Yay this is a very informational thread. Lots of spelling superstars here. I don't think Microsoft will take this one seriously. Just saying.
Lets talk about Windows Phone 8 Restrictions !!!
- Thread starter one-option
- Start date
Really is no point moaning on this forum about restrictions, We all know about them, If you seriously want to be heard then use the Microsoft App Suggestion Box on wp, A lot of what has been mentioned on there is or has already been sorted.
Windows Phone has come along way in a short time and will only get better
Windows Phone has come along way in a short time and will only get better
Really is no point moaning on this forum about restrictions, We all know about them, If you seriously want to be heard then use the Microsoft App Suggestion Box on wp, A lot of what has been mentioned on there is or has already been sorted.
Windows Phone has come along way in a short time and will only get better
What he said.
(I must add my tuppence worth though. Not being able to attach a file to an e-mail is a joke.)
Apologies, I should have clarified that statement.
WP8 Black does not allow users to attach a PDF or Office document to a reply using the Outlook app.
You can share an Office doc from the Office Hub as a new email, but not attach it to a reply.
Nor can you email a PDF at all.
Not really. Dev-unlocking a device is trivial.
The real problem I have with the hassle actually has nothing to do with piracy. I've bought and paid for several apps that are no longer listed on the store. The developer has disappeared or isn't interested in talking any more, and they delist the apps that I've already paid for. I understand that they may feel like not working on newer versions, I didn't pay for perpetual updates for eternity. But being able to stop me from reinstalling the app I've already paid for is idiotic. With this model, I could pay ten bucks for an app one day, have to wipe my phone the next, and permanently lose access to the application. It's rotten.
This can happen on any store.
If the developer decides he wants to remove the app, there is nothing you can do about it.
And your problem is just an isolated accident.
It won't happen anywhere you can keep an archive of your purchase.
You can say that about any incident. That doesn't mean it's not a problem.
if the dev decides the work he provided should not be available anymore, than it should be this way. You do not "buy" the app, you simply get a license allowing you to use the app, which lasts as long as the dev wants to. It works like this for any software. If you use it outside of the license, it is called piracy. Pure and simple.
You do not hold any copyright over that app, hence why you are not allowed to use it after the dev takes it away.
That's not correct. When I buy the license, I have a perpetual right to use the software under that license. The developer has no inherent obligation to improve or revise the software unless otherwise made by the license or contract, but they also have no right to unilaterally revoke the license. It's a binding agreement, and it can't be changed without the consent of the agreeing parties. This is further supported by the uniform commercial code (at least in the US):
S 2-711 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-711). Briefly, if the seller repudiates, the buyer is entitled to a refund. This does not exclude other remedies.
S 2-716(3) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-716). Briefly, if a seller repudiates, the buyer has right of replevin (action to recover possession).
Specific to this case, a seller is liable for damages if they repudiate, and a buyer has a right to take action as necessary to recover what was lost.
I'm not sure why you're trying to invoke copyright. It has nothing to do with this case.
You don't understand.
You do not own the product once you bought it. It is not like going to the nearby supermarket, buy some bananas and then you own the bananas, you do not have a license to use bananas... This is an entirely different concept, enforced through DRM, because in the digital world. you can not apply the rules of the physical world.
DRM technologies limit your ability to install an app by checking it with a server. This can be applied to the same as "buying" windows. Microsoft reserves the right to make your windows not work anymore if DRM check fails (aka, you have a pirate copy), because you do not own windows, you are licensed to use it..
When the app is gone from the marketplace, when you try to install the app, the DRM fails, hence why you are not able to install it anymore.
This is because the dev has complete control over who can and not not install his works. The app belongs to him, he just licenses it to you so you can use it, and the marketplace enforces DRM.
If you were to use the app AFTER the DRM failed, you must have the copyright over the app, and own the code, which is something only the developer has, hence why he can use his own app without DRM check through side load.
All apps on the marketplace are DRM protected through ways extensively documented in the development & hacking section of this forum.
Microsoft is not responsible for any damage this might have caused to you. If you wanna settle the dispute, you contact the developer directly.
Read the terms of use before you agree to them.
Actually, you seem to be the one that doesn't understand. I quoted the relevant law up there.
If you pirate windows, you didn't buy a license to it so none of the above applies to you.
The rest of the rambling continues to show a complete lack of understanding of relevant law and the past twenty years of legal battles fought ensured the right for someone to use what they bought. As the relevant law demonstrates above, microsoft actually is responsible, and if they do not meet the responsibility to deliver, then the buyer has other rights that allow them use of what they bought.
I can read the license just fine. It says nothing contrary to what I'm saying here. If it did, it would be void where it conflicted with the law. You should consider researching basic contract law before making more claims.
You do not buy anything from Micrisoft. You bought it from the developer.
This is the same as how a normal marketplace works...
People come and sell things on the stalls installed in the marketplace. The admins of the marketplace get paid by the merchants a fee every now and then to continue to use the stall. The same applies to the windows phone (and google play and whatever else marketplace), the developer sells you things through the stall installed by microsoft, and microsoft gets a cut from what the developer sells.
And in the TOS, it is clearly stated that there is no guarantee that the service shall never be disrupted and microsoft shall not be held reasonable for any damage this might cause you. The same goes with the windows license and ANY license with any video game/software/whatever.
Those terms you agree to aren't just placed there, they are approved by the chamber of commerce in your country and are legally approved through specific amendments to the law in your country. hence why it is impossible to get paid apps in some countries.
So no, you are not right.
Go take your QQ somewhere else, this is valid for ANY software you buy. The only difference is, Mirosoft actually imposes the terms you agreed to on this particular marketplace.
I love this dicusion.
But what if the developer not under this law?
You are talking about us law's, but that they are not binding al over the globe
But what if the developer not under this law?
You are talking about us law's, but that they are not binding al over the globe
I love this dicusion.
But what if the developer not under this law?
You are talking about us law's, but that they are not binding al over the globe
+1
The terms you agree to when using the marketplace are approved by your country's government, so the developer has no obligation towards giving you any refund. You may still talk to him and see if you can get a refund willingly, but if you go to court, you will lose because of the terms of use you supposedly read and understood.
Microsoft has negotiations with the governments of all the countries supported by the windows phone marketplace.
This is one of the reasons why some countries are not supported, and some may only support free apps.
Microsoft then, in turn, pays taxes and stuff to your country gov, so does the developer who sold the app (he pays to his gov) .
And since the marketplace works just fine in the U.S., the gov clearly agreed to microsoft's terms despite the law (there's these things called amendments).
Those legal things aren't there to fool around. These things are very carefully thought out.
Last edited:
I am wondering..just a idea
If you sideload a app from the store.
The moment you are going to install it, it checks in the store if the App is legall and for updates.
If so, the app install's, if not...............nothings happends.
But what if the developer redraws the app from the store?
Then wat, can i install the app or not?
If you sideload a app from the store.
The moment you are going to install it, it checks in the store if the App is legall and for updates.
If so, the app install's, if not...............nothings happends.
But what if the developer redraws the app from the store?
Then wat, can i install the app or not?
@mcosmin222: While I normally hesitate to inject politics into an online discussion, I feel compelled to point out two things:
1) Your interpretation of copyright law is *extremely* generous (to the copyright cartels, not to yourself or any of us) and basically ignores a number of issues such as fair use, right of first sale, etc. In practice, even within the software industry, EULAs and TOS are almost never legally enforceable. Lawyers include them anyhow as they provide a view of the publisher's intentions, but in court, if you can demonstrate that you purchased the software without signing a legally-binding contract (i.e. not an EULA or similar), the developer and/or publisher generally have no legal right to prevent you from using it. Copyright only comes into it if you are re-distributing the software (this is how Apple sued Pystar, for example: redistribution of Apple's software updates. Simply suing over the terms which require that OS X only be installed on Apple hardware would almost certainly have failed).
2) Related to #1 but more political and less legal: that point of view is *extremely* anti-customer (excuse me, anti-"consumer" because calling them customers implies they actually bought something, doesn't it?) and, in my opinion, quite unethical. To fail to oppose it is to support an unconsciousable erosion of property rights. We already have terms for an exchange of money for goods which does not transfer ownership (in the case of copyrighted goods, that is ownership of the copy not of the copyright itself): "rental" or "lease". To say that when I have "purchased an app" I have instead merely "purchased" a revocable license controlled by the person I am nominally purchasing from is subvert the entire concept of a purchase.
Unfortunately, the erosion of our rights that began when the copyright cartels began attempting to claim that intellectual property both is and is not actually property to suit their purposes of the moment (it is property when the question is if it can be stolen, it is not property when the question concerns whether or not it is sold...), although it largely failed in the conventional retail software world, opened the door to the wholesale assault on (intellectual) property rights exemplified by DRMed app "stores" - so-called "stores" that, according to their legalese, don't actually sell anything at all and merely use the terminology of a purchase because it's familiar.
My approach to "buying" DRMed products is very simple: I don't. If I can buy a DRM free version instead, I will do that. If I can get DRMed products for free, I will do that (I've got lots of free apps on my phone). I'm not opposed to the presence of DRM in transactions which are inherently of a rental nature, like Netflix or Zune Pass. Beyond that, though... I buy my PC games on Humble Bundle and GOG, not Steam. I don't buy music or video or e-books online unless they are in a DRM-free format. While my copies of Windows (and Office and Visual Studio and so on) are legitimately licensed, I do not respect Microsoft's claim that they have the right to deny me those products which I have purchased, any more than I would the concept that the manufacturer of my car (which is fully paid off) has the right to re-possess it from me.
Oh, and to loop back to the subject of apps vanishing from the "store": and preventing you from re-installing them: if it's within a reasonably short period, you can just about guarantee getting your money back if you raise a fuss at MS. The question of how *much* of a fuss is an interesting one, and may depend on the strength or indeed presence of any customer/consumer protection laws, but if the amount of money isn't completely trivial it's probably worthwhile.
1) Your interpretation of copyright law is *extremely* generous (to the copyright cartels, not to yourself or any of us) and basically ignores a number of issues such as fair use, right of first sale, etc. In practice, even within the software industry, EULAs and TOS are almost never legally enforceable. Lawyers include them anyhow as they provide a view of the publisher's intentions, but in court, if you can demonstrate that you purchased the software without signing a legally-binding contract (i.e. not an EULA or similar), the developer and/or publisher generally have no legal right to prevent you from using it. Copyright only comes into it if you are re-distributing the software (this is how Apple sued Pystar, for example: redistribution of Apple's software updates. Simply suing over the terms which require that OS X only be installed on Apple hardware would almost certainly have failed).
2) Related to #1 but more political and less legal: that point of view is *extremely* anti-customer (excuse me, anti-"consumer" because calling them customers implies they actually bought something, doesn't it?) and, in my opinion, quite unethical. To fail to oppose it is to support an unconsciousable erosion of property rights. We already have terms for an exchange of money for goods which does not transfer ownership (in the case of copyrighted goods, that is ownership of the copy not of the copyright itself): "rental" or "lease". To say that when I have "purchased an app" I have instead merely "purchased" a revocable license controlled by the person I am nominally purchasing from is subvert the entire concept of a purchase.
Unfortunately, the erosion of our rights that began when the copyright cartels began attempting to claim that intellectual property both is and is not actually property to suit their purposes of the moment (it is property when the question is if it can be stolen, it is not property when the question concerns whether or not it is sold...), although it largely failed in the conventional retail software world, opened the door to the wholesale assault on (intellectual) property rights exemplified by DRMed app "stores" - so-called "stores" that, according to their legalese, don't actually sell anything at all and merely use the terminology of a purchase because it's familiar.
My approach to "buying" DRMed products is very simple: I don't. If I can buy a DRM free version instead, I will do that. If I can get DRMed products for free, I will do that (I've got lots of free apps on my phone). I'm not opposed to the presence of DRM in transactions which are inherently of a rental nature, like Netflix or Zune Pass. Beyond that, though... I buy my PC games on Humble Bundle and GOG, not Steam. I don't buy music or video or e-books online unless they are in a DRM-free format. While my copies of Windows (and Office and Visual Studio and so on) are legitimately licensed, I do not respect Microsoft's claim that they have the right to deny me those products which I have purchased, any more than I would the concept that the manufacturer of my car (which is fully paid off) has the right to re-possess it from me.
Oh, and to loop back to the subject of apps vanishing from the "store": and preventing you from re-installing them: if it's within a reasonably short period, you can just about guarantee getting your money back if you raise a fuss at MS. The question of how *much* of a fuss is an interesting one, and may depend on the strength or indeed presence of any customer/consumer protection laws, but if the amount of money isn't completely trivial it's probably worthwhile.
@GoodDayToDie
I was explaining him the context....
Vanishing apps from the marketplace is most likely caused by the developer not renewing his subscription, in which case, I believe Microsoft needs a different approach than simply removing the apps from the marketplace.
However, the agreement between the developer and microsoft kinda prevents this sort of action. Microsoft has no right to keep supporting the app, since it has no copyright over it.
When the developer decides it is time to remove the app from the marketplace, there is really nothing microsoft can do about it...and this is the argument we've been talking about here.
Even so, technically, microsoft is free of any responsibility in either cases, due to their devious terms of use.
I don;t really like it, but that's how it is. And if you like the platform, you will get over it.
I too, am an avid fan of using offline things: i buy games on a physical DVD, not online.
I don't use steam, and any steam games. at all. Music also goes by in physical disk.
Being a developer is probably an advantage, since i can homebrew the apps i need which would otherwise be costly on the marketplace (except games, but then again, I don't play halo or fifa or big titles anyway).
And presenting this as a disadvantage of the platform (or a restriction), considering all other platforms pretty much do the same, is ignorance at its finest.
I was explaining him the context....
Vanishing apps from the marketplace is most likely caused by the developer not renewing his subscription, in which case, I believe Microsoft needs a different approach than simply removing the apps from the marketplace.
However, the agreement between the developer and microsoft kinda prevents this sort of action. Microsoft has no right to keep supporting the app, since it has no copyright over it.
When the developer decides it is time to remove the app from the marketplace, there is really nothing microsoft can do about it...and this is the argument we've been talking about here.
Even so, technically, microsoft is free of any responsibility in either cases, due to their devious terms of use.
I don;t really like it, but that's how it is. And if you like the platform, you will get over it.
I too, am an avid fan of using offline things: i buy games on a physical DVD, not online.
I don't use steam, and any steam games. at all. Music also goes by in physical disk.
Being a developer is probably an advantage, since i can homebrew the apps i need which would otherwise be costly on the marketplace (except games, but then again, I don't play halo or fifa or big titles anyway).
And presenting this as a disadvantage of the platform (or a restriction), considering all other platforms pretty much do the same, is ignorance at its finest.
Android is actually much more open in this way... but I disagree that it's ignorance in any way shape or form to call out Microsoft for their user-unfriendly behavior, even if that weren't true. I'm quite fully cognizant of the fact that, for example, iOS does much the same thing. That doesn't exonerate Microsoft though, and I will call them (or anything that smacks of an apologist for them) to task over it.
Microsoft could, if they felt it was in their interest to do so, easily work around the problem you describe of developers withdrawing their apps. The obvious one that comes to mind is to require that apps published on the store be published with a copyright license that grants Microsoft the right to make and distribute copies as necessary to provide copies to those who have a legal right to possess them (that is, people who have bought the app). This would not grant Microsoft the right to sell the app directly, so the developer could still remove the app from sale. However, they could not retroactively (and without compensation) revoke the app's purchase; Microsoft would, for as long as they cared to keep the .XAP file on their servers, be able to provide a copy to whoever bought it from them.
I feel like this is an obvious solution to the problem you described... if you assume that Microsoft is acting in the best interests of its customers. Similar "right to make and distribute copies for the express purpose of..." clauses are fairly common in both copyright law and copyright licenses; for example, when uploading an app to the store, you *do* have to grant Microsoft a license to copy and distribute the app to those who buy (or freely install) it. Microsoft is under no obligation to make that a revocable license. Similarly, copyright law explicitly recognizes the right to duplicate software from a computer's storage into executable memory, including cache lines, registers, and so on. If MS wanted to, they could require such a license.
Unfortunately, Microsoft is not on our side here. They *want* to preserve the "right" (which did not exist in any legal or real-world sense until recently) to retroactively un-sell copyrighted products, without in any way compensating the purchaser. This is also true of Apple, Amazon, and most other "sellers" of DRMed goods.
Microsoft could, if they felt it was in their interest to do so, easily work around the problem you describe of developers withdrawing their apps. The obvious one that comes to mind is to require that apps published on the store be published with a copyright license that grants Microsoft the right to make and distribute copies as necessary to provide copies to those who have a legal right to possess them (that is, people who have bought the app). This would not grant Microsoft the right to sell the app directly, so the developer could still remove the app from sale. However, they could not retroactively (and without compensation) revoke the app's purchase; Microsoft would, for as long as they cared to keep the .XAP file on their servers, be able to provide a copy to whoever bought it from them.
I feel like this is an obvious solution to the problem you described... if you assume that Microsoft is acting in the best interests of its customers. Similar "right to make and distribute copies for the express purpose of..." clauses are fairly common in both copyright law and copyright licenses; for example, when uploading an app to the store, you *do* have to grant Microsoft a license to copy and distribute the app to those who buy (or freely install) it. Microsoft is under no obligation to make that a revocable license. Similarly, copyright law explicitly recognizes the right to duplicate software from a computer's storage into executable memory, including cache lines, registers, and so on. If MS wanted to, they could require such a license.
Unfortunately, Microsoft is not on our side here. They *want* to preserve the "right" (which did not exist in any legal or real-world sense until recently) to retroactively un-sell copyrighted products, without in any way compensating the purchaser. This is also true of Apple, Amazon, and most other "sellers" of DRMed goods.
Last edited:
I doubt they are going to change this any time soon.
The terms of use imposed by the marketplace have been negotiated with each and every country supported by the marketplace. This will be a very time consuming process to say the least. There are quite a few governments who only want only DRM protected software in this kind of online exchanges (and US is one of them).
Then there's all kinds of association and stuff like this (ACTA, DMCA etc etc) which proactively seek to enforce the DRM mechanism for pretty much everything.
However, in the long term, I can see where this is coming from (yes, I will blame piracy, and windows is probably the most pirated software on the planet).
Maybe, in time, this will change. They obviously heard many of the desires of the developers (they allow homebrew now without having to pay, and they also allow you to develop without having to pay, which is a huge step forward). The platform is getting better and better everyday.
But there is no point in calling this a "restriction", and there is no point in citing the "law" against this, since the "law" itself protects this mechanism and because of the "law" this came to be. The problem is a lot deeper and calling MS on it is still called ignorance. One has to kill the roots first.
And ultimately, it is our fault too. But this has deeper ramifications than one would like to believe.
Similar threads
Top Liked Posts
-
There are no posts matching your filters.
-
11Bleh... I'm just going to respond to both of you in one message. It already kind of feels like I'm feeding trolls.
First of all, Microsoft is well aware of this site and at least some of their employees do read it and link to it at work (I work in the Seattle tech industry, so of course I know some Microsofties). It's probably not the best place to try and get a personal response, or even widespread change of opinion, but it's not something that nobody ever visits. Part of the reason XDA has such strong anti-piracy rules is to avoid being flagged as a warez site and blocked.
Second, while some of your points are good, one-option, your writing (except in your last post, thankfully) is so unpleasant to read that I find myself disregarding what you have to say even when I agree with it. Professionalism is not the only key to being taken seriously, but it's an important one. Long chains of periods (full stops) and exclamation marks, inconsistent capitalization and punctuation, difficult-to-follow sentence structure, interjections and tangents (like "Good thinking Microsoft" and "should start with removing the banned from my account in Wpcentral for example"), and so on all make it really hard for anybody (Microsoft employee or XDA member) to take your writing seriously. If you aren't going to write in a way that other people will bother to read, why write at all?
Third, Microsoft doesn't control WPCentral. There are two pretty trivial ways to tell: first, look at the domain registration information (registered through GoDaddy for "Smartphone Experts" of "Axel Ltd. Co" out of Florida); second, read their articles (including the ones they post about interop-unlocks and free dev unlocks and so on) and realize that a lot of that is stuff that MS employees would never spread externally (not that you've shown any sign of understanding how businesspeople think, but trust me, that's not something they would do). Getting all pissy about your banned account there - almost certainly because you were making a general nuisance of yourself, much like you are here, regardless of the validity of your complaints - is completely off-topic for XDA anyhow.
Fourth, if you've concluded that WP8 is not for you, that's fine and dandy. If you love other smartphone OSes so much, why do you have WP devices anyhow? They certainly aren't the cheapest option (although some of them have a great price-to-hardware value). Just have fun with your other devices. The rest of us will have fun with ours.
Fifth, the file management thing is actually a good point. mcosmin222, contrary to what you say, there are serious limitations on how much you can integrate an app with the OS. For example, lets say my music is in Ogg Vorbis format. Re-encoding it would greatly reduce the quality (and Vorbis is a good codec anyhow) but if I just put those Ogg files on my phone via USB in the normal way, I won't be able to open them from an Ogg player app, or manage them (much less play them) through the built-in media software. I can't replace that media software either, which is another kind of restriction but another genuinely problematic one; apps aren't allowed to set themselves as the default handler for anything which the OS has a built-in handler for, and the built-in media app has capabilities no third-party app is allowed to have.
Sixth, the volume control on WP8 is very poorly designed. Leaving aside the fact that even dumbphones have long been perfectly capable of supporting different media and ringtone (and call, which WP8 *does* support, and alarms, which it doesn't really) volume levels, there are other issues like keeping the same value between headphones and "loud"speaker. As for the counterpoint about blaring music when you don't want to, that's a non-issue; nobody is *forcing* you to set the volumes differently, and if you choose to do so, it's presumably because you feel the benefits outweigh the problems. However, that's not really a "restriction". It's a poor design of the OS, but it's not something that you are prevented from doing (in the same sense that producing a usable file manager is prohibited, because of the prohibition on developers adding the required capabilities to their apps). In any case, it's a long-requested and well-known item, and quite popular on the Uservoice site (which already exists as a feedback mechanism to Microsoft).
Seventh, you can actually change what buttons are on the IE app bar in WP8 (it's in settings). You can of course install third-party apps that provide their own UI around a WebView as well, just like on iOS. In fact, this is mostly *not* a restriction problem, and there are several browser apps in the store (adding more isn't hard either). The place where restrictions on the users do become a problem is in *changing* the default browser. Currently, that's not possible without pretty extensive hacks. With that said, though calling the current browser one that "just works" is an ignorant and disingenuous thing to say. It may work for many people, but it certainly doesn't work for all people. For example, the inconvenience of needing to create browser shortcuts for Forward/Back/View Source, the limitation of 6 tabs, the restriction to only "desktop" or "mobile" user-agent string options, the inability to go full-screen, and more... those are all problems with the built-in browser app that a third-party one can fix, to say nothing of the many other problems that one can't (not practically, at least).
Eighth, to send a message to a contact from the dialer interface, it's really easy: tap the contact (name or phone number) to open the contact card, then tap "text" (or whatever you want to do). That's the same number of taps, and without the hold, that it would take to do what you (one-option) are suggesting.
Ninth, you are *both* wrong about XAPs.
mcosmin222, there is absolutely no reason that you shouldn't be able to install Store apps by opening a link to the XAP in the browser or an attached one in an email; it would work the same way as installation from SD card (requires a quic connection to the store in order to get license info). In fact, this *is* how you install "company apps"; the code to handle opening files with .XAP extension is already present. It just (for no discernible reason at all) only works for XAPs with company app signatures. Logically, it *should* process DRMed-and-store-signed apps the same way that installing from SD does, and unsigned apps by offering to install them directly (assuming your phone is developer-unlocked). It just doesn't work that way, for some reason. Note that there is absolutely no increase in piracy through this approach; it is *merely* a way to make legitimately installing apps less inconvenient for the user. That's it.
For one-option, as I've already mentioned, you can open XAPs in the browser or email; they just won't install that way if they are either store apps or development/homebrew apps. To install store apps, use the store on the phone, the store web site on a PC, or a SD card. To install homebrew/development apps, use the Application Deployment tool (xapdeploy.exe) that is part of the (free) WP8 SDK installation with a phone connected via USB. This is a bad user experience, undeniably; to have so many ways to install apps is good, to have them all mutually incompatible with each other is terrible. For example, why not let xapdeploy (or some other USB-based tool) install store-signed apps, anyhow? It would serve *exactly* the same use case as doing it via SD card, but would be more convenient for those people who have the dev tools installed and would be usable by people who don't have microSD slots.
Once again, though, this isn't really a "restriction" thing except for the limits on what sideloaded apps can do, and how many can be sideloaded. It's a poorly-designed user experience which causes frustration, confusion, and misconceptions about the product line, all of which are detrimental to gaining market share and positive marketplace reputation. That's more than bad enough, but don't confuse it with "restrictions". Those exist too, but you missed them entirely.10Dude, if you want anybody either here or at Microsoft to take you seriously, write clearly and cut the hyperbole. All I got out of that was "there's no file manager on the phone, so I had to copy an MP3 to the Ringtones folder manually; Microsoft, why must you restrict me so!?!"
... and I say this as one of the people leading the WP8 hacking effort, most of which is aimed at removing those sorts of restrictions. If I were a Microsoft architect reading that and deciding whether to even bother filing the feedback, I'd probably discard it as "just another incoherent Microsoft-hater who doesn't even have a real problem, just a complaint about the workflow for an infrequent user experience". If that's not the bin you want your words tossed in, you need to sound like somebody to be taken seriously.
Talk about how their mis-steps will hurt their bottom line. Talk about competitive advantages and disadvantages. Talk about company loyalty - not in a "frothing at the mouth" or "bitter and snide comments" manner, but in terms of what gains (or loses) it in large groups - and point out ways that they are can help improve it. Don't tell them what to do - Microsoft has a *terrible* case of Not Invented Here when it comes to outside suggestions - but justify to them what they *should* do, in the same way you would, for example, try to justify to your boss that you deserve a raise, or something like that. If you can convince people there to want to make things better, you've already won; one person on the inside probably has more influence than a thousand voices out here. Be persuasive, not argumentative; diplomatic, not intimidating; charismatic, not petulant; thoughtful, not dogmatic. Being passionate is fine, even great, but you must channel it into mature and meaningful discussion, not outbursts.
Another point: think about the restrictions from their side. They didn't put them there to piss you off. Nobody trying to break into a market intentionally cripples their product to make it *less* popular. They have reasons. Those reasons may not be for your benefit, of course - Microsoft's real customers are OEMs and mobile operators, not users, and sometimes the desires of those customers override the desires of *their* customers, the users. Think about things like test and support costs, the dangers of bad press and reputations for malware and the like, and other problems they may have foreseen. Consider what it might cost them to do what you want, and make your case in terms of it being more valuable for them to do that than just in terms of what you want personally.
And seriously, can the hyperbole. I can't take anybody who claims that a device which didn't even have a decent approximation of a real web browser is basically the same, aside from some hardware features, as a WP8 device. That kind of talk will just get you dismissed out of hand.7How I feel about Windows Phone 8 in General.
Security & Security again Security I feel like people behind Windows Phone 8 watching their phones screens all the night waiting for some malware or trojan to attack, but in fact all the malware and trojans are busy in other places and no one of it will attack Windows Phone 8, because still they don't even know what is Windows Phone 8 !
They made Windows Phone 8 full of restrictions ..................... and I feel it is just a keypad old Nokia Phone with touch screen and camera.
Microsoft you didn't go so far away from Nokia 3310 , do you remember it ?
well done after all this years you just added a Lumia + touch screen + a camera.
Microsoft just removed the keypad and snack game (I'm sure guys in Nokia wasn't satisfied abut that but Mr.Stephen Elop was pushing them)
I downloaded one ringtone for my Lumia 920............ I was forced to connect my Lumia 920 to my Laptop to put the MP3 file inside the Lumia 920 ringtone folder so the Lumia 920 can feel what happened to it after this surgery ..........I was forced to do this surgery because Windows Phone 8 doesn't have a file manager, this word file manager in Microsoft is equal to terrorism, security ,,,,,,,,security ................security...........restrictions .....not allowed this is really disappointed.5
It is kinda funny how everybody argues with the "omg WP7 abandoned" card, when it isn't entirely true. Wp7 still has 1 full year of support left, and any bugs will be fixed if discovered. Did you know that all Wp7 got 2 updates (after 7.8) which fixed gmail sync?
Plus, you keep saying the WP7 "abandon" is something that only happens with Windows Phone, yet you keep forgetting that most android devices don't get a 18 month support life cycle at all, let alone 18 months renewed with each update (wp8 now has 36 months! of support for each new version iteration). Unless you pay a lot of money on hardware which is really waisted (cough, galaxy phones, cough) or on overpiced phones (cough iphone), you won't get technical support at all in most cases.
I understand you just want to bash on WP because you got banned from WPCentral, but you will be ignored here anyway. Plus, Microsoft employees can't see this forum due to its hacking nature.3
If you, or anyone, feels they are being attacked, then the correct course of action is to report the post and let a mod come in and handle it. Replying back is just going to drag on the issue and in most all cases will make things worse.
