My hypothesis why WP doesnt have that many apps

[JamesPTao]

WP8+ has, by far, the broadest support for programming languages. You write programs in C#, VB, C++, JavaScript, etc. And Visual Studio is *far* superior to the iOS and Android development environments. The Win8 requirement isn't a obstacle for anyone but the most casual developer.

IMO, the app gap on WP8+ is due to:

1. Lack of mindshare in the public
2. Lack of marketshare
3. No easy way to generate a WP8 app from iOS or Android source
4. For games, lack of OpenGL ES in WP8

Items #3-4 are more nitpicking; items 1-2 are the biggies. No one cares about WP other than the people on this website. I don't know how MSFT can fix that public perception problem. From the ISV perspective, I think it would be worthwhile for MSFT to create a Xamarin-like version of Visual Studio that can generate apps for all three platforms (get as close as possible to creating an app for iOS, Android, and WP8+ with click of a button).

I believe windows 10 will circumvent this issue. For app writers being able to write one app and then easily be able to release it to the actual 10 os, WP, and rt (if it still exists, will instantly dramatically increase the consumers reached with the app thus increasing profitability and lowering development cost. I believe this will benefit WP strongly as it wont matter if it is still at 4% market share, being able to do this will make the apps profitable for big companies and if you are going to write the desktop metro app why not do minimal work and release it to WP and increase profitability. For Ms this move was brilliant and will strong benefit WP!

 

[Mike Gibson]

I believe windows 10 will circumvent this issue. For app writers being able to write one app and then easily be able to release it to the actual 10 os, WP, and rt (if it still exists, will instantly dramatically increase the consumers reached with the app thus increasing profitability and lowering development cost. I believe this will benefit WP strongly as it wont matter if it is still at 4% market share, being able to do this will make the apps profitable for big companies and if you are going to write the desktop metro app why not do minimal work and release it to WP and increase profitability. For Ms this move was brilliant and will strong benefit WP!

I'm not sure why there's this belief that Win10 will suddenly change things with WinRT/WP and developers. Right now you can already create a shared solution that will generate WinRT81 and WP81 app executables. The problem is that there is no demand for Metro/WP apps. Desktop users want Win32 programs because they have more functionality than Metro apps. Developers don't want to spend precious development time dealing with the huge differences between Win32 and WinRT (which goes all the way down to simple things like reading, writing, and enumerating files).

MSFT blew it with WinRT/WinPRT. They already had a portable OS and API in Win32. All they had to do was create a scalable UI API for Win32, tighten up security in the API, and, most importantly, backport those changes to Win7.

 

[a5cent]

<snipped>
But somewhere, there's a line where overall it's more detrimental to Google's bottom line to withhold apps than to provide them. That line has been crossed with iPhone. WP's market share is still small enough that it hasn't been crossed.

Google wouldn't let potential $$$$$$ lay on the table. WP's market is a total of what, around 50 million. iOS's is pushing 1 billion, which is 20x as many. If Microsoft sold 950 million WPs today, we would see top notch Google apps for WP tomorrow. Even if Google is accounting for the negative effect on sales, it still comes down to market share, or absolute numbers, or whatever you want to call it.

I think the part about "Google not leaving money on the table" may not have been exactly what you wanted to say, because it's clear that is exactly what Google is doing, by not perusing the WP user base. Even an extremely conservative approximation suggests Google is leaving hundreds of million of dollars on the table, annually. I suspect what you meant to say is simply that this uncollected revenue isn't going to waste, because Google is getting something in return, namely suppressed WP growth. That I would agree with.

Otherwise I think we agree on all the substantive issues. I think our disagreement is really only about presentation:

I agree that "if Microsoft sold 950 million WPs today, we would see top notch Google apps for WP tomorrow". However, Google would do so not because that's the point at which it first becomes profitable (that point we already passed), but because ignoring a user base that size poses a huge risk that Google can't afford to ignore. Twisting that into the statement "Google is ignoring WP because its market share is too low" just isn't intellectually honest. That's not why Google is ignoring WP. That's just one circumstance that allows them to ignore WP.

Like you said, nobody leaves money on the table for no reason. Whatever those reasons are, that's why Google is ignoring WP.

 

[tgp]

I think the part about "Google not leaving money on the table" may not have been exactly what you wanted to say, because it's clear that is exactly what Google is doing, by not perusing the WP user base.

No, that's exactly what I wanted to say. You could call it a short-term loss for a long-term gain. Overall the advantage goes to Google. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. You have to look at it from a point of view other than I-love-WP-but-I-wish-it-had-more-apps-including-Google's-so-it-would-gain-market-share-because-even-though-I-wouldn't-admit-it-under-torture-I'm-secretly-afraid-Microsoft-will-pull-the-plug-if-it-doesn't-take-off-soon.

Like you said, nobody leaves money on the table for no reason. Whatever those reasons are, that's why Google is ignoring WP.

OK, if you want to put it that way, I guess you could say that Google is leaving a bit of money on the table now, but down the road they figure they'd lose more. Your reasoning would be like a business not investing money even though the investment would eventually profit in the future. Let's say that Google is "investing" the money they're losing out on now.

Anyway, this is all armchair quarterbacking. None of us know. Your guess is as good as mine, and likewise mine is as good as yours. We don't even know for sure if the amount of WP users is worth it for Google in the first place, not counting the effect on WP adopters. It might be, but it might not be.

 

[mccririck]

I think when Windows Phone has such a small market share it makes it more important that they make sure their own apps are top quality. There are too many apps from Microsoft that lack some thought and effort.

 

[a5cent]

You have to look at it from a point of view other than I-love-WP-but-I-wish-it-had-more-apps-including-Google's-so-it-would-gain-market-share-because-even-though-I-wouldn't-admit-it-under-torture-I'm-secretly-afraid-Microsoft-will-pull-the-plug-if-it-doesn't-take-off-soon.

I've never looked at this issue from that point of view, and I see no reason why anyone should. I'm starting to think you suspect bias in every one of my sentences and you're misunderstanding some of them as a result.

OK, if you want to put it that way, I guess you could say that Google is leaving a bit of money on the table now, but down the road they figure they'd lose more. Your reasoning would be like a business not investing money even though the investment would eventually profit in the future. Let's say that Google is "investing" the money they're losing out on now.

Anyway, this is all armchair quarterbacking. None of us know. Your guess is as good as mine, and likewise mine is as good as yours. We don't even know for sure if the amount of WP users is worth it for Google in the first place, not counting the effect on WP adopters. It might be, but it might not be.

You're just not understanding my reasoning. You're not saying anything different than I am really. I don't understand why you don't see that. Whether Google is metaphorically leaving money on the table or not (whatever that means) isn't really important. We both agree there is money to be made that Google isn't pursuing, because it's tactically advantageous not to offer their services to a specific user base. I completely agree that can be viewed as an investment in securing their own ecosystem. I've never said otherwise.

Anyway, I disagree that this has anything to do with armchair quarterbacking. We're not surmising to know what these companies should be doing or second guessing their CEOs. We're just looking at the market and the numbers and interpreting them. That's not the same thing.

At a median price of $50,000 per WP app (excl. games), I think it's pretty much irrefutable that Google is ignoring a handsome revenue stream that surpasses any required investment by a significant multitude. Just by charging a dollar for each of their apps on WP, Google could make millions, not to mention that we have numbers which reveal how much a user of Google's services is worth to them (did you follow the link?). If you disagree with those numbers, then yes, we can't discuss further as we disagree on the state of reality.

I'd say that disagreeing with those numbers describing Google's profit potential (possibly you) and ignorance (not you, but most others) is the only way the sentence: "Google is ignoring WP because its market share is too low" can legitimately make sense.

 

[tgp]

OK I can understand your point of view, except for this:

I'd say that disagreeing with those numbers describing Google's profit potential (possibly you) and ignorance (not you, but most others) is the only way the sentence: "Google is ignoring WP because it's market share it too low" can make sense.

How do you explain Google having some of their best apps on the iPhone then? Let's pretend that suddenly iPhone & WP switched places in market share overnight. What would Google do?

Here's what I think they'd do: they might maintain their iPhone apps since they're already there. But were the iOS apps not already there, they probably would never be developed. However, I'm 110% sure they'd have WP apps in the Store ASAP. So, assuming this is true, the problem IS market share.

 

[a5cent]

How do you explain Google having some of their best apps on the iPhone then? Let's pretend that suddenly iPhone & WP switched places in market share overnight. What would Google do?

Here's what I think they'd do: they might maintain their iPhone apps since they're already there. But were the iOS apps not already there, they probably would never be developed. However, I'm 110% sure they'd have WP apps in the Store ASAP. So, assuming this is true, the problem IS market share.

If all things were equal, I'd agree that if your prediction is correct, then it logically follows that I'd have to be wrong about all this. Not all things are equal however.

Amongst many other differences, just as an example, it's well known that from Google's perspective, Apple and MS are very unequal competitors. Apple operates in very few of the same markets that Google does (Apple's main competitor is Samsung), whereas Microsoft directly competes for almost all of the same customers that Google wants (and visa versa). That will, all by itself, already drastically change Google's calculations in regard to the previously discussed "suppression-investment", meaning it's worth far less money to suppress iOS's market share, than it is to suppress WP's market share.

However, if we assume in this hypothetical that both Apple and MS are to Google identical competitors, then I'd say that Google would, in that situation, remove their apps from Apple's App Store, because it's tactically advantageous to do so. That is certainly what I'd do.

 

[tgp]

it's well known that from Google's perspective, Apple and MS are very unequal competitors.

Well know, or a Windows Central hypothesis?

 

[anon(8985111)]

I totally agree with what a5cent has been pointing out.

Unless Microsoft comes up with something huge the outlook for Windows Phone will remain lacklustre.

Let us not beat around the bush: The bottom line is that Microsoft is losing market share every single day, every single minute, every single second. I don't understand how so many industry observers won't understand the simple math of how newly sold device data ends up in the overall statistics. I'm very well aware of the fact that this is everything but a good message but I still hope the responsible people over at Microsoft keep reminding themselves of these hard facts ocassionally.

If they wanna turn that thing into a sustainable success story, they still need to significantly step up their efforts. Yes, they have already increased the pace that they're going, but since they entered the market that late, I feel it's still way too slow. Reaping the benefits of the mobile market requires full dedication. Windows 10 could help, but I still doubt that they can get everything right by time they unleash that whole project to the market. For some of the Apps overlooked by Microsoft, e.g. Skype, I sincerely hope that they have some major developments running in the background.

 

[dkediger]

Well know, or a Windows Central hypothesis?

Loook no further than the Office -> Google Apps -> O365 evolution for one example. Google wants what Microsoft has - the Enterprise user. That's a space that Apple doesn't play in, and shows no interest in pursuing.
Basically, Microsoft/Google products compete directly across the board while Google/Apple do not. A successful Windows Phone is highly threatening to Google. Apple is now what Apple will be in 2 years or even 5 years.

If you want to go further back, Eric Schmidt was head of Novell during the years Windows NT Server/2000 Server totally displaced Novell in the server room. He knows from first hand experience what Microsoft with a firm toe hold is capable of doing. He was not/is not going to let that happen again if he can help it.

Edited: Clarification and change tone of last paragraph.

 

[mccririck]

What is an enterprise user?

 

[a5cent]

Well know, or a Windows Central hypothesis?

Well known... at least in those circles where it's important to know (CTOs, technology business analysts, product managers, etc).

It becomes clear when you realize how for almost every consumer facing product/service MS has, Google has setup their own directly competing equivalent (and visa versa). That is not true of Apple, at least not to the same extent.

 

[dkediger]

What is an enterprise user?

Essentially a user at a desktop in a business. Above say, 20 desktops or so, a business typically acquires IT resources beyond/behind the desktop: servers for authentication, printing, storage; larger printers; business software often sold (or more efficiently acquired) in volume seat levels. Typically an IT support person, or prepaid third party support, is added at that point as well. The costs beyond what is sitting on the desktop (or tablet, or phone) add up fast and amount to at least 2-5 times the cost of the desktop for efficiently run organizations. The ability to consolidate and standardize has the potential for huge payoffs in a larger business/enterprise. It also creates a degree of lock in, or commitment to a platform, as to change takes a lot of time and effort.

 

[3earnhardt3]

I still haven't converted any of my LOB apps to metro apps because we don't/won't use windows 8 on our work PC's. The problem is windows 8 doesn't play very nicely with windows 7 networks. I have quite a few xaml wpf apps that I run on windows 8 tablets for patient interaction that I would love to convert to metro/wp apps. So yes, there is some legitimacy to his argument, but in reality the main reason there are no apps is MS has the worst PR ever.

 

[FinancialP]

. Even an extremely conservative approximation suggests Google is leaving hundreds of million of dollars on the table, annually. I suspect what you meant to say is simply that this uncollected revenue isn't going to waste, because Google is getting something in return, namely suppressed WP growth. That I would agree with.



I agree that "if Microsoft sold 950 million WPs today, we would see top notch Google apps for WP tomorrow". However, Google would do so not because that's the point at which it first becomes profitable (that point we already passed).

How is Google leaving hundreds of millions of dollars on the table? How did you come up with those numbers?

You're not being conservative at all, in fact you're being extremely generous.

You guys were using 50 million users as an absolute, when in reality that's just not the case.

You can double the number to 100 million windows phone users and that is still not enough users for Google or any major company to take serious. Look at the companies that haven't updated their apps and those who have dropped support.


You must take into account the amount of people who actually have internet access on their phones, you must take into account the people who actually use apps, and you must take account the people who actually want your app/has access to your apps/use your app.

Let's be extremely generous and say 10% of 100 million people want your app. In this case Google. Is 10 million people worthwhile for Google? People who may or may not actually use your app, people who may not have access to the internet. Remember there is only a very small subset of people who actually want Google apps on this forum, those numbers I gave are extremely generous.

 

[dkediger]

It can bleed into other areas. My enterprise is moving, as we speak, from Google Apps to O365. Granted, its largely because Microsoft has a far superior product - and it is ubiquitous across the platforms we use. GApps isn't. We've done our due diligence and are not just throwing the baby out with the bath water. But, as IT Director, my experience and voice is generally more equal than others in our decision making process. And my experience on WP with GApps is lacking and I know Google has absolutely no intentions of changing that. So, in my case, 1 user became 350 formerly paying GApps users.

 

[a5cent]

How is Google leaving hundreds of millions of dollars on the table? How did you come up with those numbers?.

In the context of this discussion its been explained why it doesn't matter what the exact numbers are. Important is only whether or not you believe Google is missing out on profit they could otherwise be earning.

However, I did explain the basis for that number in multiple earlier posts. I expect you to read all of them (including the link) if you're going to jump in at the end of the conversation. If you can ask the question in a way that pinpoints exactly what you don't agree with, then I'll be happy to get into it, but I think you'll understand that I have no interest in rolling up the entire conversation from the start.

 

[colinkiama]

Google just doesn't care yet...

 

[JamesPTao]

Google just doesn't care yet...

I don't believe that's true at all. I believe it os completely intentional. They know what they're doing and the money lost. It is being done to kill WP growth. When wp8 was first released most people where invested I Google's services such as Gmail, drive and calender. So not being able to use these was enough to make many who wanted to try WP reconsider. It almost did with me and was definently a strong factor towards making my decision one way or the other. In the end I took a chance and went with the os I liked, WP. And have been very happy, but for many it was too much of a risk. If you remember Google's services at first synched perfect because they were using the standard protocols. They switched to their own unique ones in am attempt to kill WP when the 920 was released. Eventually they backed off and gave ms time to male their phones work to Google's proprietary version. Their was no reason for google to choose a proprietary way of synching at the time, it actually would make their services less functional other than to try and stifle a competitor. They are doing the same thing now. They don't do it to apple because apple fans are unlikely to transition to android so they would lose money with no benefit as apple people are entrenched I apple services. And if they do tramsition it is because of cheaper android devices. WP is a more direct competer in that it could replace Google's services with its own and the devices are in all the same price points. But for WP phone to get many new customers they would have to make it an easy transition and Google's denial of services makes that a bigger stumbling block which helps them retain business and profits more then they would lose from advertising revenue in WP.