Well, Windows, mobile or not, has always been the compatibility champion and variety (of hardware) champion. This means that with wider range of devices (again, mobile or not) they are able to capture more markets. However, I do agree they should probably attempt standardisation, like Linux with various flavours that each cater to somewhat different markets, like Ubuntu Desktop, Server and also the Netbook remixes of various other flavours of Linux.
Setting some hardware standards for different form factors sounds like a really good idea for Microsoft right now. Their current lack of requirements makes them more appealing to low-end manufacturers, but at the end of the day that really just makes Microsoft look bad when their OS runs like garbage on it. They are about to lose that appeal, anyway, since Android is available to low-end phones now without any licensing cost.
Steve Ballmer on the iPhone: "But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I'd prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them, than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get."
Apparently having their software in that large percentage of phones is not relevant anymore. How odd.
P.S. For you living in a black-and-white world: No, I'm not an Apple fanboy, I don't own a Mac nor an iPhone and I'm not planning to buy any in the foreseeable future.
Like it or not, there are undeniable advantages to a walled garden approach, just as there are advantages to opening platforms up.
Microsoft's probably hoping to strike the right balance between the two. Just because you can offer your OS on zillions of devices doesn't mean you should, and just because Microsoft is culling the herd doesn't mean that they're giving up their strategy.
I'm a huge proponent of free software and choice, yet for my consumer devices I often find that I like a locked down approach. The iPhone has it's disadvantages, but I like having a phone that works well that I don't need to mess around with to make work. Similarly, I like the challenges of working with free and open software at work, when I get paid to do so :)
I understand where you're coming from, but since Microsoft doesn't actually make their own phones I think it is important for their business to be as flexible as possible so the phone manufacturers can be innovate (e.g., HTC's TouchFlo3D, Samsung's TouchWiz, etc.). Microsoft's focus should be on integration of the mobile OS and applications with the desktop OS and applications. Their biggest problem right now is they paid too little attention to the condition of the mobile OS that the phone manufacturers had to get rid of the ugly. Too much of what we see now should be native to the OS in some way, shape, or form. Now that the phone manufacturer's are distinguishing their offerings by creating these unique interfaces, Microsoft is trying to figure out how to make sure people don't forget that it is actually their OS on the phone.
Saying they're going to restrict the number of phones that have licensed copies of the mobile OS is probably just a ploy to make it look like future versions of the OS are going to be somehow be really special -- trying to capture some of the buzz that has been Apple's, Google's, and not Palm's. What Microsoft is not going to do is cut off a profitable revenue stream.
“An engineer explained to us that hundreds of ear impressions were gathered in the name of research, and while each one obviously boasted its own unique shape and size, one single characteristic remained uniform across the board: the entrance into the ear canal is not a perfect circle, it's an oval.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
"one of Windows Mobile's solid advantages over the competition has always been its endless selection of styles and form factors."
This was NOT an advantage, it made developing and deploying mobile applications as fun as driving nails through your hand.
Some sort of standardized form factor / feature set would do wonders for mobile development on Windows Mobile.
Well, Windows, mobile or not, has always been the compatibility champion and variety (of hardware) champion. This means that with wider range of devices (again, mobile or not) they are able to capture more markets. However, I do agree they should probably attempt standardisation, like Linux with various flavours that each cater to somewhat different markets, like Ubuntu Desktop, Server and also the Netbook remixes of various other flavours of Linux.
Setting some hardware standards for different form factors sounds like a really good idea for Microsoft right now. Their current lack of requirements makes them more appealing to low-end manufacturers, but at the end of the day that really just makes Microsoft look bad when their OS runs like garbage on it. They are about to lose that appeal, anyway, since Android is available to low-end phones now without any licensing cost.
Steve Ballmer on the iPhone: "But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I'd prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them, than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get."
Apparently having their software in that large percentage of phones is not relevant anymore. How odd.
P.S. For you living in a black-and-white world: No, I'm not an Apple fanboy, I don't own a Mac nor an iPhone and I'm not planning to buy any in the foreseeable future.
Like it or not, there are undeniable advantages to a walled garden approach, just as there are advantages to opening platforms up.
Microsoft's probably hoping to strike the right balance between the two. Just because you can offer your OS on zillions of devices doesn't mean you should, and just because Microsoft is culling the herd doesn't mean that they're giving up their strategy.
I'm a huge proponent of free software and choice, yet for my consumer devices I often find that I like a locked down approach. The iPhone has it's disadvantages, but I like having a phone that works well that I don't need to mess around with to make work. Similarly, I like the challenges of working with free and open software at work, when I get paid to do so :)
I understand where you're coming from, but since Microsoft doesn't actually make their own phones I think it is important for their business to be as flexible as possible so the phone manufacturers can be innovate (e.g., HTC's TouchFlo3D, Samsung's TouchWiz, etc.). Microsoft's focus should be on integration of the mobile OS and applications with the desktop OS and applications. Their biggest problem right now is they paid too little attention to the condition of the mobile OS that the phone manufacturers had to get rid of the ugly. Too much of what we see now should be native to the OS in some way, shape, or form. Now that the phone manufacturer's are distinguishing their offerings by creating these unique interfaces, Microsoft is trying to figure out how to make sure people don't forget that it is actually their OS on the phone.
Saying they're going to restrict the number of phones that have licensed copies of the mobile OS is probably just a ploy to make it look like future versions of the OS are going to be somehow be really special -- trying to capture some of the buzz that has been Apple's, Google's, and not Palm's. What Microsoft is not going to do is cut off a profitable revenue stream.