Windows Phone 7's Upgrade to WP8 Apollo Now Unclear

[Guest]

I think this issue a bit overblown myself. Why?

- If you bought a Windows Phone today, you'd still essentially have 6 - 9 months of it essentially running the latest OS, with access to over 60,000 applications. And the OS itself rocks big time.

- When Windows Phone 8 comes out, app makers aren't going to immediately move away from Windows Phone 7.5 apps, especially with the current installation base rapidly growing. The whole Windows 8 interoperability thing will take time to build momentum, as everyone isn't just going to leap from Windows 7 to Windows 8. Even after Windows Phone 8 comes out, I'd expect the majority of apps being made to be 7.5 compatible, at least for 6 months to a year. After that, one can upgrade to a later and better model for a fairly low early-upgrade fee.

- Microsoft not guaranteeing every phone will be upgradeable doesn't mean none will. I honestly don't think the Lumia 900 or the Titan II will be left out to dry.

 

[Guest]

Microsoft needs to be better prepared when it comes to managing the future. They are "sinclaring" themselves at every opportunity.
- First Release (no copy and paste people waited for NoDo)
- NoDo copy and paste arrived but people started talking Mango (people waited for Mango)
- Most of the handsets released for Mango wern't fully fledged (people wait for the next handset)
- Nokia launched Lumia 800 with one glaring omission forward facing camera (news arrives about Lumia 900)
- Lumia 900 before it arrives will get killed by news about Windows 8, Higher Screen Resolution 1080p video recording
- When MS release Apollo - Apple and Android will have integrated teleportation into their phones.

 

[southernshark]

I like how they criticize Apple's sales and upgrade strategy, as if it is causing the company a lot of negative backlash......

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]My Android, the Samsung Transform, had an update from 2.2 or so to 2.3 so Androids obviously get updates. I don't have an iPhone so i can't confirm that and I wouldn't put it past Apple, but that is a pretty big accusation there, even for Apple.Furthermore, I have a friend who upgraded their Android from 2.2 to 3.0, some HTC or whatever.Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't WP6.x phones upgradeable to WP7?[/citation][citation][nom]Saljen[/nom]if they don't allow my current phone to be updated to WP8, then I may just switch to Android. That's f**king rediculus.[/citation]There are plenty of Android phones that are held at the mercy of carriers for upgrades and get left out in the cold. Advanced users often get around this, but depending on the phone it isn't always worth it. By that point you're probably due for an upgrade or nearly due, and the newer stuff is certainly going to perform better on a newer piece of hardware.

I suspect that if you have a WP7.5 phone with the newer 1.4Ghz+ processor that they'll be trying their best to make an upgrade to WP8 available. I'm not sure if it will happen, but I highly doubt they wouldn't try and see if they can run it on them well enough. I doubt the older 1Ghz models will see WP8 at all, but by the time WP8 is really hitting its stride, again, most users will be considering a hardware upgrade soon enough anyway. This is really typical for smartphones of all makes. The newer hardware AND software together tempt users to upgrade to something new and shiny.

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]Saljen[/nom]Windows Mobile 6.x and Windows Phone 7.x are two different OS's. Saying one upgrades to the other is like saying Android 2.3 upgrades to iOS5.[/citation]
Sorry, in my previous post I also meant to address this. There is ONE WM 6.x phone I am aware of that can run WP7, but it's not an upgrade. There are some WP7 ROMs for that device, however. Other than that? I don't think any of the other WM 6.x phones even have compatible hardware.

 

[amdphenomx4]

That is interesting. My Galaxy S Captivate which was stock with 2.1 is currently running 4.0.3. Albeit a non official upgrade, it is still the latest OS version. Something a bit outside the realm of a closed source OS though. Sorry MS, Android wins.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Saljen[/nom]Windows Mobile 6.x and Windows Phone 7.x are two different OS's. Saying one upgrades to the other is like saying Android 2.3 upgrades to iOS5.[/citation]

[citation][nom]alextheblue[/nom]Sorry, in my previous post I also meant to address this. There is ONE WM 6.x phone I am aware of that can run WP7, but it's not an upgrade. There are some WP7 ROMs for that device, however. Other than that? I don't think any of the other WM 6.x phones even have compatible hardware.[/citation]

Thanks for the info guys. Wait, doesn't this mean that MS is the only one that has almost no upgrades at all? Many Androids aren't upgradeable through the carrier, but they are mostly upgradeable in some way. Evidently iPhones also upgrade. Does this leave MS simply bashing their competitors for having a feature that MS almost completely lacks?

Also, why was I thumbed down? I didn't realize that asking something that I didn't know about was a crime.

 

[bhaberle]

If this is true, consider the Lumia 900 and every existing windows phone 7 device dead to me.

 

[bhaberle]

This has got to be a lie. I mean really... half the quoted comments are completely opposite to what is true. Android does push updates to many phones, and without problems. Even most Apple updates have gone through fine. Yes I can understand charging people a small fee for an update like windows phone 7 to 8, but not offering it ever would be the biggest boneheaded move ever.

 

[p05esto]

If MS doesn't do an immediate retraction and take Metro off the desktop this will sadly spell their demise on the PC. I'm usually an avid Microsoft fan and support them fully, but when it comes to Win8 I've put my hours of testing in and come to the conclusion that it BLOWS. There is absolutely no way I will ever use that OS to develop in, use Photoshop, web design, video editing or anything else. The interface and UI is impossible and sooooo cumbersome. It's a total disaster and will FAIL. Back to the drawing board MS!!!

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]p05esto[/nom]If MS doesn't do an immediate retraction and take Metro off the desktop this will sadly spell their demise on the PC. I'm usually an avid Microsoft fan and support them fully, but when it comes to Win8 I've put my hours of testing in and come to the conclusion that it BLOWS. There is absolutely no way I will ever use that OS to develop in, use Photoshop, web design, video editing or anything else. The interface and UI is impossible and sooooo cumbersome. It's a total disaster and will FAIL. Back to the drawing board MS!!![/citation]

After playing with it a lot, Windows 8 isn't as bad as it is said to be, so long as you get past the Metro=crap mentality and actually try it out.

Granted, even after trying it out, I still didn't like it, but it wasn't that bad. However, it can be disabled through registry hacks and third part programs anyway, so it's not nearly as big of a deal as it is made out to be. Sure, it's highly inconvenient for most people and it being able to be disabled through work arounds doesn't excuse it, but it isn't AS bad as it is made out to be.

 

[Bloob]

mmm...rumours much? Sounds to me more like he misunderstood the question.

Besides, even if it were true, or were true for only some phones, I don't think it's that big a deal. WP7 apps are C#, as will most of the WP8 apps be, and the ones that aren't, propaby wouldn't run on older hw anyways.

It is propable that Tango-phones won't get upgraded ( doesn't mean that they won't get updates ).

 

[descendency]

"Statistically speaking, no Android phone gets upgraded," Myerson said during the meeting. "None. Ever. They have big bugs that don't even get patched. That's what we're seeing statistically out there. In the case of Apple, they ship OS updates to hardware that makes it unusable. It's a great hardware sales tool, as far as I can tell. Install an OS that makes your hardware unusably slow so you feel compelled to go back to the store and buy a new piece of hardware."

So, when can the Lumia 910 (which will be out soon) expect to get WP8??? Hmmm...

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]amdphenomx4[/nom]That is interesting. My Galaxy S Captivate which was stock with 2.1 is currently running 4.0.3. Albeit a non official upgrade, it is still the latest OS version. Something a bit outside the realm of a closed source OS though. Sorry MS, Android wins.[/citation]You can do unofficial ROM installs on closed source OS, too. See HTC HD2. If Android was REALLY open like Linux, you could install any freakin version you want without the need for any cooking. Android isn't really any better, I love how some open source advocates jumped on Google's bandwagon blindly. They don't give a crap about open source, collaboration, contribution. They just do one-way code drops when it suits them.

 

[alextheblue]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Thanks for the info guys. Wait, doesn't this mean that MS is the only one that has almost no upgrades at all?[/citation]Do you not pay attention or bother using a search engine? This is why you got downrated for "asking a question" - you could have easily answered it yourself. I will attempt to enlighten you a bit anyway.

WP7 has already gone through a couple of major updates, that were rolled out to ALL existing first-gen WP7 devices. There are some minor bugfix ones too, but the big two were NoDo and 7.5 - they added a lot of features and actually IMPROVED performance quite a bit. A lot of Android devices only see one or two major updates delivered through official channels. Even then, sometimes the results are a mixed bag. The original Moto Droid comes to mind. It was buggy as heck in stock software trim, but fully updated it was dog slow and almost unusable at times. Let's just say it's no longer in use.

I'd bet that if WP8 isn't officially available as an upgrade for the newest devices (Titan II, Lumia 900, etc) that there will be unofficial means as well. But if MS can get it running fast on existing devices, it might be rolled out on a case-by-case basis as an update. They don't want to just blindly update all devices and end up with a bunch of unhappy users with unresponsive devices leading to a frustrating experience. How would that help anyone? It certainly wouldn't help the users of older devices, when their existing OS works fine. It wouldn't help MS win over any customers, and they would probably lose some.

Ironically, as much as I dislike them as a company, Apple has been really good about delivering updates to older devices. Sometimes they run into performance issues, but they try to fix that sometimes too. Overall not bad, and you're not forced to update, and you know what you're getting into. I hate silent updates most of all. Anyway, Apple has such a limited number of different devices to maintain, so that's a big part of why they can do this. But love them or hate them (personally I hate them), they generally do a decent job of providing updates.

 

[alcalde]

Everyone missed what I thought was the really important statement in that article, and it has nothing to do with phone upgrades.

"The most familiar UI for people worldwide will be Metro very soon," he said. "And that's great for the phone business."

THIS is why Windows 8 is being saddled with the Metro UI and they're forcing it on users like they did the ribbon. They want everyone to be familiar with Metro in order to lure them into buying Windows phones. Metro exists on the desktop to sell Windows phones, not because it makes any rational sense on a non-touch device.

 

[alcalde]

[citation][nom]alextheblue[/nom]IIf Android was REALLY open like Linux, you could install any freakin version you want without the need for any cooking. Android isn't really any better, I love how some open source advocates jumped on Google's bandwagon blindly. They don't give a crap about open source, collaboration, contribution. They just do one-way code drops when it suits them.[/citation]

I think you're confusing manufacturer's locked bootloaders with open source code.

 

[Emperus]

It was pretty much evident from the first batch of Windows 7 phones that Microsoft is going the Apple route by restricting specifications. Now, its not necessarily a bad thing to import ideas as it gives us consumers more options but to treat the virtual parent company (Apple in this case) with such unhealthy statements is ridiculous. And i better not start contemplating the Android perspective which hints Microsoft's lack of market study. Just goes to show Microsoft's frustrations after WinMo 7 failed to reach their expected heights.

 

[Emperus]

It was pretty much evident from the first batch of Windows 7 phones that Microsoft is going the Apple route by restricting specifications. Now, its not necessarily a bad thing to import ideas as it gives us consumers more options but to treat the virtual parent company (Apple in this case) with such unhealthy statements is ridiculous. And i better not start contemplating the Android perspective which hints Microsoft's lack of market study. Just goes to show Microsoft's frustrations after WinMo 7 failed to reach their expected heights.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]alextheblue[/nom]You can do unofficial ROM installs on closed source OS, too. See HTC HD2. If Android was REALLY open like Linux, you could install any freakin version you want without the need for any cooking. Android isn't really any better, I love how some open source advocates jumped on Google's bandwagon blindly. They don't give a crap about open source, collaboration, contribution. They just do one-way code drops when it suits them.[/citation]

To be fair, it's the carriers job, not Google's, to update the Android phones. That there are unofficial ROMs means that Google has either provided the updates already or that other people have made them. Either way, they are there. If the carrier doesn't update the phones then they should be blamed, not Google. There also need to be the proper drivers. Unless this is different from PCs, it isn't Google's job to make the drivers either, that belongs to the hardware designers and/or manufacturers. If they don't have proper drivers, then there is nothing Google has to do.

Also, it's not always as simple as a Google search, so don't be an ass. I've already read conflicting reports here on Tom's and a quick Google search didn't come up with definitive answers.