Now Paul Thurrott is saying Windows Phone (Mobile) isn't dead. lol

[jdballard]

This is one thing I never understood. People think an influx of OEMs will change things and seem to think Microsoft lessening devices in favor of of oem support will change things but still the os is stable for all and the app situation is better, you will just have a bunch of nice hardware that still isn't selling.

I think it might have made a difference when Windows phone was new, but nowadays everyone knows "it's missing apps" and no one wants to join the Windows Phone 1%. Too little, too late. I would love to know what MS has done to get people building WP hardware again. Seems like quite a rush of new OEMS such as Alcatel, HP, etc. What do they know that we don't? Or is MS just really good at selling the future?

I'm hoping for a secret Microsoft release at mwc haha

I'm guessing that won't happen. Someone somewhere theorized that they announced the 650 when they did to let the OEMs have the spotlight at MWC.

 

[constantreader16]

This is one thing I never understood. People think an influx of OEMs will change things and seem to think Microsoft lessening devices in favor of of oem support will change things but still the os is stable for all and the app situation is better, you will just have a bunch of nice hardware that still isn't selling.

I'm hoping for a secret Microsoft release at mwc haha

I think there is some legitimate genius behind this strategy. Think of Samsung releasing a Windows Phone for a second. They would use their advertising dollars, their sales staff, their brand recognition to push a Microsoft product. Imagine going to a store and being approached by a Samsung and a Microsoft rep, who are you going to listen to? Likely Samsung.

On top of that, getting Samsung, HP, LG, and others behind Windows Phone gives more legitimacy to the OS which could give a boost to attractiveness for developers.

It's not a guaranteed success, but it is a different approach that could actually make a difference. More so than it could've a few years ago.

 

[jdballard]

I think there is some legitimate genius behind this strategy. Think of Samsung releasing a Windows Phone for a second.

Samsung did release a Windows phone before - the Ativ SE. Didn't catch on - probably because the WP share was tanking, it wasn't a full flagship phone, and the app gap (which was bad then and worse now). Plus, it was on Verizon and of all the major carriers they are the least likely to actually try & sell a WP. Plus, it didn't have and couldn't get some of the Nokia exclusive apps which were always nice and added value.

They would use their advertising dollars, their sales staff, their brand recognition to push a Microsoft product. Imagine going to a store and being approached by a Samsung and a Microsoft rep, who are you going to listen to? Likely Samsung.

Samsung has a name, but the app gap will always come up.

On top of that, getting Samsung, HP, LG, and others behind Windows Phone gives more legitimacy to the OS which could give a boost to attractiveness for developers. It's not a guaranteed success, but it is a different approach that could actually make a difference. More so than it could've a few years ago.

If definitely would help to have all those OEMs behind Windows Phone, but I think it would have been more helpful in past years, before the app gap was as big as it is now.

Don't get me wrong, I wish this platform got the attention it deserves because it really is great. If the app gap closed, you could probably get sales people to recommend it.

 

[a5cent]

I think there is some legitimate genius behind this strategy. Think of Samsung releasing a Windows Phone for a second. They would use their advertising dollars, their sales staff, their brand recognition to push a Microsoft product. Imagine going to a store and being approached by a Samsung and a Microsoft rep, who are you going to listen to? Likely Samsung.

On top of that, getting Samsung, HP, LG, and others behind Windows Phone gives more legitimacy to the OS which could give a boost to attractiveness for developers.

It's not a guaranteed success, but it is a different approach that could actually make a difference. More so than it could've a few years ago.

I think pretty much none of those assumptions are correct.

jdballard already mentioned that Samsung's image wasn't worth much in the WP ecosystem. Neither was HTC's.

In the past, both Samsung and HTC built WP devices only after MS agreed to fund their advertising campaigns. That won't change. No OEM will spend marketing dollars on WM devices that have absolutely no chance of earning that money back, nor will MS be marketing WM themselves anytime soon. I agree that OEM's marketing dollars are the biggest potential benefit this approach has to offer. However, as long as WM's market position doesn't change first, I just see absolutely no chance of those marketing dollars ever being spent.

As far as I'm concerned this is just another example of MS attacking this problem from the wrong end.

WM's problem isn't hardware related. Hardware is the only thing OEMs bring to the table however. WM's problems are ecosystem, app, and OS related. OEMs can't do anything for WM in any of those areas.

 

[Cosmyc]

I think there is some legitimate genius behind this strategy. Think of Samsung releasing a Windows Phone for a second. They would use their advertising dollars, their sales staff, their brand recognition to push a Microsoft product. Imagine going to a store and being approached by a Samsung and a Microsoft rep, who are you going to listen to? Likely Samsung.

On top of that, getting Samsung, HP, LG, and others behind Windows Phone gives more legitimacy to the OS which could give a boost to attractiveness for developers.

It's not a guaranteed success, but it is a different approach that could actually make a difference. More so than it could've a few years ago.

I'm with you, let's see if Nadella isn't wrong...

 

[Nogitsune Micah]

Considring the majority want Lumias....Samsug galaxy or whatever android turned iwndows phone model is not going to fix the issue.

Samsung can release their latest and grreatest. The phone could litetrally print money, get guys laid and make girls look like super models with the pics....if the OS is not up to snuff and it contineus to lack apps why would someone buy the phone regardless if it is a Galaxy branded device or not?

as soon as they buy the phoen and discover the phone lacks an updated Kik app, a snapchat app and whatever stupid app is the latest craze of the day, then it'll be the same thing it has been.

Microsoft needs to figure a way to at least FIX the OS and their own image within mobile...that's the issue they need to work on and get Islandwood or whatever it is called up to par...I dont want astoria but if they must, at least get that ready. But until the app situation si fixed, most people wont buy a Samsung Galaxy Windows just because it is a galaxy.

I think there is some legitimate genius behind this strategy. Think of Samsung releasing a Windows Phone for a second. They would use their advertising dollars, their sales staff, their brand recognition to push a Microsoft product. Imagine going to a store and being approached by a Samsung and a Microsoft rep, who are you going to listen to? Likely Samsung.

On top of that, getting Samsung, HP, LG, and others behind Windows Phone gives more legitimacy to the OS which could give a boost to attractiveness for developers.

It's not a guaranteed success, but it is a different approach that could actually make a difference. More so than it could've a few years ago.

 

[SeeVuPlay]

Windows Weekly.... The Microsoft bashing show..... That's my take on that group

 

[mjperry51]

I think pretty much none of those assumptions are correct.
WM's problem isn't hardware related. Hardware is the only thing OEMs bring to the table however. WM's problems are ecosystem, app, and OS related. OEMs can't do anything for WM in any of those areas.

And consumer mindshare. . .

 

[etphoto]

Back to the topic of the thread . . . I listened to Windows Weekly this week, one week after the doom and gloom of Windows phone two weeks ago, Leo, Mary Jo and Sams all admitted that, even though the market share will remain about the same, Microsoft will keep the mobile OS (phones) alive. If true, which I've always believed to be the case, all the "Windows Phone is dead" trolls that have predicting the demise of Windows Phone from the Treo 650 days to present where wrong then and still wrong today. Yeah, maybe someday they'll be correct and when that day comes their great grandchildren can brag on how foreseeing Great Grandpa was.

Sent from my Surface 3

 

[Krystianpants]

Considring the majority want Lumias....Samsug galaxy or whatever android turned iwndows phone model is not going to fix the issue.

Samsung can release their latest and grreatest. The phone could litetrally print money, get guys laid and make girls look like super models with the pics....if the OS is not up to snuff and it contineus to lack apps why would someone buy the phone regardless if it is a Galaxy branded device or not?

as soon as they buy the phoen and discover the phone lacks an updated Kik app, a snapchat app and whatever stupid app is the latest craze of the day, then it'll be the same thing it has been.

Microsoft needs to figure a way to at least FIX the OS and their own image within mobile...that's the issue they need to work on and get Islandwood or whatever it is called up to par...I dont want astoria but if they must, at least get that ready. But until the app situation si fixed, most people wont buy a Samsung Galaxy Windows just because it is a galaxy.

What i wonder is if all these new phones will be sold along laptops, and 2-in-1's in pc section of say best buy rather than the phone section. Especially if launch provides more continuum apps. There seem to be more apps going this way. Maybe that's where the strategy will differ. So market share would grow in the 2-in-1 area. They could just market it differently. But the experience has to be more refined and allow for a lot of apps to support it. So developers would no longer see it as just phone share but windows 10 devices. Redstone build is already focusing on continuum with the build being tested. If they could test it bug free new phones could come with it. But it's hard to say what will happen.

 

[constantreader16]

WM's problem isn't hardware related. Hardware is the only thing OEMs bring to the table however. WM's problems are ecosystem, app, and OS related. OEMs can't do anything for WM in any of those areas.

The ecosystem should be stronger than ever right now. With Windows 10 bringing an unprecedented synchronicity to all the forms of the OS, this shouldn't be an issue. In addition to the WaaS model with being able to publish updates as frequently as they would like is pretty damn awesome and impressive.

Apps are struggling, but without a "Official Release" of W10M, I don't think we've seen the last of new apps or apps being made into Universal Apps. Rubino and others have all but seemingly confirmed this. This is also ignoring the fact that you can live without a Kik, Snapchat, and some of the other apps everyone claims W10M so desperately needs.

The OS is no where near as bad as everyone says, especially with the .71 and .107 updates, which are now available to all users. Those two builds fixed a lot of the glaring issues and have brought widespread stability to W10M devices. As I mentioned before, WaaS allows this to happen, imagine if we had to wait for carriers to release the .29, .36, .63, .71, or .107 builds? We'd still be waiting for those updates. Microsoft has done themselves a huge favor by going after this model, this is nothing short of a huge win for them.

Considering the amount of ******** and complaining I've seen about the build quality of the Lumia 950/XL, OEM hardware should be a winner. Long gone are the days of Nokia making software strictly for their phones, so there is no more restriction of having to buy a Nokia to get a good camera app. Had I not bought a 950 XL myself, I would be seriously considering the HP Elite x3 when it launches, I may still be considering that regardless.

As one last comment, the looming Redstone update (and hopefully looming mobile insider builds), we should see some significant changes and improvements to the OS. Between the upcoming official release of Windows 10 Mobile and the subsequent Redstone 1 & 2 updates, it's way too early to consider this a losing OS. Just the improvements since the November launch are reason to have optimism.

Take care all!

 

[a5cent]

And consumer mindshare. . .

Agreed. Maybe I'm putting too much faith in humanity, but I do think mindshare follows automatically if the products and/or services offer something unique that consumers like (either that, or offer something that isn't unique but at a better price).

In other words, I think mindshare is a secondary problem that would normally sort itself out if everything else is done right.

 

[mjperry51]

Agreed. Maybe I'm putting too much faith in humanity, but I do think mindshare follows automatically if the products and/or services offer something unique that consumers like (either that, or offer something that isn't unique but at a better price).

In other words, I think mindshare is a secondary problem that would normally sort itself out if everything else is done right.

Agreed to a certain extent.

In this day and age initial mindshare happens first in the media -- radio, TV, etc. No the demand media like Facebook/Twitter, but the push media where one doesn't have to seek it out. Microsoft does precious little positioning of this type; one sees Apple and Android commercials even when there are no new products being presented. I haven't seen a Windows 10 commercial since forever; nor have I seen a Surface Pro, Surface Laptop, or Lumia 950 commercial.
The only audience MS markets to is its users. from the beginning of MS-DOS they haven't competed at the retail level. They were preloaded. They won the battle of the office suite because they had a unified product, compared to the Lotus/WordPerfect coalition. WordPerfect was actually the better product. So Office got bundled, and won in the workplace, then migrated to the home. Apple gambled on the education market and lost. Apple learned to win at retail; not big, but effectively. They learned the value of panache. Microsoft continued on its path. Microsoft has NEVER understood or effectively utilized marketing or advertising. I believe they never felt they needed it. They still don't think they need it.

The average consumer doesn't look at technology the way we do. It's a piece of jewelry; a shiny object. And the average consumer is far more prevalent than us techies.

MS is no good at mindshare -- never has been, and may never be. It's not in their DNA. . . .

 

[Laura Knotek]

Agreed to a certain extent.

In this day and age initial mindshare happens first in the media -- radio, TV, etc. No the demand media like Facebook/Twitter, but the push media where one doesn't have to seek it out. Microsoft does precious little positioning of this type; one sees Apple and Android commercials even when there are no new products being presented. I haven't seen a Windows 10 commercial since forever; nor have I seen a Surface Pro, Surface Laptop, or Lumia 950 commercial.
The only audience MS markets to is its users. from the beginning of MS-DOS they haven't competed at the retail level. They were preloaded. They won the battle of the office suite because they had a unified product, compared to the Lotus/WordPerfect coalition. WordPerfect was actually the better product. So Office got bundled, and won in the workplace, then migrated to the home. Apple gambled on the education market and lost. Apple learned to win at retail; not big, but effectively. They learned the value of panache. Microsoft continued on its path. Microsoft has NEVER understood or effectively utilized marketing or advertising. I believe they never felt they needed it. They still don't think they need it.

The average consumer doesn't look at technology the way we do. It's a piece of jewelry; a shiny object. And the average consumer is far more prevalent than us techies.

MS is no good at mindshare -- never has been, and may never be. It's not in their DNA. . . .

I believe that the lack of advertising of Windows is because the average consumer doesn't buy a Surface product. Most consumers buy computers the same way they buy TVs, refrigerators, or ranges. All of those items are commodities that everyone has in his or her home. The only people who pay close attention to features are the audio/video geeks, the computer geeks, and the cooking aficionados. For everyone else, price is what they look at first. A specific operating system won't sell computers to anyone but geeks.

 

[mjperry51]

I believe that the lack of advertising of Windows is because the average consumer doesn't buy a Surface product. Most consumers buy computers the same way they buy TVs, refrigerators, or ranges. All of those items are commodities that everyone has in his or her home. The only people who pay close attention to features are the audio/video geeks, the computer geeks, and the cooking aficionados. For everyone else, price is what they look at first. A specific operating system won't sell computers to anyone but geeks.

That becomes the rub, doesn't it?

MS isn't "known" for hardware -- Apple is. Actually what Apple is know for is the panache of their products. A carefully crafted personality; hip, leading edge, etc.

Now Microsoft knows this -- they cannot compete on Apple's turf, because they don't have the history, or the horses for that race. So they do what they do best. Their "hardware" is an exhibition of their OS/software. The enterprise is has been (and is still) their strong suit. Office runs on Mac; their strong apps run in IOS and Android. Both Apple and Google tightly control their ecosystem; MS let's the user choose. It's VHS/Betamax all over again, with a third player, with MS playing VHS (open environment) and Apple/Android playing Betamax 1 and Betamax 2. How successful has Google's forays into OS been on the desktop/enterprise? Apple?

As long as MS keeps an 85% ownership of the desktop OS, and their applications are profitable, it doesn't matter. Hardware is expensive and support intensive. Software is easier to support, especially today with all the inter-connectivity. Lower support costs means higher profit margins.

We here get upset when MS doesn't act like Apple. Well, they're not Apple, and they know it. They're Microsoft. And they're going to do what they can to be the best, most profitable Microsoft they can - they owe that to their stockholders. They don't owe us IPhones. . . .

 

[constantreader16]

I believe that the lack of advertising of Windows is because the average consumer doesn't buy a Surface product. Most consumers buy computers the same way they buy TVs, refrigerators, or ranges. All of those items are commodities that everyone has in his or her home. The only people who pay close attention to features are the audio/video geeks, the computer geeks, and the cooking aficionados. For everyone else, price is what they look at first. A specific operating system won't sell computers to anyone but geeks.

Average consumers who buy products from the Surface line (even the earlier versions), seem to absolutely love them! Even the earlier Yoga products blew people away. Now that these are more common products and much more refined, Microsoft should try to advertise them more. Although, it seems the Surface line has done really well without much advertising as of late.

 

[Spectrum90]

You do realize that these are just people doing their jobs, don't you? They are reporters covering a beat. The guy on the TV news covering a flood isn't responsible for the flood, he's just the reporter.

Maybe Apple and Google are a more sexy, more successful beat these days, but in some cases, they don't have a choice. They are told what to cover by their bosses. Even if they were freelancers who could cover what want, it's not as easy as just determining that they want to switch to covering Google.

What makes them experts (not "experts") is that they have developed contacts within Microsoft. They know many people that work within the company, in different capacities in different divisions. This is how they are able to develop news stories without waiting for press releases from the company, how they are able to confirm or deny rumors with any degree of success. To switch to a different company, and build up trusted contacts would take a long time. And then, when Google would start to falter, should they switch to whatever the new dominant platform would be? It would be a constant chase. That is why for better or worse, these reporters will probably continue to follow Microsoft.

They do a really poor job.

Thurrott is a bipolar person that changes opinions every week.
Foley just writes press releases.
Rubino doesn't have any technical knowledge. Half of the articles on the wcentral are about third party Twitter clients and minor app updates without change log.
Warren must be the most boring an uninspired person alive.

These are the popular tech writers that follow Microsoft.

 

[Guytronic]

Ok I think we can call this thread done for now.

Thanks everyone.

Closed