4 ms·

I never considered a Windows phone because it failed to provide a substantial value prop vs Android and iOS. They could have competed on price, physical quality

I never considered a Windows phone because it failed to provide a substantial value prop vs Android and iOS. They could have competed on price, physical quality (we still have no truly waterproof phones), battery life (as in not a few more hours but actual weeks of battery, or warranty. That last one would have been the easiest: offer substantially better warranty than Apple (are there any Android phones that have original comprehensive warranty? I mean not through the carrier or Best Buy.) The other thing to do would have been to offer Android app compatibility. I wonder if it would have been possible to spend that money they paid developers to port apps on developing a decent compatibility layer that would have made the porting unnecessary. Or provide tooling that made APK -> Windows app compilation super easy. As is, they had a sad story of a phone with some neat features but no big steps forward, in a market already saturated by good-enough competition.

Pxtl 9y ago
They did compete well on price. Winphone ran well on the kind of specs that made Android pure misery to use. They also had some fun software features, like unifying a contact's social networking and messaging log into the contact app. Android should steal that approach to make up for their balkanized communication apps.
beagle3 9y ago
> The other thing to do would have been to offer Android app compatibility. Supposedly, the tried and gave up - but whatever effort was spent doing that eventually resulted in WSL.
- djsumdog 9y ago
  I remember the push to be able to take existing Android/eyePhone code and port it directly to Win Mobile. IIRC Microsoft scrapped both sets of API (based on community feedback) and focused on Android, but that project too was scraped. There was a 3rd party BlueCard project that attempted to bring Android apps to Windows 8, but it only supported older versions of Android at the time.
usaphp 9y ago
> we still have no truly waterproof phones), battery life Aren't iPhones and galaxy "active" or something are waterproof? There are "survival" type phone that have weeks of battery life and shock/water proof, but it's not what the market wants, there is a minority of people who would sacrifice the look/dimensions/weight of he phone for the N week batter life. Most consumers would go for the looks and portability I think. That's why iphone sells as much and those "survival" phones don't. Do you think if iphone would stick a twice as thick of a battery in its next iPhone many people would buy it? I certainly would not
- cakedoggie 9y ago
  They are water resistant, which is as good as you are going to get. Not sure what this guy means by water proof, but you will never have a truly 100% water proof phone, since you can't really have a truly water proof any expensive electrical device. Since nothing can withstand the water at really low depths/high pressure, even submarines.
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    Sure you can, but not in a thin easy to manufacture package while also using mechanically acceptable materials that are also light. Waterproof is not the same as pressure proof. Typically the rating is set by the seals used. If hard seals were used or single piece ultrasonic welded cases, the device would really be waterproof. Soft seals will start leaking water because the seal material compresses. Submarines are waterproof unless damaged. They have a crush depth though.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  I don't know what other people would buy if they were advertised heavier, but I'd buy a phone with about a 4.5"-5" screen, and 1.5x thicker than my current one, as long as the edges aren't sharp. Something like a Galaxy Nexus with a bit of battery bulge, updated components, and a micro SD slot would be close to perfect.
  - usaphp 9y ago
Nition 9y ago
> The other thing to do would have been to offer Android app compatibility. After Nokia switched from Meego to Windows Phone with the Microsoft deal a group of Meego devs left and ceated the new company Jolla, where they developed the Sailfish OS as a branch of Meego. Sailfish has a built-in Android emulator, it's a version of Alien Dalvik. I've actually found it quite good, although there's a slight input delay, it uses additional battery power since it's emulating the apps, and it's getting a bit out of date now (it supports a relatively old version of Android, although I think they're currently working on updating it to some extent).

Pxtl 9y ago

They did compete well on price. Winphone ran well on the kind of specs that made Android pure misery to use. They also had some fun software features, like unifying a contact's social networking and messaging log into the contact app. Android should steal that approach to make up for their balkanized communication apps.

beagle3 9y ago

> The other thing to do would have been to offer Android app compatibility. Supposedly, the tried and gave up - but whatever effort was spent doing that eventually resulted in WSL.

djsumdog 9y ago
I remember the push to be able to take existing Android/eyePhone code and port it directly to Win Mobile. IIRC Microsoft scrapped both sets of API (based on community feedback) and focused on Android, but that project too was scraped. There was a 3rd party BlueCard project that attempted to bring Android apps to Windows 8, but it only supported older versions of Android at the time.

usaphp 9y ago

> we still have no truly waterproof phones), battery life Aren't iPhones and galaxy "active" or something are waterproof? There are "survival" type phone that have weeks of battery life and shock/water proof, but it's not what the market wants, there is a minority of people who would sacrifice the look/dimensions/weight of he phone for the N week batter life. Most consumers would go for the looks and portability I think. That's why iphone sells as much and those "survival" phones don't. Do you think if iphone would stick a twice as thick of a battery in its next iPhone many people would buy it? I certainly would not

cakedoggie 9y ago
They are water resistant, which is as good as you are going to get. Not sure what this guy means by water proof, but you will never have a truly 100% water proof phone, since you can't really have a truly water proof any expensive electrical device. Since nothing can withstand the water at really low depths/high pressure, even submarines.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  Sure you can, but not in a thin easy to manufacture package while also using mechanically acceptable materials that are also light. Waterproof is not the same as pressure proof. Typically the rating is set by the seals used. If hard seals were used or single piece ultrasonic welded cases, the device would really be waterproof. Soft seals will start leaking water because the seal material compresses. Submarines are waterproof unless damaged. They have a crush depth though.
khedoros1 9y ago
I don't know what other people would buy if they were advertised heavier, but I'd buy a phone with about a 4.5"-5" screen, and 1.5x thicker than my current one, as long as the edges aren't sharp. Something like a Galaxy Nexus with a bit of battery bulge, updated components, and a micro SD slot would be close to perfect.
- usaphp 9y ago

Nition 9y ago

> The other thing to do would have been to offer Android app compatibility. After Nokia switched from Meego to Windows Phone with the Microsoft deal a group of Meego devs left and ceated the new company Jolla, where they developed the Sailfish OS as a branch of Meego. Sailfish has a built-in Android emulator, it's a version of Alien Dalvik. I've actually found it quite good, although there's a slight input delay, it uses additional battery power since it's emulating the apps, and it's getting a bit out of date now (it supports a relatively old version of Android, although I think they're currently working on updating it to some extent).