Is Windows Phone Dead?
thurrott.com
thurrott.com
I use a Windows desktop and I constantly find myself wondering: "what am I paying MS for?". I personally like to use Word (even though it's too bloated for my needs), but clients ask for work to be in Google Docs so they can share and comment better.
My Windows experience is now largely limited to opening Chrome and doing virtually everything in it. I might open up Notepad from time to time to make a quick few notes. But that's mostly out of habit, not necessity.
Don't say "but I code on it". If you're a coder, you're already a specialized use case.
The majority of the world simply doesn't need a bloated Windows OS to run their browsers.
I'd be shorting Microsoft if I were an investor.
P.S.: I was also an early Windows Phone user because I loved the UI (still the best in the business IMO). I dumped the phone after 1 year when it constantly crashed on me (Nokia Lumia 720), had terrible apps, and didn't have half the features of my friends' iPhones and Androids. It got a notification center just about two years ago. And I still can't find apps on the marketplace that aren't cheap clones.
No. It is not. Windows still sells millions of computers and everyone uses it, from households to corporations. It's here to stay for a very long time.
Microsoft has built a good and cheap platform for workplaces PCs and households, that's the reality. The only two real alternatives I can see right now are OS X and some well supported GNU/Linux distros like Ubuntu/Red Hat/Suse, and both have their own disadvantages (the former a significant higher cost in hardware, the latter a lack of commonly used pro software like MS Office, Adobe programs, AutoCAD and other specialized software...)
If you want to call it 'Windows is in decline' instead of 'Windows is dying', sure, we can call it that instead.
...but it's effectively the same thing. Don't bet on this platform; it's not the future. Sure, it'll still be around for the foreseeable future, but you win when you bet on things that experience year-over-year growth, not year-over-year decline.
You can call the growth-hackers nasty names if you want, but its undeniable that there's a strong correlation between growth and success.
My bet? Microsoft won't fail. They'll find other things (services in the cloud perhaps) to grow; but windows will consistently decline over time while it fails to gain traction in the mobile space. /shrug
(1) http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3026217 "Gartner Says Worldwide PC Shipments Declined 5.2 Percent in First Quarter of 2015"
Sure you can run Linux services on azure, but windows services are nicely integrated.
Combined with erosion of pricing power, OS licensing isn't the glorious business it used to be for Microsoft (it's still worth billions of dollars though).
Well, we could argue about it, but how about you go and read the Intel Q1 2015 earnings statement(2), have a think about how daft those guys must have been to have missed the obvious short term decline in sales leading up to the Windows 10 launch.
...but hey, don't take my word for it. There are plenty of other 5 year forecasts out there; just pick up a few and do some background reading.
(2) http://www.intc.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=906520 "Year-over-year revenues were flat, with double-digit revenue growth in the data center, IoT and memory businesses offsetting lower than expected demand for business desktop PCs," said Intel CEO Brian Krzanich. "These results reinforce the importance of continuing to execute our growth strategy. "
People who actually need their computer to do things other than play Angry Birds are not going to be satisfied living in a walled garden.
I'm curious what you are thinking is going to beat it? OS X? What system do you think most businesses will be using in 10 years?
As if what computers some boring bank, insurance company or sausage making company uses is something to care about...
iOS and Android are basically toys compared to Windows and next to nobody is using OS X, so what's your prediction?
Depends if in "nobody" you include: almost every student in a modern US university, almost the majority of top-tier programmers in any programming convention (from Java to Rails and from Python to C++ and Go), almost all creatives (designers, musicians and video editors), and almost all business executives.
Of course that's for the US. Finland and Kazakstan might differ.
I am not sure that is limited to Windows exactly, but could be applied to almost any desktop OS. There is plenty of excellent native software on desktop machines that are streaks ahead of anything in a web app. But the problem is that they are difficult to find and install.
I would be hesitant to recommend Paint.net to a non-technical user because they would probably end up installing malware by accident. So I suggest they buy a tablet, or use a web app; but neither products are actually better. The user ends up with an inferior product that gives them less freedom, and subjects them to the indignity of app stores and monthly subscriptions.
You've identified a key issue though which if that Unity sucks and on the verge of PC users as a whole considering Linux distributions as a contender in a 3-way choice Ubuntu is rapidly becoming equal to Linux in the public eye. Not sure what we can do about it though.
Also, because of this, the gpu driver situation is still very unfair, performance related, if we compare windows drivers to linux drivers. Maybe only Intel give both of them the same attention
Unless you're a microsoft shop that's not necessarily the case. We have windows boxes which are only there so we can compile for MS targets. If there was a way to cross-compile we wouldn't need them. As it is we manage to survive in a bubble created by cygwin. I think marketing uses windows boxes though.
Pretty much the same thing what most average Joes pay for: "convenience of familiarity" and "support". Averaged, most people around the world grew up with Windows. Heck even in third world countries and remotest part of the world, people are more familiar with Windows (a commercial product) than Linux (a zero cost free product). Windows given its monopoly also has a better support for programs and drivers. Keep in mind people do tend to look at desktop the same way you look at mobile: "Windows phone - had terrible apps, and didn't have half the features of my friends' iPhones and Androids."
There is also another thing, the true cost of Windows is hidden within the price of the hardware. When you purchase a laptop or commercial desktop, you dont pickup a cd for Windows or pay for it separately at the checkout. Thus for most people Windows is technically "free".
Sure I can install Linux on my gf's computer but most likely she wouldn't let me since its not worth her time to relearn an entire new operating system. It is the same argument with console gaming vs pc gaming. For some people, even if it means missing out on a better gaming experience, they just want to sit down and not fiddle with things. And that is with my gf who is my generation, I can't even begin to imagine the horror of installing a different OS for my parents and constantly being phoned to walk them through trivial tasks.
> I dumped the phone after 1 year when it constantly crashed on me (Nokia Lumia 720),
I had quiet the opposite experience, Windows phone seemed to crash the least on me. I found it to be more fluid OS than anything else I have tried.
As for the desktop, I've got the following things open on it: firefox, thunderbird, PuTTY, Libreoffice Sheet, KeepassX, vim and virtualbox running Debian.
Even my day job which is slaving for a Microsoft partner is moving away from their stuff. We're already on VMware ESX rather than Hyper-V, we're moving to AWS, adopting node.js and we already have a pile of Linux infrastructure floating around. A few years ago it was just propping us up but now it's actually delivering the core value for the company. We're also dumping Office 365 after only a year of subscriptions because it's a pile of shit (forefront letting stuff through, outlook sync is incredibly unreliable and the disaster that is Lync) and the euro position means a price rise. Plus over time, a VLK office license works out cheaper. But then again, do you need Office? Not really.
And the final killer: we're getting completely gouged over and over again. Every time someone writes of several billion on shit investments, us enterprise customers get shafted to make up the numbers. Our SQL 2014 upgrade was stupid amounts of pain and money, so we're looking elsewhere. Postgresql is already on the cards to replace a chunk of our Web API service back ends, then they move to node, then they move to Linux.
So when they "listen to the customer" what do we get? We get a pay pay pay app ecosystem that they fucked up the first time and the second time looks like a disaster, a bunch of cloud services that are completely non portable, a pile of devices which we no longer control and a bunch of backpedalling over their previous "open source is evil" attitude.
There's just no reason now. They're a total fuck up of a company.
What are you switching to? We just decided to go with Office 365 because it provided a much nicer interface for our users than Roundcube/Squirrelmail/etc.
I do have some minor complaints, there have been a few times that they are slow to send or receive emails (like hours slow) but overall it works quite well.
Google Apps is out because the company doesn't trust Google, so what are the alternatives for a mail service with a great web interface?
"quite well" isn't an option for us. We need something reliable. We have had exactly that experience; things disappearing for hours at a time.
There are absolutely no mail services with good web interface. This is the problem. We really want standard bits of glue that work across the board so we're looking at CalDAV, CardDAV and IMAP separately all using OpenLDAP SSO. Sharepoint is already canned; we ended up using Atlassian Confluence as we're already a JIRA user.
The original plans for dotNet were "applications as a service" in 1999 and what is known as their "Azure" cloud service platform is heading the same direction (like the plans about AD in 1994) too.
But when we look at our organisation, all we need is simple SSO for a few applications. We don't actually need all of the extensions like GPO, management tooling etc. Incidentally this becomes cost and noise.
People have moved what services they can over to mobile and tablet computers, but offline word processing and full-screen browsing are not going away.
People do identify software and hardware problems when using Windows, but never phrase or recognise them as an Operating System problem or as a criticism of Windows. "Why doesn't X make more effort to work with Windows?" is about as close as you'll get.
In the long run subscription fees are higher for end users and business than traditional software - just compare Office365 and Adobe Creative Suite 6 to Office 2013 and Creative Suite 5 over a common 3+ year lifecycle.
Microsoft's transforms Windows to Windows as a subscription service, similar to Adobe's Creative Suite 6. Only the "Windows 10 LTSB" edition (Long Term Servicing Branch) is similar to what we got with Windows up to version 8, the other editions cannot deactivate the automatic feature upgrades. https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev... and https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj612867.aspx?lc...
I've been an Office (for Mac) buyer for the last few versions but the new pricing for Office 2015 is making think twice about continuing this practice. AFAIK, the 3-licenses pack has been abandoned and a single license will be in the same price range.
Subscription pricing is indeed not much cheaper (if at all) and give that feeling you're regularly paying for something you rarely use. And outside of corporate environments, I don't know anyone who uses Office apps more than just occasionally.
If Microsoft is trying to make its users look for alternatives, they might just succeed...
When you need it, Windows, OS X, or Linux is great, but for a lot of work (and play), something like a Chromebook or an iPad meets a lot of needs, and I would argue more securely.
You can alwayws get a Mac or install Linux.
But 70% of the world's population wont do either in the next 10-20 years.
Oh, the people use mobile argument...right. Great consumption devices. Love my iPad...still need a desktop.
Basically, until something comes along to fill the void where 80% of people just want a cheap desktop, and not a premium brand, I think Windows won't be classified as dying.
Should we discuss the computer that people use when they show up at work. Nah. Surely you understand by now.
Back in reality, the majority of businesses need Windows for their operations because a sorely limited mobile or Apple OS just doesn't cut it.
> No one is even afraid of Microsoft anymore. They still make a lot of money—so does IBM, for that matter. But they're not dangerous.
I installed the latest Visual Studio. I think it installed about 30 applications and sprayed over 15GB of files all over my HDD. That's a pretty nasty environment. I'd rather use Android Studio from IntelliJ.
That's why I would like Xamarin Forms to improve, it uses the same XAML/MVVM/C# setup that Windows Phone does, and is a joy to work with. It's just very limited at the moment.
Outside of US? Ya it was as alive as alive could be especially in Europe and Asia. I was flooded with constant adverts on TV and a good chunk of people did indeed a Windows Phone.
I'm primarily a MS stack dev (former MS). I hear these same old MS is dying rants every few years. I don't see things going away, let alone changing anytime soon. In a few years from now their market share (desktop) may be a few percentage points lower and cynics will continue to rant. I enjoy working on the Azure/Windows platform. Most issues I've had were self inflicted.
The Windows Phone OS problem is that they are playing catch up, it has come a long way in a short time which has hurt App developers. But given another couple of years of stability and I think it will be on par with iOS8 and Android 5.1.
Microsoft is just lowering its overheads whilst it matures the platform. By the time we get Windows 11, they'll ramp up for a big push to ISV's.
I get that MS is in a tough spot. They need the apps to gain traction, but they need traction to get apps. If they'd been faster out of the gate catching up with iphone the market might have split threeways, but by now it's an entrenched duopoly and no new entrant can make a difference. I still think windows phone is better phone OS than iOS or android, but at this point the quality doesn't matter. See also: webOS, FirefoxOS.
Long story short, i think MS is doing everything they can to make the platform work for developers (excellent tools, easy porting from iOS and android, universal apps), but it's just too late. They were there before iphone (windows mobile), but they didn't innovate fast enough when the iphone happened, and now it's too late.
All evidence suggests that apps do not influence which phone a user buys. Users install less than 1 app per month. Windows Phone is unsuccessful for other reasons.
Windows Phone isn't only unsuccessful because of the lack of significant applications, but acting like it isn't a major factor is just being wilfully blind to reality. Microsoft can't just endlessly throw money at the problem. They can't buy their way into popularity if there is no organic momentum that follows, and there isn't.
Windows Phone overall fails to make a compelling argument. But having backseat YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and Twitter clients and no SnapChat or other similarly flourishing services until it's so late nobody cares anymore is a substantial disadvantage.
Finally, that statistic you chose to offer is almost irrelevant. I probably install less than one app a month on my Macs, but that doesn't mean the apps I've already installed aren't extremely important to me. Just because people aren't constantly hunting for new apps doesn't mean they don't use the ones they have.
By that measure, the fact that I've only installed one password manager in five years means I don't like or use password managers. Quite the contrary, it just means I love 1Password and use it every day.
As if WP stats aren't dominated by cheap $0 phones that are also purchased and used as dumbphones and in the case of WP more so because of the lack of apps for the platform.
I hope you realize that the second sentence does not serve as evidence for the first, at all.
WP 8.1 improved the situation with the shared code and PCLs, but it still required two code bases for the UI.
Also forcing everyone to write code for handling application state that should be part of WinRT didn't help.
On my case, I got a Lumia 630 to play around with C++/CX, thinking about the good old C++ Builder days, but even with WP 8.1 UAP, one gets fed up to write something multiple times for the same OS.
Also any half-decent mobile phone developer should know two, maybe three platforms to reach a decent sized audience.
I'm waiting for this handset to be paid off and grabbing a cheap android (Moto G or something)
Edit: Actually sod it I'm going to buy a dumbphone. I just did a 30 second reflection on my mobile device experience over the last decade and it hasn't even touched circa 1998 desktop software yet. I've had every platform and its just a cash sink and privacy nightmare.
Edit 2: Rereading the article actually hs killed the handset for me. I know with stuff like this on the table in the near future my handset is going to be worth nothing so I just did a BIN on the last dumbphone I had on ebay (Nokia 3510i) and will shift this quickly before it depreciates to nothing.
And Lumia 5 series are selling like hotcakes in poor countries. Windows Phone OS is smooth and fast on low-end even compared to iOS.
(I'm not a MS fan, OS X is my desktop.)