5 ms·

My thought: Microsoft should try to capture the low end. I know, it sounds dumb, but right now they have a terrible history of competing with Apple and Android

My thought: Microsoft should try to capture the low end. I know, it sounds dumb, but right now they have a terrible history of competing with Apple and Android. If you're going to shell out hundreds of bucks, are you going to risk it on another Microsoft device? On the other hand, if you were going to get a free phone anyway, and somebody tells you that the new MS "smart" phone is free, why not try it? If they can get wide adoption there, get a lot of user feedback and keep improving, they can start releasing nicer handsets and work their way up into the premium market. Of course, all this assumes that they can make a phone with cheap hardware which performs decently and is truly a step up for flip-phone users, and that they can get adoption there. But at least those folks have lower standards and less to lose by getting a Microsoft phone. (Which, by the way, should NOT be called a Windows phone.) It's the "a smart phone in every pocket" strategy. :)

SwellJoe 15y ago
Problems I see with this: - Low end phones tend to be crappy. If everyone who gets a "free" low end Windows phone hates it because the phone isn't very good, they're going to trash talk Windows phones, even if the OS doesn't suck. Windows phones already get trash-talked quite a lot (I don't know anyone with a Windows phone that actually likes it). I don't know anyone with a WP7 device, so I don't know if it Windows still sucks on mobile devices, but there's already a bad reputation to overcome. I know you've addressed this with this sentence: "all this assumes that they can make a phone with cheap hardware which performs decently", but you can't really wave away the limitations of the technology. In a year, feature phone priced hardware will be smartphone capable...but Windows Phone will be even further behind Android by then. - Windows Phone is not, as far as I know, a resource light OS. Putting it on an underpowered phone in order to keep the price really low is likely to lead to an even worse user experience than normal. Again, trash-talking end users would be the result. - To make phones cheaper than Android phones, Microsoft would have to give away the OS for free, and try to make the revenue back through app store purchases or something. Microsoft doesn't have a history of giving away the razor and selling the blades at a steep markup (XBOX might be a counterpoint, since it reportedly was a loss-leader in the beginning). - There is already a solid low-end smartphone market built on Android. The Optimus line, for instance, is available for free with contract from several providers, and for under $200 without a contract, and is a very serviceable smart phone; roughly comparable to a Nexus One, though not quite as nicely constructed. With a contract, even the iPhone is now close to free ($49 for a 3GS). Feature phone users have already mostly begun migrating to smartphones. The only people I know who still use dumb phones are people on pay-as-you-go plans, that didn't offer smart phones when they bought their phone a year or two or three ago. Smart phones are now common on pay-as-you-go carriers, and most of the people I know on those plans are upgrading or planning to upgrade in the next few months. So, to summarize: Beating Android to the bottom seems untenable. Beating Apple for the aspirational market seems untenable (since nobody aspires to use Microsoft, as it was historically the value choice). Microsoft needs to find a niche in the smartphone market, but I think all the good ones are taken. Blackberry had a good one in the enterprise market...but they've lost it by falling so far behind technically. Maybe Microsoft can win in the enterprise niche and fill the hole probably left by Blackberry (though both iPhone and Android are reasonably capable of serving in that role, neither has focused on it).
- Athtar 15y ago
  Minor nitpick: >> - Windows Phone is not, as far as I know, a resource light OS. Putting it on an underpowered phone in order to keep the price really low is likely to lead to an even worse user experience than normal. Again, trash-talking end users would be the result. WP7 is actually a ridiculously light OS. All of the current WP7 phones uses the older generation Snapdragon processors, but they are still faster then most of the newer Android handsets with dual-core processors. MS went to great pains to make sure that everything was optimized (and the UI is hardware accelerated), which is why their hardware specifications only had support for one SoC.
- Lewisham 15y ago
  XBOX might be a counterpoint, since it reportedly was a loss-leader in the beginning FWIW, all consoles are loss-leaders in the beginning, and you make the money back in game license fees and relying on components becoming cheaper over time. The only console maker that has bucked this trend is Nintendo with the DS and Wii; they always sold for a profit. That's why Nintendo doesn't care that the attach rate (number of games bought for the platform) is through the floor, because Nintendo already made their money. I also agree that you can't beat Android in the race to the bottom.
- Apocryphon 15y ago
  If Blackberry has lost its enterprise niche, and MS is struggling to find one of its own, it seems that HP/Palm and Meego are in even worse positions. I suppose at this point such second-stringers might as well give up on smartphones and find some other mobile platform to work towards, such as tablets.
simo375 15y ago
agreed, Microsoft needs to capture the consumer market and rebrand. Someone needs to start a subsidiary of MS and start from the ground up again.
smackfu 15y ago
Currently there are two branches in phone contracts: 1) Cheap feature phones (under $200 real cost) with a voice plan but no data plans. 2) Smart phones ($500+ real cost) with $30 data plans. Both of those are subsidized by the attached plans so the consumer pays $0 to $200. Where does a low-end smart phone fit into this ecosystem? A $400 real cost phone is already going to be subsidized down to $0 out of pocket. It seems like the only vendor who has any interest in really cheap smart phones is Virgin Mobile, who will sell you an ok Android phone for $200 but with a $25 unlimited data plan (and 300 minutes). I'm not sure if there is really much money to be made chasing this market.

SwellJoe 15y ago

Problems I see with this: - Low end phones tend to be crappy. If everyone who gets a "free" low end Windows phone hates it because the phone isn't very good, they're going to trash talk Windows phones, even if the OS doesn't suck. Windows phones already get trash-talked quite a lot (I don't know anyone with a Windows phone that actually likes it). I don't know anyone with a WP7 device, so I don't know if it Windows still sucks on mobile devices, but there's already a bad reputation to overcome. I know you've addressed this with this sentence: "all this assumes that they can make a phone with cheap hardware which performs decently", but you can't really wave away the limitations of the technology. In a year, feature phone priced hardware will be smartphone capable...but Windows Phone will be even further behind Android by then. - Windows Phone is not, as far as I know, a resource light OS. Putting it on an underpowered phone in order to keep the price really low is likely to lead to an even worse user experience than normal. Again, trash-talking end users would be the result. - To make phones cheaper than Android phones, Microsoft would have to give away the OS for free, and try to make the revenue back through app store purchases or something. Microsoft doesn't have a history of giving away the razor and selling the blades at a steep markup (XBOX might be a counterpoint, since it reportedly was a loss-leader in the beginning). - There is already a solid low-end smartphone market built on Android. The Optimus line, for instance, is available for free with contract from several providers, and for under $200 without a contract, and is a very serviceable smart phone; roughly comparable to a Nexus One, though not quite as nicely constructed. With a contract, even the iPhone is now close to free ($49 for a 3GS). Feature phone users have already mostly begun migrating to smartphones. The only people I know who still use dumb phones are people on pay-as-you-go plans, that didn't offer smart phones when they bought their phone a year or two or three ago. Smart phones are now common on pay-as-you-go carriers, and most of the people I know on those plans are upgrading or planning to upgrade in the next few months. So, to summarize: Beating Android to the bottom seems untenable. Beating Apple for the aspirational market seems untenable (since nobody aspires to use Microsoft, as it was historically the value choice). Microsoft needs to find a niche in the smartphone market, but I think all the good ones are taken. Blackberry had a good one in the enterprise market...but they've lost it by falling so far behind technically. Maybe Microsoft can win in the enterprise niche and fill the hole probably left by Blackberry (though both iPhone and Android are reasonably capable of serving in that role, neither has focused on it).

Athtar 15y ago
Minor nitpick: >> - Windows Phone is not, as far as I know, a resource light OS. Putting it on an underpowered phone in order to keep the price really low is likely to lead to an even worse user experience than normal. Again, trash-talking end users would be the result. WP7 is actually a ridiculously light OS. All of the current WP7 phones uses the older generation Snapdragon processors, but they are still faster then most of the newer Android handsets with dual-core processors. MS went to great pains to make sure that everything was optimized (and the UI is hardware accelerated), which is why their hardware specifications only had support for one SoC.
Lewisham 15y ago
XBOX might be a counterpoint, since it reportedly was a loss-leader in the beginning FWIW, all consoles are loss-leaders in the beginning, and you make the money back in game license fees and relying on components becoming cheaper over time. The only console maker that has bucked this trend is Nintendo with the DS and Wii; they always sold for a profit. That's why Nintendo doesn't care that the attach rate (number of games bought for the platform) is through the floor, because Nintendo already made their money. I also agree that you can't beat Android in the race to the bottom.
Apocryphon 15y ago
If Blackberry has lost its enterprise niche, and MS is struggling to find one of its own, it seems that HP/Palm and Meego are in even worse positions. I suppose at this point such second-stringers might as well give up on smartphones and find some other mobile platform to work towards, such as tablets.

simo375 15y ago

agreed, Microsoft needs to capture the consumer market and rebrand. Someone needs to start a subsidiary of MS and start from the ground up again.

smackfu 15y ago

Currently there are two branches in phone contracts: 1) Cheap feature phones (under $200 real cost) with a voice plan but no data plans. 2) Smart phones ($500+ real cost) with $30 data plans. Both of those are subsidized by the attached plans so the consumer pays $0 to $200. Where does a low-end smart phone fit into this ecosystem? A $400 real cost phone is already going to be subsidized down to $0 out of pocket. It seems like the only vendor who has any interest in really cheap smart phones is Virgin Mobile, who will sell you an ok Android phone for $200 but with a $25 unlimited data plan (and 300 minutes). I'm not sure if there is really much money to be made chasing this market.