So early morning today surfing
through the tech updates, I came across two interesting things:
-
The share of the Windows phone in the market has grown by 52% with the introduction of Windows Phone 8.
- There seems to be a growing consensus amongst people who matter and influence the industry that Nokia should consider introducing Android phones.
For the former, I would say that
this success is not for Windows phone themselves, but can also be attributed to
Nokia, as being privileged partners of Microsoft they have built and designed
phones which are beautiful really in every detail. Other manufacturers, mainly
HTC and Samsung haven’t made much progress, Samsung in particular. Samsung is
in fact trying to stall Windows 8, for its own sale largely depends on the
success of Android. Consider the factors, two years ago nobody even knew about
Android, and Samsung’s own BADA OS had foreseeably crashed which coincided with
its launch. Most people at that point considered Samsung phones in the same
line today as to what the masses count the Chinese
Alternative. But with Android, Samsung emerged victorious, for the first
time their sloppy engineering team could concentrate only on the UI and some
minor kernel tweaking, instead of building a flawed OS ground up.
Secondly, and more importantly,
what is even more fascinating is the Samsung’s product cycle which also
functions as a marketing strategy.
- Build a product.
- Package it with either the latest, or one generation older Android OS and make it upgradeable to the latest. (Can’t actually blame them for the latter as by the time these phones hit the market they sometimes lag behind because Google got ahead of them)
- Now to stop code fragmentation as mandated and regulated by Google, mind you this exercise is not voluntary; Samsung has to deliver upgrades for 18 months. Often these updates are slow in coming, and by the time these updates come in; the update is in itself obsolete. And Google is still getting further and further in the race.
- Announce a new product with almost the same specification, and the cycle repeats.
The inherent flaw in this cycle,
is that by announcing new designs by the end of every month from pocket
standard issues to the giant slates which are supposed to be portable phones
but I really wonder how will they will ever fit into my pockets, the market is
flooded by so many phones, that a user feels he has the power of choice. But
what an average user fails to realise is that there is no standardisation of hardware
designs and with it the cost margins. Talking to a friend recently who was
searching for a phone, the most difficult task was narrowing down the choices,
because they all looked the same. The reviews are no help either. For the
uninitiated, they can be the worst nightmare. As the experience of the Android
OS is different with every manufacturer and depends on the kind of hardware it
is packed with. This in turn has flooded the market with locally manufactured
units, which in majority are substandard and lacking even in the minimum
hardware, and there aren’t any hard specifications for the hardware. The cheap
phones are laggy and sometimes buggy to the point where the camera doesn’t work,
the screen is unresponsive etc. And when it comes to Samsung, the occasional trickle
of updates stop because by the time the support team got together to deliver
the updates for every handset, the 18 months were up.
Consider the case of Windows
Phone. Microsoft laid down hard specifications with regards to minimum
hardware. This not only ensures that the Windows experience stays constant
irrespective of the manufacturer and that updates are compatible throughout but
in turn also solves the problem of code fragmentation. Problem solved. A
seemingly huge problem which should never have existed in the first place has
been solved just like that.
I have rambled on and on. My
point being, that instead of building more phones and distributing resources to
small teams, maybe manufacturers should start concentrating their resources and
make phones for a price band- High end exciting, high end partially exciting,
high-mid end, mid end, and low end. This strategy seems to be working in the
case of Nokia Lumia (920, 820, 720, 620, 520), now if you re-read the previous
sentence again, and it makes more sense. The result of this strategy would be
that existing phones would be supported for a longer time, vastly reduce the
cost of designing and producing new phones & setting up exclusive support
teams for discrete models. However following this strategy is very hard for
Android manufacturers as it will lead to admission of liability, when clearly
their market relies on the hype of a model refresh every 6 months.
For those who crave stability
there’s always Apple and Microsoft to the rescue.
This is now I come to the second
point, if Nokia were to ever consider Android. Against the general opinion, I
believe it will fail.
Disclaimer: I have bashed Samsung long enough, and I
admit no liability. If you feel offended, or your business has been affected by
this post, I feel honoured and complimented. This post is not open to debate.
Any legal action is subject to my personal jurisdiction only, and in that case
you lose the motion, and hence the trial.