3 ms·

>Microsoft could still make an Android fork the same way they rebased Edge on chromium. Since android is mediocre on many aspects (e.g. no modern and performant

>Microsoft could still make an Android fork the same way they rebased Edge on chromium. Since android is mediocre on many aspects (e.g. no modern and performant Java support) they could differentiate and create a market opportunity. Their name is big enough to create a store. They already have a linux distro BTW https://github.com/microsoft/CBL-Mariner https://github.com/microsoft/CBL-Mariner I think this is what never made sense to me about the failure of Windows Phone. They have a store. They have an operating system. They have an unbelievably extensive list of hardware partners with decades of manufacturing experience. They have some of the best engineers in the world. And yet, they ceded the single largest consumer industry to Google and Apple. The only explanation is poor leadership.

zamadatix 5y ago
Windows phone had to introduce a store, operating system, and new hardware partners. The store was launched in tandem with Windows Phone and not added to the Desktop version until 2 years later. The OS and existing software base they had was irrelevant for small touch screens. The hardware partners they had weren't relevant to the mobile space and they weren't doing enough hardware development themselves to just rely on the in-staff hardware folks they had. Eventually they tried all these things but too late. They tried rebuilding the OS to be for more than just desktops, they tried rebuilding app platforms to not be platform specific, they tried rebuilding the interface to not be use type specific. It lead to a lot of angst due to the churn and a failure in the mobile space as their competitors already had working alternatives to all of these before they even launched. Poor leadership for sure but in waiting through all the 2000s and letting other's fill the space not because they already had everything made for them and let it fall apart. Xbox is one area that has seemed to really pan out for them which got all of these changes over time but again they launched that in the early 2000s not the early 2010s.
Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Windows Phone came out at a time when smartphones were still lifestyle products. Apple was the king of the hill in that respect and Google was still perceived as a pretty cool company even if having an Android phone wasn't as showy as having an iPhone. Having a phone from Microsoft meant you were probably a corporate weenie who wore pleated khakis and spent their day in a cubicle. The quality of the phone and the OS didn't really play into the perception of it. It's interesting that the perception wasn't the same in other parts of the world. Windows Phone seemed to be a premium product in Argentina. Think it had good acceptance in parts of Europe too, likely due to the Nokia versions. Perhaps trying to conquer the world except North America could have been a viable strategy but that's hard to really know and given the influence of the North American market on global culture, it might not have worked.
- scarface74 5y ago
  Android didn’t succeed because anyone thought Google was cool. Android succeeded because it was ubiquitous when Apple was only available on AT&T and because Androids phones were cheaper.
WorldMaker 5y ago
I still think the largest balkanization factor in the current duopoly was the cellphone carriers. They have to support the phones they sell. They want as few variables in their support matrix. QED: three options is too many. Windows Phone had several major opportunity positions where they had all the software the needed and all the hardware they needed to make a statement and then: cellphone carriers simply refused to sell SIM cards to them. For pretty much the entire lifespan of Windows Phone it generally only had one of two major US carriers reluctantly shipping its flagship and the other supposedly "angry" at Microsoft and refusing to even allow it SIM cards on its network, with flip flopping which one was which between different "flagship" phones. How does any product survive in an ecosystem that harsh?
- blep_ 5y ago
  I still find it bizarre that phone carriers sell phones. This shouldn't be an issue, in much the same way "Comcast only supports Dell and Lenovo laptops" would be incredibly weird.
  - selectodude 5y ago
    But Comcast does only support Comcast modems. They’ll give you access but if you call with a question they’ll tell you tough shit and blame your hardware.
    - blep_ 5y ago
      That hasn't been my experience, in lots of years of having to call them and make them fix dumb things. Once you get past the "no, I am quite sure there is no wifi interference on this cat5e cable" bit of the Generic Support Script, they do seem to be capable of understanding where the problem could plausibly be. (Ability to do anything about it varies.) They even helpfully provide a compatibility list: https://www.xfinity.com/support/devices/#unauth https://www.xfinity.com/support/devices/#unauth
  - WorldMaker 5y ago
    Well, it's not just selling phones that is the issue but selling SIM cards. That's closer to the "Comcast only supports cable modems with Mac addresses they've identified and Command & Control functionality they need" analogy. (Which are things that cable modems support. Cable company operators can force certain cable modem operations similar to the way SIM cards support such things.) But also, it really isn't all that bizarre, it's got long precedent: For most of a century all phones were leased and the phone company controlled every bit of hardware on the network. That's not even the distant past, that's still in living memory, my parents grew up in households with leased phones. It took major anti-trust/monopoly breakup work to change that. So far the "use whatever phone you want" is the anomaly in the history of phone networks. (Cable companies too; most of their history all of their equipment was only leased and the era of being able to buy your own set top boxes and/or cable modems is a relatively brief anomaly versus the longer history of those networks.) The US is back down to only two/three major cell carriers (no matter how many "brands" you see; so many of them are just resellers), depending on how you want to count them (by network compatibility: two; by parent company: three). It may be time to trust-bust again.

zamadatix 5y ago

Windows phone had to introduce a store, operating system, and new hardware partners. The store was launched in tandem with Windows Phone and not added to the Desktop version until 2 years later. The OS and existing software base they had was irrelevant for small touch screens. The hardware partners they had weren't relevant to the mobile space and they weren't doing enough hardware development themselves to just rely on the in-staff hardware folks they had. Eventually they tried all these things but too late. They tried rebuilding the OS to be for more than just desktops, they tried rebuilding app platforms to not be platform specific, they tried rebuilding the interface to not be use type specific. It lead to a lot of angst due to the churn and a failure in the mobile space as their competitors already had working alternatives to all of these before they even launched. Poor leadership for sure but in waiting through all the 2000s and letting other's fill the space not because they already had everything made for them and let it fall apart. Xbox is one area that has seemed to really pan out for them which got all of these changes over time but again they launched that in the early 2000s not the early 2010s.

Mountain_Skies 5y ago

Windows Phone came out at a time when smartphones were still lifestyle products. Apple was the king of the hill in that respect and Google was still perceived as a pretty cool company even if having an Android phone wasn't as showy as having an iPhone. Having a phone from Microsoft meant you were probably a corporate weenie who wore pleated khakis and spent their day in a cubicle. The quality of the phone and the OS didn't really play into the perception of it. It's interesting that the perception wasn't the same in other parts of the world. Windows Phone seemed to be a premium product in Argentina. Think it had good acceptance in parts of Europe too, likely due to the Nokia versions. Perhaps trying to conquer the world except North America could have been a viable strategy but that's hard to really know and given the influence of the North American market on global culture, it might not have worked.

scarface74 5y ago
Android didn’t succeed because anyone thought Google was cool. Android succeeded because it was ubiquitous when Apple was only available on AT&T and because Androids phones were cheaper.

WorldMaker 5y ago

I still think the largest balkanization factor in the current duopoly was the cellphone carriers. They have to support the phones they sell. They want as few variables in their support matrix. QED: three options is too many. Windows Phone had several major opportunity positions where they had all the software the needed and all the hardware they needed to make a statement and then: cellphone carriers simply refused to sell SIM cards to them. For pretty much the entire lifespan of Windows Phone it generally only had one of two major US carriers reluctantly shipping its flagship and the other supposedly "angry" at Microsoft and refusing to even allow it SIM cards on its network, with flip flopping which one was which between different "flagship" phones. How does any product survive in an ecosystem that harsh?

blep_ 5y ago
I still find it bizarre that phone carriers sell phones. This shouldn't be an issue, in much the same way "Comcast only supports Dell and Lenovo laptops" would be incredibly weird.
- selectodude 5y ago
  But Comcast does only support Comcast modems. They’ll give you access but if you call with a question they’ll tell you tough shit and blame your hardware.
  - blep_ 5y ago
    That hasn't been my experience, in lots of years of having to call them and make them fix dumb things. Once you get past the "no, I am quite sure there is no wifi interference on this cat5e cable" bit of the Generic Support Script, they do seem to be capable of understanding where the problem could plausibly be. (Ability to do anything about it varies.) They even helpfully provide a compatibility list: https://www.xfinity.com/support/devices/#unauth https://www.xfinity.com/support/devices/#unauth
- WorldMaker 5y ago
  Well, it's not just selling phones that is the issue but selling SIM cards. That's closer to the "Comcast only supports cable modems with Mac addresses they've identified and Command & Control functionality they need" analogy. (Which are things that cable modems support. Cable company operators can force certain cable modem operations similar to the way SIM cards support such things.) But also, it really isn't all that bizarre, it's got long precedent: For most of a century all phones were leased and the phone company controlled every bit of hardware on the network. That's not even the distant past, that's still in living memory, my parents grew up in households with leased phones. It took major anti-trust/monopoly breakup work to change that. So far the "use whatever phone you want" is the anomaly in the history of phone networks. (Cable companies too; most of their history all of their equipment was only leased and the era of being able to buy your own set top boxes and/or cable modems is a relatively brief anomaly versus the longer history of those networks.) The US is back down to only two/three major cell carriers (no matter how many "brands" you see; so many of them are just resellers), depending on how you want to count them (by network compatibility: two; by parent company: three). It may be time to trust-bust again.