Windows phone 8.1 is way better than iOS 8

[spaulagain]

Except that two people will have wildly difference user experiences based on how they use devices. Some people found the shut down on Windows 8 easily and others didn't. Some found Spotlight without having to be told where it was on iOS. So, np, there isn't a tried and true set of things that comprise a "good UX" and a "bad UX". There are some general things that a lot of people like.

And I don't see a single thing in Android 4.4 that constitutes a bad User Experience from MY experience.

Why? Because of the way I use my device. UX is a personal, ergo subjective, thing.

Yes, it has subjective elements because UX depends on the individuals user flow. But there are patterns and common practices that lead to good or bad user experiences.

Like I said, Google has spent the past year slowing down and cleaning house. 4.4 is far more polished than previous versions. But on overall UX, WP and iOS are far more polished than Android.

 

[Michael Alan Goff]

Yes, it has subjective elements because UX depends on the individuals user flow. But there are patterns and common practices that lead to good or bad user experiences.

Like I said, Google has spent the past year slowing down and cleaning house. 4.4 is far more polished than previous versions. But on overall UX, WP and iOS are far more polished than Android.

Then educate me.

How is my UX lessened when I use Android 4.4 as opposed to iOS 7 or WP 8.1?

 

[spaulagain]

And yet Android outsells WP 20 to 1. Amazing, with such a poor user experience!

You know UX isn't the only factor in a successful product. So don't kid yourself. Android became successful because at the time it was the only alternative to iPhone and it was extremely cheap. And even then it took a more focused Droid product to appeal users.

It's the most used OS because...

1. OEMs love it because they can **** with it as much as they want.
2. Carriers love it because of the same reasons noted above^
3. When it was the cheap alternative, it flooded the market and reached a saturation foothold.
4. Its loaded with 3rd party apps/support
5. Sales clerks push the hell out of it because that's where they make the most money. And lets face it, the average cell phone buyer will believe anything they tell them.

 

[tgp]

You know UX isn't the only factor in a successful product. So don't kid yourself. Android became successful because at the time it was the only alternative to iPhone and it was extremely cheap. And even then it took a more focused Droid product to appeal users.

It's the most used OS because...

1. OEMs love it because they can **** with it as much as they want.
2. Carriers love it because of the same reasons noted above^
3. When it was the cheap alternative, it flooded the market and reached a saturation foothold.
4. Its loaded with 3rd party apps/support
5. Sales clerks push the hell out of it because that's where they make the most money. And lets face it, the average cell phone buyer will believe anything they tell them.

So, good experience or not, Android is doing it right. WP, with its good user experience, is hardly more than a failure so far. At least if Android was taking off like WP is currently, you'd certainly call it a failure!

 

[spaulagain]

So, good experience or not, Android is doing it right. WP, with its good user experience, is hardly more than a failure so far. At least if Android was taking off like WP is currently, you'd certainly call it a failure!

I haven't called any OS a failure. Even OSX isn't a failure.

Google has been polishing the Android UX ever since Kit Kat because they knew it was bad. So the edge WP and iOS have in that regard is quickly disappearing. And in the end it will just be the style or patterns people prefer. But anyone who denies Androids' history of poor user experience is fooling themselves. Windows Mobile was a horrible user experience too. It had loads of features but was never optimized for touch and shared the same clusterfvck UI style that Android had.

WP could suck your **** and it would still struggle to gain market share because iOS and Android got the saturation much earlier. In many ways Google+ is a better tool and user experience and yet it can't get close to Facebook's market share. User saturation is a huge factor in these types of products. Windows has a pretty tarnished reputation and honestly, its UX has never been amazing. But again, its user saturation (and familiarity) has kept its market share over 90%.

 

[fardream]

The OP made a (too) strong statement. I have an iphone for work, and a Lumia1020 as my own phone. I do prefer the 1020, I love it in fact, and I won't quit WP8 as it's my prefered (alive) smartphone OS.

But. A colleague has a 1520 as his personal phone and he prefers the iphone for productivity! Why? At work, we use office365 and he can't sync outlook notes (not OneNote) on his Lumia, he can't attach a file when responding to an email, etc.

Sorry, but on these points, he's right and it's difficult to say that WP8.1 is way better than iOS when basic features are missing; specially coming from Microsoft, who has a real legitimity in terms of Office/Productivity.

I had him recognise the keyboard was way better on WP8 than iOS though h?h?

It's sad when Nokia or MSFT touting enterprise features when they cannot even attach a document to email..... Very annoying.

 

[fardream]

User experience is far from "purely opinion." There are subjective elements, but as a whole UX is not just whimsical opinions.

What you're referring to is features. Usability is a measure of the user experience (and UI) that includes features but is not limited to them. You can have 100,000 features, but if the user can't figure out how to use them, then they're no good. Hence poor usability.

Android is the king of feature creep. It's loaded with features and various concepts. But as whole, it's a cluster**** of different UIs fragmented by OEM customizations and/or horrible upgrade lifespans. Why do you think Google has been intentionally slowing it down and refactoring the OS. Because they know it's a BAD experience and they need to clean house. I've used multiple Android devices and all of the above made me want to throw the device across the room they were so unbearably bad.

The problem is that Usability is subjective term, and feature is an yes-or-no question - cannot attach document to email? Pass. Don't support EAS policy? Pass. Don't support a specific WiFi protocol? Pass.
When you are on a road and a client is asking you to send a document, you cannot say "hi my phone is awesome but it does't support my company's email and even if it did, it cannot send a document as attachment". And you cannot go to your IT and ask them to change the whole WiFi infrastructure because your phone doesn't work, or ask your security department to change EAS policy because your phone doesn't implement it.
Arguing usability without a comparable feature set is useless exercise.

 

[blehblehbleh]

You make valid points. However a mobile OS should be well thought out. A mobile OS is entirely different from a desktop.

No one would use Apple if they dumped Iphone OS in favor of iOS and broke compatibility with everything.

Same with Android. No one would use Android if Gingerbread broke everything from Donut.

I hope you understand what I'm saying.

For goodness sake before the iphone there was no such thing as scrolling. On PPCs we had to tap tap tap.

Actually I kind of don't know what you're saying as I don't know how this relates back to SWW's original comparison of Windows Phone being a young OS.

In relation to this statement I suppose that holds true for WebOS when it "broke" what PalmOS did huh?

 

[ohgood]

User experience is far from "purely opinion." There are subjective elements, but as a whole UX is not just whimsical opinions.

What you're referring to is features. Usability is a measure of the user experience (and UI) that includes features but is not limited to them. You can have 100,000 features, but if the user can't figure out how to use them, then they're no good. Hence poor usability.

Android is the king of feature creep. It's loaded with features and various concepts. But as whole, it's a cluster**** of different UIs fragmented by OEM customizations and/or horrible upgrade lifespans. Why do you think Google has been intentionally slowing it down and refactoring the OS. Because they know it's a BAD experience and they need to clean house. I've used multiple Android devices and all of the above made me want to throw the device across the room they were so unbearably bad.

the first part about feature creep vs usability- windows 8 is a good example of needing a replacement



the second part about OEM messing up a good thing- replacing OEM mess with vanilla android



less desktop and phone throwing with better software

 

[iXesh]

According to current situation,
I think android would be disappeared from the world after 30 years.
Due to the innovative thinking of iOS and Windows
Don't take it seriously Android fans...

 

[Chregu]

According to current situation,
I think android would be disappeared from the world after 30 years.
Due to the innovative thinking of iOS and Windows
Don't take it seriously Android fans...

30 years? Think about what we had in 84, I think predictions that far out are a little risky ;-)

 

[FinancialP]

Actually I kind of don't know what you're saying as I don't know how this relates back to SWW's original comparison of Windows Phone being a young OS.

In relation to this statement I suppose that holds true for WebOS when it "broke" what PalmOS did huh?

It relates to planning ahead. Which Apple and Google have done.

You know UX isn't the only factor in a successful product. So don't kid yourself. Android became successful because at the time it was the only alternative to iPhone and it was extremely cheap. And even then it took a more focused Droid product to appeal users.

It's the most used OS because...

1. OEMs love it because they can **** with it as much as they want.
2. Carriers love it because of the same reasons noted above^
3. When it was the cheap alternative, it flooded the market and reached a saturation foothold.
4. Its loaded with 3rd party apps/support
5. Sales clerks push the hell out of it because that's where they make the most money. And lets face it, the average cell phone buyer will believe anything they tell them.

You forgot about Windows Mobile and then proceeded to describe Windows Mobile with you points lol.

All 1-5. People forget Windows Mobile had the market share. HTC and Samsung really blew up with Windows Mobile.

WP could suck your **** and it would still struggle to gain market share because iOS and Android got the saturation much earlier.

Ugh no. Microsoft had the market cornered before Apple and Google.

 

[blehblehbleh]

It relates to planning ahead. Which Apple and Google have done.

I see, that's a bit round about way to reply. But on that subject I really don't think you can include Windows Mobile because that was effectively a different paradigm of mobile OS. It wasn't until Apple made it accessible and average consumers (not tech consumers) voted with their wallets for the current paradigm. What MS offered at the time, if I'm not mistaken, was in essence desktop Windows on a mobile device to get business work done. There was no commercialization of the platform as their is now where you have tons of games and generic apps. And the look was completely different with the pull up start menu.

So yeah Windows Phone is a young OS because it fits in this generation and expectation of how a mobile OS should operate, look, and what features it should offer. To say there's a misstep in planning for Windows Phone because of Windows Mobile I believe is in error. Now you could accurately say that for WP7 to 8 though.

 

[FinancialP]

I see, that's a bit round about way to reply. But on that subject I really don't think you can include Windows Mobile because that was effectively a different paradigm of mobile OS. It wasn't until Apple made it accessible and average consumers (not tech consumers) voted with their wallets for the current paradigm. What MS offered at the time, if I'm not mistaken, was in essence desktop Windows on a mobile device to get business work done. There was no commercialization of the platform as their is now where you have tons of games and generic apps. And the look was completely different with the pull up start menu.

So yeah Windows Phone is a young OS because it fits in this generation and expectation of how a mobile OS should operate, look, and what features it should offer. To say there's a misstep in planning for Windows Phone because of Windows Mobile I believe is in error. Now you could accurately say that for WP7 to 8 though.

Yeah. Just like I stated in my earlier post of this thread. People want to sweep Windows Mobile under the rug because it doesn't fit the argument. So let's pretend it didn't exist. Let's not include it.

Sadly those of us that were around can't do that.

No logical person will say Windows Phone is Microsoft's first pony in the rodeo.

 

[naplesbill]

Yeah. Just like I stated in my earlier post of this thread. People want to sweep Windows Mobile under the rug because it doesn't fit the argument. So let's pretend it didn't exist. Let's not include it.

Sadly those of us that were around can't do that.

No logical person will say Windows Phone is Microsoft's first pony in the rodeo.

Truthfully, the original Windows Mobile was not created or designed with finger based touch in mind. The navigation was intended to be wheel or d-pad based. The touch capability was more for pen input than anything else. Microsoft tried to improve it at the end of its life but it was lipstick on a pig.

In this regard, Windows Phone 7 was Microsoft's first finger based touch interface design on a mobile device. What do Windows Mobile and Windows Phone even have in common? They are different enough to say that Windows Phone in its current version only relates back to Windows Phone 7. Windows Phone 8 even has an entirely different kernel base. Windows Mobile was CE based but so was Windows Phone 7. However 7&8 have a like enough interface to say they are evolutions of each other. That is not true for either of them in relation to Windows Mobile.

Is iOS the same as the Newton OS since that was Apples first attempt at handheld computing? That would make iOS much more mature as well.

 

[FinancialP]

Truthfully, the original Windows Mobile was not created or designed with finger based touch in mind. The navigation was intended to be wheel or d-pad based. The touch capability was more for pen input than anything else. Microsoft tried to improve it at the end of its life but it was lipstick on a pig.

In this regard, Windows Phone 7 was Microsoft's first finger based touch interface design on a mobile device. What do Windows Mobile and Windows Phone even have in common? They are different enough to say that Windows Phone in its current version only relates back to Windows Phone 7. Windows Phone 8 even has an entirely different kernel base. Windows Mobile was CE based but so was Windows Phone 7. However 7&8 have a like enough interface to say they are evolutions of each other. That is not true for either of them in relation to Windows Mobile.

Is iOS the same as the Newton OS since that was Apples first attempt at handheld computing? That would make iOS much more mature as well.

Thanks for the Wikipedia update.

Newton can't even be compared to ios nice try tho.

My point is Microsoft isn't new to the Marketplace. They have been here, they owned it. They just let it go as it wasn't the bread winner.

Windows 6.5.x was actually Microsoft first attempt at a finger based UI.

It was honeycomb and then this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFjPVpyGvsk&sns=em

Microsoft was doing this, meanwhile companies like HTC and Samsung was taking in millions off of Windows Mobile.

HTC would be nothing without Microsoft. Remember Audiovox?

Windows Phone 7 was actually the lip stick on the pig. As it was the same kernel from windows mobile. Again poor planning by Microsoft.

 

[naplesbill]

Thanks for the Wikipedia update.

Newton can't even be compared to ios nice try tho.

My point is Microsoft isn't new to the Marketplace. They have been here, they owned it. They just let it go as it wasn't the bread winner.

Windows 6.5.x was actually Microsoft first attempt at a finger based UI.

It was honeycomb and then this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFjPVpyGvsk&sns=em

Microsoft was doing this, meanwhile companies like HTC and Samsung was taking in millions off of Windows Mobile.

HTC would be nothing without Microsoft. Remember Audiovox?

Windows Phone 7 was actually the lip stick on the pig. As it was the same kernel from windows mobile. Again poor planning by Microsoft.

Those are just your opinions so ridiculing others and restating what you have already said is not going to make your point any clearer.

Newton was Apple's first attempt at a handheld OS in the same way Windows Mobile was Microsoft's first attempt at a handheld OS. Windows Mobile was not created from scratch for a phone. It was adapted from Windows CE devices that tried to add cellular capability. Window Phone 6.5 was lipstick on a pig because nothing was fundamentally changed to accommodate finger input. It was simply a case of adding a few touch improvements over the same outdated core.

Windows Phone 7 was a complete departure from the previous Windows Phone 6.5 kludge.

This is not coming from Wikipedia it is from having owned all these devices when they were released. I have also had every iteration of Palm devices until they went to Web OS. You may as well throw Blackberry in the mix too.

I am not the guy you want to call out on mobile device history. Only the biggest of fanboys would call Windows Phone 6.5 anything other than a placeholder and lipstick on a pig. It was created as a stop gap measure to give time to finish Windows Phone 7. You can call Windows Phone 7 lipstick on a pig if you want, but it doesn't meet the criteria. It would still have to look like the pig you claim it was trying to cover. Since it doesn't look anything like any previous Windows CE device the analogy fails.

 

[FinancialP]

Those are just your opinions so ridiculing others and restating what you have already said is not going to make your point any clearer.

Newton was Apple's first attempt at a handheld OS in the same way Windows Mobile was Microsoft's first attempt at a handheld OS. Windows Mobile was not created from scratch for a phone. It was adapted from Windows CE devices that tried to add cellular capability. Window Phone 6.5 was lipstick on a pig because nothing was fundamentally changed to accommodate finger input. It was simply a case of adding a few touch improvements over the same outdated core.

Windows Phone 7 was a complete departure from the previous Windows Phone 6.5 kludge.

This is not coming from Wikipedia it is from having owned all these devices when they were released. I have also had every iteration of Palm devices until they went to Web OS. You may as well throw Blackberry in the mix too.

I am not the guy you want to call out on mobile device history. Only the biggest of fanboys would call Windows Phone 6.5 anything other than a placeholder and lipstick on a pig. It was created as a stop gap measure to give time to finish Windows Phone 7. You can call Windows Phone 7 lipstick on a pig if you want, but it doesn't meet the criteria. It would still have to look like the pig you claim it was trying to cover. Since it doesn't look anything like any previous Windows CE device the analogy fails.

The kernel was the same buddy. Windows Phone 7 was still using Windows Mobile tech. Poor planning as I have already stated.

We were in a uproar after finding out that our devices wouldn't get the Windows Phone 7 update.

I haven't ridiculed anyone I can't help it that you took it that way.

Windows Mobile 6.1-windows phone 7 were the actual place holders.

Everything is opinions by the way.

 

[spaulagain]

The kernel was the same buddy. Windows Phone 7 was still using Windows Mobile tech. Poor planning as I have already stated.

We were in a uproar after finding out that our devices wouldn't get the Windows Phone 7 update.

I haven't ridiculed anyone I can't help it that you took it that way.

Windows Mobile 6.1-windows phone 7 were the actual place holders.

Everything is opinions by the way.

WP7 was on the same kernel because Microsoft's new Windows Kernel hadn't been released yet. Especially not in time for them to build WP7 on it. But if they had waited for the new kernel, they would have lost at least a year, if not 2 I'm getting to the market with a good, touch friendly competitor to iOS and Android. People were already complaining MS was too late to the market, you think they should have delayed it more? There plan was to get something to the market and go from there. While WP7s lack of upgrade path was unfortunate, it was far from the end of the world.

I'm not sure what your infatuation with Windows Mobile. For the niche market it held, it was a cool OS. But it was never even close to being marketable to the masses like iOS and Android were. So yes, MS dumped it.

I really don't get the point you're trying to make. From the sounds like you're trying to be a sideline quarterback. MS made the decisions they made for their own reasons. Its easy as a consumer to judge with hindsight, but you don't know the discussions and planning that has gone on at MS. Maybe they knew factors you don't.

 

[spaulagain]

All 1-5. People forget Windows Mobile had the market share. HTC and Samsung really blew up with Windows Mobile.

Ugh no. Microsoft had the market cornered before Apple and Google.

Dude, you really think Microsoft owned the market with Windows Mobile? I think you're delusional. Sure, they might have owned the pocket PC market share. Which was a very niche market in the cell phone market. Having 100% of 1% is not having the market cornered.

Apple, followed by Android, brought pocket PCs or "smartphones" to the masses. They essentially converted what was a much larger part of the cell phone market (flip/feature phones) into smartphone users. Therefore, they owned the market earlier.

99.99999% of people have no fvcking clue what Windows Mobile is or ever was.