>Windows Phone is better in a lot of ways, too bad they couldn't make it stick. It just seems like to me they mostly had a marketing problem and they needed to incentivize the mobile carriers to actually try to sell them.
They had a marketing problem all right: they're Microsoft. Their brand has negative value. No one actually wants to buy consumer gadgets from Microsoft. Remember Zune? How many billions did they pour into Xbox before it finally became profitable (and remember they really downplayed the "Microsoft" name there)?
It wouldn't matter if Windows Phone were better than the competition in every way; people still wouldn't buy them, because of the Microsoft name.
But I can't imagine how they'd ever make their phones that good anyway. MS has a reputation for their software being buggy and having clunky UIs, and for good reason. That's how their phones are too: some things work nicely, other things are clunky and broken, and the UI is ugly as hell. just like every UI MS makes.
>I remember going into the Verizon store and watching the sales people actively steer people away from the phones and push them towards Android.
Probably because they actually wanted to make a sale and get a commission, instead of showing them a phone with a butt-ugly UI that has no apps and having them walk out in disgust.
I'll be the first to admit that Android (and iOS) both have severe problems of various sorts. But being "better in [some] ways" is not enough. Android and iOS have the advantage of already dominating the market, and also (and relatedly) of having all the apps. MS should understand this better than anyone, because this is precisely what props up their desktop monopoly. Toppling entrenched competitors with those advantages is ridiculously hard for anyone, but trying to do it with a name-brand that no one likes much, and a product that has no apps and a clunky and ugly UI, is a guaranteed failure, even if it is snappy and responsive as many claim.
They had a marketing problem all right: they're Microsoft. Their brand has negative value. No one actually wants to buy consumer gadgets from Microsoft. Remember Zune? How many billions did they pour into Xbox before it finally became profitable (and remember they really downplayed the "Microsoft" name there)?
It wouldn't matter if Windows Phone were better than the competition in every way; people still wouldn't buy them, because of the Microsoft name.
But I can't imagine how they'd ever make their phones that good anyway. MS has a reputation for their software being buggy and having clunky UIs, and for good reason. That's how their phones are too: some things work nicely, other things are clunky and broken, and the UI is ugly as hell. just like every UI MS makes.
>I remember going into the Verizon store and watching the sales people actively steer people away from the phones and push them towards Android.
Probably because they actually wanted to make a sale and get a commission, instead of showing them a phone with a butt-ugly UI that has no apps and having them walk out in disgust.
I'll be the first to admit that Android (and iOS) both have severe problems of various sorts. But being "better in [some] ways" is not enough. Android and iOS have the advantage of already dominating the market, and also (and relatedly) of having all the apps. MS should understand this better than anyone, because this is precisely what props up their desktop monopoly. Toppling entrenched competitors with those advantages is ridiculously hard for anyone, but trying to do it with a name-brand that no one likes much, and a product that has no apps and a clunky and ugly UI, is a guaranteed failure, even if it is snappy and responsive as many claim.