Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 9th Oct 2013 21:47 UTC
Windows

Paul Thurrot has a number of rumours up about Windows Phone 8.1. Two stand out to me.

Where GDR3 is widely expected to support 5- to 6-inch screens, 8.1 will supposedly support 7- to 10-inch screens as well. This obviously infringes on Windows RT/8.x tablets, so it's not clear what the thinking is there.

So, Windows RT will become even more pointless than it already is.

Aping the iPhone navigation model, Microsoft will apparently remove the Back button from the Windows Phone hardware specification with 8.1. The Back button just doesn't make sense, I was told: Users navigate away from an app by pressing the Start button and then open a new app, just like they do on iPhone. And the "back stack" is ill-understood by users: Most don't realize what they're doing when they repeatedly hit the Back button.

This I am not happy with. The back button is my main navigational input in both Android and Windows Phone, and I miss it dearly in iOS.

I'm just hoping on performance improvements, still my biggest issue with Windows Phone. I used my HTC 8X for a few hours today, and I was stunned by just how slow everything is compared to Android 4.3. Of course, application quality is another huge issue, but there's little Microsoft can do to convince developers that their Windows Phone applications are more than just side projects done between serious work on Android and iOS.

Thread beginning with comment 574352
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

It's no use. Evidence doesn't matter to people like him.

We were told Nokia had to go with Windows Phone because it would allow them to go for the premium segment - something they could not do with Android. This clearly turned out to be a mistake - Nokia does not compete at the high end (which is absolutely dominated by Samsung and Apple), and only manages to sell low-margin, cheap-ass phones.

So, the WP fanatics have done a complete 180 - low-margin, cheap-ass devices are now suddenly the saviours, even though Windows Phone was supposed to shield Nokia from this race to the bottom.

It's amazing to experience this 180 in such close-up, and so out in the open. Food for psychologists.

Edited 2013-10-10 09:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

It's no use. Evidence doesn't matter to people like him.


Excuse me? People like me? I've been consistently right, and not only that, consistently right against the both of you in nearly every single thing I've said about Nokia. My projections for their financials have been on the mark, my volume estimates have been on the mark, and according to cdude Nokia should have been dead earlier this year. This is fucking ridiculous, how members of the Always Wrong Club have the audacity to imply that evidence does not matter to me.

Here's a protip, since apparently you and cdude aren't aware of how it works: Pasting three links does not amount to evidence.

Let me go through this "evidence" link by link.

1. ASP has nothing to do with profit margin beyond dictating the ROI in absolute numbers. So it "plummeting" is expected, as there's a negative mix towards mid to low end devices (520 and 620) in Q2.

3. This third link is the same as the first basically, and isn't really relevant. It only helps to prove me right, which I'll go into more soon.

2. The second link is interesting, and potentially damning if it were true. Its unfortunate for you two that its not. Following that link to its source (http://www.electronista.com/articles/13/04/25/26.nokia.105.said.to....) shows that the executive was speaking about the 105 favorable in comparison to their Lumia devices when they say profit margins are comparable. He said the absolute number for margins for the 105 are low because it costs $26, he didn't say the margins themselves are low -- or speak to the 520's margins.


We were told Nokia had to go with Windows Phone because it would allow them to go for the premium segment - something they could not do with Android. This clearly turned out to be a mistake - Nokia does not compete at the high end (which is absolutely dominated by Samsung and Apple), and only manages to sell low-margin, cheap-ass phones.


Okay, let's stop with this "we were told" strawman. If you have quotes from me, or from Nokia, or Microsoft, or Stephen Elop, or anyone really then link it.

And saying that Nokia does not compete in the high end isn't true, given that they have an entire high end lineup.

If by "doesn't compete" you mean doesn't sell as much as Samsung or Apple, then fine, but they aren't there yet. This time last year they "didn't compete" in the low end.

As for the rest of my comment I promised regarding ASPs and how they relate to the 520 margin, I responded here:

http://www.osnews.com/thread?574366

Reply Parent Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This is f--king ridiculous, how members of the Always Wrong Club have the audacity to imply that evidence does not matter to me.


And yet, my prediction - Nokia cannot sustain itself and will have to sell itself or its phone division off - has come to fruition, while your prediction - Nokia is on the up and will become strong - has not.

YOU have been consistently wrong, I (and many with me) have been consistently right, and the evidence is here for all to see. Windows Phone was the wrong choice from day one; if it had been the right choice, they would not have had to sell their phone division off.

Edited 2013-10-10 13:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

cdude Member since:
2008-09-21


Excuse me? People like me?


Yes, people like you. Here:


according to cdude Nokia should have been dead earlier this year


This is just one of many example of your moron fiction. How about you give a link where I wrote that? Just a link and no long reply where you switch the topic again. You can't give a link cause its you lying like a "f--king ridiculous" (your words) unfunny clown.

Now waiting for the link where I wrote that Nokia is dead earlier this year (2013). Don't weasle around, just a *link* to fullfit your request to give sources. Waiting even knowing you can't and so won't provide that link. That's people like you.

Edited 2013-10-10 23:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3