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
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?
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.
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!
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.
Windows Phones are pretty clearly aimed at this segment, for those who don't want to pay the premium price to get locked in. They're aiming to beat Apple doing the same thing, "just good enough", for a lot less money.
It worked for PCs. It's not crazy to try it with phones.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
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
Somehow bad? SOMEHOW? Obviously you've never worked with COM+ applications.
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.
My wife had an old Windows Mobile phone and hated it. She had to replace it once, and it required a lot of tech support from Verizon. The Verizon rep said they hated Windows phones because they have such a high return rate (as did Palm OS phones) and required a lot of support. Granted this was a few years ago, but I suspect Verizon has been burned by Microsoft for too long and want to let other carriers test the waters more fully.
When it takes until version 7 to get a usable phone, you've likely burned a few bridges.
I don't know, but it works for me.
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.
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.