Discussions

1 hour ago, SteveRichter wrote

*snip*

why did it have to be a moneypit? There must be a market for a media device that is not a phone. One that seamlessly integrates with PCs and other media devices, which is not on all the time so it can hold a charge for an extended period of time.

 

There is a niche market for MP3 devices. Most people prefer to carry one device, so the smart phone is it. Zune was playing catch up before this came about, and after there just isn't enough revenue available in the entire niche market to warrant fighting that fight, especially when you have a smart phone answer.

I still think the smarter move would be to keep the stand alone MP3, but use the same model as the phones. Just provide a WP7 like OS, minus the phone bits, and allow OEMs to produce the hardware. Little risk for Microsoft, and some OEMs would probably be very happy to take a small part of the niche market. So, again, there's something to criticize, it's just not what the article did.

1 hour ago, SteveRichter wrote

*snip*

Why was windows mobile uncompetitive to begin with? Microsoft had an OS marketing/approach that worked great for PCs. MS-DOS worked on all PCs. If they had done the same with phones and tablets I think they would have had great success.

It was very competitive early on. Then the iPhone showed people what a touch interface could do for them. WinMo couldn't compete against that. So Balmer made the correct decision there, though one could easily argue he did it late and probably had no choice. So I think Manip had it right, there's lots to criticise Balmer for, but the things he pointed out are not among them.

@Ian2: This sounds like the cheap Hollywood knock off I was talking about . Lucy Liu as Watson?!???

I'll give it a shot, but I doubt it comes anywhere close to the BBC series.

@brian.shapiro:You should check out the BBC series. It's not at all an "action versions of the characters". The characters are still very much the characters you know, but they are placed in a modern era, with an interesting take on what that change would mean. It's not "cheap Hollywood movie making" but rather an insightful literary exploration shown on screen.

49 minutes ago, spivonious wrote

It is frustrating to see the same complaints come up again and again and have no response from someone on the Windows team. C9 members should be treated as VIPs, as they're interested enough in the next big things from MS that they regularly visit these forums. Their opinions should matter more than a random 13 year-old who downloaded the beta and posts on the B8 blog.

Why? Ignoring the fact that way too many here act like "13 your-old who downloaded the beta", why should someone on here be treated any different than anyone else? It doesn't take a genious to look at the posts here and realize the people here are NOT representative of the larger customer base. That doesn't mean our opinions should be ignored, but it certainly does mean we shouldn't be "treated as VIPs."

Just as BAS?

When arguments come down to the color of the bike shed, I'm sorry it is just "RESISTANT TO CHANGE." The closest anyone has come to a valid argument in any of these threads is that the monochrome icons make it harder to distinguish between them. Of course there's no data to back that claim up, but it at least sounds like a valid usability concern. Everything else said, over and over again, beating the dead horse into the ground, is nothing more than "I don't like change." It's boring enough to hear this the first time. Did we really need a new thread to say it all again?

Who moved the cheese? Part II.

It never fails to amaze me how much people hate change. Doesn't matter if the change is necessary, for the better, etc. It's change, and therefore EVIL!

The only change in the RC that I truly think is an improvement is the custom chrome. The rest is minor and subject to personal preference, not for any quantifiable usability reason. Adding colors back? I'm glad they've remained minimalistic. It's pleasing in the toolbar. I think it's distracting in Solution Explorer, to be quite honest. Change to the ALL CAPS headers? Meh. That's a preference thing. I could care less one way or the other. The all caps menu items? I don't prefer it and it seems like a strange decision in conjunction with removing all caps from titles, but it honestly doesn't make any real difference.

The really important stuff was done in the beta and remains and even was enhanced in the RC. Reduction in clutter and an emphasis on the code. A simplification of the interface, which is always a good thing.

5 minutes ago, Bass wrote

*snip*

An Xbox 360 for "multimedia" is an incredible ripoff. Xbox 360 is a gaming console. You can get a Roku or Apple TV for much less and no added subscription fees if a media center is all you want.

 

Can't agree with you at all. I know a LOT of people, myself included, that this was the main reason we bought an Xbox, and that was before the addition of many of the services that have been added in the past few months. The big reason is that the Xbox is an MCE as well as being DLNA compliant. The ability to play games is a nice bonus in comparison to something like an AppleTV as well. To be honest, only the PS3 would be a viable alternative in my opinion. The AppleTV/Roku/etc. just don't do enough.

Of course, that MCE argument isn't holding as much water with recent anouncements...

I've read lots of people's opinions about this being a rip off from people I respect a whole lot more than Beer (i.e., I have some respect). I never get the argument. To quote an article (that gets it wrong) "The total cost of the subscription over two years is $360, making the real cost of the console under this plan $459". So, what did the article and everyone else get wrong? That price is not the "real cost" of the console. It's the cost of the console + xbox live gold. If you got those the traditional way, using Microsoft pricing, the cost would be roughly $420. Yes, the subsidized route costs you money in the long run, as everyone should expect, but it's only $39. Not that bad a deal for those that want to spread the cost over a two year time period. Yes, you can do better than Microsoft pricing. This same bundle could be had from Amazon for $380, saving you another $40. Individuals would have to decide if the $79 is worth the the lower cost of entry, but for many it will be, and is hardly what I'd consider a rip off.

This bundle isn't aimed at gamers, by the way. This is a move to make it easier for households to use the Xbox as a media/entertainment consumer. You know, that 50% of Xbox usage. There's plenty of people who will be enticed by this model for buying an Xbox to watch Netflix and Hulu, rent videos on demand from Vudu, Zune, etc.

I think RIM has far less chance for surviving than the Windows Phone does, and Microsoft is going to fight a very tough uphill battle. I think it's a bit more than just being "late". I'm not sure RIM would have had a shot if they'd produced this the day after the iPhone was announced years ago.