4 ms·

One could make an even faster, lighter, and more usable platform if it didn't have to support apps at all. Heck, the very first iPhone was such a platform. Bu

One could make an even faster, lighter, and more usable platform if it didn't have to support apps at all. Heck, the very first iPhone was such a platform. But really the fundamental purpose of a smartphone is to run applications. It's also the fundamental purpose of most operating systems, including especially Windows. The part of Microsoft that runs the desktop side of things knows that people use their OS to run apps. That is it's primary purpose and they do everything they can to move forward while ensuring as many apps run as possible. With Windows Phone/Mobile/Whatever they've done everything possible to make app existence and development as low priority as possible. And as such, their platform is mostly empty. Apps are fundamental to the smartphone experience -- the lack of them is not an absurd reason to avoid the platform. Ironically Microsoft makes some great smartphone applications but even the best mobile versions of those are on other platforms.

agumonkey 11y ago
I disagree that apps are so fundamental. I installed a bunch on my Android, and none of them are that crucial or amazing. They're also not well integrated. I can't push things as agenda item except between google stuff. copy paste uneven, sluggish, far away. Windows Phone must be just opened enough to avoid losing the weird app that surprises everybody and some major players. There's room for a more immersive useful live UX, a thing that Apps can't give. ps: you're right about the platform thing, it's the same story, Windows was, other were before. Put yourself between two needs and profit.
- wvenable 11y ago
  I'm surprised I have to make the argument to someone on Hacker news about the fundamentalness of software, applications, and choice. You have a limited view of the smartphone world. Every one has different and unique needs. I sell software to personal trainers who run their entire business on the phones. Perhaps your needs are small are boring and that's fine. But most people have more needs and wants than what just comes built in. I don't have many apps on my phone but the ones I end up using are surprising. My transit app ensures I don't miss my bus to work in the morning (vital). My health insurances phone app is much better than their website. I have a Pebble smartwatch so installed software actually makes that possible. Not to mention time wasters like games, reddit, etc. So many applications are available for every possible need it's fantastic. Too many other people actually use their tiny pocket computers to the fullest -- they are the majority. Microsoft has not made en ecosystem that appeals to this majority.
  - agumonkey 11y ago
    Actually that is true that I'm on the frugal side of app needs, or maybe jaded because they don't tickle my brain to right way. Also true that these weird apps manage to be better than other medium (HP eprint, is a 400% improvement over the desktop thing). But I tried many and most of them are shallow, slow, and badly integrated. My point about 'non openness' was more about more cohesion by coming from one place. Kinda like languages designed by committee vs a BDFL.
    - wvenable 11y ago
      If you on Windows phone then yeah, most of them are probably shallow, slow, and badly integrated. iOS might not be a great platform on its own but its got some of highest quality applications of any platform. As for badly integrated -- they're all more integrated than web sites. Given there are literally millions of applications I'm pretty sure you've only tried literally 0.01% of all of them. Not exactly the best way to judge an entire platform.

agumonkey 11y ago

I disagree that apps are so fundamental. I installed a bunch on my Android, and none of them are that crucial or amazing. They're also not well integrated. I can't push things as agenda item except between google stuff. copy paste uneven, sluggish, far away. Windows Phone must be just opened enough to avoid losing the weird app that surprises everybody and some major players. There's room for a more immersive useful live UX, a thing that Apps can't give. ps: you're right about the platform thing, it's the same story, Windows was, other were before. Put yourself between two needs and profit.

wvenable 11y ago
I'm surprised I have to make the argument to someone on Hacker news about the fundamentalness of software, applications, and choice. You have a limited view of the smartphone world. Every one has different and unique needs. I sell software to personal trainers who run their entire business on the phones. Perhaps your needs are small are boring and that's fine. But most people have more needs and wants than what just comes built in. I don't have many apps on my phone but the ones I end up using are surprising. My transit app ensures I don't miss my bus to work in the morning (vital). My health insurances phone app is much better than their website. I have a Pebble smartwatch so installed software actually makes that possible. Not to mention time wasters like games, reddit, etc. So many applications are available for every possible need it's fantastic. Too many other people actually use their tiny pocket computers to the fullest -- they are the majority. Microsoft has not made en ecosystem that appeals to this majority.
- agumonkey 11y ago
  Actually that is true that I'm on the frugal side of app needs, or maybe jaded because they don't tickle my brain to right way. Also true that these weird apps manage to be better than other medium (HP eprint, is a 400% improvement over the desktop thing). But I tried many and most of them are shallow, slow, and badly integrated. My point about 'non openness' was more about more cohesion by coming from one place. Kinda like languages designed by committee vs a BDFL.
  - wvenable 11y ago
    If you on Windows phone then yeah, most of them are probably shallow, slow, and badly integrated. iOS might not be a great platform on its own but its got some of highest quality applications of any platform. As for badly integrated -- they're all more integrated than web sites. Given there are literally millions of applications I'm pretty sure you've only tried literally 0.01% of all of them. Not exactly the best way to judge an entire platform.