Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Operators: Nokia Would Sell Better With Android

Posted by Soulskill on from the just-what-nokia-wants-to-hear dept.

nk497 writes "Mobile operators are complaining that Nokia's Lumia line of handsets would sell better if it ran a different OS — or if Microsoft was more willing to put marketing money behind Windows Phone. 'No one comes into the store and asks for a Windows phone,' said an executive in charge of mobile devices at one European operator. He said Microsoft's software worked nicely with PCs and allowed you 'to do tons of cool things,' but few customers knew this. 'If the Lumia with the same hardware came with Android in it and not Windows, it would be much easier to sell,' he said."

62 of 439 comments (clear)

  1. False choice by noh8rz3 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I think this argument is interesting, but is ultimately a false choice. You can't have android on the lumia because it doesn't exist that way. Is like saying, iPhone would be better with android on it.

    The bet thing ms / Nokia can do right now is take their lumps, invest in advertising, and have faith that they have a great product on the shelf. Build it and people will come.

    The only concern is that while ms has deep pockets to take a bath for a while, Nokia is more precarious. Acquisition, anyone?

    As Steve jobs said, "real artists ship."

    1. Re:False choice by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can't have android on the lumia because it doesn't exist that way. Is like saying, iPhone would be better with android on it.

      It's more like saying that an iMac would be better if you could also run Linux on it -- which you can. There is no reason whatsoever for phones not to be the same way. And it seems unfathomable that Nokia could possibly be selling more phones by offering solely Microsoft products than they could by offering both, especially since the non-Microsoft alternative is what most of the customers are actually asking for.

    2. Re:False choice by anonymov · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > a hardware AND software package that are differentiated from the competition in some way other than "it's a different color."

      Ahahaha, you're a funny one!

      Here, check all this WP7 diversity. Now contrast it with all these identically looking UIs and shapes of Android phones. Err, wait...

    3. Re:False choice by ozmanjusri · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The HP Pre 3, HTC Flyer, Samsung Focus S, Samsung Galaxy Note (GT-N7003), Samsung Galaxy S Plus, Samsung Galaxy W, Samsung Omnia W, Sharp Aquos Phone SH-12C, Sharp Aquos Phone 006SH and Sony Xperia arc S all have similar hardware to the Nokia Lumia 710 and Nokia Lumia 800 phones.

      Clearly the problem isn't with the hardware. It's just that people see no reason to buy the MS phone OS, even with very steep discounting. .

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  2. A true story by killmenow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Our company runs almost entirely on Microsoft products. We use Exchange Server and Microsoft Outlook for our e-mail. We use self-signed SSL certs.
    This week an employee got a Nokia Lumia 900. He brought it in for us to help him get the e-mail set up. It won't accept self-signed certs. It's a pain in the ass to get set up. He took it back and got an iPhone.

    We have people running iPhones, Blackberries, and Android phones all connecting without problems. But you got a WP7 device? Sucks to be you.

    1. Re:A true story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know MS... never buy something until SP1. I assume the same should be true of Windows Phones.

    2. Re:A true story by killmenow · · Score: 5, Informative

      To be fair, it's not really *that* difficult to install the trusted root cert on the WP7 device. It's just...why should we have to jump through that hoop? All of those other devices *just work*.

    3. Re:A true story by jd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I usually recommend waiting to SP2 as SP1 is usually poorly tested. XP, for example, only truly became stable after SP2 due to problems with SP1, and Windows 95 SP1 was notorious for adding massive security holes (beyond the usual ones).

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:A true story by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Interesting

      MS specifically has made WP7 a consumer phone and excluded enterprise options like this and abandoned the enterprise. Yet for some reason you can get Word, Excel on it. And when I mean "get", it has limited functionality as you would expect in a mobile version. The decision to put development towards Office while ignoring other enterprise necessities is truly strange.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:A true story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These things will not be fixed. They are part of the plan. Just like the extremely limited bluetooth-implementation in WP. You cannot even send or receive a vcard, let alone transfer a MP3. Microsoft "learned" this from Apple. It seems these ultra restrictive OSses are the new trend. Worse thing is: people don't seem to care - or more likely, they simply don't know it. Sad.

    6. Re:A true story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Our company runs almost entirely on Microsoft products. We use Exchange Server and Microsoft Outlook for our e-mail. We use self-signed SSL certs. This week an employee got a Nokia Lumia 900. He brought it in for us to help him get the e-mail set up. It won't accept self-signed certs. It's a pain in the ass to get set up. He took it back and got an iPhone. We have people running iPhones, Blackberries, and Android phones all connecting without problems. But you got a WP7 device? Sucks to be you.

      Congrats. You saved $99 for your entire company. Get a cert if you allow data you care about to be exposed to the public Internet. Ever hear of man in the middle? Train your users to purposedly accept self signed certs from their personal devices, it's asking for it.

    7. Re:A true story by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that's MS's biggest misstep - In the process of redesigning their OS, they basically threw the entirety of their existing market out. Their Windows Mobile core userbase was more enterprise-oriented. WP7 was a massive step backwards for many WM6.x users - nearly all of whom went over to Android. So MS now has a "me-too" "shiny UI" OS, with very little app development, and little prospect of app development because they keep dicking around with developers - http://www.xda-developers.com/feature/enjoying-chevron-say-goodbye-to-your-developer-unlock/

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    8. Re:A true story by benjfowler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I remember the monkey-boy dance.

      Developers! Developers! Developers!

      Shitting on their developers will be their downfall.

    9. Re:A true story by X.25 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Congrats. You saved $99 for your entire company. Get a cert if you allow data you care about to be exposed to the public Internet. Ever hear of man in the middle? Train your users to purposedly accept self signed certs from their personal devices, it's asking for it.

      You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

      MiTM is easier to perform if you use 'official' certs (from CAs already in browsers/etc) than self-signed ones. Or to rephrase it - you are less safe when using 'official' certs.

      You can rollout your own CA, whether it is to use at home, or in Fortune 100 company.

      Why are these simple concepts so hard to understand for most people - I will never understand.

    10. Re:A true story by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

      And you talked right past him missing his point completely... how is that any better?

      MiTM is easier to perform if you use 'official' certs (from CAs already in browsers/etc) than self-signed ones.

      Yes, and no. Often no.

      If the end user is allowed to accept a self-signed cert that is presented to him, and is trained that this is in fact necessary then a MitM is trivial, all the attacker has to do is present your user with a self signed cert. The end user will accept it. The attacker doesn't have to compromise YOUR certificates at all as the user can and will accept anything he is presented with.

      This is clearly less safe than using "official" certs. This is what the person you replied to was talking about, and he's absolutely right.

      If YOU install your own own self-signed certs for the end user, and the end user is not able to do this, and the end user is only allowed to accept certificates signed against installed root certificates and then you subsequently present the user with a connection signed against that root certificate then that is indeed potentially safer than official certificates... (depending on how secure you own certificate infrastructure actually is).

      You may have done this, but that doesn't make the other poster incorrect. Self-signed certificates ONLY add security if they are added to a device directly by IT in a highly controlled environment; as soon as end users are interacting with self-signed certificates over the internet and accepting them its no security at all and the most common situations involving self-signed certs do expose just that situation.

    11. Re:A true story by David+Jao · · Score: 4, Informative
      It's really frustrating to see people like you continually perpetuate these nonsense myths about SSL certificates.

      A certificate from Verisign makes a lot of sense on a public web site. It makes a lot of sense to use a third-party certificate in any transaction or communication where the two parties involved do not know each other in advance. That's the purpose of a certificate: to certify that the other party (whom you have never met before) is whom he claims he is.

      It makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever under any conceviable circumstances to use a third-party cert to authenticate between two parties who have already authenticated each other prior to their first communication. For example, if you are connecting your own email client to your own email server, it is ridiculously, mind-bogglingly insecure to rely on a third-party certificate to authenticate this transaction. Using a third-party certificate in this situation just adds an additional single point of failure, one that wouldn't exist otherwise. Actually, it adds many thousands of independent single points of failure all of which are outside of your control, since any one security breakdown at any of the thousands of certificate compaies such as Comodo or Diginotar will compromise your email.

      The right way to authenticate your own server to your own client is with first-party public keys, not with third-party certificates. Unfortunately, the SSL standard does not support plain public keys, but self-signed certificates are a close alternative. This method is correct, easy, cheap, and provides the most security.

      There is no way to put this nicely. The authors of the SSL standard were wrong in insisting on certificates in any and all situations. It's disappointing and dangerous to see that the general public has, without thinking, bought into the insecure and nasty myth that certificates are always better. Honestly, they're not always better. Sometimes they're worse, much worse. Please think about real world security threats and security needs instead of just mindlessly parroting false advertising for Verisign.

  3. DIY by rzr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    just install nitdroid on n9 ... well dont hold your breath , but it's booting and you can install apps, anyway I prefer meego/harmattan :-) -- http://rzr.online.fr/q/omap3

    --
    -- http://rzr.online.fr/
    1. Re:DIY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would want to do that? Meego is a much better software platform. I don't care what people say, Android is a mediocre piece of shit that only succeeded because it carries the Google name. The runtime sucks and the SDK is a complete joke. It is also made by a company with dodgy ethics.

      --
      Disclaimer: I work for TAGA (The Arrogant Google Assholes)

    2. Re:DIY by sonicmerlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Nokia had pushed MeeGo they would have been absolutely shocked at how well it would have sold. People are DESPERATE for an iOS alternative, and Android is such a sucky, laggy, buggy piece of trash that consumers would have lapped MeeGo up like water in a desert.

    3. Re:DIY by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People are DESPERATE for an iOS alternative

      They are?

  4. Android? by kurt555gs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The N9 was an unknown home run. Really. They killed it and used most of the parts for the Lumia, but Nokia could have knocked one out of the park with Maemo / Harmatten.

    Fools.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:Android? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They didn't. Elop did.

    2. Re:Android? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The N9 wasn't advertised, wasn't sold in most countries and Nokia had already announced that it wouldn't be developed even before it hit the stores.

    3. Re:Android? by oakgrove · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The N9 barely sold more than the Lumias have. So, no, it wasn't a homerun.

      Considering it was dumped on by the CEO of Nokia, had next to no marketing budget compared to the Lumia line, wasn't sold in the biggest markets like the Lumias were/are, and out sold multiple phones, I'd say it wasn't a home run either. It was a freaking miracle and the fact that Nokia isn't running with it is a mistake of legendary proportion.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    4. Re:Android? by EzInKy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Elop _is_ Nokia, at least until he reaches Microsoft's goal of turning what was the best cell phone manufacturer into dust.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  5. Duh by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, that article is mostly a "duh". Of course people come in wanting one of two things- #1 Android or #2 iPhone. It is going to take a LOT of work on Microsoft's part to try and get visibility now.

    Nokia ditched perfectly good Linux based mobile OS's for their high-end phones and now they will have another uphill battle.

    1. Re:Duh by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, it's a sort of karmic process to watch Microsoft struggle in this situation. They successfully kept both Apple and Linux on the margins of the desktop for years, and now they're being marginalized in a very similar way.

      I think part of the problem is there's just not really room for a 3rd platform. In a lot of these kinds of markets, most people think of there being a default option and then an alternative, and then anything after that is "another alternative that I don't want to have to think about." I think that's what Linux has struggled with in trying to attract both commercial developers and users, because Microsoft Windows was the default, MacOS was the alternative, and no one wanted to go past that.

      Developers can be persuaded to support a second platform. They might feel forced to, or they might feel like they're hedging their bets. It lets them make claims about being "cross platform". There are benefits. But a 3rd or 4th or 5th platform? Where does it end? Similarly, users might be convinced to learn a second UI, but most don't want to learn the UI conventions of several different systems. They don't want to have to figure out the ins and outs of, "All of my friends can do this thing on their computers, so why can't I on mine? Oh, I have the one kind of system that doesn't allow that."

      I think that's something that a lot of tech people misunderstand. Many users simply don't want to think about their computer or phone. They don't want to be asked to understand what the advantages and disadvantages are. It won't work to ask them to keep track of the differences between several different operating systems and evaluate which is best for themselves. Because they don't want to be overloaded with options, they simplify it down to 2 choices: there's the thing that everyone uses, and then there's the thing you use if you don't want to use the thing that everyone uses.

  6. Maemo/Harmattan/MeeGo even better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have an Nokia N9. The multitasking with swipe is brilliant. Did you close the app? (as simple as swipe down) No? Then it is still running. And by running I mean actually running, not the half-baked task-switching employed in Windows Phone or iOS. And it takes only a swipe to see which apps are running. Even on Android I am often guessing whether an app is still active or not, which can be quite annoying.

    QML/QtQuick makes app development easy yet powerfull. The normal Linux kernel with X makes porting easier. The N9 truly is a great device for novices, power-users and hardcode hackers.

  7. Wait a bit by Moses48 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wait till October. WP8 will come out and you'll see so much marketing your eyes will bleed. At least that's what my sources say.

    1. Re:Wait a bit by Eirenarch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What a silly question. Microsoft can afford to wait until October ANY YEAR. Remember that Xbx thing that took 20 billion and 7+ years to become a success.

  8. Oooh, smart. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm sure Nokia wants to become Just Another Android maker. That'll sure fire them up.

    They're gambling. If they go Android, they'll be dead in 5 years, nothing really differentiates them there. With Windows, they may be dead in 5 years (or 2 ;) but they may also hit a home run and come out way ahead.

    Contrary to what neckbeards and fanbois would have you believe, Windows Phone 7 is very nice. The only thing holding me back from WP7 is the shit, circa 2010 hardware. That they need to get a handle on, and soon.

    More importantly, the convergence Windows 8 would have with an Atom based phone is very huge. You could buy a phone that could be your phone, but you could then slot into a tablet and have the same phone be your tablet. Then you could slut it into a laptop "shell" and have it be your laptop. Then plug in a keyboard and mouse and use it as your desktop. Same machine, just a little phone you plug into different "shells". For 90% of the population a dual core Atom running at ~1.6Ghz with 4Gigs of memory will be able to handle all their computing needs.

    If Nokia can get in on that shit, they're golden.

    1. Re: Oooh, smart. by wed128 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Then you could slut it into a laptop "shell" and have it be your laptop.

      Giggity.

    2. Re: Oooh, smart. by thammoud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seems to be working for Samsung. Nokia made a terrible mistake with LIMITING themselves to Windows. They should have provided both.

    3. Re: Oooh, smart. by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right now, they're Just Another WP7 maker. Which is far worse, because they're competing for low single digit total smartphone market share instead of almost half of it.

  9. They're *partially* right, see the *Meego* N9. by sethstorm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Linux based (!=Android) N9 outsells the Windows phones despite being geographically hobbled. Microsoft's Elop is just in the way of letting it happen.

    That, and despite having Aegis, the N9 is far more open out of the box. You can do all the "cool things" that the operator is thinking about as well as the things that the operator doesn't want you doing - unlike the more easily boxed-in Android platform.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    1. Re:They're *partially* right, see the *Meego* N9. by Imbrondir · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here you go. Nokia did their best to hide the embarressing numbers.

    2. Re:They're *partially* right, see the *Meego* N9. by xeno · · Score: 4, Informative

      As of the beginning of 2012: "Despite a modest launch and a limited distribution in terms of markets, Nokia's N9 model [Meego] has reached sales estimated between 1.5 and 2 million devices. According to Nokia's own quarterly report and analyst company Canalys analyses, the combined deliveries of the comparable Lumia (WP7) devices summed to approximately 1.2-1.5 million in the last quarter."

      http://www.canalys.com/newsroom/smart-phones-overtake-client-pcs-2011
      http://www.pcworld.com/article/248778/nokia_reports_loss_but_sells_more_than_1m_lumia_phones.html

      It's also curious to see that Nokia N9/Meego phones are close to the 2-million sales mark with virtually nonexistent marketing, and Nokia did not sell that phone in the North American market at all -- stateside N9's were all grey market. For historical comparison, internal Nokia sales reports say the predecessor N900 sold 100,000 in its first month and well over 1 million by 2010 (which means the N9 sales are better than the N900), and yet they refused to sell the N950 at all when it was completed in 2011 (despite nil market overlap with WP7 phones). Apparently there are a lot of nerds out there, but Nokia doesn't want their money.

      --
      I think not...(*poof*)
  10. I work for Orange UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I work in the upgrades department, which means that people buy phones from me. I can tell you from personal experience, no one ever comes on the phone and asks "You got any of those windows phones?" My current ratio is 20 iphones for every 17 android devices to every 1 windows phone. Nobody buys them, and here's the reason: they're all inferior, by a long shot. HTC released the one series of phones a couple weeks back, android to the core. Where are the quad core phones for windows? I dont see them.

  11. Re:Customers don't know about windows? by wed128 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    hmm...My mother (very non-technical) bought an iPhone as a PC replacement. All she does is e-mail, and she was tired of what a PITA her windows machine was to maintain.

    This iPhone just works. credit where credit is due.

  12. In other news... by Missing.Matter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In other news the Lumia 900 is topping the charts at Amazon, selling out there, and selling out at AT&T stores and online. AT&T recently stated that the launch is exceeding expectations, which couldn't have been very low given the giant marketing blitz behind the device. Further, TFA states: "Rival operator T-Mobile says the Lumia 710 is among its most popular phones."

    So where's the disconnect? Right here: "Microsoft's software worked nicely with PCs and allowed you 'to do tons of cool things,' but few customers knew this." So wait, you're telling me that people don't know about Windows Phone, so they don't ask for it, so it won't sell, so you don't want to sell it? It's circular. How about you tell people about it, maybe they'll like it, and then maybe it will sell, then maybe you'll want to sell more? People buy what they know, and as AT&T and T-Mobile are showing, if you advertise a device, it will sell. This doesn't say anything about the relative merits of the operating system, unlike what this summary is trying to imply.

    1. Re:In other news... by zaxbowow · · Score: 3, Informative

      Amen brother. More like Nokia hardware would run slower, more laggy and have to be rebooted frequently with Android on it. BTW: WP7 devices now have all top 5 spots for devices on Amazon rated by customer satisfaction I know I posted this already. It beared repeating, and you comment beared elevation.

    2. Re:In other news... by Missing.Matter · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, the biggest reason for Android's success was the Motorola Droid being launched on Verizon, the nation's largest cellular carrier, as an alternative to the iPhone. People were *clamouring* for an iPhone, but couldn't get it because itw as AT&T exclusive. The G1 on T-Mobile was an absolute dog, and Android floundered for a couple years until it caught on with Verizon. It was a gigantic void waiting to be filled, and Android was lucky enough to fill it first. It had *nothing* to do with Google's brand, and everything to do with it being the only viable smartphone on the nation's largest carrier.

    3. Re:In other news... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Insightful
      None of your arguments count for anything if you live outside the USA

      Which most of the planet does. For the rest of us, Google/Android meant slightly open, which huge range of alternative suppliers. Apple meant not at all open, and Windows meant "looses your data and keeps crashing". Not much of a choice there.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  13. WP7 SP1 already happened by pavon · · Score: 3, Informative

    WP7 "SP1" is called Mango, and it is what is shipping on the Nokia Lumia.

  14. Re:Current Lumia couldn't run Android by jcdr · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sorry you are wrong: I got today the Android 4.04 (ICS) update to my Nexus S, that have a single 1GHz A8 CPU and 512Mo of RAM, and it run perfectly well and smooth. In addition there is already a few hackers that run ICS on a N9, the port is not complete, but the performance is not the problem.

  15. Re:Nokia would sell better with Android software? by dmesg0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I went through a lot of Lumia 900 reviews on Amazon. Most of them repeat the same stuff. And for most of the reviews, Lumia 900 is the only review, nothing else ever reviewed. Several reviewers had the same text posted on different colors of Lumia 900 and had no other reviews.

    My guess is that MS/Nokia shills are everywhere, not just on Slashdot...

  16. Re:Customers don't know about windows? by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems natural to me that if you have windows at home, and on your laptop, you'd want it "on the go" as well.

    People who use Windows at home and at work probably know they don't want it on their phone as well.

    I was shocked a few years ago when I rented a car in Italy and it had a Windows logo on the steering wheel; no idea what it was running, but I was continually expecting a BSOD across the dashboard.

    After decades of dealing with Microsoft crap, Windows is a negative branding, not a positive one.

  17. Re:Customers don't know about windows? by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People who use Windows at home and at work probably know they don't want it on their phone as well.

    That's exactly what I was thinking when I read that. Considering that it's an OS almost, but not completely, unlike Windows, it was a stupid branding decision. All it's going to accomplish is to scare off people whose computers have pissed them off (which is probably everyone with a computer), and confuse the others when they wonder why their PC software doesn't work on their phone "because they both run Windows."[0]

    [0] True story.

  18. Re:Customers don't know about windows? by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It was an Italian car? Windows was probably installed to increase its reliability.

    It was Italian. Windows running on Italian automotive electrics just seems like the kind of car you'd rent in Hell.

  19. Invest in advertising? It's free until the 20th. by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 5, Informative

    They're literally giving the phones away until April 20th. $100 rebate due to a memory management defect if you buy by the 20th... The phone is $100 w/ contract. Or, it's $50 w/ contract on Amazon, meaning they're willing to pay people to buy them.

    I don't see how paying people to use your product isn't the most extreme form of advertising possible. Maybe the problem isn't the advertising? Maybe the problem is no one wants a Windows phone?

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
  20. So close but you missed the point by cbhacking · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I agree with part of what you say (the WinMo back-compat being killed, the abandonment of some enterprise features even though they included some anyhow), you're just pretty much wrong about the app developers thing. BTW, I'm one of the first Recognized Developers on the WP7 section of XDA-Devs.

    ChevronWP7 (Labs or otherwise) wasn't useful for Marketplace developers (who would have already had developer-unlock through their developer accounts), it was used by people who wanted to install non-Marketplace apps. Microsoft, for reasons completely unclear to me, appears to be very anti-homebrew in WP7, and the people who care about that but don't care about developing official apps are the people hurt by the ChevronWP7 Labs fiasco. Everybody else, both those who don't care about unsigned apps at all (the vast majority of users) and those who develop (or even think they might at some point develop) apps for the Marketplace, are unaffected.

    That's not to say Microsoft isn't being stupid here, because they really are. ChevronWP7 Labs was late, was too limited, and is now being discontinued... all for cheaper access to a built-in-but-paywalled feature of the OS (although iOS seems to do just fine without any equivalent feature at all...). Homebrew development was one of the things that kept WinMo alive as long as it was. The interop-lock in Mango blocked access to a bunch of apps that implemented unofficial but badly needed features, ranging from the superficial but highly in-demand (custom themes) to the critical (the ability to migrate app data and message history between phones).

    I will also say that the article you linked contains a fair bit of senseless foaming at the mouth. Things like questioning how you'll be reimbursed for the free year of AppHub (it's a credit on the credit card you used to sign up, just like every other time Microsoft reimburses a cost) and claiming that WinMo was "immensely popular" (in any timespan even vaguely relevant to WP7, that's just not true) suggest an author whose frustration is overriding rational thought.

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  21. True choice by bartoku · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...but is ultimately a false choice. You can't have android on the Lumia because it doesn't exist that way. [It] is like saying, [the] iPhone would be better with android on it.

    Why can't I? The Nokia N900 and N9 both have Android ported to them, I see no reason the Lumia could not be blessed in the same way.
    Android has been ported to the iPhone as well, and there are groups working on porting it to the latest iPhone hardware.
    I would have loved to have the iPhone 4 hardware back two years ago with that 960x640 screen running Android, it would have been better.

    I am not sure how stable the ports are, but it is not a false choice, it is a choice that Nokia made and operators are saying it was a bad choice, fix it.
    Nokia Anssi Vanjoki said something to the effect of adopting Android is like Finish boys who "pee in their pants" for warmth in the winter.
    Well it seems Windows Phone is like taking some money on a dare from another Finish boy for defecating in your pants...

    The bet thing ms / Nokia can do right now is take their lumps, invest in advertising, and have faith that they have a great product on the shelf. Build it and people will come.

    The Windows Phone advertisements have been great. I loved the one with the people so distracted by their phones, especially the chick in the black nighty.
    Even better is the latest one with Dr. Spaceman telling everyone their previous smartphone was a beta.
    The advertising is very clever, the problem is the Windows brand is tarnished, who wants a phone running Windows? Everyone loathes Windows.

    On the other hand the iPhone and Android advertising campaigns are fairly blah, but the brands are hot. Everyone wants Apple and knows what the iPhone is. Everyone also knows there is something they call "Droid" despite that being the Verizon brand. If you do not want an iPhone, you get a "Droid" phone, those are the cool ones.

    Microsoft should have used the xBox brand, brought out the Phone-X or Mobile-X or something cool. Windows branding was just a bad choice.

    As you said we know Microsoft can continue to dump tons of money into Windows Phone.
    Android despite being superior seems poised to piss all over itself with confusing hardware releases and crippling skins.
    Steve is dead and Apple seems poised to follow.
    I am praying Nokia will wipe itself, leverage the Microsoft funds, and use MeeGo excrete some other bodily fluid on the competition.

  22. Re:Invest in advertising? It's free until the 20th by Sir_Sri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is microsoft doesn't have anything to say that makes windows phones obviously better, there's no killer app. Whether you think its better or not is another matter, but google can point to 'we're more open than those guys' (and have more diverse hardware). What does MS have? Yes, it's a different experience, but no one is saying 'see this thing WP7.5 does that none of the others do? We want that'. Google and sony are cannibalizing themselves with semi competing PS vita and android phones, and the fractured tegra zone and everything else. Apple is such a well walled off garden you can't have a lot of fun without technical know how.

    Windows phones could (and should) offer you something, office documents, integration with windows 7/windows 8, in a way people actually care about. It seems like MS gets this, with skydrive, Xbox, windows 8 etc. But they don't seem to have delivered yet. Which is bad for Nokia, and might be too late. It might also be that the integration will suck balls and end up a disaster.

    Windows on a slate (tablet, iPad like device, whatever lingo you choose) makes a lot of sense on the productivity side. The phone is a harder argument. If Nokia had somehow gone with an x86 CPU with a WP7.5 that could run any windows app, just with a different skin than regular windows 7 (even at 1024x768) that would have been interesting. As it is they have a very different approach to icons/tiles... and uh... a minuscule app store? Customers need something to say 'I want that device because __________" and right now MS hasn't got that. I would have thought they would have realized this was their DS/PSP/Blackberry/iPhone all in one moment. But apparently if they got that, they did so quite late.

  23. Re:Invest in advertising? It's free until the 20th by desdinova+216 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're literally giving the phones away until April 20th. (snipped for brevity) Maybe the problem is no one wants a Windows phone?

    Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner here

  24. Re:Invest in advertising? It's free until the 20th by recoiledsnake · · Score: 4, Informative

    Do you realize that AT&T actually pays Nokia a lot for the device and then subsidizes it?

    The phone is $449 unlocked($349 if you count the $100 rebate).

    They're not paying the customer when the customer has to sign up for an expensive contract plan for 24 months with the threat of an Early Termination Fee.

    --
    This space for rent.
  25. Re:Invest in advertising? It's free until the 20th by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For that comparison to work, dealerships would need to hold you to a contract to buy a set amount of gas from them every month for years and not actually charge you for the car itself.

  26. Re:Invest in advertising? It's free until the 20th by EzInKy · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, they are not "literally" giving the phones away. They still require a contract that requires people to part with money. Perhaps you meant "virtually"?

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  27. Re:Nokia rolled the dice by fwarren · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I will go out on a limb and say I know. It is going to fail.

    They have spent half a billion in advertising in the last 3 years and Windows Mobile has gone from 12% of the smart phone market down to about 4 1/2%. You have seen the commercials. They are dreadful. Do you really think Microsoft is going to put out an ad that makes a phone with WP8 on it the MUST HAVE device?

    They have striped off most of the enterprise features, the market they have always sold the strongest in. Now they are going after the consumer market. A market which uses windows, but expects bugs and crashes. The market which has rejected the poop-brown Zune and the laughed the Kin off the market in less than 60 days.

    Then the carriers like AT&T will sell the phone with a crappy service plan that will make iPhone, Android, and two tin cans with a piece of string between them all look like better deals.

    Then the sales people who want their commissions will do them in. When a customer comes in and asks for an iPhone or an Android, they can sell it, get them out the door, and move onto selling another phone to someone else. They fear having to try and convince a customer that they really want a Windows phone, taking twice as much time to do that. Then the next day when they come back and want an iPhone or an Android, they have to waste their time doing that. So in the time it takes to handle one windows phone, they could sell two or three iPhones.

    YMMV but every power user I know that had a WP6 phone and swears by Microsoft Products, have moved onto Android. Any normal person who was convinced to buy a WP7, has returned it within 24 hours demanding an iPhone or Android.

    What would make anyone think that Microsoft or Nokia will have a success on their hands?

    --
    vi + /etc over regedit any day of the week.
  28. Re:Invest in advertising? It's free until the 20th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe the problem is no one wants a Windows phone?

    I was due for an upgrade on my phone (Verizon Wireless HTC Ozone). Walked in to my Verizon store that I've been dealing with for years with the intent on getting a HTC Trophy with Win Mo 7, $29, it was steal and the reviews I saw on the phone were great. When I asked to see the phone (it wasn't on display), the rep literally started laughing and said, "There's a reason you don't see it on display, it's crap and I don't sell my customers, crap."

    When I asked him why he thought it was crap, he told me that people only ask for Windows phone due to either, a work requirement or to have the ability to use XBOX Live features on the phone. I stood in neither camp. I just wanted to try something other than Android or iOS.
    Needless to say I walked out with a Droid Bionic (I know, I know, I should have stood my ground and asked to see the phone and judge for myself).

    If manufacturers and Microsoft have to rely on representation like descrcibed above, they're doomed.

  29. Android has worked so well for.... by Karlt1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    HTC:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/htcs-shares-tumble-cfo-change-samsung-launch-weigh-2012-4

    Motorola
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/26/us-motorolamobility-idUSTRE80P23W20120126

    LG:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-28/lg-electronics-profit-falls-33-after-company-falls-behind-in-smartphones.html

    and

    Sony:
    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/sony-ericsson-posts-surprise-loss-in-its-final-quarter/67399

    The only mobile company making real money from Android is Samsung.

  30. Re:Invest in advertising? It's free until the 20th by saihung · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is a bug, not a feature. Unless the phones are simply defective, I don't want some salesman at a shop deciding for me what phones I can and cannot buy. This is the missing piece that no one can do anything about - phone salesmen will refuse to even suggest phones they don't personally like. Look at your example - is that an answer to your question about why the salesman thinks the phone is "crap"? No, it's nothing of the sort, it's a garbage answer from someone who doesn't know what his job is. It's some buffoon with a high school diploma (times 10,000) perverting the wireless market in favor of existing big players.

  31. Re:Invest in advertising? It's free until the 20th by FireFury03 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I still think it's hilarious that Microsoft probably would have sewn up the tablet market if

    MS have a pretty good history of completely misjudging new technologies. For a long time they considered the internet to be a fad and refused to invest anything in it (hence Trumpet Winsock instead of an official IP stack, no MS web browser until quite late on, etc). Luckilly for them, they have usually had the resources to catch up enough once they realise they've screwed up (often by buying up the companies who had become successful through MS's lack of foresight).

    the Office division actually reworked the Office UI for tablets instead of refusing to change anything [the tablet OS guys actually had to code all kinds of hacks to get the on-screen keyboard to hide/show properly with Office, particularly Excel.

    I think you're wrong. If you're using a word processor, spreadsheet, etc. in any serious way on a tablet then you're insane. Tablets lend themselves to surfing the web, browsing photos, watching video, etc. and 10 years ago these things were largely not mainstream, so very few people would've spent a reasonably large chunk of cash on a tablet to do them.

    --
    http://blog.nexusuk.org