I think a couple alternatives would have been more to the point: lukewarm or tepid.
Yes, but they wouldn't have sounded half as clever. This is a case of using a twenty-five cent word when a ten cent word would have provided more clarity and better sense. Probably anyone who writes a great deal understands this trap all too well, if only from being thumped by an editor for using fancy vocabulary that distracts from, or just doesn't fit the intended meaning. Sadly, editing is nearly a thing of the past, especially online.
Am I the only one who finds it incredibly jarring to encounter basic grammatical errors, third grade sentence structure, or just plain incoherence within articles posted on mainstream sites?
Badly designed blogs, rumor sites, discussion boards, or narrow interest web-zines are one thing-- there's a hand-lettered-screed-on- the-laundromat-bulletin-board vibe that reduces expectations.
But when the ambient design suggests legitimate publications with actual editorial staff and budget, shitty writing feels like opening an issue of Time or Sports Illustrated or Car and Driver and discovering they've hired children to provide copy while keeping the professionals in the design department.
As a writer, I do get my back up a little bit when I see all the pure canal water that passes for professional journalism, not just on an editorial level (which can be fixed, if anyone cares), but on a content and thoughtfulness basis as well. But this has become so common, I suppose I'm not jarred by it any longer. I trust you are familiar with Sturgeon's Law. The crap universe grows along with everything else, maybe even faster. If Sturgeon were still around today, he might up his rule-of-thumb to 95%.
Wow, you can smell the fear in this forum. Just to see how much time folks are spending on dismissing WP7. iPhone proponents must really feel like MS has a potential rival. I guess since Andriod continues to eat into iPhone market share Apple enthusiasts need to do something to make themselves feel good. Bashing MS has always seemd to help huh...
Wow, you can smell the fear in this forum. Just to see how much time folks are spending on dismissing WP7. iPhone proponents must really feel like MS has a potential rival. I guess since Andriod continues to eat into iPhone market share Apple enthusiasts need to do something to make themselves feel good. Bashing MS has always seemd to help huh...
A vibrant, competitive cellphone market is good for everyone. Especially users.
Microsoft should be applauded for doing something original. The reboot of Microsoft's mobile software was overdue, but the final outcome is bold. Technically WP7 is good, in some ways great, albeit lacking some features.
But consumers don't buy purely because of technical merit. Despite the geek-viewpoint that assumes all customers see the world in features and numerical terms. To be a commercial success MS has to create a brand and a message which resonates with regular end-users of cellphones.
Historically, MS has always struggled to connect to consumers and deliver differentiated brands and clear consumer message. It's this weakness which is hurting them now.
Windows is a massively successful operating system for desktop computers. It is Microsoft's most successful brand. But it has nothing at all to do with cellphones. WP7 phones don't run Windows software, and the don't even have windows in their user interface. There are no Windows-like user interface elements. So why call it Windows Phone?
It is as if Sony came out with a line of televisions and decided to stamp them with the Walkman logo because Walkman is a popular Sony brand.
MS's advertising campaign was well made, but delivered entirely the wrong message. It made fun of people absorbed in their cellphones. What was the message? Our phones are less engaging?
For a product like this to succeed, a company needs three things.
1) The ability to design a unique superior mobile platform.
2) The engineering ability to create it and make it work.
3) The ability to deliver a simple message about the benefits of the platform to the prospective audience.
MS have always been good at number 2. They occasionally deliver number 1.
... That means it should have time to mature and the time to catch up to Android and iOS feature wise isn't going to be all that long. Probably 6 months or so.
Where do you suppose iOS and Android be "feature wise" in 6 months or so?
It's those top applications that define the application store. The rest might be a nice idea, but they don't count jack toward the success of the store.
If you are talking about a store with 1,000 apps, you might have a point.
But when you get to a store the size of Apple's, with the breadth of software that Apple has, you couldn't be more wrong. The chances of the store hitting the long tail are much higher.
One community of 10 users that wants a very specific app in and of itself isn't significant. Thousands of such communities? Now you are talking. And as soon as you start overlapping those communities - splitting one or two members between overlapping communities you are now interlocking your ecosystem in a way that makes it almost impossible for others to compete.
Your dismissal of vertical applications with small communities of users is incredibly myopic.
I repeatably stated that marketshare is not a major concern of Apple's and there is no reason for it to be, but fanboys of all stripes seem to care a lot about it.
Where do you suppose iOS and Android be "feature wise" in 6 months or so?
Android should be at gingerbread and iOS still 4.x with iOS 5 within a month or two.
But in terms of being behind MS will have greatly closed the gap since there's quite a bit of low hanging fruit like cut and paste and notification/multitasking.
Going from 1.x to 2.0 usually represents a bigger jump from 2.x to 3.0 or 4.x to 5.0 in terms of getting to a livable feature set.
Android should be at gingerbread and iOS still 4.x with iOS 5 within a month or two.
But in terms of being behind MS will have greatly closed the gap since there's quite a bit of low hanging fruit like cut and paste and notification/multitasking.
Going from 1.x to 2.0 usually represents a bigger jump from 2.x to 3.0 or 4.x to 5.0 in terms of getting to a livable feature set.
WP7 is off to a pretty good start, IMO. My only glaring concern is the start of the JS browser engine, but the silver lining is IE9r7 is on par with the rest of the industry, so it could be an update away that IE for WP7 could render pages faster than Safari or Android browser.
We know Microsoft can go feature complete. The Zune player eventually became very polished. But there is little or no user mindset. Users follow leaders.
RIM had created the market and had many users, even if the feature set lagged, they have momentum (if possibly little fuel... developers are lacking mainly ATM)
Apple is the real "leader" in the minds of "the rest of us" at this point. Apple (as usual) turned the market on its' head, and unlike the past they HAVE all the developers on board.
Palm created a very nice phone, and got a few users and developers, it almost caught on. But Palm made a HUGE mistake with the "works with iTunes" fiasco; a major player (why buy otherwise) would provide their OWN media ecosystem.
Microsoft has finally seen the light; and they certainly know how to court developers. The marketing to end users is still pretty clueless tho and unlikely to correct the conception that Microsoft is an also ran. Microsoft DOES have deep pockets however. But the conception in the minds of users needed to be seeded right away, and the "Microsoft Phone 7 - the phone with less!" Ad campaign is not exactly the right approach. Microsoft should have NOT introduced until they were feature complete and THEN SOME. The new product spark has pretty much "Zuned out".
Android, played it right but sold their soul to the carriers in the process, and the platform will struggle moving forward. They should have kept more control. However the "open source" (well sort of, try submitting a patch) approach bought them some geek cred, especially with peeps who dislike Apples' controlling stance WRT to "Consumer experience". How Android will do in future will become clear enough once iPhones are available from all carriers.
Nokia... Well, they have little hope despite the N8 (Or because of it) but they make nice Featurephones.
You all know this stuff I think; however you all feel about the market.
RIM: Has probably already peaked, but will be around for a while.
Apple: A strong future with "consumers"
Android: Likely to be a big seller (#1 or #2) if not so much of a commercial success for Google.
Microsoft: Another Zune in the making. Guys, Get it right the FIRST time. You needed to here.
Palm: Needs a miracle, but could get one.
Nokia: All but dead from all I can see.
I don't normally comment but I had too much coffee this morning lol.
dolphin, and especially Carniphage: Nail on the head.
WP may amount to something at some point, but until then, they are remarkably easy to dismiss.
Of course if they came out with WP7 4 years ago, they'd own the market. But they were the last to cross the finish line, and by a 'technology eternity' to boot. Who was the fourth guy to climb Mount Everest? I swear, WebOS had far more buzz, and look where they wound up.
There are, at this point, many reasons NOT to buy a WP7 phone, and from a manufacturer's POV, two good reasons not to make them: Cost, and sales numbers. Until MS gives it away for free, which IMHO they will have to as part of a long term strategy, I just don't see the upside.
Time, and sales numbers, will tell. I'm not at all optimistic for MS. They have a great product, from the sound of it, but the stigma of fail is all over it.
The success of WP7 will hinge on whether MSFT can convince consumers that WP7 fills a need that isn't yet satisfied by other platforms in the market already.
Its not a hardware issue. WP7 has some great hardware already.
Its not an OS issue. The foundation is there and with a few key updates WP7 will be fairly competitive.
Its not an apps issue. Apps grow as the platform grows.
What matters the most at this point is if WP7 can stand out in a crowd. What does WP7 do to set itself apart?
In the corporate world I think the combination of good outlook/office integration combined with a variety of handset options could be the clincher. Corporations don't trust Android and sometimes people want more choice that just iPhone.
In the consumer world I think their prospects aren't quite as bright, but they could displace RIM in this segment.
Comments
I think a couple alternatives would have been more to the point: lukewarm or tepid.
Yes, but they wouldn't have sounded half as clever. This is a case of using a twenty-five cent word when a ten cent word would have provided more clarity and better sense. Probably anyone who writes a great deal understands this trap all too well, if only from being thumped by an editor for using fancy vocabulary that distracts from, or just doesn't fit the intended meaning. Sadly, editing is nearly a thing of the past, especially online.
Badly designed blogs, rumor sites, discussion boards, or narrow interest web-zines are one thing-- there's a hand-lettered-screed-on- the-laundromat-bulletin-board vibe that reduces expectations.
But when the ambient design suggests legitimate publications with actual editorial staff and budget, shitty writing feels like opening an issue of Time or Sports Illustrated or Car and Driver and discovering they've hired children to provide copy while keeping the professionals in the design department.
Lol
Wow, you can smell the fear in this forum. Just to see how much time folks are spending on dismissing WP7. iPhone proponents must really feel like MS has a potential rival. I guess since Andriod continues to eat into iPhone market share Apple enthusiasts need to do something to make themselves feel good. Bashing MS has always seemd to help huh...
A vibrant, competitive cellphone market is good for everyone. Especially users.
Microsoft should be applauded for doing something original. The reboot of Microsoft's mobile software was overdue, but the final outcome is bold. Technically WP7 is good, in some ways great, albeit lacking some features.
But consumers don't buy purely because of technical merit. Despite the geek-viewpoint that assumes all customers see the world in features and numerical terms. To be a commercial success MS has to create a brand and a message which resonates with regular end-users of cellphones.
Historically, MS has always struggled to connect to consumers and deliver differentiated brands and clear consumer message. It's this weakness which is hurting them now.
Windows is a massively successful operating system for desktop computers. It is Microsoft's most successful brand. But it has nothing at all to do with cellphones. WP7 phones don't run Windows software, and the don't even have windows in their user interface. There are no Windows-like user interface elements. So why call it Windows Phone?
It is as if Sony came out with a line of televisions and decided to stamp them with the Walkman logo because Walkman is a popular Sony brand.
MS's advertising campaign was well made, but delivered entirely the wrong message. It made fun of people absorbed in their cellphones. What was the message? Our phones are less engaging?
For a product like this to succeed, a company needs three things.
1) The ability to design a unique superior mobile platform.
2) The engineering ability to create it and make it work.
3) The ability to deliver a simple message about the benefits of the platform to the prospective audience.
MS have always been good at number 2. They occasionally deliver number 1.
But they are clinically incapable of number 3.
C.
... That means it should have time to mature and the time to catch up to Android and iOS feature wise isn't going to be all that long. Probably 6 months or so.
Where do you suppose iOS and Android be "feature wise" in 6 months or so?
It's those top applications that define the application store. The rest might be a nice idea, but they don't count jack toward the success of the store.
If you are talking about a store with 1,000 apps, you might have a point.
But when you get to a store the size of Apple's, with the breadth of software that Apple has, you couldn't be more wrong. The chances of the store hitting the long tail are much higher.
One community of 10 users that wants a very specific app in and of itself isn't significant. Thousands of such communities? Now you are talking. And as soon as you start overlapping those communities - splitting one or two members between overlapping communities you are now interlocking your ecosystem in a way that makes it almost impossible for others to compete.
Your dismissal of vertical applications with small communities of users is incredibly myopic.
What company is this?
Ah, the ad hominem "it's only a toy" argument.
Such an intelligent counter argument. Thank you for playing
It took Android a while to get going and now it's market leader
In sales maybe. Certainly not in revenue, for either it's creator or developers.
What's easier to live off of? Sales numbers or profit? The naivety of simple business concepts expressed in threads like these is simply stunning...
I repeatably stated that marketshare is not a major concern of Apple's and there is no reason for it to be, but fanboys of all stripes seem to care a lot about it.
On this we agree wholeheartedly.
Android is the number one player right now, so that is where the money is
Prove it.
If google makes more on Android than PC makers made on Netbooks I'll eat my hat.
Pippin
The pippin did ship. It was a flop, but it did ship...
professional journalism
I'm curious as to what this means for you.
Where do you suppose iOS and Android be "feature wise" in 6 months or so?
Android should be at gingerbread and iOS still 4.x with iOS 5 within a month or two.
But in terms of being behind MS will have greatly closed the gap since there's quite a bit of low hanging fruit like cut and paste and notification/multitasking.
Going from 1.x to 2.0 usually represents a bigger jump from 2.x to 3.0 or 4.x to 5.0 in terms of getting to a livable feature set.
Android should be at gingerbread and iOS still 4.x with iOS 5 within a month or two.
But in terms of being behind MS will have greatly closed the gap since there's quite a bit of low hanging fruit like cut and paste and notification/multitasking.
Going from 1.x to 2.0 usually represents a bigger jump from 2.x to 3.0 or 4.x to 5.0 in terms of getting to a livable feature set.
WP7 is off to a pretty good start, IMO. My only glaring concern is the start of the JS browser engine, but the silver lining is IE9r7 is on par with the rest of the industry, so it could be an update away that IE for WP7 could render pages faster than Safari or Android browser.PS: I just read the replies to the previous thread about US v UK TV shows, you summed it up much better than I was. Kudos!
RIM had created the market and had many users, even if the feature set lagged, they have momentum (if possibly little fuel... developers are lacking mainly ATM)
Apple is the real "leader" in the minds of "the rest of us" at this point. Apple (as usual) turned the market on its' head, and unlike the past they HAVE all the developers on board.
Palm created a very nice phone, and got a few users and developers, it almost caught on. But Palm made a HUGE mistake with the "works with iTunes" fiasco; a major player (why buy otherwise) would provide their OWN media ecosystem.
Microsoft has finally seen the light; and they certainly know how to court developers. The marketing to end users is still pretty clueless tho and unlikely to correct the conception that Microsoft is an also ran. Microsoft DOES have deep pockets however. But the conception in the minds of users needed to be seeded right away, and the "Microsoft Phone 7 - the phone with less!" Ad campaign is not exactly the right approach. Microsoft should have NOT introduced until they were feature complete and THEN SOME. The new product spark has pretty much "Zuned out".
Android, played it right but sold their soul to the carriers in the process, and the platform will struggle moving forward. They should have kept more control. However the "open source" (well sort of, try submitting a patch) approach bought them some geek cred, especially with peeps who dislike Apples' controlling stance WRT to "Consumer experience". How Android will do in future will become clear enough once iPhones are available from all carriers.
Nokia... Well, they have little hope despite the N8 (Or because of it) but they make nice Featurephones.
You all know this stuff I think; however you all feel about the market.
RIM: Has probably already peaked, but will be around for a while.
Apple: A strong future with "consumers"
Android: Likely to be a big seller (#1 or #2) if not so much of a commercial success for Google.
Microsoft: Another Zune in the making. Guys, Get it right the FIRST time. You needed to here.
Palm: Needs a miracle, but could get one.
Nokia: All but dead from all I can see.
I don't normally comment but I had too much coffee this morning lol.
WP may amount to something at some point, but until then, they are remarkably easy to dismiss.
Of course if they came out with WP7 4 years ago, they'd own the market. But they were the last to cross the finish line, and by a 'technology eternity' to boot. Who was the fourth guy to climb Mount Everest? I swear, WebOS had far more buzz, and look where they wound up.
There are, at this point, many reasons NOT to buy a WP7 phone, and from a manufacturer's POV, two good reasons not to make them: Cost, and sales numbers. Until MS gives it away for free, which IMHO they will have to as part of a long term strategy, I just don't see the upside.
Time, and sales numbers, will tell. I'm not at all optimistic for MS. They have a great product, from the sound of it, but the stigma of fail is all over it.
Its not a hardware issue. WP7 has some great hardware already.
Its not an OS issue. The foundation is there and with a few key updates WP7 will be fairly competitive.
Its not an apps issue. Apps grow as the platform grows.
What matters the most at this point is if WP7 can stand out in a crowd. What does WP7 do to set itself apart?
In the corporate world I think the combination of good outlook/office integration combined with a variety of handset options could be the clincher. Corporations don't trust Android and sometimes people want more choice that just iPhone.
In the consumer world I think their prospects aren't quite as bright, but they could displace RIM in this segment.