5 ms·

I'm sooo sick of this constant windows phone analysis that doesn't address the two most important points: 1 - They were stupidly late to market 2 - Both the W

by latch 15y ago

I'm sooo sick of this constant windows phone analysis that doesn't address the two most important points: 1 - They were stupidly late to market 2 - Both the Windows brand and Microsoft's imagine are at best mehh..at worse very uncool and bad. #1 is important because Microsoft simply doesn't set the [consumer] agenda any more. I don't think they've realized this. And until they do, they are just gonna keep being behind ([good] tablets). #2 is important because if you don't realize how tarnished your brand is, you're royally screwed. It doesn't matter how great your product is if it comes years too late. And it doesn't matter how great your product is if people have written you off already. Combine the two...come on, the thing has no chance.

pushtheenvelope 15y ago
I feel you have some very valid points. However, re #1: there are still many markets out there with little smartphone usage. re #2: perhaps Nokia can help them out here. As a small case study consider India. 3G services have just been introduced in the last few months, and most people are just beginning to shift from feature phones to smartphones. Apple has a very poor retail presence here, and the iPhone is priced ridiculously high. On my visit there in December, I saw massive amounts of advertising for the Nokia Lumia (on tv and in malls) and casual conversation with friends revealed plenty of curiosity about Nokia and windows phone, how it might compare to android, and what would be better for future purchases.
- latch 15y ago
  When it comes to new markets, I agree that Apple is an non-player. Android will be the dominate player here, and I think Microsoft can certainly do well. However, there's little margin in these markets (which is what Apple is all about). So while it might look impressive that Microsoft has 30% of the India market (as an example), it won't change the fact that Apple will still be making well over 50% of worldwide profits. As for #2, it's still too early to see how Nokia plays out, but I agree that it could change the landscape..or it might not at all. I won't be surprised either way. And if it doesn't, maybe they'll try do do something with RIM. So ya, they'll throw a ton of money at the problem. But it's still an uphill battle and it isn't like the current leaders have become stale. So I guess until Apple AND Google start doing serious missteps, I'll continue to be skeptical.
- moylan 15y ago
  * perhaps there are markets with little smartphone usage. but wp7 costs about 3/4 the price of an iphone. if i'm spending that much money i'm going to lessen my risk and get one i know has been somewhat successful. and for the same money i can get a great high end android device. here in ireland i can get 8 android devices for a less than wp7 at a minor mobile provider (the cheapest is 1/6 the price). https://store.meteor.ie/phones/ https://store.meteor.ie/phones/ * nokia shot themselves in both feet in 2009. in 2008 at any meeting of geeks, nerds i would see 99% nokias. in 2010 it was 90% android. there was no single reason why people switched away from symbian. but we all switched. i know only one person who ever carried a windows mobile device. and he only carried it as it was guaranteed to crash eliminating the annoying calls he was bombarded with. i only know 2 people who bought nokia in the past 2 years. one was a maemo device before they were eliminated and the other was a second hand device from ebay. new devices aren't shifting. i'd see them as people ask me to set them up more often than not. was recently watching an old tv show and heard the nokia ring tone. made me realise i hadn't heard that tone in a public space in around 2 years. nokia is not their saviour. just been run down till microsoft can buy their patents at a bargin price would be my guess.
jarek 15y ago
> They were stupidly late to market Who cares? The smartphone market is rapidly maturing and it won't matter who was first and who wasn't. Do you know if Toyota started producing cars years or decades after Ford? Do you care?
- latch 15y ago
  It took Toyota decades to enter the established american market. You might not care today who was first, but you are talking about a relatively ancient business. If you are arguing that 80 years from now, it won't matter, then I agree. Also, you are missing that my two points intersect. Toyota has an strong brand, especially when it came/comes to reliability/quality/value. For most people buying cars, these are important qualities. So yes, they took the #1 spot because of the product they built and the brand they have. Microsoft's brand is so tarnished that it's way more of an uphill battle. I find it hard to understand how people don't see the importance of brand loyalty in the face of Apple's extreme success.
  - freehunter 15y ago
    >Toyota has an strong brand Microsoft could do like Datsun and change to a better brand name. Meet the Nissan Phone 7. >I find it hard to understand how people don't see the importance of brand loyalty in the face of Apple's extreme success. That's not brand loyalty, that's marketing. The next company to market and design like/better than Apple will gobble that "brand loyalty" right up. Unfortunately that likely won't be Google or Microsoft.
    - tjogin 15y ago
      See, this is why Apple is winning. Because their competitors, analysts and other blowhards think it's just "marketing". It isn't. But as long as people don't figure that out, Apple will continue to reap their rewards.
      - freehunter 15y ago
        >market and design
rospaya 15y ago
> 1 - They were stupidly late to market Which would explain Xbox. > 2 - Both the Windows brand and Microsoft's imagine are at best mehh..at worse very uncool and bad. Which would explain Xbox. Edit: sorry for being obtuse. The point is that Microsoft entered the gaming market with a worse brand than today, and later than with iPhones and is despite that very sucessful.
- extension 15y ago
  What was wrong with the MS brand for gaming when Xbox came out? Their OS was practically the exclusive platform for computer games at the time, and that was all they had to do with gaming, so they were neutral at worst.
- andywood 15y ago
  Game consoles compete with other consoles in their own generation. PS2 beat XBOX 1 to market by a full year, and trounced it in sales.[1] XBOX 360, on the other hand, beat PS3 to market by a full year, and did better in sales.[2] XBOX is also uniquely distanced from other huge Microsoft brands, and the overall Microsoft brand itself. People usually just say "XBOX", and it's conspicuously removed altogether from other brands such as Windows. Imagine if it had been called "Windows Game System". [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(sixth_generation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(seventh_generation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_...
  - latch 15y ago
    100% accurate. XBOX is a horrible example. Console makers live and die by their current generation. Only Nintendo has the brand to survive failures (and I'd say even they have to start being careful now). The history of Sega and Sony alone are very telling. I will admit that I'm surprised that Xbox's branding easily survived the ring-of-death disaster. Part of that is how much money they threw at the problem and part of that is the state of the market [for hard-core console gamers]. Also, remember that the division is billions of dollars in the red. It'll likely take them 2 more iterations (or 10+ years) to break even assuming they can keep their current momentum (which history tells us will be hard).
Shorel 15y ago
I believe that developers, carriers, some consumers, analysts, hackers, etc., remember the MS DOS and Windows monopoly, the MS dirty tactics (it's not ready until Lotus doesn't work!) and general sleaziness, and don't want, in any way, to enable MS to have another monopoly, much less in a market so massive and so full of personal information as the cell phone market. The actual OS can be the best of them, but we would be very stupid if we forget the last 30 years of MS history. That's why MS image is 'uncool' and 'bad'. The product coming to market years too late? I don't think it matters at all, if it's the right product from the right company.

by latch 15y ago

pushtheenvelope 15y ago

I feel you have some very valid points. However, re #1: there are still many markets out there with little smartphone usage. re #2: perhaps Nokia can help them out here. As a small case study consider India. 3G services have just been introduced in the last few months, and most people are just beginning to shift from feature phones to smartphones. Apple has a very poor retail presence here, and the iPhone is priced ridiculously high. On my visit there in December, I saw massive amounts of advertising for the Nokia Lumia (on tv and in malls) and casual conversation with friends revealed plenty of curiosity about Nokia and windows phone, how it might compare to android, and what would be better for future purchases.

latch 15y ago
When it comes to new markets, I agree that Apple is an non-player. Android will be the dominate player here, and I think Microsoft can certainly do well. However, there's little margin in these markets (which is what Apple is all about). So while it might look impressive that Microsoft has 30% of the India market (as an example), it won't change the fact that Apple will still be making well over 50% of worldwide profits. As for #2, it's still too early to see how Nokia plays out, but I agree that it could change the landscape..or it might not at all. I won't be surprised either way. And if it doesn't, maybe they'll try do do something with RIM. So ya, they'll throw a ton of money at the problem. But it's still an uphill battle and it isn't like the current leaders have become stale. So I guess until Apple AND Google start doing serious missteps, I'll continue to be skeptical.
moylan 15y ago
* perhaps there are markets with little smartphone usage. but wp7 costs about 3/4 the price of an iphone. if i'm spending that much money i'm going to lessen my risk and get one i know has been somewhat successful. and for the same money i can get a great high end android device. here in ireland i can get 8 android devices for a less than wp7 at a minor mobile provider (the cheapest is 1/6 the price). https://store.meteor.ie/phones/ https://store.meteor.ie/phones/ * nokia shot themselves in both feet in 2009. in 2008 at any meeting of geeks, nerds i would see 99% nokias. in 2010 it was 90% android. there was no single reason why people switched away from symbian. but we all switched. i know only one person who ever carried a windows mobile device. and he only carried it as it was guaranteed to crash eliminating the annoying calls he was bombarded with. i only know 2 people who bought nokia in the past 2 years. one was a maemo device before they were eliminated and the other was a second hand device from ebay. new devices aren't shifting. i'd see them as people ask me to set them up more often than not. was recently watching an old tv show and heard the nokia ring tone. made me realise i hadn't heard that tone in a public space in around 2 years. nokia is not their saviour. just been run down till microsoft can buy their patents at a bargin price would be my guess.

jarek 15y ago

> They were stupidly late to market Who cares? The smartphone market is rapidly maturing and it won't matter who was first and who wasn't. Do you know if Toyota started producing cars years or decades after Ford? Do you care?

latch 15y ago
It took Toyota decades to enter the established american market. You might not care today who was first, but you are talking about a relatively ancient business. If you are arguing that 80 years from now, it won't matter, then I agree. Also, you are missing that my two points intersect. Toyota has an strong brand, especially when it came/comes to reliability/quality/value. For most people buying cars, these are important qualities. So yes, they took the #1 spot because of the product they built and the brand they have. Microsoft's brand is so tarnished that it's way more of an uphill battle. I find it hard to understand how people don't see the importance of brand loyalty in the face of Apple's extreme success.
- freehunter 15y ago
  >Toyota has an strong brand Microsoft could do like Datsun and change to a better brand name. Meet the Nissan Phone 7. >I find it hard to understand how people don't see the importance of brand loyalty in the face of Apple's extreme success. That's not brand loyalty, that's marketing. The next company to market and design like/better than Apple will gobble that "brand loyalty" right up. Unfortunately that likely won't be Google or Microsoft.
  - tjogin 15y ago
    See, this is why Apple is winning. Because their competitors, analysts and other blowhards think it's just "marketing". It isn't. But as long as people don't figure that out, Apple will continue to reap their rewards.
    - freehunter 15y ago
      >market and design

rospaya 15y ago

> 1 - They were stupidly late to market Which would explain Xbox. > 2 - Both the Windows brand and Microsoft's imagine are at best mehh..at worse very uncool and bad. Which would explain Xbox. Edit: sorry for being obtuse. The point is that Microsoft entered the gaming market with a worse brand than today, and later than with iPhones and is despite that very sucessful.

extension 15y ago
What was wrong with the MS brand for gaming when Xbox came out? Their OS was practically the exclusive platform for computer games at the time, and that was all they had to do with gaming, so they were neutral at worst.
andywood 15y ago
Game consoles compete with other consoles in their own generation. PS2 beat XBOX 1 to market by a full year, and trounced it in sales.[1] XBOX 360, on the other hand, beat PS3 to market by a full year, and did better in sales.[2] XBOX is also uniquely distanced from other huge Microsoft brands, and the overall Microsoft brand itself. People usually just say "XBOX", and it's conspicuously removed altogether from other brands such as Windows. Imagine if it had been called "Windows Game System". [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(sixth_generation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_(seventh_generation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_...
- latch 15y ago
  100% accurate. XBOX is a horrible example. Console makers live and die by their current generation. Only Nintendo has the brand to survive failures (and I'd say even they have to start being careful now). The history of Sega and Sony alone are very telling. I will admit that I'm surprised that Xbox's branding easily survived the ring-of-death disaster. Part of that is how much money they threw at the problem and part of that is the state of the market [for hard-core console gamers]. Also, remember that the division is billions of dollars in the red. It'll likely take them 2 more iterations (or 10+ years) to break even assuming they can keep their current momentum (which history tells us will be hard).

Shorel 15y ago

I believe that developers, carriers, some consumers, analysts, hackers, etc., remember the MS DOS and Windows monopoly, the MS dirty tactics (it's not ready until Lotus doesn't work!) and general sleaziness, and don't want, in any way, to enable MS to have another monopoly, much less in a market so massive and so full of personal information as the cell phone market. The actual OS can be the best of them, but we would be very stupid if we forget the last 30 years of MS history. That's why MS image is 'uncool' and 'bad'. The product coming to market years too late? I don't think it matters at all, if it's the right product from the right company.