Microsoft's Most Profitable Mobile Operating System: Android 309
puddingebola writes "Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has a piece of commentary discussing Microsoft's profit from their patent claims on Android. From the article, 'To some, Windows 8 is a marketplace failure. But its flop has been nothing compared to Microsoft's problems in getting anyone to use its Windows Phone operating systems. You don't need to worry about Microsoft's bottom line though. Thanks to its Android patent agreements, Microsoft may be making as much as $8 per Android device. This could give Microsoft as much as $3.4 billion in 2013 from Android sales.'"
Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
So after all... Microsoft is making money on Linux.
Re:Linux (Score:3)
So after all... Microsoft is making money on Linux.
2013 is the year of Linux revenue in Microsoft's pocket!
Re:Linux (Score:2)
Well, not exactly. This is bloat. 3.4 billion dollars of bloat.
Re:Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
...in an extremely limited and entirely self-serving way.
Redhat and Suse deserve those billions far more than Microsoft does. Even Canonical has a better claim.
Re:Linux (Score:2)
The whole point of Open Source is that those limited and self serving things by everyone add up to make things better collectively. For example, adding Hyper-V and Azure support will allow Linux to get a foothold easily in Microsoft-only shops.
Re:Linux (Score:3)
The HyperV support is certainly appreciated by all users that are running Linux on HyperV.
The Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
All Google needs to do is offer a commercial licence, for a small fee, to all Android OEM's that indemnifies them. This way if Microsoft has an issue with Android or Linux they can take on Google directly. But, we all know that would never happen because Microsoft clearly knows that Google would single handily invalidate all of their obvious, worthless and prior art ridden patents one by one.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft isn't really being much of a problem here.
You seem to be confusing form for content. Yes, MS is following the form of "FRAND" but what they are FRANDing is itself not reasonable. If MS had a legitimate set of patents, they wouldn't keep them a secret. FFS patents are public documents.
Re:The Solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Samsung and HTC are massive multi-billion dollar companies. They can stand up for themselves and enter into business agreements as it suits them. They know exactly what's in these patents and why it is worth licensing them. They don't need a bunch of pathetic "open source advocates" (aka M$ haters) making up paranoid conspiracy theories.
Re:The Solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
So why not just do it? It's money on the table for the whole ecosystem.
If one company stands up to MS and loses, MS will certainly charge them more for the licensing. But if they win, all the manufacturers will benefit equally as the patents will be invalidated for everyone. So the risk of failing in a challenge is not proportional to the benefit of wining the challenge.
As it is now, each manufacturer can just pass the licensing fees through to the end customer and since all the major android manufacturers (presumably) have roughly the same licensing costs there is no competitive disadvantage to paying the microsoft tax.
Re:The Solution (Score:2)
It's Too Long Ago (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's Too Long Ago (Score:2)
Why even include life of the author? (Score:3)
Re:It's Too Long Ago (Score:2)
The patents are from the Jurassic age, in software years.
Time is relative.
The "bleeding edge" tech so beloved by the geek can cost too much or be far from ready for deployment.
Insightful - So they could be making even more (Score:2, Insightful)
So if Windows Phone were shutdown.
There would be no barrier to native Office for Android, or Office for Apple iOS devices. [Just like the old days, competing with Wordstar and Lotus or Borland]
Even better they could shift the developers for Windows Phone over to developing Mobile versions of all their Apps and tools to Android and iOS versions.
They should "own" the Mobile App market on Android and iOS, and stop loosing money on Windows Phone.
The current mindset of tossing good money after bad.. is just plain stupidity and stubborness.. its a culture of "we can't be wrong".
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:Or Debian will release the "Un"Phone (Score:3)
The point of the GNU phone would of course be that it doesn't do that... and that the UI is based on Emacs.
I'll keep hiding (Score:2)
I don't share your pain.
Re:I'll keep hiding (Score:4, Informative)
That is, until Microsoft asserts patent ownership on the stuff in your free software.
I believe several times they've claimed that Linux violates a number of unspecified patents they hold, but I don't believe they've ever been willing to disclose what they are.
One does have to wonder what these patents are, if the patents would survive scrutiny, or if the technology was actually invented by someone else before Microsoft patented it.
Re:I'll keep hiding (Score:2)
I just don't get it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why are manufacturers paying this extortion rather than banding together and trying to fight it like any other patent troll?
What is Google's position on this and why aren't they indemnifying manufacturers that use Android or fighting this themselves?
Re:I just don't get it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the legal system that we have created is designed to let companies like Microsoft do exactly what they are doing. This is completely normal.
Re:I just don't get it? (Score:2)
I realize that this whole patent troll thing has been going on for a while but haven't a large number of high profile patent cases eventually gotten shot down as either prior art, unpatentable things or too vague and the claims have been dismissed?
Are Microsoft's patents that strong where everyone feels they will loose in court?
Is it really so much easier and cost efficient to pay extortion rather than all the company's co-operating and banding together in a lawsuit to challenge the validity of Microsoft's patent claims?
Re:I just don't get it? (Score:2)
Because the extortion is cheaper than fighting it out in court. $5/device isn't a lot of money - even if your device sold in SGS3 quantities (over 50M) that's $250M. A good patent lawsuit on the patents Microsoft asserts would run way bigger than that (I think Samsung spent at least that much on the Apple lawsuit).
Thus, it's cheaper overall than to fight it. As for other manufacturers - well, considering Samsung would benefit the most as they own practically 80% of the Android market (while the SGS3 may be a bestseller in Samsung's lineup by selling 50M units, Samsung shipped tons more Android phones - so much that the SGS3 is barely 10-12% of the entire lineup - the rest are all the other Android phones Samsung sells - SGS2, the freebies, the crappies, etc). So the primary beneficiary would be Samsung, something which I think HTC, LG, etc., might be opposed to. Google as well, since I'm not so sure they like how Samsung is starting to dictate how Android should work (or the whole separate ecosystem Samsung is building with their app store).
As for why Google isn't doing it? Well, what's in it for Google? They make no money off Android other than ads sold by showing them in apps. Heck, recent surveys have shown that iOS data traffic still beats Android traffic by 2 to 1, despite Android outselling iOS by 3 to 1 or more. Thus iOS uses are more likely to see ads and Google STILL makes more money from iOS that way. (And it seems advertisers value an iOS user more - they will pay more for an ad impression to an iOS user than Android, apparently 2 to 3 times as much money). Google only does Android to prevent themselves being shut out of a revenue stream (ads on mobiles).
Re:I just don't get it? (Score:2)
Why are manufacturers paying this extortion rather than banding together and trying to fight it like any other patent troll?
It could never be that their lawyers and engineers are telling them the patents are significant and valid. It could never be that they routinely cross-license patents with Microsoft.
So, being a BIG patent troll is more profitable... (Score:2)
than actually making products that don't suck. Implication? Corporate leeches and legal parasites have changed the legal environment to favor their existence by purchasing laws via bribes labeled as "campaign contributions." Tell me again how, as an individual ISV or inventor, I could *ever* be successful in the USA's current legal environment?
Use the right words (Score:2)
Brinksmanship would be another.
Re:Fuck off (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not?
If you're going to make a claim like that, you should at least say why. If they're valid, legitimate patents then I see no reason why the company shouldn't make money off them. That's how the system works.
Re:Fuck off (Score:5, Insightful)
In the current patent regime, it is far more likely that the patents involved are total bullsh*t. It's Microsoft that has to justify itself here. Of course it will never do that because the entire Android community could then try to code around this kind of larceny and extortion.
Although some things boil down to "being compatible".
Re:Fuck off (Score:5, Insightful)
But Microsoft are justifying themselves. They are going to court where companies justify themselves. IANAL but if I read the news correctly they are currently crashing Motorola in each and every court they sue each other. Of course none of the cases is over yet but the "justification" has certainly began.
Re:Fuck off (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fuck off (Score:2)
OK but I think you can't blame Microsoft for the patent system. They did not invent it. They suffered from it and it is well known Bill Gates warned about this. Nobody listened and Microsoft eventually proved he was correct in a "if you can't fight them join them kind of way". In my opinion the patent system for IT is currently a form of tax when entering the field. Microsoft and Apple paid it once upon a time and now they demand it from newer companies. It would be almost unfair if some companies have this obstacle while others don't. Something like applying taxes to one company but not another.
Re:Fuck off (Score:2, Insightful)
That's just like people who legally immigrated to the US getting all mad at the illegal immigrants. "I had to jump through these ridiculous hoops so they damn well should too" instead of "I had to jump through these ridiculous hoops and they suck so much I wouldn't wish them on anyone else." Sure, it is "fair" for a very narrow-mind definition of fair.
Re:Fuck off (Score:3)
If they were talking about eliminating the loops, that would be one thing. But they are basically wanting to keep the loops for those who obey the law (typically the more productive and people who you want immigrating) and short-circuit them for law breakers (people who are more likely to be a drain on the welfare state).
Re:Fuck off (Score:3)
Re: Fuck off (Score:3)
Bill Gates father is a prominent property rights attorney who's advised Bill on structuring MS business practices since day 1.
What are you saying? (Score:2)
Re:What are you saying? (Score:5, Insightful)
What are they waiting for?
A list of exactly what is being violated?
To put it in perspective, consider the SCO-Linux lawsuits. While this isn't exactly the same, it is the same sort of hurdle.
Company A: Your stuff violates some of our stuff! Pay us or else! ...
Company B: What stuff?
Company A: A lot of stuff! 68 things enumerated over thousands of places to be precise. Now pay us or else!
Company B: Um, what stuff is it exactly?
Company A: Oh, you'll find out in court. Consider yourself served!
And for those that agree (settle out of court), it seems common for a "deal" to be offered, with one of the rules being that they don't divulge that information.
Maybe that's not the case here, but I'm betting that's at least part of it (the other part being bogus or weak patents). There may even be a couple valid ones, but as far as I know, that hasn't been fully identified.
Re:Fuck off (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft won't justify themselves, they just have to threaten to take away the Windows licence form that company and thats probably why they won;t go after Google.
In a relatively short period of time, that may be irrelevant... Windows Phone isn't selling for shit, and even Microsoft knows it. That leaves threats and patent pseudo-trolling as their only real income option in the mobile space.
Re: Fuck off (Score:3)
Nokia reported their Q1 2013 results, which were very much, for their smartphone business at least, in line with expectations, with 5.6 million Lumia handsets being shipped, most of these WP8 devices.
Shipped != sold unless there is high demand. For example the Wii when first launched was sold out everywhere so shipped == sold. For WP8 phones, I don't see that kind of demand.
Re:Fuck off (Score:2)
Re:Fuck off (Score:2)
The only one named but not confirmed is about FAT, something easily avoided by using Ext3 or 4.
Re:Fuck off (Score:5, Insightful)
Because this is not how patent settlements work. Patent settlements do not list patents they license the entire portfolio related to the product. This means that if tomorrow MS invents something and Google puts it in Android Samsung will be able to use it because they are paying for it even though it is not invented yet. Actual patents are only shown in court and they are certainly showing some patents when suing Motorola. The Motorola case will certainly prove if MS has relevant patents as the legal system defines them although I am sure /. people will invent a "rounded corners" meme and claim that the judge is corrupted or something.
Re:Fuck off (Score:2)
The only one named but not confirmed is about FAT, something easily avoided by using Ext3 or 4.
Well, until Joe Sixpack wants to pack his micro-SD card with stuff from his Windows laptop...
Re:Fuck off (Score:3)
Simple answer: The people who make the SD standard come up with a non-FAT filesystem for use on it. Devices can then implement either or both depending on their needs. Many devices will implement both and FAT will eventually go away. This would also allow some new things of which FAT is simply incapable. Why hasn't this been done already? I'm sure the FAT patent doesn't have much life left in it but neither does FAT.
Re:Fuck off (Score:3)
The only one named but not confirmed is about FAT, something easily avoided by using Ext3 or 4.
Well, until Joe Sixpack wants to pack his micro-SD card with stuff from his Windows laptop...
Just to be clear: FAT is not patented. Anyone can use it, for any purpose, with no license. The patent is for Extended FAT [wikipedia.org].
Joe's laptop is most likely using NTFS, so he will be copying to a different filesystem regardless of whether it is exFAT or Ext3. A bigger problem is things like cameras which have FAT built into their firmware, but most of these stick to basic 8+3 FAT.
exFAT driver comes with Windows (Score:3)
Joe's laptop is most likely using NTFS, so he will be copying to a different filesystem regardless of whether it is exFAT or Ext3.
The difference is that the driver for exFAT comes with Windows and the driver for Ext3 does not. One would have to gain Internet access, download the Ext3 driver, and convince a member of the Administrators group to run its installer.
The only implementation that Windows understands (Score:3)
Re:Fuck off (Score:5, Insightful)
this isn't how the system is designed or intended, this is how the system has been perverted.
making money off products you do not have any involvement in via patent extortion is a sign of a broken system and this is already reaching antitrust investigations.
Re:Fuck off (Score:2)
...and this is already reaching antitrust investigations.
From your lips to God's ears.
Problem is, I have yet to see any sane thing like that happen yet.
Re:Fuck off (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah?
coverage: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/feds-may-use-subpoena-powers-to-study-patent-trolls/ [arstechnica.com]
explanation: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2013041110212889 [groklaw.net]
give it a few months. The wheels are turning, slowly but surely.
Re:Fuck off (Score:3)
Ironically, it's Google that's facing antitrust issues by abusing FRAND standard patents for extortion on basic things like H.264 and WiFi.
Meanwhile Microsoft and Apple have made a public and binding declaration that they won't use FRAND patents for injunctions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/eu-rules-against-googles-motorola-mobility-unit-over-patent-claim/2013/05/06/00be129c-b666-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Fuck off (Score:5, Informative)
this isn't how the system is designed or intended, this is how the system has been perverted.
making money off products you do not have any involvement in via patent extortion is a sign of a broken system and this is already reaching antitrust investigations.
Well I agree that the system is broken in various ways, but the point of the patent system is to make money off things that you aren't involved in. To allow & encourage people to publish their inventions in return for a cut whenever someone uses that invention. It is supposed to encourage invention, by allowing a monopoly to the first person to do something. They are not supposed to have to make a working product, just to publish their idea so that someone else might.
Now whether that's a good idea anymore is another discussion, but what you describe is what patents are designed to do.
Re: Fuck off (Score:2)
For patents on physical devices a working prototype must be submitted or demonstrated. I fail to see why this should not be the case for software.
Re:Fuck off (Score:3)
Software isn't maths, software is a machine! Saying software is maths is saying that everything that exists is in some form applied maths, which is true, but utterly unhelpful.
Re:Fuck off (Score:2)
Did you check how long they are in place? How well they are checked? How corrupt the system around patents is?
That is how the system works.
The system needs a big change.
Re:Fuck off (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no such thing as a legitimate software patent.
Is racketeering legal or not ? (Score:3)
Re:Fuck off (Score:3)
Motorola sued Microsoft over H.264 related patents in Germany and demanded a ban on Xbox and Windows :) Microsoft countersuit may potentially lead to the ban of Google Maps in Germany. We're far from safe from all this bullshit.
Re: Fuck off (Score:2)
Heh. I'm picturing the western world reduced down to pre-industrial levels due to patent fights and then aliens show up and the best we have to throw at them is a seed drill.
Re:WP8 Isn't all bad (Score:3, Funny)
If Microsoft had pushed out the OS a couple of years earlier the mobile phone market would likely be a very different place.
Yep, and if my grandma had wheels she'd be a WAGON.
Re:WP8 Isn't all bad (Score:2)
well, few years ago they thought that it was nice to have an actual os.
there's nice things about wp8. being a smartphone os isn't one of them though. feature by feature it's a featurephone. no taskswitcher, no proper multitasking(STILL!).. which is just fine for phones but not for gigantic multimedia slabs like the 920. sure, not much venues for malware either, since there's just so much you can do if you as the owner of the device actually want to do..
though I don't know what's so great about rectangles on desktop or icons and text on a mile long list instead of icons on desktop... only having selections on screen for relevant things isn't that bad though.
yeah yeah it's understandable why they don't allow proper multitasking when a trivial app easily gobs up 40 megs of ram whilst it's on foreground. don't ask me where the fuck the memory is going, the program logic in these apps was done in less than a meg on phones 10 years ago.. and the increase in resolution doesn't add up to the memory usage.
Re:WP8 Isn't all bad (Score:3, Informative)
There is a task switcher (hold down the back button and a list pops up with thumbnails from your open app). Also, with WP8, any app can run in the background as long as it conforms to certain rules about resource utilization. Not many apps use the feature yet, but the key ones like Skype do, where you want the app to do something even if the app is running in the background.
Re:WP8 Isn't all bad (Score:2)
It doesn't have a massive "app store" like the Play store or iOS but it does seem to have everything I use.
Duh! Of course it has everything you USE. You couldn't use it if it wasn't on your phone. However, that tells us nothing about whether it has everything you *want*, or everything you *need*.
Re:WP8 Isn't all bad (Score:2)
If Microsoft hadn't planted a trojan horse as Nokia's CEO, the mobile phone market would likely be a very different place: MeeGo would be now a strong contender versus iOS and Android. No change for Windows Phone, of course, it would be as dead as it is now.
Re:WP8 Isn't all bad (Score:4, Informative)
If Microsoft had pushed out the OS a couple of years earlier the mobile phone market would likely be a very different place.
Microsoft had a more capable mobile OS [slashdot.org] in 2001 than they have now with WP8. The hardware has finally reached a point where Windows Mobile could shine but they gave up and bought Danger and trotted out the Kin [wikipedia.org] which they spent over 2 years developing but gave up on in less than 6 mo. They were so desperate to get Windows Phone [wikipedia.org] out the door they left crucial features and backward compatibility out completely. Microsoft is all about bailing the water out of the boat instead of patching the leak.
Re:Does anyone have a list of the patents? (Score:5, Informative)
The main ones are long filenames in FAT, ex-FAT for > 32GB SD cards, and ActiveSync.
There are alternatives for all of these, but in the case of Activesync alternatives, they are not as good, and in the case of FAT, it means getting the same filesystem drivers onto other computers and devices.
Re:Does anyone have a list of the patents? (Score:2)
but in the case of Activesync alternatives, they are not as good
What do you mean, "they're not as good"? What's so magical and special about ActiveSync (whatever that is) that no other protocol for synchronizing nodes in a distributed system (DB servers, remote file systems, collaborative text editors...) can't beat it?
Re:Does anyone have a list of the patents? (Score:4, Interesting)
ActiveSync works. With Exchange. It just works. But it is easily replaced by going to GMAIL and GCalendars. ActiveSync is what killed BlackBerry servers, as it does most everything most people want or need. Not everything, but good enough.
Trust me when I say this, nothing else comes close to Exchange for total functionality. Problem is, it is Microsoft, and horribly expensive. Someone making a ground up replacement to Exchange would make a killing, especially if they give it away for free (j/k).
Re:Does anyone have a list of the patents? (Score:3, Informative)
Kinda' true, but no business of any reasonable size is going to use Google for email and calendaring. Google also doesn't do tasks, notes, etc.
And, FYI, Outlook/Exchange isn't all that expensive. I pay for subscriptions to a service for it, and it's reasonable.
Re:Does anyone have a list of the patents? (Score:3)
Kinda' true, but no business of any reasonable size is going to use Google for email and calendaring.
Urm, like KLM? (11k+ users...)
http://www.google.com/enterprise/apps/business/customers.html [google.com]
Not a Google shill, btw, (I use both G and Outlook, and agree G are not *quite* there yet).
But they're getting closer...
Re:Does anyone have a list of the patents? (Score:3)
Problem is, it is Microsoft, and horribly expensive.
Exchange costs about $60-70 per user for a CAL. Even if you're constantly upgrading to the latest version of Exchange, that's a hair over $20 a year. You and I have different definitions of "horribly expensive." Compared to the cost of a full time employee, $20 is noise.
Re:Does anyone have a list of the patents? (Score:3)
Re:Does anyone have a list of the patents? (Score:3)
ActiveSync is for receiving email from Exchange or other compatible email servers and syncronising calendar, contact etc items. The alternatives are things like IMAP IDLE, but they generally use more data bandwidth and more battery power than ActiveSync.
Re:Does anyone have a list of the patents? (Score:3)
You have a few options that try to emulate it(or at least its feature set) but really they don't have it yet.
What exactly *is* its "feature set" that you claim is unique to ActiveSync? It still makes little sense to me, the problem of synchronizing two sets of data in disparate locations is pevasive and well-researched: multi-master RDBMS replication, rsync, Unison, distributed VCS (Darcs, Git. Mercurial), collaborative text editors, directory services synchronization... I'm being serious, this is actually an area I'm interested in and I'd like to know why mobile data synchronization, of all data synchronization protocols, is so ill-serviced. There doesn't seem to be any objective reason for that to be the case.
Re:Does anyone have a list of the patents? (Score:2)
Maybe you should educate yourself before you make stupid claims
I've posed two questions and zero claims. How can a set of two questions and zero claims contain stupid claims is beyond me. I know you're just a trolling AC, but still...
Re:Does anyone have a list of the patents? (Score:2)
By asking the question "What's so magical and special about Activesync", you are implicitly stating that the alternatives are so good that ActiveSync has to actually use magic in order to be better than them. Putting a question mark at the end of an outrageous implication doesn't get you off the hook for implying outrageous claims.
Re:Does anyone have a list of the patents? (Score:2)
you are implicitly stating that the alternatives are so good that ActiveSync has to actually use magic in order to be better than them
You're putting your words into my mouth. I've said no such thing. I've merely reacted to the claim that none of the alternatives is "as good". Setting aside the usual caveats of unidimensional comparison, it raises the question of why the market leader in an industry area notorious for networking effects should be technically superior against dozens of both existing and possible competitors when it is actually seldom the case in the field (witness VHS, for example).
Re:No, he's asking whats so good. (Score:2)
rsync and activesync are two completely different things. One is for transferring files, the other is for delivering emails, calendar, contacts etc to mobile devices.
Re:Does anyone have a list of the patents? (Score:5, Interesting)
any good reason not to use UDF for large flash cards? it has read and write support in linux, mac and windows. I use it for USB sticks.
Re:Does anyone have a list of the patents? (Score:4, Interesting)
any good reason not to use UDF for large flash cards? it has read and write support in linux, mac and windows. I use it for USB sticks.
This is why I read slashdot.
Apparently it had passed me by that UDF is for anything other than DVDs (I know technically you can have any FS on any block device on Linux). I am actually going to try this on my next USB stick.
Thanks!
UDF file format (Score:4, Informative)
I have no personal experience here, but this UDF compatibility matrix [wikipedia.org] does not look too promising. Apparently there are five UDF versions and three variants within each version, and only the oldest versions (from 1996-1997) actually have wide OS support.
A bit more googling produces more comments from users about tricky [ortolo.eu] incompatibilities [linuxforums.org].
Re:Does anyone have a list of the patents? (Score:3)
I'd suggest Ext2 as a far better alternative. Have one small partition with Ext2Fsd or other software for Windows users, and every other popular platform will be able to just natively mount it. If it caught on, Microsoft would look positively user-UN-friendly, and would soon recant and include native Ext2 support, probably copied from FreeBSD like they've done in the past...
Re:Does anyone have a list of the patents? (Score:2)
Re:Does anyone have a list of the patents? (Score:3)
Re:Does anyone have a list of the patents? (Score:2)
That is a different ActiveSync to the one I was refering to that Android uses, and yes that one is pretty rubbish. Exchange Activesync works over the air, and it makes no difference how many other devices are connected to the same computer, or even if it is connected to one at all.
Re:Windows Phone equals RIM at rest (Score:5, Interesting)
Why all the FUD?
Re:Windows Phone equals RIM at rest (Score:4, Insightful)
I knew a guy that bought an AMC Pacer. He loved it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1975_AMC_Pacer_base_model_frontleftside.jpg [wikipedia.org]
Re:Windows Phone equals RIM at rest (Score:3)
Re:Windows Phone equals RIM at rest (Score:3)
A guy I work with got one too. It was very nice looking, and the interface seemed pretty slick.
A couple of us were standing by his desk chatting and watched as his phone, sitting on his desk, lit up and started to call his wife without any user interaction. He had so many problems with it, he traded it in for an iPhone.
I've seen a few in the wild, like people using them in restaurants and bars, but he was the only person I've known that had one.
Re:Windows Phone equals RIM at rest (Score:3)
FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt - none of those elements are present in the above post. It's simply an account that that differs from your personal experience. It may or may not be true, but it's not FUD.
Well, to be fair its actually just bullshit that differs from reality, posted with the intent of creating FUD.
Every sentence in the GP was factually incorrect. The ones that were opinion based are clearly lies (like them not being available -- every single Verizon and ATT store in the US carries them, every authorized reseller will also have them available). I suspect the "I actually wanted to develop for it" was a lie, too... given that they're so easy to find and the dev tools are free for it.
Re:Windows Phone equals RIM at rest (Score:2)
I've seen them too. Everyone carries them, just like everyone carried the Zune. Some people even bought the Zune. I knew one guy that had one and loved it. Just one. I'm sure other people bought them too though.
Re:Windows Phone equals RIM at rest (Score:2)
Re:Windows Phone equals RIM at rest (Score:2)
Hell my Dad can hardly use a flip phone. I can't imagine him with any kind of smartphone. I know my wife's droid has a picture of a phone on it. Push that and it brings up a keypad. Lot's of people can't even do that.
Re:next on the s.v.n. show... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, maybe being a writer for ZDNet he writes things which are frequently of interest to us?
Three whole times in 2013 so far, wow, there must be some kind of conspiracy.
Re:next on the s.v.n. show... (Score:2)