3 ms·

Disagree. It's likely that Nokia, like many manufacturers, used the minimum specs possible to get a certain experience level. It could be that WP7 required lowe

by gareim 10y ago

Disagree. It's likely that Nokia, like many manufacturers, used the minimum specs possible to get a certain experience level. It could be that WP7 required lower specs to get the same smoothness that Android could achieve. That wouldn't be hard to believe, as Android wasn't even focusing on feeling "smooth" until long after the Galaxy S2 had come out. Nokia isn't somehow incapable of sourcing competitive parts aside from Samsung's AMOLED. I dislike the "Windows Phone or become a commodity Android OEM" argument because it holds no substance. First of all, if Nokia is successful at executing WP, then other manufacturers will license WP and Microsoft sure as hell won't let an OEM customize WP, so how does your argument hold weight? Nokia would only be able to compete in build quality, which it can do regardless of OS, so why not jump in with the popular, entrenched option? As for differentiating as an Android OEM, if they had gone that route, that common argument always seems to ignore the fact that every single manufacturer has had no issue making their own skin. In fact, one popular OEM's schtick is that they provide a near-stock experience. Shit, if Nokia had done that coupled with their reputation for good build quality (something that aforementioned popular OEM lacks), then they would be doing better than most of the guys on the market now. At the very least, they'd be doing better than how they actually did. I LOVED Nokia at the time, so I followed news of their phones closely. No one will ever be able to convince me that it was a good idea to pick a dead end OS (it was obvious even at that time) over a popular juggernaut, publicly destroying their current OSes before even implementing their dead OS properly, destroying the N9 which had pretty much only great reviews, and then undoing all of that in the span of a few years. I hated it when it happened and I hate it now.

Liblor 10y ago
I had a N9 and I loved it. The user experience of MeeGo was just awesome and very innovative! Choosing Windows phone over MeeGo was definitely a mistake. In my opinion Windows phone doesn't have a chance against Android and iOS as it doesn't offer something that makes people think "omg that's so cool, I gotta have that". I guess quite a few people would have thought that if the N9 hadn't been dropped so fast and if they'd had a chance to play with the N9.
mdasen 10y ago
I loved Nokia too. I think it was a bad idea to pick Windows Phone. I still think that by November 2011, Nokia wasn't going to become a great smartphone company regardless of their OS choice. Nokia wouldn't have been able to competitively source parts. Apple and Samsung were putting down huge component orders (and Samsung makes a lot of its own parts like processors, RAM, storage, and displays). As Nokia's first Android phone, they would have made smaller orders at higher cost. If you're going to argue that they only needed certain specs to get the same experience, it undercuts your argument that they're able to competitively source given the price of the Lumia 800 against the competition. If you're going to say that Android needed the more power, than if the Lumia 800 were an Android phone, it would have been terrible - or they would have had to spend up on parts. Nokia was great, but they ignored smartphones for too long. I don't think the Microsoft deal did them in - they were done-in before that. They spent too much time pursuing Maemo and Symbian alternatives to Android. When they came out with the Lumia 800, it wasn't amazing. It was another slab phone with mediocre specs. By November 2011, you had to do something really impressive and Nokia wasn't doing something impressive. That's my argument. The market had already decided that it didn't give a crap about brands from the dumbphone era. It might have given a crap about Nokia. I mean, Nokia was great. The fact still remains that even if they went with an Android device, they needed a better phone. People were already quite happy with Samsung Android devices, while HTC, Motorola, SonyEricsson, and LG were all competing in that space with established brands. Even if we ignore the single-core CPU and 512MB of RAM, the Lumia 800's display simply wasn't competitive against other offerings. Frankly, Motorola and HTC have both come out with really nice, compelling Android devices and both of them haven't been able to keep up. They both got on board the Android train a lot earlier than November 2011. Yes, I liked Nokia's brand better. Yes, Nokia made some great build-quality devices. I even have a Lumia sitting on my dresser as I type this. I still think that a Nokia Android phone released in November 2011 would have been below-par compared to other available Android devices. It certainly would have sold some, but HTC, Motorola, LG, Sony sell some. But even if it had 1GB of RAM and a dual-core processor, the Lumia 800 had a small display compared to Android phones, a comparatively low-res display, it was a good deal thicker (40% thicker than a Galaxy SII) and heavier (22% heavier than a Galaxy SII), with a smaller battery. That's the thing one can't account for. Maybe the RAM and CPU were spec'd by Microsoft. Maybe the RAM and CPU were competitive in terms of experience against Android phones. The fact is that Nokia couldn't manufacture something that was physically competitive in terms of weight, size, and battery capacity. A Lumia 800 Android phone with 1GB of RAM and a dual-core processor would have been thicker, heavier, and had less battery life with a smaller display. Customers wanted the larger display. Customers want more battery life. Even if Nokia had made it run Android, customers would have looked at it next to a Galaxy SII and most of them would have decided on the larger display, better display, better battery, while being thinner and lighter. That's ultimately the issue. Regardless of RAM and CPU, the Lumia 800 just wasn't a superb phone. It was bulky and heavy. Nokia put a smaller display on it than consumers wanted. I miss Nokia too. I wish they were still around. I just don't think that Windows Phone was the determining factor. I did like the build quality of the Lumias, but I don't think that would be enough to get most people to choose them over a competitor that was better in all other respects - especially as competitors ramped up their build quality a lot in 2012. Nokia had squandered their chance in the smartphone race regardless of OS. They were late to the game and the Lumia 800 just wasn't a flagship device. I miss Nokia, but blaming it on Windows Phone given that Nokia was late to smartphones generally and that the Lumia 800 was a poor offering with respect to what consumers wanted seems like shifting the blame because it's easier to hate on Microsoft for destroying the brand we loved than recognizing that Nokia just didn't make the transition to smartphones more generally.

by gareim 10y ago

Liblor 10y ago

I had a N9 and I loved it. The user experience of MeeGo was just awesome and very innovative! Choosing Windows phone over MeeGo was definitely a mistake. In my opinion Windows phone doesn't have a chance against Android and iOS as it doesn't offer something that makes people think "omg that's so cool, I gotta have that". I guess quite a few people would have thought that if the N9 hadn't been dropped so fast and if they'd had a chance to play with the N9.

mdasen 10y ago

I loved Nokia too. I think it was a bad idea to pick Windows Phone. I still think that by November 2011, Nokia wasn't going to become a great smartphone company regardless of their OS choice. Nokia wouldn't have been able to competitively source parts. Apple and Samsung were putting down huge component orders (and Samsung makes a lot of its own parts like processors, RAM, storage, and displays). As Nokia's first Android phone, they would have made smaller orders at higher cost. If you're going to argue that they only needed certain specs to get the same experience, it undercuts your argument that they're able to competitively source given the price of the Lumia 800 against the competition. If you're going to say that Android needed the more power, than if the Lumia 800 were an Android phone, it would have been terrible - or they would have had to spend up on parts. Nokia was great, but they ignored smartphones for too long. I don't think the Microsoft deal did them in - they were done-in before that. They spent too much time pursuing Maemo and Symbian alternatives to Android. When they came out with the Lumia 800, it wasn't amazing. It was another slab phone with mediocre specs. By November 2011, you had to do something really impressive and Nokia wasn't doing something impressive. That's my argument. The market had already decided that it didn't give a crap about brands from the dumbphone era. It might have given a crap about Nokia. I mean, Nokia was great. The fact still remains that even if they went with an Android device, they needed a better phone. People were already quite happy with Samsung Android devices, while HTC, Motorola, SonyEricsson, and LG were all competing in that space with established brands. Even if we ignore the single-core CPU and 512MB of RAM, the Lumia 800's display simply wasn't competitive against other offerings. Frankly, Motorola and HTC have both come out with really nice, compelling Android devices and both of them haven't been able to keep up. They both got on board the Android train a lot earlier than November 2011. Yes, I liked Nokia's brand better. Yes, Nokia made some great build-quality devices. I even have a Lumia sitting on my dresser as I type this. I still think that a Nokia Android phone released in November 2011 would have been below-par compared to other available Android devices. It certainly would have sold some, but HTC, Motorola, LG, Sony sell some. But even if it had 1GB of RAM and a dual-core processor, the Lumia 800 had a small display compared to Android phones, a comparatively low-res display, it was a good deal thicker (40% thicker than a Galaxy SII) and heavier (22% heavier than a Galaxy SII), with a smaller battery. That's the thing one can't account for. Maybe the RAM and CPU were spec'd by Microsoft. Maybe the RAM and CPU were competitive in terms of experience against Android phones. The fact is that Nokia couldn't manufacture something that was physically competitive in terms of weight, size, and battery capacity. A Lumia 800 Android phone with 1GB of RAM and a dual-core processor would have been thicker, heavier, and had less battery life with a smaller display. Customers wanted the larger display. Customers want more battery life. Even if Nokia had made it run Android, customers would have looked at it next to a Galaxy SII and most of them would have decided on the larger display, better display, better battery, while being thinner and lighter. That's ultimately the issue. Regardless of RAM and CPU, the Lumia 800 just wasn't a superb phone. It was bulky and heavy. Nokia put a smaller display on it than consumers wanted. I miss Nokia too. I wish they were still around. I just don't think that Windows Phone was the determining factor. I did like the build quality of the Lumias, but I don't think that would be enough to get most people to choose them over a competitor that was better in all other respects - especially as competitors ramped up their build quality a lot in 2012. Nokia had squandered their chance in the smartphone race regardless of OS. They were late to the game and the Lumia 800 just wasn't a flagship device. I miss Nokia, but blaming it on Windows Phone given that Nokia was late to smartphones generally and that the Lumia 800 was a poor offering with respect to what consumers wanted seems like shifting the blame because it's easier to hate on Microsoft for destroying the brand we loved than recognizing that Nokia just didn't make the transition to smartphones more generally.