The Broken Ecosystem for Windows Mobile Updates

[Jason Dunn]

<p><em>Another interesting discussion came up on the private <a href="http://www.mobiussite.com" target="_blank">Mobius</a> discussion list, and my response was a bit long so I thought it was worth sharing here. One of the Mobius group members made a comment about how it was time for something to be done to separate the firmware from the customizations that operators made - allowing for easy OS and application updates. My response, slightly expanded for public consumption...</em></p><p>We were at that point back in 2001 when some of the first generation Pocket PCs were denied upgrades to the new OS. This has been a sore point for Windows Mobile from the start.</p><p><strong>iPhone = Two phones + one OS + one company = easy updates</strong></p><p><strong>Zune = Three devices + one OS + one company = easy updates</strong></p><p><strong>Windows Mobile = Dozens (hundreds?) of phones + two OS' + dozens of companies = nightmare update scenario</strong></p><p>This issue has come up time and time again: because of all the different phone hardware, and the low-level software customization required for drivers and whatnot, OS updates and even simple patches are much more complicated than they could be if the underlying system was simpler. Every time there's a new version of Windows Mobile, we hear that updates are going to be made easier, but it never seems to translate into actual updates for users. Someone smarter than me can probably explain this, but on desktop PCs (at least with Windows) you have a hardware abstraction layer (HAL) that takes care of certain important things related to hardware and software talking to each other. Here's part of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_Abstraction_Layer" target="_blank">Wikipedia definition</a>:</p><p><em>"A hardware abstraction layer (HAL) is an abstraction layer, implemented in software, between the physical hardware of a computer and the software that runs on that computer. Its function is to hide differences in hardware from most of the operating system kernel, so that most of the kernel-mode code does not need to be changed to run on systems with different hardware. On a PC, HAL can basically be considered to be the driver for the motherboard and allows instructions from higher level computer languages to communicate with lower level components, such as directly with hardware."</em><MORE />It's easiest to understand the HAL by thinking about the fact that you can install Windows on tens of thousands of different types of PCs, from old to new, and there's usually some generic driver that will give you basic functionality. There is no HAL on Windows Mobile phones, so every chip that's different from one phone to the next requires customized software and firmware. This means extra work for the OEMs, and every OEM has to decide if it makes business sense for them to put the resources into developing the update. We've all seen the results of that.</p><p>Why isn't there a HAL for Windows Mobile? Adding a HAL would reduce performance and efficiency, worsening battery life and speed - one estimate I heard was 20%. I'd gladly take a 20% hit in battery life and performance if it meant receiving regular updates from Microsoft to a Microsoft operating system. Would you? That's the question that Microsoft should be asking users. The phone networks probably could care less, because they don't make money off updates, but Microsoft should care because it's their operating system. Microsoft ceded too much control to the phone networks - they had to do that to get into the game years ago, but now that they're an established player in the market, it's time to regain control of the customer and their operating system. It's a matter of brand control and customer perception - when something goes wrong on their Windows Mobile phone, the customer isn't going to mutter a curse at Verizon or T-Mobile - they're going to mutter that curse at Microsoft.</p><p>There's also no good distribution mechanisms for updates either: iPhone users connect to iTunes, get notified of updates, and install them - all without losing any data. Windows Mobile users? Only the geeky ones hear about AKU updates or OS updates and track them down either on the phone network sites, or maybe the OEM sites if they're lucky. And they'll probably have to re-install all their programs and re-sync all their data. What kind of a system is that? And I haven't even mentioned the mockery that is the never-used device-side Windows Update. If the user were to be notified about a new version of their operating system when they connect to Windows Mobile Device Center for instance (great idea Rocco!), and given the option to purchase it, I'm certain the OEMs would see more revenue for their efforts. Microsoft needs to solve the problem of updates wiping out user data as well - that's just ridiculous. Who would have installed Vista SP1 if it meant re-loading the whole damn operating system?</p><p>The Windows Mobile system for updates is broken from top to bottom. Too much power is in the hands of the phone networks, and Microsoft hasn't done enough to claim control over their own operating system. We've all known how broken this system is for years, but the simplicity of iPhone updates drives the point home in powerful way: updates to a smartphone should be fast, simple, and user-friendly. Now what are you going to do about that Microsoft?</p><p><em>Jason Dunn owns and operates <a href="http://www.thoughtsmedia.com" target="_blank">Thoughts Media Inc.</a>, a company dedicated to creating the best in online communities. He enjoys <a href="http://photos.jasondunn.com/" target="_blank">photography</a>, mobile devices, <a href="http://www.jasondunn.com" target="_blank">blogging</a>, digital media content creation/editing, and pretty much all technology. He lives in Calgary, Alberta, Canada with his lovely wife, and his sometimes obedient dog. He's envious of the speed and simplicity with which iPhones get software updates.</em></p>

[brianchris]

Not only has this been an issue for me for a long time (as I've used Pocket PC's since the day they launched), its a very timely issue as just yesterday I checked HTC's website for the the WM 6.1 update for my AT&T Tilt, and just earlier this morning I googled for any info on the WM 6.1 update for the AT&T Motorola Q9h. Both were promissed MONTHS ago, but the best I can find is rummor and chatter.

Frustrating for sure.

[jasonsca]

I've been in love with my WM devices for years but my no. 1 complaint has always been battery life.

[wfisher]

Thanks for yet another excellent piece, Jason. It is definitely a frustrating situation.

On the other hand, you didn't say much about the mobile operators, and I think they absolutely must share a good chunk of the blame. I was reading a related article at JK On the Run (http://www.jkontherun.com/2008/08/the-windows-mob.html#more) earlier today, and in it James Kendrick actually makes the case that, instead of consumers being angry at the MS and the OS, most are typically only dimly aware of the specific OS their device is running, and are much more acutely attuned - as they should be - to the name of their carrier, which in the US is prominently stamped on the hardware and woven throughout the customized OS, as well. And, as JK noted, if a customer has a Sprint or Verizon or T-Mo branded phone, it's only natural that he would expect to be updated by Sprint, Verizon, or T-Mo.

Ultimately, however, I think you're mostly right that MS may not have claimed enough power over the performance of their OS, and that too much power may well be in the hands of the networks...

[paschott]

Preach it! I would also accept a little more battery drain to have access to actual updates. I was pretty ticked when HP announced no upgrade for 2210/15 owners - a device not even a year old and this wasn't even going up to WM5. I'd love to see an easy upgrade to the underlying OS without necessarily losing all of my installed programs and data. That's just a killer, though the newer backup programs help with device upgrades to some extent.

Apple is definitely causing an uproar in the market, though I can do without the way they lock people in to the way they want to do things. Some things like an easy device upgrade without losing critical data/apps are cool. The fact that you are forced to use only apps they approve is not so cool. Lack of stylus/physical keyboard for those of us who use those heavily is also not cool. Still, they are causing quite a few people to sit up and take notice that WM is just not right in a lot of areas.

[Paragon]

Oh My God! As Jason mentioned, for years now we've heard that with each OS bump that updates are going to be more end user friendly, and after each new OS release we here excuses as to why it can't happen. I think it's time were stopped hearing the word"can't" and started hearing what's actually being done to make this happen.

Windows Mobile has now reached a point were they need to address a couple of end user issues such as updates and user interface, or start loosing market share to the rising number of competitors who are banging very loudly at the door........which is it going to be Mirosoft?......Maybe I should just start going to iTunes for my regular and very timely updates. ;)

Dave

[MAK11]

IIRC @ WPC Andy Lees clearly said that in the future version of WM (he didn't obviously name it WM7) updates will be directly provided to the user by MS and not the network providers anymore (just like the iPhone) and said that more info about the next WM will be released at PDC in October.
Can't find the keynote video on Microsoft's site anymore (and strangely the interesting parts have been cut out of the transcript, mainly the Q&A IIRC.. :confused:)

[ctmagnus]

Now, now, to be perfectly fair, there are a few apps I have installed on my iPod Touch that wouldn't upgrade as elegantly as advertised. ;) I ended up having to remove them from the iPod and iTunes, and re-download them in order to upgrade the programs. However, that was on the original 2.0 rom. I haven't been prompted yet to do any updates with 2.0.1.

[ajwalker]

Jason;

As always, you hit the nail on the head.:D

As a long time Window Mobile user and general Microsoft user, I never understood why Microsoft can issue update after update to my PC through all the various manufacturers of desktops but seem to be so willingly bent over a barrell when it comes to Windows Mobile.:confused:

As you said, they may have needed to come with hat in hand to get in the mobile phone market years ago, but that time is long since passed and Microsoft, as a company, needs to wake up and start renegotiating those terms with handset makers and carriers.

I've said it before here and other places, Microsoft needs to stop letting OEMs and carriers muck around with the Windows Mobile OS - period. End of discussion.:mad:

Microsoft is finally starting to admit they are getting beat down by Apple and RIM with very little hope of catching Nokia unless they "renegotiate their contract" with all the parties involved and do it quickly. Or, do what needs to be done and come out with their own phone.

I don't see a problem if Microsoft sells their own phone through their Danger acquisition. Phone sales are all about choices. Some people WILL ALWAYS like the HTC Touch Diamond over a Windows Mobile Sidekick. How will that negatively affect the current OEMs? All of which will continue to do what they do anyway.

Personally, I'd like a GSM phone from Microsoft free of all the crapware AT&T puts on it that I would end up using on the AT&T network anyway since that's who my provider is anyway.:rolleyes: Why should AT&T care who or where you got the phone since they make their money on the service, not the device.

Alas, as much as I agree with you and like Windows Mobile, I think this article is preaching to the choir. Microsoft is doing nothing but paying lip service with that frightened deer in the headlights look.:mad:

And, even sadder to say as a Windows Mobile fan, I've seriously got my eye on the upcoming BlackBerry Bold and leaving WinMo altogether.:(

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Really? Seriously? You guys want less carrier control?

Then stop whining every time when you see a phone's unlocked price is at US$400-500.

If you cannot accept the carrier rebates you'll never escape their control.

Edit: Fixed horrendous typo.

[ScottC]

This has been my number 1 complaint with WinMo for years. There are several big issues MS need to take care of:

1) Updates need to be independent of the operator. I'm tired of seeing operator X get an update months before operator Y. This whole situation is what justifies xda-developers existence, and why there are so many people working on non sanctioned updates.

2) Updates mean 2 hours of work. When I install an update, I lose everything. It's a pathetic situation. I know there are some backup programs that can do a rom upgrade safe restore, but I've never found on that actually works perfectly.

3) Too many middle men. Despite complaining, I do understand the technical issues Microsoft is facing. They make an OS, a manufacturer makes the device for the OS, and an operator makes their own crap for on the device. That means as an end user I am 3 steps away from the source of what can fix my buggy device. In a perfect world things would work just like on my desktop. The OS is updated by Microsoft, device driver packages come from the manufacturer and the operator issues their own fixes. Each one should be independent.

Just to compare: on my Blackberry, I can do a full update in under an hour, which includes a FULL backup of the device. I click start, and 60 minutes later I have an updated device, with the same settings are prior to the update. It's close to perfection.

[Janak Parekh]

Now, now, to be perfectly fair, there are a few apps I have installed on my iPod Touch that wouldn't upgrade as elegantly as advertised. ;) I ended up having to remove them from the iPod and iTunes, and re-download them in order to upgrade the programs. However, that was on the original 2.0 rom. I haven't been prompted yet to do any updates with 2.0.1. We're talking about updating the OS, not individual applications. ;) Actually, I'd say the upgrade experience on WM is a bit cleaner than it currently is on Apple's Touch platform.

Really? Seriously? You guys want less carrier control?

Then stop whining every time when you see a phone's unlocked price is at US$400-500. Except... Apple's devices are carrier subsidized, and yet they retain the rights to do upgrades. And I mean this everywhere, not just the US.

--janak

[Fritzly]

We're talking about updating the OS, not individual applications. ;) Actually, I'd say the upgrade experience on WM is a bit cleaner than it currently is on Apple's Touch platform.

Except... Apple's devices are carrier subsidized, and yet they retain the rights to do upgrades. And I mean this everywhere, not just the US.

--janak

I bought my IPhone 3G in Italy, SIM Free, and paid it around $700, same amount I paid my SIM Free HTC Diamond.
Carriers are, sorry already have, killed the market here in the US!
Here I have to pay to receive a SMS! Are we kidding?! Compare costs and available speed of DSL connections here in the US and the rest of the world and you will see how deep we have already sunk.
And while we are here add the worst scandal of all: the TV Cable companies oligopoly.

Btw Jason I could not agree with you more; nowadays MS seems to be in a complete disarray.

[Janak Parekh]

Carriers are, sorry already have, killed the market here in the US! Oh, I'm not trying to defend the carriers. I'm just focusing on the upgrade experience. ;)

(And, to be precise, I'm not saying that Apple's upgrade deal with the carriers is "usual" -- but they managed to pull it off, and I'd like to see if Microsoft try the same, if only for the parts that aren't the radio stack.)

--janak

[Mike Dimmick]

Desktop/Server Windows' HAL is a very broad brush at the very lowest level. Most PCs will run exactly the same HAL. What makes the OS adaptable to the hardware is drivers.

The Windows CE equivalent of the HAL is the OAL, OEM Adaptation Layer. It's sometimes also called a Board Support Package (BSP) - a number of BSPs for stock boards are available. OEMs rarely use these development boards directly, though, so the BSP will need to be adapted to the device.

To save space, some components - such as graphics and keyboard drivers - are compiled directly into their hosts, since the graphics chip is obviously not replaceable on a PDA. It could be done as a loadable module but, in practice, usually isn't. Also, the exact way in which the devices are wired up may not be identical between PDAs with the same chip, and that can have an effect on the system (example: a graphics chip might not appear at the same physical address on two different systems). There's no master plug-and-play system on handhelds - only PCMCIA and SD cards support plug-and-play. Everything else has to be set up correctly at ROM build time.

The problem for driver upgrades is that Microsoft haven't focused that closely on keeping the driver model identical between major versions. This allows the model to be changed more readily to accommodate new features, at the cost of drivers needing to be rewritten at least in part to match the new model. It's not as simple as just reusing the same binary on the new device.

AKU updates - minor versions of an OS, where the driver model doesn't change - are relatively easier, but the OEM may still decide that they need to revalidate the device completely, and the networks or regulatory authorities may require it.

We're currently trying to get an OEM to replace the version of .NET Compact Framework in ROM on an enterprise device with version 2.0 SP2, with the unmanaged DLLs set to Execute In Place, in order to recover 1.1MB of virtual address space. To do this they have to get MS to sign the update package. Unfortunately their first pass only saved 300kB because they got the base addresses wrong, and mscoree2_0.dll (870kB) ended up located at the top of memory, rather than in the 'hole' where the previous version lived.

[Bob Anderson]

I must say, I haven't posted much on these sites for a couple years, but have been an avid reader, watching the news and keeping up-to-date on all things Windows Mobile.

When I saw Jason's article/post I said to myself, "right on Jason!"

I have been using Pocket PCs since the old Philips Nino days, when we were using WinCE devices, and frankly have believed in the MSFT products and partnerships for years. Lately, however, I'm growing tired of the fact that we constantly get locked in this MSFT/Carrier/Manufacturer blame game, and consumers suffer.

My latest Pocket PC, the Verizon XV6800 is a fabulous device that has a few "bugs" that could certainly be worked out by HTC, Verizon, MSFT, if they really cared to do it. But, as others have said, we're still waiting for upgrades (where's the promised EVDO rev A upgrade?) Where's a WM 6.1 upgrade? When WM7 reveals itself, will it be available to me? Why can't I get Windows Live Messenger direct from Verizon or MSFT?

Meanwhile, I have a small but growing faction of friends that can't stop raving about the iPhone. Frankly, the more I see, the less I can do to defend Windows Mobile. At this point my reasons for staying with Windows Mobile has more to do with Verizon than Microsoft! (What a switch) I absolutely believe in Verizon's wireless service (not to be confused with their customer service) and just can't switch to AT&T. If Verizon had the iPhone, I probably would switch.

Kudos to Jason for really highlighting the problems with the WM Ecosystem. I hope executives at MSFT really heed his comments and those of others in this chain. MSFT needs to either build their own phone, or forge partnerships where WM devices have a defined lifecycle of at least 1 major upgrade (say WM 5 to 6) and regular point upgrades (6.0 to 6.1 as an example.) I don't expect carriers to keep my 5 year old device running, but we should expect that during the average 2 year contract, the phone will be kept updated and relevant. MSFT and the carriers can surely figure out a way to do it. (Hint to MSFT: push for this arrangement with one carrier, and help them market the concept, and you'll soon have all the carriers wanting to do it!)

Whether the upgrade situation is resolved through a HAL or a bunch of programmers in a remote section of India figuring out new drivers, I don't really care, but I have the full confidence of MSFT and their partners that they can make a change if they believe it is important.

And from one loyal WM user, trust me, it's important. The iPhone is becoming a serious contender and it won't take much more to make me jump the MSFT ship. (Especially since you licensed ActiveSync technology to Apple!!!)

Jason: Keep up the good fight! Keep spreading the message that a large group of WM users feels every day.

[runbuh]

Really? Seriously? You guys want less carrier control?

Then stop whining every time when you see a phone's unlocked price is at US$400-500.

If you cannot except the carrier rebates you'll never escape their control.

Dude - what we're talking about here is the fact that the phone's OS has been customized by the carrier to the point that upgrades are difficult to roll out.

Besides, if you get an 8GB iPhone from AT&T, it only costs you $199, and it has no AT&T customizations on it that prevent you from receiving OS updates from Apple. Sure - you can't stick a T-mo SIM in the thing and expect it to work, but the fact remains OS upgrades are available and supported (we've already seen one come out for the new 3G iPhones this week)

A Q9 Global from AT&T has not had a single update since it came out (LAST YEAR!). Same price range, but heavy customizations that keep us from getting updates.

If you compare the frequent iPhone updates that come from Apple, all of which can be applied to AT&T iPhones, to the one or two official updates that came from AT&T for the 2125, 3125, 8125, 8525, BlackJack, Treo 750w, etc., I think you'll see the pattern. Carrier logo updates, like the first update for the BlackJack where they simply changed Cingular logos and such AT&T equivalents, don't count as they didn't change the OS version or provide any bug fixes.

$199 Subsidized AT&T iPhone - No AT&T customizations that stop you from getting all updates FROM APPLE
$199 Subsidized AT&T Tilt - Heavily AT&T customized, and only one update FROM AT&T since it came out in October 2007

[Jason Dunn]

On the other hand, you didn't say much about the mobile operators, and I think they absolutely must share a good chunk of the blame.

If you do a search on my article for the word "network" you'll see I mentioned the mobile operators four times - I absolutely understand in the current system they are responsible for 90% of the problems with updates.

[Jason Dunn]

IIRC @ WPC Andy Lees clearly said that in the future version of WM (he didn't obviously name it WM7) updates will be directly provided to the user by MS and not the network providers anymore (just like the iPhone)

That's good to hear, but I've seen many empty promises come from Microsoft over the years, and I'm not apt to believe that until I see it happening. I really hope it does though!

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

On carriers:

So far I get the feeling most of you want to have your cake and eat it too.

Thing is, does anyone honestly think a Tilt is going to outsell the iPhone? Also, doesn't the iPhone come with an expensive 3G plan?

There is no such thing as a free lunch. The subsidies are only possible because of complex array of business models, from installing crap to entice you to use certain (highly marked-up) services, advertising/branding, expensive plans, or in the iPhone's case, the knowledge that it will sell and generate new customers (on lucrative data plans no less).

There's a reason why Apple can get to dictate this. They know they have a product they can sell. The carriers know this too.

On MS:

I think one problem MS has is that there's a OEM in the middle of it all too. If they're used to dealing with the carriers in one way, MS has less choice in this matter. Probably a reason why they bought Danger. Having both the hardware and software could make the difference on the negotiation table.

[Janak Parekh]

There's a reason why Apple can get to dictate this. They know they have a product they can sell. The carriers know this too. It's not just Apple, though; as another pointed out, RIM can also do updates.

I think one problem MS has is that there's a OEM in the middle of it all too. If they're used to dealing with the carriers in one way, MS has less choice in this matter. Probably a reason why they bought Danger. Having both the hardware and software could make the difference on the negotiation table. Agreed. I think this is a much bigger part of the problem than the carrier-control issue (which is a part, but one that has been solved for certain devices and should be solved generally for smartphones). The problem with Danger is their strategy is strictly consumer. Let's see what Microsoft does with it, though -- there's some very useful technology in there!

--janak

[treynolds]

I'm dealing with this issue right now, but as regards a WM PDA.

I've used both Palms and Pocket PC's for the last 10 years, pretty equally actually. I have a (new to me) HP HX4700. I has WM 2003SE. I'd like to upgrade it to 6.0 and skip the atrocious WM 5.0 that was released by HP.

Jason hit the nail on the head: the OS updates are left up to the vendor or OEM, when they should be the responsibility of the OS company, in this case M$.

When the OEM's have the responsibility for OS or ROM updates, the users mostly get left in the cold. The OS should be the same and work the same on any vendor's device so that there's no learning curve for the user. M$ writes the base OS, but then the OEM's add so much bloat that in some cases, the OS doesn't even have the same interface from one device to the other.

In the case of the HX4700, HP botched the release of 5.0 (which was late) and left users in a lurch when it came to 6.0 updates. Users (intrepid ones at that), are left to try to load ROM's cooked from code and ported to their device.

It'd be much simpler if M$ handled everything. At least the users would have only one company to deal with.

Tony

[unxmully]

We're talking about updating the OS, not individual applications. ;) Actually, I'd say the upgrade experience on WM is a bit cleaner than it currently is on Apple's Touch platform.
--janak

Do you think? I did the 2.0.1 upgrade on my iPhone 3G and it took 15 minutes, 10 of which was the download time. No apps lost, no settings lost. Just click one button, get a cup of tea and come back to an upgraded and working phone.

[Janak Parekh]

Do you think? I did the 2.0.1 upgrade on my iPhone 3G and it took 15 minutes, 10 of which was the download time. No apps lost, no settings lost. Just click one button, get a cup of tea and come back to an upgraded and working phone. Sorry, I was being really unclear. I was talking about app upgrades -- and the story is mixed there. The iPhone OS's behavior of uninstalling and reinstalling apps is very clean, but it's a bit annoying -- the icon moves and data embedded within the app is often lost. I'm not sure if the latter can be fixed, but if not, WM's upgrade process is at least inline.

There is no doubt that the OS upgrade process on the iPhone is miles better than any WM upgrader I've seen (Palm's pretty much the only vendor that takes steps to make it easy to reset the state of your WM device, and it's still quite a bit more cumbersome).

(On the other hand, you can upgrade straight from the mobile device, which WM still doesn't have a central facility for. :rolleyes:)

--janak

[Cybrid]

(On the other hand, you can upgrade straight from the mobile device, which WM still doesn't have a central facility for. :rolleyes:)

--janak Really, Please tell me how? I haven't seen that yet. I mean PSP's do that...but the iPod Touch...don't know how...

Do you think? I did the 2.0.1 upgrade on my iPhone 3G and it took 15 minutes, 10 of which was the download time. No apps lost, no settings lost. Just click one button, get a cup of tea and come back to an upgraded and working phone. Not so much for me...
The update from 1.x took hours (cable lite) to download and hours to install. The 2.0.1 update looked to be the same size in download so I left it overnight.


The scenario between Apple and Microsoft is too different:

Alex Kac wrote (http://www.pocketinformant.com/Forums/index.php?autocom=blog&blogid=1&showentry=54) a related post on his blog. This was then covered here (http://forums.thoughtsmedia.com/f322/windows-mobile-turning-into-palm-os-development-standpoint-89881.html).


In there; I wrote:
"I have to honestly say there is no solution. Nor can there be.

The iPhone hardware "One size fits all" is not a solution. I like the variety in hardware. It gives me options. If my needs change and I require a quick BB keyboard style solution or if I wanted to keep my current Touch setup. I want that choice. To not have that is just wrong! I'd move to a company and OS that would give me that choice really quickly. Having had more devices than sense has taught me how some devices are better at something as opposed to others.

Competition means HTC et al are forced to add customizations to stand out. TouchFlo made the HTC Touch a *Star. This leads to the TouchFlo 2.0 on the Diamond and Raphael. Is that wrong? No!

In all, the real issue is really better code and better documentation. Isn't it?
HTC could do a much better job of building their drivers and writing cleaner apps with better documentation "PS we changed this because...so work around it by ...." Is that likely? Prolly not.""

Those same customizations that make updates difficult is what lets Samsung / HTC / etc compete against each other.


It kinda reminds me of an amusing personal anecdote:
I once got stuck on a deserted island with an airplane load of MS, Apple and Linux engineers.
The MS engineers built a rudimentary raft that slowly took on water meaning my feet were nearly always wet. To void my bowels, I'd have to lean over the side and possibly risk drowning. Otherwise, I was free to do whatever I'd like...

The Apple guys adapted a blueprint from the Linux guys and built a beautiful Yacht replete with Galley and flushing toilet. For my safety and other considerations, I could only use the observation deck between 09:00-10:30 on Wed, my bathroom times would be 06:00, 13:30, 22:10 and meal times would be 07:00, 12:00, 19:00 hours with Black Tie formal in effect. For the remainder of the duration, I was urged to remain in my cabin at all times.

The linux guys began arguing about the source trees and were branching off in different directions. One even built a Cloth and Balsa glider, only to be turned back by the FAA for not obtaining the appropriate licensing.

But anyway, I digress.... It was the trip of a lifetime. LOL

[Janak Parekh]

Really, Please tell me how? I haven't seen that yet. I mean PSP's do that...but the iPod Touch...don't know how... The App Store can discover and install upgrades for you with the touch of a button. (Note, I'm talking about app upgrades as opposed to firmware upgrades. Both are floating in this thread, and I've already poorly distinguished them once. ;))

The update from 1.x took hours (cable lite) to download and hours to install. That sounds anomalous, as if perhaps the USB was communicating slower than usual.

--janak

[ctmagnus]

That sounds anomalous, as if perhaps the USB was communicating slower than usual.

--janak

My upgrade took a few hours as well. The actual download was quite zippy, though. Everything else I connect via USB to this computer performs as expected except of course for the application data sync that happens every time I sync with iTunes. Music sync (other than initial post-firmware update syncs) also performs as I expect it would. I'm thinking that perhaps Cybrid's and my iPods are from "iffy" batches - transferring 100MB or so of data is fine, anything more takes longer than should be expected.

[Cybrid]

The App Store can discover and install upgrades for you with the touch of a button. (Note, I'm talking about app upgrades as opposed to firmware upgrades. Both are floating in this thread, and I've already poorly distinguished them once. ;))

That sounds anomalous, as if perhaps the USB was communicating slower than usual.

--janakI see... Yea that could be cool. Some Win Mo apps do that already, and have done so for quite some time... pocketHTML?, currency converter... Some newer Pocket Informant 8 have that ability too.

Well the USB has been tested on several PC's
My sons Sempron 3000+ XP box
My old Sempron 2800+ Vista box
My Brand new Quad Core Vista box (Acer Aspire 5100m)

I didn't see any speed improvements...
Im gonna update that thread with the rest of my "news" (http://forums.thoughtsmedia.com/f359/mis-adventures-appleland-90082.html#post689365)

[Janak Parekh]

I see... Yea that could be cool. Some Win Mo apps do that already, and have done so for quite some time... pocketHTML?, currency converter... Some newer Pocket Informant 8 have that ability too. Yes, I know; on the App Store, though, it's standardized: all apps use the same upgrade mechanism. This makes it really easy for consumers, albeit limiting for power users.

--janak

[Cybrid]

Yes, I know; on the App Store, though, it's standardized: all apps use the same upgrade mechanism. This makes it really easy for consumers, albeit limiting for power users.

--janak Just as a curious note: Without any videos on... 3.x Gb is being taken up by a listing known only as "other". Is this the apps. Sheesh they're huge!

[Janak Parekh]

Just as a curious note: Without any videos on... 3.x Gb is being taken up by a listing known only as "other". Is this the apps. Sheesh they're huge! Depends on which apps and what content they have. I think I'm using about 500MB for Other, with about 10-15 apps installed. Some of the games can get quite large (tens of MB), which is by design.

--janak

[Cybrid]

Depends on which apps and what content they have. I think I'm using about 500MB for Other, with about 10-15 apps installed. Some of the games can get quite large (tens of MB), which is by design.

--janakI've installed 9 items. 118Mb for OS, Thats a huge difference. CTMagnus is right, sounds like an iffy batch.

[midtoad]

Nokia's got a new email client in beta for their S60 smartphone. I just bought a Nokia N82 so I tried out the app (with the built-in mail client, I'm unable to send mail from my .mac account). I noticed one feature I'd like improved, and sent Nokia some feedback on this : they actually ask for feedback on their website and have shared the most popular requests AND complaints.

When it starts up, the beta app always tries by default to connect via a cellular network, even if you have a WiFi-equipped phone. I had to start up my web browser and tell it connect via WiFi before jumping back to the beta mail app and get it to connect - it then used the active, WiFi, connection. (unlike Apple, Symbian S60 allows mulitasking just like WinMo). If you don't have a data plan, the default mail app behaviour could be disastrous to your pocketbook, so I asked Nokia to fix that.

The beta app isn't available for the N82, so I chose another model in order to get the download, and the app seemed to work anyway. But I still mentioned to Nokia that it would be great if they included all their new models like the N82 in the trial.

Getting to the point of this post, Nokia actually had a live person respond specifically to the two points in my feedback. I have *never* received any feedback from Microsoft on any defect of their apps or any of the glaring defects in WinMo - like the broken update mechanism that's the subject of this thread. In fact for most of their history they have never even made it possible to provide feedback (do they now? I mean, outside of forums that some MS employee *might* frequent.).

But Nokia provided a personal response even to a product that is not even officially released yet. It's almost as though they want the product to work well for customers. What a concept!

I've only had the N82 a week but already it puts to shame any WinMo device I've ever owned. Hardware-wise it has 3G, GPS, WiFi, 5 MPx camera w/xenon flash. And software-wise there's a whole world of S60 apps out there, including the all-important Opera Mini.

Meanwhile, what's Microsoft doing? Spending all its energy recovering from Vista instead of fixing WinMo? I mean, just to pick one example it *still* doesn't understand the concept of Location as applied to WiFi. And if you want one WiFi's network to be fixed IP and another's to be DHCP, you have to drop into the bowels of the OS, likely beyond the average users. And of course there are 100 other examples like this one.

[Jason Dunn]

...sent Nokia some feedback on this : they actually ask for feedback on their website and have shared the most popular requests AND complaints...Getting to the point of this post, Nokia actually had a live person respond specifically to the two points in my feedback. I have *never* received any feedback from Microsoft on any defect of their apps or any of the glaring defects in WinMo - like the broken update mechanism that's the subject of this thread. In fact for most of their history they have never even made it possible to provide feedback (do they now? I mean, outside of forums that some MS employee *might* frequent.).

Some great points - you're right, there's really no mechanism by which the Windows Mobile team collects feedback, and that's certainly a deficit. I'm impressed that Nokia collects that feedback and engages with users - that's great to see!