Noted in Passing: Microsoft Smartphone OS Platform Passed Away

So it comes as no surprise to readers of this blog. But it's now official. Microsoft has announced that it has stopped the development of the smartphone OS platform that once was known as Windows Mobile, at another time Windows Phone and most recently Windows 10 Mobile. The existing product is not yet ended but all development has ended. You say tomato, I say potato. Same difference. Windows on smartphones is dead. Good riddance too!

Very briefly, I was chronicling the rise of Windows onto smartphones and chaired the world's first smartphone conference. I kept tabs on the role of Windows which briefly was the world's second-bestselling smartphone OS a decade ago. I warned of the mistakes Microsoft was making that started the death-spiral - very importantly from Windows Mobile to Windows Phone, the bizarre arrogant decision by Steve Ballmer to not have a migration path to Windows Phone OS (this was still before the Nokia related end to the platform). I was proven right and Windows lost half its share and fell to fifth ranking in smartphone OS wars just as the 'Bloodbath' was heating up (which we followed intensely on this blog).

Then came the end. The unholy alliance of Nokia and Windows, orchestrated by the worst CEO in corporate history, Stephen Elop (aka E-Flop as he's often called in Finland). Nokia's inept CEO messed up what chances the partnership would have had. I predicted that Nokia sales would collapse (as they did) and Nokia's handset unit which had never one in Nokia's history produced a loss - would start to produce losses (which it did) and that Nokia would never return to profits in smartphones (which it didn't) and that Nokia would have to sell its handset business (as it did) and that would be to Microsoft (as it occurred). Not bad predicting, eh.

And a few months after the Nokia deal, Steve Ballmer then put the final nail into the coffin of Windows smartphone hopes - when Microsoft purchased Skype. Once again, as with the previous forecasts, when I explained why Skype was the death-nail to the smartphone OS platform, numerous readers came and loudly protested in the comments, claiming I was a fool. Yet in a matter of weeks, all other major Windows Phone handset makers instantly quit the platform (like SonyEricsson, LG, Motorola, Dell) or dramatically cut down the Windows Phone product portfolio (like Samsung and HTC) and Windows share collapsed from 5% the year before to half that by the time the first Nokia branded phones started to ship on the platform. It was not the Nokia deal that killed Windows, it was Ballmer's purchase of Skype - as I explained and as turned out to be true. The carrier community put Windows smartphones into a sales boycott and Microsoft never recovered. This all happened before Nokia started selling Lumia phones on Windows, but later, when Nokia CEO was asked about a sales boycott, he admitted one existed and that it was hurting all Windows phone makers, including the then-brand-new Nokia Lumia sales. Various other Nokia and Microsoft execs admitted the boycott or in some synonyms like 'carrier reluctance' to sell the Windows OS phones (not just Nokia Lumia but from other Windows vendors too that remained, like Samsung and HTC).

Nokia Lumia edition 1 failed as I predicted. It was replaced by edition 2 on a new version of Windows Phone OS which failed, as I predicted, and then the third edition failed, by which time Elop was demoted and Nokia sold the whole handset business to Microsoft, tossing Elop in the package back to his former employer too. I predicted that Nokia would recover with the telecoms infrastructure business which is at Nokia's core telecoms competence (as it did). I predicted that the ex-Nokia handset business would continue to be a failure at Microsoft, exactly as it did fail too.

Of the Nokia handset business sale to Microsoft, again, I made a series of predictions, that now every single one of my predictions came true. I said that the first recourse at Microsoft to the failing handset business would to fire the incompetent Elop from running the handset business (as it did). I said Microsoft would give their handset unit to another exec to run (which it did) and that exec would have two years until the business unit would be shut (as it happened). I even postulated a fantasy 'Hollywood ending' scenario by which Nokia's handset business would be sold back to Nokia, after it had failed at Microsoft. While that technically did not 'exactly' happen, gosh, it is close, considering how the sale happened to HMD. I then said that the OS platform itself, was obviously doomed because HMD aka 'New Nokia' would release Android phones, not Windows phones - as it happened - and now we see the end of Windows smartphone OS itself. Incidentally about the timing? I said Windows OS at Microsoft had a rough life span as a doomed 'dead man walking' division of never producing profits, of about two cycles of two years ie four years. Look at the calendar? Its autumn 2017. Four years on the dot.

There is nobody else in the industry who gave all this in predictions before they happened. And nobody else who explained each of these events WHEN they happened (no migration path Windows Mobile to Windows Phone, Skype Purchase, Nokia Partnership, Nokia Purchase, ex-Nokia Sale to HMD) and how that would impact Windows smartphone OS platform. Every single step in Windows fall was predicted correctly here on this blog and nobody else saw all that happening. This is now the final part. Yeah. It makes me happy to see Microsoft suffer, I hated Microsoft long before they got involved with Nokia. But regardless of my feelings about the company, the actual events - every single one I predicted, came true, and nothing I ever predicted did NOT come true. I even pointed out the silly forecasts of famous industry analysts who promised Windows would be bigger than the iPhone today in 2017 haha and have something above 20% market share of smartphones today. I was here,  when it happened, and told you exactly what would happen. As it all happened.

Oh. One more bit. I was the first to also tell you that Google won the battle of the century for the OS of all high tech - when Android was passing Windows (all devices, not just smartphones, but PCs included). Nobody else told you that either. It is now becoming apparent to many experts that Google owns the tech world via Android. Who told you first? The dude who saw how Windows was truly collapsing and that iOS was never a threat to Google's world domination plans. Yeah, we'll return to those issues in coming years no doubt. Goodbye Windows smartphones and by darn it, good riddance too! Ballmer gone. Elop gone. Lumia gone. Windows smartphone OS gone. Now when can we see Microsoft the company gone too, please, next?

Comments

[Paul]

Samsung just gave a positive profit warning - the calendar Q3 financial results will be a new record in their history.
And while MSFT dies away, Jolla has signed a deal in Latin America.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Ok gang

The numbers are up. Enjoy the blog with the first ever published estimate by anyone of 2017 quarterly sales levels of Nokia HMD Android phones... (your wish is my blog)

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Jim Glue]

Msft will be far stronger in mobile since they have stopped wasting resources on their own mobile platform. They are far from dead in the mobile space. They have a compelling and competitive set of Android/iOS apps and services. They have a burgeoning set of cloud services for developers of native apps. They have AI and translation software...and they have the XBox gaming community to market to.

Anybody try their Android launcher? I always just use the native one that comes with whatever phone I buy. Apparently it's a decent one.

[Markus]

MS is currently lobbying the EU to investigate Google's bundling of apps with the Play Store. If they can get them to unbundle they can release an Android phone with the Play Store but no Google apps. They can install all of their own apps.

Again, the amount of astroturfing of MS apps on tech forums has increased noticeably of late. They have given up the goal of a Windows mobile future, but seem determined to achieve a Microsoft mobile future. For those of us who understand how bad MS is, this is a concern.

[Jim Glue]

Hi Markus,

I see a big difference between Google's bundling of apps and Window bundling IE. Microsoft sold Windows for money. Google is giving away Android "for the price of" installing Google's money making apps and services in prominent locations. To take Google's free OS and then remove Google's money making services for replacement money making services of your own...doesn't sound equitable to me.

In fact, were the EU to force Google to unbundle it's apps/services from Android...I'd expect/hope that Google would immediately end both it's AOSP efforts and it's free license of Google Android.

You can buy Google android for $50 per phone and use or not use whatever Google services you want. Then Google could offer a $50/phone advertising fee if you ship Google's apps and put them in Google's placements.

In other words...keep things like they are if you want...or start paying us a pretty penny for Android...or go develop your own mobile OS.

[Markus]

I see the same difference, Jim, but I don't expect MS and their proxies will stop trying to attack Google in any underhanded way they can.

MS can't afford to out of mobile, and I don't think paying OEMs to install MS apps is going to satisfy them.

I would be delighted to see MS continue to slide into obscurity, though.

[Tester]

Your paranoid suspicions make little sense.

Plus, Steve Ballmer, who was the master of these business tactics is no longer there.

Microsoft has zero chance to take over Android. If they manage to squeeze out Google the best they can achieve is manufacturers using a neutral Android instead - because none of the manufacturers needs Microsoft for anything.

[new_guy]

Happy day! Die Microsoft die!! Ha ha ha...

[john F.]

Where all predictions have failed and keep failing is Apple

And don't give that market share thing... irrelevant.

From Zero phones to the largest company in the world and the absolute king of phones above 600 dollars.

From zero to 10 million to 100 million to 200 million against:

Apple is not growing according to market share
Apple is loosing according to market share
Market share says Apple is failing at all levels ....

So many wrong predictions when Apple is in the mix.

Why? Apple does not belong in just market share

[Jim Glue]

Hi John,

This is a market share blog and all companies performance is judged by market share. Which makes Apple the second place company and iOS the second place platform.

Tomi has stated many times that Apple isn't going away, and he's right.

What importance you want to place on Apple's "niche" of the market is, of course, completely arbitrary.

Certainly it is only fair to give the anti-Apple crowd their due in Apple's falling market share? How greedy would it be to deny them that? After all, Apple completely dominates profit share...sets the competitive stage...etc.

Seriously...we have a lot of "not in the US" people here and it USED to be a fun place to bash the US and crow about how far ahead "they" are in mobile. And the iPhone put all that to an end. Yes, with Android...but BECAUSE of the iPhone.

Now the US completely dominates the mobile platform space world wide.

So why struggle with letting folks pick between the two US platforms to be happy about...and which to say "booooo" to?

[john F.]

@Jim

No struggle at all, just stating that predictions about apple have been wrong and continue to be wrong

Champagne vs coke? Have fun comparing market share

BMW vs Honda? have fun comparing market share

However it would be interesting to see a post by Tomi....

The high end ( above 600 US$ ) market and its leaders ... who are they and what marketshare they have by Tomi.

That would be market share and it would be fair, one of those lengthy posts talking about lost of stuff in that market segment.
But that one is not convenient to write about ....

[John Fro]

Network effects, network effects, network effects. Just about everyone goes with the flow. It leads to monopolies in the commercial world. It worked for MS once, but like IBM was with PC's, they didn't have any heart in the mobile game and just did it to please overly excited investors that wanted to shake up the board of directors when they saw how much money Apple was making in mobile. Meanwhile, the core management team at MS was like "We make our money selling licenses to enterprise partners. Retail and consumer products like phones are just for brand loyalty and familiarity." The new CEO has not only ceded the phone market, he's getting out of the consumer market. They might consider selling the XBox brand or spinning it off, but that might be a little too embarrassing for now. This was always about the boardroom and internal politics. MS didn't need the headaches and makes plenty of money. What's less clear is what happened at Nokia.

[Per "wertigon" Ekström]

@John:

If the iPhone was a car, there would be two types of roads it could drive on (and it could not drive on the Android roads).

The Apple roads are small in number but are arguably the best fucking experience money can buy you.

The Android roads are great in number but most are backwater country types of roads.

Then of course, there are the web roads... The Mother-freakin' highway interstates that can get you *anywhere* with *any* vehicle. Problem is, they are much more comfortable to travel in an Android car, since iPhone cars are not designed for them and even neglect them in order to make the experience of the Apple roads great.

So, is the iPhone car a great buy? Yes. If it can get you to the places you want to go, and you *only* want to go to those places, hell yes.

But most people need to go to other places than the Apple roads take you. Even if the quality is dirt poor on those roads. And this will be abundantly clear, once again, as the dust starts to settle for real. Until then though... :)

[Abdul Muis]

@PWE.

Not the right analogy...

1. There were premium android that were better than iphone. For those using the premium android, experience is different from the one using cheap android.
2. Most using cheap android because *its the only thing they can afford / willing to afford*
3. If we're talking feature that apple cant support with their devixe such as using your device to check cash card balance & top up cash card. The experience is flawless (not this "But most people need to go to other places than the Apple roads take you. Even if the quality is dirt poor on those roads. And this will be abundantly clear, once again, as the dust starts to settle for real. Until then though... :)" mombo jombo

[Jim Glue]

Abdul and I both disagree with the car analogy. Here are my reasons:
- iPhones and Androids work on the same telco networks
+ access the same internet
+ can talk/message/skype/facebook/whatsapp/line/etc. to each other
- there are precious few Apple exclusive services (facetime, imessage)

It's luxury car vs. used old beater (kidding, not kidding). Where the luxury car paradigm matches is that people pay more for a nicer, better experience and for some, social status reasons. Like luxury cars, you pay a lot more for experience and paying double doesn't give you "double the extra experience".

Where the luxury car comparison falls down is that, in the developed world, an iPhone is attainable for a far larger part of the population than a luxury car is. People like me who can't afford luxury cars but can afford an iPhone.

Abdul is also right in that there is indeed a premium/luxury section of the Android market that delivers a better experience than cheap Android does. It would really be best to compare those two markets...just like you compare BMW to Mercedes and not to Toyota. And why Toyota came out with the Lexus brand to compete with BMW/Mercedes.

So much of the confusion about "the iPhone's falling market share" vs predictions of doom based on falling market share...and why isn't what we predict happening when it MUST...

All of that confusion would go away if we had regular, quarterly numbers that let us compare iPhones to premium Androids.

[john F.]

@Jim

All of that confusion would go away if we had regular, quarterly numbers that let us compare iPhones to premium Androids.

Bravo!!!! if only Tomi would do us that favor, but he won't, just 2 or 3 of us in this blog can understand that, too much work for just a few people

[Jim Glue]

Hi John,

How can we complain about a service Tomi is doing for us...for free? I am not sure that any of the analyst houses break out the premium, "cheap, good enough" numbers...but if they do...I'm not sure what of that information would be covered under an NDA. After all, if an analyst's customers could just buy one report and put all it's info out on the internet for free....then there would be no analyst business.

Really...would that information change any of the die hard anti-Apple folks here? I don't think so. Let them have their one metric where the world makes sense to them. Let them cheer the "impending doom" of the one American company they hate in order to cheer on the success of ANOTHER American company. That...and Scumsung. What a terrible company to have to be cheering for.

Hi Long,

Apple is doing great in the Fortune 500...the iPhone always has. It did not take long to overcome Blackberry in the enterprise. For a time, lots of companies were giving Android a hard look along with iOS. That seems to be coming to an end with iOS becoming the single corporate platform. They will still support Android where they have to (b2c) but they see the value in buying Apple hardware/software when full life cycle costs are considered. Security and fragmentation have overcome "cheaper cost of the devices" as a prime motivator for large companies.

[Tester]

And yet...

... putting all your eggs in the same basket is the perfect recipe for disaster.

It happened with Microsoft, it happened with Blackberry and there's no guarantee that they'll get kicked in the ass again.

[Jim Glue]

Hi tester, not sure of the context of your remark about all eggs being in one basket.

News of the really bad screen on the Pixel 2 XL are pouring out. We are seeing the difference between people who care (Apple) and people who don't.

Which is better, LCD or OLED? Well, whichever one gives you the truest color. Not the most punchiest (Samsung), but correct.

From the iPhone 7 on, Apple actually color calibrates EACH iPhone. So what you see on screen is what is in the image. It's not punchier if the underlaying image isn't punchier. It's not brighter if the underlaying image isn't brighter. Wide color gamut...and color correction.

Enter the Pixel 2 XL. The SCREEN is off color. Not the photos the camera takes. The screen itself is off....way off. Forget about "off when you look from a different angle"...it's that too..but even straight on, it's off.

That means you can't edit your photos on the device. If you make them look good on your Pixel 2XL, they will look bad everywhere else.

Maybe a phone is sexier if the screen bends around the edges, or has a ridiculous number of pixels per inch...or is huge. Lots of things people talk about when comparing phones.

Meanwhile....Google has dropped the ball greatly on showing correct colors. Not taking pictures with correct colors...just SHOWING them.

[Per "wertigon" Ekström]

@Jim:

And yet, Android is not dependent on the Pixels success.

It only takes one or two fuckups by Apple to take down iOS though. Can they handle that pressure?