CommWeb: "Microsoft Touts Mobile Progress in Europe, but Sceptics Remain "

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.commweb.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=18200466' target='_blank'>http://www.commweb.com/news/showArt...icleId=18200466</a><br /><br /></div>This is an article about Microsoft's efforts in Europe, and how two new European carriers have adopted Windows Mobile solutions. But here's that part that made me raise an eyebrow:<br /><br />"Microsoft continues to promote to the mobile industry proprietary Microsoft technologies originally developed for the PC environment, including Windows Media, MSN services, instant messaging and Digital Rights Management (DRM). However, with mobile phone penetration in the global market far greater than that for PCs, there is a growing resentment among Europeans at Microsoft's efforts to call the shots. They wonder, for example, why PCs should define mobile systems and services."<br /><br />The carrier culture is an interesting one - they prefer to exist in walled gardens, and for years tried to keep their customers off the Internet and inside their billable realm with technologies like WAP, SMS, and MMS. What's interesting here is that Microsoft has tooled the Pocket PC OS to be as friendly as possible to carrier technologies - the latest Pocket PC Phone Editions today have support for SMS, WAP, and MMS. But they also offer Internet technologies like email, HTML Web browsing, instant messaging, and rich WAV/WMA ringtones - many of which use GPRS/1xRTT, which drives up carrier ARPU (Average Revenue Per User). Yes, IM is a debacle right now, with competing IM clients struggling for dominance, but ultimately consumers have the ability to install other IM clients on their Smartphone and use whatever service they wish. There's no "lock in" from Microsoft here.<br /><br />What do you think? Do the carriers have legitimate gripes with Microsoft, or is this a case of NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome?

[JonnoB]

IMO, it is a matter of NIH as you suggest.

[yslee]

Hey, don't knock SMS.

There are certain legitmate gripes with MS, I'm sure; for instance I don't think most of us like MS DRM stuff a lot, and we all know what happens when MS "wins".

OTOH, I would like to see a more open platform, which is why moved to PDA phones; WAP is a mess, and absolutely stupid.

I suppose in the end it's a bit of each, maybe a bit more NIH than griping, hehe.

[Jason Dunn]

Hey, don't knock SMS.

Where did I knock SMS? It's a good technology, and Microsoft supports it on their phone platforms...so why are the carriers complaining?

[mangochutneyman]

The carrier culture is an interesting one - they prefer to exist in walled gardens, and for years tried to keep their customers off the Internet and inside their billable realm with technologies like WAP, SMS, and MMS. What's interesting here is that Microsoft has tooled the Pocket PC OS to be as friendly as possible to carrier technologies - the latest Pocket PC Phone Editions today have support for SMS, WAP, and MMS. But they also offer Internet technologies like email, HTML Web browsing, instant messaging, and rich WAV/WMA ringtones - many of which use GPRS/1xRTT, which drives up carrier ARPU (Average Revenue Per User). Yes, IM is a debacle right now, with competing IM clients struggling for dominance, but ultimately consumers have the ability to install other IM clients on their Smartphone and use whatever service they wish. There's no "lock in" from Microsoft here.


I believe the "lock" refers to the OS, not the various wireless services. But c'mon here, there is obviously some trepedation about Microsoft here. Why wouldn't wireless carrriers be worried about Microsoft establishing yet another monopoly in the wireless handset industry? Microsoft obviously has the money and leverage to do so and the wireless providers and handset OEM's see no reason to cede control to Microsoft here. There is definitely going to be competition here from Symbian, Linux and perhaps PalmOS...

[lanwarrior]

The carrier culture is an interesting one - they prefer to exist in walled gardens, and for years tried to keep their customers off the Internet and inside their billable realm with technologies like WAP, SMS, and MMS.


Jason,

I think the above is what yslee meant by "knock SMS". Your statement implies as if SMS is a "realm" that is "off the internet".

SMS is what got young people into cellphone, and thus grow the cell phone companies. For me, SMS is really a great way to communicate in short, not wasting minutes when someone called just to say "Where are you?".

SMS can go to more than 1 million messags a day and at $ 0.05 a pop, that's tons of money.

[krisbrown]

All I can say Jason is 'LOL!!!!'

To present MS as a champion of free market makes OJ Simpsons lawyers look like Mother Teresa.

All new Nokias have html browsers, support multiple audio/video formats.
wav/mp3/aac/3gp/rm/mid/ e-mail/instant messaging.
I'll agree there are far to many multi milllionaires who sold silly little ringtones to gullible phone owners for ludicrous prices.
The only carriers that 'lock in' are 3G.
There are loads of apps to allow the phones access the full web in cut down form, we have 'over the air' HQ music downloads now.

[JvanEkris]

IMHO, the article is lacking any understanding of the european market. From what i understand from the market, European Telephone companies are not even bothered by who makes the phone and who makes the OS. The european market is wide open in the respect that phones and networks are not interlinked in any way: they are sold independently. There are independent shops selling phones and subscriptions for all networks. You buy a phone, you take a subscription on the spot and you put the SIM-card into the phone and use it.

Telecom-operators are just there to provide the phone-network and the GPRS. All providers facilitated GPRS since 2001. When using PDA's, it always has been possible to use a phone to connect to the internet, it was supported by the providers from day one. All functionality could be used, including e-mail, IM and internet-browsing. It was just that the integrated devices were lacking that met the european consumers needs.

The providers created WAP services in the lack of decent phones providing internet access, while keeping the costs down. Form-factor of the phones plays a major factor too, which should not be underestimated. That was why WAP was introduced (and failed miserably): services and devices were not appealing enough, and costs were too high.

SMS has been the major moneymaker for the telecom-industry in Europe for the last 5 years running. Every kid spends about 50% of his/hers pocket-money to send SMS. Your voicemail warning comes through SMS. Business-men send each other SMS to tell about deals they have closed. It is not about walled gardens, it is about understanding what the customer wants. If Microsoft did not provide SMS on a phone, they would not have sold a single phone in Europe simply because primary functions could not be performed with the phone.

For a product to succeed in the european market, it is necessary to provide a high-quality simple-to-use nice-looking and cheap phone to the consumer. So if Microsoft is installed on a good phone (one with a decent life-expectancy, battery-life and usability) at the right price, it is sold through the shops. Providers don't have a thing to say about the phones that are on the market. The SPV is doing well, not because Orange is supporting it, but because people see it as a decent phone. SonyEricsson has had similar phones on the market, but only only started selling them in significant numbers in the last year. Basically the market was not ready yet because the added value was not there......

Jaap