Mobile OSs Do you think WP8 wud be dead had Nokia gone android route

[2298754]

Other than the camera I don't see what Nokia would have to offer as an android manufacturer over HTC or Samsung. I think the 920/928/925 series are nice phones, but I think the One has better feel in

I would rock a Lumia 925 (the aluminum one), if it had 2013-level specs and Android.

I would kill for an Android-powered Nokia device. I was a loyal Nokia user for a long long time. They are my favorite OEM even now. Fantastic RF performance, good call quality, can't be beat.

 

[scott craft]

I would rock a Lumia 925 (the aluminum one), if it had 2013-level specs and Android.

I would kill for an Android-powered Nokia device. I was a loyal Nokia user for a long long time. They are my favorite OEM even now. Fantastic RF performance, good call quality, can't be beat.

Even though I'm switching to android from WP the 928 still tempts me, but some of the luster of Nokia was worn off for me with the 822. I had just as many problems with that phone as I've had with the 8X. Some of that is probably software issues though because I've had every windows phone I've owned replaced more than once.

 

[kdarling]

People talk about how they love the build quality, but the HTC One hasn't been bringing in billions to HTC.

Part of that is because HTC hasn't spent the money to get name recognition like Samsung has with "Samsung Galaxy", nor are their commercials memorable like the ones where Samsung pokes fun at Apple.

(Of course, it helps that many people own other Samsung products in their homes. Neither HTC nor Nokia can say that. Apple could, with computers and iPods. Plus there's all the news about Apple vs. Samsung lawsuits, where Apple has inadvertently given Samsung more cred and free publicity.)

HTC's other problem is giving carriers like AT&T exclusivity on some models (e.g. the 64GB One). And it can be a real kiss of death to have their phone show up on Verizon too late to take advantage of high initial interest. (HTC should've learned from the Palm Pre Sprint exclusivity mistake.) They need to keep their phone quiet until ready to launch right away on as many carriers as posisble.

I think these are things that Nokia would've also needed to face if they had gone Android. Samsung has shown that it pays to spend money, to make money. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

[Liquorpuki]

Samsung was no-where near as dominate a few years ago when Nokia made the choice to go to Windows Phone.

They announced the partnership around Feb 2011. At that point, the Galaxy line has just come out and the S2 was a few months off. Hell, the Captivate was notorious for hardware problems. It was junk.

There was ample time for Nokia to dominate if they wanted. They chose the wrong platform and Samsung's popularity skyrocketed with the S2.

Nokia has nowhere near Samsung's resources. Notice how Nokia's flagships are always carrier exclusives. It sucks that if I'm on Verizon I can't get a 1020 but that's because Nokia needs the carrier to front the marketing costs. Contrast with Samsung, who coordinates carrier agnostic releases for all their flagships like Apple does.

Here's Elop's thoughts on why they didn't pick Android. Might sound like hindsight spin but the reality is if HTC couldn't compete against Samsung, I don't see how Nokia would have.

----------

Even though I'm switching to android from WP the 928 still tempts me, but some of the luster of Nokia was worn off for me with the 822. I had just as many problems with that phone as I've had with the 8X. Some of that is probably software issues though because I've had every windows phone I've owned replaced more than once.

I'm doing the same thing - I just ordered a Moto X to replace my 8X. But mostly because of the whole carrier exclusive thing. If Verizon offered the 1020 I would've bought it already.

 

[onthecouchagain]

I don't know the answer to that question but imagine a Nokia nexus phone.

 

[joshwithachance]

Definitely. I currently find myself tempted to actually go the Windows Phone route for the 1020. Nokia has done an amazing job at making WP desirable.

 

[ucfgrad93]

I think that without Nokia, Windows Phone would be in a world of hurt.

 

[Technarchy]

Nokia would not better off with android.

They would probably be in worse shape.

 

[MindsEye]

No, only for the fact that Windows Phone/Mobile has been in market obscurity for pretty much its entire existence. If not Nokia, i think its possible that we may have seen another manufacturer step up and become the primo Windows Phone handset developer or maybe Microsoft would've went the Google route and have a different manufacturer create a flagship for them each year.

As the OS itself i feel it will reach its plateau in terms of market share in the next couple of years. Unless something drastic happens such as both Google and Apple shooting themselves in the foot, i cant see Windows phone ever challenging them.

I personally just don't see it's appeal, it seems to be stuck in a perpetual state of playing catch up without setting itself apart in any meaningful way. Hardware is lagging behind both iOS and Android Phones, in software we will see the next iteration of iOS and most likely Android before the next Windows Phone Update and of course understandably so, the phone store also pales in comparison.

The biggest annoyance is blueprinting their approach on iOS and making their OS quite restrictive. Do Microsoft even know their own user group?. Enough rambling, at any rate its here to stay with or without Nokia but if they stay par the course, i can never see them being a dominating factor in the mobile market.

 

[cube]

Is that the one where they used symbian for another decade? Lol

No. The plan was Meego for the high end, and Meltemi for the low end.

 

[Oletros]

Other than the camera I don't see what Nokia would have to offer as an android manufacturer over HTC or Samsung.

Brand recognition, at least in Europe. At the same price people would choose Nokia over Samsung

----------

Nokia has nowhere near Samsung's resources. Notice how Nokia's flagships are always carrier exclusives.

You're looking at from an US centric perspective, outside of USA there is no carrier exclusives in almost 100% of the cases

 

[MindsEye]

Brand recognition, at least in Europe. At the same price people would choose Nokia over Samsung

I disagree/agree depending on when you mean. Currently no way in hell do the majority choose a Nokia developed Android phone over Samsung. A few years back when they decided to move away from Symbian then it would be likely.

Other than the Carl Zeiss lenses, i cant see any other incentive. They would've most likely followed suit and skinned their phone to promote their ovi maps, store etc and i can't see them handling OS updates any better than the current makers. Still Nokia should always be seen as a precautionary tale of what happens when you stagnate. Would have probably been out of business if not for their "dumbphone" line.

 

[Menneisyys2]

People talk about how they love the build quality, but the HTC One hasn't been bringing in billions to HTC.

Well, the One, except for the build quality / speakers, doesn't really have anything over the S3/S4. I would never go for it. (Nor for the S4 either, now that the Snapdragon 800-based, much superior phones like the G2 are almost here...)

----------

I disagree/agree depending on when you mean. Currently no way in hell do the majority choose a Nokia developed Android phone over Samsung.

Why not? Build quality? Durability? Camera? Reliability and quality of components (which has always been a strong point of Nokia, unlike, say, Apple)?

 

[Klosefabrinio]

Nokia can't make an overlay to put on top of Windows Phone. Microsoft's guidelines preclude them from doing so. Microsoft wants a uniform experience on Windows Phone. I think this is part of why other OEM's show little interest in it, because there is little they can do to differentiate themselves from other Windows Phones.

wow, didn't knew that, looks like microsoft wants to kill itself.

 

[Menneisyys2]

The biggest annoyance is blueprinting their approach on iOS and making their OS quite restrictive. Do Microsoft even know their own user group?

Apart from the enterprise customers, it's diametrically opposed to both Symbian and Windows Mobile. (The latter two were very permissive and capable OS'es - just like Android is today. No wonder geeks simply loved Windows Mobile back in the day.) WP8, currently, is indeed as restricted as iOS and, therefore, doesn't really geek / power user-friendly.

 

[MindsEye]

Why not? Build quality? Durability? Camera? Reliability and quality of components (which has always been a strong point of Nokia, unlike, say, Apple)?

Mostly because Samsung is the larger brand and is well established in the world of Android whereas Nokia, hardware aside, would be an unknown quantity. Camera aside, the other points you raised are subjective and anecdotal and even if they weren't it would only take them so far if the software is not up to scratch. At the end of the day, if i was a betting man i wouldn't back Nokia.

Good business plan is something i no longer associate with Nokia. This is the company who just recently released one of their top phones exclusive to one carrier in north america.

Apart from the enterprise customers, it's diametrically opposed to both Symbian and Windows Mobile. (The latter two were very permissive and capable OS'es - just like Android is today. No wonder geeks simply loved Windows Mobile back in the day.) WP8, currently, is indeed as restricted as iOS and, therefore, doesn't really geek / power user-friendly.

I wouldn't say they're even catering all too well to their enterprise customers. The lack of VPN support is shocking.

 

[The Robot Cow]

The reason why Samsung is #1 is because of all the millions upon millions they have spent marketing. I don't hear about Windows Phone or Nokia no where near as much as i hear from Samsung and Apple.

But back to the original topic. Yes i think windows phone would be dead without Nokia.

 

[2298754]

What's really interesting is that a decade ago Samsung was considered crap and mediocre. I remember all those crappy Windows Mobile phones they had. I would always choose the Nokia equivalent. I purposely bought an E71x over a blackjack like 5 years ago. Even in electronics, same thing. I was a huge supporter of Sony.

Now it's all completely changed. Samsung dominates the household. Phones are fantastic. Their TVs are great. Their appliances are well-made and long-lasting. They're doing everything right.

I miss Sony being the king of electronics.

 

[animalx]

wow, didn't knew that, looks like microsoft wants to kill itself.

From Microsoft's standpoint, I can understand (to an extent) why they did that. They want to have a uniform experience, so that there isn't any particular device that gives someone a subpar Windows Phone experience. On Android, you can have a manufacturer make a cheap Android phone a cheap processor, not much ram, etc, and the customer may come away thinking that Android is slow and laggy (because of what they just experienced). With Windows Phone, Microsoft is ensuring that doesn't happen, by having uniformity standards. The problem with that is, manufacturers will have a hard time differentiating themselves from other phones on that platform.

 

[Technarchy]

wow, didn't knew that, looks like microsoft wants to kill itself.

Not at all. Manufacturers are free to include all sorts of value adds, but not by mangling the OS with badly coded skins that kill performance and user experience.

 

[Oletros]

I disagree/agree depending on when you mean. Currently no way in hell do the majority choose a Nokia developed Android phone over Samsung. A few years back when they decided to move away from Symbian then it would be likely.

Other than the Carl Zeiss lenses, i cant see any other incentive. They would've most likely followed suit and skinned their phone to promote their ovi maps, store etc and i can't see them handling OS updates any better than the current makers. Still Nokia should always be seen as a precautionary tale of what happens when you stagnate. Would have probably been out of business if not for their "dumbphone" line.

I was not talking now, I was talking in 2.010-2.011

 

[Hastings101]

No idea, I think if Nokia hadn't bought it and other manufacturers didn't make much use of it they'd have probably tried making it themselves as a last resort.

 

[Jessica Lares]

wow, didn't knew that, looks like microsoft wants to kill itself.

Yeah, well, at least the bloat is removable, unlike on Android where you have to disable or root the thing before it's possible.

 

[scott craft]

I was not talking now, I was talking in 2.010-2.011

If we are talking that time frame I can agree that Nokia could have been successful with android. I don't think they could compete now.

 

[Technarchy]

If we are talking that time frame I can agree that Nokia could have been successful with android. I don't think they could compete now.

Nokia holds about 80% of the Windows Phone market share, which is trending up among mobile devices.

That's not a bad position to be in. At best they would be an also-ran in the android world, struggling to make a couple of shillings in the shadow of Samsung's dominance.