John Carroll argues that Microsoft’s approach of having a consistent UI across Windows Mobile devices is hampering adoption and innovation in the mobile space.
“Does this mean the UI should be completely replaceable? I think so. There are smart UI designers outside of Microsoft, and I don’t see why arming them with the ability to create innovative UIs would harm the brand. Microsoft could still create standard UIs, and people could choose to use them, but flexibility would enable third parties to drive the product into more niches than Microsoft by itself might manage with its rigid UI structure.”
Link: Free the Windows Mobile UI (zdnet.com)
Comments 3
Gabriel I disagree with John and point to the fact that building apps for Java/Symbian platform is much harder cause you don’t know what shape, buttons, menus etc the device will have. With the WM platform you know that it will meet a certain specification which means you can build your application to support a large number of devices without having to write specific logic for each device.
Further, the WM platform doesn’t enforce UI constraints – it is just the inability of the developer to take advantage of full screen mode and building their own UI controls. As with building apps for the windows platform everything from overriding the shape and size of controls to customizing fonts can actually be done on the WM platform.
Posted 26 Apr 2007 at 5:29 pm ¶Spb Mobile Shell (http://www.spbsoftwarehouse.com/products/mobileshell/) is a nice start, I think. Still could be better integrated, and a mobile telco should offer something similar as standard.
Posted 27 Apr 2007 at 5:18 am ¶Windows Mobile aside, I think there’s a huge opportunity to offer developers a platform to create ground up phone UIs from scratch rather than having to shoehorn things into existing restrictive frameworks. The large tech companies just aren’t best placed to innovate in this space, and it’s almost impossible for small companies to get something into the market on a short run basis. Gabe
Posted 28 Apr 2007 at 11:55 am ¶Post a Comment