Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Dec 2012 11:51 UTC
Google "Google has revealed that it has no plans to develop dedicated apps for Windows 8 or Windows Phone 8 for its business app products such as Gmail or Drive." Product management director for Google Apps, Clay Bavor, told V3 that Google "will go where the users are but they are not on Windows Phone or Windows 8". Ouch - but for now, hard to argue with.
Order by: Score:
Good News
by Sauron on Fri 14th Dec 2012 12:11 UTC
Sauron
Member since:
2005-08-02

The more company's that shun Win 8 the quicker it will die.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Good News
by Morgan on Fri 14th Dec 2012 12:29 UTC in reply to "Good News"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Why in the world would that be a good thing? The more platforms there are, the more room for innovation. Just because you personally don't like the platform doesn't mean it should be abolished. It's not your world we're living in, after all.

Even though I've given up on Windows Phone and I'm sticking with 7 on the desktop, I sincerely hope WP8 and RT flourish. A diverse market is a healthy market.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Good News
by moondevil on Fri 14th Dec 2012 13:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Good News"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

As a developer I really would like Windows Runtime to fully replace Win32, but only time will tell if this really happens.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Good News
by WereCatf on Fri 14th Dec 2012 14:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good News"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

As a developer I really would like Windows Runtime to fully replace Win32, but only time will tell if this really happens.


How would WinRT be able to replace Win32 when WinRT itself uses Win32? See e.g. http://arstechnica.com/features/2012/10/windows-8-and-winrt-everyth... for an in-depth explanation on this.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Good News
by Elv13 on Fri 14th Dec 2012 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good News"
Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

Replace it as the de-facto API, not replacing it as drop-in replacement, it isn't.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Good News
by REM2000 on Fri 14th Dec 2012 15:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good News"
REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

beat me to it, WinRT is built on Win32.

I agree that in one sense i would prefer more compeition as even apple has been a little lax with their design because they think they own the market.

I also agree with Google, why spend resources on a platform that may not fully play out, when they get a bigger share Google will develop for them, Google gets its revenue from access their web services, they don't really care how you do it, laptop, windows, mac, android as long as you connect.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Good News
by moondevil on Fri 14th Dec 2012 19:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good News"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

"As a developer I really would like Windows Runtime to fully replace Win32, but only time will tell if this really happens.


How would WinRT be able to replace Win32 when WinRT itself uses Win32? See e.g. http://arstechnica.com/features/2012/10/windows-8-and-winrt-everyth... for an in-depth explanation on this.
"

It makes use of Win32 today, no one can say how it will look like in Windows 9, or whatever it is going to be called.

would ==> indicating a possible (but not definite) future action or state

Gee, why do people have to try to explain this every time, without imagination how it might look some releases ahead.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Good News
by tylerdurden on Fri 14th Dec 2012 20:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Good News"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Perhaps because words have meaning, and us humans to this day seem to still lack the ability to read another person's mind? ;-)

I agree with you, btw.

Edited 2012-12-14 20:07 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Good News
by Nelson on Sat 15th Dec 2012 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good News"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Because WinRT is an abstraction ontop of Win32, it can just as easily have Win32 removed in the future with consumers of the WinRT being none the wiser.

People always point this out "WinRT is built on Win32" as if it matters. .NET is built on Win32, but you don't really say you as a developer are consuming Win32 because you're not.

That means you're not tied to the behavior of Win32, but to the behavior of WinRT. Its more than a subtle difference when it comes to legacy.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Good News
by lindkvis on Fri 14th Dec 2012 15:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Good News"
lindkvis Member since:
2006-11-21

Why in the world would that be a good thing? The more platforms there are, the more room for innovation. Just because you personally don't like the platform doesn't mean it should be abolished. It's not your world we're living in, after all.

Even though I've given up on Windows Phone and I'm sticking with 7 on the desktop, I sincerely hope WP8 and RT flourish. A diverse market is a healthy market.


I'm happy enough for WP8 to flourish, but as a developer of production software on Windows, I sincerely hope Windows 8 and Metro die a quick and painless death. It brings nothing but pain and misery if you're a developer of professional workstation applications running OpenGL. The effort required for our application to become a first class citizen on Windows 8 is probably less than the effort required to port it to MacOS or Linux.

Even the idea of creating a simpler, touch-friendly port for Metro is major pain because of the decision not to support OpenGL on Metro.

Metro makes me sad.

Reply Score: 14

RE[3]: Good News
by shmerl on Fri 14th Dec 2012 16:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good News"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Qt decided to work around that with using Angle (OpenGL to Direct3D translation). But it's not an ideal solution. In general MS nastiness and hate for open standards can turn any developer away from their platform, so I'm not really surprised about Google.

If Qt makes it through - you'll have one decent option there.

See https://qt-project.org/wiki/Qt-5-on-Windows-8-and-Metro-UI

Edited 2012-12-14 16:32 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Good News
by chithanh on Fri 14th Dec 2012 17:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good News"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

Last time I checked, ANGLE didn't work on WP8 because its API is too restricted compared to Windows 8. Has this changed?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Good News
by shmerl on Fri 14th Dec 2012 18:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Good News"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

I didn't specifically monitor the progress. One of the blockers there was that Angle relies on DX9, while WP8 uses DX11, so Angle itself has to be updated first.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Good News
by moondevil on Fri 14th Dec 2012 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Good News"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

In general MS nastiness and hate for open standards can turn any developer away from their platform


How does this differ from any other commercial vendor?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Good News
by Laurence on Sat 15th Dec 2012 10:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Good News"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

" In general MS nastiness and hate for open standards can turn any developer away from their platform


How does this differ from any other commercial vendor?
"

MS are easily the worst for it. Even Apple are more keen on embracing open standards than Microsoft are (CUPS, ODF, HTML5 (webkit far surpasses Trident), etc).

Edited 2012-12-15 10:49 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Good News
by moondevil on Sat 15th Dec 2012 14:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Good News"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

They did it originally for survival when NeXTSTEP team came on board.

The original Apple was all about Apple's own protocols and formats.

Nowadays they are going again to their old self, like any big corporation.

Just look at the amount of vendor extensions any given standard has.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Good News
by Laurence on Sun 16th Dec 2012 08:56 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Good News"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

They did it originally for survival when NeXTSTEP team came on board.

The original Apple was all about Apple's own protocols and formats.

Nowadays they are going again to their old self, like any big corporation.

Just look at the amount of vendor extensions any given standard has.

Good point. I'd completely forgotten about Apple Talk et al

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Good News
by Nelson on Sat 15th Dec 2012 17:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Good News"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Corporations use standards to out source work. They don't really care much for them. If there was a pre-packaged proprietary solution, they'd be just as keen on it.

That's the hilarious irony when the open source community holds companies like Google, and formerly even Sun to some sort of higher ethical standard, as if they're not just profit motivated corporations.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Good News
by shmerl on Sat 15th Dec 2012 22:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Good News"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Apple isn't much better. They also don't like open standards, and use them only when they have no control over the situation. Look at their opposition to open video codecs and you'll see it clearly.

But not every corporation is so low on business ethics, as to use crooked standards for lock in. Many are decent and favor interoperability and open standards.

Aiming for profit and being ethical are not contradicting interests. Contrary to what MS or Apple try to convince everyone around.

Edited 2012-12-15 22:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Good News
by bassbeast on Sun 16th Dec 2012 21:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Good News"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

Look up "Windows Blue" and you'll find out why Win 8 can't die fast enough, because if it don't MSFT intends to stick us on a YEARLY, yes yearly, upgrade treadmill ala OSX.

So while I agree innovation is good what we have now isn't innovation, its Apple and ersatz Apple. the sooner Win 8 bombs hopefully the sooner the board will fire ballmer and we can get somebody in there that knows that windows is NOT made in cupertino.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good News
by MacMan on Fri 14th Dec 2012 21:36 UTC in reply to "Good News"
MacMan Member since:
2006-11-19

The more company's that shun Win 8 the quicker it will die.


Why would win8 die??? The vast majority of people will just use whatever Microsoft gives them without question.

If MS makes it, people will use it, simple as that.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Good News
by cdude on Sun 16th Dec 2012 11:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Good News"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

You nailed it: The vast majority of people ... that STILL is on Windows. That number is shrinking very fast. One of the reasons is that they are forced to use what Microsoft throws at them. Luckily they have choice today and can and in a lot of cases just switch to alternates like Android, iOS, OSX.

Edited 2012-12-16 11:29 UTC

Reply Score: 1

poliorcetes
Member since:
2009-05-06

Apple fight against Android with a tsunami of patents and endangering some of the main Google's Partner. As a result, Google renews google maps for iOS 6 frantically

Microsoft doesn't make any serious trouble to Android (keeping apart that small fee related with patents ;) ). As a result, Google don't want to develop for Windows 8 nor Windows 8 phone.

Therefore, if Redmond launch a hurricane of patents against Google, Google will quickly change this decision

Reply Score: 0

MacTO Member since:
2006-09-21

I'm guessing that it has more to do with the low market share of Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8 at present. As soon as enough people are using it, you can bet that Google will jump on board. Businesses are there to make money, not to play ideological wars.

Reply Score: 5

poliorcetes Member since:
2009-05-06

But, you see, actually iOS is both more agressive and a more efficient competitor against Android. If this movement is against competitors, then google map for iOS is a clear contradiction. Apple Maps was going to be a phenomenal tool against Apple's position as competitor of Google.

There is no ideology. There are brands and competition. That's the reason I cannot understand why they aren't going to offer google products for Windows 8. The raw majority of the PC that are going to be sold are going to be Windows 8, so market share of windows 8 is going to be necessarily high in some months.

Therefore, there is a weird decission here, specially keeping in mind the raw amount of damage that Apple has intended to produce to Android and Google's partners.

Reply Score: 1

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Windows 8 != Windows Phone + RT

Google services/applications that are available for Windows 7 will work out of the box on Windows 8 using win32. WP8 and RT have win32 too but not allow using it for apps. You would need to rewrite anything. Lots of work to address only WP8 and RT and since nobody wants WP8 and RT [1] there is no point in that. Its just not worth the investment.

[1]

Poor Lumia WP8 sales
http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/12/nokia-corporation-adr-nysenok-lumi...

According to John C. Dvorak of PC-Mag, Windows 8 is......
A Rosier Year Ahead for Windows 8? Yeah, Right
www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2412327,00.asp

ZD-NET Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols also chime in his 2 cents on W8 tablet (NO ONE WANT WINDOWS TABLET)
Windows 8 Tablets: Born to fail
http://www.zdnet.com/windows-8-tablets-born-to-fail-7000004389/

Stephen Chapman of ZDNET even told user to downgrade to Windows 7
From Windows 8 to Windows 7: why I downgraded
http://www.zdnet.com/from-windows-8-to-windows-7-why-i-downgraded-7...

Brad Chacos of PC-WORLD also think Windows8 failed
Windows 8: Does its 1-month report card read pass or fail?
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2017110/windows-8-does-its-1-month-r...

John Matarese of ABCActionNews even say that MS Surface is an EPIC FAIL... Surface is the new playbook
Could Microsoft's (MFST) Windows 8 and Surface tablet be an epic fail?
http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/science_tech/could-microsofts...

Intel CEO Paul Otellini 2cents about Windows 8
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57520193-75/intel-ceo-slams-windo...

Windows 8 fails to impress US analysts
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/windows-8-fails-to-impress-us-analysts/3...

Sales of Lumia lower then expected
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile/display/20121212183332_Sales_of...

Reply Score: 3

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Searching out all those sources that you think prove your point, you really have some unhealthy obsession...

Reply Score: 2

Stephen! Member since:
2007-11-24

Therefore, there is a weird decission here, specially keeping in mind the raw amount of damage that Apple has intended to produce to Android and Google's partners.


Shouldn't Apple be more concerned about Microsoft than Google?

http://mashable.com/2012/07/10/microsofts-ballmer-war-on-apple/

"We are trying to make absolutely clear we are not going to leave any space uncovered to Apple," Ballmer told CRN following the Worldwide Partner Conference in Toronto on Monday. "We are not. No space uncovered that is Apple’s."

Reply Score: 3

TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

Apple fight against Android with a tsunami of patents and endangering some of the main Google's Partner. As a result, Google renews google maps for iOS 6 frantically


Google had apps on iOS from when iOS was first released. Apple shunned Google Maps for iOS6 in favor of their own maps program. Google had one ready, but didn't think Apple would allow it. Low-and-behold, after the Apple Maps disaster, they submit it and it takes over iOS again.

It has nothing to do with patents. Rather, Apple probably had entered into a partnership with Google a while back to do it. That partnership dissolved but Google kept up what they were doing as it was still good for business.

Microsoft doesn't make any serious trouble to Android (keeping apart that small fee related with patents ;) ). As a result, Google don't want to develop for Windows 8 nor Windows 8 phone.


Microsoft is irrelevant in the mobile space. They simply don't get it. Sure they've made good strides with WinPhone7/7.5/8 but they continue to just not get it.

And as others have said, there is basically a very small market for Win8/WinPhone8/WinRT - its not enough to justify putting resources into. If the market changes and it becomes a larger market then that may change, but until then they're leaving it alone.

And honestly, could you blame them?

Their existing apps work just fine on Win7, and likely in Legacy mode on Win8. If they did something in Win8 it'd mean redeveloping the entire app to more natively fit into the Metro UI, and then limit that version to only Win8. There's just not enough market to make it worth it, and people just don't like Win8 - especially on the desktop/laptop form factors.

Therefore, if Redmond launch a hurricane of patents against Google, Google will quickly change this decision


Microsoft has their own patent lawsuits against Google and Motorola. It isn't and will not make one iota difference in why the will or will not target Win8/WinPhone8 as the issue has nothing to do with patents and everything to do with whether there is enough of a user-base to get a sufficient ROI.

Reply Score: 1

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22


Google had apps on iOS from when iOS was first released. Apple shunned Google Maps for iOS6 in favor of their own maps program. Google had one ready, but didn't think Apple would allow it. Low-and-behold, after the Apple Maps disaster, they submit it and it takes over iOS again.


I think almost every point you make is incorrect or unfounded. There were no Google apps on iOS at launch, there were Apple written apps that used Google data (maps, you tube etc). The maps app in iOS was written by Apple and used Google maps data. Apple didn't boot Google maps off of iOS it changed the back end of it's own maps app to no longer use Google mapping data. It did that for a number of reasons, Google would not supply Turn By Turn functionality, Google wanted ads and Apple wouldn't agree to having them in their Apple written app, and Apple quite reasonably felt vulnerable leaving it's maps functionality wholly in Google's hands.

There is no evidence that Apple delayed the deployment of the new google maps app.

I thought this was a good analysis of it all

Google’s Directionless Map Strategy

Google’s Android strategy is inconsistent and incomprehensible. Apple never would have created its own mapping program at all if Google hadn’t denied Apple audible turn-by-turn directions. Now – after Apple has integrated their own maps into their iOS operating system – Google gives Apple everything they ever wanted. How does that make any sense?

If Google wanted to deny Apple access to features that were on Android, then they shouldn’t have created Google Maps for iOS. If they wanted iOS eyeballs, then they should have given Apple turn-by-turn directions BEFORE Apple effectively un-integrated Google maps. The whole affair was completely counter-productive for all involved.

You can’t have it both ways. Either Google should be in the business of being on every mobile platform or Google should be in the business of Android. Trying to pursue both strategies is like trying to keep one foot on the dock and the other on the boat. You can’t get anywhere and it’s going to sink you sooner or later.


http://techpinions.com/googles-directionless-map-strategy/13165

Reply Score: 0

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

I am glad Apple's marketing department was able, after tirelessly combing the internet, to find that single opinion piece that made Apple Maps not look like the ill strategized and executed fiasco it has been.

Good job boys!

Reply Score: 5

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

So? I am sure google's marketing department can come up with another opinion piece that reaches the opposite conclusion. Opinions, being what they are, are not the same as "facts."

I have no idea what your point was, BTW. Corporations exist to make money/profit, period. Google has no obligation to provide any service to Apple, for free, in order to make their products functional. And Apple is under no obligation to do the same, or to use Google's services.

In this case, Apple thought they had the upper hand, they over played it, missed, and screwed up big time. And that's that...

Reply Score: 5

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Their existing apps work just fine on Win7, and likely in Legacy mode on Win8. If they did something in Win8 it'd mean redeveloping the entire app to more natively fit into the Metro UI, and then limit that version to only Win8. There's just not enough market to make it worth it, and people just don't like Win8 - especially on the desktop/laptop form factors.


I would be happy if their Voice and Plus apps had an API, so they could be plugged into the Windows 8 Messenger app, like Facebook is. When I chat with people on Facebook, I get a desktop notification when I get a PM, and I can reply from the desktop with a quick ALT+TAB.

You just don't get that functionality in a browser with Voice/Plus, unless you use an extension, which will probably break on the next re-design, without some kind of API to access.

BTW: I like the desktop on Win8. It's better than Win7, and besides what I just mentioned above, I forget Metro is even there most of the time.

Edited 2012-12-14 22:31 UTC

Reply Score: 3

TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

"Their existing apps work just fine on Win7, and likely in Legacy mode on Win8. If they did something in Win8 it'd mean redeveloping the entire app to more natively fit into the Metro UI, and then limit that version to only Win8. There's just not enough market to make it worth it, and people just don't like Win8 - especially on the desktop/laptop form factors.


I would be happy if their Voice and Plus apps had an API
"

You mean like:

https://developers.google.com/+/api/

Google Voice is a little more problematic, but the community seems to have some solutions:

http://code.google.com/p/pygvoicelib/
http://code.google.com/p/pygooglevoice/
http://code.google.com/p/google-voice-java/


BTW: I like the desktop on Win8. It's better than Win7, and besides what I just mentioned above, I forget Metro is even there most of the time.


You're one of the few.

Reply Score: 1

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

The Google Plus API is an API in name only: It only supports access to a read-only public feed of data. In other words, shit that nobody implementing a client cares about.

However, you'd know that if you looked at the links you throw around to try to prove people wrong.

That, and the Google Voice APIs are a complete shitfuck, and they're not even APIs, they're screen scraping solutions half the time, and the other half the time some lucky XML feed Google felt gracious enough to expose.

None of it is enough to make a client which isn't brain dead.

So this becomes a case of A) Google grandstanding, because they will eventually write a Windows Store application. Mark my words, in a years time they'll have Metro clients for their services, and B) Google taking the decision out of everyone's hands by having a poor developer story to compliment their services.

Reply Score: 3

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

> Mark my words, in a years time they'll have Metro clients for their services

And you already got proven wrong. Microsoft announced Windows Blue to come in a year and Windows 9 Blue apps will not run on Windows 8 Metro :-)

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/141676-windows-blue-microsofts...

"Once Blue has been rolled out, the insider sources claim that the Windows Store will no longer accept apps that are designed specifically for Windows 8"

You find similar articles about Win8/9 app-incompatibility all over the internet at various big tech news sides. Microsoft not denied that to happen, not clarified or promised compatibility. Windows Blue may bring us finally yearly Windows API incompatibilities :/

There is one bold statement Microsoft pushes: Our APIs are constantly changing. Not port apps to our latest and greatest short-term API yet cause it WILL be deprecated in some months! Silverlight anyone?

Edited 2012-12-16 11:52 UTC

Reply Score: 1

bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

a closed constantly changing api. That's always a winner (not). I wonder how that leaked?

Reply Score: 2

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


And you already got proven wrong. Microsoft announced Windows Blue to come in a year and Windows 9 Blue apps will not run on Windows 8 Metro :-)


Microsoft has not announced anything. Stop making things up.


"Once Blue has been rolled out, the insider sources claim that the Windows Store will no longer accept apps that are designed specifically for Windows 8"


This happens on every app store (except Android, where upgrading devices is a problem), if you were a developer you'd understand.

What happens is

A) The update is pushed out to all eligible devices.
B) Developers update their apps for the new release, but can maintain their old app side by side.
C) There is a grace period (For Windows Phone it was about 6-7 months or until Mango install base dwarfed that of Windows Phone 7.0) to submit apps for old and new
D) Old apps are eventually no longer supported once it no longer makes sense to.

This happens for every SDK release that contains a breaking change, and it is nothing new. The Windows Runtime supports versioning of components, so app compatibility isn't an issue.

In fact, Microsoft has already tested this in the wild. During the Windows 8 RC and Windows 8 RTM, the SDK had breaking changes. However, during the RC the Windows Store opened up for submissions. They let developers keep their app in the store, and included the RC WinRT environment for apps which specifically needed, and the RTM WinRT environment for apps that were brand new. Eventually, RC apps were no longer accepted once a majority of people upgraded to RTM.

It is the same exact deal, and the point you're making really isn't a point as much as it is bullshit.

Talking about the intricacies of the Windows Store with someone who develops Windows Store apps for a living is not very sensible of you, cdude.


You find similar articles about Win8/9 app-incompatibility all over the internet at various big tech news sides. Microsoft not denied that to happen, not clarified or promised compatibility. Windows Blue may bring us finally yearly Windows API incompatibilities :/


That'd be a good thing. I'm in favor of a constantly evolving API, especially since I'm very candid about the limitations of the current API, and ways it can be improved.


There is one bold statement Microsoft pushes: Our APIs are constantly changing. Not port apps to our latest and greatest short-term API yet cause it WILL be deprecated in some months! Silverlight anyone?


What about Silverlight? My Windows Phone Silverlight app was ported to Windows 8 in less than a weeks time.

You do NOT know ANYTHING about this subject, I suggest you drop it now.

Reply Score: 3

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

So cdude, you don't even realise (and/or don't want to realise) that Silverlight basically lives on, under different name...

Reply Score: 2

logic step
by DaFreak on Fri 14th Dec 2012 13:30 UTC
DaFreak
Member since:
2008-04-08

I find that a very logical step. Why should Google support a competitor, who's still fighting with patents? It's hard to believe Google Maps was released for iOS... I hope this will change in the near future.

Reply Score: 2

RE: logic step
by cdude on Sat 15th Dec 2012 09:16 UTC in reply to "logic step"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Google is making money with its services. If there are users Google will offer them there services so they can make money. If that's on Android, on iPhone, on Blackberry or on xyz is not relevant as long as they can reach users and are not blocked by app-store policies. They not do for WP8 cause there are no users (beside rounding errors) on WP8. Its for the same reason other ISV's will not deliver to WP8 either: its just not worth the investment.

Edited 2012-12-15 09:17 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Migrating then
by vaette on Fri 14th Dec 2012 14:10 UTC
vaette
Member since:
2008-08-09

Oh well, gets my long-delayed migration off of Googles tools underway. The way it seems now Microsofts offerings are available on all the platforms I use, where Googles are not. Annoyingly Google has not even updated their stuff for mobile IE yet, so I am quickly losing patience with them either way.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Migrating then
by Morgan on Fri 14th Dec 2012 14:26 UTC in reply to "Migrating then"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Annoyingly Google has not even updated their stuff for mobile IE yet, so I am quickly losing patience with them either way.


That was one of the few gripes I had when I was using WP7. I didn't blame Microsoft, as the version of IE on that platform is actually one of the best mobile browsers available, and it worked exceptionally well with other heavily dynamic sites.

Of course, Google is under no obligation to make their web apps play nice with every browser out there; in fact I've been pleasantly surprised when Google products seemed to work better in Firefox or Opera than Chrome. However, their overly dismissive attitude towards Windows Phone and Windows 8 seems to go against their mantra of openness. At least, if you define "openness" as being willing to work with their competitors towards a common goal of a truly standards based, open Internet.

I'm not sure if that Google still exists.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: Migrating then
by chithanh on Fri 14th Dec 2012 18:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Migrating then"
RE[3]: Migrating then
by vaette on Fri 14th Dec 2012 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Migrating then"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

Google is sniffing the user agent and changing behavior for IE. So they are clearly in the wrong either way, having IE "pretend" to be webkit is clearly not a solution suitable for the modern web.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Migrating then
by cdude on Sat 15th Dec 2012 09:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Migrating then"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Yes, they are working around IE limitations and bugs. I think most web-developers know well that IE is the most problematic browser still. So, for complex web-apps you sometimes just need to special case IE to make it working in some way.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Migrating then
by Morgan on Sat 15th Dec 2012 03:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Migrating then"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Webkit is an engine, not a standard. For a good primer on what constitutes web standards, see this:

http://www.w3.org/standards/

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Migrating then
by cdude on Sat 15th Dec 2012 09:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Migrating then"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

WebKit is a de facto standard. It does not matter if you like that or not.

A decade ago IE6 had a similar stand. Unlike IE WebKit is at least continues driven forward, fixes issues rather then turning them into standards every web-developer and browser has to deal with and its FLOSS with lots of different implementations (Safari, Chrome, Adobe AIR, etc) and has an open development process. Even Microsoft could join and integrate WebKit into IE. WebKit is the de facto industry standard and that is way better for the internet, for all of us, then what we had with the IE-lockin the decade before.

Edited 2012-12-15 09:56 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Migrating then
by Slambert666 on Sat 15th Dec 2012 12:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Migrating then"
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

WebKit is a de facto standard


No it is not!
You making stuff up does not make it so. WebKit is one of 3 primary engines with almost identical marketshare.

WebKit does dominate mobile browsers but that only makes WebKit a "de facto" of a very small browsing market.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Migrating then
by zima on Fri 21st Dec 2012 17:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Migrating then"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

WebKit does dominate mobile browsers but that only makes WebKit a "de facto" of a very small browsing market.

Additionally, Opera has also a very big share there - probably bigger than simple web hits statistics show (because Opera Mini is used largely on simple & inexpensive "feature phones" - owners of which are likely to browse less - it can have a bigger share of users than it seems in http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-ww-monthly-201111-201211 and such)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Migrating then
by cdude on Sat 15th Dec 2012 09:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Migrating then"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

The problem is more that IE10 still does not support basic web standards like WebGL. All browsers support WebGL and eg Google Maps uses it. IE10 does not for political reasons (they push for DirectX, ActiveX and other Windows-only tech they control to lockin). In the public Microsoft argues WebGL isn't a standard (it is, its supported by all other Browsers out there and HTML5 is a living-standard) and that its insecure (allright, thats why all other browsers support it while IE does the way more secure ActiveX, LOL).

So, not blame Google or the Internet if IE10 is still not able to proper render content. Its Microsoft's decision. They are responsible for you are not having a full internet-experience on your WinPhone. They not do so for strategic reason. Not supporting web standards, not allowing alternate browsers on there WinPhone's who do proper support web-standards. Not blame everybody else but Microsoft. Only they decide how well IE plays with standards, only they can do changes in IE. In fact Google worked around this in the past by offering Chrome Frame for IE on Windows 7. They cannot for WinPhone cause Microsoft does not allow them to do so. Its a strategic decision. If you not agree with Microsoft then blame Microsoft. Not buy there product if you are not happy with it. There are enough alternates out which all sell better and do proper support web standards. Buy them.

Edited 2012-12-15 09:34 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Migrating then
by vaette on Sat 15th Dec 2012 09:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Migrating then"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

Other examples of browsers that do not support webGL: The Android Browser, Safari for iOS. And thus 99% of the mobile browser market. webGL is nowhere near getting a seal of approval at the W3C yet. Google Maps is not among the services I was hoping to run in the browser on my mobile phone today (it runs rather badly on all phone browsers still). You are either being disingenuous or you're deluded.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Migrating then
by cdude on Sat 15th Dec 2012 10:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Migrating then"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Other examples of browsers that do not support webGL: The Android Browser, Safari for iOS.


Both wrong. The new Android Browser is Chrome: Supported. Safari for iOS supports WebGL too. Please check your facts.

webGL is nowhere near getting a seal of approval at the W3C yet.


WHATWG lists it. I repeat: HTML5 is a Living Standard. WebGL is de facto standard by being supported by all major browsers except IE. Just like lot of the other de facto standards its just a matter of time till included into the W3C specification. W3C is slow you have to know. That's why WHATWG was born and why HTML5 became a living standard.

Edited 2012-12-15 10:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Migrating then
by vaette on Sat 15th Dec 2012 10:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Migrating then"
vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

You really need to call up and tell the caniuse.com guys about all the ways in which they are wrong: http://caniuse.com/webgl . Now, in the event that you are just making shit up to support an already poor argument I guess webGL is not anywhere near a de-facto standard on mobile after all. Either way; Google does not use it for any of their mobile pages, and this whole line of argument is pointless.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Migrating then
by cdude on Sat 15th Dec 2012 10:49 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Migrating then"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

You really need to call up and tell the caniuse.com guys about all the ways in which they are wrong


They don't even say how or against what the tests where performed. That alone is unserious. They eg say Apple iOS Safari does not support WebGL but failed to note that it does for selected websides or if you apply something like http://demoseen.com/webglenabler/ for all.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Migrating then
by zima on Tue 18th Dec 2012 16:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Migrating then"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I've been pleasantly surprised when Google products seemed to work better in Firefox or Opera than Chrome

When was that? In my experience, Google products always neglected Opera ...which I use fairly consistently as my main browser for over half a decade.

Reply Score: 2

dindin
Member since:
2006-03-29

I don't think this has to do with them "determined" no to develop for the WP8 and Win8 platforms. If WP8 gains enough traction, then they will. Google is an advertising company ... they will go where the eyeballs are. They did not rule out development for it ... not just now.

I am not sure how Microsoft's payment requirements is. Is it better terms than Apple's App Store?

-D

Reply Score: 3

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Yes, in general the Windows Store is much more developer friendly than the iOS terms and conditions. Including keeping more revenue once you hit > $25k

Reply Score: 3

Hard to argue with?
by gmlongo on Fri 14th Dec 2012 15:30 UTC
gmlongo
Member since:
2005-07-07

You don't really believe what Google is using as justification do you? You could make the case that WP8 doesn't have a sufficient userbase (although all signs indicate a large increase of 3-4 times), but Windows 8 sold a ton of licenses to date, with no signs of that decreasing.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hard to argue with?
by windowshasyou on Fri 14th Dec 2012 15:45 UTC in reply to "Hard to argue with?"
windowshasyou Member since:
2011-05-14

"but Windows 8 sold a ton of licenses to date"

Microsoft is known for inflating sales figures in an effort to generate hype. For example, see Vista.

Now that being said, assuming MS isn't tampering with numbers again and that they actually have sold 40 million licenses or whatever they claim, one has to remember that a lot of that, probably in the area of 3/4's of that figure, is for OEM. Now assuming that 3/4's is fairly accurate, that means they've really only sold 10 million licenses via retail. Now assume that roughly half of those sold by retail just wanted to try 8 and ended up downgrading <really an upgrade> back to whatever they were using. probably 3 to 5 million people using windows 8 vs 10's of millions using 7/xp/OSX/linux/bsd/whatever isn't a huge user base.

Edited 2012-12-14 16:01 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hard to argue with?
by gmlongo on Fri 14th Dec 2012 16:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Hard to argue with?"
gmlongo Member since:
2005-07-07

The numbers from MS was 4 million upgrades in the first 4 days. Obviously, that number has increased exponentially since then. According to Steam, Windows 8 usage share on their platform has already surpassed OSX.

There is very little reason to doubt that Windows 8 will have a very large market share (much larger than OSX).

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Hard to argue with?
by poliorcetes on Fri 14th Dec 2012 16:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hard to argue with?"
poliorcetes Member since:
2009-05-06

Exactly. That's my point: go to any hardware store and look for PCs: most of them are offered with windows 8.

Small market share? That's a succesful bet against reality. Therefore, there are other reasons involved, pretty strange if with take the goodwill to Apple into account

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Hard to argue with?
by dukes on Fri 14th Dec 2012 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hard to argue with?"
dukes Member since:
2005-07-06

The numbers from MS was 4 million upgrades in the first 4 days. Obviously, that number has increased exponentially since then. According to Steam, Windows 8 usage share on their platform has already surpassed OSX.

There is very little reason to doubt that Windows 8 will have a very large market share (much larger than OSX).


I don't believe this is about market share. That's just too easy.

From a Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8 user (thanks to Apple for giving me reasons to start exploring other tech), I can tell you that with regards to WP8 there isn't much demand for Google dedicated apps. The reason? I don't think Google can outdo what's already available for Windows Phone. Let's take a look:

Google Drive: No thanks. SkyDrive integration is strong already. It allows the automatic uploading of taken photos from my phone. It automatically syncs all of my Microsoft Office documents. My OneNote data is stored on SkyDrive as well. What could Google Drive actually bring to the table.

GMail dedicated app: Why? The Mail app on my Windows Phone is sufficiently beautiful. It already does server searches on all my mail and I can link all my e-mail inboxes to one Live Tile if I want. What could a dedicated Gmail app bring to the table? Nothing compelling enough for the effort.

Google Docs: Don't need it now, since I have Microsoft Office on my Phone with SkyDrive integration. I'm quite sure it works fine in the HTML5 IE10 browser though. Again, what could Google do to really turn an enduser.

Google Voice app: Don't need it. GoVoice and MetroTalk are *the* apps to use if you want a seamless Google Voice experience on your phone.

YouTube dedicated app: Don't need it OR want it. Have you seen MetroTube? Talk about a quality app. I would rate this app in the top two best apps for Windows Phone.


So my point is Google might be trying to tell us one thing, but reality is that there isn't much demand for a Google branded experience on Windows Phone. Everything important is already replicated nicely.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Hard to argue with?
by bentoo on Fri 14th Dec 2012 17:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Hard to argue with?"
bentoo Member since:
2012-09-21

"but Windows 8 sold a ton of licenses to date"

Microsoft is known for inflating sales figures in an effort to generate hype. For example, see Vista.


Stats from NetMarketShare (and the like) disagree with you. Already at 1.41% after only 5 weeks. Will overtake Linux at 1.45% which had a 20 year head start. ;)

http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qp...

Edited 2012-12-14 17:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Hard to argue with?
by cdude on Sat 15th Dec 2012 10:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hard to argue with?"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Nice (not) how you include Win8 desktop into your WP8/RT calculation but exclude Android from Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Hard to argue with?
by Nelson on Sat 15th Dec 2012 18:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hard to argue with?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Even if you do, their total marketshare is less than 10%, not something that will be difficult for Microsoft to surpass given that Windows XP and Windows 7 are the single biggest operating systems.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Hard to argue with?
by Nelson on Sat 15th Dec 2012 20:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Hard to argue with?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

These figures are misleading, as they don't count the installed base of Windows, only the previous quarter sales.

This would be fine if it was just a mobile OS to mobile OS comparison, because the upgrade cycles are similar, but a PC at home is upgraded much less frequently than a mobile device.

I hate to be cliché, but: Apples to oranges.

This is why browser usage stats online hold much more validity to their claims (which you conveniently, and in an ad hominem manner dismiss):

They measure actual usage, not just new purchases. The fact that quite possibly a lot of the Android devices being purchased are used as junky feature phones is telling.

Android's mysterious sales have never directly translated to mobile web usage, ever.

Still, it is quite good that Microsoft is at 20% marketshare for new devices.

You are as wrong today, as the people who claimed the Lumia took China by storm were back a few months ago. They're making the same fundamental mistake as you.

However, this is a trend with your comments. You find a source, any source, where the numbers are contorted enough to meet your agenda and you spam it all over the comments.

To the non eagle eyed reader it will seem as if you've made some kind of brilliant point, when in reality you've fallen victim to the same ignorance as the layman. Congrats cdude, but you're not as impressive as you think.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Hard to argue with?
by cdude on Sun 16th Dec 2012 12:16 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hard to argue with?"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Install base is included as those NEED to either upgrade cause XP is EOL soon OR need to switch to Windows alternates. So they are direct Windows-license and Hardware sells IF they upgrade.

The difference is that install-base is not counted as being catches into Windows forever. They have choice and you can easily interpolate from past switches (and loses) how much of them would upgrade to Windows 8 Metro.

Those numbers also make one thing even more clear: The PC market is shrinking very very fast and with it the Wintel market share. In contrast consumer devices like Smart phones and Tablets are accelerating more and more. Those numbers are as of today but taking the market dynamics into account tomorrow Microsoft may down to 10% market share or even lesser.

The important fact is: Microsoft Windows is not the de facto OS on computers any longer. It is not even number 1 any longer. Android took over. Very fast and contin to grow inan incredible speed.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Hard to argue with?
by zima on Fri 21st Dec 2012 17:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Hard to argue with?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

However, this is a trend with your comments. You find a source, any source, where the numbers are contorted enough to meet your agenda and you spam it all over the comments.
To the non eagle eyed reader it will seem as if you've made some kind of brilliant point, when in reality you've fallen victim to the same ignorance as the layman. Congrats cdude, but you're not as impressive as you think.

Yeah, a trend... (reminds me about one exchange with cdude http://www.osnews.com/thread?525365 where he seems to think it's OK to latch onto parts of sentences; and generally in that story)
But then, it sometimes even seems he barely has a grasp of EN...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hard to argue with?
by darknexus on Sat 15th Dec 2012 01:06 UTC in reply to "Hard to argue with?"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

but Windows 8 sold a ton of licenses to date, with no signs of that decreasing.

That in no way says how many actual users there are. The majority of Windows 8 sales have been to OEMs for computers the OEMs are selling. Microsoft, of course, counts those in their overall sales numbers as they should, but those numbers say nothing concerning what happens to those copies of Windows 8 after the OEMs acquire it. Do the users run it? Do they take advantage of a Windows 7 downgrade license instead, or even wipe the OEM Windows and use their own os (be it a clean copy of Windows or another)? Have said machines even been purchased yet? Proof of licenses, in Microsoft's case, does not translate into proof of a significant user base.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Hard to argue with?
by Nelson on Sat 15th Dec 2012 18:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Hard to argue with?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Who cares how they get there? The point is, they get there.

I always found this laughable:

UserA: Microsoft has sold XYZ licenses.
UserB: But..but there's no way to tell how many of those are end user sales
UserA: Uh, but go to every sales channel and look at every PC, it's preinstalled with Windows.
UserB: But..
UserA: Which means PC sales have a strong correlation with Windows sales, and PC sales are still relatively healthy.

Windows 8 will be installed on a majority of new PCs sold, and will command a monumental market share. More than iOS, more than Android, but somehow people will still find ways to contort the numbers and make it look like a failure.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Hard to argue with?
by cdude on Sun 16th Dec 2012 12:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hard to argue with?"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

> PC sales are still healthy

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/11/12/pc-sales-could-de...

And we are not talking about 0.something % but huge percentage with two decimals every year. That is while world width the computer market is GROWING fast.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Hard to argue with?
by Nelson on Sun 16th Dec 2012 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hard to argue with?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Analysts say whatever they want, and are conveniently ignored by some here (including yourself) when they run contrary to the message you're trying to relay.

You can find an analyst to say that Windows Phone will become a leader in mobile by 2016, you can find an analyst to say that Apple is announcing the iPhone 12 next Thursday. This isn't scientific as much as it is fancy guess work.

Reply Score: 3

cjcox
Member since:
2006-12-21

Microsoft is a monopoly (look it up). Unfortunately, nothing has been done to change the "business"... so today, when you go to buy a PC (not Apple), you get whatever OS Microsoft says you get. And right now, that's going to be Windows 8. This creates the forced transition over time.

Sure... vendors could rebel, but they haven't shown signs of that so far, so Windows 8 is a reality... and not by choice.

Reply Score: 3

chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

Acer did publicly criticize Microsoft for the Surface RT, which is a very unusual move. They even went so far as to predict negative impact for other business areas (read: PC sales).

That the others remained mum so far doesn't mean that they don't rebel (e.g. by burying or delaying their Windows RT tablet plans).

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/7/3225094/acer-ceo-jt-wang-microsoft...

Reply Score: 4

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Windows RT is a different beast than Windows 8. With Surface (or whatever it is called this week) Microsoft is competing directly with their HW OEMs, so it makes sense for Acer to be less than thrilled with that system.

Reply Score: 3

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

And so did various ISV's like Valve and Blizzard.

Also Win8 Pro includes a free downgrade-option to Win7 official granted from Microsoft but they are still counted as Win8 sells. Some hardware-vendors even deliver with the downgrade active already. They are still counted as Win8 sells too.

There are reasons Microsoft only gives out sold units and not activations like Google does with Android. There are reasons a free downgrade to Windows 7 is included.

Edited 2012-12-15 10:22 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Do you have any evidence to suggest users en-masse downgraded to Windows 7?

No? Oh, alright.

Reply Score: 3

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

today, when you go to buy a PC (not Apple), you get whatever OS Microsoft says you get. [...]
Sure... vendors could rebel, but they haven't shown signs of that so far, so Windows 8 is a reality... and not by choice.

Well, I go to ceneo.pl (possibly the most popular and well-known here catalogue of products and online shops; surely you have similar services...), to "laptops" category (noting that a laptop without an OS is the most popular one), pick "no OS" and "Linux" options, and...
http://www.ceneo.pl/Laptopy;017P8-250094-250095.htm
...get over 400 products, mostly from large and well-known PC vendors. Similar for netbooks or desktops (just picked the example of laptops since they're most popular now, and typically the subject of local conspiracy theories from ~Linux-faithful - before they see the above search on ceneo)

You're seriously telling us that your place lags in anything-tech-related behind... Poland?

But BTW, most of those machines end up with Windows, anyway (oh, and that's no-crapware-included Windows) - at best a MSDNAA license, often pirated. People want and choose Windows, accept it finally; Windows is almost certainly pirated more than the number of desktop Linux users.

Reply Score: 2

Real Forward Thinking Google
by bentoo on Fri 14th Dec 2012 17:33 UTC
bentoo
Member since:
2012-09-21

Seriously? After one month of sales Windows 8 already had 1% of the global market share (about as much as all Linux combined). In less than 6 months it will overtake Mac OS.

"Go where the users are" -- Sounds more like a personal vendetta than a business plan.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Real Forward Thinking Google
by chithanh on Fri 14th Dec 2012 18:05 UTC in reply to "Real Forward Thinking Google"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

Seriously? After one month of sales Windows 8 already had 1% of the global market share (about as much as all Linux combined). In less than 6 months it will overtake Mac OS.

Windows 8 installed base is still dwarfed by the mobile operating systems like Android and iOS and will likely never surpass them, as the PC market is shrinking, and now smaller than the market for mobile computing devices.

If OS X is overtaken by Windows 8 and users actually demand Metro applications (as opposed to shutting down Metro and installing a 3rd party start menu), then Google will certainly follow the users.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Real Forward Thinking Google
by bentoo on Fri 14th Dec 2012 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Real Forward Thinking Google"
bentoo Member since:
2012-09-21

Windows 8 installed base is still dwarfed by the mobile operating systems like Android and iOS and will likely never surpass them, as the PC market is shrinking, and now smaller than the market for mobile computing devices.


What?! Care to back that up with some actual facts? While I agree the desktop market is shrinking but it still accounts for >85% of the market. Based on the simple volumes Windows 8 WILL surpass Android and iOS and very soon.

Sources:
http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qp...

http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-ww-monthly-201111-2012...

Reply Score: 2

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

>80% was in the 90s. And no, browser-stats of a hand-full of selected US websides are not representative. Today its 20%. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/13/windows_market_share_just_2...

Those 20% are all Windows desktop (including XP+Vista+Win7+Win8) with backwards-compatible win32-API and CE+WinPhone7+WinPhone8+SurfaceRT with backwards-incompatible Metro-API and no win32-support combined.

Google services and apps that did run on Windows 7 will continue to work on Windows 8. Its only about the total incompatible WP+RT. Those count of <2% market share. A rounding error that isn't even listed any longer in most market-share stats.

Edited 2012-12-15 10:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

bentoo Member since:
2012-09-21

>80% was in the 90s. And no, browser-stats of a hand-full of selected US websides are not representative. Today its 20%. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/13/windows_market_share_just_2...


Facts? A report about a report of a leaked report from an investment firm -- No facts, just opinion.

I'll take browser stats from a "hand-full" of websites as actual representation over speculation any day. Or are you going to say that 90% of Android users don't browse on their phones?

Edited 2012-12-16 06:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Correct. More then 90% of the Android users are not browsing to the hand-full of *US* web-sites statcounter monitors.

Read the article I linked again. It explains things in great detail. For market share even stat counter says there numbers are not representative.

Edited 2012-12-16 12:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2

foster the friendly competitor
by fran on Fri 14th Dec 2012 20:11 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

Microsoft has been less aggressive towards Android in the patent wars. How long we don't know.
I goes to reason that you would rather foster a market for the less aggressive competitor then the others.
Which will undermine sales of the aggressor.
Releasing Windows apps might help in this regard.

Edited 2012-12-14 20:13 UTC

Reply Score: 3

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Less aggressive? Microsoft has been suing almost every major android handset vendor for royalties for the past few years.

Under that context, why would google go out of their way to enhance the functionality of a competing product by microsoft?

Edited 2012-12-14 20:34 UTC

Reply Score: 3

fran Member since:
2010-08-06

Less aggressive? Microsoft has been suing almost every major android handset vendor for royalties for the past few years.

Under that context, why would google go out of their way to enhance the functionality of a competing product by microsoft?


Yes, less aggressive. Apple generally seeks for sale ban's more often while Microsoft are more licensing friendly.

Reply Score: 2

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

It depends then on what your personal definition of "aggressive" is.

All of the 3 players here; apple, microsoft, and google do not mess around when it comes to enforce their patents. I assume microsoft would have sought similar sales bans if the targeted android vendors had refused to pay the requested per-device fees to microsoft.

Reply Score: 3

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Of course, that's the point of a royalty bearing license. The difference is that Microsoft is willing to play ball and monetize Android. Apple is not, or has not in the past been willing to do so.

Microsoft is a lot more even handed with Android than any other company, and has a signed up a majority of Android OEMs and ODMs.

Reply Score: 3

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Microsoft has to "monetize" on android because it has no choice, as it was almost squeezed out from that market. If Apple and Microsoft smartphone market shares were switched, their roles would be switched as well.

Microsoft has no problem acting like an 800lb gorilla in those markets where it is the 800lb gorilla.

Reply Score: 3

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Has Microsoft ever aggressively shut a competitor out of the market using patents before? I don't think they have, their Intellectual Property licensing program is pretty extensive, and has always been.

I'm not sure its because of the position their in, considering that Android encroaches not just on Windows Phone, but on Windows. If it were really about going thermonuclear, so to speak, you'd see a lot more of Apple in Microsoft.

I think Microsoft realizes that'd be a zero sum game though, and is much happier turning Android into another revenue stream. Its the easiest billion dollars they ever made, I bet.

Reply Score: 3

Oh well...
by tylerdurden on Fri 14th Dec 2012 20:21 UTC
tylerdurden
Member since:
2009-03-17

I actually like WP8, it is an interesting user experience although I haven't used it for extended periods of time.

However thus far it seems to have a poor integration with gmail, which to me personally is a deal breaker. I was expecting google to release a native client for it, pity.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Oh well...
by bentoo on Fri 14th Dec 2012 23:42 UTC in reply to "Oh well..."
bentoo Member since:
2012-09-21

What's wrong with the WP Gmail integration? I've used it on my WP7/7.5 since launch with no problems. Only think I miss is Google Talk calls but I have no problems with the mail and contact syncing.

Edited 2012-12-14 23:42 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Oh well...
by tylerdurden on Sat 15th Dec 2012 00:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Oh well..."
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

If you use gmail just as a mail service, I assume nothing is missing really. But some of us switched over gmail because of the value added stuff (organizing mail conversations, search services, integration with google voice/services, etc). That is not yet fully supported on WP8, or at least it wasn't when I last checked a couple of weeks ago.

I am not saying that everybody needs it, but I am used to it.

Reply Score: 3

Simple
by gregthecanuck on Fri 14th Dec 2012 21:43 UTC
gregthecanuck
Member since:
2006-05-30

This is Google's reply to Microsoft's "Do not track".

Reply Score: 1

Nonsense
by Al2001 on Sat 15th Dec 2012 02:13 UTC
Al2001
Member since:
2005-07-06

Nothing like a bit of viral to spread a few untruths around the net and earn a few cheap ass ad clicks.

This is what was ACTUALLY said:

"We have no plans to build out Windows apps. We are very careful about where we invest and will go where the users are but they are not on Windows Phone or Windows 8," he said.

"If that changes, we would invest there, of course."


For once, not RTFA is actually recommended.

Reply Score: 5

News to me
by unclefester on Sat 15th Dec 2012 05:39 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

I had a look at the local (Brisbane Australia) phone shops yesterday. People were drooling over the new Nokia and HTC WP8 models. Asus were also promoting their new ultrabooks which attracted a lot of attention.

Edited 2012-12-15 05:43 UTC

Reply Score: 3