Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 28th Mar 2011 22:07 UTC, submitted by JCinSpain
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless I'm still reeling from the unrivalled epicness and awesomeness that is Sucker Punch in IMAX (just got home - do not miss this film), but now I'm back to boring old reality where we apparently care about pieces of plastic that go beep. So, anywho. The deal between Nokia and Microsoft has many Symbian and Qt developers worry about the future of their platforms. To address these concerns, Purnima Kochikar, vice president of Forum Nokia, has published an open letter describing Nokia's plans for Symbian, Qt, and Java for Series 40 devices. While the letter doesn't deliver any hard dates, the transition phase to Windows Phone 7 is set to 2011/2012.
Thread beginning with comment 468204
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Actually...
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 29th Mar 2011 15:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Actually..."
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

hose things were left out intentionally.


Yup. To sell you the next iteration.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[8]: Actually...
by tuzor on Tue 29th Mar 2011 15:28 in reply to "RE[7]: Actually..."
tuzor Member since:
2007-08-07

"hose things were left out intentionally.


Yup. To sell you the next iteration.
"

Nope they (the iPad ones) were left out (and are still missing) due to factors like:
price
size
elegance
design
simplicity

Most of these factors are intertwined or interdependent and they may eventually appear when it's feasible to include them into the product or they've moved up the priority list.

Cramming up more and more features on a device is in the mindset of most handset manufacturers, as if they're competing on who can make the best James Bond gadget. But they're always missing the point, take a look at the outcome of most iPod competitors.

Obviously any company is trying to maximise profit and continuity of a device, Apple is no exception, however their mentality is totally different when it comes to product design and they prove most of you wrong time and time again.

Edited 2011-03-29 15:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[9]: Actually...
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 29th Mar 2011 18:43 in reply to "RE[8]: Actually..."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Absurdity upon absurdity. By your logic, if Apple claimed its reasons for doing anything were "Magic fairy elves", then they are obviously correct as the products sell.

I see a new method to replace the old scientific method that's gotten a little long in the tooth.

1) Claim what you want to be true is the reason for apple products being the way they are.
2) Notice success of Apple products.
3) Claim #2 is proof of #1.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[8]: Actually...
by boldingd on Tue 29th Mar 2011 17:16 in reply to "RE[7]: Actually..."
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

\golf_clap{Thom}

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Actually...
by Soulbender on Tue 29th Mar 2011 18:05 in reply to "RE[7]: Actually..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Well, it's working isn't it?

Reply Parent Score: 2