Looking past phones......

[BajanSaint69]

Given that the reason for stopping production on the Band was that they couldn't get it to run on Windows 10, if we are approaching success on a modular One Core operating system, what do you think the chances are of MS getting back into wearables?

How "stripped down" does that core get?

 

[xandros9]

That reason sounds like little more than a technical reason to abandon the current Bands. I don't think they really commented on future wearables.

As for getting back into wearables, Microsoft under Nadella doesn't appear to really care about phones and wearables so I wouldn't expect anything to happen.

Especially since the idea of a wearable doesn't seem to really fit into what they're doing and considering the only
"oddballs" so far that are being permitted to flourish have already been successful and grandfathered into the Nadella-era.

 

[techiez]

Given that the reason for stopping production on the Band was that they couldn't get it to run on Windows 10, if we are approaching success on a modular One Core operating system, what do you think the chances are of MS getting back into wearables?

How "stripped down" does that core get?

MS doesnt care abt wearables, Band was there to promote the MS health platform but it failed miserably, I dont think they are coming back to it ever.

 

[TechFreak1]

MS doesnt care abt wearables, Band was there to promote the MS health platform but it failed miserably, I dont think they are coming back to it ever.

There is difference between giving a product time to mature and short sightedness for quarter to quarter profit growth, the former takes foresight and the long view.

Bing, xbox and surface are examples of products that were given time to mature and flourish. Which is in stark contrast to what has happened after Steve Ballmer got pushed out. Sure he made mistakes, but he had the long view. Everything that is coming to fruition now were started under Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer. Suchas the Hololens, the surface hub, the surface studio, azure.

The Microsoft Band, was hampered by limited availability like Zune.

I'm struggling here to condense down all the failings that have occured under the current leadership (excluding Phil Spencer and the xbox division), there far too many and implications are far reaching then many realise.

Such as prior to Phil Spencer getting promoted to the Senior Leadership Team, the xbox division experiences significant cuts and studios were cut as a result the xbox one x didn't have the first party line up that many were anticipating.

Layoffs usually happen at the senior level, where Phil Spencer would have been reporting to someone else and that person reporting to the CEO. Now Phil Spencer is reporting to the CEO directly therefore having greater access to resources and funding.

Microsoft needs Xbox now more than ever if they are going to climb out of the hole created by foregoing the consumer market. Therefore the Xbox division should be given what ever resources they need.

People don't give Ballmer credit when it's due, during the Xbox RROD fiasco Ballmer spent 1.15 billion without blinking. Now ask yourself, what would have happened if Satya Nadella was given the same decision to make.

If we extrapolate his lesson on the "empathy" and his past track record everything would indicate he would have axed the xbox division after all he would completely retrench from the consumer sector, thus falling into a cycle of irrelevancy and ending up like IBM. A cliched example but given current trends, that has higher probablity of coming true without xbox.

So if Ballmer had not spent 1.15 billion taking care of customers that experienced the RROD issue, we would not have the luxury of the xbox one x and as present it's the most powerful console. With UWP, it could become the only console and box anyone needs (another growth point - why Microsoft must focus on UWP).

 

[naddy6969]

The problem with “the long view” is this: Long term goals don’t pay short term salaries.

Back when PCs were king and sales were growing every year, you could invest in a couple of long term projects. Xbox. Surface. Even phones. Windows and Office sales were funding everything else.

These days, PCs are no longer king. The PC market is shrinking. People no longer lineup outside of computer stores to buy the latest version of Windows on launch day. People line up to buy phones now. The vast majority of PC sales is to business, and even that is cyclical, for obvious reasons.

Given all of this, it is reasonable to kill products that are losing money and/or not growing. Zune. Groove. Band. Phones. The consumer market is a very tough place to be.

 

[nate0]

The problem with “the long view” is this: Long term goals don’t pay short term salaries.

Back when PCs were king and sales were growing every year, you could invest in a couple of long term projects. Xbox. Surface. Even phones. Windows and Office sales were funding everything else.

These days, PCs are no longer king. The PC market is shrinking. People no longer lineup outside of computer stores to buy the latest version of Windows on launch day. People line up to buy phones now. The vast majority of PC sales is to business, and even that is cyclical, for obvious reasons.

Given all of this, it is reasonable to kill products that are losing money and/or not growing. Zune. Groove. Band. Phones. The consumer market is a very tough place to be.

Paying short term saleries...kind of sounds like someones personal agenda. Maybe I read that in a skewed fashion though...
True that the consumer market can be troublesome. However, axing a division or product to save money in the short run says a couple things from my perspective. 1. They are trapped in what they already know and they feel there is no benefit in risk even if the risk could bring new discoveries or profit later. 2. They want to put that funding into some place else which is probably how the items discovered 5 to 10 years back are maturing exponentially today.

We forget that Microsoft is still a business and thats what they do to sustain. Business. Some things change because as a business that's just the decision that has to be made.

 

[Old_Mil]

.
These days, PCs are no longer king. The PC market is shrinking. People no longer lineup outside of computer stores to buy the latest version of Windows on launch day. People line up to buy phones now. The vast majority of PC sales is to business, and even that is cyclical, for obvious reasons.

You have made the case why abandoning the mobile market was a fatal mistake for Nadella/Microsodt.

 

[tgp]

Paying short term saleries...kind of sounds like someones personal agenda. Maybe I read that in a skewed fashion though...
True that the consumer market can be troublesome. However, axing a division or product to save money in the short run says a couple things from my perspective. 1. They are trapped in what they already know and they feel there is no benefit in risk even if the risk could bring new discoveries or profit later. 2. They want to put that funding into some place else which is probably how the items discovered 5 to 10 years back are maturing exponentially today.

We forget that Microsoft is still a business and thats what they do to sustain. Business. Some things change because as a business that's just the decision that has to be made.

Good points. I believe that Microsoft is thinking long term in their decision to drop mobile. They looked down the road and decided that they could not compete in mobile. It wasn't worth keeping it going. If they're looking at being first in the next paradigm, there was not enough value in subsidizing their current mobile offerings.

My 2¢.

 

[BajanSaint69]

I don't think you can really say that Microsoft has abandoned mobile.

Let's face it, Windows Phone was not working. It was possibly on a technical level one of the best OS's but it never got traction. Nothing MS did was going to change that. They could not get developers and without developers they could not get apps and without apps they could not get people to buy the phone.

Nothing would change that. Far better to recognize that how it's been done so far was sunk costs and not retrievable.

What we see coming with Andromeda and One Core is a different way of tackling mobile that plays to Microsoft's strengths rather the strengths of Apple and Android. Neither of these is compatible with the legacy Windows handsets or OS, so do you not take a potentially workable shot because of a legacy that isn't working, or do you go all in where your best chance of success lies?

Nadella has abandoned a dead strategy in mobile to attempt something new. It may not work, but a "me too" slab phone was not going to work either, MS has spent billions to prove that point.

 

[techiez]

Good points. I believe that Microsoft is thinking long term in their decision to drop mobile. They looked down the road and decided that they could not compete in mobile. It wasn't worth keeping it going. If they're looking at being first in the next paradigm, there was not enough value in subsidizing their current mobile offerings.

My 2¢.

Problem was they gave up the software part first n even OEMs couldn't save WM after retrenchment.
They had no roadmap as to how to develop W10, dropping band as they couldnt get W10 IOT to work on it was example of the same, n now again a mini refresh via cshell.

 

[tgp]

Problem was they gave up the software part first n even OEMs couldn't save WM after retrenchment.

Even giving up on the software was almost certainly a calculated decision. A multi billion dollar company like Microsoft doesn't get that way by making decisions willy nilly and throwing good money after bad money.

They tried; it didn't work. The liabilities of keeping it going outweighed the benefits, even looking down the road.

 

[stodge]

The problem with “the long view” is this: Long term goals don’t pay short term salaries.

Back when PCs were king and sales were growing every year, you could invest in a couple of long term projects. Xbox. Surface. Even phones. Windows and Office sales were funding everything else.

These days, PCs are no longer king. The PC market is shrinking. People no longer lineup outside of computer stores to buy the latest version of Windows on launch day. People line up to buy phones now. The vast majority of PC sales is to business, and even that is cyclical, for obvious reasons.

Given all of this, it is reasonable to kill products that are losing money and/or not growing. Zune. Groove. Band. Phones. The consumer market is a very tough place to be.

The long term view doesn’t appease the shareholders. At the end of the day, they’re the most important part of any major business.

 

[techiez]

Even giving up on the software was almost certainly a calculated decision. A multi billion dollar company like Microsoft doesn't get that way by making decisions willy nilly and throwing good money after bad money.

They tried; it didn't work. The liabilities of keeping it going outweighed the benefits, even looking down the road.

Well I disagree slightly with it "didnt" work theory, I think they r still trying to make it work which only shows bad planning and design and hence so many refreshes.


Also I think WP was always marred by bad planning, especially with MS inability to provide suitable APIs, I remember that developer community had huge interest when Ms dived brought in WP 7 and 7.5 but lack of basic APIs made developers wait and watch and they soon realized WP isnt going to go anywhere in terms of market share

 

[Azizelh]

They didn't stop making Bands because it didn't run on Windows 10, they stopped because it didn't sell well. Pretty simple.

Why didn't it sell? Many reasons, form factor and being bulky maybe, quality of material that was tearing apart maybe, but most importantly Microsoft **** marketing, as usual, which killed more than one product in the past.

The mindset that non-successful products should be killed is not bad. It makes total sense, no problem with that. But when the reason, very often, that those products didn't sell is **** marketing, then it's really disgusting and disappointing as MS could have had more success if they had better marketing, because they came out with some pretty cool products that had a lot of potential.

Should they get back into it? I don't know. Depends if the market needs it or would want it. No point spending a on of money on a product that won't sell and add it to Microsofts list of abandoned products.

 

[MacSide]

Microsoft should definitely NOT get back in the band or smartwatch business. They should do what they have demonstrated to have success with - interoperability.

The smartest move for MS would be to make the upcoming Surface Phone compatible with Samsung Gear and Apple's smartwatch.

Just today, I've learned my XBox connect is "end of life". MS has Too many products that eventually ends of dead.

I'm beginning to love MS due to their Surface product line. Stay in your zone MS.

MS is typically late to get in the fight
They don't throw a punch until the third round
They are typically KNOCKED OUT by the fifth.

I still love your Surface Line though - not a hater.

 

[kingtigre]

I'm going with "No" on this one. I had the Band. Wife had the Band 2. Both great devices in their own right, but MS has nothing to add to this market. Same reason Windows 10 Mobile tanked.

If they want to bring something new to the market, then good on them, but just another wearable will be a waste of time. Best to focus on better integration with existing wearables, until the science for something truly revolutionary in this field is there.

Competing with Fitbit is a long and difficult battle. And Microsoft (Satya Nadella) doesn't have the resolve for a long fight.

 

[MPetrozio]

It would be naïve to think Microsoft would never get into the wearable biz again. Things change. Software changes. Hardware changes. Back when Blackberry & Windows mobile ruled the smart phone game, Apple was able to create a game changing product. Then, things changed again when Android showed up. Technology is fluid and the right device, with the right marketing can change anything at any time.

 

[Tek Cop]

Not only should they get back into wearables, I’d argue they have to. It’s not about wearables, per se. It’s about wearables, IoT, ambient/pervasive computing and what that means to the future of Azure.

Unfortunately, it can’t be just another “me too” product.

I have the perfect solution with an enormous market potential, but Microsoft would never listen to a pitch from some random person on a WC forum.

 

[Mark Kaplan]

Everyone has made very good points. Unfortunately, IMO, MSFT has screwed the pooch too many times. Consumers are not going to invest in products they aren't confident will be around long term. Microsoft has abandoned the consumer market outside of gaming. I do not see this ever happening unless done by a 3rd party.

 

[etphoto]

Everyone has made very good points. Unfortunately, IMO, MSFT has screwed the pooch too many times. Consumers are not going to invest in products they aren't confident will be around long term. Microsoft has abandoned the consumer market outside of gaming. I do not see this ever happening unless done by a 3rd party.

^^ This. If MS ever came out with another wearable, they would need to be on their 5th released device before I ever would get comfortable enough to support them again.

Twitter: @PhotographyET