Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 12th Feb 2013 18:27 UTC
Windows "Imagine a phone that could run real Remote Desktop. Real PowerShell. Anything that can run on your desktop PC. Imagine 'phablet' form factors, similar to today's Samsung Galaxy Note 2, which could dock to a desktop setup and utilize an external display, keyboard, mouse, and other peripherals. Imagine a single set of APIs that work everywhere. Imagine that Phone isn't a whole separate platform, but an app. An app that runs on Windows. Real Windows. The Windows Phone team could never make that happen. But the Windows client team? You betcha. Make it happen, Microsoft. It's time to take the phone seriously." I have never agreed with Thurrot as much as I do right now.
Thread beginning with comment 552239
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Tue 12th Feb 2013 18:47 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

Well, I agree less.

Why hook up all kinds of stuff to your phone, turning it in to a not so powerful desktop computer? What do you do when you receive a call?

I think devices should play to their strengths. A phone should be small and ultra portable, not huge trying to be a mini tablet, because that's what tablets are for. And they shouldn't be small, because that's what phones are for. Nor do they need keyboards, because that's what laptops are for.

Smart phone, tablets, laptops, desktops. They all have strong and weak points like size and portability. Turning a mobile phone in to a desktop PC takes away its mobility and makes a crap desktop.

It makes more sense to have your data the cloud (I really dislike that term) and have it synch to all your devices. When you're on the move access it using your phone, when you arrive at the office use a desktop or use a tablet on the couch in the living room.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by WereCatf on Tue 12th Feb 2013 22:07 in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

It makes more sense to have your data the cloud (I really dislike that term) and have it synch to all your devices. When you're on the move access it using your phone, when you arrive at the office use a desktop or use a tablet on the couch in the living room.


People are always offering the cloud as the go-to solution to this, but you make the same mistake as everyone: data caps that apply in both directions and upload bandwidth. Those two are enough to make this suggested solution entirely useless for anything but the lightest of uses -- no home videos, no large family photo collections, no nothing. Plus it would place all these files in jeopardy, either due to no/poor encryption that would allow an attacker access to everything, or proper encryption that would render the files inaccessible once Average Joe forgets his credentials.

This solution just ain't workable until things change radically.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 13th Feb 2013 07:40 in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Yes, hackers are a danger, but so is hardware failure at home, fire at home or someone stealing your stuff either at home or on the move.

Most stuff you need, I think, is actually really small. Contacts, todo, agenda, bookmarks, "office" files, etc... they easily synch over Dropbox. Someone I know has a Synology box and he showed pictures that were located on it (sweden) on his iPhone (in The Netherlands). It quickly shows thumbnails, touch one and the picture comes up. It worked fast and he has thousands of pictures on it.

For music you have stuff like iTunes Match, Spotify, Internet radio.

That leaves (home) movies. Then I ask myself, where do you watch those? Most likely at home. If you are planning to go somewhere and watch them there or on the train simply put them on your mobile device.

Having a super Windows phone hooked up to a mouse, keyboard and screen makes a crappy desktop and it won't hold all your data, music and movies. It's also easily lost/stolen/broken.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by No it isnt on Tue 12th Feb 2013 22:11 in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

I think the rise of tablets is mainly due to phones being too "small and portable" to be comfortable to use. Add to them a tablet, which is too heavy and cumbersome to carry around, and you've got to get two gadgets that each are slightly useless at what they're supposed to do best. They don't actually have different uses, although the interface needs some tweaking for screen size, so why should you need two?

I'd rather see phones just smaller than phablets replacing the current low-powered tablets, and serious laptops being merged with tablets in the way Asus does with the i7 based evolution of their Transformer line: a small, portable device for connectivity and information, and a real computer for actual work, with a detachable screen for when you have to walk around a bit while working.

As it is, we need far too many gadgets that do far too little, and aren't nearly good enough at it. And I don't see tablets having any strengths whatsoever.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 13th Feb 2013 07:57 in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I think people who do so much with their phone that they think it's too small just need a tablet.

When I'm on the move I don't have the time/possibility to stare at my phone so long, let alone actively use it. I used to to read emails, news, look up something, send/read messages, even make a call sometimes. But these are all quick actions. On the move I want something that easily fits in my clothes and hands.

I have an iPad with no 3G, because that didn't make sense to me. I use it at home, at work or in hotel lobbies. WiFi is everywhere. But I don't go wondering the streets with it. Not just because it's too big for that, but also because it would be overkill.

When I roam the streets I never see tablets, while I see many at work, in people's homes. That's their strength: portability and ease of use in a relaxed environment (when you can sit).

For serious mobile work I'd for for a laptop and for serious static work the desktop is king.

Devices like the Transformer or Surface with detachable keyboards are nice, but I think it is also more cumbersome. My iPad keyboards are seldom used. Attaching a keyboard ruins the tablet experience.

To be honest, I have never used (or seen) a Surface or Transformer, so they may work better than an iPad with keyboard.

This is all of course my personal preference. I just thin each device category has it's strengths and weaknesses that are clear. If you come up with hybrid devices that sit between categories they tend to inherit more of the weaknesses than strengths of their bordering categories. A tablet with a keyboard loses its portability strength, while not gaining the power of a laptop.

Creating a Windows phone with real Windows and hook it up to a bunch of devices destroys its portability. It's not longer a mobile phone and a terrible desktop compared to a desktop.

I don't think it's about the hardware, it's about the data and the software. If I can get at my data with <any> device I can simply pick the right device for the right situation and access my data.

So I'd rather have Microsoft make a great phone, regardless on what it's software internals are based, and someone else make a great computer.

Like I said it's my personal view and the Microsoft Surface commercials are full of happy people so I guess there are people in both camps of the argument.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by ilovebeer on Thu 14th Feb 2013 01:59 in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

I think the rise of tablets is mainly due to phones being too "small and portable" to be comfortable to use. Add to them a tablet, which is too heavy and cumbersome to carry around, and you've got to get two gadgets that each are slightly useless at what they're supposed to do best. They don't actually have different uses, although the interface needs some tweaking for screen size, so why should you need two?

If tablets are too heavy and cumbersome to carry around, you must not leave your house much because I see people toting them around everywhere. And you don't think they have different uses? Phones are primarily communication devices, tablets are primarily media consumption devices... and that's pretty different. I travel often and never see people watching a movie on their cellphone, but I see it all the time with tablets. I never see people making calls with their tablet, but I see it all the time with cell phones.

I'd like to believe in your theory but my real world observations paint a totally different picture, so......

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by bassbeast on Thu 14th Feb 2013 20:18 in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

And I have a question: WHY should we want "one device to rule them all" when we've seen time and time again these companies do NOT have any interests but their own at heart?

I mean as it is now I can have an Asus laptop, custom built desktop, Samsung phone, and no name tablet and if any of the above treats me bad or gives me lousy service i can go elsewhere with minimum of fuss. Know how hard that would be if I had everything counting on just a single device?

Lets face it the ones ones really pushing for this are frankly greedy corps who i honestly couldn't care less what they want. Is your phone so heavy you can't lift it and a laptop or tablet? Then why would you want to limit yourself like that? iFixit just labeled the Surface pro virtually unrepairable and gave it a worse score than even the ipad...we supposed to want everything tied to a company that tries to make X86 into a throw away tech?

Personally I'm just sick of it. I'm sick of everybody saying the only thing that counts is cellphones because OS corps make a mint off of stupid 99c games on the things and their disposable nature, I'm sick of crap like the Surface that try to be jacks of all trades and end up masters of none, I'm sick of a swooning press that seems to want nothing more than a single device because apprently having more than one is too hard for their wittle bitty press brains, I'm sick of being told the future is a device that is worse in every way, from freedom to choice to fixability, than what we have now.

I'm just sick of it and if the future is one device to rule them all you can let me off here, thanks anyway. Oh and try not to forget the last line of the one ring since everyone keeps stealing the "one device to rule them all" bit which was "and in darkness bind them" which is quite apt when you are talking about ever more centralized control and disposable devices that cost like durable goods.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Thu 14th Feb 2013 20:36 in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Regarding the non-repairability of tablets:

You have warranty. When that expires and the tablet breaks down it will probably be already obsolete or on the verge of becoming so. Should it be possible to have it repaired the costs tend to be too high compared to buying a new tablet.

Yes, it sucks when a device that used to work fine has to be thrown away instead of having it fixed, but it doesn't make sense to spend a lot of money on it getting it fixed when for a few dollars more you have a brand new device that is better in every way.

This applies to tablets and phones. Laptops and certainly desktops are easier to repair and the costs are more likely to be more worth it than buying a new one. A desktop you can often repair yourself.

I guess it's something you have to take in to account when buying a tablet or phone. Be prepared that the device will only work for the warranty period and after it probably has to be trashed once it breaks down.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by zima on Sun 17th Feb 2013 16:27 in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

And I have a question: WHY should we want "one device to rule them all" when we've seen time and time again these companies do NOT have any interests but their own at heart?
[...]
Lets face it the ones ones really pushing for this are frankly greedy corps who i honestly couldn't care less what they want.
[...]
I'm just sick of it

But don't you also have a hidden agenda, why you're against "post PC" future? IIRC, don't you run a small PC shop? ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by zima on Fri 15th Feb 2013 20:21 in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

It makes more sense to have your data the cloud (I really dislike that term)

I often propose a slight modification of the terminology: "fog" ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Fri 15th Feb 2013 22:03 in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Fog would be a better term.

I dislike the term "cloud", because it kind of suggest you don't know where your data is and it magicaly finds your device. But the data is on a server that's connected to the Internet and it already was before it all became the "cloud".

Reply Parent Score: 2