So you reckon Nokia-wielding Microsoft can't beat off Apple? Microsoft isn't used to being the underdog, but the company which owns the desktop is losing its grip on customers' wallets. While buying Nokia is an audacious move to redress that, to make it work Microsoft needs to understand some of Nokia's history. Of course, Microsoft has been the challenger before, with varying degrees …
Well, it's a developer preview with all the associated issues and risks. Although I hate too the lack of separate volume controls, I still prefer a stable version of the OS than one that is not... after all the earlier version of iOS lacked even cut&paste, and users could live with it.
I've owned a WP using OS's 7, 7.8, 8 and 8.1 (developer preview) and have never ever experienced a crash or freeze and I use my phone quite extensively throughout the day almost everyday. Each to their own and obviously different phones/hardware will have their individual issues. Had a Samsung Omnia 7 and now own a HTC 8X, previously owned a HTC One, Galaxy 2 and a 3GS. I am very happy with my WP and recommend people try it before they knock it, yes they're a bit behind on apps but other than my banking app and Spotify I don't use anything else. I've also found IE on WP is far superior to any other mobile browser, controversial as it's IE but again don't knock it unless you've tried it.
[WP8.1] is a developer preview with all the associated issues and risks
Not so much a preview as a way to get the update out to users who don't want to wait for operator approval. There's no need to be an actual developer or pay anything, just the mildest speed-bump of filling in an online form. I'd compare it to MSDN subscribers getting the latest Windows release a couple of months before OEMs actually ship PCs with it.
WP8.1 has been completely stable and a big improvement in my experience; keep in mind that phones are being released with 8.1 installed so it's not a beta.
I'm a big fan of Windows Phone. Just upgraded to 8.1 last night. In my opinion, they have completely fucked up the notifications. I know a bunch of unimaginative whiners wanted their notifications to be exactly the same as Apple's and Android's, but could this not have been introduced as an option? For those of us who actually liked the old system, it's been scrapped. And they've actually removed the social media integration from the People Hub, which was surely the whole point of the People Hub. The fact that everything about one person was all gathered in one place and updates displayed on their tile was one of the things that really impressed me about WP when I first tried it -- and tile updates were surely a selling point. Now, instead, it simply offers you the opportunity to start up the Facebook app. Oo, amazing.
A major downgrade, in my opinion.
"half your customer base ditching you and going back to PlayStation"
Xbox customer base is about 80 million - many of which came from Playstation, - your claim is clearly complete hogwash.
I have both consoles and the Xbox One is generally the better gaming experience - a better controller and much better online gaming. I play quite close to a 65" plasma and any graphical differences on the 4 cross platform games I own on both platforms are simply not visible to the naked eye, even though apparently the Xbox runs at a lower resolution.
For those that do care about the numbers - worth noting that to date the Xbox has also reserved 10% of GPU resources for Kinect - that requirement goes away soon...And that the forthcoming Direct-X 12 also provides a significant performance gain.
"2bn a year loss for Xbox (hidden in the financials by android patent protection racket),"
Xbox 360 was making bundles of money long before Android was on the scene.
Possibly Microsoft are losing money during the launch year of a new console due to significant the surrounding R&D and launch costs, but the launch of Xbox One has been great for them - selling over 5 million in less than 6 months - so any 'loss' is going to be a once off...If they are selling ~10-15 million consoles a year - plus circa 50 million Xbox Live subscriptions - they are not going to be loosing money!
Certainly Microsoft are doing better than Sony who are loosing hundreds of millions. Again.
Corrected for you:
Xbox 360 was _losing_ bundles of money long before Android was on the scene.
It seems as if your sole source of 'information' is a brain implant with a direct feed from Redmond's 'marketing' department.
http://www.gamefront.com/the-ps3-and-xbox-360-have-made-huge-losses-up-to-8-billion/
Xbox has consistently been making a profit for over 6 years now:
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/24/the-xbox-turns-a-profit/
Sometimes into the billions:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/36011/Microsofts_Xbox_360_Division_Sees_132_Billion_Profit_For_Fiscal_Year_2011.php
"Microsoft's Xbox 360 Division Sees $1.32 Billion Profit For Fiscal Year 2011 "
All the way to date:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-01-24-xbox-one-helps-microsoft-to-bumper-profits
"Microsoft's device and consumer hardware division saw revenues rise $1.9 billion year-on-year to $4.7bn (£2.8bn), with the launch of Xbox One and continued good sales of Xbox 360 accounting for the vast majority of that."
Carry on believing that drivel. Microsoft are under slot of pressure to dump Xbox as its losing billion a year.
http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-earns-2-billion-per-year-from-android-patent-royalties-2013-11
If you believe Microsoft sold 80m Xbox consoles to 80m Xbox gamers than that's even more laughable. Half that number is closer to reality.
Here is your reality check. Sony pretty much transitioned every PS3 gamer that gone next generation into a PS4 gamer, losing very few to Microsoft. Numbers suggest that Microsoft have lost over half their user base that have upgraded.
Its so bad for Microsoft they have been forced to ditch kinect, and all their numbers are sad and embarrassing sold to retail numbers. With the retail chain stuffed beyond bursting point with unsold Xbox one stock.
"Carry on believing that drivel. "
I believe Forbes any day over your drivel.
"Its so bad for Microsoft they have been forced to ditch kinect"
They havn't ditched it at all. They have simply made it optional now that Xbox One console supply is no longer in constraint. Like is was on the 360. When it was the fastest selling device of its kind. Ever.
"I believe Forbes any day over your drivel."
Not a problem. Here is the Forbes article on it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/11/08/microsoft-earns-2-billion-a-year-from-android-is-it-time-to-drop-xbox/
Who do you only believe now in your delusional "only what I want to believe" world?
I switched from a Blackberry to a Windows phone, and thought I could never get used to the touch screen and that a keyboard would always be faster. However, I find I can type messages faster on the new phone because the predictive text on the Windows phone is so efficient. I'm not sure a physical keyboard is necessary at all when the predictive text is so good.
They had this stupid idea that teams within the company would compete with each other. They also failed miserably to put in management oversight to see what was going on. The result was that much of their effort was wasted in the wrong directions. El Reg has had more than one article on this subject (see for example http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/10/nokia_ui_saga/ ) and it's pretty clear that while they had the technical ability to create an iPhone competitor, the failure of managers to get the troops all lined up and pointing in the same direction is what killed them.
Completely right about how much damage was caused by the "competing internal teams" idea. This is why every Nokia phone I ever owned was 95 percent brilliant yet always spoilt by some horrible carbuncle. Like my 6220c which had a great camera with xenon flash yet there was no VOIP client for the VOIP stack thanks to internal politics.
Overall Nokia never did themselves any favours and their success was almost in spite of themselves. It was still surprising to see them collapse and it sometimes crosses my mind if they were deliberately pushed over because (à la Qwest) they refused to put the backdoors in...
That's really no excuse. The instructive example, as with so many things, is WW2: the USA took a bunch of farmhands and housewives and retrained them to build the greatest, highest-tech military in history in just a year or two. Always worth remembering that whenever anyone claims they can't do something because they don't have the right workers or the expertise. And, of course, Apple had precisely zero experience of making phones.
"to build the greatest, highest-tech military in history in just a year or two"
Utter nonsense.
The high tech of the US in 1944-45 was designed by long established engineers and scientists. Unlike assault boats or tanks, software doesn't need any moderately skilled workers at all.
The army that invaded France in 1944 was very well equipped but of poor quality; it wasn't able to make effective use of its weapons. (This isn't the prejudicial view of some Brit but the observation of generals on the ground.) It takes a long time to build a really efficient army, because it takes experienced officers to train NCOs and experienced NCOs to train ORs. In the same way, it takes a long time to build a software capability. Samsung have admitted that it has taken them a long time to get where they are today, and they are still behind Apple.
> The high tech of the US in 1944-45 was designed by long established engineers and scientists.
Yes, and built almost entirely by people who had had, up till a year or so previously, sod all experience of building such things. People can be trained to do new things better.
> The army that invaded France in 1944 was very well equipped but of poor quality; it wasn't able to make effective use of its weapons.
Doesn't matter. That army was about a zillion times better than the US Army of, say, 1938. People can be trained to do new things better.
> Samsung have admitted that it has taken them a long time to get where they are today, and they are still behind Apple.
Yes, but they haven't said "We weren't already an Apple-like company, so we were doomed from the start." They have, instead, operated on the principle that people can be trained to do new things better.
For a Nokia engineer to say "Nokia is a hardware firm, not a software firm, hence cannot do software" would be a reasonable assessment of the situation at a given point in time, to which management could react, perhaps by deciding not to attempt software, perhaps by deciding to change the firm so that it becomes capable of software. For a Nokia engineer to say "Nokia was a hardware firm, not a software firm, hence could never do software" is an admission of idiotic defeatist inflexibility.
Nokia had already been 'gobbled up' by Microsoft since early 2011, when trojan horse Elop was appointed Nokia CEO. Nokia has been the preferred OEM of Microsoft since then.
A few years on and plenty of money spent later, and the Windows Phone ecosystem and market share are still comparatively abysmal compared to Apple and Android. A few years later and the situation will be the same. But feel free to disprove me by throwing more money on Windows phones, phablets and tablets.
We are living in the post-Windows or post-Microsoft age: you can get by a day quite comfortably without using Windows or any of the other offerings from Microsoft. Once upon a time not too long ago that would have been unfathomable.
The gig is up, the Redmond hegemony is more or less finished.
The overall perspective of Simon Rockman in this article is that of an unapologetic Microsoft shill. Even his statement of "success of the Xbox" demonstrates a purposeful ignorance and/or denial of facts since the Xbox Game console project has never been financially profitable - therefore not successful, and the most recent XBox One has been overwhelmingly eclipsed in popularity and sales by the Sony's Playstation 4, which was released several months later than the XBox One.
No doubt "any" sales of Microsoft Nokia smartphones and their Surface Tablets swill be hailed as a glowing success, even if again unprofitable and mediocre when compared to Apple and Android smartphones and Tablet exploding sales records.
Microsoft and it's loyal tech writers, and army of minions seem to know no bounds in fabricating great sales and innovative superiority over all other competitors from thin air with obvious smoke and mirrors tactics.
"since the Xbox Game console project has never been financially profitable"
Xbox has been making hundreds of millions a year for a number of years now.
"XBox One has been overwhelmingly eclipsed in popularity and sales by the Sony's Playstation 4, which was released several months later than the XBox One.
Sony have launched the PS4 in ~ twice any many territories - And Xbox One launched on Nov 22nd 2013 versus the 29th for the PS4 - so the PS4 launched one week later...
There is also the downside that Microsoft must now face since it owns Nokia. The part of Nokia that Microsoft doesn't own still holds the patents and they are allowing Microsoft to license them. You know things like a HD microphone that HTC used and got sued over, the camera tech, Here Maps, etc. Now that Nokia no longer has a handset division, they are free to license as they see fit. So features that were unique to Nokia and thus to Windows Phone will no longer be the case. Here Maps is on the Jolla Phone running the Sailfish OS. To me that is just the first bit of licensing that will commence. I wouldn't bet against a PureView phone coming from another manufacturer in the near future. Any advantage the Nokia technology gave WP will be gone and the selling point that they currently can use will be gone. I expect to see Here Maps on Andorid and iOS in the very near future. Nokia will want to make money off of it and now you have have maps that are stored on the device, etc.
I see the Nokia acquisition as the nails in the coffin of WP. I wonder if Nokia is laughing that Microsoft put a trojan in at Nokia and the Nokia board pulled one over on Microsoft. I wouldn't be surprised if Nokia doesn't increase their support of Jolla. One Finnish firm helping another and Jolla gets to license all of Nokia technologies. Jolla could very well be the next incarnation of a Nokia handset division without them actually getting involved directly with handsets. Nokia provided Jolla with N9's so Sailfish could be created and Nokia was already licensing technology to them and this was all under when Elop had the helm but the board said if the Elop plan (plan a) didn't workout they had a plan b. They wouldn't elaborate what plan b and Jolla wasn't even known at the time.
The death of the handset division at Nokia was because of the management. So the board had to have known this and could have figured that the handset side just wasn't viable anymore. So maybe they welcome the trojan and let him do his thing with the real plan to get rid of the handset division and let others build phone with Nokia technology.
Time will tell and the proof will be when we see Nokia technology in handsets not sold by Microsoft.
"Microsoft must now face since it owns Nokia."
As a Nokia shareholder, I can tell you that Microsoft certainly do not own Nokia.
"when we see Nokia technology in handsets not sold by Microsoft."
I'm sure we will - and Microsoft won't have a problem with that provided the appropriate license fees are paid and the competition is not unfair..
Apple revolutionized the desktop computer market and basically any computer bought since the late 80s has been fundamentally similar to the original Mac, i.e., it had a mouse (or similar) and you interacted with it via a GUI.
Apple also revolutionized the phone market and any phone bought since the late 00s has been fundamentally similar to the iPhone, i.e., a big rectangle with a touchscreen.
Before each revolution, there were a bunch of players doing a bunch of different things. After each revolution, there have been only two players doing basically the same thing.
So if Mr. Rockman wants to draw an analogy between the markets, it seems like it should be that Apple and Google will continue to dominate the smartphone industry for the next 20+ years, and not that Microsoft will swoop in any any minute and eat everybody's lunch.
It is Q2 2016. Top-quality Chinese phones with over-the-counter prices below $200 have redefined the market, and commodity smartphones with 1080p screens sell for pocket change. Apple's mobile consumer base has shrunk to the prestige-wristwatch market and its management promises that never again will the company overcharge for technology.
Android is still doing well because it makes all its money from Google Apps, and can actually pay manufacturers to stay with it. Microsoft is always playing catchup, Bing Apps being less popular than the Google ones.
Nobody thinks phones are 'cool'.
"What mistakes?"
Google massively overpaid to purchase Motorola and to get a patent library that they thought they could attack Microsoft, Apple, Nokia, etc. with. Google have failed at every turn to sucessfully leverage those patents, and meanwhile Apple, Nokia and Microsoft continue to monetise Android via licensing fees. And Google are about the get spanked by Oracle for IP infringment too...
That Apple isn't invincible has nothing to do with Microsoft's chances of taking them on.
X-Box aside, Microsoft has yet to show success in a market outside its core Windows+ area. And with Windows Phone it's still not clear whether it is going to go for exclusivity or continue the tried and tested OEM + software route to domination. Until that decision has been taken and communicated it's not possible to say much. In the meantime both IOS and Android are becoming more accepted in the enterprise: taking MS on where it is strongest and beating it; having already whipped it in the consumer space. The Windows 8 own goal isn't going to help much there, either.
If MS decides to become a services company then it can hope to be a winner, whatever OS is running. MS services on devices could be very attractive and it could ironically call upon competition authorities to enforce market access.
"Microsoft has yet to show success in a market outside its core Windows+ area"
You must have just got out of a Delorian. Microsoft have been making billlions for years in many other areas besides Windows - and have recently been rapidly growing many of those revenue streams too.
"both IOS and Android are becoming more accepted in the enterprise"
As insecure mobile handset software that needs further bolting down before deployment. Not as say a desktop or server replacement - which is where Microsoft makes a lot of money at the moment.
"having already whipped it in the consumer space"
Windows still has an over 90% share of the PC market.
Microsoft has screwed its user base with Bob, Vista, Windows 8, huge prices, a deliberate policy of bugs to be fixed by paying for next major version and so on. It's a company of the 90's and early 2000's. It's history. Nobody in their right minds trusts them. Only complete techno-ignoramuses would buy a WinPho instead of an iPhone or Android.
Please, just let the decent thing, don't buy their stuff and let them die like other past titans like Novell, SCO, etc.
WRT Beats phones, this is far more to do with branding than sound quality. I have some JVC 'flats' (small 'on-ear' phones) that sound as good as, and are vastly more comfortable than, the Koss ESP-9 electrostatics I bought 40 years ago, for what would now be over £2k (I was single then). The JVC's were £20 when I bought them, and since my son has now requested his own pair, I find they are available on Amazon for a fiver!
"The reason for that mobile-industry-in-a-paragraph history lesson is that there is no reason to assume that today’s Apple/Samsung duopoly is any more enduring than the Motorola/NEC of 1994 or Nokia/Ericsson one of 2000."
For all intents and purposes, everything up to the introduction of the iphone was based on feature phones. Feature phones, by definition are self contained. You buy a Motorola phone in 1998 and there is nothing to lock you in to changing to a Nokia in 2000.
These days we have smart phones. Smart phones use, for want of a better word, a software "ecosystem". In the smartphone market a user will (usually) invest in purchasing some apps for their phone and once doing so experience some degree of lockin (to the OS), depending on how much money they have invested.
For the same reason that the computer industry evolved into a duopoly so has the phone industry.
Just as with PC's we have apple on one side and Android in the place where MS used to be. Just like the PC industry there are multiple vendors crowding into the Android space.
The situation is nearly identical. Why you would contend that the results in the phone industry would not mirror those of the PC industry escapes me.
It is true that Samsung could lose the lead at the top of the Android heap but it far less clear that MS will be able to supplant either apple OR android at the top of the heap any time soon.
Here is what Msft/Nokia must learn very very quickly.
Either do it the Apple way and have phones and tablets available as soon as they are presented.
Or do it the Samsung's way and have products available internationally a few weeks after the announcement.
A Nokia 2520 tablet still not available in France is a stillborn.
An alluring classy state of the art Nokia smartphone arriving 4 months after its announcement is just a marketing sink which will be sold at a heavy discount as an also-ran.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
