Windows Mobile's Good, Bad and Ugly
|
News Analysis. There's a ray of light in the iPhone gloom descending upon Windows Mobile. |
Linux-based mobile operating shipments declined 477,440 units during first-quarter 2008 from the same time period a year earlier, according to Gartner. Additionally, mobile Linux OS market share receded a stunning 4.5 percent. With iPhone hype exceeding outrageous proportions, Microsoft can use whatever good news it can get.
But other data is discouraging for Windows Mobile, and not because of the iPhone. RIM OS shipments more than doubled, while the operating system's market share rose by 5.1 percent. Unit sales grew by more than 100 percent. By comparison, Windows Mobile market share increased slightly, by 0.2 percent, but shipments gained by a whopping 926,403 units. Most Windows Mobile devices would directly compete with the iPhone.
Research In Motion's gains are an indictment against Microsoft's Exchange push e-mail capabilities. Microsoft added push e-mail—RIM BlackBerry's standout feature—with Exchange 2003 Service Pack 2 and Windows Mobile 5 back in 2005. Nearly three years later, BlackBerry is a distant No. 2 to Nokia and pushing ahead of Microsoft.
A year ago, Windows Mobile ranked second, ahead of the RIM OS. Now the roles are reversed. Conceptually, push e-mail should pull more business sales. In my testing, the original is better than the copycat. Then there is distribution: In the U.S. market BlackBerrys are increasingly available from the carriers in more varieties than Windows Mobile devices—and often for less money.
User interface is one of Microsoft's big problems—it's too much like Windows desktop. I just came back from the local Sprint store where I picked up a Sierra Wireless Compass 597 EvDO modem. I'll need it for Apple's June 9 developer conference keynote to live-blog the announcements. The sales rep and I got to talking operating systems, and she criticized Windows Mobile for being too Windows desktop-like. Conceptually, the similarities should build usability from familiarity. In my experience, the UI motif simply doesn't suit the cell phone. The UI requires too many clicks.
By comparison, Apple has a killer UI. Weather information is good example. To get local weather on the iPhone, the user taps an icon. On my Symbian OS-based Nokia N95, which is unlocked and not service-integrated with my carrier, I must click the Web icon, choose AT&T Internet from a menu, click Bookmarks and choose AT&T MediaNet, where the weather can be found. The process is about the same on the AT&T Tilt, which runs Windows Mobile 6 and has service integration. So much of the iPhone 2.0 hype is because of the UI.
Speaking of the iPhone, the "other" OS category—including the Danger and iPhone operating systems—leaped from 1 percent market share in first quarter 2007 to 6.5 percent in 2008, according to Gartner. Apple shipped 1.72 million iPhones in the first quarter of 2008; the device wasn't on the market a year ago.
Apple's big advantage over Microsoft is its end-to-end control over software and hardware, although not carrier service. Microsoft is at the mercy of third-party manufacturers and its own shortsightedness.
Apple announced the iPhone about six months before shipping. Features like a full Web browser were already known. I can think of no good reason why Apple got a full Web browser to market before Microsoft. The six months' lead should have been enough time for a Microsoft Manhattan project, something like the Netscape battle days of the browser wars, to bring Mobile IE to functional parity with mobile Safari. Microsoft should have done better.
But the company eats its own dog food, and I'm not just talking about software. The company shovels in its own marketing dog food and gulps down the glop with delight. Stuff like: Apple had one device and one carrier, while Windows Mobile had lots of manufacturing partners and carriers. Microsoft was the champion of choice; Apple offered none.
Yesterday, Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter Todd Bishop blogged about Microsoft trying to steal the iPhone's thunder. Todd blogged about a memo sent by Andy Lees, senior vice president of Microsoft's Mobile Communications Business group, to the company's partners. Todd intepreted the memo as being Microsoft's competitive strike before next week's expected iPhone 2.0 launch.
Yes—but no. Microsoft executives believe their own hype—in this case, 50 handset manufacturers, 150 Windows Mobile-based phones and 160 carriers. Microsoft is a very statistics-oriented company. Numbers like this justify certain business practices; the data also fosters executive denial.
Microsoft executives are as baffled by the iPhone's success as by that of the iPod. Devices based on Microsoft software tend to offer more features and more choice. Consumers don't want more choice. Apple has a knack of focusing on what people want the most, and delivering those features and sometimes only those. The same can be said of BlackBerry and push e-mail.
[Editor's Note: Numbers corrected in third paragraph.]
Comments (11)
Joe, I think you read your own table wrong.
You stated:
"By comparison, Windows Mobile market share declined slightly, down 0.2 percent, but shipments receded by a whopping 926,403 units."
According to your chart, the opposite occurred, share went up by 0.2 percent & shipments increased by 926K.
Don't let the facts get in the way of your Microsoft-baching!
Posted by rthutchison | June 6, 2008 6:05 PM
Your charts could use more drop shadow. Never enough.
Posted by Tim F. | June 6, 2008 6:30 PM
Proabably the smartest thing(applies to PCs as well) I've ever seen out of Joe
'Apple's big advantage over Microsoft is its end-to-end control over software and hardware, although not carrier service.'
Windows Mobile devices including the Treo are complete crap. If RIM would make a Windows Mobile device, you'd at least have a apples to apples comparison.
The biggest advantages to Windows Mobile is the attachment handling(second to none) and the development platform.
Unless MS starts producing decent devices themselves, I don't see any hope for it.
Posted by BlahBlah | June 6, 2008 6:53 PM
rthutchison wrote: "Joe, I think you read your own table wrong."
Thanks for pointing out the error. I read the table right, but wrote the numbers wrong. The point was RIM's gains, which the misstatement doesn't change. Of course, it's corrected now--and again, thanks!
Joe
Posted by Joe | June 6, 2008 7:16 PM
The beauty of Windows Mobile is the "internet sharing" feature. Why pay $50/month extra for a service that comes with the Windows Mobile phone data plan. 802.11b/g is all over the place, I find myself using my 3G Windows Mobile 6 phone for internet access when I can't get it (Sam's Club getting new tires and using LogMeIn.com for remote access/troubleshooting). The Windows Mobile device is fantastic -- bandwagon people with money to burn and egos to fill want the iPhone -- RIM is for those that want a phone first/data second and want to buy a new phone everytime one comes out to be cool -- a $99 Blackberry -- what does this say about being desparate for marketshare -- can the stock hold up? The iPhone -- just like the Mac -- want a an OS upgrade (Microsoft calls theirs a service pack) and gives it away free -- the Mac -- got to buy it. The marketplace will decide -- can Apple handle a downturn in the economy when they rely on consumerism?
Posted by Chip | June 6, 2008 9:57 PM
@ Tim F.
"Your charts could use more drop shadow. Never enough."
LOL!!!!!!
puppet1991.com
Posted by puppet | June 6, 2008 9:59 PM
So Joe - What's up with this?
http://video.msn.com/dw.aspx?mkt=en-us&vid=5a3e08f1-adbe-4a2d-97e3-d92a77b9d677
Is this for real or is this another snow job?
Posted by portuno | June 6, 2008 10:14 PM
Well, at least MSFT is making some sort of signs they want to join the semantic web. If WinFS is for real, a semantic system would be able to interrogate the local file system and allow for computers to interoperate.
Of course, the video could be nothing more than the same kind of smoke and vapor MSFT has used to fake out the press and the developer community; essentially the same tactic they've used ever since Cairo.
Who knows? Maybe the press this time will be more responsible and will insist on more concrete evidence MSFT actually has something this time. It's about time somebody demand some answers from Microsoft. Either that or relegate them to the In basket - something to be researched and verified before publicising.
Posted by portuno | June 7, 2008 1:39 AM
Joe,
I liked the piece overall, but you simplify things way too much by stating that "consumers don't want more choice." The fact that the Macintosh got totally crushed by Windows in the eighties is a very good example of this. Never underestimate the power of an open system. Of course the biggest difference today is that Windows Mobile isn't copying the best parts of the iPhone UI like they often did with the desktop and the Mac UI.
The real threat here is the Google Android OS. Google seems to have no shame about outright stealing the best aspects of the iPhone UI and combining it with an incredibly open system. THAT is a combination that will generate market share and disrupt the iPhone momentum.
Jim
Pollack Media Group
Posted by Jim Kerr | June 7, 2008 12:42 PM
Microsoft approached mobile like they did everything else. What, you don't want to run Word, Excel and PPT on your Windows Mobile device? What else is there? Oh, for that stuff you should get a SPOT watch...
Posted by Jeremy | June 7, 2008 6:13 PM
I'm surprised iPhone's market share isn't higher but I suppose the $399 price might have something to do with it. In terms of design there's no question iPhone blows away the competition completely.
I admire RIM as a company but that web browser is just plain awful.
Actually, thanks to the terms Apple negotiated with AT&T, iPhone is much cheaper than RIM or Windows Mobile when you consider the monthly cost. It's about $25 a month cheaper and that makes up the price difference within a few months. But I think most people look at just the entry level price tag without realizing how they're being manipulated.
I think most customers like easy choices - for example, with iPhone you get a better web interface and with Blackberry you get the real keyboard and more reliable push email. Depending on your priorities, that's an easy choice.
What I think customers do not like is hard choices - where you have 100 different devices and none of them is particularly good, or one has two features you want and the other has two different features you want, and so on.
I checked out a magazine for Windows Mobile fans and they had a massive ten page chart in the back listing every Windows Mobile device with a picture, the OS versions offered, the major features and so on.
That seems like a lot of basically similar products that take real research and sizable amounts of thought to decide between - the type of choice few like to make.
D
Posted by David H Dennis | June 9, 2008 11:04 AM