Update: If you want to learn more about how mobile carriers work, including some refreshingly candid quotes from official documents and financial reports, see AT&T’s business model: why your mobile bill keeps going up.
The paranoia around Windows Phone updates is so thick you could cut it with a machete.
The other day I wrote a post quoting Microsoft’s official policy on the subject, under the headline “Microsoft is in the driver’s seat for Windows Phone updates.” I’ve since had follow-up conversations with Microsoft spokespeople confirming that what I wrote was accurate.
This morning, Paul Thurrott published a snarky, melodramatic post that promises to explain “what’s really happening.” (I’ll give him the courtesy of linking to his post so you can read it, even though he didn’t bother to link to mine.) Peter Bright at Ars Technica has a similar analysis, minus the snark, with considerably more technical depth, and with ample links. And my ZDNet colleague Adrian Kingsley-Hughes piled on this morning with a rehash of the issue.
Ironically, Paul’s post, which is drawn from his experience at a reviewer’s workshop he attended last month, actually supports my point, explicitly and without reservation. He even put the money quote in boldface type. Here, read for yourself:
So why give carriers this control, I asked [Microsoft Corporate VP Joe Belfiore]. After all, Microsoft could simply require Windows Phone users to upgrade through the Zune PC software, bypassing the carriers entirely.
“Technically, we could push updates through the Zune software and bypass the carriers,” he answered.
In other words, Microsoft is in the driver’s seat. They own the servers. They control the updates. But they also recognize they have partnership relationships to sustain, and they can’t just push an update out that might affect a carrier’s network. That would be stupid and short-sighted. Do you think Apple delivers an update to the iOS platform without making sure that their carrier partners have had a chance to test it for issues?
That’s where the paranoia creeps in. And that question of the business model is what my friends Peter and Paul (and Adrian too) are missing.
Mobile carriers are not evil or stupid. They are capitalists. That often produces behavior that appears to be evil and/or stupid. Depressingly often, in fact. But there’s usually a business reason for that behavior. And those who are arguing the paranoid case are ignoring those business models. That’s why the communication between them and Microsoft is so cantankerous. If you’re speaking different languages, communication is difficult.
Paul’s latest post even includes a quote from Belfiore that explains this issue, although Paul fails to connect the dots:
It’s very different from the situation with Windows Mobile, where every phone was very different and a full test pass was required on every phone. Here, there’s no impact on OEM code, network code, etc. There are upgrades that will require a full test pass. Most will not.
“Every phone was very different.” Exactly. Everyone who ever owned a Windows Mobile phone knows how true that is. Android owners are becoming aware of it as well, as I discovered while researching this post.
