... Android has a few advantages, in that it licensees do not have to pay any fees, and it allows manufacturers to differentiate their phones from other Android devices with custom interfaces. But Android also has no presence on the enterprise market, where Microsoft and its entrenched position with Windows will play to the Redmond, Wash., company's advantage. ...
I wonder when these analysts will finally figure out that the Enterprise market has pretty much no sway over this platform and is essentially irrelevant to it's success?
The Enterprise market is about the desktop. They need to be mobile and will of course use whatever mobile devices are out there, but as long as device a, b, or c, *connects* to the Enterprise backend infrastructure (and all the major player do this), there is nothing about the Enterprise market that will drive sales or adoption.
The new mobile platform is a consumer platform. The most significant difference between these devices and those we had previously is that they draw in users who otherwise wouldn't be in the market. There is no path to success that involves making the ultimate "Enterprise" smartphone. Even RIM knows that, which is why their answer to the iPhone was to create their first (semi) consumer friendly phone.
RIM *owns* the corporate smartphone market and Apple is not taking it away from them. What is going on is that Apple, and now Android are growing the (previously stunted) consumer part of the market, which is about a thousand times larger. All the studies have shown for years now that the growth of this market is due to newcomers. There has to be Enterprise *support* in all smart-phones, but the Enterprise market itself is not going to drive anything. The whole idea is just a misconception based on how the *desktop* market has worked in the past.
"Microsoft has delivered on the necessary condition for success -- a smartphone operating system that should enable it to play in the same sandbox with Apple, Google and BlackBerry,"
No they haven't and they won't until the fall at least.
Indeed.
As with almost every product they make, all they have really done is come out with a technology demo of what their OS *might* look and work like when it finally arrives. Microsoft has a long history of doing this kind of thing, beginning with Windows 1.0.
They announce a vapourware product to stop the competition even as they have no idea if they can actually even make the thing or make it in time. After missing a few launch dates and when people start getting edgy about whether they are being led down the proverbial garden path, they announce a firm date for the product release, but when it's released it's actually a "preview" or a beta, or even an alpha product, which they then rapidly fix based on the howls of discontent from their buyers.
Read the article linked above. It happened with Windows 1.0 just like it happened with Vista and pretty much every other thing they have ever released. This is their standard operating procedure and always has been. Microsoft is a joke IMO.
Show me where WP7 is a copy of the iPhone. From all the videos I've seen, the WP7 OS looks and operates completely differently than the iPhone OS.
Umm, just look at the phone itself. It looks like an iPhone. LOL.
Operates, maybe yes, but overall it's a same thing. How does Microsoft think that people gonna throw their iPhones and get Win7 Phone? There's nothing new or game changing in Win7.
Microsoft should just stick to what they do best. XBox.
Show me where WP7 is a copy of the iPhone. From all the videos I've seen, the WP7 OS looks and operates completely differently than the iPhone OS.
You're asking for the impossible, given that WinPho7s shares absolutely nothing in common with the iPone's endless grid of icons/app/widget launcher posing as a modern GUI.
This whole 'everything copies the iPhone' rhetoric is just another case of mindless spewing of baseless Apple-standard talking points.
As with almost every product they make, all they have really done is come out with a technology demo of what their OS *might* look and work like when it finally arrives. Microsoft has a long history of doing this kind of thing,
not only that. until anyone actually has a real production model WinMo 7 phone to work with, no one knows yet what might be wrong with it and its revamped UI. all they can discuss - as with the iPad too - is its list of features. which are much less important to consumers (most phones do most things anyway) than how easily and consistently it "just works" and makes them satisfied.
the Android Nexus is a perfect example. big hype, glowing reviews, now big flop in sales. it failings only became evident with extended use. and remember the Storm? no?
I think IT loves MS because IT is MS's primary customer, and so MS treats IT much better than they treat you and me. Seems to me that it breaks down like this -- Google's primary customer is advertisers (with Google, you and I are not the customer -- we're the product). Microsoft has two main clients: OEMs and corporate IT. Apple has one client: consumers (aka, "end-users").
So you see, MS only needs to make a product that is just good enough for consumers to be willing to accept it for free (because their company provides it to them). Google has to make a product just barely good enough for consumers to accept it for free (because advertisers pay for it). Only Apple has to make a product good enough that people would actually buy it with their own money.
So if WinMo7 is good enough that end-users will tolerate it if they don't have to pay for it, then MS has crossed the bar with end-users. At that point, all they have to do is convince IT to spring for it, and that won't take much.
Google's problem is that phones aren't free. Either the consumer or an employer is going to have to pay for it. But Google isn't really targeting either one -- Google is focused on advertisers. I think that means that ultimately neither corporate IT nor consumers will be happy with Google phones.
Umm, just look at the phone itself. It looks like an iPhone. LOL.
Operates, maybe yes, but overall it's a same thing. How does Microsoft think that people gonna throw their iPhones and get Win7 Phone? There's nothing new or game changing in Win7.
Microsoft should just stick to what they do best. XBox.
I think you failed to acknowledge the near 90% market share that Microsoft Windows currently enjoys, which shows no signs of diminishing given the overwhelming success of Windows 7.
Umm, just look at the phone itself. It looks like an iPhone. LOL.
Operates, maybe yes, but overall it's a same thing. How does Microsoft think that people gonna throw their iPhones and get Win7 Phone? There's nothing new or game changing in Win7.
Microsoft should just stick to what they do best. XBox.
I did look at the phone. Doesn't look like an iPhone to me. Aside from having a screen and (drumroll please!) buttons. I had this discussion on another thread, but all these devices look like each other because they're all just screens and buttons. The iPhone obviously wasn't the first mobile device in the world (though it seems like you treat it as such). One could argue that the iPhone looks like the iPAQ or HP PocketPCs of old.
"Overall", every OS does the same thing. The iPhone OS does the same thing as older WinMo OS, so does that mean that the iPhone OS is a copy of WinMo? No.
MS does XBox spectacularily and they plan to integrate it into WP7. From the videos I've seen, it looks like they're headed in the right direction for XBox integration. Lets say that they get game studios onboard with WP7 (you'll probably attack me on this assumption ). Having mobile versions/compliments of the XBox games would be a good selling point.
I think IT loves MS because IT is MS's primary customer, and so MS treats IT much better than they treat you and me. Seems to me that it breaks down like this -- Google's primary customer is advertisers (with Google, you and I are not the customer -- we're the product). Microsoft has two main clients: OEMs and corporate IT. Apple has one client: consumers (aka, "end-users").
So you see, MS only needs to make a product that is just good enough for consumers to be willing to accept it for free (because their company provides it to them). Google has to make a product just barely good enough for consumers to accept it for free (because advertisers pay for it). Only Apple has to make a product good enough that people would actually buy it with their own money.
So if WinMo7 is good enough that end-users will tolerate it if they don't have to pay for it, then MS has crossed the bar with end-users. At that point, all they have to do is convince IT to spring for it, and that won't take much.
Google's problem is that phones aren't free. Either the consumer or an employer is going to have to pay for it. But Google isn't really targeting either one -- Google is focused on advertisers. I think that means that ultimately neither corporate IT nor consumers will be happy with Google phones.
Well said, but here comes the however. Nobody gets Microsoft products for free. Now if you're talking only about employees of corporations not paying for them, then I see your point -- but the companies still have to pay someone, whether they pay Apple, or RIM, or some OEM packaging Microsoft's or Google's OS into their phones. It's still a choice, and not an obvious default choice, as it has been for desktop computers, where the standardization argument has won the day for the last 25 years.
I certainly understand the "just good enough" threshold, which has been Microsoft's MO for decades now, but I wonder if the full employment element isn't still at work in the thinking of IT people.
The obvious question is, why does corporate IT still love Microsoft? The obvious answer of a few years ago at least was that their lousy buggy products created full employment for IT professionals. The other was most IT people were MCPs who really didn't know anything else. Is that still true?
To Microsoft's credit they do make some pretty solid server products that integrate well. Apple gets a lot of praise around here for their ecosystem but MS has a pretty tight ecosystem of their own. I use a mix of Unix and Windows servers and I don't have any complaints about the Windows servers for reliability or ease of use. But to answer your question, from my personal experience in dealing with corporate IT, is that midsize companies usually don't have the most talented IT people. If they need to do anything remotely complex they usually hire outside contractors.
Umm, just look at the phone itself. It looks like an iPhone.
In all fairness, I think we're seeing, and will continue to see, a convergence of design in phones. There are only so many ways to make a device that has a multitouch screen, that fits in your hand and your pocket, and that can be held to the ear when not being used with an earpiece. After years of really crappy industrial design in phones, we're finally starting to get to a form-follows-function place.
Unfortunately, firms like Microsoft are still clinging to the idea that a single-use physical button is a good thing. A "Bing button?" Come on. Waste of space.
[CENTER]I think you failed to acknowledge the near 90% market share that Microsoft Windows currently enjoys, which shows no signs of diminishing given the overwhelming success of Windows 7.
[/CENTER]
Well obviously it is declining since it used to be 98% before Mac OSX and Linux. Win 7s sales are not overwhelming but solid for a platform upgrade. Remember, there are still a lot of people on XP let alone Vista who are not going anywhere soon. My 100,000 person company won't upgrade to 7 until everyone has HW that will acceptably run it and they have troubleshot all the corporate Apps which is likely 2-3 years away...
Desktop share is clearly not a determinant of mobile and entertainment device success or why would iPod be so dominant and everything but WinMo be 90%+ of the mobile market?
WinMo 7 may or may not be the bees knees but your logic clearly isn't.
Well obviously it is declining since it used to be 98% before Mac OSX and Linux. Win 7s sales are not overwhelming but solid for a platform upgrade. Remember, there are still a lot of people on XP let alone Vista who are not going anywhere soon. My 100,000 person company won't upgrade to 7 until everyone has HW that will acceptably run it and they have troubleshot all the corporate Apps which is likely 2-3 years away...
Desktop share is clearly not a determinant of mobile and entertainment device success or why would iPod be so dominant and everything but WinMo be 90%+ of the mobile market?
WinMo 7 may or may not be the bees knees but your logic clearly isn't.
DaHarders reply was to the poster who said that the ONLY thing MS did well was the Xbox.
The point is, if that were true, then MS would not have 90% of the desktop market.
It's because MS has incredible sway over corporate IT. You just can't ignore or underestimate that. IT *loves* MS. All MS has to do is create a phone that won't cause users to revolt, and they'll sell a ton of them to corporations.
"We've frequently criticized Microsoft's inept efforts in delivering a user-friendly smartphone operating system. Such criticisms are now in the past."
Both comments say.... Microsoft will make a phone that does not SUCK SO BADLEY.... and so it will be a success.
LOL, ROFLOL..... Oh yea of such great faith. I say use that faith and buy Microsoft stock. Its such a great company after all.....
Is there a link to the original report anywhere? I don't see it linked from AI's article at all.
On the subject of Android vs. Windows Phone, if I was running one of the large phone manufacturers then I would choose Android without a second thought. The license fee for Windows Mobile is currently around $15 per unit. If you're looking to play with the big boys then your aim must be to sell 50-100 million smartphones per year. Who wants to be paying Microsoft $1.5bil in license fees a year when the competition is arguably better and free? OK, so Microsoft probably throws in some free support but I doubt it's anywhere near enough to off-set the cost of the licenses.
As smartphone sales explode even further, that license fee is only going to be a bigger and bigger obstacle.
Well said, but here comes the however. Nobody gets Microsoft products for free. Now if you're talking only about employees of corporations not paying for them, then I see your point -- but the companies still have to pay someone, whether they pay Apple, or RIM, or some OEM packaging Microsoft's or Google's OS into their phones. It's still a choice, and not an obvious default choice, as it has been for desktop computers, where the standardization argument has won the day for the last 25 years.
I certainly understand the "just good enough" threshold, which has been Microsoft's MO for decades now, but I wonder if the full employment element isn't still at work in the thinking of IT people.
Yeah, I agree that clearly someone has to pay. My point is that corporate IT is willing to pay Microsoft, because Microsoft really does cater to them. I am no fan of MS, but I have to admit that they do pay much more attention to the needs of IT than Apple does. Basically, MS can say to IT -- here's a phone that fits in perfectly with all of your other MS-based infrastructure ("ecosystem", if you will). Maybe that's true, maybe it's not, but just as Apple's brand carries a lot of weight with consumers, MS's brand carries a lot of weight with corporate IT guys.
And while I'm sympathetic to the idea that IT likes MS because it creates more work for IT, I really do think we have to acknowledge that MS really has done more to cater to that market than Apple has. It's hard to get too excited about buying from a company that isn't interested in your business, and that has been Apple's attitude towards corporate IT for a long time. And let's also remember that a lot of IT people just don't know anything about Apple products, so for them there would be a learning curve.
The bottom line is that corporate IT most likely is willing to pay for WinMo phones. So all MS has to do is make a phone that end-users will accept "for free" (meaning, their company pays) because the company will be willing to pay.
Google's problem is that they need to figure out a way to give phones away for free to everyone. Maybe they will eventually figure out how to do that, but it hasn't happened yet.
Comments
... Android has a few advantages, in that it licensees do not have to pay any fees, and it allows manufacturers to differentiate their phones from other Android devices with custom interfaces. But Android also has no presence on the enterprise market, where Microsoft and its entrenched position with Windows will play to the Redmond, Wash., company's advantage. ...
I wonder when these analysts will finally figure out that the Enterprise market has pretty much no sway over this platform and is essentially irrelevant to it's success?
The Enterprise market is about the desktop. They need to be mobile and will of course use whatever mobile devices are out there, but as long as device a, b, or c, *connects* to the Enterprise backend infrastructure (and all the major player do this), there is nothing about the Enterprise market that will drive sales or adoption.
The new mobile platform is a consumer platform. The most significant difference between these devices and those we had previously is that they draw in users who otherwise wouldn't be in the market. There is no path to success that involves making the ultimate "Enterprise" smartphone. Even RIM knows that, which is why their answer to the iPhone was to create their first (semi) consumer friendly phone.
RIM *owns* the corporate smartphone market and Apple is not taking it away from them. What is going on is that Apple, and now Android are growing the (previously stunted) consumer part of the market, which is about a thousand times larger. All the studies have shown for years now that the growth of this market is due to newcomers. There has to be Enterprise *support* in all smart-phones, but the Enterprise market itself is not going to drive anything. The whole idea is just a misconception based on how the *desktop* market has worked in the past.
The past is the past. Future is now.
"Microsoft has delivered on the necessary condition for success -- a smartphone operating system that should enable it to play in the same sandbox with Apple, Google and BlackBerry,"
No they haven't and they won't until the fall at least.
Indeed.
As with almost every product they make, all they have really done is come out with a technology demo of what their OS *might* look and work like when it finally arrives. Microsoft has a long history of doing this kind of thing, beginning with Windows 1.0.
They announce a vapourware product to stop the competition even as they have no idea if they can actually even make the thing or make it in time. After missing a few launch dates and when people start getting edgy about whether they are being led down the proverbial garden path, they announce a firm date for the product release, but when it's released it's actually a "preview" or a beta, or even an alpha product, which they then rapidly fix based on the howls of discontent from their buyers.
Read the article linked above. It happened with Windows 1.0 just like it happened with Vista and pretty much every other thing they have ever released. This is their standard operating procedure and always has been. Microsoft is a joke IMO.
Show me where WP7 is a copy of the iPhone. From all the videos I've seen, the WP7 OS looks and operates completely differently than the iPhone OS.
Umm, just look at the phone itself. It looks like an iPhone. LOL.
Operates, maybe yes, but overall it's a same thing. How does Microsoft think that people gonna throw their iPhones and get Win7 Phone? There's nothing new or game changing in Win7.
Microsoft should just stick to what they do best. XBox.
Show me where WP7 is a copy of the iPhone. From all the videos I've seen, the WP7 OS looks and operates completely differently than the iPhone OS.
You're asking for the impossible, given that WinPho7s shares absolutely nothing in common with the iPone's endless grid of icons/app/widget launcher posing as a modern GUI.
This whole 'everything copies the iPhone' rhetoric is just another case of mindless spewing of baseless Apple-standard talking points.
End of Story
Indeed.
As with almost every product they make, all they have really done is come out with a technology demo of what their OS *might* look and work like when it finally arrives. Microsoft has a long history of doing this kind of thing,
not only that. until anyone actually has a real production model WinMo 7 phone to work with, no one knows yet what might be wrong with it and its revamped UI. all they can discuss - as with the iPad too - is its list of features. which are much less important to consumers (most phones do most things anyway) than how easily and consistently it "just works" and makes them satisfied.
the Android Nexus is a perfect example. big hype, glowing reviews, now big flop in sales. it failings only became evident with extended use. and remember the Storm? no?
stagnant sales? Where's igenius?
lol
*
98% growth! GREAT GOOGLY MOOGLY.
Very impressive.
Many said very similar things about the Madoff numbers for almost two decades..
I think IT loves MS because IT is MS's primary customer, and so MS treats IT much better than they treat you and me. Seems to me that it breaks down like this -- Google's primary customer is advertisers (with Google, you and I are not the customer -- we're the product). Microsoft has two main clients: OEMs and corporate IT. Apple has one client: consumers (aka, "end-users").
So you see, MS only needs to make a product that is just good enough for consumers to be willing to accept it for free (because their company provides it to them). Google has to make a product just barely good enough for consumers to accept it for free (because advertisers pay for it). Only Apple has to make a product good enough that people would actually buy it with their own money.
So if WinMo7 is good enough that end-users will tolerate it if they don't have to pay for it, then MS has crossed the bar with end-users. At that point, all they have to do is convince IT to spring for it, and that won't take much.
Google's problem is that phones aren't free. Either the consumer or an employer is going to have to pay for it. But Google isn't really targeting either one -- Google is focused on advertisers. I think that means that ultimately neither corporate IT nor consumers will be happy with Google phones.
This is incredibly insightful.
+1
What a great post...
Umm, just look at the phone itself. It looks like an iPhone. LOL.
Operates, maybe yes, but overall it's a same thing. How does Microsoft think that people gonna throw their iPhones and get Win7 Phone? There's nothing new or game changing in Win7.
Microsoft should just stick to what they do best. XBox.
I think you failed to acknowledge the near 90% market share that Microsoft Windows currently enjoys, which shows no signs of diminishing given the overwhelming success of Windows 7.
What is 98% growth in comparison with 150% growth, huh?
During last 3 months the market share of Android increased by 150%, from 2.8% to 7.1%
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events...r_Market_Share
Gee... I guess the iPhone had a bazillion percent YOY, QOQ, MOM, WOW, DOD, HOH, mom, sos growth if you measure in July 2007.
C'mon... let's be realistic!
*
Umm, just look at the phone itself. It looks like an iPhone. LOL.
Operates, maybe yes, but overall it's a same thing. How does Microsoft think that people gonna throw their iPhones and get Win7 Phone? There's nothing new or game changing in Win7.
Microsoft should just stick to what they do best. XBox.
I did look at the phone. Doesn't look like an iPhone to me. Aside from having a screen and (drumroll please!) buttons. I had this discussion on another thread, but all these devices look like each other because they're all just screens and buttons. The iPhone obviously wasn't the first mobile device in the world (though it seems like you treat it as such). One could argue that the iPhone looks like the iPAQ or HP PocketPCs of old.
"Overall", every OS does the same thing. The iPhone OS does the same thing as older WinMo OS, so does that mean that the iPhone OS is a copy of WinMo? No.
MS does XBox spectacularily and they plan to integrate it into WP7. From the videos I've seen, it looks like they're headed in the right direction for XBox integration. Lets say that they get game studios onboard with WP7 (you'll probably attack me on this assumption
I think IT loves MS because IT is MS's primary customer, and so MS treats IT much better than they treat you and me. Seems to me that it breaks down like this -- Google's primary customer is advertisers (with Google, you and I are not the customer -- we're the product). Microsoft has two main clients: OEMs and corporate IT. Apple has one client: consumers (aka, "end-users").
So you see, MS only needs to make a product that is just good enough for consumers to be willing to accept it for free (because their company provides it to them). Google has to make a product just barely good enough for consumers to accept it for free (because advertisers pay for it). Only Apple has to make a product good enough that people would actually buy it with their own money.
So if WinMo7 is good enough that end-users will tolerate it if they don't have to pay for it, then MS has crossed the bar with end-users. At that point, all they have to do is convince IT to spring for it, and that won't take much.
Google's problem is that phones aren't free. Either the consumer or an employer is going to have to pay for it. But Google isn't really targeting either one -- Google is focused on advertisers. I think that means that ultimately neither corporate IT nor consumers will be happy with Google phones.
Well said, but here comes the however. Nobody gets Microsoft products for free. Now if you're talking only about employees of corporations not paying for them, then I see your point -- but the companies still have to pay someone, whether they pay Apple, or RIM, or some OEM packaging Microsoft's or Google's OS into their phones. It's still a choice, and not an obvious default choice, as it has been for desktop computers, where the standardization argument has won the day for the last 25 years.
I certainly understand the "just good enough" threshold, which has been Microsoft's MO for decades now, but I wonder if the full employment element isn't still at work in the thinking of IT people.
This is incredibly insightful.
+1
What a great post...
Agree. +2
The obvious question is, why does corporate IT still love Microsoft? The obvious answer of a few years ago at least was that their lousy buggy products created full employment for IT professionals. The other was most IT people were MCPs who really didn't know anything else. Is that still true?
To Microsoft's credit they do make some pretty solid server products that integrate well. Apple gets a lot of praise around here for their ecosystem but MS has a pretty tight ecosystem of their own. I use a mix of Unix and Windows servers and I don't have any complaints about the Windows servers for reliability or ease of use. But to answer your question, from my personal experience in dealing with corporate IT, is that midsize companies usually don't have the most talented IT people. If they need to do anything remotely complex they usually hire outside contractors.
Umm, just look at the phone itself. It looks like an iPhone.
In all fairness, I think we're seeing, and will continue to see, a convergence of design in phones. There are only so many ways to make a device that has a multitouch screen, that fits in your hand and your pocket, and that can be held to the ear when not being used with an earpiece. After years of really crappy industrial design in phones, we're finally starting to get to a form-follows-function place.
Unfortunately, firms like Microsoft are still clinging to the idea that a single-use physical button is a good thing. A "Bing button?" Come on. Waste of space.
[CENTER]I think you failed to acknowledge the near 90% market share that Microsoft Windows currently enjoys, which shows no signs of diminishing given the overwhelming success of Windows 7.
Well obviously it is declining since it used to be 98% before Mac OSX and Linux. Win 7s sales are not overwhelming but solid for a platform upgrade. Remember, there are still a lot of people on XP let alone Vista who are not going anywhere soon. My 100,000 person company won't upgrade to 7 until everyone has HW that will acceptably run it and they have troubleshot all the corporate Apps which is likely 2-3 years away...
Desktop share is clearly not a determinant of mobile and entertainment device success or why would iPod be so dominant and everything but WinMo be 90%+ of the mobile market?
WinMo 7 may or may not be the bees knees but your logic clearly isn't.
Well obviously it is declining since it used to be 98% before Mac OSX and Linux. Win 7s sales are not overwhelming but solid for a platform upgrade. Remember, there are still a lot of people on XP let alone Vista who are not going anywhere soon. My 100,000 person company won't upgrade to 7 until everyone has HW that will acceptably run it and they have troubleshot all the corporate Apps which is likely 2-3 years away...
Desktop share is clearly not a determinant of mobile and entertainment device success or why would iPod be so dominant and everything but WinMo be 90%+ of the mobile market?
WinMo 7 may or may not be the bees knees but your logic clearly isn't.
DaHarders reply was to the poster who said that the ONLY thing MS did well was the Xbox.
The point is, if that were true, then MS would not have 90% of the desktop market.
It's because MS has incredible sway over corporate IT. You just can't ignore or underestimate that. IT *loves* MS. All MS has to do is create a phone that won't cause users to revolt, and they'll sell a ton of them to corporations.
"We've frequently criticized Microsoft's inept efforts in delivering a user-friendly smartphone operating system. Such criticisms are now in the past."
Both comments say.... Microsoft will make a phone that does not SUCK SO BADLEY.... and so it will be a success.
LOL, ROFLOL..... Oh yea of such great faith. I say use that faith and buy Microsoft stock. Its such a great company after all.....
Just a thought,
en
On the subject of Android vs. Windows Phone, if I was running one of the large phone manufacturers then I would choose Android without a second thought. The license fee for Windows Mobile is currently around $15 per unit. If you're looking to play with the big boys then your aim must be to sell 50-100 million smartphones per year. Who wants to be paying Microsoft $1.5bil in license fees a year when the competition is arguably better and free? OK, so Microsoft probably throws in some free support but I doubt it's anywhere near enough to off-set the cost of the licenses.
As smartphone sales explode even further, that license fee is only going to be a bigger and bigger obstacle.
Well said, but here comes the however. Nobody gets Microsoft products for free. Now if you're talking only about employees of corporations not paying for them, then I see your point -- but the companies still have to pay someone, whether they pay Apple, or RIM, or some OEM packaging Microsoft's or Google's OS into their phones. It's still a choice, and not an obvious default choice, as it has been for desktop computers, where the standardization argument has won the day for the last 25 years.
I certainly understand the "just good enough" threshold, which has been Microsoft's MO for decades now, but I wonder if the full employment element isn't still at work in the thinking of IT people.
Yeah, I agree that clearly someone has to pay. My point is that corporate IT is willing to pay Microsoft, because Microsoft really does cater to them. I am no fan of MS, but I have to admit that they do pay much more attention to the needs of IT than Apple does. Basically, MS can say to IT -- here's a phone that fits in perfectly with all of your other MS-based infrastructure ("ecosystem", if you will). Maybe that's true, maybe it's not, but just as Apple's brand carries a lot of weight with consumers, MS's brand carries a lot of weight with corporate IT guys.
And while I'm sympathetic to the idea that IT likes MS because it creates more work for IT, I really do think we have to acknowledge that MS really has done more to cater to that market than Apple has. It's hard to get too excited about buying from a company that isn't interested in your business, and that has been Apple's attitude towards corporate IT for a long time. And let's also remember that a lot of IT people just don't know anything about Apple products, so for them there would be a learning curve.
The bottom line is that corporate IT most likely is willing to pay for WinMo phones. So all MS has to do is make a phone that end-users will accept "for free" (meaning, their company pays) because the company will be willing to pay.
Google's problem is that they need to figure out a way to give phones away for free to everyone. Maybe they will eventually figure out how to do that, but it hasn't happened yet.