Microsoft makes hardware and has done so for years. It makes the XBox and numerous computer peripherals. Moreover, Oprah an acknowledged Apple fan just made the Surface one of her favorite things.
So, Nokia has great hardware, and Microsoft's OS is pretty good. I'd take an Windows Phone over Android. We are seeing what happens when Microsoft has to compete fairly. In the PC market, Microsoft was essentially handed IBM's market.
Microsoft's problem now is 1) small application store, 2) lack of partners willing to support the OS, and 3) it doesn't control the retail experience. All this is ironic because Microsoft used to tell people to buy Windows over Macs because of the lack of applications. Sales people used to push people to Windows machines for the same reason. It is going to cost Microsoft a lot of money to gain ground unless it can start exploiting some other assets it has like the XBox.
Microsoft also seems to be under the impression people actually liked Windows as opposed to put up with it. They should have kept Metro as the products name or came up with something better.
I don't disagree with your analysis, but you left out a major part of Microsoft's problems in getting acceptance for these products is that they're now competing with their OEMs. It's one thing to license the OS from Microsoft. It's another thing to do so when Microsoft is competing with you. Google is facing the same problem, btw, which will likely account for even greater fragmentation of Android (a la Kindle).
Interesting. Much like with the Surface being made "In House" this move makes sense for Microsoft.
Unfortunately for them it's about 6 years too late. Apple's iPhone blew on by everybody even as Baldmer was pooh-poohing it right after launch. With Androids flooding their filth on the market Microsoft is destined to be a niche player in the smartphone market. RIM is dead and so is Nokia.
Microsoft makes hardware and has done so for years. It makes the XBox and numerous computer peripherals. Moreover, Oprah an acknowledged Apple fan just made the Surface one of her favorite things....
I think you're twisting and spinning this waaay to hard. I don't see any reason to really believe you at all.
Microsoft has experience making mice and keyboards and they didn't even jump into those markets with both feet until they were reasonably mature. Also, almost the entire "design" of those products is in the shape of the plastic housing. This is nothing like saying that Microsoft has computer or phone manufacturing experience. The Xbox, which everyone points to for Microsoft's hardware "cred" is famous for being possibly the worst quality manufacturing job in the entire history of computers.
And Oprah? Seriously? Do I really have to even get into why Oprah thinking the Surface is great is completely irrelevant?
Have you actually tried to use a Surface RT? I have and I'm not impressed at all by the hardware. It's an awful design for a tablet and not that well put together. The one I have been using got a gigantic, highly noticeable scratch across the back within an hour of being out of the box. The touch screen is "iffy" and the gyroscope takes like 5 or 10 seconds to realise you've rotated the device.
Considering that the number of Android models available far outstrips the number of iPhone models then that's pretty impressive.
I'm more amazed at the unique "activation" numbers for Android OS (not a fork) Google claims compared to iOS usage numbers across the net.
Where are these devices being used if not online?
Some will claim that people are changing their browsers to say they are iPhones (which sounds like complete BS to me); my hypothesis is most Android devices are really the new "feature phones".
I'm more amazed at the unique "activation" numbers for Android OS (not a fork) Google claims compared to iOS usage numbers across the net.
Where are these devices being used if not online?
Some will claim that people are changing their browsers to say they are iPhones (which sounds like complete BS to me);
I agree, I don't know how it's a defensible suggestion. Just because the browser string can be easily changed doesn't mean it's actually being done by large numbers of people. I don't believe a lot of people even know about the feature, much less have any desire to do so.
my hypothesis is most Android devices are really the new "feature phones".
Can you get an Android phone without a data plan? I've always had the impression that you're getting a data plan, unless you try ridiculously hard to avoid it.
It would be nice to see a reasonable explanation as to why Android doesn't show up well on some of these web usage stats.
Check actual usage stats. Where are all these Android phones being used?
The thing about usage stats is that they only measure one metric, web browsing. With many lower tier cellular provider the data speeds are not that great and people who have the lower end Android phones are perhaps not that interested in reading web pages. They play games, txt, and call friends, but those stats are not calculated.
Really? Usage means actually in use. Apple phones, while "40%" of the market, are 75% of the phones actually in use. Apple tablets, while "60%" of the market, are 95% of the tablets actually in use.
Really? Usage means actually in use. Apple phones, while "40%" of the market, are 75% of the phones actually in use. Apple tablets, while "60%" of the market, are 95% of the tablets actually in use.
I don't think you can really quantify it in that way. The web stat companies only have selected websites that they monitor. If for example 99% of Kindle Fire users only visit the Amazon web pages, the stat companies would not have access to that information. Likewise Google doesn't give the stat companies any access to Google pages either which might represent a large part of Android usage. Both of those brands have substantial ecosystems outside of the third party stat gathering company's realm. The fact that their is such a large discrepancy between activation ratios and usage ratios indicates there is some other factor involved that can't be easily measured. I would have a difficult time believing people buy Android smartphones to just throw them in a drawer and not use them. There has to be another explanation.
I don't think you can really quantify it in that way. The web stat companies only have selected websites that they monitor. If for example 99% of Kindle Fire users only visit the Amazon web pages, the stat companies would not have access to that information. Likewise Google doesn't give the stat companies any access to Google pages either which might represent a large part of Android usage. Both of those brands have substantial ecosystems outside of the third party stat gathering company's realm. The fact that their is such a large discrepancy between activation ratios and usage ratios indicates there is some other factor involved that can't be easily measured. I would have a difficult time believing people buy Android smartphones to just throw them in a drawer and not use them. There has to be another explanation.
I agree there has to be another explanation, but I don't think that explanation accounts for so much of it. Google is good for services, but not web content. You can go to Google News to see headlines and a summary line, but if you want to read the story, you need to click the link to the content host's site.
You get the stats from the site from its hit log, which you get with an agreement with the site. If an Android device accesses a web page, then that web site records that. Amazon's platform is a bit fuzzy, it's more accurate to call it Android-ish, and I doubt Amazon is sharing that info with Google anyway, I don't think Google is counting Kindle devices in its activations. Google offers a lot of services, but I don't see why Android users aren't visiting sites outside of Google.
You get the stats from the site from its hit log. If an Android device accesses a web page, then that web site knows that. Amazon's platform is a bit fuzzy, it's more accurate to call it Android-ish, and I doubt Amazon is sharing that info with Google anyway.
That is precisely what I am referring to. The stat analysis company has to have a script in the code of the website being accessed that sends the hit count to them. Otherwise the hits go undetected because anonymous websites don't just upload their web logs. All the major sites are very private about the data they are collecting so the third party stat companies have no data from the big sites.
But if Windows Phone 8 continues to struggle, the company could decide to [sic] its own hardware, in an effort to spur sales.
Because Microsoft's new business model is to sell their own hardware at a loss (original Xbox, first years of Xbox 360, Zune, KIN) then cross their fingers and toes hoping that they will eventually earn back all that lost money through software sales. Uh. Huh. Good thinking there, Ballmer.
Microsoft's old business model was, and still is, to 1) force corporate IT shops into expensive Office upgrades and to 2) force PC OEMs to pay them The Windows Tax for every PC they sell (whether or not those PCs actually come with Windows pre-installed.) Nice work if you can get it. And note that the word "force" is vital to Microsoft's old business model.
Unfortunately (for Microsoft anyway) they can't "force" anybody to buy Windows Phone hardware. Or software. Not corporate IT, not techno-moron middle-of-the-bell-curve consumers, not tech-savvy young adult hipsters with up-to-the-minute chunky black eyeglass frames, not teens who still remember KIN, not even octogenarians who just don't care. No, Microsoft simply can't force anybody to buy Windows Phone hardware.
Microsoft needs to pull customers in with hardware / software quality, depth / breadth of media content and delivery infrastructure, interoperability with other Microsoft ecosystem products, and that intangible, priceless, impossibly rare attribute: mindshare. You can't buy mindshare. Microsoft has tried and failed for decades. The whole "pull" concept is totally alien to them. Instead, they're still trying to push. As in blowing millions of marketing dollars on illogical song-and-dance ads instead of simply showing the product and what it can do. Because Microsoft's products, unlike Apple's, don't sell themselves.
That is precisely what I am referring to. The stat analysis company has to have a script in the code of the website being accessed that sends the hit count to them. Otherwise the hits go undetected because anonymous websites don't just upload their web logs. All the major sites are very private about the data they are collecting so the third party stat companies have no data from the big sites.
I was not under any impression that data is simply given away, but I don't believe for a minute that stat houses have no data on the biggest sites. They'll have to have some kind of agreement or royalties to get it, that's all.
I own three iPhones, and am an Apple fan. With that said, I have actually used the Nokia Lumina (the metal one in blue) and it is not junk. It has a better build quality than Samsung, HTC, and Motorola top phones.
Part of Nokia's problem is Microsoft. Many of the relatively recent phones aren't even going to be upgradable to the new OS.
Yes, Microsoft is the problem, but not for the reason you stated, because the same upgrade issue exists for all Windows Phone 7 handsets, not just the Lumina. The article is about Microsoft producing competing hardware. Whether or not this is just another so-called "reference design," or a serious move by Microsoft to becoming vertically integrated like Apple, it is a vote of no confidence in Nokia's ability to produce and sell an attractive Windows handset. In other words, their vaunted close partnership is in jeopardy. That's the real story, if the rumor is true.
Microsoft phone? I guess Ballmer wants to be a low volume supplier too!
Hey Steve: you need high quality products sold at a quality price level, and a killer marketing campaign. Oh, it also helps if there aren't other, established high quality products in the sales channel. Think X-Box here. Not Zune. One had little quality competition. One had a quality competitor. You do remember which is which I hope.
That is precisely what I am referring to. The stat analysis company has to have a script in the code of the website being accessed that sends the hit count to them. Otherwise the hits go undetected because anonymous websites don't just upload their web logs. All the major sites are very private about the data they are collecting so the third party stat companies have no data from the big sites.
I was not under any impression that data is simply given away, but I don't believe for a minute that stat houses have no data on the biggest sites. They'll have to have some kind of agreement or royalties to get it, that's all.
I did a little research just now and apparently I was incorrect in my original assumption that the analysis companies did not have stats on txt usage. ComScore which is I think the largest of these stat companies actually has agreements with 3 of the 4 major carriers in the UK to get statistical info on usage, no numbers stated fro US, Canada or Japan. In addition to the carrier usage they claim to have 1 million domains that are sending them data. The only well known domain advertised to be participating was cnet.com.
The last method of acquiring data was with surveys:
• U.S.: 10,000 mobile phone owners
• UK and Germany: 5,000 mobile phone owners
• France, Spain, Italy and Japan: 4,000 mobile phone owners
• Canada (reported quarterly): 5,000 mobile phone owners
Comments
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-ww-monthly-201211-201211-bar
edit: better link, web 'usage' by mobile OS, http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-201211-201211-bar
I don't disagree with your analysis, but you left out a major part of Microsoft's problems in getting acceptance for these products is that they're now competing with their OEMs. It's one thing to license the OS from Microsoft. It's another thing to do so when Microsoft is competing with you. Google is facing the same problem, btw, which will likely account for even greater fragmentation of Android (a la Kindle).
Interesting. Much like with the Surface being made "In House" this move makes sense for Microsoft.
Unfortunately for them it's about 6 years too late. Apple's iPhone blew on by everybody even as Baldmer was pooh-poohing it right after launch. With Androids flooding their filth on the market Microsoft is destined to be a niche player in the smartphone market. RIM is dead and so is Nokia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi
Alright, thanks, so it is this 'shipped' fallacy again... Meanwhile web traffic stats tells absolutely nothing about market share...
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-ww-monthly-201211-201211-bar
Which kind of proves their point.
The iPhone stands at 19%
Android stands at 25%
Considering that the number of Android models available far outstrips the number of iPhone models then that's pretty impressive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Microsoft makes hardware and has done so for years. It makes the XBox and numerous computer peripherals. Moreover, Oprah an acknowledged Apple fan just made the Surface one of her favorite things....
I think you're twisting and spinning this waaay to hard. I don't see any reason to really believe you at all.
Microsoft has experience making mice and keyboards and they didn't even jump into those markets with both feet until they were reasonably mature. Also, almost the entire "design" of those products is in the shape of the plastic housing. This is nothing like saying that Microsoft has computer or phone manufacturing experience. The Xbox, which everyone points to for Microsoft's hardware "cred" is famous for being possibly the worst quality manufacturing job in the entire history of computers.
And Oprah? Seriously? Do I really have to even get into why Oprah thinking the Surface is great is completely irrelevant?
Have you actually tried to use a Surface RT? I have and I'm not impressed at all by the hardware. It's an awful design for a tablet and not that well put together. The one I have been using got a gigantic, highly noticeable scratch across the back within an hour of being out of the box. The touch screen is "iffy" and the gyroscope takes like 5 or 10 seconds to realise you've rotated the device.
I'm more amazed at the unique "activation" numbers for Android OS (not a fork) Google claims compared to iOS usage numbers across the net.
Where are these devices being used if not online?
Some will claim that people are changing their browsers to say they are iPhones (which sounds like complete BS to me); my hypothesis is most Android devices are really the new "feature phones".
I agree, I don't know how it's a defensible suggestion. Just because the browser string can be easily changed doesn't mean it's actually being done by large numbers of people. I don't believe a lot of people even know about the feature, much less have any desire to do so.
Can you get an Android phone without a data plan? I've always had the impression that you're getting a data plan, unless you try ridiculously hard to avoid it.
It would be nice to see a reasonable explanation as to why Android doesn't show up well on some of these web usage stats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Check actual usage stats. Where are all these Android phones being used?
The thing about usage stats is that they only measure one metric, web browsing. With many lower tier cellular provider the data speeds are not that great and people who have the lower end Android phones are perhaps not that interested in reading web pages. They play games, txt, and call friends, but those stats are not calculated.
Originally Posted by Sensi
'Usage' maybe? Do elaborate.
Really? Usage means actually in use. Apple phones, while "40%" of the market, are 75% of the phones actually in use. Apple tablets, while "60%" of the market, are 95% of the tablets actually in use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by Sensi
'Usage' maybe? Do elaborate.
Really? Usage means actually in use. Apple phones, while "40%" of the market, are 75% of the phones actually in use. Apple tablets, while "60%" of the market, are 95% of the tablets actually in use.
I don't think you can really quantify it in that way. The web stat companies only have selected websites that they monitor. If for example 99% of Kindle Fire users only visit the Amazon web pages, the stat companies would not have access to that information. Likewise Google doesn't give the stat companies any access to Google pages either which might represent a large part of Android usage. Both of those brands have substantial ecosystems outside of the third party stat gathering company's realm. The fact that their is such a large discrepancy between activation ratios and usage ratios indicates there is some other factor involved that can't be easily measured. I would have a difficult time believing people buy Android smartphones to just throw them in a drawer and not use them. There has to be another explanation.
I agree there has to be another explanation, but I don't think that explanation accounts for so much of it. Google is good for services, but not web content. You can go to Google News to see headlines and a summary line, but if you want to read the story, you need to click the link to the content host's site.
You get the stats from the site from its hit log, which you get with an agreement with the site. If an Android device accesses a web page, then that web site records that. Amazon's platform is a bit fuzzy, it's more accurate to call it Android-ish, and I doubt Amazon is sharing that info with Google anyway, I don't think Google is counting Kindle devices in its activations. Google offers a lot of services, but I don't see why Android users aren't visiting sites outside of Google.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
You get the stats from the site from its hit log. If an Android device accesses a web page, then that web site knows that. Amazon's platform is a bit fuzzy, it's more accurate to call it Android-ish, and I doubt Amazon is sharing that info with Google anyway.
That is precisely what I am referring to. The stat analysis company has to have a script in the code of the website being accessed that sends the hit count to them. Otherwise the hits go undetected because anonymous websites don't just upload their web logs. All the major sites are very private about the data they are collecting so the third party stat companies have no data from the big sites.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
But if Windows Phone 8 continues to struggle, the company could decide to [sic] its own hardware, in an effort to spur sales.
Because Microsoft's new business model is to sell their own hardware at a loss (original Xbox, first years of Xbox 360, Zune, KIN) then cross their fingers and toes hoping that they will eventually earn back all that lost money through software sales. Uh. Huh. Good thinking there, Ballmer.
Microsoft's old business model was, and still is, to 1) force corporate IT shops into expensive Office upgrades and to 2) force PC OEMs to pay them The Windows Tax for every PC they sell (whether or not those PCs actually come with Windows pre-installed.) Nice work if you can get it. And note that the word "force" is vital to Microsoft's old business model.
Unfortunately (for Microsoft anyway) they can't "force" anybody to buy Windows Phone hardware. Or software. Not corporate IT, not techno-moron middle-of-the-bell-curve consumers, not tech-savvy young adult hipsters with up-to-the-minute chunky black eyeglass frames, not teens who still remember KIN, not even octogenarians who just don't care. No, Microsoft simply can't force anybody to buy Windows Phone hardware.
Microsoft needs to pull customers in with hardware / software quality, depth / breadth of media content and delivery infrastructure, interoperability with other Microsoft ecosystem products, and that intangible, priceless, impossibly rare attribute: mindshare. You can't buy mindshare. Microsoft has tried and failed for decades. The whole "pull" concept is totally alien to them. Instead, they're still trying to push. As in blowing millions of marketing dollars on illogical song-and-dance ads instead of simply showing the product and what it can do. Because Microsoft's products, unlike Apple's, don't sell themselves.
I was not under any impression that data is simply given away, but I don't believe for a minute that stat houses have no data on the biggest sites. They'll have to have some kind of agreement or royalties to get it, that's all.
Yes, Microsoft is the problem, but not for the reason you stated, because the same upgrade issue exists for all Windows Phone 7 handsets, not just the Lumina. The article is about Microsoft producing competing hardware. Whether or not this is just another so-called "reference design," or a serious move by Microsoft to becoming vertically integrated like Apple, it is a vote of no confidence in Nokia's ability to produce and sell an attractive Windows handset. In other words, their vaunted close partnership is in jeopardy. That's the real story, if the rumor is true.
Hey Steve: you need high quality products sold at a quality price level, and a killer marketing campaign. Oh, it also helps if there aren't other, established high quality products in the sales channel. Think X-Box here. Not Zune. One had little quality competition. One had a quality competitor. You do remember which is which I hope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunslinger
Agreed, and they need to make all kinds of racket when deployed.
Isn't that why they like to position their stores near Apple stores?
If cleverly photographed, the crowds at the Apple store
can almost be made to appear to be Microsoft's...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
That is precisely what I am referring to. The stat analysis company has to have a script in the code of the website being accessed that sends the hit count to them. Otherwise the hits go undetected because anonymous websites don't just upload their web logs. All the major sites are very private about the data they are collecting so the third party stat companies have no data from the big sites.
I was not under any impression that data is simply given away, but I don't believe for a minute that stat houses have no data on the biggest sites. They'll have to have some kind of agreement or royalties to get it, that's all.
I did a little research just now and apparently I was incorrect in my original assumption that the analysis companies did not have stats on txt usage. ComScore which is I think the largest of these stat companies actually has agreements with 3 of the 4 major carriers in the UK to get statistical info on usage, no numbers stated fro US, Canada or Japan. In addition to the carrier usage they claim to have 1 million domains that are sending them data. The only well known domain advertised to be participating was cnet.com.
The last method of acquiring data was with surveys:
• U.S.: 10,000 mobile phone owners
• UK and Germany: 5,000 mobile phone owners
• France, Spain, Italy and Japan: 4,000 mobile phone owners
• Canada (reported quarterly): 5,000 mobile phone owners
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Meanwhile anyone else noticed the Apple update system has gone down? Scott must have taken the keys with him!
LOL!
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Of course they are ... they have to emulate everything Apple does otherwise they are dead in ten years or sooner.
This is not about emulation. It's about survival.