Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Apr 2013 22:21 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless The reviews are universally positive, and virtually everyone seems to agree: the HTC One is one heck of an Android device, and quite possibly the best phone currently on the market. Outstanding build quality, great design, fast - and just like the One X before it, it looks like to me it's a far better phone than its Galaxy counterparts. Why, then, is no one buying HTC phones?
Thread beginning with comment 558018
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Tue 9th Apr 2013 03:22 UTC
Member since:

HTC, along with BlackBerry, is another example that the market penetration problem in the mobile sector is not exclusive to Microsoft, Windows Phone, or Nokia. Its a cut throat market that has inherent inefficiencies which are completely aside from the value of the phone or the OS.

The HTC One is by all accounts an astounding device. The line up from last year (confusingly called the same thing) was also comepelling. I'll echo the sentiment that the 8X is in some ways nicer than the Lumia 920.

HTC's problem is Nokia's problem is BlackBerry's problem. Samsung is crowding out the market with its sheer scale. It doesn't matter how much better HTC makes their phones. Unless Samsung slips up, HTC won't retake the crown without things changing drastically.

Look at how Samsung took control -- HTC became complacent after the success of their DROID lineup. It might be possible for this to happen to Samsung, but I don't think its as likely.

The carriers (or if you're overseas where carriers are less influential, the big name brick and mortars you get your phone from.) are the gate keepers to adoption for mobile. Consumers do not buy things, consumers are sold things. The sales channel is an obstacle that's causing everyone significant amounts of pain.

Its tough for relatively small companies like HTC to afford to match Samsung subsidy for subsidy, compete on advertising, and differentiate sufficiently for it to matter.

Nokia has been having a hell of a time trying to figure out the right formula for limited success, and they receive $250 million a quarter and get matched marketing from Microsoft along with having cozy relationships with carriers in Europe. It still isn't enough.

HTC has none of this, except for the 8X (minus the $250 million a quarter) which receives matched marketing funds from Microsoft and enjoyed flagship status this time around. Something which pissed Nokia off.

Look at HTC's fate, its exactly where Nokia would be if they had gone with Android instead of Windows Phone -- except they'd probably be dead without the monetary support from Microsoft.

What HTC has shown us is that Android isn't a magic bullet for commercial success, and its reinforced the position I've argued for that HTC's failure in the market has little to do with HTC and everything to do with an inefficient market run by Kingmakers who desperately want to avoid becoming a fat pipe.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by Nelson
by phoenix on Thu 11th Apr 2013 18:24 in reply to "Comment by Nelson"
phoenix Member since:

Look at how Samsung took control -- HTC became complacent after the success of their DROID lineup. It might be possible for this to happen to Samsung, but I don't think its as likely.

Small correction: Droid branding is mainly a Motorola thing, and exclusive to their phones on Verizon. There are a few HTC Droid-branded phones, but again, only on Verizon. Most (the bulk, 90-odd percent) of Droid-branded phones are from Motorola.

Reply Parent Score: 2