How to fix Windows Mobile

This is an interesting if misguided article and, coincidentally, I met with the Windows Mobile folks just this week, so it’s good timing as well:

In recent months, Microsoft's mobile strategy has hit a rough patch. In the third quarter, iPhone maker Apple shipped more smartphones than all 56 device makers that make Windows Mobile phones combined, according to research firm Canalys. As a result, Windows Mobile slid from its position as the world's second-most popular mobile operating system a year ago to the No. 4 spot, behind Nokia's Symbian, Apple's OS X, and Research In Motion's BlackBerry.

Windows Mobile's share may drop to 11% this year from 12% in 2007, says Chris Ambrosio, an executive director for wireless at research firm Strategy Analytics. "On the important issues, they are chasing the market," Ambrosio says. "And they've got to chase much faster" to ensure continued carrier and handset makers' support, he adds.

To keep partners and developers on board, analysts say Microsoft needs to adapt Windows Mobile software for use with touch interface. However, a major update may not hit the market until 2010.

Yep. This is bad. Microsoft is working on a number of things before that major update, Windows Mobile 7. These include a new version of the WM version of IE, called Internet Explorer 6, and a new Windows Mobile platform called Zune Mobile that includes Zune functionality. But it’s not happening quickly enough.

Microsoft also should also follow Google's and Apple's lead in the area of wireless cloud-computing services.

Um. I assume that’s a joke. Apple does not “lead” in cloud computing services, and if anything, Microsoft’s presence in this market gives it a breadth and depth that is unavailable anywhere else, including Google. Windows Mobile has many problems. This is not one of them.

What Microsoft does need is a single, integrated online store for Windows Mobile applications and services. This is arguably the biggest innovation of the iPhone, and not its trendy and most-likely over-hyped touch interface.

In December, Microsoft also announced it's working with Blockbuster to deliver movies to cell phones. Eventually the service will let consumers start watching a movie on one device—say, a TV—and continue watching it on a cell phone while on the go. Microsoft is also beefing up mobile services through its acquisitions last year of Musiwave, which provides music services for cell phones, and TellMe, offering voice-based mobile search services.

One step Microsoft should avoid, analysts say, is building its own branded phone, as has been rumored. Such a phone would damage the behemoth's existing relationships with handset makers.

Well. They are going to do that, sorry. I’d argue that Microsoft’s relationships with handset makers is, in fact, its biggest weakness in the mobile market. In fact, in looking over this article, I see lots of interesting information about Windows Mobile, but precious little in the way of good advice. Yes, Microsoft needs an online store. Duh. But no, they already get cloud computing, so that’s a silly non-starter. Microsoft needs to take control of its future in the smart phone market and it can’t do that unless it makes its own devices or its partner make serious, Apple-like concessions. Guess which one is more likely?

As I noted previously, I did meet with Windows Mobile this week. They’re good people, smart people, and they seem to understand the issues. They also seem to value the business market more than the consumer market, but that might only be because that’s what they pretty much offer at this point. I will be writing more formally about Windows Mobile by the end of the year, but I wanted to at least mention one thing I found vaguely alarming. When asked about the success of the iPhone and how that impacts Windows Mobile, I was told that the iPhone “validated” Microsoft’s approach. That’s some weird combination of revisionism, wishful thinking and, perhaps, delusion.

I think Microsoft needs to be much more aggressive in this market. And that’s pretty much the only advice I can really give.

Discuss this Article 143

mikegalos@msn.com
on Dec 12, 2008
(Don't ask for facts from an econometrics geek unless you really want them)
tayme
on Dec 12, 2008
That was fun...I really like riling up those that are easily excited. mikgalos and robertsjoe are so predictable. Now, I am really out for the weekend. Thanks for the good time today, mikegalos! --tayme
mikegalos@msn.com
on Dec 12, 2008
shark "By the way, maybe we need to consider how many people from Canada come down to the US for treatment of life threatening ailments." If Canada were an anomaly, I'd say that could be a factor but the US is MUCH lower than pretty much every Western Industrial nation on both factors and I doubt enough French or British or German citizens are traveling to the US for treatment to change the numbers by much. I'd suggest you go look at the World Factbook on the CIA website and look at the data for yourself. It's there for a couple of hundred nations plus aggregate world data. The URL is https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html
mikegalos@msn.com
on Dec 12, 2008
Gee, tayme, The facts didn't agree with your biases so you're walking away. No surprise there. Hope you actually learned something from seeing actual data but I really doubt it.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Dec 12, 2008
cesjr
on Dec 12, 2008
when the iphone first came out, my first reaction was - nobody but MS can even begin to compete with this. I still think that's true, although maybe Google can also compete. as for nokia, rim, etc. - they are toast. the phone is becoming your computer. those other guys have no experience or resources to do what apple and MS can do. and MS has its work cut out for it because it's not really a hardware company.
RobertC
on Dec 12, 2008
It is rather hilarious that lotsamystuff posted a link "proving" that the foreign auto companies received similar amounts of government money. If he bothered to read his own link, he would have found that the $3.6 billion figure is an aggregate total of government assistance over the last 28 years! The US Autos have received many times that amount in the same time frame and they continue to lag every other foreign auto maker in basic measures like fuel economy, technological sophistication, and build quality.
RobertC
on Dec 12, 2008
I would also point out that there is nothing wrong with a government providing assistance to start-up ventures in the form of property and income tax exemptions if it means jobs will be created. But there's a big difference between initial exemptions for start-ups and the ongoing bailouts of failed business plans of the US Autos. Obviously, that point was lost on Mike. Furthermore Mike, I do not support the 700 billion bailout.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Dec 12, 2008
RobertC Unless you have inflation adjusted data that doesn't count loan principal rather than interest and that doesn't count loan guarantees as the same as gifts you should probably stop laughing because his datas been a LOT more solid than anyone opposing the bridge loan has presented (here or in Congress)
mikegalos@msn.com
on Dec 12, 2008
RobertC, So you're in favor of giving money to corporations to bribe them into locating in one town or another (because it creates jobs and unemployement is bad) but you're opposed to loaning money to keep those same jobs in existance (I guess unemployment isn't bad, then). Care to explain the logic?
robertsjoe
on Dec 12, 2008
It's a massive mistake for Governments to use Windows. Especially burden students by making them use something as bad as Windows. Then to be tied to the Microsoft tax by going down the Windows route. Big mistake, http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08%2F12%2F12%2F2122206&from=rss
RobertC
on Dec 12, 2008
Mike, what part of "failed business plan" don't you understand? The question is why should the federal government continue to bail-out an industry that has consistently shown no desire to improve. Tens of billions of government assistance over many decades has produced cars that nobody wants to buy because they are oversized, gas-guzzling behemoths running on outdated technology. Why is it that Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes, BMW can all run vibrant manufacturing hubs in the United States, whilst the GM and Ford need to knock on the door of government to save them at every turn?
RobertC
on Dec 12, 2008
Robertsjoe, I hope your warped logic can countenance the fact that if you opt for Apple systems, you'll be similarly locked in to "Apple taxes" at annual rates of $129.
RobertC
on Dec 12, 2008
An excellent article from the Cato Institute. Here's an excerpt: "Advocates oftentimes admit that bailouts are not good policy, but they invariably argue that short-term considerations should trump long-term sensible policy. Their biggest assertion is that a bailout is necessary to prevent bankruptcy, and that avoiding this result is critical to prevent catastrophe. But Chapter 11 protection may be precisely what is needed to put American auto companies back on the path to profitability. Bankruptcy laws specifically are designed to give companies an opportunity - under court supervision - to reduce costs and streamline operations. Bankruptcy would not be popular in some quarters, to be sure. The bloated management structure would be streamlined and many overpaid executives would be unhappy about having to find new jobs. The UAW would be equally upset, particularly since bankruptcy might force an end to extravagant pension benefits and inefficient workplace practices. But bankruptcy is akin to getting an alcoholic to put down the bottle. There clearly will be short-term discomfort, but compassionate people recognize that this is the best approach. America is on a dangerous path. The Wall Street bailout was a mistake. It transferred a huge amount of money from the productive sector of the economy to the government, and also exacerbated "moral hazard" by rewarding companies and executives who made dumb decisions. But this may be the tip of the iceberg. A bailout of U.S.-headquartered auto companies also would be a mistake, as would bailouts of homeowners or any other constituency. If politicians genuinely want to help the economy, they should focus on reducing the burden of government, not increasing it." http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9787
mikegalos@msn.com
on Dec 12, 2008
RobertC Interestingly there's absolutely no facts in what you quoted although there's a lot of opinion used to justify an inconsistant philosophy masquerading as political and economic theory. But I expect that from the Cato Institute.
tayme
on Dec 12, 2008
@mikegalos - No, not walking away at all. Just finishing up some stuff, then heading home for the weekend. I think that if you go back and read through all of my posts, you will see that I actually agreed with you as much or more than I disagreed with you. I did disagree with you and your tendency to brush emotion and real life stories aside...but I am not surprised by it. In fact, it fits your profile perfectly. All of my weekly loads are finally done now, I'm not sure why it took longer than normal tonight...so I am heading home...not "walking away" because you pwned me...no such thing occurred. --tayme
mikegalos@msn.com
on Dec 12, 2008
tayme and yet, you still have ignored the facts and fell back to "but I have apocryphal stories that tug at the heart strings so you should beleive them rather than those facts that say what I wish weren't true"
RobertC
on Dec 12, 2008
mike, again you duck, weave and obfuscate your way around the fact that the US Auto companies are poorly managed and produce cars nobody wants to buy. With that fact in mind, no government should be offering bailouts. Yet mike, in his sphere of self-delusion, believes that the US Autos can do no wrong and that government has all the answers. Thus it is no surprise that he chastises Cato.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Dec 12, 2008
And to short circuit the inevitable attack for daring to criticize the Cato Institute... Anyone who can use Libertarian and Corporation in the same philosophy doesn't understand at least one of the terms.
RobertC
on Dec 12, 2008
Mike, it is the height of arrogant hypocrisy to accuse others of ignoring facts when you yourself can't even admit that the US Auto makers have failed business plans.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Dec 12, 2008
RobertC No, I think they are poorly managed and produced really awful cars and still do in some cases (in others they've actually done a very good turnaround) That has nothing to do with what I'm saying and you'd be hard pressed to find any time I've done anything but condemn their management. Try again
tayme
on Dec 12, 2008
Oh, mikegalos...you just won't give up, will you. What "apocryphal stories that tug at the heart strings" have I posted in this thread? Of any other thread for that matter? You mean about the 2 DVD players in the van or the talking elevator? Yeah, real heart breaking, aren't they. Oh, well...Later. --tayme
shark47
on Dec 12, 2008
Frankly, is there anything wrong in asking people to cut back? Why do people here live beyond their means? Housing for all might be a noble cause, but it's one of the reasons for our problems. People are being encouraged to buy houses and cars and spend on consumer goods that they cannot afford. How much money does an average American save? Any statistics for that?
RobertC
on Dec 12, 2008
Mike, if an individual chooses to set up a corporation then I fail to see how that suddenly makes them "inconsistent" or incognisant of their own philosophy. Also, you only admitted that their management was pathetic when backed into a corner. So, if their management is so poor, why should they be given a bridge loan? Is this simply a bridge to further bailouts under Barack Obama? Yes, I believe it is. I repeat again: they do not deserve any government bailout. Just like the high-flying Wall Street executives deserved no bailout for their gross mismanagement. When will politicians realise that the Treasury is not a blank cheque of unlimited plunder.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Dec 12, 2008
RobertC, That's because you still haven't answered: So you're in favor of giving money to corporations to bribe them into locating in one town or another (because it creates jobs and unemployement is bad) but you're opposed to loaning money to keep those same jobs in existance (I guess unemployment isn't bad, then).
RobertC
on Dec 12, 2008
I already answered the question. But as usual, it wasn't what you wanted to hear Mike.
shark47
on Dec 12, 2008
RobertC, you raise good points, but what about the job losses? With the unemployment numbers going up suddenly, the country will be pushed further into recession. That's the fear. They make such bad cars, it's a pity their being bailed out. Another excuse for incompetence.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Dec 12, 2008
RobertC The cornerstone of "libertarianism" is lack of government intervetion in private matters such as commerce. The cornerstone of a corporation is it's establishment and enforcement of its rights as an entity by the same government. So a pro-corporate "Libertarian" is one who thinks government should protect their business from people but not protect people from their business. It can't work because, like "Objectivism" it only works if you're so self centered that you forget that the same philosophy would have to work for more than just you and neither one scales beyond one person without collapsing under the weight of its contradictions.
RobertC
on Dec 12, 2008
shark47, in other parts of the United States, Volkswagen, Kia and Honda are opening up new plants. In other words, the United States is still capable of manufacturing cars - it's just that a combination of poor management, poor products, and extravagant union wages means that the domestic manufacturers are no longer capable of producing cars profitably in the US. Thus, they do not deserve a government bailout. If government bailouts were one-off investments, then I would not be so concerted in my criticism. But the fact of the matter is that there is a litany of bailouts and subsidies running into the tens of billions for the US Autos over the last few decades and hence there is no evidence that this bailout will be the last.
RobertC
on Dec 12, 2008
Mike, are you arguing that a corporation should not be entitled to enforce its rights at law? By the way, I'm not a libertarian. There is a role for government in things like health and education.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Dec 12, 2008
RobertC If you did, it sure wasn't in any of the messages since I asked the question. Feel free to explain it again. Why is giving money to corporations to bribe them into locating in one town or another (supposedly because it creates jobs and unemployement is bad) a good thing while Loaning money (a much lower cost to the state) to keep those same jobs in existance is a bad thing. Both are the State paying businesses for jobs (thus against everything the Cato Institute and Capitalism claim to stand for) while the former, that you support, actually hurts existing businesses by encouraging raiding their best employees by subsidizing their pay above what the market justifies. Are you just saying that the goal is to hurt existing businesses? Really. I'd love to hear you explain that.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Dec 12, 2008
"Mike, are you arguing that a corporation should not be entitled to enforce its rights at law?" No, I'm saying that any Libertarian who understands the basics of libertarian philosophy would have to say that. And anyone who claims to be a Libertarian who does see a place for corporations (like, say, the Cato Institute) is either a charlatan or self-deluded.
shark47
on Dec 12, 2008
"Loaning money (a much lower cost to the state) to keep those same jobs in existance is a bad thing." Well, it's not that simple. If GM was run efficiently and made good vehicles, then fine. Even in a good economy, GM is not sure to survive. IT could end up being a case of 'penny wise, pound foolish'.
RobertC
on Dec 12, 2008
Mike, Giving tax exemptions to encourage business is not the same as a subsidy. Do I really need to explain these elementary things to someone who proclaims to be a bastion of facts?
johnpapola
on Dec 12, 2008
Yeah... so... anyway... about that Windows Mobile...
mikegalos@msn.com
on Dec 12, 2008
RobertC Tax exemptions are a subsidy. Period Why doesn't change whether they are.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Dec 12, 2008
johnpapola "Yeah... so... anyway... about that Windows Mobile..." Great operating system Dimbulb article discussing it that's got so much wrong that it hasn't been worth discussing.
robertsjoe
on Dec 12, 2008
This thing needs threaded comments. The one timeline for all the different discussions makes it even more difficult. At least one would be able to follow a thread of conversation within a post.
subzerohitman721
on Dec 12, 2008
Very Intersting both on the Windows Mobile and the Auto Bailout. I do think Microsoft should start from scratch on WM and develop something that doesn't crash so much. I think Microsoft needs to redo now before Apple, RIM and Nokia run far ahead to catch up. As for the auto bail out and livng beyond our means. Apple is a perfect example of living beyond our means. Do you really need to spend $1,200? Or could you buy a cheaper machine that does the same thing. All of Leopard's functionality can be duplicated in Vista. I can do exactly what Apple users do at much less cost on Windows. If you want me to sacrifice something, then tell Steve Jobs and the Mac users to sacrifice. But that would be unreasonable. Can we say double standard? Yet the same Republican Senators of the southern states put foreign automakers ahead of American auto makers. That is wrong, IMO. I smell the Republicans putting re-election, protecting Big Oil's monopoly, and keeping their war chest fully funded. Instead of doing whats best for the nation while making sure deep changes to the Big 3 happened, they play politics with this bailout. If you want the workers of the UAW to sacrifice, the management, and the shareholders should eat their equal part of the sacrifice pie. The workers of Toyota make roughly 30 bucks an hour. The GM workers make approximately 28 bucks an hour. So what kind of pay cuts to they want? No, they want benefit cuts. Toyota doesn't have the amount of workers that GM does. However, if Toyota did have that many workers, their balance sheets would most likely look like GM's. Yet GM is in a position to finish the Volt ahead of Toyota Gas/Electric Hybrid. Its simply union busting that the GOP wants to do. I don't like the unions, but they are a necessary evil. I do think they need to be tweaked and checked. However, everytime you crackdown on unions, the non union workers get hurt just as bad. Thats why I don't understand why southern states vote Republican. Voting against their economic self interest over some out dated ideology that Republicans have never in their history held up.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Dec 12, 2008
Subzero "Thats why I don't understand why southern states vote Republican." You understand why non-southern states do?
DRWAM
on Dec 13, 2008
When statistics are gathered, if they are not standardized, they can be misleading or just wrong. Infant mortality in the US includes still born, which is not included in most of the above stats. Also, our urban infant deaths due mostly to drug use brings the US infant mortality lower than many countries. Speaking of lifestyles in this rich US countires, you'll notice fast food on every corner. We are an obese country, which is also degrading our health, lower our lifespan. My point is the above metrics to measure health care success have too numerous factors to yield an adequate analysis. Just because, it may be 'all we got', does not make it reliable. I guess that the lesson is and always has been, improve your lifestyle and you will have fewer health problems and live longer [unless you get hit by a bus].
shark47
on Dec 13, 2008
"Can we say double standard? Yet the same Republican Senators of the southern states put foreign automakers ahead of American auto makers. " No. They would be putting foreign automakers over American automakers if they gave them the $14 bn. instead. Forbes has an interesting artcle about it in the latest issue (Dec 22). For GM to survive, the actual amount of the bridge loan should be between $20 and $20 billion, they say. The7y speculate that Congress and the Obama administration would probably be willing to sign the check in return for some environmental promises. Whether or not the bailout happens and whether or not the company files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, it's going to look a lot different at the end of this crisis than it does today. Jobs will be lost, no matter what. Dealerships will be closed and some models will have to be discontinued. Neither the bailout nor the bankruptcy court can force customers to buy gM's cars though. Here's an interesting article. Republicans tend to buy more American cars than Dems according to the article. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/01/automobiles/01red.html?pagewanted=prin... "Among their findings: buyers of American cars tend to be Republican - except, for some reason, those who buy Pontiacs, who tend to be Democrats. Foreign-brand compact cars are usually bought by Democrats - but not Mini Coopers, which are bought by almost equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. And Volvos may not actually represent quite what you think."
anonymous
on Dec 14, 2008
Filed under: Multimedia , Software , Windows Mobile Okay, so he doesn't have a thinner Xbox 360 than

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use