"Why the Verizon iPhone is already too late "

[John Navas]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:01:19 -0700, in

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38635041/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/
"Apple has let a reasonable iPhone copy become the No. 1 selling smart
phone platform in America. It let this happen, by simultaneously
creating a burning desire for an app-driven touch-screen smart phone,
and then denying it to two-thirds of the American populace."

That's a pretty funny article on several counts, since Android isn't a
copy of iPhone, since apps have been around for a long time (on a number
of smartphone platforms), since touch screen essentially goes back to
Palm, since smartphone goes back to Nokia and Sony Ericsson, since a
Verizon iPhone might well have been a net downer for Apple, since Droid
isn't the only measure of Android success, since the real issue holding
back Apple mentioned in the article is closed system versus open system,
and since Apple almost certainly wouldn't have been able to stop Android
with iPhone on Verizon -- one need only look overseas.

"New reports show that Google's Android is eating the iPhone's lunch."
Summarizes the situation pretty well.

[nospam]

Post by John Navas

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38635041/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/
"Apple has let a reasonable iPhone copy become the No. 1 selling smart
phone platform in America. It let this happen, by simultaneously
creating a burning desire for an app-driven touch-screen smart phone,
and then denying it to two-thirds of the American populace."

That's a pretty funny article on several counts, since Android isn't a
copy of iPhone,

yes it is, in many, many ways.

Post by John Navas
since apps have been around for a long time (on a number
of smartphone platforms),

not of the same class they haven't.

Post by John Navas
since touch screen essentially goes back to
Palm,

resistive screens that required a stylus. blech. the iphone and android
are huge advancements over that.

Post by John Navas
since smartphone goes back to Nokia and Sony Ericsson, since a
Verizon iPhone might well have been a net downer for Apple,

eh?

Post by John Navas
since Droid
isn't the only measure of Android success,

it's a major one. the droid family are the best selling android phones.

Post by John Navas
since the real issue holding
back Apple mentioned in the article is closed system versus open system,

nope. manufacturing capacity and being stuck on one carrier has a
bigger role. apple would be selling significantly more, if they could
only keep up.

Post by John Navas
and since Apple almost certainly wouldn't have been able to stop Android
with iPhone on Verizon -- one need only look overseas.
"New reports show that Google's Android is eating the iPhone's lunch."
Summarizes the situation pretty well.

that depends on which report.

<http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/43194/response/110912/attach/html
/3/RFI20101043%20final%20response.pdf.html>

For complete weeks since 23 June, the average weekly number of
Android device users accessing programmes from the BBC iPlayer was
1,106, peaking at 1,896 in the week commencing 26 July 2010. 

In July 2010 there was an average of 230,016 Apple mobile devices
users accessing programmes via the BBC iPlayer each week, peaking
at 248,700 in the week commencing 26 July 2010. 

just under 2000 users on android, versus just under 250,000 for iphone.
android also accessed 6400 programs versus 5 million for iphones.

that's *two* orders of magnitude higher for iphone.

android may be eating lunch but it sure isn't the iphone's lunch it's
eating.

[Justin]

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38635041/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/
"Apple has let a reasonable iPhone copy become the No. 1 selling smart
phone platform in America. It let this happen, by simultaneously
creating a burning desire for an app-driven touch-screen smart phone,
and then denying it to two-thirds of the American populace."

That's a pretty funny article on several counts, since Android isn't a
copy of iPhone,

yes it is, in many, many ways.

many, many ways.

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas
since apps have been around for a long time (on a number
of smartphone platforms),

not of the same class they haven't.

Did Palm have 638 fart apps?

Post by nospam
that depends on which report.
<http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/43194/response/110912/attach/html
/3/RFI20101043%20final%20response.pdf.html>
For complete weeks since 23 June, the average weekly number of
Android device users accessing programmes from the BBC iPlayer was
1,106, peaking at 1,896 in the week commencing 26 July 2010. 
In July 2010 there was an average of 230,016 Apple mobile devices
users accessing programmes via the BBC iPlayer each week, peaking
at 248,700 in the week commencing 26 July 2010. 
just under 2000 users on android, versus just under 250,000 for iphone.
android also accessed 6400 programs versus 5 million for iphones.
that's *two* orders of magnitude higher for iphone.
android may be eating lunch but it sure isn't the iphone's lunch it's
eating.

Talk about (no pun intended) comparing Apples and Oranges. This study
you are quoting is talking about the UK, the other one is the US.
Which one is the bigger market?

Also, how many of those iOS accesses are from a non iPhone?

[SMS]

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38635041/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/
"Apple has let a reasonable iPhone copy become the No. 1 selling smart
phone platform in America. It let this happen, by simultaneously
creating a burning desire for an app-driven touch-screen smart phone,
and then denying it to two-thirds of the American populace."

That's a pretty funny article on several counts, since Android isn't a
copy of iPhone,

yes it is, in many, many ways.

There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
of the iPhone. If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
Android would never have had such enormous success.

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas
since the real issue holding
back Apple mentioned in the article is closed system versus open system,

nope. manufacturing capacity and being stuck on one carrier has a
bigger role. apple would be selling significantly more, if they could
only keep up.

There's no shortage of manufacturing capacity in the world. If there was
demand, Apple could sign up other contract manufacturers that they
already use for other products. It's the issue of the iPhone only being
on one U.S. carrier that has given Android such an advantage. There are
some people, and I'm one of them, that like the Android platform for
specific reasons such as the removable media, USB support, user
replaceable battery, and Flash support, but most people don't care much
about those issues. The applications base of the iPhone, and how well it
integrates with other products and services is something the Android
needs to catch up on. I.e., to deposit a check in two of my banks, I
could use an iPhone app but there is no Android app. One bank lets me
hook a scanner to the computer for this which I've done but which is
rather a hassle.

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas
and since Apple almost certainly wouldn't have been able to stop Android
with iPhone on Verizon -- one need only look overseas.
"New reports show that Google's Android is eating the iPhone's lunch."
Summarizes the situation pretty well.

that depends on which report.
<http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/43194/response/110912/attach/html
/3/RFI20101043%20final%20response.pdf.html>
For complete weeks since 23 June, the average weekly number of
Android device users accessing programmes from the BBC iPlayer was
1,106, peaking at 1,896 in the week commencing 26 July 2010.
In July 2010 there was an average of 230,016 Apple mobile devices
users accessing programmes via the BBC iPlayer each week, peaking
at 248,700 in the week commencing 26 July 2010.
just under 2000 users on android, versus just under 250,000 for iphone.
android also accessed 6400 programs versus 5 million for iphones.

An iPhone on Verizon would have seriously damaged Androids popularity. I
know a lot of people with Android based phones. Invariably these same
people also have an iPod Nano or iPod Touch. They'd have jumped at the
chance to get an iPhone and not have to deal with two devices (they are
NOT going to start re-encoding iTunes downloads to another format for
transfer to the Android). However they didn't want an iPhone bad enough
to use AT&T, which in the San Francisco Bay Area has serious coverage
and capacity problems.

[alt.cellular.cingular removed, Cingular no longer exists]

[nospam]

Post by SMS

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas
That's a pretty funny article on several counts, since Android isn't a
copy of iPhone,

yes it is, in many, many ways.

There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
of the iPhone.

absolutely, especially when you look at what android was early on and
compare it to what it is now. the iphone had a *lot* of influence on it
and still does.

Post by SMS
If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
Android would never have had such enormous success.

maybe yes, maybe no. it's impossible to know what might have happened.

Post by SMS

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas
since the real issue holding
back Apple mentioned in the article is closed system versus open system,

nope. manufacturing capacity and being stuck on one carrier has a
bigger role. apple would be selling significantly more, if they could
only keep up.

There's no shortage of manufacturing capacity in the world. If there was
demand, Apple could sign up other contract manufacturers that they
already use for other products.

it's not that simple. it could also be parts shortages, such as the lcd
panel that the ipad uses. the fact is that apple is supply constrained.
if they could simply sign up another manufacturer, don't you think they
would?

Post by SMS
It's the issue of the iPhone only being
on one U.S. carrier that has given Android such an advantage. There are
some people, and I'm one of them, that like the Android platform for
specific reasons such as the removable media, USB support, user
replaceable battery, and Flash support, but most people don't care much
about those issues.

competition is good. the iphone does not have to be the *only* platform.

Post by SMS
The applications base of the iPhone, and how well it
integrates with other products and services is something the Android
needs to catch up on. I.e., to deposit a check in two of my banks, I
could use an iPhone app but there is no Android app. One bank lets me
hook a scanner to the computer for this which I've done but which is
rather a hassle.

deposit by phone fucking rocks. if only people would send me more
checks to deposit. :)

Post by SMS
An iPhone on Verizon would have seriously damaged Androids popularity. I
know a lot of people with Android based phones. Invariably these same
people also have an iPod Nano or iPod Touch. They'd have jumped at the
chance to get an iPhone and not have to deal with two devices (they are
NOT going to start re-encoding iTunes downloads to another format for
transfer to the Android). However they didn't want an iPhone bad enough
to use AT&T, which in the San Francisco Bay Area has serious coverage
and capacity problems.

there's no question that at&t is a problem, and one that will cease to
be an issue one day. both at&t and apple have said the exclusive will
end at some point.

meanwhile apple is selling all that they can make, so even if the
iphone was available on verizon and other carriers, they wouldn't be
selling much more.

[Secular Humanist]

Post by SMS

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38635041/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/
"Apple has let a reasonable iPhone copy become the No. 1 selling smart
phone platform in America. It let this happen, by simultaneously
creating a burning desire for an app-driven touch-screen smart phone,
and then denying it to two-thirds of the American populace."

That's a pretty funny article on several counts, since Android isn't a
copy of iPhone,

yes it is, in many, many ways.

There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
of the iPhone. If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
Android would never have had such enormous success.

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas
since the real issue holding
back Apple mentioned in the article is closed system versus open system,

nope. manufacturing capacity and being stuck on one carrier has a
bigger role. apple would be selling significantly more, if they could
only keep up.

There's no shortage of manufacturing capacity in the world. If there was
demand, Apple could sign up other contract manufacturers that they
already use for other products. It's the issue of the iPhone only being
on one U.S. carrier that has given Android such an advantage. There are
some people, and I'm one of them, that like the Android platform for
specific reasons such as the removable media, USB support, user
replaceable battery, and Flash support, but most people don't care much
about those issues. The applications base of the iPhone, and how well it
integrates with other products and services is something the Android
needs to catch up on. I.e., to deposit a check in two of my banks, I
could use an iPhone app but there is no Android app. One bank lets me
hook a scanner to the computer for this which I've done but which is
rather a hassle.

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas
and since Apple almost certainly wouldn't have been able to stop Android
with iPhone on Verizon -- one need only look overseas.
"New reports show that Google's Android is eating the iPhone's lunch."
Summarizes the situation pretty well.

that depends on which report.
<http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/43194/response/110912/attach/html
/3/RFI20101043%20final%20response.pdf.html>
For complete weeks since 23 June, the average weekly number of
Android device users accessing programmes from the BBC iPlayer was
1,106, peaking at 1,896 in the week commencing 26 July 2010.
In July 2010 there was an average of 230,016 Apple mobile devices
users accessing programmes via the BBC iPlayer each week, peaking
at 248,700 in the week commencing 26 July 2010.
just under 2000 users on android, versus just under 250,000 for iphone.
android also accessed 6400 programs versus 5 million for iphones.

An iPhone on Verizon would have seriously damaged Androids popularity. I
know a lot of people with Android based phones. Invariably these same
people also have an iPod Nano or iPod Touch. They'd have jumped at the
chance to get an iPhone and not have to deal with two devices (they are
NOT going to start re-encoding iTunes downloads to another format for
transfer to the Android). However they didn't want an iPhone bad enough
to use AT&T, which in the San Francisco Bay Area has serious coverage
and capacity problems.
[alt.cellular.cingular removed, Cingular no longer exists]

The Android phones are in a "younger" stage of development than the
iPhones and there are a number of manufacturers pushing Android
development.

Were it not for AT&T, I would have bought an iPhone when they first came
out. A few months ago, I got a verizon htc incredible. It's a good smart
phone and I've lost interest in the iPhone. I suspect many of those
waiting for a verizon iPhone have also lost interest. There's really no
need any more to narrow one's focus on an iPhone when there are so many
very worthy competitors.

[SMS]

On 8/28/2010 8:21 AM, Secular Humanist wrote:

<snip>

Post by Secular Humanist
Were it not for AT&T, I would have bought an iPhone when they first came
out. A few months ago, I got a verizon htc incredible. It's a good smart
phone and I've lost interest in the iPhone. I suspect many of those
waiting for a verizon iPhone have also lost interest. There's really no
need any more to narrow one's focus on an iPhone when there are so many
very worthy competitors.

The Incredible is very impressive. And how many people with Android
phones are going to just decide to stick with an OS and user interface
that they're familiar with even when the iPhone does make it to other
carriers. Apple probably had no idea how incredibly popular the iPhone
would be, or how incredibly unprepared AT&T was to handle such
popularity, when they signed that long-term exclusivity agreement.

[John Navas]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 08:35:58 -0700, in

Post by SMS
<snip>

Post by Secular Humanist
Were it not for AT&T, I would have bought an iPhone when they first came
out. A few months ago, I got a verizon htc incredible. It's a good smart
phone and I've lost interest in the iPhone. I suspect many of those
waiting for a verizon iPhone have also lost interest. There's really no
need any more to narrow one's focus on an iPhone when there are so many
very worthy competitors.

The Incredible is very impressive. And how many people with Android
phones are going to just decide to stick with an OS and user interface
that they're familiar with even when the iPhone does make it to other
carriers. Apple probably had no idea how incredibly popular the iPhone
would be, or how incredibly unprepared AT&T was to handle such
popularity, when they signed that long-term exclusivity agreement.

So Apple is smart, or Apple is not so smart (as you of course)?
Which is it? At least keep your silly stories straight.

[John Navas]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 07:58:18 -0700, in

Post by SMS
There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
of the iPhone. If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
Android would never have had such enormous success.

Your usual Appeal to Authority Fallacy ("no debate", "all experts
agree", etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum).

Android was a startup to do mobile devices based on Linux, not a
response to Apple, that was later acquired by Google. Learn the real
facts (history).

Post by SMS
An iPhone on Verizon would have seriously damaged Androids popularity.

Your usual speculation presented as fact, followed by a meaningless
(probably made-up) anecdote.

Post by SMS
[alt.cellular.cingular removed, Cingular no longer exists]

[childish newsgroup removal restored]

[nospam]

Post by John Navas

Post by SMS
There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
of the iPhone. If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
Android would never have had such enormous success.

Your usual Appeal to Authority Fallacy ("no debate", "all experts
agree", etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum).
Android was a startup to do mobile devices based on Linux, not a
response to Apple, that was later acquired by Google. Learn the real
facts (history).

yes android was a startup to do mobile devices based on linux, and if
you look at what it was early on and what it is now, it's very clear
that it was greatly influenced by apple. i think andy rubin even said
as much.

[SMS]

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas

Post by SMS
There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
of the iPhone. If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
Android would never have had such enormous success.

Your usual Appeal to Authority Fallacy ("no debate", "all experts
agree", etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum).
Android was a startup to do mobile devices based on Linux, not a
response to Apple, that was later acquired by Google. Learn the real
facts (history).

yes android was a startup to do mobile devices based on linux, and if
you look at what it was early on and what it is now, it's very clear
that it was greatly influenced by apple. i think andy rubin even said
as much.

Android was an outgrowth of Midori Linux which predated the iPhone by
many years. The idea of an embedded Linux product for mobile devices did
not start with the iPhone, but Android became a mass market product as
the result of the need for a low cost OS for mobile devices and other
embedded devices. Microsoft's pricing on Windows CE, Windows Mobile, and
Embedded XP has always been a big issue with device manufacturers. You'd
think that the enormous advantages of Windows Mobile in terms of
integration with the desktop/laptop Windows OSes and applications
(especially Office) would have given it an insurmountable lead but
because of how smart phones are marketed this advantage was never realized.

[nospam]

Post by SMS
Android was an outgrowth of Midori Linux which predated the iPhone by
many years. The idea of an embedded Linux product for mobile devices did
not start with the iPhone, but Android became a mass market product as
the result of the need for a low cost OS for mobile devices and other
embedded devices.

apple started on the iphone/ipad in the early to mid 2000s (steve jobs,
all things d, a few months ago). the point is that android now looks
more like an iphone than it did in its original incantation.

[Todd Allcock]

Android was an outgrowth of Midori Linux which predated the iPhone by many
years. The idea of an embedded Linux product for mobile devices did not
start with the iPhone, but Android became a mass market product as the
result of the need for a low cost OS for mobile devices and other embedded
devices. Microsoft's pricing on Windows CE, Windows Mobile, and Embedded
XP has always been a big issue with device manufacturers.

Windows Mobile licenses, athough neither MS or OEMs will discuss them in
exact terms, are estimated to be around $10. (MS will confirm vague numbers
like "around $10" or "under $12," etc. Presumably each OEM negotiates their
own figures so MS wouldn't want to disclose what HTC is paying, if Samsumg
is paying more.) Compare the cost of developing your own smartphone OS, and
suddenly $8/unit doesn't seem so bad. $0 (Android) is better still, but if
the OS brings advantages to the table, the cost is justified (else we'd be
seeing a lot more Linux PCs from HP and Dell!) ;)

You'd think that the enormous advantages of Windows Mobile in terms of
integration with the desktop/laptop Windows OSes and applications
(especially Office) would have given it an insurmountable lead but because
of how smart phones are marketed this advantage was never realized.

Yes and no- given that until the announcement of Windows Phone 7, (and the
coming apparent abandonment of "old" Windows Mobile by MS) scared off both
buyers and OEMs in droves from the WM6.x platform, MS was still steadily
selling 4-5 million or so WinMo licenses each quarter in a post-iPhone
world, despite the moldy UI and wildly uneven user experience on the various
phones sporting the WinMo software.

I think many users and businesses knew of the integration with MS products
and services, and chose to put up with some major usabilty disadvantages in
return. (And I'm certainly one of them- you know you're a longtime WinMo
user when your nightime routine includes a phone reboot "just in case!"
particularly if you're relying the device's alarm to wake you in the
morning!

Pre-iPhone, Palm has thrown in the towel on PalmOS and was building WinMo
devices, and the new focus on security, indroduced in WM5 (and really
improved in 6) was letting WinMo start taking a bit of ground from RIM's
huge lead in the enterprise. What Microsoft didn't know at the time, of
course, was that businesses will talk a good game about security, but if a
device is easy-to-use, fun, and is popular enough with employees or
management, they will let security standards slide, as evidenced by the
adoption of the iPhone in many formerly Blackberry-only shops. (Apple's
iPhone security implementations are decent, but very weak by RIM's
standards.)

It wasn't the $8 that killed WinMo- it was MS's infighting between
divisions, a lack of resources devoted to the mobile space (which was
considered unimportant) and a certain disbelief that the smartphone category
would amount to much other than a niche product for business users and
geeks- two groups who'd "never" buy from companies like Apple anyway. MS
chose to skate by with essentially the same OS and UI they'd been milking
since April 2000 when Pocket PC was released (infused with the trademark MS
feature/code bloat that made modern devices require 128MB RAM and 512MHz
processors to match the performance of the 16MB/133MHz devices Compaq and
Casio pumped out at the turn of the century.)

Unfortunately, IMO, MS is making a huge blunder with WP7- something I'll
call the "Gore Effect." (If you recall, in his bid for the presidency, Al
Gore resisted any campaign help from Bill Clinton in fear he'd be "tainted"
by association, forgetting that those voters who'd hold the Clinton support
against him, weren't his voters anyway.) MS is building WP7 from ground up
(a very good thing, since the moldy old code had been piling up in WinMo for
quite a while) but to completely distance itself from old WM, which it
apparently now sees as an embarrassment, rather than a flawed, but effective
OS it managed to market semi-successfully for a decade, MS has broken all
compatibility with WM6.x code, making life hard for the thousands of devs
who've supported WinMo to this point, with some excellent apps in the more
than 30K available, as well as the millions of users who use those apps, and
has copied Apple's closed-ecosystem approach, rather than the open approach
used by Android (doubly ironic, because the "open source" Android is, in
some ways, more "closed" than old-school WinMo WRT developer's access to the
device hardware.

However, WP7 does have one important thing going for it that old WinMo never
had- MS willingness to throw money at it. For $8 a copy, MS never gave WM
any type of ad budget- they left marketing and promotion to the OEMs, who
had very little incentive to promote the underlying OS, since Samsung or HTC
were far more interested in consumers buying their hardware brand in spite
of the underlying OS, rather than buying for the OS, despite the brand of
hardware. Expecting Samsung or HTC to bullishly promote WinMo, is about as
crazy as a tire manufacturer like Goodyear to expect Ford to prominently
promote their tires as a reason to buy the car. With WP7, you can expect MS
to advertise the heck out of it- probably as an extension of those "My Idea"
ads for Windows 7.

(I can already see a parody ad in my head- an ad showing no cut and paste,
no multitasking, all apps downloaded from a central store, and an energetic,
greying man in a black turtleneck smiling impishly while saying "Windows
Phone 7- it was MY idea!")

[SMS]

Post by Todd Allcock
However, WP7 does have one important thing going for it that old WinMo never
had- MS willingness to throw money at it. For $8 a copy, MS never gave WM
any type of ad budget- they left marketing and promotion to the OEMs, who
had very little incentive to promote the underlying OS, since Samsung or HTC
were far more interested in consumers buying their hardware brand in spite
of the underlying OS, rather than buying for the OS, despite the brand of
hardware. Expecting Samsung or HTC to bullishly promote WinMo, is about as
crazy as a tire manufacturer like Goodyear to expect Ford to prominently
promote their tires as a reason to buy the car.

Which is why any successful attempt by Microsoft to compete against the
iPhone with WP7 will be by following the iPhone model of selling the
hardware too, something Microsoft may not be able to do. They did it
with XBOX, but not with Zune. It doesn't require that they manufacture
it, Apple doesn't manufacture their hardware either, but they have to be
able to design and market it.

The integration of Office could be a big selling point--if they hurry.

[John Navas]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:52:34 -0700, in

Post by SMS

Post by Todd Allcock
However, WP7 does have one important thing going for it that old WinMo never
had- MS willingness to throw money at it. For $8 a copy, MS never gave WM
any type of ad budget- they left marketing and promotion to the OEMs, who
had very little incentive to promote the underlying OS, since Samsung or HTC
were far more interested in consumers buying their hardware brand in spite
of the underlying OS, rather than buying for the OS, despite the brand of
hardware. Expecting Samsung or HTC to bullishly promote WinMo, is about as
crazy as a tire manufacturer like Goodyear to expect Ford to prominently
promote their tires as a reason to buy the car.

Which is why any successful attempt by Microsoft to compete against the
iPhone with WP7 will be by following the iPhone model of selling the
hardware too, something Microsoft may not be able to do. They did it
with XBOX, but not with Zune. It doesn't require that they manufacture
it, Apple doesn't manufacture their hardware either, but they have to be
able to design and market it.

Another nice scramble, albeit a day late and a dollar short.

Post by SMS
The integration of Office could be a big selling point--if they hurry.

Wrong again(tm): Too late for that now. The market is showing little
interest in integration apps available. While employees are happy to
_communicate_ on mobile devices, they want larger screens and keyboards
for _productivity_ tasks. Witness the iPad.

[Todd Allcock]

Post by SMS

Post by Todd Allcock
However, WP7 does have one important thing going for it that old WinMo never
had- MS willingness to throw money at it. For $8 a copy, MS never gave WM
any type of ad budget- they left marketing and promotion to the OEMs, who
had very little incentive to promote the underlying OS, since Samsung or HTC
were far more interested in consumers buying their hardware brand in spite
of the underlying OS, rather than buying for the OS, despite the brand of
hardware. Expecting Samsung or HTC to bullishly promote WinMo, is about as
crazy as a tire manufacturer like Goodyear to expect Ford to

prominently

Post by SMS

Post by Todd Allcock
promote their tires as a reason to buy the car.

Which is why any successful attempt by Microsoft to compete against the
iPhone with WP7 will be by following the iPhone model of selling the
hardware too, something Microsoft may not be able to do. They did it
with XBOX, but not with Zune.

The Zune is "manufactured" by MS (OEM'd, but sold under the MS brand. I
don't know who builds them now, but apparently my original Zune 30s are
made by Toshiba.)

Post by SMS
It doesn't require that they manufacture
it, Apple doesn't manufacture their hardware either, but they have to
be able to design and market it.

They're trying to straddle a new line w/WP7- allow OEMs to design and
manufacture, but only within a narrow set of specs- screen res, hardware
buttons and placement, CPU types and speed, RAM and storage minimums,
etc. The old WinMo only had a very low (frankly, far too low) minimum spec,
than OEMs could add anything they wanted.

The advantage, is that the user experience should be very similar between
devices, but the disadvantage, obviously , is that OEMs have very little
room to differentiate or innovate, which gives them less incentive to
remain licensees, particularly if one OEM, say, HTC, has success at the
expense of others. Personally, I think MS should create a branded device
to "set the bar" and let OEMs go above and beyond.

Post by SMS
The integration of Office could be a big selling point--if they hurry.

Office integration has been part of WinMo since 2000 gave us "Pocket PC."
If that was all it took for success in the mobile space, WinMo wouldn't
be in the crapper today. WP7 adds support for Office Live's cloud
storage (a la Google Docs,) but I feel that's probably more of a nod to
the Enterprise saying "see, we haven't abandoned you entirely!"

[John Navas]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:19:36 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by SMS
The integration of Office could be a big selling point--if they hurry.

Office integration has been part of WinMo since 2000 gave us "Pocket PC."
If that was all it took for success in the mobile space, WinMo wouldn't
be in the crapper today. WP7 adds support for Office Live's cloud
storage (a la Google Docs,) but I feel that's probably more of a nod to
the Enterprise saying "see, we haven't abandoned you entirely!"

I think it's more a matter of, "See? Now we're doing cloud computing!"
But the problems, again, are reaction and timing -- Microsoft is locked
in a pattern of reacting to the _last_ cycle, trying to defend its
dinosaurs, instead of leading on the Next Big Thing, which is the real
reason I think WinMo7 is doomed to fail -- being 1-2 years late is all
but the kiss of death is high-tech mobile devices. Microsoft needs to
_lead_ the target, not shoot _at_ the target, which is long gone by the
time the slow Microsoft bullet arrives. It should start with a blank
sheet of paper, and no relationship to Windows and Office whatsoever,
most logically by acquisition, RIM for market share plus some cool
technology startups to put lipstick on it.

[Todd Allcock]

Post by John Navas
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:19:36 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by SMS
The integration of Office could be a big selling point--if they hurry.

Office integration has been part of WinMo since 2000 gave us "Pocket PC."
If that was all it took for success in the mobile space, WinMo wouldn't
be in the crapper today. WP7 adds support for Office Live's cloud
storage (a la Google Docs,) but I feel that's probably more of a nod to
the Enterprise saying "see, we haven't abandoned you entirely!"

I think it's more a matter of, "See? Now we're doing cloud computing!"
But the problems, again, are reaction and timing -- Microsoft is locked
in a pattern of reacting to the _last_ cycle, trying to defend its
dinosaurs, instead of leading on the Next Big Thing, which is the real
reason I think WinMo7 is doomed to fail -- being 1-2 years late is all
but the kiss of death is high-tech mobile devices.

Perhaps, but I think it's more of trying to keep their "old-guard"
products relevant longer. Have you used Office Live? Very slick,
integrates well with "on site" Office, and overall has a better "real
app" feel than Google Docs. (To be fair, GooDocs hasn't seen a major
update in a while- I suspect Google has some leapfrogging up their sleeves
which makes things better for we consumers.)

Post by John Navas
Microsoft needs to
_lead_ the target, not shoot _at_ the target, which is long gone by the
time the slow Microsoft bullet arrives. It should start with a blank
sheet of paper, and no relationship to Windows and Office whatsoever,
most logically by acquisition, RIM for market share plus some cool
technology startups to put lipstick on it.

I disagree- RIM is dangerously close to becoming a niche player without a
major overhaul (and the increased fragmention that brings.) MS already
had one of those with WinMo- two if you include Sidekick.

MS is giving WP7 some very exciting XBox integration if that's your thing
(it isn't mine!) integrated social networking features (yawn) and a Kin-
like cloud mirroring of device data (laugh at Kin all you want, but the
seamless cloud backup was pretty slick- almost Android-on-steroids.)

[John Navas]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:50:54 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
I think it's more a matter of, "See? Now we're doing cloud computing!"
But the problems, again, are reaction and timing -- Microsoft is locked
in a pattern of reacting to the _last_ cycle, trying to defend its
dinosaurs, instead of leading on the Next Big Thing, which is the real
reason I think WinMo7 is doomed to fail -- being 1-2 years late is all
but the kiss of death is high-tech mobile devices.

Perhaps, but I think it's more of trying to keep their "old-guard"
products relevant longer.

Sure. But that's defending the past at the expense of the future.

Post by Todd Allcock
Have you used Office Live? Very slick,
integrates well with "on site" Office,

I agree. I think it would have been killer say 5 years ago, but now is
a symptom of Microsoft reacting to increasingly less relevant old
battles instead of leading on new battles, like the French reinforcing
the Maginot line instead of developing mobile armor and artillery and
air defenses.

Post by Todd Allcock
and overall has a better "real
app" feel than Google Docs. (To be fair, GooDocs hasn't seen a major
update in a while- I suspect Google has some leapfrogging up their sleeves
which makes things better for we consumers.)

I think Google Docs was in large part a diversionary tactic that drew
Microsoft away from the things it really needed to do.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
Microsoft needs to
_lead_ the target, not shoot _at_ the target, which is long gone by the
time the slow Microsoft bullet arrives. It should start with a blank
sheet of paper, and no relationship to Windows and Office whatsoever,
most logically by acquisition, RIM for market share plus some cool
technology startups to put lipstick on it.

I disagree- RIM is dangerously close to becoming a niche player without a
major overhaul (and the increased fragmention that brings.) MS already
had one of those with WinMo- two if you include Sidekick.

RIM still has a dominant market share lead, and a pretty loyal base,
which I think you may be underestimating.

Post by Todd Allcock
MS is giving WP7 some very exciting XBox integration if that's your thing
(it isn't mine!) integrated social networking features (yawn) and a Kin-
like cloud mirroring of device data (laugh at Kin all you want, but the
seamless cloud backup was pretty slick- almost Android-on-steroids.)

I'm not sure there's still room for another player (which WinMo7 is by
virtue of abandoning WinMo6), and I think Microsoft is going about this
in a way that's doomed to fail. I think the only real hope of saving
WinMo7 would be to immediately announce app compatibility with WinMo6,
and then figure out how to do it quick quick. If Windows 7 had been the
same kind of complete break with Windows Vista, then I think it would
still be struggling now.

[Todd Allcock]

Post by John Navas
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:50:54 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
I think it's more a matter of, "See? Now we're doing cloud computing!"
But the problems, again, are reaction and timing -- Microsoft is locked
in a pattern of reacting to the _last_ cycle, trying to defend its
dinosaurs, instead of leading on the Next Big Thing, which is the real
reason I think WinMo7 is doomed to fail -- being 1-2 years late is all
but the kiss of death is high-tech mobile devices.

Perhaps, but I think it's more of trying to keep their "old-guard"
products relevant longer.

Sure. But that's defending the past at the expense of the future.

Aren't you the guy advocating they buy RIM? ;)

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
Have you used Office Live? Very slick,
integrates well with "on site" Office,

I agree. I think it would have been killer say 5 years ago, but now is
a symptom of Microsoft reacting to increasingly less relevant old
battles instead of leading on new battles, like the French reinforcing
the Maginot line instead of developing mobile armor and artillery and
air defenses.

If Office Live extends the market for Office, it'll be worth it. Part of
embracing the "future" is knowing when the past is no longer relevant.
Office, Exchange, Windows, etc. are still giant cash cows, and will continue
to be for quite some time, so MS should be milking them as long as possible.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
and overall has a better "real
app" feel than Google Docs. (To be fair, GooDocs hasn't seen a major
update in a while- I suspect Google has some leapfrogging up their sleeves
which makes things better for we consumers.)

I think Google Docs was in large part a diversionary tactic that drew
Microsoft away from the things it really needed to do.

I think it was another in a long line of Google Experiments. My son's
school uses Google Docs exclusively for the students documents. No software
required, and free storage in the cloud. It doesn't matter which laptop the
kids log into- their documents are on it (via the cloud) and so it the app
they need. The educational benefits are excellent, and it's good for low
spec machines, like the ancient PCs and laptops schools contend with.
Between GDocs and Office Live, I don't even bother with an Office suite on
my oldest netbook any longer (the poor ancient ASUS EEE PC with 4GB SSD.
The 200MB Open Office or Office 2000 chewed up were significant real estate
on that device!)

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
Microsoft needs to
_lead_ the target, not shoot _at_ the target, which is long gone by the
time the slow Microsoft bullet arrives. It should start with a blank
sheet of paper, and no relationship to Windows and Office whatsoever,
most logically by acquisition, RIM for market share plus some cool
technology startups to put lipstick on it.

I disagree- RIM is dangerously close to becoming a niche player without a
major overhaul (and the increased fragmention that brings.) MS already
had one of those with WinMo- two if you include Sidekick.

RIM still has a dominant market share lead, and a pretty loyal base,
which I think you may be underestimating.

People are as loyal as their options. Enterprise still loves RIM, for the
security, and ease of use (essentially a single UI and form factor among
most devices- if you've spent any time with a Blackberry, you can manage to
find your way around any of them.)

Consumer users are becoming less enamored of them, IMO. And if MS bought
them, they'd certainly screw them up "reimagining" them, like they did to
Sidekick.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
MS is giving WP7 some very exciting XBox integration if that's your thing
(it isn't mine!) integrated social networking features (yawn) and a Kin-
like cloud mirroring of device data (laugh at Kin all you want, but the
seamless cloud backup was pretty slick- almost Android-on-steroids.)

I'm not sure there's still room for another player (which WinMo7 is by
virtue of abandoning WinMo6), and I think Microsoft is going about this
in a way that's doomed to fail. I think the only real hope of saving
WinMo7 would be to immediately announce app compatibility with WinMo6,
and then figure out how to do it quick quick. If Windows 7 had been the
same kind of complete break with Windows Vista, then I think it would
still be struggling now.

That assumed WinMo6 had the same type of ubiquitous market reach that
XP/Vista had. Look around your friends, relatives and clients- how many WM6
handsets do you see, vs. Blackberries, iPhones and even Androids. MS needs
backwards compatibility probably as much as WebOS did. It'd be nice, but it
won't make or break it. (In fact, as much as I'd like to see it personally
for selfish reasons, backwards compatibility would likely "break" WP7- it
typically needs cursor hardware, and a much finer controlled touchscreen,
which doesn't lend itself to finger-friendliness.)

What WinMo really needed was a ground up rewrite to eliminate bloat and
redundant legacy code floating around since the Pocket PC days, and a new UI
that was finger friendly all the way to the core- not just until you drilled
down to an app or user settings that presented the same old interface my
Casio E-100 had in 1999! That coupled with a more realistic minimum spec
would've been enough, IMO, if Microsoft put the resources and marketing
behind it. But they don't pay me to make those decisions. ;)

[John Navas]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:40:50 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
Sure. But that's defending the past at the expense of the future.

Aren't you the guy advocating they buy RIM? ;)

No, that was an article. I don't think it's a great idea -- I just
think it might make more sense than what Microsoft is trying to do now.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
I agree. I think it would have been killer say 5 years ago, but now is
a symptom of Microsoft reacting to increasingly less relevant old
battles instead of leading on new battles, like the French reinforcing
the Maginot line instead of developing mobile armor and artillery and
air defenses.

If Office Live extends the market for Office, it'll be worth it. Part of
embracing the "future" is knowing when the past is no longer relevant.
Office, Exchange, Windows, etc. are still giant cash cows, and will continue
to be for quite some time, so MS should be milking them as long as possible.

The essence of a "cash cow" is that you keep milking it but _stop_
feeding it, investing the feed and milk in more productive long term
opportunities instead. All those legacy products should be getting is
lipstick.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
I think Google Docs was in large part a diversionary tactic that drew
Microsoft away from the things it really needed to do.

I think it was another in a long line of Google Experiments. My son's
school uses Google Docs exclusively for the students documents. No software
required, and free storage in the cloud. It doesn't matter which laptop the
kids log into- their documents are on it (via the cloud) and so it the app
they need. The educational benefits are excellent, and it's good for low
spec machines, like the ancient PCs and laptops schools contend with.
Between GDocs and Office Live, I don't even bother with an Office suite on
my oldest netbook any longer (the poor ancient ASUS EEE PC with 4GB SSD.
The 200MB Open Office or Office 2000 chewed up were significant real estate
on that device!)

Sure, but I think it was more a long term effort to support mobile
devices, like a Google/Android tablet, but largely irrelevant in the
short term except being taken as a diversionary attack on Microsoft
(which is why there's been so little follow-through recently).
(Sun tried the same tactic, but bungled it badly.)

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
RIM still has a dominant market share lead, and a pretty loyal base,
which I think you may be underestimating.

People are as loyal as their options.

I still think you are (seriously) underestimating brand loyalty.

Post by Todd Allcock
Enterprise still loves RIM, for the
security, and ease of use (essentially a single UI and form factor among
most devices- if you've spent any time with a Blackberry, you can manage to
find your way around any of them.)
Consumer users are becoming less enamored of them, IMO.

That's only because RIM has fallen so far behind in coolness, lost all
the mojo, lost the buzz, problems that could be fixed, although it would
take a major effort. But like Microsoft, RIM is too busy fighting the
old battles to do the job it needs to do in new battles, witness the
BlackBerry Torch, OK but no more than that.

Post by Todd Allcock
And if MS bought
them, they'd certainly screw them up "reimagining" them, like they did to
Sidekick.

That's a bad analogy -- Microsoft was after Danger, not Sidekick.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
I'm not sure there's still room for another player (which WinMo7 is by
virtue of abandoning WinMo6), and I think Microsoft is going about this
in a way that's doomed to fail. I think the only real hope of saving
WinMo7 would be to immediately announce app compatibility with WinMo6,
and then figure out how to do it quick quick. If Windows 7 had been the
same kind of complete break with Windows Vista, then I think it would
still be struggling now.

That assumed WinMo6 had the same type of ubiquitous market reach that
XP/Vista had. Look around your friends, relatives and clients- how many WM6
handsets do you see, vs. Blackberries, iPhones and even Androids. MS needs
backwards compatibility probably as much as WebOS did. It'd be nice, but it
won't make or break it. (In fact, as much as I'd like to see it personally
for selfish reasons, backwards compatibility would likely "break" WP7- it
typically needs cursor hardware, and a much finer controlled touchscreen,
which doesn't lend itself to finger-friendliness.)

I disagree -- when you blow off and piss off your existing customer
base, you create a big additional hurdle that greatly adds to your
marketing challenges.

Post by Todd Allcock
What WinMo really needed was a ground up rewrite to eliminate bloat and
redundant legacy code floating around since the Pocket PC days, and a new UI
that was finger friendly all the way to the core- not just until you drilled
down to an app or user settings that presented the same old interface my
Casio E-100 had in 1999! That coupled with a more realistic minimum spec
would've been enough, IMO, if Microsoft put the resources and marketing
behind it. But they don't pay me to make those decisions. ;)

It's not a matter of technology -- it's a matter of understanding users
and the user experience, and making it cool, something Microsoft has
never been terribly good at, with Windows Vista a painful case in point.

[Todd Allcock]

Post by John Navas
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:40:50 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
Sure. But that's defending the past at the expense of the future.

Aren't you the guy advocating they buy RIM? ;)

No, that was an article. I don't think it's a great idea -- I just
think it might make more sense than what Microsoft is trying to do now.

Blackberry OS and WinMo have too much in common- they're both tired OSes,
designed for a narrower purpose, that have been kludged to play on the
same field with more modern OSes. The effort to rebuild Blackberry for
the expectations of modern users is the same as for WinMo, and a
wholesale change to Blackberry OS would strand a larger and more fervent
customer base than WinMo enjoys.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
I agree. I think it would have been killer say 5 years ago, but now is
a symptom of Microsoft reacting to increasingly less relevant old
battles instead of leading on new battles, like the French

reinforcing

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
the Maginot line instead of developing mobile armor and artillery and
air defenses.

If Office Live extends the market for Office, it'll be worth it. Part of
embracing the "future" is knowing when the past is no longer relevant.
Office, Exchange, Windows, etc. are still giant cash cows, and will continue
to be for quite some time, so MS should be milking them as long as possible.

The essence of a "cash cow" is that you keep milking it but _stop_
feeding it, investing the feed and milk in more productive long term
opportunities instead. All those legacy products should be getting is
lipstick.

Arguably that's all they are getting anyway- Office 2010 seems little
more than 2007 "now with clouds!" and the typical seemingly random
reworking of the UI to keep the "How To" book publishers in clover, and
Windows 7 is probably what Vista would've been if they released it after
Vista was finished instead of before! ;)

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
I think Google Docs was in large part a diversionary tactic that drew
Microsoft away from the things it really needed to do.

I think it was another in a long line of Google Experiments. My son's
school uses Google Docs exclusively for the students documents. No software
required, and free storage in the cloud. It doesn't matter which laptop the
kids log into- their documents are on it (via the cloud) and so it the app
they need. The educational benefits are excellent, and it's good for low
spec machines, like the ancient PCs and laptops schools contend with.
Between GDocs and Office Live, I don't even bother with an Office suite on
my oldest netbook any longer (the poor ancient ASUS EEE PC with 4GB SSD.
The 200MB Open Office or Office 2000 chewed up were significant real estate
on that device!)

Sure, but I think it was more a long term effort to support mobile
devices, like a Google/Android tablet, but largely irrelevant in the
short term except being taken as a diversionary attack on Microsoft
(which is why there's been so little follow-through recently).
(Sun tried the same tactic, but bungled it badly.)

Perhaps, but like a lot of Google stuff it might just be like MS R&D-
someone's great idea that dead-ended because it fit no particular
widespread need. Or it was considered a potential fit with another
concurrent or future product (e.g. a prototype or proof-of-concept office
suite for Chrome OS.)

Either way, rich cloud apps are still more awkward to use than those
installed down here on Earth, so MS has quite awhile to keep milking!

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
RIM still has a dominant market share lead, and a pretty loyal base,
which I think you may be underestimating.

People are as loyal as their options.

I still think you are (seriously) underestimating brand loyalty.

Could be- I know a few Crackberry lovers, but every one happily checked
out my wife's iPhone back when she first got it. Most are still glued to
their 'Berries, but they're looking for a new reason to fall in love with
them again! ;)

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
Enterprise still loves RIM, for the
security, and ease of use (essentially a single UI and form factor among
most devices- if you've spent any time with a Blackberry, you can manage to
find your way around any of them.)
Consumer users are becoming less enamored of them, IMO.

That's only because RIM has fallen so far behind in coolness, lost all
the mojo, lost the buzz, problems that could be fixed, although it would
take a major effort. But like Microsoft, RIM is too busy fighting the
old battles to do the job it needs to do in new battles, witness the
BlackBerry Torch, OK but no more than that.

My point above about effort. MS trying to beat the current Windows
Mobile or Blackberry OS into an iOS or Android-class mobile OS might be
like trying to pass off Windows 98 SP22 as a modern desktop OS.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
And if MS bought
them, they'd certainly screw them up "reimagining" them, like they did to
Sidekick.

That's a bad analogy -- Microsoft was after Danger, not Sidekick.

Sidekick is just the US branding of Danger.

And what did MS do when they bought Danger? Spun their wheels, then
fired the top Danger people and crashed their servers! ;) Then they
created Kin/Verizon Contractual Obligation Phone 1.0, and let the MS in-
fighting kill it to focus on WP7.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
I'm not sure there's still room for another player (which WinMo7 is by
virtue of abandoning WinMo6), and I think Microsoft is going about this
in a way that's doomed to fail. I think the only real hope of saving
WinMo7 would be to immediately announce app compatibility with WinMo6,
and then figure out how to do it quick quick. If Windows 7 had been the
same kind of complete break with Windows Vista, then I think it would
still be struggling now.

That assumed WinMo6 had the same type of ubiquitous market reach that
XP/Vista had. Look around your friends, relatives and clients- how many WM6
handsets do you see, vs. Blackberries, iPhones and even Androids. MS needs
backwards compatibility probably as much as WebOS did. It'd be nice, but it
won't make or break it. (In fact, as much as I'd like to see it personally
for selfish reasons, backwards compatibility would likely "break" WP7- it
typically needs cursor hardware, and a much finer controlled

touchscreen,

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
which doesn't lend itself to finger-friendliness.)

I disagree -- when you blow off and piss off your existing customer
base, you create a big additional hurdle that greatly adds to your
marketing challenges.

Typically, yes, but MS apparently feels there aren't enough of _me_ out
there to worry about! ;) At some point you have to jettison backwards
compatibility if it's holding you back. Part of XP's success was MS'
willingness to kiss a lot of DOS/Win 3.x compatibility goodbye. I'm
certainly in a tiny minority of folks who thought WinMo was still viable.
MS apparently feels there isn't enough lipstick on the planet to save
the WinMo 6.x pig!

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
What WinMo really needed was a ground up rewrite to eliminate bloat and
redundant legacy code floating around since the Pocket PC days, and a new UI
that was finger friendly all the way to the core- not just until you drilled
down to an app or user settings that presented the same old interface my
Casio E-100 had in 1999! That coupled with a more realistic minimum spec
would've been enough, IMO, if Microsoft put the resources and

marketing

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
behind it. But they don't pay me to make those decisions. ;)

It's not a matter of technology -- it's a matter of understanding users
and the user experience, and making it cool, something Microsoft has
never been terribly good at, with Windows Vista a painful case in point.

I'm apparently in another minority- I thought Vista _was_ "cool." It was
just an unfinished, bloated, work-in-progress that would've been fine
after another SP or two. MS, however, seized an opportunity to rework
it, change the UI and rename it "7," allowing it to leave the bad press
behind, while simultaneously enabling themselves to charge an upgrade fee
for it. If the very same 7 had been released as Vista SP3, the tech
press would've been less enthusiastic, and MS would be giving it away
instead of selling it to Vista users!

Similarly, if WP7 had been just another reworked WinMo, the tech press
would be far more skeptical, since both WM6 and 6.5 were supposed to be
the "new and improved" WinMo poised to grab significant market share.
Instead, MS is practically bragging about its limitations and
shortcomings as if to "prove" it's completely different from that other
"failed" Windows phone OS.

And make no mistake, WP7 is pretty "cool." If that was my main criteria
for a mobile OS, I'd be excited right now. Unfortunately I fear it'll be
more sizzle than steak, at least when released.

Personally, I predict WP7 will follow the iPhone OS strategy- release
with a laughably tiny feature set hidden under a slick, fun, UI, and add
the missing features over time, along with the bloat, UI complications,
and sluggishness that comes with feature creep. By then, however, the
ecosystem and user base is in place. I'm enjoying the irony that Steve
Jobs once said "if you see a task manager, (we) blew it." Guess what
launches when you double tap the iOS home button? Yep- the "we blew it"
app. The difference, I believe, is that MS will get in one year, where
it took Apple three, because the "missing" stuff is likely stuff that was
actually planned, but couldn't be ready by the 1.0 release, where the
missing stuff in iOS was Apple's inexperience in the mobile space,
assuming people didn't actually need or want cut and paste, background
tasks, rich third-party apps or file sync. I predict WP7 updates will be
flying fast and furious in year one, as MS concentrates on improving the
user experience and repairing their reputation in mobile devices. I
might even _like_ WP7 2.0, um, WP8, er, whatever.

(I realize I may be giving MS far more credit than they're due, but I'd
like to believe they learned SOMETHING from a decade of selling WinCE-
based devices!) ;)

[John Navas]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:29:33 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
No, that was an article. I don't think it's a great idea -- I just
think it might make more sense than what Microsoft is trying to do now.

Blackberry OS and WinMo have too much in common- they're both tired OSes,
designed for a narrower purpose, that have been kludged to play on the
same field with more modern OSes. The effort to rebuild Blackberry for
the expectations of modern users is the same as for WinMo, and a
wholesale change to Blackberry OS would strand a larger and more fervent
customer base than WinMo enjoys.

Market share is priceless. The challenge is to retain as much of the
user base as possible by designing an OS that's fully modern while still
backward compatible, a challenge, but doable in my estimation. WinMo7
might even be a good starting point.

Post by Todd Allcock
Windows 7 is probably what Vista would've been if they released it after
Vista was finished instead of before! ;)

There's truth to that, but I think it's more a matter of Microsoft
getting it first wrong, then right, over and over, in a never-ending
painful cycle. I wouldn't be at all surprised if "Windows 8" is as bad
as Vista.

Post by Todd Allcock
Either way, rich cloud apps are still more awkward to use than those
installed down here on Earth, so MS has quite awhile to keep milking!

They're already more than adequate for many people (and for much of what
I do), and with HTML5 and CSS3 they should be able to pretty much match
desktop functionality (offline as well as online). Plus the price (free
in the case of Google) is right. Google has just had to wait for
technology to catch up to its ambitions. (Gears didn't cut it.) Chrome
is helping by pushing the other browsers hard.

Office survives only through enterprise investment and inertia, and
I see serious signs the tide is reversing. But Office momentum is a
good example of why RIM might have value to Microsoft.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
That's only because RIM has fallen so far behind in coolness, lost all
the mojo, lost the buzz, problems that could be fixed, although it would
take a major effort. But like Microsoft, RIM is too busy fighting the
old battles to do the job it needs to do in new battles, witness the
BlackBerry Torch, OK but no more than that.

My point above about effort. MS trying to beat the current Windows
Mobile or Blackberry OS into an iOS or Android-class mobile OS might be
like trying to pass off Windows 98 SP22 as a modern desktop OS.

True. The challenge is to lead the target sufficiently. My thought is
a two-pronged approach, with one team merging WinMo7 and BB OS 6 quick
quick, another team working on a big leap forward at the same time. It's
how Intel now designs chips to stay ahead of AMD, horribly expensive but
quite effective if you're a/the deep pockets player.

Post by Todd Allcock
Sidekick is just the US branding of Danger.

Sidekick is a phone.
Danger is the platform.

Post by Todd Allcock
And what did MS do when they bought Danger? Spun their wheels, then
fired the top Danger people and crashed their servers! ;)

All Microsoft wanted was the platform, not Sidekick, so the result isn't
terribly surprising, especially since Microsoft isn't terribly good at
acquisitions.

Post by Todd Allcock
Then they
created Kin/Verizon Contractual Obligation Phone 1.0, and let the MS in-
fighting kill it to focus on WP7.

I think it more a matter of waking up to the fact that Kim was a poor
idea and dangerous diversion likely to fail. What Microsoft should be
doing is what Sony Ericsson is reportedly doing for Android 3.0, merging
its gaming platform into its mobile communication platform, But the
serious problem for Microsoft is that it's failed to develop and
establish a mobile gaming platform.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
I disagree -- when you blow off and piss off your existing customer
base, you create a big additional hurdle that greatly adds to your
marketing challenges.

Typically, yes, but MS apparently feels there aren't enough of _me_ out
there to worry about! ;) At some point you have to jettison backwards
compatibility if it's holding you back. Part of XP's success was MS'
willingness to kiss a lot of DOS/Win 3.x compatibility goodbye.

The push to abandon backward compatibility tends to come from lazy
engineers, not insurmountable obstacles. ;)

You see the glass as (more than) half empty. I see the glass as (more
than) half full -- I'm quite impressed with how much backward
compatibility is built into Windows XP (Vista and 7).

Post by Todd Allcock
I'm
certainly in a tiny minority of folks who thought WinMo was still viable.
MS apparently feels there isn't enough lipstick on the planet to save
the WinMo 6.x pig!

Looks like poor judgment to me.

Microsoft has a good record of persistence in some areas (e.g.,
Windows), but it also has a bad record of abandonment in other areas.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
It's not a matter of technology -- it's a matter of understanding users
and the user experience, and making it cool, something Microsoft has
never been terribly good at, with Windows Vista a painful case in point.

I'm apparently in another minority- I thought Vista _was_ "cool." It was
just an unfinished, bloated, work-in-progress that would've been fine
after another SP or two. MS, however, seized an opportunity to rework
it, change the UI and rename it "7," allowing it to leave the bad press
behind, while simultaneously enabling themselves to charge an upgrade fee
for it. If the very same 7 had been released as Vista SP3, the tech
press would've been less enthusiastic, and MS would be giving it away
instead of selling it to Vista users!

I think you underestimate the changes in 7 versus Vista, which I think
are easily as significant as the changes in Vista versus XP, just much
better done (and in less time). You might as well argue that XP was
Windows 2000 SPnn, and Windows 2000 was Windows NT SPnnn. ;)

Post by Todd Allcock
Similarly, if WP7 had been just another reworked WinMo, the tech press
would be far more skeptical, since both WM6 and 6.5 were supposed to be
the "new and improved" WinMo poised to grab significant market share.
Instead, MS is practically bragging about its limitations and
shortcomings as if to "prove" it's completely different from that other
"failed" Windows phone OS.

Looks like poor judgment to me. Dissing your own children tends to have
unfortunate, unexpected consequences. Coke learned its lesson, now
doesn't say, "Old product sucked, new product doesn't suck!" It now
says, "Same wonderful product, new improved taste!" The difference can
be subtle but profound.

Post by Todd Allcock
And make no mistake, WP7 is pretty "cool." If that was my main criteria
for a mobile OS, I'd be excited right now.

I find technology interesting but not exciting. As a _user_ (not a
technologist), I care not a whit what processor is in my Android phone
or (for example) how Android garbage collection functions. What I do
care about is how well it serves my needs. I won't put up with having
to reboot it, or to kill apps -- the 2nd time I have to kill an app is
the last time it will be on my phone. The 2nd time I have to reboot my
phone is when I start looking for new phone.

Post by Todd Allcock
Unfortunately I fear it'll be
more sizzle than steak, at least when released.

If it has the sizzle I care about, especially seamless integration with
all my Google cloud functionality, that's as good as or better than what
I have now, then that would be enough to get me seriously interested.
The steak (what's inside) is not something I care about as a _user_ (not
a technologist).

A big problem for Microsoft is that it now competes with Google on many
fronts, so it's not in a position to get great cloud support from the
get go. Windows Live Hotmail is losing the war (for 2nd place behind
Yahoo Mail) to Gmail (both free and Google Apps), and the "Windows Live"
re-branding is symptomatic of fundamental miscalculations by Microsoft.
Windows is the problem, not the solution.

Post by Todd Allcock
Personally, I predict WP7 will follow the iPhone OS strategy- release
with a laughably tiny feature set hidden under a slick, fun, UI, and add
the missing features over time, along with the bloat, UI complications,
and sluggishness that comes with feature creep.

I predict Microsoft will stay wedded to its dinosaurs, and that WinMo7
will work really well only for those still addicted to Office Kool-Aid.
And in defending its past, I predict Microsoft will lose the war.

I used to be a fan of Office, but Office XP (10) was the last major
version upgrade I really liked, with Office 2003 (11) only a modest
improvement, and Office 2007 (12) an abomination worse than Vista that
actually makes me _less_ (not more) productive. (I'm still stunned that
Microsoft failed to include the Office 2003 UI as an option.)
So I started parting company with Office, shifting more and more of my
work to Google Docs. (I had to install Office 2007 recently to support
a client, and learned all over again just how bad it is.)

Post by Todd Allcock
By then, however, the
ecosystem and user base is in place. I'm enjoying the irony that Steve
Jobs once said "if you see a task manager, (we) blew it." Guess what
launches when you double tap the iOS home button? Yep- the "we blew it"
app. The difference, I believe, is that MS will get in one year, where
it took Apple three, because the "missing" stuff is likely stuff that was
actually planned, but couldn't be ready by the 1.0 release, where the
missing stuff in iOS was Apple's inexperience in the mobile space,
assuming people didn't actually need or want cut and paste, background
tasks, rich third-party apps or file sync. I predict WP7 updates will be
flying fast and furious in year one, as MS concentrates on improving the
user experience and repairing their reputation in mobile devices. I
might even _like_ WP7 2.0, um, WP8, er, whatever.

I think it will be game over by then -- the world will have moved on
before Microsoft can get it right, leaving Microsoft still a full cycle
behind, a fatal problem in the long term. WinMo7 is at least a year too
late.

Post by Todd Allcock
(I realize I may be giving MS far more credit than they're due, but I'd
like to believe they learned SOMETHING from a decade of selling WinCE-
based devices!) ;)

I'm not so optimistic -- I see lots of evidence that Microsoft hasn't
really changed, which is not terribly surprising given that Steveo is
now running the show himself -- corporate culture is very hard to change
even with the right management.

Did Whitacre really change GM enough for it to grow and prosper? I fear
no more so (and probably less so) than Iacocca at Chrysler. What
Whitacre did was a short term success, but I predict GM will go back to
many of its bad old ways in the long term -- too many of the old players
are still in place. Same problem at Microsoft.

[nospam]

Post by John Navas
Market share is priceless.

not always. some companies do quite well being niche players.

Post by John Navas
The challenge is to retain as much of the
user base as possible by designing an OS that's fully modern while still
backward compatible, a challenge, but doable in my estimation. WinMo7
might even be a good starting point.

sometimes it's not worth the effort.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
I disagree -- when you blow off and piss off your existing customer
base, you create a big additional hurdle that greatly adds to your
marketing challenges.

Typically, yes, but MS apparently feels there aren't enough of _me_ out
there to worry about! ;) At some point you have to jettison backwards
compatibility if it's holding you back. Part of XP's success was MS'
willingness to kiss a lot of DOS/Win 3.x compatibility goodbye.

The push to abandon backward compatibility tends to come from lazy
engineers, not insurmountable obstacles. ;)

nonsense. it's a simple business decision: is it worth supporting a
minority of the userbase? sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

[Todd Allcock]

Post by John Navas
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:29:33 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
No, that was an article. I don't think it's a great idea -- I just
think it might make more sense than what Microsoft is trying to do now.

Blackberry OS and WinMo have too much in common- they're both tired OSes,
designed for a narrower purpose, that have been kludged to play on the
same field with more modern OSes. The effort to rebuild Blackberry for
the expectations of modern users is the same as for WinMo, and a
wholesale change to Blackberry OS would strand a larger and more fervent
customer base than WinMo enjoys.

Market share is priceless. The challenge is to retain as much of the
user base as possible by designing an OS that's fully modern while still
backward compatible, a challenge, but doable in my estimation. WinMo7
might even be a good starting point.

As you said before, time is not on MS' side. The problem was MS ignored
iOS and Android for far too long. MS didn't decide to get serious about
competing until late last year, and decided then and there to get a new
OS built and released to OEMs so phones could be in stores by this fall.

WP7 might have had backwards compatibilty, (and maybe even cut-and-paste!)
if MS started work on it back in 2007 or even 2008, but that's the price
you pay for spinning your wheels. A lot of stuff was red-lined (or back-
burnered.)

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
Sidekick is just the US branding of Danger.

Sidekick is a phone.
Danger is the platform.

Post by Todd Allcock
And what did MS do when they bought Danger? Spun their wheels, then
fired the top Danger people and crashed their servers! ;)

All Microsoft wanted was the platform, not Sidekick, so the result isn't
terribly surprising, especially since Microsoft isn't terribly good at
acquisitions.

I think MS saw a value in the "smartphone for kids" idea.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
Then they
created Kin/Verizon Contractual Obligation Phone 1.0, and let the MS in-
fighting kill it to focus on WP7.

I think it more a matter of waking up to the fact that Kim was a poor
idea and dangerous diversion likely to fail.

Again it's more sabotage by in-fighting. Kin predates WP7, and was
designed to be a soicial-networking/messaging savant phone for teens. It
failed partly because it was too crippled (a la Sidekick)- no third party
apps, no IM client, and partly because Verizon didn't market it like they
originally planned- Kin was supposed to have a T-Mo Sidekick-type rate
plan, with all data and messaging included in one price, to entice
parents into adding these to their family plans. When Verizon decided to
price Kin data and messaging the same as any other smartphone, Kin was
doomed- there were much better Verizon Blackberry, Android, and WinMo
devices to blow your $30/month on.

Post by John Navas
What Microsoft should be
doing is what Sony Ericsson is reportedly doing for Android 3.0, merging
its gaming platform into its mobile communication platform, But the
serious problem for Microsoft is that it's failed to develop and
establish a mobile gaming platform.

They're doing it with WP7- that is the mobile gaming platform. How much
of it also gets rolled into Zune for non-phone users, I don't know. WP7
will beat Sony's gaming phone to market, though

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
I disagree -- when you blow off and piss off your existing customer
base, you create a big additional hurdle that greatly adds to your
marketing challenges.

Typically, yes, but MS apparently feels there aren't enough of _me_ out
there to worry about! ;) At some point you have to jettison backwards
compatibility if it's holding you back. Part of XP's success was MS'
willingness to kiss a lot of DOS/Win 3.x compatibility goodbye.

The push to abandon backward compatibility tends to come from lazy
engineers, not insurmountable obstacles. ;)

Not really- you just have to prioritize. MS has jettisoned hardware
cursor control keys from WP7 in favor of the iPhoney look. Virtually all
WinMo apps expect them. HTC released a couple of WM6.5 phones without
cursor keys this year, the TouchPro 2, and HD2, and they're very limited
in what WinMo apps they run well. A lot of devs updated their apps to
run without a hardware DPad, but these phones broke comptibility with a
boatload of apps, and they're running the right OS! There's no way,
without major kludging (on-screen touch virtual DPad?) WP7 devices could
play nice with legacy apps.

Post by John Navas
You see the glass as (more than) half empty. I see the glass as (more
than) half full -- I'm quite impressed with how much backward
compatibility is built into Windows XP (Vista and 7).

So am I. My point was that sometimes you have to draw the line and say
we'll shoot for backwards compatibilty, but if it conflicts with a new
feature, the new feature wins. XP used that design strategy, and
maintained quite a bit of backwards compatibilty, but not nearly as much
as, say, Win95 did.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
I'm
certainly in a tiny minority of folks who thought WinMo was still viable.
MS apparently feels there isn't enough lipstick on the planet to save
the WinMo 6.x pig!

Looks like poor judgment to me.

It's a decision I don't necessarily agree with, but I understand it.

Post by John Navas
Microsoft has a good record of persistence in some areas (e.g.,
Windows), but it also has a bad record of abandonment in other areas.

I totally agree. Particularly in WinMo, MS has a habit of dropping
support for older OS versions. Bing Mobile, MS' answer to Google Maps,
dropped support for all non-VGA res devices, and all devices prior to
WM6. They even disabled the ability for older software versions to
access the map server, so people happily running Bing for years now get
error messages when launching the app.

This history doesn't bode well for anyone sticking with WinMo after WP7
drops!

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
Similarly, if WP7 had been just another reworked WinMo, the tech press
would be far more skeptical, since both WM6 and 6.5 were supposed to be
the "new and improved" WinMo poised to grab significant market share.
Instead, MS is practically bragging about its limitations and
shortcomings as if to "prove" it's completely different from that other
"failed" Windows phone OS.

Looks like poor judgment to me. Dissing your own children tends to have
unfortunate, unexpected consequences. Coke learned its lesson, now
doesn't say, "Old product sucked, new product doesn't suck!" It now
says, "Same wonderful product, new improved taste!" The difference can
be subtle but profound.

Coke learned that lesson by doing exactly what MS is doing now! They
didn't say "old product sucked"- they yanked it from the market, replaced
it with a pale imitation of their competition, and only after trealizing
the mistake did they bring back the old product.

Sadly, I don't predict public outrage will bring back WM6.x as "WinMo
Classic," like it did for Coke! ;)

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
And make no mistake, WP7 is pretty "cool." If that was my main criteria
for a mobile OS, I'd be excited right now.

I find technology interesting but not exciting. As a _user_ (not a
technologist), I care not a whit what processor is in my Android phone
or (for example) how Android garbage collection functions. What I do
care about is how well it serves my needs. I won't put up with having
to reboot it, or to kill apps -- the 2nd time I have to kill an app is
the last time it will be on my phone. The 2nd time I have to reboot my
phone is when I start looking for new phone.

I mean "cool" as in a slick UI with some nice core apps- not the
underlying technology.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
Unfortunately I fear it'll be
more sizzle than steak, at least when released.

If it has the sizzle I care about, especially seamless integration with
all my Google cloud functionality, that's as good as or better than what
I have now, then that would be enough to get me seriously interested.
The steak (what's inside) is not something I care about as a _user_ (not
a technologist).

I think we have different definitions of "sizzle" and "steak." Sizzle is
the eye-candy- dancing icons, etc. "Steak" is the functionality, like
cloud integration, etc.

Post by John Navas
A big problem for Microsoft is that it now competes with Google on many
fronts, so it's not in a position to get great cloud support from the
get go. Windows Live Hotmail is losing the war (for 2nd place behind
Yahoo Mail) to Gmail (both free and Google Apps), and the "Windows Live"
re-branding is symptomatic of fundamental miscalculations by Microsoft.
Windows is the problem, not the solution.

Again, like I said earlier, your choice of ecosystem influences your
choice of device. I use Office, Outlook, Live/Hotmail, etc., so WinMo
certainly, and maybe WP7, is a natural choice. You're a Google cloud
user- GooCal, GooDocs, GMail, etc., therefore Android is the natural
choice for you. That's why I think there's room for multiple players in
the smartphone arena- you choose the OS that matches your "cloud."

Heck, as dumbphones continue to get smarter, and more of mobile app usage
is thin client/cloud based, the OS will likely be _less_ important over
time- Google Maps, GMail, Hotmail, even Exchange PIM data is all
accessible via Java apps, a browser, or both.

A lot of people are buying proprietary OS messaging-centric dumbphones
with hardware keyboards and/or touchscreens instead of "real"
smartphones. If I weren't on a grandfathered T-Mo plan that gives me
unlimited data on any (non-Android) phone for $6, I'd think hard about
using the Nokia Nuron as my phone, since it's a low-end smartphone that T-
Mo classifies as a dumbphone. It doesn't hold a candle to a good WinMo
or Android phone, but its $10 data plan might sway me from a $25
smartphone plan.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
Personally, I predict WP7 will follow the iPhone OS strategy- release
with a laughably tiny feature set hidden under a slick, fun, UI, and add
the missing features over time, along with the bloat, UI complications,
and sluggishness that comes with feature creep.

I predict Microsoft will stay wedded to its dinosaurs, and that WinMo7
will work really well only for those still addicted to Office Kool-Aid.
And in defending its past, I predict Microsoft will lose the war.

People use phones typically for what, two or three years? MS'
"dinosaurs" will be around much longer than that, so their phone OS
better stay wedded for the short-to-near term.

Post by John Navas
I used to be a fan of Office, but Office XP (10) was the last major
version upgrade I really liked, with Office 2003 (11) only a modest
improvement, and Office 2007 (12) an abomination worse than Vista that
actually makes me _less_ (not more) productive. (I'm still stunned that
Microsoft failed to include the Office 2003 UI as an option.)
So I started parting company with Office, shifting more and more of my
work to Google Docs. (I had to install Office 2007 recently to support
a client, and learned all over again just how bad it is.)

I preferred XP/2K3 as well, but migrated to 2K7, and frankly, like most
software, it's just a tool. It gets the job done. I haven't moved to
2010 yet, though. Some of my friends have and like it more than 2K7.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
By then, however, the
ecosystem and user base is in place. I'm enjoying the irony that Steve
Jobs once said "if you see a task manager, (we) blew it." Guess what
launches when you double tap the iOS home button? Yep- the "we blew it"
app. The difference, I believe, is that MS will get in one year, where
it took Apple three, because the "missing" stuff is likely stuff that was
actually planned, but couldn't be ready by the 1.0 release, where the
missing stuff in iOS was Apple's inexperience in the mobile space,
assuming people didn't actually need or want cut and paste, background
tasks, rich third-party apps or file sync. I predict WP7 updates will be
flying fast and furious in year one, as MS concentrates on improving the
user experience and repairing their reputation in mobile devices. I
might even _like_ WP7 2.0, um, WP8, er, whatever.

I think it will be game over by then -- the world will have moved on
before Microsoft can get it right, leaving Microsoft still a full cycle
behind, a fatal problem in the long term. WinMo7 is at least a year too
late.

Smartphones are still only 20% of the cellular market. The 80% who
haven't bought in yet don't know who's late.

[John Navas]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 01:00:34 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
Market share is priceless. The challenge is to retain as much of the
user base as possible by designing an OS that's fully modern while still
backward compatible, a challenge, but doable in my estimation. WinMo7
might even be a good starting point.

As you said before, time is not on MS' side. The problem was MS ignored
iOS and Android for far too long. MS didn't decide to get serious about
competing until late last year, and decided then and there to get a new
OS built and released to OEMs so phones could be in stores by this fall.
WP7 might have had backwards compatibilty, (and maybe even cut-and-paste!)
if MS started work on it back in 2007 or even 2008, but that's the price
you pay for spinning your wheels. A lot of stuff was red-lined (or back-
burnered.)

Except half-a-loaf late ("day late and a dollar short") isn't a winning
strategy, especially against tough competition. If you're going to be
late regardless, it's usually better to go for the whole loaf. As it
is, Microsoft is probably missing the vital Christmas selling season
this year, so it might as well have targeted a launch on top of "iPhone
5" next year with a more compelling offering.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
All Microsoft wanted was the platform, not Sidekick, so the result isn't
terribly surprising, especially since Microsoft isn't terribly good at
acquisitions.

I think MS saw a value in the "smartphone for kids" idea.

Kids wanted iPhones to match what their friends have. That game was
over. Kids don't buy on features, they buy on coolness and acceptance.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
I think it more a matter of waking up to the fact that Kim was a poor
idea and dangerous diversion likely to fail.

Again it's more sabotage by in-fighting.

In-fighting didn't help, but I think the basic problem was a fundamental
misreading of the market. Microsoft wasn't alone there by any means,
for whatever comfort that is.

Post by Todd Allcock
Kin predates WP7, and was
designed to be a soicial-networking/messaging savant phone for teens. It
failed partly because it was too crippled (a la Sidekick)- no third party
apps, no IM client, and partly because Verizon didn't market it like they
originally planned- Kin was supposed to have a T-Mo Sidekick-type rate
plan, with all data and messaging included in one price, to entice
parents into adding these to their family plans. When Verizon decided to
price Kin data and messaging the same as any other smartphone, Kin was
doomed- there were much better Verizon Blackberry, Android, and WinMo
devices to blow your $30/month on.

Kids wanted iPhones to match what their friends have, not BlackBerry,
not Kin, not Motoblur, not Sony Ericsson, etc -- think huge herd, and
once it starts to stampede in a given direction, there's usually no
turning or splitting it, witness Facebook and Twitter.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
What Microsoft should be
doing is what Sony Ericsson is reportedly doing for Android 3.0, merging
its gaming platform into its mobile communication platform, But the
serious problem for Microsoft is that it's failed to develop and
establish a mobile gaming platform.

They're doing it with WP7- that is the mobile gaming platform. How much
of it also gets rolled into Zune for non-phone users, I don't know. WP7
will beat Sony's gaming phone to market, though

Sony Ericsson has the time Microsoft doesn't given the strength of PSP.
I think you seriously underestimate the power of the brand and the
platform. If Microsoft had established a handheld Xbox then it might
have a decent chance, but it didn't, and now it's probably too late.
Low-end Xbox games aren't going to cut it against popular PSP titles on
a Sony Ericsson Android 3.0 handset.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
The push to abandon backward compatibility tends to come from lazy
engineers, not insurmountable obstacles. ;)

Not really- you just have to prioritize. MS has jettisoned hardware
cursor control keys from WP7 in favor of the iPhoney look. Virtually all
WinMo apps expect them. HTC released a couple of WM6.5 phones without
cursor keys this year, the TouchPro 2, and HD2, and they're very limited
in what WinMo apps they run well. A lot of devs updated their apps to
run without a hardware DPad, but these phones broke comptibility with a
boatload of apps, and they're running the right OS! There's no way,
without major kludging (on-screen touch virtual DPad?) WP7 devices could
play nice with legacy apps.

With all due respect, I think that's a failure of imagination, that
there are good ways it could have been done, but I don't want to get off
on a long tangent, so I'm not going to go into details. ;)

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
You see the glass as (more than) half empty. I see the glass as (more
than) half full -- I'm quite impressed with how much backward
compatibility is built into Windows XP (Vista and 7).

So am I. My point was that sometimes you have to draw the line and say
we'll shoot for backwards compatibilty, but if it conflicts with a new
feature, the new feature wins.

My point is that's usually not a good idea, that the reasons are more
excuses than real justifications.

Post by Todd Allcock
XP used that design strategy, and
maintained quite a bit of backwards compatibilty, but not nearly as much
as, say, Win95 did.

Good as it was in backward compatibility, XP could of course have been
even better.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
I find technology interesting but not exciting. As a _user_ (not a
technologist), I care not a whit what processor is in my Android phone
or (for example) how Android garbage collection functions. What I do
care about is how well it serves my needs. I won't put up with having
to reboot it, or to kill apps -- the 2nd time I have to kill an app is
the last time it will be on my phone. The 2nd time I have to reboot my
phone is when I start looking for new phone.

I mean "cool" as in a slick UI with some nice core apps- not the
underlying technology.

The characteristics you list are all _hardware_ specs (screen size,
processor speed, etc). My point is that those things don't matter all
that much. Likewise nice core apps.

What matters is the total user experience, a synergy of hardware and
software. Touch screens had been around long before Apple, but in
unimaginative ways (except for Palm, but it failed to stick with it).
What set iDevices apart was the intuitive user experience.

What makes Android cool is a somewhat different but similarly intuitive
experience that's tightly integrated with cloud computing. I've got at
least 5 different ways to bring up my Contacts and Dialer, all of which
make sense. And when I buy an Android phone, all I have to do is enter
my Google Account info to get it up and running, no (ugh) iTunes.

I'm not persuaded that SloMo7 will even be in that game, much less a
leap forward. Way too much is hanging on function grouping (nice, but
hardly a game changer) and legacy compatibility (which much of the
market doesn't care about).

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
A big problem for Microsoft is that it now competes with Google on many
fronts, so it's not in a position to get great cloud support from the
get go. Windows Live Hotmail is losing the war (for 2nd place behind
Yahoo Mail) to Gmail (both free and Google Apps), and the "Windows Live"
re-branding is symptomatic of fundamental miscalculations by Microsoft.
Windows is the problem, not the solution.

Again, like I said earlier, your choice of ecosystem influences your
choice of device. I use Office, Outlook, Live/Hotmail, etc., so WinMo
certainly, and maybe WP7, is a natural choice. You're a Google cloud
user- GooCal, GooDocs, GMail, etc., therefore Android is the natural
choice for you. That's why I think there's room for multiple players in
the smartphone arena- you choose the OS that matches your "cloud."

Fair point, but I don't think the Microsoft ecosystem is driving the
market. If I'm a home user with Office, using Ouchlook or Ouchlook
Express, SloMo7 gives me nothing without serious technical help, a
killer. Microsoft was late to the cloud, and not enough of the market
migrated there to matter. I could go into all the mistakes and missed
opportunities there, but that's another tangent, and I don't have all
day to write this. ;)

Post by Todd Allcock
Heck, as dumbphones continue to get smarter, and more of mobile app usage
is thin client/cloud based, the OS will likely be _less_ important over
time- Google Maps, GMail, Hotmail, even Exchange PIM data is all
accessible via Java apps, a browser, or both.

Moore's Law says real smartphones will take over from dumbphones.
How many computers still run DOS? ;)

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
I think it will be game over by then -- the world will have moved on
before Microsoft can get it right, leaving Microsoft still a full cycle
behind, a fatal problem in the long term. WinMo7 is at least a year too
late.

Smartphones are still only 20% of the cellular market. The 80% who
haven't bought in yet don't know who's late.

That's like saying DOS users could have gone to OS/2 instead of Windows.
Think herd, think Moore's Law, and see my comments above. The 80% will
go into phone stores, see what's hot and cool, and buy what they can
afford. Soon enough "free" (value) Android phones will be the rule
rather than the exception, likewise iPhone Mini if Apple has any sense,
and then it will be game over for anything else. Microsoft will be
squeezed into the vanishing middle, a very bad place to be. It has to
establish SloMo7 as a hot high end phone to have any real chance of
success (IMHO).

[nospam]

Post by John Navas
Fair point, but I don't think the Microsoft ecosystem is driving the
market. If I'm a home user with Office, using Ouchlook or Ouchlook
Express, SloMo7 gives me nothing without serious technical help, a
killer.

nice selection of derogatory terms.

if someone else used derogatory terms about android or t-mobile or
other products that you use, you'd be all over them with 'childish
remarks' or 'attack the man' crap. hypocrisy rears its head again.

[SMS]

On 28/08/10 2:19 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:

<snip>

Post by Todd Allcock
They're trying to straddle a new line w/WP7- allow OEMs to design and
manufacture, but only within a narrow set of specs- screen res, hardware
buttons and placement, CPU types and speed, RAM and storage minimums,
etc.

Sounds just like Microsoft!

I worked on the Microsoft tablet reference design and the first
commercial product based on it. Microsoft had also set strict hardware
requirements for OEMS, including weight and battery life but performance
also. They were very difficult requirements to meet. If you met the
battery life requirement it was too heavy or the performance was too
low. If you used a more powerful processor the performance was fine but
you needed a larger battery so it exceeded the weight limit. And there
was no mass market for tablets, though they sold fairly well into
vertical markets.

Apple realized that a tablet couldn't be a general purpose computer and
remain light enough with good enough battery life to appeal to the
masses. The iPad is very impressive.

[John Navas]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:16:47 -0700, in

Post by SMS
<snip>

Post by Todd Allcock
They're trying to straddle a new line w/WP7- allow OEMs to design and
manufacture, but only within a narrow set of specs- screen res, hardware
buttons and placement, CPU types and speed, RAM and storage minimums,
etc.

Sounds just like Microsoft!
I worked on the Microsoft tablet reference design and the first
commercial product based on it. Microsoft had also set strict hardware
requirements for OEMS, including weight and battery life but performance
also. They were very difficult requirements to meet. If you met the
battery life requirement it was too heavy or the performance was too
low. If you used a more powerful processor the performance was fine but
you needed a larger battery so it exceeded the weight limit. And there
was no mass market for tablets, though they sold fairly well into
vertical markets.
Apple realized that a tablet couldn't be a general purpose computer and
remain light enough with good enough battery life to appeal to the
masses. The iPad is very impressive.

To the masses.

[nospam]

Post by John Navas

Post by SMS
Apple realized that a tablet couldn't be a general purpose computer and
remain light enough with good enough battery life to appeal to the
masses. The iPad is very impressive.

To the masses.

yes, and? there's a lot more masses buying products than there are
techno-geeks. marketing to them is smart.

[John Navas]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:31:30 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock
Windows Mobile licenses, athough neither MS or OEMs will discuss them in
exact terms, are estimated to be around $10. (MS will confirm vague numbers
like "around $10" or "under $12," etc. Presumably each OEM negotiates their
own figures so MS wouldn't want to disclose what HTC is paying, if Samsumg
is paying more.) Compare the cost of developing your own smartphone OS, and
suddenly $8/unit doesn't seem so bad. $0 (Android) is better still, but if
the OS brings advantages to the table, the cost is justified (else we'd be
seeing a lot more Linux PCs from HP and Dell!) ;)

The issue there was abuse of market power, not cost justification.
Need I cite the cases? ;)

Post by Todd Allcock
Yes and no- given that until the announcement of Windows Phone 7, (and the
coming apparent abandonment of "old" Windows Mobile by MS) scared off both
buyers and OEMs in droves from the WM6.x platform, MS was still steadily
selling 4-5 million or so WinMo licenses each quarter in a post-iPhone
world, despite the moldy UI and wildly uneven user experience on the various
phones sporting the WinMo software.

I've heard Microsoft folk say privately they now know in retrospect that
Win7Mo should have been a new product fork instead of a replacement.

Post by Todd Allcock
I think many users and businesses knew of the integration with MS products
and services, and chose to put up with some major usabilty disadvantages in
return. (And I'm certainly one of them- you know you're a longtime WinMo
user when your nightime routine includes a phone reboot "just in case!"
particularly if you're relying the device's alarm to wake you in the
morning!

The integration they actually really cared about was what RIM provided
with BlackBerry, a major missed opportunity for Microsoft as it clung to
the Exchange dinosaur. The other aspects of desktop integration weren't
as important because everyone was carrying laptops.

I do largely agree with your other points.

[Todd Allcock]

Post by John Navas
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 12:31:30 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock
Windows Mobile licenses, athough neither MS or OEMs will discuss them in
exact terms, are estimated to be around $10. (MS will confirm vague numbers
like "around $10" or "under $12," etc. Presumably each OEM negotiates their
own figures so MS wouldn't want to disclose what HTC is paying, if Samsumg
is paying more.) Compare the cost of developing your own smartphone OS, and
suddenly $8/unit doesn't seem so bad. $0 (Android) is better still, but if
the OS brings advantages to the table, the cost is justified (else we'd be
seeing a lot more Linux PCs from HP and Dell!) ;)

The issue there was abuse of market power, not cost justification.
Need I cite the cases? ;)

Oh please- if there was a vast untapped market for Linux, we'd see more
Linux machines. Even netbooks, which were perfect for Linux, due to
their low specs, spec'd up to use Windows due to consumer demand.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
Yes and no- given that until the announcement of Windows Phone 7, (and the
coming apparent abandonment of "old" Windows Mobile by MS) scared off both
buyers and OEMs in droves from the WM6.x platform, MS was still steadily
selling 4-5 million or so WinMo licenses each quarter in a post-iPhone
world, despite the moldy UI and wildly uneven user experience on the various
phones sporting the WinMo software.

I've heard Microsoft folk say privately they now know in retrospect that
Win7Mo should have been a new product fork instead of a replacement.

The official line from MS _is_ that it's a new fork, and WinMo 6.x will
be sold and supported for as long as there's market demand. The reality
of that, of course, is that WinMo is dead, because MS doesn't support
WinMo end-users directly, only OEMs, and OEMs will have even less
interest after WP7 drops than they have now. MS even silently turned
over small-volume licensing (for companies that want to make vertical
market WinMo devices like Symbol inventory scanners, or ruggedized
devices) of WinMo to an old Windows CE software house called BSquare
before the WP7 announcement. That was seemingly MS' way of saying "we're
done, unless you really want to build tens of thousands of units, then
we'll take WinMo out of mothballs..."

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
I think many users and businesses knew of the integration with MS products
and services, and chose to put up with some major usabilty

disadvantages in

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
return. (And I'm certainly one of them- you know you're a longtime WinMo
user when your nightime routine includes a phone reboot "just in case!"
particularly if you're relying the device's alarm to wake you in the
morning!

The integration they actually really cared about was what RIM provided
with BlackBerry, a major missed opportunity for Microsoft as it clung to
the Exchange dinosaur.

You mean the same "Exchange dinosaur" feeding RIM's BES middleware at
most firms? ;)

Exchange is actually an excellent technology, and allows for Blackberry
functionality without handing over all your data to a third-party.

Where MS stumbled was not taking security and push email seriously. Why
used middleware like BES when you already run Exchange? Simple- WinMo
didn't offer push email until 2004, OTA configuration and remote wipe
until late 2005, or storage card encryption/storage card wipe until 2007,
and still lacks many (admittedly less used) BB security features to this
day. And, as I said, WinMo just wasn't easy or fun enough to put up with
the weaker security, though it did have advantages in terms of LOB apps
and built-in Exchange support (both recently equalled or bested by iOS.)
Though, MS was making inroads prior to the iPhone/Android 1-2 punch- RIM
had even lowered BES licensing fees to counter MS's anti-middleware
argument.

Post by John Navas
The other aspects of desktop integration weren't
as important because everyone was carrying laptops.

That's where the in-fighting at MS sabatoges MS products. WinMo,
although probably capable of beng an effective laptop replacement, was
relegated to PC peripheral status, since its MS overlords wouldn't want
$8 WinMo licenses to cannibalize $30 98/XP/Vista laptop licenses. It was
probably no coincidence that old-school WinMo improvements petered out
just as netbooks became a killer category for MS. Why encourage the
future of mobile computing to become WinCE smartphone-based when it could
be XP netbook-based?

At the risk of raising the ire of the iOS fans, many of the iOS
restrictions seemingly have a similar goal- to be useful enough people
want one as an additional device, but not so useful it could replace a
laptop for most users.


In the end, there's plenty of room for a Microsoft smartphone in an
iPhone and Android world- users can pick their ideal smartphone to
"match" their choice of preferred services- those in the
Apple/iPod/iTunes/MobileMe ecosystem would choose iOS, Gmail/GooCal users
could adopt Android, and MS Live/Office/XBox/Exchange users, (as well as
all seventeen Zune owners!) ;) would gravitate to WP7.

[SMS]

Post by Todd Allcock
Oh please- if there was a vast untapped market for Linux, we'd see more
Linux machines. Even netbooks, which were perfect for Linux, due to
their low specs, spec'd up to use Windows due to consumer demand.

Oh g-d, don't get me started on Linux and trying to support six
different versions each with multiple versions of the kernel.

Sure, we'd be happy to hire six more Linux gurus at a burdened cost of
$250,000 per year to write drivers for you--after all you're buying 1000
devices. Would you like some custom silicon to go with that? How about
of bowl of chili?

Those that claim it was some sort of market power conspiracy against
Linux are extremely clueless. Linux is free if time has no value.

[John Navas]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:49:18 -0700, in

Post by SMS

Post by Todd Allcock
Oh please- if there was a vast untapped market for Linux, we'd see more
Linux machines. Even netbooks, which were perfect for Linux, due to
their low specs, spec'd up to use Windows due to consumer demand.

Oh g-d, don't get me started on Linux and trying to support six
different versions each with multiple versions of the kernel.
Sure, we'd be happy to hire six more Linux gurus at a burdened cost of
$250,000 per year to write drivers for you--after all you're buying 1000
devices. Would you like some custom silicon to go with that? How about
of bowl of chili?
Those that claim it was some sort of market power conspiracy against
Linux are extremely clueless. Linux is free if time has no value.

Linux is hard to support only if expertise is absent. You must not know
how to do it, but that doesn't mean everyone else is so handicapped.

[John Navas]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:25:38 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
The issue there was abuse of market power, not cost justification.
Need I cite the cases? ;)

Oh please- if there was a vast untapped market for Linux, we'd see more
Linux machines. Even netbooks, which were perfect for Linux, due to
their low specs, spec'd up to use Windows due to consumer demand.

Too late to make that case -- Microsoft already lost big time, and Linux
is doing very well pretty much everywhere except on the desktop.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
The integration they actually really cared about was what RIM provided
with BlackBerry, a major missed opportunity for Microsoft as it clung to
the Exchange dinosaur.

You mean the same "Exchange dinosaur" feeding RIM's BES middleware at
most firms? ;)

Yep. RIM put lipstick on that pig. ;)

Post by Todd Allcock
Exchange is actually an excellent technology, and allows for Blackberry
functionality without handing over all your data to a third-party.

I disagree, have got way too many Exchange scars. Exchange evolved
willy nilly over time into a kludge that's workable only with great
effort. If it was so good, WinMo would have trounced RIM.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
The other aspects of desktop integration weren't
as important because everyone was carrying laptops.

That's where the in-fighting at MS sabatoges MS products. WinMo,
although probably capable of beng an effective laptop replacement, was
relegated to PC peripheral status, since its MS overlords wouldn't want
$8 WinMo licenses to cannibalize $30 98/XP/Vista laptop licenses. It was
probably no coincidence that old-school WinMo improvements petered out
just as netbooks became a killer category for MS. Why encourage the
future of mobile computing to become WinCE smartphone-based when it could
be XP netbook-based?

The smart company realizes it's better to eat your own children than to
have them eaten by others, does the best new product it can, and lets
the chips fall where they may. The dumb company fights to keep its
children from getting eaten, a losing and counterproductive battle in
the long run. This sadly is more Ballmer than Gates, not to mention
Paul Allen. Had Allen stayed healthy and involved, I think Microsoft
might well be a much better company today.

Post by Todd Allcock
At the risk of raising the ire of the iOS fans, many of the iOS
restrictions seemingly have a similar goal- to be useful enough people
want one as an additional device, but not so useful it could replace a
laptop for most users.

Yep, and it may well prove to be Apple's undoing in time.

Post by Todd Allcock
In the end, there's plenty of room for a Microsoft smartphone in an
iPhone and Android world-

and RIM and Nokia and WebOS and MeeGo, arguably others as well.
Sorry, but I'm willing to bet the best Microsoft can do now is a niche,
and I don't see a viable niche, at least not yet. I'd say maybe gaming,
but it looks like the Sony juggernaut has finally woken up.

Post by Todd Allcock
users can pick their ideal smartphone to
"match" their choice of preferred services- those in the
Apple/iPod/iTunes/MobileMe ecosystem would choose iOS, Gmail/GooCal users
could adopt Android, and MS Live/Office/XBox/Exchange users, (as well as
all seventeen Zune owners!) ;) would gravitate to WP7.

That sounds good in theory, but in practice users tend to cluster to
1 or 2 big winners, just as in the desktop OS and server OS battles.
Remember Novell? Is that what you mean by "plenty of room"? ;)

[Todd Allcock]

Post by John Navas
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:25:38 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
The issue there was abuse of market power, not cost justification.
Need I cite the cases? ;)

Oh please- if there was a vast untapped market for Linux, we'd see more
Linux machines. Even netbooks, which were perfect for Linux, due to
their low specs, spec'd up to use Windows due to consumer demand.

Too late to make that case -- Microsoft already lost big time, and Linux
is doing very well pretty much everywhere except on the desktop.

MS lost what? A couple of penny-ante (to MS) lawsuits? Linux does well
in servers, and arguably in mobiles, if you count Android as "Linux."
I'd argue that no one is buying Android because it has Linux under the
hood if you dig deep enough.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
That's where the in-fighting at MS sabatoges MS products. WinMo,
although probably capable of beng an effective laptop replacement, was
relegated to PC peripheral status, since its MS overlords wouldn't want
$8 WinMo licenses to cannibalize $30 98/XP/Vista laptop licenses. It was
probably no coincidence that old-school WinMo improvements petered out
just as netbooks became a killer category for MS. Why encourage the
future of mobile computing to become WinCE smartphone-based when it could
be XP netbook-based?

The smart company realizes it's better to eat your own children than to
have them eaten by others, does the best new product it can, and lets
the chips fall where they may. The dumb company fights to keep its
children from getting eaten, a losing and counterproductive battle in
the long run. This sadly is more Ballmer than Gates, not to mention
Paul Allen. Had Allen stayed healthy and involved, I think Microsoft
might well be a much better company today.

Perhaps, but then again, I never said MS was smart! ;)

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
At the risk of raising the ire of the iOS fans, many of the iOS
restrictions seemingly have a similar goal- to be useful enough people
want one as an additional device, but not so useful it could replace a
laptop for most users.

Yep, and it may well prove to be Apple's undoing in time.

I doubt it- I think there's plenty of room for net appliances. The iPad
is just the 21st century Audrey- a fantastic concept released before the
tech was really ready.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
In the end, there's plenty of room for a Microsoft smartphone in an
iPhone and Android world-

and RIM and Nokia and WebOS and MeeGo, arguably others as well.
Sorry, but I'm willing to bet the best Microsoft can do now is a niche,
and I don't see a viable niche, at least not yet. I'd say maybe gaming,
but it looks like the Sony juggernaut has finally woken up.

But so has MS, computing's real 800lb. Gorilla. They're late to the
party (again) but they've made their intention to be a major player
clear. That has to make some of the other players pee their pants just a
little. So far, I admit I'm not a huge fan of what I'm seeing- despite
the outdated UI and bloat, I'm very happy with old-school WinMo, because
I "get" it. Unlike most consumers, I _want_ a general-purpose Windows
"palmtop" computer rather than a savantphone that does a few things
really well. Besides the obvious slap-in-the-face to my mobile "wish-
list" WP7 is, I agree the feature set is too-little-too-late at first.
But so was IE 1.0 compared to Netscape, or Word 1.0 compared to
WordPerfect, or Excel 1.0 compared to Lotus 1-2-3. How'd that work out
for all of them?

MS is like the government- the wheels move slowly, but they have
(comparitively) infinite resources, and nothing but time. It's still
early in the smartphone game- only 1-in-5 phones sold today are "smart."
Let's see whose still standing in five years, and with what market share.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
users can pick their ideal smartphone to
"match" their choice of preferred services- those in the
Apple/iPod/iTunes/MobileMe ecosystem would choose iOS, Gmail/GooCal users
could adopt Android, and MS Live/Office/XBox/Exchange users, (as well as
all seventeen Zune owners!) ;) would gravitate to WP7.

That sounds good in theory, but in practice users tend to cluster to
1 or 2 big winners, just as in the desktop OS and server OS battles.
Remember Novell? Is that what you mean by "plenty of room"? ;)

No, using your own examples, people tend to cluster around MS and one
other player. That's what I mean by there's "plenty of room," if you're
Microsoft. ;)

Game consoles seem to be doing ok as a three-way race, and mobiles are
such a large market there's plenty of room for more than three, IMO-
Symbian, RIM, Apple and Google are all getting along ok, and poor old
WinMo is still selling a million units a month somehow without any
advertising or much support from carriers or manufacturers right now.
(Even after MS threw all the OEMs under the bus announcing WP7 eight
months prior to release, and declaring no current WinMo device would be
upgradable- just as HTC and Samsung were releasing their flagship
Snapdragon-based large-screen WinMo phones! I'd be like Ford announcing
they've invented a car that runs on tap water, it'll be released next near,
and current gasoline cars can't be converted to run on water. Good luck
selling the existing model year lineup, Ford Dealers!)

MS has the resources to outlast and outspend virtually anyone. Hopefully
their product will be worthy of the effort MS will likely expend pushing
it down our collective throats!

The fact that MS already had HTC, Samsung, LG and Dell on board with
nothing more than vapor and a few dog-and-pony demos on prototype
equipment, tells me they're both serious, and won't take failure as an
option.

[Justin]

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:25:38 -0600, in

MS lost what? A couple of penny-ante (to MS) lawsuits? Linux does well
in servers, and arguably in mobiles, if you count Android as "Linux."
I'd argue that no one is buying Android because it has Linux under the
hood if you dig deep enough.

I did. But I am like that.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
and RIM and Nokia and WebOS and MeeGo, arguably others as well.
Sorry, but I'm willing to bet the best Microsoft can do now is a niche,
and I don't see a viable niche, at least not yet. I'd say maybe gaming,
but it looks like the Sony juggernaut has finally woken up.

But so has MS, computing's real 800lb. Gorilla. They're late to the
party (again) but they've made their intention to be a major player
clear. That has to make some of the other players pee their pants just a

When has Microsoft been early to the party, or on time?
Even DOS, Windows and Office were late to the party. I guess they were
smart in that they got BASIC on a whole lot of computers to start out with

Post by Todd Allcock
MS is like the government- the wheels move slowly, but they have
(comparitively) infinite resources, and nothing but time. It's still
early in the smartphone game- only 1-in-5 phones sold today are "smart."
Let's see whose still standing in five years, and with what market share.

IE was complete crap in its first few releases, yet look where that went
They are certainly a slow burn.

Post by Todd Allcock
Game consoles seem to be doing ok as a three-way race, and mobiles are

What are the three?
The DS outsells them all.

[Richard B. Gilbert]

Post by Justin

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:25:38 -0600, in

MS lost what? A couple of penny-ante (to MS) lawsuits? Linux does well
in servers, and arguably in mobiles, if you count Android as "Linux."
I'd argue that no one is buying Android because it has Linux under the
hood if you dig deep enough.

I did. But I am like that.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
and RIM and Nokia and WebOS and MeeGo, arguably others as well.
Sorry, but I'm willing to bet the best Microsoft can do now is a niche,
and I don't see a viable niche, at least not yet. I'd say maybe gaming,
but it looks like the Sony juggernaut has finally woken up.

But so has MS, computing's real 800lb. Gorilla. They're late to the
party (again) but they've made their intention to be a major player
clear. That has to make some of the other players pee their pants just a

When has Microsoft been early to the party, or on time?
Even DOS, Windows and Office were late to the party. I guess they were
smart in that they got BASIC on a whole lot of computers to start out with

Post by Todd Allcock
MS is like the government- the wheels move slowly, but they have
(comparitively) infinite resources, and nothing but time. It's still
early in the smartphone game- only 1-in-5 phones sold today are "smart."
Let's see whose still standing in five years, and with what market share.

IE was complete crap in its first few releases, yet look where that went
They are certainly a slow burn.

Post by Todd Allcock
Game consoles seem to be doing ok as a three-way race, and mobiles are

What are the three?
The DS outsells them all.

What is the "DS"? Please don't abbreviate unless you are certain that
your entire audience will recognize and understand it!

[Justin]

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by Justin

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:25:38 -0600, in

MS lost what? A couple of penny-ante (to MS) lawsuits? Linux does well
in servers, and arguably in mobiles, if you count Android as "Linux."
I'd argue that no one is buying Android because it has Linux under the
hood if you dig deep enough.

I did. But I am like that.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
and RIM and Nokia and WebOS and MeeGo, arguably others as well.
Sorry, but I'm willing to bet the best Microsoft can do now is a niche,
and I don't see a viable niche, at least not yet. I'd say maybe gaming,
but it looks like the Sony juggernaut has finally woken up.

But so has MS, computing's real 800lb. Gorilla. They're late to the
party (again) but they've made their intention to be a major player
clear. That has to make some of the other players pee their pants just a

When has Microsoft been early to the party, or on time?
Even DOS, Windows and Office were late to the party. I guess they were
smart in that they got BASIC on a whole lot of computers to start out with

Post by Todd Allcock
MS is like the government- the wheels move slowly, but they have
(comparitively) infinite resources, and nothing but time. It's still
early in the smartphone game- only 1-in-5 phones sold today are "smart."
Let's see whose still standing in five years, and with what market share.

IE was complete crap in its first few releases, yet look where that went
They are certainly a slow burn.

Post by Todd Allcock
Game consoles seem to be doing ok as a three-way race, and mobiles are

What are the three?
The DS outsells them all.

What is the "DS"? Please don't abbreviate unless you are certain that
your entire audience will recognize and understand it!

I am not abbreviating, it's called a DS, made by Nintendo.

[Todd Allcock]

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by Justin

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:25:38 -0600, in

MS lost what? A couple of penny-ante (to MS) lawsuits? Linux does well
in servers, and arguably in mobiles, if you count Android as

"Linux." I'd argue that no one is buying Android because it has Linux
under the

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by Justin

Post by Todd Allcock
hood if you dig deep enough.

I did. But I am like that.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
and RIM and Nokia and WebOS and MeeGo, arguably others as well.
Sorry, but I'm willing to bet the best Microsoft can do now is a niche,
and I don't see a viable niche, at least not yet. I'd say maybe gaming,
but it looks like the Sony juggernaut has finally woken up.

But so has MS, computing's real 800lb. Gorilla. They're late to the
party (again) but they've made their intention to be a major player
clear. That has to make some of the other players pee their pants just a

When has Microsoft been early to the party, or on time?
Even DOS, Windows and Office were late to the party. I guess they were
smart in that they got BASIC on a whole lot of computers to start out with

Post by Todd Allcock
MS is like the government- the wheels move slowly, but they have
(comparitively) infinite resources, and nothing but time. It's still
early in the smartphone game- only 1-in-5 phones sold today are

"smart." Let's see whose still standing in five years, and with what
market share.

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by Justin
IE was complete crap in its first few releases, yet look where that went
They are certainly a slow burn.

Post by Todd Allcock
Game consoles seem to be doing ok as a three-way race, and mobiles are

What are the three?
The DS outsells them all.

What is the "DS"? Please don't abbreviate unless you are certain that
your entire audience will recognize and understand it!

He didn't abbreviate it. The Nintendo DS is a handheld game system that
dominates the handheld game category.

In my post, however, I was referring to "game consoles" that connect to
TVs, which is a three horse race, with the Nintendo Wii, Sony
Playstation, and Microsoft XBox.

[SMS]

On 8/29/2010 8:10 AM, Todd Allcock wrote:

<snip>

Post by Todd Allcock
In my post, however, I was referring to "game consoles" that connect to
TVs, which is a three horse race, with the Nintendo Wii, Sony
Playstation, and Microsoft XBox.

With the race for convergence, I wonder when Apple will make a move into
this market. Like by buying Nintendo whose Wii seems to match Apple's
"think different" philosophy.

[John Navas]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:16:27 -0700, in

Post by SMS
<snip>

Post by Todd Allcock
In my post, however, I was referring to "game consoles" that connect to
TVs, which is a three horse race, with the Nintendo Wii, Sony
Playstation, and Microsoft XBox.

With the race for convergence, I wonder when Apple will make a move into
this market. Like by buying Nintendo whose Wii seems to match Apple's
"think different" philosophy.

Would be completely inconsistent with the Jobs philosophy --
Apple buys critical technologies it needs, not retail players.

[nospam]

Post by John Navas

Post by SMS

Post by Todd Allcock
In my post, however, I was referring to "game consoles" that connect to
TVs, which is a three horse race, with the Nintendo Wii, Sony
Playstation, and Microsoft XBox.

With the race for convergence, I wonder when Apple will make a move into
this market. Like by buying Nintendo whose Wii seems to match Apple's
"think different" philosophy.

Would be completely inconsistent with the Jobs philosophy --
Apple buys critical technologies it needs, not retail players.

they may not be buying nintendo but they are positioning the ipod touch
as a gaming device. games are a very large percentage of downloaded
apps. it's 'the funnest ipod ever.'

[SMS]

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas

Post by SMS

Post by Todd Allcock
In my post, however, I was referring to "game consoles" that connect to
TVs, which is a three horse race, with the Nintendo Wii, Sony
Playstation, and Microsoft XBox.

With the race for convergence, I wonder when Apple will make a move into
this market. Like by buying Nintendo whose Wii seems to match Apple's
"think different" philosophy.

Would be completely inconsistent with the Jobs philosophy --
Apple buys critical technologies it needs, not retail players.

they may not be buying nintendo but they are positioning the ipod touch
as a gaming device. games are a very large percentage of downloaded
apps. it's 'the funnest ipod ever.'

Apparently Apple is poised to make another attempt with Apple TV. I
would not be surprised if the box could also run iPod/iPad/iPhone games
as well as having a more powerful processor and better graphics that
would be suitable for more elaborate games.

[John Navas]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 16:03:53 -0700, in

Post by SMS

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas

Post by SMS

Post by Todd Allcock
In my post, however, I was referring to "game consoles" that connect to
TVs, which is a three horse race, with the Nintendo Wii, Sony
Playstation, and Microsoft XBox.

With the race for convergence, I wonder when Apple will make a move into
this market. Like by buying Nintendo whose Wii seems to match Apple's
"think different" philosophy.

Would be completely inconsistent with the Jobs philosophy --
Apple buys critical technologies it needs, not retail players.

they may not be buying nintendo but they are positioning the ipod touch
as a gaming device. games are a very large percentage of downloaded
apps. it's 'the funnest ipod ever.'

Apparently Apple is poised to make another attempt with Apple TV. I
would not be surprised if the box could also run iPod/iPad/iPhone games
as well as having a more powerful processor and better graphics that
would be suitable for more elaborate games.

Which has nothing to do with your "buying Nintendo" --
having second thoughts? ;)

Apple TV won't make it as a mainstream gaming platform without _serious_
hardware improvements and a major commitment to game software
developers. It will otherwise be confined to casual entertainment
status.

[Todd Allcock]

Post by Justin

Post by Todd Allcock
Linux does well
in servers, and arguably in mobiles, if you count Android as "Linux."
I'd argue that no one is buying Android because it has Linux under the
hood if you dig deep enough.

I did. But I am like that.

Fair enough- "no one" was an exaggeration.
Do you find the Linux roots of Android to be of any value? It's not like
you can compile Linux app source code to run on the Android device
directly, can you? (Or are you running a Linux distribution alongside
Android- a few guys at xda are running Debian, IIRC.) I used to boot one
of my old WinCE handheld PCs (old PDAs that looked like Netbooks) into
NetBSD, trying to eek a little more life out of it, but it was more
trouble than it was worth (mostly due to flakey drivers for the Handhelds
non-standard hardware) but was fun.

So other than the warm fuzzy feeling Linux is down there somewhere, I'm
curious as to what does it actually do for you?

Post by Justin

Post by Todd Allcock
Game consoles seem to be doing ok as a three-way race, and mobiles are

What are the three?
The DS outsells them all.

DS is a handheld. "Game consoles," at least in my mind, connect to TVs.

[John Navas]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 09:03:19 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by Justin

Post by Todd Allcock
Game consoles seem to be doing ok as a three-way race, and mobiles are

What are the three?
The DS outsells them all.

DS is a handheld. "Game consoles," at least in my mind, connect to TVs.

The point is that mobile gaming (what you call handheld) is what
Microsoft needs for mobile devices, not "game consoles", which are
largely irrelevant unless and until it can shrink Xbox down to 1-2
practical chips, which ain't gonna happen any time soon.

[Todd Allcock]

Post by John Navas
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 09:03:19 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by Justin

Post by Todd Allcock
Game consoles seem to be doing ok as a three-way race, and mobiles are

What are the three?
The DS outsells them all.

DS is a handheld. "Game consoles," at least in my mind, connect to TVs.

The point is that mobile gaming (what you call handheld) is what
Microsoft needs for mobile devices, not "game consoles", which are
largely irrelevant unless and until it can shrink Xbox down to 1-2
practical chips, which ain't gonna happen any time soon.

That's where Windows phone 7 comes in. MS is bragging that many (low
spec) Xbox titles can be ported by adding "three lines of code." WP7
will be the "XBox portable." XBox Live will sync from console to handheld,
bringing your points, avatars, etc. over from one to the other.

[John Navas]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:36:56 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
The point is that mobile gaming (what you call handheld) is what
Microsoft needs for mobile devices, not "game consoles", which are
largely irrelevant unless and until it can shrink Xbox down to 1-2
practical chips, which ain't gonna happen any time soon.

That's where Windows phone 7 comes in. MS is bragging that many (low
spec) Xbox titles can be ported by adding "three lines of code." WP7
will be the "XBox portable." XBox Live will sync from console to handheld,
bringing your points, avatars, etc. over from one to the other.

Perhaps against iPhone, but I don't think that kind of "low spec" will
cut it if Sony Ericsson does come out with PSP in an Android phone.

[Todd Allcock]

Post by John Navas
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:36:56 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
The point is that mobile gaming (what you call handheld) is what
Microsoft needs for mobile devices, not "game consoles", which are
largely irrelevant unless and until it can shrink Xbox down to 1-2
practical chips, which ain't gonna happen any time soon.

That's where Windows phone 7 comes in. MS is bragging that many (low
spec) Xbox titles can be ported by adding "three lines of code." WP7
will be the "XBox portable." XBox Live will sync from console to handheld,
bringing your points, avatars, etc. over from one to the other.

Perhaps against iPhone, but I don't think that kind of "low spec" will
cut it if Sony Ericsson does come out with PSP in an Android phone.

By "low spec" I meant in comparison to the XBox console. There will be
plenty of arcade-style games available for WP7 at launch, but _exact_
copies of XBox arcade shooters will not be ported to WP7, preventing the
ability to pause play on the console and pick it up on the handheld, like
less hardware intensive games will allow.

Besides, the Sony product illustrates both the weakness of Android as a
gaming platform, as well as the fragmentation of Android in general- only
a single fork will have PSP capability.

[John Navas]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 02:01:42 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
Perhaps against iPhone, but I don't think that kind of "low spec" will
cut it if Sony Ericsson does come out with PSP in an Android phone.

By "low spec" I meant in comparison to the XBox console. There will be
plenty of arcade-style games available for WP7 at launch, but _exact_
copies of XBox arcade shooters will not be ported to WP7, preventing the
ability to pause play on the console and pick it up on the handheld, like
less hardware intensive games will allow.

I don't think that will cut it. I think you underestimate the
popularity and appeal of PSP games, and the difficulty of establishing a
new platform. Think N-Gage. ;)

Post by Todd Allcock
Besides, the Sony product illustrates both the weakness of Android as a
gaming platform, as well as the fragmentation of Android in general- only
a single fork will have PSP capability.

I see that as a strength, not a weakness. Android can have a PSP
variation, a Nintendo variation, etc, let the best one(s) win.

[Justin]

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by Justin

Post by Todd Allcock
Linux does well
in servers, and arguably in mobiles, if you count Android as "Linux."
I'd argue that no one is buying Android because it has Linux under the
hood if you dig deep enough.

I did. But I am like that.

Fair enough- "no one" was an exaggeration.
Do you find the Linux roots of Android to be of any value? It's not like
you can compile Linux app source code to run on the Android device
directly, can you? (Or are you running a Linux distribution alongside
Android- a few guys at xda are running Debian, IIRC.) I used to boot one
of my old WinCE handheld PCs (old PDAs that looked like Netbooks) into
NetBSD, trying to eek a little more life out of it, but it was more
trouble than it was worth (mostly due to flakey drivers for the Handhelds
non-standard hardware) but was fun.
So other than the warm fuzzy feeling Linux is down there somewhere, I'm
curious as to what does it actually do for you?

I can run the top command and see what processes are actually running, instead
of just looking at what apps are supposedly running.

It is a regular 'top', so reports CPU usage, etc.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by Justin

Post by Todd Allcock
Game consoles seem to be doing ok as a three-way race, and mobiles are

What are the three?
The DS outsells them all.

DS is a handheld. "Game consoles," at least in my mind, connect to TVs.

It is a handheld, however all the console sales charts I see count it.

[SMS]

On 28/08/10 10:21 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:

<snip>

Post by Todd Allcock
MS lost what? A couple of penny-ante (to MS) lawsuits? Linux does well
in servers, and arguably in mobiles, if you count Android as "Linux."
I'd argue that no one is buying Android because it has Linux under the
hood if you dig deep enough.

Microsoft has lost. It's over. Based on the statistics from
"http://www.webmasterpro.de", Windows has only about 93.4% of the
desktop market place while OS-X holds about 5%, and Linux holds 1.3%
(actually the Linux share is less because that 1.3% includes both the
desktop and server side, but the numbers don't include Windows Server.

If you include all OSes, not just desktop OSes, it looks even worse for
Microsoft, with their market share falling to just under 92% with
Apple's iOS taking most of the 1.5% away from Microsoft.

It will only get worse for Microsoft. If they don't come up with a
winning product for the mobile device embedded market they'll see their
market share fall below 90% in a few years.

Microsoft doesn't give up on crucial markets. They come back again and
again. They have virtually unlimited resources. Ask Apple. Ask Novell.
Ask Sony. Don't count them out of the phone/tablet market quite yet.

[John Navas]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 07:15:28 -0700, in

Post by SMS
<snip>

Post by Todd Allcock
MS lost what? A couple of penny-ante (to MS) lawsuits? Linux does well
in servers, and arguably in mobiles, if you count Android as "Linux."
I'd argue that no one is buying Android because it has Linux under the
hood if you dig deep enough.

Microsoft has lost. It's over. Based on the statistics from
"http://www.webmasterpro.de", Windows has only about 93.4% of the
desktop market place while OS-X holds about 5%, and Linux holds 1.3%
(actually the Linux share is less because that 1.3% includes both the
desktop and server side, but the numbers don't include Windows Server.
If you include all OSes, not just desktop OSes, it looks even worse for
Microsoft, with their market share falling to just under 92% with
Apple's iOS taking most of the 1.5% away from Microsoft.

No such data at that link. Why are we not surprised?
Because you almost never have a _real_ citation.
FYI, that data is actually from Net Applications.
<http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8>

Here's another real citation, different data from Ars Technica:
<http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/01/windows-7-growing-faster-than-vista-overtakes-mac-os.ars>
or <http://goo.gl/SGRL>
that shows (as of December 2009):
Windows 64.30%
Mac OS X 27.88%
Linux 6.41%
Others 1.32%

See also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems>

There is little published information on the usage share of desktop
and laptop computers. Web client information (see below) is often
used as a proxy for this, but many such computers are not used for
web surfing. Web client stats suggest that Microsoft Windows has
about an 89% share, Apple Mac OS 6% and Linux 1%. The correlation
between desktop share and web client share is being increasingly
challenged by the rise of mobile web access, which rose through 1% in
2009 and 3% in 2010.

Steve Ballmer of Microsoft estimates Linux's share of desktop users
to be higher than the web stats suggest. In a speech to investors in
February 2009, Ballmer presented a slide based on Microsoft's
research: it shows Linux's share of business and home PCs about the
same as Apple's. ...

[nospam]

Post by John Navas
See also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems>
Steve Ballmer of Microsoft estimates Linux's share of desktop users
to be higher than the web stats suggest. In a speech to investors in
February 2009, Ballmer presented a slide based on Microsoft's
research: it shows Linux's share of business and home PCs about the
same as Apple's. ...

anyone can present a slide about anything. that doesn't mean it's true.
there's no way in hell that linux has the same share as mac os x on
business and certainly not home computers.

[Justin]

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas
See also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems>
Steve Ballmer of Microsoft estimates Linux's share of desktop users
to be higher than the web stats suggest. In a speech to investors in
February 2009, Ballmer presented a slide based on Microsoft's
research: it shows Linux's share of business and home PCs about the
same as Apple's. ...

anyone can present a slide about anything. that doesn't mean it's true.
there's no way in hell that linux has the same share as mac os x on
business and certainly not home computers.

I see zero OSX in business, some Linux. In desktop.

[John Navas]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:07:04 +0000 (UTC), in

Post by Justin

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas
See also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems>
Steve Ballmer of Microsoft estimates Linux's share of desktop users
to be higher than the web stats suggest. In a speech to investors in
February 2009, Ballmer presented a slide based on Microsoft's
research: it shows Linux's share of business and home PCs about the
same as Apple's. ...

anyone can present a slide about anything. that doesn't mean it's true.
there's no way in hell that linux has the same share as mac os x on
business and certainly not home computers.

I see zero OSX in business, some Linux. In desktop.

OS X has a small amount of desktop traction in small professional
businesses (e.g., small law firms).

Linux also has a small amount of desktop traction, but in larger
businesses.

[nospam]

Post by John Navas

Post by Justin
I see zero OSX in business, some Linux. In desktop.

OS X has a small amount of desktop traction in small professional
businesses (e.g., small law firms).

uh, no. os x is a very poor choice for law firms, and it's very rare
you'll find a law office that uses macs. same for accounting.

on the other hand, graphic arts, video, music, etc. is predominantly
mac.

different tools for different tasks.

Post by John Navas
Linux also has a small amount of desktop traction, but in larger
businesses.

except it's usually for the desktop, but for their servers.

[nospam]

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas
Linux also has a small amount of desktop traction, but in larger
businesses.

except it's usually for the desktop, but for their servers.

i meant to write except it's *not* usually for the desktop, but for
their servers.

[Todd Allcock]

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas

Post by Justin
I see zero OSX in business, some Linux. In desktop.

OS X has a small amount of desktop traction in small professional
businesses (e.g., small law firms).

uh, no. os x is a very poor choice for law firms, and it's very rare
you'll find a law office that uses macs. same for accounting.

Really? The first Mac I ever spent any significant time on was on my
brother-in-law's desk at his law office in the early-90s. He was a solo
practitioner, so the choice of computer was his and his alone.

He liked the ease of use, and Mac OS had all the software he needed,
including an easy-to-use time tracker to log billable hours. I used to
sell PCs back then, so I used to give him heck about it, but he always
joked he liked using the Mac at work so he could spend his office hours
being an attorney, rather than an IT guy.

[nospam]

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas

Post by Justin
I see zero OSX in business, some Linux. In desktop.

OS X has a small amount of desktop traction in small professional
businesses (e.g., small law firms).

uh, no. os x is a very poor choice for law firms, and it's very rare
you'll find a law office that uses macs. same for accounting.

Really? The first Mac I ever spent any significant time on was on my
brother-in-law's desk at his law office in the early-90s. He was a solo
practitioner, so the choice of computer was his and his alone.

there's a bit of a difference with a solo practitioner who can do
whatever s/he wants versus a law office (or any multi-person office)
where more than one person needs to agree to something.

however, back then, word perfect, a favourite of lawyers, did run on
the mac. not the case today. on the other hand, os x interoperates with
windows a lot better than system 7 did.

Post by Todd Allcock
He liked the ease of use, and Mac OS had all the software he needed,
including an easy-to-use time tracker to log billable hours. I used to
sell PCs back then, so I used to give him heck about it, but he always
joked he liked using the Mac at work so he could spend his office hours
being an attorney, rather than an IT guy.

agreed, but tell that to an it department :) they have a vested
interest in keeping their jobs and in not supporting two platforms.

[John Navas]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 21:47:27 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas

Post by Justin
I see zero OSX in business, some Linux. In desktop.

OS X has a small amount of desktop traction in small professional
businesses (e.g., small law firms).

uh, no. os x is a very poor choice for law firms, and it's very rare
you'll find a law office that uses macs. same for accounting.

Really? The first Mac I ever spent any significant time on was on my
brother-in-law's desk at his law office in the early-90s. He was a solo
practitioner, so the choice of computer was his and his alone.
He liked the ease of use, and Mac OS had all the software he needed,
including an easy-to-use time tracker to log billable hours. I used to
sell PCs back then, so I used to give him heck about it, but he always
joked he liked using the Mac at work so he could spend his office hours
being an attorney, rather than an IT guy.

Pay no attention to "nospam" -- I work with many law offices, and quite
a few of the smaller ones use Macs, primarily for ease of use with
minimal expert assistance.

[nospam]

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas
OS X has a small amount of desktop traction in small professional
businesses (e.g., small law firms).

uh, no. os x is a very poor choice for law firms, and it's very rare
you'll find a law office that uses macs. same for accounting.

Really? The first Mac I ever spent any significant time on was on my
brother-in-law's desk at his law office in the early-90s. He was a solo
practitioner, so the choice of computer was his and his alone.
He liked the ease of use, and Mac OS had all the software he needed,
including an easy-to-use time tracker to log billable hours. I used to
sell PCs back then, so I used to give him heck about it, but he always
joked he liked using the Mac at work so he could spend his office hours
being an attorney, rather than an IT guy.

Pay no attention to "nospam" -- I work with many law offices, and quite
a few of the smaller ones use Macs, primarily for ease of use with
minimal expert assistance.
Usual meaningless anecdote, even if real.

'many' and 'quite a few' = how many, exactly?

almost all of the lawyers i've worked with do not use macs, except a
couple of attorneys might use *their own* mac on their own time. in the
office, it's predominantly windows.

[nospam]

Post by Justin

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas
Steve Ballmer of Microsoft estimates Linux's share of desktop users
to be higher than the web stats suggest. In a speech to investors in
February 2009, Ballmer presented a slide based on Microsoft's
research: it shows Linux's share of business and home PCs about the
same as Apple's. ...

anyone can present a slide about anything. that doesn't mean it's true.
there's no way in hell that linux has the same share as mac os x on
business and certainly not home computers.

I see zero OSX in business, some Linux. In desktop.

you need to look around a bit more.

graphic artists want photoshop, which does not exist on linux. video
production wants final cut pro, which also does not exist on linux.

[Justin]

Post by nospam

Post by Justin

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas
Steve Ballmer of Microsoft estimates Linux's share of desktop users
to be higher than the web stats suggest. In a speech to investors in
February 2009, Ballmer presented a slide based on Microsoft's
research: it shows Linux's share of business and home PCs about the
same as Apple's. ...

anyone can present a slide about anything. that doesn't mean it's true.
there's no way in hell that linux has the same share as mac os x on
business and certainly not home computers.

I see zero OSX in business, some Linux. In desktop.

you need to look around a bit more.
graphic artists want photoshop, which does not exist on linux. video
production wants final cut pro, which also does not exist on linux.

Photoshop works just fine on Windows though...

Most businesses do very little video production, if any. The video production
I do see is on a Windows machine as well.

[nospam]

Post by Justin

Post by nospam

Post by Justin
I see zero OSX in business, some Linux. In desktop.

you need to look around a bit more.
graphic artists want photoshop, which does not exist on linux. video
production wants final cut pro, which also does not exist on linux.

Photoshop works just fine on Windows though...

which isn't linux. the issue is ballmer's claim that linux is as common
as os x, which is ludicrous.

Post by Justin
Most businesses do very little video production, if any. The video production
I do see is on a Windows machine as well.

some businesses do quite a bit of video production. other businesses
don't. it all depends what the business *is*.

[Justin]

Post by nospam

Post by Justin

Post by nospam

Post by Justin
I see zero OSX in business, some Linux. In desktop.

you need to look around a bit more.
graphic artists want photoshop, which does not exist on linux. video
production wants final cut pro, which also does not exist on linux.

Photoshop works just fine on Windows though...

which isn't linux. the issue is ballmer's claim that linux is as common
as os x, which is ludicrous.

And since Photoshop is available on Windows, it reduces the number of OS X
desktops.

Post by nospam

Post by Justin
Most businesses do very little video production, if any. The video production
I do see is on a Windows machine as well.

some businesses do quite a bit of video production. other businesses
don't. it all depends what the business *is*.

Most don't do much

[SMS]

Post by Justin

Post by nospam

Post by Justin

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas
Steve Ballmer of Microsoft estimates Linux's share of desktop users
to be higher than the web stats suggest. In a speech to investors in
February 2009, Ballmer presented a slide based on Microsoft's
research: it shows Linux's share of business and home PCs about the
same as Apple's. ...

anyone can present a slide about anything. that doesn't mean it's true.
there's no way in hell that linux has the same share as mac os x on
business and certainly not home computers.

I see zero OSX in business, some Linux. In desktop.

you need to look around a bit more.
graphic artists want photoshop, which does not exist on linux. video
production wants final cut pro, which also does not exist on linux.

Photoshop works just fine on Windows though...
Most businesses do very little video production, if any. The video production
I do see is on a Windows machine as well.

Mostly contracted out. My nephew has a good business doing freelance
video production. Mostly done on with Final Cut Pro on a Mac.

There's a lot of Linux being used in Silicon Valley for code development
while it's rare to see any Macs in tech companies. Still it's hard to
believe that there are more Linux desktops than OS-X desktops, and the
statistics show this not to be the case.

"http://www.webmasterpro.de/portal/webanalyse-systeme.html"

[Larry]

Post by SMS
There's a lot of Linux being used in Silicon Valley for code

development

Post by SMS
while it's rare to see any Macs in tech companies. Still it's hard to
believe that there are more Linux desktops than OS-X desktops, and the
statistics show this not to be the case.
"http://www.webmasterpro.de/portal/webanalyse-systeme.html"

Someone gave a buddy of mine a virtual supercomputer PC with multicore
processor and 8GB of really fast RAM that had been confiscated by the
cops from some gamer. They cleaned the OS off it for copyright
violations and dumped the rest for the landfill.

My buddy wanted to know what OS to put on it and balked at buying a whole
MS OS on a junk computer, no matter how great it is. I suggested we try
Ubuntu Linux for free before he spent any more money on it.

This has proven to be a mistake. I've created an Ubuntu MONSTER! He's
ready to clean off all his PCs of BillyDOS and put all of them on Ubuntu,
now! What have I done?!.....

The damned thing even has 15,000 RPM hard drives running off a
blisteringly fast RAID controller. They wind up when you turn them
on....(c;]

My attempts to get him to give it to me have been ignored....dammit.

I shoulda suggested he pay retail for Win7.....nuts.

[John Navas]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:24:15 -0700, in

Post by SMS

Post by Justin
Most businesses do very little video production, if any. The video production
I do see is on a Windows machine as well.

Mostly contracted out. My nephew has a good business doing freelance
video production. Mostly done on with Final Cut Pro on a Mac.

Usual meaningless anecdote, even if real.

Post by SMS
There's a lot of Linux being used in Silicon Valley for code development

True. But also for other things, especially thin clients.

Post by SMS
while it's rare to see any Macs in tech companies. Still it's hard to
believe that there are more Linux desktops than OS-X desktops, and the
statistics show this not to be the case.
"http://www.webmasterpro.de/portal/webanalyse-systeme.html"

At least a real URL. See? You can do it if you try. But as I've
already shown, there are as many different numbers as there are folks
gathering them, and you have to take those with a huge grain of salt.

[Todd Allcock]

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas
See also

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems>

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas
Steve Ballmer of Microsoft estimates Linux's share of desktop users
to be higher than the web stats suggest. In a speech to investors in
February 2009, Ballmer presented a slide based on Microsoft's
research: it shows Linux's share of business and home PCs about the
same as Apple's. ...

anyone can present a slide about anything. that doesn't mean it's true.
there's no way in hell that linux has the same share as mac os x on
business and certainly not home computers.

He just needed to present it publicly at some point before the next MS-
antitrust suit so he can use it as evidence later that MS has lots of
competition. ;)

[John Navas]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:21:06 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
Too late to make that case -- Microsoft already lost big time, and Linux
is doing very well pretty much everywhere except on the desktop.

MS lost what? A couple of penny-ante (to MS) lawsuits? Linux does well
in servers, and arguably in mobiles, if you count Android as "Linux."
I'd argue that no one is buying Android because it has Linux under the
hood if you dig deep enough.

No one is buying Windows because it has all that ancient code under the
hood -- they buy it because of (a) hardware bundling and (b) rich
variety of apps. But I digress. ;)

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
and RIM and Nokia and WebOS and MeeGo, arguably others as well.
Sorry, but I'm willing to bet the best Microsoft can do now is a niche,
and I don't see a viable niche, at least not yet. I'd say maybe gaming,
but it looks like the Sony juggernaut has finally woken up.

MS is like the government- the wheels move slowly, but they have
(comparitively) infinite resources, and nothing but time. It's still
early in the smartphone game- only 1-in-5 phones sold today are "smart."
Let's see whose still standing in five years, and with what market share.

The problem for Microsoft is that moving "slowly" is not a winning
strategy in mobile computing. It's falling farther and farther behind,
not catching up.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
That sounds good in theory, but in practice users tend to cluster to
1 or 2 big winners, just as in the desktop OS and server OS battles.
Remember Novell? Is that what you mean by "plenty of room"? ;)

No, using your own examples, people tend to cluster around MS and one
other player. That's what I mean by there's "plenty of room," if you're
Microsoft. ;)

As I'm sure you know, I could pick several other areas in which
Microsoft has fallen flat, not just Bob, MSX, MSN Smart Watch, MSN TV,
Zune/PlaysForSure, tablet PCs, "ultra mobile" PCs, but notably also in
mobile devices like Kin. ;)

Post by Todd Allcock
Game consoles seem to be doing ok as a three-way race,

Except Microsoft has no position in the mobile segment, and thus no easy
way to leverage a gaming handset like Sony Ericsson.

Post by Todd Allcock
and mobiles are
such a large market there's plenty of room for more than three, IMO-
Symbian, RIM, Apple and Google are all getting along ok, and poor old
WinMo is still selling a million units a month somehow without any
advertising or much support from carriers or manufacturers right now.

I only see room for 2 or 3 major players -- everyone else will get
killed, and the carnage is already well underway -- just ask Jorma
Ollila and Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo.

Post by Todd Allcock
(Even after MS threw all the OEMs under the bus announcing WP7 eight
months prior to release, and declaring no current WinMo device would be
upgradable- just as HTC and Samsung were releasing their flagship
Snapdragon-based large-screen WinMo phones! I'd be like Ford announcing
they've invented a car that runs on tap water, it'll be released next near,
and current gasoline cars can't be converted to run on water. Good luck
selling the existing model year lineup, Ford Dealers!)

Those OEMs seem to be giving lackluster support to WinMo7 as compared to
Android, just enough to stay in the game for now, another problem for
WinMo7, which needs enthusiastic pushing of the envelope. Instead, the
hottest engineering is being poured into Android.

Post by Todd Allcock
MS has the resources to outlast and outspend virtually anyone. Hopefully
their product will be worthy of the effort MS will likely expend pushing
it down our collective throats!

Except time is not on its side. By the time the Microsoft bullet
finally gets there, the target will have long since moved on. Microsoft
needs speed, not staying power.

Post by Todd Allcock
The fact that MS already had HTC, Samsung, LG and Dell on board with
nothing more than vapor and a few dog-and-pony demos on prototype
equipment, tells me they're both serious, and won't take failure as an
option.

Tells me Microsoft has yet to convince anyone that WinMo7 is a hot
ticket.

[nospam]

Post by John Navas
No one is buying Windows because it has all that ancient code under the
hood -- they buy it because of (a) hardware bundling and (b) rich
variety of apps. But I digress. ;)

(c) it's what they have been using and aren't interested in changing
even if something else might better fit their needs.

[Justin]

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas
No one is buying Windows because it has all that ancient code under the
hood -- they buy it because of (a) hardware bundling and (b) rich
variety of apps. But I digress. ;)

(c) it's what they have been using and aren't interested in changing
even if something else might better fit their needs.

It what they have been using, and what their techie friend or relative
can support them using.

[Todd Allcock]

Post by John Navas
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 23:21:06 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
Too late to make that case -- Microsoft already lost big time, and Linux
is doing very well pretty much everywhere except on the desktop.

MS lost what? A couple of penny-ante (to MS) lawsuits? Linux does well
in servers, and arguably in mobiles, if you count Android as "Linux."
I'd argue that no one is buying Android because it has Linux under the
hood if you dig deep enough.

No one is buying Windows because it has all that ancient code under the
hood -- they buy it because of (a) hardware bundling and (b) rich
variety of apps. But I digress. ;)

Agreed. My point was (most) people buy Android for what Android gives
them- not because it's Linux-based.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
and RIM and Nokia and WebOS and MeeGo, arguably others as well.
Sorry, but I'm willing to bet the best Microsoft can do now is a niche,
and I don't see a viable niche, at least not yet. I'd say maybe gaming,
but it looks like the Sony juggernaut has finally woken up.

MS is like the government- the wheels move slowly, but they have
(comparitively) infinite resources, and nothing but time. It's still
early in the smartphone game- only 1-in-5 phones sold today are "smart."
Let's see whose still standing in five years, and with what market share.

The problem for Microsoft is that moving "slowly" is not a winning
strategy in mobile computing. It's falling farther and farther behind,
not catching up.

They're playing a long game. If WP7 isn't quite iOS/Android caliber out
of the gate, it'll get there. It's got a better update strategy than
Android, so there will be less fragmentation, and more universal updates.
Android users are still mostly divided between 1.6, 2.1, and 2.2, and
plenty of new devices are still sold with 1.6. WinMo was badly fragmented,
but once a new version was released, no new units were released with
older OS versions- the existing old stock was discontinued and dumped.
Froyo is here, and new Android models sporting 2.1 are still brought to
market!

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
That sounds good in theory, but in practice users tend to cluster to
1 or 2 big winners, just as in the desktop OS and server OS battles.
Remember Novell? Is that what you mean by "plenty of room"? ;)

No, using your own examples, people tend to cluster around MS and one
other player. That's what I mean by there's "plenty of room," if you're
Microsoft. ;)

As I'm sure you know, I could pick several other areas in which
Microsoft has fallen flat, not just Bob, MSX, MSN Smart Watch, MSN TV,
Zune/PlaysForSure, tablet PCs, "ultra mobile" PCs, but notably also in
mobile devices like Kin. ;)

Most of those categories failed completely though- it's not like Google
walked away with the smartwatch category, or Mac OS "Bill" trouced Bob-
they just failed to take root at all.

Mobile phones and Zune have been lackluster, but that's what MS is hoping
to turn around with WP7. (Good luck!) ;) Apple is owning tablets at the
moment, but once a decent Android tablet and the Windows 7 tablets show up,
that market will get interesting.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
Game consoles seem to be doing ok as a three-way race,

Except Microsoft has no position in the mobile segment, and thus no easy
way to leverage a gaming handset like Sony Ericsson.

Um, WP7? It has XBox Live integration, and via cloud sync, select games
can be paused on the console, picked up where left off on the phone, and
picked back up again on the console. (Turn-based games, anyway- WP7
won't have the power for XBox-caliber first-person shooters, but the
strategy there is to create mobile "mini-games" in the same franchise-
for example, a mobile Halo game will be offered at launch.)

Gaming might be the strongest feature of WP7, (though it's a feature that
means absolutely nothing to me, much like "integrated social networking!")

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
and mobiles are
such a large market there's plenty of room for more than three, IMO-
Symbian, RIM, Apple and Google are all getting along ok, and poor old
WinMo is still selling a million units a month somehow without any
advertising or much support from carriers or manufacturers right now.

I only see room for 2 or 3 major players -- everyone else will get
killed, and the carnage is already well underway -- just ask Jorma
Ollila and Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo.

Nokia is the Microsoft of the cellphone industry. They've been "phoning
it in" for so long that they don't remember how to innovate. I picked up
a Symbian phone about a month ago, the Nokia Nuron, to put in my travel
bag to use as a T-Mo 3G modem when I'm stuck at a hotel without free
WiFi, and I was reminded a lot of WinMo- Symbian, like WinMo has pretty
much stood still since my last Symbian phone from 2002. Other than
touchscreen support, it was the same old awkward UI, same piss-poor email
client, same buggy SyncML implementation. How is this crappy OS still
the darling of Europe with a 40% worldwide smartphone market share?

Hopefully Meego and the new Symbian are able to get Nokia back on track.
Nokia has the same in-fighting problems as MS. The Nokia N8x0 tablets
were great little devices, but Nokia resisted sticking a phone in them
for far too long. They could've slapped a phone into the N810 and had an
iPhone competitor months after the iPhone launch, but spun their wheels,
shoving the N95and N97 at us instead. By the time the N900 finally
showed up, no one cared.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
(Even after MS threw all the OEMs under the bus announcing WP7 eight
months prior to release, and declaring no current WinMo device would be
upgradable- just as HTC and Samsung were releasing their flagship
Snapdragon-based large-screen WinMo phones! I'd be like Ford

announcing

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
they've invented a car that runs on tap water, it'll be released next near,
and current gasoline cars can't be converted to run on water. Good luck
selling the existing model year lineup, Ford Dealers!)

Those OEMs seem to be giving lackluster support to WinMo7 as compared to
Android, just enough to stay in the game for now, another problem for
WinMo7, which needs enthusiastic pushing of the envelope. Instead, the
hottest engineering is being poured into Android.

That's to be expected, unfortunately. MS is calling the shots WRT
hardware- they're mandating the number of buttons as well as placement,
the size and res of the touchscreen, mandating the sync ports, minimum
memory size, etc. There's very little room for OEMs to innovate. That's
also why it isn't siurprizing to see articles like "Brand X will release
15 Android phones vs. three WP7 phones in 2011." With so little wiggle
room in WP7 specs, there's little reason to release a dozen nearly
identical WP7s. An OEM will probably release a big screen (4') model, a
smaller 3.something inch, and a slim model with no slider keyboard.
Other than choice of colors and memory sizes, there isn't much left to do.

MS is trying for a iPhone-like sameness to WP7- that's the most dangerous
part of their strategy, IMO- OEMs want and need to differentiate, and MS'
idea of WP7 differentiation is stuff like slider keyboard or no keyboard,
or rounded corners vs. squared!

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
MS has the resources to outlast and outspend virtually anyone.

Hopefully

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
their product will be worthy of the effort MS will likely expend pushing
it down our collective throats!

Except time is not on its side. By the time the Microsoft bullet
finally gets there, the target will have long since moved on. Microsoft
needs speed, not staying power.

The target isn't really moving in mobile right now. Take the iPhone-
it's slimmer, faster, and has a more storage memory than previous models,
but has essentially the same UI as iPhone 1.0, and the same hardware
feature set as any other high-end phone- it finally leapfrogged the
screen res of high-end Android and WinMos (just barely.) And if I hear
the term "retina display" again, I'll wretch. My two year-old Sony X1
has a 312 ppi display- just a dozen ppi or so short of the iPhone 4's
"revolutionary" display. (But that's Apple for you- they finally catch
up with the rest of the industry and proclaim it a technological
revolution!) ;)

People seem to want a decent display, media playback, good email,
messaging and web browsing, the latest fart apps, Facebook, a few games,
and an easy, slick UI. iOS offers that, Android offers that, and WP7
will offer that. Where's the target going to move between now and
Christmas?

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
The fact that MS already had HTC, Samsung, LG and Dell on board with
nothing more than vapor and a few dog-and-pony demos on prototype
equipment, tells me they're both serious, and won't take failure as an
option.

Tells me Microsoft has yet to convince anyone that WinMo7 is a hot
ticket.

It tells me Microsoft still wields a big enough stick that they can get
OEMs behind them with little more than a promise, even after WinMo's
slide into irrelevance, and the Kin implosion.

[John Navas]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:31:43 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
No one is buying Windows because it has all that ancient code under the
hood -- they buy it because of (a) hardware bundling and (b) rich
variety of apps. But I digress. ;)

Agreed. My point was (most) people buy Android for what Android gives
them- not because it's Linux-based.

Fair enough.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
The problem for Microsoft is that moving "slowly" is not a winning
strategy in mobile computing. It's falling farther and farther behind,
not catching up.

They're playing a long game.

There is no long game unless and until it starts closing the gap on the
leaders instead of falling farther behind.

Post by Todd Allcock
If WP7 isn't quite iOS/Android caliber out
of the gate, it'll get there.

Sure, to where iOS/Android are now, not when SloMo7 finally gets there.

Post by Todd Allcock
It's got a better update strategy than
Android, so there will be less fragmentation, and more universal updates.

I don't see that as important to the great majority of users, who think
an OS upgrade is something akin to a kidney transplant. ;)

Post by Todd Allcock
Android users are still mostly divided between 1.6, 2.1, and 2.2, and
plenty of new devices are still sold with 1.6.

And the great majority of Android users don't even know, much less care.

Post by Todd Allcock
Froyo is here, and new Android models sporting 2.1 are still brought to
market!

Sure, because it doesn't matter to most users.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
As I'm sure you know, I could pick several other areas in which
Microsoft has fallen flat, not just Bob, MSX, MSN Smart Watch, MSN TV,
Zune/PlaysForSure, tablet PCs, "ultra mobile" PCs, but notably also in
mobile devices like Kin. ;)

Most of those categories failed completely though- it's not like Google
walked away with the smartwatch category, or Mac OS "Bill" trouced Bob-
they just failed to take root at all.

Small comfort. ;)

Post by Todd Allcock
Mobile phones and Zune have been lackluster,

Zune is a major flop. If that's the measure of success, then SloMo7 is
doomed.

Post by Todd Allcock
but that's what MS is hoping
to turn around with WP7. (Good luck!) ;) Apple is owning tablets at the
moment, but once a decent Android tablet and the Windows 7 tablets show up,
that market will get interesting.

Agreed.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
Except Microsoft has no position in the mobile segment, and thus no easy
way to leverage a gaming handset like Sony Ericsson.

Um, WP7? It has XBox Live integration, and via cloud sync, select games
can be paused on the console, picked up where left off on the phone, and
picked back up again on the console. (Turn-based games, anyway- WP7
won't have the power for XBox-caliber first-person shooters, but the
strategy there is to create mobile "mini-games" in the same franchise-
for example, a mobile Halo game will be offered at launch.)
Gaming might be the strongest feature of WP7, (though it's a feature that
means absolutely nothing to me, much like "integrated social networking!")

Are you serious? SloMo7 as a serious competitor to PSP? Really? ;)

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
I only see room for 2 or 3 major players -- everyone else will get
killed, and the carnage is already well underway -- just ask Jorma
Ollila and Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo.

Nokia is the Microsoft of the cellphone industry. They've been "phoning
it in" for so long that they don't remember how to innovate. I picked up
a Symbian phone about a month ago, the Nokia Nuron, to put in my travel
bag to use as a T-Mo 3G modem when I'm stuck at a hotel without free
WiFi, and I was reminded a lot of WinMo- Symbian, like WinMo has pretty
much stood still since my last Symbian phone from 2002. Other than
touchscreen support, it was the same old awkward UI, same piss-poor email
client, same buggy SyncML implementation. How is this crappy OS still
the darling of Europe with a 40% worldwide smartphone market share?
Hopefully Meego and the new Symbian are able to get Nokia back on track.
Nokia has the same in-fighting problems as MS. The Nokia N8x0 tablets
were great little devices, but Nokia resisted sticking a phone in them
for far too long. They could've slapped a phone into the N810 and had an
iPhone competitor months after the iPhone launch, but spun their wheels,
shoving the N95and N97 at us instead. By the time the N900 finally
showed up, no one cared.

Sounds to me pretty much like Microsoft and WinMo all around, including
the difficulty of turning things around. Parallels with Nokia should
give Microsoft serious pause.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
Those OEMs seem to be giving lackluster support to WinMo7 as compared to
Android, just enough to stay in the game for now, another problem for
WinMo7, which needs enthusiastic pushing of the envelope. Instead, the
hottest engineering is being poured into Android.

That's to be expected, unfortunately. MS is calling the shots WRT
hardware- they're mandating the number of buttons as well as placement,
the size and res of the touchscreen, mandating the sync ports, minimum
memory size, etc. There's very little room for OEMs to innovate.

Forcing OEMs to fight with one hand tied behind their backs makes
success all the more unlikely.

Post by Todd Allcock
That's
also why it isn't siurprizing to see articles like "Brand X will release
15 Android phones vs. three WP7 phones in 2011." With so little wiggle
room in WP7 specs, there's little reason to release a dozen nearly
identical WP7s. An OEM will probably release a big screen (4') model, a
smaller 3.something inch, and a slim model with no slider keyboard.
Other than choice of colors and memory sizes, there isn't much left to do.
MS is trying for a iPhone-like sameness to WP7- that's the most dangerous
part of their strategy, IMO- OEMs want and need to differentiate, and MS'
idea of WP7 differentiation is stuff like slider keyboard or no keyboard,
or rounded corners vs. squared!

All by itself it could well be a fatal flaw.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
Except time is not on its side. By the time the Microsoft bullet
finally gets there, the target will have long since moved on. Microsoft
needs speed, not staying power.

The target isn't really moving in mobile right now.

Strongly disagree -- Android software development is moving at a very
rapid pace, hardware as well, and I'm sure Apple isn't sitting still
either. You seem to assume not much will change in the next year while
Microsoft tries to get its act together, whereas I think just the
opposite.

Post by Todd Allcock
Take the iPhone-
it's slimmer, faster, and has a more storage memory than previous models,
but has essentially the same UI as iPhone 1.0, and the same hardware
feature set as any other high-end phone- it finally leapfrogged the
screen res of high-end Android and WinMos (just barely.) And if I hear
the term "retina display" again, I'll wretch. My two year-old Sony X1
has a 312 ppi display- just a dozen ppi or so short of the iPhone 4's
"revolutionary" display. (But that's Apple for you- they finally catch
up with the rest of the industry and proclaim it a technological
revolution!) ;)

That's the price Apple pays for the arbitrary annual release cycle, but
even a cursory look at patent and tech conference activity shows that
much new stuff is being worked on. It's dangerous to project from the
known. It's how companies get blindsided over and over.

Post by Todd Allcock
People seem to want a decent display, media playback, good email,
messaging and web browsing, the latest fart apps, Facebook, a few games,
and an easy, slick UI. iOS offers that, Android offers that, and WP7
will offer that. Where's the target going to move between now and
Christmas?

SloMo7 needs more like 9-12 months after introduction to establish a
foothold, and if what little thunder it has is stolen by Android in 3-6
months, as I expect, then whatever momentum it has may well be lost.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
Tells me Microsoft has yet to convince anyone that WinMo7 is a hot
ticket.

It tells me Microsoft still wields a big enough stick that they can get
OEMs behind them with little more than a promise, even after WinMo's
slide into irrelevance, and the Kin implosion.

I don't think half-baked efforts are going to cut it.

But of course only time will tell. It will be interesting.
Microsoft might (1) fly, or (2) crash and burn, or (3) just might muddle
along in a barely tenable position, as it has up to now.
My money is on (3) leading eventually to (2). But I could be wrong(tm).

[Todd Allcock]

Post by John Navas
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:31:43 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
The problem for Microsoft is that moving "slowly" is not a winning
strategy in mobile computing. It's falling farther and farther behind,
not catching up.

They're playing a long game.

There is no long game unless and until it starts closing the gap on the
leaders instead of falling farther behind.

I think you're underestimating the resources MS is devoting to this.
Despite the silly name, designed to leverage the goodwill of Windows 7
OS, this is a 1.0 release. They've gone from zero to actual released
devices in a year, if the rumored Sept. release date is true, thirteen
months if it drops in October.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
If WP7 isn't quite iOS/Android caliber out
of the gate, it'll get there.

Sure, to where iOS/Android are now, not when SloMo7 finally gets there.

Are you expecting major updates to iOS or Android in the next 30-60 days?

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
It's got a better update strategy than
Android, so there will be less fragmentation, and more universal updates.

I don't see that as important to the great majority of users, who think
an OS upgrade is something akin to a kidney transplant. ;)

You're the one talking about moving targets. The exciting features
Android 2.3 or 3.0 or whatever brings is meaningless to an HTC owner
who'll never see it until they buy a new device. I'm a long suffering
HTC victim- they update devices slowly if ever.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
Android users are still mostly divided between 1.6, 2.1, and 2.2, and
plenty of new devices are still sold with 1.6.

And the great majority of Android users don't even know, much less care.

They'll care when the app they want requires a newer OS than what's
available for their device.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
Froyo is here, and new Android models sporting 2.1 are still brought to
market!

Sure, because it doesn't matter to most users.

Then MS doesn't have to worry about where Android will be in the future,
if the majority of device owners are locked out of that future! ;)

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
Mobile phones and Zune have been lackluster,

Zune is a major flop. If that's the measure of success, then SloMo7 is
doomed.

Again, it's a long game. If the WP7 ecosystem spills over to Zune, it
could save it if WP7 is successful.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
Except Microsoft has no position in the mobile segment, and thus no easy
way to leverage a gaming handset like Sony Ericsson.

Um, WP7? It has XBox Live integration, and via cloud sync, select games
can be paused on the console, picked up where left off on the phone, and
picked back up again on the console. (Turn-based games, anyway- WP7
won't have the power for XBox-caliber first-person shooters, but the
strategy there is to create mobile "mini-games" in the same franchise-
for example, a mobile Halo game will be offered at launch.)
Gaming might be the strongest feature of WP7, (though it's a feature that
means absolutely nothing to me, much like "integrated social

networking!")

Post by John Navas
Are you serious? SloMo7 as a serious competitor to PSP? Really? ;)

Absolutely, if the XBox Live integration is worth a damn. Playing
seamlessly across devices could be a powerful feature to gamers.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
Hopefully Meego and the new Symbian are able to get Nokia back on track.
Nokia has the same in-fighting problems as MS. The Nokia N8x0 tablets
were great little devices, but Nokia resisted sticking a phone in them
for far too long. They could've slapped a phone into the N810 and had an
iPhone competitor months after the iPhone launch, but spun their wheels,
shoving the N95and N97 at us instead. By the time the N900 finally
showed up, no one cared.

Sounds to me pretty much like Microsoft and WinMo all around, including
the difficulty of turning things around. Parallels with Nokia should
give Microsoft serious pause.

That's part of why WP7 is starting with a clean slate. I think MS
decided the Nokia-style legacy tweaking is a mistake. (Much to my
chagrin.)

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
Those OEMs seem to be giving lackluster support to WinMo7 as compared to
Android, just enough to stay in the game for now, another problem for
WinMo7, which needs enthusiastic pushing of the envelope. Instead, the
hottest engineering is being poured into Android.

That's to be expected, unfortunately. MS is calling the shots WRT
hardware- they're mandating the number of buttons as well as placement,
the size and res of the touchscreen, mandating the sync ports, minimum
memory size, etc. There's very little room for OEMs to innovate.

Forcing OEMs to fight with one hand tied behind their backs makes
success all the more unlikely.

Agreed- I suspect MS will either relent, or be forced into releasing
Microsoft-branded hardware. (The former being more likely. Despite MS'
insistence that OEMs won't be able to customize the UI, HTC has already
announced they plan to bring Sense to WP7 devices.)

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
That's
also why it isn't siurprizing to see articles like "Brand X will release
15 Android phones vs. three WP7 phones in 2011." With so little wiggle
room in WP7 specs, there's little reason to release a dozen nearly
identical WP7s. An OEM will probably release a big screen (4') model, a
smaller 3.something inch, and a slim model with no slider keyboard.
Other than choice of colors and memory sizes, there isn't much left to do.
MS is trying for a iPhone-like sameness to WP7- that's the most dangerous
part of their strategy, IMO- OEMs want and need to differentiate, and MS'
idea of WP7 differentiation is stuff like slider keyboard or no keyboard,
or rounded corners vs. squared!

All by itself it could well be a fatal flaw.

Maybe, but variety and heavy OEM customization didn't help WinMo- instead
it confused consumers and increased fragmentation. In supporting WinMo
users, I'm often stymied by how difficult it is to aid a Samsung user
running the "TouchWiz" UI or someone with any of the three different HTC
replacement UIs, since basic settings menus have been changed or moved.
Again, the long game means getting users to buy a second, third, etc.
device. Look at HTC Android and WM6.5 devices- they're difficult to tell
apart, due to HTC customizations. HTC would be happy to sell either, but
Google and MS would prefer you to buy one with their OS.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
Except time is not on its side. By the time the Microsoft bullet
finally gets there, the target will have long since moved on.

Microsoft

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
needs speed, not staying power.

The target isn't really moving in mobile right now.

Strongly disagree -- Android software development is moving at a very
rapid pace, hardware as well, and I'm sure Apple isn't sitting still
either. You seem to assume not much will change in the next year while
Microsoft tries to get its act together, whereas I think just the
opposite.

Hardware gets faster, RAM and storage memory increases, cameras improve,
and data speeds improve, but what real hardware improvements/differences
exist between your Magic, a Nexus One, or an original G1?

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
Take the iPhone-
it's slimmer, faster, and has a more storage memory than previous models,
but has essentially the same UI as iPhone 1.0, and the same hardware
feature set as any other high-end phone- it finally leapfrogged the
screen res of high-end Android and WinMos (just barely.) And if I hear
the term "retina display" again, I'll wretch. My two year-old Sony X1
has a 312 ppi display- just a dozen ppi or so short of the iPhone 4's
"revolutionary" display. (But that's Apple for you- they finally catch
up with the rest of the industry and proclaim it a technological
revolution!) ;)

That's the price Apple pays for the arbitrary annual release cycle, but
even a cursory look at patent and tech conference activity shows that
much new stuff is being worked on. It's dangerous to project from the
known. It's how companies get blindsided over and over.

True, but the improvements are typically evolutionary rather than
revolutionary.

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
People seem to want a decent display, media playback, good email,
messaging and web browsing, the latest fart apps, Facebook, a few games,
and an easy, slick UI. iOS offers that, Android offers that, and WP7
will offer that. Where's the target going to move between now and
Christmas?

SloMo7 needs more like 9-12 months after introduction to establish a
foothold, and if what little thunder it has is stolen by Android in 3-6
months, as I expect, then whatever momentum it has may well be lost.

I see many parallels between Android and old-school WinMo- reliance on
OEMs for advertising support, and fragmentation in hardware,
customizations, and OS revisions causing app compatibilty problems.

Post by John Navas
I don't think half-baked efforts are going to cut it.
But of course only time will tell. It will be interesting.
Microsoft might (1) fly, or (2) crash and burn, or (3) just might muddle
along in a barely tenable position, as it has up to now.
My money is on (3) leading eventually to (2). But I could be wrong(tm).

I'd be more enthusiastic if I was actually looking forward to WP7.
Unfortunately I don't like artificial limitations be they from Apple or
Microsoft, and I fear WP7 will be a success, which will put the nail in
WM6.x's coffin that much sooner.

[nospam]

Post by Todd Allcock
Are you expecting major updates to iOS or Android in the next 30-60 days?

i dunno about him but i am. ios 4.1 is expected to be announced on
wednesday and will probably ship that day, at least for the new ipod
touch.

the iphone and current ipod touch should also get 4.1 then, or within a
week at the latest. as for the ipad, there hasn't been a beta of 4.1
for it yet, so they might release the first beta with the final version
in a few weeks. they did say it would be out in 'fall' which doesn't
start until later in september.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas

Post by Todd Allcock
Android users are still mostly divided between 1.6, 2.1, and 2.2, and
plenty of new devices are still sold with 1.6.

And the great majority of Android users don't even know, much less care.

They'll care when the app they want requires a newer OS than what's
available for their device.

exactly and already there are a lot of apps that require ios 4.0.
fortunately for ios developers, a significant majority of users have
upgraded.

[John Navas]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 01:50:12 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
There is no long game unless and until it starts closing the gap on the
leaders instead of falling farther behind.

I think you're underestimating the resources MS is devoting to this.

I think you're overestimating how effective they will be. ;)

Post by Todd Allcock
Despite the silly name, designed to leverage the goodwill of Windows 7
OS, this is a 1.0 release.

But the name is clear evidence of the kind of thinking that I think it
lead to failure. Ballmer has a childlike faith in the power of the
Windows brand, but it just doesn't have traction in the mobile space,
due in part to the resurgence of Apple. Microsoft needs to invent the
successor to Windows as a brand, just as Apple did with iDevices,
something a lot better than Zune, Kin, Bob, etc. (Vista might have
worked if had been a product success.) But I think it's clear that
Microsoft doesn't have that kind of thinking.

Post by Todd Allcock
They've gone from zero to actual released
devices in a year, if the rumored Sept. release date is true, thirteen
months if it drops in October.

But still "a day late and a dollar short".

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
Sure, to where iOS/Android are now, not when SloMo7 finally gets there.

Are you expecting major updates to iOS or Android in the next 30-60 days?

SloMo7 is starting from zero, and needs far longer than 30-60 days to
gain real traction. Android has at least 3-6 months, probably more, and
I do expect major advances in that time frame, up to and including the
"iPhone 5" launch.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
I don't see that as important to the great majority of users, who think
an OS upgrade is something akin to a kidney transplant. ;)

You're the one talking about moving targets.

Moving targets are new devices. Users don't upgrade -- they replace, as
Apple well understands. Microsoft is shooting at Droid, with Droid 2
already on the market, and Droid 3 warming up in the wings.

Post by Todd Allcock
The exciting features
Android 2.3 or 3.0 or whatever brings is meaningless to an HTC owner
who'll never see it until they buy a new device. I'm a long suffering
HTC victim- they update devices slowly if ever.

It's irrelevant except to techies and pundits, a tiny minority. Ask the
average Android user if he/she cares about a Froyo upgrade, and they
say, "What's a Froyo?" They will replace the device, just like iFans.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
And the great majority of Android users don't even know, much less care.

They'll care when the app they want requires a newer OS than what's
available for their device.

That's largely a non-issue, and more readily dealt with by replacement.
The relatively few apps needing Android 2.x tend to need more hardware
as well.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
Sure, because it doesn't matter to most users.

Then MS doesn't have to worry about where Android will be in the future,
if the majority of device owners are locked out of that future! ;)

Just the opposite. Like iPhone, Android users will be looking for the
latest hot Android replacement/upgrade -- there are already strong signs
of such migration from Android 1.x devices to Android 2.x devices, but
with Android 1.x likely to live on as the value/free Android device.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
Zune is a major flop. If that's the measure of success, then SloMo7 is
doomed.

Again, it's a long game. If the WP7 ecosystem spills over to Zune, it
could save it if WP7 is successful.

Except it's not a long game. Market share is easy to lose, hard to
gain. Just ask Motorola.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
Are you serious? SloMo7 as a serious competitor to PSP? Really? ;)

Absolutely, if the XBox Live integration is worth a damn. Playing
seamlessly across devices could be a powerful feature to gamers.

Color me skeptical, very skeptical.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
Sounds to me pretty much like Microsoft and WinMo all around, including
the difficulty of turning things around. Parallels with Nokia should
give Microsoft serious pause.

That's part of why WP7 is starting with a clean slate. I think MS
decided the Nokia-style legacy tweaking is a mistake. (Much to my
chagrin.)

I think the parallels are much much stronger than the differences, but
that's another tangent I'm not going to go down. ;)

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
All by itself it could well be a fatal flaw.

Maybe, but variety and heavy OEM customization didn't help WinMo- instead
it confused consumers and increased fragmentation. In supporting WinMo
users, ...

My own experience is that WinMo is clunky and buggy, much like early
versions of Windows, and I don't think customizations were the issue.
WinMo phones were designed by engineers for engineers, not for "the rest
of us".

Reminds me years ago of a computer operator who had instructions when a
certain Check Stop occurred to dial in a address and press Start. When
I asked why they didn't just fix the code, I was told they had other
priorities, and this worked just fine. Average folks won't put up with
that shit if that have any real alternative.

Reboot Windows. Reinstall Windows. Click Start to turn it off.

+------------------------------+
| Your data has been lost! |
| ! |
| OK |
+------------------------------+

They just don't get it, probably never will.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
Strongly disagree -- Android software development is moving at a very
rapid pace, hardware as well, and I'm sure Apple isn't sitting still
either. You seem to assume not much will change in the next year while
Microsoft tries to get its act together, whereas I think just the
opposite.

Hardware gets faster, RAM and storage memory increases, cameras improve,
and data speeds improve, but what real hardware improvements/differences
exist between your Magic, a Nexus One, or an original G1?

The differences are huge, and that's not even close to the full range of
Android.

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
That's the price Apple pays for the arbitrary annual release cycle, but
even a cursory look at patent and tech conference activity shows that
much new stuff is being worked on. It's dangerous to project from the
known. It's how companies get blindsided over and over.

True, but the improvements are typically evolutionary rather than
revolutionary.

I strongly disagree. The iFaithful also, or they wouldn't be standing
in long lines to replace/upgrade their phones. You're thinking like a
techie again, not a consumer! ;)

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
SloMo7 needs more like 9-12 months after introduction to establish a
foothold, and if what little thunder it has is stolen by Android in 3-6
months, as I expect, then whatever momentum it has may well be lost.

I see many parallels between Android and old-school WinMo- reliance on
OEMs for advertising support, and fragmentation in hardware,
customizations, and OS revisions causing app compatibilty problems.

Android has pretty much sorted it out. SloMo7 is just getting started,
and no time for the luxury of following a parallel path.

[SMS]

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:25:38 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by John Navas
The issue there was abuse of market power, not cost justification.
Need I cite the cases? ;)

Oh please- if there was a vast untapped market for Linux, we'd see more
Linux machines. Even netbooks, which were perfect for Linux, due to
their low specs, spec'd up to use Windows due to consumer demand.

Too late to make that case -- Microsoft already lost big time, and Linux
is doing very well pretty much everywhere except on the desktop.

MS lost what? A couple of penny-ante (to MS) lawsuits? Linux does well
in servers, and arguably in mobiles, if you count Android as "Linux."
I'd argue that no one is buying Android because it has Linux under the
hood if you dig deep enough.

Actually what should be worrying Microsoft a bit more than tiny gains by
Apple or Linux for OSes is what's happening with Open Office.

If you look at the OpenOffice market shares by country at the same site
that details OS share ("http://www.webmasterpro.de") you've already got
countries where OpenOffice has greater than a 20% market share (9% for
the U.S.), far exceeding Apple iWork or WordPerfect. As they point out,
some of the countries with high percentages of OpenOffice usage have
adopted it in the public sector.

[nospam]

Post by Todd Allcock
I think many users and businesses knew of the integration with MS products
and services, and chose to put up with some major usabilty disadvantages in
return. (And I'm certainly one of them- you know you're a longtime WinMo
user when your nightime routine includes a phone reboot "just in case!"
particularly if you're relying the device's alarm to wake you in the
morning!

you can't be serious. is winmo that much of a piece of shit that you
actually had to do that?

[Todd Allcock]

Post by nospam

Post by Todd Allcock
I think many users and businesses knew of the integration with MS products
and services, and chose to put up with some major usabilty

disadvantages in

Post by nospam

Post by Todd Allcock
return. (And I'm certainly one of them- you know you're a longtime WinMo
user when your nightime routine includes a phone reboot "just in case!"
particularly if you're relying the device's alarm to wake you in the
morning!

you can't be serious. is winmo that much of a piece of shit that you
actually had to do that?

No, but a particularly buggy HTC handset (my T-Mo MDA/HTC Wizard) was.
My AT&T Tilt and current Sony X1 are about as rock solid as any phone
I've used, though I still rebooted them one or twice a week "just in
case."

[John Navas]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:40:59 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by nospam
you can't be serious. is winmo that much of a piece of shit that you
actually had to do that?

No, but a particularly buggy HTC handset (my T-Mo MDA/HTC Wizard) was.
My AT&T Tilt and current Sony X1 are about as rock solid as any phone
I've used, though I still rebooted them one or twice a week "just in
case."

Your Microsoft conditioning must run pretty deep. ;)
(That's a joke!)
If I thought I had to reboot a phone that often, I'd get rid of it.


If Microsoft made cars...

In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release
stating (by Mr Welch himself, The GM CEO): If GM had developed
technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the
following characteristics:

1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.

2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to
buy a new car.

3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason,
and you would just accept this, restart and drive on.

4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn, would cause
your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would
have to reinstall the engine.

5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought
"Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.

6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable,
five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run
on five per cent of the roads.

7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be
replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.

8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.

9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.

10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out
and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the
door handle, turned the key, and grab hold of the radio antenna.

11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of
Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they
neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete this option
would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50% or
more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the
Justice Department.

12. Everytime GM introduced a new model car buyers would have to learn
how to drive all over again because none of the controls would
operate in the same manner as the old car.

13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.

[Richard B. Gilbert]

Post by John Navas
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:40:59 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by nospam
you can't be serious. is winmo that much of a piece of shit that you
actually had to do that?

No, but a particularly buggy HTC handset (my T-Mo MDA/HTC Wizard) was.
My AT&T Tilt and current Sony X1 are about as rock solid as any phone
I've used, though I still rebooted them one or twice a week "just in
case."

Your Microsoft conditioning must run pretty deep. ;)
(That's a joke!)
If I thought I had to reboot a phone that often, I'd get rid of it.
If Microsoft made cars...
In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release
stating (by Mr Welch himself, The GM CEO): If GM had developed
technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the
1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to
buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason,
and you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn, would cause
your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would
have to reinstall the engine.
5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought
"Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.
6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable,
five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run
on five per cent of the roads.
7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be
replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.
8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.
10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out
and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the
door handle, turned the key, and grab hold of the radio antenna.
11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of
Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they
neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete this option
would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50% or
more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the
Justice Department.
12. Everytime GM introduced a new model car buyers would have to learn
how to drive all over again because none of the controls would
operate in the same manner as the old car.
13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.

This must be about the situation ten or twelve years ago. It's
adequately descriptive of the situation ca. 1998.

My copy of Windows XP SP3 has been running for months since the last
reboot. I have a UPS which helps greatly.

Why did I have to reboot months ago? Nothing to do with the O/S and
much to do with the power company's failure to prune the trees in its
right of way. Wet branch contacts power line, power company's fuse
pops. Wait two hours for two men and a truck to show up and replace the
fuse!!!

[John Navas]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:23:37 -0400, in

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by John Navas
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:40:59 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock
My AT&T Tilt and current Sony X1 are about as rock solid as any phone
I've used, though I still rebooted them one or twice a week "just in
case."

Your Microsoft conditioning must run pretty deep. ;)
(That's a joke!)
If I thought I had to reboot a phone that often, I'd get rid of it.
If Microsoft made cars...
[SNIP]

This must be about the situation ten or twelve years ago. It's
adequately descriptive of the situation ca. 1998.
My copy of Windows XP SP3 has been running for months since the last
reboot. I have a UPS which helps greatly.
Why did I have to reboot months ago? Nothing to do with the O/S and
much to do with the power company's failure to prune the trees in its
right of way. Wet branch contacts power line, power company's fuse
pops. Wait two hours for two men and a truck to show up and replace the
fuse!!!

Sure, and that's the point -- you shouldn't have to reboot your cell
phone either!

[Justin]

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by John Navas
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:40:59 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by nospam
you can't be serious. is winmo that much of a piece of shit that you
actually had to do that?

No, but a particularly buggy HTC handset (my T-Mo MDA/HTC Wizard) was.
My AT&T Tilt and current Sony X1 are about as rock solid as any phone
I've used, though I still rebooted them one or twice a week "just in
case."

Your Microsoft conditioning must run pretty deep. ;)
(That's a joke!)
If I thought I had to reboot a phone that often, I'd get rid of it.
If Microsoft made cars...
In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release
stating (by Mr Welch himself, The GM CEO): If GM had developed
technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the
1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to
buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason,
and you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn, would cause
your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would
have to reinstall the engine.
5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought
"Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.
6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable,
five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run
on five per cent of the roads.
7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be
replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.
8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.
10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out
and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the
door handle, turned the key, and grab hold of the radio antenna.
11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of
Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they
neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete this option
would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50% or
more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the
Justice Department.
12. Everytime GM introduced a new model car buyers would have to learn
how to drive all over again because none of the controls would
operate in the same manner as the old car.
13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.

This must be about the situation ten or twelve years ago. It's
adequately descriptive of the situation ca. 1998.
My copy of Windows XP SP3 has been running for months since the last
reboot. I have a UPS which helps greatly.
Why did I have to reboot months ago? Nothing to do with the O/S and
much to do with the power company's failure to prune the trees in its
right of way. Wet branch contacts power line, power company's fuse
pops. Wait two hours for two men and a truck to show up and replace the
fuse!!!

Perhaps you should be installing OS updates more often then.

[Richard B. Gilbert]

Post by Justin

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by John Navas
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:40:59 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by nospam
you can't be serious. is winmo that much of a piece of shit that you
actually had to do that?

No, but a particularly buggy HTC handset (my T-Mo MDA/HTC Wizard) was.
My AT&T Tilt and current Sony X1 are about as rock solid as any phone
I've used, though I still rebooted them one or twice a week "just in
case."

Your Microsoft conditioning must run pretty deep. ;)
(That's a joke!)
If I thought I had to reboot a phone that often, I'd get rid of it.
If Microsoft made cars...
In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release
stating (by Mr Welch himself, The GM CEO): If GM had developed
technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the
1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to
buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason,
and you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn, would cause
your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would
have to reinstall the engine.
5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought
"Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.
6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable,
five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run
on five per cent of the roads.
7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be
replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.
8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.
10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out
and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the
door handle, turned the key, and grab hold of the radio antenna.
11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of
Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they
neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete this option
would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50% or
more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the
Justice Department.
12. Everytime GM introduced a new model car buyers would have to learn
how to drive all over again because none of the controls would
operate in the same manner as the old car.
13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.

This must be about the situation ten or twelve years ago. It's
adequately descriptive of the situation ca. 1998.
My copy of Windows XP SP3 has been running for months since the last
reboot. I have a UPS which helps greatly.
Why did I have to reboot months ago? Nothing to do with the O/S and
much to do with the power company's failure to prune the trees in its
right of way. Wet branch contacts power line, power company's fuse
pops. Wait two hours for two men and a truck to show up and replace the
fuse!!!

Perhaps you should be installing OS updates more often then.

Why? What I have works. It requires almost zero maintenance!
OS updates are not going to make the power company more reliable
or trim the damned trees!

[Justin]

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by Justin

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by John Navas
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:40:59 -0600, in

My copy of Windows XP SP3 has been running for months since the last
reboot. I have a UPS which helps greatly.
Why did I have to reboot months ago? Nothing to do with the O/S and
much to do with the power company's failure to prune the trees in its
right of way. Wet branch contacts power line, power company's fuse
pops. Wait two hours for two men and a truck to show up and replace the
fuse!!!

Perhaps you should be installing OS updates more often then.

Why? What I have works. It requires almost zero maintenance!
OS updates are not going to make the power company more reliable
or trim the damned trees!

Security vulnerabilities. There was just one with shortcuts that can be
used just by opening an icon.

[Richard B. Gilbert]

Post by Justin

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by Justin

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by John Navas
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:40:59 -0600, in

My copy of Windows XP SP3 has been running for months since the last
reboot. I have a UPS which helps greatly.
Why did I have to reboot months ago? Nothing to do with the O/S and
much to do with the power company's failure to prune the trees in its
right of way. Wet branch contacts power line, power company's fuse
pops. Wait two hours for two men and a truck to show up and replace the
fuse!!!

Perhaps you should be installing OS updates more often then.

Why? What I have works. It requires almost zero maintenance!
OS updates are not going to make the power company more reliable
or trim the damned trees!

Security vulnerabilities. There was just one with shortcuts that can be
used just by opening an icon.

If my systems were exposed to strangers, I'd worry about it. As it
happens, they are all located in my home to which only I and my wife
have access. My router/firewall does not allow connections to be opened
from outside. And finally, you could publish, in the New York Times,
anything stored on my Unix systems and it wouldn't bother me in the least!

I suspect you would have to pay the Times to publish it; i.e. pay
advertising rates for the space!

[Justin]

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by Justin

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by Justin

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by John Navas
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:40:59 -0600, in

My copy of Windows XP SP3 has been running for months since the last
reboot. I have a UPS which helps greatly.
Why did I have to reboot months ago? Nothing to do with the O/S and
much to do with the power company's failure to prune the trees in its
right of way. Wet branch contacts power line, power company's fuse
pops. Wait two hours for two men and a truck to show up and replace the
fuse!!!

Perhaps you should be installing OS updates more often then.

Why? What I have works. It requires almost zero maintenance!
OS updates are not going to make the power company more reliable
or trim the damned trees!

Security vulnerabilities. There was just one with shortcuts that can be
used just by opening an icon.

If my systems were exposed to strangers, I'd worry about it. As it
happens, they are all located in my home to which only I and my wife
have access. My router/firewall does not allow connections to be opened
from outside. And finally, you could publish, in the New York Times,
anything stored on my Unix systems and it wouldn't bother me in the least!

Doesn't matter if you block all incoming accesses, there are plenty of other
vectors that can hit you just by browsing a web site.

[John Navas]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 14:14:19 +0000 (UTC), in

Post by Justin

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by Justin

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by Justin

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by John Navas
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:40:59 -0600, in

My copy of Windows XP SP3 has been running for months since the last
reboot. I have a UPS which helps greatly.
Why did I have to reboot months ago? Nothing to do with the O/S and
much to do with the power company's failure to prune the trees in its
right of way. Wet branch contacts power line, power company's fuse
pops. Wait two hours for two men and a truck to show up and replace the
fuse!!!

Perhaps you should be installing OS updates more often then.

Why? What I have works. It requires almost zero maintenance!
OS updates are not going to make the power company more reliable
or trim the damned trees!

Security vulnerabilities. There was just one with shortcuts that can be
used just by opening an icon.

If my systems were exposed to strangers, I'd worry about it. As it
happens, they are all located in my home to which only I and my wife
have access. My router/firewall does not allow connections to be opened
from outside. And finally, you could publish, in the New York Times,
anything stored on my Unix systems and it wouldn't bother me in the least!

Doesn't matter if you block all incoming accesses, there are plenty of other
vectors that can hit you just by browsing a web site.

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

[Todd Allcock]

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by Justin
Perhaps you should be installing OS updates more often then.

Why? What I have works. It requires almost zero maintenance!
OS updates are not going to make the power company more reliable
or trim the damned trees!

I think Justin means the monthy MS security updates, which usually
require a reboot after install. If your PC has run for "months" without
rebooting, you either have automatic updates disabled, or you just don't
realize your PC reboots itself every few Wednesday mornings around 3AM...

[Richard B. Gilbert]

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by Justin
Perhaps you should be installing OS updates more often then.

Why? What I have works. It requires almost zero maintenance!
OS updates are not going to make the power company more reliable
or trim the damned trees!

I think Justin means the monthy MS security updates, which usually
require a reboot after install. If your PC has run for "months" without
rebooting, you either have automatic updates disabled, or you just don't
realize your PC reboots itself every few Wednesday mornings around 3AM...

It might also be the case that 99.44% of the bugs and security holes
have been fixed in the version, plus patches, that I'm running.

[John Navas]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 09:17:01 -0400, in

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by Justin
Perhaps you should be installing OS updates more often then.

Why? What I have works. It requires almost zero maintenance!
OS updates are not going to make the power company more reliable
or trim the damned trees!

I think Justin means the monthy MS security updates, which usually
require a reboot after install. If your PC has run for "months" without
rebooting, you either have automatic updates disabled, or you just don't
realize your PC reboots itself every few Wednesday mornings around 3AM...

It might also be the case that 99.44% of the bugs and security holes
have been fixed in the version, plus patches, that I'm running.

Small comfort if you get bitten by the 0.56%, and it's usually the
latest exploits that are the most serious.

[Todd Allcock]

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by Justin
Perhaps you should be installing OS updates more often then.

Why? What I have works. It requires almost zero maintenance!
OS updates are not going to make the power company more reliable
or trim the damned trees!

I think Justin means the monthy MS security updates, which usually
require a reboot after install. If your PC has run for "months" without
rebooting, you either have automatic updates disabled, or you just don't
realize your PC reboots itself every few Wednesday mornings around 3AM...

It might also be the case that 99.44% of the bugs and security holes
have been fixed in the version, plus patches, that I'm running.

Most likely. However, it's the other 0.56% Microsoft worries about, and
sends monthly patches to deal with! ;)

[SMS]

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by Justin
Perhaps you should be installing OS updates more often then.

Why? What I have works. It requires almost zero maintenance!
OS updates are not going to make the power company more reliable
or trim the damned trees!

I think Justin means the monthy MS security updates, which usually
require a reboot after install. If your PC has run for "months"

without

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by Todd Allcock
rebooting, you either have automatic updates disabled, or you just

don't

Post by Richard B. Gilbert

Post by Todd Allcock
realize your PC reboots itself every few Wednesday mornings around

3AM...

Post by Richard B. Gilbert
It might also be the case that 99.44% of the bugs and security holes
have been fixed in the version, plus patches, that I'm running.

Most likely. However, it's the other 0.56% Microsoft worries about, and
sends monthly patches to deal with! ;)

It would be foolish indeed to not install those patches.

[Todd Allcock]

Post by John Navas
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:40:59 -0600, in

Post by Todd Allcock

Post by nospam
you can't be serious. is winmo that much of a piece of shit that you
actually had to do that?

No, but a particularly buggy HTC handset (my T-Mo MDA/HTC Wizard) was.
My AT&T Tilt and current Sony X1 are about as rock solid as any phone
I've used, though I still rebooted them one or twice a week "just in
case."

Your Microsoft conditioning must run pretty deep. ;)
(That's a joke!)
If I thought I had to reboot a phone that often, I'd get rid of it.

Like my typical defense of iOS, an OS I don't particularly like because
of the limitations, you have to look at the totality of the experience.
What WinMo gives me, is worth a little instability (or a lot of it, in
the case of the T-Mo MDA!)

The MDA was fantastically underpowered, using a slow 200MHz CPU, and too
little RAM. It had 64MB of RAM, only about 50MB of which was user
accessible. The WinMo core and phone radio software consumed about 22MB
at startup, leaving 28MB. Two RAM hungry memory resident apps I couldn't
live without at the time took me down to 20MB, which should've been
enough for a PDA phone, but then the infamous "memory leak bug" kicked in-
the OS was unable to reclaim all memory vacated by most third-party apps
when closed. The NNTP client I'm still using to this day, QMail, was an
offender- every time I opened and closed it, I'd lose a MB or two.

By the end of the day, I'd have 4 or 5 MB of RAM free, which wasn't
enough for many of the third-party apps I used. (Opera Mobile, for
example, required 12MB of free RAM or it'd refuse to start, Skype needed
at least 10MB!) I basically had to reboot anytime I wanted to launch
either Opera or Skype. Later versions of WinMo improved the memory leak
issue, thankfully, but never co pletely eliminated it, AFAIK.

Post by John Navas
If Microsoft made cars...
In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release
stating (by Mr Welch himself, The GM CEO): If GM had developed
technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the
1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to
buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason,
and you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn, would cause
your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would
have to reinstall the engine.
5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought
"Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more seats.
6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable,
five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run
on five per cent of the roads.
7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be
replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.
8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.
10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out
and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the
door handle, turned the key, and grab hold of the radio antenna.
11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of
Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they
neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete this option
would immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50% or
more. Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the
Justice Department.
12. Everytime GM introduced a new model car buyers would have to learn
how to drive all over again because none of the controls would
operate in the same manner as the old car.
13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.

I remember that, and it's funny stuff, but in reality, if MS made cars,
the "solution" would be the same as with PCs. Install 2-3 times the RAM
MS recommended!

My AT&T Tilt, another mediocre HTC product, like the MDA, was rock
stable, mostly because it contained 128MB RAM instead of 64MB. MS never
completely fixed the memory leak issue, but with 70MB free at boot up
instead 20MB, you couldn't piss away enough memory to ever have a
problem. My Sony X1 has 200MB (user accessible) RAM (don't ask me what
Sony/HTC does with the other 56MB on the chip! Some kind of ROM shadowing,
IIRC) and I don't even use a Task Manager anymore. (On the MDA I had
assigned the Task Manager app to a hardware button for one-touch access!)

The only time I really have to reboot the Sony is when using a couple of
legacy apps designed for prior WinMo OSes that can go flakey (this NNTP
reader being one of them! It occasionally locks up, and while I can shut
it down without rebooting, it won't run again unless I do.) Another
classic "oops" app is a buggy HTC plug-in for Windows Media player that
allows it to run MP4/Quicktime files. It changes the device's graphic
mode to play .mp4 video, but doesn't always restore the standard OS video
mode when finished, so all OS screen draws after this happens take
noticibly longer until reboot. Either sticking with .wmv or using a
third-party mp4 player app, solves the problem. I'd stick to wmv, but
since my wife uses an iPhone, I tend to rip our stuff to mp4 since WinMo
will play anything, but the iPhone's garden gate doesn't open for wmv! ;)

[John Navas]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 09:33:29 -0700, in

Post by SMS

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas

Post by SMS
There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
of the iPhone. If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
Android would never have had such enormous success.

Your usual Appeal to Authority Fallacy ("no debate", "all experts
agree", etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum).
Android was a startup to do mobile devices based on Linux, not a
response to Apple, that was later acquired by Google. Learn the real
facts (history).

yes android was a startup to do mobile devices based on linux, and if
you look at what it was early on and what it is now, it's very clear
that it was greatly influenced by apple. i think andy rubin even said
as much.

Only after it was well along, mostly after Google acquired and
redirected it, and even then mostly in just the UI area.

Post by SMS
Android was an outgrowth of Midori Linux which predated the iPhone by
many years. The idea of an embedded Linux product for mobile devices did
not start with the iPhone, but Android became a mass market product as
the result of the need for a low cost OS for mobile devices and other
embedded devices.

Nice scramble. I'm guessing you did some checking and discovered you'd
made another big gaffe (quoted above).

Post by SMS
Microsoft's pricing on Windows CE, Windows Mobile, and
Embedded XP has always been a big issue with device manufacturers. You'd
think that the enormous advantages of Windows Mobile in terms of
integration with the desktop/laptop Windows OSes and applications
(especially Office) would have given it an insurmountable lead but
because of how smart phones are marketed this advantage was never realized.

Irrelevant to the erroneous claim you made, an obvious attempt to divert
attention from your scramble.

If you'd take the time to check _before_ speaking you could avoid
putting your foot in your mouth so often.

[nospam]

Post by John Navas

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas

Post by SMS
There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
of the iPhone. If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
Android would never have had such enormous success.

Your usual Appeal to Authority Fallacy ("no debate", "all experts
agree", etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum).
Android was a startup to do mobile devices based on Linux, not a
response to Apple, that was later acquired by Google. Learn the real
facts (history).

yes android was a startup to do mobile devices based on linux, and if
you look at what it was early on and what it is now, it's very clear
that it was greatly influenced by apple. i think andy rubin even said
as much.

Only after it was well along, mostly after Google acquired and
redirected it, and even then mostly in just the UI area.

in other words, they *are* copying a lot of what makes the iphone
popular.

[Justin]

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas

Post by nospam

Post by John Navas

Post by SMS
There's no debate that Android was a direct response to the popularity
of the iPhone. If the iPhone had been available on other carriers
Android would never have had such enormous success.

Your usual Appeal to Authority Fallacy ("no debate", "all experts
agree", etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum).
Android was a startup to do mobile devices based on Linux, not a
response to Apple, that was later acquired by Google. Learn the real
facts (history).

yes android was a startup to do mobile devices based on linux, and if
you look at what it was early on and what it is now, it's very clear
that it was greatly influenced by apple. i think andy rubin even said
as much.

Only after it was well along, mostly after Google acquired and
redirected it, and even then mostly in just the UI area.

in other words, they *are* copying a lot of what makes the iphone
popular.

You mean the marketing?