4 ms·

If they had done this a year ago, with Nokia quality cameras and design, it could have been successful. Right now, I have a lot of doubts. The name will obvious

by jsight 13y ago

If they had done this a year ago, with Nokia quality cameras and design, it could have been successful. Right now, I have a lot of doubts. The name will obviously have to change, and I have a lot of doubts in their ability to create quality hardware with meaningful differentiation from what is already out there. Without a lot of funding, this will just end up being a rebadged version of something already available in China, IMO.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- untog 13y ago
  I don't see how your reply is related to the original post.
  - Metrop0218 13y ago
    I read another post and then responded to the wrong one... Deleted.
pmelendez 13y ago
"If they had done this a year ago" I guess we would never know but I disagree with you. Part of Nokia's charm had been always the ability to differentiate from the rest. And that would be really hard to do in an Android environment where the war is about high-end hardware at a cheap price. Right now, Lumia 920 was supposedly in the same league than the Galaxy S4 and the iPhone 5 (performance wise speaking). But the S4 have a quadcore CPU and 2Gb of RAM while the Lumia "survives" with a dual core and 1Gb of RAM, roughly the half of hardware. WP8 is fast enough to mask that hardware difference but without that advantage, I can't see how they would be competitive enough either with the price or with the spects
- jsight 13y ago
  The Moto X (and it's Verizon brethren) are selling pretty well so far, and they are US only at the moment. They also have dual-core CPUs and relatively modest specs by modern standards. No OS magic is required to make this run acceptably, Android does just fine on its own (as it does on my 2 year old Tegra 2 tablet running 4.3). There is a meme floating around that only Samsung makes money on Android, and that only high-end devices are profitable. Neither aspect of this has much evidence behind it.
GrinningFool 13y ago
Even a year ago, not so much. Likely not even two years ago. The market is jammed full of Android phones. Some of them even have differentiating features. Adding another one to the mix - whether now or a year ago - is not a way to make a sustainable business. As nearly every vendor other than Samsung is learning.
JonFish85 13y ago
Not to mention, they're going to be playing Samsung's game, and will likely lose that. Sure they have good hardware, but Samsung has a huge head start and owns so much of the Android market (95% of all profits according to [1]) that I think Nokia will be another HTC or Sony that might have a good phone or two, but with nothing to really differentiate themselves, they'll fold. Not to mention, I think Samsung has such tight vertical integration (they manufacture a lot of the parts themselves) that anyone looking to get into Android is going to have a tough time really competing with Samsung. [1] http://www.zdnet.com/samsung-undisputed-android-king-takes-95-percent-of-q1-profits-7000015479/ http://www.zdnet.com/samsung-undisputed-android-king-takes-9...

by jsight 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

untog 13y ago
I don't see how your reply is related to the original post.
- Metrop0218 13y ago
  I read another post and then responded to the wrong one... Deleted.

pmelendez 13y ago

"If they had done this a year ago" I guess we would never know but I disagree with you. Part of Nokia's charm had been always the ability to differentiate from the rest. And that would be really hard to do in an Android environment where the war is about high-end hardware at a cheap price. Right now, Lumia 920 was supposedly in the same league than the Galaxy S4 and the iPhone 5 (performance wise speaking). But the S4 have a quadcore CPU and 2Gb of RAM while the Lumia "survives" with a dual core and 1Gb of RAM, roughly the half of hardware. WP8 is fast enough to mask that hardware difference but without that advantage, I can't see how they would be competitive enough either with the price or with the spects

jsight 13y ago
The Moto X (and it's Verizon brethren) are selling pretty well so far, and they are US only at the moment. They also have dual-core CPUs and relatively modest specs by modern standards. No OS magic is required to make this run acceptably, Android does just fine on its own (as it does on my 2 year old Tegra 2 tablet running 4.3). There is a meme floating around that only Samsung makes money on Android, and that only high-end devices are profitable. Neither aspect of this has much evidence behind it.

GrinningFool 13y ago

Even a year ago, not so much. Likely not even two years ago. The market is jammed full of Android phones. Some of them even have differentiating features. Adding another one to the mix - whether now or a year ago - is not a way to make a sustainable business. As nearly every vendor other than Samsung is learning.

JonFish85 13y ago

Not to mention, they're going to be playing Samsung's game, and will likely lose that. Sure they have good hardware, but Samsung has a huge head start and owns so much of the Android market (95% of all profits according to [1]) that I think Nokia will be another HTC or Sony that might have a good phone or two, but with nothing to really differentiate themselves, they'll fold. Not to mention, I think Samsung has such tight vertical integration (they manufacture a lot of the parts themselves) that anyone looking to get into Android is going to have a tough time really competing with Samsung. [1] http://www.zdnet.com/samsung-undisputed-android-king-takes-95-percent-of-q1-profits-7000015479/ http://www.zdnet.com/samsung-undisputed-android-king-takes-9...