Slashdot Mirror
Charlie Kindel On Why Windows Phone Still Hasn't Taken Off
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft's weak share in the mobile phone market can be attributed to its mishandling of industry politics, not inferior technology or features, according to ex-Windows Phone evangelist Charlie Kindel. Microsoft's traditional strategy of going over the heads of hardware vendors to meet the needs of consumers and application developers does not work in the phone market, says Kindel, where the handset makers and carriers have the biggest say in determining the winners (Apple is an exception). Not everybody agrees with Kindel's analysis. Old-timers may remember Kindel, who recently resigned from Microsoft, from his days as developer relations guru for COM/OLE/Active-X."
Fool me once, shame on you, lock me into an inferior OS twice, shame on the whole industry.
Wait, why is it superior?
Windows Phone is Superior; Why Hasn’t it Taken Off
ex-Windows Phone evangelist Charlie Kindel
Oh, right
Not everybody agrees with Kindel's analysis. Old-timers may remember Kindel, who recently resigned from Microsoft, from his days as developer relations guru for COM/OLE/Active-X
Is the submitter trying to imply that his judgement doesn't matter because COM/OLE/ActiveX was somehow bad?
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Well, let's see here...
* The delivery is about three-four years too late
* World+dog who has used Windows-based phones in the past have experience with WMP 6.5 (*shudder*)
* App developers are looking at 'safe' (marketshare-wise) platforms to write apps for. iOS and Android are among them, while WP7 is not.
* The UI tiles may be pretty, but that whole right-hand side of the screen is sitting there unused, making the whole thing look narrower, and therefore smaller
* The ads aren't quite cutting it, and tend to be (IMHO) full of snafus. For instance, the latest sends the subtle message that only whipped boyfriends willing to wear yoga tights will use a Windows Phone.
There's lots more, but those stand out immediately...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
A reasoned debate? You mean one without resorting to derogatory stereotypes, promoting a product while tearing down the other identified purely by brand, avoidance of actual evidence/references, and lame self-referential irony? You must be some microsoft loving git astroturfing for windows, as anybody could see.
Though truth be told, I'd take a windows phone . . . if it were actually cheap enough for me to afford. Same for any other smart phone.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
I am a Windows Phone developer and something of a fan, but I would bet money that you are not -- you are just a troll. Hint: It's "Windows Phone". And while we're at it, let's throw a bone to the "unshaven scraggly neckbeards" and add that it's "GNU/Linux" (I wouldn't ordinarily, but I'm having fun smacking you down). And to be fair, Android isn't trash, especially when compared to the (old) Windows Mobile, which had all the sex appeal of Windows 3.1 to bring to your 21st century mobile device. I develop for Windows Phone because it's fun and similar to the technologies I use in my day job, and I like to create things for consumers, but I carry an Android phone because I can do anything I want with it in terms of homebrew and my own geekish forms of enjoyment.
What is the audience for Windows Phone at this point?
If you want a smooth, uncomplicated user experience and don't mind lock-in with a tyrannical corporation, get an iPhone.
If you want things like freedom and openness and ethics and value and don't mind not having the "cool" phone that gets all the buzz, get an Android.
What exactly is the core audience for Windows Phone, and what are the traits that they value? I can't really think of anyone for whom Windows Phone would make more sense than either iOS or Android.
Do what I do. It's a fairly complicated process, but the results are well worth it.
1) Don't open the Facebook application.
This is all from memory, so hopefully I didn't skip anything!
LATE? Windows CE, on which Windows Phone is based, came out in 1996. The first Windows phone came out in 1998, running CE 2.0. They were YEARS ahead of Apple and Android. What Apple changed- was a usable User Interface experience (most people just didn't want to hit the "Start" button to make a phone call!).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The facts are probably that WP was:
a) Late to market
b) Lacking developer support as many had already moved to iPhone or Android or developed mobile skills on these platforms
c) Not allowing hardware manufacturers to best utilise existing hardware by being proscriptive
d) Trying to be different after the market had already led in specific directions (iPhone then Android). Lets face it, it wasn't going to be easy to get in on this without using a similar interface to iPhone or a good weight of device support (Linux)
e) Less than interesting on most of the original hardware
f) Poor Marketting
g) Leaving carriers being carriers - little value add and little gain.
h) Using the names "Microsoft" and "Windows"
Anyone think of any others? I think instead of arguing between posts I think we can just add a big list together, post it to Microsoft and see if they learn any lessons.
they did a huge reset with WP7 which didn't come out until iOS 3 or so. at this point they are way behind apple and android
I tested a windows phone 7 device for my company..
We don't allow storage of corporate data on 3rd party servers so right off the bat it's web based storage system was useless..
The OS offers no USB storage options and no removable SD cards.
It had no way to upload videos from the phone other then tethering it to PC and using the MS Zune app to download the off the phone.
Overall we found the OS to be to restrictive for our needs and standardized on Android based phones.
If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
Firstly, he thinks that consumers are stupid: "They don’t know what they hate. All they know is they buy phone service from mobile carriers and/or buy a phone from a carrier. They love speeds & feeds and will generally buy anything they are told to by television ads and RSPs (Retail Sales Professionals)."
No: consumers ask their friends. Their friends are Slashdot readers. They know full-well what a phone Market dominated by Microsoft would look like, they know how Microsoft has behaved. Repeatedly. And they are not going to recommend a MS phone to anyone: friends don't screw friends. They all know it's just about protecting the desktop market, and the moment that MS has achieved that objective they'll screw the user. The clue is in the name: 'Windows Phone'.
Secondly: "My hypothesis is that it also enables too much fragmentation that will eventually drive end users nuts." I guess that's how it's worked out for x86 choice in the face of the Apple desktop monoculture. Nope? It turns out that we value openness. It's one of the variables we play with when making a choice between systems: given all else equal, we'll choose the system that's more open. Advantages of openness far outweigh the disadvantages like fragmentation. So all that Google has to do is keep Android at rough parity with Apple in terms of UI/features. But they are doing better than parity - it's cheaper for better.
Thirdly: Carriers know full well what happens to companies who partner with Microsoft. And so do device manufacturers. I guess some companies (cough, Nokia, cough), like the idea of handing their future to Microsoft, but it turns out that most think that's a bad idea. Sendo, anyone?
Then I'm sure we can find a bunch of people who will dispute that WP is the best technically. Form an orderly queue in the replies please.
But finally, even if you were to consider that WP was technically the best, the idea that the best tech is the winner has been roundly disproved again and again. Everyone, including Charlie Kindel, knows it's about the whole package. We all know that MS on the desktop isn't the best technically (it can't be - it has to satisfy everyone) but it is the best at the whole package.
From Kindel's blog: "Remember that end users just do what they are told (by advertising and RSPs). "
Yeah? Really? Screw you, Charlie, and all the devices you flogged. Go on, TELL me to buy a Windows phone. Go on. I'm listening. What? Louder. Ok, I hear you. I understand the instruction. The answer is NO.
Arrgh!
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Apple is an exception
The real question is: Why isn't Microsoft?
"My better competitor is an exception" is a cop-out. Find out what makes them the exception, why they could break the rules and not only get away with it, but be successful doing so. Just saying "they're an exception" is on the same order as "these are not the droids you are looking for" - if you're not a Jedi, it just makes you look stupid. Because you didn't explain anything, and least of all the failure you're trying to cover up.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The UI is horrible.
It's not open source.
No one is making apps for it because it is dead in the market.
You can't develop for it on OS X or Unix.
You are forced to use Microsoft's shitty developer tools.
But, hey!, it has connectivity with Microsoft's piece of shit last place console!
LOL, fail.
1. You may dislike the UI, but a lot of people love it because of the minimalism.
2. Yes it's not Open Source.
3. Sorry on this point, it just crossed 50,000 apps and the growth is accelerating http://www.wpcentral.com/windows-phone-marketplace-hits-50000-apps
4. Yes no dev on OS X and Linux
5. Microsoft's developer tools are no where close to shitty, they're simply the best in the industry (YMMV).
6. The last point proves that you're a troll. XBox 360 is nowhere close to last place. It just had a record Thanksgiving beating all other consoles and they're flying off shelves thanks to Kinect and the new media features. Also, they're top on the biggest metric, the amount people spend money on, buying games.
This space for rent.
The reason I'd never buy one is simply because its a Microsoft product.
Microsoft have a long history of screwing their customers. I don't trust Microsoft or Ballmer especially to ever put small users interests first. Simple as that.
Why the fuck are you calling it "Windows" or "Phone" or "7"?
People associate "Windows" with uncool corporate dilbert crap. Phone is OK, but what are you going to call your pathetic excuse for a tablet, Windows Phone 8.5 For A Thing That Isn't A Phone?
And why 7, just reminds people how much 1 through 6 sucked. If it's totally different, and it is, you need to change people's feelings and not just the fucking api.
Microsoft faced a similar problem in automotive systems. At one point, Microsoft wanted to control the in-car entertainment and navigation system market. The problem was that they wanted to have a direct relationship with the car buyer. (Think "OnStar, by Microsoft"). This did not go over with the auto companies. (A QNX sales rep once told me that an auto exec went through the roof when shown a demo with the Microsoft logo appearing on screen when the car was started.) Microsoft remains active in that sector, but has neither a dominant position nor control over the auto companies.
Charlie Kindel was once a Windows Phone evangelist, and he thinks that inferior features or user experience are not the reason why Windows Mobile isn't capturing the market. To me, these are two solid pieces of evidence that he's never actually USED a Windows Mobile device!
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
I have owned many phones. I have played with hundreds of phones (through my previous job) and what I can say about iPhone (being an iPhone 4 addict myself) is that it is a "Does everything passably well or better phone". Sony has tried so hard to make a "Game Phone" or a "Walkman Phone". Nokia tries to make "Music phones" or "Ovi Phones". Blackberry tries to make "Messenger phones". HTC tries to make "movie phones"
iPhone tries to make a phone that plays music well, plays films well, reads mail well, runs games well, interacts with the Apple stores well etc... In short, they make phones that do a little of this and a little of that and while it doesn't do any one thing particularly awesome like those specialized phones do, it does each one of the things it does... well.
iPhone is a marketing miracle. Apple converted itself from a tech company to a fashion company. They don't try to make cheap phones so everyone can afford one. They focus on making the phone do the things they want it to do and then they sell it to people who can afford them. I am 100% locked into Apple products. I have purchased tons of stuff on the Apple stores and make use of iCloud for phone books and everything. The personal cost to switch away from them would require me to replaced 3 iPads, 4 iPhones and an Apple TV. I have ditched my person iPad recently as I never used it for more than watching films and now I have a Windows 8 Tablet (Series 7 Slate), and from there I can run iTunes... the full version.
This is a new era of telephones. We should stop categorizing phones as smart phones and instead categorize the ones which don't run Android, iOS or Windows Phone (yeh... tried BlackBerry... recently... not really in the same category) as junk phones or tossers. It is just plain stupid to call a Android Phone with a 66Mhz processor and 32megs of RAM a smart phone and yet, they sell by the millions.
Windows Phone is pretty nice. I would seriously consider using a Windows Phone for a year. But as I said, I'm locked into iPhone. Which is ok... at least it's a phone from a a bunch of crooks that know they're a bunch of crooks. Google is a truly scary bunch of crooks because they don't realize they are crooks. And Microsoft well... they're actually much better than ever before. They almost seem honest in comparison these days.
I really don't want Apple, Microsoft or Google to crush one another... I like having options. Now if Office Live 365 works on Android devices... Android might even be pretty good if they ever make it to a real laptop. Apple really needs to make iDevices be able to switch between iOS and OS X. Microsoft is on the right track... but they'l have to fight for it. I'm pretty sure... Microsoft's future is going to be based on people using their mobile phones as their PC and simply docking it with a mouse, screen an keyboard. So, as opposed to getting people to switch to Windows Phone, it's more of an issue of making Windows Phone as good as possible so that when PCs are small enough to be used as phones, they'll be ready.