WM6's New Versions: Classic, Standard and Professional

[Janak Parekh]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.theunwired.net/?itemid=3582' target='_blank'>http://www.theunwired.net/?itemid=3582</a><br /><br /></div><i>"With today's announcement of Windows Mobile 6, Microsoft also introduced a new naming scheme of its PDA and smartphone device classes. No more Windows Mobile for Pocket PC, no more Windows Mobile for Pocket PC Phone Edition and no more Windows Mobile for Smartphone but just Windows Mobile 6 xyz where xyz becomes more generic then it was before; in fact it becomes similar to the Windows Vista and Windows Office 2007 naming scheme. The following overview should help you to get a better understanding what your device was in past and what it will be from now (with the official introduction of Windows Mobile 6)..."</i><br /><br />In case you haven't heard already, along with the launch of WM6 is the doing-away with the Pocket PC, Pocket PC Phone, and Smartphone terms. Apparently convinced that they're not confusing enough, now we have three <b>new</b> terms:<br /><li> Pocket PC => WM6 <b>Classic</b><br /><li> Pocket PC Phone => WM6 <b>Professional</b><br /><li> Smartphone => WM6 <b>Standard</b> Is it just me, or are these names even worse than the WM5 rebranding? First, there's the fact that WM6 Classic and Professional will be able to run apps (touchscreen-enabled) that won't run on WM6 Standard. Second is the fact that the disconnected Pocket PC looks like it's clearly on its way out. To call something "Classic" suggests that it's on the verge of retirement. I guess it's better that there's some uniform naming scheme now, but I think the choice of terms Microsoft used here is unfortunate.

[JKingGrim]

I agree. This makes no sense at all. WM standard is a stripped down version of WM classic? WM classic and WM pro run different apps than WM standard?

Well, just a year of confusion before photon completely eliminates the distinction between PPC smartphone and PPC phone edition. I just pray that it doesnt mean everything will be smartphone-y with big buttons and icons. I like a PDA centric phone.

[Ed Hansberry]

First, there's the fact that WM6 Classic and Professional will be able to run apps (touchscreen-enabled) that won't run on WM6 Standard.
and "Standard" will run apps that can't run on Classic or Professional. No... no confusion there... :roll:

[Bradskey]

I don't even think they should share a name. Pocket PC is a platform implemented on top of Win CE. Smartphone is a completely different platform implemented on Win CE, no? They are only related by some underlying API compatibility, but they are otherwise different platforms. I think the whole thing with referring to Pocket PC's as Windows Mobile was unfortunate, although its in line with Microsoft's generally poor and confusing marketing and branding (.NET, Live, etc). Why not just keep calling the 2003, 2003SE, 2005/5.0 and future 6.0 devices "Pocket PC" and "Pocket PC Phone" (like everyone does anyway) and reserve the name Windows Mobile (or something better) for the smartphone (as in "mobile" phone).

[Janak Parekh]

I don't even think they should share a name. Pocket PC is a platform implemented on top of Win CE. Smartphone is a completely different platform implemented on Win CE, no?
Well, Microsoft has made it clear that the differentiation between the two "frontends" is decreasing. As to the actual mechanisms of such similarity, I don't know. Other than that, I agree with your argument.

--janak

[185driver]

These were my thoughts too. "Classic" in this case is similar to saying "Legacy" or "Yesterday". I can almost hear Barbara Streisand in the background singing "The Way We Were". :cry:

[ADBrown]

Is it just me, or are these names even worse than the WM5 rebranding?

You're not wrong. It's by far the worst naming scheme MS has come up with for the platform to date, even worse than "Windows Mobile 2003 Second Edition for the Pocket PC Phone Edition."

[ppcsurfr]

I was hoping they wouldn't kill the platform names...

It's easier if you could still give a useful descriptioin of what it is. While I hate the really loong names they've come up with, the new names are better off for the OS only and not for the device.

This is the reason the the::unwired will be retaining the names Pocket PC, Pocket PC Phone Edition, and Smartphone to give a clearer reference to what is being covered in its articles.

The new names are confusing if you cannot support it with logical (read direct to the point) descriptions.

[isajoo]

looks like the standard is a joke. classics die hard. may its a professional pain in the ***! why can apple just take over microsofts marketing department. just call it what it is.

[dommasters]

Shouldn't Smartphone be WM Lite ?
Are these names definite ? They're so awful it's as if they're a wind up :(

[cmlpreston]

why can apple just take over microsofts marketing department. just call it what it is.

Just the marketing department? Have you *seen* the screenshots?

Ok, that was a joke. Mostly.

[Jon Westfall]

looks like the standard is a joke. classics die hard. may its a professional pain in the ***! why can apple just take over microsofts marketing department. just call it what it is.

Actually, when you really think about it, Apple's names for things aren't any better (by better I mean "implies meaning").

iPod doesn't imply that the thing plays music or does anything really.

Anything with the word Mac in it requires the person to know what Apple has done in the past to understand the device "Mac" is describing is a computer. And to the casual observer, how does "iMac", "eMac", "MacBook", or "MacMini" mean anything intuitively?

Software naming is equally Bizarre. GarageBand is a cute name, but you don't get a bunch of buddies playing music with you when you start the app. "Pages" is a great name, but when I hear it I don't immediately think "Word Processor" (Maybe that one is just me). iWeb sounds like a web browser to me - oh... it's a WYSIWYG editor... And lastly, iWork is a suite consisting of a word processor and presentation software: apparently that's all you need.

Apple doesn't always equal intuitive, at least where naming is involved.

[WorksForTurkeys]

calling the smartphone version standard and the ppc-phone version professional seems insulting. it sounds as though I'm not a professional because I choose not to wear a brick on my belt; if only professionals wear their tools on the outside, what about the geeks with a sense of style?

this appears to be another in Microsoft's series of business plans created in the absence of any human input.

[Jon Westfall]

calling the smartphone version standard and the ppc-phone version professional seems insulting. it sounds as though I'm not a professional because I choose not to wear a brick on my belt; if only professionals wear their tools on the outside, what about the geeks with a sense of style?

this appears to be another in Microsoft's series of business plans created in the absence of any human input.

I think you're reading into this a bit too far: I'm sure those who buy Vista Home Basic don't consider themselves to just be basic people ;)

[WorksForTurkeys]

calling the smartphone version standard and the ppc-phone version professional seems insulting. it sounds as though I'm not a professional because I choose not to wear a brick on my belt; if only professionals wear their tools on the outside, what about the geeks with a sense of style?

this appears to be another in Microsoft's series of business plans created in the absence of any human input.

I think you're reading into this a bit too far: I'm sure those who buy Vista Home Basic don't consider themselves to just be basic people ;)

well if they purchase Vista at all, they need to think about things a bit longer: for the cost of the full OS (or a little more), they could buy a new box with Vista pre-installed. Either Vista is overpriced, or the hardware is bargain priced. Either way people can generally get a much better deal buying a system with Vista, rather than buying Vista alone.

[Janak Parekh]

Actually, when you really think about it, Apple's names for things aren't any better (by better I mean "implies meaning").
And yet, almost anyone understands the difference between the iPod, the iPod nano and the iPod shuffle.

The names are arbitrary, but well-chosen, well-marketed, and easily differentiable for the average consumer. Using generic words like "Professional" or "Classic", on the other hand, are easily confused. A better analogue would be if Microsoft had something like "Windows Mobile Phone" versus "Windows Mobile PDA" versus "Windows Mobile Communicator" -- now, those are descriptive names, and easily distinguished.

(I don't pretend to say those are the best names. But in the space of 10 seconds, I've already come up with a far better branding.)

--janak

[Jon Westfall]

Actually, when you really think about it, Apple's names for things aren't any better (by better I mean "implies meaning").
And yet, almost anyone understands the difference between the iPod, the iPod nano and the iPod shuffle.

The names are arbitrary, but well-chosen, well-marketed, and easily differentiable for the average consumer. Using generic words like "Professional" or "Classic", on the other hand, are easily confused. A better analogue would be if Microsoft had something like "Windows Mobile Phone" versus "Windows Mobile PDA" versus "Windows Mobile Communicator" -- now, those are descriptive names, and easily distinguished.

(I don't pretend to say those are the best names. But in the space of 10 seconds, I've already come up with a far better branding.)

--janak

Agreed. One thing that MS may want to consider is length. No one wants to refer to their device by more than one word. Apple simply made brand names that were short enough to become vernacular.

[hamishmacdonald]

I second Janak's point. Whatever words Microsoft attaches to "Windows Mobile" should be plain and descriptive.

Just say what the darned thing is!

My day-job is copywriting, and each day I rail against stupid, confusing business language like this. Plain English is the way forward; it moves people, helps them imagine things clearly, and prevents misunderstandings.

People love to bash Microsoft for being "corporate"; MS should take every opportunity to create an experience of simplicity and ease-of-use. After all, if PCs represent 90-odd percent of computers used, Microsoft is in a great position to make everything interoperable and easy. That starts with the names they give them.

[Ed Hansberry]

iPod doesn't imply that the thing plays music or does anything really.
I thought iPod came from the Latin word Plurbousipodus, which translates to "get jiggy with it."

[haesslich]

Well, if they're trying to promote Windows Mobile.. this probably won't work. I can imagine the customer complaints now about how they thought 'Standard' was better than Classic, so they're upset that the program they bought works ONLY with Classic and Pro, but they need to get another version for "Standard"..

[Eriq Cook]

I completely agree. The new naming convention is the worst Microsoft has come up with yet.

And Windows Mobile Professional should have been named Windows Mobile 5.5. Smartphone Edition should have stayed just that.

I can imagine the confusion. The average person wouldn't expect the "Standard" edition to run on a completely different platform than Classic and Professional. What the he** is going on at Microsoft?

[Paragon]

I thought iPod came from the Latin word Plurbousipodus, which translates to "get jiggy with it."

LMAO!

I always wondered what that meant. :)

[Stik]

iPod doesn't imply that the thing plays music or does anything really.

Is true. The searches certain comments lead me to undertake I find as a sort of entertainment and education. No exception with this comment and I apologize in advance if I'm taking this thread off track, I'm weak and can't help myself. :)

The iPod name was offered up by Vinnie Chieco, a freelance copywriter who lives in San Francisco. Chieco was recruited by Apple to be part of a small team tasked with helping figure out how to introduce the new player to the general public, not just computer geeks.

While describing the player, Jobs constantly referred to Apple's digital hub strategy: The Mac is a hub, or central connection point, for a host of gadgets. This prompted Chieco to start thinking about hubs: objects that other things connect to.

The ultimate hub, Chieco figured, would be a spaceship. You could leave the spaceship in a smaller vessel, a pod, but you'd have to return to the mother ship to refuel and get food. Then Chieco was shown a prototype iPod, with its stark white plastic front.

"As soon as I saw the white iPod, I thought 2001," said Chieco. "Open the pod bay door, Hal!"

Then it was just a matter of adding the "i" prefix, as in "iMac."

Athol Foden, a naming expert and president of Brighter Naming of Mountain View, California, noted that Apple had already trademarked the iPod name for an internet kiosk, a project that never saw the light of day.

On July 24, 2000, Apple registered the iPod name for "a public internet kiosk enclosure containing computer equipment," according to the filing.

Chieco said neither Jobs -- nor anyone else -- seemed aware that the company had already registered the iPod trademark.

"The name 'iPod' makes much more sense for an internet kiosk, which is a pod for a human, than a music player," said Foden.

"They discovered in their tool chest of registered names they had 'iPod,'" he added. "If you think about the product, it doesn't really fit. But it doesn't matter. It's short and sweet."

Foden said the name is a stroke of genius: It is simple, memorable and, crucially, it doesn't describe the device, so it can still be used as the technology evolves, even if the device's function changes. He noted the "i" prefix has a double meaning: It can mean "internet," as in "iMac," or it can denote the first person: "I," as in me. "

http://www.wired.com/news/columns/cultofmac/0,71956-2.html

Dave - Prepare G-pod for EVA, Hal. Made radio contact with him yet?
Hal - The radio is still dead.
Dave - Do you have a positive track on him?
Hal - Yes, I have a good track.
Dave - Do you know what happened?
Ha l- I'm sorry, Dave, I don't have enough information.
Dave - Open the pod door, Hal!
Hal - I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that...

http://www.filmreference.com/images/sjff_01_img0509.jpg

0X

[JKingGrim]

If they want to do a standard / professional naming scheme, why not this way:

* Pocket PC => WM6 Standard
* Pocket PC Phone => WM6 Professional
* Smartphone => WM6 Lite

Replace lite with something better perhaps. Much better. I think the old naming is still better, but the above would be clearer than what they have.

[Darius Wey]

A better analogue would be if Microsoft had something like "Windows Mobile Phone" versus "Windows Mobile PDA" versus "Windows Mobile Communicator" -- now, those are descriptive names, and easily distinguished.

(I don't pretend to say those are the best names. But in the space of 10 seconds, I've already come up with a far better branding.)

I dig that. Janak, you should enter marketing. :mrgreen:

[Tirnaog]

Getting ready to upgrade my cell phone and PPC.
In regards these edtions, exactly is the difference between them;
1] PPC = Full blown PPC OS. All the bells and whistles ?
2] PPC + Phone = Full blown PPC OS with cell phone capabilities ?
3] SmartPhone = Just the cell phone capabilities ?

Would those statements be correct? If so then it would be #2 I would be looking for.

Thanks
Deasun

[Nurhisham Hussein]

Would those statements be correct? If so then it would be #2 I would be looking for.

Not exactly - the biggest and most obvious difference between Standard (#3) and Professional (#2) is that Professional is meant for a touch screen device and Standard for a non-touch screen device. They'll both have PPC functions, though I see that the Office version in Standard is a lot more limited that the Professional version.

[T-Will]

We had a lengthy discussion about this idiotic naming scheme over here (http://www.smartphonethoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13479&amp;postdays=0&amp;postorder=asc&amp;start=0) at SPT.

I suggested something like this:

Windows Mobile Touch = Touch screen, no phone (Pocket PC)
Windows Mobile Touch Communicator = Touch screen, with phone (Pocket PC Phone)
Windows Mobile Communicator = No touch screen, with phone (Smartphone)