- List of Windows Mobile devices - Wikipedia
- Now grab the Free version of XAML Spy (Express)
- Related links and further reading...
The result: we decided that it would be essentially impossible to ever make money from phone apps. What the iPhone did was genius: they created demand for the phone, but would only sell through phone companies willing to let Apple control the app market. That made all the difference: all of sudden, a developer could make an app and have it show up to bazillions of people. But I do have apps in the Microsoft app store!
Don't confuse the lack of modern mobile apps with any mobile apps. There was a thriving ecosystem around mobile apps at the time. There were many companies living on this stuff.
List of Windows Mobile devices - Wikipedia
Mobile data was still very expensive, which didn't change for a few more years, and touchscreens were small and crappy. So the market was mostly business logic and CRM apps because they were the ones that could afford it. That changed when mobile data and big screens became cheap enough for consumers, but I think Apple was as confused about that as everyone else given the state of early iPhones. Consumers had no reason to buy it, developers had no reason to dev for it, a huge vicious circle that would have been difficult to break under the best of circumstances.
Man the more comments I read the more I begin to remember. I think Snapchat or Instagram was what he got known for. LOTS of people got heated when that happened. Rudy Hyn. For one app? For an app they would have to give away for free? You have to consider this in the context at the time.
To spend that kind of money on marketing and then not dedicate resources to the actual product seems foolish.
- spy on your wife through her phine.
- Silverlight spy windows phone 10.
- locate your friend without she knowing android.
- Microsoft gives up on Windows 10 Mobile | Hacker News!
- can i spy on my husbands phone?
- mobile phone tracker for samsung.
- The Best Tools for Silverlight Development.
And I am not saying they should have done this for only one app. I am saying they should have done this for many apps. If they had created quality versions of, say, the top 25 apps for mobile at the time they would have been in a much better position. I believe they could have made significant traction with business users. Remember, at the time Office wasn't available on other platforms and was is a huge draw for many people.
Now grab the Free version of XAML Spy (Express)
If they had been successful with the strategy and gained market share the partners would have wanted to take over their own apps anyway to enable monetization. But they needed users for that and to get users they needed apps. You have to jump start it somehow. Now, would it have made any difference? Who knows. But IMO, you either need to not do it or you need to do all parts of it right.
You can't go half way on the ecosystem and expect to succeed in an already challenging market. Sounds like a Hollywood strategy to me. Overadvertise a stinker to try to recoup your investment. That works for movies because they're trying to maximize the number of people who are interested enough to go see it once, more or less.
A successful phone ecosystem requires building something that people want to use over the medium term. And the expense and commitment of buying a phone is much greater than the cost of taking a chance on the Bearded Lady.
Related links and further reading...
HillaryBriss on Oct 9, They were great at getting their OS preinstalled on nearly every PC. They were really good at backwards compatibility, and they were absolutely ruthless against their competition. But they always, always sucked at marketing. They did manage to get many of the top 50 apps to their platform, however, top 50 isn't enough. When all your friends have the latest and greatest on their iOS and Android and you have to wait a year or two for a WP port you get tired of that. Plus there are many industry-specific and workplace apps that never made it to WP.
You can only face so many let downs in the app store before you give up on a platform. Nokia did make some damn good hardware though. Remember Pokemon Go? For a small number of core apps. If those apps suck they will immediately have a very bad impression and will switch back to iOS or Android as soon as they get a chance. GeekyBear on Oct 9, This was the strategy that Apple followed when OS X first came out. Third party developers were moving slowly or not at all so Apple started developing and giving away or selling apps that showed off what you could do with the new platform.
They developed Safari when Microsoft lost interest in further development of Internet Explorer. The iWork suite had Numbers, Pages, and Keynote. If you have a new platform and third party developers don't step up, then you need to start filling those holes yourself in a way that shows off your platform's advantages, and keep at it. EpicEng on Oct 9, If they were serious about growing the user base and building these apps internally was their only course of action seems like it was then it should have been taking more seriously assuming parent is spot on here, I have no idea really.
Not just one app. They would need Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, and a number of other staple apps. Usage numbers for FB are not that far behind IE.
Perhaps they should have invested a proportional amount. Intead they staffed their quality dev team on the Windows Mail app and Skype It was Microsoft. My last windows phone was a Lumia , the last Lumia announced I waited 7 months for it to reach singapore before throwing in the towel and going android. There were no phones avaliable outside America, uk, Australia.
Now I use iPhone. You don't know how untrue this is, couple of things. First lets start with this qoute "According to Kantar's October report, Windows Phone accounted for There can be many reasons Windows Phone failed, but what you've mentioned isn't one of them. But you're not competing with the iPhone of ten years ago. You're competing with the iPhone of today. It's difficult but in the end just excuses. Windows phones were never a serious competitor.
It just wasn't that important to the life and death of Microsoft and the result, from a business organizational perspective, is very much expected. Consider that his perception might explain why those numbers are so awful.
It's perfectly possible for the phones to be accessible to those kind of numbers of users and still be totally unavailable in the outlets a huge proportion of potential customers would look for them. I live in the UK, and I can't remember ever having seen a Windows phone in the stores. I'm sure they're available, because I've seen people use them now and again. But if they were available in the stores I've been in, they were hidden away. You seem to be implying they were much more readily available in the United States, which seems like a stretch.
I didn't imply anything about actual availability at all, but about how perceived availability matters. To restate my point more clearly, the situation was much the same in the US. We are in and if you want to take marketshare from your competitors then you need to be releasing your products in all major markets. Not a couple of them. Windows phone was quite popular in Asia yet it died due to lack of devices. I remember the HD7, I was eyeing it off for a while, I could buy one, I just couldn't find a phone store near me that would let me try one.