5 ms·

Nokia brand was not sold IIRC, it stayed with Nokia. Microsoft had a license for a few years and that's all. On one hand the OS is Microsoft, on the other Micr

Nokia brand was not sold IIRC, it stayed with Nokia. Microsoft had a license for a few years and that's all. On one hand the OS is Microsoft, on the other Microsoft just isn't hip and has baggage from past years. It's a dilemma

joenathan 13y ago
>Microsoft just isn't hip There is a whole world out there beyond the hipsters that buys phones, most of them not being able to afford the latest iDevice.
- jackalope 13y ago
  I can afford any phone I want, but I hated my (2.1) Android and couldn't read any text on the (iOS 6) iPhone even with my glasses on, so I bought a Nokia Lumia 920 with WP8. So far, I have no regrets, although the decision might have been harder if iOS 7 had been released at the time, with its flat UI. I support Android, iOS and WP8 phones in my household and the Nokia/Windows Phone 8 is by far the most problem-free, which is ironic because I won't let anyone in the house near a Windows computer without supervision; I normally use Linux and switched the rest of my family to Macs.
  - dublinben 13y ago
    Why would you compare Android 2.1 to the Lumia 920 when phones like the Galaxy S III (with 4.0.4 ICS) were already available?
    - jackalope 13y ago
      Because that's what I was using (and leaving) at the time. The Galaxy S III was the leading contender, in fact, but my negative experiences with Android 1.6 and 2.1 (from bad to worse) factored against it. I later supported an S3 for a few months that was buggy and unreliable, so I was happy I didn't get it instead.
      - dublinben 13y ago
        It just strikes me as unfair to use a several year old OS as a comparison. I know how terrible WM6 was, but I'm not applying that experience to the current WM8.
  - runner84111 13y ago
    did on my Lumia
  - amaks 13y ago
    Comparing Android 2.1 to latest phones is like comparing windows 3.1 to latest Mac OS X. Why not compare Android KitKat instead?
    - jackalope 13y ago
      I was trying to put my purchase in context. At that time, I had been locked in a 2 year contract that only got me as far as Android 2.1, which was already obsolete by the time the carrier (AT&T) finally allowed me to update from 1.6. So my options were Android 4.x (fool me twice?), iOS 6 (hated the UI) or Windows Phone (loved the UI and updates weren't being significantly delayed or blocked). And your analogy is apt. Imagine walking into a computer store today and they're selling PCs with Windows 98 preinstalled with the promise you can upgrade to Vista as "soon" as the manufacturer allows it (currently delayed until they rewrite some incompatible adware). That's what the US smartphone market feels like (or did then), especially with Android.
- phaus 13y ago
  A significant percentage of the hipsters can't afford them either, they just buy them anyway.
- thesimpsons1022 13y ago
  it's not about hipsters. Its about anyone under 40 wanting to seem cool and get apple products. In my classes everyone has iphones and macbooks, not because they are all "hipsters".

joenathan 13y ago

>Microsoft just isn't hip There is a whole world out there beyond the hipsters that buys phones, most of them not being able to afford the latest iDevice.

jackalope 13y ago
I can afford any phone I want, but I hated my (2.1) Android and couldn't read any text on the (iOS 6) iPhone even with my glasses on, so I bought a Nokia Lumia 920 with WP8. So far, I have no regrets, although the decision might have been harder if iOS 7 had been released at the time, with its flat UI. I support Android, iOS and WP8 phones in my household and the Nokia/Windows Phone 8 is by far the most problem-free, which is ironic because I won't let anyone in the house near a Windows computer without supervision; I normally use Linux and switched the rest of my family to Macs.
- dublinben 13y ago
  Why would you compare Android 2.1 to the Lumia 920 when phones like the Galaxy S III (with 4.0.4 ICS) were already available?
  - jackalope 13y ago
    Because that's what I was using (and leaving) at the time. The Galaxy S III was the leading contender, in fact, but my negative experiences with Android 1.6 and 2.1 (from bad to worse) factored against it. I later supported an S3 for a few months that was buggy and unreliable, so I was happy I didn't get it instead.
    - dublinben 13y ago
      It just strikes me as unfair to use a several year old OS as a comparison. I know how terrible WM6 was, but I'm not applying that experience to the current WM8.
- runner84111 13y ago
  did on my Lumia
- amaks 13y ago
  Comparing Android 2.1 to latest phones is like comparing windows 3.1 to latest Mac OS X. Why not compare Android KitKat instead?
  - jackalope 13y ago
    I was trying to put my purchase in context. At that time, I had been locked in a 2 year contract that only got me as far as Android 2.1, which was already obsolete by the time the carrier (AT&T) finally allowed me to update from 1.6. So my options were Android 4.x (fool me twice?), iOS 6 (hated the UI) or Windows Phone (loved the UI and updates weren't being significantly delayed or blocked). And your analogy is apt. Imagine walking into a computer store today and they're selling PCs with Windows 98 preinstalled with the promise you can upgrade to Vista as "soon" as the manufacturer allows it (currently delayed until they rewrite some incompatible adware). That's what the US smartphone market feels like (or did then), especially with Android.
phaus 13y ago
A significant percentage of the hipsters can't afford them either, they just buy them anyway.
thesimpsons1022 13y ago
it's not about hipsters. Its about anyone under 40 wanting to seem cool and get apple products. In my classes everyone has iphones and macbooks, not because they are all "hipsters".