OSNews

How?

Develop your reasoning. Explain why it's too restrictive.

He cant, I guess. Like most people posting one-liner trolls.

/me hugs his HTC Arrive with Mango

The Microsoft cavalry has arrived. God forbid I stray away from my keyboard more than 24 hours; the inquisition is here and is waiting for me to explain myself.

The tiles are restricive (too big, too disorganized, too similar one from another), the Metro language is restrictive and doesn't fit all people (I have more of a visual rather than a textual memory - and what about dyslexics? I also searched how Metro would work in chinese; because that language is far more compact, it is messier and breaks a core design guideline - the fact that titles overflow outside the screen to indicate that one can scroll right for more content).

WP7 is not another fundamental platform choice, it is iOS with all its restrictions (and some more - but WP8 will correct all that, yeah? except the fundamental shortcomings I described) with a different design choice (more typography, less icons). No wonder that for so many iOS fans, from Gruber to now Wozniak, it is love at first sight (but of course, as much as they love it, they won't switch). We-know-what-is-good-for-you-and-we-won't-let-you-do-what-YOU-want. Different package, same politic.

Now, go on, unleash your anger against my stupidity and dishonesty. We all see what happens in the comments when somebody dares to critic WP7 _ not only when Topolsky reviewed the Lumia 900, but everywhere someone says anything remotely negative on the perfect WP7.

And don't get me started on the "smoked by WP7" rigged contest, the Android tax they bully, how they are killing Nokia or the upcoming fiasco of the WP8 upgrade (so much hardware control and restrictions for so little benefits...).

Oh, don't get snitty with us. If you'd take the extra 30 seconds required to articulate your opinions and concerns instead of posting an inflammatory throwaway one-liner as fast as you can to get top post spot, we wouldn't have asked the simple "why?" question or insinuated that you are/were just a troll. Most of us are actually fully willing to have civil discussion about the pros and cons of our chosen poison.

Now, with that out of the way, lets DO THIS THING :p




I'll admit, the tile sizings under Windows 8 are too large for my tastes, but they are that way for a reason - They will hold a multitude of information.

On the phone? They are the perfect size for holding at-a-glance information and being easy to smash with your finger or thumb. Now, I definitely have a more textual than visual memory, so that concern, at least, is not an issue for me. But I will say that there is plenty of visual distinction between tiles as well as textual. Do not forget that the user is the one placing the tiles in their location, it is not - after the initial, default, screen - done by the OS. This aids in memory of what's where. Also, I'm mildly dyslexic; I reverse and move letters around at seemingly random intervals. My brother-in-law is far more dyslexic than I and he had no trouble using my Arrive and rather liked it. His current choice of Phone/Mobile OS is an iPhone 4s, but his previous few phones have been Android. If you can work out text on those interfaces, even with dyslexia, then you can do it on Metro. And I will FREELY admit that Metro isn't for everyone. But, from my personal experience (which, I know, is never valid input on the Internet, unless it falls with the hivemind's view point...), people pick Metro up easily after a few moments use; once they realize how it works.

As for localization in other languages? Can't really comment on that as it isn't my expertise and I only use my native English on computers. So I will look more into that.

Admittedly, my examples are purely anecdotal. Such is the life of Internet opinions



Thank you for going from reasonable discourse to a ranting style. You are obviously NOT the target market for WP7/W8 and iOS, so why are you bothering to comment in here when it obviously gets your blood pressure up? We need dissenting view points to stay alive so we can have viable competition to keep things interesting



Really? REALLY? Get defensive much? You posted a 9 word positive sentence - one with no faults. Then slapped an 8 word negative one right below that with no expansion of your points. Of COURSE people are going to ask you to explain yourself. I saw no anger but, I suppose, my post insinuated stupidity. But can you really argue that dismissal based on previous flame wars whenever WP7 is mentioned?

And my rant was driving the point that WP7 is not competition. Microsoft and Apple are the same thing in a different package. If I don't like Apple's offering or politics, what use is it for me to go to a Microsoft who does the exact same thing? There is no true competition.

If you learned a bit of economics, you may remember that perfect competition happens in a field with a lot of competitors, numerous enough to ensure none of them has enough influence alone on the market, and that any collusion would be hard to set up. As it is, the OS market is an oligopoly - and always will be, for a question of coders always settling en masse for one, or two, at most three, standards. WP7 does not give "choice" by its existence alone. Metro is nice, but it is a gimmick, and is a vain attempt at originality because nothing else is original in WP7.

Look, you may not like the fact that modern smartphones are primarily locked-down, but that's a side issue that has little to do with competition. When you have more than one competitor in a market, it forces them to improve their products year after year, rather than sitting on their laurels and pumping out crap. That is unquestionably happening in the smartphone market. Phones are getting better, more powerful, more capable. Try to imagine a world where there was only Apple. I have no doubt that Apple would strive to produce better phones, but the real question is ... how much would they improve? Answer: Maybe not enough -- and perhaps only enough to maximize profitability. That isn't competition. We should be encouraging more competitors to enter the market, not tear them down and wish failure on them.

Nope, not even close. In France, in Switzerland, there are three phone carriers, and prices are high while services are low. With so few players, competition deosn't work and price-fixing can be set, even implicitely. And that is just one easy example. You need more than "more than one" : you need four, five, more non-ridiculously-small players.


And this is absolutely not an argument in favor of Microsoft's WP7 and its tight, restrictive control of the hardware platforms allowed.

In many ways. Hardware: you can only get 1 or 1.4 GHz (now also 800 MHz) single core Snapdragon CPUs and 480x800 screens. There isn't a single impressively specced WP7 phone out there, and the low-end is severely unimpressive compared to Android phones at the same price. That makes the WP7 segment of the phone market a sea of mediocrity, and rather expensive compared to Android. Not a single WP7 phone with a decent camera in it.

Software: Microsoft followed Apple's lead in which features they would finish later (but didn't leave out MMS, thankfully). Multi-tasking is still so crippled that their own Skype implementation fails in ways it doesn't on any other platform: it can't run in the background. This will be fixed in WP8, but current phones aren't likely to get that update, meaning they're already obsolete.

I'm pretty sure you still have to use Zune software to 'sync' files between phone and computer as well.

And more.

WP7 performs extremely well on the hardware it is spec'ed at. What would it need more for? I thought that bloat was bad and that software makers should do better to reduce their hardware needs rather than use the exponential growth in hardware to compensate for bad programming?

As for the multi-tasking point, do you want your battery to be drained like crazy? running certain types of apps concurrently is not too bad, but most apps will suck down the milliamps like a horse that has just galloped 30 miles.

Yeah, sure. WP7 scrolls nicely on modest hardware. That doesn't make it fast, though, although it does improve the user experience. All benchmarks show that it's just about as fast as you'd expect for its modest hardware, though -- for Javascript (Sunspider), it's a actually a fair bit worse.

Battery life isn't vastly superior for the WP7 platform, so I don't really see the trade-off here.

I have a first gen WP7 phone (HTC 7 Pro) so my specs are as low as they get :-p

I think its down to a perception thing. My phone does not have a dual (or quad?!) core but I dont find myself 'waiting' on the phone. This was something my old blackberry bold was also good at.

Compare this to my Samsung tocco which I had in between and it always felt Slow. I would select an option and would be able to make a coffee before it loaded the my emails </exaggeration>. The tocco needed charging every day. The HTC lasts about 2 and a bit with normal use (spotify to and from work, emails and texts). Thats fine for me, but I do long for the old days of not charging for a week!

I just did a quick search and all the WP7 models that came up were either 5MP or 8MP. This is similar to what my wife has been getting in all of her Android phones.

As for the 'specs' that you keep referring to, Woz already talked about that. Even with the lower specs of the WP7, it is (in Woz's opinion) more fluid than higher spec'd Android and iOS phones.

Megapixels isn't much of an indication of camera quality. The Lumias are among the best WP7 cameras, but they are even worse than the Nokia N9, and I'm not happy with its camera. Samsung's better Android phones are far superior. As are Sony's, and the iPhone 4S (but not the previous ones, which are all remarkably bad).

Megapixels are not an accurate measurements of camera quality. They are just a measurement of image resolution, that is, how large of a print you can make from an image and how much you can tweak it because things start to become really ugly.

Digital pictures have been high-res enough to make decent A4 prints ever since 3 MP cameras have been out. For casual photographers, there is no need for higher-resolution pictures.

Now, stuff that actually matter to phone camera users, such as color fidelity or noise, may actually be harmed by an uncontrolled push for more megapixels. More pixels means smaller photodetectors, so a lower sensitivity and more defects.

Edited 2012-05-01 13:56 UTC

Not even that: a technically high MP file from, say, a phone camera and its very small sensor & poor optics (poor "optical resolution" of sorts) ...will tend to give worse large prints than a proper DSLR with, say, nominally only half MP.


Probably more than A4 - I remember one informal experiment with three poster-sized prints of the same photograph, in 15, 10 and 5 MP versions (and A4 to poster increase is proportionally larger than 3 to 5 MP). IIRC, out of dozens of people, only one could pinpoint the difference ...probably due to being a pro in the field.
(I'd have to search for it myself, and I'm afraid ATM of wiki/google effect - if you care, it was IIRC some NYTimes blog post dealing specifically with the megapixel myth, test done in some shopping center or some such)

PS. Kinda like megahertz myth of old days...

Edited 2012-05-03 21:04 UTC

Hi agree with you.
I currently own a Galaxy S2. I know Wp7 cause i bought a Samsung Omnia 7 for my wife. I must say it's very intuitive and smooth, much more than iOS and Android. GUI is simply awesome, and extremely original, user-friendly like any other user interface. But, there is a big but. For me is too restrictive. It becomes boring after 2 days. It offers no customizations and very few apps; and for me, used to change everything on my phone every week, it's something i cant accept. On my GS2 i have dozens of utilities installed, i use my device as a mouse on my PC, a GPS with vocal commands, as a terminal to remote control my server and my PCs at work (with TeamViewer), and many others amazing things. Moreover i enjoy the incredible opensource world, and i'm always surprised seeing how good can work an independent team like Cyanogen and how awesome are the roms they release (and also AOKP team and all the cookers on xda).
"Ok" you may say "but you are a 'geek'...you're not representative of the vast majority of users who barely now what are the possibilities offered by Android and opensource". You are right.
Let's consider my wife. She is a typical medium users. She does not know anything about this. Formerly i had a Galaxy S and she had an Omnia 7. She was happy with her phone. When i bought a Galaxy S2, i asked her if she wanted to sell the Omnia 7 or the Galaxy S. She did not hesitate a second "I want the Galaxy". "Honey, are you sure? Battery is not so god, the operating system is buggy and laggy, camera is worse than Omnia 7, and it does not even have a led flash."
She kept the Galaxy and she like the way she can customize the homescreens with tons of widgets. She like to change the lockscreen, she searches the market for nice applications and cute objects to put on her phone. She even uses feed rss reader widgets to read the latest news about law (she is a lawyer).
Yes, i think WP7 is too restrictive.

If your going to call him senile, I'd more go to his comments about real people. You see real people are people who wait in lines. That being said, glad to know that windows phones are also used by real people as well as soup kitchens and federal office buildings.

I really do like Wozniak but recently he's been saying the corniest stuff.

As a long time Mac user that really wanted him to rejoin Apple, Woz threw out his geek card long ago and got the crazy old kook card, the proof is his love of the Segway and stint on Dancing with the "stars"...

When it comes to using the "Appeal to Authority" tactic, I'll take Woz over Topolsky, thanks.

Edited 2012-04-29 05:42 UTC

If it were just Topolsky with that conclusion you could be right, but all the Verge editors agreed and even most of the WP owners who called in.
Maybe you should have listened it before commenting.

When it comes to the "Appeal to Authority" tactic, I'll take Woz over "The Verge Editors", thanks.

And yet, when you actually read Verge's review(and the extension on the Vergecast) he doesn't contradict Wozniak. Aesthetics are there, it's not moving fast enough.

The "appeal to authority" fallacy only works as a tactic when the "authority" being appealed to is respected as an "authority" worth appealing to by the person you are trying to convince.

I don't care about "The Verge" editors' opinion enough that I'd be swayed by them, so appealing to them as an authority is futile.

Stupid "appeal to authority" talk is stupid.
Even owners of Windows phones agree that Windows Phone 1.0 is not competitive and is moving way too slow.

Yes, that's why we have got rid of that awful QWERTY keyboard from the old days already. Wait, we're still using that one.

I guess I'll wait and see if the new UI is so much better than everything else.

Don't be so butthurt. Siri is a good sign that someone is working on that one.

with auto correction changing your comments

It might very well be not that awful after all... (at least vs. its most commonly cherished alternatives) http://www.osnews.com/permalink?516029

OS X (Mac OS) doesn't have a big market share because Apple didn't let the OEMs install it. If Apple had been more liberal, the OS market might have been different.

Remember that Apple are VERY bad at dealing with OEMs. The last time they tried was a failure of such epic proportions that employees and shareholders from the old days are unlikely to let it happen again.

If they continued that way, they were going out of business. The Mac Clones were eating their lunch. OSX probably would of never been completed past the developer release.

Bad in what way? They were IBM'd. The clones ate all of their market and left no room for Apple to make competitive hardware. But believe me, the OEM's often cut corners. This is why many of those OEM boxes had hardware issues.

They were bad at it in sense that they seemingly didn't realize until the last moment that software companies cannot compete with hardware companies on the hardware front without a legally enforced monopoly to help them.

But Apple was not a Software company. They were a hardware company with software. Plus, most of the clones were based on a reference board that Appe provided. Apple wrongly assumed that the clones would fill the niche, where as what really happened was something more like an all out assault. The problem was that many manufacturers tried to innovate and create USP's. So, while some threw put plain clones on the Tanzania logic board in grey boxes, others, like the Motorola Starmax had a standard VGA port (back when Macs used a Mac specific one) and a PS/2 port. You also have the quad processor from Daystar, which was a little insane. Some tricked out their processors and logic board speeds/timings. There were a lot of issues caused by the specs not being adhered to. it was a total mess and Apple handled the whole fiasco badly. That jobs canned the programme wasa blessing.

You make it sound as if software development at Apple was a secondary extra, with hardware design as the main task.

But as far as I can tell, Apple's computers had pretty mainstream designs (well, minus the unusual component standards) until they started to get a bit more fancy with the first-gen iMac. It's clearly the software that received the most effort and made people want to buy Apple's stuff.

Which is why the OEM licensing deal made sense at all. You don't leave hardware design to others if you want to distinguish yourself through it.


If I get it right, they really expected OEMs to stay in the low-end and take the thin margins and blame for the cost compromises, while they continued to sell the products which had the most prestigious image and brought the most profit ?

If so, that was kind of stupid. If you want a slave that will blindly follow your orders, what you need is a "pure" manufacturing company like Foxconn, not an OEM.


Which meant, if the OS dealt with those right (I don't know), that Mac users and OEMs could use cheaper PC hardware instead of paying the Apple tax on everything, kind of like we do today. Seems like a decision that would be full of win, except for Apple of course.


Quad cores in the 80-90s ? Now that was cool. If some software was developed for it, I guess media people were quite happy to see this kind of high-power hardware around.


Now, that is a more serious problem. But when you deal with OEMs, you will always get Acers that try to cut costs so hard that they release crappy products in the end. I guess that like today, you had ways to document yourself on which model was best for each use though (magazines, reliable vendors, etc...).


Most of what you've written on your post rather sounded like good news, except for Apple. Cheaper PC hardware, more power for those who needs it, experiments to bring prices down... Looked like a rather healthy OEMs ecosystem to me, except for the spec adherence problems.

I'm sure that Apple could have done something with it, if they were ready to sink their hardware division. What they did instead (make more original hardware in order to justify their prices and lock-in) was another good option though, and the one that was most beneficial to Apple as a company (though not necessarily to their customers).

Edited 2012-04-30 07:34 UTC

We're NOT talking about problem Apple had with OEMs and shareholders, we're talking about the "success" of OS X. And for some people, "success" is reflected by market share.

All I said was if Apple didn't have a problem while adopting Microsoft's strategy, it would have a bigger market share.

OSX is actually very successful. Who cares about the "against WIndows monopoly" part? It's successful in its own right regardless of how successful Windows is.

Win 7.5 is NOTHING like what you are saying above. You have no idea what you're talking about...you're showing your ignorance with your comments.

You can't compare Windows 8 on a desktop to a phone.

You're right, reading and comprehension are sooo passé...

It also might be because Windows 7 hasn't been around as long as Android and iOS. But way to keep it negative.

Got any more glass half empty cool stories you want to tell bro?

BTW, I'm a Linux guy and I'm defending Windows here because of the innate bias I see.

I did not intend this as a negative, this was a genuine question.

On any OS which I have ever dealt with, third party softs always had a hard time beating OS-bundled ones at their own games. One mobile OSs, it is made even harder by the fact that both aren't put on an equal footing. And in today's mobile landscape, WP7 is the mobile OS where the asymmetry between OS and third-party devs is the most pronounced.

Perhaps it is in Microsoft's interest to soften their position on those matters. It has happened to other OS manufacturers in the past : Google have softened their "no native code" restriction on Android, and Apple themselves accepted to make a (crappy) compromise with respect to multitasking on iOS.

Or, to say it otherwise, perhaps Microsoft should put more trust in their hardware and software partners.

Others would argue that this might ruin the WP7 platform if they go too far in this direction. And I think this is true. But as of today, Microsoft have taken an approach to OS development that is even more restrictive than Apple's, without the brand image of Apple to back it up, so I am not sure how they want to back it up.

Edited 2012-04-29 08:25 UTC

I almost went to a WIndows phone this last time around, but I want AMOLED.

When WP8 comes out I expect MS will bump their specs.

I'd suspect MS has nothing to do with lack of AMOLED models... (why would MS care about specific tech of the screen, vs. only its resolution and such?)

Because Dalvik apps are native?

Your analysis sounds more like your desire than anything else. For some reason there exists a group of supposed "tech fans" that spend their time rooting for certain tech to fail.

I estimate that 90% of all "WP is doomed" posts has an underlying subtext of "YES!!! I can't wait for WP to disappear from the world forever!!!" as if their own selfworth would be enhanced by such an outcome.

I think Windows 8 will provide a big boost to WP8, and in the US, I think Verizon's announced backing of WP8 will provide a boost as well.

Also, be careful of declaring Android a healthy market, as only Samsung is making real money there. All other OEMs are struggling or outright losing money. And Google itself isn't seeing much return on Android either (mainly because in the mobile space there are so many apps that take the place of mobile web sites, and it's difficult for Google to serve up ads in those apps).

WP7 is doomed, that is a matter of fact.
If Microsoft were to focus and actually stick to WP7, it could have been a success(see XBox as example).

That is the ball and chain on WP's leg - Microsoft's, seeming, lack of ability to stick to it long enough with actual active development.

It's been a year and a few months from the first devices running the newborn WP7 to full refocus on Win8 and WP8(on NT). I don't expect anything amazing from any future updates to WP7, all creative resources will go to Win8 and WP8.

in short:

Microsoft bring shity technology to main stream with delay of 7 years.

This is enough for me to hate them from heart.
I watch what they do for past 20 years and I am sure that there is no place for Windows Phone 7 simple because developers wont support them.

Beside Microsoft strategy for tablets (aka Metro and Windows 8) will also fail: it is to little, to late. (they have no other option but to use Windows as vessel for tablet OS but at the end it is again: to little, to late).

I am glad that Apple philosophy will beat Microsoft - software and hardware SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATE ! (all other companies that follow this principle fail (Atari, Amiga, SGI, Sun...): all that companies move things forward but could not fight against "lowest common denominator" that was PC and Microsoft.

Only Apple survive thanx to brilliant moves of Steve Jobs, thanx to NextStep...

I am sure that Microsoft have it's golden years and that they are in decline path. Maybe they will have success in cloud business but smartphone and tablet war is lost for them.

ZTE (heard of them? ...the 4th largest mobile phone maker, probably quite soon becoming 3rd) isn't struggling, likewise Huawei and such ...new OEMs, just like it happened with PCs, more or less. You might also look into HTC financial reports.


Just like it is on all platforms. Anyway, the licensing fees alone (for "Google experience" branding) most likely more than offset Android development costs, that's enough for Google (their main goal, "good enough" for them being when no other platform becomes too widespread & able to cut them off from participation in future trends)

Edited 2012-05-06 00:15 UTC

different == flawed?