Nokia and Windows Phone are history.
Now we can confirm that Microsoft will be completely dropping the “Nokia” branding from their devices, leaving “Lumia” as the hero brand for upcoming devices. In fact we understand that the Lumia 830 and Lumia 730 will be the final two devices to launch with “Nokia” branded on the phone. Future devices will most likely carry the “Microsoft” name along with “Lumia”.
Furthermore the document also reveals that Microsoft is shying away from placing the Windows Phone logo next to their devices in promotions and advertisements, and will instead place the standard Windows logo alongside them (sans the “Phone”). In fact we understand, from a source with knowledge of the plans, that this is part of the preparation to leave the “Windows Phone” logo behind, as part of a gradual phase out of the Windows Phone name (and OS) which will merge with the desktop version of Windows in the upcoming updates (i.e. no Windows Phone 9).
This is verified by The Verge’s sources inside Microsoft.
So, we now not only live in the crazy world where a version 1 Google product looks (and seems to work) way better than the comparable version 1 Apple product, but also in a world where Microsoft has a very simple naming scheme, and Apple just unveiled the Apple Watch, Apple Watch Sport, and Apple Watch Edition.
I will miss my worn-out Windows Mobile PocketPC Embedded 2003 Compact Standard Edition CE Service Pack 2 Pro jokes, though.
Sometimes Android Wear’s UI feels like Google is sacrificing functionality for the sake of simplicity (One example would be the media player). The Fitt’s law argument in that Ars article is also flawed: Although the buttons are slightly smaller on Apple Watch’s UI, they are usually located on the corners, which actually makes them easier to hit than a big button located at the centre. The fine manipulations, of course, are handled by a physical dial, instead of the touch screen, which I always find fiddly even on a tablet.
Edited 2014-09-11 14:54 UTC
Hurr durr. Fitts’s Law doesn’t state that it’s easier to point to the corners of a touch screen. It states that (quoting Wikipedia): “the time required to rapidly move to a target area is a function of the distance to the target and the size of the target.” One big central target is easier to hit than a small one in the corner. With a mouse pointer, the edges will appear “bigger” as you can’t move the pointer beyond them: the target is directional instead of merely spatial. Not so with a touch screen.
Yes, and in my experience this bears out when using a device like the Dell Venue 11 Pro, which is designed to be used as both a tablet, and a touch screen full computer. It’s much easier to use the mouse pointer than the touch screen when in full desktop mode.
But you can find the corners of your watch without even looking at it. The same cannot be said about the centre of the Watch’s display
I’d like to see some metrics on that. I would not expect that result. But to be fair, I think fitts law was only extremely applicable in the introductory period of gui’s before people had muscle memory.
In order to know the corners, you’d know the dimensions of the device in your head. Which would mean that you’d know where the center was. In any case, you should be able to feel where the watch is based on the pressure to your wrist. Just aim in the middle of that sensation.
There are many reasons why this isn’t the case:
1) The display isn’t static. If you press without looking, the icon might be something entirely different from what you expected.
2) As the watch isn’t a part of your wrist, you’d want to touch its edge to know exactly where it is. Then it’s easier to hit the big target, the middle.
3) If you need to hit the watch without looking, there’s a good chance you’ve got your wrist turned. Now you need to rotate the watch in your mind to find the corner. Up becomes down. The middle stays in the middle.
4) The display turns off when you aren’t looking.
The reason it’s easier to touch buttons located at the corners of a watch display without looking is because you can rely on your skin’s tactile sensation to guide your fingers. Since more sensory modalities are involved, it would also be easier to touch corner buttons when you are looking at the watch display
[wrong thread, moved]
Edited 2014-09-11 17:04 UTC
These are 1.5in screens and you’re invoking Fitts Law?
Can’t tell if serious or ..
Well, I am certainly not invoking Fitt’s law, but the Ars article definitely is
You say that, while at the same time building your original counter point to the article on one of the principles behind Fitts Law.
But it is easier to find the corners of the face of a watch than its centre without looking, which makes it easier to hit buttons located at the four corners.
My thumb covers almost the entire screen of my Moto 360, but If you say so… :rolls eyes:
This is a good move but really, they just need to drop the “Windows” part of the name in all their consumer brands. “Windows” is not helping Lumia be more successful. My guess is just the opposite.
XBox was not called “Windows Console” for a reason and just shortening it to “Windows” would not have been a great naming solution.
100% ack
I said it from the start that calling something new Windows is the most stupid idea ever (I can’t bother to find my old comment, but it is there somewhere)
Windows stinks, no new product with a windows brand that isn’t PC Windows will succed.
It looks like they are going straight from overly verbose naming to under-differentiated naming, both of which can be equally confusing. There has to be a happy medium somewhere, doesn’t there?
Me, too. But it was fun while it lasted. ;^)
How is Apple Watch Sport and Apple Watch Edition more verbose and complicated than Microsoft Lumia 830 and Microsoft Lumia 930? 3 Words versus 2 words + cryptic number; 4/6 syllables versus 9 syllables.
You try way too hard to diss Apple.
Edited 2014-09-11 15:50 UTC
It’s a joke. Don’t be so serious.
You know jokes are supposed to be humorous right?
I’m not sold on the apple watch but it does have one killer feature that android wear doesn’t have, and that is mobile payments. That along with integration with homekit could be the differentiator. The fact that a watch isn’t great for viewing photos is completely missing the point.
I suspect the watch might go the same way as their other recent products. The first version is promising but flawed. Only the early adopters will buy it while they work out what it really should do and the tech matures. The original iphone and iPad were both revolutions and yet pretty flawed as products.
Edited 2014-09-11 18:23 UTC
Since I only know you stomping your feet and with smoke coming out of years because either Apple is getting slack or they’re not being praised enough, I’m not surprised it goes right over your head.
Clearly lost in translation.
I don’t know, “Apple Watch Edition” seems kind of silly. It’s almost as if a word is missing there: “Apple Watch _______ Edition”. It’s an easy target.
Ah yes, mobile payments, that thing that Apple is getting all the credit for inventing, yet it existed on Android phones since 2011 with NFC and Google Wallet. I guess Apple truly invented it because they are doing it “with a watch”. Where have we heard that one before? Oh yeah, “with a computer”.
Honestly, I love the look of the Apple Watch, but I’d never have one even if I did have an iPhone to pair it with. I’d go back to wearing my Bulova analog watch if I ever give up my Pebble.
Agreed.
Not at all. The Apple invention will be to actually make it work. NFC has been in Android phones for years and it is used for…. what exactly? Configuring a bluetooth device. Maybe tapping phones together to exchange information? Certainly not payments in any significant way although that was always the fairy tale we heard.
Up here in Canada we are way ahead of the US in terms of adoption of NFC in credit cards. Many places you can already tap to pay with a credit card for small purchases. You would think that with NFC in Android phones everyone with an Android phone would be doing the same. Nope, total failure to adopt. So what’s the use of the invention if it doesn’t work?
I think Japan would have something to say to both Apple and Google:
http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2014/09/11/long-before-apple-pay…
The US and Canada are not the world.
In Addition to Japan, we’ve been able to use NFC on phones for payments for over a year in Australia as well. It was spearheaded by our largest bank, CBA, whose app uses the secure element and even allows sending money to your friends phone via NFC.
Even better is, if it’s over $100, you can still use NFC; you just have to type a pin.
Also, we’re far enough into chip+pin that signatures for EFTPOS is being phased out, with our largest retailer (Woolworths) dropping signatures in September.
Meaning NFC is almost ubiquitous, because everyone got that when they got chip readers.
Edited 2014-09-12 12:25 UTC
I wonder if Apple’s mobile payments will be as proprietary as FaceTime?
If so, their product would be in competition with open Bitcoin tech, which sounds a bit like the original Microsoft Network vs the Internet competition of bygone days.
I would bet on the open approach again.
There are two things at play here:
– The contactless NFC. That much is standard. Every contactless payment solution works pretty much the same way
– Apple’s storage of your card details
The harder part has been the latter, due to the relatively small keyspace for credit card numbers. Think about it. After the BIN number and the check digit, you don’t really have much that’s left over that’s truly “secret”.
So storing credit cards is no simple task. The best solution seems to be tokenization. Where Visa/Mastercard will store the actual CC information in a vault somewhere and create a mapping between useless number -> credit card number.
That, along with encryption at the mag stripe reader level means you can have securely transmit the PAN one time, get the token, and use that freely. I’d be willing to bet that’s what Apple does.
There doesn’t seem to be much that’s proprietary here, Visa/MC’s tokenization programs are known and others are starting to work with them. They’re also brand new.
I’m personally happy Apple lit a fire under everyone’s ass seemingly, at least in the US where we have extremely high CC fraud. The whole system all of this shit runs on right now is one big insecure mess.
Sorry, I’ve thought about this some more.
1. When CC information is entered into Passbook, it’s transmitted securely to Vista/Mastercard/etc which then send back a tokenized version. (This is only done once per new added card)
2. The tokenized version uses format preserving encryption which makes it look just like a CC. Will work fine with existing SW.
3. The tokenized version is sent from the secure element to the contactless reader.
Now if at any point along the way the tokenized version of the card details is compromised, it would only be useful in the context of the “user id”.
So unless they somehow managed to make payments directly from YOUR iPhone with YOUR biometrics, then it would be useless.
That, and you could remotely revoke that user id and have all the tokens associated instantly decline.
Edited 2014-09-12 23:59 UTC
Alongside quite obvious Nokia brand dropping, I really appreciate that Microsoft is trying to finally push the most recognized brand ever in IT (Windows).
New Lumia ads in Italy simply say that this phone “is Windows”. The “Windows” part in “Windows Phone” has long been the shy part of that name and in the past it almost seemed that MS didn’t want people to know Windows was running their phone.
Maybe they really considered the idea of dropping the Windows name, something I always thought to be ridiculous. FYI, Windows Phone jumped 5% in past months in Italy market share, overtaking (again) Apple and becoming 2nd most used OS in mobile systems.
I just like that they are making the obvious move and taking the word phone out of the name. (-;
It’s unfortunate that the net result of that is that they have to call it Windows in order for it to have a name at all.
Or perhaps they could backtrack a bit and apply the Prince Effect. Call it The Device Formerly Known as Pocket PC But In A Handset This Time.
lol it was expected that Nokia brand was short lived even if I will miss it. Nokia has always been a strong brand here.
But of course Microsoft needs something “Microsoft”, that’s why they bought Nokia.
I’m not usually one to say this, but, what an utterly useless article.
Seriously.
It’s been known since before the Microsoft/Nokia deal was signed that Microsoft would only use the Nokia brand for a year or so. Nokia is still a company, after all, with its own products to sell.
So, I guess Windows Phone dropping the “Phone” part and using the the standard Windows logo when the OS becomes the same as the desktop OS is news, but, that seems rather expected.
This is verified by The Verge’s sources inside Microsoft.
Do you mean, corporative spies?
Corporate turncloaks maybe?
Lets call them for what they are:
Unloyal Employees.
Yeah, I was doing a Game of Thrones-ism. Probably should have been more clear about that. But, yes it is pretty much the same thing you said.
So basically, they’re going to run an entire desktop OS on a phone? How is this a good idea, considering that even Windows RT was criticised for being too large?
The Windows RT space issues have been resolved by WIMBoot:
http://blogs.windows.com/itpro/2014/04/10/what-is-windows-image-boo…
Cool, I haven’t seen that before. Thanks for posting.
It is allready the same OS, just with different components on top. It is those components that take up most of the space, not the OS itself. If you do any Windows Phone development you can see that the OS is just a (roughly) 1.5 GB OS that runs in HyperV without ARM/Intel emulation.
(ducks to avoid a big discussion about the difference between a kernel and an OS)
I can’t believe that you still believe that the 3 incompatible OSes are the same just because they share a subset of user interface features.
Interesting question, it is Linux AMD64 a different OS of Linux ARM?
No more than Windows on MIPS was a different OS.
But an embedded Linux is kind of different, since it has features and capabilities that general purpose Linux OSes don’t. And other pieces are or may be missing. It won’t run Libre Office even though an ARM Linux would.
They also share a common kernel (incl. a large portion of drivers, subsystems, etc..) and a common app runtime.
In fact, if you go to the OEM Windows Phone website, you can clearly see how similar it is for an OEM to get up and running on WP8.1 and Windows 8.1. There’s a lot of commonality there.
https://dev.windowsphone.com/en-US/OEM/docs/Getting_Started/Windows_…
Yes, it has changed a lot since the kernel was changed from CE to NT.
When RT and the phone OS get merged they will certainly be the same. In the mean time doesn’t this diagram show the differences? Is that what makes them the same? That a chart can be made to give the impression that they are close to each other.
Not buying it.
From the link you posted:
Note:
Windows Phone 8.1 is based on the Windows NT kernel. Windows Phone 8.1 uses the Core System from Windows, which is a minimal Windows system that boots, manages hardware and resources, authenticates and communicates on a network, and contains low-level security features. To handle phone-specific tasks, the Core System is supplemented by a set of Windows Phone specific binaries that form the Mobile Core.
Edited 2014-09-11 22:56 UTC
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here, but that website shows where the storage, power, audio, bluetooth, usb, nfc, and networking are the same as Windows. We also know from Universal Apps that the app model (WinRT) is common between them as well. Which means all of that infrastructure is also common.
We know DirectX And DirectManipulation are in from the SDK as well. I just don’t know how much more of the operating system is left. They are effectively the same operating system.
Windows RT just has a different shell and operates with assumptions for a higher power envelope (for example the background task model is less restrictive than Windows Phone — even though they share a common API).
What is interesting about the merge is more about how they reconcile these differences.
Actually they are the same OS because they share almost everything EXCEPT the User interface features!
They have the same kernel, driver model, most of the layers on top, WinRT, etc.
Why do you think you can run Office on an RT device? Why do you think you can run Windows Phone in HyperV without emulation? Why do you think the Server OS runs the same software as the Desktop OS? Why do you think XBox runs DirectX and HyperV?
You can run Office on a Mac too.
No additional or unusual drivers needed. But to run the NT kernel you would need an emulator or a virtualization layer. But any of the 3 (4 if you include Xbox?) NT kernels could be run that way.
You can’t run W8 apps on the phone or the tablets and you can run Windows programs in Samba which is a RunTime environment. But it is one RunTime environment, it isn’t 3 different sets of RunTime environments even if it is implemented on different CPU architactures.
Are those also W8 too?
Can you run Office on the Xbox?
A Mac is not an OS (software) but a computer (hardware). Office on OSX is a different product that only has the same name but not the same code. Office for Windows doesn’t run on OSX. If you don’t know such elementary things you shouldn’t discuss more! Programs don’t require drivers, they require frameworks and API’s.
You just keep throwing nonsense out there: “You can run Windows programs in Samba which is a RunTime environment”. Samba is (simply said) for sharing files on a network and has nothing to do with running programs.
I will stop here, you need to go study up a bit
+1
I’m having a pretty bad day. )-%)~
New! Windows, now with even fewer windows.
We’re very excited and anticipate at least slightly less modest sales, notably in countries with high unemployment and/or a surplus of MSCEs.
I think the plan is to kill off the Nokia brand from the current products which will take a few years.
We are talking at least three years here.
After a certain period when there are very little Nokia branded phones on the market, the old Nokia can start a new business and sell Nokia branded products without consumers attributing them to Microsoft.
No idea what those products will be though but I would guess software unless they buy some startup phone company.
Good conjecture, but a conjecture still.
Do you think perhaps some Nokia engineers launched a dinghy (a ‘jolla’, it’s called in Finnish) to keep Nokia-esque hardware and software alive, to rejoin the mother ship at a more opportune time?
All I remember is that after the sale, news websites suggested microsoft will at some point rebrand nokia phones and after a certain period, nokia would be able to re-enter the market. The first phase seems to have started already.
If Nokia does go back into technology, they will have to buy some other company because they are left with nothing but their remaining IP and the ongoing brand transfer.
Edited 2014-09-12 11:32 UTC
I already get here on OSNews a Lumia ad without mention of Nokia or Windows Phone (just Microsoft): http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/simgad/2720509060816591491