Why Windows Phone is struggling [Editorial]
Windows Phone’s intuitive Metro UI is one of the biggest gambles Microsoft has made as of late. Based on the Zune HD interface, Windows Phone 7′s functionality and ease-of-use has surprised many critics. Of the few Windows Phone devices on the market, however, only Nokia’s Lumia 800 is consistently given high praise. The Lumia 800 is a great piece of hardware, there’s no doubt about it, but its muted success indicates that the market isn’t looking for what Microsoft is offering. The two established smartphone models are the Android “put our OS on every piece of hardware” model and the Apple unified hardware and software model. Microsoft doesn’t manufacture its smartphones, and maybe they should, but for now they must focus on that hardware software unification or opening up their OS to all manufacturers regardless of device specs. Remember, Microsoft places a number of restrictions on OEMs because it’s looking for WP to run smoothly on all devices.
Microsoft wants to follow the Apple model. They want to have unification of hardware and software where everything runs smoothly, they want to avoid the fragmentation issue that plagues Android devices by locking down the OS, but there’s a twist. Because Microsoft doesn’t make its own hardware and relies on OEMs, by making these pro-consumer moves (locking down the OS thus ensuring a unified experience on the software side), they are alienating OEMs. Companies like Samsung and Motorola put the Touchwiz and Blur skins, respectively, on their large portfolio of Android devices in attempts to differentiate in software. They fail to realize that when buying an Android phone, most are looking for differentiated hardware, most want access to the latest applications and OS level functions. Users want to get OS features as they’re released, not a year later as in the case of Motorola Atrix and RAZR phones still waiting for Android 4.0 ICS, released months ago. The small but vocal minority of Android users that complain about fragmentation are those aware of what they are missing. While customers may not consider hardware software interoperability at the time of purchase, no one likes when they can’t, for example, play a game due to lack of Tegra 2 support.
Windows Phone code cannot be altered by the manufacturers, it’s a condition Microsoft places on use of the OS as it did with desktop Windows, but without software differentiation, few devices are produced with the OS and WP continues to lack the hardware differentiation that makes Android phones so appealing. Users want different sized screens, some want expandable storage through MicroSD cards, others are looking for particular camera specs. For the average user, the user that doesn’t purchase an Android device to customize it and instead buys for hardware, the same hardware with WP7 is an interesting proposition. As far as software is concerned, if third-party application support and hardware don’t factor into the equation, Windows Phone is the more user-friendly OS. Without hardware differentiation and support of app developers, Android users don’t feel compelled to switch. To get OEMs to build differentiated hardware, Microsoft must lift many of its reasonable WP restrictions and allow for cruft from manufacturers and carriers which will undoubtedly result in a poor user experience, thus ceding its greatest advantage over Android. Despite its restrictions, Microsoft managed to partner with Nokia in one of the company’s best moves. The build quality of the Lumia 800 and upcoming 900 coupled with hardware that works well with WP7 makes for a unified experience out of the box without customized “differentiated” software.
The recent moves made by Microsoft in the OS space harken back to the decisions and strategy that made Windows the leader in the desktop OS space. They are trying to apply the desktop Windows model of a standard OS that at its core is the same on every device and can be installed on any device. The difference here is that an open source Linux-based OS already has traction in the mobile market and the application support is already there for Android though it never matured for desktop Linux. Apple is still Apple with its proprietary hardware and software, but Microsoft, like it did two decades ago, sees the potential for differentiated hardware. To succeed here, Microsoft must use its dominant position in the desktop space to bridge the gap between its operating systems (as we’re already seeing with Windows 8 and its Metro UI) and offer that unified experience across Windows desktops, laptops, tablets, and phones.
