Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Jan 2012 23:04 UTC
Windows "Of all the ways you might have imagined Microsoft screwing up, 'making something fantastic' is probably last on the list. As every business student will tell you, the first and most important step to success is making a quality product. Yet, Microsoft seem to have found themselves in the very strange situation of making something very good - their mobile platform, Windows Phone - and actually doing worse than before. Even more confusing, however, is that it might be Microsoft's commitment to finally get it right this time that has hurt them. And somewhere in this mess, there are a number of lessons for some very new challenges to businesses."
Order by: Score:
Author doesn't understand open source
by tidux on Tue 3rd Jan 2012 23:18 UTC
tidux
Member since:
2011-08-13

"Google sacrificed the quality of its OS..." is completely untrue. They allowed OEMs and carriers to make changes - it just so happens that OEMs and carriers are godawful OS/interface/app designers. On the other hand, it gives us the potential for stuff like Cyanogenmod, MIUI, and Replicant. I'll take freedom over a gilded cage, thank you.

Reply Score: 7

Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

But it is terrible compared to the competition. It is laggy, unpolished, lack integration, suffer from wide pixel density / screen size / screen ratio problems and until Android 4, it did feel totally unpolished. Each version do get better, but until 2.2, it was totally unusable compared to the iPhone or Palm Pre. The worst of them all was Android 3.0. It was so bad, Google refused to let lose tablet maker. They gave the OS to a limited number of maker to ensure no one got that terrible user experience.

/Android user and developper

Reply Score: 4

adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

The same can be said of iOS. When it came to market, it lacked multitasking, no copy paste, no bluetooth transfers, etc.

However, with WP, MS is starting from scratch where Apple was. By the time they get to where iOS is now, they will be left in the dust.

I would like to know your thoughts on MS giving Silverlight the shaft and moving to WinRT (HTML5/CSS/JavaScript) for WP8:
http://visualstudiomagazine.com/blogs/redmond-review/2011/11/does-w...

Don't we developers just love learning a completely new framework at every new OS release? At least we could charge users for the same app twice when they upgrade, right?

Reply Score: 3

adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

In case the above link confuses some here is something more direct:

Put simply, if WP8 is WinRT based, WP7 and all its apps will be dead in the water - they will all have to be recoded and WP8 will mark a complete restart.
The death of Silverlight is also the death of WP7 and its apps, which will have to be reborn as WP8 apps.
You can see why Microsoft hopes no one has noticed.
Moving to WinRT could be the biggest mistake Microsoft has ever made as, when the news sinks in, it will kill WP7 just as it is relaunched.

More:
http://www.i-programmer.info/news/89-net/3314-silverlight-5-the-end...

Reply Score: 2

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

In case the above link confuses some here is something more direct:
[q]Put simply, if WP8 is WinRT based, WP7 and all its apps will be dead in the water - they will all have to be recoded and WP8 will mark a complete restart.


We don't know about this. Microsoft can still ship the WP7 APIs as well.

Reply Score: 2

adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

This is just like the time when MS went all .Net on everyone. They shafted the COM+/DCOM crowd into legacy and only provided subsequent support to devs migrating to .Net. The same could be said of DirectX vs XNA, WTL and ATL, etc.

The same WP7 app may run on WP8 via the deprecated Silverlight runtime but with no support from MS. Also MS has the tendency of making your legacy apps look out of place unless you rewrite it for the new runtime. In the end devs will still be forced to rewrite their apps for WP8.

Unlike iOS and Android, MS makes a killing selling you their developer products and MSDN. This is a motivating factor for them to push devs onto new frameworks and tools.

Reply Score: 3

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

This is just like the time when MS went all .Net on everyone. They shafted the COM+/DCOM crowd into legacy and only provided subsequent support to devs migrating to .Net. The same could be said of DirectX vs XNA, WTL and ATL, etc.


Since when?

If you have been doing any Windows native development you will be aware that actually, since Windows Vista most Win32 APIs have been being migrated to COM ones.

XNA only became an official API in WP7, before it was an API only for hobby developers for XBox and Zune.

DirectX is still the official game API.

ATL is only being deprecated for Metro applications in Windows 8, you can still use it as official API for desktop components.

WTL was never an official API.

You don't seem to do much Windows development I would say.

Reply Score: 3

adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

LoLWut?

XNA existed since .Net 2.0 and Xbox 360. It was available for official development of Windows Games and Xbox Live titles.

Maybe you want to call MS and tell them that their whole catalog of Xbox Live games are written by hobbyists and it was never official? Because that wasn't what MS developer relations been telling me since 2007. You may also want to contact Konami/Capcom on Live Arcade and let them know that they are nothing but hobby developers?

The only things evolving in DirectX now is Direct3D and DMO, while some of DirectX has been deprecated by XNA-like junk. If you've spent any reasonable amount of time using XInput and XAudio, you would have an inkling of what I mean.

XNA is the ONLY official API that allows you to target Windows (XP and above), Xbox 360 and WP7. DirectX does not!

WTL was the successor of MFC, but because of it being a threat to .Net, MS decided against it and released it separately as free software:
http://wtl.wikispaces.com/Overview#History

ATL stagnated after v8. Some features that were meant to improve interop with .Net (like metadata attributes) but proved useful very much in ATL, were later removed from subsequent releases.

Such steps undermined ATL and WTL as an innovative framework for COM developers like myself. From then MS wants everyone to move to .Net and only focused the innovations there.

If you even had half of the experience I have, you would have been aware of these things. But unfortunately you do not. I even doubt you are a Windows developer of any depth to begin with.

Reply Score: 1

Just like with Vista
by JAlexoid on Tue 3rd Jan 2012 23:32 UTC
JAlexoid
Member since:
2009-05-19

Just like with Vista, Windows Phone is failing because of poor marketing. And I mean all of the aspects that marketing represents, not just PR and advertising.
Their biggest gaffe is with brand selection - Windows is not a consumer brand, XBox is.
And lastly, WP7 lacks one critical thing - killer feature.(Office is not a killer feature on a phone)
If it takes me more than 30 seconds to make up my mind over WP7, then there is no demonstrable feature that just captivates.

EDIT: And yes I used WP7. I like the unorthodox design. The speed of the UI. Little things here and there. But it takes time to grow on you. I would never buy it after a 5 minute tour.

Edited 2012-01-03 23:35 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Just like with Vista
by ajai on Wed 4th Jan 2012 03:19 UTC in reply to "Just like with Vista"
ajai Member since:
2012-01-04

Another way to look at it is that Microsoft has been plugging at this whole Windows on a phone idea for a long long time without any significant success. And people think of WP7 as more of the same. You could also say the continued nonsuccess is the market saying noone wants Windows on their phone.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Just like ...Zune...
by marsofearth on Wed 4th Jan 2012 03:22 UTC in reply to "Just like with Vista"
marsofearth Member since:
2009-12-13

I agree. Windows Phone is failing not because it is great, but simply due to a disconnected and dysfunctional Microsoft view of what "Great" marketing is.

Microsoft does not Market or advertise well to consumers. They have incredible power to 'push' products, but seem to be absolutely clueless at being able to sell an idea to people.

"Windows" phone... What a F'g crap poor name for a consumer product. Why not just call it "Prune" Phone?

metroPhone would have at least made more sense. No body wanted Windows on a Tablet, nobody liked Windows on a Phone. They got it right with the sexy new UI and min. req. for hardware and took a big turd on marketing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Just like ...Zune...
by JAlexoid on Wed 4th Jan 2012 11:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Just like ...Zune..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Microsoft does not Market or advertise well to consumers.

They can advertise all they want, it still will not sell.

In addition I give you my preferred distilled definition of marketing:
the management process responsible for identifying, anticipating and satisfying customer requirements profitably

Reply Score: 2

RE: Just like with Vista
by demetrioussharpe on Fri 6th Jan 2012 00:04 UTC in reply to "Just like with Vista"
demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

Just like with Vista, Windows Phone is failing because of poor marketing.


Perhaps Windows Phone is failing because of poor marketing, but that's not the case with Vista. Vista failed because it was annoying as hell & generally sucked. Windows 7 is what Vista should've been.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by robojerk
by robojerk on Wed 4th Jan 2012 00:55 UTC
robojerk
Member since:
2006-01-10

i always thoght of iOS and Android as buying into a platform. Apps i buy for one wont work for the other, even though its the same app from the same developer. Most of us have invested money into apps that i dont feel like paying for again just to switch OS's. If WP7 or Nokia could bring the next evolution to the handset market then it might be financially worth it.

Reply Score: 2

Remember the Kin.
by aaronmcohen on Wed 4th Jan 2012 00:57 UTC
aaronmcohen
Member since:
2011-09-19

I think this is the second article to make OSNews on the subject. Windows Phone is a good OS. Unfortunately it's timing is bad. Remember Microsoft Kin? It was a solid feature phone but it only lasted 6 months. As a consumer how am I going to know my phone will be supported/developed for the life of the phone? Apple and Android have been out for a while. My brother's iPhone 3G can still receive OS updates and use new software. I can't say that for Microsoft Kin or the previous version of the MS Phone based OS.

We are not hesitant of Windows Phone 7 because it is or is not a good phone OS. We are because we are not sure if MS will stand by it or move on to the next shiny market opportunity. After 2 or 3 years, I expect Windows Phone to take off. The big question is if MS is willing to wait that long for the Market to accept them.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Remember the Kin.
by Macrat on Wed 4th Jan 2012 01:25 UTC in reply to "Remember the Kin."
Macrat Member since:
2006-03-27

IRemember Microsoft Kin? It was a solid feature phone but it only lasted 6 months.


6 months?

It was sold online starting May 6, 2010, in stores on May 13, 2010 and discontinued on June 30, 2010.

That's barely even 2 months.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Remember the Kin.
by aaronmcohen on Wed 4th Jan 2012 01:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Remember the Kin."
aaronmcohen Member since:
2011-09-19

I was giving it the benefit of the doubt.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Remember the Kin.
by steve_s on Wed 4th Jan 2012 21:00 UTC in reply to "Remember the Kin."
steve_s Member since:
2006-01-16

Your brother's iPhone 3G (introduced June 2008) stopped receiving OS updates at iOS 4.2.1, which came out well over a year ago (November 2010). It didn't get iOS 4.3. iOS is currently at 5.0.1, with 5.1 in beta...

Prior to the launch of the iPhone people didn't expect OS updates for their phones, and Windows Phone devices prior to WP7 tended not to get updates. From everything I have read with WP7 Microsoft have been releasing updates for all phones. Since it's a new platform (7.0 came out in October 2010) we'll need to wait just over a year year to see whether Microsoft keeps providing OS updates as long as Apple have.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Remember the Kin.
by zima on Tue 10th Jan 2012 23:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Remember the Kin."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I doubt it's so clear (sure, it will be probably remembered like that long-term though; but popular narratives / mythologies don't have to be entirely correct)

Say - Symbian phones were traditionally getting updates, too (even if of a different kind, mostly bug-fixes; features were mostly frozen, and possibly for not bad reasons - different times, hw evolving too quickly and still always underpowered; software needed to be much better tailored, I guess)
Or, OTOH - that 3G (all Apple handsets in general) was mass-promoted and pushed on consumers for much longer than is typical ...so the period of support since large-scale sales stopped should be also curious to note (but is universally ignored by loud & visible pundits)

Reply Score: 2

Opposite.
by vtolkov on Wed 4th Jan 2012 01:48 UTC
vtolkov
Member since:
2006-07-26

It is great because it is failing.

Reply Score: 7

Comment by tuma324
by tuma324 on Wed 4th Jan 2012 02:00 UTC
tuma324
Member since:
2010-04-09

yeah right

Reply Score: 2

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Wed 4th Jan 2012 03:10 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

No reason to call a restrictive and closed OS fantastic. MS had a choice to give the choice for developers (C++ compiler for example). They decided not to. Bad for them.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by shmerl
by moondevil on Wed 4th Jan 2012 08:36 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

C++ support is a bad example and it has nothing to do with the success or failure of WP7.

I would also like to have the possibility to use C++ in WP7, still there are plenty of applications to choose from, because in the real world companies just use what is available instead of complaining about it.

The main problem is the brand. Consumers are already burned by Microsoft and Windows, and given the choice, they will take something else.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by tylerdurden on Wed 4th Jan 2012 09:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Consumers are not "burned" with windows, otherwise it would not be by far the most dominant desktop OS.

And that is exactly one of the main issue: consumers associate widows with a desktop/laptop.

Given that MS can't even get their branding right, it should be no surprise they are failing in a market already dominated with at least 3 major players (iOS, Android, BlackBerry).

It is an ironic case of MS living by the sword (building an empire on the back of windows on the desktop) only to die by that windows sword.

Edited 2012-01-04 09:52 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Raziel on Wed 4th Jan 2012 10:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Raziel Member since:
2006-03-27

Then the Zune should have been a success, it has no "Windows" on it, and I actually haven't seen any Zune in my life so far. Now one owns one in Spain, and I haven't seen a Zune in all stores where I usually roam...

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by ichi on Wed 4th Jan 2012 10:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

Then the Zune should have been a success, it has no "Windows" on it, and I actually haven't seen any Zune in my life so far. Now one owns one in Spain, and I haven't seen a Zune in all stores where I usually roam...


AFAIK it wasn't even sold out of the US.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Raziel on Wed 4th Jan 2012 10:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Raziel Member since:
2006-03-27

s/Now/No :\

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by JAlexoid on Wed 4th Jan 2012 11:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Zune was not great, by any means.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by tylerdurden on Thu 5th Jan 2012 00:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Zune is another example of awful branding. What does it even mean? What does it have to do with music/multimedia? etc.


Besides, I don't think MS sold the Zune over in Spain. So that may be a reason for you not seeing it.


But I can also provide a counter example of MS getting branding right leading to a successful product/platform: XBOX.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by JAlexoid on Wed 4th Jan 2012 11:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Consumers are not "burned" with windows, otherwise it would not be by far the most dominant desktop OS.


How about that people are aware of their lack of choice in the desktop arena. People are aware that to have their applications work on their PCs they need Windows. I bet if Windows did not have that level of application support, it would not enjoy 90%+ market share.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by tylerdurden on Thu 5th Jan 2012 00:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Most people are not hard core nerds like the posters here.

And there are choices, at least in the US. Those who do not like windows can buy a Mac, and those who appreciate their freedom can run OSS systems to their heart contents. The truth is that most people do not care, and for the desktop, Windows seems to work well enough for most people.

Microsoft has the "coca cola" brand for the desktop. Which was great during the past couple of decades because it is where the growth was. But it is a handicap when going to markets other than soda/cola so to speak.

Edited 2012-01-05 00:16 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by zima
by zima on Tue 10th Jan 2012 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

How about that people are aware of their lack of choice in the desktop arena. People are aware that to have their applications work on their PCs they need Windows. I bet if Windows did not have that level of application support, it would not enjoy 90%+ market share.

People don't put so much thought into their choices; for most of them, Windows is the computer (an integral expected part of it at least) - when it's something else, when it looks different, there's "something weird / wrong with it" ...app availability hardly really comes into the equation.
By now it's largely momentum.

People think they need it, even if not really - on a typical PC (by now, some cheap laptop) I usually see them using web browser (mail also there, "web apps", fb games and such), IM & videoconf, players for music and video (well, and p2p software for both...); also some "office suite" (but too often something between Abiword and Wordpad would be enough; at least it's quite often OOo in my place); and that's pretty much it. It doesn't really need Windows.
(OK, curiously some few games have also weird following - HoMM3 most notably - especially among stereotypical non-gamers ...though, really, they mostly run at least just as well on Wine as on present Win releases)
Oh, but "we" (~"geeks who know computer stuff") might be not really helping, collectively (say, from "Games might not even" http://www.osnews.com/permalink?502709 )

Edited 2012-01-11 00:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by r_a_trip on Wed 4th Jan 2012 13:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Consumers are not "burned" with windows, otherwise it would not be by far the most dominant desktop OS.

Do people use Windows because of Windows, or do they use it because of the vast third party ecosphere around it? People use applications and hardware. The OS is secondary to that.

If a hypothetical OS, with the sturdiness of Unix, the sexiness of Mac OSX and the (perpetual) ability to run Windows software (apps and drivers) seamlessly, would come to market at comparable prices, would Windows be able to keep their dominance on the desktop?

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by moondevil on Wed 4th Jan 2012 14:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

It depends if the OEMs would take into use or not.

This is one reason Microsoft always has so much problems outside the desktop space, as they are not able to offer(enforce) the same rules and are just one more vendor in the market.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by zima on Tue 10th Jan 2012 23:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

If a hypothetical OS, with the sturdiness of Unix, the sexiness of Mac OSX and the (perpetual) ability to run Windows software (apps and drivers) seamlessly, would come to market at comparable prices, would Windows be able to keep their dominance on the desktop?

You mean Windows 7? Oh, wait... ;)

Well, it's at least close (and Win8 could be basically "there", if they don't frak up with the ~Metro stuff ...but MS still has quite some time before the launch, and ought to still remember Vista) - any potential competitor should be somehow better.

Especially since, in people minds, too often Windows ~is the computer, an integral part of the experience. Most people seem hardly dependent on SW ecosphere, however they think they need it (so yeah, they "use" Windows in practice http://www.osnews.com/permalink?502762 ) ...and you seem to basically agree with that in latter part of http://www.osnews.com/permalink?502709 :p

Edited 2012-01-11 00:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Stephen! on Wed 4th Jan 2012 18:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Stephen! Member since:
2007-11-24

Consumers are not "burned" with windows, otherwise it would not be by far the most dominant desktop OS.


Although that could be that Windows has become something of a necessary evil, rather than being used by choice.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Flatland_Spider
by Flatland_Spider on Wed 4th Jan 2012 03:53 UTC
Flatland_Spider
Member since:
2006-09-01

Windows Phone 7 is failing because Android is good enough, and Windows Live isn't as popular as the Google products. Why would you buy a phone that integrates best with an email service you don't use?

MS just needs to bite the bullet and go full Apple the way they do with the Xbox. MS needs to buy Nokia, and take control of the platform. Keep it open with sideloading, user modding, etc, but they need to integrate the most popular applications to make sure WinPhone7 stays current.

They also should up their revision release cycle to quarterly, and up their version release cycle to yearly. This would create buzz by causing the press to talk about WinPhone7 more.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Flatland_Spider
by aaronmcohen on Wed 4th Jan 2012 04:11 UTC in reply to "Comment by Flatland_Spider"
aaronmcohen Member since:
2011-09-19

Before MS performs a full "Apple" they need to answer the question. Do we need another Apple? Right now they are trying to be another Android? Right now what the world needs is what Nokia provides. A really cheap feature phone that does banking, communication, and phone.

Think how many innovative form factors they could utilize if they did not try to be everything to everyone. They could truly differentiate themselves in the market.

Reply Score: 2

Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

Do we need another Apple? Right now they are trying to be another Android?

We need a better Apple.

Android has taken Microsoft's traditional position in the marketplace.

MS isn't going to give the OEMs the same leeway Google does. MS needs to understand if they are going to compete, they need to vertically integrate the hardware and the OS in the way they do with the Xbox. MS can either let the OEMs do as they will with WinPhone7, or they can go vertical. They're not going to have it both ways, and if they try to play the middle, they're going to find themselves in the exact situation they're in now.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Flatland_Spider
by shmerl on Wed 4th Jan 2012 05:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by Flatland_Spider"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

They can just stop at the "bite the bullet" step. I can second the previous comment - we don't need another Apple out there ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Flatland_Spider
by gan17 on Wed 4th Jan 2012 07:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Flatland_Spider"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

Or they can just close shop, give Nokia back to the people, and disappear altogether. ;)

Reply Score: 1

adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

^This

Reply Score: 2

The worst in all of this...
by ronaldst on Wed 4th Jan 2012 04:23 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

Is how Windows Phone execs go on and talk about the situation like they're gaining serious marketshare on Android/iOS rapidly. It is mindboggling.

Also Nokia is making only 40x Batman Lumia units. Just enough to keep it a secret from the public. I hope they rot in hell.

Reply Score: 2

RE: The worst in all of this...
by adkilla on Wed 4th Jan 2012 13:07 UTC in reply to "The worst in all of this..."
adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

Well, that is because that is the maximum number units Ballmer was wiling to buy?

Reply Score: 2

MSs behaviour doesn't help them
by bnolsen on Wed 4th Jan 2012 04:54 UTC
bnolsen
Member since:
2006-01-06

This is the same Microsoft who has used their windows whip to keep oems in line by abusing their monopoly on the PC. MS is trying to work with many of those same players that in some cases they are extorting money from over BS android patents. You really can't blame these handset manufacturers for likely not being very enthusiastic. Who wants to play yet another market where MS takes all the big profits while they play all the handset manufacturers against each other?

Edited 2012-01-04 04:54 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Navneet Alang
by Neolander on Wed 4th Jan 2012 09:14 UTC
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

Been browsing through the posts of this columnist, and he/she has yet to convince me that he/she is not one more Apple fanboy that does not attempt to understand why Android is successful before criticizing it.

Since I have more gripes against iOS than Android, though, my views on the subject may not be very neutral, so I encourage everyone to do the same : check out the related links on the right of the article, and make your own opinion about what this guy/girl writes.

Edited 2012-01-04 09:18 UTC

Reply Score: 1

No
by Raziel on Wed 4th Jan 2012 09:37 UTC
Raziel
Member since:
2006-03-27

It's actually very easy: Microsoft is late to the party, and nothing to offer but smiling and saying "hey guys, I'm Microsoft, buy me!"

Right now, each vendor can offer:
iOS: Ultimate user experience. Gazillion apps.
Android: Ultimate flexibility. Gazillion apps.
Windows: Ultimate nothing. Gazillion Microsoft fanboys whining on the Internet.

Two weeks ago, I bought my first smartphone, and the decision was very easy: do I value hassle-less user experience more than freedom? No, because I'm a tinkerer, I like to break things, so Android it is. And anyhow, the user experience is well damn great, even for a 140€ phone like mine. I also bought an Android tablet for my parents, but only for the price, because they would probably be better off with an iPad. However a workmate got an iPad2 for Christmas, but he returned it and bought an EEE Transformer instead, because he values his freedom, and Apple not fucking his ass.

I really don't see where Windows Phone fits here, other than "having a fugly main menu that the Internet says it's very fast".

Reply Score: 1

RE: No
by zima on Sat 7th Jan 2012 03:45 UTC in reply to "No"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft is late to the party, and nothing to offer [...] I really don't see where Windows Phone fits here, other than "having a fugly main menu that the Internet says it's very fast".

Xbox Live integration. "Coincidentally" X360 (most of their venues, really?) go more and more towards Metro-style main menu, that should at least get quite sizeable group of people used to its aesthetics.

Microsoft was "late to the party" with home consoles, too. And now... well, while not exactly dominating numerically, I'd say they are clearly a very major force - maybe even the major force, since Wii has run out of steam & Kinect première.

That Xbox Live integration could be especially compelling given how mobile phones seem to be largely replacing portable consoles; games are the top kind of application (the rest is essentially covered already, anyway; nobody really needs "gazillion" filler apps).
Or how some possible combo of an X360 & WP7+ handset essentially... is a Wii U (and come on, the unveiling of Wii U used game footage taken from existing PS3 or X360 game versions), and more (Kinect, Skype, their big push for "TV via Xbox Live").
Do not underestimate MS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: No
by Raziel on Sun 8th Jan 2012 20:06 UTC in reply to "RE: No"
Raziel Member since:
2006-03-27

Noone here is underestimating MS, I'm just not seeing the value it provides. Good for you if XBox Live integration is valuable, but it isn't for me and for anyone that doesn't own an XBox, whereas Google services integration is indeed more useful. I'm not into smartphones for gaming, but for connectivity.

XBox wasn't really late to the home consoles party: it was quite timely for its generation of consoles, and had some good titles to offer, and now with kinect and XNA it's a really interesting platform, provided its main competitor, the PS3, is a pain in the ass for developers. Just for curiosity, how does XBox Live integration in WP compare to the PSN integration in Android?

Besides, what does that "nobody needs a gazillion apps" mean? I indeed don't need a gazillion apps inside my phone, but among that gazillion apps I'm more likely to find the obscure apps I need.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: No
by zima on Mon 9th Jan 2012 01:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Ehh, I don't even own an Xbox (don't benefit MS much, generally; and would prefer other paths for Nokia http://www.osnews.com/thread?502230 ). The issue is not on on the level of what's "good for you" or me; and it's also irrelevant how you might not see the value of dozens millions of households hooked pretty well into Xbox Live. Again, games are at the top of mobile apps, in usage - who cares it's not something to your (or mine) liking?* What matters is how it gives MS a great & fertile land to exploit (and generally, mass dynamics matter), I don't have a problem seeing that.

MS was clearly late with home consoles overall, that's what I wrote (sure, if you twist words in some way, you might show that the original point was "wrong") - and, curiously in context, the first Xbox was somewhat of a disappointment too, certainly under-performing in the market. But they learned, and came to almost dominate it (in long-term momentum, IMHO).


*similar with nobody really needs "gazillion" filler apps (that is what I actually wrote BTW), to which you seem to cling for some reason. But that's not really on the agenda for vast majority of consumers (just look on how few desktop apps they typically settled on in the end, by now; except... games), not a problem in mass adoption as long as decent support is present - and, with ~50k or so apps last I've heard, that's certainly the case ...portraying it like some kind of void of apps, which really gets in the way, is inaccurate.
(but BTW did you see what forms large portion - if not majority - of those "impressive" numbers of appstores? Few payment levels of one application; poor conversions of ~flash games; e-books, radio stations, "website UIs" & feeds packaged as an app & pretending as if it's not ~data better to be opened in an integrated manner)

PS. What PSN integration in Android? Last I checked, it was basically just monitoring of the account status ...hardly what I would call integration.
But games from Xbox Arcade can (and are) be readily ported to WP; or, the phone could be an accessory of sorts to Xbox (yeah, just like virtually everything a Wii U is supposed to be)

Edited 2012-01-09 01:36 UTC

Reply Score: 2

WP7 and...???
by TemporalBeing on Wed 4th Jan 2012 18:19 UTC
TemporalBeing
Member since:
2007-08-22

WP7 is not failing because it is great. It may be decent for a MS OS, but great it is not, so stop drinking the Microsoft Koolaid, take the red pill, and get back to reality.

WP7 is failing because:

- Microsoft is trying to hard to control the platform so device manufacturers and carriers really see no reason to use it.
- The Application environment is locked down to .NET so there's a minority of developers interested in programming for it.
- Developer's are interested in it, so there's very few applications.
- In general, User's (aside from the fanboys) don't like the interface, and there's no apps.
- Microsoft was late to market and with an unconvincing product.
- No one is interested in a version of Windows that is not compatible with anything else - e.g. their x86 desktop application's won't transfer.
- Every knows what Windows means - crashing, security risks, etc - and no one is interested in repeating that on the mobile platform.

WP7 is failing exactly because it is Windows and Microsoft. Windows 8 will only transfer the failures to the main Windows platform - the desktop OS.

Reply Score: 2

tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

The smartphone market is growing massively -- and Nokia will change the balance of power in Europe, where it is far stronger than North and South America.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

South America is most likely much stronger place for Nokia than Europe (where they relatively recently gave away the overall lead - not just "smartphones" - to Samsung)

Also: http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-sa-monthly-200807-201201 (and those stats certainly under-represent Nokia, not only because they seem to only count Symbian; web stats in general); if you check Europe it's quite different.

And another data point to consider, Latin American snapshot of Opera Mini: http://www.opera.com/smw/2011/05/

Edited 2012-01-10 23:36 UTC

Reply Score: 2