12-02-2015 10:33 PM
1,084 ... 4041424344
tools
  1. DoctorPizza's Avatar
    I posted a while back how SoC works. What part of that did you not understand? The Snapdragon SoC family has ALL of the radios built in. In fact, the SD810, which is in the 950XL, is the same exact chip that's in my HTC One M9...which is a Verizon phone. The 950 has the same SoC as the LG G4; which is ALSO on Verizon. Qualcomm disabled the CDMA radio via firmware at Microsoft's request. Hardware wise there is no difference between the SD810 on a 950XL and the M9...it's all firmware.

    All Microsoft has to do is ask Qualcomm to update the firmware to enable CDMA, include Verizon's CDMA key (which is baked into that same firmware). Then include that in the OS/firmware build to Verizon for testing and certification. Microsoft CHOSE to not make a Verizon variant, not Verizon.

    https://www.qualcomm.com/products/sn...processors/808
    LG G4 - Full phone specifications
    LG G4 Dual - Full phone specifications
    Microsoft Lumia 950 Dual SIM - Full phone specifications
    Microsoft Lumia 950 - Full phone specifications

    https://www.qualcomm.com/products/sn...processors/810
    HTC One M9 - Full phone specifications
    Microsoft Lumia 950 XL Dual SIM - Full phone specifications
    Microsoft Lumia 950 XL - Full phone specifications
    I guess you've missed the bit where the phone has passed FCC certification without CDMA, right?
    Laura Knotek and aximtreo like this.
    11-30-2015 02:30 PM
  2. DoctorPizza's Avatar
    In the case of the Nexus there are numerous builds:
    https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/images

    In other words, there is no "one ring to rule them all." I'm not sure about Apple, but I'm willing to put a steak dinner on the fact that Apple has different builds to make the iPhone/iPad work on different carriers.


    The same goes for other OEM's like LG, Samsung, HTC, etc. They have to provide different builds for each of their devices to work on the different carriers.

    So, again, why would Microsoft be any different?
    There are carrier builds for the carrier-sold variants, but there are also builds for the direct-from-Google all-carrier versions, and these are not carrier-specific. Same with iOS and the iPhone, same with the Moto X Pure. They're true universal phones with a universal build, and they work even with things like visual voicemail and wi-fi calling.
    Laura Knotek and aximtreo like this.
    11-30-2015 02:56 PM
  3. gernerttl's Avatar
    I guess you've missed the bit where the phone has passed FCC certification without CDMA, right?
    No, I didn't miss it. It's not relevant to my argument. It could have passed without GSM as well.

    All the FCC approval means is that the device is authorized to be used in the US and its territories; and that it won't interfere with emergency and military networks. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a fundamental step before getting carrier approvals.
    Last edited by gernerttl; 11-30-2015 at 04:29 PM.
    aximtreo likes this.
    11-30-2015 04:07 PM
  4. editguy's Avatar
    The Moto X Pure Edition that I just got last month works on any US carrier out of the box.
    Sure it does, and the primary reason is that ALL U.S. carriers are Android/Google friendly. You won't find yourself at a carrier store having a sales person try to talk you out of buying one. If I was MS, I would have made no effort with Verizon. Verizon doesn't want their phone and would work to keep it off the network.
    11-30-2015 04:09 PM
  5. gernerttl's Avatar
    Sure it does, and the primary reason is that ALL U.S. carriers are Android/Google friendly. You won't find yourself at a carrier store having a sales person try to talk you out of buying one. If I was MS, I would have made no effort with Verizon. Verizon doesn't want their phone and would work to keep it off the network.
    The Moto X Pure Edition that I just got last month works on any US carrier out of the box.
    It's not about being Android/Google or Apple friendly. It's because Motorola decided to jump through ALL of the hoops required to get it approved on all of the networks. The same with the Nexus 6. That applies to Apple as well.

    Microsoft could have done the same thing and gotten the approval if they so choose...which they didn't.
    11-30-2015 04:40 PM
  6. Laura Knotek's Avatar
    Sure it does, and the primary reason is that ALL U.S. carriers are Android/Google friendly. You won't find yourself at a carrier store having a sales person try to talk you out of buying one. If I was MS, I would have made no effort with Verizon. Verizon doesn't want their phone and would work to keep it off the network.
    The Moto X Pure Edition isn't sold in any carrier stores. It's only available from Moto, Best Buy, and Amazon.
    gernerttl and aximtreo like this.
    11-30-2015 04:41 PM
  7. DavidinCT's Avatar
    Sure it does, and the primary reason is that ALL U.S. carriers are Android/Google friendly. You won't find yourself at a carrier store having a sales person try to talk you out of buying one. If I was MS, I would have made no effort with Verizon. Verizon doesn't want their phone and would work to keep it off the network.
    It's basic math. Android sells, Apple sells.... Windows Phone is new...and if you want the full smartphone experience, Windows Phone is not it with out the apps...

    The phone companies don't care on Windows Phone, Google or Apple, they care about MONEY. If a phone does not sell, or has a high return rate (have heard WP devices have a higher return rate due to not knowing apps were missing), they wont push it but, offer it because it gives the customers selection.

    The 50/50= Money/Happy customers

    It's business 101...

    I guess you've missed the bit where the phone has passed FCC certification without CDMA, right?
    Today, that is a moot point. **IF** Microsoft all of a sudden changed their mind, they can send the 950/950XL BACK to the FCC with a change (noting firmware to open up new bands on the phone). There is policies in the FCC for this, they might need to change the models to a 950(A) or something but, it could be done.

    Still the fact of the matter is, and this was very public, noted in a pod cast with Mary Jo (who uses Verizon and wants it on Verizon as well) , that Verizon screwed over Microsoft, and they said they will not work with carriers that screwed them in the past, and the Verizon name was clearly said, and the only one by the way.

    Truth be told....If Microsoft wanted us to have it, they have the power to make it happen, I think the above reason is alone the reason why I would not hold my breath.

    If Verizon is getting a version of the 950/XL, it will be a few months down the line, Verizonized and be a new name/number... Kind of like the 929 and the 930.

    After what Verizon did to Microsoft, I really wouldn't count on this happening,
    11-30-2015 05:43 PM
  8. gernerttl's Avatar
    After what Verizon did to Microsoft, I really wouldn't count on this happening,
    I think you have it backwards.

    Who is Mary Jo and exactly what did Verizon do to screw over Microsoft?

    It was Nokia who decided to not include Glance and microSD support for the Icon/930. From what I'm reading the 735 and the Lancet are doing pretty well, and the 822 did pretty well on Verizon. The 928 and Icon didn't do so well. Why? Because Nokia decided not to do what Verizon wanted. Which was provide microSD card support. The 930 hasn't done all that well either. Microsoft is still picking up the pieces that Nokia left behind now that they own the Nokia Lumia line.
    aximtreo likes this.
    11-30-2015 06:05 PM
  9. Generalheed's Avatar
    I think you have it backwards.

    Who is Mary Jo and exactly what did Verizon do to screw over Microsoft?

    It was Nokia who decided to not include Glance and microSD support for the Icon/930. From what I'm reading the 735 and the Lancet are doing pretty well, and the 822 did pretty well on Verizon. The 928 and Icon didn't do so well. Why? Because Nokia decided not to do what Verizon wanted. Which was provide microSD card support. The 930 hasn't done all that well either. Microsoft is still picking up the pieces that Nokia left behind now that they own the Nokia Lumia line.
    Either way, it's the consumer, us, that loses here. Both companies are at fault here. Verizon treats Windows Phones really badly yes, but Microsoft is also being a baby about it by refusing to let their phones work on Verizon. Ultimately though, the power is all in Microsoft's hand to make this happen. There aren't any barriers to the 950 working on Verizon.
    tgp and gernerttl like this.
    11-30-2015 09:53 PM
  10. TexasLabRat's Avatar
    No, I didn't miss it. It's not relevant to my argument. It could have passed without GSM as well.

    All the FCC approval means is that the device is authorized to be used in the US and its territories; and that it won't interfere with emergency and military networks. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a fundamental step before getting carrier approvals.
    It's a bit more than that. If the phone is not submitted for testing on a certain band (and modulation technology..each combination must be tested such as GSM, WCDMA, LTE, CDMA, etc on each frequency/band the phone supports for use in the U.S.), it is not authorized to be operated in the U.S. on that band. There is more than interference testing for military/emergency networks..there is also SAR rating and in-band compliance testing.
    gernerttl likes this.
    11-30-2015 11:34 PM
  11. Lee Power's Avatar
    End of the day the 950 & 950 XL wont work on Verizon. Do we really need a 104 page thread on the subject clogging up the forum? Put a fork in it, its done.
    gernerttl, jmajid, libra89 and 2 others like this.
    11-30-2015 11:43 PM
  12. gernerttl's Avatar
    Either way, it's the consumer, us, that loses here. Both companies are at fault here. Verizon treats Windows Phones really badly yes, but Microsoft is also being a baby about it by refusing to let their phones work on Verizon. Ultimately though, the power is all in Microsoft's hand to make this happen. There aren't any barriers to the 950 working on Verizon.
    True. The problem is Microsoft will suffer more in the long run than Verizon... actually Verizon won't really suffer at all. To Verizon it is more about selling data plans. The carriers make very little profit on the devices themselves.

    It's a bit more than that. If the phone is not submitted for testing on a certain band (and modulation technology..each combination must be tested such as GSM, WCDMA, LTE, CDMA, etc on each frequency/band the phone supports for use in the U.S.), it is not authorized to be operated in the U.S. on that band. There is more than interference testing for military/emergency networks..there is also SAR rating and in-band compliance testing.
    True. But you get my point though.

    End of the day the 950 & 950 XL wont work on Verizon. Do we really need a 104 page thread on the subject clogging up the forum? Put a fork in it, its done.
    Do we NEED this thread? No. It's really entertaining though. :-D
    horseybob likes this.
    12-01-2015 01:06 AM
  13. gernerttl's Avatar
    The Moto X Pure Edition isn't sold in any carrier stores. It's only available from Moto, Best Buy, and Amazon.
    And probably one of the smartest decisions Motorola has ever made.
    12-01-2015 01:22 AM
  14. DavidinCT's Avatar
    I think you have it backwards.

    Who is Mary Jo and exactly what did Verizon do to screw over Microsoft?
    No I do not have it backwards, if you really think I do, you need to do some homework on this subject.

    As for WHO is Mary Jo.... This was said in a Widows Weekly Podcast when the 950 / 950XL was annouced (BTW, it was posed on this site as well). This was with Leo Laporte, Mary Jo Foley and Paul Thurrott. Paul said clearly from a discussion direct with Microsoft that they will not work with carriers that screwed them over in the past, and VERIZON was clearly said (the ONLY carrer they said too). He also said Verizon users should give up trying to get these phones. GO head, look it up, it's CLEARLY said in the PODCAST.

    Here is the site for the weekly podcast
    https://twit.tv/shows/windows-weekly

    As for Verizon SCREWING Microsoft....where do we start... Let's go back to the KIN.... a Social Media phone, that was geared towards the younger cround, it was KILLED because Verizon FORCED users to get a $30 a month data plan.

    Then we have Windows Phone....NO real promotion, No incentive for employees to sell the phones. It's been well documented on this site and MANY others how MOST Verizon employees would bash Windows Phone... and why would you want to buy one ?

    In a way, Verizon, who is the largest carrier in the US, has a direct reason why Windows Phone has not taken off in the US...I know Microsoft would of given Verizon what ever they needed to help sell the phones...

    Your sellng a new product, you allow a someone to sell it, instead of selling it, they just bash you and dont sell a lot...would you be happy with them or want to do business again ?

    These points have been CLEARLY documented, I do not have it backwards. If your sitting here dreaming of getting the 950XL on Verizon...Let's just say, I would not hold my breath... You wont be posting here any more :-\
    aximtreo, MoeJ and theefman like this.
    12-01-2015 07:58 AM
  15. Generalheed's Avatar
    No I do not have it backwards, if you really think I do, you need to do some homework on this subject.

    As for WHO is Mary Jo.... This was said in a Widows Weekly Podcast when the 950 / 950XL was annouced (BTW, it was posed on this site as well). This was with Leo Laporte, Mary Jo Foley and Paul Thurrott. Paul said clearly from a discussion direct with Microsoft that they will not work with carriers that screwed them over in the past, and VERIZON was clearly said (the ONLY carrer they said too). He also said Verizon users should give up trying to get these phones. GO head, look it up, it's CLEARLY said in the PODCAST.

    Here is the site for the weekly podcast
    https://twit.tv/shows/windows-weekly

    As for Verizon SCREWING Microsoft....where do we start... Let's go back to the KIN.... a Social Media phone, that was geared towards the younger cround, it was KILLED because Verizon FORCED users to get a $30 a month data plan.

    Then we have Windows Phone....NO real promotion, No incentive for employees to sell the phones. It's been well documented on this site and MANY others how MOST Verizon employees would bash Windows Phone... and why would you want to buy one ?

    In a way, Verizon, who is the largest carrier in the US, has a direct reason why Windows Phone has not taken off in the US...I know Microsoft would of given Verizon what ever they needed to help sell the phones...

    Your sellng a new product, you allow a someone to sell it, instead of selling it, they just bash you and dont sell a lot...would you be happy with them or want to do business again ?

    These points have been CLEARLY documented, I do not have it backwards. If your sitting here dreaming of getting the 950XL on Verizon...Let's just say, I would not hold my breath... You wont be posting here any more :-\
    The KIN failed for more reasons than the data plan actually. It was not a very open phone and did not have any kind of app store. The KIN basically failed because it was too limited. No apps, no games killed the KIN from the start. No amount of promotion from Verizon could fix that when competing phones have app stores and games available.

    Anyways, yes Verizon has been a bad carrier for promoting Windows Phones, but that's still not a good reason for Microsoft to make the 950's an AT&T exclusive and block CDMA networks. Do you really think Verizon considers carrying Windows Phones to be a valuable privilege? No, they could care less. The only people hurt by this are us, the consumers. What Microsoft should've done is made the 950's a TRUE unlocked phone like every other major competitor. All the new iPhones and major Android phones are global universally unlocked phones that work on every network including Verizon and Sprint regardless of whether they actually carry the phone or not.

    As much as we'd like to be mad at Verizon, they bear very little blame here actually. The majority of the blame here rests on Microsoft's shoulders. They were the ones that chose not to approach other carriers, they were the ones that chose to disable the CDMA radio, they were the ones that chose not to get the 950's certified on all networks. There were no hurdles or physical restrictions preventing the 950 from working on Verizon. It was all deliberate choice by Microsoft.
    gernerttl and Williaml99 like this.
    12-01-2015 08:36 AM
  16. HoosierDaddy's Avatar
    Anyways, yes Verizon has been a bad carrier for promoting Windows Phones, but that's still not a good reason for Microsoft to make the 950's an AT&T exclusive and block CDMA networks.
    That is nonsense. If Microsoft wanted 950s to be an AT&T exclusive the Microsoft Store wouldn't be selling an unlocked 950 side by side with the AT&T 950. Microsoft doesn't want to exclude 950s on any carrier BUT any carrier that wants them has to permit the OS and firmware to be updated on Microsoft's schedule. So far only AT&T has agreed to acceptable upgrade timing.
    RumoredNow and Williaml99 like this.
    12-01-2015 09:16 AM
  17. DoctorPizza's Avatar
    Still the fact of the matter is, and this was very public, noted in a pod cast with Mary Jo (who uses Verizon and wants it on Verizon as well) , that Verizon screwed over Microsoft, and they said they will not work with carriers that screwed them in the past, and the Verizon name was clearly said, and the only one by the way.
    Microsoft's market position does not afford them this kind of capriciousness.
    dkediger likes this.
    12-01-2015 09:27 AM
  18. DoctorPizza's Avatar
    That is nonsense. If Microsoft wanted 950s to be an AT&T exclusive the Microsoft Store wouldn't be selling an unlocked 950 side by side with the AT&T 950. Microsoft doesn't want to exclude 950s on any carrier BUT any carrier that wants them has to permit the OS and firmware to be updated on Microsoft's schedule. So far only AT&T has agreed to acceptable upgrade timing.
    Unbranded and unlocked phones don't have any carrier involvement for updates anyway.
    gernerttl likes this.
    12-01-2015 09:29 AM
  19. anywhereanytime's Avatar
    I have been a long time - 14+ years - customer of Verizon and we have several Lumia Icons and Lumia 928s! We have many customers on Verizon here in Silicon Valley as Verizon LTE is just a great network.

    But, as a business user, there just isn't anything better than Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile. I am stunned that this "public catfight" between Verizon and Microsoft has lasted for YEARS now!

    WHY aren't large corporations banging on Microsoft's and Verizon's door - or - why doesn't Microsoft just set up a Verizon MVNO???

    I would immediately jump ship to a Microsoft MVNO and "let Verizon just become a "dumb pipe" and let the "selling" happen by Microsoft!

    Apple and Google should also both be pissed off at the carriers, or so I have read for years - when is somebody going to stand up to these carrier dictatorships?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...work_operators
    12-01-2015 09:37 AM
  20. theefman's Avatar
    I think you have it backwards.

    Who is Mary Jo and exactly what did Verizon do to screw over Microsoft?

    It was Nokia who decided to not include Glance and microSD support for the Icon/930. From what I'm reading the 735 and the Lancet are doing pretty well, and the 822 did pretty well on Verizon. The 928 and Icon didn't do so well. Why? Because Nokia decided not to do what Verizon wanted. Which was provide microSD card support. The 930 hasn't done all that well either. Microsoft is still picking up the pieces that Nokia left behind now that they own the Nokia Lumia line.
    First of all, the 930 was not the first Lumia not to have a micro SD card slot, and the omission of Glance was a miss for just that one phone, pretty much all other high end Lumia's had it. The real question here though is why the heck is Verizon demanding hardware modifications to a phone and if the lack of a micro SD card slot was so important to them why did they go on to carry the phone only to do their best not to sell it? I doubt Nokia would have outright refused to tailor a phone to VZW's needs while they were negotiating its release and Verizon would have known exactly what they were agreeing to carry so why would that then be an issue? And how stupid can a company be to carry one phone (L928)without a vital component (to them) then go on to carry another phone from the same OEM with the exact same limitation?

    Its strange to see people defending a carrier when its history has proven they are hostile to this platform from its inception (have people forgotten how a Verizon exec claimed WP wasn't needed and ios, android and BB were all they would consider carrying?) and this is apparently the reason Microsoft has chosen to cut ties with them, unlocked devices or otherwise so at the end of the day the real blame is definitely with Verizon. Time to deal with it and move on.
    RumoredNow likes this.
    12-01-2015 10:11 AM
  21. DavidinCT's Avatar
    The KIN failed for more reasons than the data plan actually. It was not a very open phone and did not have any kind of app store. The KIN basically failed because it was too limited. No apps, no games killed the KIN from the start. No amount of promotion from Verizon could fix that when competing phones have app stores and games available.
    Again, do some homework here. This was quoted by many outlets back when the kin was finally killed off. The Kin didn't really have tons of apps because it was designed as Social media phone, designed to hit the yonger new phone market. It was not designed to have a big app store or anything like that.

    The phone was planned as a low cost model with a low monthly rate to run, this was the orignal plan for it but, when it was finally released, Verizon FORCED users to require a $30 data plan (it was CHANGED FROM THE ORIGNAL PLAN FOR IT), and it was too expensive to run for what it was.

    With the cost to run it was too high, no one would buy it for their kids (again the market it was designed for) and that is what killed it.... Not the lack of apps. Verizon is almost 80-90% at fault for this.

    This problem as been clearly documented in the past and failue on the Kin..

    Microsoft's market position does not afford them this kind of capriciousness.
    Sure, I agree but, in the scope of things, Microsoft is 50-75% larger than Verizon is in a GLOBAL scale... Microsoft has the market power (in computing) to set trends and they chose what they want, and many times it screws them.

    They clearly said this and Verizon was the name they said, not any other 3rd party carrier....

    You know we can go back to page 5-10 and this whole discussion was there (it's already happened in this thread a few times now)
    12-01-2015 10:22 AM
  22. tgp's Avatar
    Do we NEED this thread? No. It's really entertaining though. :-D
    "Windows Central - Come for the news, stay for the drama!"
    12-01-2015 10:29 AM
  23. Generalheed's Avatar
    That is nonsense. If Microsoft wanted 950s to be an AT&T exclusive the Microsoft Store wouldn't be selling an unlocked 950 side by side with the AT&T 950. Microsoft doesn't want to exclude 950s on any carrier BUT any carrier that wants them has to permit the OS and firmware to be updated on Microsoft's schedule. So far only AT&T has agreed to acceptable upgrade timing.
    Like DoctorPizza said, unbranded and unlocked phones receive updates independently of the carrier. So there's absolutely no reason why Microsoft refused to let the 950's work on Verizon's network. As an unlocked phone, Verizon doesn't have to agree to anything. An unlocked phone on Verizon would most likely get updates faster than AT&T actually. So in the end, it's Microsoft's childish attitude to deliberately prevent these phones from working on Verizon's network as some kind of attempt to get us Verizon customers to leave as punishment for Verizon if that is what Microsoft's intent is.
    12-01-2015 11:50 AM
  24. dkediger's Avatar
    Microsoft's market position does not afford them this kind of capriciousness.
    There's a story in this saga that needs to be told - at least exposed - and in better venues than a user forum. Its one thing for the tech press to call it out and shrug it off as "Oh, it's Microsoft/Verizon again..." and move on. There's a legitimate line of inquiry here as to Microsoft's justification for dumping Verizon users that's worthy of burning a few bridges to discover. Otherwise, the likes of Mary Jo Foley, Paul Thurrott, Leo Laporte, and I'll even throw Daniel in there are being complicit in accepting Microsoft's story of the past being justification for the future. Microsoft wants their story to be about the future, but their actions reveal entrenchment to the past. It affects long term perceptions of Microsoft's commitment to Mobile - it certainly does mine, and by extension, that of the place I work and the people I work for and with. It sad, because I have had for the first time ever, these people asking about Windows Mobile - and they leave shaking their heads incredulously.
    gernerttl likes this.
    12-01-2015 12:08 PM
  25. gernerttl's Avatar
    Again, do some homework here. This was quoted by many outlets back when the kin was finally killed off. The Kin didn't really have tons of apps because it was designed as Social media phone, designed to hit the yonger new phone market. It was not designed to have a big app store or anything like that.

    The phone was planned as a low cost model with a low monthly rate to run, this was the orignal plan for it but, when it was finally released, Verizon FORCED users to require a $30 data plan (it was CHANGED FROM THE ORIGNAL PLAN FOR IT), and it was too expensive to run for what it was.

    With the cost to run it was too high, no one would buy it for their kids (again the market it was designed for) and that is what killed it.... Not the lack of apps. Verizon is almost 80-90% at fault for this.

    This problem as been clearly documented in the past and failue on the Kin...
    Which outlets are you talking about? Keep in mind, the vast majority of what you find in these forums and outlets is anecdotal. Anecdotes are all well and good. The simple fact about the KIN was that it was not a well thought out design. Here are some reviews of the device:

    Reviewers highlighted a number of notable omissions from Kin's initial feature set:

    Contact lists could only be copied from another phone by Verizon store employees. There was no way for the consumer to do this by any known means (over the air, via a memory or SIM card, wirelessly via Bluetooth and vCard, or via direct USB cable connection).

    Kin had no calendar or appointment application, nor any ability to sync with Outlook calendar or Google Calendar. Some commentators suggested that a social phone should be able to share a social events calendar.

    Kin was unable to Instant Message (IM), or use any IM client, which was considered odd for a phone built for messaging and aimed at the youth market. It was discovered that the ROM inside the phones contained the foundation for an IM system supporting AOL Instant Messenger, Windows Live Messenger, and Yahoo! Messenger, but it was never made operational. It was speculated that future revisions of the software would have enabled instant messaging.

    There was no spelling correction or predictive text input.

    Microsoft Kin One and Two review
    The Curious Thing About Microsoft Kin | PCWorld

    Based on those glaring issues, nothing Verizon could do would have saved this device. Not when Verizon offered quality Android and Blackberry devices. Then less than a year later, offered the iPhone. Had my daughter been old enough, I wouldn't have bought this for her. Not because of the data plan by itself, but because of its lack of features. Essentially, Microsoft produced a neutered device that really didn't do anything very well.

    And by the way, that $29.99 was a DATA plan. If you got yourself a Blackberry Storm or Curve, or a Droid or a Fascinate. You were still going to be paying $29.99 per phone. So why get a neutered phone, when you could get a full featured device and pay the same amount for the data?
    Last edited by gernerttl; 12-01-2015 at 01:00 PM.
    12-01-2015 12:41 PM
1,084 ... 4041424344

Similar Threads

  1. 950/950XL - QI charging...1.0 or 1.2 ?
    By DavidinCT in forum Microsoft Lumia 950 XL
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-26-2016, 06:43 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-05-2015, 04:19 AM
  3. Day time while running/exercising on Band 2
    By smatofu in forum Microsoft Band & Band 2
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-09-2015, 09:07 AM
  4. Will we be able to preorder online at MS Store?
    By jlangner in forum Microsoft Lumia 950
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-08-2015, 09:41 PM
  5. Why won't my computer wake from sleep mode after installing Windows 10?
    By Windows Central Question in forum Windows 10
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-06-2015, 08:16 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD