4 ms·
> 1) The ability to run on lower-powered and thus cheaper hardware and still provide a polished experience, and 2) Nokia's build quality. The Moto G has put a
by recuter 13y ago
> 1) The ability to run on lower-powered and thus cheaper hardware and still provide a polished experience, and 2) Nokia's build quality.
The Moto G has put a price floor on things. Even if Microsoft/Nokia could limbo under it, why would anybody buy a basically-the-same Nokia for $150 instead of $179 Real Android? Its too late, these are commodities.
- cwyers 13y agoYou can get a Nokia 520/521 for a little over a third of $150.
- recuter 13y agoFrom its wiki page: "The price was halved to $50 (£70 in the UK) for the holidays" So its $100 and only roughly comparable. And that's rather my point, few people from developed countries will opt for it to save $79.
- cwyers 13y agoFrom "developed" countries? No. From countries with subsidized handsets, maybe. But Europe is certainly "developed," and that's where Windows Phone is making its biggest inroads: http://www.zdnet.com/windows-phone-takes-more-of-europes-smartphone-market-amid-signs-of-a-nokia-comeback-7000021335/ http://www.zdnet.com/windows-phone-takes-more-of-europes-sma...
- girvo 13y agoWhen you're dealing with budget phones, you're talking about super price sensitive buyers. The 520 goes for what, $70 or so? And it's actually a good experience, and a nice phone for that money. Sure, the Moto G is at least 2X better, but with the consumers we're talking about here, that doesn't matter. It's a fascinating area to watch!