[Pony99CA]

Originally Posted by Kirkaiya

My issue is this: How is it that HTC, a gnat to Microsoft's elephant, can rapidly (well, over the course of a year or two) develop a shell that improves the WM experience dramatically, while Microsoft cannot?

I know that rewriting some of the guts is a lot harder and more time-consuming than creating TouchFlo 3D is - but Microsoft has far and away more programmers, more money, more experience in-house.

Besides what Janak said, there are at least three other issues.

1. HTC only has to worry about compatibility on their devices running one (maybe two) OS versions. Apple and RIM have the same advantages.
2. As caywen pointed out, Microsoft is probably trying to keep as much backward compatibility as possible. They want OEMs to upgrade users and they want users' software to keep working.
3. HTC is smaller and can be more nimble.

And, while Microsoft likely has more experience, remember that HTC has been doing Windows Mobile at least since the Pocket PC 2000 days (with the iPAQ h3600 series). So they have lots of experience, too.

Companies like VITO (with Winterface) and Spb (with Mobile Shell) are doing the same thing, too, I think.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

Originally Posted by Kirkaiya

My issue is this: How is it that HTC, a gnat to Microsoft's elephant, can rapidly (well, over the course of a year or two) develop a shell that improves the WM experience dramatically, while Microsoft cannot?

I know that rewriting some of the guts is a lot harder and more time-consuming than creating TouchFlo 3D is - but Microsoft has far and away more programmers, more money, more experience in-house.

Besides what Janak said, there are at least three other issues.

1. HTC only has to worry about compatibility on their devices running one (maybe two) OS versions. Apple and RIM have the same advantages.
2. As caywen pointed out, Microsoft is probably trying to keep as much backward compatibility as possible. They want OEMs to upgrade users and they want users' software to keep working.
3. HTC is smaller and can be more nimble.

And, while Microsoft likely has more experience, remember that HTC has been doing Windows Mobile at least since the Pocket PC 2000 days (with the iPAQ h3600 series). So they have lots of experience, too.

Companies like VITO (with Winterface) and Spb (with Mobile Shell) are doing the same thing, too, I think.

Steve

[Torque]

Microsoft has until August 2009 to convince me via their products, why I should buy another Windows Mobile product. I'm with AT&T and while the third gen iPhone looks good, if they offer a replaceable battery and add what the iPhone is missing (cut and paste, java support, etc) I may jump ship to them. I'm already attracted to the Blackberry. If I can find one that will sync with Outlook I'm done and that's it.

[Kirkaiya]

Originally Posted by Pony99CA

Besides what Janak said, there are at least three other issues.

1. HTC only has to worry about compatibility on their devices running one (maybe two) OS versions. Apple and RIM have the same advantages.

HTC has almost exactly 1/10th the number of employees as Microsoft, and many of them are in their hardware design areas. They managed, with a relatively small team, to be the first OEM to put an Android handset out the door. While WinMo is certainly a small part of Microsoft given the company's focus on Windows (desktop/server) and Office applications businesses, the fact remains that Microsoft could have developed a better user interface at some point over the past 18 months.

And while HTC only needs to worry about TouchFLO on two classes of device (WM5 "Touch" devices, and the WM6.1 Diamond/HD/Pro phones), Micrsoft has the incredible advantage of owning the source-code and being able to modify it. I was a contract programmer at Microsoft for almost three years, when XP was publicaly launched, and saw early "Longhorn" betas running internally. Back then, it made sense to pour the vast bulk of OS development into desktops and servers.

Now, however, the fastest growth market is mobile "smartphone" computers. They're growing at double-digit rates, and will surpass sales of PCs and notebooks in a few years - and if Micrsoft doesn't want to miss out on that, they should be pouring some of that cash-hoarde they've amassed into a better mobile experience.

Maybe the move to x86 smartphones (which I think is inevitable) will save them, or possibly the NVidia "Tegra" devices will take off. None of us know - but I do know that the clock is ticking down, and Apple and RIM are in 5th gear, Google's Android is a relative newcomer but they too have deep pockets, and WM seems to be coasting along in 2nd, whistling past the graveyard.

Originally Posted by Pony99CA

2. HTC is smaller and can be more nimble.

I'd suggest Microsoft teach the elephant to dance, a la IBM.

I'm quite aware of HTC's experience (I've owned multiple HTC WinMo devices stretching back a decade). That doesnt' excuse Microsoft's seeming flailing in the face of stiff competition.

Mark my words - either WM 7 is revolutionary, and arrives before the end of Q3 2009, or Windows Mobile's share of the smartphone market drop into the single digits from the ~14% or so they have now.

[Pony99CA]

Originally Posted by Kirkaiya

HTC has almost exactly 1/10th the number of employees as Microsoft, and many of them are in their hardware design areas. They managed, with a relatively small team, to be the first OEM to put an Android handset out the door. While WinMo is certainly a small part of Microsoft given the company's focus on Windows (desktop/server) and Office applications businesses, the fact remains that Microsoft could have developed a better user interface at some point over the past 18 months.

Yes, they probably could have.

Originally Posted by Kirkaiya

I'm quite aware of HTC's experience (I've owned multiple HTC WinMo devices stretching back a decade). That doesnt' excuse Microsoft's seeming flailing in the face of stiff competition.

I didn't say that it excused anything. You asked how HTC could do something, and we offered explanations. You may not like those explanations (I know that I don't and I suspect very few people do), but that's a different issue.

For example, a smaller company like HTC probably doesn't need to get approvals for a project from 8 levels of management (or whatever Microsoft requires). That makes them more nimble. Yes, Microsoft could delegate approval down the line, but then maybe the left hand wouldn't know what the right hand was doing, leading to a mixed and confusing strategy. It's a balancing act.

Steve