Heads up, this is a bit of a rant. Maybe I'm making a big to-do about nothing. Do any of you readers with a smartphone think the cost of the data plan is justified? Or do any of you regularly use Microsoft Office Mobile in a non-business capacity, if you happen to own a Windows Mobile phone?

Why not let Zune stand on its own? Personally, I am not sure if I like the brand association much. I like Zune and its single service provider more than any Windows Mobile phone or its multiple service providers. To me, Zune is a better value. When comparing the two brands this is what I am thinking:

• First, Zune is not overpriced for the features it offers out of the box.
• Second, Zune does not require a two year contract agreement (with an early termination fee) in order to bring the device down to a somewhat palatable price from any one service provider. A corollary to the second is that I am not forced to choose between different feature sets or user interfaces on the same device by choosing one retailer over another.
• Third, I am not paying $30+ a month to use all the features of only one phone.
• Fourth, there is no "music streaming limit" from the Zune marketplace (wireless or PC-based), yet there are data caps for certain data plans I choose, even the "unlimited" ones offered by some providers.
• Fifth, Zune does not have a preset song allotment where I am charged by the song if I listen to more than my monthly allotment during a one month period.
• Sixth, I am not charged to send or receive items from or on my Zune.
• Seventh, Zune is not limited to only one retailer. I understand the difference between CDMA and GSM, the US has two major carriers of each.
• Eighth, for me, it is difficult to separate the Windows Mobile brand from the provider or the handset maker. Where does one begin and the other end? HTC is really blurring this line. With Zune it is quite the opposite. All roads lead to Microsoft, except for missing Zune Pass content, that road leads to the record companies.
• Ninth, Zune is for everyone, especially music lovers. Windows Mobile is for business people.

Arguably, these nine points are directed more towards the mobile carriers and the handset makers than Windows Mobile. However, therein lies the problem. I may be lumping Windows Mobile into a corner it does not belong, because there is no end-to-end experience straight from Microsoft, on Microsoft's terms.

When I think about what the carriers charge, and compare it to what they offer, a Windows Mobile phone is not reasonable or compelling. Reasonable is a price I am willing to pay for the features and abilities offered by a given phone. Compelling are features and abilities I want, that my current phone does not have. My current phone (VX9800, paid $75 BOGO -- $150 standalone) can do most of what a Windows Mobile phone can do, the things that I would look for in a new phone. Oh, did I mention it is about 2.5 years old? How is a more expensive Windows Mobile phone reasonable or compelling if I already have the features I would look for in a new phone? If I want to make phone calls and check my email (from a non-Yahoo, Gmail, etc. account) from a Windows Mobile phone (or any smartphone), why do I have to pay an arm and a leg for a data plan?

Verizon Example:

• Data plan with current phone: VCast VPack $15/month
• Data plan with smartphone: Email and web access $29.99/month

I have Verizon so I am sticking with them in this discussion. Looking at the above points, why is it double to access the same internet on potentially identically priced phones, one with Windows Mobile, the other without? I would hope that WAP internet (VCast) provides the same sports scores, mobile banking, and Google searches as pocket IE (or did the Red Sox really loose to the Rays in Game 4 of the ALCS?). The only difference is the appearance.

I asked a Verizon assistant online. We had a pretty engaging chat and I learned something. A copy of the full text is below. I also spoke to a sales person in a 'Custom Wireless' store in the mall, he corroborated what I learned. After our chats, I have the understanding that the extra cost appears to be associated with the cost of the OS along with the features that it provides. This truth is also borne out in a recent AP news story. To me, as a consumer, not a business user, a phone being able to run Microsoft Office is not a compelling feature. Being able to run your own applications on your device is becoming common place, again, not really a compelling feature and more of an expectation. Furthermore, considering the line of reasoning that more features and capabilities will raise the price of the device, and then applying it to the Zune; the price of a Zune should be higher than its competitors in Zune's respective product segments. The previous statement is not true, as Zune is either comparably priced or competitively priced in all product segments, against most of its competitors.

Office 2007 Compatibility Pack.

What I love about Zune is what I dislike about Windows Mobile. In most cases, I am not paying more for extra features and abilities when compared to the competition. This is the case when comparing the Zune 120 to the 120GB iPod classic. This is not the case when comparing the Zune 16 to Creative's 16GB Zen X-Fi with wi-fi. In both cases the Zune is comparably if not priced more competitively than its competition. However, when comparing the $99 Samsung Alias to the $99 MOTO Q9c, this is the case. And pitting the $199 LG Dare against the $199 HTC XV6900 (even though it's slightly tweaked from the $99 Sprint model-- why the price difference?), again, this is the case. In the last two examples, even though the device price is the same, the Windows Mobile phone is more expensive. In both cases, the data plan, the 'optionally required' 2 year contract, and a variable per-phone licensing fee, are the deal breakers. Without the contract, in all the examples, the price of the phones more than double. With a $29.99 smartphone data plan, that difference, of $14.99 per month, is a Zune Pass for three Zunes and three computers as opposed to internet and email access for one smartphone. Or, over the course of two years, that $14.99 difference is $359.76 that I keep in my pocket. Without the licensing fee, I would guess it is one less price item that manufactures have to worry about recuperating through volume sales by passing it along to the consumer.

Considering the availability of other capable phones at similar price points, I cannot justify the economics of owning a Windows Mobile phone. I am unsure who sets prices for these phones and their services, but I think this goes to show how much the total cost of ownership has an affect on my perception of a product and a brand. I am not inclined to try Windows Mobile because the costs associated with achieving an enjoyable user experience are too great, when compared to competing products. Zune and Windows Mobile represent two very different pricing and product philosophies. I believe product philosophies have a direct effect on individual perception. Since both products come from Microsoft, I would hate for people to get the individual product philosophies confused and believe the philosophies of Windows Mobile to be representative of the philosophies of Zune.

Honestly, am I going overboard on this one?