Press F to pay respects: Microsoft to complete Windows Phone wind-down by June

[SansVarnic]

45 minutes ago, Daring said:

Motorola Lapdock, a computer shell that can turn your Motorola Atrix phone into an Android-based laptop. Dated to 2011.

MS didnt come up with the original idea but the idea they had was rock solid for implementation, MS just sucked at advertising it to make it good. Just like Palm came up with the smart phone but it was Apple that made it what it is. Seriously you're mocking me at this point ...

39 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Blackberry had a similar idea with desktop software in the 2000's. You would essentially USB connect your phone and be able to use the OS from there.

 

Come to think of it, I wonder if the Priv still has that feature or if Blackberry discontinued it.

Yeah I forgot about Blackberry's attempt.

38 minutes ago, Daring said:

I don't believe Blackberry's Android phones have that feature... or even their BB10 phones.

I think it was supposed to be a feature that was going to be added but was not finished. I dont remember. I quit following Blackberry when it was blatantly obvious they failed to keep the edge on the market that they had ... and failed to come back twice.

[suicidalfranco]

4 hours ago, Daring said:

I don't believe Blackberry's Android phones have that feature... or even their BB10 phones.

BB10 had it, i remember it was one of the good features with the Passport. Think the name was BB Blend iirc

[AlTech]

The only thing winding down in June is the support for Windows Phone 8.1 .

 

Windows 10 Mobile will continue to be supported. Just FYI.

[Nowak]

Just now, AluminiumTech said:

The only thing winding down in June is the support for Windows Phone 8.1 .

 

Windows 10 Mobile will continue to be supported. Just FYI.

Then why did they remove mention of Windows Phone from their FY 2017 Q3 earnings report?

 

[mr moose]

I think many of you might be forgetting (or just don't know) that windows mobile was one of the first smartphones on the market.  It's been around since 2000. It was the most popular smartphone software until 2007 (any guesses why?). I personally think the biggest issue MS had is/was that they are tailored almost solely to business/entrepreneurs (who  don't need that anymore).  Let's face it, Since apple and android hit the market, the popularity of a device either as a compensatory penis or a fashion symbol will always sell well.  MS are neither of those (and to be quite honest I can't see MS trying to be, it would be like seeing prince Charles with cap on backwards trying to speak l33t). 

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Daring said:

Then why did they remove mention of Windows Phone from their FY 2017 Q3 earnings report?

 

I'm pretty sure that's not how  10Q is supposed to be interpreted.  

[Nowak]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I think many of you might be forgetting (or just don't know) that windows mobile was one of the first smartphones on the market.  It's been around since 2000. It was the most popular smartphone software until 2007 (any guesses why?). I personally think the biggest issue MS had is/was that they are tailored almost solely to business/entrepreneurs (who  don't need that anymore).  Let's face it, Since apple and android hit the market, the popularity of a device either as a compensatory penis or a fashion symbol will always sell well.  MS are neither of those (and to be quite honest I can't see MS trying to be, it would be like seeing prince Charles with cap on backwards trying to speak l33t). 

Windows 10 Mobile is related to Windows Mobile in the same way that the Core i7-6950X is related to the Pentium MMX. It's the same concept, but a different beast entirely.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Daring said:

Windows 10 Mobile is related to Windows Mobile in the same way that the Core i7-6950X is related to the Pentium MMX. It's the same concept, but a different beast entirely.

Not sure what your point is.   I wasn't talking about the technical side of the product.  people have been talking about windows phones like they only started at 8 and had potential but failed. They didn't.  They started right back in the 90's and had most of the glory days up till 2007 (long before 8).    

[Nowak]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Not sure what your point is.   I wasn't talking about the technical side of the product.  people have been talking about windows phones like they only started at 8 and had potential but failed. They didn't.  They started right back in the 90's and had most of the glory days up till 2007 (long before 8).    

My point is, Windows Mobile of then is different than the Windows Mobile of today. Different kernel, OS structure and, originally, different intended audience (WM-old was marketed towards businesses, WM-new was initially marketed towards consumers then businesses once that didn't work out.)

 

A lot of people act like they started at 8 because that was the version that a lot of people (myself included) started out on. I'm well aware of Phone 7 and Windows Mobile before then, but I can't say I have any personal experience with either.

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, Daring said:

My point is, Windows Mobile of then is different than the Windows Mobile of today. Different kernel, OS structure and, originally, different intended audience (WM-old was marketed towards businesses, WM-new was initially marketed towards consumers then businesses once that didn't work out.)

 

A lot of people act like they started at 8 because that was the version that a lot of people (myself included) started out on. I'm well aware of Phone 7 and Windows Mobile before then, but I can't say I have any personal experience with either.

 

Android and IOS are not the same as they were when first released. phone hardware is not the same now as it was in 2008.  I still don't see what your point is or how it changes anything.  I'M merely pointing out that the perception that windows came too late is wrong. They were there first.  If windows as a phone system,OS,device or whatever ceases to be, it is not becasue they are late to the party.

[Nowak]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Android and IOS are not the same as they were when first released. phone hardware is not the same now as it was in 2008.  I still don't see what your point is or how it changes anything.  I'M merely pointing out that the perception that windows came too late is wrong. They were there first.  If windows as a phone system,OS,device or whatever ceases to be, it is not becasue they are late to the party.

Windows Mobile-old was based on Windows CE, while Windows 10-new is based on Windows NT. Different kernels. WM-old also had an accessible registry editor, allowed for custom skins (a la Android, HTC Sense has its origins in Windows Mobile) and had a more accessible file system, rather than just being limited to a select few folders.

[AlTech]

38 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Android and IOS are not the same as they were when first released. phone hardware is not the same now as it was in 2008.  I still don't see what your point is or how it changes anything.  I'M merely pointing out that the perception that windows came too late is wrong. They were there first.  If windows as a phone system,OS,device or whatever ceases to be, it is not becasue they are late to the party.

They were late to market and advertise it.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

I'm pretty sure that's not how  10Q is supposed to be interpreted.  

 

1 hour ago, Daring said:

Then why did they remove mention of Windows Phone from their FY 2017 Q3 earnings report?

 

Basically, Windows Phone 8.1 is being discontinued.

 

Windows 10 Mobile is now part of the Windows Devices Group and Windows 10.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Daring said:

Windows Mobile-old was based on Windows CE, while Windows 10-new is based on Windows NT. Different kernels. WM-old also had an accessible registry editor, allowed for custom skins (a la Android, HTC Sense has its origins in Windows Mobile) and had a more accessible file system, rather than just being limited to a select few folders.

 

You're still saying the same thing, pointing out the technical differences.  This has no bearing on the discussion.

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

They were late to market and advertise it.

 

late market as in too late to establish it in a consumer demographic or late to market as in bringing the product to market? 

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Then why is there what 3 phone manufacturers with plans to release phones with WM10 on it?

Because they have already invested into developing new phones and they feel like they might be able to recover some losses if they release them, maybe?

 

Needless to say, no first party support and only three manufacturers releasing third party handsets is a terrible state to be in. I've long said that Windows Mobile is on life support and it seems like Microsoft has now pulled the plug.

 

8 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Exactly, They would have to be pretty stupid and business un-savvy to do so if they where not aware. I am pretty sure HP is aware of the situation.

And how many new phones has HP confirmed that they will release?

How many new phones have they started working on recently?

 

 

7 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Maybe I should get back into programming and start making some bad@$$ apps for Windows?

 

One day...

On the bright side, you'd have next to no competition.

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Like Apples yearly innovations ... lol. 

 

Sorry But I have to say this;

• Apple has done very little to change since the first iPhone, there has been a few things but the iPhone was the only "innovation". Everything was proprietary this and that.
• Android has gone from being it first iteration which was promising and good to being bought by Google imo ruined each version by not being able to decide how to design a proper OS, my biggest complaint is when you list something in settings do it alphabetically at the very least.
• Windows Phone didn't bring anything in terms of hardware innovations but the fact they came up with the idea of Continuum (could have been and still could if done right) a software innovation is something. 

Oh come on...

Both Apple and Android manufacturers have been very innovative. It is foolish to say anything else. If you had said "invented" then I would totally have agreed, but Apple has been really innovative. The Android side of things has been extremely innovative and inventive as well.

 

Also, Android has grown a lot. For crying out loud, did you even use Android before it was bought by Google? My guess is no and that you're talking about things you don't fully know.

Wanna know why I suspect that? Because Google bought Android in 2005. The first phone running Android was released in 2008. So Google had owned Android for 3 years before the first phone was even released.

 

 

As for having settings in alphabetical order, the reason they don't do that is because they have the most common settings at the top, such as WiFi. Those settings (which are the ones most people need to access most frequently) would end up at the bottom if you did it alphabetically.

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Because Google bought Android in 2005. The first phone running Android was released in 2008.

Do you know if any of the android inc. work was released or if there are screenshots?  They'd be awesome to see.

[suicidalfranco]

14 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Wanna know why I suspect that? Because Google bought Android in 2005. The first phone running Android was released in 2008. So Google had owned Android for 3 years before the first phone was even released.

Also friendly reminder that before google bought the project, Android was supposed an OS for point & shoot cameras, not phones

[mr moose]

16 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

Also friendly reminder that before google bought the project, Android was supposed an OS for point & shoot cameras, not phones

While that was the original intent,  when android inc. discovered it was much more useful as a phone OS to rival windows and Symbian.  SO it was being built as an OS for phones before google bought it.

[LAwLz]

35 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Do you know if any of the android inc. work was released or if there are screenshots?  They'd be awesome to see.

I don't think any images exists.

The oldest piece of code and images I can find of Android is from build m3-rc20a, but that was released in 2007 (2 years after Google took over).

 

Here is a video from around that time (Holy crap Sergey Brin looks young).

 

 

 

[Trixanity]

10 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Yes it gets old fast when about every week there is post about Windows Phone being dead, I am pretty certain there has been a new posting almost every or every other week since December.  

To be fair, there's also a thread about Windows Mobile being alive and/or is just about to take off very frequently.

[Nowak]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I don't think any images exists.

The oldest piece of code and images I can find of Android is from build m3-rc20a, but that was released in 2007 (2 years after Google took over).

 

Here is a video from around that time (Holy crap Sergey Brin looks young).

 

 

 

There are images of early Android versions.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, Daring said:

There are images of early Android versions.

They are all post google buyout, and most of them are 2007 iterations

[Nowak]

Just now, mr moose said:

They are all post google buyout, and most of them are 2007 iterations

Yeah, you can't get Android versions from before 2007, unfortunately.

[Commodus]

I've said it before, but I've said it again: one of the biggest reasons why Windows Mobile/Phone failed was that Microsoft never allowed it to become a main priority.

 

From the Pocket PC days to now, mobile Windows has always been treated as a side project -- it gets just enough resources to accomplish basic objectives, and nothing more.  Initially, it was only ever supposed to be a companion to your PC; in the height of Ballmer's "do whatever Apple's doing" mania, it was a defensive move; today, it's a tech showcase for universal Windows apps.  But it has never, ever been given enough resources that it would start competing with desktop Windows in terms of importance.  In fact, it likely wasn't allowed to under Ballmer, who treated the Windows PC as the center of the universe.

 

This is part of why Apple and Google cleaned Microsoft's clock.  When Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007, it was mostly known as the Mac and iPod company.  But it was willing to devote as many resources as it needed to make sure the iPhone succeeded, even though that eventually meant becoming a phone-centric company.  Microsoft, however, would not let that happen -- it couldn't fathom a world where the PC wasn't its most important platform, and was more interested in short-term profits than investing in the future.

 

I don't think Microsoft could've anticipated the iPhone or Android.  However, it treated smartphones like a fly to swat away, and paid the ultimate price for it: it lost control of the computing landscape.  If Microsoft had been smart, it would have responded to the iPhone introduction by immediately planning a complete overhaul of Windows Mobile, even if it meant hiring hundreds of new engineers and taking a short-term hit to its bottom line.

 

[SansVarnic]

10 hours ago, Trixanity said:

To be fair, there's also a thread about Windows Mobile being alive and/or is just about to take off very frequently.

Are you referring to the post I made or the Previewers thread?

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, Commodus said:

 However, it treated smartphones like a fly to swat away, and paid the ultimate price for it: it lost control of the computing landscape.  If Microsoft had been smart, it would have responded to the iPhone introduction by immediately planning a complete overhaul of Windows Mobile, even if it meant hiring hundreds of new engineers and taking a short-term hit to its bottom line.

 

 

MS was the leader in smartphones from inception to 2007,  when apple and android hit the shelves there was really nothing left to implement (Business being their target demographic). The only thing left to do was improve the hardware, something MS had no control of.  Android is free so phone makers went with that. Apple was never going to release a windows phone.  The only thing MS could have realistically done to maintain phone OS market would be to give it away.  Why do that when they don't even need it as an income stream.    I really don't think a complete over haul would have changed the outcome.