Originally Posted by nicksti

Out of curiousity, can't a loose parallel be drawn between the XB360 and Windows Phone?

not at all. Two entirely different beasts and markets, with entirely different competition. When MS entered the gaming market there was only Nintendo and Sony, they catered to different markets. Competition was needed. Not to mention MS really improved what gamers wanted.

In the phone world, there is a ton of competition, catering to every part of the market, with services and features already offered.

Originally Posted by AndroHero

I dont know about you, but when i bought my PC, i had a choice of what OS i wanted to install, just like when i chose what office software or internet browser i wanted to use.
Everyone has choices but most people choose MS products without considering the rest because they are the best.

Sent from my HTC Sensation XL with Beats Audio X315e using Tapatalk 2

Yeah right, if you purchased a PC from a big box company, your choice was Windows, nothing more. There arent any Linux, OSX discs beside it to let you choose.

Office is the standard of enterprise and businesses, and what people know.

Its been this way for years, and common knowledge.

Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 2

Originally Posted by fatclue

And WP7 has advantages over iOS and Android. It all comes down to what device or which platform or even which carrier suits your needs. Some devices on the same carrier behave differently depending on what region they are on and what the coverage is like. So you see, this discussion is the tech world's equivalent of the perpetual motion machine.

Makes sense.

Originally Posted by fatclue

I, personally, could care less about LTE because for what I need a few seconds here and there aren't going to change my world.

That's not the point. The point is Apple fanboys make vacuous statements but when it comes down to real objective hardware differences they prefer to skip over all the details where Apple is the clear laggard. YOU may not have any use for LTE but it is an extraordinary technological advance that makes all kinds of things actually practical to do on a smartphone. Let me put it this way. LTE was my FIRST data plan on my phone. I had absolutely no desire to fiddle with a phone with a tiny screen and wait around watching a progress bar as web pages tried to load.

Originally Posted by fatclue

LTE doesn't make my phone conversations any faster, and last time I checked a phone is a phone first and foremost.

Well if that's the case we should completely ignore EVERYTHING that was spoken about in this thread and just compare call quality. Again there are plenty of phones that cost less than $200 that have better call quality than the iphone 4s.

If I am paying the same price for data and someone wants to charge me $200 more for a phone it better be able to access that data better than a free phone. I could see if you got a DISCOUNT for the non LTE phone and non LTE data plan buy you actually have to pay MORE! That's a problem.

Originally Posted by fatclue

I realize most of you on these boards are young and just starting life but let me tell you something, don't be in such a hurry. Stop and smell the roses or before you know it, you'll be a grumpy old fart like me.

I prefer to "stop and smell the roses" in an actually park outdoors not while I'm downloading something on my smartphone.

Originally Posted by vetvito

not at all. Two entirely different beasts and markets, with entirely different competition. When MS entered the gaming market there was only Nintendo and Sony, they catered to different markets. Competition was needed. Not to mention MS really improved what gamers wanted.

In the phone world, there is a ton of competition, catering to every part of the market, with services and features already offered.






Yeah right, if you purchased a PC from a big box company, your choice was Windows, nothing more. There arent any Linux, OSX discs beside it to let you choose.

Office is the standard of enterprise and businesses, and what people know.

Its been this way for years, and common knowledge.

Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 2

I do not want to dwell on it but Office has Home and Student versions as well. So it is consumer and enterprise so let us leave it as a push.


I cannot argue your XBox statement. The only parallel would be the struggle but it really ends there. Nintendo was no longer relevant in the hardcore gaming market since they went to the Gamecube, and the PS2 was old. The market was ripe for the picking for the Xbox 360 and they had a good product in XBL. Very different landscape in the mobile market. You are absolutely right.

But MS sure managed to make that real difficult with the RRoD

Like I said earlier, the most divisive issue on this forum is 'Will Windows Phone be successful?". Here are my reasons for answering in the affirmative:

Unless you are Apple, the essential components to widespread adoption are OEM and Carrier support. Then you need features and apps. And finally you need to differentiate yourself positively to pull people away from what they are currently using. That could come in the form of hardware and/or software.

Now here come the beliefs:

I believe Microsoft with all their billions will sink money into making Windows Phone into a contender. Here is where Windows Phone is like the Xbox and not like a Smart Watch or Media Center dvd player - multibillion dollar, well established market.

So if you have a product, say Windows Phone, and it is not doing well money can fix that. Buy developers. Buy carrier support. Buy OEMs. Money cannot fix poor direction or bad ideas. In my mind and it is my opinion, Windows Phone is well built. Money can fix Windows Phone.

But I suspect we do not agree on that point. That is where all the arguments stem in here. Look Windows Phone sucks now. But it won't forever. Yes it will.

On a related note, Samsung announced an Omnia W, a 4.0" slightly more affordable Omnia W.

Im still searching for a Lumia 900. Successful or not, that is a nice looking device.



Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 2

Originally Posted by sitizenx

Makes sense.



That's not the point. The point is Apple fanboys make vacuous statements but when it comes down to real objective hardware differences they prefer to skip over all the details where Apple is the clear laggard. YOU may not have any use for LTE but it is an extraordinary technological advance that makes all kinds of things actually practical to do on a smartphone. Let me put it this way. LTE was my FIRST data plan on my phone. I had absolutely no desire to fiddle with a phone with a tiny screen and wait around watching a progress bar as web pages tried to load.



Well if that's the case we should completely ignore EVERYTHING that was spoken about in this thread and just compare call quality. Again there are plenty of phones that cost less than $200 that have better call quality than the iphone 4s.

If I am paying the same price for data and someone wants to charge me $200 more for a phone it better be able to access that data better than a free phone. I could see if you got a DISCOUNT for the non LTE phone and non LTE data plan buy you actually have to pay MORE! That's a problem.



I prefer to "stop and smell the roses" in an actually park outdoors not while I'm downloading something on my smartphone.

Thanks for an objective, hate-free response, that is a rarity these days and not just on this forum. LTE is indeed an awesome technological breakthrough. It just so happens that I don't find it a necessity, but that doesn't take away from the accomplishment. I should not be bashed for it or made to feel like a caveman for it (not that you did, I'm just illustrating a point). My statement that a phone is a phone first was not meant to belittle a smartphone or its abilities. I've been on smartphones since the first Treos on Palm OS. They are the single best development since the microchip itself, IMO. I couldn't see myself ever going back to a feature phone. The point I'm trying to get across, the only point, is that there are dozens of different types of phones with different OS's from various manufacturers on a multitude of carriers. Each of us has different needs and different tastes and even more distinct biases and I think there is a "seat for every ass" out there. Live and let live, or as the prophet Marley preached "don't go point'n fingers if you 'ands aren't clean". Peace, love and soul.

Originally Posted by vetvito

Im still searching for a Lumia 900. Successful or not, that is a nice looking device.



Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 2

Me too. Me too.

Sega's hardware devision would like to poke its head out of the grave to remind you that other consoles did exist before the current three manufacturers. Also, the N64 and PlayStation [1] weren't that far apart in terms of who played them. Sure, lots of people only had one or the other, but plenty of people also had both. They got forced out of the market... and MS was nonetheless able to force themselves in. It took the better part of a decade to become really successful, though; the gen1 Xbox was a money sink, as was the 360 until the RROD issue was fixed, and even then it took the Kinect to drive sales of the 360 past the Wii in terms of rate (never mind total numbers).

Reading the first few posts of this thread, "People said the same thing about the Xbox" applies to most of them with only a little tweaking.

Originally Posted by ohgood

Despite critical acclaim, cheap phones, and a novel take on the Pepsi Challenge, few people in the U.S. want a Windows Phones and its market share may be slipping faster than its predecessor, Windows Mobile.

In fact, Windows Phone appears to be less popular in the U.S. than Microsoft's aging Windows Mobile platform, according to Nielsen. The metrics firm issued a report Monday claiming that during the first three months of 2012, Windows Phone had a market share of just 1.7 percent, far behind fourth place Windows Mobile at 4.1 percent.

Meanwhile, Microsoft's biggest Windows Phone partner, Nokia, recently reported its smartphone sales declined more than 50 percent during the first quarter of 2012 compared to the year previous

I know someone mentioned that a Windows Fanboy would want to see the shares separately but anyone sound enough with analytical skills would want to see them separately IF you are talking about the success of Windows Phone and not Microsoft.

You would only want to talk about combined shares if you want to see how successfully MICROSOFT OS is. If you want to see how well Windows Phone alone has done - which is surely not Windows Mobile, then talk about only Windows Phone sales.

Now, Windows Phone sales in 19 months from it's launch = 1.7%
Windows Mobile sales in 73 months from it's launch = 4.1%

If I am doing my maths correctly, I don't see how Windows Mobile is MORE successful than Windows Phone. I just can't see it.

Same applies with Nokia and it's marketshare. I wonder why that article doesn't talk about how Nokia has killed off the production of Symbians, slowed down on Belle and hardly think of Meego. The transition of Nokia from one OS to another will take it's own time. People who own Symbians won't automatically all shift to Windows Phone right from day 1. Some of them will, if and when, their current phone doesn't appeal to them any longer. You've got to remember that Nokia's major markets are in countries like India and China where number of smartphone users is HUGE but only if you can give affordable phones like Lumia 710 and 610. These countries don't offer the contracts that we have in Europe and USA. People pay for handsets and hence find it expensive to change to a new one every few months and sometimes even years. Hence Nokia's struggle.