|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paragon
I guess I'm not making my point properly. As I said, it would be easy to add some minor UI changes, allow apps to be side loaded, yet have no effect on those who don't wish to use those options. This way you serve both and increase your market.
I don't mean this to sound rude, but otherwise it is a bit like saying "I don't want it, so you can have it either."
Dave
|
You are making your point just fine, and I understand it. What I'm saying is if you hand a regular person a device with a million knobs, they may be adverse to it in the first place, even if you explain you only have to use the on/off switch. Possibly to get a reasonable amount of adoption amongst the masses you need to hide the controls at the outset. Some are of course necessary, and it is a judgment call on the developers part which those are, and how the defaults are set. Once established, shouldn't be any reason not to expose the 'advanced' control kit. I miss the configurability of WM myself. Really never understood the issue folks had with it, and why it so vilified in many reviews...but it was. Seems to me it did years ago, what Android is lauded for doing now.
So I'm not against providing user options, but I don't see the point of allowing every OEM to design and load whatever they think is the holy grail of user interfaces. From what I have been reading, folks are generally pretty happy with the basic functionality of the Windows Phone interface concept, and it is details of some of the (lost) capabilities that are aggravating WM users, and some shortcomings for users that had never considered MS before.
__________________
Sometimes you are the anteater, sometimes you are the ant.
|
Threaded Mode