One heck of a week for W10 Mobile. What's everyone feeling?

[a5cent]

You can't blame MS for that, they have all their apps on iOS, Android etc. They helped Samsung make special DeX versions of their apps. They made it possible to port an app from ios or android in five minutes, or change a win32 to uwp. They have made it as easy for developers as humanly possible. They have been playing real friendly.

Empirically I have to believe that is all BS. I know MS claims that and maybe you can blame stupidity for why most apps haven't already been ported if that was true but then you see splashed on WC front page a review of an app developed by an MS employee and it is only available on iOS.

Yup, it's BS (not Drael646464's fault, considering all the misinformation strewn about).

Project Astoria had nothing to do with porting apps. Astoria was a run-time environment. For Android apps, it made W10M look like an Android device. Astoria could have made it very easy to run Android apps, unchanged, on W10M. However, those apps would not have been UWP apps, nor would they have supported any W10M specific functionality (tiles, continuum, background task management etc). Worst of all, that approach would have been an instant death sentence for the UWP.

Project Islandwood did enable porting from iOS. Those apps would have been UWP apps (but also without continuum), and they could potentially have supported some W10M specific functionality. I think this could have been a great approach, but it just never got off the ground for some reason. There was (and AFAIK still is) no way for the average developer to get their hands on it.

Last but not least, there is also no way to turn a Win32 app into an UWP app. That's a common misconception that WCentral unfortunately helped propagate. The desktop bridge changes only two things about a Win32 application:

• it wraps the application in a layer of software that allows it to be deployed/distributed through the Windows Store.
• at runtime, all reading and writing to storage is intercepted. The application may think it is reading/writing to the Windows registry, or to any other location or file on your storage device, but the runtime ensures everything is written to a single file that is stored away in a directory that no other application can access. When you uninstall the application that directory is erased with it, which finally gives us the ability to cleanly uninstall software.

While that all pretty good, the application is still as much a Win32 application as it has always been. As a result it also requires W10 and can't run on a UWP only OS like W10M.

None of the UWP bridges are as simple as they are made out to be. That doesn't make them bad though. They just aren't magical, which they would have to be considering how some sites described them.

 

[Drael646464]

Yup, it's BS (not Drael646464's fault, considering all the misinformation strewn about).

Project Astoria had nothing to do with porting apps. Astoria was a run-time environment. For Android apps, it made W10M look like an Android device. Astoria could have made it very easy to run Android apps, unchanged, on W10M. However, those apps would not have been UWP apps, nor would they have supported any W10M specific functionality (tiles, continuum, background task management etc). Worst of all, that approach would have been an instant death sentence for the UWP.

Project Islandwood did enable porting from iOS. Those apps would have been UWP apps (but also without continuum), and they could potentially have supported some W10M specific functionality. I think this could have been a great approach, but it just never got off the ground for some reason. There was (and AFAIK still is) no way for the average developer to get their hands on it.

Last but not least, there is also no way to turn a Win32 app into an UWP app. That's a common misconception that WCentral unfortunately helped propagate. The desktop bridge changes only two things about a Win32 application:

• it wraps the application in a layer of software that allows it to be deployed/distributed through the Windows Store.
• at runtime, all reading and writing to storage is intercepted. The application may think it is reading/writing to the Windows registry, or to any other location or file on your storage device, but the runtime ensures everything is written to a single file that is stored away in a directory that no other application can access. When you uninstall the application that directory is erased with it, which finally gives us the ability to cleanly uninstall software.

While that all pretty good, the application is still as much a Win32 application as it has always been. As a result it also requires W10 and can't run on a UWP only OS like W10M.

None of the UWP bridges are as simple as they are made out to be. That doesn't make them bad though. They just aren't magical, which they would have to be considering how some sites described them.

Thanks for the clearup there

But you appear to be right, that there is no easy android porting tool. Lot of misinformation on Astoria. I knew it was a runtime, and I've seen videos of it, but I thought somehow it was also a porting tool. Media pretty much doesn't do these things justice it appears

The facebook UWP is from iOS, and that's definitely a thing. Instagram too I believe? iOS apps can be ported with a suite, as you say.

But I believe google apps are on iOS anyway. And even if they weren't consider the number of desktop and tablet users, and its still a snub by google to not have any UWPs. They also are dropping support for their chrome apps.

Which would have been a bit of "google bridge" under windows on arm. I'm going off google anyway, they've changed.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

The facebook UWP is from iOS, and that's definitely a thing. Instagram too I believe? iOS apps can be ported with a suite, as you say.

But it isn't an easy thing to do. You posted you thought it was a trivial thing to port and I understand why lots of people think that. But when a brand new, from scratch, app developed by an MS employee that WC thinks is the greatest thing since sliced bread is only available on iOS..... Well there are only two possible reasons such a great app wouldn't be available on WM: (1) Its not trivial to port even if the desire to do so existed before a single line of code was written, or (2) MS does not think its worth the 5 minutes (your example) needed to make the app available to their entire customer base.

Yeah, I know it was an unassigned project for the MS developer but even if that developer absolutely hates Windows users, you would think the glares from management would have enticed him to spend the 5 extra minutes.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not upset because I want that app. The garage apps almost always disappear forcing you to find a replacement. But the fact that an MS developer doesn't publish a WM version speaks volumes about how easy it is to use the same code on multiple platforms.

 

[Drael646464]

But it isn't an easy thing to do. You posted you thought it was a trivial thing to port and I understand why lots of people think that. But when a brand new, from scratch, app developed by an MS employee that WC thinks is the greatest thing since sliced bread is only available on iOS..... Well there are only two possible reasons such a great app wouldn't be available on WM: (1) Its not trivial to port even if the desire to do so existed before a single line of code was written, or (2) MS does not think its worth the 5 minutes (your example) needed to make the app available to their entire customer base.

Yeah, I know it was an unassigned project for the MS developer but even if that developer absolutely hates Windows users, you would think the glares from management would have enticed him to spend the 5 extra minutes.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not upset because I want that app. The garage apps almost always disappear forcing you to find a replacement. But the fact that an MS developer doesn't publish a WM version speaks volumes about how easy it is to use the same code on multiple platforms.

Well seeing as your talking about something quite specific I know nothing about. What app? What developer? Was it his own development, or something under Microsoft? What's the audience for this app? Has the developer said he has no plans to port it?

I just don't have any information on the topic you bring up.

If porting the iOS app is something Instagram and facebook consider worthwhile, you have to admit, the complete absence of google apps, when google used to quite like windows as a platform, does seem like a snub yeah?

I mean, google products are not a third party indie app with virtually no audience. And windows isn't some abandoned platform with no users using uwps. Economically, unless its a mobile specific application like a chat program, it makes perfect sense for big app devs to be in UWP.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Well seeing as your talking about something quite specific I know nothing about. What app? What developer? Was it his own development, or something under Microsoft? What's the audience for this app? Has the developer said he has no plans to port it?

Sorry: Why we love the News Pro app for iOS

Did he say he didn't plan to port it? I have no idea, but MS has succeeded in convincing people that porting something like this would take less time than announcing if you plan to port it. And this should be much easier than actually porting an app that was originally developed with nothing but iOS in mind. This was an app that was written by an MS employee who could do everything to minimize the effort needed to release both a WM and iOS version.

 

[Sven_Van_de_Velde]

I am a microsoft fan for years...

I bought a Nokia 1520 about 4 years ago, and was completely sold by WP 8.1.

Then, WM10 came, and subscribed to be a windows insider.
I think I have been on the feedback app every day about 10 - 20 minutes on average, searching for info, or just providing feedback in long articles or just drop a short note. Adding pictures on the feedback and commenting on others feedback was no exception. I did all of that with my Nokia 1520, testing WM10... This for about 1,5 years now, if not 2 years ...
So in total I think I spent about 30 days (assuming to be free at least 10 hours a day) in total on the feedback app...

I liked to phone so much, that during December I got it repaired, changing the battery and the USB port (which was broken). It costed me 72€.

Now ...

The news came that Microsoft is letting the Nokia 1520 go... Not more supported. This news comes out of the blue from nowhere. The Nokia 1520 will not receive anymore the creators update... Microsoft tells that in a one liner with "a sorry" saying that the "experience" of Nokia 1520 is not optimal on the creators update. Sorry but this is b***t.
The experience was fine.

It is just competely and utterly crazy what Microsoft is doing. Do they understand how to reach their customers? Do they understand that people are WILLING to buy a mobile phone??? That people are WILLING to spend time and develop apps for it? And that before they take such a decision, that they THINK carefully what DAMAGE such a news brings to loyal Microsoft customers? Not even a warning was given, nothing !!!!

I also own a Lumia 950XL, and was planning to buy another one for my son.
But now after this news, I think Microsoft has lost all credibility for me.
If I would get the chance to ask a few questions to the CEO of Microsoft,
I would ask him the following questions, in a respectful manner:

1. How important is Windows Mobile 10 for microsoft towards the future?
2. What devices can be expected to run WM10 in the future?
3. When is microsoft going to do to win back the trust of their own growing frustrated loyal customers.

On top, Microsoft has then the arrogance to release a media news announcement that Windows 10 was tested by "millions of windows insiders" ... (What are they smoking).

Well, my take on this would be as follows: If microsoft indeed has millions of loyal insiders, what is the problem then releasing a quality new mobile device, that runs WM10, and that would be promoted through the windows insiders popularity?

I think the whole Microsoft company is completely going down. It is completely on the wrong road. They just don't understand that WM10 is the future! Mobile devices are the future!
And they are not a player, and they will never be a player if Microsoft continues like this.

Sven

 

[Drael646464]

Sorry: Why we love the News Pro app for iOS

Did he say he didn't plan to port it? I have no idea, but MS has succeeded in convincing people that porting something like this would take less time than announcing if you plan to port it. And this should be much easier than actually porting an app that was originally developed with nothing but iOS in mind. This was an app that was written by an MS employee who could do everything to minimize the effort needed to release both a WM and iOS version.

IDK, I mean its a MS garage project. I suspect the point of those is more to cultivate developers and developing skills rather than make market defining apps. The bot part is probably written with Microsoft bot framework, and he'll probably write something for windows later. Or maybe they are going to be part of the iOS team.

Hardly seems like a groundbreaking app. I don't miss it. But point taken, it must take _some_ effort_ to covert from ios, and these garage, student types obviously haven't bothered. Or maybe, they are just lazy and can't be arsed. Who actually knows? I didn't get enough info from that article about the programmers to really guess.

The weirder thing is that some apple fan boy is writing about it here. It's not a Microsoft proper, app. If it was it'd be on windows. The audience here isn't really interested in a whole article in one of many app newsreaders. I would never write a whole article of that length about such a simple app.

I mean, whatever, but it's weird.

Although I stand by my point, facebook and Instagram have, and google doesn't have a single credible contribution to windows UWP, and its one of the biggest service platforms in the world. Doesn't really make economic sense. I can guess why that is, and I am sure anyone else also can.

It's part of a pattern of new apple-like anti-competitive and otherwise bad behaviour from google toward customers, such as killing chrome apps on other platforms like OSX and windows (and within the chrome browser), putting pop up ads for chrome on google search and youtube, filling most of the page of google searches with ads first, so the organic searches are basically buried etc etc. They are too big for their boots, and they've stopped caring about users. The pattern of disregard for consumers, and shameless exclusive self-promotion has been ringing loud as a bell to me this last few years.

I think they actually see chromeOS as a genuine competitor to windows. Which is kind of cute.

 

[Shawn Garvey1]

When I switched to Cricket I got a 650 for free. I already had my beloved Nexus 6 and I didn't really warm up to the 650 and the OS right away until I really gave it a shot and saw how well it integrated with my Surface Book. Now, the Nexus belongs to my son and I've got a 950 XL and couldn't be happier. I've used IOS and Android for years, but I'm very happy on W10M. App gap is not an issue for me since at the end of the day I only use a few core, primary apps anyway. News, weather, calendar, to-do's, navigation, music...that's what I use my phone for and that's what I get with W10M; all perfectly integrated with my Surface Book. Plus, the camera is to die for...so what's not to enjoy?

 

[a5cent]

If porting the iOS app is something Instagram and facebook consider worthwhile, you have to admit, the complete absence of google apps, when google used to quite like windows as a platform, does seem like a snub yeah?

I mean, google products are not a third party indie app with virtually no audience. And windows isn't some abandoned platform with no users using uwps. Economically, unless its a mobile specific application like a chat program, it makes perfect sense for big app devs to be in UWP.

Although I stand by my point, facebook and Instagram have, and google doesn't have a single credible contribution to windows UWP, and its one of the biggest service platforms in the world. Doesn't really make economic sense. I can guess why that is, and I am sure anyone else also can.

It's part of a pattern of new apple-like anti-competitive and otherwise bad behaviour from google toward customers

I know you're fully aware of this, but I want to spell it out anyway...

Companies exist to make money and competitors often get in the way of that goal. Google's business plan was, from the outset, specifically designed to compete with MS. Now both companies are direct competitors in most markets in which they participate. That competition has lead both companies to get into each others hair and reduce profitability in each other's primary markets.

That's why Google has a vested and legitimate interest in W10M failing. With the exception of iTunes, Apple is a hardware rather than a software and services company, so Google isn't in competition with Apple to the same degree.

Back when WP had a decent market share in many industrialized European nations, it certainly would have made economic sense for Google to develop apps for WP. You're right about that. The economic benefits just didn't outweigh the strategic drawbacks. Had I been in charge of Google, I also would have avoided developing apps for WP/W10M for as long as I could.

Large corporations don't get personal. That's why I wouldn't call this a snub. It's just business. I wouldn't call this practice anti-competitive either. It's the exact opposite. This is how capitalism and free markets are intended to work.

Unfortunately, companies like Google being reasonably and rationally uncooperative sometimes makes things more difficult for consumers. As in did here for us WP fans.

 

[Drael646464]

I know you're fully aware of this, but I want to spell it out anyway...

Companies exist to make money and competitors often get in the way of that goal. Google's business plan was, from the outset, specifically designed to compete with MS. Now both companies are direct competitors in most markets in which they participate. That competition has lead both companies to get into each others hair and reduce profitability in each other's primary markets.

That's why Google has a vested and legitimate interest in W10M failing. That is just not true for Apple. Back when WP had a decent market share in many industrialized European nations, it certainly would have made economic sense for Google to develop apps for WP. You're right about that. The economic benefits just didn't outweigh the strategic drawbacks. Had I been in charge of Google, I also would have avoided developing apps for W10M for as long as I could.

Large corporations don't get personal. That's why I wouldn't call that a snub. It's just business. I wouldn't call this practice anti-competitive. It's the exact opposite. This is how capitalism is designed to work.

And yet, it was friendly practice that saved apple, and friendly practice that is helping MS, and Samsung. I think in the long run, in tech, with increasing connectivity, actually that form of play might be a death sentence.

Can you imagine a world in which there is say two competitors. They both make fridges, lighting, air con, watches, smart clothes, computers, smart phones - the works. One competitors products all work with the others. The other competitors products only work with their own, as much as possible - the phone does not work with the other companies watch. The first companies products however do accept the others watch. And so on - The whole world is connected - who do you think will win?

Competitive strategies might make sense in a market where it might be reasonable to attain a monopoly, and create every kind of product. In the tech market, at a ubiquitous computing level that becomes more like tangible and functionally deficient tyranny over your loyal consumers.

But in tech, that has just never played out. There has always been multiple players, and people with mixtures of brands. As computing becomes ubiqituous and uber connected, that becomes intensified. Like an 'ecosystem' of brands and operating systems.

This is why I think apple is dooming itself, long term. I think only the systems that play nice will survive.

Even at the current scale - people using googles android will probably encounter and use MS software. Same with iOS. But people using a windows tablet? They won't encounter apple software, or google software. Short term, going "all in' on dominance, such a play might make sense. But even medium term, should you lose tablet marketshare (Samsung for example has lost growth for 12 quarters in tablets), you also might be losing mindshare. So even in the short term its a delicate mix of benefits and losses - yes you might keep people in android OR you might lose customers from your ecosystem.

I don't think we'll ever reach a stage where one company owns all technology The nature of technology is such, that it works a bit like evolution, various strategies and forms playing off against each other - so if in the unlikely event we did ever had that, it would be terrible for advancement and for consumers, and they would naturally drift. Because of that, its kind of weird to play as if one can 'win it all', like apple and now google do.

Look at facebook. The moment they get ontop, their platform degrades in terms of consumer experience. Then they have to buy out Instagram cause that's rising. Now theirs snapchat. When companies treat their consumers like cattle, eventually the cattle start to feel like a wandering. Which is why young companies have such generous service mentalities, always attracting new consumers.

Weird little cycle actually, but somehow I thought google was different. I thought they were smart enough to keep their young company attitude. Silly of me really, they have shareholders. Shareholders don't know how to lead, or have vision, only react.

 

[a5cent]

And yet, it was friendly practice that saved apple, and friendly practice that is helping MS, and Samsung. I think in the long run, in tech, with increasing connectivity, actually that form of play might be a death sentence.

Can you imagine a world in which there is say two competitors. They both make fridges, lighting, air con, watches, smart clothes, computers, smart phones - the works. One competitors products all work with the others. The other competitors products only work with their own, as much as possible - the phone does not work with the other companies watch. The first companies products however do accept the others watch. And so on - The whole world is connected - who do you think will win?

Competitive strategies might make sense in a market where it might be reasonable to attain a monopoly, and create every kind of product. In the tech market, at a ubiquitous computing level that becomes more like tangible and functionally deficient tyranny over your loyal consumers.

This is why I think apple is dooming itself, long term.

It depends on the circumstances.

MS and Samsung aren't competitors. It makes a lot of sense for them to work together. This is one of the reasons many MS execs were opposed to purchasing Nokia. That move put them in competition with a lot of companies MS wanted to partner with. You can't be both partner and competitor at the same time.

ChromeOS, Google Docs and Android are direct threats to MS' primary sources of income. Bing is also somewhat of a threat to Google's primary source of income. You can't partner with and strengthen a company that is in direct competition with yourself. That would be irresponsible towards your own corporate investors.

 

[Drael646464]

It depends on the circumstances.

MS and Samsung aren't competitors. It makes a lot of sense for them to work together. This is one of the reasons many MS execs were opposed to purchasing Nokia. That move put them in competition with a lot of companies MS wanted to partner with. You can't be both partner and competitor at the same time.

ChromeOS, Google Docs and Android are direct threats to MS' primary sources of income. Bing is also somewhat of a threat to Google's primary source of income. You can't partner with and strengthen a company that is in direct competition with yourself. That would be irresponsible towards your own corporate investors.

Yes, and I get that shareholders think like this. They are conservative, even paranoic at times. They are the opposite of the born risk takers and visionaries who create global companies, the people who sort of thrive, on the edge.

But your google docs, gmail, google search, google+, google photos, google maps would be more competitive if they existed as windows UWPs, even if that also opens the threat of migration. Short term, as I said, its sort of a two edged sword either way. Long or medium term it could be quite disadvantageous to build walls rather than bridges. Or not, but its not clearly, 100%, good or bad, actually.

I guess it depends on how things play out. This is where the start-up creator thrives, and the shareholder gets weak knees - uncertainty.

Honestly I don't see, say google maps existing as a UWP, driving google consumers to windows, more than drawing windows consumers into google services. I think, pragmatically, it would be more likely to have a net positive effect. It's certainly not going to be the saviour of windows phone!

I guess, evolutionarily speaking, its sort of the "perception of threat". Yes, MS is a threat to google, BUT is that the WAY that they are a threat?

I don't think it is, I don't think its via windows 10 mobile, or that google UWPs will be the breaking point for windows tablets which are already growing on their own. After all windows is hardly going to encourage use of such apps either.

And that last problem - that's a problem that would require a very advanced defense (tablets), a much better one than denying UWPs. Like creating a competing hybrid platform capable of power software (not exactly an easy ask), rather than the UI and software model that works so well for phones. Could they do that? Yes. There is no sign at all they are trying however as yet.

So perhaps they simply do this, because there is nothing else they CAN do, like the sailor throwing a pinch of salt over their shoulder at sea. Contented king, paranoically wondering who may dethrone him.

But I can't honestly see google UWPs having any major effect on windows mobile device sales. MS can do that all on their own, or they can fail on their own.

 

[mattiasnyc]

I am a microsoft fan for years...

I bought a Nokia 1520 about 4 years ago, and was completely sold by WP 8.1.

The news came that Microsoft is letting the Nokia 1520 go... Not more supported. This news comes out of the blue from nowhere. The Nokia 1520 will not receive anymore the creators update... Microsoft tells that in a one liner with "a sorry" saying that the "experience" of Nokia 1520 is not optimal on the creators update. Sorry but this is b***t.
The experience was fine.

Ok, but you had a working phone for four years receiving X-2 updates more than I ever did on my LG G2X Android phone until the thing essentially stopped working after about the same amount of time. And I'm reading into your reply that your phone will continue to work just fine with Windows 10 Mobile, just without future updates.

I mean, just what are you expecting here? That MS will support the phone for eternity? It's a company that has to make money just like the others and at some point it makes less sense to guarantee functionality on an old device.

I think the whole Microsoft company is completely going down. It is completely on the wrong road. They just don't understand that WM10 is the future! Mobile devices are the future!
And they are not a player, and they will never be a player if Microsoft continues like this.

Sven

Sounds like nothing I've seen from from the statements from Microsoft employees though.

 

[andrew-in-woking]

It depends on the circumstances.

MS and Samsung aren't competitors. It makes a lot of sense for them to work together. This is one of the reasons many MS execs were opposed to purchasing Nokia. That move put them in competition with a lot of companies MS wanted to partner with. You can't be both partner and competitor at the same time.

ChromeOS, Google Docs and Android are direct threats to MS' primary sources of income. Bing is also somewhat of a threat to Google's primary source of income. You can't partner with and strengthen a company that is in direct competition with yourself. That would be irresponsible towards your own corporate investors.

There are times when you cooperate with your competitors. It is called co-opetition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coopetition

 

[andrew-in-woking]

Yes, and I get that shareholders think like this. They are conservative, even paranoic at times. They are the opposite of the born risk takers and visionaries who create global companies, the people who sort of thrive, on the edge.

But your google docs, gmail, google search, google+, google photos, google maps would be more competitive if they existed as windows UWPs, even if that also opens the threat of migration. Short term, as I said, its sort of a two edged sword either way. Long or medium term it could be quite disadvantageous to build walls rather than bridges. Or not, but its not clearly, 100%, good or bad, actually.

I guess it depends on how things play out. This is where the start-up creator thrives, and the shareholder gets weak knees - uncertainty.

Honestly I don't see, say google maps existing as a UWP, driving google consumers to windows, more than drawing windows consumers into google services. I think, pragmatically, it would be more likely to have a net positive effect. It's certainly not going to be the saviour of windows phone!

I guess, evolutionarily speaking, its sort of the "perception of threat". Yes, MS is a threat to google, BUT is that the WAY that they are a threat?

I don't think it is, I don't think its via windows 10 mobile, or that google UWPs will be the breaking point for windows tablets which are already growing on their own. After all windows is hardly going to encourage use of such apps either.

And that last problem - that's a problem that would require a very advanced defense (tablets), a much better one than denying UWPs. Like creating a competing hybrid platform capable of power software (not exactly an easy ask), rather than the UI and software model that works so well for phones. Could they do that? Yes. There is no sign at all they are trying however as yet.

So perhaps they simply do this, because there is nothing else they CAN do, like the sailor throwing a pinch of salt over their shoulder at sea. Contented king, paranoically wondering who may dethrone him.

But I can't honestly see google UWPs having any major effect on windows mobile device sales. MS can do that all on their own, or they can fail on their own.

It is commonly recognised that network effects are one of the most powerful forces that keep market leaders incumbent.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect

This is the primary strategy for most technology companies. The aim is to lock users into their ecosystem so that the cost of switching to another product, or platform in this case, is so high users would rather stay with the platform they are using, even if they have some problems with it. Microsoft achieved this with Windows and Google with Android. The lack of google apps on Windows Phone/Mobile is not the equivalent of Microsoft apps on Android, it is the equivalent of Win 32 apps running on another operating system.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Ok, but you had a working phone for four years receiving X-2 updates more than I ever did on my LG G2X Android phone until the thing essentially stopped working after about the same amount of time. And I'm reading into your reply that your phone will continue to work just fine with Windows 10 Mobile, just without future updates.

I mean, just what are you expecting here? That MS will support the phone for eternity? It's a company that has to make money just like the others and at some point it makes less sense to guarantee functionality on an old device.

The fact that Android owners have low expectations is not relevant. But it is stunning to hear any consumer say its a good thing for any products to have an arbitrarily imposed shorter lifespan.

And I don't see anyone asking or expecting Microsoft to support the phone forever or even 1 day past whatever was promised the day it was built.

The Insider program does not promise that a user will have acceptable results on even brand new phones. It's use at your own risk.

The L1520 owners aren't asking MS to do anything but let them to continue downloading new releases via the insider program until the phone owners no longer want to assume the risks or don't like the results.

 

[Luis Carlos Ruiz Paternina]

I am feeling better now. Just got my new Oneplus 3T midnight in the mail. I am keeping my Lumia 650 only. I am curious to see what MS is planning to do to make this mess right.

 

[Luuthian]

It's funny reading several of the comments here as it seems like a large portion of the blame doesn't just rest on MS but Google for the current state of Windows Phone. In a lot of ways I can see that... Considering Google maps was in the top ten most downloaded apps for the 1st quarter of 2017 in the App Store, that kind of says it all. People don't just want certain Google apps, they practically depend on them.

I just don't know who shoulders more responsibility here. Did MS themselves dislike the thought of Google's presence in their app store, competing with them? Or Did Google dislike it? Was it ever about the time and resources not being worth it as Google always claimed? or was it a bit of hostility from both from both ends?

Either way I know this was personally one of the major reasons why I pushed myself away from Windows Phones over time. I like certain MS services but Gmail and Google maps are simply to important for me to walk away. Not having a native app made life more difficult than it needed to be. I know we tlak about the app gap all the time but I'd be curious to know if the lack of some very, very specific apps in particular is what soured the opinion of the phone for some people. not just MS' handling of the devices.

 

[a5cent]

There are times when you cooperate with your competitors. It is called co-opetition.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coopetition

Of course. There are always exceptions to every business rule. That's just far less common. More often than not it's also detrimental to consumer's interests.

I just don't know who shoulders more responsibility here. Did MS themselves dislike the thought of Google's presence in their app store, competing with them? Or Did Google dislike it? Was it ever about the time and resources not being worth it as Google always claimed?

This was all Google. MS absolutely wanted Google's apps in their store. At one point MS even took it upon themselves to develop Google's apps for Google. I think they took three stabs at an official YouTube app, but every time they had one, Google changed the conditions under which they would have allowed publication. It was never about the resources. For Google, the costs of developing an app are laughable, not to mention that 3% market share would easily have made it financially worthwhile. Quick monetary reward just wasn't Google's highest priority.

Honestly I don't see, say google maps existing as a UWP, driving google consumers to windows, more than drawing windows consumers into google services. I think, pragmatically, it would be more likely to have a net positive effect. It's certainly not going to be the saviour of windows phone!

<snipped>

But I can't honestly see google UWPs having any major effect on windows mobile device sales. MS can do that all on their own, or they can fail on their own.

I can't think of anything that would reestablish W10M as a smartphone OS now. Back in 2012 however, having Google's services available on WP would have made a huge difference. I don't know that W10M would be in a better position today. At least MS would have had a better shot at it though. Why would Google want to prevent widescale adoption of WP? Because it's well understood that the average consumer will use the apps that come with the phone. If it has a built in maps and GPS app, that is what most people will use. If it has a built in browser, that is what most people will use (including the default search engine). If it has a built in email client, that is what most people will use. If it has a built in Store, that is what people will use (giving the Store owner a 30% cut of all app sales). People using those apps on W10M rather than Android is the exact opposite of what Google wants.

I'm pretty confident that Google execs knew what they were doing when they decided to not support WP until they absolutely had to. By not supporting WP, Google played a notable role in discouraging WP's adoption. It's not the nicest thing to do, but it has certainly payed off for them in the end. It at least helped remove a potential competitor from the market. Entirely. Considering the outcome from a business standpoint, it's hard to argue that Google's approach was bad.

 

[mattiasnyc]

I can't think of anything that would reestablish W10M as a smartphone OS now.

Well for the future I can still see UWP becoming relevant. Couple that with a redefinition of what mobile is from MS' perspective and I think it can still get there.

Basically I think it depends on everything else that MS is creating. If I'm investing in a W10 desktop workstation (and I will, pretty soon probably), I will have a W10 desktop, laptop and phone. As apps roll out on UWP I will begin using them instead of desktop apps, when appropriate. Now, I can see how a different user at some point might actually reconsider getting a small form factor mobile device running some flavor of Windows if they already are in the same position as me, except for having an iOS or Android phone.

Because after all, if you're already using apps and services by MS, and if there's a good alternative that gives you a better integration - or maybe an extension of the Windows experience - would it not seem reasonable to invest in it.

So I think it'll come down to a battle between who can first create a fluid experience between different form factors while offering relevant apps on all of those form factors. MS was arguably first with Continuum, Google is solidly gaining ground by virtue of market share when giving Android a similar functionality, and Apple seems way behind here. But Microsoft's advantage could be that there are so many corporations and individuals that already use a bunch of their apps that it makes more sense to switch a small form factor device rather than the opposite.... so to speak...