[rbanffy]

> If someone doesn't agree with you it doesn't mean they are a shill.

Maybe, but sometimes this is the simplest explanation to a well-timed explosion of PR-like, blatantly untrue, astroturfish and "loltastic" statements.

Nokia is a failure in the smartphone business, only out-failed by Blackberry at the moment. Microsoft has been a has been in that sector since the arrival of the first iPhone. If anyone seriously believes two bricks float better than one, it's time to change the meds.

[kyro]

The simplest way to vet that explanation was to simply click on my profile and see that I've been here for years with a karma count that certainly doesn't trip any shill account alarms.

[harrytuttle]

Indeed and if you look at the accuser's account, it reads like a Slashdot profile :)

[rbanffy]

I made a direct reply to your comment as well. Sorry if it looks like I am accusing you of being part of a deliberate PR attack on online communities. I still agree, however, with joe_the_user's comment: your claim looks a lot like what an astroturfer would say.

[mpyne]

Then maybe you should recalibrate your expectation of what a comment is supposed to say a little bit, as any comment in support of some company's products is going to 'look a lot like what an astroturfer would say'.

Astroturfing is only one of many possible motives for a comment being left. We should not be so quick to jump on that as an explanation for anything which doesn't agree with our notions.

[rbanffy]

> maybe you should recalibrate your expectation of what a comment is supposed to say

Please refer to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6320222 for the reasons I found kyro's comment very PR-like. I expect, and will remain expecting, HN comments to be based on reality.

[engrenage]

The only reality that is acceptable on HN is that Google is unstoppable and benevolent to geeks. An optimistic view of their competitors counts as shilling.

[harrytuttle]

Perhaps people are motivated by the news and wish to defend their knowledge investments?

It's not a failure, nor is it a success. Yet.

People were saying this a decade ago about the Xbox remember.

Microsoft only decided to compete just over two years ago and they're entering a very competitive market. It takes time to get traction on these things and they're doing it, just slowly. The potential to grow exponentially is still there.

As for the declaration of failure, are you really qualified to judge what a failure is or are you spouting the echoes of all the tech news journalists who like getting hits from slating Microsoft (which will never become unfashionable)?

[rbanffy]

> People were saying this a decade ago about the Xbox remember.

The Xbox was a failure.

The Xbox 360 was better executed than the more ambitious PS3. It succeeded while the PS3 did not do so well, yet the PS3 is far from being a failure.

> Microsoft only decided to compete just over two years ago

You are ignoring the decade+ behind WindowsCE and Windows Mobile. Microsoft has always been a player in this market.

[tanzam75]

> You are ignoring the decade+ behind WindowsCE and Windows Mobile. Microsoft has always been a player in this market.

It was a very different market that Windows Mobile competed in. A market that emphasized physical keyboards, rather than touchscreens. A market with $200 device subsidies, rather than $400 smartphone subsidies. That market disappeared, and so did Windows Mobile's chances. In fact, every major product from that market is either dead or on life-support. Palm, Blackberry, Symbian.

Today, Windows Phone 8 shares very little code with Windows Mobile 6.5. Maybe some drivers, that's about it. It uses a different kernel, a different UI toolkit, a different API.

Microsoft failed horribly in the PC spreadsheet market, too. But they threw away their original product (Multiplan) and ported Excel to the PC. Laughing at Multiplan's failure would've been irrelevant when discussing the prospects for Excel. The introduction of the GUI disrupted the existing market for DOS spreadsheets.

Similarly, the failure of Windows Mobile 6.5 is irrelevant for the purposes of discussing Windows Phone's prospects. The problem with Windows Phone is that not that Windows Mobile failed -- but that Windows Phone has a low market share.

[orf]

A lot of the financial world runs on Excel spreadsheets and VB macros. Its scary, but I wouldn't say they have failed horribly at the spreadsheet market.

[tanzam75]

If you read my comment, you will see that I was talking about Microsoft's failed spreadsheet, Multiplan. Not Microsoft's successful spreadsheet, Excel.

[rbanffy]

> It was a very different market that Windows Mobile competed in

It seems you assume Microsoft decided not to compete then. I wonder why they made Windows Mobile then...

> Similarly, the failure of Windows Mobile 6.5 is irrelevant for the purposes of discussing Windows Phone's prospects.

Forgive my lack of faith, but a company that has, consistently and for as long as this market existed, failed to deliver a decent product, even despite the huge mountains of cash spent in developing it, seems a very unlikely competitor now.

[evilduck]

The 360 is only "not a failure" because the rest of MS had been keeping the XBox division's life support going for 5 years (their worst years being the 2 immediately following the 360's release). While they're no longer bleeding cash, the XBox division is still not a net-gain for Microsoft.

http://www.neowin.net/news/report-microsofts-xbox-division-h...