Smartphone Wars: Can Windows Mobile Ever be Sexy?

[Pete Paxton]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://networks.silicon.com/mobile/0,39024665,39375124,00.htm' target='_blank'>http://networks.silicon.com/mobile/...39375124,00.htm</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"A war is going on in the smartphone market and unless Microsoft can create the sexy device of buyers' dreams, Windows Mobile could soon be relegated to the 'also ran' category. In this increasingly cutthroat market, Nick Jones, VP and analyst at Gartner, told silicon.com Windows Mobile is at "a crossroads" and risks being left behind by its rivals. According to Jones, the iPhone and its ilk are delivering intuitive, user-friendly interfaces that magnify Windows Mobile's faults while Microsoft's OS licensing business model is also coming under fire as open source platforms such as Android and Symbian give their wares away for free."</em></p><p>I remember a couple of years ago when I got my T-Mobile Dash I received many compliments on its looks and functionality. Now devices like the Dash are a dime a dozen and look pretty stale compared to the new sleek touch screens of today. Let's face it, we want it all. The look, the functionality, usability, and the feel of a sexy smartphone. So what's it going to take for Microsoft to get back in the game? What do you consider to be the sexiest device out there and what makes it so appealing?</p>

[egads]

In one short word, NO.

MS needs a clean, fast, easy to use interface. They have failed at all three in my book and I can't see that WM V7 thats in the works will address any of the three items I listed...

[Macguy59]

Probably not as long as they are enterprise centric.

[Pony99CA]

"A war is going on in the smartphone market and unless Microsoft can create the sexy device of buyers' dreams, Windows Mobile could soon be relegated to the 'also ran' category. In this increasingly cutthroat market, Nick Jones, VP and analyst at Gartner, told silicon.com Windows Mobile is at "a crossroads" and risks being left behind by its rivals."
I think Mr. Jones isn't partitioning things properly.

First, Microsoft only creates the OS, not the devices. I think Microsoft should create a reference device that other OEMs can build off of, but that's another issue.

Second, there are plenty of sexy devices out there -- the HTC Touch Diamond and Pro, the Samsung BlackJacks and Epix, the Motorola Qs, for example.

You can argue that the OS isn't sexy, but even that has been addressed by shells like TouchFlo 3D, Winterface and Spb Mobile Shell. Yes, you need to venture out of them at times, but if they can cover the 20% of the tasks people do 80% of the time, that could be good enough.

Finally, if you believe the rumors, WM 6.5 will be shown next month with a new "honeycomb" user interface, SkyMarket application store and SkyBox syncing service (like MobileMe).

So, yes, I think it can be sexy, although I personally don't care. I want good function, not fancy graphics. If I can have both without hurting the function or slowing performance, that's obviously ideal, but I'll choose function over looks almost every time.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

Probably not as long as they are enterprise centric.
But they have supposedly been focusing on the consumer. They hired two consumer-oriented executives and bought Danger (although I haven't seen anything come from that, yet).

Plus, see my previous post about SkyMarket and SkyBox, which are meant for consumers.

Steve

[bkerrins]

The iPhone. Don't get me wrong, I have no desire to own an iPhone. I don't like the connection with iTunes or the limitations associated with MS Office. I use my phone for work so I clearly want Exchange and MS Office (even office light). However, since the question refers to a sexy phone, I have to give it to Apple. It looks great, the stuff that works does it well and generally pretty quickly. The Apple store is a good idea too. The phone is sleek and well designed. Just doesn't fit my needs out of the box.

[Russ Smith]

One of the reasons I've stuck with WM all these years is the flexibility and extensibility of the system. On the hardware side, WM fully supports memory cards, Bluetooth, WiFi, screens of various sizes, etc. On the software side, WM supports multi-tasking, cut-and-paste in all applications and in-between apps. There are all kinds of apps available, including some pretty advanced ones (databases, spreadsheets, word-processing) and you don't need to be Internet-connected to use them.

Yes, I'd like to see a snappier and sexier (whatever that means) UI. I'd like to be able to browse the web like I've seen people do on the iPhone, but I wouldn't want to be stuck with all the other limitations of that platform. For me, the flexibility and extensibility of WM still wins out.

Does that mean WM can't lose? No. As much as I'd like otherwise, it's possible that the mass-market will push iPhone-like solutions for the short term even though eventually we'll need something more flexible and extensible to take us further. It might not be WM if MS can't keep enough market share to keep it viable, though.

[Bob Anderson]

So, yes, I think it can be sexy, although I personally don't care. I want good function, not fancy graphics. If I can have both without hurting the function or slowing performance, that's obviously ideal, but I'll choose function over looks almost every time.

Steve

First off, claiming any portable computing device can be SEXY seems a little over the top. I'm not sure I'm up to a traditional definition of SEXY when used with a Smartphone or Pocket PC !

Secondly, I agree with Steve, too much emphasis is being put on "eye-candy" as I'll call it vs. true functionality. A portable device should be an extension of one's non-portable devices. The WindowsMobile devices were extensions of their non-portable counterparts of five years ago. Unfortunately, today, they are only partial extensions and therein lie the problem.

If the focus is put on function and polishing that aspect in terms of the OS, and then allowing the hardware vendors to create intriguing designs, we'll get back to where Windows Mobile is a respectable competitor against Apple, BlackBerry, etc. If too much focus is on what is going to "look good" Windows Mobile may get a temporary bump in approval because of the eye candy, but will ultimately sell itself short and end up being a "has been" operating system.

Bottom line - focus less on "Sexy" and instead work on knocking people's socks off in terms of capability and extension of their computing resources (including "The Cloud".)

[Macguy59]

Bottom line - focus less on "Sexy" and instead work on knocking people's socks off in terms of capability and extension of their computing resources (including "The Cloud".)

From a capability point of view, what's left for MS to do ? Multimedia ?

[Pony99CA]

From a capability point of view, what's left for MS to do ? Multimedia ?
Read my Windows Mobile New Year's Resolutions (http://thoughts.svpocketpc.com#THOUGHT_WM7_RESOLUTIONS) editorial for an idea. Making it faster would also be nice.

Steve

[j2inet]

First off, claiming any portable computing device can be SEXY seems a little over the top. I'm not sure I'm up to a traditional definition of SEXY when used with a Smartphone or Pocket PC !

Sexy (http://www.answers.com/sexy)= attractive, appealing. Do you think that Windows Mobile could be changed such that it would be attract and be more appealing to a general consumer?

I think it can be done but there will be a phase in which people are still running some of their old applications which may not be able to take advantage of all of the new visual enhancements. The sexiness will be greatly enhanced once we can write standalone Silverlight applications for windows mobile devices (much like we can make WPF applications for the desktop).


Secondly, I agree with Steve, too much emphasis is being put on "eye-candy"

I agree too. However shouldn't underestimate the affects of visual appeal. Under a previous employer I was developing a web application and decided to implement required functionality before concerning myself with presentation. When I reached functional completion I let one of the managers know at which point she wanted to see it. I showed it to her and she was disappointed that it looked so plain. The next day I showed her the same thing with a pretty color pallete applied and she was happy about it. Her evaluation of the application was completly visual (which is why I've emphasized the visual oriented words above). At no point in that interaction was there any objective evaluation such as evaluation of cyclomatic complexity, extensibility, or proof that it was actually working. Here too much emphasis was put on aesthetics and not enough on functionality. But ultimatly I could not be reasonably expected to train her on objective code metrics. I just had to learn from this lesson that some customers prefer presentation over functionality. Given that their views of my work ultimatly have an influence on my reviews (and my pay) this was something that could not be ignored.

If the focus is put on function and polishing that aspect in terms of the OS, and then allowing the hardware vendors to create intriguing designs, we'll get back to where Windows Mobile is a respectable competitor against Apple, BlackBerry, etc. If too much focus is on what is going to "look good" Windows Mobile may get a temporary bump in approval because of the eye candy, but will ultimately sell itself short and end up being a "has been" operating system.

Bottom line - focus less on "Sexy" and instead work on knocking people's socks off in terms of capability and extension of their computing resources (including "The Cloud".)[/quote]

[Open Systems]

I note mention of Gartner Research in one or two responses. We had the same ill informed presentation recently down under. (For example the guy from Garner seemed to think it was "novel" that people were developing applications for the Iphone… (admitting that Apple was actually taking a 40% cut from each app developed however!!). I wondered if he realized how many apps and interfaces have already been developed for the WM – let alone no MS “demand” for 40%)<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Anyway the issue is if WM can be sexy (presumably identical to the Iphone).<o:p></o:p>
Personally I feel the Samsung Omnia is miles better alround (if you have only had a superficial look at it than you might be very surprised).
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
But irrespective of our subjective preferences, doesn’t this question about MW user interface development involve a blind simplicity here? (I.e. People are diferent)

The Iphone platform… is the “only” interface... (that's all there is) WM provides many versions (this is because there are differences with human beings). The WM platform allows for more than a hundred different hardware versions – of varying age & MS has to maintain support for these (because again there are differences with people - and how they wish to behave - i.e. a kind of non socialist approach).<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Finally – NOT all people want their devices provided in “Kiddie” form. (My view
of Apple computers has always been that while the simplicity is often
attractive – I don’t appreciate – Apple’s attempt to “assist” me with how I do
whatever I need to do - to spoon feed me). The Apple approach is kiddie
computing and somewhat of an insult to most normally functioning & capable
people.

Do we "all" need the strict spoon fed usage functioning of Iphone??? Again,
examples like the OMNIA and HTC are possibly a more balanced approach -
considering we are other than I- robots...