Microsoft says it is responding to the fierce competition in the phone market by retooling and beefing up its mobile operating system–and by putting it on fewer devices.
Todd Peters, the vice president of marketing for the Windows Mobile division, discussed those concepts in general terms in an interview here at the Consumer Electronics Show. He declined to be more specific, explaining Microsoft plans a major announcement at the Mobile World Congress, a trade show scheduled for next month in Barcelona.
But he was clear that one way in which Microsoft plans to become more competitive is by limiting the number of devices built with the Windows Mobile operating system. At present, there are around 140 such devices, from a range of cell phone makers, from Samsung to Palm and many in between.
The reason that Microsoft is limiting the number of phones with the operating system is because, he said, the company does not want to have its efforts diluted over too many devices.
“I’d rather have fewer devices and be more focused,” he said. That way “we get better integration” between phone and operating system.
The decision by Microsoft comes as phone users are getting more discerning about the ease of use of their phones, and the breadth of capabilities. Microsoft has a particular challenge in that unlike some competitors, it does not control both the hardware and the software. By contrast, Apple designs both the hardware and software for the iPhone, while Palm today announced a new device, the pre, and also makes the operating system, WebOS.
Mr. Peters said further details about the efforts to focus Windows will be emerge in the coming months. He said that at the Mobile World Congress–where Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer will present the keynote address–the company will talk about how it can provide more value through new touch-screen capability and new service offerings. That way, he said, companies that build phones around the Windows Mobile operating system will have an incentive to continue to pay for the software license.
source : nytimes.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment