Is the 950 and 950XL running windows 10?

[a5cent]

I don't think anyone is going to buy a Windows Phone and be disappointed that it doesn't have IIS.

I agree with all your points except two:

1)
You're taking my remark about IIS slightly out of context.

The point of mentioning IIS was to counter the FUD in regard to Win32 being the "only" part of W10 that W10M omits. Nothing more, nothing less. Those who know what IIS is aren't likely to be confused by any of this :wink:

2)
At this point in this thread, the only argument left to defend calling both OSes by the same name is: "it causes no harm and people won't be confused".

Well, that claim has already been proven false many times over in these very forums. Last time MS called both OSes just W10 I was regularly explaining to people: "no, your future W10 phone won't run desktop software so don't worry about how awkward that will be without a mouse".

Sure, we can educate and correct people until the cows come home, but is that really the mark of a good marketing message? Something that forces us to repeatedly explain what a product can't do?

Oh yeah, and just wait until the x86 phones running actual (full W10) are released. Then we can start explaining how some W10 devices can run W10 desktop software while other W10 devices can't. Nope... not confusing to the layman at all /s :wink:

There's got to be a better way to market these devices and the innovations surrounding MS' shared UWP that doesn't distort technical reality to this extent.

 

[pallentx]

It comes down to what is the OS. They share the same kernel. W10 for desktop runs the apps Window for phone runs. There is a common core here. In previous versions, we didn't say that Windows Ultimate edition was a different OS from Windows Home because Ultimate had more features. Even Windows Server is still considered Windows. I realize the gap is much wider between Phone and Desktop with 10, but clearly you don't have to have all the same features to call it the same OS.

Right now the #1 priority in Microsoft IMO is to promote the universal app ecosystem. If that is the focus of the company, it makes sense that the marketing would call it one OS and focus on the one platform they all have in common. Yeah, there may be some confusion, but if they accomplish the goal, that's fine.

 

[a5cent]

^ Yeah, I understand why MS might be taking this approach. I think you're right about that. For the reasons mentioned I just disagree that it's a good idea, in addition to seeming dishonest.

Taking your argument to the extreme, I could argue W10 should really just be called MS DOS, because MS-DOS and W10 both have a command line and both can run the same batch scripts, i.e. at their most basic level, they are "the same". The W10 edition of MS-DOS just has some extra features. ☺ I know that's ludicrous, but if we forget about all the technical details (which the average consumer doesn't know about), then calling W10 MS-DOS appears theoretically no less valid than calling W10M just W10.

The question we must then obviously answer is how different two OSes must be, before calling them different editions of the same OS becomes dishonest or more confusing to the average consumer than helpful.

Admittedly that is debatable, but IMHO in this case shouldn't be. As soon as one OS supports an additional and coequal programing and runtime environment, which enables an entirely new/different class of software (Win32/desktop), you've gone past the point where it's the same OS with some additional tacked on features.

 

[Paolo Ferrazza]

Marketing headlines are for ignorant people, for the ignorant windows10 is actually the same, or at least it should be. What I mean is: when the 90% of the 10% of software that common people use everyday is both available on w10 and w10m then the marketing statement is correct. Then we know that is not true, marketing is about perception.

When the user can use browser, office, system apps, mainstream apps and games on both platforms then the experience for them is actually the same.

So it just comes down to the everlasting problem: are there enough "mainstream apps and games" (universal version) available? Not enough, yet.

 

[taymur]

Marketing headlines are for ignorant people, for the ignorant windows10 is actually the same, or at least it should be. What I mean is: when the 90% of the 10% of software that common people use everyday is both available on w10 and w10m then the marketing statement is correct. Then we know that is not true, marketing is about perception.

Using this information makes it deception.

 

[Paolo Ferrazza]

Using this information makes it deception.

Well yeah, marketing=subtle deception

Like the bra shown by models, it is telling you you'll become supersexy, well you won't

 

[DoctorPizza]

Pete is surely correct in noting the "tech" press significantly contributed to RT's demise. Some reviewers viewed it as a tablet, while others viewed it as a laptop, while each critiqued it for how it didn't live up to what they thought it was.

Few understood it was simultaneously both and neither.

Who's at fault is debatable. We could argue MS was at fault for failing to communicate what it was, raising false expectations, or for neglecting to explain who it was for. The tech press could also be faulted for being technically incompetent and just not understanding it, but that's nothing new.

Either way it doesn't really matter. That chapter is over.

And the people buying it, who didn't get what it was for, they're to blame too?

Surface RT was a solution in search of a problem.

 

[a5cent]

And the people buying it, who didn't get what it was for, they're to blame too?


Surface RT was a solution in search of a problem.

I'm not sure what your point is. The RT tangent of this discussion was about the factors contributing to RT's failure as a mass market consumer product. Few people are trendsetters or in a position to influence public perception; certainly not the set of people you mentioned. So, no, I'd say they aren't to blame.

Not sure I agree that RT was a solution in need of a problem (IMHO it's more that too few cared about the problems it solved, like the cost of an Office license, or Windows security), but it's probably not worth getting into anymore.

 

[taymur]

Ok this thread is derailing a little bit.

The initial questions was, why is Microsoft doing this again? by "this" i mean set people to false expectations.

The easy way to look at this is by doing the Mom and Dad test.

If Mom or Dad watched the Ad or read The verge's article that says: windows 10 is now on the lumia 950, then watched the video where Tom connects it to a Screen, Keyboard and mouse will she think that this is how computers are looking these days? and go buy one for her little son as a surprise?

or will she understand that this mini computer will not run anything more than her normal smartphone can run?

honestly i am pretty sure they will be confused, and think this is how computers have became in 2015.

 

[pallentx]

And the people buying it, who didn't get what it was for, they're to blame too?

Surface RT was a solution in search of a problem.

I bought a Surface RT and don't regret it one bit. It more than lived up to what I bought it for. The only disappointment I had was there weren't more apps developed for it. My father-in-law also bought one and still uses it every day. He just told me when we got together this thanksgiving how much he still enjoys it. Imagine that, a 70+ year old man not confused at all about what the device is for and still finds it useful.

As for the topic at hand, I don't consider it deceptive at all for MS to call all the devices Windows 10 devices. They are defining this new universal platform. Its important that the marketing is clear that all these devices are part of one platform. Its important that developers understand that they can target phones, tablets, Xbox, Hololens, etc with one app if they want to. The fact that features will vary for different form factors should be obvious common sense.