«

"Microsoft unveiled Windows Phone 8, the next version of its mobile
platform. As part of the announcement, Microsoft admitted that no current
Windows Phones will be upgradeable to the new platform. ... Microsoft just
killed the market for Windows Phones. No customer will buy one today knowing
that it will be outdated and not upgradeable in months."

http://www.businessinsider.com/micro...ost-important-
smartphone-partner-nokia-2012-6

On Jun 23, 6:55*pm, peter <nospamjy...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> "Microsoft unveiled Windows Phone 8, the next version of its mobile
> platform. As part of the announcement, Microsoft admitted that no current
> Windows Phones will be upgradeable to the new platform. ... *Microsoft just
> killed the market for Windows Phones. No customer will buy one today knowing
> that it will be outdated and not upgradeable in months."
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/micro...ts-most-import...
> smartphone-partner-nokia-2012-6

I doubt it's that big a deal.

I bet 90% of phone owners never upgrade the software on their phones,
nor would they know how to.

Plenty of Android devices around are also quite restricted on their
upgradability to new major versions.

On 2012-06-24, JohnO <> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 6:55Â*pm, peter <nospamjy...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>> "Microsoft unveiled Windows Phone 8, the next version of its mobile
>> platform. As part of the announcement, Microsoft admitted that no current
>> Windows Phones will be upgradeable to the new platform. ... Â*Microsoft just
>> killed the market for Windows Phones. No customer will buy one today knowing
>> that it will be outdated and not upgradeable in months."
>>
>> http://www.businessinsider.com/micro...ts-most-import...
>> smartphone-partner-nokia-2012-6
>
> I doubt it's that big a deal.
>
> I bet 90% of phone owners never upgrade the software on their phones,
> nor would they know how to.
>
> Plenty of Android devices around are also quite restricted on their
> upgradability to new major versions.

Indeed my tablet is, for it has failed to upgrade the OS many a time. I now
cancel when asked the question.

In article <a2265321-bb0e-4324-a5cc-e474c04faac5
@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, , JohnO says...
>
> On Jun 23, 6:55*pm, peter <nospamjy...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
> > "Microsoft unveiled Windows Phone 8, the next version of its mobile
> > platform. As part of the announcement, Microsoft admitted that no current
> > Windows Phones will be upgradeable to the new platform. ... *Microsoft just
> > killed the market for Windows Phones. No customer will buy one today knowing
> > that it will be outdated and not upgradeable in months."
> >
> > http://www.businessinsider.com/micro...ts-most-import...
> > smartphone-partner-nokia-2012-6
>
> I doubt it's that big a deal.
>
> I bet 90% of phone owners never upgrade the software on their phones,
> nor would they know how to.
>
> Plenty of Android devices around are also quite restricted on their
> upgradability to new major versions.

As are iPhones.

Jesus... how can the OP expect a non multi-core based phone to do what
the new ones do. They're all in the same boat, iPhone, Android and
Windows Phone.

I note on sites like DX/Dealextreme that there are *hundreds* of Android
phones that cannot run Icecream Sandwich.

Should software development be stopped just because old hardware can't
run it? Of course not - get the new hardware!

Indeed, this highlights the problem - it's the phones, not the phone
OS's!

--
Duncan.

On 24/06/12 18:12, Dave Doe wrote:
>>
>> Plenty of Android devices around are also quite restricted on their
>> upgradability to new major versions.
>
> As are iPhones.
>
> Jesus... how can the OP expect a non multi-core based phone to do what
> the new ones do. They're all in the same boat, iPhone, Android and
> Windows Phone.
>
There was much more OS overlap in the computer market - several
difference generations of hardware would run the same OS and software.
>
> I note on sites like DX/Dealextreme that there are *hundreds* of Android
> phones that cannot run Icecream Sandwich.
>
> Should software development be stopped just because old hardware can't
> run it? Of course not - get the new hardware!
>
Do you really expect people to spend several hundred dollars every
couple of years on a new phone? I've only ever had four phones and one
of those upgrade was because Telecom upgraded their network and another
one I lost.
>
> Indeed, this highlights the problem - it's the phones, not the phone
> OS's!
>
No, it's the users - falling for the old 'upgrade and get the latest
shiny buttons' trick.

Cheers,

Cliff

In article <4fe6efa6$>, ,
Enkidu says...
>
> On 24/06/12 18:12, Dave Doe wrote:
> >>
> >> Plenty of Android devices around are also quite restricted on their
> >> upgradability to new major versions.
> >
> > As are iPhones.
> >
> > Jesus... how can the OP expect a non multi-core based phone to do what
> > the new ones do. They're all in the same boat, iPhone, Android and
> > Windows Phone.
> >
> There was much more OS overlap in the computer market - several
> difference generations of hardware would run the same OS and software.

Sure, but with all due respect, we're talking phone here.

> >
> > I note on sites like DX/Dealextreme that there are *hundreds* of Android
> > phones that cannot run Icecream Sandwich.
> >
> > Should software development be stopped just because old hardware can't
> > run it? Of course not - get the new hardware!
> >
> Do you really expect people to spend several hundred dollars every
> couple of years on a new phone? I've only ever had four phones and one
> of those upgrade was because Telecom upgraded their network and another
> one I lost.

Well looking at work clients, yep, that's exactly what they do with
their iPhones and Androids.

> > Indeed, this highlights the problem - it's the phones, not the phone
> > OS's!
> >
> No, it's the users - falling for the old 'upgrade and get the latest
> shiny buttons' trick.

That's what they want - they wouldn't spend their money doing it
otherwise. Personal or business expense, it doesn't seem to stop most
folk.

--
Duncan.

On 24/06/12 22:54, Dave Doe wrote:
> In article <4fe6efa6$>,
> , Enkidu says...
>>
>> On 24/06/12 18:12, Dave Doe wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Plenty of Android devices around are also quite restricted on
>>>> their upgradability to new major versions.
>>>
>>> As are iPhones.
>>>
>>> Jesus... how can the OP expect a non multi-core based phone to do
>>> what the new ones do. They're all in the same boat, iPhone,
>>> Android and Windows Phone.
>>>
>> There was much more OS overlap in the computer market - several
>> difference generations of hardware would run the same OS and
>> software.
>
> Sure, but with all due respect, we're talking phone here.
>
yeah, I know. My point was that PC software developers develop for more
than one platform, so why can't phone software developers?
>
>>> I note on sites like DX/Dealextreme that there are *hundreds* of
>>> Android phones that cannot run Icecream Sandwich.
>>>
>>> Should software development be stopped just because old hardware
>>> can't run it? Of course not - get the new hardware!
>>>
>> Do you really expect people to spend several hundred dollars every
>> couple of years on a new phone? I've only ever had four phones and
>> one of those upgrade was because Telecom upgraded their network and
>> another one I lost.
>
> Well looking at work clients, yep, that's exactly what they do with
> their iPhones and Androids.
>
>>> Indeed, this highlights the problem - it's the phones, not the
>>> phone OS's!
>>>
>> No, it's the users - falling for the old 'upgrade and get the
>> latest shiny buttons' trick.
>
> That's what they want - they wouldn't spend their money doing it
> otherwise. Personal or business expense, it doesn't seem to stop
> most folk.
>
Yeah. I don't see the sense in it. Pay up to a grand for something that
you could easily lose.

Cheers,

Cliff

On 25/06/12 09:11, Enkidu wrote:
> On 24/06/12 22:54, Dave Doe wrote:
>> In article <4fe6efa6$>,
>> , Enkidu says...
>>>
>>> On 24/06/12 18:12, Dave Doe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Plenty of Android devices around are also quite restricted
>>>>> on their upgradability to new major versions.
>>>>
>>>> As are iPhones.
>>>>
>>>> Jesus... how can the OP expect a non multi-core based phone to
>>>> do what the new ones do. They're all in the same boat,
>>>> iPhone, Android and Windows Phone.
>>>>
>>> There was much more OS overlap in the computer market - several
>>> difference generations of hardware would run the same OS and
>>> software.
>>
>> Sure, but with all due respect, we're talking phone here.
>>
> yeah, I know. My point was that PC software developers develop for
> more than one platform, so why can't phone software developers?
>>
>>>> I note on sites like DX/Dealextreme that there are *hundreds*
>>>> of Android phones that cannot run Icecream Sandwich.
>>>>
>>>> Should software development be stopped just because old
>>>> hardware can't run it? Of course not - get the new hardware!
>>>>
>>> Do you really expect people to spend several hundred dollars
>>> every couple of years on a new phone? I've only ever had four
>>> phones and one of those upgrade was because Telecom upgraded
>>> their network and another one I lost.
>>
>> Well looking at work clients, yep, that's exactly what they do
>> with their iPhones and Androids.
>>
>>>> Indeed, this highlights the problem - it's the phones, not the
>>>> phone OS's!
>>>>
>>> No, it's the users - falling for the old 'upgrade and get the
>>> latest shiny buttons' trick.
>>
>> That's what they want - they wouldn't spend their money doing it
>> otherwise. Personal or business expense, it doesn't seem to stop
>> most folk.
>>
> Yeah. I don't see the sense in it. Pay up to a grand for something
> that you could easily lose.
>
Another thing. Many people who get these phones don't know how to use
them. Many have never even synched them to theor PC. Same with tablets.
There are people these days whose full time job is to support managers
who have these phones and tablets.

Cheers,

Cliff

On 25/06/2012 9:11 a.m., Enkidu wrote:
> On 24/06/12 22:54, Dave Doe wrote:
>> In article <4fe6efa6$>,
>> , Enkidu says...
>>>
>>> On 24/06/12 18:12, Dave Doe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Plenty of Android devices around are also quite restricted on
>>>>> their upgradability to new major versions.
>>>>
>>>> As are iPhones.
>>>>
>>>> Jesus... how can the OP expect a non multi-core based phone to do
>>>> what the new ones do. They're all in the same boat, iPhone,
>>>> Android and Windows Phone.
>>>>
>>> There was much more OS overlap in the computer market - several
>>> difference generations of hardware would run the same OS and
>>> software.
>>
>> Sure, but with all due respect, we're talking phone here.
>>
> yeah, I know. My point was that PC software developers develop for more
> than one platform, so why can't phone software developers?
>>
>>>> I note on sites like DX/Dealextreme that there are *hundreds* of
>>>> Android phones that cannot run Icecream Sandwich.
>>>>
>>>> Should software development be stopped just because old hardware
>>>> can't run it? Of course not - get the new hardware!
>>>>
>>> Do you really expect people to spend several hundred dollars every
>>> couple of years on a new phone? I've only ever had four phones and
>>> one of those upgrade was because Telecom upgraded their network and
>>> another one I lost.
>>
>> Well looking at work clients, yep, that's exactly what they do with
>> their iPhones and Androids.
>>
>>>> Indeed, this highlights the problem - it's the phones, not the
>>>> phone OS's!
>>>>
>>> No, it's the users - falling for the old 'upgrade and get the
>>> latest shiny buttons' trick.
>>
>> That's what they want - they wouldn't spend their money doing it
>> otherwise. Personal or business expense, it doesn't seem to stop
>> most folk.
>>
> Yeah. I don't see the sense in it. Pay up to a grand for something that
> you could easily lose.
>
There are now cheap (<$300) android phones with iPhone size screens
which do most of what the $1,000 ones do - with the exception of
apparent must-have features like being able to tap the backs of two
phones of the same model together when you want to share your pirated
mp3 collection. The cheap phones are not particularly cool (TM)
however, according to my 19YO son.
I don't "get it" either - but the iPhone was certainly a very cool (TM)
device at the time it was released.
The Samsung vs iThing battle is rather odd, while Apple and Samsung are
trying to sue the crap out of each other all over the planet, teardown
on iPhones/iPads shows that the retina displays are made by Samsung.
Samsung is a large diverse company with many divisions, but the screens
on these devices aren't generic display modules that Apple would design
and then tender out to the lowest bidder - there must have been
long-term collaboration between the companies. Perhaps like the Pepsi
vs Coke battles of last century, both companies gain more from the
publicity - and particularly from developing customer "brand loyalty",
which is a great way to lock in future profit, by using such tactics to
convince customers that there really is a difference, and that it really
matters.
The worst part of all this (IMO) is the market acceptance that more and
more devices are throwaway lifestyle accessories. Apple's
non-serviceability of their new MacBook pro must be deliberate, yet the
device still appeals to to me (not an iFan) on some levels.
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBo...1#.T97vqLX9N8E

In article <4fe6efa6$>, Enkidu <> wrote:
(snip)

>No, it's the users - falling for the old 'upgrade and get the latest
>shiny buttons' trick.

Yep. Problem identified. Now, if only there was a solution to stupidity ...