Show

Microsoft planning Bing and Messenger iPhone apps

Tom Warren
08 December 2009 - 13:01
66 Comments
Liked this (7)

Sources close to the Windows Live and Bing divisions at Microsoft have confirmed to Neowin that Microsoft is currently developing both Bing and Windows Live Messenger iPhone applications.

Both applications are likely to be released alongside the upcoming Windows Live Wave 4 updates due in approximately March 2010. Neowin understands that Windows Live is working aggressively to move its applications onto the iPhone. Last week Microsoft principal group program manager David Raissipour confirmed to Cnet news that "We are actively working on it" when questioned over the Bing iPhone plans.

Internally the philosophy "if you can't beat them join them" is being adopted for iPhone development. Microsoft understands it needs to compete multi-platform for its web and cloud based applications if it wants to maintain and grow market share. Currently the only Microsoft owned applications available in Apple's iPhone App Store are the Microsoft Tag application and the Seadragon image application. Both applications have been available for nearly a year.

Out of a poll of over 1300 Neowin members, 29% said they owned an iPhone.

Stay tuned for more information on Microsoft's Windows Live Wave 4 plans including what Windows Live Messenger will look like, tabbed messenger conversations and the Ribbon interface for Windows Live Writer exclusively here at Neowin later this week.


Image for illustrative purposes only

Comments (66)

  1. SuperKid - 08 December 2009 - 13:06

    Nice, i use ebuddy on my ipod for messenger but if microsoft release an app ill sure give it a go.

  2. carmatic - 08 December 2009 - 16:30

    im really surprised that they still havent had an official Live Messenger app until now...

  3. cabron - 08 December 2009 - 19:07

    A messenger for the iphone is useless in my opinion. Now a silverlight app or plug-in for safari in the iphone will be priceless!!!!!

  4. chisss - 08 December 2009 - 19:09

    cabron said,
    A messenger for the iphone is useless in my opinion. Now a silverlight app or plug-in for safari in the iphone will be priceless!!!!!

    Explain to me how it would be priceless to have an messaging app running inside an another app as an add-on?

  5. cabron - 08 December 2009 - 19:15

    chisss said,
    Explain to me how it would be priceless to have an messaging app running inside an another app as an add-on?


    Did I said that? I am talking about watching Silverlight animation and websites. Adobe Flash has not been developed yet for the iphone.

  6. +TCLN Ryster - 08 December 2009 - 22:56

    I agree that messenger apps on iPhone are generally useless unless Apple will bend it's rules and allow them to run in the background. What's the point of a messenger app if nobody can message me on it because it's not running all the time.

  7. Manish - 09 December 2009 - 01:57

    Have you actually used a messaging app on an iPhone? A lot of the "big players" (IM+, Beejive, eBuddy Pro, etc) allow you to stay connected for 24 hours upwards. If someone IMs you and the application is closed, the push feature kicks in, and you get a notification (showing the IM and username, as well as a button to open up the application). Therefore messenger apps are not useless on the iPhone.

    Edit: However, I would love an official way to background other apps (but Multifl0w + Backgrounder does the job amazingly).

  8. profets - 09 December 2009 - 02:22

    i'm another one who thinks messenger apps are pretty much useless on the iPhone. until apple does some good update and figure out how to properly multitask then i dont see the point.

    push notifications are such a lousy way out of proper multitasking... even bigger waste of time

  9. Manish - 09 December 2009 - 03:12

    If that's what you want to believe, fine. Are the IM apps actually useless? No. Why? Because the apps using push notifications are clearly able to carry out their primary function, i.e. to deliver messages instantly between 2+ people. Even when the app is closed, people can still IM each other. Would multitasking/"backgrounding" save me a few seconds that are needed to open and close the app? Yes.

    I do not know of anyone who runs an IM app in the background on an iPhone even if they have the ability to do so. I personally don't since I consider it a pointless waste of resources, because, as I said above, in the case of IM apps, push notifications handle the lack of "backgrounding" brilliantly.

    I do agree, however, that multitasking would be an excellent feature. I'm merely questioning whether the lack of this feature truly renders IM apps useless on the iPhone. I'm thinking no.

  10. profets - 09 December 2009 - 14:27

    Unfortunately for the iPhone, like you said, it is a pointless waste of resources. Other smartphones can run IM without killing resources or battery, so lets hope Apple can figure it out. It was pretty disappointing last march during the iphone OS 3.0 announcement when Apple tried to talk about running apps in the background and how it dramatically reduced battery life. I'm really hoping they are putting good effort into figuring it out for 4.0.

    I used an iPhone 3G for 18 months.. the push notification i found too annoying. Most IM apps cant even stay connected for long. whats the point of the app running on apple's push servers if theyre limited in how long they can run? Even when it was connected, and I'd get a push notification, then i'm having to wait for the app to open up and connect again. It might just be my opinion, but it seems like a horrible way on apple's part to avoid fixing the real issue with multitasking on the iPhone.

    Now with my Hero I have google talk and msn always connected and it literally seems to have no effect on resources or battery life.

  11. +Rudy - 08 December 2009 - 13:06

    nice screenshot

  12. ZeroHour - 08 December 2009 - 13:10

    +1 lol failcake....

  13. null_ - 08 December 2009 - 13:07

    This should be interesting to say the least.

  14. vetneufuse - 08 December 2009 - 13:15

    71% huh? Seems a little higher then I'd of expected... I wonder how many people considered an iPod touch an iPhone?

  15. Tom W - 08 December 2009 - 13:16

    Sorry that was the stat swapped the wrong way, amended.

  16. mm4rley - 08 December 2009 - 13:17

    Would love to see more skydrive integration with the mobile apps, especially on the iphone, so if I took a pic I could add this file straight to my skydrive from the iPhone.. also My Phone would be awesome, but I cant see Apple allowing that as they have they Mobile Me service.

  17. +TCLN Ryster - 08 December 2009 - 22:59

    Well there rule is that apps that duplicate functions of the phone are not allowed. MobileMe is more of a service that runs on the phone, rather than a function of the phone itself, so who knows :)

    Besides, I'm seriously considering trying Windows Mobile again (probably the best HTC device available at the time) when my contract comes up for renewal in February.

  18. +KoL - 08 December 2009 - 13:18

    Great, I want WLM on my iPhone. I hope they update the Mac version too.

  19. +Rudy - 08 December 2009 - 13:22

    KoL said,
    I hope they update the Mac version too.

    That's going to be a much needed update....I just bought a MBP for my gf and she wasn't very impressed with WML lol

  20. rawr_boy81 - 08 December 2009 - 14:00

    Rudy said,
    That's going to be a much needed update....I just bought a MBP for my gf and she wasn't very impressed with WML lol

    From what I understand they're going to do it when Live Messenger 2010 is released which uses a whole new video communications stack. The problem is that if they worked towards compatibility with the existing Messenger, by the time that it came out, Microsoft Windows version would have already moved across to the new CODEC by then.

    Currently there are two CODEC's in use, one by the Microsoft Communications package and one by the Live service - the move is to get both of them using the same protocol - I assume not only to cut down on maintenance costs but to also sell value added services where a companies server can hook into Microsoft's own service to provide conferencing facilities.

Please Log In or Register to post a comment.