Daniel Eran Dilger
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Lance Ulanoff and Robbie Bach explain why library size doesn’t matter for WiMo apps vs the iPhone

Daniel Eran Dilger

Lance Ulanoff, the man who in 2003 wrote that an obscure flaw in Mac OS X Jaguar made it “just as vulnerable as Microsoft Windows” during a year that businesses suffered $55 billion in virus-related losses due to their use of Windows, who in 2006 wrote a diatribe reviling bloggers so masterfully link-baiting that John Dvorak ‘bowed in awe,’ and who served as the canary in the coal mine last year in warning us all about the dangers of DRM-free music (which he called the “road to ruin”), is now serving as one of the few Windows Enthusiasts ready and willing to advocate for Microsoft’s beleaguered Windows Mobile platform.
In his PC Mag blog posting, Ulanoff consumed 978 words (17 of which were “I”) explaining why the catalog size of Apple’s iPhone App Store in comparison to Microsoft’s fledgling Marketplace for Windows Mobile didn’t matter and that nobody should concern themselves about it. When Ulanoff ran out of his own rationalizations, he began repeating those voiced by Microsoft’s Robbie Bach.

Bach is the man who runs Microsoft’s Entertainment and Devices Division, also known as the black hole that consumes billions of Microsoft’s monopoly profits while producing loss leader products like the Zune, Windows Mobile, Microsoft TV, and the Xbox 360, while managing supernovas in progress like Pink and Danger.

This last year, he managed to only lose $31 million. That’s almost a profit compared to 2007, when the group lost just shy of $2,000,000,000. Of course, a billion of that was related to the Xbox failure crisis fund, an expense that was announced just after Bach dumped $6.2 million of his Microsoft stock.

Exclusive: Pink Danger leaks from Microsoft’s Windows Phone
Microsoft’s Danger SideKick data loss casts dark on cloud computing
10 FAS: 9 – Troy Wolverton, Neil Cavuto, and the Apple Stock Scandal

Bach’s talking points for Windows Mobile apologists

In explaining away the scant offerings available within his new Windows Mobile Marketplace, Bach contributed such gems as, “The fascination with the absolute number [of apps available] is really nothing but a fascination.”

How do you argue with that kind of crystal clear logic? Fascination is nothing more than… wait for it… fascination. That sounds like the kind of thing one says when on LSD. But these kinds of cerebral long jumps into the vast inky black of existential being are exactly why Bach gets paid the big bucks. It certainly has nothing to do with creating successful products or not losing his company’s money or his customers’ data.

“Do you have the right apps? Do you have the apps that people are going to use? Do you have the apps are going to care about. We’ll certainly have that,” Bach said of the 260 apps in the recently opened, Microsoft-run Windows Mobile store.

Bach also appealed to Ulanoff’s sense of reason by noting “how difficult it is to find what you need in an application catalog as big as the [iPhone] App Store.” I know I’m always flummoxed when I try to find a game and there’s too many to choose from. It’s like trying to buy a song when iTunes offers 11 million of them. Which one do I want? How will I know it’s the right one? And oh my, they’re all DRM-free. Oh the humanity! Please, Microsoft, save us from this tyranny of choice and interoperability.

This kind of repartee might give you the sense that Bach and Ulanoff are participating in an infomercial. They sound like Jack Black in Envy pitching Pocket Flan as a convenient tube-based solution to the many problems of eating cornflakes when skydiving.

What’s really odd is that Microsoft has never needed to invent this line of convoluted logic before. Instead, the company has always maintained that lots of apps are a good thing, and that Windows PCs were able to solve problems Macs couldn’t because of the variety and scope of custom software titles available. Apparently all that is now out the window.

If this wasn’t all enough on its own, after spending nearly a thousand words on why numbers don’t matter, Ulanoff then stopped to assure us all that Bach is adamant that Microsoft is expecting to begin pumping out software titles “in volume” any day now. The holdup Bach says, is that it “takes time to get the development environment out to people” and that “people were focusing on other things.”

That’s sort of a placeholder for logic when you consider that Microsoft has had nearly a year and a half to whip together a storefront to sell Windows Mobile apps that already exist for a platform that is now nearly a decade old. What are “people” focusing on instead, logging into Wikipedia to aggrandize the company in any and all articles referencing Microsoft? Well somebody is clearly busy doing that. Maybe the company can reassign them to actually do some work. I guess it’s too late to back up the company’s Danger datacenter, but maybe they could develop a web browser that doesn’t stink.

Vista vs Mac OS X Security: Why George Ou’s ZDNet Vulnerability Numerology is Absurd

Strength in numbers?

The reality is that, of course, sheer numbers of mobile apps do not really matter. You can only install 180 apps at a time on the iPhone before they start falling off your Springboard’s Home screen pages. Having over 85,000 apps in the library is only a benefit to those who want specialized apps you can’t get elsewhere, or a creative new pool of games and experimental programs like Augmented Reality apps and all of the other cool new things that aren’t available on other mobile platforms.

If you only want to do basic things like read email and browse the web, you can do that without downloading any apps. Just ask the early adopter iPhone users. If we mind-travel back to 2007, we can relive what shill groups like ABI Research were getting paid to say then: that the iPhone “wasn’t really a smartphone” because it didn’t have a mechanism for running third party software apart from its web browser. Windows Mobile offered the exact opposite: a mechanism for third party software without the ability to do do basic things like read email and browse the web.

At the time, I examined what purported to be the rich selection of third party apps for Windows Mobile. What I found was that the top ten lists of available apps were all efforts to patch up things that were broken on Microsoft’s mobile platform. I tallied up that you could spend over $450 to buy a bunch of titles that solved problems that shouldn’t really exist (memory managers, system cleanup apps, file backup, and so on) or which addressed issues that should have been addressed by Microsoft (a photo browser, a touch screen input panel, a PDF reader, an iPod music player app, a real email client to replace Pocket Outlook, and the like).

There was also plenty of just plain junk beside that, from Ringtone choosers to Ghost Detectors and Love Detectors and Lie Detectors. The great thing about Windows Mobile apps (and I say that sarcastically) is that all this crap was priced at around $30 each. Today, the same wags that spoke of Windows Mobile as a serious platform back then are wagging their fingers at the free or 99 cent flashlight and fart apps available for the iPhone. Really? Was it better when you could pay $30 for junk apps that lacked the fancy graphics?

More Absurd iPhone Myths: Third Party Software Panic

Junkware in a meritocracy

Yes, there’s a lot of junk at the bottom of the App Store. Apple built its store to percolate original, useful and smart apps to the top, regardless of whether they were designed by an indie or a major developer. That’s something that no other platform can really boast.

While junkware exists, the iPhone’s 85,000 title library also provides for a lot of very useful things. One of the “killer apps” to emerge for Apple’s mobile platform is the wide array of casual games. Sure, mobile phones have long had Flash and JavaME craptacular games that are as much fun as Minesweeper and look about as dismal, but the iPhone really provided a great platform for delivering addictive, great looking, and fun games to play in the elevator or on a break. These games rival dedicated handheld gaming devices, one of those things I pointed out a long time ago, and which everyone else is now agreeing with.

Beyond games, there’s lots of other categories of useful apps on the iPhone. The core usability of the iPhone interface also makes it possible to actually find and install these apps, keep them updated, and access them quickly in the user interface. Those are all serious problems on Windows Mobile, where installing an app can be a huge hassle that involves installing other frameworks via a tedious PC-tethered sync process.

iPhone 2.0 SDK: Video Games to Rival Nintendo DS, Sony PSP

Why WiMo apps aren’t in the Marketplace store

Ulanoff nearly missed stating the reality that Windows Mobile can count something like 20,000 apps, although virtually none of them are anything you’d want to download, let alone pay for. They’re still around $20-30, they mostly all look and feel terrible, and they’re all designed around Bill Gates’ Tablet PC fantasy that never took off, which means you need a stylus to use them and they have an awful “Windows desktop in a tiny box” interface.

But none of those problems are the reason why Microsoft’s new Marketplace store only presents 1% of the spectrum of mobile apps that ever pooped out of Visual Studio.

The real reason why Microsoft’s new Windows Mobile store doesn’t have all of these worthless turds floating in its catalog is because the company expects developers to do more work than iPhone developers have to do (including targeting their apps to the different sub-platforms within the platform, such as PocketPC touchscreen devices and “Windows Smartphone” non-touch screen models, each in different resolutions and sporting different hardware features), pay $99 per app to submit them to the store, and then keep paying for resubmissions every time the app is denied. And of course, submitting the same app as both a Pocket PC app and a Smartphone app counts as multiple submissions. Given the installed base of WiMo users and their unfamiliarity with installing software, there simply isn’t a business model supporting this fee trap erected by Microsoft.

The Spectacular Failure of WinCE and Windows Mobile

Two approaches to selling apps

Unlike Apple, Microsoft didn’t set up its WiMo app store to create a self-sustaining engine to create a rich variety of mobile software titles. Microsoft doesn’t make any direct revenues from selling Windows Mobile phones, so doing all the work to set up a store, just to have a store, wasn’t really the attraction. Instead, Microsoft hoped it could install a toll gate across the Windows Mobile application bridge and start raking in money like Apple was.

The problem is that Apple wasn’t raking in money, or at least it wasn’t originally intending to. The company very clearly outlined a plan to break even on the App Store, just as it had been doing in iTunes. Those businesses (media and software) both grew organically, and are now to the scale where they generate enough money to clearly have been good business investments in hindsight.

Microsoft’s approach was to try to caesarian section the goose for its golden egg, a get rich quick scheme that didn’t take into account how the flow of apps would be retarded by layers of additional complication, additional rules, and additional fees. This isn’t speculation; Microsoft pointedly announced its plans a year ago when it advertised its need to hire a manager to drive “monetization of the service by Microsoft.”

Microsoft plans “Skymarket” apps store for Windows Mobile 7 in 2009
Microsoft sells restrictive new WiMo Marketplace via iPhone ads

The time you don’t have

Microsoft doesn’t have the leisure time to wait for its mobile software store to slowly grow under the oppressive conditions it set up for its developers. The company is frantically trying to yank open its Marketplace flowers before they’re ready to bloom. Of the pathetic number of apps currently available, none will add any real value over the next year as Microsoft attempts to coast by on its placeholder Windows Mobile 6.5 release, which has been universally panned by critics.

Windows Mobile 6.5 shows clever burst of originality. Haha no.

WiMo 7, which was supposed to be out by now, promised to add a bunch of things that could allow it to be compared to the 2008 iPhone. Instead, it’s been pushed off for at least another year. When it arrives, the iPhone will have upgraded to 4.0 and the App Store will likely have passed 5 billion app downloads and probably have something like a quarter million apps. Of course, the sheer number of apps won’t matter. What will matter is that there’ll be an app available to do whatever you want.

And the reason that will be the case is because Apple created a viable business model for mobile software, didn’t try to bleed its third party developers dry to make a quick buck, and operates with a long term term plan rather than just scrambling to put out fires with interim placeholder products while it blows vaporware smoke. That was what Apple was doing in the 90s. All of which makes it easy and fun to laugh at Microsoft’s ineptitude and its loyal pundit priesthood that bends backward to justify and explain away all the absurdity.

Which reminds me: Mr. Ulanoff, how are you coping in the post apocalyptic world of DRM-free music?

  • Splashman

    Daniel, you, of all people, should not be complaining about the length of anyone’s blog posting, as you tend to express in ten words what others express in two. Um, speaking of glass houses, where is the link to Mr. Ulanoff’s post?

  • Splashman

    (Don’t get me wrong, I generally enjoy your writing, but brevity is not your strong suit.)

  • oomu

    his text are long but really explanative.

    it’s the counter-article to all crazy articles. He has to be like that. We need that.

    I totally agree with the arguments. It’s what I see everyday. And yes, in 90s, Apple was in a horrible shape and we all laughed at it. It’s why microsoft zealot are so annoying : they should be honest ! Apple was the same than today microsoft.

  • Splashman

    Like I said, I don’t mind Daniel’s writing style — as a card-carrying fanboie I enjoy his posts. But in response to Mr. Ulanoff’s 1000-word post, he wrote over 2200 words, some of which he utilized to complain about Mr. Ulanoff’s 1000-word post. Isn’t that slathering on the irony a bit thick?

  • Zeta2099

    I don’t think DED was referring to the length, but of the abuse of words to say nothing… He wrote 2k+ words, true, but not like Ulanoff’s 1k words repeating something like a paid grunt.

  • http://www.adviespraktijk.info Berend Schotanus

    Why such a sour tone towards Mr. Ulanoff? It makes the article quite hard to read, which is a pity because the analysis about the WiMo failure is really interesting.

  • Urs W. Keller

    Obviously Lance Ulanoff, Robbie Bach and other MS followers try to create a Reality Distortion Field (R), but I know only one man who truly masters this art …

    I find it extremely interesting and sometimes amusing to see how Apple circles MS in the mobile area and beats them by applying some strategy elements (i.e. large unified platform, easy access to development, “developers, developers, developers!”) that helped MS grow that big.

    Personally I think it’s the end game for MS in the mobile space.

  • broadbean

    It’s like the argument that SO many applications were available for Windows but hardly any on the Mac – just turned around…

  • Blad_Rnr

    Personally, I don’t care if it takes Daniel three pages to explain his stance (on tech matters). His tendency is to explain the situation and then build a foundation for his argument. What’s wrong with that? Yes, he takes his jabs, but that’s his style. Unlike Paul Thurrott who never really explains his position, and only makes snide anti-Apple remarks to pacify his Windows’ cabal while lacking any sort of meat in his arguments. Even his rebuttal to Daniel’s ZuneHD criticism was short and almost totally anecdotal. Not nearly as persuasive as Daniel’s article where he provided lots of meat in the form of specs and facts.

    BTW, Daniel: where is your book? Seriously, I can’t believe you haven’t published a computer history book yet. We’re waiting :-) My gosh, self-publish it via Amazon if you have to. Something along the lines of, “Revolution in the Valley,” by Andy Hertzfeld but with a broader scope. All your fans would buy one!

  • http://www.marketingtactics.com davebarnes

    “Mobile Apps: It’s a Numbers Game”

  • ChuckO

    This is a great paragraph:

    “How do you argue with that kind of crystal clear logic? Fascination is nothing more than… wait for it… fascination. That sounds like the kind of thing one says when on LSD. But these kinds of cerebral long jumps into the vast inky black of existential being are exactly why Bach gets paid the big bucks. It certainly has nothing to do with creating successful products or not losing his company’s money or his customers’ data.”

    What’s the problem with taking swipes? He’s arguing against their logic not making personal attacks!

    Thank god for Microsoft they keep things entertaining! This essay read like a mini corporate Dr. Strangelove!

  • http://bkpfd.org qka

    Another great post, but…

    1) While foolish consistency may the hobgoblin of small minds (Ralph Waldo Emerson), it does make for good reporting. “$31 million” vs. “$2,000,000,000.” How about reporting that second number as “$2 billion” or “$2000 million”? (Yeah, the latter is also poor form, but by keeping the magnitudes the same, it makes the comparison easier.

    2) Like others have commented – if you are going to criticize other bloggers, provide the link(s). Even if they are shameless hit-whores.

    3) As for the length of your article, some of it is due to the over-blown prose. Today’s gems: C-sectioning the golden goose and yanking open flowers. Is your next book going to be the Great American Novel?

  • http://thesmallwave.com/ Tom Reestman

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with calling a blogger out on a ridiculous article, especially when one backs it up with previous ridiculous articles from the same blogger. I’m tried of the wink, wink, nudge, nudge, “gentleman’s agreement” in the blog community that says we can’t call BS on people, but rather must tip toe around in half-agreement so we can all get away with posting hit-whore articles with impunity.

    Meanwhile, those railing against article length are like the guy in “Amadeus” who claimed Mozart’s latest piece contained “too many notes.” What do you remove? Even if you got rid of the cute phrasing about goose C-sections and such you’d have 2K words and would STILL by decrying its length. If you can’t read 2K words go elsewhere.

  • Pingback: mysocialbrain: 15-10-2009 : protagonist()

  • Splashman

    Geez, is reading comprehension a lost art? As I stated twice, it is *not* my opinion that Mr. Dilger’s articles are too long. I enjoy his writing, otherwise I wouldn’t bother posting comments.

    My point was that his verbosity (that’s a neutral term, not a pejorative) makes his complaints re: Mr. Ulanoff’s verbosity appear incongruous at best. Fair enough? And there is still no link to Mr. Ulanoff’s post, even though Mr. Dilger’s previous article was devoted to complaining (legitimately) that Mr. Gruber did not link to RoughlyDrafted and refused to do so after being contacted.

  • SteveS


    For what it’s worth, I get it. You made a valid point. In fact, I was thinking the same thing while reading this blog post. Apparently, some can’t see the irony in Daniel calling out the length of someone’s 1000 word blog post with a 2000+ word response. Hello pot, meet the kettle.

    In any case, overall this was a good post and I couldn’t help but call BS when I read Ulanoff’s piece yesterday. It’s funny that the number of applications is suddenly unimportant for a platform. All this time, these same people were telling us how important it is in the PC vs Mac debates.


    Nobody said it wasn’t appropriate for Daniel to write a 2000+ word response. The point is, if you’re going to do that, perhaps he should have just passed on attacking Ulanoff for the length of his post. Sadly, I think you missed the point of Splashman’s criticism.

  • Ludor

    A full day o’ fun here at the Roughly D.

  • http://themacadvocate.com TheMacAdvocate

    I think the point is the word-to-content ratio, not the word count.

    Anyone who thinks Daniel would write a critique with a structure of “your word count was excessive, let me write a 2x word count rebuttal” is either new, being extremely petty or is a little dim.

  • tundraboy

    1000 words of repetitive drivel vs. 2000 word of informative, carefully constructed counter-exposition. Or . . .

    1000 words of repetitive drivel vs. 2000 word rebuttal of unmitigated rubbish.

    Surely most of us can identify which one involves a pot and a kettle.

  • gus2000

    OH HAI



  • http://thesmallwave.com/ Tom Reestman

    TheMacAdvocate nailed it.


    I think your criticism was misplaced, and missed the point of Daniel’s comment. His point was NOT that 1,000-word posts are “bad”, or even that Ulanoff wrote one. Rather, he simply observed that Ulanoff used a lot of words to make a very bad argument that ultimately just parroted Microsoft’s own talking points.

    With that observation in mind, there’s no incongruity with Daniel’s article being longer; the word count itself was not the point.

  • gus2000

    It is proper netiquette to link to the source of your creative inspirations or factual sources. If you cite something to bolster your argument, link to it.

    The same does not apply when deconstructing a link-baited and shill-encrusted regurgitation of a press release. If you link to such garbage, you are “Feeding the Troll”.

  • Splashman

    Ah. “Netiquette for thee but not for me.” Thanks for clearing that up.

  • enzos

    Netiquette schemetiquette, sentences like..

    They sound like Jack Black in Envy pitching Pocket Flan as a convenient tube-based solution to the many problems of eating cornflakes when skydiving.

    shows that the author has an acute visual sense of humor.. and that’s a treasure!

    Dan: I took as a self-deprecating irony that you did a word count on whatsisname’s article. Am I wrong?

  • http://www.lowededwookie.com lowededwookie

    Actually I don’t think linking to an article is necessarily a good thing. It only serves to feed the idiots instead of letting them go hungry and die.

  • KenC

    I think Daniel was saying that Ulanoff used alot of words to make just one point. I’m quite sure Daniel used alot more words, but made quite a few more points.

  • FreeRange

    @splashman – we get it we get it! how many times and how many different ways do you need to say it… oops, isn’t that part of what you are criticizing – please give it a rest…

  • harrywolf

    An article that is well-written, entertaining, intelligent, logical and informative may say anything it likes, in as many words as it wishes – thats why Splashmans crit. doesnt stand up, and why Daniel E. Dilger is a very cool writer.

    A good article can commit the same sins as its target and make them virtues, and D.E.D. does just that.

    Its not Math, Splashman, its literature, sort of. Poetic license and all that.
    Although you are ‘correct’, you are not amusing or interesting – its a bit like reading earnest feminist essays from 1985.

    However, you fight well – so kudos to you, friend.

  • Pingback: Strand Consult: Denmark’s illegitimate iPhone-angry pundit-nutter — RoughlyDrafted Magazine()