

Windows Phone Is Failing Because It’s Great - torontostandard
http://www.torontostandard.com/business/navneet-alang-windows-phone-is-failing-because-its-great/
Windows Phone Is Failing Because It’s Great
Of all the ways you might have imagined Microsoft screwing up, “making something fantastic” is probably last on the list.
======
InclinedPlane
MS spent a decade driving its smartphone brand into the ground and then
excavated a sizable crater for it by floundering for several years while the
rest of the smartphone market flourished with new offerings from apple,
android, and others.

MS has lost its smartphone brand credibility. Releasing good, solid products
will help them _rebuild_ it but even if they successfully rebuild credibility
it'll be a long time before sales catch up.

See also: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3395281>

Edit: I found a decent chart that tells the tale: [http://www-bgr-
com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/npd-u...](http://www-bgr-
com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/npd-us-smartphone-os-oct2011.jpg)

P.P.S. I've said it before, but I think it might be some sort of great cosmic
karmic justice if somehow Microsoft got shafted trying to peddle a "superior"
product in the face of competitors with network effect on their side.

~~~
MartinCron
_MS has lost its smartphone brand credibility_

I've seen this even among (otherwise) loyal Microsoft employees. When I
remarked on a friend's iPhone he rolled his eyes and said "I've spent
literally thousands of dollars on Windows Mobile Phones. I wanted to like
them. They were all shit. All of them."

I'm intrigued by Windows Phone 7. I keep hearing it's great, but "Windows
Mobile" and "Windows Phone" have so much negative brand affinity, I have a
hard time seeing who will buy them. XBox fans, maybe?

~~~
freehunter
I bought one. I have a couple of friends who bought one, as well. It wasn't
for the Xbox functionality (that's actually one of the few letdowns of the
whole thing, very few multiplayer Live titles). It was because we were all
Zune owners.

Let me take you back to 2006. iPods were still using the classic click wheel.
iTunes was horribly slow on a PC. Microsoft comes out with a competitor that
has a simple up/down/left/right directional pad, and software that looks
stunning and runs better on a PC. Many weren't sold on the idea. Many of those
who were, however, loved it. Killer feature: the Zune Pass. All-you-can-eat
from a huge library, fully integrated, syncs over wifi right to your player.

Time passes, and PMPs are a thing of the past. It's about phones now. You can
either go back to using the iPod via the iPhone (and back to iTunes) and lose
the Zune Pass, or to Android during its early, rough years. Still losing the
Zune Pass, and having no centralized music manager. Then Microsoft comes along
with a Zune phone, killer interface, Office, and Xbox Live to boot. I kept
using my Zune right up to the point when I got a Windows Phone.

Microsoft is making some slam dunks recently, but the people and the press
were, for a long time, unwilling to get burned again (understandably). Problem
is, now the press has changed their tune but the people haven't. The Zune was
a killer PMP, and now I can have it in phone form. For others, it's not so
much that but the idea of not needing iTunes. That's major.

Now that I feel like a dirty shill, I'm going to go take a shower.

~~~
ataranto
"Let me take you back to 2006. ...iTunes was horribly slow..."

We've come so far since then!

~~~
freehunter
Ha, I haven't used it since I got a Zune, so I was uncomfortable making
assumptions :)

------
latch
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.

~~~
rospaya
> 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.

~~~
andywood
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_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_\(sixth_generation\))

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_\(seventh_generation\))

~~~
latch
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).

------
thought_alarm
Windows Phone is failing because Microsoft wants the same level of autonomy
that Apple enjoys with the iPhone, and there's no way the carriers will allow
it.

What should MS do? They need to produce a product that is similar in quality
to the iPhone. Microsoft understands how to do this better than anyone else in
the mobile space, but it means stripping away most of the carrier control and
the carriers obviously won't go for it. And if you don't have the support of
the carriers then you're dead, and that's the position Windows Phone finds
itself.

Apple sells phones to users. Every other manufacturer sells phones to
carriers, that means it's all about making the carriers happy. RIM, Samsung,
LG, and Motorola all know this.

Nokia understands this better than any other manufacturer, which is why their
involvement with Windows Phone is so important to MS. And at this point the
success of Windows Phone depends entirely on Nokia.

It will be interesting to see what Nokia does to the Windows Phone platform to
make it more palatable to the carriers, but we can be certain that those
changes won't be particularly user friendly (not that it matters).

------
cead_ite
The low carrier support and the lackluster hardware have indeed hindered the
platform. As a college student with a Windows Phone, however, I can attest
anecdotally both to the operating system's (mostly the UI's) popular appeal
and, on the other hand, to widespread popular distaste for the brand itself.

With other, tech-ignorant college students as my data points, I have found
that most people's first impressions of the OS are quite positive, ranging
from "oh, that phone's nice" (and they aren't talking about the physical
device, a bland, somewhat chubby HTC Trophy) to "that's the coolest phone I've
ever seen." As mentioned, these aren't people into tech I'm talking about—most
of them have iPhones because they wanted one, or everyone else has one, or
because there parents got them, so they did, too. I thus do not actively
promote my phone in any way—all I've been doing, when I've gotten these sorts
of responses, has been showing someone what someone else texted me, or some
other datum or whatnot.

When they inevitably ask—"what kind of phone is that?"—and I say "Windows
Phone," they, just as inevitably, immediately lose all interest.

This may parallel, I suppose, the reason Xbox, for example, remains instead
successful years after its introduction: one of my uncles called my dad on
Christmas day this year concering some computer or network problem (my dad, as
a software engineer, of course bears that burden in our family), and mentioned
incidentally that he had gotten my cousin an Xbox as a gift. My dad, who used
to work for Microsoft and still gets a discount on their software, suggested
that he might have been able to save some cash had my uncle told him ahead of
time, or that he could still save on games if he wanted. What did my uncle
say, however, but "oh, I didn't know it [Xbox] was Microsoft." Indeed, my
uncle to this day refers to Microsft in conversation with my dad as "the evil
empire."

So yeah, I think the brand name itself, however irrational the reason, hasn't
helped at all. Also, there isn't a single actual window in the Windows Phone
OS... Time to change up the name.

~~~
jinushaun
I still can't believe that MS called their new phone Windows Phone 7 Series.
They should've pulled an "xbox" and used a completely different name with no
association with Windows. They don't realise how badly Windows Mobile
tarnished the "windows" name in mobile.

------
melling
"But in the meantime, in their commitment to quality, Microsoft seem to have
ironically shot themselves in the foot."

WinMo has been with us for 10 years. Microsoft had a large market share of the
smartphone market a five years ago but they let their product stagnate. If
they weren't complacent, Apple and Android wouldn't have had a chance.

What the article should say is that Microsoft took way too long to finally
deliver a quality product and the competition came in and ate their lunch.

------
nextparadigms
No, it's because they were too late to market _and_ because their product
wasn't that much better to change the computing paradigm _again_ , like the
way the iPhone did in 2007. So WP7 may be a little different than iOS and
Android, but it's still mostly the same, and Android and iOS already have huge
leads and ecosystems.

Also, because Android is open source, it will reach markets that WP7 never
will because it's proprietary and it has restrictions that are even higher
than the desktop Windows, which back then "won" because it was the default
option for the market leader IBM, and it had no real "mass-market" competition
before it.

Android is the default option already for pretty much any manufacturer now,
from noname Asian manufacturers to more recognized companies.

~~~
icefox
Played with the WP7 for an hour when we got it in the office. You are spot on
about it being not that much better. It was nice and all, but at the end of
the hour I was very much "meh" and had no reason to actually use it let alone
tell someone that they would want it v.s. my iphone or blackberry.

------
dbfclark
The provocative headline isn't really where the article is going, but it does
make a good strategic point: windows phone is failing because they've decided
to split the difference between their competitors' strategies, requiring
enough control to allow the software to be good, but not enough to ensure that
the hardware is also good, thus ensuring that their products aren't so great
that consumers demand them but also requiring enough control that carriers
don't like them and thus don't push them. Optimal points often live at the
extremes rather than in the middle.

------
checoivan
The lateness is not that important since phone contracts are up in about 2
years and at the time, people shop for new phones and usually aim for the
coolest one as their new phone. Phone markets renew every couple of years but
clearly the iphone keeps beating the value(how many iphone's generation 1 do
you see on the street?). The iphone was even late to the game but that didn't
stop it from taking away the coolness and market of the motorola Razr which
everybody wanted and had back then.

Another factor is the Windows phone, Android and iPhone have about the same
initial and per month cost. Roughly the same price but All 3 give very
different values back in terms of apps,feature,ease of use. Coping with the
downsides or nuances is also a 2 year commitment so unless an option is
clearly way ,way better, people will stick with an iPhone or go back.

With pcs it's a different ballpark. A macbook feels nicer than a generic Acer
notebook, but one costs $1,500 and the other $499. The phones are all around
$199 and plans are about 70 bucks a month. Even if the phone is "free" the per
month payment is the same.

Also the iPhone sets a standard of experience which still is unmatched. If I
drove a mercedez, then switched to an Acura and didn't like it as much, it
doesn't mean either is bad. Acura is awesome, but I might miss the
feeling,driving, status,smell, etc and hold the Acura up the Mercedez
standards. Windows phone is stuck in an unconfortable situation where it
doesn't give way greater value to an iphone user but doesn't cost way less
either to make it into other emerging markets and grab marketshare from
somewhere else.

~~~
brk
* people shop for new phones and usually aim for the coolest one as their new phone. *

I think you're discounting the invested value of apps. I've probably got about
$400 worth of paid-for apps on my iPhone. The Windows phone might be the
"coolest", but my migration cost is far greater than just the hardware cost to
get back to a similarly useful handset.

Android seems to have more free apps, and less overall selection. It might be
easier to switch from Android to Windows phone than iPhone to Windows phone.

~~~
checoivan
You are right. Apps are the new golden handcuffs for users of a current
platform and are a new challenge to overcome for both android and windows
phone.

Still there's millions of new users who are just about to get a new smartphone
coming from candy bar phones, and when shopping they just go mostly look up
for the iphone. I stood up at an ATT store some times watching how people
shopped phones. The color squares of Windows Phone and huge screens of android
phones attract people initially, but as soon as they start comparing they
flock to the iPhone.

Amazingly, I just got back from a vacation in Mexico where smartphones are
just becoming popular, and went to the local vendors out of curiosity. The
push for IOS/android is impressive, there are ads on the street, movies,
everywhere. You can get an iPhone with no downpayment and 600 pesos(45 usd) a
month.

------
teyc
Phones are always about the carrier. Apple understood that when they started
off with AT&T. Then, they showed people what a well executed smartphone can
look like.

Android also looked after the carriers, as the author had pointed out, by
flooding market with choices. The presence of these "choices" overload the
consumer, making them forget about choosing carriers.

Microsoft, meanwhile, tried to persuade people that the phones they own are
like the PCs they own. I don't think this will necessarily gel. The reason is
I still can use my PC when internet is down, but my phone is a brick if it
can't communicate with the network.

~~~
gnaffle
Apple was the first company that was able to make a phone without bending over
backwards to the operators demands. They could do this because they

1) had a great product 2) had no existing mobile revenue stream to lose 3) was
able to shop the device around to several carriers before settling on one
launch carrier - without even showing the device to the carrier!

Compare this to Nokia, which once made a E61 version without WiFi and VoIP
support in order to sell it to carriers in the US.

Android looked after the carriers by allowing them and the manufacturers to
install (almost) what they want on the device, including applications that you
can't uninstall without jailbreaking the device.

By the way, my phone is certainly not a brick without a network. I have all my
music, videos, ebooks and lots of apps on it. I use it all the time in
airplane mode when flying.

------
AAvKK
Every time I see a screenshot of a Windows phone with the IE logo I retch. I
don't know of any web developer who would willingly put IE in their pocket,
too many bad memories full of frustrating hacks.

~~~
jarek
By the same logic, no self-respecting user should have bought an Apple product
after the horror that was OS 9.

~~~
wallflower
To be fair, Apple did literally bury OS9 and start anew

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aByby6FFR3M>

~~~
jarek
Much like Microsoft did with WinMo.

edit: not literally.

------
anigbrowl
I wonder why MS hasn't leveraged the fairly successful Xbox Live social
network (that I know about, anyhow) to build a solid fanbase for their phone
offering. Score-watching, social-sharing, and franchise related minigames with
exclusive content or game items seem a natural extension of the XBL ecosystem
and would build brand loyalty with a demographic that has a particularly high
appetite for consumer tech as well as a fairly high disposable income.

~~~
rhplus
They have. Kinectimals, Fable, Crackdown and Need For Speed all have Windows
Phone mini games/apps that allow you to earn unique achievements and items.
Halo has a 'dashboard' app, but not a game, afaik.

See also "Xbox LIVE Extras" (messaging, scoreboard and avatar editor) and the
"Xbox Companion" (Xbox remote control).

<http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Live/Mobile/Home> <http://www.windowsphone.com/en-
US/search?q=xbox>

~~~
chc
Those games are mostly old as sin, with the newest (aside from Kinectimals)
predating Windows Phone 7 by a year. No surprise they aren't getting any
attention.

------
SonicSoul
i don't get these posts. what' does "failing" mean? it's not like any of the
other platforms just gained all that market share overnight. people don't just
switching operating systems on a whim. if it really is great, it will slowly
start to take some market share over next 12-24 months. what is all this
bickering about?

------
Yhippa
I don't fully buy what this guy is selling. I tend to agree with Kindel's
analysis of why WP is doing so poorly. Is the author aware that the Facebook
app was created by Microsoft?

Having used a WP since this summer I love it. I can't say enough about it. If
you're into social you'll love this phone with deep Facebook and Twitter
integration.

I think the hardest thing about using this phone is missing out on apps that
Android and iOS get. I'm resigned to the fact that if I stick with this phone
that I'm going to miss out on a lot of cutting-edge apps. I can understand as
a developer if you have to develop, maintain, and provide support for an app
that two app stores is enough. The programming paradigm for WP is different
enough where I could see a case for not poking that bear.

I am sad. I think WP has a lot going for it. It's really an elegant OS and
it's a very good actual phone. I don't know if there's really room for a third
horse in this race.

------
jmjerlecki
I still don't understand why the xPhone doesn't exist. This has always seemed
like the obvious direction for Microsoft from a brand perspective. Use the
phone as an extension of the 360 and do some really cool things with it -
messaging hub, video chatting, go all in on games. It's just crazy to me this
doesn't exist.

~~~
jonhendry
Microsoft is probably hoping for corporate customers, who might be turned off
by an Xbox phone.

~~~
jmjerlecki
To me thats like saying corporate customers would be turned off by the iPhone.
I get where you are coming from, but I think it could be handled in a way that
would make both consumers/professionals love the phone. Apple is clearly the
example to follow. Microsoft has leverage with the 360 its just crazy to me
they don't use it.

~~~
jonhendry
I'm assuming an Xbox phone would be more than just the name, so the design,
UI, accessories, and marketing would all be Xbox-y and targeted to gamers to
some degree.

An Xbox phone that looked like Windows Phone 7 would be no big deal for
business, but an Xbox phone that looks like it is part of a gun from HALO
probably would be a problem.

------
alxp
Looks like the Nokia partnership may be their last best hope. Android can have
the crapware-laden low-end of the Smartphone market and Microsoft and Apple
can be seen as the quality brands, and if Nokia sells enough phones it will at
least save MS's reputation.

~~~
redthrowaway
Keep in mind though, Google has _both_ the crapware-laden low-end, as well as
some very desirable phones in the Nexus Line. WP7 has neither, really. I'd
like to like it, as I think it's awesome that MS is finally doing some real UI
innovation, but none of the phones tickle my fancy enough for me to really
give it a shot.

~~~
nlawalker
What are you looking for in a phone? MS doesn't give hardware manufactures a
whole ton of room to differentiate, but in the room that they do give, it
seems to be covered fairly well. Is it just an overall build quality thing?

~~~
redthrowaway
I'm not going to lie, I simply don't like the look of any of the WP7 phones.
Yes, I know it's shallow, but it's a pretty big first barrier to overcome.
I've heard some people say they really like the Nokia phones, but none of them
really do anything for me.

------
johnohara
I recently got a Samsung/Windows phone after my old -- very old (but easy-to-
use) RaZr got wet and went south. My only requirement for the new phone was
that it had to be a Samsung and it had to be free -- no exceptions.

I walked out the door with a Windows Phone.

I like it I guess.. Wasn't sure I would, but I do. It's stable, holds a good
charge, and is reliable. I deleted every icon from the main display, except
two -- Voice and Messaging. Everything else is on the menu. Access is easy.
Call clarity is good and the features work fine.

My main complaint is that I had to setup a Windows Live account to manage my
contacts. I'd rather just plug it in to my computer and be done with it
locally.

Am I Windows brand loyal? No. But I have had no issues whatsoever.

~~~
pilsetnieks
You don't necessarily need a Windows Live account, it works with Google
accounts just as well.

~~~
johnohara
The rep led me to believe that was my only option. So thank you. I'll try my G
account.

------
dhughes
I don't own one but what I have seen I like such as the application buttons
instead of tiny icons that Apple an Android use.

I bought my mom an ipod touch xmass 2010 and my dad an Android phone this
xmass but both (in their late 60s) have trouble seeing the small icons.

~~~
MBCook
Earlier this year my boss was having trouble with his old Android phone (the
battery was going) and it was cheaper to get another phone. He bought a used
WM7 phone off Craigslist, and he really liked it.

In the end, he sold it and bought another Android phone, because the camera on
the particular model he bought was complete junk. He said if it wasn't for
that he would have stayed with WM7.

Everything I've read indicates it's a very nice OS. MS knows what they're
doing so they've done a good job of making sure there are apps in the app
store (where WebOS really stumbled).

I hope it stays around, it seems like a nice piece of competition (interface-
wise) for Android and iOS. But it was so late to the game I think it's going
to have a very hard time ever getting out of third.

~~~
dhughes
One big reason Android is it's easier to modify such as rooting it, Apple can
be jailbroken but I'm not sure about Windows phone.

People have suggested I try Big Launcher, Launcher 7, Simple Home which I may
try to see if my dad likes one of them. Most of those pretty much make it look
like a Windows phone.

------
takinola
The problem with this analysis is the writer defines quality as stable, easy
to use OS but neglects the fact that the phone manufacturers define quality
slightly different. Sure, it's great to have a nice OS and a phone that does
not crash but if the OS ties their hands (design-wise), they may not have room
to innovate as they would see fit.

This reminds me of the story about when then phone companies wanted to get
into web hosting. They decided that uptime was their competitive edge (when
last did your land-line go down?) and thought webmasters would see that as
valuable. However, for many webmasters, cost was the big issue but the phone
companies could not deliver at the same cost as lots of mom and pop webhosts
who had (comparatively) horrendous uptime.

This is a classic strategy mistake. Value is in the eye of the buyer. The
maker cannot decide something is valuable just because it is good. The buyer
decides what is good and then the maker follows suit.

------
thewisedude
I understand what the author is trying to say! But the title is so different
from the content. Its great and its a compromise? its neither here nor there?

------
mlopes
FUD from a website that doesnt's even bothers to try and render well on the
iPhone. Also isn't saying that it tries to achieve something in the middle of
userfriendliness of the iPhone and ubiquity of the Android, and then say it
has a marvelous user interface kinda of a contradiction? Have no idea how this
kind of spam got into HN.

------
fufulabs
I would think that Windows 8 and the next Xbox will have killer integration
with WP 7.x but knowing Microsoft's dysfunctional departments, I will not be
surprised if there is none or its done poorly.

Think:

\- A build once deploy to WP7, Win8 and Xbox Live dev to attract developers.

\- Skydrive integration across all windows apps

\- seamless Skype+Facebook+IM messaging

etc.

~~~
mattstreet
With how aggravating games for windows live is, I don't have much faith in a
well integrated system either.

~~~
ghurlman
Given how well integrated Windows Phone and Xbox Live are already, I've got
plenty of faith in good integration going forward.

------
dangerboysteve
No it's failing as a result of making extremely crappy mobile products for
over a decade. That leaves a lasting impression in many people. Apple's first
attempt ( while not perfect ) blew away the established ruling companies.

------
forgotAgain
As Shakespeare said:

 _The fault lies not within our stars but within ourselves_

(Hat tip F. Unger)

------
fredsmith219
Or, in my case, i've been screwed by MS so many times over the years tht it
feels great to have excellent alternatves and watch the arrogant asses
struggle. I won't buy their products again and they have earned my enmity. I
hope they lose billions.

------
ta-appdev
It's the apps, stupid. Development itself for Windows Phone isn't terrible.
Not as painful as Blackberry, not as idiosyncratic as Android. HOWEVER, the
friction involved when attempting to move a Windows Phone project past initial
development into testing mode is annoyingly high, in my experience.

Take, for example, the requirement of getting your "Hello, World" app
installed on real hardware and out to beta testers:

Apple: Pay your $99 bucks, get the development environment and your identity
info, generate certs. You can have your app running on your own equipment in
just a few hours. A couple more hours to figure out how to package it the
right way for testers (or use TestFlight) and you can add up to 100 beta
testers.

Android: Don't even need to sign up as a developer and pay your 25 bucks until
you're ready to go. You can have your apk running on your own devices in no
time at all. You can shoot your apk out to as many people as you want to test.

Blackberry: The web site's a hot mess, but it takes less than a day for them
to get you your signing key, so you can generally get Hello World running on
your Blackberry hardware within a day. You can shoot your app out to as many
beta testers as you want.

Windows Phone: You can't test on real hardware until your developer's identity
has been verified by a third party company external to Microsoft. There are
documented cases where this has taken more than _three months_ to complete.
(This is if you can even pay for the developer's account because their web
site rejects valid credit cards as a matter of course unless the stars are
aligned. Apparently some bug where they see all credit cards as debit cards?)
We're on month two and counting waiting to get 'verified.'

I totally get that they need to determine who you are in order to get your
apps into the Marketplace (Apple does this as well, although I believe they do
it internally--and they're relatively fast), but just to test your software on
your own hardware?

Re: beta testing, you only get three registered development devices tops per
developer and while they do have a facility for beta testing, it requires
automated review by Microsoft to pop into the Marketplace.

I hear from Windows Phone users daily, many of whom moved to Windows Phone
from Android phones because their phones were just too unreliable and they
can't bring themselves to go to iPhone, and they are very vocal about being
frustrated with the number and quality of apps available to them. I can't help
but feel like Microsoft just doesn't understand how important quality apps are
to smartphone users and how the friction they've got in their app developer
workflow is a serious impediment to growing their app ecosystem.

I really wish Microsoft would get this workflow together already...they've got
a fantastic chance here to make serious inroads but I don't feel like they
really understand (mobile) Developers, Developers, Developers! yet.

------
rkon
It's actually a valid point, but you would never get that impression from this
article.

Ars Technica did a much better job of summarizing what makes WP7 "great" and
how that greatness repels hardware makers and carriers:
[http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/12/is-windows-
pho...](http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/12/is-windows-phones-
consumer-focus-killing-it.ars)

------
squiggly101
This is so typical of the brain rot most technology reviewers suffer from.

The basic line is something like "if it has been well engineered, and someone
has put a whole lot of effort into it, and its a bit different to everything
else out there, then we are basically obliged to give it high marks".

They seem incapable of judging devices by the most basic and important
standard: user experience. If the user experience is bad, then _nothing else
matters_. A user interface is not brilliant if no one wants to use it.

WinPho7 is the best current example of this going round. Almost universally
acclaimed by reviewers, almost totally ignored by consumers.

~~~
fdr
I like the design of the Metro UI. I can find my way around, the transitions
and layout is basically informative and attractive. In my mind, it beats the
tar out of Android in those dimensions. I'm not sure if I could even call it
inferior to the design conventions and capabilities on iOS, which often
accrues the most praise.

Although you could take "user experience" to very generalized levels ("did it
get to market early enough", "do my friends have it", "are there applications
I want", "is it in the mobile phone store"), these are usually considered
social or business questions. One only need look at the flop of the Nexus One
-- basically a well designed phone, but one that was positioned poorly with
carriers -- for evidence.

I think it is sociological and business factors that blight the Windows Phone,
not its design or user experience, except in the most overgeneralized sense.

------
zak_mc_kracken
> On the other hand, Kinkel argued, Microsoft’s insistence on certain
> consistencies of interface and hardware has left its partners handcuffed.

That's an interesting interpretation, I think the simple truth is that
Microsoft is coming too late at the party. We're entering a nuclear winter
where only Android and iOS (and soon, most likely mostly Android) dominate the
space for the next five years to come.

On a related note, I found the following article fairly accurate when it comes
to evaluate reactions to Windows Phone:

[http://shysnowsquare.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/enemies-of-
you...](http://shysnowsquare.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/enemies-of-your-
enemies/)

------
Shorel
Yes, it has nothing to do with their Windows monopoly and a total lack of
guarantees to any developer who wants to create applications for it.

Do an office suite? Not viable, MS has its own version.

Do a nice application for doing whatever? If it's successful MS will do their
own version. And release it for free.

Balmer said it: Developers! Developers! Developers!

But now how can any developer invest in MS without realizing it is suicidal?

------
tadhgk
Lateness to market and image of Microsoft are thoroughly valid points, much
like the reasons WebOS never worked out for Palm. There is a broader reason
though:

Metro is a bad UI. It _looks_ impressive in screenshots, but its usability is
dismal. It relies too much on trying to guide the customer and be exciting
rather and too little on creating a sensible and memorable logic that the user
can intuit.

The implementation on WP7 is bad, all squished and uni-coloured (and on Xbox
it's even worse). It does not bode well at all for Microsoft that they can't
seem to remember that software is supposed to be used. It's like they've only
learned the lesson of typography from Apple, and not the elegance of actual
use.

~~~
cooldeal
Sorry, have to disagree about Metro. Are you talking from experience with
using WP7? Almost every review has only good things to say about Metro. When
even Gruber(who jumps on every opportunity to diss non-Apple platforms)
praises it, you know it's good.

And what about it being uni-coloured? Much of Metro is extremely colorful,
including the tiles.

Eg. [http://ribot.co.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2010/10/Panorama_sampl...](http://ribot.co.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2010/10/Panorama_sample.png)

[http://www.wp7connect.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/03/Woodgro...](http://www.wp7connect.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/03/Woodgrove_Bank_Pano.jpg)

[http://techblog.ginktage.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/07/1.jp...](http://techblog.ginktage.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/07/1.jpg)

[http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lrTGyYjLlrU/TnNaJaTzqHI/AAAAAAAAAC...](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lrTGyYjLlrU/TnNaJaTzqHI/AAAAAAAAAC4/_4tH82IXLyI/s1600/win8+weather.jpg)

Maybe you need to use the phone to appreciate it? Or at least link to an
analysis or review stating that Metro UI is bad.

~~~
meepmorp
Yeah, dunno. I've seen the reviews and so on, but having played with metro on
some devices, admittedly just in a store for maybe 10 minutes a few times, I
just don't like it. The large text that just kind of runs off the side of the
screen, and content hanging off just at the right edge to scroll to feels
sloppy somehow. Also, I find the up transition jarring (kind of a page flip
thing). The live tiles are sort of neat, but overall I don't care for the
design aesthetic.

This is totally subjective, and probably just inertia w.r.t. what I'm already
used to, but I just don't care for it, no matter how well reviewed it is.

