategic importance. In the eyes of upper management these people are usually low on the corporate ladder and not well paid. It's also the first thing you'd outsource to India.

It's far better to work on the back end services which apps are likely to communicate with. From a corporate point of view those are far more important, despite them being much less visible to the average consumer.

If, on the other hand, your aim is to actually work on developing iOS, Android or Alexa, then that is of course also a good idea, but that requires a far more extensive skill set than the typical app developer has. That skill set can also land you a job at MS working on Windows.

 

[drewsuruncle]

a5cent, since you asked, I'll try to lay out my reasoning as to why I am concerned about MS's mobile and consumer efforts, and address your questions. I am no tech insider, just a normal guy that likes MS, and all I really have to go on is my experience and what I see going on around me. Here's a brief list:

1. MS tried and failed miserably at phones.
2. MS tried and failed miserably at tablets. (not Surface or 2-1's)
3. They have axed phones, band, groove, etc. which shows they will can it if it isn't working.
4. None of my family or friends uses MS apps on their phones.
5. Without mobile devices the windows ecosystem has a huge hole.

Those are just a few that I came up with real quick.

• You asked what is so magical about a 5" device? The magic is that these devices sell something like 6 or 7 to one to pc's. What's magical about these devices is the fact that Apple generates more revenues from the iPhone than MS as a whole.
• Do I think the whole company's future rests on one device? No. Obviously MS has lots going on other than Andromeda. But, are there any other rumored devices or plans for consumer mobile/portable/ arena? Not that I know of. Is it really that extraordinary to believe that a company that was on top of the market, and had no answer for both Apple and Google's mobile efforts for over 10 years, might not be able to get it right now?
• What do I mean by capturing the mobile/ smaller screen market? What I mean by this is that there are NO phones or tablets running an operating system made by MS. Currently, there isn't a FMD device either.
• I don't think MS has to sell a billion FMD's to be successful, but it does have to sell enough to make it a viable ongoing product.

I really think this device has to be like the original iphone was to smart phones or at least a big step in that direction. Success for the device could come in several ways, it could mean that it sells enough to be profitable, or it provides the blueprint for OEM's to copy and the MS ecosytem expands UWP takes off, etc. As of now we have no Windows portable/mobile/device I can put in my pocket, and until then MS will be limited to PC's, Xbox, enterpise (not that there's anything wrong with that).

 

[drewsuruncle]

If Andromeda works out it will change everything.

I also do think that when it is unveiled the "abandoning of mobile" will make more sense.

Care to expand on that? I'm honestly interested to know why you think this.

 

[BajanSaint69]

I've always held the view that Microsoft's abandoning of Windows 10 Mobile was because of its stated strategy of bringing mobile to a place where mobile devices would run desktop applications. MS had said this several times over the years in as many words. When Windows 10 was launched they said mobile was taking a back seat for two years. Despite saying this was the plan, every time they have implemented a step in the plan we have had howls of indignation on this board about how Microsoft has "betrayed consumers" or abandoned them. Or that Nadella doesn't know what he's doing.

Nadella is doing what he said he would. Andromeda (if it works) will render the App gap irrelevant as he can offer developers a market that includes all the windows desktops as well as an experimental new mobile platform. Andromeda OS is a mobile strategy that plays to Microsoft's strengths instead of being another me too platform in an Android IOS world. It has the potential to be a viable 3rd option as a mobile OS. (If it works)

When it is finally unveiled and people can see a device and an OS i think many people will "get" what MS has been doing and why Windows 10 Mobile was a dead end.

 

[a5cent]

@drewsuruncle

Thanks for your reply. I don't feel that you really answered my questions, or even got close to an answer, but that's not your fault. To get to a few core statements which I'd consider valid answers I'd have to ask you many more questions, which neither of us would be willing to deal with on a forum like this.

Just a few clarifications:

Do I think the whole company's future rests on one device? No. Obviously MS has lots going on other than Andromeda.

That's not what I asked. I asked whether you truly believe MS' entire consumer strategy might rest on the fortunes of a a single hardware device, not whether the entire company's future might rest on it, which is even more absurd.

You asked what is so magical about a 5" device? The magic is that these devices sell something like 6 or 7 to one to pc's.

I don't think MS has to sell a billion FMD's to be successful, but it does have to sell enough to make it a viable ongoing product.

Statements like the above suggest to me that you simply can't get past the idea that MS' FMD is about generating revenue, as generating enough of it is the only way for a product to become viable.

That's simply not what FMDs are for. If you can't drop that idea, then you will never understand where MS is headed with this. Your incorrect expectations will necessarily set you up for disappointment.

Companies like Google already demonstrate the fallacy. Their revenue from smartphone and Android sales is pretty close to zero. In your eyes that would make Android completely nonviable, yet Google continues to invest close to a billion into its development annually. Android is only a support product. Its purpose is to help Google monetize corporate advertisements. MS is taking the same approach, only they aim to monetize corporate developers. Neither is going after consumers directly. The only company with that approach is Apple. While Apple is hot now, they are following a very high-risk strategy, as the majority of their income is tied to a single product and consumer's view of that product. Those income streams can evaporate just as quickly as their perceived coolness.

Whatever this FMD turns out to be, I can guarantee you its designers don't intend for it to be to iOS and Android what "the original iPhone was to existing smartphones". Instead, expect it to be something like the Surface Studio, i.e. something designed to do well in a specific niche. At least initially.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[nate0]

I've always held the view that Microsoft's abandoning of Windows 10 Mobile was because of its stated strategy of bringing mobile to a place where mobile devices would run desktop applications. MS had said this several times over the years in as many words. When Windows 10 was launched they said mobile was taking a back seat for two years. Despite saying this was the plan, every time they have implemented a step in the plan we have had howls of indignation on this board about how Microsoft has "betrayed consumers" or abandoned them. Or that Nadella doesn't know what he's doing.

Nadella is doing what he said he would. Andromeda (if it works) will render the App gap irrelevant as he can offer developers a market that includes all the windows desktops as well as an experimental new mobile platform. Andromeda OS is a mobile strategy that plays to Microsoft's strengths instead of being another me too platform in an Android IOS world. It has the potential to be a viable 3rd option as a mobile OS. (If it works)

When it is finally unveiled and people can see a device and an OS i think many people will "get" what MS has been doing and why Windows 10 Mobile was a dead end.

You're correct in that it's by design (planned).

I read a post long back that detailed Microsoft had this plan even at the launch event of the Lumia 950s. I don't know all the details and don't plan to act like I do. Microsoft has done almost all they can to sustain their services (MaaS/WaaS if you will...) which is their core and driver for their entire existence. Like @a5cent called them FMDs...these FMDs are only a puzzle piece or building block for their continued development/improvement of Windows and Microsoft as a service...at least that's how I've viewed it since realizing what uwp is and the end of the Lumia line when it came.

 

[jlangner]

So we will have Andromeda vs Galaxy X. Who will release first