The third party software puzzle

[Jason Dunn]

This issue has been skirted lately, so I wanted to bring it to the forefront. It's very complex, and there are no easy answers, but I want find out what you think of it. Where does the Microsoft software development begin and end? Where should 3rd party developers step in?<br /><br />Imagine you're a Microsoft Product Manager for the Pocket PC. You've been tasked with putting together the list of software to include on the device. The product has to ship in six months, and you have a limited number of development days to have your team create the software. Do you develop two feature-rich applications, ones that would satisfy 99% of the market with some hard-core features, or do you develop eight feature-light applications that will make 80% of the market happy. What will give your device the best shot in the market? What would YOU do?<br /><br />Now imagine you're a developer of Pocket PC software. You know that you can make a more functional version of Pocket "Whatever" - but you're leery of putting a lot of time and effort into an application that Microsoft may end up releasing later on, thus killing your market. You don't want to become the WordPerfect of the Pocket PC world. What would YOU do?

[bandersnatch]

Well, it's unfortunate. As the MS product manager, I'd have to go with the 8 different apps. Very few people need to be able to use their portable spreadsheet to do more than view some numbers, so I go with the basics. Same with Word. But if MS can say "and it also has thus-and-such" for the other apps, that satisfies a LOT more users. The idea would then be that people who really want the POWER features will get the third party apps.

The problem is, if I were working for a PPC software company, I would highly, highly recommend against making an app that competes against what MS has built in. It's been a problem for companies under Windows, and it is on the PPC as well. MS just has every ability to come along and snatch away all your customers. Because they're evil? No, of course not. They're just in business, and if they think they can beat you and sell more of what they're making, they will. They also happen to have the resources to do it.

Unfortunately, this means that we will probably be stuck, for the most part, with what MS gives us in terms of office apps on the PPC, unless some company is brave (or foolhardy?) enough to compete there.

Then again, that's just my thought. I whipped this off, so maybe I missed something in my quick-and-dirty analysis. Anyone else have thoughts?

[Duncan]

Some very good spreadsheet apps have flourished and survived. What is their secret when we get no 'WP' progs?

One thing that puzzles me - if people can produce softwre that integrates into Pocket IE and Outlook - why not Pocket Word? What, I wonder, stops someone from 'adding-in' missing elements from Pocket Word (Tables etc.)?

[jpaq]

Why not run Pocket PC software like PC software? Most PC's that don't come with Office come with some version of MS Works. What is Works? It is Office light (extremely light). MS sells the Office product to those that can use it.

The PPC parallel is the current Word Processor, Spreadsheet, E-Mail, Contact suite. Call it PPC Works. I know that MS calls it Pocket Word, etc. but the apps are light and that is being generous. Don't be suprised is MS comes out with a Pocket Office Professional suite. It may not be with PPC2002, but from all indications, this may be a possibility on CE.Net.

My $.02.

[JonnoB]

I have experienced this dilemna several times in the PC/Windows world.

In fact, the recent lawsuit to force MS to include certain applications made me think... "how am I different" ?

You see, I develop fax and voice mail software for desktop computers and server environments and did this long before MS ever put these into the OS. So far, MS has done a poor job of it, so we have been successful making a better product... but I don't have the resources to compete with MS if they ever got serious about it. In the end, I am taking the risk and although this business may not be viable if MS did a better job... it is MY responsibility to 'make a better mousetrap' instead of wasting time suing that MS has a mousetrap at all.

While I might whine, I prefer to allow MS the ability to improve it's own product portfolio.

Anyway, that is my .02

[bitbank]

I have been on the receiving end of good and bad from Microsoft's PPC team. The good was that they paid me to develop the Arcade PocketPak. The bad was that they released the free PowerToy which competes with my Virtual CE product.

I think MS has to take the lead and produce good software for their platform; leaving it all up to 3rd party developers is not good enough to ensure that all of the basic apps needed will get developed.

I am always balancing the risks of doing different types of PPC software because I don't want my nose cut off again. The strategy I use now is to create apps which have unique technology which MS does not feel like creating/buying. Arcade game emulators is a good example.

Larry B.

[Chris Spera]

In the end, I am taking the risk and although this business may not be viable if MS did a better job... it is MY responsibility to 'make a better mousetrap' instead of wasting time suing that MS has a mousetrap at all.

and this is what drives true innovation. I'd really like to see someone develop a Pocket Office alternative.

A while ago, I contacted Woody Leonard of Woody's Office Watch Fame and suggested that he and Mike Craven (the author of the Office Add-In, WOPR: http://www.wopr.com) and suggested they create a WOPR-CE. This Pocket Word and Pocket Excel Add-In would and could push all sorts of extra functionality to Pocket Office, I said.

"Great Idea!!" Woody said. "We'll look into it."

Many moons later, he got back to me and said that there are NO hooks into Pocket Word or Excel for them to grab on to. There's no way for anyone to enhance the (then) current versions of PWord/Excel. Its effectively, a closed system.

Now that was about a year ago... and since then, Pocket PC 2002 has been released; but my guess is that the apps are still plugged. I talk with both Woody and Mike every now and again. I'll try contacting them and see if they have had the opportunity to look into it since the OS upgrade.

This would really be the most preferred way of handling this, from my perspective. I'd rather spend my Storage RAM with a Pocket Office Add-In than a whole new office suite.

Kind Regards,

Christopher Spera
pocketnow Contributing Editor & Columnist

pocketnow.com -- it's all about portability...
http://www.pocketnow.com

[Charles Pickrell]

This is such an important issue for Pocket PC. If Microsoft is unable to improve the creaky Office apps on Pocket PC they sould sub it out to someone who can. Take Conduits' Pocket Slides, license it and call it Pocket Powerpoint. Just like Microsoft licensed Calligrapher and called it Transcriber.

I think what we are really talking about here is Pocket Word. The absolutely crappiest excuse for a word processor that exists! I have asked Woody (I don't know his last name) of the company Softwood who wrote a great word processor called Final Writer and Final Copy back in the late 90's to work on a verison for Pocket PC. It would be great if he could write it, sell it to Microsoft and then let them call it Pocket Word 2.0. It would get around all the competition issues and we would get a much better product. If you want to contact Woody, let me know and I'll send you his e-mail address.

Charles

[Jason Dunn]

It would be great if he could write it, sell it to Microsoft and then let them call it Pocket Word 2.0. It would get around all the competition issues and we would get a much better product. If you want to contact Woody, let me know and I'll send you his e-mail address.


It would be great, but don't count on it. Microsoft got BADLY burned with Pocket Money 1.0 - it was contracted out to a third party, and look how badly that app turned out. I don't know if it was the app, the ActiveSync conduit, or what, but it was very embarrassing for Microsoft and I doubt they'll contract out their apps again for the Pocket PC.

[Jason Dunn]

Many moons later, he got back to me and said that there are NO hooks into Pocket Word or Excel for them to grab on to. There's no way for anyone to enhance the (then) current versions of PWord/Excel. Its effectively, a closed system.


Unfortunately, this is still the case - while Pocket Outlook has hooks for developers to tie into, Pocket Office apps are closed tight. I've said that exposing the code should be a top priority for the Pocket PC team at every MVP Summit I've been to, but... :cry:

[Rob Alexander]

Do you develop two feature-rich applications, ones that would satisfy 99% of the market with some hard-core features, or do you develop eight feature-light applications that will make 80% of the market happy. What will give your device the best shot in the market? What would YOU do?


I think this scenario is a bit too rigid to get to the heart of the matter because it makes it sound like a one time decision. Instead, perhaps we could think of this as a series of such decisions over several versions of the product.

First you decide what core applications should be a part of your product. For the sake of discussion, let say there are eight of them (since you used that number). You start in version 1.0 by developing the eight feature-light applications. You add the features you can, but understand that you won't make them everything you'd like in the first round.

You accomplish two things by doing this. First, you communicate to your customers the vision you have for your product, even if its not fully realized in the first version. Second, you send a clear message to 3rd party developers that these are 'our' core apps and everything else is up for grabs. Everyone knows where they stand and developers won't be shy about putting serious time and energy into everything non-core.

Then in version 2.0 (and beyond), instead of adding lots of new apps, you spend your effort in improving your core apps. You gradually make each of the core apps everything your customers wish they were. Your customers understand that everything can't happen at once, but they really want to see significant improvements in each core app with each version.

You may choose to add an occasional additional app, depending on how the market for your product develops, but you do so carefully, recognizing that the success of your platform is largely dependent on 3rd party developers and you don't want to stomp on them just because you can. And, as Charles Pickrell pointed out, a good way to add new apps is to license an existing product and pay the developer to improve it for you. This not only supports your developers, but it stretches your limited development resources.

This is where I think MS really lets us down with the PPC. They don't do much to improve the core apps. (Little things here and there, but nothing significant.) But then they go and add a bunch of new apps which are themselves half-baked, and many of which already have 3rd party counterparts. They think they're being clever because they can offer this big list of new 'features', but they're wrong. By doing things this way, they create dissatisfaction amongst their customers and hesitation amongst 3rd party developers to dive into areas that they think MS might tackle in the future.

[griph]

Don't be suprised is MS comes out with a Pocket Office Professional suite. It may not be with PPC2002, but from all indications, this may be a possibility on CE.Net.


Now that is an idea I like! Particularly with XScale in mind the size and functionality limit issue with PPC SW will diminish I'm sure.

[Robert Levy]

The best solution for everyone would be for MS to make several basic core programs and give 3rd party developers the ability to build plug-ins and/or replacements. They did this with the Pocket Outlook suite, and we've gotten some really powerful apps that have been built on top of it (like Pocket Informant). MS made a huge mistake in not making their other apps like Pocket Word and Pocket Excel expandable by third parties and we are thus forced to use whatever they give us as is. Heck, they even gave developers the ability to build programs on top of the Pocket Access engine - which really says something since they never deployed a "Pocket Access" engine. I want MS to put their man-hours into developing flexible APIs and documentation. Us developers will take care of the user interface and functionality stuff.

[Paragon]

We have seen a couple of new as yet released devices running WindowsCE .Net with Wordpad an IE ect. much like the desktop versions. NO Pocket Excel, Word, or Money as available in PPC. Does anyone think that Microsoft may move back to something like this and make 'richer' versions of these apps available seperately like they are on the desktop.

If there is one thing that Pocket PC has accomplished is standardization BORING standardization. There is very little difference between PPC devices. Doing this would give hardware developers more flexability in what they offer the consumer thus giving some variety to the product line... spice it up a little.

I wonder how many people would be willing to pay more for a feature rich version of Word but not Excel or something else. This way they could buy a Pocket PCless Pocket PC for less money and then buy the software they really need.

Food for thought. I know there are some holes in this, I just thought it might be interesting to hear some thoughts on it.

Dave

[jlp]

Microsoft got BADLY burned with Pocket Money 1.0 - it was contracted out to a third party, and look how badly that app turned out. I don't know if it was the app, the ActiveSync conduit, or what, but it was very embarrassing for Microsoft and I doubt they'll contract out their apps again for the Pocket PC.


Sounds like last moment decision, me think. Nothing here that a normal testing wouldn't have revealed?!!!


This is where I think MS really lets us down with the PPC. They don't do much to improve the core apps. (Little things here and there, but nothing significant.) But then they go and add a bunch of new apps which are themselves half-baked, and many of which already have 3rd party counterparts. They think they're being clever because they can offer this big list of new 'features', but they're wrong. By doing things this way, they create dissatisfaction amongst their customers and hesitation amongst 3rd party developers to dive into areas that they think MS might tackle in the future.


Amen brother!!!!

Instead of half-baking apps on their own, they better spend their man-hours time enhancing their apps, which were largely the same (P.Word/Excel) and license third party apps and do some testing/partial rewrites or even hire their developers. It's not like MS doesn't have the cash or the desire to put out a great offering. Now it's very lukewarm as far as standard apps are concerned.

So now we have products that fail to be perceived as better palm devices than PalmOS devices; take a look at the latest Sony PEG-NR70V, add to it a good Office suite and bingo!!! this is a better pocket PC than a PocketPC!!!

Take a look here: (http://www.pencomputing.com/)
and scroll down to that article:
iambic releases TinySheet 4.11 with support for NR70V
click on the spreadsheet image to see a larger one.

And frankly isn't it frustrating to see that Palm still sells more m500 series PDAs than all PocketPC manufacturers combined.

[jlp]

This way they could buy a Pocket PCless Pocket PC for less money and then buy the software they really need.

Dave,

Didn't you want to say "Pocket Office-less Pocket PC"?

.

[Paragon]

I suppose that would make more sense. :)

Dave

[Charles Pickrell]

It would be great, but don't count on it. Microsoft got BADLY burned with Pocket Money 1.0... I doubt they'll contract out their apps again for the Pocket PC.


It is a shame that their mis-management of the situation is going to make everyone else suffer. I do agree with jlp that the Palm will be outclassing us soon in Office compatible apps and in hardware features. I think Microsoft is making a serious mistake if they don't significantly improve the quality of these Office apps. I know the wireless market is important but neglecting everything else is a really big mistake.

[Will T Smith]

I think you've basically described Microsoft's game to a tee.

The CONTROL the platform. They wield that control without remorse or compassion.

Microsoft rarely does any innovation. They merely build something barely functional (or buy it) then prop it up through bundling contracts and raw distribution power. If thats not enough they simply build it into their platform and destroy the marketability of competitive products.

I Microsoft product manager will do as 'little as necessary'. This is under the pretense of not "interfering with 3rd party support". The side effect is that they spend less money and less resources. In future revisions their software will co-op the best features of their emerging competitors. Serious competitors are bought off and assimilated like good little borgies.

Playing with Microsoft is playing with the devil. Eventually he will win. It's not a matter of winning. It's a matter of leaving the court in one piece. Hopefully better for your pain.

An emerging developer would be foolish to attempt competitors to Microsoft's office suite. This is the right hand of their trinity. They have the power to destroy ANY emerging competitor barring serious legal action. Serious legal action has been abandoned by the current administration.

At some point in the future MS WILL be busted up. Either through the mob (Open Source and Linux) or subsequent efforts by the feds. The ultimate solution is the creation of industry standards for OS platforms and APIs; these would be similar to hardware consortiums. The consortium defines the OS functionality and the API (Similar to Lindows). Vendors (or open sources) would create implementations. The best implementor wins, AND the game can go on with healthy competition and compatible coexistence.

[JMountford]

OK guys I am certainly not here to defend MS, but let me point out a couple of things and then speak my peace.


The truth of the matter is MS puts almost NO money or resources into Pocket Windows mostly because they make almost no money off of it. They get about ten dollars for every license they sell. I have heard that Bill doesn't care about the Pocket PC, truth is who cares. The only point is that MS makes no money off of it. We all know that as a business you will not sink time and resources into a product in which you get no real returns.

Second truth is that no matter what they can or will do MS is still MS which means they want to maintain soul control over their product. This means that untill they get the cobb out of where it is they will not open the code up to Developers, mostly because this endangers their applications. Developers can sink more time and resources into the apps and make them better than MS. Once there are better apps why the heck even bother to use the Pocket OS?

I say Microsoft should stick to a few apps and perfect them!! I think developers should have an open run at anything else. To be honest I think MS should put more resources into the Pocket Windows Suite and OS but we all know that if they do this it means we pay more for a PPC device, and here is my big complaint, I can build a pretty darn decent computer or buy some great peripherals for what these devices cost. To be honest I am just a technophile. I don't really NEEED a Pocket PC and my guess is that most people who have them don't really NEEEED them either. There are other devices out there that would do a good enough job with a much smaller investment. Most people that use POcket PC's still use laptops for a majority of mobile computing.

So unless MS starts caring about the platform like they do Xbox or Windows it will not survive. Further more they must sink the money into it without raising the price. I just don't see that happening.

[Duncan]

Even if you are right about the $10 (and I'm rather sceptical about the profit margin being quite that low) - why do you imagine that MS are looking to make money (at this point) from the Pocket PC OS? Marketshare is more important. The future is mobile - by getting forms of Windows CE into peoples hands MS is safeguarding their future (and no - I don't believe in this strange notion that MS is too big to need to care - even MS could fall as fast as they rose if they lsot the plot).

I've been thinking and I've come the conclusion that, in all probabilty, MS are as surprised as anyone else that no-one has produced a better version of Word for the PPC. Think about it - spreadsheets, databases, PIMS, media players, internet browsers, messenging services - all these and more have been developed, survived and thrived through several iterations of Win CE!

Perhaps the Office Suite in the Pocket PC OS has only ever been intended to be the cut down 'Works' version... Maybe MS is as surprised as the rest of us at the lack of WP development! Maybe, just maybe, this is why the equivalent of Pocket Word in WinCE.net has been downgraded to 'WordPad'. Have developers just been playing scared of being usurped by an MS who have no intention of trumping any more richly featured Pocket WP - after all - they've left plenty of scope in virtually every other field that the Pocket PC software covers...

[sk4rlath]

I have a friend who was an intern at Microsoft for a time, and what he said about Microsoft's source of profit makes everything a little clearer. Microsoft gets 102% of it's profit from Windows and Office. Yep, 102%. That means everything else is technically making them lose money. No wonder Pocket Office isn't as good as real Office. They want you to buy that too (I remember an article describing this that got posted on the main page, but I don't have the time at the moment to dig it out, :) ).

Playing with Microsoft is playing with the devil. Eventually he will win. It's not a matter of winning. It's a matter of leaving the court in one piece. Hopefully better for your pain.

As for the whole MS is a devil thing, I disagree. If anything they're a guy wearing red horns and a tail carrying a pitchfork. Sure they look like Satan himself at times, but hey, they're people just like us. Even though I disagree with their policies (which seems to be 'make a decent product with more hooks than imaginable and let the 3rd party guys make your product king') I still respect them. That's a smart business plan. And after all, their goal is NOT to make a good product, but to make money. That's the goal of any business (Linux businesses aside :D ). I think that's what's confusing everyone.

[Jason Dunn]

Even if you are right about the $10 (and I'm rather sceptical about the profit margin being quite that low)


That figure is correct - $8 to $10 is what they make for every license they sell. The Pocket PC is not making money yet for Microsoft AFAIK...Palm was making $150 or so profit for every Palm V they sold a while back, and about $7.50 for every license they sold to Handspring, Sony, etc. Now they've spun off the software company - and I doubt they're going to survive. Making money on software licensing is though unless you have BIG markets.

[Duncan]

Blimey - I knew MS weren't making money on the PPC OS but I can hardly credit that they are licencing it so cheaply! In real money thats £6.50 out of the £575 the iPaq costs...

Just shows how desperate MS are to gain a share of this market...

[Jason Dunn]

Just shows how desperate MS are to gain a share of this market...


Ah, but Palm is doing no better. What it really shows is that the software doesn't make up very much of the overall cost of the device - so those hoping for a $200 Linux device with the same specs as a Pocket PC will be in for a big disappointment...

[Duncan]

Which makes the splitting of Palm into OS and hardware, and the licensing of said OS to Sony(!), one of the biggest miscalculations in IT history!

[JMountford]

The whole OS matters might or might not be true, but in terms of price it doesn't matter at all!!! All that matters is the hardware. ANd to be honest you guys do not want to know how cheap the darn things really are. I mean the components really don't cost much at all! THe most expensive part is the screen. Where the price comes in is the production of the units. Anyway Software only matters to the user. I think MS needs to reevaluate their strategy with Pocket Windows and I think that we would all agree on that. 2002 offered a few neet things but mostly there were only minor changes to the OS. I don't care why. We can all hypothosize. THe thing is we need major change.

[klinux]

All that matters is the hardware. ANd to be honest you guys do not want to know how cheap the darn things really are.

Surely you underestimate the intelligence of people who read and/or post in this forum.

[JMountford]

To be honest I don't underestimate anyone on this board or in life. I just know that not every one may not have all of the information. I was trying to be informative. I certainly do not mean to offend and hope no one takes it as such.

[Kevin Daly]

To be honest, I'm doubtful about how practical the Palm/Pocket PC form factor is for applications like Word and Excel. And yes I know some people do some heavy duty work that way, but I'm not sure how they manage it.
My impression is that Microsoft regard the Pocket Office applications as adjuncts to the desktop versions...no particular cynicism, shoddiness or shortsightedness involved, just a particular view of how the machines are used.
If tablet PC's take off (and I know that popular wisdom is currently that they'll disappear without a trace, if they ever see daylight, but I think they're a great idea), it may be that MS see them taking over some of the functions that people currently stretch palmtop machines to perform (e-books is an obvious one...I can *barely* bother with reading a book on a Pocket PC, but the tablet PC seems ideal for the purpose).