Slashdot Mirror
T-Mobile Dumps MS SmartPhone
burgburgburg writes "It seems that T-Mobile International, Europe's second largest mobile phone operator, has decided against introducing a Microsoft SmartPhone after all. T-Mobile had announced their plans in February to introduce the MS SmartPhone this summer. Industry insiders say that the software for the phone continued to have 'fundamental problems,' leading to a high failure rate. French mobile carrier Orange introduced a MS SmartPhone, SPV, late last year. It initially had software security problems which Microsoft has claimed are patched."
Just wait for version 3.0 to come out. That'll probably be good enough to whack Nokia and Qualcomm around. Think about it: Windows, Pocket PC, Tablet PC, etc. All of these products didn't really do well until version 3 rolled around. MS usually tries to get a product into a niche just to get experience there. They then spend the next few years figuring out means to really grab hold of the niche, and then they dominate it. That's how it works with them. Not a bad business strategy at all. In fact, it's really good one.
iRooster, the Mac OS X a
I have to admit I'm a little skeptical about it having "security problems." After all, Microsoft is very pro-security. I highly doubt it was their fault that there were security problems.
Last I heard you couldn't even make the phone dial a number straight out of Pocket Outlook.
DUH.
Something went very wrong in the QA chain between Microsoft, the 3rd parties and the mobile telcos when they were trying to rush this out.
It initially had software security problems which Microsoft has claimed are patched."
:)
Yeah, connect your smartphone to the SmartWindowsUpdate via GPRS. It only takes about several megabytes(every week) of download(yes in fact that's entire OS replacement) and in view of the present strikely *low* GPRS rate (US$1/kbyte) it won't be too much hassle, will it?
May be the reporter has mistaken "T-Mobile's Dumb MS SmartPhone" as "T-Mobile Dumps MS SmartPhone"
Cell phones require far more resilience then organizers or pocket PCs. For example: Compare the Treo to the Nokia Communicator. While the second is designed as a cell phone with added functionality, the first is primarily an organizer with crammed in phone functionality. I know a number of happy Communicator users, while the number of happy Treo users I know of is precisely zero.
In addition embrace and extend is a philopsophy, which rightfully has zero credibility in the phone business. It's all about (meticulously respected) standards.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
No, it doesn't figure. It's not a French phone at all. It's manufactured by a Taiwanese company for a German customer. And with which part of the phone is there a problem? The software developed by Microsoft, a U.S. company.
Just because the article is different doesn't make it correct and the news.com one incorrect. The article you linked to doesn't even link to the specific article from the WSJ it took the quote from. It just says, "Some quote from The Wall Street Journal." Here's a few excerpts from the news.com article:
"We have decided not to introduce this phone,'' a T-Mobile representative said on the sidelines of a Deutsche Telekom news conference. "For the time being, we are not pursuing this project further.'
OK, fair enough. Maybe they will later. Though they didn't confirm. And the only substantial comment in the msmobiles site (msmobiles? They couldn't be biased), is the following conjecture: Please note: "for the time being" does not mean "never".
So right now, they've dropped it. They haven't delayed it, they aren't waiting around for Microsoft or HTC to fix anything, but "For the time being, we are not pursuing this project." So the project is stopped. They might pick it up at a later date, but they aren't just "delaying" the project as the msmobiles excerpt seems to imply.
I'm confused.
I underatand why Microsoft's operating systems and word processors and stuff might be buggy: they have to provide legacy support and the hardware configurations can be complex.
However, considering their resources and (I'm assuming) talent... shouldn't they be able to do something like this and have it be pretty sound technology?
I think nowadays even to non-technical people, Microsoft has come to symbolize a product that will work but also let you down in so many ways in terms of quality, security, bugs, price, etc.
Reboot a Psion 5? What are you talking about? I've never had to reboot a Psion 5. The only problem with these things is hardwarefailure due to user error, ie dropping it on a concrete floor.
Epoc is the most stable OS I've ever used. And as an organizer a Psion has one of the best usable aganda/database/spreadsheet applications, compared to other organizers (Palm/pocketpc).
The days of big Microsoft advances are over.
First, MS has only been successful in things that they can bind to Windows (prime example is MS Office which generates about 40% of MS revenues, a phyrric victory is IE which generates no revenue but was also pushed by the Windows domination), everything else is losing money.
No argument there.
All the following projects have been canceled:
- Windows/Mips
- Windows/PowerPC
- Windows/Alpha
- "HomeR" Project
- Modular Windows
- "Otto" Project (SW for cars; 1992)
- MMOSA (Set-Top-boxes Operating System
- WebTV
- Blackbird/Internet Studio (1995)
- proprietary MSN (Microsoft should have become the sole ISP, remember?)
- COOl (C++ Object Orientated Language)
- PenWindows
- Microsoft Bob
- Ultimate TV
- Hailstorm (2001 - 2002)
Most of these were not so much products, but rather blocking moves by MS, designed to head off possible threats to the Windows cash-cow. Admittedly, some of them were better thought out than others. *grin* PenWindows did succeed in its real purpose, that of stopping Go Corp from building a viable competitor to Windows for what was at the time thought to be the Next Big Thing. Other products you mention have been recycled into other projects - COOL eventually became C#, while Internet Studio's technology found its way into Microsoft's development tools, particularly Visual Interdev.
If you look at the big picture, MS is currently being stripped off everything except their core business (x86-desktop). And wether MS is really able to make the 64-Bit transition is questionable. They are so incompetent in producing something 64Bit that they will lose a lot of people to Linux/Athlon64, even on the desktop.
Based on past history, the deciding factor will not be whether or not Microsoft succeeds, but rather whether or not the competition falters or dithers long enough for Microsoft to come through with a credible bodge-job that can woo potential customers.
-MT.
I work in the embedded market and it is the standard.
Our partner-company was a 100% Microsoft-shop and Linux is forbidden in the corporate LAN - yet they still chose Linux as their platform for *ALL* their new devices.
What about VXworks? PalmOS? QNX? Are these people quaking in their boots?
Yes they are. You can get big discounts from everybody.
What about all the special purpose real time OSes that many companies use.
Used in many existing devices, but for most new developments, a real OS is chosen for shorter development time. (the hardware is fast enough already)
Linux isn't the standard in the embedded market any more than it is the standard on the desktop.
Laughable. According to this study: here Linux (+ BSD) was running on 11% of existing systems in 2001, but was used for 50% of new projects.
I can only confirm these developments, Linux is already the de-facto standard on embedded systems.
IMHO Bill G is not successful because he is a visionary in the computing field.
Bill Gates is successful because he is a good businessman. I once got curious and did a little research on the worlds richest people. Know what all of those who made their own money seem to have in common? Insane business sense/craftiness. The ability to work deals that just make others shake their heads. He knows how to work the system for all it's worth.
Bill Gates has always bet on Moore's Law, and has always won.
MS has never really worried about beating competitors spec-wise, not because of Moore's Law, but because they beat them other (often illegal) ways. If doesn't matter if the other guy's software is better, if you control the OS that everyone uses. All you have to do is develop/buy your own and bundle it with your OS. Instant market share. You make money because you just charge more for the OS to recover the cost, while the other company dies. Why is anyone going to buy a competitor's product (for additional cost), when the already have the MS equivalent?
Now, back on topic: MS can't use this tactic to get WinCE on cellphones. This means they have to compete on a (somewhat) level playing-field. Since their software is currently inferior to Symbian OS for smartphone use, I predict they will loose. By the time WinCE is stable enough, it will be too late, another OS will have already become the standard.
The only way I can see MS really making it in the embedded OS field is if they take huge losses, basically giving their stuff away, until they get market share. They definately have the money to do this, but even so, they may not get anywhere. Even if they charge $0, they still have to compete with embedded Linux at the same price point. With Linux, companies know that they will always be able to redistribute it royalty-free. They also know that, at some point, MS is going to want to make back the money the spent developing WinCE, so they will get charged for it eventually.
Meanwhile:
Symbian is owned by Ericsson, Panasonic, Motorola, Nokia, Psion, Samsung, Siemens and Sony Ericsson.
That's basically all the major cellphone manufacturers. Since they all own the OS, they know they're getting their OS just about as cheap as possible anyways, as well as knowing that they have control over it in the future.
Since their cellphones are already the standard, one can be pretty sure that whatever OS they choose to put on them will also become the standard. Just like MS choosing IE.
Life is too short to proofread.