Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android Cellphones Microsoft Operating Systems

Operators: Nokia Would Sell Better With Android 439

Posted by Soulskill
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Operators: Nokia Would Sell Better With Android

Comments Filter:
  • False choice (Score:5, Interesting)

    by noh8rz3 (2593935) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:41PM (#39715477)
    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."

    • 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?

      • by Sir_Sri (199544) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @06:06PM (#39716745)

        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.

      • by desdinova 216 (2000908) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @06:22PM (#39716981)

        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

      • by recoiledsnake (879048) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @06:25PM (#39717029)

        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.

      • by EzInKy (115248) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @06:42PM (#39717215)

        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"?

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @07:49PM (#39717815)

        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.

        • by saihung (19097) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @03:09AM (#39720317)

          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.

    • True choice (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bartoku (922448) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @06:04PM (#39716693)

      ...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.

    • Re:False choice (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anthony Mouse (1927662) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @06:05PM (#39716707)

      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.

  • A true story (Score:5, Interesting)

    by killmenow (184444) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:41PM (#39715483)
    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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

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

      • Re:A true story (Score:5, Informative)

        by killmenow (184444) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:47PM (#39715575)
        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*.
      • Re:A true story (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jd (1658) <imipak@yaCOLAhoo.com minus caffeine> on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:48PM (#39715611) Homepage Journal

        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).

      • Re:A true story (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:49PM (#39715621)

        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.

      • by pavon (30274) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @05:01PM (#39715813)

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

    • Re:A true story (Score:4, Interesting)

      by UnknowingFool (672806) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:49PM (#39715615)
      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.
      • Re:A true story (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Andy Dodd (701) <atd7@@@cornell...edu> on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @05:02PM (#39715831) Homepage

        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/ [xda-developers.com]

        • Re:A true story (Score:4, Insightful)

          by benjfowler (239527) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @05:28PM (#39716225)

          I remember the monkey-boy dance.

          Developers! Developers! Developers!

          Shitting on their developers will be their downfall.

        • 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.

    • Re:A true story (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:58PM (#39715763)

      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.

      • Re:A true story (Score:5, Informative)

        by X.25 (255792) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @06:01PM (#39716655)

        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.

        • Re:A true story (Score:5, Insightful)

          by vux984 (928602) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @06:23PM (#39716995)

          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.

      • Re:A true story (Score:5, Informative)

        by David Jao (2759) <djao@dominia.org> on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @07:13PM (#39717535) Homepage
        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 [wikipedia.org] or Diginotar [wikipedia.org] 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.

  • DIY (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rzr (898397) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:41PM (#39715487) Homepage
    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 [online.fr]
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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)

  • Microsoft's software worked nicely with PCs and allowed you 'to do tons of cool things,' but few customers knew this.

    That's a strange statement. Do the customers have their eyes closed when they see the Windows banner splash across their PC? Hmmm. 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.

    • by wed128 (722152) <woodrowdouglass@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:52PM (#39715667)

      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.

    • by 0123456 (636235) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @05:13PM (#39716009)

      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.

      • by geminidomino (614729) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @05:27PM (#39716209) Journal

        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.

        • But they need to monetize the Windows brand to extract maximal shareholder value by strategically extending it across all their product lines in a cohesive fashion thus creating synergistic increases in customer mindshare. Ultimately, this will amplify their revenue and deliver continued growth.

    • by Tridus (79566)

      If you want Windows, then you want Windows. Not something else that happens to be called Windows... but that's exactly what Metro is.

      And that's why it'll fail on the desktop in Windows 8. The people who like Windows are getting something not-Windows, and the people who don't care will just see that it's new and confusing and figure that if they have to learn something new anyway why not just learn an iPad?

  • Android? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kurt555gs (309278) <kurt555gs@@@ovi...com> on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:44PM (#39715527) Homepage

    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.

    • Re:Android? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:49PM (#39715623)

      They didn't. Elop did.

  • Duh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by markdavis (642305) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:44PM (#39715531)

    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.

    • by Mr_Silver (213637)

      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.

      Given, as you rightly said, people come in wanting either Android or iPhone, Nokia would probably still have had the same problem even if their platform ran Linux - and the integration w

    • Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @05:42PM (#39716417) Homepage

      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.

      • by williamhb (758070)

        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."

        This being, of course, why there is only Ford and GM, and Toyota are just dreaming if they think they can make any inroads into the big two, eh? Phones do not (despite the manufacturers' efforts) have much brand or platform loyalty beyond Apple. Chances are, most people's last five phones came from a variety manufacturers and probably ran different OSs. The platform vendors are of course keen to try to turn it into a tied-in ecosystem in which you can't change OS because you're locked in by all your apps

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:45PM (#39715547)

    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.

    • by sethstorm (512897)

      The N9 truly is a great device for novices, power-users and hardcode hackers.

      Only if you don't account for all the good parts of the N900 being Elopped off(Hardware keyboard) or locked away(Aegis with warranty flags). A slide-on/USB passthrough keyboard that works with the N9 would be, at best, a way to mitigate the keyboard issues while removing Aegis is the one that would make it much like the predecessor that most of us have, the N900.

    • by jpstanle (1604059)

      I have not used the N9, but I share your sentiments on the issue of multitasking. Last year I transitioned from Maemo on my n900 to an android handset after my charging connector went on the fritz (for the second time, though this time out of warranty). While it was nice to finally have a mature ecosystem full of applications, I immediately found android's task switching to be infuriating. I had no idea what was running and what wasn't. It seemed like whether an application was merely hidden or killed outri

  • [VOICE type="Nelson-Muntz"]
    HA HA!!!
    [/VOICE]

  • Wait a bit (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Moses48 (1849872) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:47PM (#39715573)

    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.

    • by BeerCat (685972)

      Can Microsoft and Nokia really afford to be the "also rans" until October? (assuming that the marketing $ to accompany WP8 boost its share)

      By then, the iPhone 5 will likely be out; Samsung will have a new Galaxy. New WP phones will need to be pretty kick ass to make a dent in that.

      • New iPhones and Androids are becoming nothing more than a bump in specs. It's been that way for a good while now, and the only people who seem to really care are the internet forum dwellers. The general population just wants a phone that do not buy phones the way we do. A girl I know got an android phone for the sole reason that it was the only pink smartphone. It broke recently and she got an iPhone because she didn't like Android. Were there a pink Windows phone in the store, she probably would have bough
      • Re:Wait a bit (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Eirenarch (1099517) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @05:39PM (#39716375)

        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.

    • by Luckyo (1726890)

      We're already seeing it. Metro on desktop is nothing but WP8 marketing. The fact that they're actually pushing crippling marketing as "new feature" to windows desktop users is quite discouraging.

  • Oooh, smart. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RightSaidFred99 (874576) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:47PM (#39715585)

    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.

    • by wed128 (722152) <woodrowdouglass@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:55PM (#39715713)

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

      Giggity.

    • Re: Oooh, smart. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thammoud (193905) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:56PM (#39715729)

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

      • Nokia had two good options and a third very bad one:

        1) Fend for themseslves against Samsung and HTC with Android
        2) Partner with Microsoft against Samsung and HTC with Windows Phone
        3 (the bad one): Try to create a 5th ecosystem and still fend for themselves

        For a company on the brink, billions of support and backing from Microsoft is pretty hard to turn down.

        • by Luckyo (1726890)

          Except that nokia was very far away from the "brink". They had well over ten billion in cash sitting on their accounts, and were making profits. In fact, until Q3 or Q4 last year (can't remember which one) they were profitable.

          It wasn't until the butchery of symbian taking full effect that they started to actually lose money.

    • by jimicus (737525)

      If "nice product" was all you needed to be a success, we'd all have HD-DVD players - and before that, Betamax VCRs.

    • You mean the shit hardware that was imposed by MS specs? I'm not sure where your optimization comes from but I didn't see any announcement of Windows 8 for Intel tablets or phones. There was Windows 8 RT which is specifically ARM. This phone/tablet has been tried before with no luck. MS does not have a history of executing well on the first attempt.
    • by CAIMLAS (41445)

      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.

      Explain to me how this is not possible - today - with Android (because it is). Apple is moving in this direction, too, if their platform unification efforts are to be believed. There really isn't anything special about this possibility: I've been wanting such a framework for years now myself (when did the NEC MobilePro 900 come out?)

      What's holding that back is hardware and hardware capabilities. Thunderbolt should make it possible, but will require a fair amount of added cost to mobile devices, I'd wager. W

    • Re: Oooh, smart. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Luckyo (1726890) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @06:04PM (#39716687)

      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.

  • by sethstorm (512897) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:48PM (#39715593) Homepage

    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.

  • I work for Orange UK (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:48PM (#39715601)

    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.

    • 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.

      I'm not sure about your numbers. Besides being slightly anecdotal, you went from nobody wants Windows, to 1 in 38 want Windows. All joking aside, nobody is going to release a quad core phone for Windows, the OS isn't ready for it, and the spec doesn't call for it. Nokia is capable of slapping a better processor in a case, there's just really no reason to do so at this time.

  • While it might seem obvious now, now that Android has a decent looking Ecosystem. But look at this, in 2-3 months time, perhaps Microsofts stratergy regarding how to handle its Xbox live intigration with phones, might pay off? Perhaps some of us will get a Windows Phone, merely to get access to the markedplace.
    This seems to be a case of hatching a egg to get a chicken, too stave away that pesky chicken and the egg problem. Of course, it might also fail, this is Microsoft and Nokia, with Nokia as the bottom

  • In other news... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Missing.Matter (1845576) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:52PM (#39715679)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by zaxbowow (1590757)
      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 [amazon.com] for devices on Amazon rated by customer satisfaction I know I posted this already. It beared repeating, and you comment beared elevation.
    • by erroneus (253617)

      Android didn't need this when it got out there. All it needed was association with Google and people went for it. It was all about the brand and reputation. At the time, Google was good. At the time, Microsoft was bad. Now, Google is "undecided" and Microsoft is still bad.

      • Re:In other news... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Missing.Matter (1845576) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @05:02PM (#39715835)
        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.
        • by Anne Thwacks (531696) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @05:29PM (#39716229)
          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.

  • Sorry, but no. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:56PM (#39715731) Homepage

    No amount of marketing money would convince users to use a Windows phone. And seriously, it wouldn't matter if it was identical to iPhone, pixel-for-pixel. People don't want Microsoft on their phones. They think it means it will crash. It doesn't matter what reality is. It just doesn't.

  • I think Microsoft is just sitting back waiting until Windows 8 comes out. Most people will learn about the new Windows and Metro no matter what, then they just have to be shown the phone that works like what they [now] already know (and, for Microsoft's sake, hopefully like).

  • But isn't the wide open Android market full of malware? What are they gonna do about that?

  • Offering $100 rebate on a $99 phone means 100 million free phones... (Using the $10B MS gave Nokia) that's a lot of phones by anyone's standards. But it'll be pathetic if WP7 isn't worth paying for... and unless sales are at least modest, that is the market verdict.

    From all accounts the N9 was the pinnacle of Nokia engineering. People *wanted* it. But alas, Nokia would not sell it in any market that matters.

  • by gelfling (6534) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @06:19PM (#39716941) Homepage Journal

    Nokia and Motorola owned the cell phone market in the 1990's and all they've done since is fail. The problems are with the companies in their entirety not the products they make.

Mirrors should reflect a little before throwing back images. -- Jean Cocteau

Working...