"Windows phones' free-fall may force Microsoft to push harder on Windows 10 adoption"

[leehab]

MS is heading in the wrong direction . Mobile is the only way to go . Facebook & LinkedIn realized it and both reported fantastic earning . MS focused on Cloud only and that dropped in revenue and stock dropped 6 points .

MS needs to hire , not fire, engineers to work on Mobile hardware and software to bring the best to the market and sync the Mobile to the PC & Cloud together . 270 million people are using PC yet we have to use a different phone because this one sucks . The OS is terrible and unstable because engineers were fired to save money . MS needs to fire this CEO and bring some one who thinks out of the box . When Ford CEO was rumored to come here the stock jumped 4 points that day . What does it tell you ? Amazon AWS jumped 62% this Quarter yet Azure declined this Q . Amazon was a bookseller and this CEO was head of the Cloud for many years and lost . You need a smart outsider to shake up this company and use the 270 million PC users based to his advantage and by making the best phone synced to PC and Cloud , motivate and lure PC users to want Windows phones

 

[Panos Athanasiou]

lol everything in sales of MS is going up like azure had a 120% rise only phones dropped and its to be expected MS knew it would happen they set their goals on phones for 2017 now we just go along with the pc dont take me wrong still i get great features and cool updates that fix and make my phone even better than i could imagine. But i want to believe 2017 will shock us and damn i want to see that surface phone!!

 

[Great deal]

I do too. Will no doubt have bugs. Probably release Surface phone 2 before bugs fixed and 2 will have bugs etc etc (I'm going by the Surface Pro 2 and 4) meh it's 2am in UK and still working. Bad mood lol

 

[tgp]

Re: "Windows phones' free-fall may force Microsoft to push harder on Windows 10 adoption"

With the little we know, the only entity we can really blame, is the legal and business framework setup by U.S. carriers, because it's the only such framework in the world that fosters this kind of crap. Nowhere else in the world...

True, but yet we read in the news and shake our heads about the roaming charges in the EU. Those are a foreign concept here, like carrier locked phones are in Europe. The US carriers did away with roaming fees years ago. However, I do realize that a difference here is that our single country is twice the size of all the EU countries combined, but yet visiting a neighboring country in Europe is the equivalent of visiting a neighboring state in the United States.

Even so, roaming charges in Canada and even Mexico are going away too, or have already gone. I recall back around 1998 or 1999 we'd get roaming fees for using our phones outside of our immediate home area, but that's not been an issue for many years. I'm pretty sure they were gone by 2002 or so, at least with my carrier.

Either way, neither of us have a choice. It's not all rosy in either place.

All that aside, with the little we know, Microsoft certainly could have enabled these phones to work on Verizon. For all the shenanigans Verizon pulls, they could not block them any more than they could the factory unlocked iPhone or Nexus phones. I'm not sure how we can say this is anyone's fault besides Microsoft's.

You are at least partially correct that it is the US carriers' business model, and specifically Verizon's in this case, that makes it an issue in the first place. But yet it is an issue that can be, and has been, overcome. If the other manufacturers did it, Microsoft can too. To say that it is not Microsoft's fault is a slam on Microsoft's capabilities as an OEM.

 

[a5cent]

Re: "Windows phones' free-fall may force Microsoft to push harder on Windows 10 adoption"

True, but yet we read in the news and shake our heads about the roaming charges in the EU. Those are a foreign concept here, like carrier locked phones are in Europe. The US carriers did away with roaming fees years ago.


However, I do realize that a difference here is that our single country is twice the size of all the EU countries combined, but yet visiting a neighboring country in Europe is the equivalent of visiting a neighboring state in the United States.

Even so, roaming charges in Canada and even Mexico are going away too, or have already gone. I recall back around 1998 or 1999 we'd get roaming fees for using our phones outside of our immediate home area, but that's not been an issue for many years. I'm pretty sure they were gone by 2002 or so, at least with my carrier.

Either way, neither of us have a choice. It's not all rosy in either place.

Disclaimer: I don't live in an E.U. country, nor have I researched the situation in every EU country, so there might exist examples where some of the bellow isn't true.

I think you misunderstand how roaming works in the E.U.

U.S. carriers differentiate between domestic and international roaming. As far as I'm aware, the former never existed in any E.U. country. From a European's perspective, domestic roaming is just another example of U.S. carriers ripping off their customers. I can still find forum posts of U.S. citizens complaining about domestic roaming charges in 2014. I agree that such shenanigans should have disappeared a decade ago. Apparently they have not.

What Europeans do have is international roaming charges, but customers of U.S. carriers have that too (this depends on agreements between carriers and the countries you visit, just like it does in the E.U.), so it's not true that roaming is a foreign concept to U.S. carriers. I don't know where you get your news, but it sounds to me like you've been hoodwinked ;-) U.S. "news networks" misrepresenting the situation beyond U.S. boarders would really just be business as usual however, at least that's what my U.S. friends tell me.

I agree that no system is perfect, but the European cellular market is at least far closer to that hypothetical perfect state than the U.S. market is.

My main point of disagreement with you is that none of us have a choice. At least in theory, we all live in democracies, either representative or direct. I feel the government of the country I live in does a good job on that front. If you're getting ripped off, and can't do anything about it, then something is wrong with your democracy. I'm not one to often defend the E.U. but I do think the E.U. does a better job at fostering a more competitive and more free telecommunications market than the U.S.

All that aside, with the little we know, Microsoft certainly could have enabled these phones to work on Verizon. For all the shenanigans Verizon pulls, they could not block them any more than they could the factory unlocked iPhone or Nexus phones. I'm not sure how we can say this is anyone's fault besides Microsoft's.

You are at least partially correct that it is the US carriers' business model, and specifically Verizon's in this case, that makes it an issue in the first place. But yet it is an issue that can be, and has been, overcome. If the other manufacturers did it, Microsoft can too. To say that it is not Microsoft's fault is a slam on Microsoft's capabilities as an OEM.

The fact remains that it would be monumentally stupid to unilaterlally and for no reason disable bands. You're basically claiming that MS is that stupid. I suspect reality is more complicated. Neither of us knows what went on. We can't place blame without knowing.

 

[tgp]

Re: "Windows phones' free-fall may force Microsoft to push harder on Windows 10 adoption"

I think you misunderstand how roaming works in the E.U.

U.S. carriers differentiate between domestic and international roaming. As far as I'm aware, the former never existed in any E.U. country. From a European's perspective, domestic roaming is just another example of U.S. carriers ripping off their customers. I can still find forum posts of U.S. citizens complaining about domestic roaming charges in 2014. I agree that such shenanigans should have disappeared a decade ago. Apparently they have not.

What Europeans do have is international roaming charges, but customers of U.S. carriers have that too (this depends on agreements between carriers and the countries you visit, just like it does in the E.U.), so it's not true that roaming is a foreign concept to U.S. carriers. I don't know where you get your news, but it sounds to me like you've been hoodwinked ;-) U.S. "news networks" misrepresenting the situation beyond U.S. boarders would really just be business as usual however, at least that's what my U.S. friends tell me.

Sure there is no domestic roaming in Europe, but your countries are the equivalent of our states. What you have is like if I, who live in Pennsylvania, would drive 75 km across the border to Delaware and have a roaming charge. We have not had domestic roaming for many years. If you were told that we do, you were misinformed. Again, the United States is a large country, double the size of the entire EU.

I know, I am equating the US with the EU. Technically each EU country is as much its own country as the US is. But in practicality, a European going to a neighboring country is the equivalent of an American visiting a neighboring state. The technical difference is that an American is still in the same country, but the European is now in a foreign country.

Where this makes a difference in real life is that someone who is a customer of an EU carrier cannot go more than a few hundred km from home without incurring an international roaming charge. Americans can go thousands of km from home without roaming charges. I can go from my home on the East coast to Honolulu, Hawaii, which is 8,000 km away, and have no roaming charge. Even Canada and Mexico are included now for many US carriers. I would wager that the vast majority of Americans have never seen a roaming charge on their bill (within the last 15 years), and would have no idea what it even is. It is a totally foreign concept here.

The fact remains that it would be monumentally stupid to unilaterlally and for no reason disable bands. You're basically claiming that MS is that stupid. I suspect reality is more complicated. Neither of us knows what went on. We can't place blame without knowing.

As good as your English is I'm not sure where you got the idea I said that MS is stupid. I'm actually disputing that fact. To say that MS was not able to active the CDMA radios for whatever reason, which is what most MS fans here are saying, is actually saying that MS is stupid, since other OEMs seem to be able to manage it. I fully agree that in all likelihood reality is more complicated.

I do not know why Microsoft purposely left the CDMA radios inactivated in the 950/XL. And yes, I am assuming that it was their decision to make, since other OEMs enabled them. But it makes even less sense to think that it is Verizon's fault, since by law they cannot disallow it on their network, and other OEMs are doing it.

Here's my guess: considering the cost of activating and certifying the CDMA radios to work on Verizon and the relatively low number of units expected to sell, specifically the units that would end up being used on Verizon, and adding in the bad blood between Microsoft and Verizon, Microsoft probably didn't expect it to pencil financially. It was probably more a business decision that came down to dollar and cents than anything else.

Anyway, I need to go. I have to list a 950 I have from the recent BOGO promotion.

 

[a5cent]

^ I agree with most of that (although sceptical that CDMA certification could ever be prohibitively expensive), but I don't think it helps make the point you originally set out to make. Unfortunately, I'm on the road again and without a keyboard, but I promise to get back to you next week .

 

[tgp]

although sceptical that CDMA certification could ever be prohibitively expensive

I don't know how much CDMA certification costs either, but I've heard it is expensive. But in the scope of the other costs? I too doubt it is prohibitively expensive. My guess is that the certification process and cost was a small part of the entire decision to drop CDMA in the devices.

 

[Summer_Moon]

Re: "Windows phones' free-fall may force Microsoft to push harder on Windows 10 adoption"

MS told everyone they were sailing back there phone production hence the units sold. They are keeping the development of Windows 10 Mobile going.

Gives new meaning to "that ship has sailed"

But I agree with you a lot of people didn't bother to pay attention to what MS said they are doing with their WM/WP. It's just a demonstration product now to show off what W10M can do. It's not a very hard concept to understand and enthusiasts like those here on WC will probably still buy the phones.

 

[a5cent]

Re: "Windows phones' free-fall may force Microsoft to push harder on Windows 10 adoption"

We have not had domestic roaming for many years. If you were told that we do, you were misinformed. Again, the United States is a large country, double the size of the entire EU.

I'm just noting that Verizon maintains a domestic roaming FAQ page. Furthermore, I can easily find quite a few people asking about U.S. domestic roaming charges. Here are two examples from 2015 and 2014:

https://forums.att.com/t5/Data-Mess...you-get-each-billing-cycle/m-p/4184419#M65872
https://forums.att.com/t5/Data-Messaging-Features-Internet/About-domestic-data-roaming/td-p/4051024

I suspect AT&T and Verizon may be quite different. Either way, based on my internet searches, I'm skeptical of the claim that domestic roaming has been abolished on every network across the U.S. for years. I don't think it's that big of deal either though.

Sure there is no domestic roaming in Europe, but your countries are the equivalent of our states. What you have is like if I, who live in Pennsylvania, would drive 75 km across the border to Delaware and have a roaming charge. We have not had domestic roaming for many years. If you were told that we do, you were misinformed. Again, the United States is a large country, double the size of the entire EU.

I know, I am equating the US with the EU. Technically each EU country is as much its own country as the US is. But in practicality, a European going to a neighboring country is the equivalent of an American visiting a neighboring state.

I think this part of the conversation is going a bit off topic, and it's not really helping you make the point that the cellular service markets in the U.S. and the E.U. are, to use a scientific term, equally sucky.

Your Pennsylvania/Delaware example isn't really that relevant, as the question is not how far you can travel without incurring roaming charges, but how often and for how long you travel to places where such costs are incurred. Sure, you can travel 1000 miles and still be in the same country. That's just completely irrelevant if the average Spaniard doesn't leave Spain any more often than the average American leaves the U.S. I have no reason to believe there is a difference.

Then there's the fact that a U.S. Verizon customer living close to the Mexican boarder can't travel 10 miles south without incurring roaming charges, or the fact that I can add $10 to my monthly bill and get flat-rate roaming across all of the EU (today), and still pay less than what the average American pays.

Finally, there's the fact that in two months, roaming charges across the EU will be significantly reduced, and then be eliminated across the EU entirely in 2017.

Don't get me wrong. There are certainly things that suck about the EU's cellular service market too, but all things considered, it's definitely not in the same league of suckyness ;-)

I'm going to leave this topic at that.

 

[a5cent]

I don't know how much CDMA certification costs either, but I've heard it is expensive. But in the scope of the other costs? I too doubt it is prohibitively expensive. My guess is that the certification process and cost was a small part of the entire decision to drop CDMA in the devices.

I think this is the core of our argument.

We agree that there's no way CDMA certification costs can be prohibitively expensive. So the original question remains. What is the BIG issue that lead MS to disable bands?

It seems you're suggesting that we're not talking about anything more than the average day-to-day costs of getting those two devices to work on Verizon (that is just one more carrier, in addition to the hundreds of carriers in the world the 950 / 950 XL already run on), plus a bit extra for the additional CDMA certification.

It seems you're saying that those normal day-to-day costs are likely the only thing preventing CDMA compatibility, and if that's true, then it's me who's saying MS would have been monumentally stupid for disabling bands for those reasons, because those costs are nothing compared to the fallout from retracting from Verizon entirely as they now have.

I can't imagine MS having made that decision without more being at risk than a few hundred thousand dollars. To my mind it seems highly unlikely that disabling bands has anything to do with the normal day-to-day costs of enabling the bands on the 950 / 950 XL, particularly because the hardware already supports those bands. To my mind it seems far more likely that MS and Verizon just couldn't settle some dispute, which left MS holding the shorter end of the stick, ultimately pushing them to retreat from Verizon entirely. If that is true, then we certainly can't easily assign blame to any one company without knowing a lot more about what happened.

Unfortunately, I don't think we have a way to resolve this disagreement, because there's not much either of us really has to go on beyond our differing speculations.

 

[angusdegraosta]

The numbers make sense - new OS, new hardware, new strategy on a limited scale as Windows 10 continues to grow. Meanwhile my 950 continues to work well. Supposedly banking apps are on the way... maybe even a Kindle app update one day soon.

 

[ubizmo]

It's interesting to read all this, as a BlackBerry user, currently using Android (OnePlus One) about 90% of the time.

I picked up a Lumia 640, since they're nearly free, to play with. It's my first experience with the platform since an HTC Radar running WP 7.5 a few years ago.

I have to say, I like the OS for the most part. I think it's come a long way. Most of the apps I use are there, and those that aren't there mostly work in the browser. Some of those apps, such as Kindle, are sub-par in comparison with their iOS and Android counterparts, as everyone knows, but on the whole it's a pretty pleasant experience. For the $40 I paid (unlocked) it's nowhere near as bad as low-end Android offerings, and it does make me interested in what better hardware might be like.

But it's all about those UWP apps, isn't it? If they can gain some momentum, there's a chance. Meanwhile, it's hard for me to justify moving from one sinking ship (BB10) to another--at least not if it involves laying out any real money.

 

[angusdegraosta]

Re: "Windows phones' free-fall may force Microsoft to push harder on Windows 10 adoption"

The raw numbers are not shocking if you actually paid attention to what MS is doing regarding phones.

Right. The need for tech media sites to create copy is no excuse for writing about the same stuff over and over.