Could Microsoft revive windows phone?

[anon(7929613)]

This sums up the misunderstandings that are widespread in the small/remaining MS mobile community.

It won't ever make sense to you, because your understanding is flawed.

I think you misunderstood my point. I was trying to highlight the fact that if a company withdraws a product at such a mature stage, then there has to be something big behind the screens that prompted them to take such a step.

You say that Microsoft wanted to make ONE OS that can run on devices of various form factor. But there were TWO OSs - W10M & W10. They are similar, yet W10M has some limitations when compared to W10. So there has to be a last step that will unify the two and perhaps Microsoft found a way in the form of One core.

Still that doesn't explain the way Microsoft is killing apps and features associated with the mobile platform if they are going to make an OS that can run on devices of different form factor including mobiles.

This is what I highlighted in this thread: https://forums.windowscentral.com/g...-they-say-w10m-not-their-priority-2016-a.html

 

[a5cent]

You say that Microsoft wanted to make ONE OS that can run on devices of various form factor. But there were TWO OSs - W10M & W10. They are similar, yet W10M has some limitations when compared to W10. So there has to be a last step that will unify the two and perhaps Microsoft found a way in the form of One core.

Yes. With the exception of CShell and hardware drivers, W10M is entirely contained in W10. Since being a subset is not the same as being the superset (and W10 and W10M can't run the same software), W10M and W10 are logically different OSes. Since W10M is a subset, it obviously lacks some of W10's capabilities. You're right about all that.

Where you are mistaken is in the idea that there must come a last step to unify the two! This is exactly the misunderstanding I'm referring to. What you call "limitations", are actually deliberate omissions.

Everything in the OS that must be unified has been unified. That last step towards OS unification already occurred. That was W10.

MS still has some work to do in regard to replacing Win32 software with UWP software. Examples would be those parts of the control panel that are accessible only from Win32 software but also apply to UWP, or the shell (to be replaced by CShell). There are some more examples, but none of that belongs to the OS. Those are just applications like any other that run on top of the OS. Most importantly, they aren't unifying anything. They are just re-implementing some things for UWP that already exist in Win32.

The parts of Win32 that aren't yet unified, i.e. they are not yet part of the UWP, never will be. Those parts are not intended to become one with UWP. Rather, they are destined for the trash bin.

W10 S currently must ship with Win32. That's because most of what is in the MS Store has been brought over via Centennial, i.e. they aren't real UWP applications and therefore require Win32 to run.

At some point, when that is no longer the case (a big IF, I know), MS will throw out 7GB worth of functionality/features and ship that as a separate Windows edition. Users who only use the MS store won't notice any difference, and the OS they use will essentially be the same thing we cal W10M today... what they use will just come with a fresh layer of paint (CShell) and have a new name.

Anyway, the idea is to throw those 7GB of functionality out. Not to unify them.

 

[anon(7929613)]

Yes. With the exception of CShell and hardware drivers, W10M is entirely contained in W10. .........

Everything in the OS that must be unified has been unified. That last step towards OS unification already occurred. That was W10.

I think you contradicted yourself. I am talking about these visual differences that arises because of different shells like the Live tiles, start screen, action and notification centre etc. These need to be unified as well.

Check out this video where Zac explains the same point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNxtMtlrm6U

 

[realwarder]

UWP hasn't run up against a limit that it can't surpass, which MS could only overcome by building something new.

MS is just excruciatingly conservative when it comes to expanding UWP's API surface. While this certainly causes some of the complaining we hear from developers, it's not a limit that is intrinsic to the technology itself. It's really just a result of how MS approaches software development.

MS doesn't have to develop anything new. They just have to develop faster, and more importantly, have a better understanding of their target market, the lack of which is the main reason they really screwed up W10M.

As someone who uses UWP and Xamarin, I want the two to merge much more tomorrow. It should be possible for UWP to universally run on an iOS, Android, MacOS. And I so wish they had added support back to Windows 7 (i.e. in a SP.) Developers would have jumped on board a lot more, but it's a massive PITA when many many (most) enterprise customers still don't support it.

They also need to focus on tooling quality and platform stability. We're continuously jumping through hoops almost every release of dev tooling these days, ranging from compiler bugs, VS issues, framework incompatibles etc. They need to stabilize things for 6 months. I'm ok with a new insider program for VS but the main developers should get 6 month stable updates, not the current insider style updates.

 

[techiez]

I think you misunderstood my point. I was trying to highlight the fact that if a company withdraws a product at such a mature stage, then there has to be something big behind the screens that prompted them to take such a step.

they simply decided to exit the consumer mobile race, as Nadella clearly said and deeply believes that consumer mobile space has "need" only for IOS and Android.
so they will keep expanding services on these platforms.

As for the surface phone rumors, I think it will have hybrid functionality but will be designed as per niche use cases, I dont expect this device to have full PC functionality as some others believe, it will have customized software to fulfill the usecases that MS imagines.

 

[anon(7929613)]

they simply decided to exit the consumer mobile race, as Nadella clearly said and deeply believes that consumer mobile space has "need" only for IOS and Android.

Then why spend time and money again on developing OneCore with composable shells? Any device with screen size more than 7" can anyways run full Windows 10.

 

[Dono Newcomb]

Interesting, I am not sure I want to give up win32, I am not sure most people want that either. Both software and hardware are becoming more and more sophisticated, it seems that it would naturally be able to handle the older standards. I have to wonder why win32 is destined for the trash. I like the control that my system gives me. Is this about people reusing older software and not buying the latest and greatest stuff?

 

[amits1024]

The only thing that makes no sense is they invested so much time and effort in developing a mobile platform and when it was actually beginning to become a full fledged OS in the form of W10M, they killed it.

1. W10M today has all the features unlike WP8.1 and works fluently unlike initial 2015 builds.

2. It's file system is probably the best.

3. It's security and integration with Windows 10 for PC it's also among the best.

4. It supports OTG and WiFi direct.

KILLING IT AT NOW IS LIKE WITHDRAWING FROM THE RACE JUST BEFORE THE FINISH LINE.

This can only be possible if they have found a better alternative due to which it made no sense to further continue the development of W10M. The new alternative will use all the developments and features of W10M. That can be the only explanation.

Yes hate it that Microsoft didn't even launch 1 phone after the Anniversary update in 2016. HP elite X3 & Alcatel idol 4s were launched after that. And after the Creators update in 2017, no windows phone was launched by any manufacturer. And after Fall creators update, only windows phone launched was Willeyfox pro

Microsoft's mistake was to not even release phones after the OS became more and more improved. After the creators update in 2017, Microsoft should have launched 2 phones & got HP to launch a new phone too. Other manufacturers would have joined in too. Also Microsoft should have backed the existing OS and provided a smooth transition from current mobile OS to the new One core Os

 

[amits1024]

they simply decided to exit the consumer mobile race, as Nadella clearly said and deeply believes that consumer mobile space has "need" only for IOS and Android.
so they will keep expanding services on these platforms.

More mobile OS are needed. Android has a lot of issues and Apple has got arrogant and many Apple fanboys are switching to Android now. Some of them would have switched to Windows too if Microsoft had backed their OS

Apps is not a issue at all. Just get good browser and all things which can be done from apps can be done from the browser too and a lot of space can be saved as well

 

[Krystianpants]

Then why spend time and money again on developing OneCore with composable shells? Any device with screen size more than 7" can anyways run full Windows 10.

The idea is that hardware will not be the limitation. And when someone develops a UWP app the app does not need to have extra work done for specific hardware. There won't be any checkmarks simply the scaling will happen as part of the 1 OS. Developers won't have to worry about the extra work that a mobile os that has limitations imposes. So they are set for any future hardware that may be introduced. This also makes sure that if 3rd party hardware providers decide to go with windows they don't have to worry about the OS for that particular hardware being abandoned.

Today HP Elite X3 has become obsolete. With the new "andromeda" version of the OS. It would continue to be supported for the lifetime of the OS and hardware chip. Since the OS will run both x86 and ARM hardware by default regardless of its size.

The main idea is that they want to change the concept of separate hardware for separate functionality. The reason 2-in-1's are popular is because they provide people a tablet and a business functional computer. They do not have to buy an ipad and a macbook. They get both in one. It's not as elaborate as say having both separately because windows 10 is still not mature and the app ecosystem is also lacking. But both Google and Apple are heading in a similar direction. In the future likely 3-in-1's will be the main products sold. Of course this depends on the hardware technology for allowing folding and unfolding of screens. The hardware is still not mature, but it is the direction that most hardware research is heading. Samsung and LG have both been working on screens that can fold. The only thing that will be missing is the operating system that gives the best experience. Right now MS is ahead of the game in this concept. However Google is already pretty far based on the alpha tests that have shown Fuscia running on pixelbooks. Apple is working on merging ios/macos as well.

MS dismissed the coming of phones. And their biggest problem was of course the OS. they could never just dump their os on the hardware and be quick enough to meet the consumer demand. It required creating separate teams and trying to rush while the competitors gained shares. It was followed by mistakes and amateur beliefs. So windows 10 should be the OS that can jump on any trend quickly. This way they don't lose market share while competitors are ahead.

Of course, further into the future when bandwidth is not a big problem OS's will run from the cloud and could be subscription based. You take your hardware and pay monthly fee to have an OS on it. You don't like an OS? Just switch to another Cloud OS. The hardware will be super portable, adaptable and not require too many parts.

 

[a5cent]

Then why spend time and money again on developing OneCore with composable shells? Any device with screen size more than 7" can anyways run full Windows 10.

1.

You seem to not understand that W10 isn't the future. As I've stated a million times in these forums, W10 is not a consumerized OS. Most people use W10 only because they must. When Chrome/Android and iOS mature and start incorporating more productivity/corporate related features, MS will need an answer. Something that:

• is equally fool-proof
• protects users from themselves
• doesn't require constant maintenance and administration

None of the current desktop OSes can provide those things. OneCore + UWP + CShell (which we might as well call W10M) can provide that.

MS is the only company with a whole lot to loose once the fight for that part of the IT market starts heating up. To think MS can rest on three decades old technology and just be happy installing W10 on anything > 7" is a recipe for disaster. That is where OneCore + UWP comes in.

2.

OneCore has absolutely nothing to do with any shell, composable or otherwise. See below for more on that.

I think you contradicted yourself. I am talking about these visual differences that arises because of different shells like the Live tiles, start screen, action and notification centre etc. These need to be unified as well.

Check out this video where Zac explains the same point.

No, I'm not contradicting myself. I think our disagreement stems from these two things:

1. Both of us have completely different ideas of what the word "unification" means
2. You not quite understanding how Windows is put together

If I were to install MS Word on my Mac and on my PC, would you then claim the two OSes are more unified? I hope not, as it should be clear that MS Word has absolutely nothing to do with the OS. Right?

What if I had two Linux desktops, one running Gnome and the other running the Cinnamon desktop environment? If I then uninstalled Cinnamon and installed Gnome, would you then consider those two OSes more unified? You might, but that would be wrong. Why? Because Gnome and Cinnamon aren't part of the OS. That's why you can willy nilly install any desktop environment you want on Linux. You can even remove the desktop environment entirely and the OS will continue to work just fine (command line only). So guess what? Gnome and Cinnamon are Linux shells, just like CShell will be the next Windows shell.

In the exact same way, CShell is also not part of the OS. CShell is just another UWP app, which Windows launches as the very last step of the boot process.

Installing CShell on W10M and W10 has about as much to do with unification as installing MS Word (the UWP version) on W10 and W10M does. Exactly Zilch.

Unification means to unite! When two large companies merge, it's usually the case that redundant positions are eventually eliminated. It simply doesn't make sense to have two departments doing payroll. OS unification is very comparable to that. When WP8.1 and W8 became W10M and W10, hundreds of thousands of lines of code were removed from WP8.1 and replaced with what W10 used. The result of that is called Windows Core OS.

• CShell is not part of the Windows Core OS. Compared to other OS components, CShell will be a relatively small UWP app that provides the typical desktop UI components (background, task-bar, start-menu, notification center).
• The Win32 shell (explorer.exe), and supporting libraries (along with a boatload of other stuff) are legacy components. They are already in maintenance mode and they are explicitly and deliberately excluded from unification.
• The W10M shell is also in maintenance mode.

So once again, none of the work that went towards unification is being thrown away. Unification resulted in Windows Core OS, which is why I said everything that must be unified has already been unified.

You made it sound like MS is throwing out all of W10M when all they are throwing out is the old (from WP7/WP8.1) W10M shell, which constitutes at most 2% of the distribution, and is entirely unrelated to the things MS has been working on over the last 5 years.

That is what I was objecting to.

Interesting, I am not sure I want to give up win32, I am not sure most people want that either. Both software and hardware are becoming more and more sophisticated, it seems that it would naturally be able to handle the older standards. I have to wonder why win32 is destined for the trash. I like the control that my system gives me. Is this about people reusing older software and not buying the latest and greatest stuff?

Don't worry. You won't be forced to give up anything. Win32 will still be around for a very long time. Consider that we still have the DOS box at our disposal (which was the OS before Win16) which still runs batch scripts from 1990.

The takeaway is that all of Win32 is now in maintenance mode. MS is no longer adding anything to it. All of MS' efforts are focused on the UWP side of things.

 

[anon(7929613)]

You made it sound like MS is throwing out all of W10M when all they are throwing out is the old (from WP7/WP8.1) W10M shell, which constitutes at most 2% of the OS, and is entirely unrelated to the things MS has been working on over the last 5 years.

That is what I was objecting to.

Without W10M "Shell", Windows 10 cannot be used on smartphones [devices that fits inside pocket]. This is important because mobility brings people and people bring apps & services.

If W10 cannot be used on devices that fits in a pocket, W10 will be finished long before Nadella can finish writing part 2 of hit refresh.

 

[a5cent]

Without W10M "Shell", Windows 10 cannot be used on smartphones [devices that fits inside pocket]. This is important because mobility brings people and people bring apps & services.

If W10 cannot be used on devices that fits in a pocket, W10 will be finished long before Nadella can finish writing part 2 of hit refresh.

Of course W10 can be used on small devices without the existing W10M shell. In fact, you'll have no choice but to use it that way on pocketabke devices, because the existing W10M shell will have been replaced by CShell.

CShell is just an UWP app that supports continuum. That means it can re-composite it's UI so it's suited to the size of the screen it's displayed on.

More importantly, nobody wants to run W10 on handheld devices! Least of all MS. That's just an unfortunate but necessary step towards popularizing the UWP.

 

[anon(7929613)]

More importantly, nobody wants to run W10 on handheld devices! Least of all MS. That's just an unfortunate but necessary step towards popularizing the UWP.

Well, Steve Ballmer, Steven Elop, myself, many Lumia fans and people who are fed up of Android & iWhatever want to run W10 on hand held devices! Check out WC forums to understand how passionate people are about W10 on phones.

 

[Dono Newcomb]

More importantly, nobody wants to run W10 on handheld devices!

I am not sure that is entirely accurate. I have never been a fan of the shallow feel of mobile operating systems. From my stand point they have always looked like they should perform the same stuff our computers did, but always left me frustrated and looking to my desktop for my needs. I know that I am not alone. Many people who were raised on iPhones and Android don't know anything else and have become content with being in the kiddie pool. I don't know if I will ever be okay with being shortchanged when I know it is in their power to make and market what people like me really want.

 

[fatclue_98]

Anyone advocating full Windows on a 7" screen needs to be examined by a licensed physician. Actually, I have a better idea. Search the interwebz and find a Samsung Q1 Ultra and knock yourselves out. It's tricky to get W10 on them so you might want to try with Win7 first.

Windows is no longer a touch-friendly desktop OS. The wusses who had hissy fits when W8 removed the start button are 100% to blame and now everybody gets to suffer. Sweet dreams.

 

[darkvegetto]

Honestly without groove and some key apps it wouldn't succeed. In other words they need to bring back a lot of stuff too

 

[a5cent]

More importantly, nobody wants to run W10 on handheld devices!

I am not sure that is entirely accurate. I have never been a fan of the shallow feel of mobile operating systems.

Well, Steve Ballmer, Steven Elop <snipped> want to run W10 on hand held devices! Check out WC forums to understand how passionate people are about W10 on phones.

I understand you both have your reasons for wanting full W10 with Win32 on a handheld device.

Looking only at the market right now, completely ignoring where Windows is headed, and assuming we're only talking about using this on screens larger than 7", I understand why you say that. I'm also not a huge fan of the dinky software solutions we call apps. I'm also more interested in the more powerful/professional desktop software.

I'm just not looking at the "here and now", as much as I'm looking at where things are headed.

That Ballmer, Elop, or any of the people currently working at MS (who actually still matter) like the idea of W10 with Win32 running on handheld devices is just BS. They certainly like the idea of "Windows" running on such devices, but with that they mean OneCore + UWP, not Win32.

If executives at MS really liked the idea of Win32 running on handheld devices, then MS would have brought such products to market years ago. We could easily have seen W8 (which also ran on ARM) on handhelds. The reason we're only getting to that now is not because it's such a great idea that was only recently discovered. It's not because it wasn't technically feasible up until now. It's because the products without Win32 (WP/WM), which are what MS really wanted to be successful, failed.

Despite that failure, MS is still trying to get versions of Windows without Win32 into peoples hands (see Zak's recent article on Polaris and OnceCore). I have no idea if that will work, but at this point I think piggy-backing UWP off of something people will be buying anyway (OneCore + Win32) is likely MS' only shot. That is really the only purpose Win32 still has... helping transport its successor into the mainstream. After that it's lights out for Win32.

Investments are the main metric by which I judge whether or not something is dead. Using that metric, W10M is alive and well (just not as a separate product or brand), whereas Win32 is the thing that is actually dead. Furthermore, looking around the software development world, you'll likely be very hard pressed to still find developers who are passionate about Win32, a three decades old clunker of an API, which is another sign it is dead. These are the only people who really have a direct interest in an API.

Non-developers might think they are passionate about Win32, but what they are actually interested in is the grown-up desktop experience it provides and the software they use which relies on Win32. If this software was ported to UWP, or similar UWP based competitors popped up which were better than their Win32 counterparts, then that sentiment would instantly change. Non-developers have no vested and direct interest in Win32 itself...

That is what I mean when I say nobody cares about Win32.

If you still disagree that's fine. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Dono Newcomb]

That is what I mean when I say nobody cares about Win32.

I agree with you about all that. It is simply not viable for me to abandon it, I don't think most users can. I would like to see support for it stay in windows at least until we don't need it anymore. We all have investments, I understand that and hopefully my personal investments and where Microsoft is heading will line up, currently it is unrealistic for me and most people I know.

Microsoft needs to be mindful of the future, but not at the expense of the moment.

 

[techiez]

Then why spend time and money again on developing OneCore with composable shells? Any device with screen size more than 7" can anyways run full Windows 10.

There are tones of enterprise devices running still on windows mobile 6.5, EDAs, handhelds, scanners etc, they are mobile devices, not exactly what you would want to carry in your pockets just coz it has windows, but MS needs to getrid of their legacy OS