Coffeehouse Thread

43 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Where should WP7 turn too?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    It seems to me that AT&T favors iPhone and Verizon favors Droid. It seems to be really hard to strike a good deal with them when they already have their preferences. Where does WP7 fit into all of these? Without those carrier pushing the advertising and distributions, I fear WP7 is going no where. MS really needs to think about those things. WP7 is good, but, no one cares because it couldn't attract enough attentions. And I haven't seen MS actively advertising WP7, not even after Mango, which is quite annoying.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Ray7

    I dunno. I'm seeing a lot of ads in gadget mags and one or two displays at phone shops. Might have even seen a TV ad or two.

    Not much, but certainly better than they've done in the past. The problem is this: carriers will push Android because its phones will be cheaper than WP7 models because there is no fee for installing the OS. Now MS could try dropping the price of WP7 to nothing, but that would be daft since, unlike Google, they rely on software to make their money.

    But what they have done is something rather clever. They can't make WP7 cheaper, but they can make Android more expensive. When the OEMs see that it costs just as much to use Android, in addition to having MS dictate what they can put on it, then I think they'll start seeing WP7 in a more favourable light.

  • User profile image
    Ian2

    NOKIA are working hard in the UK at the moment.  Lots of coverage and events in the run up to XMAS (sadly they are not inviting me to any of them but such is life). 

    Rumours are that sales are good in the UK since the launch.

    The NOKIA brand is still strong over here, well liked and trusted.

    Hopefully something similar will happen in the US ...

  • User profile image
    Maddus Mattus

    Even my tech unsavvy uncle came to me; 'does your phone have tiles too?'

  • User profile image
    Ian2

    Heres a good example from last night in London, awesome!

    (The band is Deadmau5)

    EDIT: Surely worthy of its own thread ...

     

  • User profile image
    Harlequin

    http://www.developer.nokia.com/Community/Wiki/Category:Windows_Phone

    Nokia also has a nice Developer wiki. Something Microsoft needs to do.

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    With late US release and not seeing AT&T or Verizon pushing it, I am really worried. Not to mention I don't quite like how Nokia is going to segment WP7 ecosystem. If everyone is loading their own map and use that as a selling point, I fear MS will also slack off on delivering strong out-of-box experience. I hope that day doesn't come.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Ian2

    IMO Windows phone will continue to be pushed but the story with Windows 8 is where the real action is.  My understanding is that phones, tablets,laptops, desktops, servers. XBOXs etc will all run off the same core O/S.  Couple that with the push to the cloud and that's when the real cross platform integration / fun will start.

    I did say I was an optimist didn't I?

  • User profile image
    ZippyV

    @Ian2: What would be the advantage of running Windows 8 on a phone?

  • User profile image
    davewill

    @ZippyV: A homogeneous set of target platforms with the dream of a tiered subset among them.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    That's what Linux does already (modular build system).

    Anyway it seems pointless to throw away a perfectly good well-debugged kernel that probably took millions and millions of dollars to develop (WinCE) for what amounts to nerd cred ideal of the "one-true-platform". Because really anything worth developing for will be in userspace already, you don't need a common kernel for implementing cross-platform stuff.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    @Bass: There are lots of functions in NT that WinCE is lacking and it's arguable that since modern smartphones are easily capable of running on NT the additional work that needs to be done to continue to support WinCE is largely redundant.

  • User profile image
    DeathBy​VisualStudio

    , AndyC wrote

    @Bass: There are lots of functions in NT that WinCE is lacking and it's arguable that since modern smartphones are easily capable of running on NT the additional work that needs to be done to continue to support WinCE is largely redundant.

    That's debatable. There's the other aspect called "time to market". Microsoft blew it with WP7 and they're doing the same with tablets.

    http://www.neowin.net/news/consumers-are-sick-of-waiting-for-windows-tablets-study-says

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57333026-75/late-windows-8-tablets-botch-consumer-opportunity/?tag=mncol;cnetRiver

    Like I've always said they should have stuck with WP7 (WinCE)/SL on the phone, built a tablet around it, and built "new Windows" from the SL strategy they already had. They could have been to market with a tablet a whole lot sooner and not risked alienating developers as they have with their current plans. In the future if they wanted to roll Windows to the phone or tablet it wouldn't be a big deal as everything would be SL based already, just changing the OS beneath.

     

    If we all believed in unicorns and fairies the world would be a better place.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    vesuvius

    @DeathByVisualStudio: I don't know why they just didn't continue Silverlight and make that tablet ready, then when windows was tablet ready, offer that as well. It would have taken 50 to 100 developers to create the tablet ready Silverlight, and that could have continued alongside the Windows version of the product when that was ready.

    Not using what was there and re-inventing the wheel is going to be remembered as one of their key mistakes, especially since WinRT offers very little compared to what is already available. ASP.NET is successful because they have stuck with the same technology and improved it over many years.

  • User profile image
    BitFlipper

    @DeathByVisualStudio:

    Yea agreed. The suggestion I made for a "Metro" type dual UI in this thread also mentions SL as front-the end (but with XNA embedded as well). I also believe that it would have been a better transition path to a modern tablet as SL would have been a good starting point that can grow with new OS capabilities while being close to ready to be tablified much much earlier.

    Since SL is a self-contained framework (and clean from old cruft) that can essentially run the same applications on any underlying hardware (x86, x64, ARM), we would not have had these discussions today. This extra UI could have been running on Windows 7 today as a simple downloadable add-on, as well as already running on WP7. OEMs would have been able to ship new tablets with a full touch-UI today.

    Instead MS chose the most convoluted and slow path possible. I think they chose the wrong path but I hope in the end it works out.

  • User profile image
    magicalclick

    @DeathByVisualStudio:

    Normally I don't agree with you, but, what you said is a spot on. I really do get annoyed by slow market reactions. Especially with not allowing wp7 as tablet OS, which I believe is a lot more suitable to tablet market.

    stuff like WP using win8 rumor is unwise in my opinion. I mean, seriously, wp7 is only freaking one year old. Wp7 is already a major rewrite, how many major overhaul does it need?

    And honestly the unified experience is pointless. People buying Xbox not because they can rum window app on it, same with wp7. And even running the same core, we all know they still cannot run windows apps. And to be clear, consumer doesn't even care, or in reverse, un-windows is the selling point.

    Leaving WM on 5/2018 if no apps, no dedicated billboards where I drive, no Store name.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    AndyC

    , magicalclick wrote:

    And honestly the unified experience is pointless. People buying Xbox not because they can rum window app on it, same with wp7. And even running the same core, we all know they still cannot run windows apps. And to be clear, consumer doesn't even care, or in reverse, un-windows is the selling point.

    It's not about unifying the user experience, it's about not investing money reinventing the wheel to add functionality to the WinCE kernel when NT has it already and probably has been optimised far beyond what the WinCE team would ever have funding to do. There is really no reason the usermode portion from WP7 (which was the rewritten part) couldn't be transplanted onto NT for WP8.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    , vesuvius wrote

    ASP.NET is successful because they have stuck with the same technology and improved it over many years.

    When ASP.NET was introduced 10 years ago it was about as compatible with ASP3 the same way that VB.NET is with VB6 (i.e. there's similar syntax, and whilst you can copy and paste code over, it's generally a very bad idea, assuming you can even get it to build in the first place). Back in 2001 ASP.NET had more in common with JSP than ASP3.

    ASP.NET itself (i.e. the underlying plumbing and WebForms) hasn't changed much since the beginning, but that's by-design and the same can be said for WinForms and XNA.

    I think ASP.NET's recent 'success' (i.e. credibility boost amongst the nouveau-webbies) is attributable to ASP.NET MVC which brought Ruby-on-Rails style development (its design is hardly original), which is entirely backwards incompatible with WebForms - even if a WebForms application was very MVC-ish in its architecture there's still a major rewrite involved.

    So I think you're wrong - and instead it's better to say a technology is successful because of its own merits at any given point in time: Windows Phone 6.x was not successful because it stuck with the same technology since 1999, Windows Phone 7 is not successful because it (as a hardware/software platform) still does not present a good value proposition over Android and iPhone (I bought an iPhone three weeks ago because I couldn't find a 64GB Windows Phone or Android). Finally, I don't believe Windows 8 will be the roaring success on slate tablets that Microsoft wants it to be because the platform places too many constraints on developers whilst still lacking a vision and I don't believe the OEMs are competent enough to compete with Apple).

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.