With Windows Phone 7, Did Microsoft Actually Bring A Gun To A Gun Fight?
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
fanboy ranting aside I dont think I could trust microsoft to give me a nice computing experience again, even if some people like it superficially, there must be something wrong in there.
There sure is. It ships with a browser that's "halfway between IE7 and IE8."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Phone_7#Web_browser
Ouch.
Personally, I doubt that MS will provide those updates. The reason they keep IE6 outdated is because large companies want it that way; that can't handle epic change or their apps will break. If MS is marketing this phone to businesses, you can bet that the browser won't change much.
I wouldn’t say that anyone outperforms anyone else in that video – all three phones seem to be doing those tasks equally well (save for choppiness on Android).
I don't think companies are going to develop for just IE mobile like they did for IE6. And how exactly does adding support for HTML5 break the HTML for older web apps?
Companies who swallowed their poison pill in the early 2000's and built their intranets dependent on IE 6 are feeling the pain now, having to deploy intrusive security measures that don't really secure anything while shouldering the cost of "upgrading" the apps to browsers that run on the OS they want to deploy.
Also, let's say that companies start buying WP7 phones for employees, and that they pay to build a mobile-friendly version of some internal webapp. If you were designing/coding a site today, and knew you didn't have to support IE6, you most likely code it in a fairly standards-compliant way so that it didn't break when browsers were upgraded; a lot of companies are stuck on IE6 because they didn't code their sites like that.
It's easy to optimize a subset when you can define the subset to exclude everything you can't make fast...
This means that website owners who have already written advanced web interfaces for the mobile browsers on iOS, Android, and BB 6.0 will have to re-engineer their code base for WP7. That probably isn't going to happen until Microsoft establishes an impressive user base.
Edit: Add to this the long press of a list item, and between them, most actions are stuck behind an undiscoverable layer of UI.
But the point remains, I also have a lot of annoyances with i-devices at the same time, compared to the two I prefer my HTC Desire, it would be nice to not be regarded as some type of idiot for possibly thinking that i-whatever arent the pinnacle of design that all things aspire to.
Long press is the right-click of smartphones.
Yes. Maemo, for one, makes no bones about it: at the X windows level, a long press turns into an a right click.
Also, I find myself constantly wanting to use Android's back button on the iPad. It's really become quite natural for me on my phone.
That said, I completely agree with the grandparent's comment about the menu button.
Contextual knowledge, that's the phrase. With the iPhone, what you see is what you get-for better or worse. In Android, you need to press the menu button to discover the actions you can perform.
I foresee some serious cognitive dissonance playing out as Microsoft manages to do a whole lot better than hive-mind "HA HA too little too late / M$ sucks" sentiments have been allowing for. And frankly, Microsoft deserves the success they've got coming to them here. Somehow, the teams responsible for WP7 have been able to overcome the bureaucratic, backstabbing inertia that Microsoft is famous for, and they've produced something pretty damned good for a 1.0. Shame that so few people bother to actually examine the platform in any detail before pontificating about it, predicting its doom, etc.
But I didnt say it sucks, or that there must be something wrong with it, I said I couldnt trust them (with a lot or money) not to suck, and my opinion isnt formed from some hivemend, its formed from the last 10 years of my experience with microsoft products.
Actually you did, almost word for word: "there must be something wrong in there" :)
* You've been shipping mobile software for years
* You have "version 7" in the name of your product
Not trying to be pedantic here -- I know what you mean when you refer to this new mobile OS as "1.0". I just think it's more appropriate to refer to, say, the original 2007 iPhone as 1.0 than the WP7 product.
Having said that - I totally agree that WP7 is going to be pretty competitive and I'm really happy about that. My hope is that it makes Google go the extra mile with Gingerbread to really sweeten up the UI a bit - but we're going to win (consumers, that is) either way.
Wrong. They engaged in a logical fallacy, full stop. The correct response would have been for them to replace the boy with someone who wasn't so prone to lying (and for your clock example, replace or fix the clock). They must check every alarm raised from their designated "wolf watcher".
Interestingly, a good usage of an ad hominem would have been the argument for replacing the boy (e.g. "It's too inefficient to use him as the watcher because he's a liar").
While the article praises the iPhone interface and points out several of Android's user interface elements are very similar to solutions also adopted on the iPhone (to be fair, my 128K Palm Pilot arranged apps on a grid, a feature I am almost sure it copied from the Newton, just like about every PDA/smartphone), that's beyond the point. Windows Phone seems very non-iPhone-ish and there is a non trivial possibility Microsoft can actually bring out a decent mobile user experience after more than a decade of miserable failures.
I won't hold my breath, however. I too find it most incredible Microsoft finally hit something.
I keep in mind the fact that Barack Obama is an elected member of the Democratic party when he tells me to vote for a Senate candidate. It doesn't invalidate his opinion about that person, but it certain factors in.
I've never understood what exactly people mean when they say that. The one area Google needs to fix is the settings menu, with a much more logical organisation which they failed to do properly even in Froyo. Other than that, the worst flaws in Android are not things that Google can just wave a wand and fix without breaking backward compatibility.
Agree with you about the widgets, though. Can't live without them.
One has a beautiful touch responsive scrolling display while the other requires you to pick out small + and - symbols and tap repeatedly on them until you get to the right date. Mis-hitting the square below brings up the keyboard with a jarring UI-rearranging effect.
This kind of stuff, as well as the fluidity of the UI in general (jerky scrolling, transitions sudden instead of animated) is what they need to address.
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/01/1-5-billion-mic...
Coincidence or intentional?
They could have done it with WinMo 6... It would be cheaper...
It has the new hotness. Retina screen is nice, but it's so annoying that I can't use it with my left hand. Thanks apple.
I can see things hotting up if Microsoft can get it together, but they're very much the underdog and lack a reason to buy one (unlike say, iphone - the shiny, android - the geeky, blackberry - the constant messaging).
If M$ doesn't bend carriers to their will, then they might end up with crappy software on superior hardware. Not only does Microsoft have to guard against design-by-committee from within, it has to deal with the same from the carriers. In other words, Microsoft has to fight its DNA to be beautiful, while Apple just has to follow their usual tendencies. On the other hand, individual companies in the Android space can decide where they fall in the luxury/bargain spectrum.
Apple vs. Android is cathedral vs. bazaar. Is Windows Phone 7 going to be another cathedral, a bazaar, or will it be a half-assed combination of the two?
(Note that cathedrals took advantage of the efforts of several generations of individual workers adding their own contributions, but in a way which fit the whole. In other words, cathedrals were also a kind of ecosystem!)
The mobile space is about to be a full-on gun fight. And at least Microsoft seems to have walked into the middle of it with the right weapon.
A 3-way standoff? Who's the Good, The Bad, and The Ugly?
I was thinking about this, I imagine the midpoint between a cathedral and a bazaar could possibly be a shopping mall... How profitable do shopping malls tend to be? They might have something, if only because they're doing something different with enough marketing steam behind them.
Clearly Apple = Good (they started this new smartphone revolution, and care more about consumers than careers), Windows = Bad (will do anything to try to maintain their monopoly), and Google = Ugly (not really ugly, but they seem to be letting the carriers have more control).
I thought Hacker News was above the juvenile 'M$' but guess I was wrong.
>Is Windows Phone 7 going to be another cathedral, a bazaar, or will it be a half-assed combination of the two?
Right now it looks like a good combination. Good variety in hardware(for example, phones with real keyboard unlike the iPhone) while still retaining the ability to directly update the software(no shipping of old versions that take ages to get updated, if they get done at all, like Android).
You or I may not agree wit the characterization, but I hardly see this as immature. Informal, perhaps, in comparison to writing "Microsoft (who worship at the Temple of Mammon)..." But I don't see it as childish and juvenile.
There is another possibility. If "M$" has been regularly used by people who are juvenile in other ways, perhaps using "M$" in trollish flamewars and ad hominem diatribes, it can become guilty through association with juvenile rants. Is that the problem here? That the nickname has been used so often by people acting in a juvenile way that it has unpleasant overtones you perceive that are invisible to someone like myself who doesn't share your life experience?
Imagine if people started their posts with 'Facebook, who hate privacy, have just...', or 'Apple, who hate freedom, have now...', or 'Google, who are spying on you, are about to...'
That would be pretty pathetic.
What we have here is a de-facto "putting words into other people's mouths." What that means to me is, "Microsoft, who has money." It was meant in an informal and not a slur. In any case, how in the world can you be "ad hominem" against a corporation?
Where in my comment, or in my entire history of comments is there any kind of sentiment of the kind you describe. If anything, my position towards Microsoft has always been, "they're clueless about UX."
As an aside, I don't see anything strange about an ad hominem against a corporation, it's still an attack against the source of the argument and not the argument itself. Plus, a corporation is after all a legal person.
I am glad you admitted your putting words into my mouth. Let me note that this resulted in quite a few meta-comments! I could not let your mischaracterization go unchallenged. Note also that your mischaracterization is itself a meta-comment. Had it not been written in the first place, it would have benefitted the S/N ratio of HN dramatically!
Your description of the alleged meaning of this nickname is similar to my understanding of an ad hominem, however it differs in substantial ways. When Microsoft is the subject of a discussion, an assertion about their motivations is not an ad hominem: An assertion about one of the persons participating in the debate would be an ad hominem.
So what we have is an assertion about Microsoft's motivations and an unfounded argument that this is the cause for some perceived product woes. This is clearly weak rhetoric (and trivially fallacious: Apple seems to do just fine lusting after money).
But I am left rubbing my chin in confusion by your assertion that using the nickname automatically means that you're arguing that there is a problem with their products. My understanding is that the problem with their products is that have no taste. Someone using "M$" could be thinking that their avarice means that they behave in monopolistic ways, or that they have a certain type of internal company culture, or any number of things.
But there is no need to assume what they are saying or to jump to some conclusion about what they are claiming: I can simply read what they write. If they write "M$ are unable to ship good products," I can argue with that statement directly instead of arguing with their use of the nickname.
As for your second paragraph... Wow. Imagine if I were to make up a whole list of things that people are not saying and use it to stir up all kinds of emotional feelings as a way of trying to convince you that using a nickname I don't like was pathetic. Would that add to the discussion?
I think I am going to stop right here. I see a nickname that claims Microsoft cares primarily or only about money. You see a nickname dragging all sorts of baggage and claims and unfounded arguments around. You feel the need to exert social pressure to eliminate it, including characterizing it in an insulting fashion ("juvenile").
I understand what you are saying, and that is quite enough for me.
>I see a nickname that claims Microsoft cares primarily or only about money.
The original commenter clarified that it meant something along the lines of 'Microsoft, who has money'. That shows that it's a term that can result in a lot of confusion, but I have seen it mostly used as a put down by people who think it's cool to use it.
FTFY. Apparently, you are someone who actually takes this sort of thing seriously.