Talk:Windows Phone/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4


Some of the ones used in the article probably aren't reliable, let's discuss those here.

  • This one, used in the 2nd Development section, appears to be a personal blog. All it's doing is repeating (inaccurately) this, which might be a reliable site but is reporting this as a rumor. We should use the latter source directly, and take care to cast it as a rumor unless a better source can be found, and I'm hopeful that's will be the case. Thoughts? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd support removing all unreliable and improperly sourced material from the article. I refrained from doing it myself, as I'm getting besieged by people accusing me of making the article less positive. But a large part of the article is "fan" material that is not properly sourced, and should go.--Lester 05:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I do not disagree, but I think it best to proceed slowly, we're really not in a rush. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding, it appears to me to be a multi-user blog, and thus not really a reliable source. Does anyone disagree? If so, how does it conform to WP:RS? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Take a look
  • "Submit Articles! Do you have your ear to the ground? Share the latest news, views and reviews with your fellow readers! Only registered users can submit articles, and the first 3 posts will be held for moderation."
This suggests that the articles are user submitted, and not vetted prior to publication, and thus not a reliable source by WP standards. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of reliable sources, should we be taking what Dvorak says seriously? This is the man that predicted that the mouse would never gain traction and said that nobody wanted to use one. Based on his record, a bad review of WP7 from him should actually be seen as a ringing endorsement of the product. CalumCookable (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an entire section devoted to this topic below. Just wanted to point that out. --Interframe (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, I didn't look closely enough :) CalumCookable (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing Features

Ug, the above thread is giving me pause here, but I already edited the article, so I feel obligated to mention:

  • I think that the "missing features" section can be trimmed down and included into the "reception" section. Going into depth about what features the phone has/doesn't have is getting close to sounding like advertising. It has what it has. If there is something really, really notable missing, (and is cited by multiple good sources) like e-mail functionality or a speaker phone or whatever, then sure, it should be there. But otherwise, some of the more detailed OS stuff should be trimmed and the sections combined. The Eskimo (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, seems like the best path forward. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Same--intelati(Call) 15:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Kept nearly all the references in place. I realize I just kind of jumped in here, so I will not take offense at a revert as long as it spurs some conversation on this page about improving the section. The Eskimo (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried this a while back; Lester just reverts it. CalumCookable (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect/inaccurate references in the article

Whoa! I did not realise there is so much discussion in the making of a Wiki page. I came here as I read in a user-comment in some tech blog that some people are being, kind of, difficult here. Its heartening to see several people making genuine efforts to "cleanse" the article and make it worthy of being on Wikipedia. I have found several issues in this article relating to allusion of certain statements to Microsoft representatives which seem factually incorrect. Later the same references have been used on this page to argue that Microsoft itself said so. Not wanting to complicate this discussion, I will present them piecemeal and hopefully the references will be deleted/modified by the editors if you find substance in my arguments.

The second paragraph in the Development section, right in the beginning reads as this ---

Because of its late change in direction, Windows Phone 7 was developed in an accelerated timeframe. Existing Windows Mobile applications do not run on Windows Phone 7, and Microsoft blamed this on the rushed development schedule.[13] Larry Lieberman, senior product manager for Microsoft’s Mobile Developer Experience, told eWeek: "If we’d had more time and resources, we may have been able to do something in terms of backward compatibility."[13]

I think that the negative word 'blamed' is incorrect here. The section takes reference from an article on eWeek published on 15 March 2010. The article itself uses the words 'suggested' and 'perhaps' while alluding the blame reference to an unnamed Microsoft executive. The statement of Larry Lieberman above is then taken out of context. On reading the entire statement in the article, it becomes clear that Microsoft had taken a clear and concious decision to drastically change the OS in the changed landscape of smartphones at the cost of backward compatibilty with WM 6.X devices. His statement clearly means that having taken the decision to axe 6.X, they decided to provide better development tools so that developers could re-write their codes for WP7 in a quick time frame. The words, that they may have done something if they had the time and resources, do not indicate that they would have essentially made it fully back-compatible. It just means that they may have tried to make some features or programs easy to port to the new platform. IMO, this isn't the same as blaming and hence the NPOV of eWeek should be removed. The section should be modified to reflect the unambiguous and final nature of Microsoft's decision regarding backward compatibity.

Disclaimer: I am not a Microsoft employee. Infact, my profession for the past 2 decades is far far removed from anything that goes tech tock tech tock. Salilshukla (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the first statement, but his Quote was exactly as it was published in the eWeek article. On your second statement, the argument is not very clear, why don't you change it and then I'll check it against the WP:NPOV. Thanks--intelati(Call) 19:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The Quote is exactly as it was published in eWeek, which indeed must be exactly what Larry Lieberman would have spoken, but it has been taken out of context and hence quoted as misleading. In full context, if anything can indeed be blamed for lack of backward compatibilty(B/C), it is Microsoft's decision to take a fresh look at the mobile phone OS paradigm (and not the restricted timeframe). The sentence, as it is now, reflects that B/C was something Microsoft wanted to do but could not do because lack of time. On the contrary B/C was a casualty of a concious, informed and well-thought decision of MS to take a de novo look at the OS. Salilshukla (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks for clearing that up.--intelati(Call) 20:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The quote about time, resources and backward compatibility is an interesting one. Changing the word "blamed" to "suggested" is a reasonable change. I think User:Salilshukla is taking the right approach by bringing up specific elements of the article that can be improved.--Lester 22:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Deutche Bank

Next Issue - Wow! That was fast!! Next, in the Launch section, what are these sentences doing here - Deutsche Bank estimates Microsoft's marketing budget for the Windows Phone 7 launch to be at least $400 million. In addition, Microsoft subsidized the engineering costs of handset manufacturers and gave financial support and revenue guarantees to software developers.? How is a Wikipedia article concerned with what Deutsche Bank estimates? Further, are there any citations to indicate that MS is susidising engineering costs of OEMs and giving financial support to developers? I may be wrong, but from all I have read, it seems that MS has given/promised to give free handsets to developers and its own employees. Furthermore, the oft highlighted facts regarding license fees (chargable from OEMs) and entry fees for Marketplace (payable by developers) proves that the cost of Microsoft partners is higher than at least one other OS which is free for the OEMs. The real incentives, as far as the OEMs are concerned, are that a) they don't need to spend on skinning; b) MS will handle all the subsequent updates including OTA delivery; and c) MS will handle any lawsuits that may arise. In any case, I do not see the logic of these being in the Launch section. Rather, the probable launch dates may be mentioned here with a disclaimer that it is not final. Thanks. Salilshukla (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Duetsche bank estimate seems fine to me - it's reported in RS and give contextual information about the importance of this to microsoft. The rest of what you say seems to original research. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

First, the cost estimation is to show the magnitude of the program. It cost about as much as Toy Story 3 brought in.
Second, is the fact that Microsoft gave free headsets to employees of the sponsors important. In Nascar sponsors give the drivers perks for the privilege of having them promote the product. what is "Skinning"
Third, you have a point with the launch date.
Thanks--intelati(Call) 21:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The Launch dates as in October for Europe and November For USA?--intelati(Call) 21:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, conceeded on the $400 million. Secondly, free handsets is not important at all. I mentioned that as the only incentive news I have read in tech blogs. However, I do not seem to have read anywhere that MS is subsidising OEMs and financially supporting developers. If indeed it is so, then the point should be supported with suitable citations. I used the term Skinning for the software OEMs write on their own, like HTC Sense, MotoBlur. For Android, they have to do it everytime a new update is released because its as a skin over the OS. For WP7, they cannot do any skinning, so no expenditure, Hahaha. Finally some tech blogs like Pocket-lint are reporting today that WP7 will be launched on Oct 11 at New York. Salilshukla (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The $400 million+ market budget for WP7 is scary. That figure has been requoted by hundreds of other websites. Microsoft spending even more to subsidize developers & OEMs: isn't the Deutsche Bank quote a citation in itself, especially since the information was attributed to Deutsche Bank? The figures are mammoth, regarding the amount of money Microsoft is pouring in to seed the market with apps and handsets.--Lester 22:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I dont see the problem for having this reference. Like User:Cameron Scott said, this is used to show the importance of WP7 to Microsoft. Its not like Apple or Google don't spend insane amounts of money to fuel what is quickly becoming the new form of computing for many. Its Microsoft's money, and like any corporation, they can use it for what they like. --Interframe (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
This is pure speculation and should be remove. So what if some bank estimate what is the cause of WP7 marketing? Unless there's fact to back it up, it's pure speculation. Illegal Operation (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
'Illegal Operation', why do you discuss this when you go and delete the sentence regardless of the outcome of that discussion?--Lester 06:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a problem in mentioning $400 million (even though it is a speculated figure) as long as it is specified that the money is to be spent on marketing, ie, publicity blitz, promotional events etc. The statement ascribed to Jonathan Goldberg of Deutsche Bank is essentially that wherein he further justifies the expenditure by MS by saying that they need to convert people from feature phones to smartphones rather than trying to take away market share from Android or Apple. Perfectly understandable and logical. However, the second sentence regarding subsidies and financial support is not supported by any credible source. Reference to the same in the TechCrunch article also comes out as personal opinion or speculation by the author who has camouflaged it by crediting it to "source familiar with Microsoft’s manufacturer and carrier agreements" or cleverly inserting it in the same paragraph as another quote by a Deutsche Bank analyst. Just because a sentence appears in the same article with a statement by a reliable source doesn't make it true and reliable. Therefore, the sentence "In addition, Microsoft subsidized the engineering costs of handset manufacturers and gave financial support and revenue guarantees to software developers", is purely speculative and it unjustifiably suggests that Microsoft has bought off the OEMs and developers alike. Hence it should be removed. It may however be mentioned that "Microsoft has a close interaction with OEMs in device development including collaboration between their engineers". The issue of "revenue guarantees" for developers is also justifiable and it can be attributed to Anand Iyer of Microsoft. Salilshukla (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
If accuracy is the issue, I feel that TechCrunch is a reliable source. TechCrunch said Microsoft subsidized developers and OEMs, which is accurate enough to me. There have been many other articles about Microsoft's subsidies. I mean, it's obvious, as 20 or more games are coming to WP7, and all of them have been 100% subsidized by Microsoft. I'm surprised that it is a contentious issue that Microsoft is pouring an awful lot of money at this.--Lester 06:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The article in TechCrunch was by a guest author Kim-Mai Cutler, hence technically not an original TechCrunch article. The author's sleight in camouflaging her own opinion has been explained above and hence her motives are suspect. If there are other articles with unambiguous citations, it may be pointed out. I may be wrong, but someone needs to prove it. Secondly, in todays day and age, all tech blogs have fallen prey to factionalism and TechCrunch is no exception. Thirdly, User:Lester has introduced a new issue of "subsidising developers", whereas the talk till now was about subsidising OEMs. Also, the argument that 20 new games coming to WP7 proves that they are 100% subsidised, is beyond comprehension. Lastly, there is no doubt that MS is pouring a lot of money into this, but there is no reason or justification to describe it in overtly negative overtones insinuating that they are using money to buy off OEMs and developers. Thanks. Salilshukla (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The article in TechCrunch was by a guest author Kim-Mai Cutler, hence technically not an original TechCrunch article. em.. what? RS has never worked like that - otherwise, we'd eliminate about 50% of the references we have. There is nothing 'technical' or otherwise about it, it's published by techcrunch, it's a techcruch article. Do you have a COI you want to raise? your comments here are... odd. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already explained above how the author of the article in question has disguised her own words to make it appear as if a Deutsche Bank analyst said that. Further she cites "source familiar with Microsoft’s manufacturer and carrier agreements to make another contentious point. That should be enough to make her claims inadmissible here. Now I'll go find out what a COI is.Salilshukla (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


  • I have added disputed notices to this article where I believe there were disputes. I have tried to summarize all positions. There are those who believe there is promotional bias and those that believe there is competitor bias, I've tried to be inclusive with the notices.
  • The much debated missing features section has been tagged as disputed. Do not remove that until you have consensus on it. I would suggest that possibly this section should be entitled "Criticisms" to bring it in line with similar articles as the "Reception" section for the quotes from media outlets like the Dvorak quote referenced does. This might resolve the dispute.
  • I have blocked one editor for 24 hours for bringing disagreements to the article itself, that's vandalism, don't do that.
  • I understand we have Wikipedia invitations to this article from a fan site, welcome to Wikipedia! I would caution editors however if you come here with an axe to grind that will not be received very well. Please check out our Welcome Page if you want to learn more about how Wikipedia works.

Please try to work constructively through your differences, if the revert warring continues on the article it might force protecting the page or blocking those involved in the warring. I would suggest everyone here consider holding yourself to 1RR as it can help in these situations. Most of all, please keep it civil. --WGFinley (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


Some people have recently added a 'Reception' section to the article (Link). Currently, it is full of gushing praise for Windows Phone 7, and excerpts waxing lyrical about its wonderment. For example: "Windows Phone 7 is easily the most unique UI in the smartphone race" "A wonderful keyboard: fast, smooth", "impressed with what they have done". That's fine and dandy,, but do you really want the Wikipedia article to be an advert for Windows Phone 7? Maybe you do. However, there are other articles that don't think it's wonderful. For example:

Ponder that as you read those articles.--Lester 05:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay fine. These are some of the bad articles, feel free to balance the good reviews with the bad.--intelati(Call) 05:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
How's that?--intelati(Call) 05:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
There is absolutely no problem with having both negative and positive articles/references, its neutrality, and its all opinion/reception anyways. --Interframe (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The only problem with a Reception section is that it the product hasn't been released to the public, which makes Reception a future event.--Lester 04:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
This have absolutely nothing to do with reception. None of those so call receptions are receptions because those person haven't personally review the product. For example, if the article criticize the keyboard or the browser after having use the phone, it's consider a reception. Those articles are in the tone of "too little, too late" which is total BS and has nothing to do with the product. Illegal Operation (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually both of you have a point. First, lester is correct that it is a product not released to the public. and will not be until Oct. Illegal Operation says that the articles have a pointed (oops, sorry) POV. I'm still not convinced on either side.--intelati(Call) 01:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Reception is not limited to the general public. If the reviews are from reliable sources, that's fair grist for the mill. We can't use blogs from Joe Public anyway. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's the deal. If you have a Reception section and fill it with hand-picked rosy praise, then you have to add counterpoint. You have to balance that with the negative things that have been written about WP7. Better not to have the section at all. It's opinion. Reviews of beta software are not warranted. The release version hasn't hit the stores yet.--Lester 04:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC: should the Missing Features section be renamed or deleted altogether?

Should the 'Missing Features' section of this article be renamed, moved within the article, or deleted altogether? --Lester 12:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: Can you please clarify the word "missing"? Missing as compared to what? The Eskimo (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: The missing Features should be combined with the reception section.--intelati(Call) 14:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
AgreeThe Eskimo (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree, as evaluation of the phone is reception, and complaints are part of that. But that being said, Dmxrob's point is well taken--we should confine ourselves to only the most notable of these, and remain encyclodaedic in tone and scope. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: The missing features should be deleted. It's nothing but a collection of grumbles from folks who have an axe to grind. Since when did every phone made have to have every feature that another phone has? It's like having a Missing Feature category on a page about the Kia Rio saying it doesn't have such and such as compared to the Cadillac Escalade. As far as the reception section goes, the phone hasn't even been released to the public yet so I question why this is even here. Dmxrob (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The question about the "Reception" section has come up a time or two, and I think it is mainly the section header causing confusion. The public hasn't gotten it yet, but some (mostly) media people have gotten to play around with it. And there has been much written about the features it will have. Maybe renaming the section "Pre-Release Reception" or "Previews" or something would clear it up. The Eskimo (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I still say "Missing Features" is worthless in this context. You can't compare pears to oranges. I'm all for a features category that lists the factual features of the phone and a reception category for end users (and some media, but not dominating) to list things they would like to see to make the phone better. However, at this stage in the game both categories are nothing more than grumbles in my opinion. The end user input is great and WHEN the phone is released I hope people will post the good and the bad.Dmxrob (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just to clarify, I think the problem is not with the information in the "Missing Features" section per se...just that it should not be a stand-alone section. The fact that Skype won't be supported, for instance, has been mentioned by a few sources, so, with consensus, it may be appropriate to include...but it should be somewhere in the upper sections that deal with the devices functionalities. IMO The Eskimo (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: My stance on this section is that it shouldn't exist on the grounds that "missing features" is inherently not neutral, and is also not well defined. As many other editors have pointed out, not all phones have to have all the features of all other phones and it's not encyclopedic information, even if it's something people wanted. Example, the browser doesn't support Silverlight. I'm fairly certain that no other mobile browser does, and not much web content is in Silverlight. It's not fair to call that "missing". That said, some of the information is valid and should be flied in new and different sections. I think sections that should be created to facilitate this are a reception section, a section of features older versions of Windows Mobile had that Windows Phone 7 doesn't, and a section for features announced to be coming to the platform (announced features). The tricky part is figuring out what gets deleted, what gets moved, and to where things get moved, all while keeping the peace.CaptainStack (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Missing Features section should stay, it should continue to be called 'Missing Features', and it should be placed after the 'Features' section. The issue arose in the media after Microsoft executive Joe Belfiore announced that Windows Phone 7 would not be feature complete when it is launched. Here is some of the media coverage of Joe Belfiore's remarks:

1.) MobileTechWorld: Microsoft's Joe Belfiore talks about Windows Phone 7's missing features
2.) DailyTech: Microsoft Exec - Windows Phone 7 is "Following in Apple’s Line", Won't Initially Support Multitasking or Memory Cards
3.) WMPoweruser: Microsoft promises to fix many Windows Phone 7 limitations “in future releases” (full transcript)
So that's how it began. That's how it was defined. Microsoft started the debate. The name of this article should remain 'Missing Features', as that's what the technology media calls it:
4.) PCWorld: Windows Phone 7 - Why the Missing Features Matter
5.) InformationWeek: Windows Phone 7 Missing A Number Of Features
6.) Gadgets DNA: Windows Mobile 7 Series: -Missing Features
7.) ZDNet : Where's the roadmap for Windows Phone 7?
One popular Windows Phone site was even running a 'Missing Feature Of The Week' segment:
8.) Windows Phone missing feature of the week: Connect to hidden wireless networks
The biggest technology publications in the industry have been running articles on Windows Phone 7 Missing Features. It surprises me that the legitimacy of this section of the article could even be questioned. Note that those articles refer to the subject as "Missing Features". Before some Windows Phone fansites started a campaign to "cleanse" this article, the Missing Features section had a different introduction (comparing the previous Windows Mobile 6.5 to Windows Phone 7), and was located next to the Features section (Check this July version of the Wikipedia article). After all, if Features that are added are valid, shouldn't features that are subtracted also be valid?--Lester 00:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

All of the articles have their own POV. we are just trying to have a NPOV article while informing. Its a tricky balance, but we almost have it.--intelati(Call) 01:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Nearly all of those articles are media sources. Microsoft made those comments to deal with the media. It's part of their marketing. Wikipedia is not a magazine. Comments from the media fit under "Reception" much better.CaptainStack (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No matter where this section ends up, can we at least present it in prose and not as a cold list of bullet points? CalumCookable (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Announced Features

I'd say no as of now. When the features are added Then we can add those to the Features section. Right now they are in the Missing features section. So the section is completely redundant right now. After the features are added then you can add a section like that. Alot can change in a month.--intelati(Call) 22:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a semi compelling argument for this section to exist, especially if it can help us get rid of the Missing Features section by moving some of that content to this section. I agree that having a section we know is temporary seems a little foolish, I just thought it seemed like a decent compromise.CaptainStack (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing Features additions

  • No cut, copy, and paste
  • No compass
  • No Voice over IP
  • no universal inbox
  • No 3rd party multitasking
  • No Flash, Silverlight and HTML5 at launch, Flash later
  • no Native Development Kit (NDK)

Which of these should we keep, or delete?--intelati(Call) 17:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: I might be going about this the wrong way, but I look at it like this: An average cell phone shopper walks into the store, and needs a new phone. What kind of features would they likely ask about? Keep I think likely Flash, compass and maybe VOIP. Delete Universal inbox, 3rd party mutiT, and NDK strike me as a little technical for the average consumer. Weak Keep Cut & Paste would be a feature probably expected, and a person would be disappointed to find out the phone didn't do this, but I don't think it's something they would ask about up front. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskimo.the (talkcontribs) 17:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
compass? I almost never need a compass, so I may be biased but I would say delete the compass too. But, other than that Support--intelati(Call) 17:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Clarification. The phone does have a compass. The API for developers to make apps that use the compass is not yet released. However, an app like the built in Bing Maps will be able to use the compass. If anything, this is a feature missing from the development kit and not the phone so I say delete. I also say delete Silverlight, Native Development Kit, and VOIP. No phone in the world has Silverlight in the web browser, VOIP isn't very commonly used since you have to have a cell plan to buy the phone, and Native Development Kit is pretty technical and again, is a feature of the development kit, not the phone.CaptainStack (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Compass should stay. The section used to list all the things that existed in the previous version (Windows Mobile 6.5) that were taken away from Windows Phone 7 (just as the July Version did). The compass API was working in older Windows Mobile phones such as the HD2. Silverlight and HTML5 could be moved to different sections of the article (not deleted). Flash is very relevant, as it existed in version 6.5 but will be gone from version 7 at launch (with the promise it will come later). It is an unusual situation that features that existed in one version (6.5) will be gone from the next (WP7). It's a unique situation for Windows Phone 7 due to time restraints on getting it to market.--Lester 00:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the compass. How is it anything but a missing feature? The HTC HD2 had a compass that works with software. Every single WP7 handset has a compass. It's compulsory. But 3rd party software can't use it because the API is not finished yet. Can anyone truly say with a straight face that this is not a "Missing Feature"? Microsoft didn't have time to finish it by release time. It will be added some time later. Let's not put our heads in the sand. It's a missing feature!--10:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Isn't Window Phone 7 a different code base from Window Mobile? If so, the comparison is between Apples bananas and oranges. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Ha Ha, yea, No apples. i Semi agree with lester. But I revise my statement in the RFA. We should split the items to the appropriate sections.--intelati(Call) 01:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Windows Phone 7 and Windows Mobile are two entirely different products are uses totally different base codes. They are as related to each other as iPhone is to Apple Newton. Windows Phone 7's closest cousin is Zune HD. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Illegal Operation. To respond to Lester, the compass API isn't an aspect of the phone, it's an aspect of the development kit. If you're going to mention it, put it under the "Development" section (same goes with the lack of NDK). Also, if you think that features that were in Windows Mobile 6.5 and are not in Windows Phone 7 are worth mentioning, I say put them in a section that is more appropriatly named than "Missing Features". Something like "Features removed from Windows Mobile 6.5". Like I've said so many times, "Missing Features" is inherently negative, unclear, and draws comparisons that don't have to be drawn (like between iPhone, Android, or Windows Mobile 6.5). The point of this page is not to compare Windows Phone 7 to other platforms, nor is it to list things that Windows Phone 7 isn't.CaptainStack (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I would support moving a few of the missing features to relevant sections of the article. I would not be in favour of this opening the floodgates for every section to be going back to a list of all the OS's faults. We could move the bit about the compass API, the bit about VOIP, and the bit about no NDK to the Development subsection of the Applications section. The bit about Flash/Silverlight/HTML5 could go in the web browsing section. I propose creating a new email subsection of the Features section, which could describe the features of the email app and mention no universal inbox. I don't believe this to be trying to hide these omissions - in the Applications section particularly, there are 3 different points to mention which should be quite obvious to a new reader. This would leave us with copy and paste and multi-tasking, which are the two major missing features which do not belong to a separate section and, in any case, are important enough to merit separate mentions. What does everyone think of this? CalumCookable (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

All of those issues have been well covered in the media (see my links in earlier posts). To user:Nuujinn, To say we're comparing Apples to Oranges with version 6.5 to version 7 being "different code bases" is irrelevant. Microsoft linked them together by calling the newest OS "version 7". If it were any other Wikipedia article about Version 7 software, you'd be able to include the differences with version 6. However, the sensitivity is so great around this Microsoft product that some people think it cannot be spoken of. Of course they are "Missing Features" because Microsoft said they will be added later. It will continue to be covered in the media even after the release of WP7, until those features are added (BTW, there's nothing here that hasn't been covered in WMPoweruser either). In response to user:Illegal Operation, none of this article is about a phone. It's all about an OS. These are all OS issues. To everyone: We should stop thinking about what facts are good or bad for Microsoft. Instead we should check for accuracy and verifiability. If a fact is written in an NPOV way, then rewrite that fact in a neutral way. Deleting well known facts because knowledge of the fact itself is not good for Microsoft is not in the best interests of Wikipedia.--Lester 10:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Not all of the "missing features" have been mentioned by Microsoft (Silverlight and HTML5 to name two). I think that it's not fair tto call a feature that hasn't been mentioned by Microsoft "missing" even if it's been mentioned by the media. If you read the article, Microsoft even made a Powerpoint presentation slide about itThat's why I vote for "Announced Features" for those that have, and "Feature Removed from WinMo 6.5" for those that fit. All others (that are neither announced or removed) should be removed, or moved to reception (if you want to mention the media coverage).CaptainStack (talk) 05:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
To CaptainStack: Microsoft did make an announcement about lack of Silverlight in the browser. It was announced back in March: ZDnet. Microsoft even made a Powerpoint presentation about it at the MIX conference, so Microsoft is not trying to hide it. Why are we? There is also info on Microsoft's own website, but I prefer secondary sources. Oh, and here's the Microsoft announcement about Flash and HTML: EverythingWM. Happy?--Lester 05:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Microsoft did said that Windows Phone 7 is a 1.0 release. The reason it's call "7" is to accompany Windows 7, the desktop OS. This has nothing to do with Windows Mobile. There's a reason it's not call Windows Mobile. Illegal Operation (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and I believe the fact that the code base is different is relevant. has a good point. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Lester that for the average Joe, the name Windows Phone 7 suggests feature additions when compared to WinMo 6.5. Microsoft made a courageous decision to start again from scratch which has benefits but also comes at the cost of missing features and broken compatibility. Andries (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Encyclopedias are in the business of educating the average Joe. What wasn't there to start with cannot be missing, and cannot be broken. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Some content I think should be merged into the Application/Development section (currently under "missing features")

I've mentioned this before, but I figured a new section would make thins easier to discuss. Some "missing features" that have been mentioned are not really phone features, of features that the end user would interact with, but details about the development kit of Windows Phone 7. This includes missing APIs, native development kits, and API access to sockets. Let me say that I'm not an expert on this stuff, so if I have factual inaccuracies please let me know. However, I think this content should be reviewed and put under the "Application" -> "Development" section. Here's a clean list:

  • A compass API (won't be finished by launch, confirmed to be coming)
  • Access to sockets in the networking API (not at launch, confirmed to be coming)
  • A native development kit (hasn't been mentioned by Microsoft as far as I know, but has been brought up by Mozilla. I wonder if this is really worthy of being put in the article. Wikipedia doesn't have a page for Native Development Kit, and I went to just about every other mobile OS page I could think of and only Android mentioned NDKs.)

Here's a draft of how I'd reword the content. Let me know what you think CaptainStack (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Though the hardware requirements of Windows Phone 7 include an electronic compass, at launch third party developers will not be able to develop using it because the API will not be complete when the phone launches. Microsoft has confirmed that the API will come and be available to developers[1]. There also will be no native development kit (NDK) for the platform at launch. Microsoft has made no announcement if this is coming, but Mozilla has said that until there is one, they will not be making a version of Firefox for Windows Phone 7[2]. The networking API will not give access to sockets when the platform is first launched, though Microsoft has confirmed that this access will be added. Until this access is added, third party developers will not be able to develop Voice over IP applications[3].

I believe this covers everything that was in the "Missing features" section that was strictly about the development tools. This is a good compromise for these facts. --Interframe (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Good job. Looks good to me--intelati(Call) 02:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Dvorak quote in Reception Section

I am not sure the quote from Dvorak regarding the Kin failure is appropriate. I think something about the Kin should be mentioned, as it definitely effects people's perceptions of the likley-hood-to-succeed for this new phone. The original Dvorak quote just said that the New 7 phone was "DOA" without giving much attribution to why he thought that. The quote I replaced it with makes it clear that he has doubts about the new phone based on what happened with the Kin. But it is more a comment on the Kin than any specific criticism of the Windows 7 phone. So, I guess that's my problem with it: it is not specific criticism. BUT it DOES illustrate the scepticism of many reviewers throughout the sources. So I can't decide...what do you think? Appropriate or not...or change to something else?The Eskimo (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, here is the quote, and the preceeding text that sets it up:

*A more critical view was expressed by Wall Street Journal Market Watch columnist, John Dvorak, who was skeptical of the new device based on the failure of Microsoft's previous phone, the Kin. Dvorak wrote:

"Essentially, the Kin phone, a stand-alone effort that actually has little to do with anything else the company is doing, has killed Microsoft's chances at competing with Apple Inc. and Google Inc. in the smart phone business. This means Windows Phone 7 OS, which is supposed to salvage the company in the smart Phone market, is a dead duck."[73]

So, Keep, Delete, or Change? The Eskimo (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I was the person who added the original quote to illustrate what was needed in the section. I would say loosely Keep or a small change because Dvorak was using some major inferring to come to that conclusion. And BTW thanks for taking the incentive to change the section.--intelati(Call) 19:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd say lose it the kin data but tag the reference to a general statement covering skepticism in general--no need to go into much detail about specifics from each pundit, that would be an encyclopedia in and of itself. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I vote (weakly) keep on the Dvorak quote, but only because there are other box-type quotes regarding the praise of the phone- and it seems like their was some "tugging" going on with this article at some point- so including direct quotes as examples of the different POV's may keep everyone happy. BUT I agree there are too many direct quotes, and if someone were to trim it down further into more general terms, I would be all for it. The Eskimo (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I vote on losing it. Dvorak has been known to say things like this just to start a conversation and get attention. A year before Windows 7 was released, he said it would simply fail without giving any meaningful argument as to why. Dvorak says things like this to get attention, and its not always Microsoft-related either. --Interframe (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Delete the entire Reception section, and bring it back after WP7 is released to the public.--Lester 06:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
This is what the article said: "KIN suck and that's why Windows Phone 7 will suck." This is not a reception and should be remove. Unless there's some valid criticism, it should not be listed. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Dvorak's quote is a rare miniority opinion, it stands alone in his artle as a non-sequitor and without any context or reasoning. It should be removed. (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hardware : Minimum Requirements

There have been indications right from the beginning that the minimum hardware requirements (which are widely known now) are for a certain class of devices, also referred to as Chassis 1. Now some details about hardawre requirements of Chassis 2 have also started emerging. These articles on WM Power User and Silicon may be referred and suitable modification could be made in the Hardware (Minimum Requirements) Section. ---- (Salil Shukla) 14:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salilshukla (talkcontribs)


Instead of having all the screenshots in a gallery, wouldn't it be better to show each screenshot in the section it is related to? CalumCookable (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, with all five or six, the pics line the entire right side. I think that makes the article have seemly too many pictures.--intelati(Call) 17:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I've already tried that; look at the history. The problems is that the screenshots overflow into other sections. Illegal Operation (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The Gallery should be removed, and the screenshots moved to the section they are related to, otherwise I think they fail their fair use rationale. --Chris Ssk talk 08:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I said that I already tried that and it didn't work out: Illegal Operation (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Then they should be removed because as they are now they fail their fair use rationale, The IE mobile screenshot is also at the Internet Explorer Mobile article and the bing screenshot can go in the Bing Mobile article --Chris Ssk talk 08:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The main screenshot is incorrect, it looks like a mockup. The actual WP7 start screen can only show 4 rows of tiles at a time, not 5. CalumCookable (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Release in Asia/Australia

In the first line it says that the device will launch on October 21st in Europe (which is correct) and Asia, but it does not mention Australia/New Zealand where the phone also launched on that date.

Also, in the third paragraph is says that a release in Asia will follow in 2011, which is a contrast to the first sentence. (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Features removed from Windows Mobile needs matinence

The purpose of this section was to offer a comparison to Windows Mobile 6.5 and earlier to Windows Phone 7. We all worked very hard to make it that way and the section was mostly fine the way it was. Recently I've seen it slowly become (as it once was) a section for everything that people wish Windows Phone 7 had that it doesn't. It barely mentions the older Windows Mobile OS anymore, and I saw someone changed the name back to "Missing Features". A lot of blood sweat and tears went into getting rid of that title, and changing the nature of the section to something more reasonable and I don't want to see it slip back so please help maintain this section. Thanks a lot CaptainStack (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I see some others have been edit-waring over the title (Diff). I think there would be a very good case to change it back to "Missing Features" as it originally was. The media interest in Missing Features has amplified, every major publication has done extensive articles on the missing features, and we should reflect that. When I look through the current section, all those missing features are things that existed in some form on Windows Mobile. But the media interest is because Windows Phone 7 is missing features that every smartphone is expected to have. We should not attempt to cover it up.--Lester 20:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
We discussed this endlessly and I recommend you go to the archived history of the discussion and reread all the arguments made and why we arrived at the conclusion we did. Your argument now is the same as it was then. The media has mentioned it and so therefore it belongs here. That was true then and we still changed it. Response from the media, if anywhere, belongs in the reception section. (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Forthcoming features

Any objection to the addition of a "Forthcoming features" sub-section immediately below "Features removed"? Something like this. (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I object to the wording of that proposed heading. By calling it "Forthcoming" you are using a crystal ball to tell the readers something from the future (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Everything should be worded in past tense.--Lester 05:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Any suggestions for a better heading?
Any objection to the proposal apart from the heading?
Thanks. (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
"Proposed features" would be a preferable title, assuming a heading is required. The information about proposed features exists already at the bottom of the 'Features not present in Windows Mobile' section.--Lester 16:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, splitting that section into two subsections makes the article longer and more complicated. A lot of the "proposed features" are mentioned within the "features not present from Windows Mobile" section already.--Interframe (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
It's actually shorter - see this revision, created by moving text from two separate parts of the "removed" section to the "proposed" section and then trimming the result. Disagree that it's more complicated, I believe it's clearer. (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not speculation. Microsoft HAS announced that copy and paste IS coming is early 2011. Look here: [1] Illegal Operation (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Features Removed From Windows Mobile 6.5

What does everyone think of adding this section (I'd place it at the end of the "featues" section)? A lot of so-called "missing" features are mentioned because they were features in older versions of Windows Mobile that won't launch with Windows Phone 7. I've said many times that it's not fair to call a feature "missing" just because the media wanted it, or another phone platform has it. I believe that there is a semi-compelling argument to be made for mentioning features that were in Windows Mobile 6.5 but won't be in Windows Phone 7 at launch. I think content from the "Missing Features" section can slowly be ferried over to a "Features Removed From Windows Mobile 6.5" section (someone will have to help me with the name). Please let me know what you guys think of this idea.CaptainStack (talk) 08:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's accurate. It's a little bit cumbersome to say, but that's what it is. That's the reason those missing features get publicity. It's because people who loved Windows Mobile 6.5 realize that some of the features they were used to have gone (maybe to be added back in at a later date). I'd much prefer the shorter 'Missing Features' (which is what the media says), rather than 'Features Removed From Windows Mobile 6.5', though both are accurate. Possibly a compromise. Wait to see if more people appear at the RfC over coming days.--Lester 10:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Something on the lines of "WinMo6.5 features discarded/sacrificed in WP7". Too long? SalilShukla 13:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salilshukla (talkcontribs)

Ok well I think the name isn't too important, we've got the idea anyways. I think we should now try to make a list (with no commentary) for now about which features belong in this section. So to clarify, if you know a feature that was in Windows Mobile 6.5 that won't be in Windows Phone 7, please add it to the list. Just list it for now, do not write it in prose. I'm not too knowledgable with Windows Mobile 6.5 and earlier so I only listed a few obvious ones.CaptainStack (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Features Removed From Windows Mobile 6.5

  • Cut/Copy/Paste
  • Full multitasking
  • Flash support in the browser
  • Silverlight support in browser
  • IPSec security

Content Proposed to be Moved to Development Section

  • Compass API
  • Networking API access to sockets
  • Native Development Kit

To make it easier for you just look at the July version of this article:
  • Ability for apps to use the built-in compass
  • Ability of apps to do VoIP
  • IPSec security
  • Removable SD card
  • Tethering
  • Silverlight in the browser
HTML5 is relevant for elsewhere in the article, but Windows Mobile 6.5 never had HTML5 either.--Lester 08:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
*Copy/Paste is available, just not via touch (CtrlC & CtrlP work on keyboard)
*It_does_ "full multitasking". But only Partners and 1st party apps can use it. If you want to make a point about Multitasking, you've got to be clear that it's a **POLICY** decision, not a technical limitation in any sense. They're not permitting random, unapproved apps to multitask so that the machine doesnt get unresponsive due to the fac it has limited hardware (it's a phone).
*Flash is due very shortly. MS and Adobe are working on it together. It's a minor issue of time.
*SD Cards are removeable. This is simply false.
*Connection Sharing is not available yet, but surely being readied. That's a valid point.
*IPSec/VPN is a 3rd party app -- Why would this be in the OS?
In short, this list is of little real value. (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to cut and paste (but not with my Windows Phone 7 of course lolz!!1) the ones you listed that I think everyone can agree on to the above list. We'll keep moving them as we get consensus. "Ability of apps to do VoIP" and "Ability for apps to use the built-in compass" belong under "development" I would say since it's a restriction (or incompleteness) of application development and not the capabilities/features of the OS. Did the browser in Windows Mobile 6.5 really have Silverlight? It's not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to see something that verifies it to be sure. I poked around and didn't find anything right away. Lastly, I'm not sure how relevent something like IPSec security is, and I say that only because I've never heard of it before and I am a fairly serious tech enthusiast and follow many tech sites that talk about this stuff. My guess is that it's pretty technical. If I'm wrong about this one I'm willing to add it though.CaptainStack (talk) 08:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Silverlight in IE on Windows Mobile (Microsoft link). The SkyFire browser could also run Silverlight on Windows Mobile 6.5. The VoIP thing is actually something called Sockets. Maybe it would be more accurate to call it 'Sockets (for VoIP apps)'. IPSec encrypts the internet connection, allowing a secure internet connection that others can't eavesdrop on. Many big companies mandate it so nobody can eavesdrop on sensitive information. You see many office workers have their laptops or phones set up with IPsec so they can use the internet securely at home.--Lester 09:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Alrighty, I'll add Silverlight to the list as well as IPSec (especially since WinMo has traditionally been primarily for business users). Thanks for the info on sockets. I feel a little unqualified to talk about this one because I don't really know how it all works, but from my understanding, this still belongs un development. The wording the article currently has is "The networking API does not give access to sockets, preventing Voice over IP applications such as Skype from operating on Windows Phone 7." To me this still sounds like development stuff (APIs and all). I'm going to make a second list of features to be moved to development.CaptainStack (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
There we go. Thats a good compromise. Explains the "missing features" and makes the sections split. --intelati(Call) 18:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok I'm going to attempt to write this section out here before any changes to the page are made. This section can exist in parallel with the "missing features" section for now, but material should exist in one section or the other, but not both. Read through this and let me know what you think. It might need editing and a citation here and there but I think this an acceptable start.CaptainStack (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Features Removed from Windows Mobile 6.5

Windows Phone 7 is the replacement mobile OS for Windows Mobile 6.5. Microsoft calls the OS a complete "reboot" for their mobile strategy and has claimed that features will only be added when they reach a high enough quality implementation. As such, some features found in Windows Mobile 6.5 will not be in Windows Phone 7 at launch. Among the features that won't be present at launch but have been announced to be coming are cut, copy, and paste [4] and full multitasking. Additionally, support for Adobe Flash (version 10.1) has been confirmed to be coming to the browser as well [5]. Support for removable SD cards and tethering have been left out of the OS as well. Microsoft claims this to be in the interest of data security for enterprise users [6]. Windows Phone 7 will also not support Silverlight in the web browser [7] or IPsec virtual private network (VPN) security[8].

I think this is a good solution. It gives the reader a bit more context than bullet lists while still informing them about features that weren't included in the 1.0 release. --Interframe (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Interframe for responding (I've been anxiously waiting to hear what people think). I'm about ready to pull the trigger on this. I had hoped for more response from editors, and I really do not want to add it if it is going to be deleted quickly. If anyone has a problem with me adding this to the article, speak in the next hour or so (it is currently 2:03 Pacific time where I am).CaptainStack (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Wait, I'm a little confused here, you added "Features removed from Windows Mobile 6.5", but then "Missing features" still exists? Thats doesn't make sense, its redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interframe (talkcontribs) 23:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Guess there's nothing left to do but be a man. Here goes.CaptainStack (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the 2 biggest problems I have with this section is presentation. There has to be a more positive way to spin this. I'm not saying that I like the fact that some of these features are not available in v1.0 (or require some workaround like the keyboard copy/paste) but I don't like the negitive presentation it gives. Additionally, I think that the multitasking support needs to be revised to be more detailed about what "multitasking" really means for WP7. To say it's not available is not true but to say it's available isn't true either. It has a different approach to multitasking. It's not multitasking in the native sense. There has been some back in forth taking this out and putting it back in. I think more clarity needs to be addressed. What do you guys think? Quilnux (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


Looks like tethering is going to be supported, that too at no extra cost, if a certain Twitter post and an article in MobileCrunch is to be believed. If there is further proof of the same, the portion which says that tethering won't be availble, may have to be changed. -- (Salil Shukla) 12:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salilshukla (talkcontribs)

I'd love for that to be true, and we'll keep our eyes open. However, I have a Microsoft source (see the citation in the article) that says tethering will not be supported. I know these things change, so if it is supported (and again, I hope it is) we'll change it in a blink. However, for now, I think we should wait until we hear something from Microsoft.CaptainStack (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)--intelati(Call) 20:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Or, at least by official launch, we`ll know for sure whether or not tethering exsists --Interframe (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC).
It's wireless tethering that won't be supported, via WiFi or Bluetooth.--Lester 22:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The see saw on tethering continues. Look here and here.-- (Salil Shukla) 09:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salilshukla (talkcontribs)

Isn't tethering a hardware vendor decision and not a Microsoft one? I always thought tethering was in the hands of the hardware vendor. Quilnux (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Removable SD cards

Windows Mobile phones had user-removable hot-swappable SD cards. This use of SD cards is not present in Windows Phone 7. However, it keeps getting deleted from the section about Windows Mobile features not present in WP7 (see diff). Yes, the Samsung Focus and HD7 contain an SD card. But it is not designed for the user to remove, and not instantly swappable. Trying to do so results in data loss and/or resetting the phone and reinstalling the OS, and even Microsoft warns against removing it. Here's an article if anyone is interested in more reading. Thanks, --Lester 20:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

AT&T encourages the use of the SD Card slot in the Samsung Focus Windows Phone 7 device, see here and here. The way its worded in the Missing Features section is absolutely incorrect and misleading. It is written as if Windows Phone 7 does not at all read or utilize SD Cards, when in fact it does. We need to reword it to say it supports removable SD Cards but the data is wiped off the device because Windows Phone 7 uses a unified memory system. I wrote this under the application section and it is far more accurate but a bit too long: "Windows Phone 7 supports removable SD cards, however when the user replaces the SD card, all of the data on the phone is lost and the device defaults back to factory settings, some of the user's data can be retrieved on the phone by using a Windows Live ID. This is because Microsoft engineered the OS so that there would be one, unified file system used throughout the OS for storage of data." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interframe (talkcontribs) 20:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
A video you saw on YouTube, and what is written in a forum is irrelevant and unreliable. The Microsoft literature says the cards are not for the user to swap. They are certainly not hot-swappable or easily swappable. If a user attempts it, the phone will reformat itself. Maybe you could change it to say "hot-swappable SD cards".--Lester 22:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
An article in EverythingWM explains it further.--Lester 23:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's important to note there that Features missing that were in WM6 needs to be strictly on OS support. WP7 DOES support SD cards. It's up to the OEM to decide if they will support SD cards in their device. I have a Samsung WM 6.0 device that does not support SD cards period. Does this mean WM6 doesn't support it? No, it just means Samsung decided to not support it in this model phone.

Let's be sure to stick with what the OS supports and doesn't support when it comes to missing features. Because the Hardware is also half the battle and Microsoft has no control over the hardware. Quilnux (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Features not present from Windows Mobile

The only feature that Microsoft has given an indication of when it will be fixed is Cut, Copy & Paste, which Microsoft said will be fixed in "early 2011". There is no exact date. For multitasking, Microsoft said "at some point". For the rest, there is no indication of when or if those features will be added in the future. Despite this, a user has been repeatedly adding the following line to the beginning of that section: "the features that have been confirmed to arrive in the near-future include"...(dif). For starters, Wikipedia cannot confirm anything about the future. Only the past. So we can only quote what Microsoft has said in the past. Second, Microsoft has said nothing about the other missing features. The inaccurate sentence about it being "confirmed" for the "near future" is completely inaccurate, and the user should refrain from continually putting it in the article.--Lester 22:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The words "confirmed" and "near-feature" were specifically referring to the first 3 features: C&P, multi-tasking and Flash, not the rest of the features. C&P is the only one that is near-future. So that first sentence needs to be properly reworded, because Microsoft and its partners have confirmed that those three features will come to the platform at some point in time. There have been numerous articles on Flash coming to Windows Phone 7, but the most telling is Adobe`s own documentations which constantly mentions Flash 10.1 coming to the Windows Phone 7 platform, and their employees. --Interframe (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
As I said, a Wikipedia article cannot confirm anything will happen in the future, so it is still wrong.--Lester 22:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Lester on this one. This should be re-worded. At the very least it needs to make the statement more "suggestive" that Microsoft "claims" these features are expected or something along these lines. It can mislead people to think something is coming that may not. It's not the first time that we have seen a company say something was coming and then back out at the last minute. Let's stick to facts and mark our speculation as speculation. Quilnux (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Copy & Paste??

Can someone clarify: What do you mean the phone has no copy & paste? How is that even possible? I use the copy & paste almost every day in my Touch Pro 2, so how could they make a phone that doesn't have it? I thought it was basically a necessity for a phone that does email, the internet, Word, etc. PLEASE EXPLAIN. Tragic romance (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, its kind of simple. Well, actually its a long, long story. Windows Mobile was all about enterprise and power users and the idea was to shove as many features into it without any thought to the design or end-user. It was just "lets takes Windows and shrink it on to a small screen and hope that it works". Clearly, given Windows Mobile`s sharply declining market share, it sure as hell did not work. So Microsoft decided to pull themselves together and actually create an elegant OS that focuses on attention to detail and a great user experience. They were making a "Windows Mobile 7" in 2007/2008, but that was essentially continuing the pathetic trend they were on, so it became obvious that there needed to be a huge re-org with the Windows Mobile group (which only consisted of less than 500 people, compared to more important groups at MS, such as the desktop Windows team, which consists of 5000+ people). As a result of the re-org the WP7 team now consists of over 1000 people and has the same high-priority (for example, $500 million+ in advertising) status as the desktop Windows team.
So they completely canceled "Windows Mobile 7" and hit the reset button for the entire platform and strategy for mobile (and this is why Windows Phone 7 is an entirely different from Windows Mobile, the only thing in common is the subtle brand name, which even that is unclear and not entirely related). Because they hit the reset button in late 2008, they had to redesign everything from the ground up, the technology and design of Windows Mobile was laughably dated (going from the Windows CE 5.2 kernal (released in 2004) on WM6.5, to Win CE 6.0 R3 (late 08) and parts of CE 7(2010) for WP7) and needed to be left behind. So they had very little time to get in every single feature, and instead they focused on the design, and what normal human beings (yes, the majority of the world that doesn't even own a smartphone yet) would actual want from their phones. So it wasn't "screw power-users, and their features" it was mostly just an issue of time. Now, as Microsoft has built a rock-solid foundation, it will be time for them to implement these features in elegant ways as opposed to just shoving it in there as fast as possible without much thought and care. I would recommend reading this recent Wired article for more info on the back-story of Windows Phone 7, its kind of amazing to see how dramatically different the philosophy behind Windows Mobile and Windows Phone 7 are. Its like night and day. --Interframe (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Since we are on the subject it's also important to keep in mind that back when Windows Mobile first came out (WinCE 1.1 RTM, I still have one of these devices BTW) times were very different. We were still on Windows 98SE Although Windows ME came later in the year that WinCE first released. Things back then were not used like they are today so that also makes a big difference. When Microsoft starting re-purposing the WinCE name and seperated it by the term Windows Mobile (A move that was done because Windows CE was being used in non-mobile devices such as first generation WebTV, Microsoft Auto and Microsoft Sync (Ford Focus) as well as Xbox 360 and AT&T U-Verse) WM (was it 4.5 or 5.0 that was first under the WM name?) was still using the old 1999 style usage habits. But times were changing and Windows Mobile couldn't keep up anymore. Eventually Microsoft got smart and started over with WP7. I remember a wrist watch I had running WinCE 2.3. I still have it somewhere.. Quilnux (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Missing APIs

Why is there a whole "Missing APIs" section under "Applications" section? Besides, some of those things are inaccurate. For example, applications can access the camera. It can take a picture, but it can't do video feed. Illegal Operation (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This section is a mess and frankly, I'm not sure it's necessary. The section about camera APIs regarding stills and video features just doesn't read well at all. The compass part is a more poorly written version of what's already in the Development section, and the PIM part is a bit technical. I highly suggest that this section is seriously cleaned up, or merged with the earler Development section.CaptainStack (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing Features

The title of this section keeps getting changed by others (dif). In July, the section was called 'Missing Features' (dif). More recently, it was changed to 'Features not present in Windows Mobile 6.5', then changed to 'Features currently not present', and then back to 'Missing Features' again. I think 'Missing Features' is the most appropriate title. It is the shortest of all proposed titles, and is the most accurate. The issue, which is becoming stronger and receiving wider media coverage, is not the comparison between WinMo 6.5, but the well known fact that Windows Phone 7 is missing features that are expected in a modern smartphone of today. I suggest it should be changed and left at 'Missing features'. --Lester 04:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with either titles, both are accurate and both are shorter than "Features not present from Windows Mobile 6.5". And also, to say that somebody knows what is expected of features in modern smartphones is totally personal and biased, not every single feature of any smartphone matters to everyone, its personal preference, to say so otherwise would be being biased, and that includes sources like the Media. Would like to know what everyone else thinks about what to name the title of this subsection. --Interframe (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The existence, nature, and naming of the section was discussed endlessly this summer and until the launch of the phones rekindled interest from the general trolling public, the section was in decent shape. Since then, it has become once again a dumping ground for everyone's problems with the phone platform. The fact is that a section named "Missing Features" is by nature not neutral. I might think that Windows Phone 7 should have a built in coffee machine and to me that makes it a missing feature, but who decided what's missing vs left out on purpose vs has no business in a smartphone. Nobody can. That's why response from the media belongs in a reception section. A section for features that Microsoft has confirmed to be coming to the platform belong in a "forthcoming features" or "announced features" section. Some notable features that were removed from WinMo 6.5 could be mentioned in a comparison section. All that said, I don't think Wikipedia is a place for trolls to complain about technology they don't like, nor is it a magazine that posts everything the media says. A "Missing Features" or "Features currently not present" has no place here.CaptainStack (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Pak1standby, 11 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please consider the following changes:

1. Heading 'Applications' to 'User Applications' / 'App Hub'.

2. Sub-heading 'Development' to 'Applications Development'/ 'Third-party Applications Development'.

3. Sub-heading 'Missing APIs' to 'Missing APIs and Constraints' / 'Missing APIs and Other Shortcomings'.

4. Remove the entire paragraph "Though the hardware requirements of Windows Phone 7 ...." under 'Development' and adjust it under 'Missing APIs', so the entire section looks like:

User Applications


Applications Development

Windows Phone 7 application development will be based on Silverlight, XNA, and the .NET Compact Framework 4 only. The Silverlight version will be based on Silverlight 3, with some elements backported from Silverlight 4.[7] The main tools used for development will be Microsoft's Visual Studio 2010 and Expression Blend.,[8] which Microsoft offer as free downloads. More details about app development for Windows Phone 7 were released at the MIX10 conference on March 15, 2010.[9][10] Throughout the course of third-party application development matter, Microsoft was encouraging use of C# until they introduced Community Technology Preview (CTP) for the Visual Basic .NET in late September 2010.[11] On November 29, 2010, Microsoft announced the Release to web (RTW) version of Visual Basic Developer Tool, featuring the support for Silverlight application and games development while currently lacking the support for XNA Framework.[12] According to Oded Ran, head of Consumer Marketing for Windows Phone, games available to the Xbox Live Arcade service will be easy to port to Windows Phone 7, requiring the addition of only a few lines of code.[13]

Missing APIs and Constraints

When Windows Phone 7 was released, it lacked a number of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), needed for applications to access some of the handset's functions.

Third-party apps cannot access many of the camera's video feature, but can still take still images.[14] For example, third party applications cannot access the phone's inbuilt video camera. Application vendors Layar and Fring told Fortune magazine this is the reason they cannot bring their video chat and augmented reality applications to Windows Phone 7.[15]

Though the hardware requirements of Windows Phone 7 include an electronic compass, third party developers are not able to develop using it because the application programming interface (API) for the compass is not released yet. In an interview, development team has confirmed that the API will be available to developers in future.[16] Furthermore, at the moment, there is no native development kit (NDK) for the platform. Microsoft has made no announcement if this is coming, but Mozilla said that until there is one, it will not be making a version of Firefox for mobile for Windows Phone 7.[17]

The networking API will not give access to sockets when the platform is first launched, though Microsoft has confirmed that this access will be added. Until this access is added, third party developers will not be able to develop Voice over IP applications.[18]

There is no API for the Personal Information Manager (PIM), which prevents third party apps accessing the phone's address book, appointments, task list and calendar. Software vendor WebIS cited this omission as why it could not bring its calendaring application, known as Pocket Informant, to Windows Phone 7.[19]

--Pak1standby (talk) 03:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't make the changes. If it makes sense, any authorized user can help!-- (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
The article is protected. You need to login to edit. Illegal Operation (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Not done for now: I believe the section titles should remain the same. As for the two other sections, what did you change about them (it's way too hard to see what you changed)? Thanks, Stickee (talk) 09:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks guys, I will make the changes after 3 days, to qualify for the 4 days & 10 edits limit set for new user to edit semi-protected articles.--Pak1standby (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Need help to populate pubCenter page

I have created the Microsoft pubCenter article. That is Microsoft publisher's ad service (like adsense by Google) for WP7 and Web applications. Please help evolving the article.--Pak1standby (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

As the program is confined to US thus far, the US-based web and wp7 apps developers can provide better insight of MS advertising SDK and something known as 'pubCenter properties'.--Pak1standby (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Reception section. Until launch, keep delete or change?

There's been some half hearted discussion about what to do with the reception section of this article. It seems to me there are three options:

1. Leave it the way it is exactly

2. Leave the section there but change it

3. Delete the section entirely until the phone OS launches and is seen on devices

I think that the section feels very forced at the moment. Some of the praise is as general as "the OS is unique" and some of the criticism is as poor as "The Kin killed Windows Phone 7". Since most reviews are of prototype hardware that the public will never see, and developer previews of the OS, I say this section is deleted until the platform launches. If not, I think more interesting and relevant reaction to the platform should replace what's there now. What does everyone think? CaptainStack (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The content in the 'Reception' section is currently just a bucket of advertising for Microsoft. It is a highly selective collection of praise, and all criticism has been eliminated. There are two options. Either delete the whole section, or let the praise be balanced with an equal amount of criticism.--Lester 03:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I have to say, I agree with Lester on this. This article definitely appears to be under the control of champions of the platform. The article should, in fact, be a place for information of value to champions, opponents, and the agnostics (like myself!). (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I would say to just delete the section. iOS and Android articles don't have it because they wont matter when future versions of the OS ship. The opinions and facts of the OS in reviews will become obsolete eventually. --Interframe (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. :)--TalkToMecintelati 16:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that all reception sections have to have equal amounts of praise and criticism. It depends on the product and the validity of the praise and criticism. However, I do support the deletion of the entire reception section. CaptainStack (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
While requiring equal amounts of praise and criticism is itself problematic, the praise and criticism here should reflect the praise and criticism in the real world. It does not. In fact, the bias is so strong toward Microsoft on this article, it mocks WikiPedia. (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Deriving from all this the following consensus action: Delete the section as it currently stands, because it is outdated and not representative. Then, recreate the section so as to reflect a quality, fair, and representative, set of reviews. Each selected review should cover a broad set of common use cases, and the reviewer must have gone deep enough such that the experience reflects sufficient effort to understand the platform's user experience motifs. MbdSeattle (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sales estimates in launch section

The last paragraph of the launch section includes a third party estimate of the number of devices sold. As I understand it, Wikipedia is not really a place for this kind of speculation. The validity of the estimate is pretty baseless (despite being parroted by every tech news site), and also I don't really know why it's in Wikipedia at all. Even more perplexing is the comment about it being outsold by Androild 15:1. No other articles on Wikipedia that I've seen have this sort of comparison made. Unless urged otherwise by good reasoning, I will delete this section in the next day or so. CaptainStack (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

CaptainStack, please don't feign interest in discussion! Above, you said you "will delete this section in the next day or so." absent being urged by "good reasoning". But, you then went ahead and deleted it, unilaterally, a little bit later! premature delete Please, engage in true discussion here, and respect differing viewpoints. (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Another thing to point out is that the sales numbers should belong to the individual phone models; it is absolutely irreverent to this article. The thing that could be relevant are market-share numbers, but that belongs more so in the mobile operating system article, as it includes all mobiles OS's and compares the shares of those OS`s. --Interframe (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I put the paragraph back, as its own section. Stop removing it. This is the third time I've had to put it back, in response to each time it's been unreasonably removed.

While I totally agree with your reasoning, you also have to play the game that CaptainStack and Interframe. It's the only way to keep them honest. Sure, they are gaming the system here. But, the best way to handle it is to follow the process provided by WikiPedia. Engaging within the rules, and persistence, will eventually yield a legitimate Windows Phone 7 page. (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sales figures are, in many peoples' opinions, the single most important data regarding the Windows Phone 7 platform. Microsoft thus far has chosen not to release any information on sales results, in distinct contrast to one month in on Kinect and Windows 7! The information referenced is not speculation. It is derived, though agreeably imperfect. Sales figures are the goal of the platform, the reason it exists at all, the reason why MS so substantially funded its development and marketing! Come on ... cut the shabizzle and leave the paragraph in. besides, you don't own this page.

For who is this article written? If it is written for potential buyers, they would surely want to know how many Windows Phone 7 users are out there. If it is written for developers, they too want to know whether they should focus effort on transitioning their skills to the platform. Clearly, every reporter, analyst and blogger wants to know this information.

If you personally don't think sales figures are relevant, then skip to the next section when reading.

Regarding sales and market share not belonging here, but rather elsewhere: If you really think that's the case, then why are you not also deleting the numerous references to specific phone models in this article? You know, the wording that glowingly describes how many carries and how many devices have been released, and when? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MbdSeattle (talkcontribs) 05:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic article, not a purchase quite. Its not written for potential buyers nor developers. --Chris Ssk talk 11:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

All of the following Wikipedia pages refer to sales results and market share: Windows_Mobile, Windows 7, Kinect, XBox, Hotmail, Microsoft_Office, which brings into serious question the motives of those who've been repeatedly deleting sales information from this page! Is it the last gasp of a dying despot? (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

A couple things. First of all, I was the last person to delete the paragraph. It was the first time I personally had done so, and I brought it up in the talk section first so please discuss this sort of thing rather than letting people edit it and getting annoyed afterwards.
See my comment above. You deleted prior to conversation, prior to when you indicated you would. premature delete (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, I think official sales numbers are far more valid to have in an article than third party speculation. I also have to seriously object to the part about it being outsold by Android 15:1. This article is not a comparison of the two platforms, and other articles don't have information like that. It really comes off as a fanboy saying "Look how much better we are lolz!!". Also, some phone (OS) pages don't have sales figures. First day sales really aren't a particularly interesting figure compared to total sales, or sales over the first year or figures along those lines. For some time now this article has had NPOV problems and as Windows Phone 7 gets more attention those problems get worse. Please help us keep this article encyclopedic, neutral, and free of fanboy drivel. CaptainStack (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Does the quote from Joe Belifiore (I'm sure I spelled it wrong but w/e) in the sales section add anything? I feel it'd be more concise to just delete that. CaptainStack (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

CaptainStack, you are questioning, very directly, the journalistic integrity of some leading players in tech journalism. At least one of them is watching your WikiPedia whitewash campaign. MbdSeattle (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Further, if you think "15:1" is highly objectionable, then why is, say, "80%" not? See Microsoft_Office. In any case, basic math will tell you that percentages and ratios are EXACTLY the same thing! You, my friend, are the fan-boy, with no credibility, and, most likely, an agenda. Come clean ... which of the PR firms that Microsoft pays to intervene in public forums do you work for? MbdSeattle (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Well not that my saying so matters, but I am not hired by anyone to write anything on Wikipedia, though the income would be welcome. I think we can leave these personal acusations aside and focus more on the matter at hand. The reason a 15:1 ration is different from 80% market share is because 15:1 would only be the market share percent if there were only two players. The market share percent does not offer a direct head to head comparison. A subtle difference but far from "exactly" the same. And this is Wikipedia. We are all anonymous and have no credibility.
Again, regarding this figure and its relevance and credibility, the phone sales on opening day is not a particularly interesting number to anyone. None of the other phone OS articles have the opening day sales, and some also have no sales figures at all. You can bring up the other Microsoft products that do have sales figures, but the fact is it doesn't matter because we're talking about this article, which is a phone OS article, and completely independent from those other aricles. If you have a problem with the Kinect or Windows 7 articles, go edit them. However, their sales figures are about sales over a longer period of time, or market share of the product, and none of them are speculative third party figures. They are all figures that are confirmed to be true. Not only did the 40,000 estimate come from a single source, but the source cites "according to a market research source who tracks phone sales" which doesn't really hold up in court. Wikipedia is not a magazine and doesn't have to include the latest celebrity gossip, nor does it have to include figures like this, which are the equivalent of celebrity gossip in the tech world. CaptainStack (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
CaptainStack, you're playing word-games here. But, at least you've come around to seeing market-share and relative market-share as subtle differences. A "subtle difference" is insufficient to justify your edits. Further, regarding your "celebrity gossip" quip, I assume you are referring to Nicholas Kolakowski's article at [2]. Hardly celebrity gossip. In any case, you and your partner-in-edit Interframe are not a consensus. By the way, is there a rule against two editors colluding off-discussion? See the coordination between Interframe and CaptainStack on CaptainStack's page, in their team-up against Lester [3] (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
By celebrity gossip I was actually referring to the estimated phone sales posted by The Street. It is not an official figure and therefore it is a rumor. It also cited its source as "according to a market research source who tracks phone sales". I really don't think that that qualifies it to be in Wikipedia. I don't think Wikipedia is a place for rumors to live. Like all encyclopedias, it only includes verifiable information. Interframe is just another editor who happens to agree with me. There is no collusion, nobody is being paid by Microsoft to edit this. Lester had a lot of editors who disagreed with him on the missing features section, including IllegalOperation, Intelati, Interframe, and me. It eventually got to Sysops.CaptainStack (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that makes sense to put into this article is marketshare figures. But even those marketshare figures would make more sense in the mobile operating system article. The Google Android article includes only marketshare figures while the Apple iOS article doesn't include any numbers or data, because sales should be accounted for the actual, physical devices, not the software. We currently do not have any reliable, factual data, so anything about numbers and sales figures should not exist in this article, otherwise, we are misleading readers. --Interframe ([[User talk:Interframe|talk]]) 20:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, see the sales and market share information in the following pages: Windows_Mobile, Windows 7, Kinect, XBox, Hotmail, Microsoft_Office

The addition of "Microsoft remains mum" is clearly OR, and meant to imply something. Specifying the sales of one phone against one specific other phone also doesn't seem to have any place here. Dayewalker (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Daywalker, while "mum" in this case is not "OR", I somewhat agree it's best not used. But, it is just a paraphrase of the articles referenced, such that "mum" means Microsoft is being tight-lipped at this point. Regardless, you did WAY more in your edit than change the word mum. You moved the information from near the top, to near the bottom, and you deleted one of the only good estimates out there of sales performance. Well, that's better than total deletion which some of the MS cronies on here have been doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MbdSeattle (talkcontribs) 04:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I just restored the Sales and Market Share section. Mossberg did ask Belfiore that and he did reply with that quote and the Street did report that an estimate of 40,000 phones were sold on the first day of sales in the US. The sales numbers may or may not be speculation from the 3rd party sources, but the question to Belfiore and the Streets article are facts. Also a property refereced review from a reliable sources such as InfoWorld should not be removed just because you consider the writer as being biased against. --Chris Ssk talk 11:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The Street cites an anonymous source. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Illegal Operation (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Illegal Operation, you are overriding a lot of editors on this page. You should back off and respect that there are a variety of viewpoints, consistent with WikiPedia's objectives and policies.

The following contributory edits have been made over the past few days to the Sales and Market Share section, each by a different user, each changing or adding to, but MOST CERTAINLY NOT DELETING, the section.

Edit by Chris Ssk Edit by MbdSeattle Edit by Dayewalker Edit by Edit by JayDubman

Therefore, I am adding it back in its most recent form. MbdSeattle (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

MbdSeattle, there is a reason an administrator has banned you temporary and requested that you stop editing this article. I see that you have deleted information about you being banned from your talk page. Illegal Operation (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Mbd, it's probably best for you to seek consensus here before making any big changes on this page. Simply posting you're making a change isn't sufficient, it would go a long way towards good faith if you'd discuss your changes.
IO, do you have the diff of MbdSeattle being told to stop editing this article? Even with his block (and extension for sockpuppetry), I don't recall him being banned from this page. As far as I can tell he's still allowed to post questions here. Dayewalker (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It was on his talk page before he deleted it. Sorry for my incorrect wording: he was only advised. Illegal Operation (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I glanced at the edits to his talk page, I don't see the diff of him being topic banned. Please provide a diff for that. As far as I can tell Mbd was only briefly blocked, not banned or topic banned. As a show of good faith, why don't you explain to him why you reverted his edit? Dayewalker (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Look, I cited five, that's right five, editors who contributed to the paragraph you have now deleted three times. And you have the nerve to use the word "consensus" in your reverts? MbdSeattle (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I looked at the edits they made and besides yours and one other, they were mostly spelling, grammar, or deletion of some content. I don't think that means they believe the section should remain, just that they saw an error and fixed it, or in the case of content deletion, that maybe they do think that it should be deleted. You also left out the users who deleted it. Illegal Operation isn't the only one. CaptainStack (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
This speaks volumes to the reality of Windows Phone 7 sales. I think this discussion page deserves to be its own article. MbdSeattle (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

We have roughly equal amounts who want it in, and equal amounts who want it out. For those above the fray, the sales results of Windows Phone 7 are the ONLY important piece of information about the phone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MbdSeattle (talkcontribs)

The sales on opening day are pretty uninteresting, and speculation about the sales on opening day is even less interesting. When we have good figures about how well the phones are selling over a period of time, like a quarter, a year, or something like that, AND they are verifiable by the phone carriers, or Microsoft, or the telecommunication companies, THEN we'll add the sales figures. We are not saying that sales figures aren't important. However, the figures in question are not verifiable, and are opening day sales. Captain Stack (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The Street cites an anonymous source. I could write an article citing an anonymous source too, but that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Illegal Operation (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Illegal Operation, you are most definitely warring. And, you do not understand the term "speculation". You are incorrect to use it in your criticism of any of the writing and references you've deleted. The process one article used is indirect, but not at all speculative. It is the same process the Nielson Ratings use. Do you consider Nielson ratings garbage? The industry doesn't, and, there's a lot of reference to them throughout WikiPedia. By the way, the Nielson ratings for November are imminent. Also, it is clear from your other edits that your motivation is pure bias - you are willy-nilly deleting negative reviews, calling them biased, and leaving in place Micropheliac articles that aren't even based on the actual platform, but rather a beta. You don't care about WikiPedia's integrity, but rather you wish to protect Microsoft, at the expense of WikiPedia and the users of WikiPedia. MbdSeattle (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
How do you know how that estimate was found? I read the article and it only cites an anonymous source. The exact wording is "according to a market research source who tracks phone sales". I don't care who you are, if you say something and that's how you qualify it, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. CaptainStack (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Will someone with more WikiPedia experience than I please open a WP:3RR on Illegal Operation? MbdSeattle (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I and many other users on this page do according what is agreed on the talk page. You on the otherhand do whatever you want and I revert those changes. I and many other users who you question loyalty have written much of this article. Therefore, it is perhaps not the best attitude to declare an editing war against us. We are in no way wanted to be engaged into some kind of "war" and do not want to be pushed into one. Illegal Operation (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)