How Would You Change Windows Mobile 6?

[Pete Paxton]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/24/how-would-you-change-windows-mobile-6/' target='_blank'>http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/24/how-would-you-change-windows-mobile-6/</a><br /><br /></div><i>"While some of you have no doubt been running Windows Mobile 6 for a few months or more already (thanks, XDA developers!), the majority of the world is just recently getting its first taste of Microsoft's latest mobile operating system from new devices like the Sprint Mogul and updates to others like the T-Mobile Dash. The critics have certainly been, um, critical of the new OS, to say the least -- "evolutionary, not revolutionary" seems to be the general consensus -- but until we're allowed to behold the glorious light that is Photon, it's the best we've got for now. Still, while WM6 has beefed up Office support and arguably improved the tethering sitch, there are a number of issues that users have been griping about for years which have curiously yet to be addressed. Where's the tabbed browsing in Pocket IE? How come we have to rely on pricey third-party apps to make a decent Today screen? And the old favorite, why can't we have the choice of "managing our own memory" and using that damn "X" button to actually close an app? These are just a few of the complaints that have been making the rounds about an OS that feels like its definitely in need of a serious refresh -- if for no other reason than to draw some of the hype away from splashy young competitors; so, what do you think: what could Redmond have done differently this time around?"</i><br /><br /> <img src="http://www.smartphonethoughts.com/images/paxton-06262007-wm6.jpg" alt="User submitted image" title="User submitted image"/><br /><br />Now I'm going to put a slightly different spin on this. I admit there are certain functions like the "X" close option that should just be there. But could it be that MS doesn't include certain functions so developers can create these programs instead? I think Microsoft gets criticized no matter what they do. I remember years ago back in the Netscape days everyone was frustrated that Microsoft didn't have a suitable browser. As soon as IE came out, everyone criticized MS for putting Netscape out of business. Think about Windows Firewall for a moment. Everyone criticized MS for not having a firewall built into the OS. Then they criticized MS because Windows Firewall isn't that robust. But let's face it, if they did come up with a powerhouse firewall, wouldn't we complain that they've put companies that make firewalls out of business? It's like Microsoft can't win no matter what direction they go. How does Apple do it without being criticized? So could the reason they don't put more into their OS (including mobile) be because they leave room for developers? And now my question: What should have absolutely been included in WM6, what should be left for developers, and what would you change?

[Mark Larson]

I really dislike the idea that its Microsoft's job to leave space for developers to fill in with their own apps. Third-party apps are almost always a kludge compared to built-in apps, and while MS has been exceptionally dumb about not having good built-in apps, you only have to look at Apple to see what a great thing integration can be.

If I buy a phone for $400, I don't want to spend time researching software to iron out its idiosyncrasies, and I definitely don't want to spend $30-$50 on stupid little apps that look like a VB6 project. The Windows Mobile community is especially guilty of that.

MS should take the initiative and raise the bar on software by making some real improvements in Windows Mobile. How about including a decent game guys? Or how about fixing some of the screens that have been user-unfriendly since WM2003?

[ysamlan]

I think first of all it's important to make a distinction between a desktop OS and a mobile phone. Most PC users are comfortable knowing that they need a naked install of Windows is missing a lot of functionality, and many prefer the choice of installing their own stuff. They also don't mind the "clutter" of extra things -- most of us have enough hard drive space to spare for Firefox and Opera.

People expect an integrated experience with a mobile phone, though -- they expect everything to "just work" in a sensible manner without requiring extra expensive software taking up the 64MB of memory they have on their device. Most people who buy smartphones are not going to hassle with buying and installing their own software, buying extra memory cards, etc. (more people nowadays than 5 years ago, but still). They expect sane default values and simple configuration options, with all the real functionality they'd need for day to day things built in to the device.

If you _do_ bundle software with your device (X buttons, IE) they should work as expected and not just be feature demos -- IE mobile should work as well as Opera mobile; X buttons should close things or at least have an option to do so.

And your claims as to MS getting whined at if they do provide features is kind of spurious -- they already do bundle mobile IE, pocket Outlook, etc. in the OS, so the "antitrust" argument is done with in MS's mind already. No one ever complained about Microsoft, "hey, how dare they add tabbed browsing and features when they put IE7 into Vista!" If there are any issues, they were with the bundling in the first place, not with the quality of the bundled app. Making it not suck doesn't change that part, and seems like a reasonable demand.

If you're going to make an effort to give users a total mobile experience with a calendar, mail client, media player, and a web browser, and you're the largest software company in the world, at least follow through and don't just phone it in with a half-assed set of token improvements to apps that aren't much changed from the days of Windows CE. Love it or hate it, the iPhone is evidence that even a company with no experience in the mobile application market can provide what at least looks like a compelling total phone use experience out of the box. That Microsoft can't after dozens of revisions to Windows CE/Pocket PC/Windows Mobile is just plain embarrassing.

Don't get me wrong, i have an audiovox smt-5600 with WM2003 that i like a lot (can't say the same for the Cingular service, heh). I have no plans to buy an iPhone, but the reason i'm still using a 3-year-old phone is because there hasn't been a compelling new reason to get a WM5 or 6 phone. The same goes for the competition to date, too - Series 60 phones appeal to my hack-it open-source Python-y mentality, but nothing has really just pulled at me from a software point of view, or even in the hardware department. At least the iPhone will provide everyone with a kick in the pants that should help us see some actual innovation in the next few months. (and no, the HTC Touch is not the answer. It'll take more than a half-polished me-too with the niceties only extending partway into the functionality to fix the problems here).

[Pete Paxton]

So if MS came up with an awesome calendar, task, and contact app built into the OS, what would happen to the makers of AgendaOne and Pocket Informant? And since the iPhone was brought up. It has the weather built right into its OS. Should Microsoft have done that with WM6? If so what would happen to 3rd party apps like Fizz Weather and Handy Weather? And if MS did include these apps in their OS, would they be criticized for crushing these other companies? I definitely think some things should be included with the OS but what should and what shouldn't? I'm not really for or against, just food for thought.

[Mark Larson]

Ok, since the iPhone was brought up. It has the weather built right into its OS. Should Microsoft have done that with WM6? If so what would happen to 3rd party apps like Fizz Weather and Handy Weather? I definitely think some things should be included with the OS but what should and what shouldn't?

Who the hell cares about third-party companies? They come and go. What obligation do consumers and MS have to keep third-party software vendors in business?

The consumer is not an open bank account, ripe for the taking - I have never bought Fizz software and likely never will, because that's exactly the problem with Windows Mobile software - you pay through the nose for software that doesn't actually do much. And I bet for everyone who does buy their software, there are tons of people who don't.

We owe third-party software companies nothing. We don't owe MS anything either, and that's why some people are leaving WM devices for the iPhone. Sometimes I think I can do more with a "dumb" Samsung A900m than I can with my fancypants Q and that's Microsoft's fault for not standing up to the carriers.

[pjtrader]

I'm not quite sure I agree with all the previous response. As a person who manages user requirements in the software industry, it's incredibly difficult to maintain the integrity of a product when everyone wants something to make their unique life easier, keep to budget, and keep the software from getting bloated. Sometimes the technology just isn't there at the time you need it either. Add all that to the incredible consumer demand for more, faster, and oh, by the way, cheaper, and it's not a easy place to be.

I'm not making excuses, but all these things combine to cause management to make unpopular decisions. Did some developer at some point say "we really gotta have those X close buttons" and get overruled? Or did he convince someone like me that it's just as easy to go over here to the task manager and close an app?

As for comparing the iphone with WM, that's like comparing limes with basketballs. Their business models are completely different and people need to realize that. Apple had ONE product to develop and spent well over two years doing it. During that time Apple, and Apple only, controlled the design of the software and hardware. WM is designed to run on multiple hardware platforms over which they have very little, if any control. Each platform manufacturer has their own proprietary software in addition. Not gonna happen with the iphone.

As for third party software, why not? MS can't meet every user's needs, so that's where third party software is a great opportunity for outside development. It's healthy and good business.

I own products from both companies, so I'm not advocating one over the other. Just celebrating the differences.

Not that anyone aske me.

[scottb]

Who the hell cares about third-party companies? ...

I do. I have some great applications from them. What makes you think an MS provided application would serve eveyone's needs? Most of us like to personalize, or tinker with, our devices to get them the way we like them. A choice of one application would not allow that.

...you pay through the nose for software that doesn't actually do much. And I bet for everyone who does buy their software, there are tons of people who don't.
Let's put this in persective. If you can afford to buy a $400 device, I hardly think $25 for a good PIM (or any) applicaiton is "paying through the nose."

Sometimes I think I can do more with a "dumb" Samsung A900m than I can with my fancypants Q and that's Microsoft's fault for not standing up to the carriers.
Not sure exactly what you mean by this, but the carriers are the ones selling the devices, so they have a big say in what goes into the device.

[SteveHoward999]

Who the hell cares about third-party companies? They come and go. What obligation do consumers and MS have to keep third-party software vendors in business?

Wow. That's a bit ripe innit?

The fact of the matter is that, technically, every software company out there is a 'third party'. If it isn't built into the OS, then it's third-party software and I sure as taxes care a LOT about those third parties. Without them I would have little useful software on my PCs, laptops, Mac, PocketPC, Nokia phones etc etc.

Typical software for mobile devices is in the range $10 to $20, which is affordable. My experience has been that I only really **need** two or three paid-for software applications on any one mobile device. Sure 'd rahter it were all free, but then if it were free, it would not be so good.

Obviously your mileage varies from mine or you wouldn't be so uppity about third-party software developers.

It's one thing to buy an iPod that has limited feaures and functionality, and thus expect it to have everything you'll ever need built in. It's quite another to assume your pocket computer (PDA, smart phone) is going to arrive in your hand with everything you could ever want installed.

[SteveHoward999]

What would I change? Well for one, please quit with the silly, confusing name changes for every version.

[ysamlan]

Ok, since the iPhone was brought up. It has the weather built right into its OS. Should Microsoft have done that with WM6? If so what would happen to 3rd party apps like Fizz Weather and Handy Weather? I definitely think some things should be included with the OS but what should and what shouldn't?

Things that most users will use on a regular basis should be included. Weather is probably one of those things. I don't really think "what will happen to those 3rd party devs" is a valid argument -- if MS hadn't included, let's say, Notepad in Windows XP, and some company made a killing selling its own text editor, I don't think we'd complain if MS added back in Notepad for XP SP1. It's a core functionality feature you kind of need to get normal things done; a text editor is a sane default tool you need to use your own system, not an anticompetitive bundled program.

By the same token, if Windows Mobile had no clock on the home screen, I would think it's silly to say that MS adding a clock would be killing off independent Clock developers. Look - it's a smartphone. It should be able to do smartphone-y things out of the box, and it's not "being nice to developers" to leave those things out - it's a big oversight.

But that's not really my main point when I brought up the... you-know-what-phone. My point is that the things you *are* building in to your phone should work right individually, and they should all work together nicely. For example: Microsoft has built in Mapping features (via Live Search) and Contacts. Why can't you just click on a contact's address to open it in the Map? And don't say that's a trivial 3rd party fix -- it's almost absurdly silly that in 2007 i can go buy a brand new TMo Wing and have no integration between the Contacts and the Map out of the box. It shows a severe lack of vision and no practical sense of how people want to use their phones, and treating your application stack like a bunch of disconnected demo toys rather than a full stack for getting things done is completely nuts for a what, 4th or 5th revision smartphone OS. Contextual actions matter.

I think it's a weakness from taking the desktop app mindset to the mobile device -- in Outlook on XP, you can alt-tab to IE and paste the contact's address into Windows Live with what, 5 seconds of effort. Doing that on a mobile phone with no keyboard one-handed while walking to the train? That's just a PITA. You can't have the luxury of the loose app stack that desktops have, and that's critical. Sure, you can have pluggability -- clicking a link should open it in your Default Web Browser, even if you change it from IE -- but stuff needs to work together. The "smart" in "smartphone" needs to be about more than the speed of the CPU behind it.

Again, I'm not going to get a "Jesus-phone" any time soon, but Apple seems to understand the smart-mobile Experience paradigm, and people are excited by it, so it's proof the concept is sound. The iPhone browser isn't "Sort Of a Partially Implemented HTML Browser Lite With A Subset of CSS and Javascript," it's a functional Safari. You poke an address in the contact list, it opens a map to it. These aren't things WM can't do at all -- they're things that look kinda mediocre or have broken features or work strangely or require 12 extra steps. And that's what counts when you're on a 2" or 3" screen with teensy buttons (or no buttons) while you're crammed on the 8 AM train heading into an interview and need to figure out how to get there from the station.

The astonishing thing to me is that it's taken everyone else in the market until now to figure out what will make smartphones appeal to people; and even now, they might not even really "get it." There's a workflow to using a mobile device (see: Apple's 'Calamari' commercial) and the current generations of "smartphones" are mostly ignorant of that.

These aren't things that would "kill development" on MS smartphones, it's how things should just work. By default. 3rd party developers can then move on to more innovative things with higher-level and specialized uses, rather than issuing monkeypatches for half-assed builtin functionality.

Saying MS should just keep producing a system with holes in its functionality so that 3rd party developers can sell software to fix it is like saying car manufacturers should never have started including radios and windshields at the factory because it's bad for third-party stereo and windshield developers. Users want X buttons that (at least optionally) work and browsers that are fully functional, the same way the market dictated that drivers wanted AM/FM and bug guts a safe distance from their faces.

[Rocco Augusto]

How does Apple do it without being criticized?

everyone loves the underdogs

[Damion Chaplin]

How does Apple do it without being criticized?

Apparently, no one's been listening to me. :lol:

[SteveHoward999]

For example: Microsoft has built in Mapping features (via Live Search) and Contacts. Why can't you just click on a contact's address to open it in the Map? And don't say that's a trivial 3rd party fix -- it's almost absurdly silly that in 2007 i can go buy a brand new TMo Wing and have no integration between the Contacts and the Map out of the box. It shows a severe lack of vision and no practical sense of how people want to use their phones, and treating your application stack like a bunch of disconnected demo toys rather than a full stack for getting things done is completely nuts for a what, 4th or 5th revision smartphone OS. Contextual actions matter.

You know the problem is in deciding just what features 'everyone wants'.

I've had the ability to do this on desktop for years - how many? 5? 6? More? You want to know how many times I have used it? Not once. Ever. I've never once wanted it on my phone.

Why? Who knows, who cares. But equally, you can guarantee there are features and tools that I use (or want to use) that you don't care about. Maybe the next version of Windows mobile will solve this one issue for you. Maybe not. But the way to influence that is through better discussion, without the thinly veiled insults and heavy-handed language.

Microsoft developers have hearts you know, even if Bill Gates only has a NiCAD battery ;-)

[Mike Temporale]

What obligation do consumers and MS have to keep third-party software vendors in business?

There's no "obligation". But there is the need to build a community and eco-system around a platform. The 3rd party ISVs help to embrace and extend the platform to fit into everyone's unique needs. Not everyone needs a weather app built into the OS. Creating a solid platform that works for a majority of people and allowing the rest to extend upon it by means of 3rd party applications is what builds a winning platform. Just look at your PC. Who here hasn't installed a 3rd party app on their PC? Yeah, thought so..

[Mike Temporale]

Saying MS should just keep producing a system with holes in its functionality so that 3rd party developers can sell software to fix it is like saying car manufacturers should never have started including radios and windshields at the factory because it's bad for third-party stereo and windshield developers.

I think you're a little off on this one. Microsoft isn't leaving features out, they are providing a feature set that suits the majority. So it's more like Ford producing the Mustang. It's not as good as it could be when it rolls off the assembly line. Some people will tweak and mod their car to get the peak performance out of it. Others are happy with the way it is. This is exactly what Microsoft is doing with their OS. Not everyone needs a race tuned Mustang with Z rated tires on it. ;)

[Mark Larson]

I think you're a little off on this one. Microsoft isn't leaving features out, they are providing a feature set that suits the majority. So it's more like Ford producing the Mustang. It's not as good as it could be when it rolls off the assembly line. Some people will tweak and mod their car to get the peak performance out of it. Others are happy with the way it is. This is exactly what Microsoft is doing with their OS. Not everyone needs a race tuned Mustang with Z rated tires on it. ;)
Its more like Ford advertising a thoroughbred machine that can do it all and delivering a Pinto with steel wheels.

[Mark Larson]

What obligation do consumers and MS have to keep third-party software vendors in business?

There's no "obligation". But there is the need to build a community and eco-system around a platform. The 3rd party ISVs help to embrace and extend the platform to fit into everyone's unique needs. Not everyone needs a weather app built into the OS. Creating a solid platform that works for a majority of people and allowing the rest to extend upon it by means of 3rd party applications is what builds a winning platform. Just look at your PC. Who here hasn't installed a 3rd party app on their PC? Yeah, thought so..
The third-party community is good for various Clock plugins, displaying the battery status in percentage format, and weather forecasts. Oh and don't forget the $5 homescreens. :roll: Maybe its time MS did some innovation, fixed Activesync and stopped treating WM like a feature demo.

I fully agree with some of the posts here, in fact they have said it better than I can. There's very little integration in WM, and it feels like a loosely slapped-together "OS". Oh, and where is the Copy and Paste functionality?

I'll tell you the problem with Windows Mobile - MS is fragmenting the user experience too much. The OS is supplied by MS, the hardware is supplied by various manufacturers (Thank God, because HTC is losing its innovative edge!) and on top of all that are the carriers and then the third-party developers with their ringtones and homescreens.

MS depends far too much on the hardware manufacturers and carriers to develop and include software. Like a task manager. Or a file explorer. Like Bluetooth functionality. This is basic stuff - I was never able to send files using Bluetooth with HTC devices when a basic free phone could do that. My Motorola Q has a different File explorer which allows me to do that.

Now HTC phones come with the Streaming Player needed to view youtube videos. Wait, make that some of them. Hacking galore. None of the hacks works with the BJ or the Q. I'm not asking for a death ray in the device, I just want more functionality than a free dumbphone.

[pjtrader]

But the iphone's strengths are not PIMs and mapping and weather - it's playing multimedia. So again, comparing them isn't worth the effort. If the smartphone user is looking for a replicated desktop in a mobile environment, it's entirely a different animal.

Which is why it goes to show that everyone wants something different.

[trolane]

ms needs to deliver an experience not a what it is now. I havent had the honor of using WM6 because people are taking way toooo long to release it for the blackjack. what MS needs to do is release it as an OS you can install like you do windows. I shouldn't need to have cingular all over my phone. I just want an ISP nothing more.
Matter of fact i should be able to not have to have a voice plan. I use my phone for reading the news instead of the paper, weather, walkman when walking the dog. I don't talk on it much (i only use maybe 30 minues a month). I hate phones for that matter, email me or something.

Messaging vs. phoning is a pain in the rear. How many of you have messages on your right soft key when all you want is to get to the contacts? first you have to click messages, clear the screen, then goto contacts. My messages are not that important due to the lack of junk mail filtering at the mail box level in exchange 2007 or wm5. I would definetly change that if it isnt already.

VPN should be a forcable connection like it is in windows. like a dial up network.

I should be able to access network shares and such with a command prompt. Just give me a mini computer with full feature you'd expect from a computer without the bloat graphics.

I can't wait to try windows live out integrated. I'm a die hard windows live user.

WM6 have AJAX support? If not add it. There's no reason we can't have IE7 full functionality for ecmascript and xmlhttp and dom. i hate flash but at least get silverlight on it.

[pgb55]

Buy an iPhone?

[Fritzly]

Not sure exactly what you mean by this, but the carriers are the ones selling the devices, so they have a big say in what goes into the device.
Not true, not completely at least. Carriers maybe sell phones to you but not to me and not to a huge amount of users who buy, for many different reasons, unlocked, uncrippled phones.

[scottb]

Not true, not completely at least. Carriers maybe sell phones to you but not to me and not to a huge amount of users who buy, for many different reasons, unlocked, uncrippled phones.
Perhaps, but not all of us have that choice. If I want service where I need it, I have to buy a VZW phone. GSM devices run on AT&amp;T/Cingular 1900 Mhz in my area. Their signal does not penetrate well in my neighborhood so I lose service at home. VZW and Alltel work better here. I don't believe a non-carrier specific Motorola Q exists.

[AdamaDBrown]

Let's put this in persective. If you can afford to buy a $400 device, I hardly think $25 for a good PIM (or any) applicaiton is "paying through the nose."

No. That's rather like saying that if you can afford to buy a house, then a brand new plasma TV is a small-ticket item. It's about priorities, and for a lot of people, $25 for an application is unreasonable, even more so if it's something that should be built in in the first place.

Personally, I don't think that allowing room for third-party apps is a valid excuse for not making improvements. Those developers aren't owed anything, and if they can make a better version, they're welcome to try. Giving Office Mobile real round-trip support in WM5 didn't kill Textmaker. If your business model is weak enough that it depends on someone not adding a feature, you're already in trouble.

[Pete Paxton]

TextMaker isn't killed because Office Mobile is such a watered version. Just like the PIM in WM6 is watered down compared to AgendaOne. But if office mobile was just like Textmaker and the PIM was just like AgendaOne, do you think anyone would buy these products anymore? I don't expect a car or a house to have everything I want in it just because I think it should be there. I get the essentials and can buy other options that suit me best if I want to. I feel that WM6 has the bare essentials but admit some things should be included in the OS (like the X close button). Even my Apple Powerbook doesn't come with everything. I do have some third party apps on there.

[scottb]

No. That's rather like saying that if you can afford to buy a house, then a brand new plasma TV is a small-ticket item. It's about priorities...
I disagree, but that's ok. Everyone needs a place to live, but not everyone needs a $400 Smartpohne. I do agree it's about priorities.

[snowman5373]

I mainly purchased the Dash for Internet viewing at work. Just the little things that PIE is missing are ridiculous. No copy and paste, no multiple windows, no real flash support, no real Java support. Same thing with WMP. I have been thinking of going PPC.

[scottb]

I mainly purchased the Dash for Internet viewing at work. Just the little things that PIE is missing are ridiculous. No copy and paste, no multiple windows, no real flash support, no real Java support. Same thing with WMP. I have been thinking of going PPC.
Copy and paste is a PPC O/S feature, not a PIE feature. Not sure you would get much more from PIE on a PPC device than you get on the Smartphone.

[TMann]

Hello! I have just been spending some time with my first WM 6 Smartphone, (an upgraded T-mobile Dash.) I've been a long-time user of Palm, Pocket PC, and Symbian PDAs &amp; smartphones. Here are a few missing features that I wish would have been included:

1. Cut/Copy/Paste functionality - Yes, I realize that this isn't a touchscreen device. However, my non-touchscreen Nokia 6682 (Symbian 60) phone has a two-button combination built into the OS that allows me to cut/copy/paste. Fortunately, there is a freeware solution from Vito that accomplishes this task.

2. Application Launcher - It would be nice if there was some way of managing the applications better. On my Nokia there are four user-assigned application buttons on the "Today" screen. You can also rearrange the positions of the application icons on the "Start" screen; your most used applications go on top for easier access. On my Dash, I've resorted to using Right Menu to make it easier to access my favorite applications.

3. Better sound preferences - It would be nice to be able to shut off some of the sounds that accompany various functions on my Dash. It is annoying to have to hear the T-mobile jingle whenever I startup or shutdown my phone. There is also a loud beep that occurs when I am making an outgoing call. On my Palm or my Pocket PC phones, one can disable the system sounds while leaving the phone ringer on. The only way to accomplish some of these things is to change the registry settings, which is not something most users will want to mess with.

4. Better Mac compatibility - I realize that that neither Microsoft nor Apple care about this particular issue. But there are many Mac users who are starting to move over to non-Palm-OS smartphones; it would be really nice to be able to sync and install software without having to resort to complicated third-party solutions.

There...that's my short wish list for WM ver. 6.1. :)

TMann

[TMann]

On the brighter side of things...I just figured out how to connect my Mac Powerbook to the internet via my T-mobile account. Microsoft has included something called "Bluetooth PAN" on their newest smartphones; it's more complicated IMHO than "Bluetooth DUN", but it does work on my Mac.

TMann