Why doesn't the Zune run Windows Mobile? Even if it was a slightly modified version?
Why isn't the XBox 360 running embedded Windows XP? or Vista? With a custom shell, it would be invisible to the end user. Wouldn't putting in a fast processor and dedicated, high-end graphics chip essentially do the same thing as the current model?
So I wasn't being completely clear. I do believe Xbox runs some form of an embedded Windows OS. However, it's almost as if it is too embedded/separated, in my opinion. I'd much rather see it as a standardized platform for all of Microsoft's set-top efforts, and compatible with the standard Windows environment where reasonable/possible, and opened to allow third-party innovation.
I understand Microsoft's principle in that regard: they're competing in a different market (the gaming market), and so want to set up their console similar to the efforts by Nintendo, Sony, et. al. But I think this is an area where Microsoft could differentiate and carve up a niche even more effectively if they play their cards right, which they haven't done so far.
Now, the Zune is truly a fragmentation. I would love a platform like OS X Touch, with a great media player experience plus expansion possible as a PDA. However, WM has a terrible media playback experience, while the Zune has a great media playback experience but a terrible PDA experience. Sigh. Microsoft could have sewn this market up years ago, but they never bothered to.
Now, the Zune is truly a fragmentation. I would love a platform like OS X Touch, with a great media player experience plus expansion possible as a PDA. However, WM has a terrible media playback experience, while the Zune has a great media playback experience but a terrible PDA experience. Sigh. Microsoft could have sewn this market up years ago, but they never bothered to.
--janak
Here again this just underscores my point.
There are a number of great media players from third-party developers that solve the anemic Windows Media Player Mobile.
If they could do it, why couldn't Microsoft?
Windows Mobile just doesn't seem to be that high on their priority list, even now that they face increasingly stiff competition.
Apple's approach was outstanding. From what I've heard as a layman, it's a stripped down version of OSX. Sorta like mini OSX embedded.
Except the UI layer (which is Cocoa Touch) the iPhone runs nearly the same OSX version as a common MacOS Desktop machine. This is not a stripped down version of OSX.
__________________
T-Mobile MDA Vario IIHardware-Version: HT635 |*Model: HERM300 |*Rom-Version: 1.21.112.3*T-Mobile, German |*Radio-Version: 1.16.00.00
I'm a heavy Tasks user, I use the method of setting up location-based task categories (@Home, @Phone, @Computer, etc.), and I'm really good at entering them into my Dash and setting reminders, but not so good at getting them checked off ...but I digress...I'm really surprised the iPhone doesn't have the ability to sync Tasks yet. It's a must-have feature for me to have advanced Task functionality, but I'm guessing a 3rd-party developer will come up with a solution eventually. I'm wondering what WebIS has up their sleeves with Pocket Informant for iPhone (iPI ? )...
There will be a superb TaskManager available for the iPhone (currently in beta) which syncs with the desktop, has categories and much more:
Except the UI layer (which is Cocoa Touch) the iPhone runs nearly the same OSX version as a common MacOS Desktop machine. This is not a stripped down version of OSX.
I'm not an expert on the iPhone, but surely they slimmed it down - how big is an install of OS X normally? And it's not an x86 CPU in the iPhone, so it's compiled differently, right? For ARM? I think when you say "it's really OS X" people will think they can install OS X apps on it...
Microsoft has this TODAY, but the EFFIN carriers won't let them put it on the phone. ATT for instance EXPLICITLY stripped Windows Live Mobile from the WM6 phones it carries. If I were Microsoft I would start saying FU to the carriers just like Apple did to ATT and put whatever they want on the phone.
Yup, that gets my goat too.
They don't let PC makers strip features from Windows XP or Vista, why do they allow that to happen with Windows Mobile?
Th OS should be the OS - period!
I don't see Microsoft waiting around for HP, Dell, Gateway or any of the other PC manufacturers to "get around" to releasing OS updates, why do they bend over for a good reaming from the cell companies?
They don't let PC makers strip features from Windows XP or Vista, why do they allow that to happen with Windows Mobile?
In the desktop space they can do whatever they want - and we know how they went too far a few years back. But when Microsoft started in the mobile arena, they were the little guys. They worked very hard to bend over backwards to do whatever the carriers wanted - because the carriers were (and still are, largely) the gateway to the customers. I personally feel that as Microsoft has grown in this market and gained significant market share, they should have started to ramp up their own needs/wants and started to do more on their own. But they really haven't, and we've all suffered as a result.
But guess what? With the way AT&T was willing to bend over backwards for Apple, there's some real hope moving forward that Microsoft will be able to accomplish more.
This remains my #1 pain point with Windows Mobile and at the MVP Summit this year I challenged the General Manager of the Windows Mobile Division on this exact point - I said, point blank, that the ease of use and speed at which Apple has been able to offer updates to iPhone customers should make Microsoft feel embarrassed. He, uh, didn't seem to like that statement very much. I don't know if things are going to be better with Windows Mobile 7, but I keep fighting for it!
But guess what? With the way AT&T was willing to bend over backwards for Apple, there's some real hope moving forward that Microsoft will be able to accomplish more.
That's the thing, though, right? Apple was a nobody in the smartphone space. Their first attempt with Motorola fell completely flat. And yet, they were able to negotiate deals giving them most of the control. Is it just because Jobs is a megalomaniac that people are willing to listen to? It's not like AT&T even got to see the device before they agreed. Why couldn't Bill have done the same thing?
(I might have just answered my question: if Bill personally had taken up the cause for WM, I think he might have scored much better deals with OEMs and carriers. But, as we know, while Bill supports WM, he's never been its primary champion.)
I'm not an expert on the iPhone, but surely they slimmed it down - how big is an install of OS X normally? And it's not an x86 CPU in the iPhone, so it's compiled differently, right? For ARM? I think when you say "it's really OS X" people will think they can install OS X apps on it...
Just to slightly correct you Jason (I'm no Mac OS X system guru) but the Mac OS X is readily available for PPC architecture and x86, how much difficult is it to rebuild their system for the iPhone? I don't know the details but their engineers are very smart with making a flexible framework. Think of how small you can have Darwin (OS X's baseline) and it is actually possible.
And I do agree with your last statement that it can confuse people but if you're familiar with the concept of Universal apps you'd have to rethink in just saying you can install any Mac app to any Mac OS X system without first asking if that specific app is built for it, say a PPC Mac or an Intel Mac.
It's been quite a while since I switched to a Mac but was still hoping to keep using a WM after a year or two. I'd say that Apple's strategies are quite infectious and I'm sold to their services particularly with MobileMe. One word always comes to mind - "convenience".
Last edited by bacchus_3; 06-19-2008 at 10:30 AM..
Things for iPhone
)...
Linear Mode
