This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of apps on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AppsWikipedia:WikiProject AppsTemplate:WikiProject Appsapps articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article reads like Windows Phone 7 was a glowing success, when it was anything but. Important issues have been left out (lack of upgrade path to Windows Phone 8, lack of media encryption, lack of extensibility, overly locked down architecture, failure to make any significant market headway) or paved over (fundamental features omitted from first release, instead of being listed are now dismissed with the mango release that is an inaccurate statement). Pointing out these shortfalls compared to its primary contemporary competitors would help to explain the fate of the OS, and certainly be a statement closer to reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.42.189 (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is reporting how well a movie does in sales OK but to report the phone OS sales and market share bias? Especially since now there are unlikely to be any new sales. I would think that figure alone would demonstrate the level of success of the OS. What about the fact that a number of large corporations banned the use of Mobile Phone 7 for accessing corporate email? Why is mentioning only the articles that praise the interface and ignoring those that criticised it not bias? Why is the locked down architecture never mentioned. Also when it comes to features, the "Copy & Paste" feature was not rolled out in Mango but in an earlier release that for some reason is not mentioned here while all the rest seem to be. Mango alone did not solve the internet sharing issue. The MP3 ringtones feature was overly complex to use. And no update could address the lack of a removable media. And why does this discussion history read like the article is being purged of any negative points. Not bias means "both sides of the story". I would also suggest that when an article reads one way but reality is another, then there is a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.42.189 (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion history seems small because this article was just created last year. When WP8 came out, two new articles were created, one for WP8 and one for WP7. The old WP page became an article for the WP family as a whole. Most of the content on the old WP page pertaining specifically to WP7 was transferred here. No one was trying to purge anything. Also, the Windows Phone article already covers WP7's relatively low market adoption. And we have mentioned in the reception section that many people thought there were "notable omissions for a smartphone OS"-- but keep in mind that most of these problems were fixed by Mango and eventually, WP8. The fact that there is no upgrade path to WP8 is relatively common sense. CE architecture is completely different from NT architecture, and there is no way that users of WP7 phones would have been able to use most of WP8's hardware improvements, like NFC and multi-core CPU support. Microsoft could have chosen to be misleading and called their 7.8 update "Windows Phone 8" with a few features missing, but they decided to be honest.Gamer9832 (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
