Windows Phone 7 development from the perspective of an iOS developer
carpeaqua.com
carpeaqua.com
Why on Earth do people consider the Windows brand to be tainted? I've really only heard this from Mac fanboys who seem to forget that Windows has a 90% market share. Tying Windows Phone 7 to Windows 7, a great OS by any definition as well as a very popular one is a stroke of genius. People will look at their smartphone and think, "this is a small computer", rather than, "this is a fancy phone". That gives Microsoft huge leeway to push their Windows integration line. It doesn't have to look or feel anything like Windows for the average consumer to realize that they can sync their emails, access their office documents, get on Internet Explorer, etc.
Windows 7, a great OS by any definition
And it still features that idiotic UAC interface, among other things: like a totally remade Control Panel that looks nothing like the one in Windows XP (and just when I managed to teach my wife how to configure a network connection). And what bothers me the most about Windows 7 are the artificial restrictions. Did you know that in Win7 Starter you cannot change the desktop background? (or distribute an app that does that?) ... I actually had to explain to my wife that she has the cheap / sucky edition installed on her netbook, and that she needs to pay another $100 for the home basic upgrade.
It's shit like that which makes me cry every time I have to deal with Windows, but I still am dealing with it because that's what most people use: i.e. its popularity has nothing to do with technical achievements (unless you count not-sucking-so-badly).
And I'm only mentioning this because WinMo 7 was scheduled to be released in 2 editions, i.e. with a cheap version without Zune (at least). Competition with Android/iPhone probably prevented that (for now).
People will look at their smartphone and think,
"this is a small computer"
What people will actually think: "this just like the iPhone/BlackBerry, only from Microsoft".
Windows succeeds, despite the wailing of mac and linux fanboys, because it does what it needs to do and does so well. Mac will never have Windows market share when their cheapest laptop is $1000. Linux will never have Windows, or let alone Mac, market share. Period. Almost every business out there runs Windows. Almost every school library computer lab runs Windows. People who use computers for only the most basic things use Windows, and that's 90% of the computer-using population.
I have both a macbook pro and an older dell xps running Windows 7. I far prefer OSX, but that's because I like having a real shell. XCode is pretty good, too. OSX is a "nicer" OS, and it's certainly prettier, but is it worth paying twice as much for a computer? For the vast majority of people, the answer is no.
You seem to be arguing that Toyota is retarded because they make corollas, when BMW makes the clearly superior 5 series. I think the flaw in such reasoning is obvious.
People have complained that the hardware is plasticy and cheap, but after using the iphone4 over a 2 month period and seeing the glass screen smash. I prefer the light feel; plus most people covert their phones with a case and they all feel the same after that.
Complaints on the phone:
The browser isn't as good as the iphone; change between pages isn't as nice and the back & forward is a pain. Rendering is also not as good.
The zune navigation system was better than the windows mobile. In zune you could navigate up and down the system by clicking the title of the current screen to go back in Playlists click "Playlist" to go back to music, click "Music" to return to the main screen. This was super convient because navigation could be done with one hand. In the Mobile OS it would more on a backwards only system that requires using the phones "back" button which is at the bottom of the phone. I find it not as easy operate as the zune, but the same as the iphone.
I had a bit of a minor hit with an app I wrote (see http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2010/11/windows-phone-micro...). For a couple of weeks, that app was #1 in the paid tools category and #35 across all paid apps.
As someone familiar with the Microsoft stack (C#, .NET, VS, etc), I found the going pretty straight forward. If you're familiar with the Microsoft development stack, you should probably have a fairly easy time getting used to the platform. If you're familiar with Silverlight (which I wasn't), you should find it very easy indeed.
Assume 2000 x 70c = $1,400
Not bad for a week/weekends work (honeymoon apparently, go figure?!? :D )
But a bit ... lacking ... when considered as a #1 hit. On the other hand, maybe it hasn't been out there too long. You could say okay the time he and his beta tester put in was worth maybe $20/hour, but that ignores how an app can be a revenue stream that keeps on generating income.
If he 'only' made $1000 per year from that app (as is) every year for the rest of his life that'd be a pretty good ROI for a weeks work.
So don't get too hung up on my estimate, the advantage of an entrepreneur compared to a work for hire salaryman is to keep getting paid long after the work is done.
Unfortunately, the popularity took a dive after the first few weeks so my run rate is much lower now. Also, a big part of my app sales was driven by press which you only get when you do new versions, etc. My wife and I working together on a soon-to-be-launched app also meant that I haven't really gotten back to shipping new updates, etc.
It works just fine on Windows 7 running on the latest version of VMware Fusion under Snow Leopard. It's just not very performant.
But the quality of paid apps, which are almost all games, is on par with the iOS top paid apps already.
Good game developers are able to create games regardless of the quality of the tools. Its part of the fun to create impressive games with limited resources and tools.
Other than marketing the fact that Microsoft also created a successful game console and xbox live, I don't think Microsoft has any advantage here. Xbox live could be a key differentiator but only after a significant market share has been gained. I don't think people will buy a WP7 phone for Xbox live. Currently iOS offers the best games.
If you want to develop a game on WP7, you HAVE to use XNA. All games in the WP7 app store had to be built with it.
Also, WP7 has no C++ support. John Carmack griped about this on Twitter.
However I suspect that some of the titles from companies such as EA or Gameloft are still written in C++ even though it is not supported officially by Microsoft. It is highly likely that they have some kind of early access to native code compilation for the platform.
Hmm.
Are there actually people for whom being on AT&T is a necessity, let alone desirable?
iPhone users.
Reasons you might want a GSM phone: so you can travel to Europe (or many other places) and just stick in a prepaid SIM card. So you can switch between carriers without throwing out your phone (though at the moment this is more theoretical than practical, since AT&T and T-Mobile use different 3G frequencies, and most phones don't support both; you could switch, but would be back on EDGE instead of 3G). So you can buy unlocked phones that are not owned and controlled by your carrier, with no contracts, giving you more power to vote with your wallet if your carrier is unreasonable.
For these reasons, I decided to go with an unlocked GSM phone (Nexus One). AT&T has coverage where I live; T-Mobile does not. Thus, AT&T is pretty much the only reasonable choice.