Why Is Windows Phone Failing?

Business Insider ^ | 12/27/2011 | Steve Kovach

[SeekAndFind]

Good question.

However, if you want an honest opinion, it's usually best to go straight to the source. A former GM who used to work on Windows Phone 7 for Microsoft, Charlie Kindel, took to his personal blog today with some thoughts on why Microsoft's mobile efforts seem so stagnant.

It boils down to carriers, manufacturers, and the companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft who make the operating system are all locked in this big three-way pissing contest to see who gets the most say in marketing a device.

According to Kindel, Android is crushing iOS and Windows Phone 7 when it comes to marketshare simply because its open platform allows manufacturers and carriers to get away with whatever they want, while cranking out dozens of devices a year.

And yes, that means bloatware, nasty skins, and fragmentation on your Android phone. But it also means carriers get to promote the hell out of those phones thanks to their massive marketing budgets.

Here's Kindel:

Google has been wildly successful with Android (at least in terms of units) because Android was built to reduce friction between all sides of the market. It ‘bows down’ to the device manufactures AND the carriers. It enabled device manufactures to do what they do best (build lots of devices). It enabled carriers to do what they do best (market lots of devices). It enabled users tons of choice. My hypothesis is that it also enables too much fragmentation that will eventually drive end users nuts.

On the other hand, although Windows Phone 7 can be licensed to any device, Microsoft has a set of specs each manufacturer must follow in order to ensure the best user experience. It's not as perfect as Apple's approach of designing both the hardware and software,

[Jonty30]

I think that 90% of it has to do with the fact that Microsoft is unreliable, in terms of supporting their products.

How can I justify spending, as much as, $600 for a phone and have Microsoft pull out of the market?

If Microsoft is going to gain traction, they are going to have to think in terms of decades and stick with it, if they want to improve their marketability to the point of profitability.

[Timaeus]

The reason why I said what I said is because everytime Windows is mentioned in these forums, it inevitably gets the whole gamut of ridicule from many posters.

I use opensuse 12.1 so I don't even need to write what I want to write because you already know my script by heart. So, blah, blah, blah, etc., &c.

[VanDeKoik]

But, since then:
Kin1 and Kin2- released, hyped, failed and dumped.
Zune - released, hyped, failed and dumped
Courier - released, hyped, failed and dumped

Now, do you really want to sign a 2 year contract with a company that has established a pattern of not supporting their products, if they are not immediately successful in the market?”

Courier was a concept video. It was not a product at any point.

#2 You have the talking points down as to what you need to run to to paint MS as a horrible company, all the while ignoring all of the other products they release that are very well received.

XBox

Windows 7

Win 8 developer preview has been downloaded millions of times.

Office

MS server products

Hotmail

Bing

Kinect

And many others

[Jonty30]

From what I have read on it, I like the idea of having a folder on my phone, that I can click on and all the programs that are within that folder reveal themselves.

If what I understand to be correct, that would be a quality that would attract me to the phone.

[dayglored]

> Windows is at the same time, one of the most successful, yet one of the most disliked products out there.

Oh I know. :) I use it on numerous machines, every day. I make my living on Windows.

You mentioned "successful" and "disliked", but you didn't mention "quality".

Windows' success is because it became ubiquitous riding on the coattails of MSDOS in the 90's, nothing more. It's finally gotten to the point of being a "quality" product with Windows 7, in the last 2-3 years, and now it's damn good. Nevertheless, users will always complain about Windows.

Apple got MacOSX working right after a few years, but they've also had 7-8 years of subsequent raging success in their part of the marketplace to build a reputation. If you doubt that MacOSX took a while to get right, go back and try to use 10.1 or 10.2. Yikes!

I hope Microsoft does Windows 8 right. They can't afford another Vista debacle.

[dangerdoc]

Your metaphors are telling, walled garden vs. open litter box, really?

How about walled garden vs. forest? A garden is nice but you can only go so far before you come to a wall. A forest is nice, no walls but you are more likely to get eaten.

[RegulatorCountry]

Have a Windows phone, and it is remarkably non-intuitive.

"Intuitive" is not a word that springs immediately to mind in association with Microsoft. Are you surprised?

[scott7278]

Exactly - I used Windows Mobile when I had to do so; when Android matured I jumped ship. No going back based on past experience.

[scott7278]

Android connects and syncs flawlessly with my PC and Microsoft Exchange - there was ALWAYS something going wrong with Windows Mobile.

[Jonty30]

One thing that would probably help Microsoft is, if they did what every other phone manufacturer did and have sneak leaks of their phones, even the ones that are still in the lab.

You can’t tell me that every picture of phones, Android and Iphone and BB, that are still due to come out a year from now, are all accidents.

[dayglored]

> Your metaphors are telling, walled garden vs. open litter box, really? How about walled garden vs. forest? A garden is nice but you can only go so far before you come to a wall. A forest is nice, no walls but you are more likely to get eaten.

The term "walled garden" as applies to Apple products is hardly original with me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walled_garden_%28technology%29.

For Android I probably should have said "playground sandbox" instead of "litterbox". I didn't mean "crappy", so much as "everybody gets to play around and do what they please, no rules".

"Forest" might work for Android, insofar as a forest grows without rules (gardens have rules) and there are few if any cleared paths (gardens have paths) and you tend to to run into brambles and bogs (which are generally not found in gardens).

[Hodar]

Windows 7, is essentially a patched Visa - but at full price.

But, honestly; do consumers ‘really’ have a choice? My PC at work is going to be a Windows machine. That is a fact of life, I don’t get a vote on that. The momentum behind Windows is tremendous; try to order a PC without Windows installed. This is where Apple is ‘finally’ getting some momentum.

MSFT has garnered a great deal of ‘ill-will’. People hate MSFT, it’s a passion and it is indeed ‘personal’. Why is that? Why do Apple users love and fawn over their OS X; while MSFT users swear that they will never buy another Windows machine?

Bing? Sorry, it’s not a tremendous success. People, when given a choice - are opting for Google.

Server products - again, with market momentum and IT staff trained for all things Windows - this is a market that MSFT has sewn up nicely. Is it sewn up on the merits of the Server OS, or the fact that it is what Corporations chose? Why is the Apple equivalent, less than $100 more than Lion; while the MSFT server OS retails for several hundred dollars more? They both do the same thing?

XBox and Kinect - granted; those are two successful devices. But, is it due to the hardware (which had nearly 100% failure rates associated with it for the first 3 years of release), or due to the tremdous software provided by Bungee and other developers? Software-wise; the XBox reigned supreme. Hardware wise, it’s a distant second to the PS3 (I own the Wii, XBox360 and PS-3); for day to day operations, the PS3 plays my CD, DVD and Blu-Rays; it streams video from my network, runs silently and serves it’s purpose well. The XBox360 (first edition) is noisy, is on it’s 3rd motherboard, and generally is used only as a gaming console.

So, what does MSFT have, really? A 50/50 chance of supporting your given product? If it’s immediately successful; MSFT will support it. If it’s not immediately accepted by the market, historically speaking - it’s quickly abandoned.

Now, compare this support record to the competition. Apple is STILL supporing the iPhone 3GS, and even older generations of the iPod.

[martin_fierro]

Nokia's 'last-ditch' Windows phone stumbles - sales crawl behind Androids, iPhones, BlackBerries

They couldn't print it if it weren't true

[dfwgator]

I wonder how much longer Microsoft will be around as we know it, they are getting creamed by Apple and Google on the newer technologies, yes their legacy products should help them stay afloat for the near future, but beyond that....

[dfwgator]

The question is, with increasing power of mobile devices, how much longer will PCs be as prevalent as they are now? Not saying they’re going away, but certainly their numbers will begin to decline steadily over the next few years, as tables and smartphones begin to take their place, and Microsoft will pretty much be shutout of that.

[dfwgator]

tables s/b “tablets”

[Hodar]

From what I have read on it, I like the idea of having a folder on my phone, that I can click on and all the programs that are within that folder reveal themselves.

You will find the folder idea on almost any phone. Blackberry, Apple and Android all have them, and have had them for some time. I'd be surprised if Windows didn't have them (I don't know).

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Here's my take. Microsoft got to where they are (or more precisely were) but taking a very fragmented PC market in the 80s and 90s and made it orderly which was a clear benefit for consumers but at the cost of a Microsoft monopoly. Before Microsoft came along there was no promise that a given program would work with a given printer or a given modem or what have you. Once the Microsoft monopoly was established they continued to print money by ruthlessly exploiting that monopoly.

What they haven't done much of in last, say, 15 years, is to significantly innovate.

Now, faced with an entirely separate market - the one for Mobile OS - they have none of their previous advantages. Say what you will, it's not a market in chaos either economically or technologically. And it's certainly not a Microsoft owned monopoly - far from it. So neither of their previous two strategies show any promise of working in this new space.

Can they come up with a winning strategy by providing a compelling technology for carriers, manufacturers, developers and users - and then forge those relationships based on a compelling technology with great customer service and innovative marketing? It's possible, but seems quite unlikely to this observer.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

And one more thing - people who want to work some place “cool” aren’t going to be working at Redmond and neither are people who are looking for a quick “pop” on
stock options or restricted stock grants. The programming talent that they have there
now is probably no longer the best and the brightest nor on the cutting edge of mobile
technology.

[Cyber Liberty]

Can I boil this down to say Windows phone is failing because it’s too good for us?