Charlie Kindel On Why Windows Phone Still Hasn't Taken Off 397
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."
And the other reason is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows Phone is Superior; Why Hasn’t it Tak (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, why is it superior?
Windows Phone is Superior; Why Hasn’t it Taken Off
ex-Windows Phone evangelist Charlie Kindel
Oh, right
Re:And the other reason is... (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is Windows Mobile is not a inferior OS (for once). But MS's history has burned so many in the past that people are just turned off by the idea of a Windows mobile phone.
Re:And the other reason is... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yep. Windows Mobilie is, after I switched to Android, actually a *superior* OS, locked behind an utterly incomprehensible user interface.
Android is a superior user interface, chained to an operating system that operates so much in the cloud that I lose the ability to read my e-mail when the train goes through the tunnel on the way to work. And while their cloud-based GPS application is *vastly superior*, God help the poor person who is trapped in Oregon's hinterlands out of the reach of even a 2G signal.
Who is the audience? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Its not surprising everyone disagrees (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Who is the audience? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:What is the implication here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And the other reason is... (Score:5, Insightful)
The short question and answer is "How can we make people want this?" The answer is unknown to me. Apple took that approach and it worked out great. Of course, there was an incredibly charismatic front man explaining to everyone that they need the next i-thing. Microsoft doesn't do that so much. They killed the competition and so they only need to use their legal muscle to convince people they need to buy their monopoly product... in fact, they need to buy it twice if they are a corporation. (Turns out volume licensed Windows is an 'upgrade' and requires a previous instance of Windows... an OEM version of Windows... so buy it once from the OEM, then buy it again so you can legally deploy images.)
Microsoft hasn't ever had a charismatic face man. Bill Gates, the celebrity that he is, simply doesn't qualify I'm afraid. And any awe and wonder Microsoft might have inspired in the past hasn't appeared for the past... what? 20 years almost? Has it really been that long? Yeah... it really has.
SMALL DEVICES is simply not something that Microsoft can do! There was a time when they could, but it just doesn't seem possible any longer. The bloat has made them so fat and heavy they can't move without a quad core and 8GB RAM. Yes, please disagree with me. I know you want to. Whatever Microsoft has right now will never see an effective light of day. It was rejected before anyone ever heard of it.
Re:And the other reason is... (Score:5, Insightful)
The incredibly charismatic front man also figured out how to take advantage of the mobile platform and offer services that no one else was offering. There hadn't really been a handheld revolution since Palm and BlackBerry.
Apple didn't win of charisma they won of the advantages of an integrated total experience.
exception (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:And the other reason is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously? If Microsoft delivered what Apple delivered, I simply don't think it would be as well received. What's more, pretty much everything delivered in the form of these i-things already existed in things other makers have made. Apple put some things together and made them slick and shiny, but they didn't make anything original. They did, however, manage to tie the stuff down and limited them in ways unprecedented. In that way, Apple definitely did something new, but that's not something people actually WANT. It's just part of the cost people are willing to pay to get the new shiny.
Re:And the other reason is... (Score:5, Insightful)
The iPhone sold because it offered something that other phones did not... It was appealing to users, and although it didn't really offer anything new it did existing things like email and web browsing better than other phones on the market.
Windows phone has nothing to offer users that they can't get from an Android or iOS based device...
On the other hand, it's called "windows" which paints the device in a negative light...
It reminds users of windows mobile, which was an awful platform that users generally hated.
It gives users an incorrect belief that they will be able to run windows applications on it, just as windows mobile did, and users will be disappointed.
It creates an association with the desktop/laptop windows brand, a brand which is generally disliked and is associated with crashing, malware and various other nasties... It's tolerated on computers because users don't see any alternative or are locked in, but alternatives are well known and readily available on phones.
Re:And the other reason is... (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is Windows Mobile is not a inferior OS (for once). But MS's history has burned so many in the past that people are just turned off by the idea of a Windows mobile phone.
This is pretty much the long and short of it.
Also, WP7 is just competing against more mature offerings, with more features to entice new users. WP7 is quite nice to use (I have a Samsung Focus), and it does most tasks well, but it still falls behind when compared to Android and iPhone in a lot of tasks, simply because it's younger.
IMO, WP7 (vs. Android or iPhone) is ideal for 3 types of people:
- If you want a really simple but still powerful smartphone, then check out WP7. iPhone is a very close 2nd in this category, but WP7 is incredibly simple to use.
- If you are heavy into Facebook or Twitter, then you should look at WP7. The Social hubs are unmatched.
- If you love finding and downloading new music, then you should check out Zune Pass + WP7. Although they did just get rid of their $15/month-but-with-10-free-songs deal, the $10/month for a huge music library you can download to your hearts content is still quite nice.
Otherwise, honestly, you will probably find more things to like about an Android or iPhone. Although you should still check out WP7 and see if the UI can swing you like it did me.
Re:And the other reason is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WP7 Is Garbage (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wpcentral.com]
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.
Re:And the other reason is... (Score:4, Insightful)
although it didn't really offer anything new it did existing things like email and web browsing better than other phones on the market.
What? While I'm an Android user (and am generally happy with my phone / OS) it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the iPhone, at least the original model, "didn't really offer anything new." It was the first phone to be widely used as a handheld computer instead of just a phone, it was the first phone to have an app store and a large number of third party apps available to end users. I'm pretty sure that was new when the original iPhone launched. While I can't see myself switching from Android to iOS anytime in the future, I give credit to Apple for making the original iPhone a groundbreaking device.
Ok, feel free to mod me down now for saying something in support of Apple.
Re:And the other reason is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, another anti-fanboy. Your complaints are false and intellectually lazy - see the iPod, which was the first MP3 player to combine a micro-hard drive with a fast interface, just for starters.
If marketing was the only thing Apple had going for it's products, they would have been overtaken by now. If you don't like their products, Jobs probably would have been the first one to tell you to go right ahead and buy from one of their competitors.
Re:And the other reason is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am an Apple fanboi, and I just gotta say you aren't quite accurate. Blackberry and some versions of WinMo had app stores prior to Apple's. OP was correct that Apple didn't do anything totally new, it did everything 'better'. And by 'better', I mean for most normal human beings, not slashdot troglodytes.
One thing Apple did with the iPhone that my brother often mentions, but never comes up here: broke the backs of the carriers. No more shovelware. No more locked down shit. No more proprietary music/video sources.
Re:And the other reason is... (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. There was a time when Microsoft phones were starting to gain on Palm. At this point, I had a problem with installing an app on my PC and then on the phone. It just simply never made it to the phone. While on the phone with support, I asked the guy why I couldn't just download and install software on the phone itself, since it already had an internet connection.
His response: Nobody would want to do that.
Apple's customers did want that, and they got it.
So, I disagree that if Microsoft had done it, it wouldn't have been well-received. If they had made an app store (or at least a format that installed directly on the phone that people could have put on their websites) and had made the interface so that everything wasn't buried 3 dialogs deep ON A PHONE!!!, they would have won the marketplace.
Re:And the other reason is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Profitable for the user? Is that a feature?
Regulated, Amazon App store. Windows Marketplace is also regulated.
The thing is, profitable or not, most of the main applications now support both systems. If I'm the end user I don't really care where I play angry birds nor do I care that Rovio did more money on iOS than Android (free app with adds btw).
And I asked features that no one else has. I could say iOS lacks a truly free Market where anyone can publish their apps without fear of rejection or where your business model can be decided by yourself and not Apple. Obviously both approaches have their advantages but that's not a "feature", especially one that everyone should aspire to have.