Posts by marekt77 16 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Aug 2008
"Following its acquisition of the social-media-for-suits platform in 2016, Microsoft has slurped data for its own purposes, which is, er, exactly what developers are concerned about."
As opposed to Google slurping the data had they bought them? Not sure I trust Google more than MS in this case.
That feature was removed from Windows Phone due to Facebook and others I believe being not happy with it. It was brilliant, because at the author pointed out, I could go to a contact and see all of their social updates, and respond to them right from that place. At the time, I almost NEVER used the actual Facebook/Twitter app. See the problem with this? If I don't use the App, I don't see any of the ads or sponsored content. FB does not make money. So this had to go. :(
I think they are going with the Rift. No hard evidence, but the Rift does come with an Xbox One Controller, and Carmack was on MS's stage today talking about VR. Oddly he was using Samsung VR device not the Rift.
So it might be safe to say that MS might just make the next Xbox compatible with the Rift. Might be a good play as well, since anyone that bought one, could then use it on their Xbox.
But we will see...
Palm should have been bought by Nokia. WebOS at it's release was very good, and competitive with Android and iOS. I would dare to say that it ran MUCH better than Android at the time. Having had the HTC G1 and Nexus One, I know how clunky Android was at the time.
What Palm didn't have was very good hardware, and that disastrous launch on Sprint didn't help them either. Nokia had awesome hardware, but was making a mess in software. Their Symbian based line, the N900 with was Meego, etc...
Had they bought Palm and dropped WebOS on Nokia hardware and did a massive push, I am thinking both of those stories would be quite different today.
I would wager that a Nokia/WebOS combination would have blunted Android growth, and gave iOS run for it's money.
Everyone is complaining that Windows Phone 10 looks like Android, but the fact is the market has spoken, and the masses simply did not “get” the UI of Windows Phone 7 then 8.1. The bar was set by the iPhone, with its home screen of icons. Android copied that design, and that is sadly what people now expect in a smartphone.
Remember, Windows Phone 7 was released in 2010, Android was kinda crappy back then. Actually the first decent Android phone in my opinion was also released in 2010, the Nexus One. So it is safe to say they started on equal footing. However Android, with its grid of icons looked a lot more like the iPhone than WP7 did with its live tiles. In the US the iPhone was still limited to ATT, so if you couldn’t get an iPhone you wanted something similar and got an Android. WP7 I guess was too radical, even if at the time certain things were a LOT more intuitive once you got over that it did not look like iOS/Android. Sadly most people never got that. Funny because back then the tight Facebook/Twitter integration was an awesome feature!! I can go to one place, the People Hub and see everything I wanted too! No ads, just feeds from people I cared about.
So Microsoft in one of the few times in their existence did something different, original, and good, and no one seemed to care, and still very few people care. Then Windows 8 came out, and anything remotely associated with it was toxic, including Windows Phone 8.
What are they left with then? The market rejected their UI and design over and over, so either they kill it, or make it more similar to what is popular. Sure they have their fanboys. I’ve enjoyed the WP experience since my first WP7 device the HTC Radar. But a few dedicated fans do not a market make. Sure MS has made some major mistakes with the platform. But back in 2010, while a bit late to the party, they did have a unique and easy to use OS that VERY few people cared about!!!
Sadly I feel the smartphone wars are over... and it's a Android/iOS world with maybe a SMALL place for Windows...
Jolla has no ecosystem, and its the ecosystem that ties and keeps people to their chosen platforms. Would an iOS user with say just $200 of paid apps/content ever consider switching? They just get the next iPhone and magically everything transfers over, the same with Android, and with Android you have more phone choices, but your Google ecosystem transfers over. These platforms are so entrenched now that a majority of people will not bother switching, especially if they have to lose something. Features, Apps, Content...
What can you differentiate on? That your not Apple/Google/Microsoft? That may matter some small set of people, but a majority simply do not care.
Price? Doesn't stop Apple. There are plenty of cheap Android phones, and plenty of cheap and capable Windows Phones and you don't see them making much of a difference.
Again what does Jolla offer, especially to the end user, and especially if they cannot snapchat because that app is not available on the platform.
Sorry folks but for the foreseeable future, Google and Apple have won...
For those that are complaining about the Windows Phone UI losing it "Metro" styling, I think what has happend here is that the market has spoken for better or worse, and the market has chosen Android/iOS vs. Windows Phone. Microsoft is trying to make the phone look and feel more like Android and iOS because that is what people are used too. This has been my experience thus far:
Seeing as feature phones are getting hard to come by, many of my older family members have been getting smartphones. I almost always recommend Windows Phone because out of all of the platforms it seems easiest to use. For example, I make icons on the main screen as big as possible, and only show core functionality: Phone, Contacts, SMS, Weather, maybe Email. That is it, and everyone that I have setup in this way love it! Icons are big and easy to select. Other functionality is hidden away, to be discovered once they get more profecient in using the handset. Some do which is great, the rest, they are fine too because they have the 4 things they need right there in four big and easy icons. Show them an iPhone or Android with a home screen filled with smaller icons and they get lost. Remember these are usually 50+ people I am talking about. So Windows Phone 8.1, Great for OLD people!
For most everyone else, the story is similar: Why does the menu screen seem so wierd? Where are the rest of my apps? I don't like the layout of this app. Where is the menu? Why can't I have a grid of icons, etc... I've gotten some to adapt and they do like it, but mostly the dismiss the phone as not being like their old or current Androids/iOS. And lets be honest, while they do have their differences, both offer home screens with grid icons. Apps have the Hamburger Menu, etc... They may look a little different, but the core UI concepts are pretty similar.
While Microsoft with Metro may have tried something different, new, and dare I say innovative, for whatever the reason at least on the Phone, the market did not respond in kind. So they can continue to go against the grain completely or they can adapt a bit to the market and make their platform a little more like the other guys. Which is a bit sad, because say what you want about MS, the UI for Windows Phone 7 - 8.1 was a radical departure from what others were doing, and in many ways was a lot more effecient and easier to use. One of the few times MS did something innovative and different.
Impossible, no, impractical most defiantly!
The way I see drone delivery service becoming feasible is if these companies use drones, or what in reality would be a automated transport helicopter to deliver a large quantity of goods to predefined locations where said goods are then given to human couriers to final delivery to customers.
The idea that we would have direct to customer drone delivery is extremely impractical because of the amount of drones needed. Let us take the annual iPhone release date. An iPhone is small enough to be delivered by drone, and is not an item that will be replaced by streaming, or digital delivery, such as a BluRay or video game.
Take San Francisco, or any major city, how many people pre-order the iPhone for day one delivery? A few hundred, a few thousand? Lets say 3,000 people in the bay area pre-order their iPhone for day one delivery. How many drones would it take to make all of those deliveries on time? How many in the air at the same time? 200? 500? And that is just for the iPhone. Now add all of the other orders that have to be fulfilled that day. How many drones are in the air at once? There will have to be a limit, otherwise the sky will be filled with drones. From Amazon, UPS, FedEx, local couriers, etc... With said limits in place does it become feasible to even run such a delivery service?
How will security be handled? Everyone knows iPhone release day, or PS4 release day, or Xbox, etc... Take out the drone as it is flying, could the police even keep up with the amount of theft that would happen? Rural delivery makes a little more sense, but makes it even harder to control security. Drone gets taken down en route out in a field, the drone, and it's cargo could be taken long before any one arrives.
The only way I see this making any sense is as I stated before, large automated transport choppers, dropping of large quantities of cargo in per-defined destinations for local human delivery. Drone drops off cargo, goes back to warehouse, comes back with another load just as local delivery returns from making previous deliveries.
Direct drone to customer delivery, not for a LONG time, if ever!
Not sure BillG is the right person the help with those changes. Let us start with Ballmer’s quote about the iPhone when it was first released: “There’s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance. It’s a $500 subsidized item.”
That type of arrogance and lack of vision has really hurt MS. To be fair, the iPhone caught a lot of the old phone guard by surprise, but every smart phone on the market today owes its existence to the original iPhone. Remember the first time Google showed off Android prototypes? Sure they had touch screens, many of them looked like cloned Blackberries, and the way the OS worked was nothing like what it is today. Say what you want about Apple, and Jobs, but they did lead the way with the iPhone. That Ballmer didn’t immediately recognize its technological potential and make moves to counter is the reason why WP is in the state it is in today. Again, the same could have been said of Blackberry, Nokia, etc… The only company that got it was Google. Those Blackberry clones were dropped, and Android was released with similar functionality and operation as the iPhone. Google continued to tweak/innovate, and it is now the dominate player in smartphones. For Ballmer and Co. to dismiss the iPhone like that shows their arrogance, and utter lack of recognizing a transformative technology.
Second: The “Courier” project. We will never know how far along this device was, or if it really did work as well as those demos that were on YouTube, but I do remember one thing. The “Courier” did something for Microsoft that has not happened in many, many, many years… It created a whole lot of buzz, interest, and dare I say excitement about a MS product. Geeks were generally excited about this thing on the internet. I cannot remember the last time outside of the Xbox that people were so excited about a product from MS. Why was it killed? Well the rumor was its lack of an email client. But I suspect it was because it had nothing to do with Windows. It wasn’t called “Win” something, it didn’t look like Windows, and I don’t think it even needed Windows PC to sync to. It was something totally new, and if those videos were true, something that could have been a killer notebook/e-reader/organizer/tablet/etc… Again this was right around the time the iPad was released, and back then iPads were considered to be overgrown iPhones, great for content consumption, but not really content creation. “Courier” could have beat Apple at their own game, a tool for the creative, the student, and the office. Instead the old guard killed it, and we now have Windows RT. Oh and J. Allard left the company, and the “skunk works” team he created at MS was disbanded. IMHO bring Allard back.
Third: I think this is the hardest, and I do not know how to fully articulate it, but MS needs to get back into the conversation when it comes to technology. Example: how many startups would even consider developing their website/application in ASP.Net? I’m sure that number is very close to Zero. Is asp.Net the greatest web tech? No, but it is a very good framework and should be at least considered. Except, well, it only runs on Windows, and Windows Servers are expensive. So if I were MS, I would seriously consider releasing a free version of Windows Server. Something that will run the .Net stack, and IIS, make it command line only. Do not cripple the .Net/IIS part of it. They might lose some licensing costs, but maybe they can get into consideration for having the next Twitter or something built on that platform. It doesn’t give them licenses, but it at least puts them back in the conversation.
Another example, if they claim IE is so great, make an OSX and dare I say Linux version of it. Release it on Android. It might not get much traction, but it makes a statement that yeah we can product a browser that can run with the best of them on all platforms. Don’t just rely on the fact that IE runs on Windows which still runs on the vast majority of desktops in the world. Throw in your software with the others on their own turf.
I guess my last point is best summed by stopping MS from just relying on their dominate position in desktops to promote their other technology. Linux, OSX, Android are not going away, and neither is Windows for that matter, but they cannot just rely on their monopoly to sell themselves to the world. They have to be able to break free, and not be afraid to cannibalize their own products. This is one thing that Jobs understood and was not afraid to do. Better you cannibalize your own, then a competitor to do it for you.
I still feel the best thing Nokia should have done was to be the ones that bought Palm, and WebOS instead of HP. This would have given them a beautiful, functional, modern OS that they could have paired with their industrial design to produce some incredible products! Most importantly they would own their own platform, instead of relying on Microsoft, Google, or anyone else for that matter.
At the very least they would have certainly done more with WebOS that HP ever did. And WebOS would have at least been given a fighting chance to survive.
Sadly this did not come to pass, and WebOS has died, and Nokia well, maybe if given enough time can with MS carve out a nice small 3rd place in market share globally, if they survive that long...
Samsung updates do not have a good track record either, it took the original galaxy 6+ months to get Froyo out to everyone.
Yes HTC makes Windows phones, they in fact originally made just Windows Phones, but as of late, they have focused almost exclusively on Android, they make many more Android phones than Windows phones, and all of their flagship devices have been Android phones. So yeah my point that Android in of itself would not save Nokia is valid, because it is not really saving HTC.
Why is it ok for Samsung? Because they are a much, much larger company with multiple revenue streams, so they can afford to experiment with other platforms to see if something works. Nokia also has another platform, they sell a lot of phones from their Asha line that still runs Symbian.
My point is simply this, Android would not magically fix all of Nokia's problems. Would they be in better position now had they made Android phones? Maybe, but it is not a given that Android would have fixed all of their problems.
I know a lot of people really HATE Microsoft, but this idea that if only they picked Android all of their problems would magically disappear is nonsense! Before I go on, I think Nokia should have bought Palm, and taken up the WebOS mantel. It was a beautiful OS, with a lot of potential. Sadly this did not happen. Ok back to Android vs. Windows Phone. Sure there are a hard core IT folk that would love to have a Lumia 920 running on Android, but the rest of the world? Not so sure. Where I live in the US, the Android market is DOMINATED by Samsung. Galaxy and the Note rule the day here. Are they the only nice Android phones on the market? Of course not. Sure the new HTC One got rave reviews, but the excitement over it is nowhere near the levels of excitement about the new Galaxy. LG, they are almost an afterthought. Sure the Nexus 4 sold like gangbusters, but that was because of the very aggressive price that Google was selling the phone for. I know the device itself is very nice, my wife has one, but most customers probably have never really heard of it. Walk into any store here, and for the most part it is the Galaxy and iPhone that are the most advertised and on display. So if Nokia went Android they would have to compete with the likes of Samsung, LG, Motorola, Sony, HTC, etc... And what state is HTC in? Having been the first to market with and Android phone? They are losing money hand over fist, even though they make very nice Android devices. Is the Lumia 920 nicer than the HTC One? Maybe, maybe not, but what difference does it make if HTC cannot seem make money on Android?
Now factor in the low end of the market, there are TONS of OEMS making cheap Android phones. Can Nokia compete with them in a race to the bottom? Will that make it profitable?
Back to Microsoft, yes we all know how evil they are and what not, but I guarantee you they are NOT going to give up on mobile anytime soon if ever. It is too important of a market for them to walk away from. They have a huge war chest, and are in it for the long run. Will they ever dominate mobile? Probably not, and this is for the best, but they will eventually carve out enough market share to stay relevant. Microsoft is not as OEM, even though sometimes it tries to be, so it needs a top tier OEM to support their platform. Nokia needed a platform, and more importantly needed help building a platform. From a business sense it made total sense for them to partner up. Nokia got some cash from Microsoft, and Microsoft gains a top tier OEM. Nokia also gets help promoting the platform. So they do not have to do everything themselves. MS will not let mobile go, and as far as they are out there telling people about WP, as of right now this helps Nokia.
If Nokia stayed with MeeGo, at the present count it would be the 5th major mobile OS on the market. iOS, Android, Blackberry 10, Windows Phone, MeeGo. Yeah I know, IT folks LOVED it because it ran Linux. Well sadly that is not enough. Neither WP nor Blackberry 10 are horrible OSes, but look how much trouble they are having attracting mobile developers to their platform? People who buy these things care not that it runs Linux, but they sure as hell care if it has Instagram, Foursquare, Pinterest, etc... With MeeGo Nokia would be the only one promoting the platform and they would be facing monumental challenges getting people to notice it. Just look at Blackberry, and least they have their corporate customers to fall back on. So no matter how awesome MeeGo was, how open, etc... Nokia would have to license it to others, would anyone jump on board? HTC and Samsung already make both Android and Windows Phones, what would MeeGo give them that those to platforms do not?
Nokia was in trouble LONG before Windows Phone or Elop came along. If you want to blame anyone, blame the management board that got them into this mess in the first place. They were slow to react to the iPhone and Android and are now paying for it. There was a very good article about Nokia and their internal development environment around the time the iPhone came out. Multiple teams working on the exact same problem, but competing against each other, loss of focus, just seemed like a total mess. Had the cleaned this up right when the iPhone was announced and got their act together, maybe MeeGo would have been a player today, it defiantly had the potential, but sadly it was not to be. Now Elop could have picked up WebOS, but again, they would be going at it alone. Samsung, LG, Sony they have an advantage that they do not just make phones. Sure Nokia makes equipment, but is that enough to sustain the whole company while it tries to grow a platform against some of the wealthiest companies in the world? Probably not.
One final point, I think what is hurting Nokia a bit in the US are these damn carrier exclusive phones. Right now if you want a 920, you can only get it on AT&T. WHY? It should be available on EVERY carrier, just like the Galaxy. You need the sales, so offer your phone to anyone and everyone that could potentially buy it!!!
Whatever case maybe, Nokia would still not be magically awesome right now if it had only used Android. At the very least with WP they get to be the top OEM of a small percentage of the market, but one that will no doubt grow as time goes on.
I believe Nokia really had no other choice but to go with Windows Phone after it squandered so much time and effort in the critical first few years post iPhone launch. People bring up Android or MeeGo, but ask yourself would it have really mattered? Take the Lumina 900 that is their current “flagship” phone, would it be doing any better if it were an Android device?!?!? Would it be able to stand up to the Galaxy line from Samsung or even the HTC One? Oh sure they could have dropped a dual core processor, higher res screen, etc… But what else could they have brought to the table that Samsung doesn’t already? HTC made the first Android phone ever and they too are behind Samsung now in Android devices, not for a lack of trying either. Now MeeGo, yes it was a beloved OS by the IT crowd, but that does not a market make. What honestly did MeeGo have going for it that could lure the general public away from iOS or Android? Very Little. But its open you say, its Linux you say, well the majority of phone customers really could care less about those things. Had they gone with MeeGo, they would be in the exact same position today. At LEAST with Windows, they have the “support” of Microsoft, who can afford to throw money and development into WP without much worry on their bottom line. With Android, their position might be slightly better now, but what about the white Android in the room that is Motorola Mobile? Google just bought them, so is the next Nexus phone going to come from Samsung, HTC, or Motorola? Every parent is going to give their kids special treatment, no matter how much it loves the rest of the family. What happens with Motorola starts getting the latest and greatest Android phones straight from the source? Will Samsung keep its crown? Where would Nokia be in this situation if they were on Android?
No I think what damaged Nokia happened way before Elop got there. I remember reading an article online about all of the infighting, and multiple teams working on different solutions to the same problem. The iPhone was a monumental wake up call for the entire industry. Like them or hate them, Apple was able to out engineer and out class every other cell phone company in the world. Google had a quick response with Android, those that did not, RIM and Nokia. Well they are living with the consequences now. Even MS was slow to answer and now while the do have a nice slick OS, it may be too little way too late to catch up to Apple or Android.
My final thought, whoever will wish to break into the smartphone market now will need a radical, “game changing” idea. The reason is simple, apps and media. An average iOS or Android user has invested time and money purchasing and learning a various number of apps and media on their phones. If they upgrade to the latest iPhone or Android phone, their stuff comes with them. Apple in particular makes this really easy. Oh and do not forget accessories, Apple really has a stronghold here. When alarm clocks, speakers, and even cars come with iPod Docks, it is hard to move someone away to a new product that will not work with all of these accessories. Sorry but it is Linux, it is open, or hell even live tiles and Xbox integration is NOT going to cut it.
"The Excel files, purged by censors from the official site and from Google's document cache"
So does this mean that Google purged the documents from their own servers to protect the Chinese government? Hmm... Whatever happened to Google mission statement of doing no evil?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
