Active Topics
-
U-Boot for Nokia RX-51 with BootMenu (updated version 2012.10-rc3-1) (843)
to Alternatives by Arno_11 - 3 hrs, 5 mins ago -
List of well performing apps on Leste (34)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by biketool - 1 day, 3 hrs ago -
Maemo repository (5)
to Community by dredlok706 - 2 days, 22 hrs ago -
Re-commissioning N9 in 2018 (127)
to MeeGo / Harmattan by smatkovi - 3 days, 1 hr ago -
Porting apps to Leste (41)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Arno_11 - 3 days, 18 hrs ago -
N900 is not recognizable on any of my devices (windows 10,7, xp) What can I do? (1)
to Nokia N900 by nieldk - 5 days, 6 hrs ago - more...
|
2011-06-10
, 14:08
|
|
Posts: 1,425 |
Thanked: 983 times |
Joined on May 2010
@ Hong Kong
|
#142
|
@kanishou good points here, except you might not have taken into consideration that WP7 is a standalone platform with little backward compatibility with Windows Mobiles, and that Microsoft has already announced the launch Windows 8 on ARM, which can run native (recompile) Windows applications which WP7 platform is also incompatible with.
As Elop was a senior executive of Microsoft, he should have well aware of the new mobile strategy with Windows 8/ARM. Even in the very rare circumstance he didn't know, Elop's decision on buying WP7 is way after the announcement Windows 8/ARM, he shouldn't have ignored it.
It's so obviously that he's well aware of the present situation and future prospect of WP7 and still strike the deal with Microsoft. Everything Elop does would not make any sense if he has no hidden agenda with Microsoft.
You might not believe the board would approve Elop's action. How would it sound like if the board actually support Elop? I cannot go into too much detail on it as it'd be rather off-topic in a tech board.
As Elop was a senior executive of Microsoft, he should have well aware of the new mobile strategy with Windows 8/ARM. Even in the very rare circumstance he didn't know, Elop's decision on buying WP7 is way after the announcement Windows 8/ARM, he shouldn't have ignored it.
It's so obviously that he's well aware of the present situation and future prospect of WP7 and still strike the deal with Microsoft. Everything Elop does would not make any sense if he has no hidden agenda with Microsoft.
You might not believe the board would approve Elop's action. How would it sound like if the board actually support Elop? I cannot go into too much detail on it as it'd be rather off-topic in a tech board.
|
|
2011-06-10
, 14:20
|
|
Posts: 341 |
Thanked: 607 times |
Joined on Dec 2008
|
#143
|
Originally Posted by 9000
That is not true, there is no new mobile strategy. Windows 8 is for tablets, it does not encroach on Windows Phone at all. If anything, it's going to strengthen it through better synergy.
@kanishou good points here, except you might not have taken into consideration that WP7 is a standalone platform with little backward compatibility with Windows Mobiles, and that Microsoft has already announced the launch Windows 8 on ARM, which can run native (recompile) Windows applications which WP7 platform is also incompatible with.
As Elop was a senior executive of Microsoft, he should have well aware of the new mobile strategy with Windows 8/ARM. Even in the very rare circumstance he didn't know, Elop's decision on buying WP7 is way after the announcement Windows 8/ARM, he shouldn't have ignored it.
It's so obviously that he's well aware of the present situation and future prospect of WP7 and still strike the deal with Microsoft. Everything Elop does would not make any sense if he has no hidden agenda with Microsoft.
You might not believe the board would approve Elop's action. How would it sound like if the board actually support Elop? I cannot go into too much detail on it as it'd be rather off-topic in a tech board.
WP7 is not backwards compatible obviously, but it uses familiar APIs. This situation really isn't significantly different from Qt on MeeGo. It is a familiar API, but the idea to just run old (desktop) applications unmodified on a phone is an unrealistic pipe dream.
|
|
2011-06-10
, 14:25
|
|
Posts: 1,425 |
Thanked: 983 times |
Joined on May 2010
@ Hong Kong
|
#144
|
Originally Posted by bandora
It's a financial warning issued before officially scheduled disclosure of their financial results, so as to let the market to digest the news in hope to minimize the impact on the stock price.
Sorry for asking a noob question, but what is a sales warning in the first place? I am just curious.
| The Following User Says Thank You to 9000 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2011-06-10
, 14:29
|
|
Posts: 62 |
Thanked: 62 times |
Joined on Jul 2010
@ New Hampshire, US
|
#145
|
Originally Posted by kanishou
I agree that this seems unlikely.
If we have a conspiracy, then the whole board must be on it and pretty much prior to the hiring of Elop (since it was their doing).
But isn't WP7 even less mature than Maemo/MeeGo?
I have seen this stated as a fact a couple of times, but it's complete nonsense. Maemo 5 wasn't even in the same ballpark yet with its half-baked UI and legacy issues. Could we have reached similar maturity if we had continuously developed Maemo 5 instead of basically starting from scratch again? Possibly, but it wasn't Elop who made that decision.
The bottom line is, that Harmattan is not a more mature Maemo 5, it's a new development that is just as significant a change as WP7 was for Windows Mobile.
Yeah, it would not have been as technically clean to have two different programming API's (Qt and GTK), but time was a-wasting. Starting over again with Meego at such a late date was a very bad decison, IMO.
If the work that went into Meego had gone instead into finishing Maemo, then Maemo could very well have been a competitive platform. Yes, Qt would not have been as integrated and they may not have had as smooth a transition from Symbian, but there are an awful lot of Linux developers out there too.
They shot for perfect instead of accepting good enough and trying to make it perfect over time. When that failed, Nokia had no good choices left. They were either going to become an Android OEM or a WP OEM. They had lost their chance to be a leader.
I still have some small hope that Harmattan/MeeGo/WhateverWeAreAllowedToCallIt will be able to establish itself as a fourth player, but it's going to be very very tough. We definitely won't make it, if we keep deluding ourselves and hide from inconvenient truths behind a smokescreen of ideology and conspiracy theories.
But there is no enthusiasm, none at all, from the carriers for that kind of device. Nor from Apple, Google or MS. For all of them the device is just a way to extract value from consumers through an exclusive "app store" or ads or whatever. So they have little interest in making their systems truly open in the ways that the PC was.
| The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to bobh For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2011-06-10
, 14:45
|
|
Posts: 1,425 |
Thanked: 983 times |
Joined on May 2010
@ Hong Kong
|
#146
|
Originally Posted by kanishou
Microsoft has not really defined the market positioning of Windows 8/ARM, but they've already rejected the possibility of WP7 being used on tablet. In fact, the incentive to build mobile device on Windows 8/ARM is too high as it can run native Windows applications by porting them. Microsoft has already demonstrated in last CES how Windows 8/ARM is being able to run native Microsoft Office (ARM-compiled).
That is not true, there is no new mobile strategy. Windows 8 is for tablets, it does not encroach on Windows Phone at all. If anything, it's going to strengthen it through better synergy.
WP7 is not backwards compatible obviously, but it uses familiar APIs. This situation really isn't significantly different from Qt on MeeGo. It is a familiar API, but the idea to just run old (desktop) applications unmodified on a phone is an unrealistic pipe dream.
As you can imagine, there's a greater synergy for Microsoft to run a unified platform on PC and mobile devices.
Of course, those applications need to be modified (ported) to run, but the incentive to do so is very high.
Interestingly, the architecture of Windows 8 is having highest modularity than its predecessors, such that it's possible to strip everything outside its core to run Windows 8 in native terminal mode.
In this regard, it's not impossible to build a new presentation layer for mobile devices of smaller scale than tablets.
Though it'd not happen this year, but since the market incentive, the technical feasibility and even the synergy is all presented in Windows8/ARM, the idea to run legacy applications on a phone is not unrealistic dream.
Note that I'm not here to defend any platform, I just want to say I think WP7 is pretty doomed after Windows 8/ARM.
__________________
[HOWTO] N900 Bluetooth-PAN Tethering (N900 supplies Internet Access for PC)
[HOWTO] N900 WiFi Hotspot (shell script version)
N900: Useful Tips (a summary)
[HOWTO] N900 Bluetooth-PAN Tethering (N900 supplies Internet Access for PC)
[HOWTO] N900 WiFi Hotspot (shell script version)
N900: Useful Tips (a summary)
Last edited by 9000; 2011-06-10 at 14:54.
|
|
2011-06-10
, 14:51
|
|
Posts: 341 |
Thanked: 607 times |
Joined on Dec 2008
|
#147
|
Originally Posted by 9000
It is, because even if you get it to work, the applications are still going to be unusable on a device the size of the phone.
Though it'd not happen this year, but since the market incentive, the technical feasibility and even the synergy is all presented in Windows8/ARM, the idea to run legacy applications on a phone is not unrealistic dream.
This is also where the whole "write once, run everywhere" idea falls apart.
People are not so desperate for applications on their mobile devices that they would put up with awful UIs.
Even on tablets, being able to run Windows desktop applications isn't really all that exciting. It will still be primarily measured on how many applications will support the tablet UI.
|
|
2011-06-10
, 15:00
|
|
Posts: 1,425 |
Thanked: 983 times |
Joined on May 2010
@ Hong Kong
|
#148
|
Originally Posted by kanishou
Say...do you think 800x480 pixels is too small to run any desktop application?
It is, because even if you get it to work, the applications are still going to be unusable on a device the size of the phone.
This is also where the whole "write once, run everywhere" idea falls apart.
People are not so desperate for applications on their mobile devices that they would put up with awful UIs.
Even on tablets, being able to run Windows desktop applications isn't really all that exciting. It will still be primarily measured on how many applications will support the tablet UI.
|
|
2011-06-10
, 15:04
|
|
Posts: 62 |
Thanked: 62 times |
Joined on Jul 2010
@ New Hampshire, US
|
#149
|
Originally Posted by 9000
Having run things like OpenOffice and JEdit on my N900, I would say the issue is not the pixels but the physical size. It is hard to click on tiny buttons, and hard to see tiny text.
Say...do you think 800x480 pixels is too small to run any desktop application?
It works, and it is useful to be able to do that, but probably only us geeky types would do it.
On a tablet, though, with a 7" or larger screen size, it would probably work fine even if the resolution remained the same.
|
|
2011-06-10
, 16:09
|
|
Posts: 341 |
Thanked: 607 times |
Joined on Dec 2008
|
#150
|
Like bob is saying, it's not the resolution that matters but the physical screen size. 4 inch is definitely too small to run any desktop application.
 |
| Tags |
| free fall, nok+ms rox more, popcorn anyone?, yes please |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 14:29.
FarahFa.com