Feeds

back to article My top tip for Microsoft: Stop charging for Windows Phone 8

While Microsoft posted solid numbers for Windows 8, anyone paying attention to Intel's quarterly report can see that the writing is on the wall for desktop computing. Perhaps surprisingly, this is also true of the enterprise, generally not an early mover on technology trends. According to a new Appcelerator survey of enterprise …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

Seriously?

Android has no undo function?

Egads! —and there's me thinking iOS's text selection methodology was the most fuckwitted thing I'd come across in a mobile OS.

0
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Superior technology?

Assuming that Microsoft does indeed produce superior technology, it doesn't matter provided that what already exists is good enough. Just ask Sony. Etc.

4
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Microsoft must be resting on bloody stumps right now..

.. no feet left to shoot.

15
1
Silver badge

"Android didn't initially make headway against Apple because it was better. It wasn't. Far from it. No, Android won over the handset vendors and other partners because it was cheap. Cheaper than free."

Well hang on, we're confusing two things. If it's about what manufacturers chose, then they obviously didn't choose IOS, because they couldn't - it's not available for licensing. It helped that Android was free, as it meant it was a better choice than say continuing to write their own OSs, but it still helped that it was good.

For users, actually yes, we bought it because it was better. ("Far from it"? Sure early Android versions lacked some features, but early IOS couldn't even do apps or copy/paste, let alone something like multitasking - it struggled to qualify as a feature phone OS. Satnav only came recently. Still waiting for a homescreen that even my 2005 feature phone had.)

30
6
Anonymous Coward

But Android isn't really free. OEMs pay to use all the Google goodies in Android. If they want free Android they can get it but that means no access to the Android market and other Google services. So only those big enough to go it alone will use Android for free, as Amazon have done.

Samsung has gotten to such a high market share they they could conceivably go it alone if they choose to, but other phone makers are stuck paying Google

3
8
Anonymous Coward

Fuck I get tired of reading your drivel, Mark.

I wish we had a kill feature to simply filter out morons.

2
11
Bronze badge
Boffin

greasemonkey

The DOM of the Reg forums page is well defined - it would be easy to make a greasemonkey script that filtered out named users....

0
0

And spineless ACs?

4
0
FAIL

"Last year, Microsoft was reported to be licensing Windows Phone 8 to ZTE for $23 to $30 per device. For tablets it's worse: $85 per device."

Are you f**king kidding me?

14
0

Yes, I very much think he might be. Nokia may well be paying that license fee, but only because Microsoft is sending back $1bn each year in "platform support payments". I'm not sure how that doesn't count as subsidising Windows Phone 8...

9
0
Holmes

It's the Office tax

Microsoft licenses for tablets include a MANDATORY Office license. Also, Windows Phone is not Windows RT is not Windows 8.

5
0
Gold badge

@Dave W Thompson

"Last year, Microsoft was reported to be licensing Windows Phone 8 to ZTE for $23 to $30 per device. For tablets it's worse: $85 per device."

Are you f**king kidding me?

Well, considering that Apple wanted a similar amount for features like slide to unlock and rubber-banding, MS is not asking too much for a whole OS/eco-system if what you want is something that isn't android. (In comparison to Apple)

3
4
Bronze badge
Mushroom

Why is that a surprise?. Microsoft also charge Android vendors a similar amount for each Android handset for using their technology.

0
1
Childcatcher

MS is not asking too much for a whole OS/eco-system

@BristolBachelor -

MS is asking too much. MS caters to the entire industry. Apple only caters to their own users which all MS only folks continue to deride as 4 % or less of the market. Surely, Bristol, you can't be suggesting that a company that influences 90% of the market be held to the same level as a company that influences 4% of the market?

It sure reads to me that you think Microsoft should be held accountable to the same levels of, what, a company that does 5% of what Microsoft does? In my opinion, a company that holds over 50% of the market share need to be very reactive and follow the wants/needs of the community.

Microsoft will never do that. They could own 100% of the market (as they did in the past) and STILL push their desire onto the market. Microsoft sucks and needs to close their doors and their warez can be release into the public domain where it will be fixed correctly.

2
1
Bronze badge
WTF?

Business doublespeak, statistics, and marketing figures...

What does "showing mobile leadership" even mean? Blegh, business speak again.

Once again it's the Asay Satay Sauce of various figures dredged out of multiple "analyses" mashed up to support what the author is saying. But it generates ad revenue, I suppose, and after a previous good article, I'm not surprised to see the author back to his normal self.

14
0
Bronze badge
Joke

Re: Business doublespeak, statistics, and marketing figures...

"Asay Satay Sauce"

What do you think Matt?

(It worked for Paul Newman.)

1
0
Anonymous Coward

My top tip for Microsoft:

Turn the clocks back to 2003 and start again

5
3
DJV
Happy

Re: My top tip for Microsoft:

Excellent idea!

We would be able to to laugh again to Bill Gates' 2004 announcement that spam will be dead in 2 years - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3426367.stm - and look forward to them releasing the Zune all over again!

5
2

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Anonymous Coward

Re: My top tip for Microsoft:

"With the Metro UI, which resembles (uncannily so) Windows 2.0 - they actually turned the clocks back to 1991."

Here is a link to an image of Windows 2.0 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows_2.0.png

I would say it looks sod-all like Metro and that you probably don't actually know what either of them look like, your post was just another excuse for an ill informed anti-microsoft rant.

11
6

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Anonymous Coward

Re: Windows 8 is actually like Windows 1.0!

Just because two images have some text next to them saying that they look alike, doesn't mean that they do.

Those two images look bugger all alike to me.

3
1
Bronze badge
Holmes

Re: My top tip for Microsoft:

It does look like AOL however - http://obamapacman.com/2012/05/microsoft-windows-8-copies-aol-1996-design/

3
0
Bronze badge

Re: My top tip for Microsoft:

Maybe MS should just buy RIM??

0
1
Happy

Microsoft has long been holding on to their archaic views regarding mobile for far too long. Now it seems like they are stubbornly sticking with their views for the sake of pride. Lose the old leadership figures who are trying to sink the ship and Microsoft may have a chance. However, I foresee the ship sinking slowly beneath the waves. Will it be sad? ...nope. I'll be surprised if anyone actually notices!

6
3

This post has been deleted by a moderator

Bronze badge
Mushroom

Re: world without MS - open, innovation, creative

Erm, you mean like Android managing to have more variants of Malware in 3 years than all versions of Windows have in 14 years?

1
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: world without MS - open, innovation, creative

Evening RICHTO. Still spewing the cr*p

2
2
Silver badge

Re: world without MS - open, innovation, creative

"Erm, you mean like Android managing to have more variants of Malware in 3 years than all versions of Windows have in 14 years?"

You really believe that don't you ?

4
0
Bronze badge
Mushroom

Re: world without MS - open, innovation, creative

Just the facts Ma'am: http://www.itpro.co.uk/645244/trend-micro-five-times-more-malware-found-on-android-devices-than-pcs-in-2012

1
4
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: world without MS - open, innovation, creative

Yeah because Trend Micro has no vested economic interest in the facts. I mean why would they want to scare people to buy their software on a mobile platform that is growing rapidly (android) from a mature market (PC) that is starting to wither? Plus what is key is looking at infection rates vs adoption rate. I am sure WP8 at this point has a lower infection rate than android but again to use M$ fanboi argument against them it is due to WP8s market share being a rounding error.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Silly of MSFT to try and turn a profit on the WinPho OS.

You can't turn a profit on software while trying to build an ecosystem. Only the first to market (Apple) can get away with that trick. Google knows this, and the Nexus phones and tablets, sold more or less at cost while they ramp up their services business (music, movies, apps, books, magazines and so on), is the end result.

3
4
Silver badge

Re: Silly of MSFT to try and turn a profit on the WinPho OS.

Apple first to market? What?

8
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Silly of MSFT to try and turn a profit on the WinPho OS.

"Apple first to market? What?"

And exactly what easy to use, unified mobile market place for music, apps and everything else existed before Apple got there first? Or are you referring to Ovi (snigger).

4
7
Bronze badge

Re: Silly of MSFT to try and turn a profit on the WinPho OS.

First to market?

First?

First at what?

2
1
Bronze badge

Re: Silly of MSFT to try and turn a profit on the WinPho OS.

There were plenty of phones able to run download and run apps, plenty of phones with touch screens, cameras and all those gizmos. There were also stores for buying stuff.

Apple may have made a better app store, may even (if you like their interface) have done a 'better job' (actually I don't like their interface and don't believe its better - which is why I never bought one).

But they weren't first at anything. Stop reading Rory CJ on the BBC - he is the chief apple fanboy

11
4
Silver badge

Re: Silly of MSFT to try and turn a profit on the WinPho OS.

I wouldn't refer to Ovi, as that came afterwards (though I don't know why you snigger, I've found that site fine as a user and developer).

Yes they were the first OS vendor to have a central software repository on mobile (it wasn't the first central repository; nor was it the first software or media download site for mobiles). I just wasn't sure how that relates to the idea of being able to charge a profit or not. If the aim is to expand market share as large as possible for the aim of controlling the software/media, then at 15%, that argument applies to Apple too. So whilst I do see some argument that MS should go for market share, perhaps they're just happy making higher profit margins instead, which actually is rather similar to Apple, in contrast with Google.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Silly of MSFT to try and turn a profit on the WinPho OS.

"There were plenty of phones able to run download and run apps, plenty of phones with touch screens, cameras and all those gizmos. There were also stores for buying stuff.

Apple may have made a better app store, may even (if you like their interface) have done a 'better job' (actually I don't like their interface and don't believe its better - which is why I never bought one).

But they weren't first at anything. Stop reading Rory CJ on the BBC - he is the chief apple fanboy"

Plenty of this, plenty of that and all going exactly nowhere because they couldn't be arsed sorting out the business model and the end user experience. And all because they had the market all sewn up and they thought mediocrity was good enough. I've had my share of Symbian handsets and they were all a pain in the arse compared to my Android and iOS devices.

4
0
Childcatcher

Re: Silly of MSFT to try and turn a profit on the WinPho OS.

Dave15 - they were the first to become a 1 trillion dollar company! Why is that? Because of their fanbois? WOW. Pretty damned rich fanbois I would say.

Face it. Apple did a better job than anyone else out there. Quit your whinning and just allow others to get some limelight instead of insisting that Microsoft is the only company allowed success and popularity.

==

0
1
Bronze badge

Re: Silly of MSFT to try and turn a profit on the WinPho OS.

they were the first to become a 1 trillion dollar company

Jim, you might want to investigate a concept called "constant dollars" (assuming you're already familiar with the one called "inflation"). Being the "first ... trillion dollar company" is a meaningless achievement.

In constant dollars, Apple has never yet come close to being the IT company with the historical highest market capitalization. Clearly, they have made a bunch of money selling their products, and they've also been quite successful at convincing investors to drive up their stock price (recent fluctuations notwithstanding, because they're irrelevant; the price is still high). None of this proves, or even by itself even supports,[1] the assertion that Apple produce better products and services.

Clearly it doesn't prove the converse either, but as an argument it's more or less vacant.

[1] Do a basic Toulminian analysis. The claim is "Apple did something better than the competition"; the candidate support is "Apple earned a lot of money". The warrant, then, would be that the market rewards quality - and that is obviously not the case, in general.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Monkey no see, monkey no do.

Considering how much damage a loss leader mobile OS from MS could do it's a small wonder that good ole' chair flinger hasn't gone this way already.

I guess the idea of giving anything away for the longer term strategy is just too much like "allowing another to benefit" from any current decisions, "Profits later!!! but me not boss later !!!!" ///chairs

2
0
Silver badge
Thumb Down

RIM (BB, BB10), Apple, Samsung (Bada), Nokia (S40, Asha, Symbian) have their own in-house OSes and therefore aren't free. Firefox OS, Sailfish, Tizen, Ubuntu, and Windows Phone are licensed to third parties and out of those Firefox OS is free as it comes from a non-profit supported by Google's cash, Sailfish and Windows Phone are not free, and I don't know about the other two although I'll hazard a guess that Ubuntu won't be free because Shuttleworth's got to make some money somewhere.

Leaving Android the odd one out and even so Android isn't really free because manufacturers need to pay to licence the Google Apps. Just try and sell a phone without Play Store and watch it fail.

Someone somewhere's got to get paid for their work eventually.

7
0
Anonymous Coward

Plus, Android phone manufacturers

Have to pay a juicy license fee to MS for the patented technology they are using. This is ace, if, like me, you are a MS shareholder!!! So, hopefully the cost of the patent fees that the Android guys need to pay will soon exceed the cost of a WinPhone license fee, which means that WinPhone will be the CHEAPEST os for smartphone manufacturers!!

MS play a long game, but they play it well......

The author seems to have forgotten about the license fees to Google for Maps, Play etc as well as the license fees to MS for their infringed patents. Which, when taken in to consideration, kind of negate the premise of the entire article really.....

0
1
Silver badge

Re: Plus, Android phone manufacturers

What you seem to not realize is the whole house of cards software patent scam in the US is starting to collapse. The system is not stable, the courts realize it (clogged up having to decide life and death of companies and markets), the tech companies realize it (market share won in court not in marketplace), even the patent office realizes it (desperately hoping outsiders helps them with prior art due to terrible funding). You might be fine for several years but their is some major systemic risk to companies that rely on software patents to turn profits.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Plus, Android phone manufacturers

@adsf

‘but their is some major systemic risk to companies that rely on software patents to turn profits’

Oh, their is, is their?

Seriously, you expect to be taken seriously when you cannot even use their/there in the correct context?

As for the freetards dream of the US Patent Office riding to the assistance of the ‘Open Source Movement’, I think you need to invent another wet dream. There is really only one company who would benefit from that (Google) and many more that would not. The USPO is not in place to make it easier for Google to make money at the expense of larger, more mature and more ethical tech companies.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: Plus, Android phone manufacturers

Love how you immediately assume I am a freetard defending Google. Anybody with eyes and half a brain could tell the only reason the software patent system hadn't broken down long ago was due to the big boys having a cross license truce for the most part. That all changed once Apple decided it could go nuclear on everyone else and the result is that the system has started breaking down in a hurry. The last thing most judges want to do is pick winners and losers in the marketplace. Its going to become obvious that the current system is impeding innovation to even the politicians. Yes they won't do the right thing and eliminate being able to patent math (what software is) but they will change the game some. Who it is most likely to effect is companies like Intellectual Vultures who make nothing and just leech off others. Microsoft is obviously not in this camp as they still derive the majority of their income from real software. That patent cash you are talking about is still largely chump change compared to say Office revenue. I am just saying if you are counting on that patent revenue to be able to replace Microsoft's software sales long term you are making a fool's bet. Microsoft won't survive as major player long term unless people start buying their software on mobile platforms as well.

1
0
Stop

How to Compete with Free

Microsoft has proved it knows how to drive upgrades and how to compete with free.

-El Reg May 2010

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/12/office_2010_vesus_the_competition/

It is possible to compete with free. we've seen this before. especially from Microsoft.

3
3
Silver badge

Re: How to Compete with Free

Show me any product Microsoft has been able to compete with anyone successfully besides PC software? Don't say the Xbox because the division last I saw still hasn't broken even cash wise if you count the original Xbox as well.

0
0

Isn't that cute...BUT IT'S WRONG!

MS does not have the Google business model, and I don't think it should. MS should not be mining the data of it's customers, selling the results to advertisers and competitors. So MS is going to have to gain revenue for products more directly from the end user.

Obviously, unlike Apple, it is not going to be able to have an exclusive App store. Something like that is cumbersome for enterprise. It is not going to be able to take a significant cut of hardware because MS does not sell computing hardware.

This I think is where the MS problem in mobile lies. Not in the licensing fee, but in the fact that MS has traditionally externalized the risk of building and stocking hardware to the OEM. We see this in the reluctance of these OEM to build mobile for MS. The mobile market is different from the PC market. If MS wants it's products on mobile, they are going to have to assume more of the risk.

6
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.