I remember reading a story once where they were experimenting with using Windows Update to push out some controlled update to testers. I doubt it ever made it to the mainstream though.
I wonder how frequent those updates will be, though, once there are more devices to support. It's easy now, because Android has to run reliably on exactly one hardware configuration. I hope they can maintain the level of support (and open-source will certainly help that), but it's only going to get harder over time.
I was worried about this as well but form what I am seeing this is one of the reason Google doesn't allow manufactures to fork the Android build, to make it a lot easier to manage the soon-to-be-expected lineup from different manufactures.
I also wonder who is in charge of pushing out the OTA updates? Does T-Mobile get the final say? Google? HTC in the G1's case? They haven't made any of this clear at all but at least we're getting an update which is a lot more than we can say for Windows Mobile at the moment.
What was the last market that Microsoft entered where they either gave up and let their products die?
Steve
Yeah but Windows Mobile has always been an afterthought of Microsoft. The first time I ever heard the term "knifing the baby" and every time I have heard it since has always been from someone at Microsoft or associated with Microsoft referring to Windows Mobile.
Windows Mobile often is on the receiving end of being gutted like a fish due to internal office politics or the fact of the matter that they sell ActiveSync licenses to everyone and their grandmother so there is no incentive to make WM better when you're receiving money from almost all of your competition. Microsoft wins either way.
I highly doubt Windows Mobile as we know it will survive. Even if Microsoft closes its eyes and covers its ears and pretends they don't see or hear the competition in their whole "I-can't-hear-you-neener-neener-neener" stance, they have to be aware that taking some features that the competition has such as updating a device without destroying your information is just a nobrainer to include in the next version of WM.
The landscape is changing, I wish Microsoft would just give us an idea or what it is changing into.
Is that your own conclusion, or did you read Cringely's Windows Mobile is dead article? That article had a few holes, I think (namely, I don't buy the 85-10-5 split).
What was the last market that Microsoft entered where they either gave up and let their products die?
Steve
No I did not read that article and I wasn't necessarily speaking of Microsoft alone losing out because they didn't take their competition seriously. Any company that thinks they don't have to worry about the competition or takes them lightly and just coasts along is in for a big surprise.
I can remember years ago I purchased a Microsoft home phone for over $200. It was the latest greatest. It worked with the PC and took messages, caller ID and the works. A few months later it was discontinued. I needed a battery and couldn't even get a replacement. In this incident it wasn't necessarily competition that caused them to discontinue the product but they left many hanging just the same.
Well, they've never been as big in any market as WM and let it die, but it's not without precedent. Remember the old handheld PC's running Windows CE? How about "Smart Displays", those thin clients that we were going to use to surf from anywhere in our homes? I'm sure you remember "Plays for Sure", their initiative to compete with the iPod, which is probably the most relevant here. Similar eco-systems and issues in combining MS Software with 3rd Party hardware that never seemed to compete well with the closed Apple environment. I also think dabbled in speakers, game controllers, etc. and have since opted out.
Yes, Microsoft has abandoned some smaller areas, so I'm going to ignore the non-analogous ones (like hardware, local search and music initiatives). However, I would disagree about the Handheld PC part.
As you probably know, the original Handheld PCs ran straight Windows CE. Windows CE was later put onto Palm-Size PCs, which later morphed into Pocket PCs running Windows CE with the Pocket PC shell. That Windows CE/Pocket PC shell got renamed Windows Mobile in 2003. So I would argue that they haven't abandoned the PDA market, even though they did stop making the Handheld PC version of the OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whydidnt
I'm not necessarily predicting the demise of WM, but I don't think you can just say, it's Microsoft so they won't give up.
True. Shareholders probably hope they'd give up on a market where they lost money and had no hope of making any. However, I don't think most of the markets Microsoft is in (at least in a big way) fall into that category. Everybody except infants knows that mobile is a huge opportunity (I assume that's why Apple and Google entered it), so I can't imagine Microsoft would abandon it.
I also think they're big and smart enough where they won't fall victim to the Palm malaise. At least, I hope so. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion like Cringely does.
Apple is the one to gain or lose the most in the future.
Apple or Android sales don't affect MS nearly as much. (And MS gets Exchange license fees for each iPhone sold.)
WM is not a huge part of MS, but the iPhone is ~40% of Apple's current income. If Android or WM should boost their sales, it's Apple that will suffer the most proportionally.
WM is not a huge part of MS, but the iPhone is ~40% of Apple's current income. If Android or WM should boost their sales, it's Apple that will suffer the most proportionally.
Just more the reason for Apple to put the final nail in the coffin of WM.
And believe me I'm not an Apple fan. I've had PPC's, PPC Phones, Smartphones since day one. Only a year or so ago did I break from WM to the iPhone. For my needs it's been the best phone I've ever owned.
Yes, Microsoft has abandoned some smaller areas, so I'm going to ignore the non-analogous ones (like hardware, local search and music initiatives). However, I would disagree about the Handheld PC part.
...
I also think they're big and smart enough where they won't fall victim to the Palm malaise. At least, I hope so. I don't think it's a foregone conclusion like Cringely does.
Steve
Well, I disagree, I think the music market is HUGE, and MS though PFS would be the solution. They invested big $ and eventually just walked away. Let's not forget why Microsoft got into PDAs in the first place, just like they saw Netscape as a potential threat to their desktop dominance, they also feared Palm could or would grow into a desktop competitor. They wanted to make Palm focus their attention away from that area and stay in the mobile space.
Many of Microsoft's decisions around Windows Mobile have been made based upon protecting their core cash cows - Windows and Office. There has always been an internal struggle regarding how much fucntionality should be included in Windows mobile. If it gets/got too powerful, why would anyone spend $100.00 for Windows and $200 for Office - If the same basic funcionality is provided in the mobile space, and MS can only sell the license for $10, they stand lose huge revenue $. That's why office and IE have historically been crippled, and most likely why we havne't seen significant hardware advances. Almost every improvement MS has delivered in the last 10 years has been in areas that compliment their desktop strategy. If an improvement makes the desktop less meaningful, then they have avoided that area.
There isn't a technical reason we couldn't have a sub $400.00 WinCE device similar to all the popular netbooks running today - the device could have a 1 Ghz ARM processor, 16 GB of Flash ROM and 512k of RAM. The only reason we didn't have these 2 years ago is that it wasn't in Microsoft's best interest. The same holds true for our mobile phones. We could/should have had a much better experience by now, but MS didn't care. A nice browser wasn't going to sell more copies of Office. A full featured media player with support for multiple codecs wasn't going to help sell more copies of Vista or XP. Microsoft has been walking the line of trying to hold back the power of mobile devices for the last 10 years for these reasons!! It may not be the same malaise that overtook Palm, but the end results have been the same.
Now that other competitors have emerged that can fill the spaces Microsoft purposely left empty in WM, Microsoft will have to decide they want to compete or they will end up becoming a niche business email device that primarily competes with Blackberry for space in corporate email users pockets. Until they improve overall ease of use, and the email client they will continue to be 2nd fiddle there as well though.
Many of us that have been long time supporters of Windows Mobile have lost faith in Microsofts commitment to this space. It's going to be up them to prove they really want to compete. Delaying the "next big thing" another year certainly doesn't help improve their position.
Of course Bill Gates said it best "In this business, by the time you realize you're in trouble, it's too late to save yourself. Unless you're running scared all the time, you're gone. " I would say that in the Windows Mobile space, Micrsoft has NOT been running scared and didn't realize they were in trouble until way too late. The comment about Microsoft thinking Apple's sales are just a blip proves that point.
Many of Microsoft's decisions around Windows Mobile have been made based upon protecting their core cash cows - Windows and Office. There has always been an internal struggle regarding how much fucntionality should be included in Windows mobile. If it gets/got too powerful, why would anyone spend $100.00 for Windows and $200 for Office - If the same basic funcionality is provided in the mobile space, and MS can only sell the license for $10, they stand lose huge revenue $. That's why office and IE have historically been crippled, and most likely why we havne't seen significant hardware advances.
I might accept that premise for Office, but not for IE. Microsoft can't believe that improving IE Mobile would hurt sales of Windows, can they? They don't expect people to carry their laptops (or desktops!) with them everywhere, but they do realize the importance of browsing on the go. (They put a version of Pocket IE into Windows CE back in the Handheld PC days, when Palm was only offering Web clipping and sneering at the idea of a full browser in a PDA.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by whydidnt
There isn't a technical reason we couldn't have a sub $400.00 WinCE device similar to all the popular netbooks running today - the device could have a 1 Ghz ARM processor, 16 GB of Flash ROM and 512k of RAM. The only reason we didn't have these 2 years ago is that it wasn't in Microsoft's best interest.
I don't know. Imagine an instant-on netbook that syncs with your PC (or Exchange Server). I don't think I'd abandon Windows completely for that, but I might consider buying one. Would you abandon Windows for that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whydidnt
A nice browser wasn't going to sell more copies of Office. A full featured media player with support for multiple codecs wasn't going to help sell more copies of Vista or XP.
True, but they won't cannibalize sales of Windows or Office, either.
But let's consider the reverse question. What could Microsoft do that would help sell more copies of Windows or Office? I'm not sure there's a lot they could do to Windows Mobile in that regard, especially given the penetration of Windows and Office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whydidnt
Many of us that have been long time supporters of Windows Mobile have lost faith in Microsofts commitment to this space. It's going to be up them to prove they really want to compete. Delaying the "next big thing" another year certainly doesn't help improve their position.
I agree a delay is bad, but I haven't given up hope yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whydidnt
Of course Bill Gates said it best "In this business, by the time you realize you're in trouble, it's too late to save yourself. Unless you're running scared all the time, you're gone. " I would say that in the Windows Mobile space, Micrsoft has NOT been running scared and didn't realize they were in trouble until way too late. The comment about Microsoft thinking Apple's sales are just a blip proves that point.
Until the iPhone came out and proved itself, I don't think there was a reason for Microsoft to be scared. However, as you mentioned Netscape before, look what happened after Microsoft decided they were a threat. They started a whole new Internet initiative that eventually wound up with Internet Explorer being the dominant browser (helped by some shady bundling and anti-trust, perhaps).
With various people saying mobile has the potential to replace PCs, Microsoft had better be scared and have a strong contender in the mobile space. I think they still have time to do that, but it's obviously getting shorter.
I have been using an iPhone since day one and I have to say that it is a very big difference compared to Windows Mobile. I have been using WM devices since the first iPaq came out and I have always liked the open platform that Windows Mobile is. The main reasons I abandoned the platform are:
* Media/Music Player is a joke...compared to iTunes/iPod
* Pocket Internet Explorer....hmmmm - what should I say?
* OS is slow and needs a complete rearchitecture
* at the time I left the platform the devices available wasn't very good. Now the situation seems to change with HTC Touch HD
I would really love to go back to WM but I can't as long as the above reasons exist. I know that Opera Mobile has to be considered as a serious alternative to Safari Mobile, so that is one problem less...What about the Media Player? The OS needs to be improved...
I would get the HTC Touch HD because I would love to use the gorgeous screen and my favorite PIM programs, Pocket Informant and Agenda One, but I would still need an iPod for everything else, so at the end the iPhone wins. Maybe sometime this will change...I don't like that Apple is sometimes very close as a platform...
Microsoft Markets
Linear Mode
