LG Optimus - Windows Phone 7

[guru]

We were a bit surprised to find LG's prototype Windows Phone 7 device for developers, soon to be unveiled officially as the Optimus 7 in its production form, hanging out in the wilds of IFA. Nevertheless, there it was, streaming DLNA content to a WiFi enabled TV. LG worked with Microsoft to develop a custom DLNA media sharing capability for its GW910 handset. Just one of the ways hardware partners are able to differentiate themselves on the otherwise locked down Windows Phone 7 platform. It certainly makes sense that LG would play to its strengths in the television industry as it moves to market with the device as early as next month according to our sources. Watch the trick flip-to-TV photo sharing interface in action after the break.

/

check out the video at the link

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/04/lg-optimus-7-windows-phone-7-prototype-flicks-photos-to-tvs-lau

not really a fan of handset specific feature. hopefully there'll be apps that'll get similar functionality across other sets.

[____]

not really a fan of handset specific feature. hopefully there'll be apps that'll get similar functionality across other sets.

They will all have to be created by the handset manufacturer because independent developers don't have the ability to listen for the incoming UPnP connections. :(

[George P Global Moderator]

They will all have to be created by the handset manufacturer because independent developers don't have the ability to listen for the incoming UPnP connections. :(

For now at least, this all just depends on how quick MS opens up the system after release.

[Colin-uk Veteran]

They should totally release that with a transformers theme :p

[hdood]

For now at least, this all just depends on how quick MS opens up the system after release.

"How quick" implies that they intend to do so. Where has Microsoft stated this? Or are you confusing how you'd like it to be with how it actually is? That's very common here.

[George P Global Moderator]

"How quick" implies that they intend to do so. Where has Microsoft stated this? Or are you confusing how you'd like it to be with how it actually is? That's very common here.

Oh, give it a rest already. Maybe you're confusing how you think it will be with how it could be? It seems to be something you do often. No where has MS said they're not and or will never give more access to 3rd parties down the road. Often their reply is "not right now" or "not in this version" or "not at this point in time". I have never seen them say "No, never".

[hdood]

Oh, give it a rest already. Maybe you're confusing how you think it will be with how it could be?

You're not stupid. Why is it that you believe that Microsoft intends to open the platform up and give everyone access to anything they want? Doesn't the very architecture they've spent all this time and money on indicate that they have no intention of doing so? If they wanted to do it, why would it be "down there road" rather than now? Why go through all the extra work of imposing artificial restrictions now, if they intend to remove them in the future? You're not making any sense, and you keep presenting things that have no basis in reality and that are purely your own wishes as if they were fact. You seem to live in backwards land where I have to prove that something won't happen, instead of you having to prove that it will.

It seems to be something you do often. No where has MS said they're not and or will never give more access to 3rd parties down the road. Often their reply is "not right now" or "not in this version" or "not at this point in time". I have never seen them say "No, never".

Nowhere have you said that you won't give me a billion dollars and a pony. It seems obvious that both will happen soon. The kind of vague answers you are quoting there are the diplomatic version of "no." They're standard business replies, not a commitment to do something in the future like you are interpreting them.

[jakem1]

I think it's been made pretty clear that Microsoft intend to give some partners greater access to the system than others. Adobe are a good example of this with Flash and there was talk some time ago that Opera might be given help to develop their browser.

[Prince Charming]

Oh, give it a rest already. Maybe you're confusing how you think it will be with how it could be? It seems to be something you do often. No where has MS said they're not and or will never give more access to 3rd parties down the road. Often their reply is "not right now" or "not in this version" or "not at this point in time". I have never seen them say "No, never".

hdood has a point - the platform will remain locked down. There will be some API access stuff like Sockets which isn't available at the moment, but for the most part, don't expect C++/unmanaged, or a large pile of stuff to be 'opened up'. They're playing a fine balance between developer accessibility, what developers actually need, and platform/app stability. Don't hold your breath on open-ness.

As to the DNLA squirter, it's pretty cool, and it's how manufacturers will differentiate their handsets, so I don't see it appearing on other stuff as an app. Expect HTC's 'Sense' stuff to also surface as a collection of value-added software on the device in a similar manner.

[hdood]

I think it's been made pretty clear that Microsoft intend to give some partners greater access to the system than others. Adobe are a good example of this with Flash and there was talk some time ago that Opera might be given help to develop their browser.

Yes, certain major direct partners (like in this example, LG) will get access to develop native code, but not normal app developers.

[Cereal Bawks]

Why would they allow OEMs to use native code when practically most of their own system is managed code? It was always said that OEMs get "more" access to the platform than third party developers. More isn't total.

[Prince Charming]

Why would they allow OEMs to use native code when practically most of their own system is managed code? It was always said that OEMs get "more" access to the platform than third party developers. More isn't total.

Uh, what? Most of WP7 and the built-in apps, and stuff like Office 2010 and so on aren't managed at all.

[jakem1]

Yes, certain major direct partners (like in this example, LG) will get access to develop native code, but not normal app developers.

So what? They're still ISVs and not OEMs.

The majority of developers have absolutely no need to use native code and I really don't think that it's a big deal. MS will continue to roll out new APIs over the months/years that will extend the platform but this is a good example of what can be done in partnership with them.

[HawkMan]

Actually I do suspect more fucntions and API's will be opened to developers over time.

as to why they aren't open right away. because MS first need to design the proper API's with the proper security features to make sure they're secure and stable .

[hdood]

The majority of developers have absolutely no need to use native code

Correct, but no one except you seems to have claimed that they do anyway, so you're arguing with yourself. Those that need it are those that have very high performance requirements, the need to interact with hardware, the need to use OS APIs that aren't exposed by the .NET virtual machine, those that need to interact with the OS and native applications (such as IE), and those that would like to port applications that are written in C/C++ (like a web browser, for instance.) For most apps, it won't be relevant.

MS will continue to roll out new APIs over the months/years that will extend the platform but this is a good example of what can be done in partnership with them.

Yes, this is a good example of what can be done if you have a direct partnership with Microsoft that lets you run native code and not be bound by the intentional limitations that the .NET virtual machine and its limited APIs imposes on regular developers (not necessarily to be evil, but the preserve the stability and integrity of the platform.)

Microsoft will certainly add new features in future updates, but there are many things they are very unlikely to add, especially things that relate to more low-level functionality. Unless they've actually said that they're going to add it, you can't assume that they will.

[mad_onion]

Microsoft will certainly add new features in future updates, but there are many things they are very unlikely to add, especially things that relate to more low-level functionality. Unless they've actually said that they're going to add it, you can't assume that they will.

Well, the iPhone has direct socket access right? Because otherwise Skype wouldn't work. If the iPhone has it I'm sure Windows Phone will have it eventually. As in it's not that they have purposely denied access but just haven't implemented it yet.

[hdood]

I agree. Sockets is one of the low-level things I'm really expecting them to add, although I don't think they've said anything about it, and it's a little weird that it isn't already there. It's not something they have to write from scratch. They already have the code. That kind of suggests that they intentionally left it out, but at the same time it is possible that poor management and a lack of resources meant they couldn't even include and test the existing sockets code in time.

[Teebor]

I wouldn't trust another phone from LG after being duped by them with the Arena (KM900)

Let it be out for a few months and then maybe see if its any good, if its locked down though which I expect it might be from LG then its going to dive. I expect good things from windows on phones though

[George P Global Moderator]

You're not stupid. Why is it that you believe that Microsoft intends to open the platform up and give everyone access to anything they want? Doesn't the very architecture they've spent all this time and money on indicate that they have no intention of doing so? If they wanted to do it, why would it be "down there road" rather than now? Why go through all the extra work of imposing artificial restrictions now, if they intend to remove them in the future? You're not making any sense, and you keep presenting things that have no basis in reality and that are purely your own wishes as if they were fact. You seem to live in backwards land where I have to prove that something won't happen, instead of you having to prove that it will.

Why is it you believe they won't give more access to 3rd parties? Hell you said so in a newer post you expect sockets will be one thing they'll give access to. How is it different from what I'm saying? Did I say total access? No I didn't. I said more access over time. Restrictions are in place on a new platform for a few reasons that I can think of, one of them is stability out of the gate, if they have newer APIs they've redone for some reason it'd be a bad idea in general to give access to them to everyone and have the platform go to **** because of it.

Another one is performance which plays into reliability as well, It's better to make sure you have these two things down from the start so new people like it and stick with it. Look at the mess that turned out in WM6.x and older because MS gave them the ability to do whatever they wanted and who ends up with all the bad press and flack for it when **** goes wrong? MS does, not the OEMs for the most part, screw that.

Sure the best thing in MS's eyes is if everything is done in Silverlight and XNA but specific apps can't be done (skype which needs sockets) without more access, keyword more not total. At some point devs will need specific APIs to write specific types of apps that can't be done the way things are now, why would MS just say no to what could be a large number of future apps for their marketplace and thus more money later on? This is why I expect more access will be given to devs in the future, it makes the most sense.

[mad_onion]

The only thing I hope is that these features come along sooner rather than later. Having to wait a year for copy and paste and apps like Skype is too much I think.

I really want one a Windows Phone but I refuse to buy one until it has at least copy and paste.

[Omen1393]

The only thing I hope is that these features come along sooner rather than later. Having to wait a year for copy and paste and apps like Skype is too much I think.

I really want one a Windows Phone but I refuse to buy one until it has at least copy and paste.

You won't have to wait a year. Recently there has been a lot of info leaking out related to the next update of Windows Phone 7. For instance, there are many references of Silverlight 4 features that have yet to come to Windows Phone 7. This implies that Silverlight 4 for Windows Phone 7 will be released soon and with Silverlight 4 comes text selection, full camera access and tcip ports. Here's one tip a guy got from an inside source about how copy and paste will work for WP7.

[hdood]

Why is it you believe they won't give more access to 3rd parties? Hell you said so in a newer post you expect sockets will be one thing they'll give access to.

I expect they will add the sockets API because it's such basic and fundamental functionality that it borders on complete absurdity to leave it out. I don't think it even qualifies as something that should be on a "more" list. It's as fundamental today as being able to display a pixel on screen. It's really weird that it isn't there, almost as if it were intentional and they wanted to limit it to just web protocols (which are still sufficient for most things, it's only a small subset of apps that would be interested in it.)

But it's not that I don't "believe" they will implement new APIs and funtionality, it's that neither of us know. You went as far as saying that it's only a matter of time before Microsoft "opens it up" and implements a managed UPnP API, even though they haven't even hinted at it and it's a fairly obscure feature. I don't think anyone has quite figured out how restricted Microsoft wants to keep the platform, but it seems likely that they don't intend to implement anything any random developer wants.

Look at the mess that turned out in WM6.x and older because MS gave them the ability to do whatever they wanted and who ends up with all the bad press and flack for it when **** goes wrong? MS does, not the OEMs for the most part, screw that.

I don't think a tightly controlled platform is a bad thing (as long as they don't go too far and leave out more fundamental functionality.) I can understand the reasons for it. I think it's more constructive to accept that that's how it is though, rather than think (and make others think) that all the features developers want are going to be added and are just around the corner.

[kizuran]

They should totally release that with a transformers theme :p

+1 :rofl:

On top of that, maybe add in the audio sfx when changing portrait/landscape viewing orientation also!:D

[____]

Even if sockets are made available in the future they are wasting everyone's time and money in the meantime. Developers will write HTTP proxy applications to work around the restriction so they will be apps on the market that just connect to HTTP web services that in turn connect to whatever end network the user is trying to access (AIM, IRC, SSH, etc). Since there will be the continued cost of running the proxy web service in addition to the cost of developing the client app I doubt we will see any of these for free. Once the sockets do become available other developers will code real client apps and put them up on the market making all the work the previous developers did useless and making end users buy a new version of all their apps in order to get apps that connect directly to the network resources they wanted to use in the first place.

[FloatingFatMan]

LG worked with Microsoft to develop a custom DLNA media sharing capability for its GW910 handset. Just one of the ways hardware partners are able to differentiate themselves on the otherwise locked down Windows Phone 7 platform.

That's kinda neat I guess, but hardly unique. I have a device in my hand right now, the Android based Acer Stream, which has a built in DLNA media server. Works a dream; can stream video, auto and pictures to the TV flawlessly. Also has native DiVX playback as well as the other usual video formats.