02-07-2013 08:18 AM
53 123
tools
  1. Kredrian's Avatar
    Hmmm, well; If any of the others made some decent looking hardware to go with this OS I would propably love them as well. I might even have gone for a HTC if they had made a revamped Legend with WP! But as it is now all the HTCs remind me to much of Android and I never really cared much for Samsung, it feels to much like plastic. And Voila, choosen by exclusion.....

    Sure the 800 and 900 are iterations of the N9, but they would have been fools if they had just turned their backs on that design line. It is amazing and I hope they can stay true to it for years to come. (will be hard though if they have to fit a Pureview camera in it)

    Besides this there is history, my first (second and third) cellphones was Nokias and through the years of Symbian Sony Ericssons, a Razzr, BlackBerries and back to Sony Ericsson Android I was forever missing some of that simple elegance that the first Nokias had.





    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    1. well it was 7billion to be exact. lol

    by doing this they became the FLAG SHIP for WP and by this they get access to more API's and exclusive apps witch makes them more attractive then other WPs ( just the exclusive apps probably give them 40% of WP shares , just like the first WP to get Dual-core will be probably break all WP records in sales..)

    that's not counting all the free publicity they get from AT&T and on their own(with the 7bill from MS )

    If HTC doesn't advertise WP as much as they advertise Android .. then to bad for them. until they do ... they can cry me a river for all i care... same thing with Samsung

    2. you dint mention it , but I Like Samsung over any phone right now :) seriously Samsung make some of the best hardware and they get no recognition for it ( on WP ) although their second gen WP wasn't that exiting im hoping the WP8 from Samsung will be good :)
    If Sammy made a Galaxy Note running WP, I would be first in line to pick one up :D
    snowmutt likes this.
    06-05-2012 06:05 PM
  2. rdubmu's Avatar
    If I remember correctly, the Radar and the Titan 1, had a marketing blitz. I see no marketing blitz for the Titan 2. They had a bunch of stuff in New York and Europe for the Radar and Titan.... I think what has happened is that HTC has no money to spend, or they have poor relationships with the carriers.

    HTC has been the #1 supporter of Windows Mobile and Windows Phone for the Last 5 years. I think it is a great that Microsoft and Nokia have teamed up. I don't think the App Exclusivity to Nokia for 3rd party apps is a good thing for the ecosystem but I also understand they put money up to do this, and I respect that.

    I think what would be even better is if Microsoft Bought Nokia and put apps into the marketplace for all users. :)
    06-05-2012 07:03 PM
  3. snowmutt's Avatar
    Pretty obvious at this point: We love Nokia, because it saved our OS. HTC and Sammy will up their game, or get left behind. Nokia will own the market for WP and have a worldwide name to bring with it.

    I love my Focus S, but I realize my OS is tied to Nokia's success.
    pwaikon likes this.
    06-05-2012 11:06 PM
  4. N8ter's Avatar
    $1billion dollar is peanuts in this battle of the smartphone OS's. Elop decided to move to WP because after many years, many attempts and billions of dollars burned Nokia still had no viable modern smartphone OS, complete with "ecosystem", and in his opinion no chance to build one itself within a reasonable time frame.

    That opinion is debatable and of course was and is fiercly debated, but still there sure is much more behind Nokia's move to WP than simply a payment of a billion from Microsoft.
    Nokia had their Ovi ecosystem. The problem was that they let Symbian basically rot. The Version history tells the story. They depended too much on their low margin Feature/Dumb phone market/profits in an era where smartphone adoption rates were astronomical. As a result Symbian plateaued at a bad place and they simply couldn't compete with the Android/RIM/low cost older iPhone models in those lower cost markets as people moved from Nokia Dumbphones to Entry-Level smartphones (Low Cost Androids, Curves, and older iPhone models).

    They were too distracted on side-projects like Meego when they should have instead been pouring those resources into revamping Symbian's UI and making it a bit less painful to develop for (standardizing the toolkits, etc.) and use. They lost focus, and they paid for it.

    If Nokia had Symbian Belle in mid 2010 I think things could look different, especially if they used competitive hardware and could get their devices subsidized in the US. Their Unlocked device prices were ridiculous. The ecosystem failed because the platform they used to push it was failing.

    The payment from Microsoft is something you'd expect, since you cannot expect a company like Nokia to switch platforms and pony up their own money for R&D (Maps, Drive, Music, etc. didn't auto-port themselves to WP7, and Developers have to eat) and Advertising for the new platform, among other things. This is how things work in the business world.

    Nokia went with WP7 because they want to be a top-tier player in the ecosystem they choose, and WP7 allowed that.

    What will be interesting to see is how things play out once Microsoft stops limiting the hardware that other OEMs can use. When HTC can bring things like ImageSense to WP8 and Samsung can use their own fantastic SoC/GPUs in their phone, use 720p screens, etc. it will get a bit more competitive.

    We will see.

    I think people like Nokia's devices because they use decent materials for their phones. After enduring a lot of plastic smartphones it can be quite a breath of fresh air for some people. There is also value in some of their OEM apps - moreso than most other WP7 OEMs.

    I am not sure how Nokia "saved WP7." That implies the platform is that bad and needs a pretty shell to sell it, instead of on its own merits. It's not like Nokia's marketing here is fantastic.

    To me Nokia and Microsoft's partnership isn't much different than Verizon's Droid partnership with Motorola was... Maybe it will have similar effects, only time will tell.
    HeyCori, MattLFC and Laura Knotek like this.
    06-06-2012 01:16 AM
  5. Laura Knotek's Avatar



    I think people like Nokia's devices because they use decent materials for their phones. After enduring a lot of plastic smartphones it can be quite a breath of fresh air for some people. There is also value in some of their OEM apps - moreso than most other WP7 OEMs.

    I am not sure how Nokia "saved WP7." That implies the platform is that bad and needs a pretty shell to sell it, instead of on its own merits. It's not like Nokia's marketing here is fantastic.

    To me Nokia and Microsoft's partnership isn't much different than Verizon's Droid partnership with Motorola was... Maybe it will have similar effects, only time will tell.
    I had Nokia Symbian devices in the past. Nokia Maps/Drive/Transit played a big part in my decision of a Nokia device rather than an HTC device.
    06-06-2012 01:26 AM
  6. AngryNil's Avatar
    There's no "HTC Windows Phone". There's no "Samsung Windows Phone". The only words you'll hear regarding the platform are "Nokia", and "Lumia".

    I greatly appreciate HTC as a company and like that they threw a lot of devices behind the platform earlier on. However, they never sold Windows Phones to consumers, they just assumed they would sell / not sell. I've never seen a Windows Phone ad by HTC off the web. They've also done nothing interesting on the software end, where OEMs are supposed to differentiate (unless you count them attempting to port their Sense UI over with their hub).
    06-06-2012 04:40 AM
  7. mprice86's Avatar
    Regarding the dislike of other OEMs like HTC, Samsung, LG and so on. That ill-will isn't necessarilly as a result of their Windows Phone offerings.

    Many people on these forums speak of the terrible experiences they've had with Android handsets, myself among them; and while the majority of their issues stem from problems or things they don't like about the OS, it puts people off the manufacturers too.

    I vote with my wallet and there's not a force on earth that could make me buy/use another Samsung/LG/HTC phone. For me it's not that Nokia are the gods of smartphone making; they just haven't pissed me off yet.
    06-06-2012 05:07 AM
  8. mparker's Avatar
    seriously Samsung make some of the best hardware and they get no recognition for it ( on WP )
    I suspect that the NoDo upgrade fiasco with the Samsung Focus has something to do with that... At least for me. Amusingly enough my Samsung-made Galaxy Nexus has gotten multiple upgrades without any problem, but WP7 is clearly the red-headed stepchild in the Samsung lineup. So when my ur-Focus started glitching I avoided the otherwise-excellent Focus S and went with Nokia.
    06-06-2012 07:31 AM
  9. cp2_4eva's Avatar
    For a while Nokia had proven to stick behind their products. With the rising it still holds true. I like HTC. Bought a few android devices from them. They honestly just have too many phones to stay totally dedicated to them all. And the windows phones seem to be on the back burner. But out of the box HTC makes some decent phones. Nokia is staying dedicated to their WP devices. Yes, it probably because this is their hope for a savior, but oh well it is what it is.

    Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express
    06-06-2012 07:37 AM
  10. theefman's Avatar
    06-06-2012 12:45 PM
  11. Mio_Ray's Avatar
    Funny thing. I talked to a rep when I got my 800 and he was not to keen on Nokia because, as he claimed, they are doing too many updates instead finishing the product before it was launched.

    We all know that is not possible, no matter how much testing is done there will always be small glitches in either the Hardware or the software.

    This just reminded Me of My reply at the moment: At least they fix it!





    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    06-06-2012 02:13 PM
  12. InfectedPhreak's Avatar
    Regarding the dislike of other OEMs like HTC, Samsung, LG and so on. That ill-will isn't necessarilly as a result of their Windows Phone offerings.

    Many people on these forums speak of the terrible experiences they've had with Android handsets, myself among them; and while the majority of their issues stem from problems or things they don't like about the OS, it puts people off the manufacturers too.

    I vote with my wallet and there's not a force on earth that could make me buy/use another Samsung/LG/HTC phone. For me it's not that Nokia are the gods of smartphone making; they just haven't pissed me off yet.
    I think this is the issue for a lot of people. People have bad experiences with a company/manufacturer and don't touch them ever again. Personally, I've never really had a bad experience with a phone so I don't know what it's like. I go with what my instincts tell me to buy, and what communities say about devices when I'm ready to buy.

    Me and my sister both have an HTC Droid Incredible, my DInc is practically perfect. My sisters however is a disaster. Right from the get-go she was receiving storage errors, and issues about applications. Now what does that tell me or her? Since I had a good experience with my DInc I have no problem with HTC, but she has had a terrible experience with HTC and possibly may put her off from ever buying another HTC product.

    It really comes down to personal experiences, and we can only put the blame on the manufacturer because if we blame the OS we'll just switch OS's. If you hate Android/iOS/WP, and you end up switching to a different OS/platform... that just starts another reason to fanboy one product and hate another. I like Android, but I hate what manufacturers do to them (custom skins, bloatware, etc). What really turns me off is the lack of optimization. Android isn't as clean as WP, and to me that's a huge game changer. I want a WP device, because I've seen how smooth and reliable they are compared to Android devices.

    Would I buy a WP device from HTC? No, I wouldn't. Why? because if the community I've invested in is having an outcry of faulty devices why would I take a chance and go down that line. Would I buy a device from Nokia? Not right now I wouldn't because they still have issues of their own to fix. Samsung? I've only owned one Samsung device, and I don't think I'll be returning to Samsung again.

    Does the contract make Nokia better then HTC/Samsung? It does, because it makes them a FLAG SHIP provider. Dedication, Advertisements, the whole kit-n-caboodle.. makes Nokia top-notch from what I've seen. WP needs a company that is going to stand behind them 100% and see things through until the end. I wish WP was a one handset type of device, like Apple's iPhone... It would be a lot better to have a low-cost reliable handset available to everyone. Nonetheless, this is reality and here we are.

    Nokia is just going to do what they can to make sure they make profit, and Microsoft makes profit from WP. No one can blame them for that. We just have to jump on the bandwagon and make sure Nokia does a good job at getting WP to the goal.
    06-06-2012 03:21 PM
  13. WayCool's Avatar
    Because I just received a firmware update... :)
    06-06-2012 03:54 PM
  14. based_graham's Avatar
    Its because Nokia is putting in work. Hence what everybody is saying they are treating Windows Phone like its their own OS.

    Yes they went with Windows Phone which was a great idea. If they went with Android they would have to battle with the big boys right away so Nokia would be pushing high cost dual core phones trying to get recognition against the Galaxy's and the HTC One series and I dont think they can keep up.

    Look at Android's refresh schedule its like every 6 months Nokia cant do that right now they dont have the resources. Going with Windows Phone it allows them to focus on 1 - 3 phones a year and apply quality updates to them. They dont need a flood of phones they need flagship phones at every price range and so far they have been doing that.

    All I have to say is if Nokia wants to be successful they need to have more than just phones.

    People buy iPhones because they see Apple everywhere
    People buy Samsung because they see Samsung everywhere

    Not everybody sees Windows everywhere. People use Windows but when you look at a Windows laptop you always see the brand name like Toshiba on the back. You never see a Windows logo only when you open it up.

    Nokia and Windows branding needs to be everywhere in order for Nokia and Windows to take off.
    06-06-2012 10:31 PM
  15. Laura Knotek's Avatar

    Not everybody sees Windows everywhere. People use Windows but when you look at a Windows laptop you always see the brand name like Toshiba on the back. You never see a Windows logo only when you open it up.

    Nokia and Windows branding needs to be everywhere in order for Nokia and Windows to take off.
    I would not necessarily say that is the case. If one's laptop is not a Mac, chances are it is running Windows; not many folks run Linux or Unix.

    Even if one has a Mac, he could be running Windows on it. I spotted a guy in Starbucks running Windows 7 and Visio on his MacBook Pro. It made sense, since there is no Visio for Macs.
    06-06-2012 11:29 PM
  16. Daniel Ratcliffe's Avatar
    Because Nokia are going **** for leather with Windows Phone. I'm a HTC TITAN user myself, and love it. But here is the thing, HTC couldn't give a rats arse about WP7. Android is the big money, so they release the phone and then they're pretty much rinsing their hands of it. Nokia however, I swear my dad seems to get about 20 daily updates on his L800... they're ALWAYS fixing things! My HTC TITAN? My last update was 2 months ago... Think that proves the point.

    Also, my last update actually buggered up the phone, and the only way to fix it was a FACTORY reset.
    06-07-2012 03:21 PM
  17. prodwel2's Avatar
    1. They only make Windows Phones because Microsoft paid them > $ 1 Billion dollars to do so. Prior to that they made no Windows Phones at all.
    Let me preface this by saying to the original poster that in no way am I trying to come across as condescending.

    That being said, statements like this baffle me. I find it just as baffling when people make claims that the "only reason the Lumia sells well is because it's being sold for such a low price." Well, yeah, that's exactly the point.

    It's called business. Selling a phone for a low price is called pricing strategy. It's called marketing. It's a very specific strategy aimed at selling a product, gaining market share, etc. etc.

    The same goes for the Microsoft $1 billion comment. This is a partnership. It is a very specific strategy that is mutually beneficial with the goal of providing Nokia the funds to focus solely on a single platform, while using that focus to build products that they can price strategically and benefit from the additional marketing and development funds. Conversely for Microsoft, the $1 billion INVESTMENT provides access to a global Nokia channel, network of partners, brand alignment, and a dedicated supplier who is solely focused on building market share for their growing platform.

    These are STANDARD business, marketing, and operations strategies that MOST successful companies employ DAILY in their operations. Without good pricing strategy, without good marketing, without a great investment in strategic partnerships - a company would not be successful.

    Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. all have partnerships and employ a variety of strategic operations. They come in many forms - while Microsoft may invest $1 billion in a Nokia partnership; Apple will invest billions of dollars (over many years and into the future) in supply-chain material pre-orders to secure low pricing on components. These are both great strategies and sound investments. Microsoft's is in the form of a $1 billion funding agreement, Apple's is in the form of $x billion supply chain optimization. Both examples have direct benefits and are based on corporate strategy. There are hundreds of thousands of these types of strategies - at all scales - throughout the global economy.

    I understand that on a forum we are interacting with people from K-12 age individuals to adults and not everyone will have the business education or experience to recognize these complex daily workings and strategies of a company - but instead of making such negative uninformed claims, we should all ask questions to gain a better understanding of WHY the world works the way it does and then proceed to making our judgements.

    Taking all that into account - the quoted comment from the original post is nonsensical.

    Once again - I'm not trying to condescend the OP, but I felt this needed to be said.
    Last edited by prodwel2; 06-07-2012 at 04:44 PM.
    06-07-2012 04:19 PM
  18. N8ter's Avatar
    Microsoft's partnership with Nokia has absolutely nothing to do with Apple's supply chain and the kinds of deals they get on components (due to their scale, since they sell a ton of iPhones). The two aren't even comparable. Apple gets supplies from a number of vendors, including Samsung, but they are not paying Samsung to give them components outside of what they cost. Not are they paying LG. In fact, due to Apple's scale, they often get much lower prices for their components than their competitors, even when their competitors use WORSE components. That's simply supply and demand.

    Nokia's partnership with Microsoft isn't even close to being comparable to that. The only thing I personally think is somewhat comparable is Verizon's partnership with Motorola for the Droid devices back when, but they were not paying Moto that kind of cash.

    Not only are you condescending (if you have to preface, it sort of defeats the purpose), but your post is filled with inaccurate analogies to boot.

    Microsoft is known for buying their way into markets, so this isn't suprising. They paid Verizon to preload and lock Search to Bing on numerous Android phones in an attempt to erode some of Google's dominance and then complained about it later, for example. They're also paying RIM to put Bing on Blackberries.

    The only difference is that the Nokia deal was on a much larger scale and has bigger implications, but it's not really that big of a factor. This goes on all the time, your comparisons are just a bit laughable.

    The reason why they went all in with Nokia that way is cause they're desperate and need an OEM that will function the way Motorola functioned for Verizon back when they started pushing Android.

    Nokia was an easy target because their platforms are dead for all intents and purposes and they would have not been able to gain much traction on Android due to it not being a very profitable company (and thus cannot push the envelope the way Samsung/HTC or even LG can) and they'd have been very late to the game. Going with WP7 gave them a chance to get in early on a new ecosystem and their partnership with Microsoft gives them competitive advantage over other OEMs.

    When you look at it from a whole market, cross-formfactor perspective it is a promising decision, since Microsoft can leverage it's Windows, XBox, Office, Enterprise, and SaaS/Services assets to push their platform, and they are a bit stronger in those areas than competitors like Apple and Google.

    It will all depend on execution and how hard the other OEMs are willing to compete on WP7 (provided Microsoft isn't cockblocking them the way they're rumored to be cockblocking HTC, cause I don't think Nokia has ever made a tablet - at least not one worth mentioning - nor do they ship nearly as many high end smartphones as HTC).
    Last edited by N8ter; 06-07-2012 at 06:08 PM.
    HeyCori likes this.
    06-07-2012 06:00 PM
  19. Alex Rodriguez Jr.'s Avatar
    There goes N8ter, you know, with those bias views he swears are factual.

    Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express
    theefman and wolf1891 like this.
    06-07-2012 06:17 PM
  20. theefman's Avatar
    There goes N8ter, you know, with those bias views he swears are factual.

    Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express
    The guy never, ever has anything positive to say about Windows Phone. Do yourself a favour and add him to your ignore list, the more people that do that the sooner he gets fed up and leaves.
    06-07-2012 07:30 PM
  21. alpinestars1z's Avatar
    The guy never, ever has anything positive to say about Windows Phone. Do yourself a favour and add him to your ignore list, the more people that do that the sooner he gets fed up and leaves.
    I thought he bought an HTC One X or something, I'm not sure though.

    I still think djdtox is worse though. At least N8ter has something to contribute to the thread.
    06-07-2012 07:39 PM
  22. N8ter's Avatar
    Please quote where I said something negative in that post about WP7. I'm interested in knowing how you people continue to cook up these things out of thin air.

    In fact, I actually said some things that were complimentary of Microsoft in that post. Maybe read it next time...

    Microsoft paid RIM to get Bing on Blackberries, Paid Verizon to get Bing on some Android devices, Invested in Facebook to get into Social after Windows Live failed as a Social Platform, and paid Nokia to go All-In on Windows Phone (otherwise they could have done just as well using a multi-platform approach like other OEMs - they probably get a good deal on WP7 license fees as well as patent-sharing agreements). They bought Skype to get into the VoIP market as well, cause outside of Lync we all know WLM is not a huge success in that market...

    These are simple facts. Facts are agnostic. They don't favor one side or the other.

    I could care less what OS Nokia uses on their devices because I don't buy Nokia hardware, and don't plan to - irregardless of what OS I choose to run at any point in time. What phone I own has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion we're having.
    Last edited by N8ter; 06-07-2012 at 09:08 PM.
    06-07-2012 08:52 PM
  23. prodwel2's Avatar
    Microsoft's partnership with Nokia has absolutely nothing to do with Apple's supply chain and the kinds of deals they get on components (due to their scale, since they sell a ton of iPhones). The two aren't even comparable.

    ...
    N8ter. I appreciate your response - I enjoy discussions. But the entire premise of your response is based on you claiming my "comparisons" are "laughable". Please note that I did not COMPARE or make an ANALOGY to the Nokia/Microsoft deal and Apple's supply chain optimization. I clearly stated that those are two completely different strategies and are not comparable in their operations, but in their association with overall corporate strategy. Note the operative phrase "they come in many forms", "a variety of strategic operations", "at all scales" - especially "Microsoft's is in the form of..."

    "Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. all have partnerships and employ a variety of strategic operations. They come in many forms - while Microsoft may invest $1 billion in a Nokia partnership; Apple will invest billions of dollars (over many years and into the future) in supply-chain material pre-orders to secure low pricing on components. These are both great strategies and sound investments. Microsoft's is in the form of a $1 billion funding agreement, Apple's is in the form of $x billion supply chain optimization. Both examples have direct benefits and are based on corporate strategy. There are hundreds of thousands of these types of strategies - at all scales - throughout the global economy."

    What's more - your response shows that we are in general agreement on how strategies are employed and the reasons Microsoft is executing theirs with Nokia. I agree on mostly all of your points after your misunderstanding of my Apple and MS examples. I'm just confused why you chose a confrontational approach in your response.

    I apologize to all if I come across condescending. And I usually agree that stating the fact proves the accusation. I'm simply trying to eloquently state my case. And I am proud that I don't call other posters' opinions "laughable" and use words such as "cockblocking" - that can also be interpreted as condescending.

    N8ter - these discussions are fun. We agree so there's no need to go back and forth on ours - let's just keep it cool!
    06-07-2012 09:06 PM
  24. N8ter's Avatar
    Of course I agree with the strategy. I just didn't agree with the loose comparison. It was there:

    Microsoft may invest $1 billion in a Nokia partnership; Apple will invest billions of dollars (over many years and into the future) in supply-chain material pre-orders to secure low pricing on components.
    ...
    06-07-2012 09:10 PM
  25. prodwel2's Avatar
    Of course I agree with the strategy. I just didn't agree with the loose comparison. It was there:



    ...
    The comparison is to employing a strategy to meet a corporate objective. Not between the two strategies.

    I like your point on the other OEMs and their contribution to the competition that will help WP7 in the marketplace. That could be the biggest risk of the Nokia strategy - if the other OEMs "give up", then MS and Nokia become such a direct association that if one starts to fail, the other may catch the same fate.
    06-07-2012 09:14 PM
53 123
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD