[recoiledsnake]

A lot of things on there are the ones that you're missing but not the general public. Just look at the iPhone's success.

If you're a Linux type(or MS hater) then these phones are not for you. The rest of the 99% of the planet might consider them.

>It's a pity they didn't go with Android, which would give them the freedom to do whatever they want, not needing Google's permission. I would buy a Nokia Android phone in a heartbeat.

Android giving them the freedom to do whatever they want? Huh? The source code of a new version is dropped over a wall after their competitor has already released a device with it(if the source is released at all). Android dev is nothing like the Linux kernel dev. Maybe you would know that?

Also, Nokia was in talks with Google over Android but Google wouldn't give them many concessions. Your anger should probably be directed at them.

And it's not even like you can complain about the lack of options on Linux. There's a ton of Android phones coming out every month, each better in specs than the month previous and they're pretty popular and have loads of apps.

What next, you'd buy the iPhone 5 but the only thing stopping you is that it doesn't run Android?

[majika]

Three of my four points don't apply to the iPhone.

> Android giving them the freedom to do whatever they want? Huh? The source code of a new version is dropped over a wall after their competitor has already released a device with it(if the source is released at all). Android dev is nothing like the Linux kernel dev. Maybe you would know that?

The problem is that Google seems to be unwilling to develop Android in the open. With the fierce competitiveness in the mobile space, I think this stance is understandable (at the least).

Apart from that, Android 2.3 is completely open. Manufacturers can take it and do what they want with it. Look at Amazon.

Are you trying to suggest that Windows Phone offers Nokia better flexibility than Android would?

>Also, Nokia was in talks with Google over Android but Google wouldn't give them many concessions. Your anger should probably be directed at them.

Source for this? I'd be interested to read about it.

> And it's not even like you can complain about the lack of options on Linux. There's a ton of Android phones coming out every month, each better in specs than the month previous and they're pretty popular and have loads of apps. What next, you'd buy the iPhone 5 but the only thing stopping you is that it doesn't run Android?

This is a straw man argument. I never complained about this. My issue is with Nokia, specifically, choosing to go completely with WP7, which, for me, is completely unusable. I loved Nokia's phones (my current phone is an N900), so I see this as a real pity.

Please don't take offense at my criticisms of WP7.

[rbanffy]

> If you're a Linux type(or MS hater)

Careful. Those are not synonymous.

> Nokia was in talks with Google over Android but Google wouldn't give them many concessions.

Nokia wouldn't need concessions. Barnes & Noble didn't need the, nor did Amazon. They grabbed the code and used it. Android would be a good choice because a) Nokia could tailor the experience to whatever they wanted b) they already have extensive experience with Linux (and Android is Linux) and c) there is actually a market for Android phones

True Microsoft gave them a ton of cash to tip the balance towards WP7. That should also indicate what is actually needed to tip the balance towards making WP7 phones - that, unless US$ 1+ billion is involved, WP7 is not worth it.

[recoiledsnake]

Nokia already proved itself to be inept at making software. Customizing Android and then integrating the source code that Google throws over a wall is not a good move. B&N makes a e-reader which is pretty limited in rival competition and software features. Where's the iReader? Coming to Amazon, they know a few things about software and a laser like focus that Nokia lacks.

In fact, the Nokia board specifically recruited a CEO who had experience in managing software companies(Macromedia/MS) just because Nokia was spiraling down because of the software and it was almost too late to right the course without the risk of completely dying.

>rue Microsoft gave them a ton of cash to tip the balance towards WP7. That should also indicate what is actually needed to tip the balance towards making WP7 phones - that, unless US$ 1+ billion is involved, WP7 is not worth it.

I think it was more about Nokia's need rather than because WP7 sucked as a choice. Regardless of WP7 sucking and Android rocking, Nokia would need to survive 2011 intact, and if making the hardware and writing drivers for WP7 took more than 7 months, what makes you think they can reliably modify Android(a software task that Nokia is weak at) in such a short span of time?

Remember, every month that Nokia doesn't have a viable smartphone platform on the shelves, it's bleeding mindshare, marketshare and money to run operations. They were also able to win the right to modify WP7 and get the latest source code before it's throw over a wall by Google after Motorola/Samsung/HTC already have a device on store shelves running it.

[rbanffy]

I don't think adapting the Android to the N9 would be that hard. Nokia already has a lot of very competent Linux developers (their failure is much more on the application layer than the OS).

It could be that Nokia wouldn't survive long enough to put out an Android phone had it not received the money injection Microsoft provided for the to adopt WP7. Still, they took a very risky road. With that injection they bought time and it seems they kept a plan-B around Linux.

Anyway, I am sure Nokia will sell a lot of WP7 phones. It's not that hard to double WP7's vanishingly small market share. Their sales org is not aimed to you or me - they sell phones to telcos, not end users. That's also why they managed to get so out of touch with what the users wanted.