So why didn’t Nokia pack the phone with the newest processor, best display, and more storage? I think it all comes down to price.
There is a place for low-end smartphones, but I don’t think people want shit products.
Nokia Lumia 900 has ‘mediocre hardware’
“Newest processor” – Saying that gets you into trouble when Apple has historically used whatever parts they felt would provide them the best experience. Otherwise, you start getting arguments like “why didn’t the iPhone 4S have 1GB RAM when every other high end smartphone did?”
Caring about speeds and feeds works both ways.
I didn’t get the impression of low end or shit product from that article.
This is all on Microsoft’s shoulders, as far as I can tell. They’ve set out some pretty strict hardware specifications for the manufacturers to follow, which is a good thing for the bottom end, but has now come back to haunt them at the top end.
There’s only support for single core CPUs, and only driver support for the Adreno 200 and 205 GPUs. On top of that, there’s only support for a resolution of 800×480, and are limited to 512MB of RAM.
All of these have completely hamstrung Nokia. They had the aesthetic design to do well, but the limitations that MS have left them with have meant that they can’t fight it out at the top, and so have delivered mid-range machines instead.
Windows Phone 8 “Apollo” can’t come along soon enough for MS and Nokia’s partnership. It should help all of the current limitations, and do wonders for the things apps can do, but will it all feel too late? We’ll have a new revision of iOS and Android around WP8’s target release…
Mediocre… shit to Jim and not shit to you.