Most Windowsphone users have been realistic. They know that Microsoft has lost interest but whenever they put to Microsoft representatives the question of what they are doing about WIndowsphone they have got vague answers of little substance.
Microsoft say they will “support” Windowsphone when they out it into maintenance mode. They talk about mobile “experiences” across devices. They are never seen with a Windowsphone device.
Lack of clarity was frustrating for people.
However this weekend Joe Belfiore, recently quoted as using a Samsung S8 “Microsoft Edition”, came out and said it in a tweet;
Of course we'll continue to support the platform.. bug fixes, security updates, etc. But building new features/hw aren't the focus. 😟 https://t.co/0CH9TZdIFu
— Joe Belfiore (@joebelfiore) October 8, 2017
“Of course we’ll continue to support the platform.. bug fixes, security updates, etc. But building new features/hw aren’t the focus.”
“ As an individual end-user, I switched platforms for the app/hw diversity. We will support those users too! Choose what’s best 4 u.”
“We have tried VERY HARD to incent app devs. Paid money.. wrote apps 4 them.. but volume of users is too low for most companies to invest. “
Back in 2016 Terry Myerson said phone was not the focus. This was taken to mean in 2016 but it meant that was it.
Personally I think this is first straightforward answer we have seen.
However without mobile there seems little point in UWP and Cortana because these technologies are only relevant on a personal device like phone. UWP has limited use as a driver to the store but overall it is really PC only for most things. Cortana on PC is fine but where you really want it is on mobile. Mostly Android phones will use Google Assistant.
The investment in mobile, in my view, was never just about mobile but rather it was the place other technologies are going to live for a while. Mobile is the personal computer. AI and mixed reality are on mobile first.
So well done Joe. You have finally said what Microsoft should have said a year ago and are closing the door on consumer computing with the exception of the Xbox.
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#205063"><em>In reply to WP7Mango:</em></a></blockquote><p>UWP is, for the most part, redundant on the desktop (and IMO pointless on Xbox and overkill for IoT). MS has had a number of new Windows application platforms over the years but none have them have really displaced Win32. Ultimately, the market will decide if UWP is successful.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#205116"><em>In reply to jimchamplin:</em></a></blockquote><p>The argument that UWP is better for IoT is a very hard case to make given the fact that there's practically no IoT devices sold that use it. I guess as a recent buzzword the definition of IoT can be somewhat stretched but generally such devices don't have a PC-like or even smartphone-like UI, more like a few buttons and simple display (if it has one at all). Not an obvious match for UWP.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#205120"><em>In reply to WP7Mango:</em></a></blockquote><p>It's like the Monty Python skit. It's not an argument, it's simple contradiction.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#205618"><em>In reply to WP7Mango:</em></a></blockquote><p>OK. Redundant: With the possible exception of scaling UWP functionality is just a subset of Win32 functionality. XBOX: Is there any evidence that people who wouldn't otherwise have bought an XBOX are buying one now because it runs UWP apps? IoT: Where are the IoT products based on UWP?</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#205865"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>I agree. To the extent Windows embedded was sucessful it was in devices that were more PC-like than traditional embedded devices.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#205258"><em>In reply to WP7Mango:</em></a></blockquote><p>The Buzz on Windows laptops with an ARM processor is being able to run 32-bit legacy applications, not UWP. Personally, I don't think it will matter much since Intel laptops can already run all Win32 apps (32 and 64) and UWP apps as well. IMO, the excitement of ARM is just leftover from the WinRT days. I doubt that the price/performance ratio is going to be better.</p>
skane2600
<p>“We have tried VERY HARD to incent app devs."</p><p><br></p><p>Certainly not at the beginning. Should have been zero fee to submit apps, smaller MS cut. etc.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#205388"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>Yes, IMO the entire reason for Windows 8 on the desktop was to promote the Windows Phone and the WinRT tablets.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#205117"><em>In reply to jimchamplin:</em></a></blockquote><p>Do you realize that there's no "look" in UWP apps that can't be matched by a Win32 app if the developer desired it to? It generally doesn't happen because the UWP approach isn't optimal for the desktop.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#206129"><em>In reply to jimchamplin:</em></a></blockquote><p>Look, simple apps can have simple interfaces, but sophisticated programs are going to be more complicated, unless people want go through pages and pages of "simple" interfaces to perform tasks.</p><p><br></p><p>Programming in the real world isn't just about technology, it's about business as well. If you are starting out you might find that listening to people with experience is just as important as learning a computer language or platform. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#206155"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>I also open up multiple instances of Paint. I suspect a lot of people do. </p><p><br></p><p>As you know, with increased capability comes more complex user interfaces, it's fundamental. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#205552"><em>In reply to WP7Mango:</em></a></blockquote><p>Well, in the Windows 95 era the focus was on testing UI approaches on average people to see what was the simplest for people to use. Now the focus seems to be on some artistic aesthetic that is as fleeting as skirt length in women's clothes. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#205601"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>Wishful thinking, yes, but I doubt that HP's position in the phone market had much to do with their failure. IMO, all these schemes (Continuum, HP Workspace) had a fatal flaw – there's no economic or productivity case for trying run on or connect to PC applications from a smartphone. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#205862"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>HP Workspace had a similar approach that allowed full Windows programs to run and not just UWP apps. But despite these capabilities I doubt there's a big move on the part of Enterprises to ditch their desktop or laptop PCs in favor of using Android phones and docking stations. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#205902"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>I agree that the Citrix solution is better than the Continuum one. I just don't think docked phones are ever going to be a big part of enterprise computing. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#205924"><em>In reply to hrlngrv:</em></a></blockquote><p>Anything is possible, but the bad value proposition doesn't change. If an employee is going to have to work offsite, it's highly likely the company will issue them a laptop. Then the phone/hub just becomes an extra expense.</p>
Riki Smith
<p>Contact us 18668661752 Microsoft customer service toll free number.If you have any problems related to Microsoft then call 18668661752. </p>
shameermulji
<p>So does this mean that hopes of a Surface Phone are essentially dead?</p>
shameermulji
<blockquote><a href="#205347"><em>In reply to paul-thurrott:</em></a></blockquote><p>Well, not to get too technical, but with Belfiore's "announcement", it's safe to assume Windows Phone dead. What I'm referring to is a Surface phone device that runs ARM / Windows 10S, not Windows Phone / Windows Mobile.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#205834"><em>In reply to Roger Ramjet:</em></a></blockquote><p> "Way back when, an upstart company stayed alive by satisfying a small fastidious, high end customer segment in PCs."</p><p><br></p><p>Compaq? </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#205864"><em>In reply to Roger Ramjet:</em></a></blockquote><p>It's generally a mistake to put too much stock in raw numbers, it's percentages that matter. What makes sense to invest in for a small company doesn't necessarily make sense for a very large one. </p><p><br></p><p>BTW, Apple wasn't an "upstart". They were the market leader in personal computers prior to the introduction of the IBM PC. In fact, that Apple II "carried the water" for the Mac in the early years.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#205576"><em>In reply to Roger Ramjet:</em></a></blockquote><p>The problem with a small device that can't be "engineered" away is the ergonomics. Tiny virtual keyboards and tiny screens will always be awkward for PC-like tasks. The other constraint is that a mobile device to be used as phone becomes awkward to use if it's too big. That's why there's such a push for small or no bezels, but it can only take you so far.</p>
skane2600
<blockquote><a href="#205928"><em>In reply to ghostrider:</em></a></blockquote><p>"Running win32 apps on a small screen Windows device is going to be painful."</p><p><br></p><p>I agree but doing just about any content creation on a small screen device is going to be painful regardless of platform. That's the basis for my claim that smartphones won't replace PC-like computers.</p>
Riki Smith
<p>Contact us 18668661752 Microsoft customer service toll free number.If you have any problems related to Microsoft then call 18668661752. We provide toll free service 1-866-866-1752 for Microsoft Customer Support USA 24*7.</p><p><br></p>