Nokia’s Lumia line ‘not good enough’ to battle iOS and Android, say carriers

http://venturebeat.com/2012/04/17/nokias-lumia-line-not-good-enough-to-battle-ios-and-android-say-carriers/

by shin_lao • 14 years ago

32 50 14 years ago

coob• 14 years ago

How about letting customer's decide? I cannot wait until carriers (and ISPs) are dragged kicking and screaming down to the level of basic utility pipe providers they really are.

vibrunazo3• 14 years ago

According to this article [1], it is the customers deciding. Carrier rejection is just a reflection of customer rejection. It happens like this: customers buy windows phone, get disappointed because it's worse than the old nokia n9. Return it to store. Stores get scared of high number of returns, which are bad for their business. Stores avoid selling them in the first place.

[1] http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/03/brutal-...

talmand• 14 years ago

From my limited experience all I've heard is the people who have them love them but the people who sell them push people to other platforms. I've always heard talk of kickbacks for selling one phone over another.

For the vast majority of people out there just about any of the decent smartphones will work for them, they just have to play with them to decided which one they like best. Arguments over things like "not enough apps" or "too much fragmentation" is most likely not an issue (knowingly or unknowingly) to most shoppers.

It seems logical to assume that the sales guy will push you towards the phone he needs to sell, whether due to kickbacks, quotas, or management pressure. This is done regardless of the wants and needs of the customer. Part of my reasoning behind this is just the general behavior of these companies towards their customers to begin with.

orbitingpluto• 14 years ago

The 'kickbacks' usually come in the form of retail 'educational programs'. The most effective of these are of the form: (pretend to) read some articles, take a quiz, earn some points and then redeem them for branded gadgets.

I once worked retail as a computer 'technician' for three months and I made as much in free stuff as I did in wages. (I was quite up front about my limited tenure there but I later found out why HR took no issue with that: at three months you can be the senior non-mgmt employee.) I would assume these loyalty programs are becoming even more aggressive towards retail workers and that you could even quintuple your 'salary' for the lowest paid computer/phone positions.

If you've ever wondered why Craigslist was flooded with $1000 CPUs priced to $300, now you know.

sp3323• 14 years ago

Customers seem to love the Lumia 900. e.g. http://gdgt.com/nokia/lumia/900/

melling• 14 years ago

The reality for app developers is that supporting a third platform is really stretching it. Even in the PC vs. Mac desktop world, the Mac often gets forgotten. It only has 5-7% market share so it's not worth the effort for many developers. Linux? Not a chance. I'd pay for Photoshop on Linux, really! Anyway, Linux might take off as an appliance someday, but I'm digressing.

At this point, Microsoft is probably too late. It'll sell phones to people who just want phones, but I think it's too late for the whole ecosystem. Not to worry for fans, I doubt if they'll ever give up.

alsocasey• 14 years ago

I cannot wait for the day when developing for mobile will mean a decent/optimized/design-once-play-on-every-platform's browser mobile site rather than a native app. It seems a no brainer, but the current state of mobile browsers forces native development efforts for every platform.

greedo2• 14 years ago

It isn't the fault of mobile browsers, but browsers in general. Despite all the advances in browsing technologies, it's still an app world, both on the desktop and on mobile devices.

freehunter3• 14 years ago

I wouldn't rush that claim until Windows 8 is released. Despite the prejudice thrown at it by the Internet community (despite the product not actually being out), people will buy it. New computers will come with it. Developers will make software for it. And that software will be able to run on Windows Phone with only slight modifications.

So unless you're predicting imminent death for the company with the overwhelming majority of marketshare, people will be developing apps for Windows, which puts them 90% of the way towards having an app for Windows Phone.

runako2• 14 years ago

>> And that software will be able to run on Windows Phone with only slight modifications.

I'd bet accomplished mobile devs would take exception to that. Changing the UI, inputs metaphors, device capabilities, etc. may not be significant to some apps, but those are are in the minority.

greedo2• 14 years ago

Sure. Heard the same story in terms of Android phone apps running on tablets. Size matters, as does interface/input devices etc.

To blithely say that it will only require "slight modifications" for the apps to run doesn't mean that they'll run well, or be suited towards touch interfaces etc.

For example, I have Citrix on my iPad. So in theory I can connect to my companies Citrix farm, and RDP to my desktop. Even with a Retina Display, it's painful.

In short, I wouldn't hold your breath.

sp3323• 14 years ago

Microsoft actually wrote the native WP7 Facebook app. It's probably the best mobile FB app I've seen. But... it's still missing features and less responsive than just loading facebook.com in the browser.

lmm• 14 years ago

Have you tried the java mobile version? It's ridiculously good; I actually wish I could use it on my android.

firefoxman12• 14 years ago

> Not to worry for fans, I doubt if they'll ever give up.

If WP7 fans are anything like us WebOS fans, you're probably right. But who says it's too late for Microsoft? When DOS (and more importantly, Windows) came about, Apple was already the established king of its market. It could happen again, right?

Geee• 14 years ago

Curious thing is that you'll need a Mac to develop for iOS. There's lots of people developing on Windows who would probably target primarily Android and WP.

freehunter3• 14 years ago

He said Microsoft's software worked nicely with PCs and allowed you "to do tons of cool things" but few customers knew this.

Isn't this what the sales reps are supposed to do? Help the customer make an informed decision? Or are they just paid to be hand the customer a phone?

Why wouldn't the conversation go like this:

Do you own a Mac or a PC? Mac: buy an iPhone, unless you care about... PC: Do you like to listen to a lot of music/are you active on Xbox Live/etc... do you use iTunes/have a lot of friends playing iPhone games... do you like (whatever mainstream aspect Android has over the competition)...

Fill in the blanks with what sales reps are paid to do. Find what your customer wants and needs, show them the phone that covers that aspect, show them the competition, make a recommendation, then let them choose. If the customer doesn't go into the store knowing 100% what they want, it's the reps place to help them understand. Not to sell them an iPhone or a Galaxy.

runako2• 14 years ago

>> Why wouldn't the conversation go like this:

Because then it's a discussion and sales process. If the rep simply hands the customer the iPhone (or top Android), he's out the door happy and the rep can sell the next phone. Apple and Google have taken care of education and creating customer desire by the time the customer arrives at the store; Microsoft is failing at this.

smackfu• 14 years ago

The tricky bit is that they are paid based on which phones people buy. Androids have higher commissions than iPhones, for instance.

Zirro• 14 years ago

Who pays for that? Google and the phone-manufacturers?

ticks• 14 years ago

Presumably it has a lot to do with the ecosystem that the customer has already bought into. If they already use Google's products, then Android phones are the natural option, if iTunes then Apple. Nokia's shoved themselves into a specialist category by opting for Windows-only.

yread2• 14 years ago

because nobody uses windows or office or xbox? This argument doesn't work

freehunter3• 14 years ago

I use almost every Google product under the sun. There's only one that works better on my Android tablet than on my Windows Phone, and that's Google+.

Tuna-Fish3• 14 years ago

I'd say a large proportion of the carrier sales boycott of WP is simply fallout of the MS acquisition of Skype. The carriers are scared shitless about being reduced to dumb pipes, and purchasing Skype was pretty much an open declaration of war from MS.

Nice rock you tied yourself to, Nokia.

guard-of-terra2• 14 years ago

Aren't they dumb pipes already? I struggle to remember any examples of their contribution to the user experience. I can remember dozens of stories where they took advantage of their clients or harmed them in other way, tho.

They better stay pipes.

Tuna-Fish3• 14 years ago

They bill for texts and calls, for rates hugely separated from the data cost of the operations.

They should naturally be just dumb pipes. They are fighting tooth and nail to not to be forced to that role.

vibrunazo3• 14 years ago

If that's part of the reason, it's probably very small. Google was always a threat with Google Voice. Which is much better integrated into Android phones, and easier to use as a call replacement than anything Skype has to offer into Windows Phones. Yet, every carrier store is filled with Android devices.

I doubt that's a strong reason.

thought_alarm• 14 years ago

"No one comes into the store and asks for a Windows phone."

Of course not. People come into the store and ask for a phone the does "the email and stuff", and walk out with some Samsung model they've previously never heard of.

Microsoft is currently paying AT&T to push the Nokia Lumia. The rest of the carriers have zero incentive to push Windows Phone devices when companies like Samsung and LG are so willing to customize their Android devices to each carrier's whim.

guard-of-terra2• 14 years ago

Which is a selling point, by the way. The device in pristine state not touched by carriers is obviously better than "customized" one.

stcredzero2• 14 years ago

Is there an opportunity here? Even unsophisticated users know there's something wrong with crapware.

notatoad• 14 years ago

it's not a selling point. a selling point is something that a salesperson can take advantage of to make a sale, and "my employer hasn't fucked this phone up as much as they have those other ones" isn't something a salesperson can tell a customer.

lack of carrier crap is a feature, but it's not an advertisable one. even microsoft can't advertise it, because they have relationships with carriers to maintain.

MrVitaliy• 14 years ago

If it's the same "carrier" who put crap-load of useless, buggy malware with every android phone they sell, then who cares what they say. They clearly have no clue what is even "good enough" to weight in an opinion about Nokia.

corysama• 14 years ago

This article has a good breakdown of why carriers are strongly motivated downplay Windows phones.

http://ceklog.kindel.com/2011/12/26/windows-phone-is-superio...

protomyth4• 14 years ago

It's the same argument that Microsoft reps made against using Mac OS, Linux, BeOS, NeXTSTEP, etc. on the desktop. "You need to go with the most installed base / most apps to not waste your money".

I get the feeling that Microsoft / Nokia is going to have to aggressively go after the pre-pay and feature phone market. They need something that undercuts the price and makes money for all the independents that sell phones. Android and iPhone are not players in the pre-pay market.

firefoxman12• 14 years ago

That would be a really great strategy. I love the pricing style of prepaid plans, but the phone selection is horrible. I always end up unlocking a smartphone and hacking it onto a prepaid plan.

If Microsoft could also make data more available/affordable for prepaid plans, it would definitely be a hit.

protomyth4• 14 years ago

I am actually surprised one of the Android-based companies who isn't winning doesn't make an attempt at that market. It gets you the market share and makes it easier to upsell customers on your "premium" versions.

vibrunazo3• 14 years ago

Not sure how the phone selection is where you live at. But android is huge in the pre-pay market at where I live. Samsung has some extremely low end stuff that is so bizarre that you never read about on blogs, but they exist. There are also the less known chinese brands that are slowly building a brand by selling very low end android stuff as well. It's very easy to buy an unlocked android smartphone for less than $100, and customers looking for those usually are not looking for brand name in the first place.

Entering the pre-pay smartphone market wouldn't be a new strategy that no one came up with before. This market is already competitive and completely dominated by android.

protomyth4• 14 years ago

Every time I have looked it is always feature phones, mostly by LG.

elorant• 14 years ago

It’s amazing to realize that it took only five years for a giant like Nokia to become irrelevant in the market. That says a lot about the competitiveness and the speed of progress in the computing world.

xam• 14 years ago

Because the carriers really know what they're doing. What a bunch of imbeciles. The first iPhone was nearly killed by the morons.

nvrmor• 14 years ago

The Elopalypse continues...

Nokia’s Lumia line ‘not good enough’ to battle iOS and Android, say carriers

Related Stories