Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Killing Off Windows Phone Brand Name In Favor of Just Windows
DroidJason1 writes Microsoft is killing off the "Windows Phone" name in favor of Windows. The company also plans to drop the "Nokia" name from handsets in favor of just "Lumia." These details were revealed in a leaked memo. We've already begun seeing these changes in recent advertisements from Microsoft and it makes perfect sense seeing as how Microsoft is shifting towards one operating system to rule them all.
Since there's so much confusion about the differences between RT, Phone, and desktop versions of our OS, let's just call them all by the same name. That will simplify things. Worked for Admiral General Aladeen.
As if MSware were not obfuscated and confusing enough. Now people won't know if you are talking about a PC with Windows installed, or your WinPho.
On the other hand, WindowsPhones will never get significant enough market share to really be that relevant to most of us techies, so it prolly won't matter.
Makes sense considering the plan to unify the kernel and APIs.
Microsoft has not ever understood one thing.
People ***HATE*** "Windows". Windows is associated with work, pain, crazy difficulties, nerds and viruses. The brand name has negative value.
So what does Microsoft do? They double and triple down on fucking *Windows*. They had the opportunity with the Metro to finally make people see Microsoft as going beyond Windows. "No this isn't Windows any more, it's not supposed to be Windows, and that's OK. We're more than Windows, so try it on its own terms".
And now with phones they kill the one name, Nokia, which people did have a good association with, in favor of a nothingburger which might as well be a suppository name.
Spoken like someone who's never used one.
Yes, like the vast majority of smart phone users.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The old Windows CE based OS's were the most open devices on the market, but with the new OS, Microsoft has gone the Apple route, which is a shame.
The new Windows Phones are very friendly to the unsophisticated consumer, perhaps even more so than the iPhone, but they were so slow to react to the iPhone and lost so much market share that I'm not sure the product will ever be the success it once was.
That said, it is smart to integrate Windows RT and Windows Phone.
Their biggest challenge is to convince developers to actually release for this OS. They are far behind since deciding to kill off open development and switch to the iOS model of software sales.
Microsoft decides that it's in their best interest for all customers to use identical UIs, so they make Metro the standard interface on phones, video game systems, tablets, desktops, and servers. Apple decides that it's in their customers' best interest for products to have similar but individualized UIs, so they create tailored interfaces for tiny, small, and large displays.
That, in a nutshell, is the difference between the two companies (and why Apple is eating Microsoft's lunch in every category where they directly compete).
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I'd love it if Linux was something Windows was trying to catch up with, but I'm afraid it's not even a grey cloud on the horizon as far as microsoft is concerned. If only it WAS one OS, supported by everyone from Dell to Oracle, it would wipe the floor with windows, but as long as there are 10 windows managers and 2000 distributions it'll never, ever happen.
The reality is that Windows Phone has the same problem as desktop Linux. It is actually quite a good operating system and works really well with a broad set of features but it was late to the game and you cannot disrupt an established market without a disruptive product.
Sure people could switch to it but why would they? It - like desktop Linux - lacks some killer feature, some really compelling and disruptive element that would convince people to switch. For this reason I see it - again like desktop Linux - remaining a niche product used by a relatively small band of loyal followers and/or becoming popular in the developing market. But does that really matter? So long as that share is enough to sustain it then it will continue and the more competition we have the better.
In this case it was all pre-planned. Basically the whole batshit crazy idea, lets turn the computer desktop into a phone interface to force users who don't want it to get used to the windows phone interface and buy it like mindless lemmings.
Apparently that whole batshit crazy plan backfired and did more damage to windows on the desktop than it ever did to force acceptance of windows on a phone.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Nokia had the first smartphone: the Nokia Communicator in 1996. The first of Microsoft's own phones were running Windows Mobile 2002, so were at least 6 years later.
Nobody cares who had the first smartphone, the point he is making is that Microsoft had the first widely popular smartphone platform and that is correct, then Blackberry took over, then Apple took over that and now Android has taken over Apple.
(and yes before you get all excited and bent out of shape I know from your posting history that you're a huge apple fan and yes apple does still have appreciable market share, yes they have the most popular single device and yes they are profitable the point is simply that their platform is not the most popular)
Comment removed based on user account deletion