The hateful writer lectures everyone on what they should think, and does a market- and sales analysis for the first and last time.

Part V: “From the user’s point of view”.

As we know - Apple invented OpenGL, nokia’s s60 software is more advanced and usable (..not more usable than anything, just more usable in general) due to higher Mhz count on the processor. SE’s batteries last a week on heavy use, and LG’s recurring christmas- light notification function was the best thing that ever happened to the mobile market. And Windows mobile is evidently the best on the market, simply because it’s Microsoft, and Microsoft earns money - ipso hapso, that’s why you can safely buy the product without worrying it’s a good one. So many others did before you, after all.

Considering all of that - what exactly should someone take from the opinions and beliefs that float around, when considering what the customer really wants? One thing is when trying to sell phones that are virtually identical, to users that are difficult to please - because then it’s brand recognition all the way, followed closely by “brand philosophy” and extra functions that set the device apart from the others. And the useful (or less fancy) functions become secondary, simply because we’ve already established that’s where the devices compete on equal terms.

But when you design a user- interface, what do the customers really want? Is it, for example, worth it to employ a more advanced OS from the bottom up (with all the trouble that brings with it), when a new front- end (a visual representation) is more than good enough to impress and sell devices? Even if it’s just one screen (and not an actual “shell” as most would define it).

Bacause after all - when developing software solutions, you rarely end up asking the customers too much about what they really want. Not just because you don’t care, but because they demand impossible things, or very difficult ones that make no sense. In other words, it’s always easier to offer the customers something you’ve come up with, and then skimp on the interesting stuff (such as all the code they’re unfortunate enough to never see, for example). Whether that solution then is actually good - well - that’s a matter of opinion very quickly.

Because actually offering a wholesome solution does - as we’ve been looking at over the past few weeks in this series - not sell, compared to gimmicks of various kinds. It’s also expensive and time- consuming to get all of it right. Not in the least when it comes to marketing. Where for example SE seems to have a talent for consistently finding the most inappropriate time to launch a device - apparently always believing that the phone will sell itself anyway.

Evidently, they are mistaken. Because very few really care about parallelism, RISC, memory- use, and battery- efficiency, or possibilities for developers (..just like SE). People care about visuals, impression and fashion. Indeed, as some of us who stick with UIQ are continuously told - we are the few hard core fans who “do not understand how the mobile industry works”. Which is of course entirely true.

What does sell, though? Recently, HTC announced a new device, the HTC Diamond. It has reasonable specifications, and good connectivity options for people on the move. But for a WM device, it’s somewhat underpowered, and lost some screen real- estate compared to other, similar phones, as well as the battery (a better one is offered separately). It’s also smaller, and has fancy things on the back that seems to fit well with cufflinks.

^{Fashionable cufflinks}

In other words, it’s being marketed as a device for the more casual user more than the business- user (sounds familiar?), and will no doubt be somewhat cheaper than the previous devices (which is the intention). It also will launch with a specially written version of Opera 9.5, which will finally bring a useful browser to WM (if they sort out the trouble with using the right text- field apis, so 3rd party writing software might work with it, and so on).

And this is being sold, now, as the revolution we’ve all been waiting for, when we can view the web on the move as we can on the PC (…for really real this time). Something that - as a package - evidently enhances the appeal of the device much more than the specifications, and simply a new shell over the old Windows Mobile system should suggest.

—

Meanwhile, the other Opera associate, UIQ Technologies, has no devices announced with Opera 9.5, and we continue to receive a stream of bad news that suggests - once again - that SE (the main developer of UIQ devices) simply lacks the capacity (..was that scheduled, perhaps?) to put such a phone together when it comes to the software, primarily. Resulting in that SE sits on several unreleased devices running UIQv3.0 (which will launch with the venerable, but still useful Opera 8.65). At the same time as they are stuck with new devices intended for UIQv3.3 that will fail to ride the wave when they’re finally deployed - since they will then be out of date. Resulting in, as usual, that the UIQ devices on the market will appear obsolete because they do not define themselves. And so they lose crucial market- presence.

In addition, as we’ve examined in the previous parts of this series, we can also determine that all of these unreleased phones can in fact run UIQv3.3 in some form or another. There’s also no doubt that Opera 9.5 can run on existing UIQ 3.0 devices. But already subscribed to market- decisions - which we in this case can see very clearly - dictates that UIQv3.0 devices must first be deployed and maintained for the longest time. While then, several months later, the new UIQ3.3 devices will be launched as the successor of the previous devices - in order to not harm the sales of the then obsolete devices. Which - predictably - will be a strategy that will fail as usual.

Evidently, we’ve found yet another reason why deploying the latest UIQ versions directly on the device will not hurt, but help sales. While at the same time maintaining the platform’s, as well as the manufacturer brand’s appeal. And through that establish a market- presence, since UIQ devices would suddenly increase their shelf- life, as well as appeal to new users.

And the phone- makers could simply go back to /selling phones/.

Because - what happens when a platform continuously fails to deliver any amount of it’s potential? When new products do not become available until long after the competition has been there and left? When delays, and then easily fixable bugs persist for years due to neglect? When features only SE can provide (such as the profiles - or a global api for accessing sound- settings) exhaults in brilliant absence?

I should of course be extremely careful when speaking for others - but I think we can all agree what those who actually use the phones would think of a situation like that. And I would even hazard that those who sit in the incredibly closed and entrenched mobile industry - would probably be of the same opinion (if they knew).

—

next: Part VI, “Application development on mobiles”.