"Elop has already halved the time it takes for Nokia to make a smartphone, simply by shifting to Windows."
Yeah, that was because before that Nokia had double the time it takes to get a phone on the market compared to everyone else who has already joined Android.
HTC, Samsung and Motorola can put a "next-gen" phone on the market within 10 months, maybe even 9. So can Apple, but they prefer to keep it on a 12 month cycle. Same goes for Sony Ericsson until more recently, but they've almost caught up with the others now. It's not a coincidence that the former 2 phone manufacturing leaders were the slowest.
Nokia's "last good Symbian phone", the N8, took like a year and a half to get launched, maybe more. The "Meego based" phone, the N9, was also delayed a lot (had different name for a while).
Does this mean they have caught up with everyone else now? I don't see it. Maybe it's because WP7's slow adoption rate for latest hardware, or it's Nokia's fault again, or maybe both. But I still see them using very old hardware in their phones, which means their development cycle for "current" phones started quite a while back. Otherwise they should be able to make phones with cutting edge technology, like most Android manufacturers and Apple can.
But I still see them using very old hardware in their phones, which means their development cycle for "current" phones started quite a while back. Otherwise they should be able to make phones with cutting edge technology, like most Android manufacturers and Apple can.
I wouldn’t say any of the new Nokia Windows Phones (Lumia 710, 800, 900) use ‘old’ hardware at all. You have to realize the WP OS currently doesn’t support dual/quad-core CPUs and has a fixed screen resolution (800x480); so if that’s what you’re referencing, I’d say that’s not a case of slow development cycles but a limitation of the OS that Nokia must abide by.
And what’s the value in just looking at something purely based on hardware? What should matter is how it performs. WP is optimized to work with the minimal hardware specs MSFT has called-for and is remarkably snappy with it's single-core processers, and gets great battery life, so how would ‘newer’ hardware add-value here?
So, given the above, what ‘cutting-edge’ tech would you have them add? Resolution aside, the Lumia 900 has one of the best screens around, it’s 4G, I’d say it has the best offline navigation around (Nokia owns Navteq after all), and I’d say the phone's design itself is pretty cutting-edge as well.
So in other words, Nokia is now stuck in a world where they can't be competitive with other smartphones because of the software engineering decisions made by someone else. How do you think that is going to work out for them in the long run?
The important part is using it, not specs. My Lumia 900 scrolls faster than my Galaxy Nexus, and I don't even really care why. But, it's still a better experience for scrolling through a list of items, even if the specs on paper are technically less powerful.
I agree with you on that. Although at some point regular people will ask themselves "why should I buy a phone with a crappy display when I can buy an iPhone which also has smooth scrolling and good battery life?
But if Nokia can't have a say in what display resolution or camera to ship, how can they ever hope to produce _anything_ that differentiates them from other WP7 licensees?
Value-added services such as Comes with Music and Free Maps Forever doesn't help here (or at leat it hasn't in the past). It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
So compete by doing something innovative on the phone hardware. Who was the first to have a self-portrait mirror on the back of the phone? (Palm I think.) Who had the first forward-facing camera on a phone? (Not sure.) Things like that sell a lot of phones to Joe and Jill Sixpack. Put a dedicated flashlight LED and button on the phone. Make it waterproof and/or drop-proof.
But the number one way to sell more Nokia Windows Phones? Get on the other U.S. networks besides AT&T. AT&T is still the king for iPhone but Sprint and Verizon combined sell about as many iPhones as AT&T does, so Windows Phone is missing half the market by only really being on AT&T. (Yes, there are other Windows Phones, but no serious handsets outside of AT&T.)
Price. I bought a Nokia Lumia 710 just to try it - it was 205 Euro. For that I get a phone that feels fast and runs the now-current version of Windows Phone. In the UK you can buy a Lumia 710 with a prepaid SIM for 99 pounds. At the same price level I get a Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 with Android 2.3 (an operating system from 2010).
tl;dr, Thanks to good software engineering and lower specs, you get a phone that is completely up-to-date software wise at a great price point.
Because the entire smartphone industry seems to have been whittled down to a meaningless hardware spec race by ignorant fools. Doesn't have quad core ? Crap phone. No 5 inch screen ? Old hat.
That's funny. It reminds me of the Nokia N8, which was the highest spec'ed phone of 2010. It had an anodised aluminium monocoque case, a Carl Zeiss optic camera with 12.1 mega pixel resolution and Gorilla Glass (believe me, it's indestructible) AMOLED touchscreen. On top of this, it used a 680 MHz ARM11 processor with 256MB of RAM, with 16GB of internal memory.
Despite all of this, it's the worst phone I've ever used. The software was so dire that at one point, phone calls couldn't be made - even where other, older, Nokias could. I actually had to download Ovi, their app store. It wasn't preinstalled! It constantly froze, the touchscreen interface sucks, it's unresponsive even when it does work...
Nokia cannot do smart phone software properly. Here's hoping that Microsoft can do better, but I can assure you that if they do not, Nokia phones won't mean a damn to mostly anyone.
(Not only has the iPhone always used it, not only was it the first phone to ever use it, Steve Jobs was the one who convinced Corning to invent the stuff, if his biography is to be believed.)
Gorilla Glass was invented in the 60s, but they had no good use for it. Jobs asked Corning for a better smartphone screen and Corning came back with Gorilla glass.
I could hardly believed there was a fixed screen resolution (and such a low one) for WP but wikipedia[0] seems to agree (although a citation is needed).
Yeah, I’m almost certain that’s accurate from everything I’ve read.
As to why the fixed resolution, my guess is it’s reflective of MSFT’s desired positioning for WP as sitting in the middle of a Mobile OS spectrum; between iOS (totally locked-down, fully integrated hardware/software) and Android (completely open, fragmented hardware/software). In a sense, I guess that’s where Windows has always been, though with WP, it leans closer to the iOS side. Given that, having strict requirements, like that on screen resolution, go towards providing a consistent experience across devices (regardless of OEM) and ensuring all apps work and display the same on all devices, making development easier as well. The way I see it is you get iOS consistency and security (and some limitations) with the broad device/form-factor selection of Android (less the fragmentation); though, as evident by the resolution limitation, there are of course some compromises made with this approach.
Also, rumor has it [1] that these limitations are largely being relaxed with Windows Phone 8 (aka ‘Apollo’) and the OS will support 4 resolutions. I believe MSFT is holding an event to announce details on WP8 in a week or two.
What should matter is how it performs. WP is optimized to work with the minimal hardware specs MSFT has called-for and is remarkably snappy with it's single-core processers
Skype effectively can't work on WP7.x. It is an almost useless app as a function of the limitations that Microsoft has imposed because of the hardware that they chose.
In fact that is true throughout the platform -- the sort of powerful, feature rich apps on other platforms simply don't exist on WP because they are strangled by the limitations of the platform.
As a better-than-featurephone email device WP7.x is excellent. And yes, if you focus on flipping between home screen sections the performance is excellent, as it was on WebOS devices. That isn't what people generally use their device for, however.
Based on the job adverts I keep seeing in London for mobile and Xbox developers at Skype (and some common sense), I think it's fair to say that Skype will be a first class citizen on WP (and Xbox) in the future.
Skype is fairly poor on WP7.x I agree, but it does the job for voice calls in the interim while Microsoft work on making the carriers into even dumber pipes than they are already.
I think it would be wise not to underestimate Microsoft's vision, even if they do seem a little chaotic at times.
I find it strange that you tie adoption of latest hardware as a sign of ... whatever. Good user experience has only very little to do with adopting latest (multicore) chipsets. Polished software is far more important. On the other hand, I see SGS2 and SGS3 dying in 3-4 hours under load. Just my 5c.
Polished software is important. But Nokia has outsourced most of that to Microsoft now. The SGS2 and SGS3 dying in 3-4 hours? What do you mean? Like playing a 3D game? The SGS3 is one of the most battery efficient phones on the market now. Are you saying a WP7 phone can outlast it? In Anandtech's benchmarks I've only seen WP7 phones with mediocre battery life and very poor Sunspider performance. I've seen nothing that shows that overall WP7 phones are more battery efficient than Android so far.
On the other hand, I see SGS2 and SGS3 dying in 3-4 hours under load. Just my 5c.
The current crop of Windows Phone devices have miserable battery life, where the SGS2 and moreso the SGS3 have excellent battery life. I am profoundly confused by what you are claiming.
Last good Symbian phone is Nokia 808 PureView. I own it for 3 days and that's my favorite smartphone so far. Technically it took 5 years to make camera for this phone - does it make it bad smartphone?
I meant last good Symbian phone before they joined WP7. The Pureview 808 just came out. Also the camera for this phone is cutting edge. The S2 processor in Lumia 900 is 2 years old.
"The nightmare scenario for Nokia is that the one I [the author] described here back in January: that there really isn't room, in reality, for a "third ecosystem". In this scenario there's Apple and Android, leaving RIM and Nokia fighting for crumbs. Today, the health of WP as an "ecosystem" isn't obvious: Samsung, Dell, LG and HTC all seem to have given up. Only Nokia makes a noise."
Windows Phone is not something that stands on its own, Microsoft is building a powerful ecosystem comprising a desktop OS (win8), tablet os (win8), smartphone os (wp8/apollo), gaming platform (xbox), and tying it all together with a cloud infrastructure (skydrive, hotmail, bing, bing maps, etc.). Of course, the desktop/tablet OS and smartphone OS are going to be merged in the long run and it's possible (probable?) that eventually phones will even be able to run the full metro desktop when inserted into a dock, to act as a cheap computer replacement.
Of course, Apple has had this for years, but I think that WP holds some pretty good cards for the long run ...
Windows 8 Phone has nothing to do with Windows 8 Tablet. You have to build from scratch for each. How in the world is that an 'integrated ecosystem'.
I've been to the developers conferences and tried to build products for their launch devices. There is no grand plan, word on important issues come down the pipeline in real time, are later taken back or only addressed when a developers brings up a serious issue.
At close range, it often appears as if the Windows 8 team has no idea what they are doing, and actually two silo'd communities of Mobile and desktop.
>How in the world is that an 'integrated ecosystem'.
It is to the marketing dept.
Suppose you are a huge and stupid corporate or government customer.
Your users want to have smartphones. A MSFT rep convinces you that using Windows is the safe and reliable choice and with Windows 8 you have the same OS 'brand' on your desktop.
The same argument has kept IBM's mainframe salesmen in new cadilacs for decades.
depends what kind of impact win8 has on the tablet market. seems like android is kind of weak here compared to iOS. If Win8 gets a big enough chunk of that and if WP8 is more or less compatible with win8 on an app level win8 powered tablets could pull windows phones along enough to get reasonable market share. Microsoft certainly has the reasources and cash to at least try that. As far as RIM is concerned, I see their future as kind of bleak...
Leveraging tablets to increase WP sales is the best path for MS to take but they are playing a dangerous game.
Windows 8 on the desktop will be a serious adjustment for consumers and very early reviews seem to indicate that. The perception of Windows 8 on the desktop could adversely affect WOA.
Sure it's a gamble, and a risky one for that. But continuing business as usual is IMO even riskier. Possible that Win8 could face the same fate on desktops like Vista did. How that wuld effect customer perception of Win8 on tablets, well good question.
the main benefit I see in Win8-tablets is that you finally get a real computer for the price of a real computer and not an oversized smartphone you can't use to make phone calls for the price oy a computer. But that's just my opinion.
Of course they are - but Microsoft only knows how to make platform plays.
It seems to have forgotten that platforms are bootstrapped on the basis of killer products, and sustained by interop between a continuous stream of great products. For so long, its platform play was based on extending the Windows platform ("windows everywhere"), and it seems to have institutionally forgotten that the only reason this worked is because WORD AND EXCEL ARE KILLER PRODUCTS. If Word ceased to be the way that 99% of business users interfaced with text of any significance, and if Excel ceased to be the way that 99% of business users capture and analyze data, then the Windows platform "advantage" would evaporate overnight.
So, Microsoft's DNA is to attempt to create "ecosystems" because it considers itself a platform company, whereas most smaller or saner companies look to build great products. Heck, even Apple has to do this. Could it have created an iOS ecosystem if the iPhone was a dud?
(An aside: Android might seem to be an exception to this, because it's not a killer product in the way that iPhone and iPad were. But that's only if you think that phone subscribers are the customers of Android. They're not - the carriers are. Which is why Google's acquisition of Motorola is so interesting and yet so expected at the same time. They've gotten as about as far as they can get on the back of an "OK" product, and need to make a stellar product in order to build an ecosystem of users instead of partners. The carriers don't have it in their DNA to deliver stellar software, and the hardware guys don't either, so Google has to buy a hardware company so it can build a great integrated device.)
The belief is that with China and Nokia building middle classes, there will be a gigantic market for $25 phones. Not smartphones, but just phones, like Nokia is really good at making.
Thing is, it's a telco company, they are all horrible.
I wonder how $25 Nokia dumbphones will do against the $25 Android phones that are coming (a bit more than a factor of 2 to go - we've already $50 off-contract during the right sale).
Because Nokia will burn through its remaining cash within two years at the current loss rate and otherwise go bankrupt - perhaps fatally tarnishing Windows as a phone operating system.
Buying a major phone company would have been a pretty risky strategy shift. Google's Motorola acquisition is one of Microsoft's best selling points for getting HTC/Samsung/etc. to take Windows Phone seriously, perhaps more seriously than Android. With Windows 8, Samsung and others will have unique incentive to push Windows Phones over Android - they'll have a full lineup of modern phones, tablets and enterprise-ready PCs. Acquiring Nokia would soured a lot of partners who are just as capable of delivering great hardware without taking on the risks of a hardware company.
If Nokia has blockbuster sales with WP7, or other companies with Win8 tablets, expect those companies to be on board pretty quickly. So far, though, it's not happening. Also, those companies know that Microsofts strategy can (and will if needed) change overnight just like it did with PlaysForSure (replaced by the Microsoft-made Zune).
Yeah, that was because before that Nokia had double the time it takes to get a phone on the market compared to everyone else who has already joined Android.
HTC, Samsung and Motorola can put a "next-gen" phone on the market within 10 months, maybe even 9. So can Apple, but they prefer to keep it on a 12 month cycle. Same goes for Sony Ericsson until more recently, but they've almost caught up with the others now. It's not a coincidence that the former 2 phone manufacturing leaders were the slowest.
Nokia's "last good Symbian phone", the N8, took like a year and a half to get launched, maybe more. The "Meego based" phone, the N9, was also delayed a lot (had different name for a while).
Does this mean they have caught up with everyone else now? I don't see it. Maybe it's because WP7's slow adoption rate for latest hardware, or it's Nokia's fault again, or maybe both. But I still see them using very old hardware in their phones, which means their development cycle for "current" phones started quite a while back. Otherwise they should be able to make phones with cutting edge technology, like most Android manufacturers and Apple can.