[mtgx]

I don't know why manufacturers aren't using machined polycarbonate more the way Nokia and HTC do. It seems LG and Sony are just now trying to be where Apple was 2 years ago with the glass-back phones, which I think was a very poor material to use and a mistake on Apple's part.

I think they quickly realized that, but it took them a while to create an aluminum iPhone the right way, because as we know aluminum is not great for radio connections, so you'll have to arrange the radios in such a way that the body doesn't interfere with them, which is probably why it took them so long, and why they made the iPhone 4S identical to iPhone 4.

I won't even discuss Samsung, which seems to have a fetish for crappy plastic. If it were after me, phones would all have metallic bodies, because it feels the best in hand, but you won't get full metal bodies anyway, but a mixture of metal and plastic or glass (like iPhone 5).

The best compromise between being easy to make and also feeling solid in hand seems to be polycarbonate right now, and more manufacturers should be using it, along with more colors for their devices, as I'm getting really bored with the black and white "options". It's like most of them are afraid to even try other (bold) colors, and just want to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and in the same time complain about not being able to differentiate, other than changing the skin on Android, which I think it's just an easy way out for them, instead of actually doing interesting things with their hardware design.

The same thing applies to Nokia, which in the past have said that they wouldn't be able to differentiate with Android, but I think a Lumia-like device would've sold a lot more units with Android. Nokia's growth is being limited a lot by WP's own growth right now. They can only grow as fast as WP is growing, and if anything, it's Nokia pulling WP after them, rather than the other way around, which just goes to show how much better it would do with Android, which doesn't need to be "sold" to the public anymore.

[glass-]

Samsung is the only manufacturer that is making money from Android, and Samsung doesn't advertise that they use Android anywhere in their marketing. Most Samsung phones don't even show an Android logo when you turn them on.

Consumers don't know about or care about Android. "Normal" people do not go into a store looking for an Android.

If Nokia had gone with Android, they would be in the exact same position they are now, except they wouldn't have Microsoft's $5bn cheque keeping them afloat.

Personally I am glad they went with WP. I can't stand Android and so I am very happy there is another option.

[adventured]

From personal experience you're completely wrong.

Every person I know - 9 out of 10 of which are average tech consumers - knows Android by name. They know it's a platform, they know it's separate from Apple and Microsoft, and occasionally they know there's some sort of connection to Google.

And if you ask said people, they will absolutely tell you they have an Android phone. In fact that's exactly how they define it as being separate from the iPhone or Blackberry et al.

[loxs]

You are wrong, at least regarding most of the world. In Europe Android is a very well recognized brand. People ask questions like "recommend me a good android phone" and "do you think it's worth going for a Nexus instead of a Galaxy S". And I'm talking about "normal" users, ones that don't root/flash their devices.

[w1ntermute]

> Consumers don't know about or care about Android. "Normal" people do not go into a store looking for an Android.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Android is a well-known brand these days, and many people recognize the difference between smartphone OSes.

[reactor]

I don't agree. They do have Windows and Bada phones, but no where near Android counterpart. Most people who are capable of buying smart phones are smart enough to know what they want to buy.

[mc32]

>Nokia's growth is being limited a lot by WP's own growth right now

According to Nokia they can't manufacture enough to satiate demand (components supply constriction). So even if they had chosen Android, they'd have the same unit sales. "Mr. Elop said the company has experienced supply problems, as certain mobile components have been in short supply, both for Nokia and other phone makers." Unless some of the unavailable components are WP-only, this is the main issue.

[jsnell]

It's not about components being WP-only. It's about components where for WP there's just one option, while for Android there are multiple. Specifically they're locked to Qualcomm SOCs, S3s for WP7 and S4s for WP8.

(Everyone but Apple and Samsung have been getting fucked over by Qualcomm's supply issues for almost a year, but at least companies like HTC have an option of using Tegra 3s in countries where LTE isn't a hard requirement. Or even shipping modern software with a semi-obsolete S3 SOC like Sony has been doing.)

[mc32]

That's a fair point. However, I don't think the author had that in mind as they specifically mentioned WP's growth affecting (stunting) Nokia's growth. Still, your point is quite valid.

[jmodp]

Android hasn't worked out well for HTC.

[lawdawg]

I didn't realize that 4 years of profitability meant not working out well.

[seabee]

They aren't as profitable as a lot of analysts/shareholders would like them to be. If you consider that these people could have invested in Samsung instead, you might understand why people see this as a failure rather than just 'less successful'.

[glasshead969]

HTC is not having a good time in Android Marketplace. At this point Samsung is synonymous to Android, at least to a mainstream customer. They dropped 91% profits YOY.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/07/htc-q4-profits-slide-to-jus...

[VMG]

The question is if "not Android" would have worked out better