Pics of Nokia's Android UI

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Only because they're the ones that took it as their only one. It isn't because Nokia has a lot of power.

Nokia phones and designs have always been one of the top favorites. I'm pretty sure Nokia would have been a huge player in the Android market. The camera hardware alone would have gave all manufactures some serious competition.

Like WackyNinja said "I think Nokia is what is keeping WP alive", and I doubt it's because they are the majority WP makers.

 

[TSE]

How do you know that wouldn't have happened under android? Simple question is if Nokia had sold android phones, would they have sold more phones than they have windows phones? And if so, would those additional sales have brought in more money than what Microsoft paid Nokia? Just because HTC, LG, Sony, and Motorola have struggled doesn't mean Nokia would have.

But like I said, they had two options:

Be a big fish in a small pond, or a medium sized fish in a huge ocean. And fact is Samsung is whooping ass right now with Android. Nokia needed to try and beat Samsung in markets that Samsung weren't already in, and Windows Phone was one of them.

 

[Fernandez21]

But like I said, they had two options:

Be a big fish in a small pond, or a medium sized fish in a huge ocean. And fact is Samsung is whooping ass right now with Android. Nokia needed to try and beat Samsung in markets that Samsung weren't already in, and Windows Phone was one of them.

But they're not different markets, they are the same market (smartphones). They are already competing with Samsung and Apple and the rest. That's like saying Apple and Dell aren't competitors because one is selling Mac OS laptops and the other is selling Windows.

I don't have the numbers, but, hypothetically, let's say Nokia has sold 50 million Windows Phones since launch. If the entire windows market was 100 million that would mean Nokia would be 50% of the WP market, or as you put it a big fish in a little pond.

But if during that same time they could have sold 55 million Android phones, with the entire Android market being 1 billion, even though their market share would only be 5.5%, the little fish in the ocean, they still would've been out ahead because they would have sold an additional 5 million handsets. Even if Samsung during that time dominated selling 800 million phones, Nokia would still be ahead by 5 million extra phones sold.

 

[TSE]

But they're not different markets, they are the same market (smartphones). They are already competing with Samsung and Apple and the rest. That's like saying Apple and Dell aren't competitors because one is selling Mac OS laptops and the other is selling Windows.

I don't have the numbers, but, hypothetically, let's say Nokia has sold 50 million Windows Phones since launch. If the entire windows market was 100 million that would mean Nokia would be 50% of the WP market, or as you put it a big fish in a little pond.

But if during that same time they could have sold 55 million Android phones, with the entire Android market being 1 billion, even though their market share would only be 5.5%, the little fish in the ocean, they still would've been out ahead because they would have sold an additional 5 million handsets. Even if Samsung during that time dominated selling 800 million phones, Nokia would still be ahead by 5 million extra phones sold.

I'm liking this debate.

They might be in the same markets, but the differentiations in software is a huge reason Nokia has had success. For some very key reasons:

-Microsoft has backed them with investment, millions and millions of dollars. This is the biggest reason why Nokia went to Microsoft over Android. They contacted Google to try and create a partnership and Google gave them the cold shoulder and told them to get in line with all the other OEMs. This has allowed Nokia a unique partnership with a great software company.

-I'm not so sure Nokia would sell more phones under Android. According to http://bgr.com/2013/11/27/windows-phone-device-sales-analysis/, a lot of Nokia's success comes in the low-end to mid-range devices. I don't believe Nokia would replicate this kind of success in the Android market for a couple reasons. The android market is FLOODED with low-end phones and much more competition and in a way the Windows Phone UI and such looks a lot cleaner for a low-end phone, and the reason why low-end Nokias are so successful is because they provide a much better user experience for the dollar than any other low-budget phone BECAUSE of Windows Phone efficiency in resources.

-I think, despite what you believe, the Windows Phone UI has attracted a lot of costumers to Nokia that they wouldn't have gotten with Android. People always love alternatives, and the UI is clean, crisp, and inviting and goes along with the Nokia Industrial Design. The UI looks like it belongs to the phone. This is huge and creates a cohesive experience with bold, great looking colors. With an Android Nokia, I really think, even judging by these UI pictures supplied, they would have just been another high-end hardware Android Phone along with the Galaxy S line, Xperia Z, etc. Not as defining and bold like they are now.

 

[Michael Goff]

Nokia phones and designs have always been one of the top favorites. I'm pretty sure Nokia would have been a huge player in the Android market. The camera hardware alone would have gave all manufactures some serious competition.

Like WackyNinja said "I think Nokia is what is keeping WP alive", and I doubt it's because they are the majority WP makers.

Good designs don't sell phones when it comes to Android. Samsung has some of the most bland designs. They also have one of the largest budgets when it comes to things like marketing. And that's why HTC is doing so poorly. Don't kid yourself into thinking Nokia, with a budget that isn't even as big as Samsung's marketing budget, would become anything more than a bit player.

edit: Remember that HTC is an established player and still has been sliding. If they only make 10 million dollars in profits, what's the chances of a new player being able to do really well?

 

[Mildredop]

Good designs don't sell phones when it comes to Android. Samsung has some of the most bland designs. They also have one of the largest budgets when it comes to things like marketing. And that's why HTC is doing so poorly. Don't kid yourself into thinking Nokia, with a budget that isn't even as big as Samsung's marketing budget, would become anything more than a bit player.

edit: Remember that HTC is an established player and still has been sliding. If they only make 10 million dollars in profits, what's the chances of a new player being able to do really well?

That's very defeatist. Every company has ups and downs and has to start somewhere.

 

[Michael Goff]

That's very defeatist. Every company has ups and downs and has to start somewhere.

No, that's very realistic. If a company wants to succeed, it has to be smart. Going into a pool where there are a thousand players isn't one that is a plan for success. That's likely why they didn't go with Android.

 

[Mildredop]

No, that's very realistic. If a company wants to succeed, it has to be smart. Going into a pool where there are a thousand players isn't one that is a plan for success. That's likely why they didn't go with Android.

It's a shame you're wrong. Hope you don't run your own company...

 

[AppleRobert]

Last I read is that Win 8 is just another failure with Win 9 coming sooner than expected.

Like in the gym, progress is easily made in the short term. Let's see how Nokia does down the road. Nokia would get eaten alive in the Android market though.

 

[Michael Goff]

It's a shame you're wrong. Hope you don't run your own company...

I'm wrong because so many Android manufacturers are doing so well? Use facts, not emotions,

Last I read is that Win 8 is just another failure with Win 9 coming sooner than expected.

Like in the gym, progress is easily made in the short term. Let's see how Nokia does down the road. Nokia would get eaten alive in the Android market though.

The people who didn't think 9 was coming out next year don't pay attention to Microsoft's schedule. It's the same type of mentality that says they "rushed Windows 7 because Vista failed". Vista came out in 2006, Windows 7 came out in 2009, Windows 8 came out in 2012, and Windows 9 will likely come out in 2015.

Windows Longhorn was likely supposed to come out in 2004 instead of Vista in 2006.

Microsoft does a 3 year cycle whenever they can get away with it.

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Good designs don't sell phones when it comes to Android. Samsung has some of the most bland designs. They also have one of the largest budgets when it comes to things like marketing. And that's why HTC is doing so poorly. Don't kid yourself into thinking Nokia, with a budget that isn't even as big as Samsung's marketing budget, would become anything more than a bit player.

edit: Remember that HTC is an established player and still has been sliding. If they only make 10 million dollars in profits, what's the chances of a new player being able to do really well?

You need to change that to "Good designs ALONE don't sell phones when it comes to Android". Which is why I also mentioned in my post that Nokia would be a big seller based on the camera. Their designs along with some of the best phone cameras and the great build quality is what will gain attention for Nokia. That's something Nokia will already have from the start. Everything else would depend on performance and features.

 

[Michael Goff]

You need to change that to "Good designs ALONE don't sell phones when it comes to Android". Which is why I also mentioned in my post that Nokia would be a big seller based on the camera. Their designs along with some of the best phone cameras and the great build quality is what will gain attention for Nokia. That's something Nokia will already have from the start. Everything else would depend on performance and features.

And they overcome the massive marketing of Samsung by...

Seriously, that's the real biggest problem.

 

[Sensamic]

Considering how Nokia is nowadays, would this phone ever get updated to the next Android version?

 

[Michael Goff]

Considering how Nokia is nowadays, would this phone ever get updated to the next Android version?

Obviously.

Once they made an Android phone, it'd be RAINING money.

 

[adder7712]

How navigable is Android with only one button?!

 

[Michael Goff]

How navigable is Android with only one button?!

On screen keys?

 

[Fernandez21]

I'm liking this debate.

They might be in the same markets, but the differentiations in software is a huge reason Nokia has had success. For some very key reasons:

-Microsoft has backed them with investment, millions and millions of dollars. This is the biggest reason why Nokia went to Microsoft over Android. They contacted Google to try and create a partnership and Google gave them the cold shoulder and told them to get in line with all the other OEMs. This has allowed Nokia a unique partnership with a great software company.

-I'm not so sure Nokia would sell more phones under Android. According to http://bgr.com/2013/11/27/windows-phone-device-sales-analysis/, a lot of Nokia's success comes in the low-end to mid-range devices. I don't believe Nokia would replicate this kind of success in the Android market for a couple reasons. The android market is FLOODED with low-end phones and much more competition and in a way the Windows Phone UI and such looks a lot cleaner for a low-end phone, and the reason why low-end Nokias are so successful is because they provide a much better user experience for the dollar than any other low-budget phone BECAUSE of Windows Phone efficiency in resources.

-I think, despite what you believe, the Windows Phone UI has attracted a lot of costumers to Nokia that they wouldn't have gotten with Android. People always love alternatives, and the UI is clean, crisp, and inviting and goes along with the Nokia Industrial Design. The UI looks like it belongs to the phone. This is huge and creates a cohesive experience with bold, great looking colors. With an Android Nokia, I really think, even judging by these UI pictures supplied, they would have just been another high-end hardware Android Phone along with the Galaxy S line, Xperia Z, etc. Not as defining and bold like they are now.

Its amazing when you can debate a topic without taking it personally.

As for your points, the big deal was the money Microsoft paid Nokia. If that money is greater than what they would have made with android, then they most definitely made the right move, however I do feel they would have sold a lot more handsets with Android than they managed to with WP.

As for your point with the low end, I'm not sure if Android just can't run right on low end hardware or if manufacturers just didn't bother optimizing those handsets. My Note 3 with all its horse power still has the occasional lag and stutter while my lower specked Moto X run perfectly smooth, and the Moto G a low end phone supposedly run very smooth as well. One of Nokia's great attributes is an attention to the low end and I feel they would have put in the time to make those low end phones work right.

While there most certainly are lots of people that prefer WP over Android, there seems to be a lot more that prefer Android. While they may have gained some customers who preferred WP, they lost out on the ones that like Android. I think in the end they lost out on more than they gained and that's why I think it was a mistake to go WP exclusive.

In a perfect scenario they would have done both and let the customers decide what they wanted, as would all the phone manufactures, I'm sure WP users would love a handset built like the HTC One, Note, Moto, or Xperia running WP, as much as Android users would love a Nokia running Android.

 

[Michael Goff]

Its amazing when you can debate a topic without taking it personally.

As for your points, the big deal was the money Microsoft paid Nokia. If that money is greater than what they would have made with android, then they most definitely made the right move, however I do feel they would have sold a lot more handsets with Android than they managed to with WP.

As for your point with the low end, I'm not sure if Android just can't run right on low end hardware or if manufacturers just didn't bother optimizing those handsets. My Note 3 with all its horse power still has the occasional lag and stutter while my lower specked Moto X run perfectly smooth, and the Moto G a low end phone supposedly run very smooth as well. One of Nokia's great attributes is an attention to the low end and I feel they would have put in the time to make those low end phones work right.

While there most certainly are lots of people that prefer WP over Android, there seems to be a lot more that prefer Android. While they may have gained some customers who preferred WP, they lost out on the ones that like Android. I think in the end they lost out on more than they gained and that's why I think it was a mistake to go WP exclusive.

In a perfect scenario they would have done both and let the customers decide what they wanted, as would all the phone manufactures, I'm sure WP users would love a handset built like the HTC One, Note, Moto, or Xperia running WP, as much as Android users would love a Nokia running Android.

Isn't it great that nowadays quad core phones can be considered low end?