I'm surprised that WM7 doesn't support OpenGL ES. For the launch of the Xbox, Microsoft was very careful to make it easy on developers (e.g., with XNA, which was useable on the PC, Xbox and Xbox 360). This is in contrast to Sony with the PS3 which wasn't as careful about efforts to support developers.
As a side note, Kaz Hirai, CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment, said this lack of developer support was intentional: "We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" Needless to say, this seems absurd.
To attract developers and apps to WM7, Microsoft should be thinking about ways to make it as easy as possible for developers to port apps from existing platforms over to WM7 (particularly from iOS and Android). WM7 is already facing an uphill battle. There's no reason to create more friction in the system.
> I'm surprised that WM7 doesn't support OpenGL ES.
Really? They have their own platform, tools and technologies which they're clearly trying to push and which unify their offerings, how is that surprising exactly? Last time I checked, the 360 offered absolutely no support for OpenGL.
> Microsoft was very careful to make it easy on developers
For developers using Microsoft technology. Windows Phone 7 mandates .net for development, either Silverlight or XNA (for games) and forbids C or raw C++. As with Android, WP7 will be launching without an NDK.
When you're essentially facing no competition (e.g., Windows, Office, 10 years ago) you can push a closed approach. When you're behind and facing two formidable rivals (Apple and Google), you need to apply a different approach.
Apple learned this lesson upon Steve Jobs return. The first iMac was much more compatible with PC peripherals. The compatibility was further enhanced when Apple shifted to Intel processors. This compatibility certainly helped Apple attract more customers and complements to its platform.
> The first iMac was much more compatible with PC peripherals.
I could be remembering wrong, but this sounds like revisionist history. The original iMac was compatible with USB (and relied upon it); most PCs didn't come with USB ports, and most peripherals didn't support it. Since USB is a universal standard, however, it gave manufacturers an opportunity to make one device that supported both systems (vs. making one that supported Mac-specific printer ports and parallel ports).
This was part of the appeal of USB in the first place, but when the iMac was launched that was not a huge selection of peripherals that suddenly worked everywhere.
Here is the timeline: USB 1.0 was released in January 1996. Windows 98 launched in May/June 1998. Windows 98 was the first MSFT OS with native USB support. The first iMac was launched in August 1998. USB 1.1 was released in September 1998.
According to a June 1998 CNET article titled "Peripherals to surge with Win 98," Rob Bennett, group product manager of Windows 98 stated: "There will be a pretty impressive showing of peripherals this summer..There are 250 devices due to be launched around Windows 98 and 100 in development [to be] released in the next year..."
Looking through Google news archives for 1998, I see the following devices with USB support: Logitech scanners, Intel video cameras ("Create and Share"), Imation and Iomega high capacity drives, Kodak digital cameras, joysticks, modems, etc.
Hence, there was a collection of PC peripherals supporting USB around the time of the Windows 98 launch (in May/June) and the iMac launch later in the year (August).
Windows 98 was the first MSFT OS with native USB support
Windows 95 OSR2 supported USB (and FAT32) and IIRC was released in 1997, before the iMac. Another popular historical tale about the iMac is how it did away with floppy drives - however few people remember that the number one selling iMac accessory for the first few three years, with a huge attach rate, was the external floppy drove.
> When you're essentially facing no competition (e.g., Windows, Office, 10 years ago) you can push a closed approach. When you're behind and facing two formidable rivals (Apple and Google), you need to apply a different approach.
Microsoft seems not to have cared much with the 360. And though you can make the argument that console game developers are used to no two consoles being compatible tools- and SDK-wise, the HD generation proved so expensive to develop for that a number of developers went cross-platform to have an easier time recouping their costs.
As a side note, Kaz Hirai, CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment, said this lack of developer support was intentional: "We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?" Needless to say, this seems absurd.
To attract developers and apps to WM7, Microsoft should be thinking about ways to make it as easy as possible for developers to port apps from existing platforms over to WM7 (particularly from iOS and Android). WM7 is already facing an uphill battle. There's no reason to create more friction in the system.