Talk:Microsoft Kin

Picture

Can someone get a picture of the actual phone to put on Wikipedia. The logo is all well and good, but it when people go on here, they will expect a picture of the actual device. iPhone is a great example of this. Bill Heller (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Got one through flickr. Added! Zachlipton (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Windows Phone 7

The lede is contradictory on the relationship with Windows Phone 7. It asserts that the software platform is built directly on top of WinCE, not Windows Phone 7, based on an article from October 2009. But the last sentence of the lede claims that KIN it is built on Windows Phone 7, providing only a pointer to the official web site (with is Flash and seems to contain nothing but mareting info). Unless better info can be provided, I'm inclined to remove the second contention. Rvcx (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone has changed it to say that Kin is loosely based on Windows Mobile, which I think is even more inaccurate. I don't see any evidence of that. Part of the problem is Microsoft's reluctance to reveal what OS it is. I suspect it's based on the same Windows CE version that Windows Phone 7 is based on. But hopefully that information will be clearer soon.--Lester 00:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The software platform is based on the Windows CE 5.2 with elements of WinMo 6.5 and WinMo7 (now Windows Phone 7) backported. This is my first hand knowledge and I don't think you'll be able to find a reliable resource verifying it at the moment. -anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.110.209 (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

KIN

KIN does not seem to stand for anything. Per MOS:TM, it cannot be capitalized. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I was not familiar with that guideline. Thanks for sharing. heat_fan1 (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the name of the article (and all uses of "Kin") should be changed to KIN. This is how Microsoft is marketing it. This is the "official" name (as seen on the website, logo, and any time Microsoft of Verizon refers to it). If iPhone can be iPhone instead of Iphone or I Phone or anything else then I don't see why Kin can't be KIN. Because it is a Microsoft/Verizon product, they can name it whatever they want and we must respect that. -CaptainStack

Criticism of Kin

I've noticed some people continually deleting any referenced criticism of Kin (eg). There is no Wikipedia directive to delete criticism of a product or service, providing it is well referenced. You could debate the form that such criticism should take, and how it is layed out (eg, its own section or throughout the article), but the text should stay, as it is the only text in the article that differs from what you get on the vendor's website, and the vendor's press-releases, which forms the basis for most of the other content. I think the issue should be debated here before massively changing it, or attempting to delete it all.--Lester 21:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to change the criticism section to a reception section on the grounds that the reaction to the Kin thus far has not been unanimously negative. This was removed I think because it was percieved as not neutral. If you read any of the articles that are cited in the criticism section, you will see praise for what the phones do do. However, the only points that get posted are what the articles criticize. I don't think this is right for Wikipedia.

The above anon comment appears to be from User:CaptainStack. The only problem with making the criticism section more positive, is that the entire rest of the article is just a list of positive features about the phone. The criticism section provides the counterpoint to the rest of the article.--Lester 00:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not a list of positive features. It's a list of features. I've moved your criticisms to the Features section, mentioning that the devices are not smart phones, and as such don't include the not included features you mention. heat_fan1 (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps criticism/praise/reception can wait until the phones have been around a while longer. -CaptainStack

There is significant worldwide media interest in the missing features of Kin. Eg 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12. There is an endless stream of similar articles. No, it should not wait until Microsoft gets a chance at selling the devices. It should not be deleted, or buried, which is the case at the moment, as numerous editors repeatedly delete or hide the info.--Lester 23:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that a list of problems is really encyclopedic. Perhaps we can try to reformat the cirticism section into a paragraph rather than a list. How does this look?

Reaction the the Kin phones has been luke warm. The phones have recieved some praise for their UIs and features but several missing features are considered notable. The most critical omissions are a calendar application or integration with existing calendar programs (like Outlook Express), and the lack of an instant messaging client. Though the phone is integrated with Twitter, users cannot upload pictures to Twitter[19]. Additionally, the platform at launch will not support Adobe Flash and will not be able to play live video from sites like Hulu.[20] —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainStack (talk • contribs) 02:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not really about the launch. It's criticism about missing features, and the list of missing features is much greater than the short list above. You could called the section "Criticism" or even better, you could call it "Missing Features". No point hiding it within somewhere else.--Lester 06:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Does any other Wikipedia page have a list of features a product is missing? I mean, the phones don't have a built in shaver but that's not really what they're supposed to do. Who decides what is missing vs. what isn't supposed to be there? I think paragraph form is the best format for this section, not a list. Criticism implies critique not a simple statement. "There is no calendar application" is a statement and "No calendar application" isn't even a sentence. Criticism is more along the lines of "Many reviewers considered the lack of a calendar application to be a notable ommission as most other phones have one and the Kin is centered around social interaction". I don't mean to hide it, but I mean I've never seen a list of missing features on any other article. I thought my paragraph was pretty decent and included most of the missing features but if you think it's much longer please contribute or do a complete rewrite. -CaptainStack

We're not compiling a list of missing features; we're documenting the coverage the platform has received. Just about every article cited makes the point that Kin phones don't include a number of features that might otherwise be expected, thus the omissions are certainly notable. I'd also make sure to add a sentence on third-party applications to the above text—this is also universally mentioned, and particularly clarifies that the phone isn't really intended to compete with iPhone and Android phones. Rvcx (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is absurd. There is no need to have a Criticism section, just as there is no Criticism section of the well-established iPhone article. Of course, there has been criticism of the iPhone, but it's included in other sections. For example, the lack of a removable battery in the iPhone has been called out by the media. So it's in the Battery section. We should do the same here, which I tried to do.

Also, Rvcx's point is accurate. Like he mentions with the app store issue, I've mentioned in the article that this is NOT a smartphone, and so doesn't include items such as app store, etc.heat_fan1 (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The historical importance of this phone will be defined by its deep flaws that resulted in the project's cancellation after a reported 503 units. It's not "encyclopedic" to effectively say, "It didn't work out." Widely reported criticisms and critically negative points of difference from competing products serve as evidence of wider issues afflicting Microsoft as it continues to evolve -- an important discussion given the corporation's prominence in our technological history. If reliable sources are available, I would like to see a more detailed history of the project's hurried development process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thusspokejamie (talk • contribs) 03:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Lack of apps is a unique feature of Kin. Has nothing to do with whether it is a smartphone. I think all phones these days (apart from Kin) can run either Java apps, or Brew apps. Every feature phone can run some kind of apps. Kin's closed and locked-down platform is one of the most striking features of it.--Lester 05:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not having 3rd party apps is only a feature for the Kin insofar as not collecting stamps is a hobby of mine. The fact that this feature is not supported has already been nicely incorporated into the article and we can leave it at that. Just because you personally are an Android fanboy*, doesn't mean that all Windows Mobile/Phone/CE/etc articles need to have painfully long lists of features they could possibly have but don't. (*As evidenced by your repeated positive spinning of Android/HTC H2D articles and negative spin on other mobile platforms) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.32.187 (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Lester is arguing for any spin or changing of the current wording. He/she is simply arguing that the widely covered lack of an app platform should be mentioned, and I agree and so apparently do you so there's no dispute from us. Some of the earlier commentators like Heatfan & Captainstack don't/didn't believe this was worthy of mention. Regardless of Lester's alleged Android bias, he/she does have a point that there's virtually no relatively recent phone that's remotely smart (by smart I mean with some sort of WAP/internet support) without support for apps of some kind which is one of the reasons why this has received much commentary. As a case in point, I had a Panasonic VS2 from 2006 until it broke last year (stupid ribbon cable/tape). It was an okay phone but was in the mid or low mid range even when I bought it. I now inherited from a friend a Sony Ericsson K500 which is an even older and in nearly every way crappier phone then my Panasonic VS2 (except it hasn't broken yet). Both of these support J2ME apps.

The Microsoft Kin is therefore fairly unique among modern phones ignoring the low end basic call/SMS variety in lacking support for any kind of apps. Microsoft clearly have their reasons for this decision and only time will tell whether this is really a big factor in Kin's acceptance, but it is one that's clearly received a lot of attention (including the partially consequential lack of games and inability to make up for missing things like IM) particularly those commenting on how it would affect its acceptance in its target market (even sources which don't necessarily criticise the decision comment on it. (Ultimately of course, it also depends on their cloud platform and whether it will be able to fulfill what buyers want.) BTW, in terms of you not collecting stamps, if you were notable and for some reason many sources commented on you not collecting stamps then this would be covered in your article. For example if 99.999% of humans collected stamps and you were one of the strange people who didn't then it's likely this would happen, similar to the way it's happened in this Kin example.

P.S. I should clarify I agree we should not have a criticism section per WP:Criticism and simple common sense. This doesn't mean we should neutrally cover what can be construed as criticism of the Kin. We do have to be careful not to go into too much detail and should try to get the wording right (e.g. mention the lack of features where relevant with sourced criticism without giving undue weight to such things), but an analysis of say the iPad or Nexus One article will I'm sure discussion of similar things well before their respective launches.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually support Criticism sections for the other platforms, also. Including Android and iPad. I think it's better for the wording to reflect what the original articles said.--Lester 04:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in this article. There is a great deal of excellent content, but every paragraph except for the first and last have a tone that is negative towards Microsoft and the product. There's an overemphasis on missing features (which may deserve a section, but shouldn't also get plugged in whenever any feature of the product is mentioned) ex: "The Spot can also be used to set up e-mail attachments. However, Kin only supports email attachments, and does not support attachments to other media (like MMS)." The result is a unanimously negative feeling about Microsoft and the product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.156.88 (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Everyone please remember that Microsoft is one of the companies that often anonymously edits Wikipedia. And of course, look out for shills. 206.196.158.130 (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I actually think in places the tone is entirely negative. For instance

"The most glaring and obvious missing feature is the inability to copy a contact list to or from another phone by any means (over the air, via a memory or SIM card, wirelessly via Bluetooth and vCard, or via direct USB cable connection). Even the simplest phones have all had this ability for at least a decade."

Tell me with a straight face that the last sentence is neutral. I have to wonder why we have a bulleted list of missing features at all. Also, the "Missing Features" section is under "Features" which makes as much sense as saying that not bird watching is a hobby of mine. I generally oppose "Missing Features" sections because who decides what's "missing". Nobody gets to decide what should and shouldn't be there so to me a missing features section has inherent negativity. However, when they are present, I think they belong under a "Reception" section since generally it's the media and response of the public that says that they wanted a feature. It is my recollection that there was once a Reception section in this article. Why has it been removed? Anyways, I think one should probably be created and the missing features should be moved there. Captain Stack (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page already moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Microsoft KIN → Microsoft Kin — "KIN" isn't an accronym (as stated above) so it should be changed to "Kin" per MOS:TM, and most third party sources refer to it as "Kin" anyway. Sorafune +1 18:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Small question, the article itself used Kin and not Microsoft Kin. Which one is the correct term? I ask this because if this prodcut is simply called Kin the page shuld be at Kin (insert something here) and if it is not the the term Kin in the body of the article should be changed.--76.69.169.213 (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft actually seem to be going out of their way to keep their name off the marketing materials. Perhaps "Kin (phone)" would be better? Rvcx (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with move, but not sure to what. Both ideas above work. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree: All marketing materials for this phone including KIN.com and verizonwireless.com/KIN refer to it in upper case. I say we follow what the device maker and marketer want are doing. I'm sure that the third party references will change once the phone hits the market. --Mblumber (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the name of the article (and all uses of "Kin") should be changed to KIN. This is how Microsoft is marketing it. This is the "official" name (as seen on the website, logo, and any time Microsoft of Verizon refers to it). If iPhone can be iPhone instead of Iphone or I Phone or anything else then I don't see why Kin can't be KIN. Because it is a Microsoft/Verizon product, they can name it whatever they want and we must respect that. -CaptainStack

Take it up at WP:MOSTM, which is very clear on this point. If you disagree with the policy (which I'm not crazy about), argue about it there. Rvcx (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image(s)

I see there's no image of the Kin device. The following page (from Vodafone) contains download links for high res images of both the Kin devices. Is it possible to use these? I'm not sure about copyrights etc, but the images are there for press/promotional use, so it may be acceptable to use them on here???

Network Charges

Why is there a section about the network charges? I don't think any other phone has that, nor is it particularly encyclopedic. Additionally, I think lumping in the $15/month cost for a Zune Pass is really pretty stupid. No other phone is compatible with the Zune Pass so you don't have that option. You are by all means not required to get a Zune Pass, and it wasn't even a service originally developed for this phone. I think this section should be deleted. -CaptainStack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.117.155 (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Kin is in an odd place somewhere between a featurephone and a smartphone, which makes its contract terms particularly interesting. Most phone reviews mention contract prices only as footnotes, but Kin reviewers consistently highlight the price for service as an important attribute worthy of special consideration. Given all this attention, there can be little doubt that the Kin network charges are notable and should be included here. Rvcx (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

At the very least the Zune Pass content should be removed or rephrased (in my opinion, removed completely or moved to the features section). Every single phone in the world has extra stuff you can pay for if you like. The way it is in this article makes it seem like there is some crime behind the Zune Pass. It is simply a service that you may use if you like. Just like V-Cast TV, or dozens of apps you could buy on the iPhone. This section makes it sound like the phone would be better if it was like every other phone and you couldn't get a Zune Pass even if you wanted to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.132.39 (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The media hasn't made an issue of it with other handsets. However, if you look at the news coverage of Kin's release, a high proportion of news articles and commentary mention the network charges. Most of that criticism has been leveled at Verizon, for the network charges it applies to Kin. I think inclusion of this issue reflects the media coverage of Kin.--Lester 23:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that every media critism has to be mentioned in Wikipedia. The criticism of the integration with Zune Pass is ridiculous criticism because it is a completely optional charge that is not available on any other phone. If this criticism should appear anywhere it should be under the Zune Pass article. I don't think it's appropriate to put ridiculous criticism in Wikipedia, even if it's gotten attention. -Captain Stack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.117.153 (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't fathom the rationale for removing any reference to the Zune Pass; most of the reviews do mention this so it's clearly notable. It does need to be made clear that this extra charge is optional and so the minimum contract price is $70 and not $85, but the text now does this.

Further, a paragraph of content-free defensiveness and spin from Verizon is completely inappropriate here. It is set up as some kind of contradiction of reviewers' opinions, but of course it contradicts nothing that's been asserted. Reviewers think the contract pricing is very high and appropriate only for smartphones; Verizon says people already pay those prices for smartphones. What's the point? Rvcx (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The section stating Verizon's excuse that the Kin uses up lots of data to upload everything has also been widely reported. It is Verizon giving its reason for charging the high data price. I think that's very relevant. I don't understand your reason for deleting it.--Lester 13:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to evidence of "widely reported"; I've only seen one obvious media plant in an attempt to spin the situation. Frankly, this just seems like an empty rebuttal to some frank complaints. Reviewers haven't argued that the phone uses little bandwidth; they've argued that it's not a smartphone but costs smartphone money—$1700 to $2000 dollars, which is twice what feature phones cost. Obviously Microsoft/Verizon think it's worth that much money, but that's implicit in the fact that they set the price that high in the first place; quotes from them reiterating that they think the price is fair add absolutely nothing to the article. Something isn't notable just because someone from Verizon said it. We don't give salesmen equal time to spin all the independent reviews in their favor. Rvcx (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not reading the tech news, Rvcx. The "cloud" excuse for high data usage is everywhere. Here's another one. And another. I could find 50 more, but this should suffice.--Lester 06:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Your "another one" is the only reference currently given, a puff piece clearly placed by the Kin's PR team. The second is effectively a reprint of the first from a site that doesn't look terribly mainstream or notable for this type of information. Regardless, I've left a sentence in giving Verizon's defense for now. Rvcx (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

discontinuation

I created a section to discuss the news that the Kin is being discontinued by Microsoft. As more info becomes available people should add to the section. --Cab88 (talk) 01:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why did it get discontinued? Commentators are giving a hundred different reasons why. I guess you'll just have to attribute each reason to the publication that made the claim.--Lester 20:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The KIN's Predecessor

It's listed as the Sidekick. But the Sidekick shouldn't be labeled as the predecessor because they were both concurrently manufactured. That label should be changed. Wysprgr2005 (talk) 04:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Apple's iPhone 3GS was the predecessor to iPhone 4. Both are on the market at the same time.--Lester 08:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Kin wasn't just a "new version" of the Sidekick; it was an independent project that drew on some of the same ideas and technology. And of course WinMo 7 isn't a new version of the Kin; it's just one more project with some similarities and some differences. A better parallel might be the iPod and the iPhone or the iPhone and the iPad: there is no clear successor-predecessor relationship between any of these products—the relationships are much more complex than that. Rvcx (talk) 09:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft is talking about rolling both the Kin development team as well as Kin features into Windows Phone 7. If WP7 isn't the successor to Kin, I don't know what is.--Lester 10:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Then you don't know what is. The fact that one product is released after another is cancelled does mean that it's a "successor". WP7 was built almost completely independently of Kin, by a different development group that intended to operate entirely independent of the Kin team (who were expected to adapt the Kin to WP7 as time went by, and not vice versa—by your logic making WP7 a "predecessor" of the next version of the Kin). Microsoft has said they're not firing the Kin team, but instead integrating them into their mainstream platform, WP7. They're pulling the standard business rhetoric that Kin wasn't a failure, it was just a step on a long path (even though that was demonstrably not the intent). Quite simply, the terms "successor" and "predecessor" are completely inapplicable in this case unless you want to invent some novel definition of the terms. I can just as easily say that the Kin was the successor of the Zune. Rvcx (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds of references that say that the Sidekick was the predecessor of Kin. I just chose the first one on the Google list, which I see you deleted. There are hundreds more refs from reliable sources that say it.--Lester 09:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There are literally hundreds of references that mention the iPad as the iPhone's successor, or the iPhone as the iPod's successor (or even the Newton's successor). On of the top hits on Google actually describes the Nokia 7710 as the iPhone predecessor.

These are all valid references that could be used in context and I have no qualms with reporting comparisons between Kin and other phones/devices. The problem is that there is no context or nuance to a line in an infobox, so the semantics of "predecessor" and "successor" need to be abundantly clear. Where a person fills a well-defined position which must remain occupied before and after that person performs the role, such semantics are very clear: successorship is easily understood for jobs like "CEO of Microsoft" or "US president". But note that it's the position with respect to which successorship matters, not the person himself; suggesting that Steve Ballmer is "the successor" of Bill Gates without qualification would be absurd. In the case of products, it is sometimes the case that one product completely replaces another—bumps in version numbers are the usual examples. But in far more cases there are only newer variants that may serve as successor in some roles but not others: the M4 carbine is a variant which has replaced the M16 rifle in some applications (including some well-defined military roles), but just calling it the "successor" to the M16 would be inaccurate.

Again: the vague and subjective "follows-and-builds-upon" relationship is reasonable to address in the article text, but that's not what "successor" and "predecessor" in an infobox are for. Rvcx (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sales numbers?

Are there any sources for how many were actually sold? All I can find are references to a Business Insider-sourced rumor that there were only 500 sold, which was then picked up elsewhere.[1][2] Daring Fireball had a completely unsourced number of 503.[3] The only other number I could find is a speculative 8,800.[4][5]

Is there harder data out there now? The Kin has been dead for a while now, so I'd think the dust could have settled by now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Kin and Zune Software Compatability Photo, Music, and Video Collection syncing, no USB Driver support

I'd like to add a section on the Zune software compatability with the Kin TwoM and Kin OneM, looking for some support on recovery of data from internal memory on Kin phones with or without using the zune software. Microsoft's poor support with compatability with Zune Software for these phones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saguinter (talk • contribs) 17:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

File:MS-KinTwo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MS-KinTwo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Microsoft Kin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120308185020/http://www.winars.com/microsoft/microsoft-kin-dies/ to http://www.winars.com/microsoft/microsoft-kin-dies/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131112051458/http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=phoneFirst&action=viewPhoneDetail&selectedPhoneId=5571&deviceCategoryId=2 to http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=phoneFirst&action=viewPhoneDetail&selectedPhoneId=5571&deviceCategoryId=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

is windows better or Android

Please discuss Ultrastarine (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Microsoft Kin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100720120730/http://www.crn.com/software/220600334 to http://www.crn.com/software/220600334%3Bjsessionid%3DKCFRRMAUPYH2NQE1GHOSKH4ATMY32JVN?pgno=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Microsoft Kin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20100416164258/http://tegradeveloper.nvidia.com/tegra/news/microsoft-launches-kin to http://tegradeveloper.nvidia.com/tegra/news/microsoft-launches-kin

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)