.... and although you could take grainy pictures, there was no way to get the off the phone. It was completely useless for anything other than making calls.
...
My parent have a cheap cell phone that has camera. I don't know why though because its a PIA to find the pictures once you take one and it requires a special cable that didn't come included with the phone to transfer them to a computer.
For all practical purposes, a lot of advertised 'features' are useless.
Microsoft's big idea in a nutshell: "Two abject failures are better than one!"
Also, I think we need a few more people to come in and quote and refute that exact same part of bigtux's post. I don't think we've hit all the possible word combinations yet.
And what sounds really crazy about this situation is that Microsoft doesn't have an upgrade path for their Mobile OS. You buy a phone with v6.1, and it's v6.1 forever. Same with v6.5. Same with v7.0 (at least as far as Microsoft has announced).
So Microsoft is voluntarily giving up one of the biggest changes Apple has introduced to the cell-phone industry, namely free OS upgrades for phones that have already been sold. Upgrades that add significant new features that weren't offered or introduced when the phone was announced, but that just showed up later. With no hassle for the end-user to get and apply the upgrade to their phone (connect phone, hit button labelled Update).
And what sounds really crazy about this situation is that Microsoft doesn't have an upgrade path for their Mobile OS. You buy a phone with v6.1, and it's v6.1 forever. Same with v6.5. Same with v7.0 (at least as far as Microsoft has announced).
So Microsoft is voluntarily giving up one of the biggest changes Apple has introduced to the cell-phone industry, namely free OS upgrades for phones that have already been sold. Upgrades that add significant new features that weren't offered or introduced when the phone was announced, but that just showed up later. With no hassle for the end-user to get and apply the upgrade to their phone (connect phone, hit button labelled Update).
And right now it seems virtually impossible for MS (given how they do things, ther entire corporate culture) to implement such a paradigm and actually make it work.
And right now it seems virtually impossible for MS (given how they do things, ther entire corporate culture) to implement such a paradigm and actually make it work.
The problem they have is that they charge for the OS, between $7 and $15 per device. How are they going to do that? The phone manufacturer would have to charge about twice the price. They couldn't offer it for free, because that would cost too much, particularly if people kept the phones for two upgrade cycles. That would cost the manufacturer between $14 and $30 per phone over what they paid for the version that came with the phone.
Apple makes the entire widget, but they don't.
The only way for MS to continue with Win Mobile will be for them to give it away for free, but would they do that?
After all they're up against every other manufacturer who can give the OS away for free if they want to. MS is left out in the cold.
And look at the numbers; Only 3.8 million Win Mobile phones sold this past quarter. Apple alone sold 5.4 million.
Microsoft has been trying for 20 years to recreate their success in PC operating systems with other products, but it just doesn't seem to happen. Is anyone really surprised? Everybody should be able to see now how lucky they were the first time around. Microsoft really needs to reinvent their approach, but do they know how?
Microsoft has been trying for 20 years to recreate their success in PC operating systems with other products, but it just doesn't seem to happen. Is anyone really surprised? Everybody should be able to see now how lucky they were the first time around. Microsoft really needs to reinvent their approach, but do they know how?
Microsoft never had to make a consumer friendly product that didn't ride on someone else's coattails. That's how they achieved the major success. The rest of it with Office was illegal hampering of their major competitors, which is why they lost that first Federal lawsuit in the early '90's. Then by killing Netscape with more shenanigans later, in which they again got caught.
Their only other big "success" if you can call it that, has been the XBox 360. But they've lost over a billion dollars a year on their entertainment division since the first XBox came out. So therefor, the word "success" is laced with some venom.
They really don't know how to make a consumer product. That's hard to believe, but it's true. It's company culture.
And what sounds really crazy about this situation is that Microsoft doesn't have an upgrade path for their Mobile OS. You buy a phone with v6.1, and it's v6.1 forever. Same with v6.5. Same with v7.0 (at least as far as Microsoft has announced).
So Microsoft is voluntarily giving up one of the biggest changes Apple has introduced to the cell-phone industry, namely free OS upgrades for phones that have already been sold. Upgrades that add significant new features that weren't offered or introduced when the phone was announced, but that just showed up later. With no hassle for the end-user to get and apply the upgrade to their phone (connect phone, hit button labelled Update).
iphone OS does too...they just prevent you from running multiple apps at once. But, for example, you can play music and browse the web at the same time...they selectively allow their own apps to multitask.
2...
Quote:
Because the iPhone OS has always been a multitasking OS, so there's nothing technically superior bout MS's version.
3...
Quote:
It's not accurate to say that the iPhone lacks "full multi-tasking" ? the phone supports multiple processes and applications running at once
4...
Quote:
iPhone has full multi-tasking, background processes just aren't available to third-party developers.
5...
Quote:
So does the iPhone, obviously, as many of Apple's apps multitask.
5 people managed to completely miss the boat with regards to the multitasking comment. The post mentioned FULL multitasking, not LIMITED multitasking as in the iPhone. Please please please read the message before you post - it does nothing for your credibility when you can't even respond to a post correctly.
5 people managed to completely miss the boat with regards to the multitasking comment. The post mentioned FULL multitasking, not LIMITED multitasking as in the iPhone. Please please please read the message before you post - it does nothing for your credibility when you can't even respond to a post correctly.
You quote me out of context and then talk about credibility? Really.
You quote me out of context and then talk about credibility? Really.
Maury
Granted, but you tried to use the comment to say that Apple's approach isn't inferior, which obviously isn't true. An OS that allows 3rd party apps to multitask/run in the background is superior to Apple's limited approach to mulitasking. There might be trade-offs to this multitasking, but we're simply talking about Apple's approach being inferior to some of the competition, which is a fair comment, because it is!
Granted, but you tried to use the comment to say that Apple's approach isn't inferior, which obviously isn't true. An OS that allows 3rd party apps to multitask/run in the background is superior to Apple's limited approach to mulitasking. There might be trade-offs to this multitasking, but we're simply talking about Apple's approach being inferior to some of the competition, which is a fair comment, because it is!
All things being equal, broader multitasking would be preferred, but they aren't equal. Those trade-offs mean that a broader view is needed to judge what is better. If you only look at certain things and not at the consequences of making those things that way, then it's just an incomplete evaluation.
It's kind of like back when there was this color portable game system that went 4 hours on a set of batteries against a black and white system that went 20. Color is superior on paper, but not in practice at the time, the market didn't accept it because it drank the batteries dry way too quickly. When color screens became reasonably efficient is when it was used and accepted.
Granted, but you tried to use the comment to say that Apple's approach isn't inferior, which obviously isn't true. An OS that allows 3rd party apps to multitask/run in the background is superior to Apple's limited approach to mulitasking. There might be trade-offs to this multitasking, but we're simply talking about Apple's approach being inferior to some of the competition, which is a fair comment, because it is!
Multitasking is overrated on a cell phone. Sure its a great feature for geeks, but how many users have multiple apps open on their pc? A small percentage.
Apple are right to focus on usability and not geek features appreciated by 5% of users. The Pre has multitasking and is a fine phone by most accounts. How many of those get sold a month? Stokes over at Ars has been using a Pre and blogging about it. The bottom line: Multitasking kills battery life and the pre isn't as easy to use as an iPhone.
Apple will bring multitasking to the iPhone if and when it doesn't affect performance and in a way that doesn't adversely affect the user experience.
All things being equal, broader multitasking would be preferred, but they aren't equal. Those trade-offs mean that a broader view is needed to judge what is better. If you only look at certain things and not at the consequences of making those things that way, then it's just an incomplete evaluation.
It's kind of like back when there was this color portable game system that went 4 hours on a set of batteries against a black and white system that went 20. Color is superior on paper, but not in practice at the time, the market didn't accept it because it drank the batteries dry way too quickly. When color screens became reasonably efficient is when it was used and accepted.
It's not like consoles at all. If you bought the colour screen model you had no choice but to use the colour screen. It's not as if you could switch it to black and White to regain the battery life. With a full multitasking OS you can choose to do no multitasking at all, and benefit from the longer battery life. Or you can choose to multitask and sacrifice a bit of battery life. A choice between those 2 scenarios is better than no choice at all. On that we can agree.
but how many users have multiple apps open on their pc? A small percentage.
I'm not even sure your assertion is true here, I think you're assuming this part. My dad doesn't understand computers at all and he has 5 apps open on his computer right now.
I'm not even sure your assertion is true here, I think you're assuming this part. My dad doesn't understand computers at all and he has 5 apps open on his computer right now.
My evidence is empiric but if I see someone with more than one app open I immediately assume they know something about computers.
When I see Windows users work its almost always one app at a time.
There was a time when smart phones were the exclusive tool of the business elite. One of the revolutionary things Apple did with the smart phone was to turn it into a gadget of consumer lust. The world has still not completely sorted this out yet. MS is trying to take its business facing products and turn them into consumer facing products rather than building from the ground up. They are completely out of touch with this brave new world of smart phones. Their best strategy is to move all operations to China where they do not have to innovate or please a demanding market. They will be able to dominate the knock-off market. I like their chances there. All of their last-century thinking and tactics will be new again. As an American technology company, they are already dead and just don't know it yet.
My evidence is empiric but if I see someone with more than one app open I immediately assume they know something about computers.
When I see Windows users work its almost always one app at a time.
My experience supporting many Windows users would support this unscientific view point. Most of those with one app open don't know the difference between web mail and Outlook, where they saved something or how to find what they saved ...
Comments
.... and although you could take grainy pictures, there was no way to get the off the phone. It was completely useless for anything other than making calls.
...
My parent have a cheap cell phone that has camera. I don't know why though because its a PIA to find the pictures once you take one and it requires a special cable that didn't come included with the phone to transfer them to a computer.
For all practical purposes, a lot of advertised 'features' are useless.
Also, I think we need a few more people to come in and quote and refute that exact same part of bigtux's post. I don't think we've hit all the possible word combinations yet.
MS really half-assed the entire WinMo paradigm. And ended up learning nothing from Apple. Same old MS. What else is new.
So Microsoft is voluntarily giving up one of the biggest changes Apple has introduced to the cell-phone industry, namely free OS upgrades for phones that have already been sold. Upgrades that add significant new features that weren't offered or introduced when the phone was announced, but that just showed up later. With no hassle for the end-user to get and apply the upgrade to their phone (connect phone, hit button labelled Update).
And what sounds really crazy about this situation is that Microsoft doesn't have an upgrade path for their Mobile OS. You buy a phone with v6.1, and it's v6.1 forever. Same with v6.5. Same with v7.0 (at least as far as Microsoft has announced).
So Microsoft is voluntarily giving up one of the biggest changes Apple has introduced to the cell-phone industry, namely free OS upgrades for phones that have already been sold. Upgrades that add significant new features that weren't offered or introduced when the phone was announced, but that just showed up later. With no hassle for the end-user to get and apply the upgrade to their phone (connect phone, hit button labelled Update).
And right now it seems virtually impossible for MS (given how they do things, ther entire corporate culture) to implement such a paradigm and actually make it work.
And right now it seems virtually impossible for MS (given how they do things, ther entire corporate culture) to implement such a paradigm and actually make it work.
The problem they have is that they charge for the OS, between $7 and $15 per device. How are they going to do that? The phone manufacturer would have to charge about twice the price. They couldn't offer it for free, because that would cost too much, particularly if people kept the phones for two upgrade cycles. That would cost the manufacturer between $14 and $30 per phone over what they paid for the version that came with the phone.
Apple makes the entire widget, but they don't.
The only way for MS to continue with Win Mobile will be for them to give it away for free, but would they do that?
After all they're up against every other manufacturer who can give the OS away for free if they want to. MS is left out in the cold.
And look at the numbers; Only 3.8 million Win Mobile phones sold this past quarter. Apple alone sold 5.4 million.
Apple makes the entire widget, but they don't.
Microsoft has been trying for 20 years to recreate their success in PC operating systems with other products, but it just doesn't seem to happen. Is anyone really surprised? Everybody should be able to see now how lucky they were the first time around. Microsoft really needs to reinvent their approach, but do they know how?
Microsoft has been trying for 20 years to recreate their success in PC operating systems with other products, but it just doesn't seem to happen. Is anyone really surprised? Everybody should be able to see now how lucky they were the first time around. Microsoft really needs to reinvent their approach, but do they know how?
Microsoft never had to make a consumer friendly product that didn't ride on someone else's coattails. That's how they achieved the major success. The rest of it with Office was illegal hampering of their major competitors, which is why they lost that first Federal lawsuit in the early '90's. Then by killing Netscape with more shenanigans later, in which they again got caught.
Their only other big "success" if you can call it that, has been the XBox 360. But they've lost over a billion dollars a year on their entertainment division since the first XBox came out. So therefor, the word "success" is laced with some venom.
They really don't know how to make a consumer product. That's hard to believe, but it's true. It's company culture.
I don't know if there is any way around it.
WinMo is circling the bowl, and no relief in sight.
MS really half-assed the entire WinMo paradigm. And ended up learning nothing from Apple. Same old MS. What else is new.
I wonder what will happen to their "genius" store .. .
And what sounds really crazy about this situation is that Microsoft doesn't have an upgrade path for their Mobile OS. You buy a phone with v6.1, and it's v6.1 forever. Same with v6.5. Same with v7.0 (at least as far as Microsoft has announced).
So Microsoft is voluntarily giving up one of the biggest changes Apple has introduced to the cell-phone industry, namely free OS upgrades for phones that have already been sold. Upgrades that add significant new features that weren't offered or introduced when the phone was announced, but that just showed up later. With no hassle for the end-user to get and apply the upgrade to their phone (connect phone, hit button labelled Update).
+1. Downloading apps is a hassle too.
iphone OS does too...they just prevent you from running multiple apps at once. But, for example, you can play music and browse the web at the same time...they selectively allow their own apps to multitask.
2...
Because the iPhone OS has always been a multitasking OS, so there's nothing technically superior bout MS's version.
3...
It's not accurate to say that the iPhone lacks "full multi-tasking" ? the phone supports multiple processes and applications running at once
4...
iPhone has full multi-tasking, background processes just aren't available to third-party developers.
5...
So does the iPhone, obviously, as many of Apple's apps multitask.
5 people managed to completely miss the boat with regards to the multitasking comment. The post mentioned FULL multitasking, not LIMITED multitasking as in the iPhone. Please please please read the message before you post - it does nothing for your credibility when you can't even respond to a post correctly.
5 people managed to completely miss the boat with regards to the multitasking comment. The post mentioned FULL multitasking, not LIMITED multitasking as in the iPhone. Please please please read the message before you post - it does nothing for your credibility when you can't even respond to a post correctly.
You quote me out of context and then talk about credibility? Really.
Maury
You quote me out of context and then talk about credibility? Really.
Maury
Granted, but you tried to use the comment to say that Apple's approach isn't inferior, which obviously isn't true. An OS that allows 3rd party apps to multitask/run in the background is superior to Apple's limited approach to mulitasking. There might be trade-offs to this multitasking, but we're simply talking about Apple's approach being inferior to some of the competition, which is a fair comment, because it is!
Granted, but you tried to use the comment to say that Apple's approach isn't inferior, which obviously isn't true. An OS that allows 3rd party apps to multitask/run in the background is superior to Apple's limited approach to mulitasking. There might be trade-offs to this multitasking, but we're simply talking about Apple's approach being inferior to some of the competition, which is a fair comment, because it is!
All things being equal, broader multitasking would be preferred, but they aren't equal. Those trade-offs mean that a broader view is needed to judge what is better. If you only look at certain things and not at the consequences of making those things that way, then it's just an incomplete evaluation.
It's kind of like back when there was this color portable game system that went 4 hours on a set of batteries against a black and white system that went 20. Color is superior on paper, but not in practice at the time, the market didn't accept it because it drank the batteries dry way too quickly. When color screens became reasonably efficient is when it was used and accepted.
Granted, but you tried to use the comment to say that Apple's approach isn't inferior, which obviously isn't true. An OS that allows 3rd party apps to multitask/run in the background is superior to Apple's limited approach to mulitasking. There might be trade-offs to this multitasking, but we're simply talking about Apple's approach being inferior to some of the competition, which is a fair comment, because it is!
Multitasking is overrated on a cell phone. Sure its a great feature for geeks, but how many users have multiple apps open on their pc? A small percentage.
Apple are right to focus on usability and not geek features appreciated by 5% of users. The Pre has multitasking and is a fine phone by most accounts. How many of those get sold a month? Stokes over at Ars has been using a Pre and blogging about it. The bottom line: Multitasking kills battery life and the pre isn't as easy to use as an iPhone.
Apple will bring multitasking to the iPhone if and when it doesn't affect performance and in a way that doesn't adversely affect the user experience.
All things being equal, broader multitasking would be preferred, but they aren't equal. Those trade-offs mean that a broader view is needed to judge what is better. If you only look at certain things and not at the consequences of making those things that way, then it's just an incomplete evaluation.
It's kind of like back when there was this color portable game system that went 4 hours on a set of batteries against a black and white system that went 20. Color is superior on paper, but not in practice at the time, the market didn't accept it because it drank the batteries dry way too quickly. When color screens became reasonably efficient is when it was used and accepted.
It's not like consoles at all. If you bought the colour screen model you had no choice but to use the colour screen. It's not as if you could switch it to black and White to regain the battery life. With a full multitasking OS you can choose to do no multitasking at all, and benefit from the longer battery life. Or you can choose to multitask and sacrifice a bit of battery life. A choice between those 2 scenarios is better than no choice at all. On that we can agree.
but how many users have multiple apps open on their pc? A small percentage.
I'm not even sure your assertion is true here, I think you're assuming this part. My dad doesn't understand computers at all and he has 5 apps open on his computer right now.
I'm not even sure your assertion is true here, I think you're assuming this part. My dad doesn't understand computers at all and he has 5 apps open on his computer right now.
My evidence is empiric but if I see someone with more than one app open I immediately assume they know something about computers.
When I see Windows users work its almost always one app at a time.
My evidence is empiric but if I see someone with more than one app open I immediately assume they know something about computers.
When I see Windows users work its almost always one app at a time.
My experience supporting many Windows users would support this unscientific view point. Most of those with one app open don't know the difference between web mail and Outlook, where they saved something or how to find what they saved ...