Ars Technica [1] put it best. These phones are dead on arrival.
This is not the first time Nokia has done something like this. It released a
Meego version of the N9, its long-in-development Symbian successor, before
immediately abandoning the platform and switching to Windows Phone.
This isn't a sign of some deep strategy. It's just standard Nokia platform craziness.
I wouldn't be so quick to discount this move. It could be a classic Microsoft embrace/extend/extinguish move. They lost the first round on mobile phone platforms, but this would allow them to very quickly create a platform that has developer support - after all, porting your apps from standard Android to an AOSP fork is easier than than porting it to Windows Phone. Especially as Microsoft/Nokia is pretty much the only organisation on the planet at the moment apart from Google and Apple that is capable of offering all of the same services that stock Android provides, making porting even easier for app developers.
The latest Android look and feel is not so different from Windows Phone either, once you actually get into the app. You could imagine a "Windows Phone" homescreen skin with Android Apps behind it, and it would be really quite a decent merger of the two environments, graphically speaking.
If they throw a bit of money around to encourage developers to undertake the (hopefully) relatively simple task of porting from stock Android, it's not impossible that they manage to get a pretty decent App Store together, which would solve the app problem for the otherwise fantastic Nokia hardware that they have been making these last few years.
Anyway, there's a lot of conditionals in the stuff that I've just written, none of it may come to pass, I'm just saying that it would be unwise to dismiss this effort without at least waiting a bit to see how it pans out.
They kind of have to say that though, the same author wrote this:
"While Android is open, it's more of a "look but don't touch" kind of open. You're allowed to contribute to Android and allowed to use it for little hobbies, but in nearly every area, the deck is stacked against anyone trying to use Android without Google's blessing. The second you try to take Android and do something that Google doesn't approve of, it will bring the world crashing down upon you."
And his colleague wrote an article titled: "Neither Microsoft, Nokia, nor anyone else should fork Android. It’s unforkable."
So they'd look a bit silly writing about this in any other way.
Maybe it will get canned, but then before today I would have said that it was only for internal purposes, so scare Microsoft into buying them. Turns out I was wrong, and they went public with it.
Well the idea was good the implementation sucks as usual. Android without the play store is not as useful or flexible and you can't compete with other budget phones which do have the play store so you're shooting yourself in the foot.
As log as there's an easy way for end users to put it on it shouldn't be such a big deal though.
What I suspect they are attempting to do is get back into the low budget phone market which they used to rule before they stupidly gave it up voluntarily and the only reason they are using Android is because it's the only one suitable for that hardware however this is not the old low end market they used to know.
Before it used to be acceptable to have only a few crap apps for phones but now even the low budget phones have access to the play store. I wonder if they will make it with this self inflicted handicap.
So Nokia kills one platform/smartphone in the recent past and that means that this new line of phones is doomed? How are the two events linked? I don't see a connection. Products are born and killed everyday, just because company X has killed product Y in the past, doesn't mean that every future product will be killed in the same manor.
Also, N9 was an internally developed OS that was late, and Nokia was suffering. Axing something that is eating massive resources for an external vendor isn't in any way similar to Nokia introducing a low-cost alternative to their existing high end offerings.
I still can't believe that decision makers actually believe that customers want that. Sure, it makes for great bullet points on the packaging, but most consumer in the lower segment just want something that is familiar to all the other stuff they have. Things you will never hear an Android user say: "That Samsung Whatever Cloud App is really useful.", "That second App Store of my carrier is full with great Apps.", and "I wish those buttons were even more different from my old Android phone".
I think Nokia's target market for these unAndroids is not existing Android users at all, but rather all those people who currently have a low-end Nokia. (There are literally billions of Nokia dumbphones in use around the world.)
Those users don't go into the shop thinking "I want stock Android" because they have no idea what that would even be. Rather they go by a trusted brand and the availability of well-known apps and games. If the price is right, Nokia's unAndroid may actually serve this market quite well.
A Nokia device that supports Skype, WhatsApp, Facebook, Nokia's maps and so on has arguably the only competitive bundle of services to the Google one, even considering iOS.
I am amazed by the negativity around this announcement when the reality is Nokia should have been doing this from the beginning, but this is certainly going to make the low end market in the EU very interesting.
The problem is simply that the "differentiated experiences" end up being bad. Bad UX, bad integration in the platform, bad functionality, often gratuitiously duplicating existing features. If the manufacturer/carrier additions were actually good, people probably would be happy.
So the problem is boils down to Samsung/Nokia/... not realizing that they are not very good at building mobile phone software. That's probably also a hard sell internally.
So Microsoft has a Linux distro. Interesting. Anybody care to hazard a guess what the future holds? My take is that this was well in development before the MS/Nokia deal went through (it has gone through, hasn't it?) and Microsoft were not (have not been) able to get it canned. Or, shock, horror, maybe Microsoft are testing the waters - they already make a bunch from Linux patents, maybe they want to see how much they'll make from App Store revenue if these gain a decent market share. When you think about it, Apple doesn't charge for iOS so if Microsoft start doing decent hardware sales maybe Microsoft will start considering its mobile operating system division this way. Given recent news that Microsoft has to discount Windows licences on lower cost hardware to compete with Chromebooks we're starting to see that Microsoft even though it is making money hand over fist is in an untenable position.
A few questions.
How will Microsoft not be able to develop Mobile Office for Android?
How are Microsoft going to be able to maintain two mobile OSs?
Are Nokia going to see this through? I think it is a smart play, if they go after it whole-heartedly like Amazon and provide a decent amount of differentiation. One could easily see Samsung going this route.
Microsoft (and their staff individually) actually contribute to the Linux kernel so this isn't that crazy.
You can already get office 365 for iOS. Not sure about android but it's logical.
This appears to be the budget/developing world side of things. I'd prefer to see WinPhone on low end devices to be honest - it's really good even on low spec handsets.
I see this as that much marketed "devices and services offering" they are always going on about. They're making a killing from Azure etc and Windows Live/outlook.com is the most mature and featureful cloud thing. They're actually shit hot these days.
I still prefer my old fashioned Unix way of life though as I don't want to become a paid up ecosystem slave.
Microsoft had a Unix distro for a long time - Xenix. It was built as Microsoft's next generation OS, originally Microsoft thought they were going to migrate to it as their dominant platform as computers got faster. It was the most widespread version of Unix around in the late 1980s in terms of machine installs. Microsoft sold it to SCO in 1987.
> How will Microsoft not be able to develop Mobile Office for Android?
Easily. My first thought on seeing the specs on those devices is that they are trying to position the Android offering as the cheap option: something for peopel who can't afford a proper phone. Want Office and the other big boy's toys? Then buy one of our Windows based devices instead.
> How are Microsoft going to be able to maintain two mobile OSs?
They already do: while it looks like the Symbian based OS is officially dead, as are other alternatives like meego, "feature phones" from Nokia (such as the Asha range) are still being released based around the old S40 OS. Perhaps they are looking to retire this and see Android as an inexpensive way forward, that way someone else is developing the core OS and they just need to provide drivers and device specific tweaks (and an app store & such if not licensing Google's parts). There is certainly a project out there working on smoothly running apps targeting the S40 on Linux based devices (IIRC not funcded by Nokia, but the existence of the project indicatesit is possible) which would smooth the replacement.
They have to have a cheaper alternative to the WP devices unless they can release a WP device that can compete price-wise in those markets without diminishing the appearance of the more expensive kit or they lose the "chep-nokia-to-expensive-nokia upgrade path: people with another cheap Andoird device won't have any Nokia brand loyalty so they would be competing entirely directly with high-end Android and iOS devices in that instance and they need something to try make the move to WP more attractive than a move to iOS at that point because the public perception of WP8 is far behind that of Apple (and depending on who you talk to, high-end Android).
> Are Nokia going to see this through?
That is the big question, though the answer probably doesn't really matter to smartphone users. If my guesses about the positioning thing and S40 replacement are right then they'll need to keep it going a while at least, but with the other competition around in the Android market it'll only ever fool the stupid anyway. And from the point of view of "feature phones", that is business as usual.
How will Microsoft not be able to develop Mobile Office for Android?
By most reporting[1], the office team has already had versions of office for iOS (and presumably Android) ready for quite some time. Their lack of release has been an internal political battle at Microsoft based on whether to postpone them until after the equivalent office apps are ready for RT. This is one of the biggest examples of decision making that people have been criticizing Microsoft for (handicapping their non-Windows business units to provide Windows a competitive advantage; which is a sensible strategy, but that seems ill-suited longterm, as those other business units like Office now eclipse Windows in revenue).
It's entirely possible that part of Nokia releasing this phone is related to that recent shift in strategy.
How are Microsoft going to be able to maintain two mobile OSs?
Nokia already has experience in managing operating systems. I don't know how much work "porting" over all the Nokia apps was to Android, but it seems like they've done it. They already went through the experience of porting many of them over from Symbian (and alas, Maemo didn't really have much in the way of Nokia apps). I don't think this is a serious issue for their engineering organization (even aside from Microsoft's much larger engineering organization that presumably could be made available).
Are Nokia going to see this through? I think it is a smart play, if they go after it whole-heartedly like Amazon and provide a decent amount of differentiation. One could easily see Samsung going this route.
I think this is a logical play from a risk perspective. The low-end is currently where all their sales are (as the mid and high end have dried up faster than their increasing Windows Phone sales have grown); and even though the low-end isn't the desirable part of the market (see every phone manufacturer other than Apple and Samsung as examples), the effort required isn't much greater than they're already doing for the Asha lines.
I think they'll have a better chance at building an ecosystem that's piggy-backed off of Android than in building their own. I still don't know that this is a great long-term play, but it could be.
Samsung has been alleged to be heading in this direction for ages (first reported as the reasons for them releasing Bada, and later, Tizen). The new Gear 2 watch-thing runs Tizen instead of Android (which considering it's not really a stand-alone device, is probably a good place to test the waters).
It seems like the issue with Samsung taking the plunge is how much they attribute their recent success to their own products, vs. the Google ecosystem. Once they cross that threshold, they'll ship their own OS with TouchWiz on top of it. Maybe they'll similarly have an environment that can run Android apps (it's all Linux underneath).
MS/Nokia deal hasn't gone through yet. Nokia handset divison is still part of Nokia and not part of MS yet. I believe they are waiting for approval from some governments such as China before they can complete the acquisition.
This is the most confused device ever. A bastard child of Android and Windows: basterdised verion of Windows Phone UI on top of a forked Android that's integrated with Microsoft Cloud. The marketing has a distinct "feature phone" feel.
Seriously, Asha or X device from Nokia with Firefox OS would make more sense than this.
Without Play Store and the ability to sideload Android apps (via .APK), you can expect a proliferation of pirated Android applications for the Nokia phones. Once again, Microsoft will enable the creation of a thriving anti-virus industry.
By making any success with its Android phones, Microsoft can achieve two goals:
- further fragment the Android platform making it more difficult for users to buy devices and for developers to support the various devices and
- benefit from Android's strong market position instead of only trying to create market for Windows phones in places where it doesn't fit
They've identified the greatest flaw in Android ecosystem and they're exploiting it in an attempt to make their own offering more attractive in the long run.
This. I just don't understand what are the benefits of a on-screen keyboard vis-a-vis a slide-out hardware qwerty keyboard. Ever tried using an on-screen keyboard with wet hands? Tried texting in class without looking?
Why can't we get one, just ONE, good Android device with a hardware keyboard?
I remember when Nokia phones were crushing their opponents in terms of user experience, despite the incredible amount of devices they offered. The one-in-all blue button was remarkable. There were no OS, just different brands.
Nokia failed to make the leap to smartphones though. I still believe they were the only company capable of competing with the iPhone by delivering a hardware/software combo, but sadly failed to do so.
Hmm, taking a cynical view, this could be a win-win for Nokia. Consider this:
1) The device does well: Nokia makes some money.
2) The device flops: Nokia can lay to rest the common criticism that they should have gone with Android. They can say, "See? We did Android. It went nowhere."
Don't blame the lack of a Play store, because remember, they were in discussions with Google and could not reach an agreement. I'm convinced it's because of Google's requirement that "all your location data are belong to us" [1] which would directly undercut Nokia's own location services. Because of Google's all-or-nothing stance, that took Google mobile services completely off Nokia's table.
Also, in the unlikely case that it does well, I wouldn't be too surprised if MS lets it live post-acquisition. After all, it's using their services, and these days there's probably more money to be made there than in selling software.
1. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/new-android-oem-licen... - "Google's Network Location Provider must not only be included, but set as the default network location provider; this is no doubt the clause that triggered a lawsuit from rival location company Skyhook."
I used to think it was a 100% lock that this project would get squished like bug the moment the Microsoft acquisition closes. Microsoft probably has a SWAT team of HR drones and lawyers sitting in vans outside Nokia offices to ensure that they do not incur any Apache license patent obligations, and that this project team gets sent to the Siberia customer support office.
But now I think there are two other possibilities. Not high probability, but possible:
1. Satya Nadella thinks differently about Windows Phone, and Microsoft embraces an Android-based product, much in the way that Amazon has. Not because Windows Phone is a turkey, but because Windows Phone is actually quite similar to Android technologically, and it makes sense to create applications that run on both, equally well, with equal features, in order to help Microsoft products penetrate the mobile market faster. The Nokia product becomes the most efficient way for Windows users to get a Microsoft app suite on an Android device, but any Android user will have access to the same app suite. Maybe Windows Phone prospers. Maybe not. But Microsoft wins either way.
2. Microsoft backs out of the Nokia deal. Satya Nadella thinks Ballmer was high when he bought a troubled OEM, including factories that make Series 30 handsets, especially now that Google got rid of Motorola. So all the lawyers that are not worrying about those Apache license patent clause issues are worrying about how to back out of the deal while minimizing penalty obligations. This would be a momentary embarassment, with many years of serenity as a reward.
Microsoft intended to handle Android as a non-primary platform. I'm curious if those apps are going to be available on the Google Play Store as well (i hope so).
With this move, they should have update apps on the Android platform.
Also, i'm curious if developers have to change their Android APP UI to fit the new UI from Nokia (could be dangerous for Nokia).
Next, Android users all have a gmail account, now they need to switch to Outlook ? Not exactly user-friendly. Most developers have to change their Authentication also on their app.
I have heard great things about Microsoft's Windows Phones and Nokias hardware, but this move is confusing to say the least and I am not quite sure why it is necessary. MS designed the WP OS to run on moderately speced hardware but not on low-end devices? And now that they want a smartphone for the rising markets, they go looking for suitable software, which they find in the lap of their immediate competitor?
I imagine this decision made through both Microsoft's and Nokia's legal departments, but I can't really stop wondering what the implications of Microsoft distributing GPLv2 (with implicit patent licenses) and Apache (with explicit ones) has on their patent extortion<C-backspace>licensing business can be.
This could end up being much larger than just a couple phones.
I don't think it has to go through MS legal yet. Nokia has to legally act as if the merge does not go through. If/when Microsoft will sell this phone, it will probably be through a subsidiary, just like it does currently all open source contributions through https://msopentech.com , to avoid respecting the patent licenses.
I think the proper way to do this is to run Windows Mobile side by side with Android. Since Android is open source it's easy to do that for companies like Microsoft. You can virtualize one OS or find another way to integrate them.
Another route is dual booting but I think it does more harm than good.
Weak specs, no physical buttons, and one of the two missing an SD card. I predict these will not do well.
Edit: Oh, and the interface is awful. The sensible thing would have been to use Android as inspiration to redesign Metro to be less ugly and nonfunctional, not to try and port Metro to Android...
512MB ram? My year old android handset has 1GB and is slow as all hell. It hangs, reboots itself, shows weird errors ("Activity Phone is not responding" when somebody is calling) and takes 30 seconds to open firefox. I don't know what Nokia is thinking.
[+] [-] quanticle|12 years ago|reply
1: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/nokia-to-release-an-a...
[+] [-] antimagic|12 years ago|reply
The latest Android look and feel is not so different from Windows Phone either, once you actually get into the app. You could imagine a "Windows Phone" homescreen skin with Android Apps behind it, and it would be really quite a decent merger of the two environments, graphically speaking.
If they throw a bit of money around to encourage developers to undertake the (hopefully) relatively simple task of porting from stock Android, it's not impossible that they manage to get a pretty decent App Store together, which would solve the app problem for the otherwise fantastic Nokia hardware that they have been making these last few years.
Anyway, there's a lot of conditionals in the stuff that I've just written, none of it may come to pass, I'm just saying that it would be unwise to dismiss this effort without at least waiting a bit to see how it pans out.
[+] [-] ZeroGravitas|12 years ago|reply
"While Android is open, it's more of a "look but don't touch" kind of open. You're allowed to contribute to Android and allowed to use it for little hobbies, but in nearly every area, the deck is stacked against anyone trying to use Android without Google's blessing. The second you try to take Android and do something that Google doesn't approve of, it will bring the world crashing down upon you."
And his colleague wrote an article titled: "Neither Microsoft, Nokia, nor anyone else should fork Android. It’s unforkable."
So they'd look a bit silly writing about this in any other way.
Maybe it will get canned, but then before today I would have said that it was only for internal purposes, so scare Microsoft into buying them. Turns out I was wrong, and they went public with it.
[+] [-] Fuxy|12 years ago|reply
As log as there's an easy way for end users to put it on it shouldn't be such a big deal though.
What I suspect they are attempting to do is get back into the low budget phone market which they used to rule before they stupidly gave it up voluntarily and the only reason they are using Android is because it's the only one suitable for that hardware however this is not the old low end market they used to know.
Before it used to be acceptable to have only a few crap apps for phones but now even the low budget phones have access to the play store. I wonder if they will make it with this self inflicted handicap.
[+] [-] josefresco|12 years ago|reply
Also, N9 was an internally developed OS that was late, and Nokia was suffering. Axing something that is eating massive resources for an external vendor isn't in any way similar to Nokia introducing a low-cost alternative to their existing high end offerings.
[+] [-] Aoyagi|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sirkneeland|12 years ago|reply
Nokia announced they were abandoning Symbian/MeeGo for Windows Phone BEFORE announcing and releasing the N9.
[+] [-] pmr_|12 years ago|reply
I still can't believe that decision makers actually believe that customers want that. Sure, it makes for great bullet points on the packaging, but most consumer in the lower segment just want something that is familiar to all the other stuff they have. Things you will never hear an Android user say: "That Samsung Whatever Cloud App is really useful.", "That second App Store of my carrier is full with great Apps.", and "I wish those buttons were even more different from my old Android phone".
[+] [-] pavlov|12 years ago|reply
Those users don't go into the shop thinking "I want stock Android" because they have no idea what that would even be. Rather they go by a trusted brand and the availability of well-known apps and games. If the price is right, Nokia's unAndroid may actually serve this market quite well.
[+] [-] fidotron|12 years ago|reply
I am amazed by the negativity around this announcement when the reality is Nokia should have been doing this from the beginning, but this is certainly going to make the low end market in the EU very interesting.
[+] [-] jellicle|12 years ago|reply
"It was great that all the directions about how to do stuff, that I found on the internet, didn't apply to my phone"
"I enjoyed having stock features removed from my phone so my carrier could charge me for them"
[+] [-] Nitramp|12 years ago|reply
So the problem is boils down to Samsung/Nokia/... not realizing that they are not very good at building mobile phone software. That's probably also a hard sell internally.
[+] [-] MattHeard|12 years ago|reply
When all products look and feel the same way, competitors can only compete on price, at which point price wars lead to smaller profits for everyone.
Producers will always prefer selling ugly, profitable luxury products than standardised, razor-thin-margin commodities.
[+] [-] igravious|12 years ago|reply
A few questions.
How will Microsoft not be able to develop Mobile Office for Android?
How are Microsoft going to be able to maintain two mobile OSs?
Are Nokia going to see this through? I think it is a smart play, if they go after it whole-heartedly like Amazon and provide a decent amount of differentiation. One could easily see Samsung going this route.
[+] [-] d0|12 years ago|reply
You can already get office 365 for iOS. Not sure about android but it's logical.
This appears to be the budget/developing world side of things. I'd prefer to see WinPhone on low end devices to be honest - it's really good even on low spec handsets.
I see this as that much marketed "devices and services offering" they are always going on about. They're making a killing from Azure etc and Windows Live/outlook.com is the most mature and featureful cloud thing. They're actually shit hot these days.
I still prefer my old fashioned Unix way of life though as I don't want to become a paid up ecosystem slave.
[+] [-] Ologn|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dspillett|12 years ago|reply
Easily. My first thought on seeing the specs on those devices is that they are trying to position the Android offering as the cheap option: something for peopel who can't afford a proper phone. Want Office and the other big boy's toys? Then buy one of our Windows based devices instead.
> How are Microsoft going to be able to maintain two mobile OSs?
They already do: while it looks like the Symbian based OS is officially dead, as are other alternatives like meego, "feature phones" from Nokia (such as the Asha range) are still being released based around the old S40 OS. Perhaps they are looking to retire this and see Android as an inexpensive way forward, that way someone else is developing the core OS and they just need to provide drivers and device specific tweaks (and an app store & such if not licensing Google's parts). There is certainly a project out there working on smoothly running apps targeting the S40 on Linux based devices (IIRC not funcded by Nokia, but the existence of the project indicatesit is possible) which would smooth the replacement.
They have to have a cheaper alternative to the WP devices unless they can release a WP device that can compete price-wise in those markets without diminishing the appearance of the more expensive kit or they lose the "chep-nokia-to-expensive-nokia upgrade path: people with another cheap Andoird device won't have any Nokia brand loyalty so they would be competing entirely directly with high-end Android and iOS devices in that instance and they need something to try make the move to WP more attractive than a move to iOS at that point because the public perception of WP8 is far behind that of Apple (and depending on who you talk to, high-end Android).
> Are Nokia going to see this through?
That is the big question, though the answer probably doesn't really matter to smartphone users. If my guesses about the positioning thing and S40 replacement are right then they'll need to keep it going a while at least, but with the other competition around in the Android market it'll only ever fool the stupid anyway. And from the point of view of "feature phones", that is business as usual.
[+] [-] m0nastic|12 years ago|reply
By most reporting[1], the office team has already had versions of office for iOS (and presumably Android) ready for quite some time. Their lack of release has been an internal political battle at Microsoft based on whether to postpone them until after the equivalent office apps are ready for RT. This is one of the biggest examples of decision making that people have been criticizing Microsoft for (handicapping their non-Windows business units to provide Windows a competitive advantage; which is a sensible strategy, but that seems ill-suited longterm, as those other business units like Office now eclipse Windows in revenue).
It's entirely possible that part of Nokia releasing this phone is related to that recent shift in strategy.
How are Microsoft going to be able to maintain two mobile OSs?
Nokia already has experience in managing operating systems. I don't know how much work "porting" over all the Nokia apps was to Android, but it seems like they've done it. They already went through the experience of porting many of them over from Symbian (and alas, Maemo didn't really have much in the way of Nokia apps). I don't think this is a serious issue for their engineering organization (even aside from Microsoft's much larger engineering organization that presumably could be made available).
Are Nokia going to see this through? I think it is a smart play, if they go after it whole-heartedly like Amazon and provide a decent amount of differentiation. One could easily see Samsung going this route.
I think this is a logical play from a risk perspective. The low-end is currently where all their sales are (as the mid and high end have dried up faster than their increasing Windows Phone sales have grown); and even though the low-end isn't the desirable part of the market (see every phone manufacturer other than Apple and Samsung as examples), the effort required isn't much greater than they're already doing for the Asha lines.
I think they'll have a better chance at building an ecosystem that's piggy-backed off of Android than in building their own. I still don't know that this is a great long-term play, but it could be.
Samsung has been alleged to be heading in this direction for ages (first reported as the reasons for them releasing Bada, and later, Tizen). The new Gear 2 watch-thing runs Tizen instead of Android (which considering it's not really a stand-alone device, is probably a good place to test the waters).
It seems like the issue with Samsung taking the plunge is how much they attribute their recent success to their own products, vs. the Google ecosystem. Once they cross that threshold, they'll ship their own OS with TouchWiz on top of it. Maybe they'll similarly have an environment that can run Android apps (it's all Linux underneath).
[1] http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-office-on-ipad-its-alive-and-...
[+] [-] beachwood23|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xamlhacker|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blueskin_|12 years ago|reply
I'm interested in how they apparently do this - especially as the Linux development process is open and MS' is secret.
As it was, if they decided to try patent trolling, chances are they'd get crushed by google, Red Hat, even Oracle...
[+] [-] akumen|12 years ago|reply
Seriously, Asha or X device from Nokia with Firefox OS would make more sense than this.
How many OSs does Nokia have now? 4 or 5?
[+] [-] Aoyagi|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arocks|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sudomal|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abitsios|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sprash|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] graetzer|12 years ago|reply
http://go.linuxfoundation.org/who-writes-linux-2012
[+] [-] raveli|12 years ago|reply
By making any success with its Android phones, Microsoft can achieve two goals:
- further fragment the Android platform making it more difficult for users to buy devices and for developers to support the various devices and
- benefit from Android's strong market position instead of only trying to create market for Windows phones in places where it doesn't fit
They've identified the greatest flaw in Android ecosystem and they're exploiting it in an attempt to make their own offering more attractive in the long run.
[+] [-] fauigerzigerk|12 years ago|reply
It seems to me that they might confuse themselves and their own customers more than anyone else with that convoluted strategy.
They identified Android's greatest flaw and swiftly added it to their own ecosystem.
[+] [-] moondowner|12 years ago|reply
http://thenextweb.com/gadgets/2014/02/24/nokia-unveils-nokia...
This so reminds me of Microsoft's J++.
[+] [-] kllrnohj|12 years ago|reply
It looks like the "three APIs" are not Android APIs, but rather Google Play Services APIs. Specifically push notifications, maps, and in-app payments.
[+] [-] spiritplumber|12 years ago|reply
The problem is that it's another iphone lookalike.
I WANT A DAMN KEYBOARD!
[+] [-] saurabhnanda|12 years ago|reply
Why can't we get one, just ONE, good Android device with a hardware keyboard?
[+] [-] beagle3|12 years ago|reply
How do you install Google Play on a non-google certified phone? e.g. CM? (honest question - iPhone user here planning to jump ship)
[+] [-] nfoz|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bbx|12 years ago|reply
Nokia failed to make the leap to smartphones though. I still believe they were the only company capable of competing with the iPhone by delivering a hardware/software combo, but sadly failed to do so.
[+] [-] throwawaykf05|12 years ago|reply
1) The device does well: Nokia makes some money.
2) The device flops: Nokia can lay to rest the common criticism that they should have gone with Android. They can say, "See? We did Android. It went nowhere."
Don't blame the lack of a Play store, because remember, they were in discussions with Google and could not reach an agreement. I'm convinced it's because of Google's requirement that "all your location data are belong to us" [1] which would directly undercut Nokia's own location services. Because of Google's all-or-nothing stance, that took Google mobile services completely off Nokia's table.
Also, in the unlikely case that it does well, I wouldn't be too surprised if MS lets it live post-acquisition. After all, it's using their services, and these days there's probably more money to be made there than in selling software.
1. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/new-android-oem-licen... - "Google's Network Location Provider must not only be included, but set as the default network location provider; this is no doubt the clause that triggered a lawsuit from rival location company Skyhook."
[+] [-] Zigurd|12 years ago|reply
But now I think there are two other possibilities. Not high probability, but possible:
1. Satya Nadella thinks differently about Windows Phone, and Microsoft embraces an Android-based product, much in the way that Amazon has. Not because Windows Phone is a turkey, but because Windows Phone is actually quite similar to Android technologically, and it makes sense to create applications that run on both, equally well, with equal features, in order to help Microsoft products penetrate the mobile market faster. The Nokia product becomes the most efficient way for Windows users to get a Microsoft app suite on an Android device, but any Android user will have access to the same app suite. Maybe Windows Phone prospers. Maybe not. But Microsoft wins either way.
2. Microsoft backs out of the Nokia deal. Satya Nadella thinks Ballmer was high when he bought a troubled OEM, including factories that make Series 30 handsets, especially now that Google got rid of Motorola. So all the lawyers that are not worrying about those Apache license patent clause issues are worrying about how to back out of the deal while minimizing penalty obligations. This would be a momentary embarassment, with many years of serenity as a reward.
[+] [-] brunnsbe|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NicoJuicy|12 years ago|reply
Microsoft intended to handle Android as a non-primary platform. I'm curious if those apps are going to be available on the Google Play Store as well (i hope so).
With this move, they should have update apps on the Android platform.
Also, i'm curious if developers have to change their Android APP UI to fit the new UI from Nokia (could be dangerous for Nokia).
Next, Android users all have a gmail account, now they need to switch to Outlook ? Not exactly user-friendly. Most developers have to change their Authentication also on their app.
[+] [-] kreeben|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbanffy|12 years ago|reply
This could end up being much larger than just a couple phones.
[+] [-] air|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abrahamsen|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheCondor|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wslh|12 years ago|reply
Another route is dual booting but I think it does more harm than good.
[+] [-] blueskin_|12 years ago|reply
Edit: Oh, and the interface is awful. The sensible thing would have been to use Android as inspiration to redesign Metro to be less ugly and nonfunctional, not to try and port Metro to Android...
[+] [-] tdicola|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slowmotiony|12 years ago|reply