December 15, 2008 8:37 AM PST
Microsoft's first iPhone application is broken, but the company is fixed
It's very cool that Microsoft recognized the obvious: the iPhone, not Windows Mobile, is the leading mobile platform, and hence is the right place to release its Seadragon Mobile application.
Unfortunately, Microsoft didn't take the time to ensure it released a stable version of the application. As revealed on support forums on Sunday, Seadragon Mobile is broken. As The Register reports, this isn't the first time that the Microsoft Live Labs team has released a broken application.
Even so, I'm encouraged that Microsoft is interacting with competing platforms at all. It's a sign of a growing maturity in Redmond. It has become more open to open source. It's nice to see it moving its applications beyond Windows, as well.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
I disagree that iPhone is obviously the leading mobile platform. I have used windows mobile based phones for almost 4 years now (before that blackberry) and while it is not as flashy as the iPhone, I find it to be unrivaled for business use. The ease of use for business applications such as opening spreadsheets and documents, editing them, and then E-mailing them trumps anything Apple is offering on their phone. Of course there is still plenty to be desired in the Word and Excel mobile applications, but in their current state they are very useful, and each new version has more features. Not to mention integration with my Outlook. The short of it is that I used to have to carry around a laptop with me all of the time, now I have most of the capabilities I need during my commute (on the train, I am not one of the type and drive people) on my phone.
...until you compare it to a Crackberry. ;)
One thing that is also very nice about WM is that there is not much to configure when you upgrade to a new phone (which I did a couple of months ago) all I have to do is plug it in to my computer and set up active sync to work with the new device, then all of my contacts, calendar, etc. sync up. I keep all of my files on a microSD card so I just move that from one device to the other and I am basically done. Plus if the phone dies I loose nothing, it is all backed up daily when I sync my calendar
I don't know what's funnier -- this, or W. getting a shoe thrown at... by someone he "liberated" no less!
hahahahahahah....
But are you supposed to be using the grade school computer to visit other sites? You better hope teacher doesn't catch you.
Microsoft released Seadragon for the iPhone because it has a graphics accelerator. Unlike Windows Mobile the iPhone OS only works on a single hardware platform. Any developer knows that is a snap to code to as the amount of testing required is practically non-existent compared to a truly portable OS like Windows Mobile. Since Windows Mobile can run on devices that do not have graphics acceleration Seadragon would not work on those devices.
It is okay that you are a closed-minded fanboy but please try to get your facts correct!
Do Windows Mobile machines have them (serious question here). If so, why wasn't there a WM version first (so I'm thinking prolly not).
"Unlike Windows Mobile the iPhone OS only works on a single hardware platform."
Just ARM? Funny, but last I checked OSX also runs on x86, x86_64, PPC...
Ah - but you were probably alluding to the fact that MSFT relies on the likes of Nokia, Samsung, and etc. to do all the hardware work for 'em, whereas Apple and RIM do all of their own hardware work.
"Any developer knows that is a snap to code to as the amount of testing required is practically non-existent compared to a truly portable OS like Windows Mobile."
Funny, but as someone who has actually done cross-platform programming, I've found that it all depends on having the right skills and the right tools. Also, the toolkit for OSX (Xtools) allows you to code for all those processor architectures I listed up there. The only real diffs in most cases involves drivers, I/O and UI - everything else is relatively minor. The real funny part is, drivers are (or at least had better be) written by the hardware maker.
I'll admit, SysArch1 was extremely biased in his statements. Its not like MS even had to make a mobile version. Microsoft didn't *have* to write the app for the iPhone due to some WM phone not having the capability. I also admit the article's author has an obvious bias as well.
No matter what though, the article was closer to truth than SysArch. MS realized on some level that to get exposure to the mobile app, the iPhone platform is a good place to start.
First, Symbian is tne #1 smart phone OS -- at least world wide.
Second, the iPhone has about 12.8% of the market, Windows Mobile has 11.8%. That's hardly a wide margin to risk alienating your customers over; the GPU factor makes more sense. (Although, Windows Mobile devices with a Qualcomm processor have a GPU, too, but I'm not sure whether it would work well with Seadragon. There's also the issue of some OEMs not including drivers for the GPU.)
Third, Microsoft has supported other platforms in the past. Most notably is the Mac with Office, but there's also Windows Live Search for BlackBerry < http://mobile.search.live.com/client/download_manual.aspx >. They've also licensed syncing technology to competitors like Apple and Nokia.
By the way, is Seadragon open source? If not, why is this being mentioned here at all? It's not like Seadragon for the iPhone hasn't been reported in dozens of other places.
Not calling anyone out... just saying that if he wants to call others ignorant, it kind of helps to have his own ducks in a row. Why? Because the "iPhone OS" is... OSX. You are familiar with OSX, or have at least heard of it, yes?
re: "Also, in general, when programming (especially graphics), its more than just the architecture, there's just a much larger range of different hardware support throughout phones that run Windows Mobile."
This is (partially) correct. Thing is, MSFT made a reference standard, and hardware companies work to match that standard for Windows Mobile capable phones. Also, the phone makers are the ones that have to work with MSFT to make the drivers.
This in turn points to one very big reason why Windows Mobile is crippled: It tries to be too much for too many. Now this sounds like what he had originally written, but in reality there is a subtle but important difference, which it has nothing to do with compatibility limitations, as he foolishly implied. It instead has far more to do with control over the product at both the hardware and software levels...
"Its not like MS even had to make a mobile version."
True. Then again, they cobbled together WinCE back when PDAs were the big new market... before smartphones were more than just a reference blueprint or a marketer's dream. They spent the dough trying to dominate Yet Another Market, and wound up turning it into a money pit. Can't blame 'em for trying or anything (makes perfect sense as a business to try), but instead of waiting and working out the kinks for certain (both technical and market-wise), they slapped it together and threw it up to public consumption.
Because of this, they're kind of stuck - they have enough marketshare to make withdrawal seem foolish (and guarantee that they'd never get back into it), and just enough to prevent them from fixing the product in any way that doesn't break compatibility and alienate the existing customer base. OTOH, they're flailing about and losing ground.
As for the rest? Not surprised. Microsoft was originally an Apple vendor, after all...
I don't believe Microsoft was "originally" an Apple vendor. They originally wrote a BASIC interpreter for the Altair computer (if I recall correctly). They got involved with Apple well after that with Integer BASIC (and then Applesoft BASIC).
If it was stable, then it would be news. This is just SSDD.
You also apparently missed the main point of the article -- that Microsoft was becoming more friendly to the competition (although I'm not sure this really proves that).
However, I suppose that if somebody called "MSSlayer" posted a neutral comment about Microsoft, that would ruin his street cred. (By the way, how is that Microsoft slaying project working out so far?)
News flash! The iPhone captures NON BUSINESS USERS! Tons of them!
That's the appeal of the iPhone. It is not a business phone platform. It is an everyday ,connect to the internet, check your email, message, take bad photos, play games and then make a phone call device.
It is for the common consumer Millions of them.
Also, Windows Mobile isn't just for business. My main uses of my Motorola Q9m are for personal items, not business-related items. It may not be as friendly for some tasks, but I've read that the main function -- making a call -- is actually far easier on a Windows Mobile device than on an iPhone (at least in WM Standard).
Plus, Windows Mobile devices are available in multiple form factors and on multiple carriers (in the U.S.). It's not a one-size-fits-all approach. Even RIM has learned that lesson.
The iPhone is certainly very cool, but it's not the pinnacle of smart phone design (nor is anything else). You have to make trade-offs based on what makes sense for you.
Somebody would have to be very petty to not use a useful product just because it was written by a specific company.
- by tcr071 December 15, 2008 8:46 PM PST
- What don't you people (I'm looking at you too CNET) understand about what Microsoft does. They SELL software. That is what they do. Releasing an iPhone app where they will get revenue from ads is NOT out of the ordinary.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(26 Comments)Did we freak out when Microsoft released Microsoft Office for Mac??? Sure didn't... why the freak out now is beyond me.