Is "Metro" dying already?

Sanjay Chandra

New member
Mar 2, 2013
487
0
0
Visit site

So basically Google released more beautiful apps on iOS compared to Android but don't release anything for WP at all.....

Question is Why ? iOS is more threatening to Android (especially combining iPad , iPhone and iPod Touch) yet they release apps while WP is still not competitive neck-to-neck , they don't release any app.
 

ticktock5

New member
Nov 10, 2012
43
0
0
Visit site
Just posting to say, I saw screenshots of the new facebook app and it looks AMAZING! This is exactly the kind of thing WP needs. If they had come out with this a few months ago I might've stuck it out with WP, but I've jumped ship to Android and Facebook Home (which I acknowledge is a total rip off of WP's People Hub)

Metro is beautiful, but sometimes it's just not practical. Especially when we're talking about an app that has a very familiar "feel" to it. Opening WP's facebook app for the first time could be a really jarring experience (aside from the embarassingly lack of a features). Good on MS for finally realizing that.
 

abel920

New member
Dec 16, 2012
525
0
0
Visit site
Just posting to say, I saw screenshots of the new facebook app and it looks AMAZING! This is exactly the kind of thing WP needs. If they had come out with this a few months ago I might've stuck it out with WP, but I've jumped ship to Android and Facebook Home (which I acknowledge is a total rip off of WP's People Hub)

Metro is beautiful, but sometimes it's just not practical. Especially when we're talking about an app that has a very familiar "feel" to it. Opening WP's facebook app for the first time could be a really jarring experience (aside from the embarassingly lack of a features). Good on MS for finally realizing that.

I think sometimes, we try too hard differentiating ourselves from other platforms that we don't allow ourselves to see the bigger picture. Great post!
 

Dustin Hodges

New member
Jan 22, 2013
464
0
0
Visit site
So basically Google released more beautiful apps on iOS compared to Android but don't release anything for WP at all.....

Question is Why ? iOS is more threatening to Android (especially combining iPad , iPhone and iPod Touch) yet they release apps while WP is still not competitive neck-to-neck , they don't release any app.

Long story short: Google sees what Windows Phone can become, and its trying to kill it before it can compete.

Long Story:

Already the lumias are beating numerous android devices, and it wasn't till the Lumia 920 was released that manufacturers of Android devices started caring about camera quality and features.

The Windows Phone have the advantage of Office and Exchange.

They have beautiful 3rd party apps.

Their UI is based off a beautiful design philosophy, and when done right, stands out from the crowd and is beautiful, yet user friendly.

The devices can run on hardware that Android cant dream of running due to the OS' light and simple nature, giving it low hardware requirements.

Their devices (Samsung excluded) are unique and well designed, yet affordable to make (for aforementioned hardware requirements comment)

Google is scared. They see that windows phone will eat their territory 3, 4, 5 years down the road. They see that its actually not withering and dying like analysts and neigh-sayers said it would. And Google Corporate is trying to kill it before it gets too far. (I say corporate since the Youtube team built an app WITH Microsoft, yet corporate told them not to release the app, period. I wouldn't be surprised if other Google app teams have had similar experiences.)

someday Android will be seen for what it is: An OS for Google Services users, Power-user techies, D.I.Y.-ers, and devs who like to tinker.
 
Last edited:

Geddeeee

New member
Mar 17, 2013
750
0
0
Visit site
Long story short: Google sees what Windows Phone can become, and its trying to kill it before it can compete.

Long Story:

Already the lumias are beating numerous android devices, and it wasn't till the Lumia 920 was released that manufacturers of Android devices started caring about camera quality and features.

The Windows Phone have the advantage of Office and Exchange.

They have beautiful 3rd party apps.

Their UI is based off a beautiful design philosophy, and when done right, stands out from the crowd and is beautiful, yet user friendly.

The devices can run on hardware that Android cant dream of running due to the OS' light and simple nature, giving it low hardware requirements.

Their devices (Samsung excluded) are unique and well designed, yet affordable to make (for aforementioned hardware requirements comment)

Google is scared. They see that windows phone will eat their territory 3, 4, 5 years down the road. They see that its actually not withering and dying like analysts and neigh-sayers said it would. And Google Corporate is trying to kill it before it gets too far. (I say corporate since the Youtube team built an app WITH Microsoft, yet corporate told them not to release the app, period. I wouldn't be surprised if other Google app teams have had similar experiences.)

someday Android will be seen for what it is: An OS for Google Services users, Power-user techies, D.I.Y.-ers, and devs who like to tinker.

Totally agree!!!!

The Facebook beta is a horrible app. Very Android like and has the delays and lag to go with it. 2 out of 10!!
Google IS actively blocking any attempt by MS to integrate their services. Personally I don't care I have stopped using ALL Google services over the last month, and to tell the truth I don't miss them.

Android is absolutely horrible as an OS. A collection of customisations and disparate apps with no benefit to the user. Throwing 8 core processors and 1080p screens at it won't make a difference.
It seems that a portion of the WP8 user base won't be happy until Microsoft's beautiful OS is just an Android clone with all the functionality of a wet tissue....
 

tgp

New member
Dec 1, 2012
4,519
0
0
Visit site
Long story short: Google sees what Windows Phone can become, and its trying to kill it before it can compete.

Long Story:

Already the lumias are beating numerous android devices, and it wasn't till the Lumia 920 was released that manufacturers of Android devices started caring about camera quality and features.

The Windows Phone have the advantage of Office and Exchange.

They have beautiful 3rd party apps.

Their UI is based off a beautiful design philosophy, and when done right, stands out from the crowd and is beautiful, yet user friendly.

The devices can run on hardware that Android cant dream of running due to the OS' light and simple nature, giving it low hardware requirements.

Their devices (Samsung excluded) are unique and well designed, yet affordable to make (for aforementioned hardware requirements comment)

Google is scared. They see that windows phone will eat their territory 3, 4, 5 years down the road. They see that its actually not withering and dying like analysts and neigh-sayers said it would. And Google Corporate is trying to kill it before it gets too far. (I say corporate since the Youtube team built an app WITH Microsoft, yet corporate told them not to release the app, period. I wouldn't be surprised if other Google app teams have had similar experiences.)

someday Android will be seen for what it is: An OS for Google Services users, Power-user techies, D.I.Y.-ers, and devs who like to tinker.

I have no clue where you got your information, but I tend to disagree. WP is no threat to Google at this point due to the negligible market share. I guarantee you if WP market share hits 15% or maybe even 10% you would very quickly see 1st party Google apps. Google makes nothing directly from Android (in fact Microsoft makes billions directly from Android). Google's income comes from collecting user data. That's the reason you see high quality Google apps on iOS. iOS has a market share of around 20%, and its users are heavy data users. While there may be some politics involved with Microsoft, at this point Google probably calculated that the insignificant market share of WP means the user data they would collect isn't worth the bother of developing the apps. Market share is also why WP doesn't have native Facebook, Instagram, MLB At Bat 13, banking apps, etc. It's also why Microsoft itself has, or had, a higher quality Skype app for iOS & Android than for WP.
 

Dustin Hodges

New member
Jan 22, 2013
464
0
0
Visit site
I have no clue where you got your information, but I tend to disagree. WP is no threat to Google at this point due to the negligible market share. I guarantee you if WP market share hits 15% or maybe even 10% you would very quickly see 1st party Google apps. Google makes nothing directly from Android (in fact Microsoft makes billions directly from Android). Google's income comes from collecting user data. That's the reason you see high quality Google apps on iOS. iOS has a market share of around 20%, and its users are heavy data users. While there may be some politics involved with Microsoft, at this point Google probably calculated that the insignificant market share of WP means the user data they would collect isn't worth the bother of developing the apps. Market share is also why WP doesn't have native Facebook, Instagram, MLB At Bat 13, banking apps, etc. It's also why Microsoft itself has, or had, a higher quality Skype app for iOS & Android than for WP.

I said this based on what it appears, and you failed to read. I said google is squashing windows phone before it even becomes a threat, as it is of no threat right now and could be easy to cripple. I also meant, in the future, Windows Phone has the potential to be serious competition to Google, something it is not now. AKA: They are trying to keep Microsoft's OS from getting powerful enough that they actually have to compete with it, since its in a critical state of growth as of current.
 

anon(5335877)

New member
Jan 27, 2012
1,457
0
0
Visit site
I have no clue where you got your information, but I tend to disagree. WP is no threat to Google at this point due to the negligible market share. I guarantee you if WP market share hits 15% or maybe even 10% you would very quickly see 1st party Google apps. Google makes nothing directly from Android (in fact Microsoft makes billions directly from Android). Google's income comes from collecting user data. That's the reason you see high quality Google apps on iOS. iOS has a market share of around 20%, and its users are heavy data users. While there may be some politics involved with Microsoft, at this point Google probably calculated that the insignificant market share of WP means the user data they would collect isn't worth the bother of developing the apps. Market share is also why WP doesn't have native Facebook, Instagram, MLB At Bat 13, banking apps, etc. It's also why Microsoft itself has, or had, a higher quality Skype app for iOS & Android than for WP.

While low market share may be the reason Google refuses to develop from Windows Phone, that doesn't explain why Google has specifically instructed YouTube "not to enable a first-class YouTube experience on Windows Phones." Google also won't allow Microsoft to develop a proper YouTube app themselves. I don't see what's the problem with Microsoft doing the work themselves, unless of course, Google is being anticompetitive here.

YouTube:
Microsoft calls out Google for poor YouTube on Windows Phone | Windows Phone Central
YouTube Access and Windows Phone: Microsoft throws down the gauntlet | Windows Phone Central
More redirect problems as Google alters Mobile YouTube for Windows Phone | Windows Phone Central

Exchange ActiveSync:
Google drops Exchange ActiveSync. What does it mean for Windows Phone? [Updated] | Windows Phone Central

Google Maps:
Is Google now blocking Windows Phone from using Google Maps? | Windows Phone Central
Google backs down as Maps for mobile returns to Windows Phone | Windows Phone Central

It just seems like Google is going out of it's way to prevent Windows Phone users from accessing its services.
 

ag1986

Banned
Jan 14, 2013
486
0
0
Visit site
While low market share may be the reason Google refuses to develop from Windows Phone, that doesn't explain why Google has specifically instructed YouTube "not to enable a first-class YouTube experience on Windows Phones." Google also won't allow Microsoft to develop a proper YouTube app themselves. I don't see what's the problem with Microsoft doing the work themselves, unless of course, Google is being anticompetitive here.

How would MS like it if Google were to say "Hey, we want Office for Android, so since you guys don't seem to be interested in developing it, how about we go ahead and write it and you guys can give us permission to use the Word, Excel and Powerpoint trademarks? Thanks".

I don't see MS agreeing here and while Youtube is more of a service than an app, the point stands.

As for the Youtube app thing, it sounds very unlikely to me. There is no such thing as 'Google Corporate', Youtube was long ago integrated completely into Google. Co-operating with MS on an app is something that would have to be approved at the very highest levels (Larry Page or at the very lease Salar Kamangar) and it sounds unlikely that it could have been just a project which got shut down. I know a couple people who work at Google's San Bruno office on the Youtube ads team and none of them were aware such a thing existed. It sounds like MS FUD to me.
 

Dazzi

New member
Apr 13, 2013
222
0
0
Visit site
How would MS like it if Google were to say "Hey, we want Office for Android, so since you guys don't seem to be interested in developing it, how about we go ahead and write it and you guys can give us permission to use the Word, Excel and Powerpoint trademarks? Thanks".

I don't see MS agreeing here and while Youtube is more of a service than an app, the point stands.

As for the Youtube app thing, it sounds very unlikely to me. There is no such thing as 'Google Corporate', Youtube was long ago integrated completely into Google. Co-operating with MS on an app is something that would have to be approved at the very highest levels (Larry Page or at the very lease Salar Kamangar) and it sounds unlikely that it could have been just a project which got shut down. I know a couple people who work at Google's San Bruno office on the Youtube ads team and none of them were aware such a thing existed. It sounds like MS FUD to me.

Just because your friends work at Google, and haven't told you about what's going on with the Youtube app (in terms of dirty tricks), doesn't mean that it's highly unlikely.

Furthermore, even if your friends knew something they couldn't tell you anything about the app, unless it was made public -- just my 2pence.
 

rockstarzzz

New member
Apr 3, 2012
4,887
1
0
Visit site
How would MS like it if Google were to say "Hey, we want Office for Android, so since you guys don't seem to be interested in developing it, how about we go ahead and write it and you guys can give us permission to use the Word, Excel and Powerpoint trademarks? Thanks".

I don't see MS agreeing here and while Youtube is more of a service than an app, the point stands.

As for the Youtube app thing, it sounds very unlikely to me. There is no such thing as 'Google Corporate', Youtube was long ago integrated completely into Google. Co-operating with MS on an app is something that would have to be approved at the very highest levels (Larry Page or at the very lease Salar Kamangar) and it sounds unlikely that it could have been just a project which got shut down. I know a couple people who work at Google's San Bruno office on the Youtube ads team and none of them were aware such a thing existed. It sounds like MS FUD to me.

The point totally does not stand. Purely because one is a service and other is a product. Compare Youtube with Skydrive! Both of those are services.
Heck, MSFT has a better version of Skydrive on iOS and Android by what others say, than they have for my WP.

MSFT is the last company you can think of being able to play FUDs. It is the same company you saved Apple in 1990s.
 

ohgood

New member
Aug 20, 2011
1,016
0
0
Visit site
So basically Google released more beautiful apps on iOS compared to Android but don't release anything for WP at all.....

Question is Why ? iOS is more threatening to Android (especially combining iPad , iPhone and iPod Touch) yet they release apps while WP is still not competitive neck-to-neck , they don't release any app.

because there is very little market share to justify developing, and more importantly maintaining those apps.

from a marketshare standpoint, it makes more monetary sense for ms to make apps for ios and android than for wp. simple economics. I'm surprised ms hasn't tried to capitalize on this already, really.

man, this thread sure did get a long way off track. the metro vs not metro discussion was cool. I don't see how the new facebook breaks anything, or care really. if an app has better functionality because of its types of uses, I just enjoy the usability.
 

rockstarzzz

New member
Apr 3, 2012
4,887
1
0
Visit site
because there is very little market share to justify developing, and more importantly maintaining those apps.

from a marketshare standpoint, it makes more monetary sense for ms to make apps for ios and android than for wp. simple economics. I'm surprised ms hasn't tried to capitalize on this already, really.

man, this thread sure did get a long way off track. the metro vs not metro discussion was cool. I don't see how the new facebook breaks anything, or care really. if an app has better functionality because of its types of uses, I just enjoy the usability.

I bet you will be the first poster when the UX gets all messed up when more and more apps choose functionality and have no respect for system navigation ;)
 

ag1986

Banned
Jan 14, 2013
486
0
0
Visit site
The point totally does not stand. Purely because one is a service and other is a product. Compare Youtube with Skydrive! Both of those are services.
Heck, MSFT has a better version of Skydrive on iOS and Android by what others say, than they have for my WP.

MSFT is the last company you can think of being able to play FUDs. It is the same company you saved Apple in 1990s.

I did mention the product vs. service argument, but consider instead of Office, say an Office 365 client. I don't think MS would be particularly happy if Google created an Office 365 client for Android, but Google does not block things like Metrotube and gMaps when it would be within their rights to do so. Youtube is Google's product, and one can understand their reticence to let anyone else develop an 'official' app.

And as for FUD, thanks for the laughs. MS and FUD are so interconnected that Wikipedia has a separate Microsoft section under their entry on FUD: Fear, uncertainty and doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

ag1986

Banned
Jan 14, 2013
486
0
0
Visit site
Just because your friends work at Google, and haven't told you about what's going on with the Youtube app (in terms of dirty tricks), doesn't mean that it's highly unlikely.

Furthermore, even if your friends knew something they couldn't tell you anything about the app, unless it was made public -- just my 2pence.

Okay, forget what they told me. Let's just use common sense. You have Youtube, a part of Google. And there is supposedly a project there that involves working with MS to build a YT app for WP. This project, even though it presumably involves working with a corporation which is a direct competitor in many spaces AND is currently involved in litigation, is happening without the knowledge of ANY senior personnel (say VP level). It gets to the point where it is almost complete and THEN someone at Google gets wind of it and cancels it. All this happens even though for such a project to even get off the ground, it would need a security review, a review by Business Process Compliance and a review by Legal, all of which apparently happened without a single VP or above getting involved. This would also involve a non-trivial expense in terms of employee time (say at least 2 engineers?) and such would definitely come before Salar Kamangar during quarterly reviews.

Or the alternate possibility - that the political spin doctor MS hired is projecting election strategies onto corporate marketing and all this talk of collaboration was fabricated out of whole cloth.

I know what seems more likely to me, but feel free to believe in whatever you find plausible.
 

ag1986

Banned
Jan 14, 2013
486
0
0
Visit site
I bet you will be the first poster when the UX gets all messed up when more and more apps choose functionality and have no respect for system navigation ;)

Priorities. Functionality first, then form. I'm glad that someone at MS/FB decided to stop drinking the cosmetic UI kool-aid and started thinking about putting functional UX first.
 

Dustin Hodges

New member
Jan 22, 2013
464
0
0
Visit site
man, this thread sure did get a long way off track.
Conversation segued. It actually segued quite smoothly, may I add.

the metro vs not metro discussion was cool. I don't see how the new facebook breaks anything, or care really. if an app has better functionality because of its types of uses, I just enjoy the usability.

Depends on if you are using the cultural misunderstanding of the word Metro or Metro as its means. I will let you read what I posted in another topic (which i created as a related, but different topic, about getting people to convince Microsoft to revive the Metro language and philosophy, which inadvertently changed into the topic "what is metro", similar to this topic.): http://forums.windowscentral.com/windows-phone-8/225484-2.htm#post1967713

Priorities. Functionality first, then form. I'm glad that someone at MS/FB decided to stop drinking the cosmetic UI kool-aid and started thinking about putting functional UX first.

Metro is about functionality meets design. A yin and yang of design and functionality. If it don't work, it ain't metro. Read the post I linked earlier in this reply. Microsoft has been drinking Modern UI koolaid, so much that they think "If its flat, its us.", explaining FB Beta's flat UI.
 
Last edited:

Dazzi

New member
Apr 13, 2013
222
0
0
Visit site
Okay, forget what they told me. Let's just use common sense. You have Youtube, a part of Google. And there is supposedly a project there that involves working with MS to build a YT app for WP. This project, even though it presumably involves working with a corporation which is a direct competitor in many spaces AND is currently involved in litigation, is happening without the knowledge of ANY senior personnel (say VP level). It gets to the point where it is almost complete and THEN someone at Google gets wind of it and cancels it. All this happens even though for such a project to even get off the ground, it would need a security review, a review by Business Process Compliance and a review by Legal, all of which apparently happened without a single VP or above getting involved. This would also involve a non-trivial expense in terms of employee time (say at least 2 engineers?) and such would definitely come before Salar Kamangar during quarterly reviews.

Or the alternate possibility - that the political spin doctor MS hired is projecting election strategies onto corporate marketing and all this talk of collaboration was fabricated out of whole cloth.

I know what seems more likely to me, but feel free to believe in whatever you find plausible.

Thankyou for a clear concise explanation -- now I totally get where you are coming from.
 

Dustin Hodges

New member
Jan 22, 2013
464
0
0
Visit site
Okay, forget what they told me. Let's just use common sense. You have Youtube, a part of Google. And there is supposedly a project there that involves working with MS to build a YT app for WP. This project, even though it presumably involves working with a corporation which is a direct competitor in many spaces AND is currently involved in litigation, is happening without the knowledge of ANY senior personnel (say VP level). It gets to the point where it is almost complete and THEN someone at Google gets wind of it and cancels it. All this happens even though for such a project to even get off the ground, it would need a security review, a review by Business Process Compliance and a review by Legal, all of which apparently happened without a single VP or above getting involved. This would also involve a non-trivial expense in terms of employee time (say at least 2 engineers?) and such would definitely come before Salar Kamangar during quarterly reviews.

Or the alternate possibility - that the political spin doctor MS hired is projecting election strategies onto corporate marketing and all this talk of collaboration was fabricated out of whole cloth.

I know what seems more likely to me, but feel free to believe in whatever you find plausible.

I see how this is true, but at the same time, you know how many crazy things google comes up with (Glass, Self Driving Car, Notes App, Currents, etc.)? And further more, how many things you think they haven't even made public or finished? Is it possible that some of the legal things are farther down the road, depending on the project? If not, I understand your point (thanks for explaining :smile:), and then who knows why google is doing all of this neglecting (even though WP only has 5.6% of total market share, there are over 1Billion smartphone users worldwide. 5.6% of 1000000000 is 56000000. That's 56 Million WP users {if market share translates into users}. 56M is a lot of people for google to neglect, and a big amount of people who could be using googles services, earning them money.)
 

anon(5335877)

New member
Jan 27, 2012
1,457
0
0
Visit site
How would MS like it if Google were to say "Hey, we want Office for Android, so since you guys don't seem to be interested in developing it, how about we go ahead and write it and you guys can give us permission to use the Word, Excel and Powerpoint trademarks? Thanks".

I don't see MS agreeing here and while Youtube is more of a service than an app, the point stands.

As for the Youtube app thing, it sounds very unlikely to me. There is no such thing as 'Google Corporate', Youtube was long ago integrated completely into Google. Co-operating with MS on an app is something that would have to be approved at the very highest levels (Larry Page or at the very lease Salar Kamangar) and it sounds unlikely that it could have been just a project which got shut down. I know a couple people who work at Google's San Bruno office on the Youtube ads team and none of them were aware such a thing existed. It sounds like MS FUD to me.

I don't see how that's comparable. Microsoft Office is proprietary software, however, you're still able to make your own application that supports Office formats. There's LibreOffice for Windows, Mac, Linux, and I think Android is coming soon. OpenOffice is another desktop application that supports Office formats. There are several apps on Android including Kingsoft Office, Quickoffice Pro, and Documents to Go. Google Docs (Google Drive now?) supports Office formats too.

Meanwhile, YouTube isn't proprietary software that you have to pay for, it provides access to content. Facebook and Twitter didn't seem to have a problem with Microsoft making the app instead of them, but Google does.

YouTube is dominant in video, and I think Google is using this to their advantage.

Microsoft has done anticompetitive stuff like this in the past, and they've gotten into trouble for it, so why not Google? I think people have the impression that Google is not evil and can do no wrong, while Microsoft is. So people take the stance of when Google does something that is anticompetitive, it's justifiable; but when Microsoft does something anticompetitive, they should be punished.

microsoft.png

alt-text said:
Facebook, Apple, and Google all got away with their monopolist power grabs because they don't have any 'S's in their names for critics to snarkily replace with '$'s.

What part is FUD?

"Microsoft is ready to release a high quality YouTube app for Windows Phone."
"Microsoft has continued to engage with YouTube personnel over the past two years to remedy this problem..."
"...we learned from YouTube that senior executives at Google told them not to enable a first-class YouTube experience on Windows Phones."

If these are lies, why hasn't Google said anything?
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
322,902
Messages
2,242,867
Members
428,004
Latest member
hetb