12 ms·

What for? So these guys can get burned twice instead of once? Sorry for the snark - I like WP7, I think it's a refreshing take on smartphone UI, but adoption i

What for? So these guys can get burned twice instead of once? Sorry for the snark - I like WP7, I think it's a refreshing take on smartphone UI, but adoption is really at a standstill. It's been how long since it launched and I've only ever seen one in the wild that didn't belong to someone affiliated with MSFT. God knows I'd love to have a viable third player in the mobile platform wars, but as it is it just isn't happening.

nonane 15y ago
HP didn't have a chance - they don't have the software DNA that Google, Apple and Microsoft have. Microsoft is the underdog here but they have a much better chance of making something happen.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  All Apotheker had to do was to continue funding the development of WebOS devices. HP bought the DNA they needed and Apotheker threw it out.
  - Apocryphon 15y ago
    I can't believe Apotheker made such stridently pro-webOS comments just a month ago about how much HP is behind the platform, just to pull the rug from underneath.
    - megablast 15y ago
      The consummate business person: It is all about the numbers.
  - technoslut 15y ago
    I'm not so sure. There were many of the WebOS team that left immediately after the acquisition. The true tragedy of HP had occurred well before Apotheker.
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      Indeed. Apotheker is the symptom, not the root cause. But even if smoking caused the tumor, part of the treatment is removing it.
      - technoslut 15y ago
        I would agree. The main problem at HP has been the board which has destroyed this company. They've hired the worst CEO's possible for the past fifteen years. They've gone to one of the most respected companies in the world to a laughing stock among many business people. Maybe all that they have left is the business sector but they will be far less successful than IBM.
  - barista 15y ago
    You never buy DNA. It has to be there in you. Tell me one example who bought a plaform in and made it successful. HP never had a chance. Leo was dreaming when he bought WebOS. I'm glad the dream is over sooner than later.
    - hboon 15y ago
      Google + Android.
    - jsnell 15y ago
      He didn't buy WebOS. It was the previous CEO.
    - nitrogen 15y ago
      Tell me one example who bought a plaform in and made it successful. This is the kind of discussion that seems interesting on the surface but in reality has little substance, but here's your one example: QDOS->MSDOS.
      - rbanffy 15y ago
        Are you comparing an OS a single guy wrote with WebOS?
        nitrogen 15y ago
        Are you comparing an OS a single guy wrote with WebOS? ...and here we go down the rabbit hole. If I answer your question, which expands the scope of discussion beyond what the GP post was requesting and beyond the scope of my comment, then you respond, and I respond again, by the end of the thread we could be discussing the relative merits of tuna versus salmon. I was responding with a specific counterexample to a specific point (which I quoted) raised in the original post. Nothing more. Or, if you prefer a one-word answer: "yes." Now, I'm going to leave this thread to its proper place in my mind, which is to say, out of it :).
        rbanffy 15y ago
rodh257 15y ago
Wait until Nokia gets WP7 phones out there, then we'll really see whether it'll be the 3rd player or not.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  I disagree. I think the market has truly changed. Back in the feature phone days, it really did matter whether you had an LG, Samsung, or Nokia phone. Now, not so much. You either have an iPhone, an Android phone, or a Blackberry. Nokia's done some great things in the past, but their brand alone won't be enough to cover for the weakness of the WP7 ecosystem. Nokia's success depends far more on the strength of WP7 than does WP7's success rely upon the strength of Nokia.
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    I don't think he's referring to Nokia's brand name. Personally I'm looking forward to the Nokia phones, though not holding my breath on their success. Given the pseudo-acquisition of Nokia, MSFT has a golden opportunity here to create an end-to-end appliance the way Apple does; to make sure that they're selling a sexy package, instead of selling a sexy OS in blah hardware (i.e., all of the WP7 launch phones) or a blah OS in sexy hardware. They can finally do the vertical integration that IMHO is sorely needed if anyone hopes to compete at Apple's level. Buuuuut given MSFT's track record in recent years, and with the departure of some key heads (who pushed for vertically integrated "experience"-building, instead of OEM licensing), I'm not banking on it happening this way.
  - rodh257 15y ago
    IMO It's a chicken and egg situation, developers will go where the users are. I think Nokias brand name will generate a decent bump in sales, enough to get apps flowing through. As long as the major apps are in the store, the average user who might otherwise buy an Android device won't know the difference (at least not at the time of purchasing). I hear it's different in the USA, but here in Australia many people would LOVE to buy a Nokia, their brand name is associated with 'quality'. If Nokia can hit the right price points, I can see users who have been disappointed with their budget Android devices heading to the 'safe haven' of a Nokia device. It will take a while to gain momentum, but I'm optimistic on the outcome. I hope they go well because I'd love to develop for WP7.
rkwz 15y ago
>>It's been how long since it launched and I've only ever seen one in the wild that didn't belong to someone affiliated with MSFT. Not a fair comparison: WP7 was launched in October 21, 2010[1] [2] Android was launched 2 years earlier [3] iOS more than 3 years earlier[4] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Phone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Phone [2]Assuming that you're talking about WP7 and not Windows Mobile [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28software%29#Hardware http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28software%29#Hardware [4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_%28Apple%29#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_%28Apple%29#History edit: Please explain why I'm wrong before downvoting.
- technoslut 15y ago
  Maybe I'm wrong, but the circumstances are different for WP7 than it was for the iPhone and Android. I don't think that there was going to be any question that the iPhone was going to be a success with the long lines at launch and devs breaking into the OS to get apps to run. With Android, they were the first true competitor to iOS when it came to touch-based phones. With WP7 there doesn't seem to be the enthusiasm for the product. It's a terrific OS but I get the feeling that they're really late to the game. This could all change but I don't think anyone is willing to bet their money or time on it, especially after the swift demise of WebOS.
  - cageface 15y ago
    I think the problem for WP7 is that there are now two "good enough" options out there now so all new contenders are going to have to take things a big step forward to attract any interest. From what I've seen of it WP7 isn't enough of an improvement to be genuinely disruptive. And Microsoft's indecisive churn on its development stack lately has got to make developers a little wary.
    - mahyarm 15y ago
      They key to WP7 is that it's a competitor to Android. Apple iOS is not available to OEMs, but Android and WP7 is. If handset OEMs do not have a second choice, they'll have a single external dependency on Google and Google will use it to push them around or Google might screw it up really bad. It's in the OEMs best interest for WP7 to at least become somewhat successful so they themselves have a second option.
runjake 15y ago
It's been less than a year since it launched. The T-Mobile G1 and Android took 1+ years before it escaped its stagnant adoption rates. I remember poking fun at the G1 long after its release and about how I only ever saw one in the wild. Shortly thereafter, I bought a Nexus One.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  Don't forget the G1 was seriously underpowered.
  - runjake 15y ago
    It wasn't underpowered for its time. It exceeded its competitor, the iPhone 3G, in specifications. I think what really hurt it was Android's immaturity at the time. The HTC Dream was an odd little device, but it still holds a special place in my heart (I ended up buying one dirt cheap to hack on, so I could use my N1 for daily use)
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      You are correct. The G1 sports hardware a little bit better than the iPhone 3G, but, remember, it ran most of the software through a non-JIT VM instead of natively. And Dalvik didn't make use of the Jazelle extensions present on the CPU (I am not sure if that's even possible), nor the software made use of its GPU. For that, they should have used much beefier hardware to present similar performance. I wouldn't just point to Android's immaturity. The G1 is just not a great design. Perhaps, if Dalvik could make use of the Jazelle extensions or the presentation layer made use of the GPU, the G1 would present a better experience, but, overall, I wouldn't expect it to fly.
- beagle3 15y ago
  And still, in terms of competition for the "smartphone" customer, it was essentially only competing with the iPhone, and losing on everything but price. It took a couple of years to be comparable in "attractiveness" (features+look+easy of use .. the mix that customers want). The W7 mobile phones are losing on everything including price to both iPhone and Android. That's a much harder fight. Microsoft might still be a contender in this game -- they spent some $5B and managed to attain that position in gaming despite a very late start (compared to Sony and Nintendo). Though you should remember Sony were resting on their PS2 laurels, and Nintendo were licking their wounds at the time. Both Apple and Google are still with a cut-throat we-have-to-win-this attitude, and they are strong opponents.
iamelgringo 15y ago
They just partnered with Nokia that still makes 1/3 of all phones globally. They just purchased the fastest growing telecom company in the world (Skype). Microsoft is a battleship. It moves incredibly slowly, but once it turns, and sets its guns on something it brings an immense amount of firepower to bear. Years ago, people complained about Microsoft's take on security. Win 7 is now one of the most secure OS's on the market. People a couple years ago were complaining about how ugly Windows was... Win 7 mobile is gorgeous, and previews show that Metro is going to be prominent in Win 8. I'd bet that Windows is going to be a force to be reckoned with in mobile, but it's going to take a couple of years.
- rufugee 15y ago
  Win 7 is now one of the most secure OS's on the marketWin 7 is now one of the most secure OS's on the market Yep, that's why it took two weeks for my wife's machine to be compromised with malware, and it was back to Ubuntu for her. Windows 7 is definitely an improvement, but for the two years she's run Ubuntu, there have been absolutely no malware issues. Now, if all the damned video codecs worked appropriately...
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Your Ubuntu machine isn't full of malware because malware authors don't give a shit about Ubuntu machines.
43esrgdsfg 15y ago
I disagree with the sentiments here that MS is a battleship that can force itself into the market. MS have proven themselves to be very poor at updating Windows Phone. They simply aren't light enough on their feet. Their battle ship did not help the Zune. And their ideas on tablet interfaces are STILL centred around matching desktop power and features.... They were arrogant and dismissive towards the iPad, and Windows on tablets will definitely be a bloodied nose for them if they believe they can drop in desktop applications onto curated experiences like tablets. The only chance I can see, is if they position themselves as a simpler alternative to Android.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  > The only chance I can see, is if they position themselves as a simpler alternative to Android. Which is damn hard to do because Android is open-source and you don't want to even talk to Google unless you want to put Google-branded software on your thingie. It's hardly noticeable, but Android powers all Nook devices, including the first dual-screen one.
azakai 15y ago
> Sorry for the snark - I like WP7, I think it's a refreshing take on smartphone UI, but adoption is really at a standstill. It's worse than that for WP7. Even Samsung's Bada has more marketshare than Microsoft. That puts Microsoft in fifth place, and without even any momentum.
larsberg 15y ago
As an owner of one, the biggest issue isn't that there aren't enough apps -- it's that the biggies aren't there. Pandora? Nope. Spotify? Nope. The list goes on, and worse, the startups with a mobile component (think Uber) don't even seem to consider it a target platform. I don't really care how many tip calculators or games there are. If you don't have the biggies, it's hardly more than mail+SMS, at least for me. I did have the Zune Pass, though, which is a nice alternative to all of the music apps. But, it doesn't work on OSX (can't stream under silverlight; the windows phone connector can't browse/copy media), so it meant booting up my gaming machine any time I wanted to put more music on it.

nonane 15y ago

HP didn't have a chance - they don't have the software DNA that Google, Apple and Microsoft have. Microsoft is the underdog here but they have a much better chance of making something happen.

rbanffy 15y ago
All Apotheker had to do was to continue funding the development of WebOS devices. HP bought the DNA they needed and Apotheker threw it out.
- Apocryphon 15y ago
  I can't believe Apotheker made such stridently pro-webOS comments just a month ago about how much HP is behind the platform, just to pull the rug from underneath.
  - megablast 15y ago
    The consummate business person: It is all about the numbers.
- technoslut 15y ago
  I'm not so sure. There were many of the WebOS team that left immediately after the acquisition. The true tragedy of HP had occurred well before Apotheker.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    Indeed. Apotheker is the symptom, not the root cause. But even if smoking caused the tumor, part of the treatment is removing it.
    - technoslut 15y ago
      I would agree. The main problem at HP has been the board which has destroyed this company. They've hired the worst CEO's possible for the past fifteen years. They've gone to one of the most respected companies in the world to a laughing stock among many business people. Maybe all that they have left is the business sector but they will be far less successful than IBM.
- barista 15y ago
  You never buy DNA. It has to be there in you. Tell me one example who bought a plaform in and made it successful. HP never had a chance. Leo was dreaming when he bought WebOS. I'm glad the dream is over sooner than later.
  - hboon 15y ago
    Google + Android.
  - jsnell 15y ago
    He didn't buy WebOS. It was the previous CEO.
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    Tell me one example who bought a plaform in and made it successful. This is the kind of discussion that seems interesting on the surface but in reality has little substance, but here's your one example: QDOS->MSDOS.
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      Are you comparing an OS a single guy wrote with WebOS?
      - nitrogen 15y ago
        Are you comparing an OS a single guy wrote with WebOS? ...and here we go down the rabbit hole. If I answer your question, which expands the scope of discussion beyond what the GP post was requesting and beyond the scope of my comment, then you respond, and I respond again, by the end of the thread we could be discussing the relative merits of tuna versus salmon. I was responding with a specific counterexample to a specific point (which I quoted) raised in the original post. Nothing more. Or, if you prefer a one-word answer: "yes." Now, I'm going to leave this thread to its proper place in my mind, which is to say, out of it :).
        rbanffy 15y ago

rodh257 15y ago

Wait until Nokia gets WP7 phones out there, then we'll really see whether it'll be the 3rd player or not.

redthrowaway 15y ago
I disagree. I think the market has truly changed. Back in the feature phone days, it really did matter whether you had an LG, Samsung, or Nokia phone. Now, not so much. You either have an iPhone, an Android phone, or a Blackberry. Nokia's done some great things in the past, but their brand alone won't be enough to cover for the weakness of the WP7 ecosystem. Nokia's success depends far more on the strength of WP7 than does WP7's success rely upon the strength of Nokia.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  I don't think he's referring to Nokia's brand name. Personally I'm looking forward to the Nokia phones, though not holding my breath on their success. Given the pseudo-acquisition of Nokia, MSFT has a golden opportunity here to create an end-to-end appliance the way Apple does; to make sure that they're selling a sexy package, instead of selling a sexy OS in blah hardware (i.e., all of the WP7 launch phones) or a blah OS in sexy hardware. They can finally do the vertical integration that IMHO is sorely needed if anyone hopes to compete at Apple's level. Buuuuut given MSFT's track record in recent years, and with the departure of some key heads (who pushed for vertically integrated "experience"-building, instead of OEM licensing), I'm not banking on it happening this way.
- rodh257 15y ago
  IMO It's a chicken and egg situation, developers will go where the users are. I think Nokias brand name will generate a decent bump in sales, enough to get apps flowing through. As long as the major apps are in the store, the average user who might otherwise buy an Android device won't know the difference (at least not at the time of purchasing). I hear it's different in the USA, but here in Australia many people would LOVE to buy a Nokia, their brand name is associated with 'quality'. If Nokia can hit the right price points, I can see users who have been disappointed with their budget Android devices heading to the 'safe haven' of a Nokia device. It will take a while to gain momentum, but I'm optimistic on the outcome. I hope they go well because I'd love to develop for WP7.

rkwz 15y ago

>>It's been how long since it launched and I've only ever seen one in the wild that didn't belong to someone affiliated with MSFT. Not a fair comparison: WP7 was launched in October 21, 2010[1] [2] Android was launched 2 years earlier [3] iOS more than 3 years earlier[4] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Phone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Phone [2]Assuming that you're talking about WP7 and not Windows Mobile [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28software%29#Hardware http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28software%29#Hardware [4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_%28Apple%29#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_%28Apple%29#History edit: Please explain why I'm wrong before downvoting.

technoslut 15y ago
Maybe I'm wrong, but the circumstances are different for WP7 than it was for the iPhone and Android. I don't think that there was going to be any question that the iPhone was going to be a success with the long lines at launch and devs breaking into the OS to get apps to run. With Android, they were the first true competitor to iOS when it came to touch-based phones. With WP7 there doesn't seem to be the enthusiasm for the product. It's a terrific OS but I get the feeling that they're really late to the game. This could all change but I don't think anyone is willing to bet their money or time on it, especially after the swift demise of WebOS.
- cageface 15y ago
  I think the problem for WP7 is that there are now two "good enough" options out there now so all new contenders are going to have to take things a big step forward to attract any interest. From what I've seen of it WP7 isn't enough of an improvement to be genuinely disruptive. And Microsoft's indecisive churn on its development stack lately has got to make developers a little wary.
  - mahyarm 15y ago
    They key to WP7 is that it's a competitor to Android. Apple iOS is not available to OEMs, but Android and WP7 is. If handset OEMs do not have a second choice, they'll have a single external dependency on Google and Google will use it to push them around or Google might screw it up really bad. It's in the OEMs best interest for WP7 to at least become somewhat successful so they themselves have a second option.

runjake 15y ago

It's been less than a year since it launched. The T-Mobile G1 and Android took 1+ years before it escaped its stagnant adoption rates. I remember poking fun at the G1 long after its release and about how I only ever saw one in the wild. Shortly thereafter, I bought a Nexus One.

rbanffy 15y ago
Don't forget the G1 was seriously underpowered.
- runjake 15y ago
  It wasn't underpowered for its time. It exceeded its competitor, the iPhone 3G, in specifications. I think what really hurt it was Android's immaturity at the time. The HTC Dream was an odd little device, but it still holds a special place in my heart (I ended up buying one dirt cheap to hack on, so I could use my N1 for daily use)
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    You are correct. The G1 sports hardware a little bit better than the iPhone 3G, but, remember, it ran most of the software through a non-JIT VM instead of natively. And Dalvik didn't make use of the Jazelle extensions present on the CPU (I am not sure if that's even possible), nor the software made use of its GPU. For that, they should have used much beefier hardware to present similar performance. I wouldn't just point to Android's immaturity. The G1 is just not a great design. Perhaps, if Dalvik could make use of the Jazelle extensions or the presentation layer made use of the GPU, the G1 would present a better experience, but, overall, I wouldn't expect it to fly.
beagle3 15y ago
And still, in terms of competition for the "smartphone" customer, it was essentially only competing with the iPhone, and losing on everything but price. It took a couple of years to be comparable in "attractiveness" (features+look+easy of use .. the mix that customers want). The W7 mobile phones are losing on everything including price to both iPhone and Android. That's a much harder fight. Microsoft might still be a contender in this game -- they spent some $5B and managed to attain that position in gaming despite a very late start (compared to Sony and Nintendo). Though you should remember Sony were resting on their PS2 laurels, and Nintendo were licking their wounds at the time. Both Apple and Google are still with a cut-throat we-have-to-win-this attitude, and they are strong opponents.

iamelgringo 15y ago

They just partnered with Nokia that still makes 1/3 of all phones globally. They just purchased the fastest growing telecom company in the world (Skype). Microsoft is a battleship. It moves incredibly slowly, but once it turns, and sets its guns on something it brings an immense amount of firepower to bear. Years ago, people complained about Microsoft's take on security. Win 7 is now one of the most secure OS's on the market. People a couple years ago were complaining about how ugly Windows was... Win 7 mobile is gorgeous, and previews show that Metro is going to be prominent in Win 8. I'd bet that Windows is going to be a force to be reckoned with in mobile, but it's going to take a couple of years.

rufugee 15y ago
Win 7 is now one of the most secure OS's on the marketWin 7 is now one of the most secure OS's on the market Yep, that's why it took two weeks for my wife's machine to be compromised with malware, and it was back to Ubuntu for her. Windows 7 is definitely an improvement, but for the two years she's run Ubuntu, there have been absolutely no malware issues. Now, if all the damned video codecs worked appropriately...
- tptacek 15y ago
  Your Ubuntu machine isn't full of malware because malware authors don't give a shit about Ubuntu machines.

43esrgdsfg 15y ago

I disagree with the sentiments here that MS is a battleship that can force itself into the market. MS have proven themselves to be very poor at updating Windows Phone. They simply aren't light enough on their feet. Their battle ship did not help the Zune. And their ideas on tablet interfaces are STILL centred around matching desktop power and features.... They were arrogant and dismissive towards the iPad, and Windows on tablets will definitely be a bloodied nose for them if they believe they can drop in desktop applications onto curated experiences like tablets. The only chance I can see, is if they position themselves as a simpler alternative to Android.

rbanffy 15y ago
> The only chance I can see, is if they position themselves as a simpler alternative to Android. Which is damn hard to do because Android is open-source and you don't want to even talk to Google unless you want to put Google-branded software on your thingie. It's hardly noticeable, but Android powers all Nook devices, including the first dual-screen one.

azakai 15y ago

> Sorry for the snark - I like WP7, I think it's a refreshing take on smartphone UI, but adoption is really at a standstill. It's worse than that for WP7. Even Samsung's Bada has more marketshare than Microsoft. That puts Microsoft in fifth place, and without even any momentum.

larsberg 15y ago

As an owner of one, the biggest issue isn't that there aren't enough apps -- it's that the biggies aren't there. Pandora? Nope. Spotify? Nope. The list goes on, and worse, the startups with a mobile component (think Uber) don't even seem to consider it a target platform. I don't really care how many tip calculators or games there are. If you don't have the biggies, it's hardly more than mail+SMS, at least for me. I did have the Zune Pass, though, which is a nice alternative to all of the music apps. But, it doesn't work on OSX (can't stream under silverlight; the windows phone connector can't browse/copy media), so it meant booting up my gaming machine any time I wanted to put more music on it.