3 ms·

Windows Mobile as a brand came out in 2003. The "Windows" brand itself was massive in that era. Apple branding isn't too much more inspiring (Mac to iMac to i

Windows Mobile as a brand came out in 2003. The "Windows" brand itself was massive in that era. Apple branding isn't too much more inspiring (Mac to iMac to iPhone).

prmph 3y ago
Many people confused Windows Phone with Windows Mobile, which came with all sorts of baggage of bad experiences. So I agree with GP, that dropping the Windows name would have been a smart move
- idonotknowwhy 3y ago
  Windows phone was garbage though,with no real multi tasking and IE as the only browser. Nokia/Elop screwed up big time by going with this and it killed Nokia
  - bzzzt 3y ago
    As opposed to Apple with no real multi tasking and Safari as the only browser? ;) The difference was Apple had a clear vision on what they wanted the technology to be while Nokia was divided between squeezing a bit more out of Symbian or invest in their 'follow up' Linux-based line. They didn't need Elop to screw up, they did that perfectly by themselves. If sales were better and Microsoft had continued with Windows phone it probably would have saved Nokia.
raydev 3y ago
> Apple branding isn't too much more inspiring I think you are conveniently ignoring the explicitly bad rep Windows had, even for people who bought and used Windows in their homes. It had none of the draw that Apple had following their iMac/iBook/iPod era. Zune was building a good customer base, but MS threw that away too of course.
- Arainach 3y ago
  Hacker News is not the world. Outside tech blogs Windows is still huge, and it was massive around the Windows Mobile/Windows Phone timeline.
firecall 3y ago
You missed off iPod! Mac -> iMac -> iPod -> iPhone Obviously the iPod gives us AirPods and HomePods. I imagine there are users of *Pod devices that have never seen or used an iPod!
ravenstine 3y ago
Besides the confusion with Windows Phone that someone else here mentioned, 2003 was a different era. We have Windows today, but it represented something else back then. There weren't really other good examples of full-blown computing at the handheld scale back then. Yes, there are some arguments to be made for other platforms, but let's face it, having Windows in the palm of your hand would have meant the power of a desktop/laptop in your hand. Today, and even starting ~15 years ago, the novelty of having any particular operating system in the palm of your hand largely diminished in favor of whomever could do it right, regardless of what the underlying OS was. In other words, a diminishing number of everyday people are loyal to any particular OS or architecture. If anything, calling something else "Windows" will give them the wrong set of expectations. At best, it will make people expect it to mimic Windows, and at worst people will associate it with things like viruses, blue screen of death, etc. A totally new name would have given Microsoft's phone line a clean slate in terms of branding.

Windows Mobile as a brand came out in 2003. The "Windows" brand itself was massive in that era. Apple branding isn't too much more inspiring (Mac to iMac to iPhone).

prmph 3y ago

Many people confused Windows Phone with Windows Mobile, which came with all sorts of baggage of bad experiences. So I agree with GP, that dropping the Windows name would have been a smart move

idonotknowwhy 3y ago
Windows phone was garbage though,with no real multi tasking and IE as the only browser. Nokia/Elop screwed up big time by going with this and it killed Nokia
- bzzzt 3y ago
  As opposed to Apple with no real multi tasking and Safari as the only browser? ;) The difference was Apple had a clear vision on what they wanted the technology to be while Nokia was divided between squeezing a bit more out of Symbian or invest in their 'follow up' Linux-based line. They didn't need Elop to screw up, they did that perfectly by themselves. If sales were better and Microsoft had continued with Windows phone it probably would have saved Nokia.

raydev 3y ago

> Apple branding isn't too much more inspiring I think you are conveniently ignoring the explicitly bad rep Windows had, even for people who bought and used Windows in their homes. It had none of the draw that Apple had following their iMac/iBook/iPod era. Zune was building a good customer base, but MS threw that away too of course.

Arainach 3y ago
Hacker News is not the world. Outside tech blogs Windows is still huge, and it was massive around the Windows Mobile/Windows Phone timeline.

firecall 3y ago

You missed off iPod! Mac -> iMac -> iPod -> iPhone Obviously the iPod gives us AirPods and HomePods. I imagine there are users of *Pod devices that have never seen or used an iPod!

ravenstine 3y ago

Besides the confusion with Windows Phone that someone else here mentioned, 2003 was a different era. We have Windows today, but it represented something else back then. There weren't really other good examples of full-blown computing at the handheld scale back then. Yes, there are some arguments to be made for other platforms, but let's face it, having Windows in the palm of your hand would have meant the power of a desktop/laptop in your hand. Today, and even starting ~15 years ago, the novelty of having any particular operating system in the palm of your hand largely diminished in favor of whomever could do it right, regardless of what the underlying OS was. In other words, a diminishing number of everyday people are loyal to any particular OS or architecture. If anything, calling something else "Windows" will give them the wrong set of expectations. At best, it will make people expect it to mimic Windows, and at worst people will associate it with things like viruses, blue screen of death, etc. A totally new name would have given Microsoft's phone line a clean slate in terms of branding.