An extra column of Live tiles. Windows Phone 8 GDR3


Recommended Posts

windows+phone+8+gdr3+mockup+start+screen.jpg

A couple of days ago we learned that Windows Phone 8's GDR3 update would more likely than not introduce devices with 1080p displays and quad-core processors, to combat Android's popular 'phablet' category of devices with screens upwards of five inches. But the new higher-resolution may present a challenge to the Windows Phone start screen ? just ask any HTC Titan owner how goofy live tiles can look at times on a massive display. Mary Jo Foley of All About Microsoft has heard from sources that the Windows Phone team has a solution: add more tiles!

Building on the previous GDR3 update report, Foley checked in with her own well-connected sources and learned that the Start screen may soon hold even more tiles. She specifically said that Windows Phone 8 may add a "a third column of apps in the start screen" ? which implies that you'd be able to fit three medium-sized square tiles in one row as opposed to the limit of two today. What's unclear is if this additional column will be for 1080p devices or devices with a certain display size, or whether it will be pushed down to the current WXGA and 720p displays.

Foley also offered another morsel of GDR3 gossip, saying that Windows Phone 8's core apps may be updated in the release. While that does not seem like a big deal at face value, it does imply to us that GDR3 will be the 'big' update for Windows Phone this year instead of Blue (which looks increasingly less likely to even be released this year).

At first we weren't too enthused by such a possibility. However once we completed photoshopping the mockup you see above, we started to like the idea more than we thought (though it's really close to the edge of 'information overload' status). How would you feel about more live tiles on new Windows Phone 8 devices with 5-inch or higher screens?

It makes sense that the UI will take advantage of the bigger overall screen size and show more tiles, it's what Windows 8 does on tablets and PCs right now.

How does this differ from when the iPhone got an extra line of icons, and was mocked mercilessly?

I'm not trolling, I am asking a genuine question. Is it because Microsoft do it as it's a "Oh hey we added" as opposed to a "LOOOOOK!!!! ICONS!!!! MOAR!!!!" or what?

How does this differ from when the iPhone got an extra line of icons, and was mocked mercilessly?

I'm not trolling, I am asking a genuine question. Is it because Microsoft do it as it's a "Oh hey we added" as opposed to a "LOOOOOK!!!! ICONS!!!! MOAR!!!!" or what?

I think the mocking of the iphone 5th row was more or less done because it's the only "big" chance to their interface since the iphone 1.

I'm not a fan of the mockup, too many small tiles together, but mixed with some bigger tiles it might be better.

How does this differ from when the iPhone got an extra line of icons, and was mocked mercilessly?

I'm not trolling, I am asking a genuine question. Is it because Microsoft do it as it's a "Oh hey we added" as opposed to a "LOOOOOK!!!! ICONS!!!! MOAR!!!!" or what?

What I don't understand is that the Live Screen was supposed to be this new anti-icon, information hub everything at the tip of the fingers. However all this point it looks like the android app drawer open all the time with squares instead of nice looking icons. Which all WP people said sucked and how WP was the new generation no-desktop style stuff... seems like it's just becoming an always open app drawer.. or hell even my Android home screen with the widgets being the big tiles, and the small tiles being icons to apps.

What I don't understand is that the Live Screen was supposed to be this new anti-icon, information hub everything at the tip of the fingers. However all this point it looks like the android app drawer open all the time with squares instead of nice looking icons. Which all WP people said sucked and how WP was the new generation no-desktop style stuff... seems like it's just becoming an always open app drawer.. or hell even my Android home screen with the widgets being the big tiles, and the small tiles being icons to apps.

It seems you're comparing the start screen tiles to two different things, and saying it's like both but different. If you've already listed the ways it's different from either, then didn't you answer your own question?

To elaborate, the Android home screen with differently sized widgets isn't a bunch of icons either. So the "WP people"'s "Anti-icon" stance isn't being contradicted there. Regarding the app drawer, if that's just a grid of icons, then like you said, the Start screen is like the Home screen anyway, so the "WP people" aren't contradicted there either.

So I'd really like to try an explain for you, but I'm having a little trouble understanding your question in the first place.

EDIT:

Regarding the article, I dislike the look of this extra row of icons. At least the tiles are resizable. What's funny though is that the article says that the implication of the change is the user will be able to see three columns of medium tiles. But from the mockup image, three medium tiles wouldn't fit. A third column of medium tiles would be cropped on the edge. The article then references the mockup and makes an opinion on the potential look of the start screen, despite the mockup being wrong from the beginning.

I hope they pass this update down to lower res display phones too. It'll be a nightmare if they dont

I don't see why they wouldn't do it for 1280x768/720 devices. I don't think it would be possible with 800x480 devices though. The resolution is too small.

How does this differ from when the iPhone got an extra line of icons, and was mocked mercilessly?

I'm not trolling, I am asking a genuine question. Is it because Microsoft do it as it's a "Oh hey we added" as opposed to a "LOOOOOK!!!! ICONS!!!! MOAR!!!!" or what?

Most of the for the iPhone 5 came from iPhone 3GS/4 users. They weren't happy with how Apple changed the iPhone because they expected a more drastic change.

What I don't understand is that the Live Screen was supposed to be this new anti-icon, information hub everything at the tip of the fingers. However all this point it looks like the android app drawer open all the time with squares instead of nice looking icons. Which all WP people said sucked and how WP was the new generation no-desktop style stuff... seems like it's just becoming an always open app drawer.. or hell even my Android home screen with the widgets being the big tiles, and the small tiles being icons to apps.

The Start Screen is more customizable than the app drawer in Android. The biggest difference are the tiles. They're resizable and some of them are live, meaning they can update with information in real time.

It seems you're comparing the start screen tiles to two different things, and saying it's like both but different. If you've already listed the ways it's different from either, then didn't you answer your own question?

To elaborate, the Android home screen with differently sized widgets isn't a bunch of icons either. So the "WP people"'s "Anti-icon" stance isn't being contradicted there. Regarding the app drawer, if that's just a grid of icons, then like you said, the Start screen is like the Home screen anyway, so the "WP people" aren't contradicted there either.

So I'd really like to try an explain for you, but I'm having a little trouble understanding your question in the first place.

EDIT:

Regarding the article, I dislike the look of this extra row of icons. At least the tiles are resizable. What's funny though is that the article says that the implication of the change is the user will be able to see three columns of medium tiles. But from the mockup image, three medium tiles wouldn't fit. A third column of medium tiles would be cropped on the edge. The article then references the mockup and makes an opinion on the potential look of the start screen, despite the mockup being wrong from the beginning.

Okay, my appologies for not being clear.

1. WP was all about not having an android/iOS look and feel, hence the whole live tiles on the home screen. The idea was that there would be quick views of feeds, weather, stocks, etc on the main screen without cluttering it with icons and the sort. It was supposed to be clean, clear, and concise.

All of the small tiles and how it looks in the picture above (if there was no big tiles) would look exactly like an app drawer in Android without nice looking icons.

2. The small tiles, and the look of the screen in the main picture looks like a skinned android launcher. Instead of Icons they are small tiles, instead of widgets they are the larger tiles. The only thing I see that sets it apart (based on the above) from Android is that they are square colored blocks and not icons.

There was no question, so I am not surprised that you couldn't find/understand one to answer as there wasn't one. My point however was that I felt that the purpose of WP was a new interface that was completely different to that of Android or iOS. However with things like the small tiles, and more of them on the main screen.. it now (to me) looks like a minimalistic themed Android device.

Can you explain to me why there was all the hype and such about the new tiled interface, new design elements, etc for ui but it is slowly turning into something we already have.

Okay, my appologies for not being clear.

1. WP was all about not having an android/iOS look and feel, hence the whole live tiles on the home screen. The idea was that there would be quick views of feeds, weather, stocks, etc on the main screen without cluttering it with icons and the sort. It was supposed to be clean, clear, and concise.

All of the small tiles and how it looks in the picture above (if there was no big tiles) would look exactly like an app drawer in Android without nice looking icons.

2. The small tiles, and the look of the screen in the main picture looks like a skinned android launcher. Instead of Icons they are small tiles, instead of widgets they are the larger tiles. The only thing I see that sets it apart (based on the above) from Android is that they are square colored blocks and not icons.

There was no question, so I am not surprised that you couldn't find/understand one to answer as there wasn't one. My point however was that I felt that the purpose of WP was a new interface that was completely different to that of Android or iOS. However with things like the small tiles, and more of them on the main screen.. it now (to me) looks like a minimalistic themed Android device.

Can you explain to me why there was all the hype and such about the new tiled interface, new design elements, etc for ui but it is slowly turning into something we already have.

Ah.

Starting with icons, the difference is that small tiles are supposed to be more informative than icons. Icons might have a number badge, and admittedly, most apps with small tiles only do this as well. However, the potential is there for much more informative changes, like a number, plus a color and icon change to convey new information. Easiest example would be a weather tile, changing from blue, with a sun, and a number for the temperature, to grey, a cloud, and the new temp. An icon could probably do this too, and indeed a popular iOS example is the calender icon, which changes the date, but a regular icon is often more rendered, meaning that a screen full of shifting changing icons all trying to do the same thing as a Start screen full of small tiles do, would likely be even more cluttered and difficult to read.

So the stripped down appearance of the tiles is not just about looking minimalist (although for many, that's also a big draw), but it also works with the functionality of that tile, in ways that a traditional "nice looking" icon would be less suited for. The tile can basically do more with less. From that starting point, the tiles are also resizable, as everyone knows, allowing the user to scale as much or little information as they want from the tile's respective app. The hype for the new design elements is part of an understanding of the bigger picture of where and how they're supposed to work with the intended functionality of the Start Screen, which as you understand, is supposed to be a personalized information hub.

Compared to something like the Android home screen, the differences are a little smaller, since widgets are more informative than icons, and are also resizable in most cases. Personally I'm not so sure the Start screen with tiles offers as great a functional advantage over widgets, like it does over traditional icons, but I would say that the Start screen is more readable, navigable, consistent thanks to its strict adherence to the grid layout, compared to the looser organization of pages of widgets on the Android home screen.

All in all, I'd say whatever it's gaining in terms of functional similarities is smaller compared to how it's all organized and presented. For me, the smaller tiles are just plain better and more functional that a traditional icon, and the larger tiles are better presented and organized and more consistent than the average widget.

I realize this explanation probably makes it sound like a minimalist theme Android device can basically match the whatever advantages I listed for the Start screen compared to widgets, but I'd still give the points to the WP overall because third party apps also follow the new design elements in Metro more consistently, compared to a minimalist Android theme, which basically only affects the OS.

So I'd really like to try an explain for you, but I'm having a little trouble understanding your question in the first place.

All the squares... They're really just representing shortcuts with tiled icons. That said, this is a mockup, and one way you COULD use it.

All the squares... They're really just representing shortcuts with tiled icons. That said, this is a mockup, and one way you COULD use it.

Regarding all the squares, see my response above. Regarding the mockup, yes, as I said, I'd probably be resizing the tiles. :) .

Can you explain to me why there was all the hype and such about the new tiled interface, new design elements, etc for ui but it is slowly turning into something we already have.

+1

I agree. They have to be careful not to cancel the benefit of live tiles by creating a jumble of squares. You'll basically end up with a bunch of square monotone icons, that all start to look the same, with badge notifications. If they want more on the home screen it may be time to consider containers.

Since you yourself can set the tiles in any way you feel like it it's not really up to MS to show you how or what the right way is. Calling them icons isn't true, not unless you make them all the smaller size and leave it at that. With the middle and double wide size then we're talking about more. It'll be very interesting if they add the newer bigger size we've seen in the blue leak and how MS takes advantage of it.

  • 1 month later...

I think the mocking of the iphone 5th row was more or less done because it's the only "big" chance to their interface since the iphone 1.

I'm not a fan of the mockup, too many small tiles together, but mixed with some bigger tiles it might be better.

Agreed. WP has continued to evolve. This isn't the only thig they've changed...

And I'm not sure how I feel about this. Hopefully at the very least they only make tis extra row available to very large screen devices... Because it would be less than usable on smaller screens. Then all yo'll have is people complaining because their Live Tiles are too small...

How does this differ from when the iPhone got an extra line of icons, and was mocked mercilessly?

I'm not trolling, I am asking a genuine question. Is it because Microsoft do it as it's a "Oh hey we added" as opposed to a "LOOOOOK!!!! ICONS!!!! MOAR!!!!" or what?

because people wanted an ios phablet and got another row of icons instead.

Here, Microsoft is saying 'if you want to use higher specs, we'll just tweak the settings slightly'. Its a small but subtle difference.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!