Microsoft's new naming scheme chart I made

[Heavens_Angel26]

Pretty much we all agree that Nokia was notorious on naming their phones with the number system, since MS took over mobile development I believe they have got the naming scheme right. Daniel Rubino already describes MS new naming strategy brilliant and I agree. So with extra free time I had (I couldn't sleep last night) I came up with a simplified chart on how MS naming works.

I only added MS latest offerings as well as Nokia's flagship phones. What do you guys think?

 

[Kacey Green]

It's much cleaner just using MS branded models yes. Low end is still a mess with the whole 435 is the 532 & not at all related to the 535. But mid range is clean especially 640/XL.

I'm starting to like the idea of a 940 XL vs 1530

 

[spideymaniac]

Pretty simple explanation you have there, nice

I'm curious whether MS will continue to use number 4 for their next phones in a near future..

 

[Heavens_Angel26]

Thank you guys! I'm trying my best to help those that are interested in the new Lumia's and clear off the confusion that Nokia made.

 

[a5cent]

Thank you guys! I'm trying my best to help those that are interested in the new Lumia's and clear off the confusion that Nokia made.

I hate to break it to you, but no matter what system you conceive and chart, I'll always find a model that doesn't fit in. In this case that would be the 1320. It's a 1xxx class device, but decidedly mid/low range, not a high end device like your chart suggests.

Obviously I'm not insulting you here. You could be Einstein and still not have a chance. There are simply too many inconsistencies in the numbering non-scheme Nokia used.

I think the 640 XL is a great first step towards cleaning up the mess. Here's to hoping that the 1xxx class disappears entirely for the x4x series.

 

[mjyumping]

1320 is gone? </3

 

[a5cent]

1320 is gone? </3

If you mean EOL'ed, maybe. You can certainly still by them in places. The same could be said for the 1020 but it's also in the chart.

 

[LockOnTech]

That chart, does that go for already existing devices or anything after the Lumia 640?

 

[Spectrum90]

Daniel Rubino already describes MS new naming strategy brilliant and I agree.

Calling it brilliant is a stretch, but definitely an improvement.

 

[Bagzton]

Pretty much we all agree that Nokia was notorious on naming their phones with the number system, since MS took over mobile development I believe they have got the naming scheme right. Daniel Rubino already describes MS new naming strategy brilliant and I agree...

Erm, please can you point me to Daniel's description?

 

[Heavens_Angel26]

I hate to break it to you, but no matter what system you conceive and chart, I'll always find a model that doesn't fit in. In this case that would be the 1320. It's a 1xxx class device, but decidedly mid/low range, not a high end device like your chart suggests.

Obviously I'm not insulting you here. You could be Einstein and still not have a chance. There are simply too many inconsistencies in the numbering non-scheme Nokia used.

I think the 640 XL is a great first step towards cleaning up the mess. Here's to hoping that the 1xxx class disappears entirely for the x4x series.

That's why I didn't include it in the chart
This is all MS naming and not Nokia. I only added the last two Nokia phones, the 730 and 830 as they came out before the end of the Nokia era and the dawn of the new MS era. Who knows, MS will probably drop the 1000 series naming scheme to clear off the confusion starting with the 640 XL.

BTW, I wanted to clear up on what MS defines the three models of their new phones.

 

[Heavens_Angel26]

That chart, does that go for already existing devices or anything after the Lumia 640?

It's the start of the MS era of Lumia, the only Nokia Lumia's I added were the High-End (as no MS Lumia flagship has been announced) and added the 730 and 830 as they were the last 2 Lumia phones under the Nokia name when MS took over.

 

[a5cent]

^ In that case I don't get it. The way the chart is compiled suggests a lot more "organisation" or "structure" than actually exists. It kind of looks to me like you just picked the devices that fit the picture you wanted to draw. I don't see how you can include the 1020 and omit the many newer devices. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you though. I thought the chart was supposed to show how "organised" things now are. That only works by leaving out the things that cause disorganisation.
Anyway, as a final thought, I'd also argue that at least in MS' view, the 8xx series belongs to the high end devices. Although many of us will disagree with that, the 820 was the same as the 920, just with a cheaper display and build quality. The 830 was also introduced as an affordable "high end" device. The 1xxx class doesn't denote high- or low-end at all, but rather just device size. That's why I think a more accurate representation would have two classes in each category (9xx+8xx, 7xx+6xx, 5xx+4xx), and a group of 1xxx devices spanning the entire range.

 

[Heavens_Angel26]

^ In that case I don't get it. The way the chart is compiled suggests a lot more "organisation" or "structure" than actually exists. It kind of looks to me like you just picked the devices that fit the picture you wanted to draw. I don't see how you can include the 1020 and omit the many newer devices. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you though. I thought the chart was supposed to show how "organised" things now are. That only works by leaving out the things that cause disorganisation.
Anyway, as a final thought, I'd also argue that at least in MS' view, the 8xx series belongs to the high end devices. Although many of us will disagree with that, the 820 was the same as the 920, just with a cheaper display and build quality. The 830 was also introduced as an affordable "high end" device. The 1xxx class doesn't denote high- or low-end at all, but rather just device size. That's why I think a more accurate representation would have two classes in each category (9xx+8xx, 7xx+6xx, 5xx+4xx), and a group of 1xxx devices spanning the entire range.

I didn't hand pick any device you know, There aren't any High-End phones made by Microsoft other than Nokia. That's why I added the 1020 as it's still a high-end phone. I had debated to add the 920/925/928 a long but I just wanted to show a select few on what would be considered high-end in MS new strategy. Yes, I added the 730 and 830 because they came out last year as the last line of Nokia branded phones. The Microsoft branded Lumia's is small compared to Nokia's. The entire chart is nothing more than reflecting the change in strategy on how to determined what's considered Entry to High end devices.

 

[Kacey Green]

It made sense when I looked at it, the only ones that don't say Microsoft above the earpiece are because Microsoft it's waiting for Windows 10 to make another flagship, it has been over a year since we got a new one, 930 doesn't count as it's just a small 1520 or a GSM icon. So not knowing what this future flagship is you put a placeholder, though yes it could just have been left blank

 

[taymur]

its weird that you didn't just rank them ascending or descending.

 

[Kacey Green]

its weird that you didn't just rank them ascending or descending.

They did, descending market grade, ascending inside each group.

 

[taymur]

They did, descending market grade, ascending inside each group.

​Yeah, Descending market grade, ascending for each group.

​why not do it Descending for both columns, would look nicer that's it

 

[snowmutt]

My brain hurts......