This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I don't think we need any of those external links (apart from the Window Phone homepage). The others are just reviews which the reader can find numerous of by performing a quick internet search. Casey boy ( talk) 22:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I have noted some recent edits to this page which involve changing the contents to mirror that of Windows Mobile#Windows Mobile 7 and back to a redirect. Rather than revert and potentially spark an edit war, can we please reach some kind of a consensus on whether this page should be a redirect or a proper article with the same content as the page to which it would otherwise redirect to?
The note about the flash support isnt exactly true. http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/microsoft_news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224000112&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News says flash support is in progress. MrNick01 ( talk) 00:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
While it may be likely I could not learn from the presentation it's really using a CE core... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.243.201 ( talk) 19:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
“ | [Spokesperson] was not allowed to talk about whether Windows CE is still at its core, or which version of CE it was. | ” |
— ZDNet [1] |
Microsoft confimred on the official Twitter account of Windows Phone that they will change the name to just "Windows Phone 7". Please change the name of the entire article to "Windows Phone 7". I'll try to go around WIkipedia changing everything to just "Windows Phone 7" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interframe ( talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Windows Phone 7 Series → Windows Phone 7 — Microsoft has dropped "Series" from the title, so the OS is now officially "Windows Phone 7". .: Alex :. 19:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The criticism section of the article is just a list of missing features, policies, Why are these in a criticism section? A criticism section should have actual criticism from notable sources, not things wikipedia editors don't like, thats against wikipedia policies. -- Chris Ssk talk 08:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you need a easier example? Maybe a picture? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 20:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Being more serious, best to intergrate these things into the prose into the relevent sections. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 21:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
How can you truthfully critize something that hasnt been release yet and is still in development? Yes at events they have "promo" models, but they are still far from a finished product. Its like rating a movie soley from the previews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.10 ( talk) 21:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Copy/Paste is apparently slated for future updates [1] 24.223.135.30 ( talk) 20:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
There should be mention of devices announced by Dell, HTC, and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.65.122 ( talk) 18:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Would someone in the know please add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainStack ( talk • contribs) 18:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone keeps blanking the 'Content restrictions' section. Applications on Windows Phone 7 will be banned from showing nudity or violence. This is important information, whether you agree or disagree with Microsoft's policy. The person blanking it says in the edit summary that it was deleted because it is also mentioned in another article about the Microsoft Marketplace. However, the restrictions are specific to Windows Phone 7, and don't apply to Microsoft's other phone platforms. It should be included in this article, and the person blanking it should refrain.-- Lester 13:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The Apple iPhone article, which has similar app content restrictions to Windows Phone 7, doesn't have a section for app content restrictions, because it has more to do with Apple's App Store than the iPhone's OS. Realistically, I think we should put a small mention under the "Application development" section about the application content restrictions. It doesn't really deserve an entire sub-section of its own, because its not built into the OS. But, there should be a small mention for it under "Application development" anyways. It also doesn't make sense that its under the "Features" section, its not a feature of the OS and its not built into the OS either.-- Interframe —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC).
diagree, it makes it clear it's related to apps and there are reliable sources to support the statements. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 22:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it "Content" restriction as such, nothing is being blocked or restricted because their simply won't be any applications to block, as creating such and application will not make it past the submission process. A better name would be Application restrictions which apply to the developers. As for 'circumventing', one could always get a developer account for $99 a year, then side-load whatever apps they want onto it though Visual Studio. 118.90.87.224 ( talk) 02:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Just questioning the recent editing on the Search subsection. A key difference between WP7 and Android is that Android allows OEMs and network carriers to change the default search engine to something other than Google. I know that Motorola sells phones in Asia that default to Yahoo search and services. In that case, Motorola just removed Google's stuff. Many device makers in China remove Google search and replace it with China's Baidu engine. Microsoft does not allow OEMs or networks to do this. It may affect WP7's reach into China. I think it is relevant and should not have been deleted.-- Lester 04:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
First off, I think this article in general is poorly written. Most of it hardly talks about the product itself and instead compares it to everything else (other mobile OS's). I understand this gives the reader some context but, this article should not be a comparative buying guide to help determine what mobile OS platform the reader should buy into. And currently, the way this article is written is as if its only purpose is to point out what it doesn't have over its competitors. There is already an article ( Mobile operating system) that objectively compares mobile operating systems with each other.
Another thing to point out is that if its even fair to compare Windows Mobile to Windows Phone 7. From a technical perspective, they really are two completely different platforms. Windows Mobile is older and Microsoft's focus with it was completely different years ago because the smartphone market was different. Microsoft has changed the way they create and design their mobile OS and just because Windows Mobile had a feature (like a file system), doesn't mean its worth mentioning. There are things Microsoft took away from Windows Mobile because they shifted their focus from power users to the broader everyday consumer, is there something wrong with that? And even if we`re comparing features-to-features here with WP7 and other mobile OS's, putting that all in a table (which already exists in the right article) makes more sense and is far, far more objective than sentences. The Apple iOS and Google Android articles rarely ever mention other mobile operating systems because these articles strictly focus on discussing the product itself in an objective way. -- Interframe ( talk) 03:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, see some of my comments above. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 09:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
That's a slightly different issue - if Microsoft build an OS from scratch and it doesn't contain something by design, how is that feature a 'missing' feature? It does not seem NPOV to me to use such a title for many (but not all) of the choices they have made. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 10:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Lester wrote "We are reflecting what the major technology publications are saying". Yes, that exactly what this article does and its a problem. Modern day journalism is the furthest thing from being objective, its all about opinions, especially when it comes to technology journalism. The only thing this article should do is inform the reader about the product in the most objective way possible. Other mobile OS articles don't compare each other with other operating systems. The actual Mobile operating system article compares each mobile OS in an objective way by using a table instead of sentences. And yes, Microsoft should have actually called it "Windows Phone 1.0". However, what is more important and relevant? A name created by some marketing team, or the actual product/subject itself? How important and relevant are these missing features, especially if they were cut out by design? No one can say, not even the press, because its all about opinion, Wikipedia articles are not about opinion, its about facts. You can say "hey, here are these missing features" but how is it relevant if Microsoft excluded them by design, what if there is no demand for a particular feature? How do we know for sure? Its all about opinion. Seeing Windows Phone 7 as just a .5 upgrade is a huge mistake, because its too obvious how different it is from Windows Mobile. If all your going to do is compare feature-to-feature, why does this article even exist? This article already exists for that exact purpose. -- Interframe ( talk) 20:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Windows Phone 7 will not have backward compatibility with Windows Mobile 6.5 apps. - how is this a missing feature rather than a design choice? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Notice also the lead of that section makes no sense when taken in context with the rest - it talks about features that microsoft expect to put in but not at launch - yet it then talks about backwards comptability and cut and paste, two features that they never intend to add. the whole thing is a mess. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 19:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I hope this article is better now, I've made some corrections and so on, but I think the main thing is the Reception section, which seems to me to be a much more balanced way of presenting the criticisms of WP7. Hopefully people can flesh it out with more opinions and references etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CalumCookable ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
So I don't see what the problem is here. User:CalumCookable's solution was an excellent one. A Reception section makes more sense than just random sentences written by Wikipedia editors. After all, everything that was in the Missing Features section was backed up by resources that were opinion (in other words, modern-day journalism). Currently, the tone of the article is all negative. The features section is poorly written and focuses on having a negative tone. The Reception section should be the only place where opinions matter because thats what reception is, the rest of the article should strictly focus on the product itself. There is currently a strong lack of focus on the article, after User:CalumCookable made changes and added the reception section, the article was far, far more neutral and actually more about the topic itself. -- Interframe ( talk) 17:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, OK, so my edits, while not individually massive, were, combined, too dramatic. But Wikipedia policy, while placing heavy emphasis on consensus, also says "be bold". and the article in its current condition is a disgrace. Apart from anything else, the language is incomprehensible (Wikipedia says use plain English and not jargon) and the organisation a jumbled mess, to say nothing of the fact that almost every single section spends more time pointing out what the OS lacks than what it has. That's not an encyclopedic article, it's a hate piece. I'm also mindful that the general public now use Wikipedia as their primary reference source, and such a biased article on such a major topic is not in the interests of anyone except competing mobile OS developers. I am absolutely adamant that my latest revision is better - it does not remove any of the existing facts or references (which I admit my original changes did), it simply corrects the tone towards a balanced centre, improves the readability and fluidity of the prose, and puts criticism where it belongs - in its own section with quotes from decent sources which state their opinions. CalumCookable ( talk) 18:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, first of all, I think the title of this section should be changed to "web browsing". Second, I don't think the body of the section is acceptable in its current form. Currently, it says:
No real information about features - only what it lacks and a few tidbits of info of minimal interest. I agree they're valuable, but not at the expense of descriptions of features. My version (along with contributions from other editors) said:
Can you see now that I only added information? I did not destroy any of the existing facts, and all the new stuff was referenced! I'd like to invite discussion over whether I can change JUST THIS SECTION back to my version. CalumCookable ( talk) 18:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Similar to above really. Before:
My version:
See? Not that much difference! But it sounds more neutral, because it's not immediately starting with "oh, it can't do this and that", and it is also better English. Request opinions on whether I can change just this section back.
CalumCookable (
talk)
18:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
My version:
Same again, change only this section please? Also to get an idea of consensus I'll come back tomorrow and if the number of users who think it's a good idea to make these changes is more than the number of users who disagree, I'll make the changes; otherwise, I won't. Or, do I need to get CONSENSUS on what consensus means as well? CalumCookable ( talk) 18:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the relationship to the Kin and the name of the product deserve whole sections all to themselves - I think it would be better if they were included as subsections of the History section. Consensus?
Also, I think Application Development and Application Restrictions should be combined into a single Applications section with subsections of Development and (as another editor suggested) Content restrictions. I think the sentence about the OS languages should go in the History section under a Launch subsection, while the sentence about Marketplace countries could either stay in this section or move to the Launch subsection of the History section. Consensus?
The sentence about some OEMs taking payment and then reneging on the deal should be removed as it is not referenced and is not believable when you're dealing with huge corporations like Microsoft and HP. CalumCookable ( talk) 19:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and something else, I would like to change "History of phone development and marketing" to just "History". What else would it be? History of cats? Maybe in the future we could break Marketing out into its own section if we can write about the advertisements they run and so on. CalumCookable ( talk) 19:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Another thing: I'd like to change "went RTM" in the introduction to "was released to manufacturing". Not only is this better English, it provides the uneducated reader with an implied definition, rather than them having to go and find out what RTM stands for before they can understand the sentence. CalumCookable ( talk) 19:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I think this section needs to be seriously reworked. I mean, Windows Phone 7 doesn't have a built in toaster but that isn't listed as a "missing feature". I mean if you go to any other phone article there isn't a list of missing features for things like gyroscope support. As far as I know, the only phone in the world with that is the iPhone 4 (not released yet). Why is it that we don't list this on every other phone article. I think Wikipedia articles are about what something IS rather that what something ISN'T. Why isn't there a list of missing features on the iOS, Android, WebOS, or Symbian platform? Is it because none of these platforms are missing features a phone platform could have? All phone platforms are missing features that the others have but for some reason, the Windows Phone 7 gets a big "Missing Features" section. Unless I'm given a compelling reason not to, I am going to change this section quite a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainStack ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The title is not NPOV - if a company decided not to do something that is *not* a 'missing feature', leaving out cut and paste is a design choice not something that is 'missing. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 09:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I think there's a pretty good case to move a lot of the missing features scattered around the article into the Missing Features section. They are missing features because they used to exist on previous Windows Mobile phones, but for some reason have been excluded from Windows Phone 7.-- Lester 08:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I second what InterFrame states above. "Missing" compared to what? The list is ridiculous. What other mobile OS supports Windows Rights Management Services? This whole section should be dropped. It doesn't make any sense to include it because the entire concept is relative. Many of the other mobile OSs were introduced missing the same features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.200.176 ( talk) 18:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I (CaptainStack) started the discussion to remove the "Missing Features" section and it has been thrown back and forth since I brought it up. I stand by what I said originally which is that Wikipedia is about what something IS rather than what it ISN'T. The phone doesn't have a built in toaster but that's not a "missing feature" and even if you can find an article or reviewer to cite that is a criticism, doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia. I vote for this whole section to be removed, and if not, SERIOUSLY REWORKED. I will do so myself in a day or so if I don't hear a compelling reason to not do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainStack ( talk • contribs) 00:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
CaptainStack is right, the 'Missing Features' sections is inherently negative, and does not talk about the platform, but what people OPINIONS of what should be in WP7. As such, perhaps renaming the section into 'Announced Features', explaining the features are to be released in updates but not here yet (as confirmed by Microsoft) would be prudent. As for the 'Missing features,' let's leave a subjective comparison of the value of one feature vs another to the reviewers and opinion pieces? Perhaps, after launch, we can discuss this again... unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.65.222 ( talk) 15:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with most of the contributors that the "Missing Features" section has a serious negative bias towards Windows Phone 7 which does not reflect the spirit of Wikipedia. The very basis of comparision with windows Mobile 6.x is not warranted because Microsoft has admitted that WP7 is a totally new software with no similarities (or backward compatibility) with 6.x. The entire design philosophy is different from 6.x as also from other OSes in vogue, hence criticisms like 'no access to central file system', 'no removable storage', 'no application switcher' are not logical as different ways are available in this OS towards the same end. Similarly, most of the tasks for which C&P is used, are supported in a different manner. Secondly, the decision by Microsoft engineers not to provide support for certain functions (no NDK, no sockets, no 3rd party multitasking etc) is indicative of clarity of thought and conviction that user experience is paramount. Indeed it is praiseworthy that they are not releasing half baked software to the masses like Android and continuing even basic development using people as guinea pigs. Thirdly, I'm sure the Wikipedia page on iOS or Android does not list that XBox Live and Office Mobile 2010 are not supported even though these are the most popular in the world in their class (or even XNA/Silverlight support). Hence I see no point why lack of features/services of other phones should be bemoaned, that too at this stage when no user feedback is available. Salilshukla ( talk) 11:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion involving cleanup Windows Phone 7 article at WP:AN/I#A call to cleanse Windows Phone 7 Illegal Operation ( talk) 03:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion involving cleanup Windows Phone 7 article at WP:WQA#A call to cleanse Windows Phone 7 -- intelati( Call) 16:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Windows Phone 7 has nothing to do with Kin. Both use Silverlight, but that's all they have in common. Kin is no based on WP7 and WP7 is not based on KIN. Apparently nobody want this section except Lester. Illegal Operation ( talk) 17:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The missing features section sits uncomfortably with me as possible WP:SYNTH. For example; do we have a source that identifies the fact that these features are missing as notable? If so that needs to be the focus of the section, if not it is very dubious. -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that we should create a new section named "Features In Older Versions of Windows Mobile Not Found in Windows Phone 7" or something to that degree (preferably shorter). As I've said many times, a missing feature implies that it's something that is supposed to be there, and in the case of these phones, all that is supposed to be there is whatever Microsoft and their OEMs decide to put there. It's not fair for us to call lack of expandable memory support a "missing feature" just because we wanted it. However, we can point out that there are features in Windows Mobile 6.5 that won't be in Windows Phone 7. There should be a section for this and it should be written from a neutral point of view please. Additionally, down the line we should make a "Reception" section where we can put VALID criticism, though this should probably wait until devices ship and tech sites and reviewers get their hands on final hardware and software. "Missing Features" should eventually be phased out completely when the two sections I described are properly implemented. What does everyone think of this? CaptainStack ( talk) 07:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that the missing features section be a subsection of the Reception because the latter is too weak on its own.-- intelati( Call) 04:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Are we going to discuss this serious or not seriously? If we are to have a genuine discussion, then it is disingenuous to delete the section while the discussion is still in progress. Here is the current version of the Missing Features, as it was at the start of the discussion. It should not be changed while the issues are still being discussed.-- Lester 23:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm just trowing out ideas, so sure if it works, or if anyone else has a better idea, tell it.
Window Mobile was excatly what it sounds like a Mobile windows instillation. Windows Phone is suppost to compete with the android and the iOS (or whatever it's called).-- intelati( Call) 01:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
As it currently stands the section should be cut. It is badly organised and the wording leaves a lot to be desired. It should be cut into the reception section and rewritten to say a) why this is an important part of the crtitical reception (i.e. those sources we had before that said this was an important issue) and then just deal with what is missing. Having a separate section is WP:UNDUE and in it's current form is WP:NPOV -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 08:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a major reconstruction beginning on the article. We need community consensus to continue, please voice your opinions on the article. Thanks intelati( Call) 21:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
See above for current conversations-- intelati( Call)
The article need extensive cleanup. The missing features, for example, is just a list of features that some Wikipedia editors are unhappy about. Illegal Operation ( talk) 01:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Support Cleanup
Oppose Cleanup
Comments
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I don't think we need any of those external links (apart from the Window Phone homepage). The others are just reviews which the reader can find numerous of by performing a quick internet search. Casey boy ( talk) 22:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I have noted some recent edits to this page which involve changing the contents to mirror that of Windows Mobile#Windows Mobile 7 and back to a redirect. Rather than revert and potentially spark an edit war, can we please reach some kind of a consensus on whether this page should be a redirect or a proper article with the same content as the page to which it would otherwise redirect to?
The note about the flash support isnt exactly true. http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/microsoft_news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224000112&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News says flash support is in progress. MrNick01 ( talk) 00:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
While it may be likely I could not learn from the presentation it's really using a CE core... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.243.201 ( talk) 19:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
“ | [Spokesperson] was not allowed to talk about whether Windows CE is still at its core, or which version of CE it was. | ” |
— ZDNet [1] |
Microsoft confimred on the official Twitter account of Windows Phone that they will change the name to just "Windows Phone 7". Please change the name of the entire article to "Windows Phone 7". I'll try to go around WIkipedia changing everything to just "Windows Phone 7" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interframe ( talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Windows Phone 7 Series → Windows Phone 7 — Microsoft has dropped "Series" from the title, so the OS is now officially "Windows Phone 7". .: Alex :. 19:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The criticism section of the article is just a list of missing features, policies, Why are these in a criticism section? A criticism section should have actual criticism from notable sources, not things wikipedia editors don't like, thats against wikipedia policies. -- Chris Ssk talk 08:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you need a easier example? Maybe a picture? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 20:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Being more serious, best to intergrate these things into the prose into the relevent sections. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 21:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
How can you truthfully critize something that hasnt been release yet and is still in development? Yes at events they have "promo" models, but they are still far from a finished product. Its like rating a movie soley from the previews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.10 ( talk) 21:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Copy/Paste is apparently slated for future updates [1] 24.223.135.30 ( talk) 20:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
There should be mention of devices announced by Dell, HTC, and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.65.122 ( talk) 18:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Would someone in the know please add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainStack ( talk • contribs) 18:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone keeps blanking the 'Content restrictions' section. Applications on Windows Phone 7 will be banned from showing nudity or violence. This is important information, whether you agree or disagree with Microsoft's policy. The person blanking it says in the edit summary that it was deleted because it is also mentioned in another article about the Microsoft Marketplace. However, the restrictions are specific to Windows Phone 7, and don't apply to Microsoft's other phone platforms. It should be included in this article, and the person blanking it should refrain.-- Lester 13:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The Apple iPhone article, which has similar app content restrictions to Windows Phone 7, doesn't have a section for app content restrictions, because it has more to do with Apple's App Store than the iPhone's OS. Realistically, I think we should put a small mention under the "Application development" section about the application content restrictions. It doesn't really deserve an entire sub-section of its own, because its not built into the OS. But, there should be a small mention for it under "Application development" anyways. It also doesn't make sense that its under the "Features" section, its not a feature of the OS and its not built into the OS either.-- Interframe —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC).
diagree, it makes it clear it's related to apps and there are reliable sources to support the statements. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 22:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it "Content" restriction as such, nothing is being blocked or restricted because their simply won't be any applications to block, as creating such and application will not make it past the submission process. A better name would be Application restrictions which apply to the developers. As for 'circumventing', one could always get a developer account for $99 a year, then side-load whatever apps they want onto it though Visual Studio. 118.90.87.224 ( talk) 02:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Just questioning the recent editing on the Search subsection. A key difference between WP7 and Android is that Android allows OEMs and network carriers to change the default search engine to something other than Google. I know that Motorola sells phones in Asia that default to Yahoo search and services. In that case, Motorola just removed Google's stuff. Many device makers in China remove Google search and replace it with China's Baidu engine. Microsoft does not allow OEMs or networks to do this. It may affect WP7's reach into China. I think it is relevant and should not have been deleted.-- Lester 04:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
First off, I think this article in general is poorly written. Most of it hardly talks about the product itself and instead compares it to everything else (other mobile OS's). I understand this gives the reader some context but, this article should not be a comparative buying guide to help determine what mobile OS platform the reader should buy into. And currently, the way this article is written is as if its only purpose is to point out what it doesn't have over its competitors. There is already an article ( Mobile operating system) that objectively compares mobile operating systems with each other.
Another thing to point out is that if its even fair to compare Windows Mobile to Windows Phone 7. From a technical perspective, they really are two completely different platforms. Windows Mobile is older and Microsoft's focus with it was completely different years ago because the smartphone market was different. Microsoft has changed the way they create and design their mobile OS and just because Windows Mobile had a feature (like a file system), doesn't mean its worth mentioning. There are things Microsoft took away from Windows Mobile because they shifted their focus from power users to the broader everyday consumer, is there something wrong with that? And even if we`re comparing features-to-features here with WP7 and other mobile OS's, putting that all in a table (which already exists in the right article) makes more sense and is far, far more objective than sentences. The Apple iOS and Google Android articles rarely ever mention other mobile operating systems because these articles strictly focus on discussing the product itself in an objective way. -- Interframe ( talk) 03:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, see some of my comments above. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 09:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
That's a slightly different issue - if Microsoft build an OS from scratch and it doesn't contain something by design, how is that feature a 'missing' feature? It does not seem NPOV to me to use such a title for many (but not all) of the choices they have made. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 10:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Lester wrote "We are reflecting what the major technology publications are saying". Yes, that exactly what this article does and its a problem. Modern day journalism is the furthest thing from being objective, its all about opinions, especially when it comes to technology journalism. The only thing this article should do is inform the reader about the product in the most objective way possible. Other mobile OS articles don't compare each other with other operating systems. The actual Mobile operating system article compares each mobile OS in an objective way by using a table instead of sentences. And yes, Microsoft should have actually called it "Windows Phone 1.0". However, what is more important and relevant? A name created by some marketing team, or the actual product/subject itself? How important and relevant are these missing features, especially if they were cut out by design? No one can say, not even the press, because its all about opinion, Wikipedia articles are not about opinion, its about facts. You can say "hey, here are these missing features" but how is it relevant if Microsoft excluded them by design, what if there is no demand for a particular feature? How do we know for sure? Its all about opinion. Seeing Windows Phone 7 as just a .5 upgrade is a huge mistake, because its too obvious how different it is from Windows Mobile. If all your going to do is compare feature-to-feature, why does this article even exist? This article already exists for that exact purpose. -- Interframe ( talk) 20:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Windows Phone 7 will not have backward compatibility with Windows Mobile 6.5 apps. - how is this a missing feature rather than a design choice? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Notice also the lead of that section makes no sense when taken in context with the rest - it talks about features that microsoft expect to put in but not at launch - yet it then talks about backwards comptability and cut and paste, two features that they never intend to add. the whole thing is a mess. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 19:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I hope this article is better now, I've made some corrections and so on, but I think the main thing is the Reception section, which seems to me to be a much more balanced way of presenting the criticisms of WP7. Hopefully people can flesh it out with more opinions and references etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CalumCookable ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
So I don't see what the problem is here. User:CalumCookable's solution was an excellent one. A Reception section makes more sense than just random sentences written by Wikipedia editors. After all, everything that was in the Missing Features section was backed up by resources that were opinion (in other words, modern-day journalism). Currently, the tone of the article is all negative. The features section is poorly written and focuses on having a negative tone. The Reception section should be the only place where opinions matter because thats what reception is, the rest of the article should strictly focus on the product itself. There is currently a strong lack of focus on the article, after User:CalumCookable made changes and added the reception section, the article was far, far more neutral and actually more about the topic itself. -- Interframe ( talk) 17:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, OK, so my edits, while not individually massive, were, combined, too dramatic. But Wikipedia policy, while placing heavy emphasis on consensus, also says "be bold". and the article in its current condition is a disgrace. Apart from anything else, the language is incomprehensible (Wikipedia says use plain English and not jargon) and the organisation a jumbled mess, to say nothing of the fact that almost every single section spends more time pointing out what the OS lacks than what it has. That's not an encyclopedic article, it's a hate piece. I'm also mindful that the general public now use Wikipedia as their primary reference source, and such a biased article on such a major topic is not in the interests of anyone except competing mobile OS developers. I am absolutely adamant that my latest revision is better - it does not remove any of the existing facts or references (which I admit my original changes did), it simply corrects the tone towards a balanced centre, improves the readability and fluidity of the prose, and puts criticism where it belongs - in its own section with quotes from decent sources which state their opinions. CalumCookable ( talk) 18:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, first of all, I think the title of this section should be changed to "web browsing". Second, I don't think the body of the section is acceptable in its current form. Currently, it says:
No real information about features - only what it lacks and a few tidbits of info of minimal interest. I agree they're valuable, but not at the expense of descriptions of features. My version (along with contributions from other editors) said:
Can you see now that I only added information? I did not destroy any of the existing facts, and all the new stuff was referenced! I'd like to invite discussion over whether I can change JUST THIS SECTION back to my version. CalumCookable ( talk) 18:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Similar to above really. Before:
My version:
See? Not that much difference! But it sounds more neutral, because it's not immediately starting with "oh, it can't do this and that", and it is also better English. Request opinions on whether I can change just this section back.
CalumCookable (
talk)
18:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
My version:
Same again, change only this section please? Also to get an idea of consensus I'll come back tomorrow and if the number of users who think it's a good idea to make these changes is more than the number of users who disagree, I'll make the changes; otherwise, I won't. Or, do I need to get CONSENSUS on what consensus means as well? CalumCookable ( talk) 18:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the relationship to the Kin and the name of the product deserve whole sections all to themselves - I think it would be better if they were included as subsections of the History section. Consensus?
Also, I think Application Development and Application Restrictions should be combined into a single Applications section with subsections of Development and (as another editor suggested) Content restrictions. I think the sentence about the OS languages should go in the History section under a Launch subsection, while the sentence about Marketplace countries could either stay in this section or move to the Launch subsection of the History section. Consensus?
The sentence about some OEMs taking payment and then reneging on the deal should be removed as it is not referenced and is not believable when you're dealing with huge corporations like Microsoft and HP. CalumCookable ( talk) 19:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and something else, I would like to change "History of phone development and marketing" to just "History". What else would it be? History of cats? Maybe in the future we could break Marketing out into its own section if we can write about the advertisements they run and so on. CalumCookable ( talk) 19:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Another thing: I'd like to change "went RTM" in the introduction to "was released to manufacturing". Not only is this better English, it provides the uneducated reader with an implied definition, rather than them having to go and find out what RTM stands for before they can understand the sentence. CalumCookable ( talk) 19:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I think this section needs to be seriously reworked. I mean, Windows Phone 7 doesn't have a built in toaster but that isn't listed as a "missing feature". I mean if you go to any other phone article there isn't a list of missing features for things like gyroscope support. As far as I know, the only phone in the world with that is the iPhone 4 (not released yet). Why is it that we don't list this on every other phone article. I think Wikipedia articles are about what something IS rather that what something ISN'T. Why isn't there a list of missing features on the iOS, Android, WebOS, or Symbian platform? Is it because none of these platforms are missing features a phone platform could have? All phone platforms are missing features that the others have but for some reason, the Windows Phone 7 gets a big "Missing Features" section. Unless I'm given a compelling reason not to, I am going to change this section quite a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainStack ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The title is not NPOV - if a company decided not to do something that is *not* a 'missing feature', leaving out cut and paste is a design choice not something that is 'missing. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 09:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I think there's a pretty good case to move a lot of the missing features scattered around the article into the Missing Features section. They are missing features because they used to exist on previous Windows Mobile phones, but for some reason have been excluded from Windows Phone 7.-- Lester 08:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I second what InterFrame states above. "Missing" compared to what? The list is ridiculous. What other mobile OS supports Windows Rights Management Services? This whole section should be dropped. It doesn't make any sense to include it because the entire concept is relative. Many of the other mobile OSs were introduced missing the same features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.200.176 ( talk) 18:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I (CaptainStack) started the discussion to remove the "Missing Features" section and it has been thrown back and forth since I brought it up. I stand by what I said originally which is that Wikipedia is about what something IS rather than what it ISN'T. The phone doesn't have a built in toaster but that's not a "missing feature" and even if you can find an article or reviewer to cite that is a criticism, doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia. I vote for this whole section to be removed, and if not, SERIOUSLY REWORKED. I will do so myself in a day or so if I don't hear a compelling reason to not do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainStack ( talk • contribs) 00:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
CaptainStack is right, the 'Missing Features' sections is inherently negative, and does not talk about the platform, but what people OPINIONS of what should be in WP7. As such, perhaps renaming the section into 'Announced Features', explaining the features are to be released in updates but not here yet (as confirmed by Microsoft) would be prudent. As for the 'Missing features,' let's leave a subjective comparison of the value of one feature vs another to the reviewers and opinion pieces? Perhaps, after launch, we can discuss this again... unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.65.222 ( talk) 15:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with most of the contributors that the "Missing Features" section has a serious negative bias towards Windows Phone 7 which does not reflect the spirit of Wikipedia. The very basis of comparision with windows Mobile 6.x is not warranted because Microsoft has admitted that WP7 is a totally new software with no similarities (or backward compatibility) with 6.x. The entire design philosophy is different from 6.x as also from other OSes in vogue, hence criticisms like 'no access to central file system', 'no removable storage', 'no application switcher' are not logical as different ways are available in this OS towards the same end. Similarly, most of the tasks for which C&P is used, are supported in a different manner. Secondly, the decision by Microsoft engineers not to provide support for certain functions (no NDK, no sockets, no 3rd party multitasking etc) is indicative of clarity of thought and conviction that user experience is paramount. Indeed it is praiseworthy that they are not releasing half baked software to the masses like Android and continuing even basic development using people as guinea pigs. Thirdly, I'm sure the Wikipedia page on iOS or Android does not list that XBox Live and Office Mobile 2010 are not supported even though these are the most popular in the world in their class (or even XNA/Silverlight support). Hence I see no point why lack of features/services of other phones should be bemoaned, that too at this stage when no user feedback is available. Salilshukla ( talk) 11:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion involving cleanup Windows Phone 7 article at WP:AN/I#A call to cleanse Windows Phone 7 Illegal Operation ( talk) 03:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion involving cleanup Windows Phone 7 article at WP:WQA#A call to cleanse Windows Phone 7 -- intelati( Call) 16:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Windows Phone 7 has nothing to do with Kin. Both use Silverlight, but that's all they have in common. Kin is no based on WP7 and WP7 is not based on KIN. Apparently nobody want this section except Lester. Illegal Operation ( talk) 17:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The missing features section sits uncomfortably with me as possible WP:SYNTH. For example; do we have a source that identifies the fact that these features are missing as notable? If so that needs to be the focus of the section, if not it is very dubious. -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that we should create a new section named "Features In Older Versions of Windows Mobile Not Found in Windows Phone 7" or something to that degree (preferably shorter). As I've said many times, a missing feature implies that it's something that is supposed to be there, and in the case of these phones, all that is supposed to be there is whatever Microsoft and their OEMs decide to put there. It's not fair for us to call lack of expandable memory support a "missing feature" just because we wanted it. However, we can point out that there are features in Windows Mobile 6.5 that won't be in Windows Phone 7. There should be a section for this and it should be written from a neutral point of view please. Additionally, down the line we should make a "Reception" section where we can put VALID criticism, though this should probably wait until devices ship and tech sites and reviewers get their hands on final hardware and software. "Missing Features" should eventually be phased out completely when the two sections I described are properly implemented. What does everyone think of this? CaptainStack ( talk) 07:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that the missing features section be a subsection of the Reception because the latter is too weak on its own.-- intelati( Call) 04:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Are we going to discuss this serious or not seriously? If we are to have a genuine discussion, then it is disingenuous to delete the section while the discussion is still in progress. Here is the current version of the Missing Features, as it was at the start of the discussion. It should not be changed while the issues are still being discussed.-- Lester 23:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm just trowing out ideas, so sure if it works, or if anyone else has a better idea, tell it.
Window Mobile was excatly what it sounds like a Mobile windows instillation. Windows Phone is suppost to compete with the android and the iOS (or whatever it's called).-- intelati( Call) 01:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
As it currently stands the section should be cut. It is badly organised and the wording leaves a lot to be desired. It should be cut into the reception section and rewritten to say a) why this is an important part of the crtitical reception (i.e. those sources we had before that said this was an important issue) and then just deal with what is missing. Having a separate section is WP:UNDUE and in it's current form is WP:NPOV -- Errant [tmorton166] ( chat!) 08:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a major reconstruction beginning on the article. We need community consensus to continue, please voice your opinions on the article. Thanks intelati( Call) 21:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
See above for current conversations-- intelati( Call)
The article need extensive cleanup. The missing features, for example, is just a list of features that some Wikipedia editors are unhappy about. Illegal Operation ( talk) 01:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Support Cleanup
Oppose Cleanup
Comments