PCWorld Forums: Carriers Desperately Seeking Windows Phone - PCWorld Forums

Post your comments for Carriers Desperately Seeking Windows Phone here

I think the author (and his cited analysts) is desperately wanting carriers to seek Windows phone. From my own observations, the carriers are not pushing the Windows phones that are already out there, and they don't seem to be in any rush to get new ones - this is especially evident with Verizon. To be honest, I think this article is merely an attempt to draw up demand where there really isn't much - Windows Phone did not see the great rise after its release that they all predicted, and now their portfolios are hurting because of it.

bigdav1178, on 27 April 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

Have you asked the CEOs/presidents of those companies or are you going by the sales people in the retial outlets? There's a difference.

The problem with carriers wanting to try and push Windows Phone to challenge iPhone would the fact it would actually eat into Android's sales not iPhone. iPhone has a niche just like Macs do.

This is why Android and Windows Phone go after the same people. They both have free to high end phones and Windows Phone is trying to get more phone developers on board to offer as big a variety as Android has. There is one difference though Android has a lot bigger selection of apps/games than Windows Phone so it's gonna be an uphill battle until either Windows Mobile can get a lot more app/game developers on board or until Microsoft can scrap Windows Phone for the full version of Windows.

I think the Nokia Lumia 900 is the best looking smartphone on the market. And if it wasn't under powered and Windows Phone had near as many apps/games as Android and the iPhone then I could've seen myself choosing the best looking smartphone on the market.

There's another factor that will stop iPhone from losing people. It's called the trade in value factor. iPhones tend to retain the value you paid for it so when the new iPhone comes out people have to pay little to no cost difference to upgrade to the latest iPhone. Android and Windows Phone tend to only retain half value. So you will have to pay half the cost overall to upgrade to the newer Android and Windows Phone out. And unless you get only free phones or low end phones, it's worth going with Android or Windows Phone.

The problem with carriers wanting to try and push Windows Phone to challenge iPhone would be the fact it would actually eat into Android's sales not iPhone. iPhone has a niche just like Macs do.

This is why Android and Windows Phone go after the same people. They both have free to high end phones and Windows Phone is trying to get more phone developers on board to offer as big a variety as Android has. There is one difference though Android has a lot bigger selection of apps/games than Windows Phone so it's gonna be an uphill battle until either Windows Phone can get a lot more app/game developers on board or until Microsoft can scrap Windows Mobile for the full version of Windows.

I think the Nokia Lumia 900 is the best looking smartphone on the market. And if it wasn't under powered and Windows Phone had near as many apps/games as Android and the iPhone then I could've seen myself choosing the best looking smartphone on the market.

There's another factor that will stop iPhone from losing people. It's called the trade in value factor. iPhones tend to retain the value you paid for it so when the new iPhone comes out people have to pay little to no cost difference to upgrade to the latest iPhone. Android and Windows Phone tend to only retain half value. So you will have to pay half the cost overall to upgrade to the newer Android and Windows Phone out. And unless you get only free phones or low end phones, it's not worth going with Android or Windows Phone.

Edited from previous post.

I'm no "Apple Fanboi" I have an Android phone, which followed a Palm Pre, Blackberry, and Palm Treo.

Nokia and MS could produce a phone/OS combo that make the iPhone look like a first gen Treo and it wouldn't have much impact on Apple's power.

The App Store and the thousands of iPhone accessories mean that MS has almost zero chance of making a significant dent in iPhone domination anytime soon.

Yes! iPhone subsidizing cost more because the phones cost more. WAYYYYYYYY MORE.

Most top end Android phones cost $599 or retail. While iPhone is $699, $799 and &899 retail ($650, 750 and 850 from Apple).

On average, carriers are paying $300 or less to selll you a device on contract vs Apple. Imagine i fthey subsidized the iPad as well.

The problem with Windows Phone, the carriers don't push them as heavy. With iPhone they have to prepay Appel for the device they "think" they can sell. That si a bunch of upfront money they dont have to pay with any other platform. Likely one reason VZW pushes some models wit the Droid branding.

bigdav1178, on 27 April 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

Verizon Chief Financial Officer Fran Shammo disagrees with your assessment.

Mattvm8v, on 27 April 2012 - 06:22 AM, said:

Android phones only retain 1/2 the value? Hmmmmm...maybe you need to look on eBay. I have at this point sold 4 iPhones and 3 Andoid devices and 2 Windows Phone devices on ebay. I paid 199.99 for my original Droid Incredible and I sold it for $350. That's nearly 1/2 MORE...not less. I also an HTC Thunderbolt which I paid 299 for when it first came out. I sold it for $475 on eBay.

The average cost of a use iPhone is about $200.00 less than its retail cost. I have purchase 3 iPhone 4's. One for ATT and 2 with VZW
I sold all 2 for nearly $450 and $475 only because I was trying to rush and sell....one I sold at $550. I just sold my iPhone 4S which I paid $399 for $650 on eBay. The 64GB cost $899 brand new at retail or $850 from Apple. All my devices are always in mint condition as I always keep a ZAGG.

Most buyers buy phones on contract, which means depending on where they sell the device and what condition it is in, they can certainly get more for them. Some peopel want a newer phone now, but don't quality for the upgrade. So they look online for the best possible cost for a phone in mint or refurbished condition.

The claim that Apple devices ahve a higher resales value is simple BS. The resale value is higher because the phones or devices or Mac's simply cost sp much more.

Look at the facts in numbers Bro. A typical Mac will cost you $1599. If you sell it 1 years later, then yes you can likely get nearly $1000 for it. Because it is still practically a new machine that is plenty fast enough and if in mint condition is less than retail. Its simply a better overall value. However, I can still get a brand new Windows system forr less with the same or BETTER hardware. But if I didn't want such and I wanted a Mac, I woudl NEVER buy one new with my own money. I would buy it 2nd hand because that si the only way I will meet my price point.

What you are saying is so simple. If I have a Porsche andit cost me $125k. I would expect that if it is in mint condition 2 years later, and has very low miles, I could still get $100K for it. Well duh...look what I paid for it.

The average Android device is 499-599 retail, in order to get an iPhone at that cost you would have to buy it used or refurbished.

Mattvm8v, on 27 April 2012 - 06:22 AM, said:

I'm not sure why you think it's underpowered, have you tried one? In addition to it being terrific looking (we both agree on that) the Lumia 900 runs as smooth as silk. Comparing hardware (e.g., processors) doesn't always tell the true story, the actual user experience is the telling factor.

Mattvm8v, on 27 April 2012 - 06:25 AM, said:

I think AT&T like Windows Phones but Verizon hates Microsoft. You can't find a Windows Phone anywhere inside a Verizon store and if you ask about them the sales people tell you that they suck and you should go for an Android. This happened to me in 2 different stores. According to the article Verizon is looking forward to Windows 8 phones...I'll believe it when I see it. (Disclosure: I have a Windows Phone and I love it!!!)

Carriers are no better in the way they treat customers.

in the case of verizon, indeed, they're very much pro android because, well, this all they really sell. i've used and played with quite a few android handsets, and though they'll get the job done (sometimes), they're not really "well done" ... they lag at random times, tasks crash and reboots, they overheat quite a bit under heavy use (even the latest droid razr ... yes, i actually used it for a bit to verify myself), note that most "still" run gingerbread instead of ics -- for those that keeping complaining that ms will be ditching lumia users with wp8 ... try getting android ics 4.0 from your oem for your gingerbread handset! no, hacking/rooting it yourself doesn't count because your average customer is *not* going to do this.

anyway, i agree with all the other assessments that a 3rd ecosystem is needed where you get the speed, reliability, great battery life, all the apps you need, but without having to starve in order to afford it. so, android - low end, not too reliable, but some us can only afford what we can afford; windows phone - stable, solid, well priced, great battery life, actually cheap now compared to android = great deal!; iphone - if you can afford gucci and so on.

me: lumia 900 (cyan), wife: lumia 900 (white) ... zero problems (not even the data issue reported). solid, fast, can't find an app we didn't need/want. irresistably priced. all around winner.

"Apple collects as much as $600 per iPhone user in royalties from the carriers on top of the hardware profits from the phones, according to several analysts, although Apple and the carriers have never confirmed that amount."

As a whole, I found this article interesting. However, the statement above was a bit disturbing. Were it in a blog post, I could understand. However, to cite "according to several analysts" as a source of information and not have even "an unnamed source" from within either Apple or either of the carriers, seems to be poor journalism.

To provide data as if it is fact without substantiation is reprehensible.

bigdav1178, on 27 April 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

Fat Dave I think if you read enough comments from Verizon users, you would see that they actually would love to ditch the garbage Android phones they are forced to use, along with the iPhones, if Verizon would only offer WP7 devices.

compnovo, on 27 April 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

Blame the media for making such an issue of the number of cores a phone has.. like there really is any need for that much processing speed. My Focus uses a single core 1ghz CPU, never lags, never freezes, never had to reset it, over the past year I concluded that basically Msoft made WP7 as close to perfect as possible. Msoft has already proven they can take any WP7 device and accomplish any task faster than any iPhone, Android phone out there 99% of the time.

Verizon? Desperate? They're so desperate that they're WAITING until Windows Phone 8, for which there is no clear RTM date. Verizon is just trying to appeal to its investors who are brainwashed into thinking Verizon's mobile development is valuable beyond what they are, which is spectrum and bandwidth. Verizon wants to build apps that NO ONE IS GOING TO USE on that can't be deleted on as many devices as possible and clog up the update channels so that users who have phones made obsolete ONLY BECAUSE of not receiving updates may want a newer device just to catch up. This is where Apple will win the more we make it clear that we want are devices kept up to date as long as they are physically capable. It shouldn't take a forum of technological misfits to show the OEMs and carriers what we want. The value of a platform is imbued MOST by its controllers. It's stakeholders will value it that much more. At this point the MAJOR stakeholder in ANY platform is the customer/end-user. The customer/end-user is the person who Verizon needs to be working to KEEP, not screw out of unnecessary purchases at full retail because a phone only six months old is already obsolete because Verizon thinks it clever to withhold updates until it can release a new device containing said update.

"The problem with carriers wanting to try and push Windows Phone to challenge iPhone would be the fact it would actually eat into Android's sales not iPhone. iPhone has a niche just like Macs do."

I do agree with you that the iPhone has its niche, but they will loose some ground. It is not all going to come from Android. My buddy switched from an iPhone to the Nokia Lumia 900 and loves it. He decided to switch because I got the HTC Trophy and he was impressed with the phone overall. He was a diehard iPhone guy, but was tied of the Apple OS not allowing him to everything that he wanted. I love my phone. I had a MyTouch last year and traded out within 2 months because it was junk. I have tried iPhones and did not care for them. The problem is that people have been using Androids or iPhones because they did not like the other. Android users say that they have greater freedom with it. That may be true but I find them glitchy. iPhone users are usually iPod/iPad/Mac people and they are comfortable with it.

"This is why Android and Windows Phone go after the same people. They both have free to high end phones and Windows Phone is trying to get more phone developers on board to offer as big a variety as Android has. There is one difference though Android has a lot bigger selection of apps/games than Windows Phone so it's gonna be an uphill battle until either Windows Phone can get a lot more app/game developers on board or until Microsoft can scrap Windows Mobile for the full version of Windows."

The number of Apps is not a good selling point. Most apps are junk and pointless. I have found every app with the exception of 2 that I have looked for on my Windows phone, which is about the same as when I had the Android phone. I have 70 Apps which is about average for smartphone users.

"I think the Nokia Lumia 900 is the best looking smartphone on the market. And if it wasn't under powered and Windows Phone had near as many apps/games as Android and the iPhone then I could've seen myself choosing the best looking smartphone on the market."

I agree that it is a great looking phone. I like the look more than my Trophy. It is not underpowered by any means. It has more power than my Trophy and my Trophy has no issues. It is smooth. I reboot my phone maybe every few months to make sure that it is refreshed. I had to reboot the MyTouch at least every month. It may have just been the phone but I have used several of my friend's Androids and they are glitchy as well.

"There's another factor that will stop iPhone from losing people. It's called the trade in value factor. iPhones tend to retain the value you paid for it so when the new iPhone comes out people have to pay little to no cost difference to upgrade to the latest iPhone. Android and Windows Phone tend to only retain half value. So you will have to pay half the cost overall to upgrade to the newer Android and Windows Phone out. And unless you get only free phones or low end phones, it's not worth going with Android or Windows Phone."

Actually, the Android and Windows phones will sell for more. I have watched Android phones sell for $350 retail and someone purchase the same phone used for $550. Quadicon also mentions about selling Android phones for almost double their retail price and iPhones selling for the same as reason. The reason that I see this happened is because the phone is unlocked. That may not be the main reason but that is what I see as the common reason for it. It is not necessary, but you can get an unlocked iPhone for the same retail price.

bigdav1178, on 27 April 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

Have you been to an AT&T store recently? It is Windows Phone central there. You can see the Nokia Lumia banners inside the store from across the street.

Verizon's comments speak for themselves. They want Windows Phone 8 with LTE. They need a third smartphone platform and BlackBerry is bleeding market share like crazy.