4 ms·

I think the problem with the lacklustre sales and drop in stature of the Nokia brand is not the Nokia name, it is the fact that the Windows phone operating syst

I think the problem with the lacklustre sales and drop in stature of the Nokia brand is not the Nokia name, it is the fact that the Windows phone operating system pales in comparison to Android and iOS. I do not mean "pales" as in Android or iOS is superior, I mean when it comes to the very thing most of us use our phones for (besides texting, email and making calls): applications and games, they are nonexistent on Windows Phone OS. If Microsoft were to release a Lumia phone running Android, I would definitely buy one, no question or doubt about it. The latest Lumia phones are incredible pieces of hardware; nice design, nice internal hardware, responsive touchscreen, good battery life and one of the best cameras in a phone currently on the market. It is so painfully obvious and as usual, Microsoft just do not get it. They have some of the best phones on the market, but they go relatively unnoticed because they're running an operating system most people are not interested in using or dislike. I have a Samsung Galaxy S5, but if I had a choice of a Lumia phone like the Lumia 930 running Android, I would have bought that instead. I have longed for a Lumia phone running Android for a while now. Microsoft should just ditch Windows Phone OS or at the very least, sell two variants, give the customers a choice, do not make them have one over the other. One running Android and the other Windows. I can already tell you which version would be more popular. I feel as though the reason the flagship Lumia phones are not running Android is because Microsoft feels like it would be admitting defeat. They have invested a lot of money in the operating system, purchase of Nokia and continued development of new phone models, it has become more of a pride thing now and the fact they have committed to Windows Phone OS so much they could not easily back out from it even if they wanted too. Free the hardware. Give consumers choice. If you prefer Windows Phone OS, then buy a Lumia running Windows Phone OS or if you are like many consumers out there wanting to stay up-to-date and having access to the latest games and applications, buy a Lumia running Android.

dangrossman 12y ago
Isn't that the Nokia X line of phones? http://www.microsoft.com/en/mobile/phones/nokia-x/ http://www.microsoft.com/en/mobile/phones/nokia-x/
- DigitalSea 12y ago
  Nokia X phones do not possess the same great specs and hardware as the Lumia line of phones. I was referring to the lack of Lumia phone running Android. If the Lumia 930 ran Android, I would buy it in a heartbeat. I know a lot of people would.
Spearchucker 12y ago
How does Windows Phone pale in comparison with Android? I use both daily. In my experience there's pretty good feature parity. Windows Phone wins for me because it works as before without a Microsoft account, the tiles are just... easier, and its easier to find things, and (hardware) apart from the camera, the battery lasts for longer than a day.
skrebbel 12y ago
You know that this is taste, right? I got so fed up with Android's horrible UX and lack of consistency that I ditched it for windows phone, and I'm not looking back. It's a really excellent smartphone OS. Fast, usable with one hand, clean, no clutter, instant overview. The only disadvantage is a smaller app ecosystem - this matters to many people but not to all by far.
- freehunter 12y ago
  I used Windows Phone for several years and loved it. The app ecosystem is smaller, but the built-in features are so nice that you don't need a whole lot of apps (does the iPhone or Android have a QR reader built in yet, or built-in social networking apps?) With the amount of work and money that Microsoft puts into making sure any dev can make a Windows Phone version of their app as easily as possible, the only reason devs don't support it (especially if they have a Windows 8 app, looking at you Google) is pure apathy.
  - dingaling 12y ago
    > the only reason devs don't support it ... is pure apathy. Plus $99 per year for the privilege of loading your proto-app onto your own phone. Versus just picking-up an Android phone and starting to hack, I can understand the lack of interest. There's also the problem of the intersection of mobile-oriented developers and developers familar with the MS development stack; I'd say that the majority of the latter are back-end corporate coders, not front-end app developers.
    - wfjackson 12y ago
      It's been $19/yr for over a year now vs. the $25 one time cost to get into the Play Store. Also free for students and MSDN members. I believe the fee is there to prevent a malware propagation problem like we have on Android.
      - swartkrans 12y ago
        > I believe the fee is there to prevent a malware propagation problem like we have on Android. Anecdotally, I have had zero problems with malware on Android and I have used Android since 2010, and I have never known anyone to have a problem. Yet you're making it out to be some kind of huge deal, also $19 a year is still more than $0 a year to build your own app for your own hardware. Not being able to side-install apps on other platforms is the sole reason for me using Android, because otherwise I would use iOS which otherwise has the best phones and eco-system period.
higherpurpose 12y ago
Nokia really missed the boat on adopting Android back in 2010 when Samsung did. Nokia was still bigger than Samsung then in smartphone sales. After that, Android really took off (like from 4 to 30 percent market share in one year), and Nokia started to rapidly decline. The choice of going WP7 later on, only compounded on the initial decision of not going Android, as WP was behind in features, recognition, and of course, apps. Three years later, WP still has 2 percent market share globally. It's going nowhere fast, to say the least, even with Microsoft's billions that it has invested in it so far.
imaginenore 12y ago
> It is so painfully obvious and as usual, Microsoft just do not get it Oh, they get it. They just don't want to admit a multi-billion dollar mistake, and maybe they are still hoping that project will succeed. Plus there's like one person in the company capable of making such a huge decision.
- Spearchucker 12y ago
  I'd argue the project has already succeeded. Of course this requires understanding success - how much profit does 3% of the US market, and just under 10% internationally amount to? Is more sales than Blackberry success? How about a comparison with Sailfish? It's all relative. Microsoft's problems are more subtle. Writing universal apps makes little sense, as neat as the tech is, because you can only ever target many PCs and tablets, and a tiny share of phones -- or you could write an HTML/CSS/JS app, target all PCs and all phones. Their stack is solid, and their tooling arguably best in class. Selling it is not so easy.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    If you're arguing that Blackberry and Jolla are major players, then Microsoft are killing it. Since the sales of Blackberry and Jolla are rounding errors, though, I'd say that they aren't a good benchmark.
adamman 12y ago
Microsoft entered the mobile game too late. The OS is great. It's just hard playing catch-up when you are not the cool kid.
ladzoppelin 12y ago
Not only do I agree with the other replies, it should also be noted that Verizon has gone out of their way to badmouth, undersell and not update the Nokia line. It is well known that the Verizon sales people push Android and even the iPhone over the Lumia in the USA . The love for the Nokia/MS phone is still really strong despite all these roadblocks. " They have some of the best phones on the market, but they go relatively unnoticed because they're running an operating system most people are not interested in using or dislike" Actually this is incorrect. Many love the Windows 8.1 phone and would not use another mobile os. They have a really loyal group of fans which is really unusual for a Microsoft product.

dangrossman 12y ago

Isn't that the Nokia X line of phones? http://www.microsoft.com/en/mobile/phones/nokia-x/ http://www.microsoft.com/en/mobile/phones/nokia-x/

DigitalSea 12y ago
Nokia X phones do not possess the same great specs and hardware as the Lumia line of phones. I was referring to the lack of Lumia phone running Android. If the Lumia 930 ran Android, I would buy it in a heartbeat. I know a lot of people would.

Spearchucker 12y ago

How does Windows Phone pale in comparison with Android? I use both daily. In my experience there's pretty good feature parity. Windows Phone wins for me because it works as before without a Microsoft account, the tiles are just... easier, and its easier to find things, and (hardware) apart from the camera, the battery lasts for longer than a day.

skrebbel 12y ago

You know that this is taste, right? I got so fed up with Android's horrible UX and lack of consistency that I ditched it for windows phone, and I'm not looking back. It's a really excellent smartphone OS. Fast, usable with one hand, clean, no clutter, instant overview. The only disadvantage is a smaller app ecosystem - this matters to many people but not to all by far.

freehunter 12y ago
I used Windows Phone for several years and loved it. The app ecosystem is smaller, but the built-in features are so nice that you don't need a whole lot of apps (does the iPhone or Android have a QR reader built in yet, or built-in social networking apps?) With the amount of work and money that Microsoft puts into making sure any dev can make a Windows Phone version of their app as easily as possible, the only reason devs don't support it (especially if they have a Windows 8 app, looking at you Google) is pure apathy.
- dingaling 12y ago
  > the only reason devs don't support it ... is pure apathy. Plus $99 per year for the privilege of loading your proto-app onto your own phone. Versus just picking-up an Android phone and starting to hack, I can understand the lack of interest. There's also the problem of the intersection of mobile-oriented developers and developers familar with the MS development stack; I'd say that the majority of the latter are back-end corporate coders, not front-end app developers.
  - wfjackson 12y ago
    It's been $19/yr for over a year now vs. the $25 one time cost to get into the Play Store. Also free for students and MSDN members. I believe the fee is there to prevent a malware propagation problem like we have on Android.
    - swartkrans 12y ago
      > I believe the fee is there to prevent a malware propagation problem like we have on Android. Anecdotally, I have had zero problems with malware on Android and I have used Android since 2010, and I have never known anyone to have a problem. Yet you're making it out to be some kind of huge deal, also $19 a year is still more than $0 a year to build your own app for your own hardware. Not being able to side-install apps on other platforms is the sole reason for me using Android, because otherwise I would use iOS which otherwise has the best phones and eco-system period.

higherpurpose 12y ago

Nokia really missed the boat on adopting Android back in 2010 when Samsung did. Nokia was still bigger than Samsung then in smartphone sales. After that, Android really took off (like from 4 to 30 percent market share in one year), and Nokia started to rapidly decline. The choice of going WP7 later on, only compounded on the initial decision of not going Android, as WP was behind in features, recognition, and of course, apps. Three years later, WP still has 2 percent market share globally. It's going nowhere fast, to say the least, even with Microsoft's billions that it has invested in it so far.

imaginenore 12y ago

> It is so painfully obvious and as usual, Microsoft just do not get it Oh, they get it. They just don't want to admit a multi-billion dollar mistake, and maybe they are still hoping that project will succeed. Plus there's like one person in the company capable of making such a huge decision.

Spearchucker 12y ago
I'd argue the project has already succeeded. Of course this requires understanding success - how much profit does 3% of the US market, and just under 10% internationally amount to? Is more sales than Blackberry success? How about a comparison with Sailfish? It's all relative. Microsoft's problems are more subtle. Writing universal apps makes little sense, as neat as the tech is, because you can only ever target many PCs and tablets, and a tiny share of phones -- or you could write an HTML/CSS/JS app, target all PCs and all phones. Their stack is solid, and their tooling arguably best in class. Selling it is not so easy.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  If you're arguing that Blackberry and Jolla are major players, then Microsoft are killing it. Since the sales of Blackberry and Jolla are rounding errors, though, I'd say that they aren't a good benchmark.

adamman 12y ago

Microsoft entered the mobile game too late. The OS is great. It's just hard playing catch-up when you are not the cool kid.

ladzoppelin 12y ago

Not only do I agree with the other replies, it should also be noted that Verizon has gone out of their way to badmouth, undersell and not update the Nokia line. It is well known that the Verizon sales people push Android and even the iPhone over the Lumia in the USA . The love for the Nokia/MS phone is still really strong despite all these roadblocks. " They have some of the best phones on the market, but they go relatively unnoticed because they're running an operating system most people are not interested in using or dislike" Actually this is incorrect. Many love the Windows 8.1 phone and would not use another mobile os. They have a really loyal group of fans which is really unusual for a Microsoft product.