 |
msmobiles.com/f
dicussions about Microsoft Smartphone and Pocket PC phone
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
msmobiles.com_robot
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 16777215
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 4:09 pm Post subject: Windows Mobile misses sales target for the fiscal year 2008 |
 |
|
Fiscal year ended June 30, and apparently Microsoft no longer can pretend that everything is alright:
Read more at http://www.msmobiles.com/news.php/7542.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kieranEire
Joined: 12 Oct 2005
Posts: 281
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I disagree witht he multitouch, or some sort of integrated zune. I can copy my music onto my phone its no big deal. As for multi touch the only real place its of really great benefit is on software keyboards.
The reality reality is windows mobile is not finger friendly. There are some good third party apps but they run on top of windows instead of being integrated and you always end up in some crap windows mobile dialog that looks like windows 3.11. Integrated Zune, or multi touch will make no difference to the consumer market if the OS looks outdated, fiddley to use and just a not very pleasent experience.
Secondly HTC owning 80% of the windows mobile market is a disaster. What use is a mobile you cannot see in sunlight. Implementation of features such as the gestures. The HTC album is horrible, they should look at VITO eyephoto to see how it should be done. Touchflo 3d is terrible and well I don't have to mention the Kaiser etc graphics driver issue which has now been proven to be simply a cost cutting exercise to avoid paying a license fee. An update which actually makes the device perform worse, where in fact promised performance enhancements did not materialise, Just goto the online petition requesting the drivers for these devices and see how 15,000 consumers are angry.
Windows mobile needs a complete revamp, either release their own device or get partnerships with better companies than HTC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
virain
Joined: 23 Dec 2007
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why are you so abscessed with multitouch? Is it just because iPhone has it? Zune integration? Why? because iPhone has iTunes integration? Do you want a MSFT WM device or iPhone clone? Other oS's do fine without multitouch, take Simbian for example, or even without Touch screen, Blackberry is here. And there's no need for integrating some special music service. I prefer to download my own MP3 from on-line music stores (cheaper, and better selection), and then upload to my WM device. What MSFT needs to do is to make interface more finger friendly for ONE HAND USE, that of course cansels multitouch, as you won't be able to hold it and perform operation with the same hand multiple fingers at once, unles you have tentacles like an octopus . Make OS more stable and user friendly, so you could either close or minimize app., in one move, for example. Make updates available directly from MS and not leave it at OEM's or carriers mercy. And take more control of hardware requirements. Because most of the problems we see with WM performance today is a result of OEM'S trying to save few bucks here and there, and as a result overall performance of the device suffers and sometimes very badly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alcedes
Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Posts: 273
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| virain wrote: | | Make updates available directly from MS and not leave it at OEM's or carriers mercy. |
They are trying to evolve to a model where components that are not as driver dependent get updated witout OEM and carrier interaction (ex: the office updates from some time ago). If/when the IE "6 on 6" project reaches a releasable state then perhaps the much underused Windows Update app will finally show us this evolution.
Sending updates directly is also made more complicated because of the various hardware configurations (which will of course result in various driver requirements). Your suggestion to take control of hardware requirements could address this, though if over done it could stifle OEM innovation. Microsoft tends to add API support after OEM customization (EX: cameras were added to Windows 2003 SE phones but it was not until WM5 that API support was added.) Their stated reason is to allow for carrier innovation. (There's currently no Microsoft API support for front facing cameras and tilt sensors. Perhaps such support will be added in WM7.). With Vista MS gained a little experience in taking control of some what tiered hardware requirements for tiered versions of windows and learned a few lessons from it. Perhaps those lessons are transferable to Windows Mobile.
I personally find it ridiculous that some capabilities in WM devices seem to have grown very little over the years. My last WM2003 device had a VGA display (with and appropriate driver) with external VGA out, USB host capabilities, and two memory slots, and a 400 MHz procssor. After that low price device dominated. Even now I think the Diamond will be the first VGA WM device marketted in the US.
| virain wrote: | | What MSFT needs to do is to make interface more finger friendly for ONE HAND USE, that of course cansels multitouch |
Not necessarily. If multitouch gestures were a secondary way of performing certain actions then one could add support for it while maintaining one handed usability. Kinda like how Apple OS used to be designed for one button mouses but supported two or Vista Ultimate supporting voice commands and pen gestures but doesn't require them.
_________________
MCAD .Net , MCTS (Web, Windows) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
amb9800
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Posts: 91
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| virain wrote: | | Why are you so abscessed with multitouch? Is it just because iPhone has it? Zune integration? Why? because iPhone has iTunes integration? Do you want a MSFT WM device or iPhone clone? Other oS's do fine without multitouch, take Simbian for example, or even without Touch screen, Blackberry is here. And there's no need for integrating some special music service. I prefer to download my own MP3 from on-line music stores (cheaper, and better selection), and then upload to my WM device. |
You may not care, and as a WM/PPC user for 4 years, I didn't care, but just look at what Apple's done. They've created a far smoother UI that beyond looking nice, works *intuitively*. Multitouch with pinch/spread makes sense for maps, browser, etc., whereas having to pull up a zoom menu and selecting an option is something <5% of users will actually do. Same for music, sure, you and I may prefer to manage our own music, but the vast majority of people need a better system.
The main problem here is that to use WinMo effectively, you need to know how to use ActiveSync/WMDC, either to install apps (via the desktop) or to copy files to some folder on the phone. Very few WinMo users know how to do that. Why do most people think the iPhone App Store is an amazing new invention? Because they have no idea how to get programs onto their WM phones, while Apple's system is far more intuitive. MS ought to replicate the App Store, but in a more open way, allowing for third parties to put up installer sources (for free apps, etc.).
They need to integrate the Zune marketplace because otherwise MS can't even dream of matching Apple in the consumer media realm. The average consumer will go buy a song or movie on iTunes on the PC, it'll sync to their iPhone, they'll access it on other computers via iTunes sharing, listen in the den via Apple TV, etc. On the MS side, Zune is compatible with nothing- how do you get content from it to other PCs, to your WM phone, to your Xbox 360? It's either impossible or way too complicated for most people.
The basic issue, again, is that we tech users might be fine with going through hoops and hurdles to get stuff done, and we appreciate an open platform with lots of features, but that gets you no market share. Consumer impact comes from technology that the average person can use. The average person can look at an iPhone and figure out how to use most of its features. The average person looks at a Windows Mobile phone and is scared of it. If forced to use one (e.g. many in business world), they will just use it as an email/contacts/calendar device. So to them, the iPhone looks a heck of a lot better.
Windows Mobile Standard (non-touchscreen) is so bad that I can't believe it still exists. Even if you're used to normal WM, it's just horrendously obfuscated, the result of which is that most WM Standard users tend to do very little with their phones. WM's had market share only because the devices have been relatively cheap-- the AT&T-subsidized iPhone becomes a clearly superior choice for these people, with the same price and far more usable features.
| virain wrote: | | What MSFT needs to do is to make interface more finger friendly for ONE HAND USE, that of course cansels multitouch, as you won't be able to hold it and perform operation with the same hand multiple fingers at once, unles you have tentacles like an octopus . Make OS more stable and user friendly, so you could either close or minimize app., in one move, for example. Make updates available directly from MS and not leave it at OEM's or carriers mercy. And take more control of hardware requirements. Because most of the problems we see with WM performance today is a result of OEM'S trying to save few bucks here and there, and as a result overall performance of the device suffers and sometimes very badly. |
Poor performance is not only because of hardware issues. I used to think it was the main reason WM phones are sluggish, which is certainly the case for the many phones running on <200 MHz TI chips, but even 624 MHz phones like the Samsung Omnia have slow, rough operation. By comparison, Apple achieves a far smoother and more stable system with a 400 MHz CPU (624 MHz chip, but clocked at 408-412 in all iPhones) with 128 MB RAM. It's not just because you can't multitask- a jailbroken iPhone with multiple apps in the background still runs more smoothly than the average WinMo device. MS needs a hardware-accelerated GUI, better memory management, and more intelligent multitasking support.
As for touch-friendly interfaces, again, I hope MS develops something intuitive. The iPhone's interface blends in multitouch and the accelerometer in ways that make sense- some of the 3rd party WM add-ons require strange, unnatural gestures, have inconsistent UIs, etc. and are thus no better than having a convoluted menu structure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alcedes
Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Posts: 273
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| amb9800 wrote: |
They need to integrate the Zune marketplace because otherwise MS can't even dream of matching Apple in the consumer media realm. |
The Zune Market Place is a music store while iTunes is the music store; it works with the media player that has majority market share. So in my opinion integrating the Zune Market Place in non-Apple phones won't have any significant impact on it's ability to match Apple. Also the close association between iTunes, the iPod/iPhone, the accessories, and the strong arm that Apple is alleged to have on some content providers is going to have an impact on the in-roads one can make at eroding the market share. The dock connector itself being proprietary but ubiquitous enough to almost be viewed as standard locks competitors out of the closed ecosystem that Apple has built.
| amb9800 wrote: | | The average consumer will go buy a song or movie on iTunes on the PC, it'll sync to their iPhone, they'll access it on other computers via iTunes sharing, listen in the den via Apple TV, etc. On the MS side, Zune is compatible with nothing- how do you get content from it to other PCs, to your WM phone, to your Xbox 360? |
The Zune's level of interoperability is higher than what is suggested here (full Disclosure, I have 2 Zunes amongst other media players), but it was not designed for the scenarios you've just mentioned. The Windows Media Player technologies were made to fit those scenarios. The best I can tell (note, I am about to start speculating) Microsoft seems to have made efforts to lock the Zune hardware and software together to prevent it from being diluted and seen as just another Windows Media Player ( end of speculation even though the Zune software and file format is based on the Windows Media file format and Windows C.E.
The Zune hardware and software work with the xbox 360. Connect a Zune to the xbox and you can play your collection of music, videos, and podcast. If your computer and xbox 360 are on the same network the your Zune collection is browsable from the Xbox 360. This feature is turned off by default otherwise one that uses a communal network (ex: college dorm) could unknowingly share their collection with unwanted parties. The Zune software will let you decide whether you want all xbox's on the network or only an authorized network to see your collection.
With Windows Media Player your content will sync to your phone (both Windows Mobile phones and some other non-windows phones) and other devices, you can access your content on other computers via Windows Media Sharing by checking a box to enable it. You can access the content in your living room via an Xbox , Media Center Extender (for video) or an audio only device(aka Windows Media Connect device). I've got this setup at home and use the xbox 360 and original xbox as my interfaces to my online video rental account and other content. When you connect a Media Center device to your network Vista automatically recognizes it's presence and notifies you so that you can authorize the device. The Media Sharing capabilities have been present since Windows XP but I've never once seen these capabilities advertised.
| amb9800 wrote: | | a jailbroken iPhone with multiple apps in the background still runs more smoothly than the average WinMo device. MS needs a hardware-accelerated GUI, better memory management, and more intelligent multitasking support. |
Since Apple expanded the iPhones capabilities with the 2.0 firmware the stability and responsive of some of the iPhone could be brought into question (it looks that the jail broken phones with the version 1.x firmware were more stable application platforms than the 2.0 firmware). I've even experienced some of the software problems with an iPod touch that I upgraded last week such as needing to reboot before an OTA software purchase will install. The iPods never been jailbroken or hacked in any way. I hope the 2.1 firmware resolves these issues.
_________________
MCAD .Net , MCTS (Web, Windows) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
amb9800
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Posts: 91
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| alcedes wrote: | | The Zune Market Place is a music store while iTunes is the music store; it works with the media player that has majority market share. So in my opinion integrating the Zune Market Place in non-Apple phones won't have any significant impact on it's ability to match Apple. Also the close association between iTunes, the iPod/iPhone, the accessories, and the strong arm that Apple is alleged to have on some content providers is going to have an impact on the in-roads one can make at eroding the market share. The dock connector itself being proprietary but ubiquitous enough to almost be viewed as standard locks competitors out of the closed ecosystem that Apple has built. |
Sure, iTunes is established and a very closed system, but if MS wants to match Apple with an end-to-end vertical solution (which is why Zune even exists- the usual model w/PlaysForSure wasn't working), they need to establish themselves as a competitor at every level.
Zune is hurt on every side because it's a closed system yet the minority player, and MS has yet to put any real marketing force behind it. The vast majority of consumers have no idea what Zune is-- they see all the iPod ads and then they see other, cheap MP3 players.
| alcedes wrote: | The Zune's level of interoperability is higher than what is suggested here (full Disclosure, I have 2 Zunes amongst other media players), but it was not designed for the scenarios you've just mentioned. The Windows Media Player technologies were made to fit those scenarios. The best I can tell (note, this is speculation, not fact) Microsoft seems to have made efforts to lock the Zune hardware and software together to prevent it from being diluted and seen as just another Windows Media Player even though the Zune software and file format is based on the Windows Media file format. I'll explain.
Now in switching back from speculation to fact both the Zune hardware and software work with the xbox 360. Connect a Zune to the xbox and you can play your collection of music, videos, and podcast. If your computer and xbox 360 are on the same network the your Zune collection is browsable from the Xbox 360. This feature is turned off by default otherwise one that uses a communal network (ex: college dorm) could unknowingly share their collection with unwanted parties. The Zune software will let you decide whether you want all xbox's on the network or only an authorized network to see your collection.
With Windows Media Player your content will sync to your phone (both Windows Mobile phones and some other non-windows phones), you can access your content on other computers via Windows Media Sharing by checking a box to enable it. You can access the content in your living room via an Xbox , Media Center Extender (for video) or an audio only device. I've got this setup at home and use the xbox 360 and original xbox as my interfaces to my online video rental account and other content. When you connect a Media Center device to your network Vista automatically recognizes it's presence and automatically notifies you so that you can authorize it. Though while this capability has been present since XP I have never once seen it advertised. |
Sure, MS has a media sharing setup via Windows Media Center and MCE devices or Windows Media Sharing in WMP, but from the consumer's perspective, it's not nearly as usable as Apple's setup in the content purchasing realm. So for example, you open iTunes and buy a song; you have iTunes sharing enabled, so all PCs and Apple TVs on the network can access your music (this is indeed used in college dorms, etc.- which is why everyone basically needs to have iTunes). It syncs to your iPhone, which you take with you, do some OTA music purchases while somewhere else, come back, that'll sync back to iTunes, then you go to your Apple TV, buy or rent a movie, it'll sync back to iTunes and your iPhone/iPod. You just can't do that with the Zune, desktop Zune software, Windows Mobile, and an Xbox 360.
The problem is Zune is so focused on tight vertical integration that it doesn't even work with other MS products. Sure, iTunes will always have a content availability advantage due to its market position and bargaining power, but why the heck is Zune Marketplace completely separate from the Xbox Live Marketplace? Why can't you get movies on Zune Marketplace from XBL's selection? Why is there no access to either from Windows Mobile? This solution is completely disjointed and can't match the monolithic iTunes Store spanning every Apple product.
If I were MS, I'd work on beating Apple at its own game-- have vertical integration, but also make use of MS' position in every market. I'd create a unified "Live Marketplace," which would have music downloads (ala Zune Marketplace), movie purchases/rentals (ala Xbox Live Marketplace), Xbox arcade games, Zune apps, and Windows Mobile apps, all together, with a connected desktop app (integrate store into WMP, Zune software). Being open platforms, you'd still be able to get content and apps onto Xbox/WM/etc. separately if you choose, but this way, consumers would have a real alternative to iTunes.
The idea would be to heavily market the Live Marketplace, and have the open choice element be how to access it (e.g. WM, Zune, Xbox, WMP, etc.).
| alcedes wrote: | | Since Apple expanded the iPhones capabilities with the 2.0 firmware the stability and responsive of some of the iPhone could be brought into question (it looks that the jail broken phones with the version 1.x firmware were more stable application platforms than the 2.0 firmware). I've experienced some of the software problems with an iPod touch that I upgraded last week such as needing to reboot before an OTA software purchase will install. The iPods never been jailbroken or hacked in any way. Let's hope the 2.1 firmware resolves these issues. |
I've been using an iPhone (first-gen) for the last six months or so, currently jailbroken on 2.0. It does have issues, some extremely critical and really unforgivable (e.g. currently there's a major bug in iTunes in which calendar syncing doesn't work, and it actually goes back and starts deleting appointments in Outlook/Exchange/iCal or making them "invisible.").
That said, OS X on the iPhone is a more stable OS than WinMo even on the most powerful devices. I used to chalk it down to WinMo being dragged down by its third-party apps, but I'm here running hundreds on apps on an iPhone (some through app store, some jailbroken), and it's been solid, for the most part.
I've been waiting for WM7 so I can switch back- I really hope the CE6 core improves WM stability and MS gives the team sufficient resources to match the iPhone in UI smoothness, media integration, usability, and ease of expansion (e.g. App Store). I'm still somewhat shocked that Apple seemingly caught MS by surprise-- it seems to me like Internet Explorer syndrome- MS didn't do much with IE until it started getting decimated in the market via Firefox, etc. Here, it's even more significant because MS is not the majority player.
It's interesting that a small company like Apple's been able to create such a broad platform for itself. With the Cocoa framework on the iPhone, it's arguably just as easy or easier for Mac developers to port software to the iPhone than it is for PC developers to port to WinMo. I'm a big fan of the .NET Framework, but WinMo runs the .NET Compact Framework -- a separate code base -- unlike the iPhone, which basically runs on the unified Apple framework. For the first time, Apple arguably has a broader end-to-end platform than Microsoft, with one single OS code base spanning every device from iPod Touches to iPhones, every Mac desktop, laptop, and server, and Apple TV - spanning three different architectures (x86, PowerPC, ARM). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OscarTheGrouch
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 21
Location: New England States
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| amb9800 wrote: | | The vast majority of consumers have no idea what Zune is-- they see all the iPod ads and then they see other, cheap MP3 players. |
I've had people refer to my Zune as an iPod. In Home Depot a few weeks ago some one looked at my WiMo phone and asked me "What type of iPhone is that!?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
virain
Joined: 23 Dec 2007
Posts: 124
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| amb9800 wrote: |
You may not care, and as a WM/PPC user for 4 years, I didn't care, but just look at what Apple's done. They've created a far smoother UI that beyond looking nice, works *intuitively*. Multitouch with pinch/spread makes sense for maps, browser, etc., whereas having to pull up a zoom menu and selecting an option is something <5% of users will actually do. Same for music, sure, you and I may prefer to manage our own music, but the vast majority of people need a better system.
|
Many WM apps offer to zoom in or zoom out just by tapping on a screen. So does iPhone. Pitching the screen in and out in iPhone is just a sales point, to attract customers, as it doesn't do anything more than that.
| amb9800 wrote: | | The main problem here is that to use WinMo effectively, you need to know how to use ActiveSync/WMDC, either to install apps (via the desktop) or to copy files to some folder on the phone. Very few WinMo users know how to do that. Why do most people think the iPhone App Store is an amazing new invention? Because they have no idea how to get programs onto their WM phones, while Apple's system is far more intuitive. MS ought to replicate the App Store, but in a more open way, allowing for third parties to put up installer sources (for free apps, etc.). |
For obvious reason I don't believe that you even owned WM device in the past 4 years. You don't need to know how to operate ActiveSync to install applications to WM device. In fact you don't need to have Active sync at all to do that. It is as simple as downloading .cab file from the web (Handango even has special WM App. to do that) and the rest WM do automatically, you just specify the location where you want it to be installed. And uploading Music even simpler using Windows media player or Media center. And of course while you connected to your PC with your WM device you can just drag and drop, or cut/paste (can you do that with iPhone) your media file and you will be notified if you want to convert that file to WM accessible format, click yes and you all done. So please, don't insult the intelligence of WM users![/quote]
| amb9800 wrote: |
They need to integrate the Zune marketplace because otherwise MS can't even dream of matching Apple in the consumer media realm. The average consumer will go buy a song or movie on iTunes on the PC, it'll sync to their iPhone, they'll access it on other computers via iTunes sharing, listen in the den via Apple TV, etc. On the MS side, Zune is compatible with nothing- how do you get content from it to other PCs, to your WM phone, to your Xbox 360? It's either impossible or way too complicated for most people. |
MSFT doesn't need to integrate anything as file sharing is well integrated here already. Why don't you try it? That is of course if you HAVE WM device!
| amb9800 wrote: | | The basic issue, again, is that we tech users might be fine with going through hoops and hurdles to get stuff done, and we appreciate an open platform with lots of features, but that gets you no market share. Consumer impact comes from technology that the average person can use. The average person can look at an iPhone and figure out how to use most of its features. The average person looks at a Windows Mobile phone and is scared of it. If forced to use one (e.g. many in business world), they will just use it as an email/contacts/calendar device. So to them, the iPhone looks a heck of a lot better. |
Again do not insult intelligence of WM users, or average person, for that matter! If you are intelligent enough to read, you can do all those things. Besides, even iPhone 2.0 using MS product to connect and manage email/contacts/calendar.
| amb9800 wrote: | | Windows Mobile Standard (non-touchscreen) is so bad that I can't believe it still exists. Even if you're used to normal WM, it's just horrendously obfuscated, the result of which is that most WM Standard users tend to do very little with their phones. WM's had market share only because the devices have been relatively cheap-- the AT&T-subsidized iPhone becomes a clearly superior choice for these people, with the same price and far more usable features. |
And that's why devices such as Samsung Black Jack, T-Mobile Dash were bestsellers!
| amb9800 wrote: | | Poor performance is not only because of hardware issues. I used to think it was the main reason WM phones are sluggish, which is certainly the case for the many phones running on <200 MHz TI chips, but even 624 MHz phones like the Samsung Omnia have slow, rough operation. By comparison, Apple achieves a far smoother and more stable system with a 400 MHz CPU (624 MHz chip, but clocked at 408-412 in all iPhones) with 128 MB RAM. It's not just because you can't multitask- a jailbroken iPhone with multiple apps in the background still runs more smoothly than the average WinMo device. MS needs a hardware-accelerated GUI, better memory management, and more intelligent multitasking support. |
It doesn't looks this way with iPhone 2.0, it seems catching up with WM in this department as well 
| amb9800 wrote: | | As for touch-friendly interfaces, again, I hope MS develops something intuitive. The iPhone's interface blends in multitouch and the accelerometer in ways that make sense- some of the 3rd party WM add-ons require strange, unnatural gestures, have inconsistent UIs, etc. and are thus no better than having a convoluted menu structure. |
I wonder what gestures that might be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
amb9800
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Posts: 91
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| virain wrote: | | Many WM apps offer to zoom in or zoom out just by tapping on a screen. So does iPhone. Pitching the screen in and out in iPhone is just a sales point, to attract customers, as it doesn't do anything more than that. |
It's not just a marketing point. Spend a couple days actually using an iPhone and you'll see what I mean. It's a consistent interface that makes sense. Give the phone to someone who's never used one before, and they'll naturally do that. It's how MS Surface and other systems work. Multi-touch gives you more flexibility than just double-tapping- and is better than a hidden zoom percentage menu somewhere.
| virain wrote: | | For obvious reason I don't believe that you even owned WM device in the past 4 years. You don't need to know how to operate ActiveSync to install applications to WM device. In fact you don't need to have Active sync at all to do that. It is as simple as downloading .cab file from the web (Handango even has special WM App. to do that) and the rest WM do automatically, you just specify the location where you want it to be installed. And uploading Music even simpler using Windows media player or Media center. And of course while you connected to your PC with your WM device you can just drag and drop, or cut/paste (can you do that with iPhone) your media file and you will be notified if you want to convert that file to WM accessible format, click yes and you all done. So please, don't insut the intelligence of WM users! |
Chances are I've been using WM phone for far longer than you-- since the Thera, which actually predated Pocket PC Phone Edition 2002. I've done a lot of development work for WM/CE platforms and know them very well.
You don't seem to know how file transfer on WM works. Unless you have third-party program installed (a couple of newer phones have one built in) that adds a USB Mass Storage Device driver mode, Windows Mobile phones cannot be accessed for drag-and-drop file exploring without ActiveSync or Windows Mobile Device Center installed.
I've dealt with hundreds of WM users in deploying apps, and I can tell you that only the tech-savvy tend to use the file explorer to copy stuff onto their device. Those few who use WM as a media device use WMP or other programs to sync music (not manual drag-and-drop). A small percentage know how to go online, find a program they want from some distributor, download the .cab file, and install (either by direct download via PIE or copy onto device from desktop).
WM acts as a small PC- with full file exploring, editing, etc. capabilities, and that's great for us power users. For the vast majority of buyers, however, Apple has a much simpler and more effective way of distributing apps and content to the iPhone.
Look at something like the web browser- sure, Opera Mobile is awesome and does a lot of stuff, but most WM users use Pocket IE and thus think WM can't access the full web. Only a small portion of WM users will go and buy/install an alternative browser. This explains why the iPhone, even with lesser numbers than WM, has orders of magnitude greater web traffic- most people don't know how to get that web experience on a WM device.
| virain wrote: | | MSFT doesn't need to integrate anything as file sharing is well integrated here already. Why don't you try it? That is of course if you HAVE WM device! |
You're really no better than the Apple fanboys-- Show me how I can get movies I buy or rent on an Xbox 360 to automatically sync to my Zune and Pocket PC to take them with me on the go. You can't. How can I get music and movie OTA downloads on a WM phone and then have them automatically sync to my PCs and Xbox? You can't.
For tech users who don't need legal downloads, you could, for example, set up a Torrent client on a WM phone, install CorePlayer to play the DivX files once they're downloaded, then get back and copy it to your PC, then use a program on-the-fly-transcoding and streaming via DLNA or WMS to an Xbox, but how many people will do that? And it's still not a legitimate way to do it.
| virain wrote: | | Again do not insult intelligence of WM users, or average person, for that matter! If you are intelligent enough to read, you can do all those things. Besides, even iPhone 2.0 using MS product to connect and manage email/contacts/calendar. |
You obviously haven't dealt with very many end users. Give the average person a WM phone and see what they do with it. I've seen far too many be used only as dumbphones with email and contacts. Whereas an average person with an iPhone 2.0 is using it for music and movies, email, 3rd party app downloads, etc. Microsoft has miserably failed to address the consumer, most of whom have never even heard of Windows Mobile.
Yes, iPhone 2.0 can connect to an Exchange Server, but I don't know what your point is?
| virain wrote: | | And that's why devices such as Samsung Black Jack, T-Mobile Dash were bestsellers! |
They were the cheapest entry points to get a smartphone with Exchange support. Otherwise, they're junk. They're inaccessible for the average person, and just as frustrating if you're used to a WinMo Pro (touchscreen) device or iPhone. The Dash, with its 195 MHz TI chip, is particularly bad. There's no chance these things can stand up in a market where a subsidized iPhone is going for $199.
| virain wrote: | | It doesn't looks this way with iPhone 2.0, it seems catching up with WM in this department as well |
Haha... have you actually used an iPhone with the 2.0 firmware or are you just going by some random article somewhere? I base my comments on daily use of both iPhone and WM platforms.
| virain wrote: | | I wonder what gestures that might be? |
Have you tried using HTC's "touch-friendly" photo apps, for example? The touch motions for doing things like zooming or rotating are non-obvious and non-intuitive. After experimenting with them for a bit, I was annoyed but could get stuff done-- but a quick toss to even an iPhone-touch-experience average user was pretty bad. Things like TouchFlo 3D are cool and do have some nice touch-friendly elements, but there's only so much smoothness you can achieve with a non-accelerated GUI, and more so, the Windows 3.1-like UI underneath always pops-up at some point or another. WM obviously needs a serious UI overhaul (WM6.1's UI is only trivially different from Pocket PC 2002), and hopefully WM7 will bring that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
