The "look/feel" of pocket pc apps

chetlet · #1 (**permalink**) 12-02-2008, 12:48 AM

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like most pocket pc apps just have a cheaper look/feel to them, like whoever created them didn't spend a lot of time thinking about or designing for looks or usability, especially when it comes to touch screen devices. I realize it's probably difficult to create one application that can work on many different windows mobile devices, but is there anyone out there that creates apps specifically for the Touch Pro that look awesome, and work too obviously.

BigDiesel07 · #2 (**permalink**) 12-02-2008, 02:04 AM

I agree.. The issue is that WM devices vary greatly in screen size and processing power, not to mention the amount of memory present.. So they have to deal with these issues before they can pretty up their program.. By then, unless it's a paid app, they really just want to release it... Just my opinion...

KaliS · #3 (**permalink**) 12-02-2008, 08:08 AM

i totally agree here. i think the difference is the issue of making apps that can be used in many different WM devices. im sure that if someone were to just focus on apps for the TP then we would see a lot more quality out there with regards to the look/feel. but there aren't too many companies willing to develop for it specifically and possibly loose out if the phone isnt a hit.

my bank (bank of america) has a nice app made specifically for the iphone to handle all banking issues via mobile. but for a WM device a person has to use the browser style mobile version that is not as good looking or user friendly. now why develop spefically for the iphone?? i think because its just for one phone type as opposed to hundreds of WM phones. could be wrong, but i think that's it...sucks!

BigDiesel07 · #4 (**permalink**) 12-02-2008, 12:31 PM

For Android (G1) and Mac OS (iPhone), it is easy to develop apps for those devices since each OS is on only one type of specific hardware...

sherv · #5 (**permalink**) 12-03-2008, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDiesel07

For Android (G1) and Mac OS (iPhone), it is easy to develop apps for those devices since each OS is on only one type of specific hardware...

Exactly!

Although, isn't Android supposed to be out on numerous other devices soon? I could be horribly wrong

BigDiesel07 · #6 (**permalink**) 12-03-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sherv

Exactly!

Although, isn't Android supposed to be out on numerous other devices soon? I could be horribly wrong

No, you are right in that it is open source and can be on any device out there.. They ported Android to the HTC Touch even.. In that case, developing Android Apps will become more difficult in keeping the level of how it looks/feels the same as it is currently and make it suitable for a wide ranging amount of phones..

krayzie7th · #7 (**permalink**) 12-04-2008, 01:18 AM

i agree and i think a lot of of casual users are attracted more to the iphone then a wm phone. The apps just look more nicer and stylish compare the boring and simple wm versions.

bigluje · #8 (**permalink**) 12-04-2008, 03:26 AM

I totally agree! the wm programs say alot when you read the thread, but looks and feels off from what you expect. And while i am not an Iphone buff, I do like the look and feel of that phone.

BigDiesel07 · #9 (**permalink**) 12-04-2008, 10:45 AM

If somebody were to want to design WM apps for just VGA 640x 480 screens, there would be a market.. But it would be small.. And the revenue, or whatever their reason for building the app, would be greatly diminished for designing an app for such a niche...

Ed Zachary · #10 (**permalink**) 12-10-2008, 02:44 PM

Having spent a few years developing applications, including mobile apps, I can tell you there are a lot of things involved. First, each manufacturer has its own version of the OS. True, you have the MAC OS/iPhone hardware organization under the same umbrella. But, under the covers, WM6.1 varies a bit from manufacturer to manufacturer based on hardware constraints.
Then you have the API, or Application Programming Interface, that is (or is NOT) available to developers and the capabilities that are freely available to developers through those APIs. For instance, MikeySoft has a WMF API that any developer can use to build apps for WM devices. This is a one-size-fits-all approach. Or, more realistically, an all-better-fit-this-size approach. Can you say "common denominator"? Some hardware vendors will make APIs available that can be used with WMF, but those usually make it easier to deal with specific hardware, not enhance the "user experience".
One client I worked with developed a pretty slick library of classes that included things like 3D buttons with graphics and animations, non-stock colors, and extensively subcl***** controls. The apps we created were, and still are, gorgeous and highly intuitive. BUT it took a lot of time (and money!) to build that library.

Which brings up the main reason for lightweight-looking and acting mobile apps: time to market trumps all. Apps have to be created as quickly and cheaply as possible in order to get them out the door and realize a return on the investment of time and money. This in and of itself pretty much rules out building libraries of robust and extensively reusable classes. Or making those classes easily portable to multiple platforms. Or porting apps with much complexity at all to multiple platforms. Or thoroughly testing all combinations and scenarios of interactions and data and platforms.

Edit: Ha! Smutcheck won't let ess-you-bee-cee-el-ay-ess-ess-ee-dee through...