• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Operators: Nokia would sell better with Android

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Bateluer said:
Guys, put yourself into the sales person's shoes. How would you convince someone to buy a Lumina 900 over an SGS2.
Click to expand...

Style of phone, which matters to a lot of people more than specs, the UI's very unique and eye catching. It also has Xbox Live integration, which you cannot get with any other mobile OS. And doesn't it sync with the Zune player on a PC? That seems like a selling point to me. If I'm a n00b and buy an Android, without help as to which app to dl on the market I'm not going to easily be loading my music to phone. And it doesn't hurt that people know the name Microsoft. Even regardless of lower specs, if a person who's clueless on tech shit plays with the SGS2 and the Lumia 900, the Lumia to many will feel faster. I know the specs, and which is more advanced. but imho the 900 came across as a better handset the short time I used it. Hell, I know the screen's much lower resolution, but it was the best looking screen in the AT&T store. Maybe it was my eyes playing tricks on me, but that screen wowed me big time. I bet with no help from a sales person, a n00b left to their own devices with only those 2 phones to chose between, the Lumia would fair decently. Android's still a long ways off of really being user friendly, it's not hurting sales obviously, but the ease of use of WM7 or iOS are selling points I'd use if I was a sales person at an A&T store.
 
Last edited:
ponyo said:
You can sync videos, pictures, music you have on your computer to Android phone using Windows Media Player on Win7.
Click to expand...
My bad, I did not remember that WMP would handle this.
Or you can automatically sync your pictures to your computer using Google+ or Dropbox. Or just upload it Google Picasa and it will also sync with your phone.
Click to expand...
My phone has made no indication I could or should be using Google+ or Picasa to sync pictures. If Google+ and Picasa both sync pictures, how should I choose which to use? Dropbox is a third party, requiring additional registration and login, and again, my phone makes no indication that I should be using that.
For music, sync it with Google Music.
Click to expand...
Doesn't exist.
Videos I stream directly from my home server using SMB shares since I can't keep terabyte of movies on my phone.
Click to expand...
Good for you, completely irrelevant to the general problem of average users syncing their stuff.
Chrome syncs all my desktop, tablet, and phone browsers and bookmarks and I can even view any opened tabs across all devices.
Click to expand...
Chrome is beta, and the phone makes no indication it exists or that I should be downloading it if I want my bookmarks synced.
Google syncs all my contacts, email, text messages, calendar, etc.
Click to expand...
That stuff is pretty much the only thing the phone is making as easy to sync as possible. Still, Microsoft can do slightly better for most users even on this front seeing how Windows possesses or will possess the relevant account details.
 
QueBert said:
Style of phone, which matters to a lot of people more than specs, the UI's very unique and eye catching. It also has Xbox Live integration, which you cannot get with any other mobile OS. And doesn't it sync with the Zune player on a PC? That seems like a selling point to me. If I'm a n00b and buy an Android, without help as to which app to dl on the market I'm not going to easily be loading my music to phone. And it doesn't hurt that people know the name Microsoft. Even regardless of lower specs, if a person who's clueless on tech shit plays with the SGS2 and the Lumia 900, the Lumia to many will feel faster. I know the specs, and which is more advanced. but imho the 900 came across as a better handset the short time I used it. Hell, I know the screen's much lower resolution, but it was the best looking screen in the AT&T store. Maybe it was my eyes playing tricks on me, but that screen wowed me big time. I bet with no help from a sales person, a n00b left to their own devices with only those 2 phones to chose between, the Lumia would fair decently. Android's still a long ways off of really being user friendly, it's not hurting sales obviously, but the ease of use of WM7 or iOS are selling points I'd use if I was a sales person at an A&T store.
Click to expand...

You're eyes were playing tricks on you, The Lumia uses a Samsung Super Amoled plus display just like the Galaxy S2 except it has a lower maximum brightness (it does have a polarizer to compensate for outdoor viewing.)
 
Last edited:
DLeRium said:
Lumia 900 has a large beautiful screen if you use the same selling point on an SGS2

You can sell based on ease of use. It's pretty easy to make Android look bad or ANY platform look bad. You pretty much did it making WP7 look bad. Any salesman decently capable enough can spin the sale to make Android look bad:

- Oh look it needs dual core to even load webpages and scroll smoothly. Waste of power.
- WP7 is easy to use. Fast access to people, sharing, windows phone challenge shows how FAST it is to do stuff.
- Same gorgeous 4.3" or 4.7" screen. There are only a few HD devices on Android anyway. Not everyone is paying attention to the few phones out there.
- Dedicated camera button
- Support in store just like Apple.
- Android is choppy. Waits forever for ICS.
- Lagfest. To quote Quebert "Even the lag was laggy."
Click to expand...

Most of the above is either outright false or highly subjective. I despise the UI in WP7 and find it extremely difficult to navigate and do things, things which take seconds on the last couple Android devices I've owned. You are right on some though, spinning it. If the sales person knows how to do an arbitrary task on WP7 and the customer doesn't, then it'd look like WP7 is the better device. Especially if the sales person goes through a round-a-bout method on Android for the same task deliberately.

You get support for every phone in carrier stores, regardless of OS. Bought my Nexus at BB, and I can take it into Verizon stores for support. Thats not limited to a WP7 device.

Latest reports also state that no current WP7 devices will be getting W8/Apollo upgrades. So, it'd be waiting forever vs not getting an update at all.
 
Pia said:
My bad, I did not remember that WMP would handle this.
My phone has made no indication I could or should be using Google+ or Picasa to sync pictures. If Google+ and Picasa both sync pictures, how should I choose which to use? Dropbox is a third party, requiring additional registration and login, and again, my phone makes no indication that I should be using that.
Doesn't exist.Good for you, completely irrelevant to the general problem of average users syncing their stuff.
Chrome is beta, and the phone makes no indication it exists or that I should be downloading it if I want my bookmarks synced.That stuff is pretty much the only thing the phone is making as easy to sync as possible. Still, Microsoft can do slightly better for most users even on this front seeing how Windows possesses or will possess the relevant account details.
Click to expand...

Like I said WMP will do all you want. I just listed others for more option and choices. Choices are good.

If people can use USB thumb drives to copy files back and forth, they can use Android phones the same way. Average users seem to have no problem with USB thumb drives.

Google Music doesn't exist? Play Music. Better?

I just listed Chrome mobile app as an option. Stock ICS browser will sync all your desktop Chrome bookmarks automatically too.

I shouldn't probably mention Google Docs since that'll confuse you even more. I can't remember the last time I installed MS Office on my computer.
 
ponyo said:
Like I said WMP will do all you want. I just listed others for more option and choices. Choices are good.
...
Google Music doesn't exist? Play Music. Better?
...
I shouldn't probably mention Google Docs since that'll confuse you even more.
Click to expand...
I'm not at all confused. I'm talking about the overall quality of syncing and setting up on Android for all users. Not just for the 20% who are technologically savvy, the 10% who are interested in digging out hidden and 3rd party options, the 5% who have access to Google Music (you know it's US only, right?), or the 5% who have Android 4.0.

Google is improving things, but let's not pretend that the way syncing is currently on Android is great. Even if Google fixes everything they can fix, for the foreseeable future, Microsoft is in a position to do syncing much better than Google, slightly better than Apple even. Whether MS manages to take advantage of that opportunity is a different matter.
 
Somehow, I think this may have been part of Microsoft's plan.
Think about it:
- Microsoft "bribes" Nokia to use WP7.
- Nokia puts out top end phone with WP7 on it.
- Sales suck.
- WP7 universally panned as Nokia's failure.
- Nokia tanks, market cap falls.
- Microsoft, already cozy with Nokia, swoops in and picks up Nokia's portfolio for a song.
- Takes Apple and Google to the cleaners (even more than they already do) for patent licenses.
- Microsoft never has to make a mobile OS again, and just lives off royalties.

Sounds pretty clever to me.
 
Pia said:
I'm not at all confused. I'm talking about the overall quality of syncing and setting up on Android for all users. Not just for the 20% who are technologically savvy, the 10% who are interested in digging out hidden and 3rd party options, the 5% who have access to Google Music (you know it's US only, right?), or the 5% who have Android 4.0.

Google is improving things, but let's not pretend that the way syncing is currently on Android is great. Even if Google fixes everything they can fix, for the foreseeable future, Microsoft is in a position to do syncing much better than Google, slightly better than Apple even. Whether MS manages to take advantage of that opportunity is a different matter.
Click to expand...

The only point I'd somewhat agree with you is Google music not being available outside of the US. I say somewhat because its easy to get outside of the US.I've been using it in the UK for ages.

I bet syncing on a Microsoft phone doesnt go so smoothly if you use Gmail, picasa and dropbox as your day to day apps on the desktop.

All the platforms do the basic things well, if you choose their services, its when you step outside of their walled gardens that you see the differences. IMHO Android is the best at working with 3rd parties.

Edit: I believed Microsoft could have leveraged their desktop market share and brought a seemless desktop/mobile integration. Ive been waiting since WM5.1. I kinda had to stop holding my breath, I was turning blue. I think the advantage they had has passed, yes everyone still uses windows on the desktop but, more and more, peoples mobile experience is more important to them and theyll tailor their desktop habits yo fit their mobile ones rather than the other way round.
 
Last edited:
poofyhairguy said:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/374125/operators-nokia-would-sell-better-with-android#ixzz1sND5cJYZ
Click to expand...

they definitely should have gone with android, or at least made both android and windows phones like htc and samsung. a couple hundred million dollars from ms is nothing when youre talking about the survival of your company. elop really sold then down the river. the really sad thing is that they make gorgeous hardware, on the same level as apple or sony, and could have become a top android maker fairly quickly. a lumia looking phone with android would make a nice iphone competitor. just look what nokia hardware has done for windows, its the only reason people are even talking about any windows phone. i dont think verizon even has a windows phone at the moment (they dont display one in their stores). i havent heard of any tmo or sprint windows phones
 
Last edited:
Unlike some others I do fully expect Windows Phone to catch on eventually. Being in the smartphone race is insanely important, way more important than being in the living room(Xbox). Microsoft is probably willing to lose many times more money to make Windows Phone a success than they were to force the Xbox into success. This is a good thing imo, Windows Phone is awesome already, it is just new and was marketed poorly in the past but they're moving in the right direction now. There were people at work who I have never heard talk about phones in years talking about buying the Lumia 900 last night.
 
Nokia is dead: www.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/technology/nokia-posts-loss-as-smartphone-sales-tumble.html

Nokia should have gone android because android actually has mindshare and tons of apps. Nokia 800 and 900 style devices with their sexy polycarb shells and awesome cameras would be selling great right now if they had android on them. They should have focused on android three years ago.

SunnyD said:
Somehow, I think this may have been part of Microsoft's plan.
Think about it:
- Microsoft "bribes" Nokia to use WP7.
- Nokia puts out top end phone with WP7 on it.
- Sales suck.
- WP7 universally panned as Nokia's failure.
- Nokia tanks, market cap falls.
- Microsoft, already cozy with Nokia, swoops in and picks up Nokia's portfolio for a song.
- Takes Apple and Google to the cleaners (even more than they already do) for patent licenses.
- Microsoft never has to make a mobile OS again, and just lives off royalties.

Sounds pretty clever to me.
Click to expand...

This sounds about right. Though, it will take a while to recoup their money after throwing away billions and billions of dollars on their failed phone strategies.
 
Do people actually 'sync' so much crap? I've never seen the appeal beyond like address books.

Most of the above is either outright false or highly subjective.
Click to expand...

Welcome to sales. Curiously, so was your original pitch implying that you couldn't find the apps you need out of the 70000+ available, that the Lumia doesn't have a good screen, that the Lumia's network would somehow be slower than the other phones on the same network, and that one $99 phone is less expensive than another $99 phone.

Nokia should have gone android because android actually has mindshare and tons of apps. Nokia 800 and 900 style devices with their sexy polycarb shells and awesome cameras would be selling great right now if they had android on them. They should have focused on android three years ago.
Click to expand...

Rewind three years.

"HTC and Samsung should have courted Apple because Apple actually has mindshare and tons of apps. Their phones are well designed and would be selling so much better with Apple branding. They should have made Apple an offer they couldn't refuse two years ago."

Shit, replace Apple with RIM or even Nokia and it sounds like just as fine of an idea for the time.

Three years ago Android was estimated to have less than 3% of the worldwide smartphone market and certainly wasn't nearly as polished as where Windows Phone is now. When Nokia and Microsoft announced their own partnership WP was hovering between 1.5-2% of the global smartphone market. Nokia's business moves really aren't that different today than what you saw from early Android phone manufacturers just a few years ago; placing a bet on something unknown that has promise.

For a forum that's generally pretty "anti-big" and "pro competition" it's strange to see so many people rooting for such a duopolistic market.
 
Last edited:
preslove said:
Nokia is dead: www.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/technology/nokia-posts-loss-as-smartphone-sales-tumble.html

Nokia should have gone android because android actually has mindshare and tons of apps. Nokia 800 and 900 style devices with their sexy polycarb shells and awesome cameras would be selling great right now if they had android on them. They should have focused on android three years ago.
Click to expand...

nope, nokia will make a comeback, microsoft is willing to throw a lot of cash to make it happen. windows phone will gain a foothold.

look at the xbox
look at internet explorer
look at bing

microsoft is persistent, they won't simply hand over key markets like entertainment, internet, search, and mobile.
 
MaxFusion16 said:
nope, nokia will make a comeback, microsoft is willing to throw a lot of cash to make it happen. windows phone will gain a foothold.

look at the xbox
look at internet explorer
look at bing

microsoft is persistent, they won't simply hand over key markets like entertainment, internet, search, and mobile.
Click to expand...

Arent there rumours of them getting rid of Bing?
 
WelshBloke said:
Arent there rumours of them getting rid of Bing?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anything.

there is no way microsoft is exiting the search business, they may rebrand it or something like they did with live.

point is, microsoft is willing to do whatever it takes to claw back market share.
 
MaxFusion16 said:
nope, nokia will make a comeback, microsoft is willing to throw a lot of cash to make it happen. windows phone will gain a foothold.

look at the xbox
look at internet explorer
look at bing

microsoft is persistent, they won't simply hand over key markets like entertainment, internet, search, and mobile.
Click to expand...

the xbox failed didn't it?
IE is losing market share to firefox and chrome (and opera :colbert:)
and as WB said, they're ditching bing as it's a failure.

darkewaffle has a point when it comes to androids marketshare a while back. the difference is of course that microsoft are holding winpo7 back themselves by not allowing differentiation between phones. afaik (might be wrong) but they can't make bigger phones right? so if i wanted one but only 4.6" or higher then i'd have no choice but to go android.

microsoft isn't apple. they can't just make one spec and get away with it. they should have a minimum spec for their OS and let the manufs try things out. as far as winpo7 not needing dual core etc, the OS might not but what about apps? some HDR apps for example obviously need more cpu time to do the photos. a dual core or more would help out. the power of the phone shouldn't just be for the OS, it should be about the apps too.
 
darkewaffle said:
For a forum that's generally pretty "anti-big" and "pro competition" it's strange to see so many people rooting for such a duopolistic market.
Click to expand...

The fact of the matter is that the market isn't going to support more than a handful of operating systems, and to introduce a new one takes more than money and a nice UI. Microsoft made several major mistakes in entering the market and hasn't shown much capacity at all of correcting them.

MaxFusion16 said:
nope, nokia will make a comeback, microsoft is willing to throw a lot of cash to make it happen. windows phone will gain a foothold.

look at the xbox
look at internet explorer
look at bing

microsoft is persistent, they won't simply hand over key markets like entertainment, internet, search, and mobile.
Click to expand...

Uh... Internet Explorer only has market share because it is included in Windows. Bing has been an abject failure, failing to gain significant marketshare and losing microsoft billions of dollars. Staying in the mobile phone os business is just going to lose microsoft billions more.
 
preslove said:
The fact of the matter is that the market isn't going to support more than a handful of operating systems, and to introduce a new one takes more than money and a nice UI. Microsoft made several major mistakes in entering the market and hasn't shown much capacity at all of correcting them.
Click to expand...

And when Android first came to the table people rooted hard for it even though I thought it was a piece of crap. It WAS a piece of crap especially with its non touch interface at first. I saw nothing special about it.

Even when the Droid 1 came out it was a horrible phone for its time. The only reason it got the applause it did was because it was either iPhone on AT&T or bust if you wanted a smartphone. Yeah Android finally grew but it also refined its OS quite a bit.

Android injected itself when Windows Mobile, BB, iOS, and Symbian were doing just fine. Nokia failed in adapting Symbian S60 to a real touch OS. I think they had a good chance there, but they took forever to come out with a N97 which by then was too little too late. On the other hand the 5800 XpressMusic sold EXTREMELY well though, but the N97 as a flagship phone in the time of the iPhone 3G was a certain failure.

In fact in my opinion a lot of these touchscreen smartphones took us a step back in terms of the features we had in Symbian smartphones and other high end featurephones:

- FM Radio was lost
- I swear the US public like never saw LED flash on a cameraphone or something, but shit these guys have been around since 2004 or 2005 easily. I had Xenon on my N82 for god's sake.
- Dedicated 2 stage hardware camera button - Thank goodness MS is bringing that as a standard.
- Good cameras. The N95 and N82 and N86 were terrific camera phones. What the fuck. Meanwhile people were using their VGA cameras on their RAZRs and the iPhone had a craptastic 2 MP shooter. What the hell did the BBs even have? The Motorola Droid had a horrible 5MP camera. Took til 2009 for us to have good cameras again with the Galaxy S line. And even then the SGS phones have the best cameras, and Moto and HTC are still a step behind.

So I don't know I could easily make the argument that Android injected itself and didn't bring a lot to the table other than a marketing advantage:

- It offered an alternative smartphone platform that was open source and that any manufacturer could go and build a phone.
- The iPhone had exclusivity rights in many places especially the US where AT&T was the go-to carrier.
- There was a lack of good TOUCH OSes out there. I suppose webOS was ok, but BB and Windows Mobile? No way. With iOS as the ONLY other competitor and Apple pricing their products at the $200 premium, it's not hard to see the wide open gap for you to to enter the market.

What was the result? We got a lot of high end phones and a lot of craptastic phones. A lot of manufacturers went around releasing Android phones left and right. Now we're seeing market consolidation as Samsung and HTC try to roll with a small product lineup. Hopefully Motorola gets its act together and does the same.
 
Last edited:
DLeRium said:
- It offered an alternative smartphone platform that was open source and that any manufacturer could go and build a phone.
Click to expand...

This is the most important point. It was completely open to the manufacturers to put whatever software skin on whatever hardware they saw fit. This led to an explosion of different devices with all kinds of different form factors. The sheer number of different devices on store shelves created a critical mass that led to widespread adoption.

Microsoft's major mistakes have been creating a very narrow set of hardware requirements and keeping the OS closed. This has led to only a handful of devices on store shelves and no incentive manufacturers to innovate, create different tier devices, or rapidly release new models.

WP7 is dead. WP8 will die soon after unless microsoft learns from its mistakes. I'm not optimistic on their chances.
 
Last edited:
the strenght of android is simple, it runs on everything from a cheap 2,5 inch phone to a 5 inch quad core monster. Manufacturers love it because they have almost complete freedom over the os and the hardware so they can differentiate from each other leading to an explosion of different devices. In the effort to battle fragmentation all Windows Phones are basically the same because of Microsoft imposed rules. Android may not be the slickest but I take it before Ios or Windows Phone just because of this, choice ...
 
Last edited:
tommo123 said:
you said xbox, not xbox 360. as for IE, we'll see.

as for facebook and bing. test your googling skills.
Click to expand...

xbox was the first phase, even though microsoft lost money on it, they gained a foothold, xbox 360 came out and gained market share.

same strategy with windows phone, first phase is just to gain a foothold, regardless of the cost, then come in strong with the second phase.

selling bing to facebook is just a rumor, it's much more likely for microsoft to just license it, like what yahoo is doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top