Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Cellphones Handhelds Windows

Microsoft Releases Final Windows Phone 7 Dev Tools 170

Posted by Soulskill
from the wrapping-things-up dept.
cgriffin21 writes "Microsoft on Thursday released the final Windows Phone 7 developer tools to manufacturing, giving coders a couple of weeks' lead time to get their apps ready for the launch of the Windows Phone Marketplace in early October. Microsoft released the Windows Phone 7 OS to manufacturing on Sept. 1, and its OEM partners are in the process of testing it on handsets. The Windows Phone 7 developer tools are the final piece of the puzzle for Microsoft, which is now ready to march back into a mobile market where it has fallen alarmingly behind the leaders." In related news, CNET reports that Windows Phone 7 will only be available for GSM networks at launch, with a CDMA version planned for the first half of next year. This rules out Sprint and Verizon for launch.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Releases Final Windows Phone 7 Dev Tools

Comments Filter:
  • by iONiUM (530420) on Friday September 17, 2010 @11:40AM (#33611596) Homepage Journal

    WHO WILL WIN?! Actually it's kind of too late for Microsoft already. They're entering the market so late, what can they possibly offer consumers (I'm ignoring business use cases here, since it isn't for business anyways, or so they stated) that they can't already get from current offerings, and better?

    Furthermore, and this really pisses me off, the phone can't even run Silverlight in the browser. I have made a large Silverlight app and to make it work on the phone I have to re-target it, then tweak it to work with the "non-mobile but also not normal Silverlight version on windows phone 7" which is stupid. And I can't even tell people to just browse to the "regular" Silverlight page because of course, that won't work either. What exactly are they doing here?

    • by Mongoose Disciple (722373) on Friday September 17, 2010 @11:47AM (#33611664)

      Actually it's kind of too late for Microsoft already. They're entering the market so late, what can they possibly offer consumers (I'm ignoring business use cases here, since it isn't for business anyways, or so they stated) that they can't already get from current offerings, and better?

      I had come to this conclusion as well.

      The only solution I can see if MS means to seriously compete in this market is to make the hard decision to run at a loss to try to get some momentum going -- to lose money on each Windows phone in much the same way that video game console makers usually sell the first consoles at a loss.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        They're entering the market so late, ...

        I don't think so, not because MS have been making phone OS for a decade, but because iOS and Android are so young too. After all, Android is just two years old and iPhone has not finished its fourth year yet. Indeed, they've been doing great in these short years, but that doesn't mean they've guaranteed they're eternal success in the mobile industry.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mark72005 (1233572)
          This is true, but this is a market where it typically takes around 2 years to even get a shot at a customer.

          It will be exceedingly difficult for MSFT to gain a foothold in any market where it's 4th or 5th to the party, let alone this one.

          What's their niche? In the desktop world they have business, but Blackberry owns business in the mobile world. Consumers will choose Apple or lower-cost Android devices more than likely.

          It's hard to imagine a featureless and slow Windows Phone having anything very attractiv
          • by cbhacking (979169)

            It's hard to imagine a featureless and slow Windows Phone having anything very attractive to the average mobile customer strolling into an AT&T or T-Mobile store.

            This is true, but I'm curious why you imagine that they're shipping a "featureless and slow" phone? It could certainly use more features, and there are a few that it will be the only major player without, but it has its own share of cool features and some of those aren't available on any *other* phone. As for slow... I can't say for sure, since they don't even have final hardware yet, but the specs MS is requiring are quite good and the demo models at PAX (set up to play games, but you could do other things

        • So why is WM7 joining the fray now any different to Android joining the fray two years after the iPhone?
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by mark72005 (1233572)
            When Android and Apple were joining, not only were they innovating, but they were establishing a market - smartphones for non-business consumers.

            They didn't need to battle each other for market share, both were simply carving up an emerging customer base.

            Microsoft enters the market at a time when most people who are interested in smart phones already have one. Their market share will have to be established by taking customers away from other platforms (very expensive), not grabbing people new to the game (c
          • by nschubach (922175)

            As well as the post above, the iPhone was/is only on one carrier. So Android had Verizon, T-Mobile (and others) pushing them.

        • I don't think so, not because MS have been making phone OS for a decade, but because iOS and Android are so young too. After all, Android is just two years old and iPhone has not finished its fourth year yet. Indeed, they've been doing great in these short years, but that doesn't mean they've guaranteed they're eternal success in the mobile industry.

          One of the only reasons Windows Mobile has been kept in the marketplace is because of business users. Windows 7 Phone is geared more towards consumers and is incompatible with older versions. So Windows 7 Phone is just as much of new thing as Android and iOS was when they first got into the market erasing any advantage MS might have had.

      • by Kenshin (43036)

        The only solution I can see if MS means to seriously compete in this market is to make the hard decision to run at a loss...

        Nice idea, but good luck with that. Unlike Apple and RIM, Microsoft doesn't make, and therefore price, the phones. All they can hope for is that there's a "race to the bottom" on pricing... and like with PCs, they may end up triggering that. (Say hello to cheap phones that break after a few months.)

        • (Say hello to cheap phones that break after a few months.)

          The U.S. phone market might put the brakes on too much quality-cutting. Carriers won't be able to subsidize a handset model with a 2-year service contract if it would be unprofitable for the carrier to offer a 2-year replacement plan on that model.

        • by Korin43 (881732)

          Say hello to cheap phones that break after a few months.

          I can't wait. Right now all I can get are expensive phones that break every couple months.

      • by loudmax (243935)

        The mobile space is an important strategic market for Microsoft. Open standards that exist on mobile could leak into the corporate space. A competitive free market would erode their primary source of revenue. I really don't see losing money on each phone being sold as much of a problem for Microsoft. Better for them to lose money now, even lots of it, than for a free market (or a competitor) to win.

        As long as subscribers can chose from several competing mobile platforms, Microsoft has lost in this space

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          >>>Better for them to lose money now, even lots of it, than for a free market (or a competitor) to win.

          That strategy isn't working for them in the Xbox market. First they sold the Xbox for about half its actual cost of build. Now they are losing 10-20 dollars per 360 sold, but Microsoft is still being outsold 4-to-1 by the current winner. I know MS has deep pockets but how long can they continue this strategy? 10 years max? 15?

          Microsoft is just like any other business and cannot afford to lose

          • by tepples (727027)

            [Taking a loss to build a brand] isn't working for them in the Xbox market [...] Microsoft is still being outsold 4-to-1 by the current winner.

            What winner? VGChartz [vgchartz.com] shows Xbox 360 outselling Wii in both Americas and EMEAA. Or are you including DS in Nintendo's tally, in which case you could include Windows in Microsoft's?

            • Oh brother. A FANBOY. To be honest I don't give a shit who wins - Nintendo, Sony, Sega, Atari, or Odyssey 2. And neither should you, because it matters not. But since you asked here are the numbers from wikipedia:

              WII units shipped Worldwide: 73.97 million (as of June 30, 2010
              360 Units sold Worldwide: 41.7 million (as of June 30, 2010
              PS3 Units sold 38.1 million (as of June 30, 2010)[

              - Okay so Wii is actually "2 to 1" not 4 to 1. Shame on my for relying on my foggy memory, but still Wii is

              • If you look one chart down, the current rate of sales shows the 360 outselling the Wii worldwide and in each sub-market except in Japan. The question is, which is more relevant to the issue of phones, the throughout-history historical worldwide sales chart where Wii outsells the Xbox by ~5:3, or the current chart where the Xbox outsells the Wii by a marginal amount (about 10:9).

                I would content that neither are particularly relevant since the markets (and market distortions) are vastly different.

            • by gbjbaanb (229885)

              yes, but that's only been for a little while. And at 20,000 units a time, it's got a loooooooong way to go to make up the 30 million unit shortfall compared to the Wii. (I make it 28 years at 20,000 units per week to catch up)

              After the xbox slim becomes less 'modern' and nintendo brings out Wii 2 (or whatever), the numbers will change again. Probably they'll change next month when the PS Move is out (its quite cheap) so I think it will jump up in the weekly rankings for a while.

              No, the only valid indicator

              • So maybe the Xbox 3 when it gets released circa 2015 will finally be the console to win Microsoft the #1 slot and beat Sega, Sony, and Nintendo. But it's still a risky strategy, because that would be a decade-and-a-half of no profits for the Xbox gaming division.

                 

          • but Microsoft is still being outsold 4-to-1 by the current winner.

            As already noted below, that number isn't accurate and even the 2-to-1 number has a lot of caveats.

            It seems very possible to me that Microsoft makes up some of its revenue on the games -- most (obviously not all, and not including me) of the Wii owners I know don't own any other games besides what came bundled. I can't say that for anyone I know that owns a 360 or PS3.

            Nintendo, in this generation, essentially pulled the "Apple trick" of crea

            • >>>I know don't own any other games besides what came bundled

              According to NPD numbers from this past Christmas season, Nintendo had a tie ratio of 8:1 which is 8 games sold for every 1 console. That exceeds the 7:1 and 5:1 ratio of Microsoft and Sony.

              Sorry I can't come-up with any more recent numbers but I suspect the present figures are not much different, and it's a huge improvement over the Gamecube and N64 days (although still not as good as the Super Nintendo and NES days).

          • by gilesjuk (604902)

            Well they only have to build the OS. It's the OEMs who have to licence it for phones and given how little the fees probably are for Android I think WP7 has to offer something better.

            Not to mention that the hardware has to be slightly more bespoke for WP7, so it's not like they can easily swap graphics over on the buttons to support both platforms.

            The biggest problem with phone OEMs is their unwillingness to provide good long lasting support for their phones. I kept my iPhone 3G for two years, I can imagine

      • I don't see how deciding to lose money is going to change anything. Not even deciding to be cheap. Not even deciding to be free. Hey, i'm giving you fresh turds ! Free ! How comes nobody wants any ?

        The solution is not "losing money" per se, but coming up with something compelling for end-users, developers and OEMs.

        The solution, on the contrary, is to aim at being very expensive, and making something people are ready to pay big bucks for.

        You "solution" is exactly why MS is losing.

        • Look at the Zune: I've never owned one, but most people that I've talked to that have tried both say that, ultimately, it was a superior product to the iPod.

          However, it was also superior too late after Apple already owned all the mindshare in that space, and it was about as expensive as an iPod.

          I think, given the same situation but half the price of an iPod you would have seen something different in the market there. If you can't be the first to a market, sometimes being cheap works. Sometimes your model

      • by mlts (1038732) * on Friday September 17, 2010 @12:51PM (#33612374)

        The $50,000 question: What can Windows Phone 7 come up with that nobody else has, and make people willing to be locked via contract to two years with the device?

        Before Windows Phone 7, WM was a great and extremely secure OS, next to BlackberryOS. It supported remote kills, encrypted the memory card in a simple, but elegant and secure fashion, allowed one to reset their password if forgotten on the road, supported a lot of applications (when Handango was the main way to purchase mobile programs), was easy to program for, and so on.

        It is understandable that Microsoft wants to go from an open courtyard to a walled garden, especially with all the brickbats they have taken over the years (deserved and undeserved [1].)

        As of now, we have a number of distinct platforms for writing smartphone apps, and each is different from each other by a large degree: We have Objective C for iOS, Java for Android/BlackberryOS, XNA or Silverlight for Windows Phone 7, and C++ for Symbian (IIRC). XBox coders will be fine with XNA for the platform, but iOS and Android app writers will not bother because it is a completely different platform and architecture.

        Developers are looking at the numbers right now and growth rates. If I were to place my bets on a business application, it would be the tried and true BlackberryOS. If I wanted business users and consumers, it would be iOS. If I wanted consumers and some small business, Android. Where does Microsoft fit in here?

        There is one niche I see Windows Phone 7 will be good for is Exchange support. I'm sure it will support encryption, remote kill, password changes, password complexity, and all that. However, is superb Exchange support good enough to get the phone into the enterprise, jostling out Blackberries and iPhones [2]? IMHO, it needs more than that to be a viable platform.

        Microsoft makes some high quality products, but that isn't good enough. They have to grab market from entrenched companies and fight with Android for customers, both business and end user. I can see MS gunning at RIM for the enterprise users, but they have a fight on their hands for other markets.

        [1]: A lot of Windows problems are not Microsoft's fault. They are due to application developers who do the absolute minimum to get code shipped with security as a distant afterthought. I'm sure there would be a lot fewer cases of compromised Windows PCs if application developers wrote their code to not crash if DEP was turned on globally, and allowed ASLR to function.

        [2]: Apple is getting better with encryption, especially for Exchange. The only thing the iPhone is missing is the ability to set it so it erases itself if it does not get a network signal after "X" amount of time like Blackberries do. Similar with functionality to erase itself if the SIM card is removed or changed out.

        • by nschubach (922175)

          Before Windows Phone 7, WM was a great and extremely secure OS

          Did we use different versions of Windows Mobile?

          WinMo is not something I'd call stable. I've known people who had it lock up playing certain sound clips (sometimes even reboot), I have one friend who had an HD2 that was possibly the slowest device he's ever owned (and it's not the hardware) and having direct experience using it on over 50,000 devices (that I have applications on, which doesn't include another large chunk used for... let say "inventory" management) at my workplace we still have to be concer

        • by gbjbaanb (229885)

          We'll see about Exchange support but so far it appears Android's is better!

          For development.. note that you can develop in QT for Symbian and no doubt MeeGo, and Android (see the lighthouse project), and an iPhone project is being worked on. Given Blackberry apps tend to be a separate breed, it almost makes sense to do all your dev in QT (as it works on Windows, Linux and mac too) and you're back to an almost-single codebase. That is very important if you don't want to lose tons of cash rewriting everything

          • by mlts (1038732) *

            I'd disagree with you about Android's Exchange support. As of 2.2, the only encryption Android supports is encrypting apps stored on the memory card. Android has no encryption support of data whatsoever, and this by itself is a deal killer.

            Of course this can be easily remedied two ways: LUKS if one wanted to dedicate segments or an entire memory card for device level encryption, or CFS/EncFS based for file by file encryption similar to what Windows Mobile 6.0 and newer does on the memory card.

            Of course,

        • by vux984 (928602)

          The $50,000 question: What can Windows Phone 7 come up with that nobody else has, and make people willing to be locked via contract to two years with the device?

          Same thing as android?

          Market differentiation is nice and all, and important. But the bottom line is that Microsoft is already a recognized brand; all they have to do is show up with a competent product that isn't markedly inferior and there's no reason it won't succeed in the market.

          And plenty of opportunity for distinctiveness exists... they can ca

          • by PyroMosh (287149)

            all they have to do is show up with a competent product that isn't markedly inferior and there's no reason it won't succeed in the market.

            What you describe is exactly the scenario of iPod vs. Zune. Zune wasn't markedly inferior. In fact, some in this thread have called it superior. But Zune failed.

            I'm not anti-Microsoft by any means. I have an HTC Tilt 2 with WinMo 6.5 and I love it. But I think their strategy is bone headed here. By abandoning backwards compatibility, they sever any advantage they ha

            • by vux984 (928602)

              What you describe is exactly the scenario of iPod vs. Zune. Zune wasn't markedly inferior. In fact, some in this thread have called it superior. But Zune failed.

              I disagree. The Zune got a lot of simple stuff wrong, from DRM issues, to being able to use it as USB mass storage, to video format support. They made a lot of really big mistakes, and the ipod was already well entrenched as the market leader.

              Even so, Zune got a lot right, and could have improved on many of its short comings with a bit more time and

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by happy_place (632005)
      this is a pretty standard Microsoft tactic. they add a billion features based upon a dozen standards and only implement about 30% of the standard. they claim they have the features, but they're implemented crappily--at least until people start screaming about it, and then they'll maybe implement 50% of it. this can be as simple as importing HTML into a Word document, and having it just decide not to support CSS in certain formats. Their browser supports it, but word only partly does. I think this happens
      • >>>they add a billion features based upon a dozen standards and only implement about 30% of the standard

        This is why I vehemently disagree with those who claim 90s-era Internet Exploder 3 or 4 was better than Netscape Navigator 3 or 4. Netscape wasn't perfect but it followed the standards better than IE did, which forced websites to create special IE-specific code to make them work. (And still do even now, ten years later.)

      • P.S. Speaking of standards isn't GSM (Groupe Spécial Mobile) fairly out-of-date? I was just reading on wikipedia that GSM was developed in 1990. That's equivalent to still using MP1 to encode your songs, or MPEG1 to encode video (they were released in 1992).

        Are there any plans to update GSM to more-modern specs?

        • by Ash Vince (602485) *

          P.S. Speaking of standards isn't GSM (Groupe Spécial Mobile) fairly out-of-date?

          Yes. Here in the UK we are looking at ripping out our 2nd Generation GSM network fairly soon as the 3rd generation and 3.5 gen ones have been going strong for years. It is looking like us in the UK will have 4G next year.

          http://www.zath.co.uk/o2-testing-4g-mobile-broadband-network-uk/ [zath.co.uk]

          Releasing a GSM only phone in any market other than the states would be suicide for any other company as none of us would bother with anything less the 3G for a smartphone.

          I am typing this on an netbook connected to an unrooted

          • It's fairly clear that by "GSM" they actually mean "GSM-related stack of technologies". Of course, the phones will have 3G. I haven't seen a non-3G smartphone in several years.

    • The old switcheroo (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SuperKendall (25149) on Friday September 17, 2010 @11:54AM (#33611732)

      They're entering the market so late, what can they possibly offer consumers

      They can offer a wide range of phones all with a consistent UI. That's different from Apple (which has consistent UI but not a large range of phones) and from Android (which offers a wide range of phones now but with divergent UI).

      Make no mistake, Android has taken over what Microsoft sees as ITS market (making phone OS'es for multiple vendors) and badly wants it back. And they still have a ton of money to make the attempt. And they have the same controls over application quality that has helped Apple in the application space.

      Furthermore, and this really pisses me off, the phone can't even run Silverlight in the browser.

      Microsoft does have some odd choices around technology support but I think these are only minor quibbles for what they are trying to do.

      • They can offer a wide range of phones all with a consistent UI. That's different from Apple (which has consistent UI but not a large range of phones) and from Android (which offers a wide range of phones now but with divergent UI).

        the part of "divergent UIs" is not android's fault, even because it's not a fault at all. in a higly competitive market, where any of the other oferings have the basics covered, purchase decisions are based on details. this means making your phone look different, but still interoperable with the competitors is crucial. for what i understand, MS won't allow vendors to customize the UI, and this can be winphone's undoing. if all handsets have the same hardware, the same OS, the same interface, how will the co

        • the part of "divergent UIs" is not android's fault, even because it's not a fault at all.

          It's not necessarily a fault from the users perspective; you may well really like one particular UI. It's a weakness of the brand though, it that it dilutes what it means to be an "Adroid" phone just as only allowing applications like Skype to run on specific models of Android phones.

          It does mean less choice for the user though, if they like one particular UI they will have fewer devices that use it - unlike Windows Mo

          • It's not necessarily a fault from the users perspective; you may well really like one particular UI. It's a weakness of the brand though, it that it dilutes what it means to be an "Adroid" phone just as only allowing applications like Skype to run on specific models of Android phones.

            you didn't get the point. manufacturers DON'T CARE for the android brand. they care for THEIR brand. android for them is just another checkbox on the features list, like:

            * compatible with android: Yes.

    • by Rogerborg (306625)

      WHO WILL WIN?!

      BREW [wikipedia.org], the most successful platform you've never heard of.

      • by tepples (727027)
        BREW phones tend not to have a wide selection of applications because a developer's cost of entry is substantially higher than with Android, iOS, or Windows Phone 7.
        • by Rogerborg (306625)
          And yet there's hundreds of millions of the things. By numbers, iOS, Android and Blackberry are all bit players and WinCE (or whatever they're calling it now) isn't even a blip on the chart.
    • Just to be fair, that's what many said about Apple; they were going up against incumbents like RIM and Windows Mobile on the smartphone side (recall that at the time, WinMo had more apps available than most other mobile platforms, and while it didn't do much with the polish of the iPhone, it did have a pretty solid feature list at the time), and a bevy of LG and Samsung feature phones that were quite popular. In 2006, many thought Apple would occupy a similar niche in the mobile space as they did on the des

      • by rsborg (111459)

        Just to be fair, that's what many said about Apple; they were going up against incumbents like RIM and Windows Mobile on the smartphone side

        Wait, isn't this just another version of Windows Mobile? Microsoft has had 10 years to make a strong mobile move, it's not like they're some upstart "rulebreaker" like Apple (who has had a history of rulebreaking). They were the incumbents, the "inevitable", the heirs to the throne that Nokia held (by virtue of their desktop dominance)... back in 2000.

        Now 10 years late

    • They're late? You make it sound like this is a mature, stagnated market, while it really only started 4 years ago, and took off in 2008 with the release of the iPhone 3G and Android. The market is still growing, market share is rapidly fluctuating, and it seems like the perfect time to get into the game.
    • Sorry gang, I'm hooked on this meme for the week.

      In your case:

      "2001 Called. It wants its 'non-mobile but also not normal Microsoft version of something' back."

    • by bmajik (96670) <matt@mattevans.org> on Friday September 17, 2010 @04:41PM (#33614918) Homepage Journal

      They're entering the market so late, what can they possibly offer consumers (I'm ignoring business use cases here, since it isn't for business anyways, or so they stated) that they can't already get from current offerings, and better?

      I'd definitely agree here. After all, Microsoft wasn't 1st mover in any of the following markets:
      GUI operating systems, Web Browsers, Web Servers, managed virtual machine languages, spreadsheet software, word processors, game consoles

      As a result, Windows, IE, IIS, C#, Excel, Word, and Xbox are all minor competitors in a crowded marketplace.

      Where is my sarcasm tag?

  • Honest (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pojut (1027544) on Friday September 17, 2010 @11:43AM (#33611620) Homepage

    I'm really hoping that Windows Phone 7 (both hardware and software offerings) bring something worthy to the table. Competition is a great thing, and if nothing else WP7 will at least light even more of a fire under the butt of RIM/Apple/Android devs to step up their game.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by MBGMorden (803437)

      Competition is good, but honestly, I don't want competition from Microsoft. I WANT them to fail (and thankfully the market so far has obliged). Their stranglehold on the desktop OS market is a tough egg to crack. It's a position that isn't even held via merit anymore - it's just kinda the default choice because that's what almost everyone runs so support and software are all made for it.

      Microsoft failing in the mobile market hurts their bottom line, but more importantly it harms their company image even

    • by cybrthng (22291)

      Well, Microsoft has certainly set the bar for developer tools. If hardware companies live up on the hardware side, i'd pretty much say WP7 is "in the bag" but hey, thats just me :)

      The WP7 tools are almost too easy to use.. Being late to the game may be the best thing for MS. Learn from everyone elses mistakes (as well as your own heha.. (kin))

      • The WP7 tools are almost too easy to use.. Being late to the game may be the best thing for MS. Learn from everyone elses mistakes

        To be fair, MS has a mixed bag with that approach... for every XBox (which, yes I know the arguments for it not being one, but I still consider it to be a success) or .NET you've got a Zune or a Kin.

        (You can make a list like that for a Google or Apple as well, but it's a lot easier to point to recent MS failures than Apple ones.)

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Rogerborg (306625)

        If hardware companies live up on the hardware side

        Given the awful track record of WinME-family phones, I'd expect that the availability of Windows Phone 7 phones (doesn't that just trip off the tongue) will be largely dependent on Microsoft's willingness to "partner" with OEMs, in the same way that a scrawny fugly guy "partners" with an expensive hooker.

    • by Locutus (9039)
      That would be good but given the topic of this thread, don't you get the impression Windows Phone 7 is being rushed to market? Or is it being so strict and locked down that the OEM's are not expected to so much customizing? Releasing the SDK just 2 weeks before supposed release as not time enough for developers to get apps rebuilt and tested before publishing.

      Sounds like Mr Ballmer is really cracking the whip to hit target ship dates. That's never worked out very well for Microsoft nor their customers. Wit
    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      Competition is a great thing, and if nothing else WP7 will at least light even more of a fire under the butt of RIM/Apple/Android devs to step up their game.

      More likely it will just make RIM/Apple/Android look even better, considering MS' track record with phone OSes.

  • by HalAtWork (926717) on Friday September 17, 2010 @11:59AM (#33611794)
    I'm very surprised MS haven't been taking the mobile market more seriously, I thought they were trying to push netbook users towards mobile phone computing [slashdot.org] with their Fone+ initiative. They seem very non-committal in this space, either half-heartedly supporting various iterations of the platform only to refresh the brand after a hiatus and stubbornly pushing the same old thing on consumers, or dropping products entirely when they show any sign of weakness in the market. You don't build a platform and user base by running away when you get cold feet, you have to stand behind it, address concerns, and build up a sense of confidence in consumers. Why should anyone be confident of any of MS's mobile phone attempts when there are already very strong brands with a history that consumers can put their faith in?
    • I'm very surprised MS haven't been taking the mobile market more seriously

      Microsoft has been taking the mobile market extremely seriously. Why else would have they have focused intently on WM 6, WM 6.5, the KIn, and WM7?

      But that's the problem you see. These internal efforts, were all fighting one another. By focusing intently on several things, they were really focusing on none.

      It looks like POSSIBLY with WM7 they may be finally choosing to focus on one system and push it forward. Time will tell how tru

  • by multipartmixed (163409) on Friday September 17, 2010 @12:21PM (#33612028) Homepage

    > This rules out Sprint and Verizon for launch.

    In our backwards little country -- just north of y'all -- the big CDMA vendors have realized that CDMA sucks from pretty much every standpoint that matters. Bell and Telus have rolled out nation-wide HSPA networks.

    And I have yet to see a 16-year old girl saying things like "I would have bought an iPhone, except with time-division multiplexing, there is a finite cell capacity; if Apple had rolled out code-division we could simply increase tower load by reducing quality of service"

    • by irix (22687) on Friday September 17, 2010 @12:42PM (#33612266) Journal

      There are two ways to go from CDMA to LTE, which is where everyone is going.

      One is to obsolete your CDMA/EVDO network and deploy GSM/HSPA which has a direct upgrade path to LTE and provides inter-network mobility. This is what Telus and Bell did because they are running comparatively tiny networks.

      The other is to move your CDMA/EVDO gear to CDMA/eHRPD and then deploy LTE with mobility between CDMA and LTE. This is what Sprint (modulo WiMAX as a step in there) and Verizon are doing, because their networks and number of deployed devices are an order of magnitude larger and deploying a GSM/UMTS network a year before switching to LTE is not viable.

      I'm Canadian too, but it isn't like we have some sort of technical superiority or that Bell and Telus know something that Verizon and Sprint don't.

    • > In our backwards little country -- just north of y'all -- the big CDMA vendors have realized
      > that CDMA sucks from pretty much every standpoint that matters.
      > Bell and Telus have rolled out nation-wide HSPA networks.

      Er, not quite. What happened was that Telus & Bell realized they happened to own 1900MHz spectrum that, combined with 2100MHz spectrum, would enable them to offer direct compatibility with international-standard UMTS phones. So, instead of dropping EVDO alongside 1xRTT (aka "CDMA

  • I guess it wouldn't be Slashdot without a thorough bashing of a Microsoft product. But consider that Microsoft has effectively built a brand new platform complete with solid dev tools, a solid marketplace, and pretty formidable media capabilities. Were they slow to the punch? Absolutely. But I wouldn't underestimate this one. This is not Kin, and it appears Microsoft is dead serious about making this work.

    And there seems to be this idea that Slashdot-types are the only ones who walk into the AT&T store

    • Pro-Apple Slashdot? You must be new here. Or perhaps you just arrive back from a deserted island. /. has been hating on Apple even more than MS for years now.
      • by caywen (942955)

        Which doesn't really counterpoint anything. You are definitely an experienced /.er.

    • by hxnwix (652290)

      they are looking for a cool phone, and at the end of the day, WP7 will look just as cool to them as any other phone. Unless you're going to line up to protest outside phone stores, I wouldn't write them off

      That's how the kin got its 500 sales, right? It looked cool.

      They've failed in this market countless times, just as they have in the pen / tablet computing market. Launch after launch, year after year, every single one an abortion.

      Microsoft is dead serious about making this work

      Microsoft is dead serious about replicating whatever Apple or Google were doing 3 years ago. Microsoft knows how to compete only against huge companies slower and stupider than themselves (such as Sony). Apple and Google are quick, leaving Microsoft with no way to win.

    • by gbjbaanb (229885)

      and it appears Microsoft is dead serious about making this work.

      yup. they've already started trying just that in their own, inimitable style [arstechnica.com]

      When asked whether open source models created problems for vendors with licensed software, the software giant went on the offensive. "It does infringe on a bunch of patents, and there's a cost associated with that," Tivanka Ellawala, Microsoft financial officer told MarketWatch. "So there's a... cost associated with Android that doesn't make it free."

      I suppose they have

  • ...giving coders a couple of weeks' lead time to get their apps ready for the launch of the Windows Phone Marketplace in early October

    Well, that sure is nice of them.

  • I got a HTC Touch Pro 2 (Rhodium) purely because it had a slide-out keyboard and supported Windows Mobile. Why WM? Well because there's this killer app called "Pleco" that only runs on WM (and iPhone, but I'm not an Apple guy). Pleco works great. But everything else on the phone TOTALLY SUCKS. I had to replace the stock ROM with a user-modified one because the stock was absolutely UNSUABLE. I'm a late adopter, and I rather foolishly assumed that, by v6.5, that anything made by Microsoft would AT LEAST

What the scientists have in their briefcases is terrifying. -- Nikita Khruschev

Working...