4 ms·

I used a WP7 for several months last year. In many ways I really liked it, the UI was pretty slick, live tiles where great, the whole thing was surprisingly pol

by rrreese 14y ago

I used a WP7 for several months last year. In many ways I really liked it, the UI was pretty slick, live tiles where great, the whole thing was surprisingly polished. But I now use an iPhone. The reason is lack of quality 3rd party software. The PDF viewer available for WP7 (there was only one) was absolutely abysmal. Very poor UX. And that was all to often the case. Where Android or iOS would have numerous great apps, WP7 would have significantly less and usually all lower quality. Such a shame as the OS itself is pretty nice.

untog 14y ago
Absolutely agreed. The issue now isn't that the major players aren't in WP, but it's that their apps are absolutely terrible, and obviously barely tested. The Rdio app didn't even play music for months, and the Spotify app is glitchy as hell. So the "100,000 apps" boast is a little hollow.
- barista 14y ago
  Apparently that is what Microsoft is trying to solve with the unified core. If the developers have ability to write code one time and target both the phone and the tablet/desktop, it is quite appealing proposition.
Mythrl 14y ago
The 3rd party app criticism is in my view an outdated one. One year ago would have been premature to make a declaration on the availability of 3rd party apps for the Windows platform since it was still relatively new. Windows Phone has been catching up and can probably do so more quickly now that the phone and desktop OSes can use similar code. Edit: Since I am being downvoted for my opinion, I will add some evidence "An app for Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8 can share the same code and the same basic user interface, since both platforms use the Metro design language, according to Wissinger." http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/258094/microsoft_hopes_to_attract_more_developers_with_windows_phone_8.html http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/258094/microso...
- wtallis 14y ago
  That's not evidence, that's just a claim from Microsoft's marketing. The code-sharing doesn't apply to any current desktop applications - it only applies to the hypothetical future Metro-based desktop apps. And it's irrelevant anyways. You can't expect a user to stick with an incomplete platform when there is viable competition, based solely on promises that the situation will improve. In fact, since Microsoft has announced that current Windows Phone 7 hardware will not run Windows Phone 8, anybody who was counting on their phone getting more useful over time has been proven to be a sucker.
  - Mythrl 14y ago
    I wouldn't call engineering your entire OS to be able to share code between devices as irrelevant, nor would I characterize it as something that is done for a quick marketing line. Making this change likely involves significant capital cost investment that is not done lightly and without a great deal of forethought. You think it's a coincidence that this gets announced 2 days after the Surface (which is clearly a bridging device) and a week after leaks appears for a new XBox (what OS do you think that will run)? This whole thing has pretty obviously been planned out a long time ago, and Microsoft are starting to lay down their cards to show their hand. And it's increasingly looking like they have been putting together a pretty strong hand.
    - wtallis 14y ago
      You're still missing the point that it's never premature to complain that a shipping mobile platform has too few third-party apps. It doesn't matter whether a platform is brand-new or two years old, having no apps is a real competitive disadvantage that will have the real-world effect of warding off potential customers, and no forward-looking statements about what will happen next year can make the problem go away. The only solution to the problem is to build a large app library. Microsoft may be well-poised to make the problem go away within the next two years, but in the meantime, their mobile offering will be lackluster.
      - 14y ago
deepGem 14y ago
Come to think of it. You can't share a video on youtube from a WP7 phone. The default option is Skydrive.
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  From Microsoft's antitrust complaint from last year. http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2011/03/30/adding-our-voice-to-concerns-about-search-in-europe.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2... First, in 2006 Google acquired YouTube—and since then it has put in place a growing number of technical measures to restrict competing search engines from properly accessing it for their search results. Without proper access to YouTube, Bing and other search engines cannot stand with Google on an equal footing in returning search results with links to YouTube videos and that, of course, drives more users away from competitors and to Google. Second, in 2010 and again more recently, Google blocked Microsoft’s new Windows Phones from operating properly with YouTube. Google has enabled its own Android phones to access YouTube so that users can search for video categories, find favorites, see ratings, and so forth in the rich user interfaces offered by those phones. It’s done the same thing for the iPhones offered by Apple, which doesn’t offer a competing search service. Unfortunately, Google has refused to allow Microsoft’s new Windows Phones to access this YouTube metadata in the same way that Android phones and iPhones do. As a result, Microsoft’s YouTube “app” on Windows Phones is basically just a browser displaying YouTube’s mobile Web site, without the rich functionality offered on competing phones. Microsoft is ready to release a high quality YouTube app for Windows Phone. We just need permission to access YouTube in the way that other phones already do, permission Google has refused to provide.
  - deepGem 14y ago
    Thanks for the post. It's really sad that Google will not expose basic metadata, for enabling users to share videos on WP7.

by rrreese 14y ago

untog 14y ago

Absolutely agreed. The issue now isn't that the major players aren't in WP, but it's that their apps are absolutely terrible, and obviously barely tested. The Rdio app didn't even play music for months, and the Spotify app is glitchy as hell. So the "100,000 apps" boast is a little hollow.

barista 14y ago
Apparently that is what Microsoft is trying to solve with the unified core. If the developers have ability to write code one time and target both the phone and the tablet/desktop, it is quite appealing proposition.

Mythrl 14y ago

The 3rd party app criticism is in my view an outdated one. One year ago would have been premature to make a declaration on the availability of 3rd party apps for the Windows platform since it was still relatively new. Windows Phone has been catching up and can probably do so more quickly now that the phone and desktop OSes can use similar code. Edit: Since I am being downvoted for my opinion, I will add some evidence "An app for Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8 can share the same code and the same basic user interface, since both platforms use the Metro design language, according to Wissinger." http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/258094/microsoft_hopes_to_attract_more_developers_with_windows_phone_8.html http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/258094/microso...

wtallis 14y ago
That's not evidence, that's just a claim from Microsoft's marketing. The code-sharing doesn't apply to any current desktop applications - it only applies to the hypothetical future Metro-based desktop apps. And it's irrelevant anyways. You can't expect a user to stick with an incomplete platform when there is viable competition, based solely on promises that the situation will improve. In fact, since Microsoft has announced that current Windows Phone 7 hardware will not run Windows Phone 8, anybody who was counting on their phone getting more useful over time has been proven to be a sucker.
- Mythrl 14y ago
  I wouldn't call engineering your entire OS to be able to share code between devices as irrelevant, nor would I characterize it as something that is done for a quick marketing line. Making this change likely involves significant capital cost investment that is not done lightly and without a great deal of forethought. You think it's a coincidence that this gets announced 2 days after the Surface (which is clearly a bridging device) and a week after leaks appears for a new XBox (what OS do you think that will run)? This whole thing has pretty obviously been planned out a long time ago, and Microsoft are starting to lay down their cards to show their hand. And it's increasingly looking like they have been putting together a pretty strong hand.
  - wtallis 14y ago
    You're still missing the point that it's never premature to complain that a shipping mobile platform has too few third-party apps. It doesn't matter whether a platform is brand-new or two years old, having no apps is a real competitive disadvantage that will have the real-world effect of warding off potential customers, and no forward-looking statements about what will happen next year can make the problem go away. The only solution to the problem is to build a large app library. Microsoft may be well-poised to make the problem go away within the next two years, but in the meantime, their mobile offering will be lackluster.
    - 14y ago

deepGem 14y ago

Come to think of it. You can't share a video on youtube from a WP7 phone. The default option is Skydrive.

recoiledsnake 14y ago
From Microsoft's antitrust complaint from last year. http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2011/03/30/adding-our-voice-to-concerns-about-search-in-europe.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2... First, in 2006 Google acquired YouTube—and since then it has put in place a growing number of technical measures to restrict competing search engines from properly accessing it for their search results. Without proper access to YouTube, Bing and other search engines cannot stand with Google on an equal footing in returning search results with links to YouTube videos and that, of course, drives more users away from competitors and to Google. Second, in 2010 and again more recently, Google blocked Microsoft’s new Windows Phones from operating properly with YouTube. Google has enabled its own Android phones to access YouTube so that users can search for video categories, find favorites, see ratings, and so forth in the rich user interfaces offered by those phones. It’s done the same thing for the iPhones offered by Apple, which doesn’t offer a competing search service. Unfortunately, Google has refused to allow Microsoft’s new Windows Phones to access this YouTube metadata in the same way that Android phones and iPhones do. As a result, Microsoft’s YouTube “app” on Windows Phones is basically just a browser displaying YouTube’s mobile Web site, without the rich functionality offered on competing phones. Microsoft is ready to release a high quality YouTube app for Windows Phone. We just need permission to access YouTube in the way that other phones already do, permission Google has refused to provide.
- deepGem 14y ago
  Thanks for the post. It's really sad that Google will not expose basic metadata, for enabling users to share videos on WP7.