Slashdot Mirror
Does Microsoft Finally Have a Phone Worth Buying?
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has finally shown 'Windows Phone 7 Series' and it's supposed to be a completely new smartphone OS. A phone from Microsoft to get excited about that is going to work properly and take on the iPhone's world domination? "
Iphone world domination?
I don't know what world is being referred here, probably the marketing and fairy tale world. Last time I checked, Apple was a marginal player in the real world (i.e., not some particular geography or some fashionable pundits).
In the real world, Nokia might be the one to talk about, but even so, its share is far from "world domination"
There are still a lot of questions to be answered, before I can say if I like it or not... Does it support multitasking? How are notifications handled? How efficient is the down-scrolling action compared to the sideways swipe in a real world usage? How would apps look with this spill-over-the-side text philosophy? I agree that the fact that they have started completely from scratch is rather exciting, and also the minimalist design approach is rather bold, but until the above questions are answered it is hard to tell if this will end the "iPhone Domination"
Regards, Boyan
One reason why the iPhone is such a phenomenal phone is that the user interface permeates everything. Not just the immediate application screen or the app transitions, but at a fundamental level there is a symmetry and orthogonality of conceptualization that leads to a seamless user experience.
While that might sound like marketing gobbledygook, compare the Toshiba T-1 to the iPhone. Both have very cool initial user interfaces. In fact, the Toshiba (WinMo6.x) has a more interesting interface in that it changes to meet the user's needs without hardly any user input. However, once you dig past the first interface, it becomes clear that the WinMo phone is the same old WinMo crap underneath. There is no good widget set, there is no clear UI design guideline, and there is no good way to develop an app that doesn't end up feeling like a clunky mess. The iPhone, on the other hand, has a widget set that is reusable and has intuitive usage, there are very clear design guidelines, and most of all there are real artists who want to make apps for the platform.
If WinMo7 can break the Windows Mobile mold and really create something that provides a cohesive user interaction concept, then we may see a WinMo8. Otherwise, it may be the end of the road for this OS.
I hate it when someone quotes "US market share" as "market share" with the fire of 1000 suns.
As a complete Apple fanboi, and one who owns 3 macs and swears by his iPod Touch (I don't like AT&T), I've got to say, that thing looks like it has a really nice interface. Kudos to MS, just from glancing at it (and not having played with it) it looks like the interface could be nicer than both the iPhone OS and Android. If this came out for my cell carrier I would have a tough time deciding between it and an Nexus One. I use Windows 7 at work and have enjoyed it (mostly because MS copied so many of things I prefer about the Mac interface onto Win7, it isn't OS X yet, but getting closer) and I'm willing to keep an open mind about this.
Even if Windows Phone 7 (or whatever cute name marketing comes up with) is the best thing since sliced bread, Apple and Google will continue to release three software versions for Microsoft's one, ensuring that MS will once again be left in the dust.
You have to wonder why MS continues to try their hand in areas where has no advantage -- or clue, really. The best engineers on the planet can't win in the face of poor management and squabbling VPs.
Ballmer's arrogance knows no bounds.
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
This is a serious step 1 here. I have had several Windows Mobile phones in the past. What sold me on the iPhone was that I could hear the phone ring, and actually receive the call. With Windows Mobile, more often than not, I would get the call.. go to answer... phone locks up... reboot phone... call person back. FAIL on the basic UI of the phone. The other features would work well... just often found myself rebooting the phone when it came time to get a call.
Has anyone posted this video of the interface yet?
http://www.windowsphone7series.com/multimedia/Media2
I hope they keep the UI design team that put this together. It's a refreshing change from the escalating UI-candy wars.
Perfect. Can I run it on my vaporware iPad?
You are welcome on my lawn.
No goofy shading and transitions? Simple design? No backgrounds?
This has promise. I'm a "black screen wallpaper" guy, and until Windows 7 I used the "classic" look in windows (I'm still considering switching back, as the whole translucent thing is more a distraction than anything else).
What I want is a finger-operable OS that allows quick access to all my programs (and easy program switching), is finger operable, makes scrolling and web browsing easy (I've yet to see a browser that can reliably determine the difference in a small swipe vs a click), is finger controllable, and allows customizable parameters for most actions (when to ring, when not to, when to wake, when to sleep, when to check email, etc.), and - most importantly - is finger controllable.
I know that there are lots of people who want a PDA instead of a phone, and prefer using a stylus. Really - it's a phenomenal annoyance to have to pull out a stylus for practically every operation because the icons are the size of a piece of glitter. It's nice to see that they might be moving into the 21st century with their UI.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Whether a person likes Microsoft or not [...] they are late to the phone game.
Microsoft's first OS for smartphones (Pocket PC 2002) was release in October 2001, that's over 5 years before Apple and a full 7 years before Google's foray into the mobile platform. You can say a lot, mostly bad, about it, but MS has been at this longer than those two companies put together.
Everyone and their mom aleardy had a phone when the iPhones came out, too, it didn't keep Apple from selling 34 million of them and making hundreds of millions in the process.
That's why xda-developers has been in a "can't live without them" state as far as Microsoft and HTC go - MS and HTC have grounds to sue or C&D the people at XDA-Developers, but have decided not to because of the fact that a large portion of their customer base uses cooked ROMs for just the reason you describe - the vendors (AT&T, Verizon, etc.) have a bad habit of bloatwaring the phones.
The hardware vendors (such as HTC) usually do a good problem - it's the carriers that screw the users over with crap releases.
As to "Does Microsoft finally have a phone worth buying?" - they did years ago. Strangely enough, until the advent of Android, Microsoft actually had one of the more "open" phone OSes. iPhone development is heavily locked down, most of the other Linux-based handset efforts were either nonstarters or HEAVILY Tivoized, Blackberries can only be developed for in Java as far as I can tell.
Yes, I'm a pretty avid Linux user on the desktop, but for business/geek users, Windows Mobile is currently where it's at unless you are willing to deal with Verizon. (I'm not, and I won't go with T-Mobile because I'd actually like to use my phone within 20 miles of work/home.)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Yes, especially when it comes to smartphones, where the US generally lags about two years behind.
Until you can buy one at the store, it's another piece of vaporware from Microsoft.
Actually no. It will remain vaporware even when it's on sale. Microsoft marketing is that good.
You're putting words in his mouth. He said he didn't like Microsoft; he said he was using BSD. He didn't say he was using BSD because of Microsoft. It's sad that you would be so defensive that you have to read it another way.
That's only because he left out some words: "... at a fundamental level there is a symmetry and orthogonality of conceptualization that leads to a seamless user experience to empower the core business for enterprise synergy and a strong paradigm shift."
Now, instead of burning, you fell asleep, right?
Until you can buy one at the store, it's another piece of vaporware from Microsoft.
Exactly. I liked how we never talked about the iPad before you could buy it for instance.
Vista isn't vapor. It's cement, mixed with lead and uranium. It's as real and as nimble as a glacier. I've seen tar pits that seem more fluid than a computer running Vista. Whatever it is, Vista is NOT vapor.
Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
Actually, I've never seen a BSOD on a WinMo phone. In my experience it's usually a direct reboot or a simple freeze...
Until you can buy one at the store, it's another piece of vaporware from Microsoft.
Exactly. I liked how we never talked about the iPad before you could buy it for instance.
Except one company (Apple) has a history of delivering what they promise, and another (Microsoft) does not. It's not about a general rule of "we don't discuss product announcements", it's a general rule of "Microsoft announces things, then only occasionally delivers them"
But it becomes a bit ironic when the big example of recent MS vaporware used by other posters right here in this thread is how MS dropped WinFS from Vista. Which is exactly matched by how Apple dropped ZFS from OSX ;) http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=584
Pedantic-- Apple never announced ZFS for OS X. Some people at Sun mentioned that Apple was looking at ZFS, and Disk Utility had an undocumented facility for mounting ZFS drives as read-only, which had the effect of feulling a lot of speculation, but at no time did Apple ever announce that they were going to use or support ZFS.
This is different from the WinFS case, since MS had been putting WinFS in its product literature and presentations up until the Longhorn reboot. Apple fanboy rumors != Apple announcement.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Learn your history. Apple NEVER announced ZFS for OS X.
if so, they sure fooled the media to think they did at the time.. ZDNET: "Apple announces ZFS on Snow Leopard". http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=335&tag=col1;post-584
and even Apples own web site editors where apparently fooled to think so.. from ars technica "Up until Monday's WWDC keynote, the preview page for Snow Leopard Server specifically referred to ZFS support as one of its key features!" (as per story this web site info purged by Apple) http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/06/apple-dashes-hopes-for-zfs-support-in-snow-leopard.ars
Pedantic-- Apple never announced ZFS for OS X
More pedantic: Yes they did. Apple had ZFS touted as a feature for OS X 10.6 until a couple of months before 10.6 shipped... without ZFS. Archive.org doesn't seem to have recent caches of Apple's web page, but the Google cache has this. For those who can't be bothered to click on the link:
For business-critical server deployments, Snow Leopard Server adds read and write support for the high-performance, 128-bit ZFS file system, which includes advanced features such as storage pooling, data redundancy, automatic error correction, dynamic volume expansion, and snapshots.
They did have an entire page explaining why ZFS was great, but I couldn't find it in ten seconds of looking through the Google cache.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News