Just got my lumia 950 xl, love WP 10! Why is WP having a hard time?

[nasznjoka]

If you want to actually address any of the points I made about the limitations of development funding in the smartphone market, I'll be here. In the mean time facts speak for themselves- desktop browsers are html5 compatible, extension compatible, smartphone browsers are not. There is nothing of development wise generally that compares to desktop.

You'll literally never get adobe photoshop or illustrator for smartphone, and that's obvious, and I'd probably stake my life on it. You can order a pizza, or a cab, and honestly, sincerely, that's great.

But if you expect big money to fund real power, smartphone users will have to dish up more than three bucks, or watching a few ads for it. What you are expecting is quality programming on broadcast tv. Money for nothing and your chicks for free.

I've never used a windows 10 mobile device _in my life_, and I work with android and windows 10 (home pro) as a job.

I was pretty wowed by android like you at first. Then the freemium quality development and buggy, shallow programming got old real fast. In terms of software quality, power and depth - android is second rate. ios beats it. Windows 10 is lightyears ahead. And that's a simple reflection of the marker. Smartphone users actually cringe at the idea of paying four bucks. Desktop users will pay over a hundred if the quality delivers.

Its not a reflection on android. Android is a nice lightweight os, with a simplistic, secure, but flexible focus. It's more stable than ios too. I like it. But its, as a marketplace, driver by smartphone users. And they don't pay. They want their cake and eat it too.

As much as I hate apples closed model. I'd pick them for software quality. If it wasn't for google's efforts in core apps, android would be well behind the curve.

Smartphones are getting old in mature markets too, like I said. Slow device turnover, lost growth. The wave crashes, next year or this. The growth turns.

Next things will be better, google and apple included.

Agreed about it being limited for now in terms of software quality and it's a good thing it is limited cause that's the power of it I just pointed out... The power of a smartphone is almost infinity and what we are doing right now is a very small portion of that power (I'm a software eng as well).. The desktop software will slowly be transformed into light apps that can deliver the same output in a very convenient way unless the output and inputs can't be convenient enough to be usable in a small form factor which again can change due to improvement in the tech

 

[Drael646464]

Agreed about it being limited for now in terms of software quality and it's a good thing it is limited cause that's the power of it I just pointed out... The power of a smartphone is almost infinity and what we are doing right now is a very small portion of that power (I'm a software eng as well).. The desktop software will slowly be transformed into light apps that can deliver the same output in a very convenient way unless the output and inputs can't be convenient enough to be usable in a small form factor which again can change due to improvement in the tech

Well if people pay for it, it will. If they don't it won't.

Currently desktop and tablet markets pay. Smartphone don't. Not unless your juicing with AAA apps and games, and plying with ads.

Personally I doubt small form factor, in terms of little touch screens will last (voice will rise, folding will come in, and AR). But that's another topic!

For right now, it's really, the point I was making, about the dollar. Even apple admit that the prices of app purchases are too low to allow depth or quality.

If say, adobe illustrator were to be a smartphone app - can you see that being funded? Would people even want to spend that money if they could only use it on a small screen?

It's really similar to the broadcast versus cable paradigm. Celebrity chef versus game of thrones. Android and ios both are held up by a boom. And if you look at software quality barely. Adoption. Which has already turned in mature markets. What happens when the 3 dollar purchases aren't driven by new users and start to shrink? When device turnover shrinks?

It's the same as tv. Initially broadcast ruled. Then people realised they could pay instead of having low quality and ads. Now we live in the age of cable and streaming. People pay, because they don't want the hassle.

It's not good for developers, cheap customers. What they want, devs, is maximum users, maximum profit. A hybrid OS, that applies to every new and old innovation. Where you code once, and get console, PC, tablet, smartphone, smartwatch, smartscale, personal dehudimifier, voice, touch and VR sex, lol. Maximum monetary input for each line of code.

We are at the crest of a boom driven by two dollar purchases. It's platform locked, input locked, and form factor locked. It's not going to last anymore than free to air TV is.

I don't even think you'll need AI or VR or AR to make it look bad. IMO it'll age before it's even superceeded

 

[Jean Claude Lopez]

Windows Phone is suffering something called "Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Syndrome". The fans suddenly started panicking when Snapchat decided not to make an app for it, and they started jumping ship in droves because "it was dying". Suddenly other started jumping because other's started jumping. Developers stopped making apps because users were leaving, and now users are leaving because...well, all of the above. But, if you like WP, who cares who's using it? It has a simpler Facebook app, a Twitter, a bunch of smaller apps, ports. There's apps if you're willing to try smaller developers. The OS deserves a chance. WebOS is dead now, Ubuntu Phone is dead, Palm is dead. Google and Apple are jumping of joy watching Windows Phone "die", but I think it's not good for tech if it goes away. #SaveWindowsPhone lol

 

[thomasthomaslai]

well said! when webos / bb10 gave up it was very abrupt end. there is still considerable investment in updates (although some thing not enough "new stuff ") but i thought it is fine. if they can emulate android apps then i think that solves really most of the problems.

 

[nasznjoka]

Well if people pay for it, it will. If they don't it won't.

Currently desktop and tablet markets pay. Smartphone don't. Not unless your juicing with AAA apps and games, and plying with ads.

Personally I doubt small form factor, in terms of little touch screens will last (voice will rise, folding will come in, and AR). But that's another topic!

For right now, it's really, the point I was making, about the dollar. Even apple admit that the prices of app purchases are too low to allow depth or quality.

If say, adobe illustrator were to be a smartphone app - can you see that being funded? Would people even want to spend that money if they could only use it on a small screen?

It's really similar to the broadcast versus cable paradigm. Celebrity chef versus game of thrones. Android and ios both are held up by a boom. And if you look at software quality barely. Adoption. Which has already turned in mature markets. What happens when the 3 dollar purchases aren't driven by new users and start to shrink? When device turnover shrinks?

It's the same as tv. Initially broadcast ruled. Then people realised they could pay instead of having low quality and ads. Now we live in the age of cable and streaming. People pay, because they don't want the hassle.

It's not good for developers, cheap customers. What they want, devs, is maximum users, maximum profit. A hybrid OS, that applies to every new and old innovation. Where you code once, and get console, PC, tablet, smartphone, smartwatch, smartscale, personal dehudimifier, voice, touch and VR sex, lol. Maximum monetary input for each line of code.

We are at the crest of a boom driven by two dollar purchases. It's platform locked, input locked, and form factor locked. It's not going to last anymore than free to air TV is.

I don't even think you'll need AI or VR or AR to make it look bad. IMO it'll age before it's even superceeded

Then you're mixing things up... In economics they say you can sell high prices and sell less.. Or you can sell low prices and sell more, in the end low prices with large can be paying more than the other way around. Example in the Play Store Minecraft is the most selling app I was more than 10 million downloads going at $7. I'm not sure about the statistics of the desktop software but I assume it could be less than the mobile sales... Bottom line pricing doesn't matter if the demand is there

 

[Drael646464]

Then you're mixing things up... In economics they say you can sell high prices and sell less.. Or you can sell low prices and sell more, in the end low prices with large can be paying more than the other way around. Example in the Play Store Minecraft is the most selling app I was more than 10 million downloads going at $7. I'm not sure about the statistics of the desktop software but I assume it could be less than the mobile sales... Bottom line pricing doesn't matter if the demand is there

Tell that to broadcast tv

Minecraft btw, is owned by MS. Seven dollars though, is comparatively a premium price. Get most users to pay that for everything and I think you'll have the recipe for gold, especially considering Netflix is like what, ten bucks a month?

You are right volume matters too. But be honest - most users won't pay a dime for the average app. And nobody could fund complexity like abode core products, oracle, fruity loops, or a quality fps on 3 dollar chip ins. Like game of thrones, people have to pay proper money if they want it made. There is no gamelofting that shizz. Like tv, in the end pay per view wins over cheap consumers.

Given the choice, you don't just want three dollar consumers. You want them all. Maximum quality, maximum profit. If cheap got everything done, we'd be living in caves. Its the intersection that drives. The intersection being hybrid.

 

[Tre Lawrence]

well said! when webos / bb10 gave up it was very abrupt end. there is still considerable investment in updates (although some thing not enough "new stuff ") but i thought it is fine. if they can emulate android apps then i think that solves really most of the problems.

I am not a fan of Android emulation as a solution. In the long run, I think that benefits Android, not WP.

 

[envio]

Do you think UWP is for mobile devices? Like a market strategy for windows 10 mobile? And do you also think that what MS is doing with UWP and UWA has even really started properly?

Right now it is yes, although you can add Xbox/Hololens more easily into that mix given how one interacts with those device platforms. It's still a thing that fits best on mobile, partly because of how many of these apps are designed as single-task oriented applications and that use innovative controls and gestures on a small screen.

There are so many traditional x86 apps on the desktop side that are deeply entrenched and critical for business and consumers alike that it'll take a massive shift for that to change, if ever. Also, why would I use a crippled Adobe Reader UWP when I've got Adobe Reader x86 and so it goes on.

 

[FirstWatt]

Why is WP having a hard time?

- No dedication from the important people at MS since Start of WP7
- No love from the important people at MS since Start of WP7
- No awareness that there IS something outside the US that is even spending Money on something called Smartphone. And that this "something" (called customer btw) is wanting to see MS dedicating it a chunk of work (some Keywords: Cortana, Bing)
- No awareness that the customers pay the bill, and therefore not paying attention to uservoice, which had quite some momentum in 2012/2013
- after a first "reboot" (WM6.5 to WP7) no roadmap and strategy to migrate SMOOTHLY and AT THE RIGHT TIME to newer platforms. With smoothly I mean to allow the developers build apps which are, at least for some time, backward compatible, and fully forward compatible, perhaps by giving them superior dev tools.
- too early switch to W10M, before it was mature enough for mobile
- starting 2014/2015, almost no new handsets and the wrong belief that manufacturers would jump in after the NOKIA dismantling
- too high revenue goals from the App store, insead of building up momentum first with attracting good developers

In hindsight, all is easy, I know. But many points have been obvious already at that time.
It's pretty sad, tbh. What a failure from such a company.

 

[envio]

Take Facebook for instance. It's available for android, ios and Windows . The windows version is completely out of date. Android and ios get updates every week. The windows 10 Mobile version hasnt been updated in 6 months

There's also alot of big name apps like chase bank, targets cartwheel app, paypal, ebay, Comcast xfinity app, and plenty others that aren't on windows 10 Mobile at all.

Sent from Idol 4s

I used to think like that, frustrated at the lack of updates for tier 1 apps like Facebook but you've already mentioned half the answer. Facebook on iOS and Android is clear - people use the app because the service fits and suits the mobile app platform best and for all the other reasons given, Windows Phone usage is really small.

Windows as a whole is much more complicated, it covers PC, mobile, holographic, Hub, iOT, Xbox. It might have been easier to have left the Windows Phone Store (nee Marketplace) on its own but Microsoft took the decision to merge all the stores together and the app models. The vast majority of the apps that are in my Store library only work on mobile, have seldom been updated and far fewer have been updated to work on the PC. Why? Well partly because people use their desktops differently, most people don't have touch monitors or want to use gestures on their PC.

How often do I use the Facebook app on my desktop, almost never since it's actually a better experience on the website which has all the latest rich features. There's little incentive to push the latest into the Facebook app which is now built for PC and Mobile. It's not to say that Facebook couldn't better serve 400 million+ users on Windows 10 PCs with their app but that they already do that in the browser.

Until devs see the unique potential of the entire Windows ecosystem and aren't as obsessed and intoxicated with mobile, we won't see any explosive growth in UWP. At the same time, until Microsoft figures out a way to sell and harness that unique potential to devs, things won't change either.

 

[Tom Mein]

May I suggest that you go and buy a Xiaomi Mi5 or Mi6 and compare either of these two phones to any Windows phone, the Mi5 and Mi6 are streets ahead.
Also download the MIUI Forum app and join in the community, the support is brilliant.
Then compare that to the support that Microsoft has given to people that have bought a Surface 2 tablet, a Band 2 or a Lumia phone.

 

[nCogNeato]

Phone will not work on my provider, have have to send it back. Wish I could of tried it longer but just was not in the cards. The OS how ever can be something, it's not to late at all. The smooth looking Windows OS was so easy to get use to. I hope Windows Phone gets better then it has ever been before.

We all do, buddy.

But until then, I'll be joining you when the new Nokia 6 releases in the US.

 

[noelito]

thats an excellent idea, i have always wanted a w10m rom on an android phone, it would be incredible to escape those awful lumia cameras and its horrid algorithms, its delays in taking photos and wide range of choices in handsets to choose from

 

[ED the new guy]

Why is Windows Phone having such a bad time?

Because of a few things:
#1 iOS and Android are having a great time.

It's hard to beat competitors who have all the software and hardware a user could wish for. Apple has ALL the software a user could wish for on rock-solid, premium hardware with a MASSIVE user base.

Android runs acceptably on CHEAP hardware. Thus, even though its users have little money to spend and margins on hardware are razor thin, it does have a decent sized user base. In line with its position as #2 , it has an acceptable but distinctly inferior selection of software.

Windows Mobile is just so far behind second place Android that it's not funny. WP runs only on expensive hardware which is VERY difficult to buy. It has an app selection that is non-existent and because its user base is TINY software developers don't bother supporting it.

PS Global number of users is irrelevant. Android is an ecosystem that is fragmented among dozens of manufacturers and as many major and minor versions of Android. iOS is one version with only one manufacturer. iOS is so much more valuable than the whole of Android that it's not even funny.

#2 Lack of Developers

In the early days of tablets there was this thing called a BlackBerry PlayBook. Great hardware. Decent interface (once you got used to it). Incredible security. They could easily go head-to-head with iPads. However, the iPad completely and utterly destroyed the PlayBook. Eventually BB added an Android VM to the BB to allow it to run Android apks, but, all that did was cause the already anemic PlayBook app store to implode.

It's the same for Windows Mobile. So few mobile devices run Windows that developers just don't want to develop for it.

#3 Microsoft's support

Either Microsoft needs to the be the sole source provider of hardware like Apple, or, it needs to have a competitor-based ecosystem like Google.

A hybrid situation where Microsoft produces hardware AND allows third parties to produce hardware simply isn't enticing to third parties. Why compete with a manufacturer that is likely to give itself all the inside advantages that third parties don't get.

#4 Android

Android is free of licencing fees. It's not great. It's insanely fragmented, but, each hand set manufacturer can put their own stamp on Android. It means that the hand set companies are free to do what they feel like (provided the adhere to the requirements to be allowed to pre-install Google's services if they want Google services).

In a way it behooves Microsoft to fork Android and to use it to build its own Microsoft-centric version of Android. They could put their own stamp on Android and Google would be forced to port their services.

#5 The future?

Who knows? The technology Microsoft has is good. The problem is mobile market share. A good idea won't dominate in the face of other established good ideas (and, make no mistake, iOS is great and Android is good).

For Microsoft to grow Windows Mobile they either need to set Windows Mobile free or they need to become the sole-source provider of hardware. They've abandoned the latter approach, so, are they going to do the former like they did with PCs and the various versions of Windows?

 

[thekonger]

The root reason is very simple and I'm surprised how many users here simply don't understand it. Not that some don't and perhaps this has been mentioned, but the real reason Window's Phone is virtually dead is because 5+ years ago when it had a chance to make a mark it didn't or couldn't get all of their phone models on all major carriers. And that, quite simply, resulted in no new market share and a mass exodus of current users from WP. Less users, developers leave, less apps, rinse, lather, repeat.

In 2012 WP8 was launched to pretty great reviews. I had my eye on the Lumia 920 but found each carrier had exclusives and some carriers only had the crappiest Windows Phones available. I ended up switching from Sprint to AT&T just to get a 920, even though it cost me more each year. With WP8 seeming to be on a role I figured after my 2 year contract was up there would be a lot more WPs on all carriers and I could go back to Sprint. My enthusiasm (like many other's) was stoked when MS bought Nokia in 2013. They had to be serious if they shelled that kind of money out, right?

Well, apparently not, because soon after MS started making some pretty idiotic decisions. Instead of improving their relationship with US carriers and making all their models from their best to their budget available in all carrier stores they actually seemed to worsen those relationships. US carriers, who never really pushed WP in the first place, seemed to show even less interest in them. By the time my 2 year contract was up Sprint still had the same WP phones it had 2 years earlier with no new offerings at all. The Sprint store near me didn't even have any WPs on display.

If I wanted to get a new WP phone on Sprint I had to pay full price for it online and wait for it to get shipped to me. And even then my choice of phones was limited because not all WP phones supported CDMA. Sorry, that doesn't work in the real world. In reality the vast majority of phone buyers want to walk into a store, pick a phone out, set up a payment plan, and walk out with their shiny new phones. Yet for some inexplicable reason MS chose an online, full-price sales model with the exception of a few phones here and there.

So in 2015 I, like probably many others, reluctantly chose one of the Android (or iPhone) phones I could see and test right there in the store and left WP. I actually hoped MS would get their act together and aggressively start working with carriers so I might be able to jump back when my contract expired. But no, didn't happen, in fact Sprint doesn't even have any WPs listed on their web site anymore. So I once again went Android and got a Samsung S8+. At least I can use Launcher 8 to make my phone look like a WP.

So in a nutshell, that's why WP is having a hard time. MS may comeback and produce some killer phones, but until they find a way to get all of their models on all carriers and in stores WP will always be a niche device. And even if they do it will be a hard battle, they're going to have to win back consumers and make up for 5+ years of stupidity.

 

[fatclue_98]

The root reason is very simple and I'm surprised how many users here simply don't understand it. Not that some don't and perhaps this has been mentioned, but the real reason Window's Phone is virtually dead is because 5+ years ago when it had a chance to make a mark it didn't or couldn't get all of their phone models on all major carriers. And that, quite simply, resulted in no new market share and a mass exodus of current users from WP. Less users, developers leave, less apps, rinse, lather, repeat.

In 2012 WP8 was launched to pretty great reviews. I had my eye on the Lumia 920 but found each carrier had exclusives and some carriers only had the crappiest Windows Phones available. I ended up switching from Sprint to AT&T just to get a 920, even though it cost me more each year. With WP8 seeming to be on a role I figured after my 2 year contract was up there would be a lot more WPs on all carriers and I could go back to Sprint. My enthusiasm (like many other's) was stoked when MS bought Nokia in 2013. They had to be serious if they shelled that kind of money out, right?

Well, apparently not, because soon after MS started making some pretty idiotic decisions. Instead of improving their relationship with US carriers and making all their models from their best to their budget available in all carrier stores they actually seemed to worsen those relationships. US carriers, who never really pushed WP in the first place, seemed to show even less interest in them. By the time my 2 year contract was up Sprint still had the same WP phones it had 2 years earlier with no new offerings at all. The Sprint store near me didn't even have any WPs on display.

If I wanted to get a new WP phone on Sprint I had to pay full price for it online and wait for it to get shipped to me. And even then my choice of phones was limited because not all WP phones supported CDMA. Sorry, that doesn't work in the real world. In reality the vast majority of phone buyers want to walk into a store, pick a phone out, set up a payment plan, and walk out with their shiny new phones. Yet for some inexplicable reason MS chose an online, full-price sales model with the exception of a few phones here and there.

So in 2015 I, like probably many others, reluctantly chose one of the Android (or iPhone) phones I could see and test right there in the store and left WP. I actually hoped MS would get their act together and aggressively start working with carriers so I might be able to jump back when my contract expired. But no, didn't happen, in fact Sprint doesn't even have any WPs listed on their web site anymore. So I once again went Android and got a Samsung S8+. At least I can use Launcher 8 to make my phone look like a WP.

So in a nutshell, that's why WP is having a hard time. MS may comeback and produce some killer phones, but until they find a way to get all of their models on all carriers and in stores WP will always be a niche device. And even if they do it will be a hard battle, they're going to have to win back consumers and make up for 5+ years of stupidity.

That explains the US. What about the rest of the world that doesn't use CDMA?

Sent from Alcatel Idol 4S with Windows via mTalk

 

[Ben Wolgus]

Yes, you hit the nail on the head. Microsoft is not trying. I have had Windows phones since the very beginning and unfortunately they just never really tried to win over this market. Each effort is half hearted or they just give up. The OS was slowly gaining momentum in Europe but Microsoft decided it wasn't enough and basically shut down the hardware side of things and ever since then people have speculated that the OS is dead even though to their credit MS does seem to be releasing a good number of updates and a few new features here and there.

 

[Drael646464]

Right now it is yes, although you can add Xbox/Hololens more easily into that mix given how one interacts with those device platforms. It's still a thing that fits best on mobile, partly because of how many of these apps are designed as single-task oriented applications and that use innovative controls and gestures on a small screen.

There are so many traditional x86 apps on the desktop side that are deeply entrenched and critical for business and consumers alike that it'll take a massive shift for that to change, if ever. Also, why would I use a crippled Adobe Reader UWP when I've got Adobe Reader x86 and so it goes on.

According to the small survey I did on here, over half of people use UWPs on the desktop, tablet and laptop. Some prefer the speed, or the fact they are single task orientated. I'd say most people on a tablet use UWPs. And they are definitely handy on an xbox, or HoloLens.

There's definitely an entrenched PC user base that is sort of philosophically opposed to UWPs on desktop in some way too. Or maybe they are just more along the lines of power users who browse 50 tabs at a time. IDK, perhaps something in between.

Sometimes for me on the desktop, the option is clear in favour of one or the other - little difference, okay UWP because it'll be faster, big functional differences, okay x86.

I use web apps and UWPs and UWAs from the store, primarily on my tablet, but some on my desktop. In some cases, the increased simplicity, dedicatedness is welcome on bigger screens, for me. In particular the lightweightness.

Keep in mind everything like groove, weather - are UWP too. Edge too I believe. And that's no slouch as a browser, hardly android browser league.

MS didn't unify the platform just for phones IMO. They unified to create their "one OS on many devices". Something that has only partially taken shape. We will see it taking more form with windows cloud, windows on arm, scorpio, the IoT core etc.

I'm sure the lightweight nature of UWPs will be equally welcome on wearables.

Of course there's UWAs as well as UWPs. x86 programs that run on different hardware platforms (like say, console and PC), and that's another platform that'll be extended over time, for example by windows on arm.

 

[John Christopoulos]

Apps.
Perception.
Average people have already chosen between iOS & Android.

plus...
Poor marketing if any
Too many promises and no results
users a-banned-oned again: This created users of 2 OSes WP8.1 and w10mobile with a wall between them and no chance to upgrade your older device (well a few did), you could simply byu a 950 though with a buggy OS!!!

 

[Ben Wolgus]

Microsoft should have bought T-Mobile after the AT&T purchase fell through. Instead they spend 26 Billion on linkedin.