How Symbian's Endurance Leaves Room for Windows Phone

There's a semi-shocking stat going around today for those of us who live in the U.S.: according to StatCounter, which tracks mobile Web traffic, Symbian is still the number-one smartphone OS in the world.

There's a lot of strangeness in StatCounter's numbers, which don't entirely sync up with other methods of measuring OS popularity. But Symbian apparently still dominates in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, while it has faded into the background in the U.S. and Europe.

This is a potential rebuttal of MG Siegler's and Jon Gruber's assertion that Microsoft is "way too late" with Windows Phone, although you could make an argument that Apple and Google have the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe sewn up.

Microsoft + Nokia = The Whole Developing World
Mopping up after Symbian is where Microsoft's purchase of Nokia—did I say that out loud?—comes into play, and Nokia CEO Stephen Elop has talked about converting Symbian fans into Windows Phone owners several times.

In much of Asia and Africa, especially, phones are sold independently of their carriers—that's one reason dual-SIM phones sell so well in places like India. So Microsoft/Nokia—let's call it MiKia—starts to look a lot more like Apple. MiKia now controls the OS, MiKia controls the OEM, the carrier isn't terribly relevant in the process, and—the real kicker—MiKia has a huge network of retailers in those countries.

The persistence of Symbian, a dying OS, is going to create a vacuum in Asia and Africa over the next few years. A lot of that vacuum will be sucked up by cheap Android phones, especially in places like China where domestic manufacturers are popping them out like gumball-machine toys. But with a good OS to OEM to retailer link and a void to fill, MiKia at least has a chance among those 3 billion-plus consumers.

(By the way: Yes, I'm not mentioning RIM's BlackBerry, which is doing pretty well in the developing world. But I don't think RIM's current short-term strategy, or lack of such, changes the playing field for Microsoft.)

If you want to know why Microsoft is prioritizing low-cost phones with "Tango" sotware over super-phones running "Apollo," that's why. It's aiming at countries where phones aren't generally subsidized, and where average incomes are lower. It hasn't been able to make a big move there yet because the phones have been too expensive. It's boring for all of us U.S.-based tech blogs to write about, but that doesn't mean it's dumb.

The counterargument, of course, is that where America and Europe go, developing countries are sure to follow. This is similar in some ways to my own argument about Windows Phone needing to attract a core of influencers before selling low-cost phones to the influencers' families and friends, but there's a key difference.

Mobile phones are an essentially social product, and the phones your immediate circle of friends and family carry are much more relevant than what people in faraway countries use. I'm also not sure that Indians and Brazilians aspire to use American and European toys anymore; that kind of northward-looking aspiration may be an artifact of the late 20th Century.

What About Here?
So it's not too late for MiKia in much of the world, where Symbian still dominates—many people still hold Nokia phones and the company has a strong retail network. That brings us back to the U.S. and Europe, of course. What about here?

First of all, I disagree with Siegler that Windows Phone has "essentially no third-party developer support." I've been hacking at some Windows Phones this week, and there are plenty of third-party apps. They just aren't the same apps as you find on Android and iPhone, which alienates Windows Phone owners in a Robert Scoble dinner party full of Android and iPhone owners trading app tips.

(You'll see this phenomenon in other criticisms of Windows Phone: critics say "I looked for my favorite Android/iPhone apps and didn't find them," as opposed to looking for apps that serve those functions but may be from a different developer, under a different name.)

Siegler's right, though, that Windows Phone needs to be disruptive, which it hasn't been. In the U.S., Microsoft's hardware strategy, its carrier strategy, and even its TV ads have been basically conservative. The phones are all black slabs, the platform went for big GSM carriers first, and Microsoft is running vague lifestyle ads. Yawn.

Former Windows Phone exec Charlie Kindel, meanwhile, criticized Microsoft's Windows Phone strategy recently, saying that OEMs, carriers and retailers never really got behind the platform.

There's always room for disruption, but Microsoft has to disrupt. It could do this with Xbox or Kinect integration, with hardware designs or by subsidizing the heck out of devices so they're far less expensive than gadgets with similar specs. (Hey, that last one is working for Amazon with the Kindle Fire.) Just puttering along hoping the carriers will anoint it as the "third force" isn't enough, at least in markets where friends and family generally push buyers in Android and iOS directions.

For more, see PCMag's year in review of , , and .