Why is WinPhone a failure but OSX a success?

I think it is same all over the world.

OSX have a profitable section of the market. Is not the size what determine if something is or not a failure, is your POSITION in that market.

Having 90% of all the non-paying customer VS 10% of all the paying customers is a different position for a for-profit company. In this case, you truly want the 10%.

If WinPhone have a desirable portion of the market, untouched/unchallenged by others, then could be called a success.

Le't use a contrived example: vim/emacs have a strong position in a desirable sub-set of the developer mindshare. His position is so strong, that no-IDE to date have be able to destroy it.

Then if also is growing, is something powerful.

Let's play the (almost incorrect) stereotype of the Apple users: Them are hipster, richer, more creative, select for themselves the gadgets, etc. And pay. This segment, even at %1, is valuable. And if nobody else touch it, then is more than valuable, is unchallenged. Could be say: Is bullet-prof, failure-prof.

And then android. Android is for geeks (and the masses that wanna cheap). Have the subset of geeks is desirable. Probably, a lot of android users hate so bad Apple that will never use it. The position of Android in that case is solid.

Both have solid position.

Windows phone? No have it.

I think it's a matter of business models. OS X, like iOS has Apple hardware and software, huge margins and makes Apple the most profitable OEM in both markets.

Windows Phone, more like Android (and Windows of course) allows multiple manufacturers to provide it, and all those manufacturers who also produce Android phones are doing better with Android. It's not a totally fair comparison because they pay for WP licenses, but then they pay for MS patents with Android too.

There's also the issue of Nokia, an iconic manufacturer who bet everything on Windows Phone. It's not fair, but Windows Phone has the pressure of keeping Nokia alive.

Basically, Microsoft took the Windows approach to Windows Phone, in a market Android is entrenched with a similar (cheaper for OEMs) approach. In that light, 4% against 90% or so for Windows with the same model looks like a failure.

Windows Phone on the other hand is a failure because at 4% marketshare, Microsoft has no workable business model. They are losing money to play catch up.

Carriers have cheaper and better margin alternatives to pushing windows phones. Developers don't have the user base to justify apps for the platform. Consumers don't see the compelling reason to switch from iOS or android.

The sad thing is, the windows phone business (6.x) was doing great at 16% market share before iOS and android. Microsoft got disrupted by new technology.

As hardware and software Windows Phone is by no means a failure. Nokia creating beautiful devices with good cameras and the fact that even in low specs WP runs snappy is promising and helped a lot to achieve this 4%. But WP is not yet profitable. One of the reasons Windows Phone is considered to be a failure is that it hasn't managed to create an ecosystem where most popular apps exist at the three years of its existing form (counting from Windows Phone 7).

http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/10/the-the...

When iOS came on the scene, it was mostly a different kind of animal than any other phone. There wasn't really any similar device so it got first-comer status. Android was able to compete by taking an opposite model. Be cheap and on as many devices as possible, which is more or less what Windows did back in the '80's to out compete Macintosh. Windows Phone took a very different UI/UX approach and was late into what had become a competitive market.

Considering all that, 4% market share and continuing growth is good. If it was stagnant or shrinking, that would be something different.