3 ms·

Ouch. Are they implying the other WP7 phones are just cheap fakes? The other OEM's must not be too happy about this today. Why do I get the feeling the other OE

Ouch. Are they implying the other WP7 phones are just cheap fakes? The other OEM's must not be too happy about this today. Why do I get the feeling the other OEM's were just "used" to help WP7 survive for another year until the "real" WP7 manufacturer arrives?

potatolicious 15y ago
I suspect it's the other way around. MSFT bet the company on WP7, clearly has spent oodles of time and effort on it, but all of the launch devices were snoozefests - some were outright, lazy ripoffs of the OEMs' existing Android phones. There was nothing unique, compelling, or, well, anything about these phones. Most were even exceptionally crappy with the exception of the Samsung. It's clear that none of the OEMs were willing to invest the resources to design and build a piece of hardware that was compelling. I don't blame Microsoft for shopping around for an "official" manufacturer after that little debacle. And I say: Finally! One of the weaknesses of Android has always been this clearly demarcated line between hardware and software, as necessitated by its licensing terms and mission statement. iPhones don't suffer from the effects of this - the software plays closely with the hardware, and it shows. With beautiful industrial design (honestly, I'm a fan of this new phone) and tight hardware-software integration, Microsoft can stand a real chance. I say, about time.
- guruz 15y ago
  I might get downvoted for this sarcasm, but: That thing looks like a lazy ripoff of the Nokia N9. But oh well. They're both beautiful :-) Disclaimer: I used to work for Nokia.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - TallTalesOrTrue 15y ago
    Probably was necessary to keep the beautiful hardware intact to change the guts completely in less than a year. Look at iPhone 4S. Almost no visual changes in exterior in a year and a half and the OS didn't change that much either... why change the looks of something that is already so beautiful.
  - rkwz 15y ago
    >That thing looks like a lazy ripoff of the Nokia N9. Doesn't that apply to iPhone4S as well?
  - recoiledsnake 15y ago
    It takes 18 months to design a phone and get it to market(along with the carrier approval and changes and all that nonsense). The MS deal was announced in Feb of this year. What did you expect?
jinushaun 15y ago
Nokia is correct. The first wave of WP7 phones were awful, boring, cheap looking, giant bricks, etc. No standout desirable devices, which hurt the platform. That is the risk of the MS model: your partners will take your OS and put it on cheap crappy hardware and lose to Apple. The Lumia 800 is the first desirable WP7 device.
recoiledsnake 15y ago
It's a sign that an OEM needs to up their game. Do we care about Dell whining that Sony makes better looking laptops? Get with the program, this is how MS took over the PC market, by making the OEMs compete on all things thus benefiting the consumer immensely.
contextfree 15y ago
"they" = Nokia, not Microsoft

potatolicious 15y ago

I suspect it's the other way around. MSFT bet the company on WP7, clearly has spent oodles of time and effort on it, but all of the launch devices were snoozefests - some were outright, lazy ripoffs of the OEMs' existing Android phones. There was nothing unique, compelling, or, well, anything about these phones. Most were even exceptionally crappy with the exception of the Samsung. It's clear that none of the OEMs were willing to invest the resources to design and build a piece of hardware that was compelling. I don't blame Microsoft for shopping around for an "official" manufacturer after that little debacle. And I say: Finally! One of the weaknesses of Android has always been this clearly demarcated line between hardware and software, as necessitated by its licensing terms and mission statement. iPhones don't suffer from the effects of this - the software plays closely with the hardware, and it shows. With beautiful industrial design (honestly, I'm a fan of this new phone) and tight hardware-software integration, Microsoft can stand a real chance. I say, about time.

guruz 15y ago
I might get downvoted for this sarcasm, but: That thing looks like a lazy ripoff of the Nokia N9. But oh well. They're both beautiful :-) Disclaimer: I used to work for Nokia.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- TallTalesOrTrue 15y ago
  Probably was necessary to keep the beautiful hardware intact to change the guts completely in less than a year. Look at iPhone 4S. Almost no visual changes in exterior in a year and a half and the OS didn't change that much either... why change the looks of something that is already so beautiful.
- rkwz 15y ago
  >That thing looks like a lazy ripoff of the Nokia N9. Doesn't that apply to iPhone4S as well?
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  It takes 18 months to design a phone and get it to market(along with the carrier approval and changes and all that nonsense). The MS deal was announced in Feb of this year. What did you expect?

jinushaun 15y ago

Nokia is correct. The first wave of WP7 phones were awful, boring, cheap looking, giant bricks, etc. No standout desirable devices, which hurt the platform. That is the risk of the MS model: your partners will take your OS and put it on cheap crappy hardware and lose to Apple. The Lumia 800 is the first desirable WP7 device.

recoiledsnake 15y ago

It's a sign that an OEM needs to up their game. Do we care about Dell whining that Sony makes better looking laptops? Get with the program, this is how MS took over the PC market, by making the OEMs compete on all things thus benefiting the consumer immensely.

contextfree 15y ago

"they" = Nokia, not Microsoft