09-02-2017 02:45 PM
78 123 ...
tools
  1. Satish Singh's Avatar
    Before diving deep into this topic, I will summarize the recent steps taken by Microsoft. After Mr. Nadella took charge, Microsoft decided to take a back seat from mobile computing especially smartphones. But it was a big decision. There were many Lumia users around that time and so shutting down the phone division in one go would have created “HAVOC” for Microsoft. There were so many die hard fans of Nokia who were not ready to give up Windows phone. So, it seems that Microsoft under Mr. Nadella came out with an elaborate plan to slowly phase out Windows phone in 2 to 3 years.

    As of now, there are no Windows phone available in market. I guess Microsoft expects UWP (Windows 10 ecosystem) to survive through Windows 10 installations on laptops, desktops, gaming machines and augmented reality. But this is a strategic blunder. The amount of time an average person spends on a smart device is inversely proportional to the size of the device. My observation suggests that people today spend 90% of their computing time on smartphones.

    So whenever I see - “Available on iOS & Play Store” on any app, website or physical store, I understand that there is a problem with Windows 10 strategy. It was a mistake by Microsoft to completely shut down the phone division. But Microsoft did not stop at that. They themselves started encouraging Windows phone users (directly or indirectly) to switch to Android and iOS.

    There is no vacation in the middle of a war. I just hope that Microsoft realizes their mistake before it’s too late and start supporting the mobile platform asap.
    07-05-2017 01:14 PM
  2. fatclue_98's Avatar
    Microsoft did not shutter mobile. They dropped manufacturing and were correct in doing so. Nokia was a drag on resources and switching to Android was not the savior some had hoped for. BlackBerry has done the same with TCL now building their phones.

    Windows 10 Mobile is still receiving updates and the Insider builds continue. That's not the hallmark of an abandoned OS. There may not be any Microsoft-branded phones for sale but you can walk into a Microsoft Store and walk away with a new Elite x3. Maybe you find the x3's asking price too stiff, I know I do, but the clients Microsoft has decided to go after won't balk at those prices.

    Microsoft and BlackBerry have chosen a similar path and we consumers ain't it. I put the blame squarely on those who wouldn't support any other Windows phone not made by Nokia. I know my favorite Windows phones have all been non-Nokias - Ativ SE, One M8, Idol 4S and Elite x3. The 1520 was the best Nokia ever on WM and the b******g and moaning here about the phantom touches would make you think it was the Yugo of phonedom.

    Sent from my Elite x3 on mTalk
    07-05-2017 01:38 PM
  3. TgeekB's Avatar
    Microsoft did not shutter mobile. They dropped manufacturing and were correct in doing so. Nokia was a drag on resources and switching to Android was not the savior some had hoped for. BlackBerry has done the same with TCL now building their phones.

    Windows 10 Mobile is still receiving updates and the Insider builds continue. That's not the hallmark of an abandoned OS. There may not be any Microsoft-branded phones for sale but you can walk into a Microsoft Store and walk away with a new Elite x3. Maybe you find the x3's asking price too stiff, I know I do, but the clients Microsoft has decided to go after won't balk at those prices.

    Microsoft and BlackBerry have chosen a similar path and we consumers ain't it. I put the blame squarely on those who wouldn't support any other Windows phone not made by Nokia. I know my favorite Windows phones have all been non-Nokias - Ativ SE, One M8, Idol 4S and Elite x3. The 1520 was the best Nokia ever on WM and the b******g and moaning here about the phantom touches would make you think it was the Yugo of phonedom.

    Sent from my Elite x3 on mTalk
    I agree, especially with the BlackBerry comparison. They both are converting to software companies and it was the right move. The consumer hardware war is over.
    fatclue_98 and Laura Knotek like this.
    07-05-2017 03:23 PM
  4. mtf1380's Avatar
    I agree, especially with the BlackBerry comparison. They both are converting to software companies and it was the right move. The consumer hardware war is over.
    I may have to disagree on this strategy a bit, with the advent on the Surface Brand, MS has made some great headway into the hardware area - and it would be to their advantage to expand on this momentum...and, I think NOW (not later) is the prefect time to do so:)
    aximtreo likes this.
    07-05-2017 03:59 PM
  5. TgeekB's Avatar
    I may have to disagree on this strategy a bit, with the advent on the Surface Brand, MS has made some great headway into the hardware area - and it would be to their advantage to expand on this momentum...and, I think NOW (not later) is the prefect time to do so:)
    Perhaps in small, niche quantities.
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    07-05-2017 04:14 PM
  6. mtf1380's Avatar
    Perhaps in small, niche quantities.
    True! but its a start.
    aximtreo likes this.
    07-05-2017 04:37 PM
  7. TgeekB's Avatar
    True! but its a start.
    It may be all they need. Lots of companies do perfectly well as a niche. There's nothing wrong with that. I just think some people think they're going to overtake Apple and Google in the next couple years with some super device and I don't see that happening. I think they'll focus on enterprise, do pretty well with that, and we'll see from there. Trust me, I hope it works out!
    07-05-2017 04:41 PM
  8. fatclue_98's Avatar
    It may be all they need. Lots of companies do perfectly well as a niche. There's nothing wrong with that. I just think some people think they're going to overtake Apple and Google in the next couple years with some super device and I don't see that happening. I think they'll focus on enterprise, do pretty well with that, and we'll see from there. Trust me, I hope it works out!
    When WP8 was considered a niche people clamored for higher end devices. The Lumia 520 was the top selling device and Windows would never be able to compete with Android or Apple. Fast forward to 8.1 and we had the One M8, Ativ SE, Icon/930 and the 1520. Now Windows phones were too expensive and the bottom fell out causing the Nokia freefall. Windows 10 comes along and we got the 650 for the bottom-feeders and the 950 series as the high-end representatives. Once again the boo-birds did nothing but slam the OS as being "not ready" and the devices as being too bland and feeling cheap. Microsoft can't win. The one consolation I have is that the comments section is much worse on Crackberry because the "betrayal" of BlackBerry going Android. With all the comments of "Microsoft should adopt Android apps to cure the app gap" around here, I'd love to see those same people b***h and moan if Microsoft ever did go Android. I know it won't happen but I'd love to see what the naysayers would gripe about next.

    Y'all had your chance to support the platform when it was still relevant. Cerulean was a day late and a dollar short in my opinion because the damage was done. Microsoft saw the writing on the wall and correctly chose NOT to associate the Surface brand with a losing proposition. Bite down hard and take it like a man now.


    **Update** This post is not directed at @TgeekB in any way shape or form. It was meant to be generalized, I apologize if it reads crookedly.
    Last edited by fatclue_98; 07-05-2017 at 10:12 PM.
    07-05-2017 06:41 PM
  9. raycpl's Avatar
    Microsoft saw the writing on the wall and correctly chose NOT to associate the Surface brand with a losing proposition. .
    Nail. Head.
    Which means a mobile Surface devices, if there ever was going to be one, is a long ways yet.


    ...!!
    07-05-2017 10:38 PM
  10. Satish Singh's Avatar
    Just want to add one point. Microsoft is not into bulk production of hardware anyways. They just make devices like Surface to show direction to other OEMs so that they can replicate their design. Then why leave phones altogether? Ok. They do not want to ruin the Surface brand. So use some other name. I guess they are trying to do that but they are taking so much time. And that's the problem.

    The question that needs to be answered is can Windows 10 survive without apps and if not, will developers make apps for Win 10 if it lacks the device that people use 90% of the time? You will agree that many developers are pulling away their apps from Windows 10 in recent times die to lack of phone hardware.
    aximtreo likes this.
    07-06-2017 01:12 AM
  11. N_LaRUE's Avatar
    My personal opinion on this, and it is my opinion, is that MS has converted back to being primarily a software company, regardless of their success with the Surface line. I think MS had little chance in the mobile market simply be being too late to the market.

    MS has never wanted to be a hardware company. They're simply not setup for it. On top of that, their shareholders seem to believe they shouldn't be in hardware either. So in a lot of ways, the CEO is following the directive of the shareholders. Whether we agree or disagree with that idea is irrelevant. Shareholders just want their returns.

    So to me, Microsoft's efforts of creating an OS be anywhere is really about setting up a system for OEMs to do what they do best, create hardware with MS supplying the software. This means that, even if they bring out a mobile device it won't be for 'the masses'. It will be just to showcase what W10 can do.

    The biggest issue will be and what it continues to be is apps. We have to be realistic in this. Apps is the reason why very few people use the platform. Regardless how you feel about apps or what you believe the future holds in regards to apps. This is how people use their phones 'now'.

    To me, this means that regardless what MS brings out in mobile, there's little chance of it being a consumer device. I really believe their aims are towards enterprise and to me, this should have been their starting point originally. Create a mobile device for enterprise that works well with it. The rest hopefully follows.

    Though I liked WP8 and 8.1 it really wasn't a good OS for enterprise. Now with W10 it will be a question of, have they done enough to entice enterprise.

    Lastly. I know there are a lot of enthusiast on here believing that MS is doing great things and are somehow going to release some killer device that will make everyone run out and buy, but I don't see that happening. I personally don't see MS achieving that, regardless how good the device is. That's based on 'consumer' needs and desires, not enterprise.

    Also to add to that, I know there's this belief that PC on mobile is the future. To me, honestly, I don't think there's a strong desire for this in the consumer market. If you look at it from a practical point of view, PC on mobile is somewhat impractical and laptop for the most part will suit people better. I could be wrong but at this moment, I personally don't see the advantage, especially for consumers. I think even with enterprise is still questionable.

    So yes, I think MS did miss many opportunities and lots of it had to do with management changes and direction. But at the end of the day, I think MS is doing what suits them best. Make software.
    TgeekB, fatclue_98 and libra89 like this.
    07-06-2017 04:54 AM
  12. Satish Singh's Avatar
    But don't you think that making software for a form factor that developers don't care about is harming the Windows ecosystem and so Microsoft should make new software for mobiles, now that W10M is about to be scraped?

    My personal opinion on this, and it is my opinion, is that MS has converted back to being primarily a software company, regardless of their success with the Surface line. I think MS had little chance in the mobile market simply be being too late to the market.

    MS has never wanted to be a hardware company. They're simply not setup for it. On top of that, their shareholders seem to believe they shouldn't be in hardware either. So in a lot of ways, the CEO is following the directive of the shareholders. Whether we agree or disagree with that idea is irrelevant. Shareholders just want their returns.

    So to me, Microsoft's efforts of creating an OS be anywhere is really about setting up a system for OEMs to do what they do best, create hardware with MS supplying the software. This means that, even if they bring out a mobile device it won't be for 'the masses'. It will be just to showcase what W10 can do.

    The biggest issue will be and what it continues to be is apps. We have to be realistic in this. Apps is the reason why very few people use the platform. Regardless how you feel about apps or what you believe the future holds in regards to apps. This is how people use their phones 'now'.

    To me, this means that regardless what MS brings out in mobile, there's little chance of it being a consumer device. I really believe their aims are towards enterprise and to me, this should have been their starting point originally. Create a mobile device for enterprise that works well with it. The rest hopefully follows.

    Though I liked WP8 and 8.1 it really wasn't a good OS for enterprise. Now with W10 it will be a question of, have they done enough to entice enterprise.

    Lastly. I know there are a lot of enthusiast on here believing that MS is doing great things and are somehow going to release some killer device that will make everyone run out and buy, but I don't see that happening. I personally don't see MS achieving that, regardless how good the device is. That's based on 'consumer' needs and desires, not enterprise.

    Also to add to that, I know there's this belief that PC on mobile is the future. To me, honestly, I don't think there's a strong desire for this in the consumer market. If you look at it from a practical point of view, PC on mobile is somewhat impractical and laptop for the most part will suit people better. I could be wrong but at this moment, I personally don't see the advantage, especially for consumers. I think even with enterprise is still questionable.

    So yes, I think MS did miss many opportunities and lots of it had to do with management changes and direction. But at the end of the day, I think MS is doing what suits them best. Make software.
    07-06-2017 06:39 AM
  13. N_LaRUE's Avatar
    But don't you think that making software for a form factor that developers don't care about is harming the Windows ecosystem and so Microsoft should make new software for mobiles, now that W10M is about to be scraped?
    I'm not sure I follow your train of thought here but I'll try to see if I understand.

    My point was having an OS that works on any form factor. I don't see this as detrimental in anyway.

    MS brought in UWP to allow developers to make software to work on any form factor, again I don't see this as detrimental.

    Developers are not forced to create UWP apps so I don't see this as being an issue.

    MS creating software for other platforms is part of what MS does. They make software. Again, this is for MS and shareholder benefit. So I don't see this as detrimental.

    The hardware side of things, though important, I don't think it is as important as their software to them. Which is why when hardware goes by the wayside they just shrug it off. They really want others to make the hardware.

    MS provides the tools. It's up to OEMs and developers to sort out the rest. That to me is really MS's real game plan. Whether it works is another thing but that's what they appear to be doing.
    07-06-2017 07:15 AM
  14. fatclue_98's Avatar
    MS has never wanted to be a hardware company.
    At last, the voice of reason.
    N_LaRUE, libra89 and aximtreo like this.
    07-06-2017 07:56 AM
  15. Drael646464's Avatar
    Hindsight is 20/20.

    IDK if selling nokia was a bad move. I think buying it was the bad move. The decision ended up costing so much money, that shareholders couldn't bare it, and became risk averse.

    But MSFT inherited a lot of problems, like windows 8, SE, RT. It had some major pivots, and is still essentially pivoting. I think overall they have done very well to adapt, and that has had some casualities.

    Could they have done better in the phone market? Perhaps. With all the game studios they own, they could have marketed a gaming phone. They have been late to some parties and early to others.

    Interesting times lay ahead though. Premium phone markets have peaked. Its shifting year by year into low margin, low cost. Something that will not be without its noteable marketplace casualties. The shifting favours of chipset wars still are less stable that people assume, with background major legal cases mounting between apple and QUALCOMM, and intel quietly working on its arm chipsets. Desktops may now shoot leaps and bounds beyond what phones are capable of, due to the ability to circumvent failing moore's law, via bigger buses, faster drive speeds, caching and especially multi-processing on the GPU.

    And what has been a focus on mobility may also shift, as technologies like AR, VR and proper neural net AI emerge, and the chipset technologies that make them possible, while networking technologies approach technical limit bottlenecks in their minimisation of latency.

    Lastly, what has been, one of the most amazing, and fast adopted consumer driven technologies of our time, the smartphone, will not likely be followed by technologies that are as quickly adopted, nor consumer driven.

    Its likely high end AR, VR, IoT and AI, as well as graphene based computing and display, is better driven by higher margin enterprise and niche markets, with bigger pockets for more specialised applications, before they reach the point of mainstream adoption, and technical completeness. The consumer is less demanding, has smaller pockets, and has simple needs. Like the smartphone before it, the mobile phone too, the early steps may have very little to do with every day consumers.

    Take something like IoT, for an example. While a business can save millions with the right application, a farmer can manage their crops or herds, the everyday person can turn on a lightbulb with their cellphone. Until the AI/IoT can do more, its not worth a lot to people. It's however worth a great deal to business.

    The same might be said of AR. The everyday person, might one day, love augmented reality entertainment, and functionality. But they aren't going to pay thousands for the gear, or want to walk around wearing a visor from star trek. Whereas surgeons, engineers can use these tools to do things that would ordinarily cost them a great deal more.

    The example you bring of apps is also a good one. While people might use their phones more than their PC, they spend money on their PC software, and very little on their phone. Its worth it, for top ten developers, with those microtransactions, but quite unsatisfying to those trying to break through.

    We sit, at the very crest of an era of a phase of consumer based technology, that according to all market analysis, should slowly shrink in volume, until every major player involved, not selling budget devices, starts, or already has started, to look elsewhere for the next cash cow. But history teaches us, that ,most phases of technology, are not end-state situations like the smartphone, or the laptop. Most such technologies require time to evolve, improve, and have manufacturing processes evolve, to the point where they are something everyone wants.

    So what happens from now, I think will be a surprise to people with such expectations, of forever consumer driven progress and sales.

    Basically everyone that wants a smartphone has one. The hardware is not vastly improving and is already satisfactory for most peoples needs. It's also deeply limited by chipset processes, and the size and battery tech constraints of current technological processes. The software, in terms of apps - its as fully funded as it will get. Most advances from here will be attempts to drive new use cases, like AR on phones, which I don't think will be hugely popular, and software - cloud based AI, that will quickly reach the limits of network latency and server load - as well as the free software model.

    As hardware profits, over the following years begin to dip, growth going negative, such efforts to keep the fire alight will begin to be perceived by shareholders as wasteful. First party software being offered free, because of hardware sales, will be increasingly less justifiable. And then the issue of what's next becomes a real concern - nothing in recent history has ever been as fast adopted and as profitable as smartphones, and its unlikely future fields will evolve fast enough to yield the same results from consumers.

    Moats like apples iPhone, and googles search are not invulnerable. Apple for example has a "dark data" ML program, and access to IBMs query matching ML, Watson. The two together might be a better search engine that google, if put together right. Indeed "autoML" has the potential to out perform any human designed software with a simple and singular application.

    Equally, apples baby, the iPhone - there is basically no way, no possibility profits will not shrink. Its not impossible that google and apple might both have to do their own pivot.

    As we moved from beta-max, to streaming, and telegrams to smartphones, the shifting favours of technology are never as permanent as they might appear to people living with them. Fortune favours the bold.
    07-06-2017 08:44 AM
  16. tgp's Avatar
    My point was having an OS that works on any form factor. I don't see this as detrimental in anyway.
    I agree here. I think that a potential issue is that it is difficult to create an OS that is fully optimized on both desktop and mobile. Basically, you're probably going to have compromises on both. I don't know this for sure, but I'm guessing this plays into Apple's decision to keep OS X and iOS separate.

    If Windows 10 becomes fully scalable, then is it really one OS? It's a desktop OS on the desktop, but a mobile OS on a tablet/phone. UWP apps seem to be somewhat similar. I don't know the semantics of developing, but the fact that too many UWP apps don't work on both desktop and mobile tells me that it's not as simple as checking the boxes for which form factor you want it to run on.

    I liken the "one OS for all form factors" to have the same logistical issue of a mythical vehicle designed to do everything.

    I used to be a truck driver. During the day, I drove a rig with 20 large tires that weighed up to 98,000 lbs (44.500 kg) fully loaded. At night, when I wanted to go to the mall, I drove my car with 4 tires that weighed 3,000 lbs (1.360 kg). I did not look for a hybrid vehicle to do both jobs, since it would have been logistically impossible for a single vehicle to do both jobs well.
    libra89, TgeekB and aximtreo like this.
    07-06-2017 08:46 AM
  17. Drael646464's Avatar
    I agree here. I think that a potential issue is that it is difficult to create an OS that is fully optimized on both desktop and mobile. Basically, you're probably going to have compromises on both. I don't know this for sure, but I'm guessing this plays into Apple's decision to keep OS X and iOS separate.

    If Windows 10 becomes fully scalable, then is it really one OS? It's a desktop OS on the desktop, but a mobile OS on a tablet/phone. UWP apps seem to be somewhat similar. I don't know the semantics of developing, but the fact that too many UWP apps don't work on both desktop and mobile tells me that it's not as simple as checking the boxes for which form factor you want it to run on.

    I liken the "one OS for all form factors" to have the same logistical issue of a mythical vehicle designed to do everything.

    I used to be a truck driver. During the day, I drove a rig with 20 large tires that weighed up to 98,000 lbs (44.500 kg) fully loaded. At night, when I wanted to go to the mall, I drove my car with 4 tires that weighed 3,000 lbs (1.360 kg). I did not look for a hybrid vehicle to do both jobs, since it would have been logistically impossible for a single vehicle to do both jobs well.
    Think of a scaling website. How many do it? And how many do it well? its more effort to have your UI work on every scale. Really this is about market. UWP has its purpose right now, as big software companies do create UWP, fully scaling UWP. But its not as useful right now, as most windows machines are intel based, and the range of scales is not as big as it could be.

    Enter two solutions - windows on arm, where only UWP is native, and cshell that hopefully enables a greater scalability of the OS UI. Both enabling deeper benefits for developers based on established markets and trends- tablets and notebooks, and mobilisation.

    Whilst one might see "the bridges" as a "pathway", its these sort of upcoming things that form "the honey" or the "bait".

    People write adaptive websites, because a lot of people use mobiles, and a lot of people use desktops. Like they don't write a lot of AR software because not a lot of people use it outside of the sort of turn your arse into a dinosaur type of applications.

    For people to write scaling apps, third party, there simply needs to be an audience. I'm sure this is something Microsoft is quite aware of, based on its known plans.

    If your smaller, well scaling windows tablet, or notebook, has an OS that scales well, and it runs UWP apps better than win32 (plus security, updates, lack of registry shift), badly scaling win32 apps will start to stick out to consumers, over time as "bad". The last thing devs want.

    The transition doesn't need to be dramatic. It can be piecemeal. Start with centennial apps, of which we already see many more of. Thanks windows s. Then bring in windows on arm - oops, those win32's don't quite perform as well, at least 30 percent slower than native UWP. Then introduce cshell- now we have our real mini form factors, our true 0d to 4d - a more size diverse range of windows devices - now your win32 doesn't scale correctly either. Better make that centennial into a full UWP.
    mattiasnyc likes this.
    07-06-2017 09:05 AM
  18. N_LaRUE's Avatar
    I agree here. I think that a potential issue is that it is difficult to create an OS that is fully optimized on both desktop and mobile. Basically, you're probably going to have compromises on both. I don't know this for sure, but I'm guessing this plays into Apple's decision to keep OS X and iOS separate.

    If Windows 10 becomes fully scalable, then is it really one OS? It's a desktop OS on the desktop, but a mobile OS on a tablet/phone. UWP apps seem to be somewhat similar. I don't know the semantics of developing, but the fact that too many UWP apps don't work on both desktop and mobile tells me that it's not as simple as checking the boxes for which form factor you want it to run on.

    I liken the "one OS for all form factors" to have the same logistical issue of a mythical vehicle designed to do everything.

    I used to be a truck driver. During the day, I drove a rig with 20 large tires that weighed up to 98,000 lbs (44.500 kg) fully loaded. At night, when I wanted to go to the mall, I drove my car with 4 tires that weighed 3,000 lbs (1.360 kg). I did not look for a hybrid vehicle to do both jobs, since it would have been logistically impossible for a single vehicle to do both jobs well.
    The term UWP has two meanings now... leave it up to MS to make a mess of things.

    The Universal Windows Package (UWP) Bridge via Centenial allows Win32 apps to be put into a UWP (Universal Windows Platform) wrapper but still maintain being a Win32 app which renders it useless on a mobile phone but still useful on desktop. This creates a 'starting point' for developers but if the developer decides not to go full UWP then it maintains being a desktop app.

    So the next stage would be take your Win32 app and start updating it to a UWP app. Which means a redesign of the interface and lots of other bits I probably don't know much about. But you get the point.

    From what I can tell. It's not an easy process and there's no incentive for developers to do this so I don't see it as being overly viable to be honest. But at least the option is there.

    As for the truck/car analogy, I do get that, but at the same time we're talking software here and what are essentially quite powerful devices. The truth is there's no reason why one OS can't run on a mobile device and a PC. It's a challenge but there's no reason why it can't be done.
    libra89 likes this.
    07-06-2017 09:12 AM
  19. tgp's Avatar
    As for the truck/car analogy, I do get that, but at the same time we're talking software here and what are essentially quite powerful devices. The truth is there's no reason why one OS can't run on a mobile device and a PC. It's a challenge but there's no reason why it can't be done.
    I agree that the analogy breaks down. The truck/car analogy is physical hardware, and an OS is virtual. But even if it is software, there will still be components of the desktop version present in the mobile version of the OS, even if they are not used. Or, if they're not there, then is it really the same OS? It would be more like two OS's running the same apps (which themselves are different depending on the OS version).

    And yes, I agree it can be done. But can, or will, it be done well? There may be too many compromises to make it viable.
    libra89 likes this.
    07-06-2017 09:21 AM
  20. Drael646464's Avatar
    I agree that the analogy breaks down. The truck/car analogy is physical hardware, and an OS is virtual. But even if it is software, there will still be components of the desktop version present in the mobile version of the OS, even if they are not used. Or, if they're not there, then is it really the same OS? It would be more like two OS's running the same apps (which themselves are different depending on the OS version).

    And yes, I agree it can be done. But can, or will, it be done well? There may be too many compromises to make it viable.
    Now your just getting philosophical XD Windows already shares a single core. Is it really many different OSes right now? What about when it shares cshell as well, and the only difference is the middle layers?
    07-06-2017 09:28 AM
  21. N_LaRUE's Avatar
    I agree that the analogy breaks down. The truck/car analogy is physical hardware, and an OS is virtual. But even if it is software, there will still be components of the desktop version present in the mobile version of the OS, even if they are not used. Or, if they're not there, then is it really the same OS? It would be more like two OS's running the same apps (which themselves are different depending on the OS version).

    And yes, I agree it can be done. But can, or will, it be done well? There may be too many compromises to make it viable.
    There is very little difference in architecture between a PC and a mobile device They're more alike than not. Where as if you look at a truck and car, they are similar in many ways but different in where it counts. It's not really the same difference between a PC and a mobile device.

    The main difference is overall power but again, that's not a huge problem. The biggest determent of a smartphone is the battery and heat constraints. This is why powerful processors are difficult at small form factors.

    In this case it really is about making the 'app' work with the different devices. The scaling factor and how that happens. I'm assuming the OS handles this so long as you follow rules and maybe there might be some customisation with it as well.

    The only main fall would be games but that's understandable as PC games are quite extreme and even laptops have difficulty there.
    07-06-2017 09:34 AM
  22. tgp's Avatar
    Now your just getting philosophical XD Windows already shares a single core. Is it really many different OSes right now? What about when it shares cshell as well, and the only difference is the middle layers?
    You're correct, W10M and Windows 10 are already the same OS!

    Either way, I don't think it matters if they're the same OS or not. What we're more than likely going to have for the foreseeable future is Windows on desktop, and iOS and Android on mobile. That's obviously what Microsoft envisions, and it's what more than 99% of users envision.

    Q: Will this change in the future?
    A: Probably.

    Q: When?
    A: Who knows?

    Q: What will be different?
    A: Who knows?
    N_LaRUE and TgeekB like this.
    07-06-2017 09:35 AM
  23. Drael646464's Avatar
    You're correct, W10M and Windows 10 are already the same OS!

    Either way, I don't think it matters if they're the same OS or not. What we're more than likely going to have for the foreseeable future is Windows on desktop, and iOS and Android on mobile. That's obviously what Microsoft envisions, and it's what more than 99% of users envision.

    Q: Will this change in the future?
    A: Probably.

    Q: When?
    A: Who knows?

    Q: What will be different?
    A: Who knows?
    Foreseeable future is a curious commonplace phrase. Not splitting hairs, just one of my random tangents.
    07-06-2017 09:41 AM
  24. N_LaRUE's Avatar
    You're correct, W10M and Windows 10 are already the same OS!

    Either way, I don't think it matters if they're the same OS or not. What we're more than likely going to have for the foreseeable future is Windows on desktop, and iOS and Android on mobile. That's obviously what Microsoft envisions, and it's what more than 99% of users envision.

    Q: Will this change in the future?
    A: Probably.

    Q: When?
    A: Who knows?

    Q: What will be different?
    A: Who knows?
    Personally I don't see smartphones going away any time soon. They may get more advanced and may have additional hardware but I don't think they're going anywhere.

    There's always a call for the 'next big thing'. The next advancement. The new idea. The great cosmic shift. It will happen when it happens but there is always a 'dull' area for some time before it does. A breather if you will. It happened with PC and now it's happening with mobile.

    I don't quite understand the call for killing of the smartphone to be honest. It's the most personal computing device we ever had and for some reason some people want it gone. I don't quite get this to be honest. The smartphone in it's current form is only 10 years old. Yes there were smartphones prior to that by Nokia but on the whole touchscreen phones are only 10 years old.

    A PC has been around for more than 40 years. It may have got smaller, faster, better but at the end of the day, it hasn't changed all that much.
    tgp likes this.
    07-06-2017 09:43 AM
  25. tgp's Avatar
    Foreseeable future is a curious commonplace phrase. Not splitting hairs, just one of my random tangents.
    Definition - foreseeable future

    What we're more than likely going to have for the foreseeable future is Windows on desktop, and iOS and Android on mobile.
    Edit: What we're more than likely going to have for a long time is Windows on desktop, and iOS and Android on mobile.

    There is very little difference in architecture between a PC and a mobile device They're more alike than not. Where as if you look at a truck and car, they are similar in many ways but different in where it counts. It's not really the same difference between a PC and a mobile device.

    The main difference is overall power but again, that's not a huge problem. The biggest determent of a smartphone is the battery and heat constraints. This is why powerful processors are difficult at small form factors.
    Don't get me wrong; I agree with your points. I agree that a single OS is possible. I just don't see it being quite so streamlined as we imagine. And as with the truck/car analogy, there certainly are hardware differences to consider between desktop and mobile, as you pointed out here.
    07-06-2017 09:44 AM
78 123 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Microsoft silent on windows mobile future
    By faisalbaba in forum General Windows Phone Discussion Lounge
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-13-2017, 06:19 PM
  2. microsoft wireless won't transmit sound anymore
    By Windows Central Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-05-2017, 03:25 PM
  3. Save $150 on the entry-level Surface Book at the Microsoft Store
    By WindowsCentral.com in forum Windows Central News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-05-2017, 11:30 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD