Why Windows Phone 7 could be the OS/2 of this generation

Summary: With a lot riding on the Nokia Lumia 900 and the phone off to a shaky start, the destiny of Windows Phone 7 remains as cloudy as ever.

Photo credit: Nokia

As I wrote in January and as others like Larry Dignan have also noted, both Nokia and Microsoft have a whole lot riding on the success or failure of the Nokia Lumia 900. It's the first Windows Phone 7 device that has the teeth to compete with iPhone and Android, but the Lumia 900 isn't off to a great start and the uphill climb for Microsoft and Nokia is getting steeper. Unless something changes, Windows Phone 7 is in danger of becoming an operating system known for its quality in the technology industry but never widely-adopted by the masses. Does this sound familiar?

The Lumia 900 is good, as I said in my review. It's good enough to replace an iPhone or an Android device for most things. But, it's not significantly better at enough things to drive lots of conversions from iPhone or Android or to get a lot of new smartphone users to pick Windows Phone 7 over the Apple or Google platforms.

If that challenge wasn't daunting enough, a string of bad press and self-inflicted missteps have meant that more obstacles are continuing to stack up against Microsoft and Nokia (and AT&T, the U.S. carrier of the Lumia 900). Here is the litany of problems:

  • Launch date - We'd been hearing for months that Microsoft, Nokia, and AT&T were planning a huge promotional campaign to bring the Lumia 900 to market. AT&T said the Lumia 900 would get "one of its biggest launches ever." It was going to be Nokia's big re-entry into the U.S. smartphone market. The launch was set for Sunday, April 8. Nokia even hosted a huge launch party in Times Square in New York City on the Friday night before the big launch. Only one problem: they scheduled the launch on a U.S. holiday. Veteran Windows commentator Paul Thurrott posted on Twitter: "Nokia launches Lumia 900 today in US ... On a day when NO retail stores are open (Easter). I give up."
  • Technical difficulties - The Lumia 900 launched with a wireless flaw that Nokia had to fix and then offer a $100 credit to buyers as a make-good. As CNET reported, "Some early Lumia 900 customers found that their phones failed to get a data connection, an issue Nokia confirmed and said it is fixing. As a peace offering, the company is offering this promotion both to appease existing customers and entice potential new ones, with the $100 fully covering the $99.99 handset."
  • Retail apathy - While TechRepublic's Bill Detwiler was recently at a retail location asking about the Lumia 900 and the HTC Titan II (another WP7 device that launched on April 8), he pulled out his iPhone 4S to get some information. The salesperson gave him a very confused look and asked, "You're switching from an iPhone to a Windows Phone?" Even worse, I've heard stories from several people who went to retail locations to buy a new smartphone and when they inquired about Windows Phone, the sales associated steered them in another direction. Nokia and Microsoft have reportedly given away 10,000 Lumia 900 devices to AT&T retail store employees in the U.S. to help win them over to the platform.
  • European disdain - In Europe, where the Lumia 800 (the little brother of the 900) has been on sale since December, representatives of four major wireless carriers said that Nokia Lumia phones weren't good enough to compete against Apple's iPhones or Samsung's Android phones, according to a Reuters report. One telecom executive told Reuters, "If the Lumia with the same hardware came with Android in it and not Windows, it would be much easier to sell." That's a bitter pill considering Nokia was the runaway marketshare leader for smartphones in Europe just a few years ago.

Fortunately, there have also been a few encouraging signs:

Still, the company that Microsoft picked to be its No. 1 hardware partner for Windows Phone 7 is struggling badly. On April 11, Nokia announced the latest in a string of disappointing earnings reports and told financial analysts that things are going to get worse in the immediate future as Nokia phones lose traction against Android devices in emerging markets.

It's not like either Microsoft or Nokia are going to get out of the smartphone business if the Lumia 900 isn't a big hit. But, as I said in January when the Lumia 900 was announced, if this device isn't a hit then Microsoft and Nokia will become an increasingly isolated duo. Without a sign that WP7 is finally gaining momentum, it's doubtful that HTC, Samsung, LG, Dell, or any other hardware manufacturers will jump on the Windows Phone 7 bandwagon.

That will leave Nokia and Microsoft to struggle along for another year or two with low single-digit marketshare in smartphones and little hope of making a significant impact on the mobile market. While that might be a shame -- as I've said many times, Windows Phone 7 is one of the best pieces of software Microsoft has built -- it would not be unprecedented. It reminds me of the situation with OS/2 in the late 1980s and early 1990s. OS/2 was a joint project between IBM and Microsoft to build a next-generation operating system for PCs. Although most technologists judged it a superior piece of software, OS/2 lost to Microsoft Windows, which came to market sooner, had more third-party apps, and won over the hardware manufacturers because they could do more with it to make it their own.

There are still people in the technology industry today who talk about how good OS/2 was and shake their heads when they think about why it wasn't more widely adopted by the public. Unless something happens to change the trajectory of Windows Phone 7, a lot of people in tech could be saying the same thing about it a decade from now.

This article was first published on TechRepublic under the title "Windows Phone 7: The OS/2 of this generation?"

Topics: Microsoft, Hardware, Mobility, Nokia, Operating Systems, Smartphones, Software, Windows

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

112 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • It could be reasonably debated . . .

    . . . . that OS/2 was not a success because MS used its monopoly and instead introduced Windows 95. However, that is not the case with WP7. No company is using a monopoly to stop MS. It simply doesn't have traction with consumers; at least, outside the US.
    Restricted_access
    • No, I would submit that OS/2 was not a success because it

      had zero hardware compatibility and a 200 page installation manual. I still remember how annoyed I was when the installation guide told me my sony CD drive was not supported in OS/2 and explicitly told me to go buy a SCSI CD drive if I wanted OS/2 to recognize it.
      baggins_z
      • Out of idle curiosity...

        ...what version of OS/2 was this? I started with 3 and had no such problems.

        Reply to Rama:

        That explains it. Apparently, a lot of improvements were made between 2.0 and 3.0.
        John L. Ries
      • @John L. Ries

        OS/2 2.0
        Ram U
      • People confuse OS/2 and OS/2 Warp. Might be happening in this article too.

        Last year I had an 'IT' course with an instructor who wanked about the Microsoft - OS/2 connection several times, about the stupidity of IBM having their competitor write IBS's OS, and he was no fan of MS either (neither was/am I).

        I asked what he thought about Warp, the hadn't a clue.

        I don't know about OS/2 but OS/2 WARP beat Win 95 senseless. As you mention there was a hardware compatibility issue, where the dial up and video card worked flawlessly the sound card took some real hoop jumping to get working. But then the sound card was on a 'bleeding edge' combo card so the hoops can be understood (and I learned to stay back from the bleeders).

        My biggest gripe with installation was having to make a Win 95 boot floppy to start the CD so Warp could be loaded. Come to think of it the boot floppy is the only thing I remember about installation.

        I still have the Warp disk here someplace, I wonder if I could get it to run in a newer machine.

        .
        rmhesche
    • Check your facts

      "OS/2 was not a success because MS used its monopoly and instead introduced Windows 95."
      Actually, the story goes rather like... MS went on to create Windows NT. Both Windows NT and OS/2 were created half a decade before Windows 95. And OS/2 failed miserably because it was technologically far-far inferior to Windows NT, and even to the Windows 9x line - not because MS abused its monopoly.
      ff2
      • Oh, no, not this again

        C'mon, the OS/2 wars are over. OS/2 is dead except for fanatics of the sort who also still run Amigas. There is no need to guard the fortress with lies and propaganda; just go back to sleep.
        Robert Hahn
      • Are you this stupid in real life?

        NT up to around v4 was a steaming pile of offal. Not that you had a semblance of honesty and/or a brain cell to begin with.
        ego.sum.stig
      • Your facts

        LOL, you either never used it or weren't there at the time. NT was far from superior to OS/2. But go ahead and live in your revisionist universe.
        jfgeschmidtt
      • Miss the Antitrust Trial?

        MS was found in court a few years back (way too late to matter of course) to have extorted IBM with the threat to withhold Win95 licensing for IBM PC's as long as IBM pushed OS/2 around the time frame of the Win95 launch. I, and a lot of other OS/2 users, wondered back then why IBM seemed to "lose interest" in continuing to develop OS/2 and promote it about that time just as Warp 3 and 4 seemed to be really getting it right. Now we know, and you should, too.
        anonymous
      • OS/2 3.0 was a serious OS when MS still made toy systems

        "And OS/2 failed miserably because it was technologically far-far inferior to Windows NT, and even to the Windows 9x line "

        Hm, that's a peculiar claim... I never tried NT, but after having used OS/2 Warp for a while, which was lightyears ahead of DOS and Windows 3.x at that time, I finally had to surrender since the whole software- and hardware industry supported Windows and not OS/2 (including IBM in the end...). It was no point when you had to run Windows inside OS/2 to be able to use most applications, so I reluctantly installed Windows 95 instead. It was a miserable downgrade, like switching from a real operating system to a toy product, and I never understood how the business world could come to rely on such unstable and truly crappy systems like the DOS based Windows versions (Win 3.x, 95 etc.). But all that's history now of course, and fortunately MS eventually brought us really good OS'es, like XP and Win 7.
        ggranvik@...
    • Significant Difference

      IBM did not have a sister product installed on about 90% of PCs in the world that was fixing to get an update that matched OS/2 in look & feel. Where Windows Phone is currently a novel approach known only to a small segment of the market, one year from now, many if not most people will recognize it from the desktop OS Windows 8. Even if you're not using it on your own computer yet, once a new Windows OS is out, you see it somewhere. I.e., OS/2 was fighting alone against a big incumbent, WP is fixing to have a powerful ally by its side.
      WebSiteManager
      • Snake Oil

        You skipped over one little detail while reciting the Official Microsoft Version of the Future. In the Official Version, people recognize the interface on the phones as the one from their desktop PC. In the actual Universe, people don't recognize the thing on their desktop PC as Windows. In fact, when it boots up the first time, they say, "What the heck is [i]this[/i]?" Then they call HP or Dell and tell Peggy From India that instead of Windows, the screen is full of little colored squares. "It won't let me use Windows," they tell Peggy.

        Peggy explains how to get to the desktop, and there goes the Official Version of how the future was supposed to unfold.

        You can't sell with "familiarity" that which is unfamiliar. What were the meeting attendees smoking when they signed off on this plan?
        Robert Hahn
    • No way..

      Os/2 failed LONG before MS had any kind of monopoly. They did not become the dominant os until mid to late 90's, with the success of Win95sr2 (released in 96). Os/2 was off the market long before then.
      mharr
      • Actually...

        OS/2 Warp 4 was sold until 2000, if I remember correctly.
        John L. Ries
  • well

    Your 2nd point (Technical difficulties) i actually think improved peoples opinion of Nokia, not ruined it.

    If you think what happened at Apple with "antenna-gate" they basically refused to say there was an issue, then the told you to "hold it different" and then they only offered you a crappy $15 quid plastic case for it when they were FORCED to.

    On the other hand Nokia within the space of a week (not months) gave users $100 and promptly fixed the issue.
    danjames2012
    • danjames2012, you forgot that it's FUD, too

      Jason, read what you quoted. The very first word is 'some'. Last I knew, as it was used, 'some' didn't imply a majority. Antenna-gate was a problem on every phone, and a hardware/design issue at that. The Lumia issue was software problem and didn't affect the majority of users, yet ALL users ended up with free phones. It was also fixed within a week. How long did it take Steve Jobs and Apple to even admit anything, let alone do anything?

      Ironically, Jason also again failed to research one of his 'good' points. WPCentral's poll was strictly on people moving from a different OS. So it doesn't mean that those percentages represent users buying the phone. There is quite a lengthy debate that was/is going on in that thread at WPCentral as to why current WP7 users were NOT included. That means those numbers are even lower... and I'm correcting you as a huge fan of Windows Phone 7.5. I would think, as an Editor in Chief, you would remove your opinions and bias from giving facts or else make it extremely clear that you're writing has changed from fact to your totally bias opinion. I'm not implying giving your bias opinion is a bad thing, but if you can't separate your facts from spin you shouldn't be a journalist...you should be a blogger where your title becomes meaningless and your readership will, based off this article, clearly take a hit.
      ikissfutebol
      • Speaking of FUD

        "Antenna-gate was a problem on every phone, and a hardware/design issue at that. The Lumia issue was software problem and didn't affect the majority of users, yet ALL users ended up with free phones."

        I think you have that backwards. The minor issue with the iPhone 4 only affected 2% to 3% of the users. I've personally tried it on half a dozen phones, and the only way I can get it to happen is to wrap the phone completely in tin foil, rendering the phone unusable. At the time of "Antenna-gate" I had a phone supplied by the company I worked for, and of you held it a certain way, it would immediately drop the call you were on. I got real good at ho;ding it just right, so I could ignore my boss. I would just shift two fingers, and presto the call would get dropped. The phone was the Touch Pro 2, by HTC, running Windows Mobile 6.5. Yet at the time I never saw any other phones being called out for signal issues. Why is that? The issue with these new Nokia phones was/is a software bug, that happens randomly, and apparently it's happening to more that 2%%, or 3%, of the users. If there was a software update pushed out that quickly, it's fairly reasonable to think this was an issue, they knew about before launch. But since they had already begun shipping they fixed the in house units, and sent the update, to AT&T before the launch date. While I wouldn't go so far as to claim it to be staged, I think it's being used as a PR stunt. When the next issue pops up we'll see how long it takes, and I'm betting it will take longer than a week.
        Jumpin Jack Flash
  • No one cares

    I love the drivel on Windows Phone, let's finally admit Microsoft badly handled the transition from Windows Mobile 5 through 6/6.5 and basically threw all those users under the bus (not that it was a huge # of people). They are now likely going to do the same thing to Windows Phone 7/7.5 users as they move to Windows Phone 8.

    You can't burn your core audience when your having zero appeal to future customers. Without the core that talks about your products (and uses them) you lose a critical pillar any platform needs. Add to the fact the carriers will sell whatever drives sales, right now thats not Windows Phone or RIM. The market is being driven by consumer wants and both MS and RIM were mostly enterprise focused. Considering corporations are embracing BYOD both lose on big corporate sales, likely there will be some corporate liable devices but much smaller than the past.

    Microsoft has not consistent message around Windows Phone, it always seems to be in transition. At least RIM is embracing open standards for developers and providing ways to easily port their exsisting Apps.
    MobileAdmin
    • Carriers sell what they believe will be in their best interest, and

      are not always right.

      Remember that Apple first approached Verizon as the carrier they wanted to release their first iPhone on, and Verizon straight out proclaimed that "we do not need the iPhone".

      Two years later and Verizon jumped at the chance to sell it.

      Two years later. Android took over Two years to grow to the size that it is, and yet the authors and bloggers believe that Microsoft should do the same in 12 months.

      Microsoft is not RIM, and has many other products that provide the staying power, as they did with the XBox game consol, where as RIM must do drastic measures to remain alive.
      :|
      Tim Cook