MS had a shot,

[Edward78]

https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/303590-microsoft-delays-windows-10-mobiles-death-by-one-month it is odd Windows phone didn't make it. MS had enough $$$ to buy a cell phone factory to make phones.

[minibois]

1 minute ago, Edward78 said:

MS had enough $$$ to buy a cell phone factory to make phones.

They bought Nokia though...

The issue was the lack of apps, causing a lack of users, causing lack of apps.. And the cycle continues.

[Donut417]

On 12/19/2019 at 11:17 AM, Edward78 said:

https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/303590-microsoft-delays-windows-10-mobiles-death-by-one-month it is odd Windows phone didn't make it. MS had enough $$$ to buy a cell phone factory to make phones.

It didnt make it because Microsoft took too fucking long to get serrious in that market. By the time they got serrious Apple and Google pretty much had the pie at that point. Palm OS died and Blackberry has been dieing a slow death. 

[Zando_]

On 12/19/2019 at 10:19 AM, minibois said:

issue was the lack of apps

Apparently part of that was Google being angery at another competing OS, and since they didn't have an established userbase like iOS, didn't make their stuff work properly. Had to use 3rd part workaround apps and it wasn't the best (according to a friend who mained a Windows phone and really liked it). 

[Edward78]

On 12/21/2019 at 9:50 PM, Donut417 said:

It didnt make it because Microsoft took too fucking long to get serrious in that market. By the time they got serrious Apple and Google pretty much had the pie at that point. Palm OS died and Blackberry has been dieing a slow death. 

Yes, thought about the x86 thing someone else said,  I guess a mobile cpu is to big. Plus what about ARM they had Win10 for that right? The fact they bought Nokia god that just makes it sad, MS prob. didn;t really care, they could have put much more afford in.

[Donut417]

6 minutes ago, Edward78 said:

ARM they

Microsoft has been trying to do Windows on ARM for a while. It just never takes off. Because most x86 chips are not power effeicent enough to be in a phone. Those that are are very under powered. Because Windows on ARM doesnt have the user base the app devs wont develop for it and because the app devs wont develop for it the users wont use it. So thats why Windows mobile failed. They were caught in a catch 22. 

[dizmo]

Had nothing to do with hardware. The issue was software. WP was a mess for years, and by the time they finally started polishing it, it was too late. Since the platform itself wasn't great, people didn't make apps for it. Thus, people didn't use it. Having fewer apps might be ok on a budget device, but people that are paying flagship prices expect flagship experiences. 

[Commodus]

On 12/19/2019 at 11:17 AM, Edward78 said:

https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/303590-microsoft-delays-windows-10-mobiles-death-by-one-month it is odd Windows phone didn't make it. MS had enough $$$ to buy a cell phone factory to make phones.

It's not odd at all -- Microsoft made numerous huge missteps that virtually guaranteed Windows Phone/Mobile would die.

 

The first, you might imagine, was dismissing the iPhone.  Microsoft should have been drafting plans to completely overhaul Windows Mobile the moment Steve Jobs left the Macworld stage on January 9th, 2007; it wasn't hard to see that Apple had demonstrated the future of phones.  Instead, like many of its rivals, Microsoft wasted time trying to rationalize its existing approach and tack on crude finger touch features to an OS that wasn't designed for it.  I still remember Steve Ballmer claiming the iPhone wouldn't succeed because of price or the lack of a hardware keyboard.  And by the time Windows Phone 7 was ready in 2010, it was too late to prevent Apple and Google from sewing up the market.

 

Speaking of which,  Ballmer's Windows obsession also played a direct role in Windows Phone failing.  It's not just that he loved Windows, he acted as if everyone on Earth was biologically preprogrammed to love Windows and just needed a gentle nudge to come running back from Apple and Google.  He promoted a Windows Phone design with features people didn't really care for (Office integration and Internet Explorer, anyone?), allowed a horribly inconsistent carrier strategy and, most importantly, didn't devote the kind of resources Windows Phone needed to succeed.  Part of why Apple is the behemoth it is today is that it's willing to shift its entire business strategy when needed -- it went from being Mac-focused to iPod-focused to iPhone-focused in the space of several years.  Google, too, shifted a lot of its focus to mobile.  Microsoft under Ballmer, however, always treated Windows Phone as a side project that wasn't allowed to get as much attention as Windows on PCs.

 

The hardware didn't help.  It frequently amounted to warmed-over hardware from the Android phones you saw half a year earlier.  And then there was the unreliable selection.  You could never truly rely on Windows Phone makers to deliver a follow-up to a device you liked because they were constantly flailing about with different device lineups and carrier selections.

 

Oh, and let's not forget the decision to abandon Windows Phone 7 devices when 8 showed up, forcing many users to upgrade handsets if they wanted new software features.  Imagine if Apple told people running iOS 13 that they'd have to throw out their phones if they wanted iOS 14.  They'd be livid!

 

The poor app selection just reinforced things.  It was somewhat telling that Microsoft had to basically bribe major companies into writing apps for Windows Phone, and it clearly didn't do enough as vendors dropped the OS like a hot potato the moment their contracts were up.  It should have been willing to spend billions to get permanent availability for most major apps, not just a few of them for a few years.  Now, Google's obstinacy was largely responsible for preventing a real YouTube app, but I can't help but wonder what would've happened if Microsoft had been more generous with cash or app permissions.

 

Also, and this is the dirty truth few pro-Microsoft people care to admit... Windows Phone just wasn't very good.  Oh, you'll claim that it was ahead of its time with things like Live Tiles and content hubs, but it really wasn't.  Its centrepieces were frequently either gimmicks or had significant drawbacks (like having to wait until a Live Tile flipped to show relevant info).  It was perpetually behind on many of the features that mattered, like copy-and-paste text, a notifications shade and a modern web browser, and initially focused on style over substance in a way that made Apple look utilitarian.  By the time Windows Phone felt reasonably mature, Apple and Google were both more mature and had the market sewn up.