Nokia will have what Apple has, which is brand recognition. And that brand is much stronger than HTC, Samsung, etc. in mobile, especially in Europe.
Sorry, but Nokia doesn't mean anything in the US to those users you're talking about. At least, not more than the companies you mention, and possibly less when it comes to smartphones. People in this country will go "oh yeah, I remember when I had a Nokia phone in 1999," but they won't associate that with a smartphone. Besides, Nokia isn't doing that well in smartphones outside the US either. In Europe they're doing pretty well, but I wonder how many of their current customers will stick with them now that they've changed platforms.
I'm curious, though. What does Nokia pay for WP7 for each phone? I assume they pay a license fee, don't they? Samsung doesn't have to pay anything for Android, and their brand recognition in the product category is far better than Nokia's or Microsoft's at the moment.
I recently talked a decidedly non-techie friend through the iPhone vs. Android decision process. Her iPod was ready to die, and her phone was antiquated, so she wanted to get one device to do everything. We talked it over, and decided the iPhone was the right answer, since it's the best drop-in replacement as an iPod. Stars sync up properly, etc. Otherwise, if that was less important, but having really good Gmail/Google Calendar/etc. support mattered more, she would probably have gone for an Android phone instead.
Frankly, as much of an Android fan as I am, that's the same discussion I have with those same people. I ask them if they use iTunes or GMail and then suggest the phone based on that. If they use both, I ask them which is more important, and if they think they'd use their phone for listening to music. That's pretty much what it comes down to these days. Aside from gaming, the apps are fairly equivalent now.
Previous Topic
Index
