Ballmer can play as much musical chairs as he wants. The problem is him. Despite a massive Microsoft talent drain, there are still smart, capable people at Microsoft. What Microsoft lacks is a cohesive vision about where they are headed. Bill Gates' vision was a PC running Windows on every desktop. Everything Microsoft did had to be reconciled against this.
What is Ballmer's vision? That's his responsibility as CEO. In fact, it's pretty much his most critical one. At this point, he's too high level to do much else. All I see from him is somebody that installs a really smart person in some new vertical that Microsoft all of a sudden deems super important only to let this person take the flack for things not going properly a couple of years after they start.
Yes, the problem is Ballmer. He is extremely shortsighted. Witness his scoffing at the iPhone when it was introduced [1]. Then watch his claim that the iPad is just another PC form factor [2]. He also laughed about the Macbook Air [3]. Of course, now there is a push for ultrabooks from Intel.
I saw a Microsoft commercial not too long ago and the lost shot showed a PC and it was a Samsung laptop that looked just like a Macbook Pro. It's a good thing that Metro is not just a copy of iOS. The sooner they fire Ballmer the better.
Have you squirted a song yet? That’s the question Microsoft hopes your friends will ask you as you ponder which digital music player to acquire. Although you are more likely to buy an iPod this season — something even Microsoft admits — the software giant from Redmond is running a huge marketing campaign that it hopes will plant some seeds of doubt. After all, iPods don’t squirt songs. And Microsoft’s new player, Zune, does.
I actually bought a Zune. I had an iPod before that, but iTunes on Windows was awful. I bought a WP7 phone for the same reason, I wanted a managed music experience but iTunes wasn't an option for me.
Really, I think that could be a marketing campaign for Microsoft. "Our downsides average out to be slightly better for a small minority of the market! Spend weeks agonizing over the tough decision then settle for us!" I love my Windows Phone, but I'd likely be on iOS if Zune wasn't a better piece of software.
I don't get it. I thought this was the Windows Phone playbook - release as early as possible (2010), gain something like feature parity in fall 2011 (i.e. the Mango release) and team up with Nokia to make some great hardware (the Lumia). This is what Windows Phone people have been telling me since the beginning of the year. The virtues, logic and shortcomings of this have been evident from the beginning so I don't see how Ballmer can point at anyone but himself.
It's a problem that anyone stretching the definition of "early adopter" already had a phone that did everything a Windows Phone does in 2009. Buying into a phone ecosystem sounds mundane to mildly entertaining to us, but it's a terrifying leap for most of the market - the vast majority of people will buy what their more technically inclined friends and family use. Think of how long it's taken for the iPhone to approach the prevalence of the Blackberry - how bizarre, then, that MS expected WP to bloom while two competent competitors are taking the market by storm. WP7's biggest fault has nothing to do with Andy Lees - it's too late to market.
The single-greatest reason to avoid Microsoft is that they're willing to sacrifice any and all partners (customers, retailers, developers, employees, etc) to attract more of the others.
As a customer you can count on Microsoft adding DRM to the product if anyone else in their development chain asks for it. As a developer you can count on Microsoft making uncomfortable changes without ensuring the devs can work with it. As an employer it's better than EA... mostly. As a retailer, Microsoft is desperately trying to cut you out of all extended revenue streams while still dependent on you to sell the lock-in to the customer in the first place.
You're pretty much guaranteed to be screwed with one way or another - to help MS, to help a favored partner, or just as they reposition a project (often in the trash).
WP7 could come with a free gold bar and would still be overpriced.
In my opinion, the top that needs to change first is Ballmer. I think the first thing holding back Windows Phone in the markeplace is the name. "Windows Phone" inherits the baggage of desktop Windows and of Windows Mobile, neither of which is that positive. Something like "Metro Phone" or whatever would inherit less baggage and would be doing at least a bit better. The naming decision was and is Ballmer's, so...
"Windows Phone" inherits the baggage of desktop Windows and of Windows Mobile, neither of which is that positive.
To developers, perhaps. To the average user, Windows is what runs on their computer at home. Most people I meet are perfectly happy with Windows, too. So a Windows Phone really isn't a terrible marketing proposition.
Had 3 people ask me if they needed virus protection on a Windows Phone if they bought one. I was really surprised by this, but I guess, given what we drill in people about their Windows PC, I shouldn't be surprised. When I tell them that WP isn't really Windows and they will be fine, all 3 seemed confused. Really a shame since they did a good job of coming up with a different UI.
> I think the first thing holding back Windows Phone in the markeplace is the name. "Windows Phone" inherits the baggage of desktop Windows and of Windows Mobile, neither of which is that positive.
I think so too. Calling it "Windows Phone" makes as much sense as calling the XBOX something like "Windows Console" would have (i.e., very little).
Using the term "Windows" everywhere is good for the Windows brand. But Windows is already doing fine. Prioritizing the Windows brand over the success of Windows Phone is an odd decision.
When it launched they did some incredibly poorly thought out TV ads that looked more like some art-house feature than a television commercial. Only a notch above the completely ioncomprehensible campaign Palm ran for the Pre. Look where that landed them.
And since then the marketing has been nearly invisible. Yeah sure, you'll see the Windows Phone Facebook page push some promotions and token events, but where is the real force of marketing?
When Motorola first made its maneuver into Android-land, I remember every bus shelter, subway platform, billboard, everything plastered in Droid ads, with clever (if slightly unimaginative) slogans.
Microsoft's marketing in everything has been utterly incompetent. They've gotten so used to owning products that require no marketing that they're not incapable of doing it.
Just think at the "major" marketing moves MS has made in recent years. Seinfeld? WTF?
The Lumia is an absolute gem of a device. It's beautifully integrated and has industrial design that screams elegance. And nobody I know has heard of it.
I think this is probably their biggest problem too. I'm a pretty technical guy, maybe not up on the latest and greatest in the land of cell phones, but I get by.
That said, I'm still not even sure if I can go buy a Windows Phone device yet. I've seen some reviews of the Lumia, and it looks nice, but I honestly couldn't tell you if it's out or not, and who would even have the thing if it is. Or, for that matter, if ANY of the US carriers have ANY Windows Phone devices yet. I've read about upgrades to the OS, so I suspect there are handsets to be had, but I just don't know.
Yes, I could look up information about Windows Phone and available devices, but why should I? Nobody I know has one and the one person I knew that wanted one more than anything else ended up buying and Android phone because he couldn't wait any more. My point, which was OP's point, is that Microsoft should be doing their part to make sure I know this information passively, like all the other phone manufacturers have done. I've seen the interface, it looks slick, but that's where my knowledge of their platform stops.
In contrast, I see a new Android billboard (typically some flavor of Motorola's Droid) go up every month. I can't be bothered to keep up with all the variations, but I know they are available, and where to go get one.
> When Motorola first made its maneuver into Android-land, I remember every bus shelter, subway platform, billboard, everything plastered in Droid ads, with clever (if slightly unimaginative) slogans.
And that shows how powerful marketing can be. The Droid wasn't Motorola's first foray in to Android-land. That milestone belongs to the Motorola Cliq (in US on T-Mobile) / Dext (outside US).
The Droid was Verizon's first foray into Android-land and they marketed the hell out of their new smartphone brand (licensed from Lucasfilm), so that's what you remember.
To be precise, I said the name was the first thing holding Windows Phone back, not the only thing. I completely agree marketing is a problem for Windows Phone, I just think the marketing is influenced by the name and that you will have a harder time marketing something called "Windows Phone" than you would have marketing the same thing with a different name.
These are all great technologies, particular Kinect. Takes more than great technology to create the buzz. Consider the public excitement of the MS touchpad effort with the public excitement about the iPad just as an example.
What is Ballmer's vision? That's his responsibility as CEO. In fact, it's pretty much his most critical one. At this point, he's too high level to do much else. All I see from him is somebody that installs a really smart person in some new vertical that Microsoft all of a sudden deems super important only to let this person take the flack for things not going properly a couple of years after they start.