Does Microsoft Need A Low-End Phone?

[David McNamee]

That last post (http://www.smartphonethoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=36288#36288) about Microsoft and Symbian in the Middle East got me thinking about the mass market. Microsoft has a three to five year goal of running Windows Mobile on 100 million handsets, or about a quarter of the estimated market. Symbian, on the other hand, wants its software running every phone on the market. To achieve that end, Symbian is using two versions of its software. Symbian sells a less functional operating system for low-end phones. Their Series 60 is aimed at the upscale, full-featured end of the market. It also seems that PalmSource will be following a similar approach. PalmOS 5 will be customized for low-end phones with OS 6 targeting the high-end.

Symbian's "let's get on every phone" approach is reminiscent of Microsoft's "every PC on every desktop" approach. That attitude worked pretty well for Microsoft. It could work for Symbian if they don't have a competitor that is trying to same approach.

Is it time for Microsoft to split Windows Mobile for Smartphone in two? This wouldn't be a first for Microsoft operating systems. Windows XP comes in both Home and Professional editions. Even Window Mobile for Pocket PC has a similar split. There is one version that ships with Terminal Services and MSN Messenger, and one doesn't. Can a case be made for "Consumer" and "Professional" versions of Windows Mobile? What would be left out of the "Consumer" version?

As it stands, Windows Mobile for Smartphone can be considered our baseline for the "Professional" version. The 2003 revision, that is, with its support for multiple mailboxes, improved web browser, and other fixes. What would we remove to make a "Consumer" version for the mass market? Could the Inbox go? What about the calendar? Here's what I'd do to a "Consumer" Smartphone OS: Inbox - SMS/MMS only No calendar Internet Explorer stays MSN Messenger stays No ActiveSync - not needed if there's no real Inbox or calendar Make a version that supports monochrome
This set of features would leave the messaging and web browsing that help increase a carrier's average revenue per user (ARPU). "Professionals" who need their calendar and their e-mail would go for the higher-end version of the platform. Would this be a sufficiently small set of features to reach lower end, lower cost mobile phones?

What would you do if you were designing a low-end phone around Windows Mobile?

[possmann]

I "like" the idea - with reservations...

Your first stab at it is similar to mine but I would only target color phone - my opinion is that they are all going to head that way anyway - once you have/see color you won't go back to B&W.

I would think that activesync would have to be included as I would want the ablity to sync all my contacts over to the phone - or am I getting too much into the professional version of the OS? :lol: I just can't see having a phone where you can't easily load in all the contact info you want/need.

It's a novel thought - breaking the OS in two, but would there really be taht much of a cast savings to the end user - consumer versus professonal?

[John Cody]

My 'Thoughts'...

1) I don't think you can get rid of Activesync because it will severely limit and monopolize how and what software the user will be able to install on their device. I personally think that the versatility of software installable on a Smartphone is one of it's biggest advantages.

2) Most of the features you mentioned are software, and I think I read somewhere that microsoft charges OEM's like $15 royalty for the *complete* Smartphone 2002 OS. So, even if you *eliminated* all of the software on the phone, you would only shave $15 off the cost, not a significant savings. The only exception to this would be if the Phone manufacturer/OEM/carrier is adding like $100-$200 extra to the cost of the phone to cover the cost of support for the sometimes complex OS and built-in apps . If this was the case (which I doubt), then limiting the software on the device could significantly reduce the cost of the phone to the end-user. But then you would have a product that wouldn't be much better then a nokia, or sony. Significant cost savings can really only be achived by reducing the cost of the hardware needed to produce the product via manufacturing advanacements, or significant reduction of hardware in the phone. But, because Windows CE is a complex and relatively demanding piece of software, it minimally requires more powerful (read 'expensive') hardware then your daddy's cell phone.

3) A black and white display would significantly reduce the hardware cost to produce the product, but that would play havoc with all of the current smartphone apps (the apps may be unreadable in B&W), and it would add additional burden for developers to produce two versions of each app (one for color, one for b&w).

[David McNamee]

Great points, both of you. Okay, ActiveSync stays :wink: