or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Nokia ditches Symbian, embraces Microsoft Windows Phone for new handsets
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nokia ditches Symbian, embraces Microsoft Windows Phone for new handsets - Page 7

post #241 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Apps written in C# and Silverlight for WP7 should port very easily to Win8.



Smartphone is WP7. That's now not 2012.

The foundation for Windows developers isn't Win7 or WP7 but .NET, WPF and Silverlight.

Tablet will be in flux...will they wait until Win8 or go with Win7+something? If they go with Win8 then I agree...2012 before they have a credible competitor. Win7+skin+app store can be done by late 2011.

NHT.

Apple didn't just create an OS branch and touch GUI.
It also...

* Launched a new platform with no support for desktop legacy software.
* Adopted a curated approach for all software. All 3rd party apps need to be signed.

Do you see MS following this path?

C.
post #242 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

NHT.

Apple didn't just create an OS branch and touch GUI.
It also...

* Launched a new platform with no support for desktop legacy software.
* Adopted a curated approach for all software. All 3rd party apps need to be signed.

Do you see MS following this path?

C.

Windows Phone Marketplace is curated. So the tablet one might be or might not be.

No support for desktop legacy software strikes me as both unlikely and unneeded.

There are two options:

1) a keyboard dock for using legacy apps.

2) A convertible tablet the size of an 11" MBA. The 11" MBA is a pretty sweet machine.

At 0.68" the 11" MBA isn't much thicker than the 0.5" ipad. I'll even live with the extra weight and crappier battery life.

1 is very doable. Something like the Moto Atrix 4G docking station.

2 is much harder but possible. Easier with Medfield but perhaps possible with Atom vs C2D.
post #243 of 266
I don't have enough time at the moment to give you a decent response, but just quickly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Launched a new platform with no support for desktop legacy software.

That's pretty much what Windows 8/ARM is. All legacy software (i.e. everything not in DotNet) will need to be repacked and potentially modified for ARM.

I can't see a point in releasing a standard Windows desktop running on an ARM SoC as no existing applications will run on it.

They basically have to release an "App Store" with Windows 8. I think the likely candidates for Microsoft's marketplace would have to be Silverlight and/or WPF as they are both independent of OS and underlying architecture, and they both are inherently designed around having the same back-end code target different UI's.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Adopted a curated approach for all software. All 3rd party apps need to be signed.

The rumors (and logic) definitely point to a Windows "App Store" but I can't say for sure how they will accomplish this (i.e. curated or free-for-all).

My gut feeling is they will support both options with different Windows 8 flavors. I've gone over the two likely options previously but, Microsoft being Microsoft, they may even go for more.

They may end up with a mess, or it might be a brilliant all-round solution. It depends on how well they execute.

I think consumers definitely want something like the iPad. Business/enterprise primarily seem to want the iPad as well, but also need the ability to manage a fleet of devices like they do with their current PCs.

I think there is a niche for "dockable" dual-interface devices in business as well, and there is definitely a demand for "dockable" dual-interface devices in developing markets.
post #244 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

The magic bit being "phone division", not NSN, not Navteq, but "phone division". You referred to Nokia making products, but you didn't restrict the original comment to "phone division".

Look, when they were talking about the R&D dollars, they were talking about the entire company. I'm pretty sure, in one of my posts, that I referred to phones at one point. It doesn't really matter. Nokia spends a lot of money on many products. Apple spends less on far fewer products. That's an important point. We can say that Apple and Nokia spend a certain amount on their phone R&D, and then Apple is even further ahead. One model against a dozen dozen.

I'm not criticizing Nokia for that. As I said it's what they feel they have to do, and against competitors who do the same, they have no disadvantage. But against an Apple, they do have that disadvantage. And it's not just R&D, it's manufacturing cost. Nokia simply can't always get the huge discounts Apple can, except on shared parts, and many of the parts are not shared.

In addition, marketing costs for such a wide range of products is very high. It costs a great deal to come up with ten marketing campaigns rather than one or two.

Nokia has always had decent, but not large margins, even before Apple arrived on the scene. Now, they're almost nonexistent.

Quote:
Your elitism is showing a little bit too much. Yes they have an excessive amount of devices, but try and remember where a lot of these are being marketed to, they need to be low cost, so they will have three versions for different frequencies etc, remember the majority of the of the world cannot afford a Symbian/WMP/Android/iOS device. They were producing a phone they can sell for next to nothing, and still managing to make a profit off it.

And your rant goes on just talking about phones, Nokia makes more than phone, why do you have an issue with that point?

Please, you have no response, so this is it, that I'm an elitist? Is that the best you can do?

Which company is going down in flames, Apple or Nokia? Am I responsible for that? I gave a very logical rundown of the situation. You obviously don't like it, and that's fine, but you misunderstand everything I said if you think it's because I'm an elitist.

No one said to Nokia that they HAD to be everything to everyone. That was their choice. And now it's become a major problem for them. It's not my fault. It's theirs. And their lunch is being eaten by even cheaper Chinese companies on the low end. Their fault again. Perhaps they should exit those markets where they can't make a profit, and their sales are falling.

So, I'm an elitist, but their cheap phones aren't selling that well, and why, because elitist Mel went to those countries and told them to not buy that junk? No, because people see it's junk, and don't want to buy it.

Don't blame me.
post #245 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

I think their current unpreparedness comes from an assumption that Intel would be more competitive in the tablet market at this point.

I totally agree that is partially the problem although I see it as a Microsoft cock up, not an Intel one. Microsoft shouldn't have gambled their strategy in an emerging market on a 3rd party.

I think another miscalculation they made was that the OEM's would be able to handle the user experience on tablets.



Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Smartphone is WP7. That's now not 2012.

Totally agree. I think Microsoft will eventually want their phones running off the Windows 8 core, but I have a feeling Win8 tablets and WP7 (or WP7.5) will run side by side for some time.

The only real problem is the ability for Microsoft to rapidly update and enhance the system (i.e. it would be much faster/easier sharing code with Win8).

Integration between devices isn't so much of a problem as Dot Net is the integration platform, not the OS.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Tablet will be in flux...will they wait until Win8 or go with Win7+something? If they go with Win8 then I agree...2012 before they have a credible competitor. Win7+skin+app store can be done by late 2011.

It will all be in Windows 8 I think.
post #246 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

So obviously the entire mobile computing area is in a massive stage of upheaval, and it's basically impossible to say anything for sure as all we have to go off are rumours and educated guesses. You've covered a bunch of topics so I'll just comment on a few.



As interesting as it would be to see a consumer Zune or Xbox branded WP7/ARM tablet from Microsoft I don't think that would be a good plan, as you've covered yourself....


That's my understanding as well. Which brings the next point...

I think this is unfortunately the case. CE is not scalable and it isn't as "componentized" as the Windows 7/Server 2008 R2 code base. It's a testament to the designers and engineers at Microsoft that they have been able to make something as great as WP7 on the CE code base.

This is where we start to diverge.

As I've mentioned Windows 7 is already a very "componentized" OS. By that I mean a lot of features/functionality can be removed or replaced without affecting other features/functionality. A "minimum" W7e installation only requires 300MB or HDD and about 80MB/RAM... and that's supporting all base Windows features.

If they required all apps to be Silverlight/XNA (and thus remove a lot of the legacy support) they could potentially cut this down even more.

With that in mind there is nothing wrong with scaling Windows 8 down to a tablet (or even phone) OS. It's actually not that far removed from what Apple have done (very successfully) with OSX/iOS.

I don't see this as hurting integration between phone and tablet as Microsoft uses the cloud for integration of data and the Silverlight CLR as the application integration platform between devices (i.e. it doesn't really matter what OS or hardware a device has if it's running the same Silverlight CLR).

If I had to guess today (and I tend to change my mind as each new piece of information becomes available ) I would have to say that Windows 8 will come in multiple flavours:

* W8e/ARM/Tablet UI - No native/legacy support - Silverlight/XNA only via App Store. Much like the current iPad.

* W8/x86/Tablet+Standard UI - Silverlight/XNA via App Store as well as native/legacy via PInkoke support in Silverlight 5. Can switch between tablet UI and standard UI.




Now that is the big question. Where are they headed?

A major part of the iPad's success is because of its simplicity, however I hear a lot of people that think the iPad will eventually scale up to OSX and the two might even merge.

Yet trying to force a touch UI into a full desktop/laptop is going to lead to the same problems as Microsoft have trying to force a desktop/laptop UI into a touch device.

I'm really not sure where Apple will land on this.

I think Microsoft will support the option of a Touch only UI or both standard Windows and a touch UI (as outlined above) or failing that just the combined touch/standard version. I don't think they would release their version of the iPad and nothing else.

Google I'm much more confident will look to combine the two as there is no benefit for them to sell you multiple devices. Look for Google to implement - as standard Android feature - a ChomeOS based second UI when the phone/tablet is docked.

I've already written way to much so I'm going to leave it at that.

Ok, interesting post.

The reason why I think that Windows as a tablet OS, and CE as a phone OS is a problem is because unless they do as you say, and dump the UI for Windows 8, which again, is what I think you're saying, the two OS's are way too disparate. Now, MS has been saying that the major advantage to Windows on a tablet is complete compatibility with desktop (there's got to be a better term for that these days) software. So they don't want to dump anything from the OS when on a tablet. Until they indicate that they see the light here, and do, they have no coherent plan.

If they dump much from Windows, the way Apple did for iOS, and somehow make available the WP7 apps, then they will have a plan.

As far as where tablets are going, well, never underestimate technology, or the top players, particularly Apple. As tablets get more powerful, as they are already in the second generation, they will be able to do more. And who can resist doing more? While it might not seem to be a good idea now, tablets will become more sophisticated as time goes on. More features and capabilities will be added. I imagine that they will be added in a way that doesn't duplicate what we seen in the uh, other computing space. But features WILL be added, no mistake about that.

Apple can easily add hooks for developers that will only show up in the apps that need them. We don't see the API's we use every day, but developers do. So, at some point, real photo and video editing will be here. Who would argue with that? We'll have the ability to do much more, but that doesn't mean the experience for most will get difficult.

I can see, eventually, an OS from Apple that will have everything in one, but that will load only what a particular computing environment will require. This will have complete app compatibility across environments. But the feature set will expand or contract depending on which device it's being used on. People will also be able to expand the visible feature set as they desire, as long as the device can enable it. We have Simple Finder now, and it's a very early part of what I mean. This seems to be a perfectly logical progression of where we're going now. I call it the uOS; Universal Operating System.
post #247 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

You mean they're following Apple and not dumping OSX in favor of a mobile OS?

Arguably WinCE isn't a horrible foundation either and my preferred one. However, applying the WP7 UI design for a customized Win7 tablet is arguably better.

Don't forget that WP7 IS CE. The foundation for WP7 is weak compared to all the other OS's in this area.
post #248 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Yes, and MS keeps claiming that Windows is their tablet strategy and not WinPhone. Therefore their tablet strategy is based on the NT kernel and not the WinCE one.

Why? I can argue both ways which might be better. But if WinNT lives on ARM tablets with Win8 then eventually I can see WinCE going away.

The problem for MS is twofold. One; CE, which WP7 is based on is fine enough for a phone, but not powerful enough for a tablet, and MS knows that.

Two; it doesn't matter if Win 8 is on x86 or ARM, as it's the UI that's the problem. It's fine to corral a few OEM's to make tablets, but they won't sell. That's been shown already. Archos has had several Win 7 tablets, and they've all gotten terrible reviews, mostly because of the UI. As it's doubtful that MS can do enough for 8 to change this much, that problem will remain.

The problem MS has is its insistence that Windows on a tablet be 100% comparable with Windows software. So they can add stylus and touch support, but they can't change the UI too much, or all of that legacy software won't work. And in order for it to use the new finger friendly features, all that software will need their UI's rewritten. This means that MS will need to have a new SDK that has all that stuff in there. It also means that they will have to make it somewhat easy for developers to do.

Assuming that MS can, and will do all of this, how long will it take before developers are able to bring their programs over? This isn't that easy. Many programs use the UI conventions they do because it's what they need. Tell them they have to drop almost all of it, and there could be problems.

I know you think this is easy, but it's not. MS got screwed on Longhorn partly because of these legacy concerns, and look at how that turned out!
post #249 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

You are 100% correct! Nokia's gigantic and profligate R&D spend goes on more than just Symbian.


Excellent, it is good to see you finally admit you were wrong.
post #250 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

You're wasting your time with that guy.

He thinks Intel helped develop MeeGo out of charity to humanity and that they had no intention of selling Atom cpus into the smart phone market.

That's not what I said and you know it. Intel may have had the intention, but they don't have a chip, and won't have a chip for years to come that will go in a cellphone
post #251 of 266
Quote:

Excuse me? Nokias cheap phones aren't selling that well?

From an article in Reuters:

"Nokia has been left in the dust by high-end competitors such as Apple and Google and is now also suffering a drop in sales of its stronghold of traditional phones as Chinese manufacturers muscle in to take advantage of the growing market."

link:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...70Q2ON20110127
post #252 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Excellent, it is good to see you finally admit you were wrong.

Glad to make you happy.

What I should have said was, "Nokia spends $4Bn a year and all they have to show for it is the worst user experience in the world."

C.
post #253 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Don't forget that WP7 IS CE. The foundation for WP7 is weak compared to all the other OS's in this area.

There is nothing particularly weak about winCE from an embedded os perspective. IMHO it probably is better than embedded linux as a starting point. That said, compact .net sucked for a long while and may still be missing big pieces. Haven't done much .net in the last three years.

You keep stating this as fact. On what basis do you judge WinCE weak?
post #254 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The problem for MS is twofold. One; CE, which WP7 is based on is fine enough for a phone, but not powerful enough for a tablet, and MS knows that.

WP7 is powerful enough for a tablet after the next rev.

Quote:
Two; it doesn't matter if Win 8 is on x86 or ARM, as it's the UI that's the problem. It's fine to corral a few OEM's to make tablets, but they won't sell. That's been shown already. Archos has had several Win 7 tablets, and they've all gotten terrible reviews, mostly because of the UI. As it's doubtful that MS can do enough for 8 to change this much, that problem will remain.

The UI will need to be adapted from WP7.

Quote:
The problem MS has is its insistence that Windows on a tablet be 100% comparable with Windows software. So they can add stylus and touch support, but they can't change the UI too much, or all of that legacy software won't work. And in order for it to use the new finger friendly features, all that software will need their UI's rewritten. This means that MS will need to have a new SDK that has all that stuff in there. It also means that they will have to make it somewhat easy for developers to do.

They have all that stuff in the SDK today, right now. It is easy for developers to do today, right now.

Quote:
Assuming that MS can, and will do all of this, how long will it take before developers are able to bring their programs over? This isn't that easy. Many programs use the UI conventions they do because it's what they need. Tell them they have to drop almost all of it, and there could be problems.

It's another kind of UI event and uses WPF conventions. This means that winforms based programs won't port easily. Oh well. It IS a new form factor and users will understand that some apps wont work unless docked with a keyboard and mouse.

And the key apps are MS Office, Visio and a couple others. Office already has a mobile version. The rest they can let develop at their own pace. You're STILL not going to do any heavy computation on a tablet regardless of the UI. The CPU horsepower simply isn't there.

Quote:
I know you think this is easy, but it's not. MS got screwed on Longhorn partly because of these legacy concerns, and look at how that turned out!

I don't think it is "easy" but I do think that it is possible. And MS is executing far better than they did back in the longhorn days. As well as Apple? Heck no. As well as Google. Eh...maybe not but not so poorly as folks like to think.
post #255 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Glad to make you happy.

What I should have said was, "Nokia spends $4Bn a year and all they have to show for it is the worst user experience in the world."

C.

And you would still be trying to mislead people. like I said, what is your issue with numbers?
post #256 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

And you would still be trying to mislead people. like I said, what is your issue with numbers?

I would have them misled too, by clever use of all those tables and charts I keep including.

C.
post #257 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

That's not what I said and you know it. Intel may have had the intention, but they don't have a chip, and won't have a chip for years to come that will go in a cellphone

You said "Intel entered into MeeGo knowing that all the previous Maemo devices, and a tonne of other Nokia phones ran ARM, they weren't going to get their chips on the phones..."

I called you on and so did Mel. That they don't currently have a chip suitable for smart phones is another issue. They had every intention of selling Atom chips to Nokia for cell phones that would run MeeGo.
post #258 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

There is nothing particularly weak about winCE from an embedded os perspective. IMHO it probably is better than embedded linux as a starting point. That said, compact .net sucked for a long while and may still be missing big pieces. Haven't done much .net in the last three years.

You keep stating this as fact. On what basis do you judge WinCE weak?

CE, first of all, it isn't being used as an embedded OS in these phones, so performance there isn't relevant. Besides, MS has an embedded version which is somewhat different than Rev. 3, which is being used in the phones.

For one thing there are far fewer API's available, and less services. It wasn't expected that this would be asked to do what it's doing today. That it does it as well as it does shows that it's pretty good for phones. But tablets are something else. MS has been so adamate about not using it, that one must wonder, that besides their insistence on Windows XP, Vista, 7 and later, 8, that they also feel that way.

Think about it, with everyone telling them to use this for tablets, they refuse to.

While iOs is based on Unix, Android on Linux, WebOS on Linux, and now the BB on QNX, this just doesn't compete.

I don't know why you think it's better than a Linux distro for this purpose. These aren't embedded Linux distros. They are custom OS's written around the the Linux kernel.
post #259 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

WP7 is powerful enough for a tablet after the next rev.

I don't know. It doesn't seem to be that much different. It's not the updates that will make the difference. They need to go deeper than that.

Quote:
The UI will need to be adapted from WP7.

As a start.

Quote:
They have all that stuff in the SDK today, right now. It is easy for developers to do today, right now.

No it's not. This is major work. Everything has to be redone from the ground up. Some of it may not cross over, so it has to be rethought. You know how long just a minor change can take. This could take years, even If it were all in there, which I don't think it is.

Quote:
It's another kind of UI event and uses WPF conventions. This means that winforms based programs won't port easily. Oh well. It IS a new form factor and users will understand that some apps wont work unless docked with a keyboard and mouse.

This follows through from the other part above. It will be difficult.

Quote:
And the key apps are MS Office, Visio and a couple others. Office already has a mobile version. The rest they can let develop at their own pace. You're STILL not going to do any heavy computation on a tablet regardless of the UI. The CPU horsepower simply isn't there.

These aren't really MS Office, Visio or the other Windows apps. These are totally different apps, using different code, and they're much simpler, with far fewer features.

Tablets are getting much more powerful rather quickly.

Quote:
I don't think it is "easy" but I do think that it is possible. And MS is executing far better than they did back in the longhorn days. As well as Apple? Heck no. As well as Google. Eh...maybe not but not so poorly as folks like to think.

Many things are possible. MS did get 7 out the door, fixing Vista. But they have to earn respect for everything else. WP7 itself was late. That's typical. We'll see.
post #260 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

No it's not. This is major work. Everything has to be redone from the ground up. Some of it may not cross over, so it has to be rethought. You know how long just a minor change can take. This could take years, even If it were all in there, which I don't think it is.

I've built multitouch apps as have many now. It's major work if you screwed up your design. If you haven't screwed up your design then mostly only the UI needs rebuilding. Even then not "everything" in the UI. Some workflow changes may also require business logic changes but not to the degree you're making it out to be.

However, the point is that MS has built touch events and gesture events into the Win7 SDK and they are available TODAY. They can be accessed and used by any .NET application. With WPF 4 many components can be built to respond to touch events/gestures.

Quote:
These aren't really MS Office, Visio or the other Windows apps. These are totally different apps, using different code, and they're much simpler, with far fewer features.

As fitting for the smaller form factor and simpler UI than their desktop brethren. The tablet versions of Office do not need to be the full suite, just completely file compatible. They need to be excellent viewers and simple editors when a keyboard and mouse isn't available. You just aren't going to do anything complex on a 7"-10" tablet using fingers even if someone crammed an Core i7 in one.
post #261 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

CE, first of all, it isn't being used as an embedded OS in these phones, so performance there isn't relevant. Besides, MS has an embedded version which is somewhat different than Rev. 3, which is being used in the phones.

And yet you tout QNX as better. QNX is an RTOS like WinCE. A kernel developed to fit on minimal hardware just line WinCE.

Quote:
For one thing there are far fewer API's available, and less services. It wasn't expected that this would be asked to do what it's doing today.

OSs evolve. The WP7 API seems very rich to me. A rich as Android.

Quote:
That it does it as well as it does shows that it's pretty good for phones. But tablets are something else.

Not really. They have bigger screens so you can have fancier UIs but nothing beyond the capability of Silverlight.

Quote:
MS has been so adamate about not using it, that one must wonder, that besides their insistence on Windows XP, Vista, 7 and later, 8, that they also feel that way.

Think about it, with everyone telling them to use this for tablets, they refuse to.

/shrug

There can be many reasons other than strictly technical why they choose one over the other.

Quote:
While iOs is based on Unix, Android on Linux, WebOS on Linux, and now the BB on QNX, this just doesn't compete.

Again, there's nothing particular about the WinCE RTOS kernel that makes it less competitive as a tablet kernel OS than say QNX or Linux.

Quote:
I don't know why you think it's better than a Linux distro for this purpose. These aren't embedded Linux distros. They are custom OS's written around the the Linux kernel.

Because like QNX the WinCE kernel is built for leaner environments. With WinCE 7 it gains support for the latest dual-core ARM processors so it's not at any disadvantage in that regard.

As far as the environments go, MS has as rich an API for WP7 developers as its competitors.
post #262 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

You said "Intel entered into MeeGo knowing that all the previous Maemo devices, and a tonne of other Nokia phones ran ARM, they weren't going to get their chips on the phones..."

I called you on and so did Mel. That they don't currently have a chip suitable for smart phones is another issue. They had every intention of selling Atom chips to Nokia for cell phones that would run MeeGo.

Yes I did say that, I didn't deny that. Intel can have every intention they want to sell a cellphone based processor, they have to be able to make them first.
post #263 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

I would have them misled too, by clever use of all those tables and charts I keep including.

C.

You only included the image after I pointed out your original mistake.
post #264 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

...unless they ... dump the UI for Windows 8...the two OS's are way too disparate.

The rumours are certainly point to two separate UI's for Windows 8.

The idea of multiple Windows flavours that support tablet only UIs or dockable dual UIs is just me putting together a bunch of information, applying a bit of logic and a bit of guesswork.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

So they don't want to dump anything from the OS when on a tablet.

I think they would certainly want the ability to support that option, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If they dump much from Windows, the way Apple did for iOS, and somehow make available the WP7 apps, then they will have a plan.

They have already started on that path in a way. Windows on ARM break all non-DotNet legacy software. Combine that with the dual interface rumour and you have something along the lines of an iPad competitor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I call it the uOS; Universal Operating System.

It's interesting to see you and Carniphage, both avid Apple uses, have two totally different and conflicting idea on the direction of tablets! I find that is the case in day to day conversations as well.

Microsoft I think will try to cover all their bases and I've convinced myself (no information at all, just a gut feeling) that Google will make all Android phones dual UI dockable with Chrome OS.

I'm honestly not sure which direction Apple will go.
post #265 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

It's interesting to see you and Carniphage, both avid Apple uses, have two totally different and conflicting idea on the direction of tablets! I find that is the case in day to day conversations as well.

It's clear that Apple will take ideas from iOS and move them into the desktop. That's a given.

But the notion that the two operating systems should be converged in some way seems counter productive.

What would be the benefit of converging the two into a single API? Who would it benefit? Users or Programmers?

As a programmer, it's not hard to take Cocoa written for an app on iOS and port it to Cocoa on Mac OS X. It just requires entirely re-thinking the interface and the performance issues. The actual code is very similar. They share a lot of DNA.

But having the exact same code run on both platforms would simply increase the likelihood that the app wasn't very well designed for the platform it was running on.

Nokia invested in a technology called Qt. The idea was that a single app could run on every smartphone (regardless of screen size or input method) as well as tablets, desktops and the mainframe in the USS Enterprise. I don't think it worked out. Engineers love this kind of time-saving, write-once, deploy-many solution. But that type of solution results in apps that suck equally on all platforms.

I think that Apple have abandoned that type of "engineer think". Instead they assume that the best quality apps are created when the programmer is targeting a specific platform, and knows the platform form-factor, the input method, the likely performance and so on.

I happen agree with that thinking.

C.
post #266 of 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

There is nothing particularly weak about winCE from an embedded os perspective. IMHO it probably is better than embedded linux as a starting point. That said, compact .net sucked for a long while and may still be missing big pieces. Haven't done much .net in the last three years.

You keep stating this as fact. On what basis do you judge WinCE weak?

Don't think of it as being "weak", think of it as being "weaker" than something like Windows 7.

Windows 7 is designed to be modular. A lot of components can be added/removed/replaced without any effect on other components. The entire UI can be switched out or removed without breaking the core functionality.

Windows CE is a totally different code base. I'm sure it still has some level of modularity, but nothing like Windows 7. The result is that components and features are all intermingled and tangled with each other.

This means you can't have one team working on improving the phone UI whilst another team works on a totally separate tablet UI because they share and rely on too much of the same code.

Essentially the time required grows exponentially as the OS complexity increases. Windows 7 doesn't have this issue and its time vs complexity is far more linear.

The real life result is that updates and modifications are slow to arrive, it's expensive to maintain for Microsoft and finding bugs becomes an endless chore.

When you put all this together along with the benefits of sharing the same code base, the potential for the mobile operating systems to continually get more complex, and that fact that Windows 7 wasn't even designed to be a mobile OS and Windows 8 will be, it's easy to see why it's a better idea for Microsoft to scale down full Windows for mobile rather than scale up Windows CE.

All that said I think that the WP7 UI and the mobile computing paradigms it introduces would translate fantastically to a tablet.

I also think the development environment (except the App Store submission process!) Microsoft have built around WP7 is class leading and one of its biggest assets.

Hopefully the team working on the tablet UX for Windows 8 is taking their cues from the WP7 team.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Nokia ditches Symbian, embraces Microsoft Windows Phone for new handsets
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Nokia ditches Symbian, embraces Microsoft Windows Phone for new handsets