Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Releases Final Windows Phone 7 Dev Tools

Soulskill posted about 4 years ago | from the wrapping-things-up dept.

Microsoft 170

cgriffin21 writes "Microsoft on Thursday released the final Windows Phone 7 developer tools to manufacturing, giving coders a couple of weeks' lead time to get their apps ready for the launch of the Windows Phone Marketplace in early October. Microsoft released the Windows Phone 7 OS to manufacturing on Sept. 1, and its OEM partners are in the process of testing it on handsets. The Windows Phone 7 developer tools are the final piece of the puzzle for Microsoft, which is now ready to march back into a mobile market where it has fallen alarmingly behind the leaders." In related news, CNET reports that Windows Phone 7 will only be available for GSM networks at launch, with a CDMA version planned for the first half of next year. This rules out Sprint and Verizon for launch.

cancel ×

170 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (4, Interesting)

iONiUM (530420) | about 4 years ago | (#33611596)

WHO WILL WIN?! Actually it's kind of too late for Microsoft already. They're entering the market so late, what can they possibly offer consumers (I'm ignoring business use cases here, since it isn't for business anyways, or so they stated) that they can't already get from current offerings, and better?

Furthermore, and this really pisses me off, the phone can't even run Silverlight in the browser. I have made a large Silverlight app and to make it work on the phone I have to re-target it, then tweak it to work with the "non-mobile but also not normal Silverlight version on windows phone 7" which is stupid. And I can't even tell people to just browse to the "regular" Silverlight page because of course, that won't work either. What exactly are they doing here?

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (4, Insightful)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | about 4 years ago | (#33611664)

Actually it's kind of too late for Microsoft already. They're entering the market so late, what can they possibly offer consumers (I'm ignoring business use cases here, since it isn't for business anyways, or so they stated) that they can't already get from current offerings, and better?

I had come to this conclusion as well.

The only solution I can see if MS means to seriously compete in this market is to make the hard decision to run at a loss to try to get some momentum going -- to lose money on each Windows phone in much the same way that video game console makers usually sell the first consoles at a loss.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33611798)

It worked for the original xbox

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (2, Insightful)

I'm Not There (1956) (1823304) | about 4 years ago | (#33611850)

They're entering the market so late, ...

I don't think so, not because MS have been making phone OS for a decade, but because iOS and Android are so young too. After all, Android is just two years old and iPhone has not finished its fourth year yet. Indeed, they've been doing great in these short years, but that doesn't mean they've guaranteed they're eternal success in the mobile industry.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (2, Insightful)

mark72005 (1233572) | about 4 years ago | (#33611958)

This is true, but this is a market where it typically takes around 2 years to even get a shot at a customer.

It will be exceedingly difficult for MSFT to gain a foothold in any market where it's 4th or 5th to the party, let alone this one.

What's their niche? In the desktop world they have business, but Blackberry owns business in the mobile world. Consumers will choose Apple or lower-cost Android devices more than likely.

It's hard to imagine a featureless and slow Windows Phone having anything very attractive to the average mobile customer strolling into an AT&T or T-Mobile store.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 4 years ago | (#33612032)

So why is WM7 joining the fray now any different to Android joining the fray two years after the iPhone?

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (2, Insightful)

mark72005 (1233572) | about 4 years ago | (#33612060)

When Android and Apple were joining, not only were they innovating, but they were establishing a market - smartphones for non-business consumers.

They didn't need to battle each other for market share, both were simply carving up an emerging customer base.

Microsoft enters the market at a time when most people who are interested in smart phones already have one. Their market share will have to be established by taking customers away from other platforms (very expensive), not grabbing people new to the game (cheap).

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 4 years ago | (#33612698)

As well as the post above, the iPhone was/is only on one carrier. So Android had Verizon, T-Mobile (and others) pushing them.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33613386)

you know that there is a world outside the US, right?

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 years ago | (#33613282)

I don't think so, not because MS have been making phone OS for a decade, but because iOS and Android are so young too. After all, Android is just two years old and iPhone has not finished its fourth year yet. Indeed, they've been doing great in these short years, but that doesn't mean they've guaranteed they're eternal success in the mobile industry.

One of the only reasons Windows Mobile has been kept in the marketplace is because of business users. Windows 7 Phone is geared more towards consumers and is incompatible with older versions. So Windows 7 Phone is just as much of new thing as Android and iOS was when they first got into the market erasing any advantage MS might have had.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33611886)

You assume that won't be happening anyway. How much do you think they make per device? $5? $10?

How many devices would they have to sell to just break even on what they've built thus far (OS & free tool wise)? ... and that assumes we ignore whatever losses that were incurred as part of Kin & the first attempt a Windows Mobile 7.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

Kenshin (43036) | about 4 years ago | (#33611902)

The only solution I can see if MS means to seriously compete in this market is to make the hard decision to run at a loss...

Nice idea, but good luck with that. Unlike Apple and RIM, Microsoft doesn't make, and therefore price, the phones. All they can hope for is that there's a "race to the bottom" on pricing... and like with PCs, they may end up triggering that. (Say hello to cheap phones that break after a few months.)

Subsidized handsets put brakes on quality cuts (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#33612288)

(Say hello to cheap phones that break after a few months.)

The U.S. phone market might put the brakes on too much quality-cutting. Carriers won't be able to subsidize a handset model with a 2-year service contract if it would be unprofitable for the carrier to offer a 2-year replacement plan on that model.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

Korin43 (881732) | about 4 years ago | (#33612290)

Say hello to cheap phones that break after a few months.

I can't wait. Right now all I can get are expensive phones that break every couple months.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33611910)

"The only solution I can see if MS means to seriously compete in this market is to make the hard decision to run at a loss to try to get some momentum going -- to lose money on each Windows phone in much the same way that video game console makers usually sell the first consoles at a loss."

But that's crazy talk! What, do you think Microsoft is made of money or something? They'll never go for it.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

loudmax (243935) | about 4 years ago | (#33611984)

The mobile space is an important strategic market for Microsoft. Open standards that exist on mobile could leak into the corporate space. A competitive free market would erode their primary source of revenue. I really don't see losing money on each phone being sold as much of a problem for Microsoft. Better for them to lose money now, even lots of it, than for a free market (or a competitor) to win.

As long as subscribers can chose from several competing mobile platforms, Microsoft has lost in this space. They need for Silverlight to become a de-facto standard to maintain their long term control. Expect them to keep pushing developer tools and corporate back office integration.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (2, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33612136)

>>>Better for them to lose money now, even lots of it, than for a free market (or a competitor) to win.

That strategy isn't working for them in the Xbox market. First they sold the Xbox for about half its actual cost of build. Now they are losing 10-20 dollars per 360 sold, but Microsoft is still being outsold 4-to-1 by the current winner. I know MS has deep pockets but how long can they continue this strategy? 10 years max? 15?

Microsoft is just like any other business and cannot afford to lose money on cellphones or any other product. Eventually their treasury will run dry.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#33612342)

[Taking a loss to build a brand] isn't working for them in the Xbox market [...] Microsoft is still being outsold 4-to-1 by the current winner.

What winner? VGChartz [vgchartz.com] shows Xbox 360 outselling Wii in both Americas and EMEAA. Or are you including DS in Nintendo's tally, in which case you could include Windows in Microsoft's?

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33612702)

Oh brother. A FANBOY. To be honest I don't give a shit who wins - Nintendo, Sony, Sega, Atari, or Odyssey 2. And neither should you, because it matters not. But since you asked here are the numbers from wikipedia:

WII units shipped Worldwide: 73.97 million (as of June 30, 2010
360 Units sold Worldwide: 41.7 million (as of June 30, 2010
PS3 Units sold 38.1 million (as of June 30, 2010)[

- Okay so Wii is actually "2 to 1" not 4 to 1. Shame on my for relying on my foggy memory, but still Wii is "winning" by a long shot. Wii is to this generation what PS2, PS1, SNES, NES, and Atari VCS/2600 were in previous gens.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33612804)

If you think the number of console sold is the determining factor in the gaming war, then you are definately out of the loop. The 360 outclass both the Wii and PS3 combined in the amount of games sold PER system, making it a huge cash cow for MS with licencing revenues. And we're not talking about LIVE subscription.

Uninformed FANBOY.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | about 4 years ago | (#33612830)

If you look one chart down, the current rate of sales shows the 360 outselling the Wii worldwide and in each sub-market except in Japan. The question is, which is more relevant to the issue of phones, the throughout-history historical worldwide sales chart where Wii outsells the Xbox by ~5:3, or the current chart where the Xbox outsells the Wii by a marginal amount (about 10:9).

I would content that neither are particularly relevant since the markets (and market distortions) are vastly different.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 4 years ago | (#33612740)

yes, but that's only been for a little while. And at 20,000 units a time, it's got a loooooooong way to go to make up the 30 million unit shortfall compared to the Wii. (I make it 28 years at 20,000 units per week to catch up)

After the xbox slim becomes less 'modern' and nintendo brings out Wii 2 (or whatever), the numbers will change again. Probably they'll change next month when the PS Move is out (its quite cheap) so I think it will jump up in the weekly rankings for a while.

No, the only valid indicator is the total sales. If it wasn't for Windows and Office, XBox would have gone bankrupt years ago.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | about 4 years ago | (#33612942)

but Microsoft is still being outsold 4-to-1 by the current winner.

As already noted below, that number isn't accurate and even the 2-to-1 number has a lot of caveats.

It seems very possible to me that Microsoft makes up some of its revenue on the games -- most (obviously not all, and not including me) of the Wii owners I know don't own any other games besides what came bundled. I can't say that for anyone I know that owns a 360 or PS3.

Nintendo, in this generation, essentially pulled the "Apple trick" of creating a new market for a consumer good. I know a lot of people with Wiis who have never owned a video game system before and may never again. It's great for Nintendo that they managed to do this, since (by the best numbers I've seen) they made a profit on every Wii. Other manufacturers took a loss on their systems, but when you factor in the razor or printer ink pricing model, may not have done all that bad in the final analysis.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | about 4 years ago | (#33612082)

I don't see how deciding to lose money is going to change anything. Not even deciding to be cheap. Not even deciding to be free. Hey, i'm giving you fresh turds ! Free ! How comes nobody wants any ?

The solution is not "losing money" per se, but coming up with something compelling for end-users, developers and OEMs.

The solution, on the contrary, is to aim at being very expensive, and making something people are ready to pay big bucks for.

You "solution" is exactly why MS is losing.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | about 4 years ago | (#33612992)

Look at the Zune: I've never owned one, but most people that I've talked to that have tried both say that, ultimately, it was a superior product to the iPod.

However, it was also superior too late after Apple already owned all the mindshare in that space, and it was about as expensive as an iPod.

I think, given the same situation but half the price of an iPod you would have seen something different in the market there. If you can't be the first to a market, sometimes being cheap works. Sometimes your model of being the luxury version works too, but I just don't see phones as occupying that kind of space at this time.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (3, Interesting)

mlts (1038732) | about 4 years ago | (#33612374)

The $50,000 question: What can Windows Phone 7 come up with that nobody else has, and make people willing to be locked via contract to two years with the device?

Before Windows Phone 7, WM was a great and extremely secure OS, next to BlackberryOS. It supported remote kills, encrypted the memory card in a simple, but elegant and secure fashion, allowed one to reset their password if forgotten on the road, supported a lot of applications (when Handango was the main way to purchase mobile programs), was easy to program for, and so on.

It is understandable that Microsoft wants to go from an open courtyard to a walled garden, especially with all the brickbats they have taken over the years (deserved and undeserved [1].)

As of now, we have a number of distinct platforms for writing smartphone apps, and each is different from each other by a large degree: We have Objective C for iOS, Java for Android/BlackberryOS, XNA or Silverlight for Windows Phone 7, and C++ for Symbian (IIRC). XBox coders will be fine with XNA for the platform, but iOS and Android app writers will not bother because it is a completely different platform and architecture.

Developers are looking at the numbers right now and growth rates. If I were to place my bets on a business application, it would be the tried and true BlackberryOS. If I wanted business users and consumers, it would be iOS. If I wanted consumers and some small business, Android. Where does Microsoft fit in here?

There is one niche I see Windows Phone 7 will be good for is Exchange support. I'm sure it will support encryption, remote kill, password changes, password complexity, and all that. However, is superb Exchange support good enough to get the phone into the enterprise, jostling out Blackberries and iPhones [2]? IMHO, it needs more than that to be a viable platform.

Microsoft makes some high quality products, but that isn't good enough. They have to grab market from entrenched companies and fight with Android for customers, both business and end user. I can see MS gunning at RIM for the enterprise users, but they have a fight on their hands for other markets.

[1]: A lot of Windows problems are not Microsoft's fault. They are due to application developers who do the absolute minimum to get code shipped with security as a distant afterthought. I'm sure there would be a lot fewer cases of compromised Windows PCs if application developers wrote their code to not crash if DEP was turned on globally, and allowed ASLR to function.

[2]: Apple is getting better with encryption, especially for Exchange. The only thing the iPhone is missing is the ability to set it so it erases itself if it does not get a network signal after "X" amount of time like Blackberries do. Similar with functionality to erase itself if the SIM card is removed or changed out.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 4 years ago | (#33612872)

Before Windows Phone 7, WM was a great and extremely secure OS

Did we use different versions of Windows Mobile?

WinMo is not something I'd call stable. I've known people who had it lock up playing certain sound clips (sometimes even reboot), I have one friend who had an HD2 that was possibly the slowest device he's ever owned (and it's not the hardware) and having direct experience using it on over 50,000 devices (that I have applications on, which doesn't include another large chunk used for... let say "inventory" management) at my workplace we still have to be concerned with memory usage or it will crash.

Of course, since the guys in charge of the next version of our devices are probably "Microsoft Certified" they plan on using WinMo devices again.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 4 years ago | (#33612934)

We'll see about Exchange support but so far it appears Android's is better!

For development.. note that you can develop in QT for Symbian and no doubt MeeGo, and Android (see the lighthouse project), and an iPhone project is being worked on. Given Blackberry apps tend to be a separate breed, it almost makes sense to do all your dev in QT (as it works on Windows, Linux and mac too) and you're back to an almost-single codebase. That is very important if you don't want to lose tons of cash rewriting everything all the time.

As the OP noted, Silverlight on Windows Phone 7 is poor, and its pretty limited marketshare on the desktop roughly equates to no-one bothering with it (except die-hard MS developers who expect the world to fall over itself for the latest MS tech). If you could run C++ on Windown Phone 7 then QT would be a very compelling solution - and might even save the Win Phone market.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

mlts (1038732) | about 4 years ago | (#33613268)

I'd disagree with you about Android's Exchange support. As of 2.2, the only encryption Android supports is encrypting apps stored on the memory card. Android has no encryption support of data whatsoever, and this by itself is a deal killer.

Of course this can be easily remedied two ways: LUKS if one wanted to dedicate segments or an entire memory card for device level encryption, or CFS/EncFS based for file by file encryption similar to what Windows Mobile 6.0 and newer does on the memory card.

Of course, this aside, even if the Android's Exchange support is lackluster, TouchDown picks up where the device might have left off, but the lack of data encryption is a big demerit for Android devices in the enterprise.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 4 years ago | (#33613298)

The $50,000 question: What can Windows Phone 7 come up with that nobody else has, and make people willing to be locked via contract to two years with the device?

Same thing as android?

Market differentiation is nice and all, and important. But the bottom line is that Microsoft is already a recognized brand; all they have to do is show up with a competent product that isn't markedly inferior and there's no reason it won't succeed in the market.

And plenty of opportunity for distinctiveness exists... they can can deliver proper outlook and office support. They can provide xbox-live integration for those that might want it. That's just 2 big ones off the top of my head...

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (2, Insightful)

happy_place (632005) | about 4 years ago | (#33611724)

this is a pretty standard Microsoft tactic. they add a billion features based upon a dozen standards and only implement about 30% of the standard. they claim they have the features, but they're implemented crappily--at least until people start screaming about it, and then they'll maybe implement 50% of it. this can be as simple as importing HTML into a Word document, and having it just decide not to support CSS in certain formats. Their browser supports it, but word only partly does. I think this happens because they have a lot of money, so they throw a lot of money at the initial implementation, but then leave the rest of it up to the thousands of code-monkeys to fix/polish and improve their standards, and they don't have a clue. Further why fully implement a standard that only a small fraction of users will use to a level of expertise that requires detailed support? So we're stuck with "good enough".

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33612254)

>>>they add a billion features based upon a dozen standards and only implement about 30% of the standard

This is why I vehemently disagree with those who claim 90s-era Internet Exploder 3 or 4 was better than Netscape Navigator 3 or 4. Netscape wasn't perfect but it followed the standards better than IE did, which forced websites to create special IE-specific code to make them work. (And still do even now, ten years later.)

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (-1, Flamebait)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33612294)

P.S.

Speaking of standards isn't GSM (Groupe Spécial Mobile) fairly out-of-date? I was just reading on wikipedia that GSM was developed in 1990. That's equivalent to still using MP1 to encode your songs, or MPEG1 to encode video. Old.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33612624)

Old, sure, but it works, and infrastructure tends to have to stick around a lot longer than some people like. Partly because a spec takes 'ages' in technological terms to go from agreement to physical devices in the marketplace. DVDs were developed mid-90s, but didn't actually become consumer items until nearly 2000, and are still popular today despite being "Old".

The tech for phones hasn't changed in half a century. It took cell phones to start killing the land line as it has existed for so long.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33612798)

>>>Old, sure, but it works

Okay. Thanks for answering my question instead of modding me "flame". So is GSM using time-division multiplexing to handle the many calls, or code-division? The wikipedia article doesn't say.

The old switcheroo (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 4 years ago | (#33611732)

They're entering the market so late, what can they possibly offer consumers

They can offer a wide range of phones all with a consistent UI. That's different from Apple (which has consistent UI but not a large range of phones) and from Android (which offers a wide range of phones now but with divergent UI).

Make no mistake, Android has taken over what Microsoft sees as ITS market (making phone OS'es for multiple vendors) and badly wants it back. And they still have a ton of money to make the attempt. And they have the same controls over application quality that has helped Apple in the application space.

Furthermore, and this really pisses me off, the phone can't even run Silverlight in the browser.

Microsoft does have some odd choices around technology support but I think these are only minor quibbles for what they are trying to do.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 4 years ago | (#33611804)

WHO WILL WIN?!

BREW [wikipedia.org] , the most successful platform you've never heard of.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#33612440)

BREW phones tend not to have a wide selection of applications because a developer's cost of entry is substantially higher than with Android, iOS, or Windows Phone 7.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

Voyager529 (1363959) | about 4 years ago | (#33611880)

Just to be fair, that's what many said about Apple; they were going up against incumbents like RIM and Windows Mobile on the smartphone side (recall that at the time, WinMo had more apps available than most other mobile platforms, and while it didn't do much with the polish of the iPhone, it did have a pretty solid feature list at the time), and a bevy of LG and Samsung feature phones that were quite popular. In 2006, many thought Apple would occupy a similar niche in the mobile space as they did on the desktop. I'm not saying that WinMo will have the same results as Apple did, but I am saying that predicting that $VENDOR isn't going to succeed has been said before.

That said, Microsoft seems to be doing something right in that it's actually targeting both business users AND consumer users in the first round. Home users get the much-touted Xbox and Zune integration, while business users get Exchange support, Office Mobile, and Sharepoint integration. Again, I'm not saying that this will necessarily equate to success in the enterprise market, but I am saying that both segments seem to be in Microsoft's sights.

What will really help their enterprise install base would be something similar to Blackberry Enterprise Server Express, where admins can perform fine-grained security and software deployment operations from a tightly integrated AD/Exchange environment.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1)

rsborg (111459) | about 4 years ago | (#33612768)

Just to be fair, that's what many said about Apple; they were going up against incumbents like RIM and Windows Mobile on the smartphone side

Wait, isn't this just another version of Windows Mobile? Microsoft has had 10 years to make a strong mobile move, it's not like they're some upstart "rulebreaker" like Apple (who has had a history of rulebreaking). They were the incumbents, the "inevitable", the heirs to the throne that Nokia held (by virtue of their desktop dominance)... back in 2000.

Now 10 years later, no sane person would compare Microsoft to Apple in mobile... other than, perhaps that all of their moves (GSM only, no cut/paste, unified and locked-down app store, etc) seem completely copied from Apple's game plan from 3 years ago.

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33612354)

I just posted something very simliar to what you are saying on Tims page, and I posted this yesterday.

http://timheuer.com/blog/archive/2010/09/16/silverlight-toolkit-for-windows-phone-7-released.aspx

Im watson.

Wow its almost sexual how much I agree with you. Almost... :P

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33613070)

It's just so funny that you americans are forgetting symbian and meego, which are backed by still the biggest smartphone manufacturer nokia...

Re:Android, iOS, Blackberry OS, Windows Phone 7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33613198)

No CDMA? Way to shoot yourself in the foot there, Microsoft, by alienating the largest portion of cellular network users in the USA.

They can... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33611598)

shove it up their arses!!

Honest (3, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | about 4 years ago | (#33611620)

I'm really hoping that Windows Phone 7 (both hardware and software offerings) bring something worthy to the table. Competition is a great thing, and if nothing else WP7 will at least light even more of a fire under the butt of RIM/Apple/Android devs to step up their game.

Re:Honest (2, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 4 years ago | (#33611700)

Competition is good, but honestly, I don't want competition from Microsoft. I WANT them to fail (and thankfully the market so far has obliged). Their stranglehold on the desktop OS market is a tough egg to crack. It's a position that isn't even held via merit anymore - it's just kinda the default choice because that's what almost everyone runs so support and software are all made for it.

Microsoft failing in the mobile market hurts their bottom line, but more importantly it harms their company image even further. The more incompetent they look, the more likely people are to try out something else on their DESKTOP too. Not to mention that one extreme benefit of the mobile OS wars and the increase in people browsing from phones is that web developers have HAD to start thinking mutli-platform. The days when you could just develop for IE6 because that's what everyone used are long gone, and the myriad of non-MS OS's in use on mobile phones played a sizable role in that. I don't want MS to have a foothold in that area.

Let some new players fight in the mobile OS market.

Re:Honest (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33612270)

Thank you so much for saying this. I keep hearing over and over how people say they hope MS has some success with Windows Phone 7 and IE9 and whatever else they have coming out. Well, guess what happens when MS is successful? Vista, IE6, bloated monsters like Office, netbooks with hard limits on hardware capability, charging vendors for Windows whether they shipped it or not, the ISO/OOXML catastrophe. Seriously, are people's memories so short? I want MS to be a bit player at best.

Re:Honest (1)

I_have_a_life (1582721) | about 4 years ago | (#33612600)

Comments like this make me nervous because they insinuate that other companies (such as Google, Apple) will not behave the same way Microsoft did if they have a chance to. And any argument to that effect is terribly weak given that there is absolutely no evidence to support it. Public corporations are public corporations. They are not on your side. Your welfare is not their primary concern unless it boosts their profits. I'm not necessarily against public corporations. They're like fire. They can help you when you need them but given the right circumstances they will burn indiscriminately.

ANY competition in a "free market" economy is good. It doesn't matter where it comes from. There is plenty of evidence to support that. Windows 7 is by far the best operating system Microsoft ever produced and the only reason why is competition. We need competition from Microsoft to lower the chance that companies like Google, Apple, Adobe, or some other company try to pull a Microsoft stunt. And if you believe they won't you're terribly naive.

As a community of geeks we must put our emotions aside and assess these companies and their doings dispassionately.

Re:Honest (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 4 years ago | (#33612950)

Comments like this make me nervous because they insinuate that other companies (such as Google, Apple) will not behave the same way Microsoft did if they have a chance to. ...
Your welfare is not their primary concern unless it boosts their profits. I'm not necessarily against public corporations. They're like fire. They can help you when you need them but given the right circumstances they will burn indiscriminately.

ANY competition in a "free market" economy is good. It doesn't matter where it comes from.

But come on now. Even you have to admit that giving Microsoft domination on the mobile platform as well as the desktop would be like lighting fire to all the forests of the world all at one time, using napalm.

Re:Honest (1)

I_have_a_life (1582721) | about 4 years ago | (#33613108)

I don't want them to dominate the mobile platform (which at this point is only a very remote possibility anyway). I don't want anyone to dominate the mobile platform. The only way to do that is to embrace all competition. Companies are all the same they're after your money. But as long as they have to watch their back and fight off the competition they'll at least be giving you something worth while for it.

Re:Honest (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 4 years ago | (#33613046)

Comments like this make me nervous because they insinuate that other companies (such as Google, Apple) will not behave the same way Microsoft did if they have a chance to. And any argument to that effect is terribly weak given that there is absolutely no evidence to support it.

I never said those companies wouldn't. However, those types of actions are only possible with market dominance. There is no clear market dominance over in the mobile space - and it looks like it's going to stay that way - WITHOUT Microsoft's help - for the foreseeable future. Another player isn't needed to fix a problem that doesn't exist there. HOWEVER, if Microsoft's failures in the mobile market hurt it in the desktop market, then it looses credibility, marketshare, and users there. Most importantly, it looses the ability to behave the way it has been doing for at least 15 years now.

It's not a matter of wanting one dictator over another. It's about preventing a known dictator from gaining a powerbase in a new land, hence increasing their overall strength and stranglehold on their original holdings.

Re:Honest (1)

I_have_a_life (1582721) | about 4 years ago | (#33613356)

That's short sighted. Please define the "foreseeable future" because from my experience that's just a cliche that gets thrown around far too much. Here's something that is more concrete: given enough time and not enough competition one company will dominate the market. Just because it isn't so now doesn't mean it won't be later. The best way to prevent market dominance is to welcome all competition with open arms and put aside any emotional feelings about which companies are "nice" and which ones are "naughty".

Microsoft's failure in the mobile market hurting it's desktop market is, in my opinion, not even worth discussing. First of all we could use a reasonable desktop alternative to Windows that is not locked into a hardware platform. Second, Windows is alive and well in industries where people can't afford to make decisions based on image. I'm not talking about run or the mill consumers that tune into the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" commercials I'm talking about industry. The vast majority or our refining, chemical, electrical generation, pulp and paper, nuclear, pharmaceutical, smart grid, manufacturing, you name it runs Windows (at least on the desktop). Furthermore, in those industries you pick a platform and you stick with it for as long as you can milk it. They could care less about what Microsoft's mobile or gaming platforms are doing. Not everyone is easily swayed by reputation and image. Some people still make decisions based on good old fashioned dollars and cents.

Re:Honest (1)

Voyager529 (1363959) | about 4 years ago | (#33613160)

Manual Mod +1 insightful. If I hadn't posted earlier, I'd have modded you up.

The issue is that ultimately, getting into the cell phone game at any level (tower production, network management, protocol software, retail distribution, handset production, handset OS production, and the other 1,001 areas I'm completely unaware of) has an extremely high barrier of entry, and no matter where you start, you're going up against decade-old incumbents or more. At this point it takes companies with the cavernous pockets of Apple or Google to actually generate any sort of competition.

Novell got big, they charged stupid amounts for software and support, which gave Microsoft an edge. Microsoft got big, they ended up with the IE antitrust debacle. Apple got big, and they started adding hardware to their phones to prevent jailbreaking. Google got big and SO FAR hasn't had any problematically huge PR/legal issues, but when you have Google's insane amount of cash and data on as many users as they do, it's just a matter of time before they end up doing something that will get them problematic amounts of bad press.

There's no such thing as a corporation acting in the consumer's best interest once that corporation is actually big enough to compete in the mobile space. Among the barriers of entry is the patent-sharing collusion that is required from basically everyone already there, so even if a garage startup came out with SuperPhoneOS_Ultra, getting it into the hands of consumers necessarily requires getting one's hands dirty.

The best we can hope for here is that each company provides enough competition to keep the others on their toes, while simultaneously not being anticompetitive, and not ending up as an oligopoly like the telecoms themselves. Each telecom has X amount of subscribers, and people shift from one to another every so often, but at this point the policies are largely the same because of the collusion. Paradoxically though, each entrant would slowly raise the bar on the others. No one company would independently continue innovating without pressure from the others.

I'd wager that Microsoft would put the most pressure on RIM, and to a lesser extent Apple, but all four major smartphone OSs would basically move at more-or-less the same speed unless someone else entered the mobile phone business. Personally, I'd find it quite amusing if there was an Oracle phone.

Re:Honest (1)

cybrthng (22291) | about 4 years ago | (#33611714)

Well, Microsoft has certainly set the bar for developer tools. If hardware companies live up on the hardware side, i'd pretty much say WP7 is "in the bag" but hey, thats just me :)

The WP7 tools are almost too easy to use.. Being late to the game may be the best thing for MS. Learn from everyone elses mistakes (as well as your own heha.. (kin))

Re:Honest (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | about 4 years ago | (#33611788)

The WP7 tools are almost too easy to use.. Being late to the game may be the best thing for MS. Learn from everyone elses mistakes

To be fair, MS has a mixed bag with that approach... for every XBox (which, yes I know the arguments for it not being one, but I still consider it to be a success) or .NET you've got a Zune or a Kin.

(You can make a list like that for a Google or Apple as well, but it's a lot easier to point to recent MS failures than Apple ones.)

Re:Honest (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | about 4 years ago | (#33612030)

If you've got a Kin?

So there's supposedly 500 people right there.

Re:Honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33612110)

Was anything wrong with the zune? Hardware was decent, the $15/mo subscription for unlimited music and 10 songs / month you can keep forever. I always figured zune failed for the same reason no one has cracked the desktop market. A player at the top (Apple in this case) has a damn near unshakable grip on the market, and nothing short of a brilliant marketing campaign with the best software/hardware and price will crack that.

Re:Honest (1)

zombieChan51 (1862028) | about 4 years ago | (#33612200)

He didn't say that there was anything wrong with the zune. It just wasn't successful as MS wanted it to be. Sure there's a lot of people out there who really like the Zune(including myself), but like you said Apple has a unshakeable grip on the market.

Re:Honest (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | about 4 years ago | (#33613038)

Thanks for clearing that up -- you're right, that's exactly what I meant. Not a market success.

Re:Honest (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#33612486)

Was anything wrong with the zune?

For one thing, it couldn't play music from PlaysForSure stores despite carrying the Microsoft name.

Re:Honest (1)

cspankne (98424) | about 4 years ago | (#33612366)

The Zune, is actually a superior device to the Ipod or Touch. Unfortunately, this falls back to MS lack of ability to effectively market any software or hardware they provide. MS seems to focus on advertising products that MAY (read: wont) release in 3-5 years. My curiousity lies in how effective the multi-hundred-million dollar WP7 advertising campaign that will undboutedly be infecting your tv screens and monitors in the near future is going to be.

If they can market it successfully and make it appeal to consumers, people will buy it. It's a simple equation.

Re:Honest (2, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 4 years ago | (#33611866)

If hardware companies live up on the hardware side

Given the awful track record of WinME-family phones, I'd expect that the availability of Windows Phone 7 phones (doesn't that just trip off the tongue) will be largely dependent on Microsoft's willingness to "partner" with OEMs, in the same way that a scrawny fugly guy "partners" with an expensive hooker.

Re:Honest (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | about 4 years ago | (#33612626)

I only remember WinCE phones... those WinME phones much have been REALLY crappy! :-)

Re:Honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33611720)

I'm really hoping that Windows Phone 7 ... bring something worthy to the table.

Call it a bit vindictive, but I just want them to whither and die, along with the whole company.

Re:Honest (1)

Locutus (9039) | about 4 years ago | (#33612292)

That would be good but given the topic of this thread, don't you get the impression Windows Phone 7 is being rushed to market? Or is it being so strict and locked down that the OEM's are not expected to so much customizing? Releasing the SDK just 2 weeks before supposed release as not time enough for developers to get apps rebuilt and tested before publishing.

Sounds like Mr Ballmer is really cracking the whip to hit target ship dates. That's never worked out very well for Microsoft nor their customers. With Windows, they have the lock-in to keep customers coming back time and time again but with the phone market, they have no such lock. To make it worst for them, they have almost no market share at all and they have three very strong products( iOS, Android, and BB OS 6) to go up against.

They will have to provide massive marketing dollars to get their phones on the market and even then, unless the competitions phones are pulled from the shelves, customer choice will decide and Microsoft has nothing I've seen which can win the hearts and minds of customers. Rushing a product to market is a sure bet for failure given the market they are entering. IMO

LoB

Re:Honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33612682)

Worthy to the table?? Microsoft is not even releasing native code SDK, so no Doom, Quake and other games or mission critical apps will appear on the platform, at least not at the launch. Why is MS even bothering to enter the market with such a crippled platform is beyond belief, even Samsung with Bada SDK offers performance oriented tools.

Re:Honest (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 4 years ago | (#33613442)

Competition is a great thing, and if nothing else WP7 will at least light even more of a fire under the butt of RIM/Apple/Android devs to step up their game.

More likely it will just make RIM/Apple/Android look even better, considering MS' track record with phone OSes.

"Windows Phone 7"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33611686)

For some reason I was expecting the name "Windows 7 Phone Edition".

They've killed the natives (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33611760)

It's a pity that there is no more room for native code developers on Windows Phone 7.

Surprised they aren't taking it more seriously (2, Interesting)

HalAtWork (926717) | about 4 years ago | (#33611794)

I'm very surprised MS haven't been taking the mobile market more seriously, I thought they were trying to push netbook users towards mobile phone computing [slashdot.org] with their Fone+ initiative. They seem very non-committal in this space, either half-heartedly supporting various iterations of the platform only to refresh the brand after a hiatus and stubbornly pushing the same old thing on consumers, or dropping products entirely when they show any sign of weakness in the market. You don't build a platform and user base by running away when you get cold feet, you have to stand behind it, address concerns, and build up a sense of confidence in consumers. Why should anyone be confident of any of MS's mobile phone attempts when there are already very strong brands with a history that consumers can put their faith in?

Microsoft very committed - in all directions (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 4 years ago | (#33612448)

I'm very surprised MS haven't been taking the mobile market more seriously

Microsoft has been taking the mobile market extremely seriously. Why else would have they have focused intently on WM 6, WM 6.5, the KIn, and WM7?

But that's the problem you see. These internal efforts, were all fighting one another. By focusing intently on several things, they were really focusing on none.

It looks like POSSIBLY with WM7 they may be finally choosing to focus on one system and push it forward. Time will tell how true that is.

GSM only? CDMA next? WTF?? (0)

kent_eh (543303) | about 4 years ago | (#33611838)

No one is installing new GSM or CDMA at the base stations. It's strictly "keep it running for now" on the carrier side.
UMTS/HSDPA/LTE is what is currently happening.

Way to get on last decade's bandwagon Microsoft.

Re:GSM only? CDMA next? WTF?? (1)

irix (22687) | about 4 years ago | (#33612122)

No one is installing new GSM or CDMA at the base stations. It's strictly "keep it running for now" on the carrier side.

UMTS/HSDPA/LTE is what is currently happening.
 

Read the article. In "casual" parlance, GSM = UMTS/HSPA. Also, people are still installing CDMA networks.

Re:GSM only? CDMA next? WTF?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33612692)

No one is installing new GSM or CDMA at the base stations. It's strictly "keep it running for now" on the carrier side.

UMTS/HSDPA/LTE is what is currently happening.

Way to get on last decade's bandwagon Microsoft.

Pretty sure when they say "GSM" they mean "GSM+UMTS+HSDPA", and when they say "CDMA" they mean "IS-95+CDMA2000+EV-DO"

GSM and CDMA have both become shorthand that include technologies that respectively replaced them.

Let's get ready for the Microsoft bundle (0, Flamebait)

bogaboga (793279) | about 4 years ago | (#33611844)

...Or should I have called it the Microsoft Pack? Yes, I can see this bundle allowing Windows Phone users to use their gadgets to work with MS Office documents in ways that no current platform Android or iOS can.

Remember the old Netscape vs Internet Explorer days? It's gonna be 'those times' played all over again. Folks, the future looks and promises to be interesting.

Re:Let's get ready for the Microsoft bundle (1)

Microlith (54737) | about 4 years ago | (#33612146)

Not really. If things keep going the way they are you'll have locked down tablets and smartphones displacing standard computers. Of course, the majors in this industry are more than happy, as that lets them more effectively control consumers, from whom they can extract more profits.

Look at the hardware that's out there and you'll see what's going on:

- Every Android phone besides the Dev Phones and Nexus One must be rooted via an exploit before the user controls it
- Apple locks everything down, again forcing you to jailbreak
- Motorola locks things down above and beyond the norm to ensure you can't escape their services and carrier bloated crap
- Microsoft wants to ape Apple's lockdown
- Otellini made the none-too-subtle suggestion that computers should refuse to run ANY software not signed by a 3rd party
- Books are moving towards e-readers bought via DRM-encrusted devices like the Kindle, which we've seen Amazon abuse already

There are a handful of vendors who actually respect their customers, but they're few and far between.

I get this bad feeling that Stallman's little dystopic story just might come true, minus the FBI involvement (initially, at least.)

Ad Campaign (1)

killmenow (184444) | about 4 years ago | (#33611856)

Windows Phone 7: Now with less monopoly! PLEASE LOVE OUR PHONE! (Also iPhone sux.)

Is it really Windows? (0, Offtopic)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | about 4 years ago | (#33611896)

Is this really Windows? From what I had read earlier, the OS seemed to have more in common with the Zune OS.

So, what is the heritage of this OS? Is it an entirely new beast, or a descendant of WinCE, Win32, or ZuneOS?

Re:Is it really Windows? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33612004)

ZuneOS is WinCE 6 Based.

Re:Is it really Windows? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33612024)

And does it come with sample rootkits?

CDMwhat? (0, Troll)

cbope (130292) | about 4 years ago | (#33612000)

CDMA is still alive?

Isn't it about time to move on from the semi-proprietary CDMA networks in the US? I mean come on, the rest of the world is standardized on GSM and 3G... why do the US operators cling to obsolete non-standard technologies?

Re:CDMwhat? (1)

irix (22687) | about 4 years ago | (#33612210)

the rest of the world is standardized on GSM and 3G...

http://phone-solutions.pavemyway.com/Cdma-Operators/Cdma-Operators-List.php [pavemyway.com]

why do the US operators cling to obsolete non-standard technologies?

http://www.3gpp2.org/Public_html/specs/index.cfm [3gpp2.org]

Not heavily implemented outside of the Americas != non-standard.

Re:CDMwhat? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#33612596)

Verizon Wireless will switch from its CDMA2000 network to "LTE", the next standard out of the GSM camp [wikipedia.org] .

Re:CDMwhat? (1)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | about 4 years ago | (#33612818)

The ITU considers CDMA2000 (commonly referred to as just CDMA) a 3G standard. It's used in 116 countries.

Great news (1)

shikaisi (1816846) | about 4 years ago | (#33612008)

Now we can start developing apps for all those dozens of potential users.

CDMA, seriously? (2, Funny)

multipartmixed (163409) | about 4 years ago | (#33612028)

> This rules out Sprint and Verizon for launch.

In our backwards little country -- just north of y'all -- the big CDMA vendors have realized that CDMA sucks from pretty much every standpoint that matters. Bell and Telus have rolled out nation-wide HSPA networks.

And I have yet to see a 16-year old girl saying things like "I would have bought an iPhone, except with time-division multiplexing, there is a finite cell capacity; if Apple had rolled out code-division we could simply increase tower load by reducing quality of service"

Re:CDMA, seriously? (4, Insightful)

irix (22687) | about 4 years ago | (#33612266)

There are two ways to go from CDMA to LTE, which is where everyone is going.

One is to obsolete your CDMA/EVDO network and deploy GSM/HSPA which has a direct upgrade path to LTE and provides inter-network mobility. This is what Telus and Bell did because they are running comparatively tiny networks.

The other is to move your CDMA/EVDO gear to CDMA/eHRPD and then deploy LTE with mobility between CDMA and LTE. This is what Sprint (modulo WiMAX as a step in there) and Verizon are doing, because their networks and number of deployed devices are an order of magnitude larger and deploying a GSM/UMTS network a year before switching to LTE is not viable.

I'm Canadian too, but it isn't like we have some sort of technical superiority or that Bell and Telus know something that Verizon and Sprint don't.

Re:CDMA, seriously? (1)

Miamicanes (730264) | about 4 years ago | (#33612508)

> In our backwards little country -- just north of y'all -- the big CDMA vendors have realized
> that CDMA sucks from pretty much every standpoint that matters.
> Bell and Telus have rolled out nation-wide HSPA networks.

Er, not quite. What happened was that Telus & Bell realized they happened to own 1900MHz spectrum that, combined with 2100MHz spectrum, would enable them to offer direct compatibility with international-standard UMTS phones. So, instead of dropping EVDO alongside 1xRTT (aka "CDMA voice and 150k data"), they dropped UMTS alongside 1xRTT instead. At least, in big cities.

From what I was told by a Canadian friend, until about a year ago, they would ALLOW you to use an imported unlocked phone that was capable of only 1900/2100 UMTS if you insisted, but if you wanted to use it in an area where Telus had no UMTS service (yet), but HAD viable CDMA service, you had to pay the roaming charges yourself. Apparently, they've loosened up this policy a bit so that they'll officially pay your roaming charges... but if more than 50% of your calls end up roaming on UMTS (say, you live in a small town in Saskatchewan), they'll give you a choice between termination, paying the roaming charges yourself, or switching to a phone that can do CDMA.

This wasn't an option at all for Verizon (they're all 850MHz, and 1900MHz is totally owned in America), and wasn't politically an option for Sprint. Sprint has 1900MHz, but would have needed 2100MHz for the downlinks. The FCC had 2100MHz spectrum to sell, but first and foremost wanted to ensure that whomever bought it could use the spectrum to create a viable UMTS network. That drove the price too high to be worth bothering with for Sprint (who really didn't need the 1700MHz spectrum), and kept it affordable for the one network that truly needed it (T-Mobile).

Re:CDMA, seriously? (1)

M Moogle (164749) | about 4 years ago | (#33613032)

Just a little correction - Verizon isn't 850Mhz everywhere. It depends on who they bought out in the area or what licenses they were granted. In Wisconsin they're 1900Mhz (well, at least in the non-Alltel areas - not sure about those).

Re:CDMA, seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33613482)

What are you talking about? Bell and Telus are NOT using the 2100 MHz band. Only 850 and 1900. And this is true for both CDMA2000 and UMTS.

Why? I would like to see it before I go Andriod (1)

gsgriffin (1195771) | about 4 years ago | (#33612084)

I know there are lots of people that simply hate MS for anything it does. Sure, they have lots of problems. But, I love Win 7 that I'm running on all of my computers. They got a lot of things really right this time. I also use MS Office for everything (I know, lots of OO comments to follow, fine...whatever). It would be great to have the OS seamlessly connect and use everything I'm doing on my laptop and desktops (win 7). If this works, I'll be upgrading my WM5, which still runs fine.

Microsoft and Incompetence? A tale of two smartpho (1, Insightful)

DickBreath (207180) | about 4 years ago | (#33612194)

1. Android. Enough said [enterprise...etoday.com] .

2. Windows Phone 7 Series.

October will bring the launch of Windows Phone 7 Series. Phones from the same company that brought you such fine products as Edlin, DOS 4, Windows ME, Internet Explorer 6, Zune, Vista and Bing. Phones with the kind of quality, stability, security and robustness you’ve come to expect from the Microsoft name. Yes, Windows Phone 7 Series is a new ballgame that abandons compatibility (and your investment) with Windows Mobile and literally dozens and dozens of developers who wrote apps for it. It is unconnected with the recent Microsoft Sidekick/Danger fiasco that made national news when it lost all data for millions of smartphone users worldwide. (Microsoft acquired the successful Sidekick/Danger and tried to “Microsoft” it.) After the Sidekick/Danger fiasco, don’t expect T-Mobile to be friends with Microsoft anytime soon. I’m sure the other carriers are also paying attention. Also don’t forget the recently launched, and recently discontinued Microsoft Kin phone! Microsoft spent over $85 Million in marketing for it, and managed to sell over 500 units! Microsoft announced that it wasn’t as bad as the press was suggesting – they only lost $120,000 per Kin phone that was sold. When asked about the Kin phone and the Zune music player, teenagers said: the what and the what? So be looking forward to Windows Phone 7 Series in October. (If at first you don’t succeed, use a shorter bungee.)

(I posted this elsewhere earlier today.)


--
Their is no there they're. But only an idiot would begin or end a sentence with the word "but". And you'd have to be really daft to begin or end a sentence with "and". Your using you're words wrong. Two often too people get together two make to many smaller people.

Re:Microsoft and Incompetence? A tale of two smart (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 4 years ago | (#33612816)

Ahem

500? More like over 8000. [daringfireball.net]

Windows Phone 7 could sell, 9, maybe 10 thousand units. Which given their previous outing, would be a success.

Re:Microsoft and Incompetence? A tale of two smart (1)

kanguro (1237830) | about 4 years ago | (#33613002)

Android. From the fine company that brought you Wave, Buzz and Orkut. From the fine company that has a shite of a development environment over a blatant copy (Unlicensed) of the JVM. And the fine company that knows all about you and maybe will tell the chinese authorities if you don't behave. But they do good sellin' of advertisements. That they'll do. Religion wars anyone?

Re:Microsoft and Incompetence? A tale of two smart (2, Interesting)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 4 years ago | (#33613074)

probably more important is the bit that said the phone manufacturers can't customise it.

So, can you imagine Samsung and HTC putting in vast amounts of effort to design, manufacture and market a phone that.. to all intents and purposes, is the same as the other one. Including the LG phone they cranked out cheaply and gets all the sales because of that.

At the moment, all my colleagues are excited by Android phones, everyone who had a HTC hero wants a HTC Desire, and now they're salivating at the Galaxy S. These are different phones, slightly differnet features, and that makes for happy manufacturers who suddenly release something and make vast amounts of cash - enough to pay for the next bigger, better model.

With Window Phone... why bother, unless you're the cheapest no-one will care for your phone. If it has an extra megapixel on the camera, you're just losing money compared to your competitor who sells thousdands more than you because they priced it $20 cheaper .. for exactly the same functionality.

Re:Microsoft and Incompetence? A tale of two smart (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33613424)

Actually, the Kin was a worst disaster than anyone knows. They sold or gave away about ~12-13 thousand Kin phones, but developement, cost of acquiring and integrating Sidekick (and oh btw, they didn't even get the guy that was behind Sidekick - he'd already left to Google and started Android so they basically got all the idiots - who still work for Microsoft since that is the kind of company it is), and market was actually pretty close to $1.5 billion (yes that is billion with a 'B'). So yeah, basically each Kin sold cost Microsoft $120,000 as stated. What company in the world can afford to do something like that except a monopoly? Anyway, I certainly hope WP7 dies on the vine and Microsoft dies as well. I really wish someone would come take them out of the PC OS, Office and server market and this awful company would cease to exist.

no IE9 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33612358)

no IE9 sadly

Re:no IE9 (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | about 4 years ago | (#33612674)

Sadly?

Tried to download the SDK... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33612696)

I tried to download the SDK, but didn't find a version Linux or OS X. Guess I wont be developing for that platform.

Between iPhone and Android... (0, Troll)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about 4 years ago | (#33612794)

...remind me again why I would ever care about a Windows phone which is about as likely to succeed as the Zune?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>