3 ms·

I think the article is a nice summary of why Microsoft lost, but it doesn't fulfill the promise of its title. "Should have won" implies that there were steps Mi

I think the article is a nice summary of why Microsoft lost, but it doesn't fulfill the promise of its title. "Should have won" implies that there were steps Microsoft should have taken to overcome the difficulties it faced. Let's explore some: Lack of vendor trust, not wanting to get locked in with Microsoft like PC-makers did. No easy solution there. Hampered by success of cash-cows like Windows/Office. Shouldn't Microsoft have been focusing on its strengths? Hindsight is 20/20, but those strengths are still doing well for Microsoft. Who's to say throwing more resources at Windows Phone would have gotten a better result? Even difficulties that seem like they had obvious solutions, such as lack of mobile web, may have been very hard to do, technologically, pre-2008, with smaller screens and lack of mobile bandwith. The article points out that Windows Phone never got above 15% share. Why was it entitled to win? Or, to rephrase, why should it have won?

pjc50 10y ago
They had just the same opportunity to do mobile web as Apple - CE devices could run a real browser. Unfortunately, that browser was IE. I think Apple's real innovation was the App Store, combined with a usable (non-resistive) touchscreen. Prior to the App Store, it was remarkably hard to get apps onto phones. You were dependent on the mobile carrier, whose levels of customer gouging made Microsoft look like newbies. And they were usually terrible when you did start them, so few bothered. The other problem was that the CE UI was not adapted for mobile; its look and feel was the same as the desktop. Too many tiny click targets. "Metro" was the attempt to fix this (too late). Apple also brought in the pinch-zoom gesture system and dynamic rotation.
- Const-me 10y ago
  > Apple's real innovation was the App Store The app store only launched in July 2008, same time when iPhone 3G launched. It was more than 1 year after the original iPhone launch. The original iPhone was a marketing success even being merely a feature phone by today’s standards: no app store and no user-installable apps at all. > other problem was that the CE UI was not adapted for mobile HTC launched its first touch-oriented windows mobile phone almost 1 month before the first iPhone. They called it HTC Touch and included custom touch-optimized WinCE shell. Nobody cared, and people just bought iPhones instead, the sales figures for that year was 2M devices HTC, 6M Apple. Because better and touch optimized browser, and also because unlimited data plan. Back in 2007-2008, you couldn’t buy unlimited mobile data for any other phone.
- tbyehl 10y ago
  > The other problem was that the CE UI was not adapted for mobile I had the AT&T flip-phone pictured in the article and it is my favorite phone ever. The CE shell and bundled apps for non-touch devices were extremely well adapted to the constraints. The one thing I remember well is that I could open it up, punch in 666, and besides showing dialing that as a number it would bring up a list of matching contacts to select from. 666 == MOM. I've never held another smartphone which did that. Microsoft lost because their successful platform was a fantastic phone with so-so data features and the iPhone flipped the game around.
basch 10y ago
Microsoft had a path it could have taken. Write an android launcher that looks like Windows Phone Tiles. Get people to "convert their phones to Windows phones" Release an Android App Store. Release .netCore as part of your app store, so to run these type of apps, they need your app store instead of normal android apps running on Dalvik/AndroidRuntime. Fork android, like Kindle, and release a copy with Skype for messaging, outlook for mail, the rest of office, the Microsoft Store. Now they have Windows Phones, that run natively on all android hardware, and have backwards compatibility with android apps. They completely skipped the embrace extend steps, and tried to jump right to extinguish.

pjc50 10y ago

They had just the same opportunity to do mobile web as Apple - CE devices could run a real browser. Unfortunately, that browser was IE. I think Apple's real innovation was the App Store, combined with a usable (non-resistive) touchscreen. Prior to the App Store, it was remarkably hard to get apps onto phones. You were dependent on the mobile carrier, whose levels of customer gouging made Microsoft look like newbies. And they were usually terrible when you did start them, so few bothered. The other problem was that the CE UI was not adapted for mobile; its look and feel was the same as the desktop. Too many tiny click targets. "Metro" was the attempt to fix this (too late). Apple also brought in the pinch-zoom gesture system and dynamic rotation.

Const-me 10y ago
> Apple's real innovation was the App Store The app store only launched in July 2008, same time when iPhone 3G launched. It was more than 1 year after the original iPhone launch. The original iPhone was a marketing success even being merely a feature phone by today’s standards: no app store and no user-installable apps at all. > other problem was that the CE UI was not adapted for mobile HTC launched its first touch-oriented windows mobile phone almost 1 month before the first iPhone. They called it HTC Touch and included custom touch-optimized WinCE shell. Nobody cared, and people just bought iPhones instead, the sales figures for that year was 2M devices HTC, 6M Apple. Because better and touch optimized browser, and also because unlimited data plan. Back in 2007-2008, you couldn’t buy unlimited mobile data for any other phone.
tbyehl 10y ago
> The other problem was that the CE UI was not adapted for mobile I had the AT&T flip-phone pictured in the article and it is my favorite phone ever. The CE shell and bundled apps for non-touch devices were extremely well adapted to the constraints. The one thing I remember well is that I could open it up, punch in 666, and besides showing dialing that as a number it would bring up a list of matching contacts to select from. 666 == MOM. I've never held another smartphone which did that. Microsoft lost because their successful platform was a fantastic phone with so-so data features and the iPhone flipped the game around.

basch 10y ago

Microsoft had a path it could have taken. Write an android launcher that looks like Windows Phone Tiles. Get people to "convert their phones to Windows phones" Release an Android App Store. Release .netCore as part of your app store, so to run these type of apps, they need your app store instead of normal android apps running on Dalvik/AndroidRuntime. Fork android, like Kindle, and release a copy with Skype for messaging, outlook for mail, the rest of office, the Microsoft Store. Now they have Windows Phones, that run natively on all android hardware, and have backwards compatibility with android apps. They completely skipped the embrace extend steps, and tried to jump right to extinguish.