> "1. Make it easier for developers to port apps from iOS and Android to WP7."
I disagree strongly with this point. The last thing they want to do is encourage developers to bring over UI paradigms from other platforms and just drop them into WP7. They've fought hard for a solid UI that reviewers seem to love (I like it too, having used one of the preprod phones) and it would all have been for nought if they cannot get 3rd parties to maintain consistency.
That's one of Apple's strong points, and one of Android's problems - Apple devs give two shits about HCI, Android devs in general do not, and the average level of UI polish between the two platforms is phenomenally different. MS will have to go the Apple route if they want to compete, and this means being a bit draconian when it comes to HCI enforcement. Drop-in porting tools would compromise this.
> "2. Allow OEMs to customize WP7 and the hardware to some extent so they can effectively compete with differentiated and innovative products; else WP7 smartphones will become commoditized, just like Wintel PCs."
Oh Lord no. They've already compromised too much by allowing carrier crapware onto their phones. One thing Apple is good at is earning consumer trust - and part of that is doing things that act in their best interest (even if it means screwing developers). Their obsessive enforcement of HCI is indicative of this, and their complete refusal to bundle crapware is as well. You give OEMs the ability to customize WP7 and I guarantee that they will shit all over the gorgeous user experience that MS has obviously worked hard to create - and I guarantee that carriers will get right in this game also.
> "4. Improve its brand image in the smartphone market and across the board. Microsoft has a weak brand in the hacker community, given the preference for open source. Hackers are driving much of the innovation in the application markets."
I don't think it will matter. iOS is about as anti-hacker as a development platform gets, but it still has the support of the open source community. The fact that it's 'nix has a lot going for it (widely available libraries without too much porting effort), but in the end consumers will drive developers much moreso than the reverse. MS needs to drive a lot of customers to the platform, the developers will come after that, whether or not hackers actually like the company and platform is only a minor issue.
If anything, I feel that MS should've gone for the Apple revenue model. One thing that both Google and MS have failed to grok, and one thing Apple has a very good idea of, is that the software and the hardware are inseparable. Designing the two separately is foolish and can only lead to compromising the user experience, and the market has shown in recent years that it weighs user experience far above that of raw functionality.
You simply cannot create a halfway decent experience without knowing what hardware you are targeting. The case is worse in Android's case - since effectively the OEM is allowed to change the hardware spec in any way it chooses, leaving just about anything up in the air for devs to deal with.
MS has obviously chosen a stricter model, but I fear it may not be strict enough.
I disagree strongly with this point. The last thing they want to do is encourage developers to bring over UI paradigms from other platforms and just drop them into WP7. They've fought hard for a solid UI that reviewers seem to love (I like it too, having used one of the preprod phones) and it would all have been for nought if they cannot get 3rd parties to maintain consistency.
That's one of Apple's strong points, and one of Android's problems - Apple devs give two shits about HCI, Android devs in general do not, and the average level of UI polish between the two platforms is phenomenally different. MS will have to go the Apple route if they want to compete, and this means being a bit draconian when it comes to HCI enforcement. Drop-in porting tools would compromise this.
> "2. Allow OEMs to customize WP7 and the hardware to some extent so they can effectively compete with differentiated and innovative products; else WP7 smartphones will become commoditized, just like Wintel PCs."
Oh Lord no. They've already compromised too much by allowing carrier crapware onto their phones. One thing Apple is good at is earning consumer trust - and part of that is doing things that act in their best interest (even if it means screwing developers). Their obsessive enforcement of HCI is indicative of this, and their complete refusal to bundle crapware is as well. You give OEMs the ability to customize WP7 and I guarantee that they will shit all over the gorgeous user experience that MS has obviously worked hard to create - and I guarantee that carriers will get right in this game also.
> "4. Improve its brand image in the smartphone market and across the board. Microsoft has a weak brand in the hacker community, given the preference for open source. Hackers are driving much of the innovation in the application markets."
I don't think it will matter. iOS is about as anti-hacker as a development platform gets, but it still has the support of the open source community. The fact that it's 'nix has a lot going for it (widely available libraries without too much porting effort), but in the end consumers will drive developers much moreso than the reverse. MS needs to drive a lot of customers to the platform, the developers will come after that, whether or not hackers actually like the company and platform is only a minor issue.
If anything, I feel that MS should've gone for the Apple revenue model. One thing that both Google and MS have failed to grok, and one thing Apple has a very good idea of, is that the software and the hardware are inseparable. Designing the two separately is foolish and can only lead to compromising the user experience, and the market has shown in recent years that it weighs user experience far above that of raw functionality.
You simply cannot create a halfway decent experience without knowing what hardware you are targeting. The case is worse in Android's case - since effectively the OEM is allowed to change the hardware spec in any way it chooses, leaving just about anything up in the air for devs to deal with.
MS has obviously chosen a stricter model, but I fear it may not be strict enough.