Is it possible that Microsoft deliberately holds on all well-known flaws?
- Thread starter aprilcy
- Start date
johninsj
New member
Just want to point out the early days of the iPhone, the one that came out without 3G in 2007, there was no app store. No cut and paste. No SDK. No developers. It took a year to get an SDK and um nearly two years and two full OS revs to get cut and paste into iOS
iOS Version History: A Visual Timeline | Visual.ly
Let's not forget that just because you're behind doesn't mean you can code awesome faster.
+1
Great post. I think most people who complain about the lack of this or that and why can't MS fix this quickly don't work in any environment that sells products...no offense to anyone but it's quite obvious.
On top of that, MS is a massive organization where I'm sure to get the smallest thing accomplished they have to have multiple meetings to see if it fits in with the current pipeline and if it will delay existing roadmaps....Google doesn't fix things that quickly either....MS is just behind as they started later and then they rebooted once again with WP8.
On top of that, it seems MS is melding WP8, Windows 8, Xbox, etc... all into the same pot....making some changes right now might not make sense if these are going to be addressed anyway in a future update as a result of windows blue...
Who knows....
Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that MS is behind in some areas of the WP8 OS...certainly the whole experience is better than the competitors for me but I do agree that some things need to be fixed (volume control for example...).
They released a completely new kernel in an insanely quick period of time...
I don't think they are slow at all in the big picture but many of you are speaking about tiny feature lists which they do take too long to implement.
Creating a massive app store that no one had even done before is 10000x more difficult than fixing small holes that others already fixed. To be honest, if it was Ballmer not Jobs created the idea for cellphone app store, the idea would be forgotten in backyard now.
And I agree with somebody in another post, "compare current to current". Fanboys can always find excuses but market don't.
a5cent
New member
You can't honestly believe, that WP management sits around, plotting how to be as slow as humanly possible, right? Do you think MS feels, that could they only be somewhat slower, then they would finally surpass Samsung and Apple in market share? Of course not! That is ridiculous! That is not their strategy.
I think you are confusing "strategy" with "execution".
MS has a three pronged strategy. One of them has led MS to unify their API's across smartphones, tablets and PCs as much as reasonably possible, which is still an ongoing effort. Understandably, most end users can neither imagine the work load involved in such an undertaking, nor can they appreciate the results. Ultimately, this is a feature that targets devs, not end users. However, just because end users aren't able to recognize progress, doesn't mean no progress is being made!
Unifying API's across all three screens represents a critical step in realizing MS' long term strategic goals. I think this was the right move to make, which is why I say "the strategy is sound". I say so, despite MS having to sacrifice most of WP8's end user focused features.
End users will be the focus of the updates currently coming down the pipeline... except possibly "blue", which sounds more developer focused every time I hear about it (speculation).
This maybe true if Microsoft didn't come out and said wp8 was already in work even before wp7 was released. I just think the people who whines here are mostly the one who really wants wp8 to do great in the market and wishes for its improvement can turn things around, but the slow development and situation like with Skype really are testing users patience...
a5cent
New member
Microsoft's Windows on ARM project existed long before WP7 was released. That is true. That project provided parts of the foundation for WP8 as well as W8RT. However, having the Windows kernel running on ARM is still a million miles away from having a working smartphone. Lipper2000's statement is true, despite the fact that Microsoft was working on parts of WP8 before WP7 was released.
Those basic features aren't low on Microsoft's list. They are just prioritized lower than other work Microsoft had to do first! It has already been explained. I'll try to explain it in simpler terms:
You need to lay a foundation (the OS) before you can build a house (the apps and features that are based on and shipped with the OS, like calendar, messenger, lock/volume/notification centre etc.).
For WP8, Microsoft built an entirely new and expansive foundation. They then proceeded to build a WP8 house on top of it, which very closely resembled the previous WP7 house. Since you live inside the WP8 house (and never see the foundation), you notice little difference. Over time, Microsoft intends to extend your WP8 house and eventually replace it with a skyscraper, which the older foundation couldn't have supported.
Unfortunately, laying that foundation was extremely labour intensive. Microsoft had to go into "crunch mode", just to get your WP8 house into an inhabitable state before you moved in. Ultimately, some parts were rushed, and it shows. Your new WP8 house doesn't offer much over your previous WP7 house. Some aspects are actually worse.
You are now frustrated, because you wanted your house extensions sooner rather than later! However, that doesn't necessarily mean Microsoft did a terrible job. Microsoft's biggest task was laying that new foundation, but a concrete foundations curing process can only be accelerated up to a certain point. The same applies to software development, and operating systems in particular, because development teams aren't infinitely scalable. At some point, adding more manpower or throwing more money at the problem starts offering ever diminishing returns, to the point where it can become detrimental. I've seen more than one software development project, where the project manager's gut reaction to schedule overruns was to add more personnel, which often initiates a vicious cycle of more overruns and more personnel which almost always ends in project cancellation. Considering the complexity of operating systems, Microsoft really did do rather well.
Unfortunately, doing well doesn't always translate into happy customers. Most people couldn't care less about how difficult it was to build their home's foundation. Peoples patience is wearing thin. On the bright side, Microsoft plans to deliver four updates in just over a year. I take that to mean, that Microsoft realizes they need to deliver a lot in short order.
Microsoft handled WP8 as well as anyone else could have, or better. Microsoft's big mistake happened years ago, which was not having the Windows ARM kernel ready in time for WP7. Everyone's frustrations with WP8 are just a consequence of that single but huge fail.
P.S. to anyone that is tempted to twist this construction analogy, as to suggest a different outcome for WP were possible: don't do it. It's a stupid tactic and just wastes time, as construction and software development are actually very different.
Last edited:
Your explanation totally makes sense from a "software developing" point of view, but does it if you look at it from a market perspective?
Leaving the customers unhappy until you build solid foundations may just lead to customers migrating to other ecosystems, developing disaffection for your brand and thus not being willing to come back.
MS has two tasks to accomplish at the same time: building a solid OS and ecosystem and convincing people it's the right ecosystem to use.
So far, they may be doing great on the first task, if you see it on a longer perspective, but seems to me that they are doing very bad on the second point, looking at the market share. At this pace, when the "WP8 Skyscraper" will be ready, the market share will still be at 5% with the remaining 95% of folks (including those in developing countries) happily using their lag-free Android and their iPhone "cheap edition".
Looking at MS as a whole company, I would ask myself how important is for them to be actively present in the phone ecosystem, and my answer is: enormously important, for a long list of reasons.
Given that, my answer is that they have to invest more to keep the customers happy, even if this means throwing away money in features that will be obsolete in 9 months.
rockstarzzz
New member
OMFreakingGlue!
Guys, has it occurred to any of you talking about slow progress, that Microsoft has freaking put a whole Windows PC in your phone this time, for real?
It's Windows running on ARM. That in itself is a major progress. If you are failing to see how this will be a long term win for Microsoft, you are just an ordinary consumer Microsoft doesn't really think will notice the difference. Their three screen vision is nicely set and just needs proper execution which will need time.
Google or Apple, hasn't done this. Microsoft has not only used the same parts of kernel but also is opting and pushing for cloud solutions. Those two things in themselves have endless possibilities. The niche features or the common features that we are lacking right now, will eventually be addressed, it isn't the focus. By the time competitors achieve what Microsoft has achieved kernel wise and cloud solutions wise, Microsoft can afford to add and remove these features at least 5 times, because they've set the core of their three screens vision.
Am I hallucinating?
Guys, has it occurred to any of you talking about slow progress, that Microsoft has freaking put a whole Windows PC in your phone this time, for real?
It's Windows running on ARM. That in itself is a major progress. If you are failing to see how this will be a long term win for Microsoft, you are just an ordinary consumer Microsoft doesn't really think will notice the difference. Their three screen vision is nicely set and just needs proper execution which will need time.
Google or Apple, hasn't done this. Microsoft has not only used the same parts of kernel but also is opting and pushing for cloud solutions. Those two things in themselves have endless possibilities. The niche features or the common features that we are lacking right now, will eventually be addressed, it isn't the focus. By the time competitors achieve what Microsoft has achieved kernel wise and cloud solutions wise, Microsoft can afford to add and remove these features at least 5 times, because they've set the core of their three screens vision.
Am I hallucinating?
The iPhone 4 came out in June 2010. 3 years ago.
Windows Phone came out the same year a few months later, and had that flaw, and many other small flaws that Microsoft just doesn't want to fix even though they have been standard on smartphones since before 2005.
It is beyond ridiculous.
johninsj
New member
a5cent
New member
I can't really answer your question, because I don't know much about their budgets. All I know is that they are already investing hundreds of millions every month, and that Google, Apple and Microsoft are all rather good at doing cost/benefit analysis... better than I am.
I also know that developing anything significant, something that is actually able to change consumer perceptions, requires major investments... hundreds of millions. If that were my own money, I wouldn't be too enthusiastic about investing it into throw away software no one will remember in 9 months.
Calling for MS to throw more money at a problem is simple. Very likely too simple. That is what I think.
a5cent
New member
that was me in this post haha. i'm glad you agree
. you're right if it was ballmer/gates that came out with the app store it would have failed.It sure is simple, and obviously what we're doing here is just playing the CEOs from our laptop screen trying to understand what is in company's mind...
But now... Let's not think about things that may require some deep changes in the OS, like the separate volume may be...
Think about stuff like the pdf reader, the issues with xbox music, the weekly view missing from the Calendar...
Does it really take hundreds of millions to develop a calendar with a weekly view?
If they improve the .pdf app now, will it need to be thrown away with Blue?
From my personal "cost/benefit" analysis, looks to me that with very little investment, they could fix a whole lot of issues in a very short time...
are you kidding me? FaceTime, siri, unified email centre, retina display all were with ios4. in that time microsoft was using 800 by 480 that has to be a joke. apple is a lot quicker at the superficial level. as someone mentioned above, microsoft is focusing on using a unified API which took them a long time to do. i bet with windows phone 9 they're going to be able to fix the smaller bugs quicker because all 'under the hood' work is done across all their platforms.
The problem Microsoft has is they need to focus on the products that make the most money and have the biggest impact on their profits which sadly, WP is at the bottom of their list. MS has been very busy lately, they just launched a new PC OS (W8), a new office (2013), a new server system (2012), a new phone OS (WP8), and are gearing up for another new xbox launch this year, so it suck, but WP8 is not on the top of their priority list. The biggest overall strategy it looks like they are doing at the moment is unifying their code base which is extrememyl important and will do more for WP8 than anything. That is why windows phone 8 runs NT as its kernel, as does W8, as does server 2012, as does RT... The main issue WP8 has, and if you read any objections to it and all the reviews its APPS, APPS, APPS!!!! this is why unifying their code base is extremely important as a windows 8 metro app works on RT, WP8, server 2012, presumably the next xbox, etc... Once windows 8 grows, windows phone 8 will grow more as well.
As other people have stated, windows phone just doesn't get the cash flow because it just doesn't make as much money unfortunately. Hopefully time and their other products growing will change that.
As other people have stated, windows phone just doesn't get the cash flow because it just doesn't make as much money unfortunately. Hopefully time and their other products growing will change that.
a5cent
New member
Taken in isolation, some of the smaller issues do look like they might be cheaply and quickly fixed. Any single issue isn't likely to cost that much (relatively speaking, because we are still easily talking about $ 100'000 per fix, even for apparently simple features). Yet I still disagree. Unfortunately, I don't think I am able to explain myself briefly, but I'm also not going to hold a course on software engineering and project management. I'll just give you a few pointers and hope you can make sense of it:
Firstly, you must realize that every project has a budget, a scope, and a deadline. It's a fact of life that corporate realities don't allow you to optimize each of those properties. Often times, you are lucky if you can settle on two of them and adjust the third towards more realistic expectations. Which of those do you think Microsoft can manage most flexibly? Hint: it's not budget/personnel, and at least for WP8's first development cycle, it also wasn't the deadline.
Furthermore, software projects of this size and complexity are like ships. They can't turn on a dime. Future movements are meticulously planned and scheduled long in advance, particularly when it comes to personnel. Add a few people and you'll noticeably lower the entire teams productivity for quite a few weeks, because new team members require support to get up to speed. After new team members are integrated, you typically prefer to retain them, as you've otherwise wasted large upfront investments in evaluation, training and integration. Simultaneously, you can't retain massive teams that are dimensioned to handle the largest workloads that occur during project peaks. That is simply too inefficient during normal stretches. You need to find a balance between overstaffing during normal development phases and understaffing during project peaks. Once you have that, it is best that changes occur slow and steady, as not to disrupt the team too much at any one time. Finally, some things in software development aren't easily accelerated, even if you were to increase team sizes early on, particularly in OS development. In summary, you need to find a balance in regard to the development teams size, you can't make knee-jerk adjustments without endangering the entire project, and some things can't be rushed, no matter how many people you assign to the task. Now consider that the project peak for WP8's first development cycle will have occurred towards the end of the cycle, starting around the time the OS had been stabilized enough as to allow for efficient porting, coding and testing of OS apps (messenger, calendar, etc). This comparatively brief time span, between OS stabilization and project deadline, is exactly the phase during which most of the features you and others are calling for would have come into existence. It's easy to say: "throw more money at it". For all the reasons I've hinted at here, it's far more difficult to make changes during such project peaks that do more good than harm. I doubt that anyone who hasn't experienced this themselves can really comprehend the complexity of what I'm briefly summarizing here, but it might be enough to make people understand that the project environment is anything but simple.
We all have the luxury of being able to criticize MS without needing to confront any of the realities of software development. I simply doubt anyone here has better judgement on that topic than those who actually do that job. I can imagine situations where the "throw more money at the problem" approach may have some merit. I'm sure no such situation existed during this first phase of WP8's development. You simply can't build on an OS that isn't solid, you can't rush an OS into stability, and massively ramping up team size after having stabilized the OS also isn't an option with the deadline looming so close.
What I think does deserve questioning, is whether that which Microsoft did achieve was prioritized correctly. Personally, I'm not happy with "kids corner". I could be mistaken, but I can't imagine this feature netting WP a lot of sales. I think that a notification centre should have come first. I think "datasense" was another huge mistake. It should either have been available to everyone, or not done at all. WP just isn't at a point where Microsoft can afford to invest resources towards features only a minority of users can enjoy. I suspect we could have gotten custom sounds, separate volume controls and maybe even some extra IE10 features instead.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
Did the Fallout TV show just make a Fallout 4 ending canon?- Started by Windows Central
- Replies: 3
-
Rare's Sea of Thieves hits 40 million players across Xbox and Windows PC
- Started by Windows Central
- Replies: 0
-
Leaked renders of the first PC with Snapdragon X Elite CPU showcase a sexy Lenovo laptop
- Started by Windows Central
- Replies: 1
Members online
No members online now.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram