I agree completely, and in my opinion the stated reason not to go with Android - ie "being different" - is moot, when you consider that every phone maker can make windows phones too. Having a differentiation that you can't protect at all is not worth having many less apps to offer.
I agree completely, and in my opinion the stated reason not to go with Android - ie "being different" - is moot, when you consider that every phone maker can make windows phones too.
They can, but they don't. And Nokia is indisputably the king of Windows Phone world, even though HTC have created some perfectly great devices. It's unlikely that Nokia could ever topple Samsung from the Android top spot.
How is WP compelling at all for other OEM's when Nokia has 80 percent of WP's market share? That's much worse than Samsung with 30 percent in the Android market. I wouldn't even consider it worth my time, especially when besides the extremely dominant market share of Nokia within WP market, it also means very few devices per total being sold. the numbers just aren't compelling at all for others. Plus, you have a lot harder time differentiating, too.
Nokia has such a big market share because nobody wants a WP, but still enough people want a Nokia. If many people will start wanting a WP, many others will want in - especially the low cost manufacturers, which can simply differentiate on price.
Samsung wasn't the first mover for Android (HTC was the one), while Samsung was among the first movers with WP - the other ones were HTC, Dell, and LG. Nokia wasn't among them.
So much for the first-mover advantage...
