If I remember the numbers, leading up to the WP7 launch, MS dropped roughly 100 million on marketing. They sold less than 100,000 units on launch week. Whatever the exact numbers, I remember someone pointing out it would have been more cost effective to give the phones away for the launch.
It's still that way today. They have no mindshare of the public at large, nor the developers, nor the carriers, nor the handset makers. Somehow, you have to make a product compelling to one of these. iOS is compelling for 2 of the 4 and Android is compelling for all 4. WP7 is compelling to zero of the 4.
For example, they have to fix the native C++ development option. This is especially important for games. Whether or not C# is nice, thanks to only being in C#, every development for that platform becomes a full-on port. If you design your code right for iOS and Android, you can use mostly the same code for both, and just a few glue points for the rest, AND you can develop for both on the Mac instead of having to fire up Windows just for that platform.
The 3rd party development option is so abysmal that Microsoft has been paying for apps to be ported to this platform for two years now. This situation is not sustainable by any measure.
At this point Microsoft is 4 years behind Apple and Google. No one cares if something is arguably better. That's the Zune. That's the Mac in the 90s. Microsoft has to do something that's _compellingly_ better, to someone, somewhere, on some basis that makes money.
> "MS dropped roughly 100 million on marketing. They sold less than 100,000 units on launch week."
And I'm wondering how anyone in MS marketing is still employed. You just blew $100m on promoting a product and sell 100K units - how are you not fired? (out of a cannon)
Where did all of that money go? I remember seeing a single TV ad at WP7's launch, and nothing more. In comparison, Verizon practically plastered my local transit system in Droid ads for that launch, and guess what, people were talking about it.
Between Seinfeld and this, I'm not sure why there hasn't been a complete and thorough house-cleaning in MSFT's marketing department.
BTW, you're right... the biggest thing keeping Windows Phone 7 back is a C++ development option.
They could also benefit the platform a lot by either backing MonoTouch/MonoDroid hard or come out with their own way of running .Net on those platforms. Oracle has already ported Java ME's JVM to both iOS and Android for running JavaFX applications.
That might help with games that really need to eke out performance, but there are a lot of simpler apps that could be enabled and aren't there yet. Things like Mint or TaskRabbit for example, likely would not use native code. Seems to me like the major issue holding developers back is not the lack of tools, but rather the flat adoption rates.
"Seems to me like the major issue holding developers back is not the lack of tools, but rather the flat adoption rates."
Well, there's a chicken an egg problem here. Microsoft will have flat adoption rates as long as they're in 3rd(or worse) place and they don't make it easier to target their afterthought of a platform with code used to target iOS and android... or vice versa.
This may all be true but Microsoft has something that neither Google or Apple has... that is skype. Once skype is integrated fully into Windows Phone; it will be the best communication device off all of them. Skype is the communication tool of businesses. Once skype in rolled into the basic functionality in the same way as: MSN messager, facebook and text messaging, it will be dropdead simple to make a skype call or message with someone as if you are text. Microsoft will steal the market share from Blackberry and the other mobile phones for business and then expand from there.
> Microsoft has to do something that's _compellingly_ better, to someone, somewhere, on some basis that makes money.
$20 says Microsoft will take over the mobile enterprise market from the now weak grasp of RIM, by focusing on security and enterprise features.
Enterprises care about security. They want someone who owns the platform they can thump in the head when something goes wrong. They want complicated features to centralize control. They want the operating systems quickly patched when vulns are published.
The Android ecosystem is a disaster, in this regard. By separating the roles into OS developer, manufacturer and carrier (Google, HTC/Samsung/etc, Verizon/AT&T/etc respectively), it's created an environment with too many mixed incentives -- many that are at odds with the customer's needs.
Google produces the operating system, the manufacturer adds their customizations to differentiate, then also adds per-carrier tailoring. The carriers then have to validate/test and release.
Motorola detailed this process as an excuse/apology/statement in early December. [1]
New OS upgrades and security patches become the responsibility of the manufacturer, but the manufacturer's incentives to support the hardware platform for the long-term are weak -- in fact, if the platform is doing poorly, they are incentivized to do the opposite: cut their losses and move on. As customers, our influence is limited, since our relationships are with the carriers.
This if further complicated by the manufacturers rapid iterations with various hardware designs, to try and find the right price points to compete with the iPhone. They're shipping hardware platforms barely capable of running the current version of the OS, with no roadmap for future software upgrades.
Apple has done a great job managing the platform, but they do so in their typical Apple style: with little communication and inconsistent rapidity of responses. Being held at arms length and kept in the dark is not reassuring to any CISO whose enterprise data dependent upon the platform's security.
Of course, I think it's a safe bet those CISOs are more comfortable with Apple's silence than Android's clear security failures.
DeGusta's chart from October [2] captured much of this. There are hardware platforms where we sign two year agreements with the carrier, but receive only four months of security patches from the manufacturer. In whose world is that acceptable?
There are signs Microsoft recognizes the security updates problems and is putting the infrastructure in place to manage updates themselves, independent of carrier. [3] There are also signs they recognize the challenges Android's laissez faire hardware specs brings, and are more tightly controlling the hardware requirements. [4]
Microsoft's focus so far has been consumer-oriented, initial traction and to establish the ecosystem to allow _any_ platform. Ars had a writeup last week that captured current status in typical Ars completeness. [5] They'll work it out eventually. Microsoft can't fail in this, and the carrier and hardware manufacturers _want_ an alternative to the Apple gorilla. The next year will see some pivots, compromises and changes -- but ultimately they'll work it out.
And by then they'll have taken over the enterprise market.
Is there really an "enterprise" market any more for mobile devices? Most people don't want to carry two phones. I'm not sure it's enterprises that get to decide which devices people will carry any more in most cases, especially with higher-end knowledge workers. If you look at banks and law firms, (traditionally two of the more conservative enterprise users of mobile devices) they're increasingly allowing iPhone and/or Android devices because of demand from their users.
I agree that the Android ecosystem is messy, but it also has better support for allowing "company specific" applications than the iPhone, which represent a huge advantage for large companies interesting in deploying internal directories, field sales applications, and other internal software to their mobile devices. At the same time, Apple has been improving iPhone enterprise support for years (exchange support, corporate app support, security, etc.), so it's not like they're ignoring this market, either.
If I'm a CIO choosing which devices I want to support beyond Blackberries, am I really able to say with a straight face "we're not going to support iPhones or Android, but we'll offer Windows Phone 7"??? Not if I don't work for Microsoft.
Of the smartphone OSes and hardware currently available, only RIM has what I'd consider good security, and Apple iOS is pretty good. Android and WP7.5 have basically no hardware-based protection, and given the UI/UX of the phone, it's unreasonable for people to use passphrases resistant to offline brute force attacks -- all the work factor stuff with scrypt/bcrypt/etc. doesn't apply when you have a huge asymmetry between normal use hardware (slow, cheap, low power phone) and attacker (general purpose CPU attached to the wall).
As I recall, Microsoft made it dead simple to port xbox games to WP7. So for the major titles, C++ shouldn't be the issue, and I would think the xBox thing could be a major strength.
No, they made it possible to port XNA games to the platform. Except that XNA != XBOX SDK.
XNA is a .NET-based game SDK that some people have used for Xbox Arcade games. As far as I know it hasn't been used for any disc-based games. Games like Modern Warfare are written in C++, top to bottom, with potentially some Lua for scripting.
Lack of C++ is a huge issue on WP7, ask any game developer you know who is working on the platform.
no no no..a game developers do not use the same exact code for both iOs and Android..as the app life-cycle and other things are different enough that its a full port..especially when you consider that the UI is 70% of the code
Yea no. Now that the NDK is somewhat decent, 95% of the code we write for a game is shared between iOS and Android. We have our own GUI layer as well because it was a cost effective choice when compared to the option of re-writing our UI for each platform for each game. The parent is very correct as well, lack of native code support is a HUGE problem if they expect to get a rich ecosystem of games for their smartphone platform.
I know this is a damned if you do, damned if you don't attitude, but I think this is bad news for Microsoft.
Microsoft lives in an echo chamber. The last thing they need is a product people say is good, but that doesn't sell. This is going to stall them and they are going to wait for the sales to catch up to the hype - which in their mind it absolutely must/will. And when it doesn't, rather than acknowledge just how bad their brand is or how late to market they continue to be, they'll look at the outside world for what went wrong (it couldn't be them, people loved their products!).
This is good news for Microsoft, and I really do hope they do well, but there's still a mountain to climb: tech reviewers are not the same as normal consumers and impressing them for the limited period of time it takes to write a review does not necessarily translate onto having a successful product. Here are a few challenges Microsoft still face:
1. Getting the mobile networks to take handsets running Windows Phone.
2. Training handset retailers on this new platform and promoting it enough to ensure that these handsets are actively sold to consumers.
3. Their advertising and PR must not be lame, like Microsoft advertising sometimes is.
4. The UX must be consistently slick enough over a long period of time that word of mouth among non-technical people really takes hold and the phone moves beyond the early adopter segment of the market. Phones must run for several days without a reboot. Calls must not be dropped because of crashes. UI Lockups or moments where the slick facade falls away to reveal clunky technical menus are a big no no. And the inevitable bugs must be fixed and rolled out in a timely and seamless mannor. Otherwise, when Bob from accounts notices you have a Windows Phone and asks "what's it like?" he'll sense the hesitation in your voice and choose the iPhone.
5. If things start to work out, the team will need top level executive cover to prevent in-fighting or politics from ripping the team appart or forcing an unwanted technical strategy tax (think "Windows Phone - Bing/Azure/Office Edition") from destroying the product.
6. Microsoft need to make money from these things, otherwise the project will be shelved and resourced diverted to MS Office 2020.
This point is useless, the entire number 4 in your post. First of all, if you're using it as a point, you've never used a Windows Phone. It's as stable as an iPhone (certainly moreso than Android), I've had one since April and have never had a crash, lockup, or misplaced UI element. You seem to be bringing that from Windows Mobile, which is hands down the biggest thing holding Windows Phone back right now. Technical people who cannot and will not distinguish between it and its unrelated predecessor.
This argument pisses me off because it's completely unfounded, yet I constantly hear people saying "Well, I have my doubts since it's a Microsoft product" without ever using it. The biggest hurdle to Windows Phone 7 is ignorant techies casting misinformation to the general consumer just because bashing Microsoft is a fun talking point.
This point is useless, the entire number 4 in your post.
I have read that there are issues with proper implementation and understanding of UI conventions with WP7. Certainly, this is true for the iPhone as well: not all iPhone apps are consistent or slick, and the UI conventions have some key differences from desktop apps. It will be even more critical for WP7, since they have a markedly different set of UI conventions.
Given that the developer pool for WP7 is much smaller at this point, a few highly visible but poorly implemented apps are going to have a disproportionate effect. That would be a pity, as Metro really is a setup up in UX design from iPhone.
I used a Windows Mobile for a couple of years (two different handsets). I found that while the main screens were reasonably well skinned and looked good in the store, when used for real that often fell away to reveal a clunky UI that was impossible to work with. I also found that I had to reboot every day because of lockups and crashes, plus the phone often dropped calls and was generally very slow.
I understand that this is a complete re-write of their phone OS, but I will still be waiting for a couple of years to see how others find it before I'm willing to trust that division of Microsoft again.
EDIT: I'll give you an example, our CTO recently got one of the new Windows Phones, I asked him what it was like and his response was: "Good... but I can't seem to get it connected to our Exchange server". If a rock star techie can't get his phone talking to Exchange what hope is there for the non-techies out there.
The fact that I will base my purchasing decisions on past experience of the brand and word of mouth about the product is not unusual. Many people will be like me, and this is one of the challenges that MS will have to work hard to overcome. Downvoting me for being that way is pretty immature; approach the world as it is, not how you want it to be.
I don't have the ability to downvote, but your reply completely missed my point. My point was, you "past experience of the brand" doesn't mean anything here, since there is no past of Windows Phone 7. It may be named number 7, but it's brand new. There was nothing like it before. The fact that you keep comparing it to Windows Mobile shows your ignorance. We as techies should have the ability to give new technology the benefit of the doubt, especially when every reviewer and user is giving it rave reviews. The only people complaining about it are those who have never used it
Your CTO either doesn't know ho to use his phone or your Exchange server is broken, and you should be able to see through that.
I really hope Microsoft do not do well. I would like to see more competition in the mobile OS space, but I do not want Microsoft to be in control of anything ever again. I feel the industry really came to a halt in the decade that Microsoft owned the OS.
Apple has a near-monopoly like Microsoft? In what way?
iPhone has only 15% of the worldwide smartphone market, and that share shrank slightly 3Q11 vs. 3Q10.
Meanwhile Android went from 25.3% 3Q10 worldwide smartphone market to 52.5% 3Q11. In one year they doubled their share and tripled their quarterly units-shipped (20.5M to 60.5M).
Microsoft won't win with WP7 until they make it in their partners interests for it to win. Google did that by giving them a say in how the operating system looked and worked and a cut of revenue from apps.
Microsoft made a nice OS but there is just no reason for either the carriers or the manufacturers to want this OS to win. Right now it is a nice option to have around to keep Google honest and that's about as far as MS partners will go to promote it. Beyond that, WP7's success is a net loss for everyone except MS with no compensating upside. Microsoft has to figure out an equation that wins for everyone like Google did, and then we'll see things happen.
1) Distance themselves from the "Windows" branding (like they did with the XBox) -- as most people just upon hearing "Windows" won't even wait for the "phone" part and will automatically associate it with a negative connotation, whether warranted or not, with the desktop OS and Windows Mobile.
2) First impressions are the most important, and while people might actually like it if they were forced to use/try it for a few days the most crucial thing is it appeals to the consumer during the first few mins in the store. Every time I've watched someone at the store play with a WP7 they just immediately move on to the more "glossier" home screens of iPhone/Android. If it requires them to add embellishments to the home screen for the sake of sales despite violating a Metro design principle then that's what needs to be done. You have to give people what they like/want and not be stubborn about sticking to certain principles and/or give options in addition to Metro if you're struggling and about to go down in flames.
3) Treat developers better. Right now there's so much uncertainty in the WP7 development ecosystem wrt Silverlight and XAML/C#. Personally I'm at stalemate on the platform as I don't know if it's a waste of time to focus on XAML/C# if Silverlight/WPF is going to die, and whether all of that is going to be replaced with HTML/JS and/or WinRT/C++. Maybe after a year or two the dust will settle and the messaging for what to use for development will become clearer. But that's a significant time of lost opportunity to market share as developers will just stick to Objective-C for iPhone or Java for Android to avoid wasting time throwing away XAML/C# code for later HTML/JS, WINRT/C++, etc...
I actually Microsoft UI's have been good if not the best for usability in terms of accomplishing a task over time.
MS' main problem has been the "ugly on first blush" problem and even then, their interfaces have been ugly in the way an American cars, a twelve year old boy's toy hero or a supermarket tabloid are ugly. They've been flashy. lowest common denominators items that work perfectly for their intended purposes.
One example: Have you ever actually tried to change settings or preferences in any version of Windows (for the PC)? It’s a clusterfuck and it hasn’t gotten better. The problem is not that it is ugly, the problem is that it is a pain to use.
Windows 7 has done many things right and is pretty awesome in many respects but there are important areas where its usability cannot reasonably be called good.
Yep. I was installing a network printer on both XP and Windows 7 after Christmas. Those configuration dialogs have not changed in a decade, and you could scarcely call them "usable" back them.
The 'control panel' has always been a god awful nightmare... sure enough, in 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista and 7, it's disorganized and confusing, the changes they've made notwithstanding. Contrast this with Apple's System Preferences, and it's clear MS needs a basic philosophical change in how they design interfaces such as this.
You're right, and I'm playing my even-more cynical self here, but the problem with this action is that they have 2 choices - change it to be like Apple's philosophy, in which case they'll get sued by Apple for using Apple's patented "a vowel occurs in every word" technology(1) or they'll change it to be NOT like Apple's, in which case it'll be different from both Apple and MS, and no one will like it or be able to figure it out since it's neither intuitive nor familiar.
The problem is also that every new OS they decide to move everything around. So if you do know it, now you do not. One thing I really enjoy learning every new OS is where all the settings are, that is so much fun.
This is one reason I think people stay with XP so much, there are too many stupid changes. I couldn't be bothered learning all the new stuff with Vista/7, so I skipped them both.
Having played with it a bit, I would say that I enjoy the using the interface and the OS has potential. They definitely need better ways to highlight or identify elements with contextual menus. It's a guessing game at the moment, at least for me.
Really, my biggest gripe is the lack of apps that meet the same levels of functionality as their Android/iOS counterparts. I feel like the stock Twitter app is terrible and none of the other Twitter apps are as good as the top 5-6 on the other platforms. The same goes for Facebook. That comprises a large percentage of my usage outside of built-in functionality.
I will say though, I dig the People hub for managing all of the contact information. The social networking built in is good for at-a-glance usage but wouldn't replace a dedicated client for me.
I've had the Samsung Focus for the past 4 months. The OS itself is fantastic, but it's plainly on obvious that the apps on WP7 don't get nearly as much attention as their counterparts on iOS and Android. Hopefully with not adoption will come better apps.
This is interesting, I feel like I'm starting to detect a pattern. It seems like every time Microsoft makes a product that is generally accepted to be good, they start spreading some of the team behind that product around the company as a way to try and infuse the rest of the machine with some of the new magic juice.
It makes sense, but I've never really heard of it being done much in the past.
You kill the magic of a successful team if you spread them out. If a team works great together, you should keep them together. The team dynamics are a lot of that success.
Sometimes, it really does help though. The team running Windows 7 and now Windows 8 was the core of Office (Steven Sinofsky, Julie Larson-Green, Jon DeVaan). They really helped shake off the engineering problems during the Vista timeframe and enabled a really cool, successful product in Windows 7. Same with Terry Myerson (mentioned in this article) and his success first with Exchange and now Windows Phone.
I am not familiar with what happened there, but the way you describe it, that is not "spreading around" a team, but moving an entire team to a new project.
Spreading around a team is like spreading around a kindling fire. Moving it to a new project is like adding fuel.
I don't disagree with this. But I read your comment as moving people to another team couldn't make that new team any better. Perhaps I just misunderstood.
Problem is, WebOS (much like WP7) was actually better than any other mobile OS at the time. It's lack of success in the market wasn't due to not having a superior OS, and it also meant the competition was free to implement all the best features before WebOS could capitalize on them.
Both Android and iOS devices have a large ecosystem of apps and services that users can access from day 1. This may seem small, but I feel that this is the number one reasons why a normal consumer is drawn toward these more popular options. Is Windows Phone going to have a sexy app store with immense games and productivity apps? Maybe eventually, but if Mocrosoft can't attract consumers, they will continue to struggle with attracting developers. Microsoft may have made a great mobile OS, but without the cloud backbone, they will remain uncompetitive.
I really want to see Microsoft be successful with this. I was due for a phone upgrade months ago but I'm personally waiting for Sprint to release a new WP7. I really love the phone.
I also thought it was interesting that I recently had a neighbor get his first smart phone ever and he chose a WP7 and he loves it. He made the choice on his own (no other nerds were consulted) which I think is a good sign.
The new Nokia handsets carrying Windows Mobile 7.5 are nothing short of spectacular! I LOVE mine and it has quickly replaced iPhone and Android handset for me.
I can't wait for Windows 8 and mobile integration myself and feel that picking up some MSFT stock might be very wise for the coming years.
Too bad the marketing just isn't quite "I have to have one" yet. The Nokia Lumia seems slick... but have you seen the pop-up Nokia booths in the malls? They haven't got a bloody clue. The phones are tethered to a FAT security device...
Could be an intersting year for Win Phones. Nokia has signed up with ST-Ericsson to produce low cost chips, and Appollo (WP8) should be released Q3. I suspect Christmas 2012 will be a much more attractive WP offerings across all price points. Is it too late? I don't think so the oppurtunity for growth in the smartphone market is still huge. Will Nokia try and replace all feature phones with WP8? If Nokia is still capable of pumping out a million phones a day, then things could change fairly quickly. MS & Nokia need to get some momentum rolling this year though.
The OS allows one to optionally integrate twitter/facebook/linkedin feeds and contacts into the phone's core contacts/photos/activity apps, not unlike WebOS.
One unique feature on WP is the ability to group users (such as family or co-workers), and create live tiles on the main screen for such groups. New activity from those users (such as tweets, pictures, facebook postings, etc) will be visible at a quick glance. It enables me to keep in touch with important people without opening various apps and digging through mountains of noise.
Yep. Some android phones (like mine) have facebook and twitter apps that cannot be uninstalled, too.
Presumably by my mobile network company, not the manufacturer.
I've never used them, but they do annoy with occasional update requests.
Will put Cyanogen on the phone soon enough though.
They can't be uninstalled because they are installed in a compressed read-only filesystem that is expensive and risky to rewrite. This engineering compromise forces you to look at the icons of applications that you don't want to look at in exchange for more functionality from a cheaper device.
We all wish this was some conspiracy by the carriers to force you to expose your personal information to Facebook, but the reality is, it's a convenience for the 99.9% of people that do want to use Facebook. It would be inconvenient if phones came with no applications. It would be too expensive if every phone shipped every application on every Android market. So the carriers aim somewhere in the middle. The rest is an implementation detail.
A feature to "soft delete" applications in Android would be nice; instead of physically deleting the bits from the filesystem, just hide the icons and intents. I'm sure a patch implementing this would be most welcome.
I don't have the cm problem you are talking about. Moreover, it is a fixable bug, not a feature like Facebook app installed by default. You are comparing apples and bananas.
It's still that way today. They have no mindshare of the public at large, nor the developers, nor the carriers, nor the handset makers. Somehow, you have to make a product compelling to one of these. iOS is compelling for 2 of the 4 and Android is compelling for all 4. WP7 is compelling to zero of the 4.
For example, they have to fix the native C++ development option. This is especially important for games. Whether or not C# is nice, thanks to only being in C#, every development for that platform becomes a full-on port. If you design your code right for iOS and Android, you can use mostly the same code for both, and just a few glue points for the rest, AND you can develop for both on the Mac instead of having to fire up Windows just for that platform.
The 3rd party development option is so abysmal that Microsoft has been paying for apps to be ported to this platform for two years now. This situation is not sustainable by any measure.
At this point Microsoft is 4 years behind Apple and Google. No one cares if something is arguably better. That's the Zune. That's the Mac in the 90s. Microsoft has to do something that's _compellingly_ better, to someone, somewhere, on some basis that makes money.