I’ve been a diehard fan of the underdog Windows Phone platform. I just like the interface - but it’s time to let go, because it seems like Microsoft has already let go.
There were all sorts of rumours about the ‘Surface Phone’ last year, then it got shelved, then the number of new Windows phone models on the market shrank dramatically - so it looks a lot like there’s no real future for WP - not even a continuation of the limp, lame support we’ve seen in the past.
So anyway, I’ve been looking at Android phones (I’ve actually got one I am trying out) - and it turns out that Microsoft has already released all of their office suite apps to the Android platform - that’s not news - slightly more interesting, is that Cortana is available as an Android app - and more interesting still - Microsoft has an Android Launcher called Arrow.
Actually probably none of this is news, as I think those things have been on the play store for a while, but… does this all add up to Microsoft doing the same thing as Blackberry - and planning to release a phone that is Android, with Microsoft customisation?
Why would they? There are already lots of Android phones out there. If they don’t want to do a Windows phone it would seem to be more reasonable to quit making phones.
Brand positioning, for one thing - having a surface phone (even if it’s Android under the surface) means that customers who place a value on coherence of branding can have a matching set of stuff - and can still be drawn in with promises of consistent experience across a variety of devices - IOW, having a phone in the collection isn’t just about having a phone - it’s about ‘rounding out’ the set.
But the Windows mobile ecosystem is pretty much a goner - developers don’t write apps for it because nobody uses the platform - and nobody uses the platform because of the paucity of apps. I don’t think anything short of a miracle would bring that back.
So MS has (I think) a choice:
Don’t have a phone at all (and risk consequential erosion of the other offerings in the stable)
Release a new version of Windows/Surface Phone (and continue watching the market shrink because of the vicious cycle of app unavailability)
Jump on the Android bandwagon and never have to worry about creating a thriving ecosystem - it seems an obvious solution.
Well, it probably wouldn’t be the same situation as Blackberry because Blackberry doesn’t have much to do with those Blackberry Android phones. They’ve basically licensed the Blackberry brand out to another company, TCL, which does its own design and manufacturing. If you’re a fan of Microsoft, you should probably hope that they are never so desperate for a revenue stream that they would exploit the good feelings of past customers by auctioning their name up to the highest bidder.
The short answer is no, it doesn’t add up to a Microsoft Android phone. The reason Office, Cortana, etc are available on Android is the same reason they are available on iOS- that’s where the customers are. IMO, there are no tea leaves to be read there.
Customers, seemingly, don’t place a value on coherence of branding. The hundreds of millions of Windows users who did nothing for Windows Mobile/Phone would seem to prove that position out. And they didn’t help the Zune much, either. Also, if Microsoft isn’t in full control of the OS, how exactly is it going to guarantee a consistent experience across devices?
Where exactly is the profit angle in this solution?
Windows phone fails significantly because the app market isn’t viable. It’s not a viable part of a coherent brand platform. A Microsoft-branded Android ‘surface’ device would not necessarily be weak in the way WP was.
The Zune isn’t a good example of anything at all. It’s a non-product.
Well, they can’t - but who says they have to guarantee it at all - rather, just offer it - the launcher, the apps, the browser(edge doesn’t exist yet for Android), the search engine, etc are all part of the picture - and can be set as the preinstalled default apps
I thought I was explaining that in the post you quoted - the profit is in the synergy of having (what can be claimed to be) a ‘complete’ package of solutions - the avoidance of erosion of the whole set of devices. You disagree this is a profitable idea? That’s fine. You might be right.
The Zune is an excellent example that the brand positioning you mentioned means little. Microsoft was not able to leverage their well-known, respected brand, trusted by hundreds of millions, to help Zune sales. No one cared about making a matching set out of their computer and their mp3 player. And no one cared about making a matching set out of their computer and their Windows phone.
Who says they have to guarantee it? Wha? You did when you said customers “can still be drawn in with promises of consistent experience across a variety of devices.”
They had that exact same synergy with Windows Phone. It didn’t work. But you’re arguing that adding in an extra layer of complexity (Microsoft can’t control OS functionality or updates or compatibility; where should a customer go for service? Google or Microsoft?) will? And what about good old fashioned $$$ profitably? How is Microsoft making money on this deal? I’m not trying to hound you on this, I just don’t understand how it’s the obvious solution you think it is.
Microsoft is a software company. They’ll sometimes dip into hardware when it serves their software making interests, but making hardware to run someone else’s OS would be absurd on multiple levels. They’ll make software for Android when it makes sense and serves their software making interests, but that’s about it.
This article from a year ago sums it all up a lot more comprehensively than anybody here is going to bother. Note how they indicate MSFT pursuing the business market.
People avoided Windows Phone because it was too little too late to try and catch up with Android and iOS. So the apps were just never there. And Android-based Microsoft phone wouldn’t have these problems.
The main reason I don’t think they’d do it is that they’ve doubled down on their whole “Universal apps” idea. Unless they can port those to Android, I don’t think they’d leverage that platform.
I mean, Xbox games run on Windows now. They just want everything together in one.
I explained this in the part of the quote that you trimmed away. Android has a thriving app market - the biggest weakness of WP has always been paucity of apps.
Fair point, I guess. MS just didn’t try very hard with Zune, was my impression.
No, I did not say anything about guarantees. Guaranteeing and controlling the experience is Apple’s game. At the moment, Microsoft already ***offers ***a ‘microsoft experience’ on Android - via the Arrow launcher, office apps, etc.
It didn’t work because they were not able to create an attractive ecosystem - that’s why it didn’t work. That’s the key difference that a Windows-flavoured Android phone would have.
They hardly need add anything at this point - most of the pieces are already there - all they would need to do is partner with a manufacturer willing to assemble the pieces into something that can have the Windows logo slapped on it.
In practice, where does a Windows Phone user or an Android user go for service right now? Hardware? - back to the manufacturer. Apps - back to the publisher. OS - support seems to consist of asking people on the internet, and learning to live with that which you cannot change.
Microsoft knows they’re a loser in the mobile space. It doesn’t just want to admit that it’s so much of a loser that it needs to put out an Android phone, because it’s trying to convince itself that Surface is the new Mac. It eyes the Android model of tiny OEM margins with the kind of contempt that comes from a comfortable familiarity, having done the same thing with Windows, and it is insanely jealous of Apple’s premium model.
They view Android as surrender. Sure, they’d probably make some money from it if they did, but what they’re really desperate for is a visionary recapture of their imagined prior dominance. They still feel slighted that Windows Mobile lost to the new kid on the block, even decades after the decisive victory. So they throw chump change at new phone designs every few years in a shotgun approach, hoping that one of those will stick. But they can’t quite come to terms with the reality that Microsoft is not a sexy name. It reeks of homework and cubicles, and at most a gaming console that is pretty much a copy of Windows and functionally indistinguishable from the Playstation. A Microsoft Android phone would be the embodiment of Microsoft itself: a best-effort has-been, as comfortable as grandma’s hand-me-down pajamas, with the sex appeal of same.
If Apple is the imagined innovator, Samsung the best imitator, Google a very distant alternative, Microsoft entering the arena isn’t David vs Goliath, it’s David the alcoholic after a decade on the streets, world-weary and broken and playing the lottery once in a while because that’s all he can do. Occasionally David wins a few hundred dollars, and a couple times he buys himself a new suit, gets a haircut, and fancies himself ready for an interview at the local Fortune 500 company, not understanding why he never gets a second one.
Contrary to popular belief, Microsoft is not a tech company. They’re the worst kind of company, a company company, an outfit with more money than vision that only makes money because of its entrenchment and capital. Nobody likes Microsoft. We tolerate it. Slapping the Windows name on a phone means “polished 90s corporate genericism – it’ll work, it’ll have good support, be somewhat reasonably priced… yawn”. Even Microsoft is aware of that. That’s why they’ve been trying to avoid it for the past few decades. One day, when they finally do release an Android phone, it won’t be because they saw a new opportunity. It’ll be because they’ve exhausted the other ones.
Guarantee and promise are synonyms. You first said they could draw in customers with a promise of a consistent experience across devices, but now you’re stressing it’s just an offer? If I’m a customer like you were describing, one who wants to round out the set with brand coherence, why would I give Microsoft my money if they can’t promise exactly that? Why wouldn’t I just stick with my Microsoft-apps-laden Galaxy?
I get that you think the biggest problem was a lack of apps. (I’d suggest that an empty app store was a symptom of the disease that killed Microsoft in mobile, not the disease itself.) But what you haven’t done is explain why you think Google Play is a panacea. Microsoft would have to invest billions to design, build and market an Android phone just to get Google Play. And, yes, it will cost billions because if you think…
…is enough, then they will have another Zune on their hands- an uninspiring, me-too box of failure. If you were pitching to Microsoft execs, would “We hardly need to add anything” and “We can slap our logo on some assembled pieces that are already there” really be the bullet points you’d hit?
Of course not, so it would cost billions. For that, Microsoft gets entrance into an already crowded and cutthroat market where Apple and Samsung command 95% of the profits, a phone whose signature apps are already available on competing phones and which runs a competitor’s OS that they have absolutely zero control over. Golly, what’s the downside?
The problem is the answer is Microsoft. So my Microsoft Android phone that I bought specifically because Microsoft sold me on “brand coherence” and “matching the set” breaks down and I have to deal with whatever lowest-bid Chinese manufacturer Microsoft got in bed with? No, that’s a disaster even Microsoft wouldn’t allow.
If Google issues an Android update which breaks my entire suite of Microsoft apps on my Microsoft Android, I’m complaining to Microsoft because it has their logo slapped on it, remember?
“Learning to live with that which you cannot change.” These Microsoft Android slogans just write themselves, don’t they?
Marketing images and promises are not the same thing as standards that you will actually guarantee - ‘guaranteeing an experience’ is what Apple does quite effectively, by controlling the platform - and it’s a separate thing from the marketing image (although in Apple’s case, the two different things are somewhat codependent).
I don’t know if you think I’m a Microsoft fanboy or something - because your responses seem to suggest that you might think my point here is “Hey, Microsoft could do this and I would drool all over it” - that is not the case. I have my preferences, like anyone else, but the question I’m asking here is not whether this would be good, or marketable, or effective, or stylish, or sexy, but “does it look likely?” Microsoft’s foray into offerings in the Android market sort of suggested to me that it might be. YMMV, but please stop giving me a hard time over a position I do not occupy.
I just wanted to pick up on this bit, because you obviously had fun turning it into a dig.
The reality of OS support for all phones that are not apple consists of googling, asking on forums, then either working around it, hoping an update will fix it, or learning to live with it. For all I know, it might even be the same for Apple devices, except you can walk into an apple store and maybe get help. This is not a Microsoft problem, or even an Android problem - it’s just the real-world outcome of non-critical problems that occur on any widely-distributed device, especially when it’s sort-of-disposable.
Last I heard, they had already given up on the Windows phone and no longer listed it as a platform in their projections. My brother in law is an engineer with Microsoft and talks about how he and other employees gave up on the Windows phone a long while back and they all use Android. When he first pulled out his Android phone and got some flack, he just pointed out that Windows Phones had just a sliver of the available apps he needed.
That doesn’t mean that MS is going to make their own Android phone, of course, but I don’t know that they’ll make another Windows one either.
Your style of questioning came across as aggressive, and you questioned me on points that I had already tried to explain, in parts you either quoted, or pruned out of quotes. My apologies if I misunderstood your intent.