Why didn't mobile platforms trip Microsoft up?

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-941994.html">http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-941994.html</a><br /><br />So many people for so long thought, and still think, Microsoft won't enjoy any appreciable success in the mobile device market. After all, their numbers are still somewhere in the 20%-30% world wide market share, well short of Microsoft utter domination fame. Handheld PCs never really took off and have seemingly been relegated to industrial and corporate use. The Palm-sized PC was only slightly more successful. Even the Pocket PC didn't really get cranked up until early spring of 2001 when iPAQ's were in full supply, but by then, it had happened. Developers and users saw what a mobile device was capable of. The buzz of "Stinger" was in the air and a Phone Edition of the Pocket PC was in the works. Merlin, aka Pocket PC 2002, development was well underway.<br /><br />And then there are the three things Ballmer credits with the overwhelming success of many Microsoft Products. Developers, developers and developers. Then Microsoft started giving away development kits for Pocket PCs. Apps were born every few hours it seemed and we snapped them up. Free, $5, $25, even $50. We didn't care. It freed us from our desks in ways not thought possible.<br /><br />Now others in the PDA/Mobile Device industry, those that were panning Microsoft's mobile attempts are recognizing the fruits of MS's labors. Read the article from ZDNet. "I remember someone writing that Windows would never succeed against the Macintosh because DOS had been architected in such a way that it would take a massive effort to allow it to support graphics properly. We all know what happened there. I think in the mobile space, we are seeing just that same kind of effect, once again."

[PlayAgain?]

Let me get this straight, Peter Judge went to a Microsoft event and, because Microsoft had a lot of new things to show, he concluded that the competition is failing?

What is he expecting the competition to do in order to stop Microsoft from developeing further its current technology? The fact that Nokia and SonyEricsson is belting ahead with new technology that provide a feature rich experience for users is not going take away Microsoft's ability to keep developing its own tools and capabilities.

How exactly are the Nokias of this world supposed to trip up Microsoft and stop Microsoft from moving ahead (especially when the MSWPS2K2 is yet to be released)? Blow up the MS HQ?

The author seems to be looking from a developer's point of view and not at all at what the user will want - functionality, features, ease of use and reliability...... now.

[ThomasC22]

Oh, so many things to say...

First, Handheld PC. All I can say is *bleep* you HP! Handheld PC could be a great platform if they weren't at the same price point as a notebook is. What I wouldn't give to be able to deploy units with keyboards on them to my staff. I mean, didn't anyone think of a low end model. I don't need a PCMCIA slot, I don't need a modem, basically I need a PocketPC with a keyboard. Anyway...

Second, and this is where PDABuzz has spoiled me and I'm probably going to get flamed here but, I still say the PocketPC is weak in a lot of areas. I've gone back and forth in my time (just switched back to a Toshiba e740 from a Kyocera 6035 (which replaced an iPaq 3850)) and I have to say I still wish I could beam apps to other users and access all my programs from one menu among other things. Beyond that I have to say that alot of what makes the PocketPC bearable user interface wise, for me, is Dashboard.

Third, I think, as a developer, the .NET Compact Framework will be a major coup for Microsoft IF and only IF they wait a while before they make a version for Palm (which Ballmer has already said they are going to do). I've been messing around with it lately and I have to say it really might make all the difference as to which platform I decide to deploy at my work.

Last, I don't think this reviewer was on the money. As Playagain? said, it seems he came to the conclusion that simply because MS has a lot of mobile products out there that they are doing well in the Mobile market. That is kind of foolish. Note, I'm not saying they aren't doing well, I'm simply saying his conclusion was flawed because it was based on evidence that really didn't make much sense.

[Ed Hansberry]

"I remember someone writing that Windows would never succeed against the Macintosh because DOS had been architected in such a way that it would take a massive effort to allow it to support graphics properly. We all know what happened there. I think in the mobile space, we are seeing just that same kind of effect, once again."

"Same effect." Not same result. "I think..." Not "this is exactly what is happening."

The way I read it is he is hearing the exact same arguments now that has heard so many times that would prevent MS from succeeding. And those arguments, while they sounded good, proved flawed. He thinks those same arguments today may be flawed too.

[fundmgr90210]

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107-941994.html

So many people for so long thought, and still think, Microsoft won't enjoy any appreciable success in the mobile device market. After all, their numbers are still somewhere in the 20%-30% world wide market share, well short of Microsoft utter domination fame. Handheld PCs never really took off and have seemingly been relegated to industrial and corporate use. The Palm-sized PC was only slightly more successful. Even the Pocket PC didn't really get cranked up until early spring of 2001 when iPAQ's were in full supply, but by then, it had happened. Developers and users saw what a mobile device was capable of. The buzz of "Stinger" was in the air and a Phone Edition of the Pocket PC was in the works. Merlin, aka Pocket PC 2002, development was well underway.

And then there are the three things Ballmer credits with the overwhelming success of many Microsoft Products. Developers, developers and developers. Then Microsoft started giving away development kits for Pocket PCs. Apps were born every few hours it seemed and we snapped them up. Free, $5, $25, even $50. We didn't care. It freed us from our desks in ways not thought possible.

Now others in the PDA/Mobile Device industry, those that were panning Microsoft's mobile attempts are recognizing the fruits of MS's labors. Read the article from ZDNet.

Wait a minute. Where is this backpedalling mob now resigned to the fact that MS is poised to lead the market? What's more, an article in ZDNet is hardly evidence to that effect. BTW, your 20-30% wishes are a little high. More like &lt;20% to low 20's.

Windows didn't come to dominate due to MS' developer base (if that was THE determining factor, PPC really wouldn't stand a chance against the likes of Palm). Rather, they were 1) the lower cost alternative and 2) in the mass market before anyone else (particularly that of the consumer market). Does this sound like a certain handheld platform we all know?

I've said it before, I'll say it again: PPC is a niche player. Always has been, always will be. There's nothing wrong with that, but it is what it is. As (primarily) a Palm user, I'm glad PPC came along. There's no doubt they've pushed Palm Source and it's licensees (for instance, I'm sure the Clie NR70v wouldn't exist without products like the iPaq having been released).

MS doesn't always win and NO company, no matter how dominate for a time, stays on top forever. Just ask some of the former employees of Xerox.

[ThomasC22]

Wait a minute. Where is this backpedalling mob now resigned to the fact that MS is poised to lead the market? What's more, an article in ZDNet is hardly evidence to that effect. BTW, your 20-30% wishes are a little high. More like &lt;20% to low 20's.


He meant worldwide and from what I've seen his numbers are probably correct. PocketPC has a much stronger hold in Europe (some have stated as high as 45% right now). Plus, Palm has a very small user base in Europe (symbian still has a fairly large user base but that is dying).


Windows didn't come to dominate due to MS' developer base (if that was THE determining factor, PPC really wouldn't stand a chance against the likes of Palm). Rather, they were 1) the lower cost alternative and 2) in the mass market before anyone else (particularly that of the consumer market). Does this sound like a certain handheld platform we all know?


Actually, this isn't quite true. 1 is right, they were a low cost alternative, but OS/2 had been in the market for a while before Windows hit the scene. As for the Developers, it was a positive feedback cycle, people bought Windows because MS developed for it, other Developers followed, more developers meant more customers, more customers meant more developers, etc...


MS doesn't always win and NO company, no matter how dominate for a time, stays on top forever. Just ask some of the former employees of Xerox.

Well, I'd agree that no company will stay on top forever, MS is not IBM or Xerox. They've learned alot from the mistakes of those that came before.

Plus, their sucess doesn't rely on a patent (that eventually expired) like Xerox's did.

[Scott R]

I've tried to be good on this site, but this news blurb really gets me riled up. OK, let's look at the facts: MS has a BETA version of the Compact Framework available for download. The release version of it is still a ways off. Of course, a lot of larger companies have had policies of never taking the initial MS version of anything and, instead, waiting till the first service pack comes out. Of course, many of these larger companies have not upgraded to VS.NET. Many aren't sure that they are going to. A couple of years ago the two Fortune 500 companies that I've worked for have instead decided to move aggressively towards Java. They've kept their hands in VB, but haven't upgraded to VS.NET yet and I'm not sure if any solid plans are underway to do that any time soon.

Now, we've also got the all of the folks who bought into PPC 2000 devices with the hope of developing with eVB only to find out later that: 1) It was of beta quality, and 2) MS canned it. While smaller shops may be using the beta version of CF to write real apps, I just don't see larger companies agreeing to any such thing.

I haven't played with the new tools, so I can't comment on how well it all works, but I am skeptical of the idea of creating one interface and letting the tool automagically redesign it for a variety of different resolutions. As a web designer, programmer, and UI designer, I know that this isn't that simple.

Sorry, but this article strikes me as marketing fluff. It's too early to say that MS has overcome it's obstacles. When CF goes gold and we see companies converting to VS.NET en masse, maybe. But that's a ways off. In the mean time, the Palm OS has a variety of gold-quality RAD development tools available.

Scott