Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 11th Feb 2011 11:35 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless A lot of people are wondering why Nokia didn't choose to go with Android. How can Nokia differentiate themselves when Android is a lot more open and free than Windows Phone 7? As usual, the key to this is in the details. If you read the announcements carefully, you'll see that Microsoft offered Nokia something Google most likely didn't. Update: What a surprise. Elop just confirmed Nokia has a special deal with Microsoft. Whereas HTC, Samsung, and so on are not allowed to customise WP7 - Nokia is, further confirming my theory.
Permalink for comment 462194
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Patent indemnification, a unified non fragmented experience, superior development platform, integration with valuable brands (WP7 has ALREADY eaten Android's lunch in gaming.).

No one who has bought an Android phone cares I'm afraid. Developers and users also don't want a third application store that has absolutely nothing in it. There's only so much you can do gaming-wise on a phone as well.

Besides, OEMs and operators have all said they want a third way.

They haven't. Microsoft claims that they have, but they just haven't. They have enough on their plate at the moment supporting iOS and Android as well as Symbian. You can't complain about fragmentation on the one hand and then claim that another OS is going to make any difference.

The market has made it abundantly clear that they don't want a Windows phone for a very, very long time. That's why the past few years are littered with companies who've got burned partnering with Microsoft on mobiles.

Windows Phone has failed. It's time to identify the reasons why and either do something about them or can the thing. Putting loaded CEOs into other companies to use your products that end up getting burned when you fail is not going to work.

Reply Parent Score: 2