Microsoft's phone news at CES
As one of my colleagues put it the other day, Microsoft killed the rumors that it's building a Zune phone, but it didn't drive a silver stake through their heart and bury them at a crossroads at midnight. In other words, until Microsoft makes some kind of phone-related announcement, misinformed analysts and news outlets will continue to speculate that there's going to be a Microsoft-built Zune phone, and Microsoft spokespeople will continue going on the record with vehement denials.
Danger built the Sidekick, but Microsoft was mostly interested in the company for its services expertise.
(Credit: CNET Networks)This is getting silly. I've been saying since February that the most likely course of action for Microsoft to take is to build a Zune client for Windows Mobile. Not a Zune phone.
Why? Because Microsoft--unlike Apple, and Research in Motion, and Nokia--isn't a hardware company at its core. Microsoft only builds hardware when it can't get a partner to do so (Xbox--who'd take the per-console loss?), or when it feels that partner products aren't getting enough traction and thereby letting a competitor build a threat to Windows. It built Zune because the iPod was slaughtering all the Windows Media-based players, revitalizing Apple and getting consumers to take another look at the Mac. (Sure enough, Apple's now the fastest-growing computer manufactuer in the U.S. and has taken a couple points of market share away from Windows-based PCs.) Microsoft briefly built wireless home routers because it felt partners weren't making them easy enough to set up on Windows, especially compared with Apple's Airport. And way back when, the company originally built keyboards and mice to promote Windows, and found that it was a profitable little business.
Windows Mobile may have stalled in the water while the iPhone and RIM phones have continued to take market share, but to Microsoft, 11% global market share and 16 million units a year isn't unsuccessful enough to kill the platform and change strategy completely.
So let's assume the rumors are based in fact and that Microsoft is going to make some sort of phone-related announcements at CES. (I haven't been briefed on any such announcements, so this is all speculation on my part.) Befitting Microsoft's new self-image as a software plus services company, I would expect the company to announce new and refreshed software and services for mobile phones. Specifically, a Zune client that connects to the Zune Marketplace, plus a revamp of the historically lame MSN/Windows Live services for mobile.
Recall that Danger--the company Microsoft acquired last February--has some expertise in services. The company's Danger Service automatically backs up e-mail and photos in an online repository, pushes e-mails out to the device, offers remote storage for games and other apps, and synchronizes everything between the mobile device and a PC. In other words, everything Microsoft's been saying under the "software plus services" rubric for the last couple years.
I imagine something like this Danger Service renamed under Windows Live for Mobile brand, with more connections to relatively new services like Windows Live Photos, and perhaps new client pieces as well. Music will be part of the picture, but this is more about mobile than Zune.
That said, Microsoft might not announce any of this at CES, but might wait for a more mobile-specific conference.
Matt Rosoff is an analyst with Directions on Microsoft, where he covers Microsoft's consumer products and corporate news. He's written about the technology industry since 1995, and reviewed the first Rio MP3 player for CNET.com in 1998. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mattrosoff. 
How is Apple any more a hardware company than DELL is a software company? How has Apple convinced the whole world (including most tech writers apparently) that they are not just a software company? Is the average consumer really that stupid? I had thought better of my fellow beings until this Apple craze we have seen for the past few years gave me great cause for doubt.
Is Apple's crafty advertising really that effective? Because they try to make it look like they are a cut above the ordinary PC - what with all that cool glossy plastic and single-brick aluminum construction (can there be a more pathetic reason to buy a computer?) they are somehow the best?
Do you also drive a German engineered car thinking it is better than a Japanese engineered car because the German company wants you to think that? A $60,000 BMW is better than my $14,000 Honda Civic when the BMW is statistically in the shop for problems 5 times more often?
I don't know how Apple even gets away with calling itself a software company when they just stole UNIX and put a pretty face on. They are just another company that makes its fortune from taking advantage of the stupidity of the average person.
Sadly, the biggest reason they make money is because they have discovered that the average person is too stupid to use a computer without screwing it up so badly that it ceases to function and therefore needs one that can not only hold their hand through even the simplest of tasks, (without stretching them beyond their ability to do anything requiring more than 3 steps) but at the same time keeps them from rendering it unusable and thinking it is the computer's fault (can you even access the BIOS on a Mac?).
But to avoid offending the public they hide this fact by advertising with shiny plastic, single-brick aluminum construction, and stylish looking college students.
Pathetic!
I have to agree. And your post is refreshing. Though I am sure many will call you a troll, or worse. But I happen to agree with you. I was just covering this topic with a friend just last night. We were talking stock values, and Apple came up. I own a Creative Zen Moziac, use Media Monkey to manage music, and I buy it from Amazon because it's often 79 to 99 cents, and DRM free 256k MP3s. My music cost much less than Apple's and it's far better quality. So why is anyone buying from iTunes? The answer is, it's easy.
When I sit someone down in front of Media Monkey, they always have to admit how great it is. I have yet to hear anyone is got to know this software say they like iTunes more. My Zen is awesome. An 8GB units was under $100 shipped. Like $96. Does Audible, and my MP3s. Media Monkey does podcasts too.
Look at TiVo. Record for free. Why buy shows from iTunes? Free NetFlix streaming too. And subscribing to NetFlix is a much better option that being taken for a ride with iTunes. Again, why bother with iTunes.
Same with PCs and Macs. PCs cost half the price. And still Mac users will call us ignorant, or say things like, if you compare feature for feature. What a load... The fact is, my Tosh cost half as much. It's not made from a single brick, but who cares about that. I don't. And I have to agree that if someone thinks that's a big deal, they've been sipping the koolaid much too much.
Alex Alexzander
Take Time Machine for example. It is a backup system, that's all. Backup systems have been around for years, even prior to Time Machine, Apple had another program called Backup. But it was not sexy or fun to use. The interface was boring, you selected the files you wanted to backup and that was that. However, with Time Machine they have added animation, so it is a visual treat to retrieve a file. (Yes, Time Machine does have additional feature that Backup didn't.)
Or from a hardware perspective, take the latest MacBook. So they changed the way they build the case. Put together a 15 minute video and got people excited about it. In reality it is not a game changer. It would have been if the new production method dropped the price by 50%. (Yes, the new production method does have many benefits, less weight, greener, etc.)
Yet the one thing, I believe most people miss when trying to compare Apple to other companies, is the built in easy of use. With the iPod/iPhone it works seamlessly with iTunes. And both pieces of software are top notch. I work on both Macs and Windows platforms, and still find it easier to located and deal with issues on a Mac. I think Microsoft has neglected the presentation layer for too long.
I personally would like to see Microsoft create their software so it would communicate to other devices better and without a bunch of setup.
The definition of a hardware company is one that sells hardware, they do not actually have to manufacture it at it's core components like you have described. Though Apple may not (yet) manufacture the chipsets it does however participate in manufacturing some of if own custom hardware like the motherboards and the graphics cards.
It's like saying Next (in the UK) is not a clothes store because it doesn't actually make it's own cloths.
While yes they do have 3rd part components in their hardware, it is however no different from any other computer hardware manufacture in the planet. Name me one computer company that manufactures its computers in it entirety, form chipset to CPU it casing - just one.
By your definition no computer company is a hardware company.
" Is Apple's crafty advertising really that effective? Because they try to make it look like they are a cut above the ordinary PC - what with all that cool glossy plastic and single-brick aluminum construction (can there be a more pathetic reason to buy a computer?) they are somehow the best? "
Yes "glossy plastic and single-brick aluminum construction" is one reason I by an Apple, I put visual appeal and aesthetics as a major factor of any purchase or decision in my life. The cloths you're wearing the house you are living in, the car you are driving the partner you are dating/married to...you see visual appeal has always been a factor for humans so why is it a "stupid" for it to also be a factor on computer decision I do not understand. However aesthetics is only one of the many factors I choose Apple.
" Do you also drive a German engineered car thinking it is better than a Japanese engineered car because the German company wants you to think that? A $60,000 BMW is better than my $14,000 Honda Civic when the BMW is statistically in the shop for problems 5 times more often? "
Why do you PC whinnies always associate 'better' with 'reliable' - car X can be 'better' at handling or comfort or safety then car Y while still be less 'reliable' then it. So yes I do drive a BMW because it's better then Japanese car. Please don't try and make us feel bad for your lack of earning power or tightness (former more likely) for having money. Maybe you should have studied that little bit harder at school. Have people noticed it's almost always 'poor' people that say "money can't buy happiness" - weather that's true or not money can definitely buy you a better computer.
" I don't know how Apple even gets away with calling itself a software company when they just stole UNIX and put a pretty face on. They are just another company that makes its fortune from taking advantage of the stupidity of the average person. "
"Stole" - that just show you defiantly haven't got a clue, Though I'd love to I do not have the time or space to talk about the multitude of other Apple technologies in the Mac OS that makes it more that just a UNIX.
" Sadly, the biggest reason they make money is because they have discovered that the average person is too stupid to use a computer without screwing it up so badly that it ceases to function and therefore needs one that can not only hold their hand through even the simplest of tasks, (without stretching them beyond their ability to do anything requiring more than 3 steps) but at the same time keeps them from rendering it unusable and thinking it is the computer's fault (can you even access the BIOS on a Mac?). "
So from what I've understood from that point is you agree that the Mac OS is less prone to failure that Windows or other OS's - however negatively you you tried to spin it. Thanks. Secondly you can't access the BIOS on a Mac is because it doesn't have one, it uses EFI - that comment is so stupid it's like saying you can't access Open-Firmware on a Windows PC. As stupid as your whole post.
" But to avoid offending the public they hide this fact by advertising with shiny plastic, single-brick aluminum construction, and stylish looking college students. Pathetic!"
Read my post and compare it to yours and see you the pathetic one is.
If someone said to me Apple is a hardware company I'd agree.
If someone said to me Apple is a software company I'd agree.
f someone said to me Apple is both a software and hardware company I'd agree.
Apple is unique is that manor, it is also the biggest reason why they are able to innovate at much as they do.
Who would beleive that?
Something "new" that would solve all the problems with the actual products!
Thanks God that MS exists!
- by Penguinisto December 12, 2008 9:49 AM PST
- Love it or hate it (be it the iPhone, WindowsMobile, whatever), but the fact still remains: the iPhone stomped Windows Mobile flat.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(8 Comments)Shout all you want as to why you think that is, but Microsoft can't pay the bills with the subjective and unfounded opinions of zealots and fanboys. Therefore, MSFT has to sit down and figure out why they got trounced so hard... not only by the upstart Apple, but by RIM (read the NPD reports that are linked up there - seems that Crackberries are growing like crazy too).
I sincerely doubt that the answer is "hey! let's tack on Zune functionality!!111!"
No, really - my Crackberry (Curve 8320) has room for a MicroSD card in there, which in turn can hold 4GB of crap (music, video, whatever). Most smartphones have that basic capability to hold music and limited types of video (depending on screen size). My crackberry has fully capable local Wi-Fi connectivity. The Windows Mobile/HTC phones, I assume, can do similar, no?
So IOW, they all do music anyway - BFD. Therefore, tacking on the Zune name and additional 'whatever-makes-zune-unique' functions probably won't help, won't really add any new or useful functionality, and at this juncture would just end up looking like Yet Another 'Me-Too!' Product.
Little wonder MSFT turned its nose up at the idea.
Thing is, MSFT is still stuck. Hard. They're losing share. Hard.
Why? Well, the list is kinda long, but I'll try to summarize it a bit:
* unreliable, bug-afflicted OS
* limited functionality
* high carrier/vendor/developer licensing fees in its earlier days
* unappealing, clunky UI
...anyway, I don't want to belabor the woes, I want to actually help identify what it is MSFT needs to do to get their butts out of the doldrums before even Palm beats 'em for marketshare.
First off, what makes RIM, then Apple so successful?
RIM rocketed ahead by providing a solid, working phone, infrastructure, and data delivery system that is seamless and robust. The interface is a bit unfriendly to general consumers, but a breeze for professionals (business types) to make use of.
Apple went from zero to 3rd place globally in less than two years by providing the same things, but for the general consumer - an all-in-one mobile solution that is drop-easy to use, sexy, fast, reliable, and most importantly, designed in a way that makes perfect sense to anyone who uses it.
These two companies also have advantages that MSFT does not:
* complete hardware control.
* complete control over native and 3rd-party application distribution.
MSFT lacks these, and many more factors... and duct-taping zune software/hardware bits to the failing HTC/WM division ain't gonna help things.
/P