Slashdot Mirror


Windows Phones Getting Buried At Carriers' Stores

tripleevenfall sends in a PCMag story about how Microsoft's problems in driving Windows Phone 7 adoption stem in part from how the phones are represented to customers in carriers' stores. Quoting: "At AT&T, the salesperson was a recent iPhone to Android convert. She was enthusiastic about WP7 devices, saying that Netflix was on WP7 and not available on her Android, and looked embarrassed when she walked me over to AT&T's unkempt WP7 display shelf. ... At a Verizon reseller kiosk, a salesman clearly tried to deter me from buying a WP7 device altogether. Not only did not he appear to know the fundamental difference between Windows Mobile and WP7, his kiosk didn't even offer WP7 devices and said you'd only find WP7 demo products at a few of Verizon's big retail stores. 'Honestly, only 1 out of 500 customers comes in here asking for a Windows phone,' he said. 'Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks until it performs better on the market.'"

412 comments

  1. Ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thanks for letting us know?

    1. Re:Ok... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thanks for letting us know?

      I'm sure they were just trying to make us aware that it's going to be hard for Win Phone 7 to trounce the iPhone by 2015 if the carriers keep hiding it under the rotting corpse.

    2. Re:Ok... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Funny

      IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

      These are the best devices in the entire Youniverse. They have the look and functionality of Tandy Deskmate, paired with the savvy charisma that you've come to associate with Ballmer!

      If Verizon didn't keep these things DOWN, you would be able to keep them UP!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:Ok... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      MS at one point was good at copying ideas from the competition, and rolling them out fast. WP7, not so much. Until you see feature parity between Droid/iPhone/WP7 they're going to have a ways to go.

      Now, to be fair to MS, they seem to be plodding along, there seems to be some, as yet undisclosed, strategy here for next year, or I would have expected Nokia to have a WP7 out the door already. That or they're both grossly incompetent, which is highly likely at this point, but either way, I'm guessing the big Windows phone push from MS and the manufacturers is going to be next year rather than this.

    4. Re:Ok... by the+linux+geek · · Score: 2

      Mango addresses probably 90% of the disparity between WP7 and Android. The question is whether Microsoft can get it out on time and with compelling devices.

    5. Re:Ok... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I suspect that the other question is whether carriers really want it to succeed.

      From the perspective of carrier control, strong platforms controlled by 3rd parties are not really a good thing. The cat is out of the bag with Apple at this point, so they just have to suck that up and hope for an exclusive; but Android is already there as a reasonably compelling second option, and under licensing terms that allow Google to exercise some control over their blessed flagship devices; but which don't preclude carriers from making the second tier their playground, complete with shitty pre-installs, proprietary app-stores, etc.

      WP7 is more broadly available than iOS, because it is licensed to multiple hardware OEMs; but it is rather more closely held than android, and much less open to being carrierized. Now that Verizon, for instance, has the ability to sell iPhones, along with their own pet line of android devices under the 'Droid' trademark, they don't necessarily want WP7 to succeed. What's in it for them?

    6. Re:Ok... by base3 · · Score: 1

      God, I wish I had points so I could mod you up for that Tandy Deskmate reference :).

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    7. Re:Ok... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      It's the same problem as the desktop OS question: What should the OS do? For years the debate was whether or not it should even a have a front end GUI for lots of tasks (that does slow it down after all). But at some point an OS is just a tool to launch and facilitate applications. On a device like a phone you need to bake in some phone software to go with it. But really, how much do you want the OS to do?

      Reaching feature parity with what the operating system itself (and the relevant bundled tools) does shouldn't be that much of a jump for MS. Apparently it is, but it shouldn't be.

    8. Re:Ok... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I think that the media should help Microsoft out some. Publicize some good old fashioned BSOD's so that people start feeling nostalgic for Windows.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    9. Re:Ok... by mr_lizard13 · · Score: 1

      Never mind about all that. When will Duke Nukem Forever be available for WP7?

      Soon right? I mean, how hard can it be?

      --
      "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
    10. Re:Ok... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Mango addresses probably 90% of the disparity between WP7 and Android.

      In terms of core features, maybe, and even then I'd probably disagree (where's my tethering? where's the ability for apps to communicate other than through the "cloud"?).

      In terms of apps, it's still very lackluster. This is largely thanks to the inability to port existing C/C++ code from other platforms.

      Then, of course, it's not like Android (and iOS) are static. While WP7 is catching up, they move ahead even further.

    11. Re:Ok... by uberjack · · Score: 1

      Mango is the next iteration of Windows Phone

    12. Re:Ok... by petman · · Score: 0

      Mango's a fruit, like Apple.

    13. Re:Ok... by Hylandr · · Score: 2

      Everyone seems to be missing the fact that Microsoft is Buying Skype. Bundle Skype with an internet enabled portable device and you can cut the phone carriers out quite significantly. Free texting, calls between Windows devices internationally.

      I could think of more but I wouldn't be surprised. Then again, Our windows 7 machines have started getting calls from "windows help". hrm...

      - Dan.
       

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    14. Re:Ok... by Goaway · · Score: 1

      And who is going to enable the internet on that portable device?

    15. Re:Ok... by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      Mango delivers last years Android features 6 months from now. I guess it's interesting for nostalgic value. Of course, by that time, Android and iOS will have lept past them yet again. It's a losing battle for MS. They're just too late. Better luck next round.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    16. Re:Ok... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      You're more delusional than I am if you think the phone carriers will allow VOIP to replace their calling service on their cell networks. And I can see multiple mermaids fellating me at the moment, so...

    17. Re:Ok... by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      I promise I'm not a microsoft plant, but, this far in to the game it's going to take some serious marketing muscle and simply attrition to break in to the consumer smartphone mindspace. Long term, consumers are going to increasingly ditch desktops for mobile consumer devices like tablets, laptops and smartphones. Microsoft is very weak in these markets. Someone finally got the smart idea to do a ground-up rebuild of their consumer mobile device OS, and tie it in with their desktop OS (win 8).
       
      Expect failure. A lot.
       
      But in the long game, Microsoft seems to have a winning strategy of providing a similar, united experience with their phone, mobile and desktop products. It's fuzzy to see from here, but in 2-3 years I can see them gaining some marketshare and mindspace. Not a lot, mind you, but it's likely they'll eek out a profit, or at least use it to prop up their desktop/enterprise buisness for another decade.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    18. Re:Ok... by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      That's a fair question. But the facts remain. I am certainly interested in how this plays out.

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    19. Re:Ok... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Everyone seems to be missing the fact that Microsoft is Buying Skype. Bundle Skype with an internet enabled portable device and you can cut the phone carriers out quite significantly. Free texting, calls between Windows devices internationally.

      I could think of more but I wouldn't be surprised. Then again, Our windows 7 machines have started getting calls from "windows help". hrm...

      - Dan.

      They still have to get the Carriers to agree to it, at least away from WiFi.

      And BTW, Skype already allows free VOIP calls from "computer to computer", doesn't it? Full disclosure: I think Skype sucks, quality-wise. Like MagicJack, it is a barely-useable, barely full-duplex, telephone-like system. Every time somone calls me via Skype or MagicJack, it is an absolute chore to attempt to carry on a conversation. SEVERE dropouts, "gargling", highly-regenerative echo effects, call drops. It seems that every bad sci-fi "poor sub-space communication" effect is paraded by. Everything but clear, understandable communication. That stands in stark contrast with my Vonage service. It is simply indistinguishable from POTS quality. In fact, it is probably better fidelity. Yes, it isn't free; but dammit, if I want to run my voice through some digital FX, I'll go play with some ProTools plugins! It's not like 3 kHz is a bunch of bandwidth...

    20. Re:Ok... by macs4all · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Mango?
      WTF are you talking about?

      He was trying to type "Apple", but was drunk and typed "Mango" instead... ;-)

    21. Re:Ok... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Mango's a fruit, like Apple.

      Curiously not, if you live in the midwest of the U.S. There, "Mango" is what some people call a Green Bell Pepper.

      I never understood it either, and I'm from Indiana.

    22. Re:Ok... by macs4all · · Score: 0

      Mango delivers last years Android features 6 months from now. I guess it's interesting for nostalgic value. Of course, by that time, Android and iOS will have lept past them yet again. It's a losing battle for MS. They're just too late. Better luck next round.

      Yes, yes. We all know just HOW innovative Android is...

      [Rollseyes]

    23. Re:Ok... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      I promise I'm not a microsoft plant, but, this far in to the game it's going to take some serious marketing muscle and simply attrition to break in to the consumer smartphone mindspace. Long term, consumers are going to increasingly ditch desktops for mobile consumer devices like tablets, laptops and smartphones. Microsoft is very weak in these markets. Someone finally got the smart idea to do a ground-up rebuild of their consumer mobile device OS, and tie it in with their desktop OS (win 8). Expect failure. A lot. But in the long game, Microsoft seems to have a winning strategy of providing a similar, united experience with their phone, mobile and desktop products.

      But by then, Apple, who is seriously laying the groundwork for exactly that in Lion (which ships in July), will be close to iOS 6 (or whatever it will be called), and will be similarly far along on Ocelot (or whatever big cat is next).

    24. Re:Ok... by iiiears · · Score: 1

      Does it mean anything that the interface is slightly different on each android phone? I think Microsoft's focus on backwards compatibility is also a plus. Will China upset the balance when they produce their own chips? Dragon chips?

      --
      15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
    25. Re:Ok... by 21mhz · · Score: 1

      I guess you are already unhappy with your last year phone's features and want a completely new set of features 6 months from now. Other users... may just want a decently working smartphone with navigation and camera.
      And hey, except new apps, I haven't heard of any major leaps in functionality over the past year in the iOS land.

      --
      My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
    26. Re:Ok... by richardablitt · · Score: 1

      In the UK, 3 already make Skype available on all of there phones and has free skype-skype calls as one of their selling points.

    27. Re:Ok... by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      That sounds like a good reason for the carriers to do everything in their power to make WP7 fail...

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    28. Re:Ok... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      My first computer was a Tandy Deskmate, you insensitive clod!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    29. Re:Ok... by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      > You're more delusional than I am if you think the phone carriers will allow VOIP to replace their calling service on their cell networks.

      Maybe I've been a Sprint customer with "Unlimited Everything" service for too long, but honestly, why would a carrier like Sprint even *care* if you wanted to use Skype for voice calls if, as a practical matter, their incremental profit from one minute of voice call use from 99.999% of their customers is negative (because the customer already paid for 450 or unlimited airtime minutes between 7am and 7pm, and each actual minute of voice-call time made to a phone on a different network requires payment of termination fees by Sprint)?

      If anything, a carrier like Sprint would stand to benefit financially by PARTNERING with Skype and selling them a few bits of the control data that gets sent every time the phone polls the tower for incoming calls or text messages, so Skype could THEN politely sleep in the background and wait to be told there's an incoming call (by Sprint) instead of having to actively poll for it on top of the phone's existing activity.

    30. Re:Ok... by oakgrove · · Score: 1
      *yawn*

      We steal great ideas shamelessly. --Steve Jobs

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    31. Re:Ok... by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      Is this the latest party line from the luddite contingent? Well, I for one just don't see any reason to be stuck in the past with windows phone when I can be on the cutting edge with Android. Quaint notion, though it may be.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    32. Re:Ok... by AmigaBen · · Score: 1

      Focus on backwards compatibility? They *dropped compatibility* and the ability to install from anwhere. What are you talking about?

      --
      +5 Insightful, really!
    33. Re:Ok... by a-yz · · Score: 1

      I suspect Microsoft is putting more resources into the post Mango period than anything happening right now. It would be a smart move, given limited resources. After all, the benefits of the Nokia deal combined with the exposure of the Metro (like?) interface in Windows 8 and the much improved user experience from the Mango update for the phone will all happen in conjunction with each other probably next year. There will be a significant synergy then that doesn't exist now, and Microsoft can afford to wait it out to take advantage of that leverage so they probably are.

    34. Re:Ok... by a-yz · · Score: 2

      "What's in it for them?"

      Profit.

      Smart phones eat bandwidth, phone carriers sell bandwidth.

    35. Re:Ok... by a-yz · · Score: 1

      "In terms of core features, maybe, and even then I'd probably disagree (where's my tethering? where's the ability for apps to communicate other than through the 'cloud'?)."

      The Mango update will support sockets. Currently Windows Phone 7 supports http, and does not need to go through any cloud services to communicate to the web or any generic web service. Tethering is another issue, probably won't be part of the Mango update, and is driven more by carriers than anything. Even android's tethering is under pressure from the carriers:

      http://www.pcworld.com/article/226905/android_tethering_free_ride_is_over.html

      "In terms of apps, it's still very lackluster. This is largely thanks to the inability to port existing C/C++ code from other platforms"

      Apps for smartphones are usually written from scratch in their own native environments. No porting occurs from non-smartphone c/c++ environments for almost all smartphone apps.

      "Then, of course, it's not like Android (and iOS) are static. While WP7 is catching up, they move ahead even further."

      There is a certain subset of features which provide most of what most people want from a smartphone. Mango will provide most of that, and it's unlikely that anything revolutionary will be thrown into the ring on other smartphone environments any time soon. Some would say that the development environment for Windows Phone 7 is a feature which gives it an edge in the long run. It's surprisingly elegant compared to it's competitors.

    36. Re:Ok... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The Mango update will support sockets. Currently Windows Phone 7 supports http, and does not need to go through any cloud services to communicate to the web or any generic web service. Tethering is another issue, probably won't be part of the Mango update, and is driven more by carriers than anything. Even android's tethering is under pressure from the carriers

      True, but nonetheless, all Android phones with 2.2+ (whether stock or modded by phone manufacturer) have tethering built in. So far, cell operators have stripped that functionality from phones they sell, and the purge in the Market is just an extension of that. But I don't have to buy an Android phone from operators (or at least from those of them which block tethering apps - they show up on T-Mobile phones, for example), and even if I do, I can sideload a tethering app.

      Apps for smartphones are usually written from scratch in their own native environments. No porting occurs from non-smartphone c/c++ environments for almost all smartphone apps.

      For starters, I was talking about porting from smartphone C/C++ environments, since we already have plenty (iPhone, and a good chunk of Android market, esp. games).

      Furthermore, even that aside, it depends on the kinds of apps. The simple $0.99-priced ones, yeah, those are written from scratch. For more interesting stuff, the UI layer usually is, but they often use C/C++ libraries to implement various protocols and other functionality. To give a specific example: on Android, there are many apps that permit you to browse SMB/CIFS shares on the network. All of them do so by including Samba as a library.

      Furthermore, even the ability to port .NET libraries is limited, since WP7 does not support so much stuff (e.g. no Reflection.Emit / DynamicMethod / Expression.Compile).

      Some would say that the development environment for Windows Phone 7 is a feature which gives it an edge in the long run. It's surprisingly elegant compared to it's competitors.

      Do you mean VS? Yes, I'd much prefer that to Eclipse to develop for my phone, but it boils down to the same thing - I'll take a slow, inconvenient IDE for a platform where I can implement what I want over a nice and sleek one where I can't.

      Also, there are some things about WP right now that few people are aware of, but when you run into them, they can be a major deal breaker. Did you know that if you move to a different country, you'll need a new Live ID for your phone, with no ability to transfer any purchases (apps etc) from the old ID?

    37. Re:Ok... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Awww.
      Now Microsoft knows how the other 5% of PC owners felt the last 20 years. I mean try to get Mac software, and is behind the door matked beware of the Leopard...

      On the otherhand it was a long time before ATT stores kept more than one iPhone out... But that was because they couldn't beat customers away from them with a stick an ATT got slightly less profit than the other phones.

      That's life in retail kids.. Somebody doesn't think retail design is FAIR do they?

    38. Re:Ok... by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      Which brings us back to the beginning topic of this thread.

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    39. Re:Ok... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      And I can see multiple mermaids fellating me at the moment, so...

      Are you telling me that you had your dick cut in half lengthwise but left attached and (partly) plumbed up because you got a Windows7 Phone?

      Wow, I think M$ must be trying to erase the memory of Bob by building up for an even bigger marketing disaster. I'm (almost) impressed.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    40. Re:Ok... by 21mhz · · Score: 1

      So cutting edge means "doing pretty much the same shit as everybody else, only with Android"? I knew it must be some subjective advantage.

      --
      My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
    41. Re:Ok... by oakgrove · · Score: 1
      Do your own research but there are many powerful api's that exist on Android that have no analog on windows phone. To get you started though:
      • True multi-tasking where apps can be running at the same time as other apps
      • Customizability of the home screen and panels
      • Google services integration with Voice, Listen, Search, Gmail, and Maps
      • Full access to the directory structure on the device
      • WiFi Hotspot tethering capability
      • Widgets for things such as wireless connection management
      • Swype text entry keyboard
      • Screenshot taking ability
      • Statusbar to see wi-fi signal/battery at a glance
      • Faster Browser
      • Better notifications.

      Windows Phone 7 is slick but as a daily driver, Android is just better.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    42. Re:Ok... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Do they let you not pay for voice calls on those phones? Didn't think so.

      Try working on those reading comprehension skills. Start with the meaning of the word 'replace.' I did not say that they wouldn't let you make voip calls. I said they wouldn't let you replace their phone calling service with voip, meaning they won't decouple calling plans from data plans in anyway that would save you money.

  2. Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by kimvette · · Score: 3, Interesting

    'Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks until it performs better on the market. . .'

    . . . and it won't perform better on the market until agents have it in their hands to offer customers. Catch-22 anyone?

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Its funny to see MS getting the short end of the monopoly stick. Just deserts.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by imamac · · Score: 2

      So it's Verizon's job to advertise for MS? I think not.

    3. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      'Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks until it performs better on the market. . .'

      . . . and it won't perform better on the market until agents have it in their hands to offer customers. Catch-22 anyone?

      It's not just the kiosks I was at the Verizon website a few weeks back and I simply couldn't pull up a Windows 7 phone. I could pull up older Windows Mobile devices but not WinPho7 I could Google all sorts of shit about them being available for Verizon but no Windows 7 product to be found. I check now and I see that I have 2 options, but hey I guess it's only been like 3 months since they launched for the carrier.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    4. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Gerald · · Score: 4, Insightful

      'Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks until it performs better on the market. . .'

      . . . and it won't perform better on the market until agents have it in their hands to offer customers. Catch-22 anyone?

      ...unless Microsoft is desperate enough to pay Verizon to promote WP7. For Verizon it's not a Catch-22. It's a catch-several-million-dollars-by-doing-nothing.

    5. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by ZamesC · · Score: 1

      Um... It's Verizon's job to advertise the products IT IS SELLING! The hardware manufacturers & the carriers (thru long-term contracts) are make way more off WP7 sales than MS is.

    6. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be so simplistic. They've read the tea leaves. They've done the market research. They've done the focus groups. They know that customers just aren't interested. They're not idiots.

    7. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by idontgno · · Score: 2

      That's what it is. Verizon's holding out for some of that world-famous Microsoft marketing largess. It worked for Nokia, didn't it? Why shouldn't a provider/vendor get some?

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    8. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree. If Verizon saw an opportunity to make money on WP7 they would be pushing it, it isn't Verizon's fault that Microsoft's mobile products have a horrible reputation to shed, and that will take some time. Anyone remember the Q? I still am scarred by the experience I had with that phone. With Android and IOS out there I don't see a reason to even try WP7, and anecdotal evidence suggests that is a good idea (a friend of mine has to re-boot her new phone two or three times a day). So yeah, there is no reason for Verizon to push Microsoft's products, they were burned as bad by the Q as any of us users when ATT released the first iPhone, and that is just one example.

    9. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by tripleevenfall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the Verizon rep's job is to get a subscription, matching the customer with a device that most closely meets their needs and makes them want to buy. Their job is not to push particular handsets off onto consumers in the same proportions as they have them in stock.

      Since no one comes into a store asking for a Windows phone handset, what is there that would make someone recommend it to a customer? At this point, nothing.

    10. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Threni · · Score: 1

      Maybe but who cares? It's not the retailers job to flog a shitty platform no-one wants (or asked for). The ads in the UK try and make the ability to use Office outside the office a selling point. Who the fuck wants to use Microsoft Office on their phone? Precisely no-one at all. They just don't get why people use smartphones.

    11. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by v1 · · Score: 1

      I'm more inclined to trust Verizon knows more about making money selling cell phones than MS does. (and Verizon has a vested interest in making money selling contracts, not Windows phones) It would be interesting to see what sort of margin comparison there is between the phones they sell.

      But then, MS is very well known to use their fat wallet to bankroll/subsidize new products to try to make up for them being late to market. It used to work well. Not so much anymore. I'd be surprised if MS wasn't practically giving them away just to get their club-foot in the door. If they're not doing that, it would explain why Verizon isn't pushing them.

      It must just irritate the hell out of microsoft to not be able to bully the cell phone carriers like they would have done in the past in any new market, to tell them when to jump and how high.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    12. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by robertl234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The product that Verizon is selling is a monthly data plan contract. It doesn't matter what the phone attached to it is.

    13. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not really. Microsoft has advertised them all over the place. I have seen them at AT&T and Verizon stores. kiosks almost never even have phones they have those stupid cheap fake phones with pictures for screens.
      Windows Phone 7 is feature incomplete. Mango when it get here will bring WP7 up the the same standard as teh current iPhone and Android handsets but that is still not till fall.
      Also Windows Phones is the past where enterprise devices while WP7 is less enterprise ready than Android and iPhone. They have no buzz and no real interest.
      If Mango was out today they would be pretty interesting devices. They have some really good games and Zune Pass sounds like a killer deal. Oh and microsoft doesn't push ZunePass as a feature. The Xbox integration is at best okay IMHO but some people will love the little rewards.
      So there you have it.
      WP7 is flopping because the old market for Microsoft phones was the enterprise users and WP7 abandoned them.
      The the target market remembers Microsoft as a business phone.
      The tech writers and phone fans are all saying "It is cool but is missing a ton of features." So they are all excited about Mango and Nokia but that is in the future so the local tech experts are all saying get an Android or an iPhone today and look at WP7 when it comes out.
      And the WP7 phones are no carriers hero device. AT&T made the iPhone their hero device for a long time. Verizon pushed the Droid line to compete with the iPhone and now they have an iPhone. TMobile was the launch carrier for Android and is still an Android fan. Sprint first tried to make the Palm Pre their iPhone killer and when that didn't work out because of the bad, half baked sdk and being feature incomplete "like WP7 is now" they went to Android and made the Evo 4g their hero device.
      So no carrier is going to risk their hero device budget on a WP7 device today.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    14. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by thaig · · Score: 4, Funny

      How can you say that? It's so cruel to poor little MS - getting shoved around by the big boys! :-( I want to join a "help MS defeat the system" society - do you know if there is one yet?

      --
      This is all just my personal opinion.
    15. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Kjella · · Score: 1

      That's the theory, yes. But when you factor in things like "How much kickback do we get for selling your phones?" that picture changes. A lot.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    16. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's called trying to get your product into a market where other players have very deep penetration. Microsoft should be familiar with this, it's had the same problem trying to create a web presence that anyone gives a shit about.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    17. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a little sad, really. Microsoft finally brought a phone to market that's on par with the other offerings. But now it's years too late. There are 3 kinds of smartphone that do 99.999% of what you want. Well, not us, but real people.

      But two of them are the ones that people buy and one isn't. They're never going to overcome that without a handful of "better than" features. Which they just haven't got. Exchange support would have been a good peg to hang their hat on (feature-wise), but they had to license out good, working support to the other guys, to fill the void they left in the market. After a few years you start damaging Exchange in the hopes of eventually bringing your own client solution to market.

      And so now there's nothing. They're going to try integration with the xbox, but that's a hard sell as a must-have feature. What else is left?

    18. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Crap. I've already commented, so I can't moderate.

      +1 On Fscking Point.

      Verizon cheerfully gives away craptacular feature phones. They don't need to barely make money (lose money?) on a Win 7P smartphone if they can get you on the same steady per-month wallet drain with something else. They sell other smartphones because people already know to ask for them.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    19. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by elashish14 · · Score: 1

      Now we see how Microsoft products compete when they don't have all those corrupt deals that made Windows so dominant. Sure, they have Nokia, but they need an alliance with a carrier too. Makes you wonder how much better off we'd be in the computing world if Windows never happened.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    20. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Altus · · Score: 2

      No kidding. Is anyone here naive enough to believe that Verizon isn't going to give the most highly demanded phones priority over the phones that nobody cares about? Does anyone here really think they don't put some effort into figuring out which ones are popular. If everyone was going to these kiosks and asking about Windows phones then they would quickly be supplied with windows phones.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    21. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      That's what happens to everybody who is late in the market. It's a struggle to get started.

    22. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      A good many purchases of this kind are going to be made by people who saw their friend/relative/co-worker with a smartphone of some type. Since iPhones and Androids dominate the market, when people are discussing which item to buy with the rep, the first thing the potential buyer is going to say is "I want an iPhone/Nexus just like my best friend Bob." At the point, as you point out, the rep, if he's any kind of salesman, is going to go where the customer is leading, and not just sort of randomly insert a product the customer has not expressed any interest in. You want to make a sale, period.

      If the customer comes in and doesn't know at all what he or she is looking for, that's an avenue to review the whole line of products, but I have a feeling that's pretty rare. I suspect it's more like my above example. My wife is looking for an iPhone, and I sort of casually mentioned that there were some good Android-based phones out there, but her response was "No, I want the iPhone, the one I saw so-and-so using".

      I wish Microsoft luck in trying to get these phones sold. I'm not convinced they can do it. I think Apple and Google are going to be chewing on each other, and Microsoft is going to be perpetually some distant third. That is, until the manufacturers say "fuck it" and just stop producing phones that no one wants to or can sell.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    23. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Even where subsidizing has worked, it hasn't always worked. Sure, Microsoft has made huge penetration in the game console market, but has that division ever actually turned a profit?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    24. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1

      Both Apple and Google were able to solve this problem. Mostly, by not sucking. Also, acknowledging that they would have to compete.

      MS is not used to having to compete (except perhaps in consoles), and there's no sense that they know how now. Ballmer was sent a message by the shareholders that he apparently didn't receive; he's either going to get scrappy, or get out. I'm betting on the latter.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    25. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by snowraver1 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You joke, but I'd rather live in a Microsoft world than an Apple world.

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    26. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by oever · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But you don't have to live in either. There's a whole life out there where you do not need them.

      --
      DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
    27. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The enterprise mobile market is pretty well served by existing players. Blackberry has BES, which is a steaming chunk of shit to be sure, but still works pretty damned well to link Exchange and their phones. iPhones and Androids all do a decent job of gaining access to Microsoft's enterprise offerings. I was watching a lady a month ago editing an Excel spreadsheet on her iPad at a conference I was at, and that's when it hit me. Anybody who is looking for access to email, schedules and documents based in Microsoft platforms can already do it. The existing players have put a helluva lot of effort into making sure they can. Microsoft's worst nightmare is coming to pass with this, and watching their new mobile offerings sitting in boxes while every manner of iPhone and Android flies off the shelf must be absolutely terrifying for them.

      As is pointed out, guys like Verizon don't give a shit. They're selling data plans and air time. Maybe Microsoft can fling money their way to try to convince them to sell more of their product line, but I'm wondering if Microsoft is hitting a similar wall as it hit with its attempts at creating major web portals; namely that those who got into the market before them have not only grabbed up the lion's share of the market, but have made their offerings autonomous with smartphones. Apple, who I'm no great fan of, has to be given a helluva lot of credit for the kind of marketing and penetration they've achieved. I guarantee you, you walk into any room and ask any group of people "What product do you think of when I mention smartphone?", they'll reply "iPhone".

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    28. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by tripleevenfall · · Score: 2

      I wonder if, given RIM's spectacular fall, if there won't be some kind of soul-selling between Blackberry and MS to get both of themselves back into the market?

    29. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 1

      Four kinds. Blackberry hasn't disappeared yet.

      You're right about people only buying two of them, though.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    30. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Late to market? I remember using an iPAQ running Windows Mobile Phone Edition back in 2003. Microsoft isn't late to market in this space, it's just still struggling to produce something that people actually want. I don't have any particular bone to pick with Microsoft per se but its mobile strategy has sucked for a long long time.

    31. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by jawtheshark · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Verizon rep's job is to get a subscription, matching the customer with a device that most closely meets their needs

      Which for 95% of all customers would be an iPhone. Don't mistake me for an Apple fanboi, we have 4 Apple products in our household of which only two were purchased within the last year and none of those are mine: an iMac 27" and a spanking brand new white iPhone. Both belong to my wife. (The other two products are a 1st gen iPod Shuffle, which is mine and a 2nd gen iPod Mini which belongs to my wife.... Neither of those get much use anymore).

      I'm a nerd, I admit that and proud of it. My wife, however is at the other side of the spectrum. You pretty much can't get less tech inclined as her and for people her generation (born in the eighties) that is still very common. As a matter of fact, she used to have a Windows computer and it was always "jts, can you do this for me, jts can you do that for me, ad infinitum". It's not that I don't love my wife, but if you've been married for a while that really gets on your nerves. So we bought an iMac. Now there is the occasional question, but much less trouble. I set her up an iTunes account so she could buy music. She never did.

      What does this all have to do with the iPhone? Simple. A few month ago her trusty old Samsung cellphone died. Being the cheapskate I am, I bought her a new touchscreen HTC. Not the highest end, because if I'd go high end I could just as well buy an iPhone, right? She agreed with me: don't spend too much money on a stupid phone. The thing is: She was completely unable to use the phone. Calls went off without her wanting it, writing SMSes was hard (We use at least 3 languages on a daily base, so the typical T9 needs to be disabled and the on-screen keyboard needs to work well, including accentuation and stuff like that) I didn't believe her, I thought it would just be a matter of her getting used to it. Not so... After a good month and a half she was still struggling.

      Again, as married guys know, having a wife complaining about the same thing over and over gets fast quick. Just to get rid of the complaints, I decided to get her an iPhone... I set it up to use our wireless, connected it to her iTunes account and registered it with her iMac and imported her iTunes music (which I ripped from CD years ago when she was still using Windows).

      I got basically no questions, she managed to type SMSes (in all languages) and to do her calls and it didn't call accidentally when she didn't want it to. Within a day she started to send emails with pictures to her friends (she'd never done that on a computer AFAIK) Within two days, she had found how to download apps (mostly books apps and to my utter stupefaction she had bought a few music albums. The third day, we sit in a pub with a friend of her. She asks me to take a picture of them. I do, give her back the phone and she sends is immediately to the email of said friend. Not even thinking twice that she was now using 3G instead of the Wifi at home.

      That is what the iPhone does... It enables the non-tech user to use technology. It's utterly amazing. Actually, I expected this to happen when she switched computers to the iMac, but that was not where the big "enabling" happened. The iPhone did, and if you ask me... Instead of having bought that huge-ass iMac, I should have bought her an iPad. Would have been much cheaper.

      I do realize that I am comparing a cheaper phone with an iPhone and that I'm sure that the touch screen is the major reason of her inability to use the HTC. I've taken the HTC into use now. It' ok... I got "used to it", but is that really what we want? The user to "get used to it"? If the iPhone weren't so friggin expensive, I'd consider one for myself but one 50€ plan per month in this family is enough.

      If the task of the salesperson is to meet the users needs, then I'd bet money on it that the iPhone fits the needs of normal (non-geek) people best.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    32. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What do arid regions with little precipitation have to do with this?

    33. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I suspect that (particularly for a carrier like Verizon, which does a lot of selling on the strength of its network) the rules vary depending on the class of device.

      For very high profile devices, yes, they definitely have to cater to consumer demand(snagging iDevices as soon as AT&T lost their contractual grip, for instance, was barely optional, and building up the 'Droid' brand before they had iPhones to sell was similarly necessary); but the lower-profile you go, I suspect the greater Verizon's interest in what phones they wish to sell comes to dominate the question of what phones the customer wishes to buy(if they even have an opinion, you don't find too many fanatical partisans in the generic clamshell market...)

      For devices that have their own, independent, mindshare, Verizon has to suck it up and stock them if they want to move subscriptions(particularly data plans). For the customers who are buying based on coverage needs, family plans, etc. I suspect that it comes down much more to stocking whatever phones have the most compliant OEMs behind them. Look at what they did to the "Kin" because they were pissed off at Microsoft...

    34. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by v1 · · Score: 1

      They're probably hoping to buy off enough of the market that they can stop so heavily subsidizing it and start to actually turn it into a money maker rather than a money loser. That's one thing I don't like about MS is when they use their wealth from other areas and try to use it to buy a market. Not having a bottommless well of venture capital is part of what keeps markets alive and growing/improving, and when a company like MS basically cuts a blank check for their first product into a market, it majorly screws with the balance.

      So I guess I like seeing them pour sand down a rathole. Serves them right. But sometimes it pays out for them. Less and less nowadays though, thankfully. But they've got so much capital right now and don't bat an eyelash to spend it, so it's not likely to stop anytime soon. I just hate to see them buy out a market that has a few good legit vendors, and then flush the entire thing down the toilet, it hurts us all. We're all waiting to see what sort of catastrophe they have engineered for Skype...

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    35. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People have said this about Linux for a long time... it won't get bigger till it gets bigger. The one fundamental difference is that Linux is quality, and microsoft isn't. Here, people are being steered in the right direction: Android is based on a Linux kernel and is high quality. Windows phone 7 comes from microsoft, and is 'dumpster ready' as soon as you get the sales reciept.

    36. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is it verizon's job to advertise for Apple, or Google?? I think not.

    37. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The tech writers and phone fans are all saying "It is cool but is missing a ton of features." So they are all excited about Mango and Nokia but that is in the future so the local tech experts are all saying get an Android or an iPhone today and look at WP7 when it comes out.

      By the time Mango comes out, they might catch up to where Android and Apple are today. But Android and Apple are not standing still; iOS 5 is slated for release when Mango comes out. I've heard about the 500 or so features of Mango but so far nothing in detail that has been too spectacular. It integrates well with other MS products like Xbox Live; if you don't have those services and have no desire to integrate, then some users will see little benefit.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    38. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do arid regions with little precipitation have to do with this?

      It's a saying. It has just as much to do with the desert as as saying an AC has a chip on his shoulder as to do with chips.

    39. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by SaroDarksbane · · Score: 2

      Desert vs. desserts.

    40. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by peragrin · · Score: 2

      I have lived in a Microsoft world. and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemies.

      water boarding is better than living in Microsoft's world.

      Apple for all of it's glamor and shiny will never be over 20% market share for long. Apple can drive the industry forward like mercedes and BMW have driven forward cars. (airbags where standard in Mercedes in 197-something. Then Ford and toyota and Honda(android developers) can come in with stuff for the rest of us. Microsoft is somewhere between yugo, chrysler, and Kia. that is where my analogy falls on it's face.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    41. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by peragrin · · Score: 1

      I can count the number of times I saw an add for iPhone from AT&T. they were almost always from Apple.

      The hardware vendor needs to do the advertising. MSFT isn't a hardware vendor, and in a world of cheap knockoff n cheap hardware Samsung, HTC won't do but a hand full of ads for their 500 different models of each phone.

      Apple just has one current model.

      HTC, Samsung, etc should limit themselves to no more than 5 different models(carrier variations are not true models) at a given time that way they can focus on quality not quantity.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    42. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by toadlife · · Score: 2

      Saying a touch screen "HTC" doesn't mean much. HTC makes a *ton* of different phones, from low-end sort-or-smart phones to super high-end Android devices that will run Quake 3 at 50FPS.

      They also have made tons of Windows Mobile 6.x devices, which were terrible for non-techie people.

      I got my wife the HD2 and she had all sorts of problems with Windows Mobile 6.5, but as soon as I loaded Android on it, she loved the phone.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    43. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      the Verizon rep's job is to get a subscription, matching the customer with a device that most closely meets their needs and makes them want to buy.

      No. The rep's job is to maximize revenue and, more importantly, profits, for the organization. That may frequently involve pushing a product that is not the best match to the customer's needs. This may involve "upselling", or it may involve pushing the old stock that the supplier wants to unload. Some times it may even involve pushing the product that does best match the customer's needs.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    44. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah because they totally owned the console market by leveraging existing market share and corrupt deals...

      Anti-fanboys make about as much sense as fanboys.

    45. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Confusador · · Score: 1

      They're familiar with the problem, sure, but as your example shows they've been struggling for years to find the solution. They're just not used to being unable to win by bundling things with Windows/Office.

    46. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Indeed, it doesn't mean much and I said so in my post. I deliberately avoided the model because it turns out it runs a weird OS nobody knows, reviews online were mixed. You don't have that problem with the iPhone: the only differences are in storage and external colour, which for the non-tech user is the only thing that is interesting in the first place (the colour, not the storage) Comparing a 150€ phone with a 600€ phone is not fair. However, if you get a HTC at 500€ or 600€, then I really don't see why you wouldn't get the "real thing". You also mention that you changed the firmware of your wifes phone. How many people can do that? How many wives have geek husbands that can do it and realize they fuck up warranty by doing so and still risking that darling wife wouldn't like it.

      The whole point is that non-geek people do not think like we do and for the matter HTC is HTC to the layman, whether it's a Desire or a Smart.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    47. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      Well let's see. I'm Verizon. I have my immensely popular Droid line, that is almost becoming like "Q-Tip" in that lots of people actually use it as a generic term for "Android phone". I also have my hard-won iPhone that is also immensely popular, and I had to fight to get out from under the competition. I also have this WP7 phone which has a distinct lack of catchy name, and which no one has ever heard of. So three phones, at roughly the same price point, and with roughly the same likelihood of up-selling data plans and the like. Two of the three sell themselves, the third is widely considered inferior, and requires me to go out of my way to sell it. Gosh, I wonder which one I'm going to ignore?

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    48. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by linuxguy · · Score: 1

      I agree with the other poster. Touch screen HTC? What the hell is that? You could be comparing a really really poor HTC device with iphone.

      My wife is non-techie as well. I gave her a Samsung Galaxy S phone. She did not have to ask me any questions. And she does all the aforementioned things. Send pictures, emails, downloads apps etc. All of these are dead simple. Seamlessly switching between wifi and 3G, again, quite simple and unobtrusive.

      I fail to understand what is difficult about UI on a modern Android device.

    49. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. It's called the US government.
      Oh, wait...

    50. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by jawtheshark · · Score: 1, Troll

      I replied to the other poster, go read there. You'll see what I mean. Samsung Galaxy S? That's in the same price class as the iPhone, so why don't get the real thing?

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    51. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by vux984 · · Score: 1

      How is that fixed? Almost everyone wants to use Microsoft office and they will piss and moan if they are offered anything different.

      That said, if you replaced the openoffice logo with a Microsoft one on startup and told people it was MS Office 3 out 4 would use it happily.

    52. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      In a regular retail store perhaps, but a cell company doesn't make money selling phones. Hell, with the subsidies for contracts, they lose money selling phones. They make money selling plans. They don't, abstractly, care what phone you buy. If you want to get an early 90's brick phone, and put a 2500 minute plan with 3G data on it, they'll go digging around for the last one in inventory. Much like movie theaters sell you ticket largely for the benefit of being able to sell you popcorn, or razor vendors will lose money on a razor to sell you blades; cell phone providers sell you phones so you will buy a plan. Whether you buy an iPhone, a Droid, or a WP7 phone, Verizon is selling you a voice and data plan. They will sell you whatever facilitates getting you out the door with those plans ans a shiny new phone that says "Verizon" somewhere on it.

      (Pendants take note: I am aware you cannot get a an early 90's brick phone on a 3G network, this is known as hyperbole)

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    53. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Interestingly I would like to know how many phones are being purchased by general consumers and not employees of companies that are tied to WP7. I know both MS and Dell are providing phones to their employees.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    54. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by mydn · · Score: 1

      I enjoy listening to music from recording artist "Q-Tip" on my Droid. I usually use a cotton swab to clean my ears before using my earphones.

    55. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking Ballmer has less than a year left at Microsoft. Sooner or later, and probably sooner, shareholders are going to look at the failure in the mobile market and are going to demand their pound of flesh.

      Of course, Ballmer will be crying all the way to the bank.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    56. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by InsGadget · · Score: 1

      I've had a Samsung Focus since January. Never had to reboot it. WP7 is fine for the average person, just like the iPhone. Most features are well thought out and easy to use. Mango will be adding quite a few features that are missing. And the Focus can tether, with a simple software hack. Also, apps are being added to the marketplace faster than any other phone OS, so that negative will be nullified in a year or two.

    57. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by RanCossack · · Score: 1

      The whole point is that non-geek people do not think like we do and for the matter HTC is HTC to the layman, whether it's a Desire or a Smart.

      This honestly hasn't been my experience at all. I'm not a layperson myself, but the ones I know call all android phones "Droids", regardless of the manufacturer or carrier.

      I think you made the right choice for your household, though. If you call the iphone "the real thing" in another post, then clearly there are assumptions being made, and the easiest and best thing to do for household harmony is meeting them.

    58. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean you want to sit in on the microsoft board meetings??

    59. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Indeed, it doesn't mean much and I said so in my post. I deliberately avoided the model because it turns out it runs a weird OS nobody knows, reviews online were mixed.

      So because you random phone with unknown OS didn't agree with your wife you believe that 95% of the population would be suited to an iPhone flat out ignoring the
      platform with the biggest market share?

      I agree these wannabe homerolled smartphones are crap, but you've just put blinders on and become the very thing you said you were not by simply not looking at alternatives. I know more people with a Samsung Galaxy S than an iPhone and they are all happy. I know several tech luddites with a HTC Desire HD and they also seem to have no issues.

      As for the firmware, the point wasn't that the guy changed the firmware, it is that he installed Android to give a user experience that was fine. Don't want to install Android on a non android phone (like the iPhone 3G), then just buy one of the countless Android phones on the market.

    60. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Not at all. Nobody is suggesting that Verizon needs to advertise for Microsoft (in any case, it's actually advertising for Verizon, since they're the one selling the things). What Verizon needs to do is either offer their products for sale, or not carry them. Claiming that they carry a product, but then not offering it to customers and blaming the poor sales on the manufacturer, is completely dishonest.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    61. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the Office capabilities sound more Enterprise-oriented than Consumer-oriented. I wouldn't say so much that WP7 abandons the enterprise, as that it doesn't include some enterprise features. It's still probably a better enterprise phone than anything except WinMo and Blackberry, at least if you use MS products internally (Exchange/Sharepoint/Office).

      I've never understood why Zune Pass isn't advertised harder. It's honestly good enough that I now use Zune over Amarok, crazy though that may sound. All-you-can-eat on a reasonably priced subscription with the ability to download 10 DRM-free high-quality MP3s every month (which brings the effective cost of the subscription down to $5 or less per month).

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    62. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by petman · · Score: 1

      That's the second time you refer to the iPhone as "the real thing". I can assure you, my HTC Desire is pretty real.

    63. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by moorster · · Score: 1

      I had similar experiences trying to get a WP7 from T-Mobile when they were released. I tried to ask the sales people about the phone and they ether didn't know anything about it or they tried to persuade me not to buy it. They would say things like, "Well, trust me, you don't want a Microsoft phone." I eventually bought a Dell Venue Pro online, which I love. It's no wonder the numbers are down. The sales clerks have been using smart phones for years and only want to sell their personal favorites. MS needs to offer some sort of per-phone commission directly to the sales folks.

    64. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2

      That's in the same price class as the iPhone, so why don't get the real thing?

      The real thing? And you claim that you're no Apple fanboi?

      Why would you get a Samsung? Maybe because you think Android is a better OS than iOS? Maybe because the best carrier in your area doesn't have iPhones? Or maybe you just like to think differently.

    65. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      The real thing? What, a real phone? You'll need to be more specific... there's iPhones, Samsung Galaxy phones, a couple of rather nice Acer and Dell phones actually...

      (For what it's worth, I once handed my iPhone 4 and my Huawei IDEOS - running Android 2.2 - to my mother, to see which she found easier. She actually considers the iPhone harder to use - and this is someone that only stopped asking for directions to shut down the computer last year).

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    66. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Not 100% true. In fact, we've got stores around here that during the interview process they give you a hypothetical set of requirements handed to you by a customer, and they ask you what you'd recommend. The interview ends right then and there if you say "the expensive one".

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    67. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      I deliberately avoided the model because it turns out it runs a weird OS nobody knows, reviews online were mixed. You don't have that problem with the iPhone: the only differences are in storage and external colour, which for the non-tech user is the only thing that is interesting in the first place (the colour, not the storage) Comparing a 150€ phone with a 600€ phone is not fair. However, if you get a HTC at 500€ or 600€, then I really don't see why you wouldn't get the "real thing".

      So, any expensive, quality phone that is not an iphone is not the "real thing"?. Not to mention that the htc phone you got her wasn't even an android one?

      You are comparing apples to oranges. You've associated apple with quality and anything that is not apple that is quality is not the "real" thing. Cheap android phones exist that could suit your wifes needs, and it is the iphones primary competitor, but that was not what it was compared against.

    68. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      That's in the same price class as the iPhone, so why don't get the real thing?

      You are ascribing the iphone and the iphone only with the properties of a quality smartphone that fits your needs, and somehow anything else that also fits those needs is not "the real thing".

      Android is not a cheap clone of ios, it is its own entity made from scratch that in many ways ios is constantly playing catch up with. On average it takes 6-9 months for features in android to appear in ios. Not to mention the notification system in android is far easier to use for the layman.

      Basically your post screams that apple is awesome and anything that is not apple is not 'real' even if it can suit needs better.

    69. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Security or the lack of it on a mobile device really trumps Office. So I would disagree that it is better than iPhone or Android. In fact a Verizon GSA rep I talked to told me this since I work at a small company and we do not use Exchange at all. Plus you can get Office views for both Android and iPhone. And who is really going to be editing a Word doc or Excel spreadsheet on their phone anyway? Maybe a few die hards but that has got to be the absolute pits.
      Zune pass seems like the real no brainer. From what I hear the Zune HD was a better audio device than the iPod line. Zunepass seemed to me to be the killer feature that almost no one seemed to know about. Really WinMo7 seven phones could be marked as the phone for music lovers and gamers but they really do not push that at all.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    70. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Desert vs. desserts.

      Yah, see what I said about the AC having a chip on his shoulder?
      That wasn't just random, I knew he had over-inflated opinion of his own knowledge.
      The correct usage has nothing to do with dessert.
      Look it up.

    71. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > I replied to the other poster, go read there. You'll see what I mean.
      > Samsung Galaxy S? That's in the same price class as the iPhone,
      > so why don't get the real thing?

      Better SMS app.
      No iTunes
      Better multi-media support
      Micro-SD slot.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    72. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Tapewolf · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the Office capabilities sound more Enterprise-oriented than Consumer-oriented. I wouldn't say so much that WP7 abandons the enterprise, as that it doesn't include some enterprise features.

      That's not what enterprise customers did with Windows Mobile, though. It was a platform for UPS, supermarkets, warehouses, parking enforcement companies, hospitals and so on to run their own bespoke C++ software on. Unless I'm much mistaken, WP7 can only run things from Microsoft's market and has no way to bypass it. It certainly won't run their existing C++ applications and is not currently a viable replacement.

    73. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by jo_ham · · Score: 2

      I think that's part of it, but it rolls back neatly to the point of the article, that when you say "iPhone" you know what you're getting. When you say "HTC" you have a number of choices, some good and some bad, but for a consumer who simply wants an easy to use phone that will meet their needs, saying "I want an iPhone" works. I've seen some awesome Android handsets (including one with the great 'trace your finger on the k/b to type' which I wish the iPhone had), and I've used some awful ones. You just have to be careful in selecting the right one. This is the issue that MS is now facing with WP7 - they need people to think the same way that they do for buying a computer with Windows on it - "it will do the job for me, and lots of people use it and like it".

      Both iPhone and Android handsets have this momentum (iPhone especially with the limited hardware choice compared to the larger variety of Android phones).

    74. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      It's hilarious that because he went through a process and found that an iPhone worked well for his wife, when he specified initially that he has no Apple products of his own that he uses (bar a shuffle or a mini or something that he barely touches any more) that he's suddenly an "Apple fanboi".

      It seems like that's the "go to" response for any possible positive response relating to Apple.

      Sure, the guy doesn't use any Apple products himself, but he bought his wife an iPhone and she loved it! He's clearly sucking Jobs' cock! Burn him!

    75. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by FrellMeDead · · Score: 1

      "... so why don't get the real thing?" And with that stupid comment you have lost any credibility with regards to phones and this topic. For supposedly not being an Apple fanboy you sure do talk like one. Additionally depending on any discounts the Samsung Galaxy S is considerably cheaper. As to comparing a non standard OS on a HTC phone to an iPhone is just stupid and further invalidates and conclusion you make. If you were a nerd then you would have spent 2 minutes to look up a review on google and to be honest my grandparents check reviews for new electronics and there in their late 80's. Being lazy and just choosing whatever is available is stupid but you make it worse since you obviously didn't learn from the first mistake and just purchased an iPhone since you see commercials and constant advertisements. There are differences between android and apple but neither are hard to setup or take more then 2-5 minutes to learn. Being ignorant about the facts discredits your opinion further.

    76. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by etymxris · · Score: 1

      It's proper usage to say "just deserts":

      http://www.snopes.com/language/notthink/deserts.asp

    77. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, I haven't seen any ads lately.

    78. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      But you don't have to live in either. There's a whole life out there where you do not need them.

      I heartily agree with this. Ever since the dawn of cell phones, I have lived my life just fine without one of any type. It is quite pleasant being untethered to a communications device and being able to be unavailable at will. Need to contact me? Call my home phone and leave a message, send an email, or send a private message on FaceBook, and I will get back to you at my convenience.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    79. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just deserts.

      Are you referring to the barren wasteland that is Microsoft's future?

    80. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that society exists, you could google it on your iPhone.

    81. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here I was hoping for desserts instead.

    82. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice story bro.
      We all bought Nexus S devices and my completely non tech wife and both of my tweens figured it out in minutes. If someone can not figure out how to use a random android device (which you did not say your HTC was or was not), that person is the exception, not the rule and not the norm. Look at what is selling now and how many of them are flying off the shelves, I doubt that many people are sitting looking at their phone wondering how to use it.

    83. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by adolf · · Score: 1

      I got my wife the HD2 and she had all sorts of problems with Windows Mobile 6.5, but as soon as I loaded Android on it, she loved the phone.

      That, to me, is the most interesting part about what you said: You switched a phone to a completely different operating system. AFAICT, there aren't many devices that make it easy.

      But there should be: If a given phone's hardware were no longer tied, hard, to a specific OS, that would enable more consumer choice than anything...and should help keep both hardware and OS vendors on their toes trying to produce the best products they can, respectively.

      For instance, I'm reasonably happy with Android. And while I have no idea if Windows Mobile or whatever would suit me better (I try to keep an open mind), I'll never find out, since giving it a fair chance would require different hardware, which means messing with contracts and other bullshit.

      I can dual-boot my PC. Why can't I dual-boot my phone?

    84. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if wp7 is feature incomplete, why are several of ios5 new features blatant ripoffs of things wp7 has had from day one? the new camera bits are especially egregious.

    85. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by toadlife · · Score: 1

      Don't mistake me for an Apple Fanboi...However, if you get a HTC at 500â or 600â, then I really don't see why you wouldn't get the "real thing".

      Really? ;)

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    86. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by fbartho · · Score: 1

      "Mango when it get here will bring WP7 up the the same standard as teh..."

      Ow, ow, my grammar parser crashed, I'm going to hide in a dark box with no internet for a while.

      --
      Gravity Sucks
    87. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by pjbgravely · · Score: 1

      So they are instantly hired?

      --
      Star Trek, there maybe hope.
    88. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by nolife · · Score: 1

      I do not agree. The days of an physical desktop in the enterprise with all of your "stuff" on it are going away. The enterprises are moving in the direction of virtual machines and virtual applications. This provides the user with a BYOC (bring your own computer) option and still provide them with a consistent interface and a "computer" to them regardless of where they are connecting to it from, it could be their home laptop running XP, Windows 7, Apple, iPad, or even Linux, their moms desktop, an android device, some thin client on their desk at work. All they need is the receiver software installed on some compatible device which is a simple install and some type of network connectivity (an example here).

      It is not a one size fits all, the dust is still settling and there are some issues that are a little less mature like checking out that virtual desktop or virtual applications and using them remotely without network connectivity but it will be solved.

      I think this concept will start to break people away from the MS stranglehold where people want the same software products they have at home that they have at work. You will no longer NEED MS office at home or even to run Windows because you want to work from home and be productive. No more Citrix Presentation server where the apps are slightly different the icons are not the same as you "work" computer. No more GoToMyPC or what ever to connect to that physical desktop at your desk that you are familiar with.

      People will not need native methods like MS office/Outlook etc on their tablet or phone any more to do work related stuff.
                 

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    89. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by toadlife · · Score: 1

      Well putting Android in the HD2 wasn't intentionally made easy by HTC. It was just that there happened to be several other Native Android phones that used almost identical or near identical hardware to the HD2, and since these Android devices use the linux kernel of which the source is m it was easier to port than many other devices.

      But I agree with you. I long for the day when smartphones are more like PCs, where they come with a featured OS, but are open to the loading of other OSes.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    90. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Droid, where I work

    91. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your point being? They DON'T totally own the console market, despite years of trying and subsidizing their console operations from their OS profits.

    92. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bob is my worst enemy you insensitive clod.

    93. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Hydian · · Score: 1

      Nah...for 95% of users, it'd be a dumb phone. Most users don't need anything that a smart phone does over a plain old phone.

      But for those that do, there are several viable options and I wouldn't necessarily say that iOS is #1 on the list for the normal user. WebOS is easier to use, more user friendly, and has a bunch of features that iOS can't match (like synergy.) The lack of apps relative to iOS isn't a major problem as all of the important apps are there. You just don't have 1,000 fart apps and a lot of the other shovelware that iOS and Android do. Sure, there are a few real apps missing, but the average user probably doesn't download that many apps anyway.

      But as you rightly indicate, hardware also plays a role and not everyone appreciates the vertical slider and hard keyboard. This is where Android is really strong. There are a lot of hardware choices for Android. iOS, on the other hand, only has one (two if you want to be technical about it, but the form factor is exactly the same) and WebOS has three at the moment (a fourth is due sometime soon) but really just two form factors and a couple of different sizes.

      And if the phone is going to be used heavily for texting and email, you can't leave RIM out. The Blackberry keyboards are unequaled. The devices may not be much good for watching movies on them (I don't know why that would be important anyway) but they're top notch for text functions.

      So for the *average* user, I'd probably put the iPhone 4th behind Blackberry, WebOS, and Android. Blackberry because it excels at texting which is really all the average person needs after making phone calls. WebOS because it is just an extremely friendly phone. And Android because the OS is roughly equivalent to iOS but there are a ton of hardware choices to tailor the experience to the user.

    94. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by macs4all · · Score: 1

      But you don't have to live in either. There's a whole life out there where you do not need them.

      I heartily agree with this. Ever since the dawn of cell phones, I have lived my life just fine without one of any type. It is quite pleasant being untethered to a communications device and being able to be unavailable at will. Need to contact me? Call my home phone and leave a message, send an email, or send a private message on FaceBook, and I will get back to you at my convenience.

      And then... You're on an interstate highway at 2 am, 25 miles from the nearest exit, when a deer jumps out in front of your car. BAM! You hit the deer, instantly totaling the car... Worse than that, your ankle is broken from having your foot on the brake pedal at the time of impact. So you can't even think about walking. And because your car isn't functioning, suddenly the fact that it is 15 degrees outside starts to intrude more and more into your thoughts...

    95. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then... You're on an interstate highway at 2 am, 25 miles from the nearest exit, when a deer jumps out in front of your car. BAM! You hit the deer, instantly totaling the car... Worse than that, your ankle is broken from having your foot on the brake pedal at the time of impact. So you can't even think about walking. And because your car isn't functioning, suddenly the fact that it is 15 degrees outside starts to intrude more and more into your thoughts...

      And then you look out the broken windshield and see your iphone lying shattered on the road, utterly useless.

      Ten to one there are at least two orders of magnitude more iphones broken beyond repair each year than there are deer crashes.

    96. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by macs4all · · Score: 0

      Don't be so simplistic. They've read the tea leaves. They've done the market research. They've done the focus groups. They know that customers just aren't interested. They're not idiots.

      It's also because the UI looks like ASS. It looks like something a sixth-grader, no make that a first-grader, would throw together in an hour. It looks like exactly what it is, a TABLE of ugly, tasteless swatches of busy, hard-to-read descriptions. Unlike a table of UNIQUE icons, there's absolutely nothing that triggers the "Grandmother Cells" in your brain. One app looks like the next, and they all look absolutely revolting.

      The rest of the UI and OS in general might well be great; but it's kind of one of those "You never get a second chance to make a first impression." And if most people have the same reaction that I did, that first impression is far from favorable.

    97. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by nprz · · Score: 2

      And you pull out your phone and find out it doesn't have reception because you are out in the boondocks and AT&T/Verizon/other carrier don't give a rat's ass about getting reception there.

    98. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      If you're going to make the car brand analogy, please don't sully Kia's reputation like that.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    99. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by macs4all · · Score: 0

      Saying a touch screen "HTC" doesn't mean much. HTC makes a *ton* of different phones, from low-end sort-or-smart phones to super high-end Android devices that will run Quake 3 at 50FPS.

      They also have made tons of Windows Mobile 6.x devices, which were terrible for non-techie people.

      I got my wife the HD2 and she had all sorts of problems with Windows Mobile 6.5, but as soon as I loaded Android on it, she loved the phone.

      That's because it is a shameless clone of iOS.

    100. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by RichiH · · Score: 1

      > I'd consider one for myself but one 50â plan per month in this family is enough.
      > If the task of the salesperson is to meet the users needs, then I'd bet money on it that the iPhone fits the needs of normal (non-geek) people best.

      nuf said.

      Anyway, what HTC phone? I have seen the same story, but with Debian and HTC Desire (HD). And yes, things Just Work for them.

    101. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      And then... You're on an interstate highway at 2 am, 25 miles from the nearest exit, when a deer jumps out in front of your car. BAM! You hit the deer, instantly totaling the car... Worse than that, your ankle is broken from having your foot on the brake pedal at the time of impact. So you can't even think about walking. And because your car isn't functioning, suddenly the fact that it is 15 degrees outside starts to intrude more and more into your thoughts...

      And then you look out the broken windshield and see your iphone lying shattered on the road, utterly useless.

      Ten to one there are at least two orders of magnitude more iphones broken beyond repair each year than there are deer crashes.

      Additionally, deer generally seem to avoid the two major interstates I infrequently travel (I-5 from Tacoma to Portland, and I-84 from Portland to Baker City.) Plus, both of those freeways are pretty active at any time of day or night, so if the above extremely unlikely scenario were to happen, I would have little trouble flagging down help and getting to the next town anyway. The remote possibility of such an inconvenience is more than worth it to me for the freedom to get away from everyone at will.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    102. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by devent · · Score: 1

      Mango? You got to be kidding me. It's way worse then Honeypot. What's next? Orange? Or Kiwi?

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    103. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by spongman · · Score: 1

      Again, as married guys know, having a wife complaining about the same thing over and over gets fast quick.

      is it the complaining that gets fast, or the wife?

    104. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Look at my sig?

      I made it in 1999 and it was very immature on my part, but it summarized how I felt dealing with inferior MS products. I had a debate with a friend a long time ago saying I would rather live in a monopoly by Apple than MS. At least I did not have to use strange hacks like Memmaker to trick my computer to use more than 640k of ram and I could have real innovation. Right?

      Today, I do not like Apple and see MS is not so bad. MS products have vastly improved and Apple's prices and lock in with their walled gardens are ridiculous.

      I want to live in a free market world. MS did own 85% of the smart phone/PDA market at one time after defeating Palm Pilot. I am glad the Blackberry and Iphone came.

      I guess the morale is anyone company ruling a world is bad. One great thing about Windows 8 and gnome-shell, despite wanting to be burned by fellow slashdotters is that they use AJAX. With HTML 5 in the mix we can finally have open standards rule so no one company can take advantage of us

      That is why I support Android. It is more developer friendly and Apple was becoming too powerful. I only hope it does not turn into the next PC of the cell phone world with too much marketshare. I fear Android is the next DOS. Its not pretty nor as advanced as the Iphone but every vendor uses it. That would be bad too then

    105. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather live in open Android & Linux world.

    106. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      Or Yugo's.

      Now that you mention it, weren't Yugos and Windows marketed with the same line: "Where do Yu want to Go today"?

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    107. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Atroxodisse · · Score: 1

      Your friend most likely inserted an unsupported memory card. They have had trouble with memory cards. I've had a Focus since they were released and only rebooted one time.

      --
      Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
    108. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the Open Source planet?

      No, not GNU planet, I would not like that either...open source isn't just gnu, luckily.

    109. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by macs4all · · Score: 1

      And then... You're on an interstate highway at 2 am, 25 miles from the nearest exit, when a deer jumps out in front of your car. BAM! You hit the deer, instantly totaling the car... Worse than that, your ankle is broken from having your foot on the brake pedal at the time of impact. So you can't even think about walking. And because your car isn't functioning, suddenly the fact that it is 15 degrees outside starts to intrude more and more into your thoughts...

      And then you look out the broken windshield and see your iphone lying shattered on the road, utterly useless.

      Ten to one there are at least two orders of magnitude more iphones broken beyond repair each year than there are deer crashes.

      HEY DICKWAD!

      Did you see the word "iPhone" ANYWHERE in my post?!?

      I was seriously just trying to convince the guy to rethink his decision to have ANY cellphone. Read his post, and read my reply. I was just trying to build a use-case for why someone MIGHT want to have a cellphone AT ALL.

      What a maroon!

    110. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by macs4all · · Score: 1

      And then... You're on an interstate highway at 2 am, 25 miles from the nearest exit, when a deer jumps out in front of your car. BAM! You hit the deer, instantly totaling the car... Worse than that, your ankle is broken from having your foot on the brake pedal at the time of impact. So you can't even think about walking. And because your car isn't functioning, suddenly the fact that it is 15 degrees outside starts to intrude more and more into your thoughts...

      And then you look out the broken windshield and see your iphone lying shattered on the road, utterly useless.

      Ten to one there are at least two orders of magnitude more iphones broken beyond repair each year than there are deer crashes.

      Additionally, deer generally seem to avoid the two major interstates I infrequently travel (I-5 from Tacoma to Portland, and I-84 from Portland to Baker City.) Plus, both of those freeways are pretty active at any time of day or night, so if the above extremely unlikely scenario were to happen, I would have little trouble flagging down help and getting to the next town anyway. The remote possibility of such an inconvenience is more than worth it to me for the freedom to get away from everyone at will.

      And so, since I didn't happen to GUESS at the ONE "emergency" that you might consider relevant to your life, you dismiss the entire idea.

      Also, you do realize, of course, that all cellphones have a "silent" and an "OFF" feature, right? There is no earthly reason why you have to be "bothered" at all.

      But who cares? Someday you'll be in a situation that will NOT be hypothetical...

    111. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by macs4all · · Score: 1

      And you pull out your phone and find out it doesn't have reception because you are out in the boondocks and AT&T/Verizon/other carrier don't give a rat's ass about getting reception there.

      Always a possibliltiy. But, would you rather reduce your chances to ZERO, just because?

    112. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I want to live in a free market world. MS did own 85% of the smart phone/PDA market at one time after defeating Palm Pilot.

      No, they never did. Symbian (mostly Nokia) always had a far larger marketshare of smartphones.

    113. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Um... It's Verizon's job to advertise the products IT IS SELLING!

      The product they are selling is phone service and "mobile internet"* service. The phones themselves are just the devices to let people use that service. If anything they probablly want to sell the deivce that gives them (rather than the phone vendor or OS vendor) the most control over the experience but mainly they just want to sell you the service. So they are going to advertise the phones they consider most attractive to customers and/or the ones that give them most control over the experiance and ignore the ones that don't fit either of those categories.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    114. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      No, they're told that they are not a good fit for the company and good luck with their job hunt.

      And this is from a big box major chain, too.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    115. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The PC business model (multiple manufacturers, choice of OSs) might have worked out in a market-share sense. But it meant 2 decades+ of shitty computers.

      Back in the 80s we had far better computers than the DOS PCs of the day. Amiga, Atari ST, Mac, Acorn Archimedes etc. All except Mac pushed out of business by PC commoditisation.

      Android is the PC of smartphones. I'd hate to see the market filled with 2 decades of shitty phones as would happen if it too were to achieve monopoly.

    116. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      'Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks until it performs better on the market. . .'

      . . . and it won't perform better on the market until agents have it in their hands to offer customers. Catch-22 anyone?

      I was having the same thought. Though, I am curious, with Microsoft's touted initial sales (to the carriers) figures, it seems that the carriers did have them. If that's the case, then I suspect they aren't any longer getting floor space because they didnt sell (which has been covered here numerous times in the past 7 or so months). Not too long after it came out (around the G2's release), T-Mobile had a very nice display set up for their WP7 devices. If they dont anymore, maybe it is lack of interest. Like in any retail environment, one doesnt waste valuable display space for non-selling products (unless it's a clearance rack, which generally doesnt apply to cell phones).

    117. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by alfredo · · Score: 1

      Remember when ms used large packaging to decrease shelf space? Payback is a bitch.

      --
      photosMy Photostream
    118. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Super_Z · · Score: 1

      Additionally depending on any discounts the Samsung Galaxy S is considerably cheaper

      So a discounted Galaxy S is cheaper than an iPhone 4? With that stupid comment you have lost any credibility with regards to phones and this topic.

    119. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Sorry, don't buy your argument.

      You could have bought your wife a cheap Android phone (like my Huawei Ideos) that costs a fraction of what the iPhone costs and still get an Android 2.2 smartphone with support for multiple language texting, apps and dedicated call and end buttons.

      Apple has brainwashed the world into thinking they are the top purveyors of innovation and quality, they are not.

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    120. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by jabelli · · Score: 1

      It is quite pleasant being untethered to a communications device and being able to be unavailable at will.

      You know, you can do that with a cell phone too. They all have this little button on them that, when you hold it for about 3 seconds, the phone turns off. Some of them even have something called "airplane mode" where you can still use the camera and music player, but nobody can call you.

    121. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Omestes · · Score: 1

      ZOMG how did people ever live without them?! Its a miracle that humans managed to survive tens (hundreds) of thousands of years without cell phones, much less travel from point A to point B without being eaten by bears!

      My father is a trucker, he's traveled all over the country safely without a cellphone. Now he has one (and repeatedly states that he can't live without it), and his "emergency usage of it" is to have random banal conversations while driving (badly), and to cut off normal conversations for long periods of time whenever it makes a beeping sound, while veering madly all over the freeway.

      Cellphones are great and all, but they aren't really that important. If my cellphone disappeared tomorrow, all I'd really miss is the ability to hit Wikipedia at a whim, and I suppose we'd have to break down and get a land line. I wouldn't really miss it. If everyone's cellphone suddenly dissolved, the world would tick on much as normal, civilization wouldn't break down, we all suddenly wouldn't get killed by wandering moose on the freeway, nothing terrible would happen. Hell, I wouldn't have to listen to annoying people shout about their sex lives, and shopping habits, in public, which would be a net gain. I might be able to go to a movie theater again, and sit in a better resturant without getting very angry. I might even feel safer on the freeway (angry moose outbreak aside) since morons wouldn't chatting about completely inconsequential things and thus risking my life.

      That said, I have nothing against the technology, nor the people who have managed to learn to use them responsibly. I just can't stand the "can't live without it" bullshit. Its a mere gadget. It isn't terribly important in the scheme of things, no matter how much we invest in them. If someone doesn't want one, thats fine, its their choice. I don't see how people can jump on them and basically tell them THEY MUST HAVE IT, or one day they will be sorry, and/or die at the hands of errant moose.

      Perhaps they'd be happier without? Isn't that all that matters?

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    122. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Which for 95% of all customers would be an iPhone

      I doubt that very much. iPhones are about as annoying as Android devices. They all feel gimped in comparison to what we expect of them, they all have some kludgey feeling features, they all have service and other extraneous annoyances. Hell, iPhones can't handle a vast swath of the internet still thanks to not supporting Flash (love it or hate it, it is an accepted "standard"). iPhones have as many problems as Android.

      It, in the end, once again boils down to taste, and that taste is largely a subjective judgement about shiny UI elements and packaging aesthetics.

      I picked an Android based phone because I like how it looks, and operates. I actually find it more aesthetically pleasing than an iOS product (agree or disagree, I think the Droid X is nice looking). I also like the fact that a single corporation doesn't dictate how I use my device, or try to tell me what I can't use for my own moral good. I like the fact that it pretty much integrates all my Google, and other online, services flawlessly.

      Complimenting Android doesn't mean I'm disparaging Apple. It just works better for me. My father, who is completely technologically illiterate, played around with both iOS and Android based devices, before settling on an Android device.

      Apple products aren't better than anyone else's. They're merely comparable. Ditto for Google, ditto for Microsoft, ditto for whatever else.

      Also, none of my "non-tech" friends have any issues with Android (or previously Blackberry) phones. Its not like your using CLI to do stuff.
             

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    123. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by AmigaBen · · Score: 1

      Amen. I can't figure out if the seemingly high amount of support I see for WP7 online is astroturfing or teenagers that don't understand who Microsoft was and is. Welcome to a small taste of your game, Microsoft.

      --
      +5 Insightful, really!
    124. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by AmigaBen · · Score: 1

      I am saddened for you that you think you're a nerd and you call the iPhone "the real thing".

      --
      +5 Insightful, really!
    125. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      But there should be: If a given phone's hardware were no longer tied, hard, to a specific OS, that would enable more consumer choice than anything...and should help keep both hardware and OS vendors on their toes trying to produce the best products they can, respectively.

      Enabling more consumer choice == disabling network operators' ability to gouge their customers.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    126. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "use strange hacks like Memmaker to trick my computer to use more than 640k"

      Face it, Pal. The kids have no idea what you're talking about. Not a clue. Unless they looked it up on Wikipedia, of course. Know what I think? Those of us who DO remember memmaker should just go get a hunting license. When we find the little cretins on our lawns, we can just shoot them. Life will be better, believe me!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    127. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      "fast" should have been "old". My bad for missing that while proofreading.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    128. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by pckl300 · · Score: 1

      What good will that do them? They'll combine both of their sub-standard mobile OS's and somehow take down Google and Apple?

      Hell, this is coming from a guy with a Blackberry. I wish it could happen; I wish RIM would snap themselves out of the iPhone-induced stupor they seem to be in. Sadly, I don't think they can do it.

      --
      In the beginning, there was null.
    129. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Afaict at least in the case of the 360 (i'm not sure about the original xbox, it was before I really started following the console buisness) microsoft acheived their success by selling their console incredibly cheap, at one stage the base model was selling for less than the wii despite being a far more powerful console and it is FAR cheaper than the PS3. If you want to play the latest big hit HD games and are short on cash then you get a base model* 360.

      The only reason they can do that is that console vendors control the market surrounding a console. Want to buy a game? MS gets a cut! Want to play online? MS gets your subscription, want a second controller that matches the one that came with your console, then you buy it from MS and so on. Therefore they can justify (to their shareholders) taking a loss on the console under the assumption they can make it up in extras (that is the theory anyway, my understanding is that over the lifetime of their console division MS hasn't made money out of the venture).

      I don't think MS can pull the same trick in the phone market, where most of the ongoing income goes to the carrier NOT the phone manufacturer.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    130. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      desserts. s= sand. ss= strawberry shortcake!

    131. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      Apple products are where computers are supposed to be by now. I get a little tired of helping people with simple, stupid problems.

      But unlike a lot of Geeks, I don't necessarily blame them for all their problems. They just shouldn't have most of them. Guy's computer crashes - then when he reboots, it doesn't have his sound drivers. Gone. What the hell? And that is just a typical day on a Windows machine. Oh darn, a Windows update has my computer continually rebooting. Bloody hell! Maybe in 1995 that was acceptable. No mas!

      And that's the issue with the phones. Windows, like it or not, has a legacy from Windows, that has people thinking that it's going to be just one problem after another. Between no phone and a Windows phone, I'll take no phone

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    132. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by toadlife · · Score: 1

      So a discounted Galaxy S is cheaper than an iPhone 4? With that stupid comment you have lost any credibility with regards to phones and this topic.

      I just switched to Sprint and got a subsidized Galaxy S (Epic 4G) for $149.99. The cheapest subsidized iphone4 at At&T and Verizon is $199.99.

      Seems the GP is right on.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    133. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Yugos were meant to be cheap cars for the masses. it wasn't pathetically trying to be something it wasn't.

      Chrysler on the other hand kept insisting it was a serious car meant to be taken seriously and refuses to acknowledge it's status as a joke.

      That's more of an apt comparison.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    134. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by adolf · · Score: 1

      Not really.

      How much money would Verizon be unable to gouge from me if I switched operating systems on my phone?

    135. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HEY DICKWAD!

      Did you see the word "iPhone" ANYWHERE in my post?!?

      Is that really what you took away from my message? Some sort of dis on iphones?
      Clue for U - everywhere I wrote "iphone" replace it with "cellphone" and then take that nerd-stick out of your ass. You motherfuckingdumbshit.

    136. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Threni · · Score: 1

      No, I repeat what I said - no-one wants to use Office on their phone. You can see this when you see how few months it took Android to outsell Windows Mobile (which had been out for like a decade or something).

    137. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by adolf · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your reply. I think you've missed a few things over the past couple of decades:

      PCs, going back to the first IBM PC, have always been able to run different operating systems, and different operating systems have always been available for them.

      MS-DOS "won" on the PC back then because it was cheaper, not because it was better or because it was well-established in the market (it was neither).

      Android cannot be the PC of smartphones, because Android is an operating system -- not a hardware platform. Android itself runs on a wide array of stuff, but the stuff it runs on generally can only run Android.

      Your analogy is backward -- you've reversed the roles of hardware and software.

    138. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't be able to block tethering (which of course they can unblock for a fee) if you could install some random proxy.

      Then there's apps. An app store isn't going to make money if you allow users to install cheaper alternatives. Locking down the OS is the cornerstone of that strategy, and there's not much point locking down the OS if users can install another.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    139. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by vux984 · · Score: 1

      I was replying to the AC, not you.

      I agree completely that no one wants to use Office on their phone.

      (Although the demand for office on tablets is a whole different ballgame, but that's a separate conversation entirely.)

    140. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      PCs, going back to the first IBM PC, have always been able to run different operating systems, and different operating systems have always been available for them.

      No really? As someone who was dual booting a DEC Rainbow into MS-DOS and CP/M in 1983, you amaze me. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      Android cannot be the PC of smartphones, because Android is an operating system -- not a hardware platform.

      Staggering. I can hardly contain my astonishment. Can't wait for issue 1. Maybe it'll include the fact that PCs also cover an incrediby wide range of hardware, from MGA, 8/16-bit 8088, 4.77Mhz, 256Kb. Through to todays HD, Multicore, Multi-core, Multi GHz, multi-GB machines.

      The only thing that ever truly defined PCs was an X86 derived instruction set, and the ability to run DOS/Windows.

      The only thing that defines Android hardware is ARM derived instruction set and the ability to run Android.

      1. (There are non-86 computers that run Windows, and non-ARM devices that run Android. But they are largely incompatible with the mainstream that defines each category.)

      2. (In another context some people call all desktop/laptop computers "PCs", including Macs, but that's not what we're talking about here.)

    141. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by adolf · · Score: 1

      No really? As someone who was dual booting a DEC Rainbow into MS-DOS and CP/M in 1983, you amaze me. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      Neat. I guess that makes you older than me.

      Do Boy Scouts line up to carry your groceries to your car?

      Through to todays HD, Multicore, Multi-core, Multi GHz, multi-GB machines.

      Can you explain to me what the difference between "Multicore" and "Multi-core" is?

      Cheers.

    142. Re:Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks. . . by adolf · · Score: 1

      Hmm.

      You're right.

      Perhaps the carriers should just stick to making money on hardware sales, connectivity, and (optionally) contracts.

      The world would be a better place.

  3. Wither on the vine by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    Verizon won't roll them out to kiosks until it performs better on the market."

    Considering you own a very large market here in the US, it's up to you to introduce it to the market. Pitching the sale is the only way to know for sure. If you're not going to bother selling the WP7 phones, why even have them in your inventory? Does not compute.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Wither on the vine by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Take the cooperative marketing dollars! C'mon. Do it!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:Wither on the vine by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      It's not up to Verizon, AT&T, or anyone else to take a gamble on something they don't want to. They are already turning a profit on iPhones, Android phones, and numerous other phones. Why should they give that up to help MS make a buck unless they get some kind of guarantee they will make MORE money by selling MS phones?

      On the other hand, Microsoft COULD pay them big bucks to provide shelf space ... just like producers do at a supermarket. You think the store arbitrarily decides who gets what placement on the shelves?? He who pays most and gets biggest profit gets the most room. If someone wants a store to carry their untested product, they had better be ponying up the bucks to get them to move items already making money out of the way.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    3. Re:Wither on the vine by imric · · Score: 1

      I remember MS did with OS/2, threatening that store-owners will get NO MS goodness unless they had all of the choicest shelf-space? This is hilarious to me - seeing MS on the other side of the marketing wall. The fact that they didn't pay for prominent, exclusive displays says (to me) that Verizon thought that any amount MS thought they could afford was not enough, and would hurt sales badly enough to affect the bottom line.

      Hilarious!

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
    4. Re:Wither on the vine by clampolo · · Score: 1

      Walmart doesn't go out of its way to promote any of the products it sells. All they care is that you buy something at Walmart. Why should Verizon be any different. If iphones and androids are selling like hotcakes why should they spend advertising money to canabalize their sales.

    5. Re:Wither on the vine by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I remember what the hardware vendors did to OS/2. Bundling it on their hardware meant sending a thick licensing payment to IBM, who incidentally was one of their direct competitors on the market, for ever unit they sold. Possibly in some cases a payment greater than the profit on their sale of the hardware. It wasn't Microsoft alone that killed OS/2. It was the market of buyers who didn't want it, the app developers who didn't want to develop for it, and the hardware vendors that didn't want to pay a tax to one of their competitors for each unit they sold.

    6. Re:Wither on the vine by imric · · Score: 1

      Heh. Oh I agree. IBM does two things well: Shooting themselves in the foot, and reloading.

      --
      Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
  4. Chicken or egg? by AndyAndyAndyAndy · · Score: 1

    Failing because of poor sales pitches or lack of decent sales pitches because of poor sales? Either way it's a bad scenario for any manufacturer to be in.

    --
    It's always confirmation bias!
  5. Windows Mobile by leon.gandalf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the problem is that windows mobile phones sucked THAT bad. Like Vogon poetry bad.

    1. Re:Windows Mobile by tripleevenfall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They not only have a reputation problem because of Windows in general, and because of the atrocious previous versions of Windows on the phone, but they are also 4 years behind the curve in the mobile space. The iPhone came out in 2007.

      Microsoft is fourth to market with a fourth rate product. Why WOULD any consumer come in asking for it?

      My guess is that MSFT will start giving the phones away to get some market penetration.

    2. Re:Windows Mobile by BRSQUIRRL · · Score: 1

      the problem is that windows mobile phones sucked THAT bad. Like Vogon poetry bad.

      I hear that even the Azgoths of Kria carry iPhones.

    3. Re:Windows Mobile by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      So you're saying a Windows Mobile Phone is like a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in My Armpit One Midsummer Morning?

    4. Re:Windows Mobile by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's laughable, really. Redmond has spent the last twenty years waging the war of the desktop, even as, in the last five years, the desktop has faded in consumers' eyes. Heck, even in the business/corporate world, smartphones and tablets are beginning to show substantial inroads (Blackberry has got to be credited for that, even if it looks like another example of an early producer being unable to keep up to its newer competition).

      At some point, you think Redmond marketers would have noticed that the enemy combatants weren't even bothering fielding a lot of soldiers any more. It was clear three years ago that Apple had seen the promised land and had put a huge amount of effort into the iPhone line. If that didn't send the message, the fact that Google began dumping huge resources into the Android operating system and was in fact getting some pretty sweet manufacturing deals should have suggested to these guys that maybe things weren't what they had been. But no, Microsoft was caught in the Vista drama and in promoting Windows 7 as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

      The nightmare is coming, too. Blackberry was the first out of the gate with products that integrated with Microsoft's enterprise offerings, but everyone else was quick to the punch. Microsoft is increasingly faced with the possibility that it's twin product lines of Windows and Office/Exchange are about to be split apart. And once you've replaced Office and Outlook as the forward facing apps, how much longer before the drive to producing new back end offerings finally cuts the heart out of Microsoft's business? Just about everything else Microsoft does loses money, so they have got to be shitting themselves right now. Without Windows/Office/Exchange, in the long term, they are well and truly fucked.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Windows Mobile by NJRoadfan · · Score: 0

      The iPhone of 2007 actually wasn't all that great and was a big step backwards compared to contemporary products out at the time. No native apps (only "webapps"), and missing features that were already available on competitor's products like MMS, multitasking, cut-n-paste, etc.

    6. Re:Windows Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem is that windows mobile phones sucked THAT bad. Like Vogon poetry bad.

      My last 2 phones have been Windows (old os, and new WP7) and I loved them both. They do exactly what they are supposed to. Most people don't need an iTransporter, iWarpDrive, or an iLudicrousSpeed feature in their phones. Windows phones due what there supposed to do. Make calls.

      Maybe jitterbug should buyout WP7.

    7. Re:Windows Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem is that windows mobile phones sucked THAT bad. Like Vogon poetry bad.

      Well played!

    8. Re:Windows Mobile by baker_tony · · Score: 1

      So you're saying WP7 is 4 years behind the iPhone?

    9. Re:Windows Mobile by PraiseBob · · Score: 2

      WinMo was awful. Every iteration was terrible. And every version upgrade was supposed to be "significantly" better. They never were. It was painful to use. Now I hear WinMo 7 is better. I'm not falling for that again!

      The only chance MS has to win customers over, is to disguise the product as a different name entirely, and not let consumers know that they are involved.

    10. Re:Windows Mobile by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      The one I had was like that, yes.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    11. Re:Windows Mobile by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Ah but the iphone of 2007 had one feature none of the other phones on the market then(and most still today) had.

      it was easy to use for anyone. You didn't need a degree in geek to use it, or hours of video training to access your emails.

      Everything it did it did gracefully, and simply. You could hand someone who could barely use a computer the iphone and they could not only figure out how to make and receive calls, but also view websites.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    12. Re:Windows Mobile by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      I left Windows Mobile on my HTC Apache to get a G1 the day it came out. The G1 smoked the winmo device like it wasnt anybodies business. I say that to say this: between wp7 and winmo, I'd go winmo any day. Way more features, actual multitasking, an interface not loaded down with gui parlor tricks, better third party ecosystem... the list goes on. MS would have done better refining what they had. They chose to make the bed they lie in now.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    13. Re:Windows Mobile by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      The lynchpin that is holding MSFT up right now is Windows licensing to business.

      My workplace is starting to talk about piloting Macs to desktops. To coders, to support analysts, to systems analysts, etc. This would have been beyond fantasy five years ago. But now half the people making the decision have Macs in their household, and they know it's *nix based which is good, and they are ready to give it a go as soon as someone says "total cost of ownership"

      If MSFT starts to see their corporate desktop installation base go, and I think that may be closer than we think - the roaches will really be scattering.

    14. Re:Windows Mobile by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Yup. Apple did again what they have repeatedly shown a mastery in, and that's making a simple GUI that can be mastered quickly. It's irrelevant in many ways whether the original iPhone was only half as good as some of the offerings four years ago or not, what it was a sleek-looking product that was marketed brilliantly and within its limitations did a damned good job. Apple followed up soon enough with a new version much more capable, spawned the App Store, and the rest is history.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    15. Re:Windows Mobile by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I think you're going to see a convergence of a lot of projects as guys like Apple and Google begin putting serious effort into an Outlook-Exchange killer. Now that Windows is no longer THE operating system, I think that psychological barrier in both the consumer and business markets that has so long kept MS on top is in jeopardy. It was predicted a long time ago, during Palm's early days, that maybe some day people would not view the PC as their major computing machine, and a lot of people scoffed. Microsoft paid lip service to it, but I don't think it could see a straight line between its Windows-Office business structure and some nebulous mobile future. Apple did it, I think, because it was a make-or-break deal. I think Jobs knew it was either grab whole new markets or end up in the dustbin. They started it with the iPod, gave them the wildly popular "i" branding. Apple became cool, and we can all mock that, but consumers lap it up. I can't real credit Apple with technical innovation, because it's not as if there weren't guys doing MP3 players or smartphones or hell, even tablets, before Apple jumped in, but Apple streamlined it and just generally marketed the living shit out of it.

      Like I said, I had an epiphany when I watched that woman editing Excel spreadsheets on her iPad a few months ago. It struck me that the whole computer market has had a titanic shift, and Microsoft is still, fundamentally, stuck in the late 1980s-1990s model, still relying on OEM sales from the consumer market and volume licensing from the corporate market, and just puking out money but always being two steps behind the next big thing.

      It happened to IBM, and they basically admitted defeat, but they still had their older mini/mainframe markets to fall back on. If the desktop as we know it fades and alternatives to Outlook-Exchange become viable at the corporate end, then what does Microsoft fall back on? Just about everything else they do loses money.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:Windows Mobile by mcsqueak · · Score: 1

      But at least they had an iPhone funeral before the launch!! (wait, or was that for the Kin's launch?)

      Am I the only one who notices that when a company B introduces a "Company A Product Killer!", its always Company B who loses out in the end?

    17. Re:Windows Mobile by iluvcapra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I remember this slightly differently -- the iPhone I got that first day in 2007 never crashed (like my Treo and Nokia), never crashed during phone calls (Treo), never pocket dialed (Treo and Moto), and was never stranded with a years-old OS while the carrier dragged their heels (Treo). It also lasted all day on a charge, and the battery door never fell off when I dropped it, and dust never clogged the SD slot on account of the lost the little blank that was supposed to cover it (Treo).

      Also, when the touchscreen became unresponsive two weeks after I bought it, I was able to bring it to a store and get it replaced in 10 minutes, and backup restore worked perfectly. I never had to ship my phone somewhere and be phoneless for a week, only to get the phone back and be told that the techs in Arizona couldn't reproduce my problem (Nokia). It also had a web browser, maps app, and video player that was actually usable and didn't destroy the battery. It also had the nice Visual Voicemail thing.

      It did not run apps. But the other stuff far outweighed the apps issue. Frankly if iPhones didn't have native apps TODAY I'd probably still be using the things. No Android manufacturer can match Apple's hardware service, or even tries to. All the apps in the world aren't worth having to wait a week to get a phone fixed through the mail.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    18. Re:Windows Mobile by leon.gandalf · · Score: 0

      Well yeah make calls between crappy UI hangups and crashes. Why bother getting a smart phone if all you want to do is make calls???

    19. Re:Windows Mobile by E-Rock · · Score: 1

      Maybe Google is a threat to Microsoft's enterprise operations, but not Apple. The biggest reason is that they don't want to be there. They've discontinued their rack mount hardware and their server is just an add-on for the Mac Mini. Their AD integration and SMB support is horrible, so you can't just drop them into an existing infrastructure as a 1:1 replacement. We do it where I work with some add-on software that makes it so our Macs can work and share files with the windows computers.

      Apple could easily fix all of these things, but for whatever reason, they haven't. They're making boatloads of money in the consumer space, and seem happy with that. Google would like to eat some of Microsoft's enterprise lunch, but their products just aren't there yet.

    20. Re:Windows Mobile by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      If I wanted a phone that just "Makes calls" I'd get the free clam shell my provider tosses to me every two years when I sign a new contract (or for that matter just keep the first clam shell and not be under contract). WP7 phones compete primarily with iPhones and high end Android devices. For $200 and a two year contract it better do a Hell of a lot more than make calls. It needs to do what the iPhone and those high end Android phones do. It doesn't, so why should I spend my $200 on WP7 rather than iOS or Android?

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    21. Re:Windows Mobile by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Not the same. Not at all. That's like saying that Windows [1-3] sucked, so you're not going to try 95, or the various versions of Mac OS sucked so you're not going to try OS X, or some other similarly ludicrous complaint. You certainly don't have to have high expectations, and I'm not saying you need to go buy one right now, but maybe you should at least try it before badmouthing it? The software is really quite nice to use, and if it's missing some features now, the stuff that has been demonstrated with Mango resolves almost all of that. It's not even vaporware; you can download the SDK and emulator today.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    22. Re:Windows Mobile by pkinetics · · Score: 1

      As far as editing documents, documents are just data. An application is just an extraction layer for interaction with data. Architecture is a whole different game.

      I think it will take a huge amount of money and energy into replacing Exchange Server. It is deeply entrenched in Corporate America. A migration to a new architecture is a huge undertaking not just in new software but in migration of existing to the new. That means in house IT. Thats a huge cost with NO return on investment.

      Throw in all the components that come with the Windows Server architecture, Active Directory, whatchamacallits, whozits and doo-dads, and the relatively easier integration between those components, and what will someone have?

      Let's face, when you have an Exchange server with thousands of accounts with thousands of messages, how do you get that to a new iMail / Gmail server?

      Now for new companies a new, low cost, easy to maintain nicely integrated email system is what they need. Something that is easy to setup, very stable, and a set it and forget it.

      As far as an Outlook replacement, that's the easier part. Outlook is just the data interaction layer. Ergo, like Excel.

    23. Re:Windows Mobile by jbplou · · Score: 1

      I suppose you're forgetting how Microsoft launched Silver and killed Flash.

    24. Re:Windows Mobile by vaporland · · Score: 1

      Apple could unbundle their server software and certify it for specific vendors' chipsets.

      They would sell a fuxload of licenses and could use some of the profits to make their server software as universally compatible / scalable as it needs to be.

      --
      Ask Me About... The 80's!
    25. Re:Windows Mobile by tibman · · Score: 1

      I agree with you but i think SharePoint will be MS's Office replacement as cash cow.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    26. Re:Windows Mobile by westyvw · · Score: 1

      You might be right. And that makes me want to gouge my eyes out with a stick. Sharepoint is mediocre at its best and complete rubbish for the rest. Every company has the ability to use the same functions it offers, only better and freely by simply implementing a web server, apps, and a thought out workflow.

    27. Re:Windows Mobile by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      I would love to replace Outlook. That .... I can't think of any adjective to describe that horrible piece of SHIT. It does not even support all of the standards of standard imap and pop3. It supports it like IE supported w3c standards. It is so tied in with proprietary Active Directory garbage and management that it seems impossible to replace.

      What we need is an opensource replacement. Or maybe a cloud replacement or internet one? The we can finally leave Windows. Ok that is a joke for American fortunate 1000 companies, but many medium companies use macs now. It is Exchange and Active Directory which always make management eventually migrate to Windows and a MS ecosystem.

      If there ever was a case of open standards it would be email and scheduling as I feel Exchange is so proprietary and impossible to unweild out of the MS ecosystem.
      Is Notes really that much worse?

    28. Re:Windows Mobile by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Yes they really need to drop the windows name, being associated with windows is generally a bad thing...

      Windows is known for crashing.
      Windows is known for malware.
      Windows mobile is known for having an awkward unsuitable interface.

      Windows still sells on the desktop space because users often aren't aware alternatives exist at all, or view them as expensive (Mac) or for geeks (Linux)... Many of these users hate windows and have bad things to say about it, but believe it is an integral part of computing and accept it as a "necessary evil" which is required to (access the internet|play games|do work|etc)...

      In other areas, especially phones, users are aware that better alternatives exist and so they will often avoid windows like the plague...

      And look at the xbox for an example, it is not associated/branded with windows and has been relatively successful, would it have sold so well if it had been branded as "Windows Game" or similar?

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    29. Re:Windows Mobile by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

      I know of at least three people who have had to send iPhones back/replace iPhones because of easily-damaged cases, even my missus had to get her iPhone 3G back because audibly it was unusable unless she used it on hands free.

      I'm on my third Android phone and don't recall ever having to reboot numbers 2 or 3 - I do remember boot number 1 a few times because of lock-ups.

      You're clearly not living in the real world because otherwise you'd be fully aware that Android devices are far outselling iPhones currently - much of that is to do with the fact that many people do not want to live in Apple's locked-down "I don't own the device" world.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    30. Re:Windows Mobile by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 1

      I sincerely suggest you try out a Windows 7 phone. They're a damn amazing experience, whatever their shortcomings.

      --
      Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
    31. Re:Windows Mobile by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I know of at least three people who have had to send iPhones back/replace iPhones because of easily-damaged cases

      His point isn't that iPhones don't go wrong. Its that you can take it into the Apple Store and get the problem sorted there and then. Which doesn't tend to happen with other brands. Of course for that to be a big advantage you have to live near a city with an Apple Store.

      You're clearly not living in the real world because otherwise you'd be fully aware that Android devices are far outselling iPhones currently

      You're not living in the real world, otherwise you'd realise that Nokia (Symbian) smartphones are outselling Android.

    32. Re:Windows Mobile by jbolden · · Score: 1

      First off companies that have tried to break Microsoft's hold have found it incredibly expensive. That's been one of the killers for Linux as an enterprise standard. That being said, take a look at research.microsoft.com . Microsoft has tremendous capability to become a major innovator in many of these areas. The problem for them is a huge percentage of their customer base doesn't want rapid innovation; a classic problem of being disrupted.

      Oh and BTW IBM lost $5b the year their desktop sales to enterprise dropped off in favor of clone people like Dell. IBM going out of business was seen as quite possible in '91.

    33. Re:Windows Mobile by Abreu · · Score: 1

      You are right, if anyone dropped the ball hard on the smartphone game is Nokia and Palm... sad.

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    34. Re:Windows Mobile by Super_Z · · Score: 1

      Now for new companies a new, low cost, easy to maintain nicely integrated email system is what they need. Something that is easy to setup, very stable, and a set it and forget it.

      For our company, Zimbra fit the bill nicely.

    35. Re:Windows Mobile by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      The OP was making the point that phones in 2007 were better compared to iPhones; this was only superficially true, since smartphones pre-iPhone were hella unreliable.

      I'm happy to concede that Android, when free of vendor and carrier crap is competitive with iOS. But the actual phones you can buy I'm not so sure; Google can code but the phone manufacturers and carriers, whom Google abets, are still as crappy as they've always been. Just look at your case: I've only had to buy two iPhones in four years, and you've had to buy three in three? The cheaper hardware and lazy OS update non-policy takes a toll. It seriously seems like the only reliable way to upgrade the OS of any randomly-selected Android phone is buy a new one.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    36. Re:Windows Mobile by spisska · · Score: 1

      The've got a staggeringly large R&D budget, but they've also got shockingly little to show for it. The fact is that Microsoft isn't, and has never been, particularly good at innovation. They're always trying to solve yesterday's problems, and have no real concept or imagination about what comes next.

    37. Re:Windows Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS is often late to the party. But, in the long run, that does not seem to hurt MS. MS was way to the party when it came to the internet, but MSIE took over. MS can afford to be late, because MS can always leverage their monopoly to force people to accept a new MS platform, because it's the only way to be compatible with the MS platform you have already adopted.

    38. Re:Windows Mobile by spisska · · Score: 1

      All you have to do is look at the stories MS plants in the press. They're never about the current products, which have invariably failed to live up to expectations, but always about the next generation, which will be the coolest, most awesomest thing ever.

      Just look through the comments here. Nobody is even trying to claim that WP7 comes close to iOS or Android (although before lauch there were plenty of such claims). Instead they're all claiming that the next iteration will be the killer.

      This is the same song MS has been singing since the '80s, and it's really not a surprise that people have finally quit listening.

    39. Re:Windows Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just about everything else Microsoft does loses money, so they have got to be shitting themselves right now. Without Windows/Office/Exchange, in the long term, they are well and truly fucked.

      I guess someone doesn't own an Xbox...

    40. Re:Windows Mobile by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And has their Xbox division ever made a nickel? It's been underwritten by the profitable divisions since its inception.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    41. Re:Windows Mobile by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And what monopoly do they have in the mobile market?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    42. Re:Windows Mobile by jbolden · · Score: 1

      That's just not true. Microsoft has very conservative product managers for their profitable products and as a result there is a slow transition from research to side offering and side offering to core. But... if you spend any time on their research side you will see tremendous imagination and innovation.

      Microsoft right now represents a conservative and cautious choice. They done the ground work to turn on a dime if they needed to.

    43. Re:Windows Mobile by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      Just to correct you somewhat.

      I'm in the UK, have a mobile contract and I don't know if it's the same where you are.

      But each time I've changed is not because the phone is in anyway faulty but because I've been entitled to a phone upgrade after a certain time period. The first HTC I sold as a working phone on eBay, my second Nexus One phone works perfectly after 18 months of usage, and I've just got myself a HTC Desire Z with a slide out keyboard because I do a lot of remote SSH shell work to my home servers.

      If anything, I'm looking at getting a handful of cheap pre-paid data sims for the now unused Nexus One so I can carry it around with me as a spare if I need a bit more data usage than the 500 MB a month I get on my contract.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    44. Re:Windows Mobile by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      Don't kid yourself. Android is outselling the iPhone because you can get Android phones for cheaper. The whole 'I don't own the device' 1. Isn't true and 2. Goes over the head of anyone who's not a geek. By the way, the market of people who aren't geeks makes up most of humanity.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    45. Re:Windows Mobile by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the point, windows has such a bad reputation that a large number of people simply don't want to try them regardless of how good they might be.
      If it was called something else and not associated with windows people might be more inclined to try it.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    46. Re:Windows Mobile by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      That's like saying that Windows [1-3] sucked, so you're not going to try 95

      I wish I had said that!

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
  6. Sprint by jobugeek · · Score: 1

    I know as of last month that Sprint didn't even have any WP7 on their handset roadmap, so unless they are planning to sell them retail only, they aren't really interested in them.

    --
    I'm not drunk, I just have a speech impediment. And a stomach virus. And an inner ear infection.
    1. Re:Sprint by GreyLurk · · Score: 1

      Troll? or did you miss the HTC Arrive that came out in February?

      Admittedly, it's not much compared with the stable of Android phones that they're carrying, but it's not nothing.

    2. Re:Sprint by idontgno · · Score: 1

      I suspect it's not so much trolling as inadvertent confirmation of TFA: No one can find a WP7 phone in any carrier store without diligence and lots of luck. The actual fact that they've been rolled out by vendors and are in the "official" catalog of the network providers looks purely hypothetical by now.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    3. Re:Sprint by jobugeek · · Score: 1

      I didn't miss anything. It was Sprint branded which means it's sold in Sprint retail only, not their MNVO resellers.

      --
      I'm not drunk, I just have a speech impediment. And a stomach virus. And an inner ear infection.
  7. That's clever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've got stock that isn't selling, so you hide it to ensure that it carries on not selling.

    1. Re:That's clever by Altus · · Score: 2

      Do you really think they are sitting on a huge pile of phones? They are not. The phones are in stock (in reasonable quantities, not massive) at their big stores and they aren't selling well there. People are apparently not asking about them very often at kiosks. Why would you take up valuable kiosk space with phones nobody seems to be that interested in.

      WP7 phones not selling is really a non issue for carriers. It is only an issue for MS and the manufactures of those phones.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  8. It's foolish... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 2

    It's foolish to base any of your decisions on what retail cell salesmen say or do anyway. I've never been outright lied to as often as I have by someone trying to sign me up for a cell phone plan.

    Well, except for someone trying to sell me a TV or laptop at BestBuy. They like to bend the truth and hide things, too.

    If Caveat Emptor ever applies in life, it sure as hell does when it comes to electronic devices in a retail setting...

  9. True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As much as I dislike Microsoft, this is true. I have rarely seen a Microsoft phone in any store.

    1. Re:True by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 0

      Phone stores dont like products with 100% return rate, and historically, that means Windows phones.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    2. Re:True by green1 · · Score: 1

      Funny... Where I live the MS phones have the prime shelf space, and the dealers are pushing them hard... you even get a free xbox if you buy a (free) winphone7 on a 3 year contract... the posters outside the store are pushing them, and they are the first phones you see when you walk in the door.

      Turns out, they can't give them away. for all the push the phones get here, and it's far more than Android, and even slightly more than iPhone, I have yet to see a single one "in the wild"

    3. Re:True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where do you live?

    4. Re:True by green1 · · Score: 1

      Canada

  10. Sounds like WebOS by Scutter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sprint did the exact same thing with WebOS. Granted, the hardware was nothing to write home about, but the operating system is great! The WebOS phones were always stuck in the back corner of the store, though.

    --

    "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    1. Re:Sounds like WebOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Verizon also did the same thing with webOS. There were numerous people reporting that when they went to Verizon store asking about a webOS phone, the Verizon salespeople insisted on selling them a Droid instead.

  11. MS can fix that easily... by mlts · · Score: 2

    MS can easily fix the chicken/egg scenario.

    1: Put out a new version of the ActiveSync protocol which is only licensed to the iPhone and WP7 devices.

    2: Make it the the default protocol in the next Exchange version. Perhaps the only protocol, and move legacy ActiveSync (as well as IMAP and POP) to an additional charge product similar to BES.

    3: Add some security features to the new ActiveSync protocol so it is the only one "blessed" by businesses under the guise of SOX, HIPAA, etc. (even when in reality, that protocol doesn't matter.)

    4: Watch businesses not bother with Android and buy WP7 phones en masse over Blackberries.

    5: ????

    6: Profit. Exchange is the mail standard, and if a phone doesn't work with ActiveSync, it will not sell past the consumer market.

    1. Re:MS can fix that easily... by BeerCat · · Score: 1

      Exchange is the mail standard, and if a phone doesn't work with ActiveSync, it will not sell past the consumer market.

      Almost a cunning plan. Except that increasingly, people want to use their consumer phone with the corporate email (and if they are high enough up the food chain, will demand IT make it so).
      Also, the refresh rates in the corporate sphere are not as fast as consumer.
      So, it would make a decent amount of money for MSFT, but not as much as the potential to be had in the consumer market.

      --
      "She's furniture with a pulse"
    2. Re:MS can fix that easily... by johnlcallaway · · Score: 3, Insightful

      7 ... Get sued for non-competitive practices, have millions of current Android owners get pissed off, see small businesses everywhere turn to Google mail, and loose profit.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    3. Re:MS can fix that easily... by BagOBones · · Score: 1

      RIM now offers Companies BESX a lite version that is free and offers at least the same features as active sync without needed special BES data plans.

      --
      EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
    4. Re:MS can fix that easily... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6: Profit. Exchange is the mail standard, and if a phone doesn't work with ActiveSync, it will not sell past the consumer market.

      Not exactly true. Right now, the consumer market is mobile device adoption in the corporate world, and an awful lot of IT departments are scrambling to make it work securely. To put it simply, most people have email-capable phones and don't want to need a different phone for their work email.

    5. Re:MS can fix that easily... by LordThyGod · · Score: 1

      Exchange is not a "standard", but a product that does not play well with standards. And only in business environments. The consumer market is juicier than the business market, and consumers could care less about ActiveSync, Exchange, or Outlook. So this strategy fails. Which is why MS might try it. They've tried almost everything else without much to show for it.

    6. Re:MS can fix that easily... by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      Humm and Microsoft using their market share on the desk top in an anti-competitive way would go over so well.
      Yea I see corporate customers throwing a fit if their blackberries and Android phones stopped working, the EU slapping a few billion dollar fine on Microsoft, companies migrating away from Exchange to Gmail, and a general destruction of Microsoft's market share in the enterprise.

      Wow. That would be cool and it would only get better. You see WP7 isn't enterprise ready at all. The law suits would be fantastic to watch as even the US gov would get into a fit because they use Exchange with Blackberries. Oh and if they gave it to Blackberry as well. That would targeting Google which is anti-completive and Google would launch an massive law suit that be epic in scope.

      It would probably cause less legal problems if Microsoft just put a hit out on Steve Jobs and the Larry Page.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:MS can fix that easily... by leenks · · Score: 1

      Which requires Exchange and only runs on certain versions of Windows, and has a slew of other restrictions.

      If you run another ActiveSync capable server on a non-Windows platform you are screwed. And yes, some small-medium sized companies are looking to quality Exchange alternatives, such as Kerio (which requires far less resources to serve more people).

    8. Re:MS can fix that easily... by robertl234 · · Score: 1

      Both the iPhone and Android are marketed towards consumers who don't care about Exchange support. This isn't like the adoption of the PC where businesses bought the machines before consumers did. In fact, it's exactly the opposite and it's also why RIM isn't doing so well.

    9. Re:MS can fix that easily... by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      microsoft would do better to work with RIM to ensure blackberries and WP7 devices play well with each other on each other's networks, license blackberry messenger for WP7 and position themselves in between blackberry for emailing-all-the-time obsessed execs and the mailroom guys with their androids and iphones. push it as a smart phone for people who don't want to learn how to use a smart phone.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    10. Re:MS can fix that easily... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Except there is no longer this nice division between "business environment" and "consumer environment". Believe me, as the guy responsible for our networks and security, I'd love it if every Android, iPhone, iPad or whatever other 'Droid or i' out there was crushed, because they're a major pain security wise and configuration wise. But people come into my office, have this new device with an expensive data plan and they want access to their email, calendars, tasks and address books, all on Exchange. A few years ago I could just say "Nope", now I'm getting pressure from the bosses, who are the first ones in line wanting their Smackberry or iGroan to pick up their Exchange email.

      This ain't the world that IBM and Microsoft built anymore. Those nice clean lines don't exist. You're watching devices that a few years ago were generally considered consumer mobiles suddenly appearing in boardrooms. As Blackberry has began to fade, it's being replaced by, you guessed it, iPhones and Androids, and Mr. CEO and Mr. CFO are buying the same bloody units that their kids are picking up, and they're watching their kids saying variations of "there's an app for that", and they're looking at their IT departments with those ivory tower Exchange servers ever so delicately linked into Outlook and going "where's the app for *that*?"

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    11. Re:MS can fix that easily... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Yup. The day when Microsoft could use the twin revenue streams of Windows/Office and Windows/BackOffice to bludgeon competition to death is gone. If they actually tried to break competitor access to the next versions of Exchange, not only would they probably be back in antitrust hell (in no small part because the very bureaucrats and courts that would be trying to eat them alive are using those very devices), but all they'd do is give guys like Apple and Google the final piece in the puzzle to come up with a complete Exchange killer. The last thing on Earth Microsoft ever wants the CEO to ask the CIO is "My Smackberry doesn't pick up my emails and calendar very well since that big Exchange upgrade, and we're paying a helluva lot in licensing. What else is out there?"

      Microsoft, because of its inability to at least be in the second wave, is now caught between the rock and the hard place. Karma's a bitch

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:MS can fix that easily... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will state one bald fact:

      With the political climate of today, Microsoft can do what they want to, and there is no chance in Hell they will ever have an antitrust investigation against them. Obama wouldn't do it because he is fighting for his seat. Congress would view MS as a true US company asserting strategic advantages.

      There is no way in hell MS would ever see the inside of a courtroom with the word "monopoly" mentioned for now.

    13. Re:MS can fix that easily... by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      How is it an issue security wise? Or even configuration wise? The iPhone (and some Androids) support Exchange Web Services and Exchange ActiveSync right out of the box. All you need to be doing is sticking an Ex2007 Frontend server at the back of your DMZ, expose it over HTTPS to the internet, and you have yourself a fully iPhone and Android friendly Exchange implementation, with push email, calendaring, and pretty much every feature except rich text emails ready to roll for any employee with an NT logon and a mailbox (with the "Mobile Client Access" permission enabled, of course). And if that wasn't enough for your security, attaching that iPhone or Android device to your Exchange server in such a way makes it subject to your Exchange server's security policies - such as password requirement on the device, remote wipe capability, and all that.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    14. Re:MS can fix that easily... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be in the States. The EU seems more than happy to whack Microsoft. But the fact is that Microsoft just isn't a position to pull a Netscape on Apple and Google. Whether regulators care to get involved or not, if Microsoft plays this dirty, they'll lose.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    15. Re:MS can fix that easily... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 6: Profit. Exchange is the mail standard

      For whom? Offices that can't afford an IT staff and have the owner's nephew "install their internet" ?

      SMTP is the mail standard. Exchange is one among many products that implements it. "ActiveSync" is just IMAP IDLE / push. It's true that an Android phone doesn't support ActiveSync. Know how to get it anyway? Use IMAP to connect to your mail server. Using Exchange as the MUA and having a hard time connecting to its piss-poor IMAP implementation? Sorry. Do everything in your power to get IT to use a real user-facing mail server (dovecot or courier-IMAP will be what you find your ISP uses, if you ask them) - Exchange's IMAP support breaks seven new ways with every service pack.

      The SMTP side of Exchange server at least *mostly* follows standards, since its harder to blame the recipient of your email that never arrives than the product which sends it. But the amount of issues that constantly arise with their IMAP support pretty much guarantee that these are intentional problems. It's difficult to imagine engineers incompetent enough to accidentally fail to follow core components of a standard in such a way that mysteriously Outlook is the only MUA that can connect successfully. Maybe they've gotten better in recent versions, I dunno. But the old saying about leopards and spots likely applies.

    16. Re:MS can fix that easily... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? It's not like it would be the first time Microsoft abuses their monopoly power and drags their feet in the court while eating their competition alive. They count fines as a cost of doing business.

    17. Re:MS can fix that easily... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      For whom? Offices that can't afford an IT staff and have the owner's nephew "install their internet" ?

      Yup. Also for large companies where the CEO insists on Microsoft. Also for people who only know exchange but like the calendar features.

      I've only ever worked at two companies that don't use the outlook/exchange combo. It seems pretty much the standard.

    18. Re:MS can fix that easily... by spisska · · Score: 1

      It isn't 1995 any more, and these tactics are not going to work today. Ten or fifteen years ago, MS had the ability to bend the market to its will. But they don't any more. That is, if they try to make corporate mail incompatible with non-Win phones, it won't make people buy Win phones; it will make them dump MS mail systems.

    19. Re:MS can fix that easily... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds to me like you're just lazy and not very good at your job.

    20. Re:MS can fix that easily... by mlts · · Score: 1

      Of course, SMTP is the mail standard. However, there are requirements PHBs want over SMTP that forces Exchange in the mix:

      1: Remote device kills. You want the ability to erase a device with the latest confidental, unannounced models if Joe Exec loses it in his limo after too many martinis with his customer.

      2: E-mail retention standards. In reality, having sendmail copy every incoming mail to a mailbox that gets saved off every so often is OK. However, to please legal eagles when dealing with SOX, HIPAA, FERPA and other laws, one needs to have software that does autoarchiving and is auditor friendly. Even without the onerous regs, if one doesn't have a system to handle a motion of discovery, the opposing law firm will have a field day, and judges tend to rubber stamp triple damages if a company can't cough up E-mail when asked. So, Exchange is used because it has a lot of tools for this.

      3: Configurations. For a lot of businesses, a SMTP server accessed by POP or IMAP is good enough. However, there is a point where you have so many mailboxes that something that scales is more needed, where one server farm can handle one location, another cluster another location, etc, with replication and failovers tossed in the mix.

      4: I have encountered firms who demand their business partners use Exchange connectors. No connector between Exchange servers, no contract. Of course, a connector is little more than a TLS connection.

      5: Push mail. Execs would scream if they didn't have their push E-mail. Believe it or not, not that many place support IMAP idle.

      6: Unified messaging, tasks, calendars, meetings. Stuff added onto mail that the execs cannot live without. Exchange is the only game in town for this, unless you want Lotus Notes which has not seen a major upgrade in some years.

      Yes, there are some businesses which get along without Exchange. IBM and Google come to mind. However, for almost everyone else (especially if you step into government work), Exchange is it.

    21. Re:MS can fix that easily... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that even the most corporate IT environment is beginning to realize that exchange is a massive administrative pain that will be in intensive care for it's entire lifetime. While many feel trapped into using it now, there will be huge blowback for MS as soon as any product at all comes around that meets the regulatory checkboxes.

      MS bet big on capturing the desktop and salting all the earth around their market lock. They're now paying for that as their competition has found the desktop killer.

    22. Re:MS can fix that easily... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because both the market and the Department of Justice are able to, willing to, and likely to punish Microsoft for monopolistic practices so severely that it becomes uneconomic for them to pursue any.

    23. Re:MS can fix that easily... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Maybe but you have the Monster Google also talking to congress and if they did it to Apple as well it would be all hell breaking loose. Steve Jobs would be on Capital Hill talking giving testimony that would have the galleries applauding. Plus there more seats in California than Washington state so. Yea there rear-ends would be dragged into court and anti-trust would flying around. Just imagine Balmer vs Jobs infront of a Congressional hearing.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  12. Apple stores by __aazsst3756 · · Score: 1

    This is exactly why Apple created their stores. I do not believe they will work for MS like they do for Apple (way different companies), but do they sell the phones at their stores?

    1. Re:Apple stores by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      MS probably sells phones at their store. One problem pointed out is what is the customer service expectation when it comes to hardware problems. With Apple, if there is something wrong with the hardware purchased somewhere else, the Apple store is authorized to take it in for repair or exchange it if it is under warranty. Can the MS store take in a WP7 phone with a faulty screen? I don't know but I would guess no unless it was purchased at the store.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  13. Now you know how it feels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be Linux or Mac before OSX.

  14. Sounds like the rol out of OS2 Warp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Warp didn't sell because no one was buying it. No one bought it because it wasn't available in the stores. It wasn't in the stores because it wasn't selling.

    1. Re:Sounds like the rol out of OS2 Warp. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Microsoft didn't make a zillion dollars off of consumer Windows licenses. They made their fortune off of OEM licenses coupled to all those Acers and Dells and Packard Bells rolling out to your neighborhood computer store. Redmond used the clout it had with the manufacturers to make sure that IBM never was able to cut substantial OEM deals of its own, which was what the first anti-trust investigation in the early 1990s was about.

      IBM certainly made some errors with Warp, but the fact was that Microsoft used its monopoly position as the major supplier of operating systems to PC compatibles in the late 1980s and early 1990s to make sure that IBM (or anyone else, remember Dr. DOS) would not have their OS sitting on the PC that you or your Aunt Maud or your boss bought.

      I've bought precisely one shrinkwrapped operating system off the shelf in my entire life, and that was OS/2 Warp 3. Every other computer I've bought has come with one version or another of Windows on it. I'll wager that shrinkwrapped retail Windows licenses have never made up more than a fraction of consumer Windows sales for Microsoft.

      It's a different situation in the corporate world, where volume licensing is king, but still, I know a lot of companies that buy the OEM versions of Windows when they purchase new workstations even there.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Sounds like the rol out of OS2 Warp. by E-Rock · · Score: 1

      Typically your volume license only covers machines that ship with Windows. You can run your enteripse edition on a machine that shipped with home edition, and you're entitled to future versions, but it had to come with something.

  15. Maybe they want to keep Microsoft small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After seeing how well Microsoft played with others in the computer arena, maybe they don't want to see Microsoft grow in the phone arena. Microsoft has historically not played well with others that it competes with, so keeping it in a position of limited power might be of benefit to all.

  16. Branding problem by 91degrees · · Score: 2

    It's a shame. Microsoft could produce a phone that creates gold from air, and nobody would know about it because everybody hates Microsoft. They seriously have a problem. Nobody wants MS to have control over the mobile phone market.

    Apple is doing well. Apple has good branding. Apple is stylish and trendy and slick. It sells well because people feel really good about buying them. Android has a different strategy. It's backed by Google. Google has this air of nerdiness. It's technical. It's clever. It doesn't care what people think and it's *not* Apple.

    Where does Windows Mobile fit in here? Windows is not a strong brand. It's clunky and you need it because everyone else uses it. It's also late to market. Why would anyone choose that given the alternatives? It actually looks like there are some nice features on Windows Mobile. It would have to be a *lot* better than my android phone for me to want one though.

    1. Re:Branding problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where does Windows Mobile fit in here?

      Best dev environment... And XNA!

      But that means shit for the consumer. It's a shame too, because I really enjoy developing on the WP7.

    2. Re:Branding problem by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I've not used the dev environment for WP7. I have used the Windows development and the XBox 360 tools though and I can certainly attest that Microsoft's dev tools are typically well polished and well integrated.

    3. Re:Branding problem by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      For me WP7 is okay. It doesn't give me many reasons to choose it over Android or iPhone. If I was more of a gamer, it might; but your average consumer isn't always a gamer.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Branding problem by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Where does Windows Mobile fit in here?

      Best dev environment... And XNA!

      But that means shit for the consumer. It's a shame too, because I really enjoy developing on the WP7.

      Not if want to reuse some existing C/C++ code it isn't. MSFT wants everyone to use .NET for everything. Have you checked out the new XCode and the framework iOS offers? XNA is not a full fledged .NET platform so even if you had .NET code you might have to rewrite a lot of it to get it to work with XNA.

      I work with .NET all the day for server and desktop software but I am a firm believer in using the right tool for the right job. The debugging and simulation environment for mobile from MSFT is behind the iOS emulator and debugging tools by leaps and bounds.

      Even the Desktop/server part of .NET is anemic compared to Cocoa in some areas that are practically "free" in OS X. The IDE will only take you so far.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    5. Re:Branding problem by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      It would have to be a *lot* better than my android phone for me to want one though.

      Just out of curiosity, have you ever tried one? If you haven't, how do you know it's not a lot better?

      Don't get me wrong, I've never tried one either. But next time I'm in the mall, I'm definitely planning a trip to the Microsoft Store to check it out. So if it's not very impressive next to my iPhone, I'll at least know why.

    6. Re:Branding problem by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Honestly, no. I don't. So I guess you're right. For all I know it might produce gold out of air (or at least do something awesome).

      But then I'd say it's still a marketing problem. Even if I do investigate based on your nudging, anyone else who felt the same way as me isn't going to.

  17. Windows Mobile vs. WP7 by Picass0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FTFA >> "Not only did not he appear to know the fundamental difference between Windows Mobile and WP7..."

    He's hardly alone. One problem with MS changing their mobile strategy every five minutes is people have stopped giving a shit.

    It's Apple vs. Android for the market share. MS is too late to join the party.

    1. Re:Windows Mobile vs. WP7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How has Microsoft "changed their mobile strategy every five minutes" ? They rebuilt their platform. That's 1 (one) change.

    2. Re:Windows Mobile vs. WP7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I won't buy any phone if I haven't seen the salesperson fully insert it into their anus.

    3. Re:Windows Mobile vs. WP7 by blarkon · · Score: 1

      Windows Phone 7 has a higher market share than Linux does on the desktop - clearly Linux enthusiasts should just give up and install Windows or Mac OS and give up on the desktop.

    4. Re:Windows Mobile vs. WP7 by tazan · · Score: 1

      With windows mobile you get multitasking, copy paste, thousands of apps you can download for free off the internet. Ability to easily write new apps in winforms on any old visual studio you have laying around. And a ui that's totally familiar. With WP7 you don't. Which is why I just bought a windows mobile device. And now that they've started talking about Windows 8 and coding it in html5 I would guess we can stick a fork in WP7.

    5. Re:Windows Mobile vs. WP7 by RanCossack · · Score: 1

      How has Microsoft "changed their mobile strategy every five minutes" ? They rebuilt their platform. That's 1 (one) change.

      One change if you count the last one change, but I think Picass0 was talking about their Windows Mobile strategy as well. Microsoft called the same product as it gained new versions...
      Pocket PC 2000
      Pocket PC 2002
      Windows Mobile 2003, 2003SE
      Windows Mobile 5
      Windows Mobile 6
      Windows Mobile 6.1
      Windows Mobile 6.5
      Windows Mobile 6.1


      Those at times had prefixes like "Phone", "Smartphone", "Classic", "Professional", "Standard" and so on tacked on to the end, with a strange mismash of compatibility.

      Even after announcing WM7 they kept the game up with WM6.5x, but I think they are going in the right direction now. I really can't blame anyone who has already given up, though.

    6. Re:Windows Mobile vs. WP7 by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Every 5 minutes? WTF are you talking about? WP7 and Kin are the only mobile products MS has released since starting WinMo. Kin had its own issues, but software-wise they seemed a reasonable successor / re-implementation of the Sidekick feature phones that have done reasonably well for years (of course, Sidekicks don't have smartphone data prices on them, but that's Verizon's problem).

      Aside from a truly terrible decision to not use a more clearly distinct brand from the defunct Windows Mobile line, Microsoft could hardly make WP7 more different if they tried. Yes, Kin muddies the water a little, but if you can't tell the difference between three product lines, of which only two are smartphones and one of them is discontinued, you've got a much bigger problem than confusion over phones.

      The problem is that these clowns (directed at the salespeople but also including a lot of people who've commented on this story) can't be bothered to do even a minimal amount of research. WP7 bears no resemblance to WinMo, and the existence or not of Kin doesn't change that in the leastm so I'm pretty sure that their confusion is completely independent of Kin. Without Kin, this is the first change MS has made to their mobile strategy in 10 years. Even truly excessive hyperbole doesn't excuse calling that "every 5 minutes".

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    7. Re:Windows Mobile vs. WP7 by Osty · · Score: 1

      With windows mobile you get multitasking, copy paste, thousands of apps you can download for free off the internet. Ability to easily write new apps in winforms on any old visual studio you have laying around. And a ui that's totally familiar. With WP7 you don't. Which is why I just bought a windows mobile device. And now that they've started talking about Windows 8 and coding it in html5 I would guess we can stick a fork in WP7.

      Out of your entire list, the only one you got right was multitasking. WP7 has copy paste, thousands of apps you can download for free off the internet (the Zune marketplace is technically on the internet, durr), and easily write new apps in Silverlight on any old visual studio you have laying around. In fact, WM6 development actually requires you to buy Visual Studio Professional or above and does not work on the Express SKUs. The WP7 SDK includes a copy of Visual C# Express and will integrate into other VS2010 SKUs. The UI for WM6 is only "totally familiar" because it hasn't significantly changed since 2003. Except where it has, because of 3rd parties like HTC skinning it with their predecessor to Sense, but not fully skinning it so that there will always be places where the old, ugly, 2003-era UI pops up. Surprise!. And the WM interface is very much geared towards stylus-based touch, with tiny touch targets that are next to impossible to activate with your fingers. And it wasn't until the very last one or two phones that you could even get a capacitive screen (resistive screens suck) and even though those screens could support multi-touch, the OS couldn't.

      If you really want Windows Mobile, the answer is "get an Android phone". If you bought an HTC HD2, put Android on it. It runs great.

  18. Failing because microosft isn't advertising? by BagOBones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I see Apple iPhone ads almost ever other commercial break. Direct ones from apple, and carrier branded ones.. They are on constantly... I see giant Android signs up in malls.

    Where is the MS Windows Phone Marketing?

    --
    EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
    1. Re:Failing because microosft isn't advertising? by DdJ · · Score: 2

      Where is the MS Windows Phone Marketing?

      On the XBox 360 console.

      Seriously, no shit. It's packed with WP7 advertisements and promotions and tutorials.

      It's annoying as all get-out. If Microsoft takes this crap further, I may yank out my XBox's ethernet cable whenever I'm not downloading fresh content. (I mostly only do multiplayer with people in the same room as me, so I wouldn't be losing out on that.)

    2. Re:Failing because microosft isn't advertising? by DdJ · · Score: 1

      (And, I fail at correctly editing quote tags. Oops.)

    3. Re:Failing because microosft isn't advertising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are in the bathroom stalls, right next to the sign that says "Get your sh*t paper here..."

    4. Re:Failing because microosft isn't advertising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're out there, they're just so stupid they don't make an impression.

      There's one that implies a skydiver is going to die because his non-WP7 phone doesn't have a dedicated camera button. Yes, their marketing is that awesome.

    5. Re:Failing because microosft isn't advertising? by robertl234 · · Score: 2

      There were some TV ads last year when WP7 was first announced. I think they went something like, "People use their smartphones too much, we're the phone that is so intuitive that you don't have to use it". There's your brilliant MS phone marketing for you.

    6. Re:Failing because microosft isn't advertising? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Actually, I liked Really.

    7. Re:Failing because microosft isn't advertising? by ffflala · · Score: 1

      I see Apple iPhone ads almost ever other commercial break. Direct ones from apple, and carrier branded ones.. They are on constantly... I see giant Android signs up in malls.

      Where is the MS Windows Phone Marketing?

      I've seen a lot of MS Windows Phone ads on Hulu.

    8. Re:Failing because microosft isn't advertising? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Where is the MS Windows Phone Marketing?

      On youtube between me and the video I am trying to instantly watch. Talk about negative marketing.

    9. Re:Failing because microosft isn't advertising? by Pharmboy · · Score: 1
      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    10. Re:Failing because microosft isn't advertising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't watch sports, it is on there constantly.

  19. Microsoft is their own worst enemy by FudRucker · · Score: 2

    their heavy hand in the desktop/laptop market has angered many many people and the resentment goes a long ways in what people offer and recommend, they don't want what happened in the PC market to happen to the cellphone market too

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:Microsoft is their own worst enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one who has to deal with shit like Vista (or even Windows 7) and exchange is really too fond of Microsoft unless it is all they know (and there are a lot of admins like that). Try putting together a tech budget and then having MS pull the rug out from under you a few times and then tell me how great they are. The windows/office combo is deadly, and I deploy it, but I don't like it.

    2. Re:Microsoft is their own worst enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      their heavy hand in the desktop/laptop market has angered many many people and the resentment goes a long ways in what people offer and recommend, they don't want what happened in the PC market to happen to the cellphone market too

      Don't forget the Zune!

  20. It's pretty straightforward... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No consumers want them, so why would they display them prominently? They're going to showcase the items that users are actually looking for.

  21. WP7 vs Vista by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I actually think WP7 will fail much worse than Vista. Vista was a bit sluggish but it run the old applications. WP7 can't, and that will be fatal. All the Windows Mobile users will move to Android where their apps already work. People who already have an Android or iOS device are very unlikely to switch to WP7. All the ISVs will end up on Android and/or iOS because it's easier to port an app to a platform where you can use C/C++ and native code than one where the whole thing needs to be in C# and Silverlight or XNA. Even Angry Birds needs a C physics library. In fact even if Microsoft allow C and native code I doubt the ISVs that used to support Windows Mobile will come back because the platforms already bad market share is dropping quickly.

    E.g. Pleco - a Chinese dictionary - moved to iOS and (soon) to Android. They've dropped Windows Mobile and won't ever support WP7. When they dropped Windows Mobile the iOS version was outselling WinMo 10:1. They have core code in C/C++ which they can run on both iOS and Android (also on WinMo). No chance of it working on WP7 without rewriting in C#. And no chance of getting their handwriting and OCR libraries from third parties ported either.

    Opera have dropped Windows Mobile and won't support WP7. Once again they have C/C++ code with a few third party libraries in native ARM. It would be almost impossible to port to WP7 and even if they did Microsoft have apparently said they won't allow alternative browsers in their app store.

    In a sense WP7 is more like a console than a phone. Worse actually since XBoxes support native code as far as I know. Maybe they'll pick up games from the XBox ecosystem but I don't think that will make up for not having things like Opera and Pleco though. They've apparently offered Adobe the possibility of native code to get Flash ported and possibly will do the same for titles like Angry Birds. Still that's not really enough - Adobe haven't announced a ship date and Roxio, the Angry Birds publisher, have publicly contradicted Microsoft when Microsoft implied they had committed to porting. I.e. handing out native code passes for key applications is not enough to get people to support a platform which is obviously doomed.

    Picture Vista with no back compatibility following on from XP which had 1/3 the market share of OSX. Imagine that all the software already worked on iOS. That's the situation WP7 is in - it's actually easier to run the apps you used on Windows Mobile on Android than on WP7. Even the IHVs like HTC prefer Android because it's free to them and there are no limits on things like the Sense UI. WP7 has ridiculous limits on how much value they can add and they need to rewrite all their WinMo software in C# to make it work.

    I think the market share will drop rapidly and Microsoft will kill it. Just like Kin and Zune, both of which used the same software.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    1. Re:WP7 vs Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, nice rant. Except, WP7 is awesome. You should try it. No lag. Best integration. It's fast to get around in.

    2. Re:WP7 vs Vista by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      My last two phones were Windows Mobile. In fact my HD2 is excellent running this custom Rom

      http://www.jayceooi.com/2010/08/12/download-htc-hd2-cookie-energy-windows-mobile-6-5-x-custom-rom/

      I can drag and drop AVI files to it and watch them in the gym in TCPMP. I have a bunch of applications I use all the time.

      All of that works on Android. None of it works on WP7. Guess what I'm buying next?

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    3. Re:WP7 vs Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Small thing I wanted to point out, angry bird uses box2d, which is ported to native java code: http://www.jbox2d.org/
      (not sure which version angry bird uses, but it can always fall back to the java version)

    4. Re:WP7 vs Vista by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Suppose I want to make a portable game. iOS allows C/C++ and Objective C. Android allows Java, C/C++ and Flash. Windows Mobile allowed Flash, C#, C/C++ and Java. WP7 is managed C# only.

      So the best way is to code the core stuff in C/C++. Maybe you'd need some third party libraries too - those are binaries i.e. unmanaged ARM code. The UI needs to be in Objective C for iPhone and Java for Android as far as I know. Though Pleco uses a library that allows them to do the UI in a portable way and keep the core C/C++ stuff the same on Android on iPhone. WP7 doesn't fit into this model at all. And it doesn't have the market share to justify writing everything (including the third party stuff) in C# code that will only work on it.

      What's odd about it is that Microsoft must have known this. It's hard to imagine a restrictive model like WP7 working when Android and iOS are already so well entrenched and tools exist to allow code that works on both which is ~50% of the market compared to Microsoft's total (WinMo+WP7) share of 6.7%, down from 9% back when they only had WinMo. Even worse WinMo which is essentially dead is still outselling WP7. That's why you can still buy HD2s for example.

      Even if they allowed C code for the guts of the application but demanded a C# UI layer it's not clear that software vendors would bother. In fact at this point I'm not even sure that allowing old WinMo applications to run unmodified is enough to save the platform.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    5. Re:WP7 vs Vista by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I have a WP7 phone, and yes, it has convenient and smooth UI with no lag.

      But what does it have to do with GP's point? His point about why it doesn't have anywhere near as many useful apps is spot on. The lack of any portability between this platform and others is killing it. Sure, you can port between WP7 and XBox with XNA - and there are surprisingly many good games on WP7 - but little else. And my phone is not primarily a gaming device.

    6. Re:WP7 vs Vista by landswipe · · Score: 1

      Simple, they had a big pair of blinkers on... and for some reason thought C# is the best thing since sliced bread for all circumstances. I said from day one as a biased C++ Windows CE programmer, they had a major brain fart when they decided not to support C++ on WP7. I really think it was simply "lets force developers to use C# that will differentiate us, because our dev tools are world-class", which is true in some respect but they missed the bigger picture which the last 3 parent posts hit hammer to nail on.

      Look at all the videos of the sub-standard games on WP7, they are extremely laggy and due to the nature of .NET CF, I am sure developers have very little scope for optimisation.

      This stems from what seems to be a deep cultural problem in their organisation. I personally think they hit rock bottom when a myriad of windows mobile/ce developer blogs were silenced all of a sudden. It was like the dev teams were trying desperately to interact and build a community, when some executive realised that their shit stunk so bad they had shut-up avoid further embarrassment. So even if the fish's head is rotten at the top, they are swimming in their own filth and can't do much about it.

    7. Re:WP7 vs Vista by CodeInspired · · Score: 1

      You have a good point. The lack of a native SDK is definitely a deterrent for developers porting their apps from Android/iOS over to WP7. But I don't think sticking to the C#, Silverlight, XNA strategy is neccesarily a bad one. Outside of the few passes handed out to Adobe, Netflix, etc. I really don't see the need for writing native code these days. 99% of the mobile apps are extremely basic and can easily be ported to a managed code environment. You may not want to because you have already spent the time writing your C/C++ library, but going forward, it just doesn't make sense to commit to native code when managed code has so many advantages. It's not a coincidence that virtually all companies have converted to java, .NET, python, etc. for most of their development work. The hardware out today is ridiculously fast and the managed code platforms have matured. All politics and personal bias aside, I would love to see the day when we can truly write once/run anwhere. I think the mobile platform has taken us 10 steps backwards in that regard.

    8. Re:WP7 vs Vista by WARM3CH · · Score: 1

      I suggest to try Android on HD2 to see how it works. You can do it even without removing WM6.5 (i.e you can run Android from the SD card). Contrary to what you said, Android has really poor support for media files: it cannot play most AVIs, does not support WMW and WMA, etc. On HD2 I could play almost anything I can play on my Desktop but with Android half of my library is unplayable. Currently I'm running Android from ROM on my HD2 but I'm seriously thinking of going back to WM6.5. I have been using Android on it for months but now that novelty has worn out, I miss the good media support, Office mobile, Remote Desktop, more complete Buletooth support (Bluetooth stack on Android sucks! Even on Nexus One it sucks big time!) and all the offline apps (dictionary, navigation, ...). I know that some of these do not work properly on WP7, but Android fail at many of them too.

    9. Re:WP7 vs Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vista didnt fail, you you started off with a falsehood. So your whole bit there is worthless. Grats.

    10. Re:WP7 vs Vista by elashish14 · · Score: 1

      Picture Vista with no back compatibility following on from XP which had 1/3 the market share of OSX. Imagine that all the software already worked on iOS. That's the situation WP7 is in - it's actually easier to run the apps you used on Windows Mobile on Android than on WP7. Even the IHVs like HTC prefer Android because it's free to them and there are no limits on things like the Sense UI. WP7 has ridiculous limits on how much value they can add and they need to rewrite all their WinMo software in C# to make it work.

      I'll make the analogy even simpler. Both Vista and WP7 are products that nobody wanted and are doomed to fail. The only reason Vista got anywhere is because MS can coerce the OEMs to do whatever they want. They have no such power in the mobile realm. They have no means to their business model, so how will they possibly survive?

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    11. Re:WP7 vs Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even Angry Birds needs a C physics library.

      Thanks for being a typical slashdotter, not knowing what you are talking about. Box2d has been ported to everything, even javascript.

    12. Re:WP7 vs Vista by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Also HD2 here, also went from Windows Mobile, that I've used since 2004 or so. Except for the Bluetooth stack (which indeed sucks on Android, but the Widcomm BT stack on Windows Mobile for that phone also sucked in comparison to the Microsoft BT stack of previous HTC phones) you can find pretty much all applications you want.

      For playing music PowerAmp player is really good and supports most formats, for video there is RockPlayer, there are a few RDP clients available, offline navigation also exists (Sygic Aura for example) and so on.

      I don't think you really want to go back to WM because it is almost unusable on a capacitive touchscreen.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    13. Re:WP7 vs Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Roxio, the Angry Birds publisher"

      Erm, Roxio makes DVD & CD burning software. Rovio makes Angry Birds.

    14. Re:WP7 vs Vista by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Well, consider my thesis disproved.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    15. Re:WP7 vs Vista by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
      (Agreeing with you here)

      Just write it in C++ using Airplay SDK then it compiles on the Windows PC directly to an IPA file for iOS (3 screen sizes), a SIS file for Nokia/Symbian, an Android file (for its one million different screen resolutions and aspect ratios) or normal Windows Mobile. No Macintosh required, and you can test it on the PC for gameplay bugs. Of course if you want to publish for a non-standard (i.e. non iPhone) platform, you have to pay more money for the software license.

      WP7 not supported, but more mainstream os's (maemo, brew, bada, webOS, windows phone 6) are since they don't disallow compiled computer languages "native code".

    16. Re:WP7 vs Vista by WARM3CH · · Score: 1

      Thanks for recommending these apps. I'll try them. I'm sure for most purposes there are apps to cover what I'm missing in Android. I didn't get your other point about WM being unusable on a capacitive touchscreen. My experience with HD2 and sense was quite positive. Older apps might be really hard to use without a stylus but I didn't have any significant problem with lots and lots of apps that I used on WM. Anyway, maybe I have just forgotten the bad parts and only remember the good parts :)

    17. Re:WP7 vs Vista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually think WP7 will fail much worse than Vista. Vista was a bit sluggish but it run the old applications. WP7 can't, and that will be fatal. All the Windows Mobile users will move to Android where their apps already work. People who already have an Android or iOS device are very unlikely to switch to WP7. All the ISVs will end up on Android and/or iOS because it's easier to port an app to a platform where you can use C/C++ and native code than one where the whole thing needs to be in C# and Silverlight or XNA. Even Angry Birds needs a C physics library. In fact even if Microsoft allow C and native code I doubt the ISVs that used to support Windows Mobile will come back because the platforms already bad market share is dropping quickly.

      E.g. Pleco - a Chinese dictionary - moved to iOS and (soon) to Android. They've dropped Windows Mobile and won't ever support WP7. When they dropped Windows Mobile the iOS version was outselling WinMo 10:1. They have core code in C/C++ which they can run on both iOS and Android (also on WinMo). No chance of it working on WP7 without rewriting in C#. And no chance of getting their handwriting and OCR libraries from third parties ported either.

      Opera have dropped Windows Mobile and won't support WP7. Once again they have C/C++ code with a few third party libraries in native ARM. It would be almost impossible to port to WP7 and even if they did Microsoft have apparently said they won't allow alternative browsers in their app store.

      In a sense WP7 is more like a console than a phone. Worse actually since XBoxes support native code as far as I know. Maybe they'll pick up games from the XBox ecosystem but I don't think that will make up for not having things like Opera and Pleco though. They've apparently offered Adobe the possibility of native code to get Flash ported and possibly will do the same for titles like Angry Birds. Still that's not really enough - Adobe haven't announced a ship date and Roxio, the Angry Birds publisher, have publicly contradicted Microsoft when Microsoft implied they had committed to porting. I.e. handing out native code passes for key applications is not enough to get people to support a platform which is obviously doomed.

      Picture Vista with no back compatibility following on from XP which had 1/3 the market share of OSX. Imagine that all the software already worked on iOS. That's the situation WP7 is in - it's actually easier to run the apps you used on Windows Mobile on Android than on WP7. Even the IHVs like HTC prefer Android because it's free to them and there are no limits on things like the Sense UI. WP7 has ridiculous limits on how much value they can add and they need to rewrite all their WinMo software in C# to make it work.

      I think the market share will drop rapidly and Microsoft will kill it. Just like Kin and Zune, both of which used the same software.

      hey dumbass,
      you can import c++ routines DIRECTLY into c# using wrappers. It's so easy there is free software to do it for you.

      sheesh talk much with out facts?

  22. Not everything happens quickly by slapout · · Score: 1

    The iPhone may have taken off quickly, but it took Android a little while to get moving. It wasn't until around version 2 (and the Motorola Droid) that it really took off.

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  23. Carriers should not have Stores you should be by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    Carriers' should not have Stores you should be able to go a cell phone store and pick the Carrier you want with out the voice and data plan lock-in + insane roaming rates.

    1. Re:Carriers should not have Stores you should be by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      We have both models in Canada for the iPhone at least. You can buy a "subsidized" iPhone at a carrier with lock-in or by a factory unlocked iPhone directly from an Apple store paying the full price for the phone but then you have the freedom to choose a carrier (we have several HSPA carriers to choose from) and also use local SIMs when travelling abroad.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    2. Re:Carriers should not have Stores you should be by green1 · · Score: 1

      but untill the carriers offer you a discount for bringing your own phone, who would be crazy enough not to take advantage of the FREE iPhone or android device you get from the carrier? (yes I know you pay for it as part of the contract... but you also pay for it if you DON'T take it, so you might as well save the several hundred dollars the iPhone costs from Apple)

    3. Re:Carriers should not have Stores you should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know where you live, but both options coexist in most of the world. You can get a bundle or buy your phone and plan separately. You can get a plan without data, or bundle that as well. I've managed to find that choice at home in Europe (including various countries not my own), the US and Africa. Roaming still sucks, but that's an issue that won't go away without carrier bundles.

  24. It really is a pity... by shadowthunder · · Score: 1

    The Windows Phone OS really is a great piece of software. It doesn't have all of the same features as Android and iOS (the important remaining ones are going in the fall) but it has - in my opinion - a much nicer interface. IMO, it's visually attractive, aesthetically consistent, and works very well.

    Unfortunately, there aren't many attractive phones supporting it; the Samsung Focus wasn't bad, but that's only for one carrier. Otherwise, consumers are flooded with a bunch of (again, IMO) unattractive and cheaply-made HTC phones. Unlike the OS, the almost all of the phones aren't devices that can garner an "ooh" every time they're taken out, unlike the iPhone or Galaxy S II.

    1. Re:It really is a pity... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      It is, the other thing Windows 7 Mobile has going for it is the development tools. Second to none, way out ahead of anything else. I wish we had an ecosystem where I could buy the phone hardware, pick an OS, and then it could run apps written in Java, C#, native, etc... Instead, to get that awesome dev environment I have to try to use a (currently) marginalized phone.

      I'm going to talk with my money, though, and buy a WP7 later this year.. if a good enough one with NFC capabilities exists then.

    2. Re:It really is a pity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other problem is that its from *Microsoft*.

  25. Nokia by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With WP7 crashing, and Nokia committing to WP7 in a big way, I wonder if WP7 would take Nokia down with it...

    1. Re:Nokia by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      not a chance, nokia makes their money on dumb phones, obviously they don't want to get shut out of the smartphone market but they still make every non pile of shit dumb phone / feature phone out there.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    2. Re:Nokia by Kjella · · Score: 1

      What desperate companies often fail to realize is that those you're doing business with are doing it because they're equally desperate. It's rare that you get the easy ride on the coattails of a winner. Don't be surprised if Microsoft thought Nokia is huuuge, they'll get our phones in every shop everywhere and get us sales even if WP7 is only okayish. Not that I'm going to be terribly sorry if both Nokia and Microsoft took a beating, if only Nokia could pass on Qt to someone worthy.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Nokia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was a Nokia engineer, and that's as sure as the sun rising in the morning.
      It's the reason I left. And many others.

      There's also nobody who would want to program for WP7. Because there are two kinds of developers:
      Those who targeted Nokia, know Symbian and Linux, don't know and don't want to know WP7.
      And those who don't target for Nokia. ;)

    4. Re:Nokia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not the only one. Worse still, Nokia's taking down its suppliers with it:

      http://www.portfolio.com/business-news/reuters/2011/06/09/even-deep-value-investors-see-little-in-nokia
      http://www.investorguide.com/article/8756/texas-instruments-txn-gets-dragged-down-by-nokia-nok/

    5. Re:Nokia by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      WP7 isn't doing amazingly, but it is gaining market share already. In fact, relative to the same point after release, it's growing faster than Android. Nobody who committed to Android seems to have been brought down by doing so, and it's quite premature to expect the same will happen with WP7.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    6. Re:Nokia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wonder away, but you're not even close. Nokia is going down because they were too late to the SmartPhone market, having married their dumbphone marketshare. Meego was okay, perhaps even better than Android, but they held onto it too tight, or didn't market the OS properly (see previous statement). WP7 is just a symptom of the problem they already made for themselves.

      What WP7 will do for Nokia is simply accelerate their demise, the demise that was already happening.

    7. Re:Nokia by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      Wait, what? All reports have it that MS is still losing market share in mobile with wp7. Do you have a source to cite that contradicts this?

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    8. Re:Nokia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's going to take Nokia down with it.

      Why do you think 1000 Nokia employees downed tools and walked out the day that announcement was made? It wasn't because they were celebrating their new-found entirely secure future...

      Yours, a pissed-off-with-sellout-Nokia N900 owner

  26. Welcome to not being the market leader.. by gQuigs · · Score: 2

    Same issue when I was looking for a Palm Pre Plus... So I bought it online. Palm's .. err HPs new phones (right now just the Veer) are likely just as buried. This is a hard market to get into. In fact the one Palm phone I was able to get access to in the store didn't seem to work.

    I ended up getting a Palm Pre Plus and really like it and highly recommend it (well actually at this point you should get the Veer or Pre3). It's not all open source but they respect (read donate hardware too) their homebrew community.
    http://bryanquigley.com/uncategorized/hppalms-webos

    I don't see a reason why we should care that Windows Phones aren't getting "fair" time in the market, they have an unfair enough advantage in other markets. I also would much rather WebOS take off.

    1. Re:Welcome to not being the market leader.. by Targon · · Score: 1

      Well, now that Steve Jobs has moved on to giving oral sex to the execs at Verizon as well as AT&T, AT&T people don't seem quite as fixated on the iPhone. The Pre 3 SHOULD do well as long as there is some solid advertising. Hell, the Blackberry Torch had more advertising behind it than the Pre Plus, and the Pre Plus WAS competitive compared to the iPhone 3GS at the time it was released.

    2. Re:Welcome to not being the market leader.. by bdleonard · · Score: 1

      I think you have that scenario flipped, and the AT&T executives are just exhausted from their years of "service" in support of the iPhone.

  27. MS should be doing something about this. by Eric+Freyhart · · Score: 1

    First, I love having options. Second, I hate any one company dominating a market. I got a chance to play with a Windows Phone 7, and I will have to admit that the GUI, operation, and general way the phone works is a brilliant design. Everyone else is trying to make small little app icons, while MS tried a whole different approach, and it really works.

    I had about the same result as the person writing this article at an AT&T store. All the iPhones and Android units were up front in clear site, while the MS phones were in back, almost as an afterthought.

    Microsoft, get smart! Open stores and get a really good PR person in charge of your marketing! Sell phones that anyone can program without taking 30% of each sale, and 30% of each subscription.

    1. Re:MS should be doing something about this. by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      Here is a good question... what are the profit margins on WP7 handsets vs. Android handsets? The iPhone's is likely very little due to Apple's control, but its a popular handset so it gets front and center in the store anyway. Retail stores have a floor plan for a reason, to maximize profit. If WP7's competitors have better margins, of course they are going to get better placement in the store.

  28. Carrier salespeople are consumers too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the author of the article overlooked something extremely important: The salespeople for the carriers (or third-party retailers) are actually consumers of these devices too. Total shocker, I know.

    Why was the Windows Phone 7 platform not being recommended? Perhaps because the salespeople couldn't bring themselves to suggest such an undeveloped, poorly performing platform as WP7 to potential customers. Keep in mind, these people work on commission. In a vast majority of retailers, if a customer buys a phone and then returns it, the salesperson loses that commission. They don't want to push bad devices (and platforms) onto customers when there is a chance the customer will be unsatisfied and return the device.

    Or, perhaps these people are even more human than we're giving them credit for, and actually are making personal recommendations from one consumer to another. If I were a salesperson, I would never, ever recommend a WP7 device to a consumer. I know, I'd probably make a terrible salesperson. But I could never sleep at night if I had to actually recommend the platform to people. To me, it sounds like these salespeople are pushing iOS and Android because: Suprise! They're better platforms with better devices! Sorry, Microsoft. You're a few years late to the modern smartphone OS party, and nobody is going to hold your hand and introduce you to all the guests. You have to introduce yourself.

  29. They are too "open" for the carriers by Pro923 · · Score: 2

    Not open as in open source, but they can't lock these things down. I can download .cab files to do anything I want and there's no way they can really stop it. I don't have to go through any store or such nonsense. I'm not sure if WP7 is as open, but i'm hard pressed to let go of my 6.5 phone. It does everything I would want it to - for free.

    1. Re:They are too "open" for the carriers by Junta · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, they locked down WP7, just like everything else (except a few select Android handsets and WebOS devices).

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:They are too "open" for the carriers by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Windows Phone 7 is more locked down than the iPhone. Really. It won't even let you write native code: you need to use Silverlight/XNA. It is really depressing how locked down it is.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  30. Problem is the Commercials by 2bfree · · Score: 1

    The problem with Windows Phone 7 is the commercials, they are boring and forgettable. On top of that, the message of the commercials are people who spend time on their smartphones are losers which is the opposite message you should be sending to early adopters who you need to grab first.

    1. Re:Problem is the Commercials by clampolo · · Score: 1

      On top of that, the message of the commercials are people who spend time on their smartphones are losers

      Maybe they are going for the large and untapped low-self-esteem smartphone market.

  31. FTFA: Is There a Bias? by PinchDuck · · Score: 2

    Damned right there is a bias. After getting short shrift on support & software from MS on their mobile platform, going back to WinCE 2.11, I'll never use another WinMo phone again. I'm no Apple fanboy, but thank goodness that Jobs released the iPhone and changed the game, overthrowing the staid incumbents once and for all. I currently have an Evo and love it. I prefer Android, can appreciate the Apple devices, and will never again support MS due to their horrible customer service and support when they supplanted Palm. MS earned the bias against them.

  32. Anecdotal evidence does not a valid argument make. by TheRedDuke · · Score: 5, Interesting

    She visited four stores - one from each of the big providers. Had she come to my local AT&T store, she would have seen the giant Windows Mobile display with several working demos, not to mention a sales guy who wouldn't shut up about Xbox Live or Netflix. I'm not saying that WM7 isn't being as hotly promoted as the other platforms, but it would be nice if she were drawing this kind of conclusion from a slightly larger sample set.

  33. HOORAY!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A market that hopefully will drive Microsoft's absolute shit products out!! HIP HIP HOORAY! HIP HIP HOORAY! =D

  34. WP7 phones now available? by mybecq · · Score: 1

    I was under the impression that since Microsoft only announced Windows Phone 7 in February 2010, that a shipping product would be at least another 18 months away.

    I'm speechless!

  35. Re:Anecdotal evidence does not a valid argument ma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you see her anecdotal evidence and raise yours to match it?

  36. VPN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait a minute. I'm not sure Microsoft has made a usage case for Windows on a phone. Seems a little heavy if you ask me. I can VPN from my Android phone into a Windows system. It runs fine. Why do I need Windows on the phone?

    (Tongue firmly in cheek.)

  37. Re:Anecdotal evidence does not a valid argument ma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude... You just argued against anecdotal evidence with more anecdotal evidence. huh?? Your sample set is ONE!!!

  38. It's really just poor marketing on MS' part by DaveWick79 · · Score: 2

    The biggest issue is that the advertisments for WP7 are stressing functionality and operability, when the majority of consumers just want "cool". If they advertised this based on the cool apps and games like Apple and Google are, and oh by the way it runs your important stuff too, then they may have some people walking into stores asking for it.

    1. Re:It's really just poor marketing on MS' part by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't matter. Once you realize that all the cool apps aren't written for WP7, it would be game over anyway. It's why I have an iPhone right now and not an Android phone; ditto on the tablet front. When I was ready to get into the market, Android was so fantastically far behind there was no sense. That has changed, and I may (I say may) consider switching, but now I'm to the point where my phone does what I need it to, and I'm not sure I'm willing to spend the time and effort to learn yet another OS/ecosystem. That may sound lazy, but I'm a busy person (despite my being on /.) and fussing with my phone OS seems so, well, 2006.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:It's really just poor marketing on MS' part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there's no usebase how can there be apps? Another Catch-22 for Microsoft to solve.

    3. Re:It's really just poor marketing on MS' part by jbplou · · Score: 1

      I think the live tiles was an interesting idea but if the sales person doesn't push it the interface looks weird when compared with iOS, Android, and webOS.

    4. Re:It's really just poor marketing on MS' part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, all the ads I've seen for WP7 said something along the lines of "This phone is for people who don't want to be on their phone all day and want it to work." Sounds to me like they're advertising a dumbphone not a smartphone.

  39. Nokia's cunning plan all along. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. receive millions from MS
    2. drop non-revenue-producing MeeGo devs
    3. MeeGo continues development, so all they have to do is write drivers
    4. WP7 tanks
    5. MS bails
    6. hire new, cheaper MeeGo devs
    7. ????
    8. PROFIT!!!!

  40. My interpretation... by Junta · · Score: 1

    "You won't waste as much time on your smartphone because you'll just hate using it that much".

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  41. A matter of positioning by Corson · · Score: 1

    And maybe it's time someone questioned the "positioning" dogma in marketing? Pricing an inferior new product the same as your competition, when the competition makes a product that doesn't need marketing to sell, is completely out of touch.

  42. Win7 FAIL by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Back last fall, I was looking for something to replace my Tilt2. I was toying with another windows device, or switching to Android. Nothing against iPhone, it's a great device, but doesn't suit my needs. I like to TINKER! Kind of hard to do with an iphone. I went with an android device. Whereas with my 3 previous windows device, I had to either dump the carrier rom, put an hour into tweaking settings, deleting this, adding that, even though my Android device came with 1.6, it was a REFRESHING change. All I had to do was set up my gmail account, and boom! Every contact & phone number ported. No lock ups or anything. Then, in December I updated to 2.2 and its like having a new phone. Even on a carrier rom! Unless a manufacturer comes out with a larger than 4.5" screen, I'll stick with my 5" dell streak running android.

  43. Re:Anecdotal evidence does not a valid argument ma by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    Umm, yes? Your point is silly. She presented anectdotal evidence, so he did as well. Hers is thereby nullified. Now, if he claimed Windows WM7 is therefore massively promoted, you might have a point.

  44. I blame Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think I'd ever own one simply because Windows doesn't belong on a phone in my mind. Seriously their marketing team must be sitting around going "Well, we're Microsoft and we make Windows so that's in. Also, it's a phone so that's a good word and we just put out Windows 7 so that's a great version. I got it! Let's call it Windows Phone 7!"

    Who in their right mind makes a marketing campaign based on a product that's losing traction?

  45. It's a conspiracy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, because vendors like losing money because they're biased against a product. It's not that WP7 phones are junk that nobody wants so they're de-emphasized; no, the WHOLE WORLD is out to get Microsoft and their superior products! It's a conspiracy.

  46. why is this on slashdot ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why is this on slashdot ??

  47. Re:Anecdotal evidence does not a valid argument ma by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Had she come to my local AT&T store, she would have seen the giant Windows Mobile display with several working demos, not to mention a sales guy who wouldn't shut up about Xbox Live or Netflix.

    I know what you mean - I live in Seattle area, as well ~

  48. Here's an idea. by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

    WP 7 phones would start selling if they played Android apps. Barring that, they are only good for those "replace at no charge" things the carriers try pushing on customers of lower IQ's.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:Here's an idea. by fritsd · · Score: 1

      Meego, what Nokia was working on as their Symbian successor platform just before they suddenly "jumped from their burning platform", was a Linux smartphone OS that was almost ready to run Android apps:
      Dalvik ported to MeeGo, promising instant Android app compatibility

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
  49. Telus and WP7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a friend who works in an independently owned Telus store in Alberta. WP7 handsets were selling so poorly (ie. not at all) that the boss paid the restocking fee on a bunch of them and sent them back to the supplier. Having said that, the store primarily caters to businesses (oilfield companies) rather than joe/jane consumers, so take this with a grain of salt.

  50. Previous MS Phones Suck / Sellers Believe WP7 will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *clap, clap, clap*

    Windows phones have pretty much been the bottom of the heap. They can't build a big pile of "fertilizer" and try to sell it like roses. Even if WP7 edges in better then their previous offers, they are prettymuch flailing in the market, and if anyone DOES by a windows phone, everyone they know will undoubtedly ask them WHY? so much that they'll stop showing it to anyone.

    It's amazing that someone, ANYONE was suprised by this.

  51. Get your facts straight by cbhacking · · Score: 1

    Wow, that's a steaming pile of...

    In terms of SDK capability, WinMo and Android are the most similar, but that certainly doesn't mean that WinMo apps (developed against Windows APIs) are going to port even slightly well to Android (Java and POSIX APIs). Then there's the WinMo apps that were already written in managed code, where everything except the UI will move across directly.

    Why is developing in C easier than in C#? The majority of Android apps use Java/Dalvik, not C/C++. Application development is faster in managed code, and development speed is where the money is these days (especially in the mobile space). I've heard lots of complaints about WP7, but nobody has said its development tools are too hard to use.

    Claiming that Angry Birds "needs a C physics library" is such complete BS that it pretty much invalidates your whole post. Angry Birds has been written in Javascript as a web app - you don't get much further from C in syntactically similar languages than that! There are already Angry Birds clones on WP7 - have been for months, actually - and they get by just fine without C. The problem with Angry Birds on WP7 is purely political; claiming the existence of a technical problem is proof that you have no understanding of the technical issues at all.

    For the record, there are already "alternative" browsers on WP7's marketplace, Xbox supports native code in much the same way that WP7 does (native SDK exists for big-name partners but the public SDK is all managed), and WP7's market share is growing (Windows Mobile's is shrinking, but so is XP's, that doesn't mean Win7 is doomed).

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  52. And what's the profit margin on dumb phones? by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    Nokia is going to have less money to invest in future technology every year that passes. As this cycle accelerates even their non-smartphone offerings will be passed by featurewise by other vendors selling better phones for less.

  53. THIS IS RIDICULOUS by synthesizerpatel · · Score: 1

    Windows 7 phones are _the best smart phones on the market_. They exceed far beyond the capabilities of the iphone or any android device.

    Bing it yourself if you don't believe me.

  54. Kind of a non-issue for Microsoft..though wrongly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft's business model is a push through the enterprise. I/T specifies the accepted configuration and that's what's permitted. The Windows Phone 7 will have all the necessary structure to fit into enterprise's infrastructure which will make that work. Thus Microsoft will only have to convince I/T, for which they already have a finely honed machine.

    And their only competitor in this space is RIM -- the iPhone etc have limited support for that stuff and don't any effort to market to the same customer base.

    But

    Times are changing. It's pretty common now (sometimes under duress applied to I/T) for companies to allow people to use whatever phone they want. Plus Microsoft has tried to build more of a consumer brand (with some success). But most of their profits still come from big enterprises.

    So I suspect that in the short term the situation described in this article will be invisible to MS since their channel will take the product, and their own DNA will make it hard for them to adapt and recognize problem. This is despite the fact that the company is quite aware of the problem and is trying to change. It will be too hard to argue with a sales team that is "making the numbers" and with a Wall Street that will evaluate based on the model that brought them to where they are today.

  55. Re:Anecdotal evidence does not a valid argument ma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a sales guy who wouldn't shut up about Xbox Live

    Marketing gold.

  56. Where have we seen this before...? by Targon · · Score: 1

    How about the Palm/WebOS based phones? Silent launches, put in display cases with the keyboard slider closed and the phone left off, sales people who had no clue....both Verizon and AT&T could have sold quite a few Palm Pre Plus phones(which are and were vastly improved over the original Palm Pre). Manufacturers can NOT count on the carriers to actually SELL phones, unless they are a flagship device that is exclusive to that carrier. Now, a big source of the problem is the way both Verizon and AT&T obsess about a single device, and everything else means nothing. For Verizon, the Droid branded devices are the only ones that Verizon sales reps would even encourage people to buy, and AT&T was so busy getting blown by Steve Jobs that you couldn't find an AT&T employee who cared about anything besides an iPhone.

    Things have changed a LITTLE, but it really feels like the only way to get Verizon or AT&T sales people to sell a phone is to put huge incentives in place for the individual employees.

  57. way to late by luther349 · · Score: 1

    we are aruldy in a 4 way fight for the mobile os. ios androide webos and even linux in a few cases are fighting to be nu ber 1 and windows comes in years later saying they whant a pice of the mobile market. yea not going to happon. and they deserv it when this fad started with netbook they did nothing but spred fud saying they will never sell you cant use are os etc. of course when they sgtarted flying of the shelvs even linux powerd that fud came to a abrupt end then they had to scatter to make some sort of mobile os that was not the epic fail 10 times over windows mobile was. and it took them way to long to get anything out the door.

  58. Hey, MS, ain't karma a bitch? by daboochmeister · · Score: 1

    I'm in aphorism heaven - what goes around comes around, you reap what you sow, do unto others what you would have them do to you, it all comes full circle ...

    --
    "Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh ... never mind." Dave Bucci
  59. Re:Anecdotal evidence does not a valid argument ma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Netflix on WP7 phone on AT&T? How fast do you want to burn through your 5 GB allowance? T-Mobile and Sprint officially have Netflix on the Nexus One, G2, Nexus S, and Evo 4G (2.2) and unofficially on many other Android phones. T-mobile will supposedly throttle you after 5 GB and Sprint allows unlimited. But at least no overages like AT&T.

  60. No need to wonder .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just look at the news. It is already taking it down with it.

  61. Re:Anecdotal evidence does not a valid argument ma by Xacid · · Score: 1

    All it takes is one to prove a theory false.

  62. Microsoft Store by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have an MS Store near my house. It is full of WP7 products .... that nobody looks at.

    The store is always pack ... with people sitting in the confi chairs and the MS "geeks" yaping at the back corner. The multiple times I being there, nobody is paying any attention to anything. Mostly old people sitting (they have lots of sofas).

    WinPho7 is just not selling because most people find the UI ugly and .... "LeapFroggy" looking

  63. Microsoft will now advertise... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

    So now we should expect all vertical surfaces around US cities to be again covered with ads implying (but never stating directly) that Windows phones are UMPCs, so they will run all Windows applications? Last time around I couldn't board a subway without that infuriating crap being shoved in my face at every station!

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  64. No peripheral support! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My company is an ISV that makes communication software between external peripherals (mostly serial devices) and mobile phones/computers/tablets. As of right now, and even the upcoming WP7 "Mango" update, there is no Bluetooth Serial Port Profile support, or even Bluetooth HID for one-way comms to a WP7 phone, so the platform is completely useless for us. We don't even get many prospects asking about it - maybe one in a hundred, but when they do ask, there's nothing but bad news for them - it just doesn't work.

  65. What's the matter Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't handle a taste of your own medicine? Even better... from the people who should be SELLING your software.

  66. Call it the Osbourne Effect by fritsd · · Score: 1

    Mixing Ozzy and Adam Osbo(u)rne: "STOP! Don't buy our shiny model 7 smartphone!

    NO! Not one of the competition either, you fool!

    Wait until we come out with our even newerer model 7.5 Microkia smartphone later this year or next year-ish, or I'll bite your head off! "

    --
    To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    1. Re:Call it the Osbourne Effect by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 1

      All current WP7 phones will get a free upgrade to the new OS come November or so.

      --
      Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
  67. wise decision by argontechnologies · · Score: 1

    Look, if you had a choice of a pace maker running Android X, or Windows X which would you choose?

    1. Re:wise decision by 21mhz · · Score: 1

      1) Lousy analogy; 2) terrible choice. A pacemaker programmed by PhD nerd cowboys at Google? No thanks. Even for a phone, I prefer something that sends SMS to whom I meant to.

      --
      My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
  68. Re:Anecdotal evidence does not a valid argument ma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure that your local AT&T store (through the insight or planning of that store's manager or employees) may be making an effort to try to sell WM7 devices. But that seems generally like an exception rather than the rule. At this point they need something that improves upon the current Apple and Android offerings. Otherwise why even bother?

  69. Anectdotally True by doodaddy · · Score: 1

    My wife and I stopped by the Microsoft store in Bellevue (near Redmond) and checked out WP7. The Samsung phone was extremely light and the screen was bright. It was almost magical! I felt there was some trick, but apparently not. While I plan to get an Android next, my wife wants a Windows phone now. She likes the active tiles and the Samsung phone.

    However, when we went to the AT&T in the same mall, the sales rep told us "Windows is no good" as soon as we looked at them. She was actively trying to talk us out of them. The phones were even in the front slot in the store! She was off-putting in her aggressive push to an HTC android near the middle of the store.

    Just thought it was unusual.

    P.S. Yes, I know I made up the word "anectdotally."