Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 27th Feb 2012 11:19 UTC
Windows There's a lot of news coming out of Mobile World Congress in Barcelona today, but since we can't compete with the well-funded gadget blogs, I suggest you read up on the details at The Verge (or Engadget). One thing stood out to me, though. While the entire industry is moving towards more cores, more megapixels, more gigahertz, more display inches - Microsoft is doing the exact opposite. Windows Phone has been updated and optimised to run on slower hardware.
Thread beginning with comment 508671
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Mon 27th Feb 2012 13:50 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Ok, I can understand going for the low end - that makes sense but what doesn't make sense is how utterly crappy their so-called 'high end' phones are. I mean, come on, the maximum amount of storage one can get with a Windows Phone 7.5 device is 16GB? I'm sitting here with an iPhone 4 with 32GB and find even that is too constrictive given that I have over 160GB worth of music. In all due respects when are we going to see Windows Phone vendors pull finger and provide devices with more than 16GB of storage? They seem to be so focused on the low end that they ignore the fact that their so-called 'high end' is crap when it comes to the specifications that matter, namely, greater than 16GB standard storage size and whether one can expand storage using microsd cards!

Edited 2012-02-27 13:51 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by B. Janssen on Mon 27th Feb 2012 15:26 in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
B. Janssen Member since:
2006-10-11

Ok, I can understand going for the low end - that makes sense but what doesn't make sense is how utterly crappy their so-called 'high end' phones are. I mean, come on, the maximum amount of storage one can get with a Windows Phone 7.5 device is 16GB? I'm sitting here with an iPhone 4 with 32GB and find even that is too constrictive given that I have over 160GB worth of music. In all due respects when are we going to see Windows Phone vendors pull finger and provide devices with more than 16GB of storage? They seem to be so focused on the low end that they ignore the fact that their so-called 'high end' is crap when it comes to the specifications that matter, namely, greater than 16GB standard storage size and whether one can expand storage using microsd cards!


My guess would be that Nokia pressured them into lowering the specs. Iphones won't be the next billion, don't you think? (OK, Symbian Belle is actually a good platform, but it can't compete in the power user department. Two-way syncing is still only working for ONE email address and calendar... what are they thinking?)

Furthermore, the specs of the "high end" WP7 devices may seem low in comparison to top-of-the-line Androids and Iphones, but WP7 is performing amazingly on this "limited" hardware. Also, people obviously don't care about micro-SD cards, replaceable batteries, otherwise the Iphone wouldn't sell so well to the unwashed masses (i.e. non-tech consumers).

Now, for us as educated techies two questions remain: 1) considering the used hardware, why are WP7 phones as expensive as better specified Androids or Iphones? and 2) Zune? Really? A smartphone that's not 100% OTA is just not that smart.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Mon 27th Feb 2012 15:35 in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

My guess would be that Nokia pressured them into lowering the specs. Iphones won't be the next billion, don't you think? (OK, Symbian Belle is actually a good platform, but it can't compete in the power user department. Two-way syncing is still only working for ONE email address and calendar... what are they thinking?)

Furthermore, the specs of the "high end" WP7 devices may seem low in comparison to top-of-the-line Androids and Iphones, but WP7 is performing amazingly on this "limited" hardware. Also, people obviously don't care about micro-SD cards, replaceable batteries, otherwise the Iphone wouldn't sell so well to the unwashed masses (i.e. non-tech consumers).

Now, for us as educated techies two questions remain: 1) considering the used hardware, why are WP7 phones as expensive as better specified Androids or Iphones? and 2) Zune? Really? A smartphone that's not 100% OTA is just not that smart.


Ok, I can do without the replaceable battery or the microsd card but how about some more storage! I mean, come on, launch a Lumia 800 with 64GB already! Why isn't there a Windows Phone 7 device with 64GB of storage or at the very least 32GB of storage?!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by CapEnt on Mon 27th Feb 2012 17:14 in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
CapEnt Member since:
2005-12-18

Now, for us as educated techies two questions remain: 1) considering the used hardware, why are WP7 phones as expensive as better specified Androids or Iphones? and 2) Zune? Really? A smartphone that's not 100% OTA is just not that smart.


1) I think thats because economics of scale: since iPhone and famous branded Androids sells by tens of millions every month, Apple and Motorola/Sony/Samsung/LG/HTC can get better deals from suppliers. You can argue that some of these manufacturers also assembly WP7 phones, but i bet that they allocate the premium parts and R&D money for their best seller products. So even if MS gives for free WP7 licenses, the hardware will offset the price.

2) I'm impressed that Zune still exist.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by dsmogor on Mon 27th Feb 2012 17:09 in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Forcing Quallcom down to HW manufs throats isn't exactly the best way to their loyality.
Currenlty WP7 seems to be predominantly US focussed OS treating rest of the world as an afterthought.
Not supporting multithreading so that they could pitch x cores for better margins isn't cool either.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Tue 28th Feb 2012 02:59 in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Forcing Quallcom down to HW manufs throats isn't exactly the best way to their loyality.
Currenlty WP7 seems to be predominantly US focussed OS treating rest of the world as an afterthought.
Not supporting multithreading so that they could pitch x cores for better margins isn't cool either.


True - hopefully that'll be addressed with Windows Phone 8 'Apollo' where the rumour is that it'll be based on Windows 8 'Core' which apparently is more flexible thus able to easily add support for more SOC's. For me the issue isn't the the number of cores given that Windows Phone 7 performances amazingly well already but the fact that you can't get phones with a bigger storage size than 16GB. People are using their phone for more than just 'being a phone', they're also using it to watch movies, record videos, record audio, listen to music, run applications etc. all of which need more space. As I noted previously, I have over 160GB of music so you guess how much of a PITA it would be if the largest storage on a phone is 16GB.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by zima on Sat 3rd Mar 2012 21:15 in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I can understand going for the low end - that makes sense but what doesn't make sense is how utterly crappy their so-called 'high end' phones are. I mean, come on, the maximum amount of storage one can get with a Windows Phone 7.5 device is 16GB?

No need to go into internet drama, this doesn't make them "utterly crappy" - even if, yeah, that one aspect is weird (maybe that's MS way to please carriers for largely losing control over OS of the handsets, and likely future Skype integration?)

That is not really "low end" BTW; maybe it's better not to fall into ~"language determines thinking" like that.

32GB and find even that is too constrictive given that I have over 160GB worth of music

160?... hm, a long time ago I had 80, in fairly high (even if lossy - Musepack and such) quality. Once I loaded it all - and Winamp reported something like 2.5 months of music, played non-stop, without repeating any single track.
(so I guess your 160 is lossless ...in which case you might consider using some modern lossy encoder with portable music - a proper ABX test will most likely reveal you can't hear the difference even at surprisingly low bitrates; and any good DAP manager can transcode on the fly files loaded on portable device)

Reply Parent Score: 2