Nokia Lumia 900 Review: Can It Save Windows Phone? Discussion

[Grant Hatchimonji]

The Nokia Lumia 900 could be one of the last chances for the Windows Phone platform. Does it deliver or will Microsoft's mobile OS continue to get trounced by the competition?

At the time of this review, the Nokia Lumia 900 is available for $99 through AT&T with a new two-year contract and data plan.

Read the full content of this Article: Nokia Lumia 900 Review: Can It Save Windows Phone?

Related Articles:

• Nokia Lumia 800 Firmware Update Fixes Battery Life, Available To Some Users Now
• Nokia Lumia 900 to be Released on April 8
• Nokia Lumia 710 Review: Windows Phone, Now With 4G
• Windows Phone 7.5 Mango Review: Building a Better OS

[Mitlov]

I’m not quite sure what all the fuss is about with the camera on the Lumia 900. It has a solid 8-megapixel resolution and a Carl Zeiss f/2.2 lens with a 28mm focal length, and judging from other reviews of the phone that I’ve read, people seem to really like it.

Actually, I've seen elsewhere that the camera is not as good as the Carl Zeiss name and the specs would make you think. And other Nokia Lumia models have been criticized for picture quality too. I think the HTC Titan (and as of this weekend, the Titan II) is still the Windows Phone of choice for people who use the camera a lot.

But even though Nokia has succeeded in its mission to create a flagship Windows Phone, that doesn’t mean that there’s a lot of hope for the platform. The Lumia 900 was expected to be a savior for Windows Phone, kind of a last major effort to really get it to catch on, and I don’t think that’s what’s going to happen. It may be a solid phone, but at its core, it still offers the same experience as all other phones running Windows Phone 7.5.

I don't think this is a last-stand, this-or-nothing phone at all. It's the biggest push we've seen in the US so far, but that doesn't mean it's the last push, or even the biggest push we'll see this year. To be totally honest, I don't think Microsoft is even wholeheartedly pushing the Windows Phone right now, and probably won't until late 2012, when Windows Phone 8 drops and Windows 8 brings Metro to computers as well. Until then, I don't think Microsoft's plan is to take over the market, but instead to develop a modest-but-loyal core of followers. And I count myself among them.

When Windows Phone 8 drops and Microsoft unleashes the media blitz I expect them to, I think the smartphone market is going to change drastically. I think it'll rapidly become a three-company game instead of a two-company game.

By not offering a vastly different experience, the Lumia 900 ultimately does nothing to attract new users or convert those who are so staunchly against the Windows Phone OS and its Metro UI (seriously, a lot people seem to really hate Metro and I’m not sure why, I think it’s a very clean, simple UI).

I don't think most people hate Metro--at least, not on the mobile front (Windows 8 for PCs is a more contentious topic). It makes for a really wonderful smartphone experience when it comes to day-to-day stuff like social networking, email, text-messaging, etc.

[weegie]

I don't think most people hate Metro--at least, not on the mobile front (Windows 8 for PCs is a more contentious topic). It makes for a really wonderful smartphone experience when it comes to day-to-day stuff like social networking, email, text-messaging, etc.

So what do you attribute the lack of success to then?
I blame metro and the naming more than anything else.

[Drillbit]

I am noticing that there is some pink overcast in the center of photo images made by Windows Phones regardless of brand. Are they being forced to use the same sensor by Microsoft?

[Mitlov]

So what do you attribute the lack of success to then?

I blame metro and the naming more than anything else.

How much time have you spent with Metro on a phone? Most people I know who've actually used it for a length of time long enough to get over the initial "this isn't anything like what I'm used to" response end up really liking it.

I blame:

(1) People not even looking into it because Windows Mobile was so wretched;
(2) A lack of advertising from Microsoft (which I think will be remedied later this year);
(3) A lack of features until 7.5 Mango was released;
(4) A lack of enthusiasm from hardware manufacturers (pre-Nokia) and carriers who would rather stick with the "safe bets" of Android and iOS.

That said, Windows Phone is small but growing, not small but declining like RIM. It's app store is smaller than iOS or Android but growing faster than either. In the past three months, WP has gone from about 0% to about 8% of the Finnish smartphone market. Etc.

[weegie]

How much time have you spent with Metro on a phone? Most people I know who've actually used it for a length of time long enough to get over the initial "this isn't anything like what I'm used to" response end up really liking it.

Quite a bit initially, I was coming from ten years of windows mobile so of course I was interested, it's nothing to do with, it's different so I don't like it, I'm all for new when it's an improvement but Metro isn't unless you only want to do the limited things that fit nicely within Metro or don't mind swiping and scrolling 20 times more than any other OS and think big gigantic cartoon squares are attractive, I want as many shortcuts to what I use on the front page, as well as switches for wifi, data, GPS, Metro can't do this, your stuck with 7 or 8 gigantic squares without starting the obsessive scrolling and swiping frenzy this UI forces on it's users.

I blame:

(1) People not even looking into it because Windows Mobile was so wretched;

And how many WM devices did you/do you own?, everyone would agree WM needed an overhaul for mass consumer use, but productivity wise still does things that nothing else does well, like being able to edit documents and text exactly like a computer with a cursor, exchange capabilities that make every other platform look stupid incl Windows phone, except for BBE which lacks even more so in the consumer dept.
Considering almost a year after WP was released it still had a lower market share than WM when you could barely find a WM device to buy, it doesn't bode well for WP considering WM is soo wretched.

(2) A lack of advertising from Microsoft (which I think will be remedied later this year);
(3) A lack of features until 7.5 Mango was released;

These two are related, what were they going to advertise? hey, we've made this new platform that's just sent Microsoft's mobile platform back to iPhone 1 levels of functionality and restriction, but hey you can have different brands of the same thing and if you like swiping and scrolling ad nauseum, we've got everyone beat.

(4) A lack of enthusiasm from hardware manufacturers (pre-Nokia) and carriers who would rather stick with the "safe bets" of Android and iOS.

What a surprise Ballmer is a flip flopping idiot who changes the rules like his underwear, I specifically remember him being interviewed and saying the next generation of WM would not restrict the OEM's with customization and hardware choice as that was how they differentiated themselves from one another, yet, that's exactly what he did, then he buy's into Nokia and plants that smug ex MS exec and starts talking about "partnerships" where Nokia will have a higher level of input....gee, wouldn't you feel a little peeved with them if you were one of the other OEM's?
Lets not forget, HTC carried WM single handedly for MSFT while no one else was interested and at least kept it a viable platform for a few years, then they get shafted by MS where they are just the same as any other OEM, I was actually amazed at how many models HTC produced for WP7 initially.The crap sales of the platform aren't exactly a motivating factor in spending up big on R and D specifically for Microsoft's benefit are they?

Now, it seems, the OEM's outside of Nokia produce WP handsets as a form of tax so they don't keep getting sued by Microsoft for making what makes them money via sales volume...namely Android handsets.

That said, Windows Phone is small but growing, not small but declining like RIM. It's app store is smaller than iOS or Android but growing faster than either. In the past three months, WP has gone from about 0% to about 8% of the Finnish smartphone market. Etc.

Wake us up when WP has a small percentage of Blackberry's market share....let alone the others, Windows Phone is still irrelevant after 18 months, despite the amount of money MSFT throw at developers and the likes of nokia, if it weren't backed by the massive proceeds of products people actually buy, it would have already died on the vine.
Lets see how long Ballmer stays there and keeps propping it up when windows desktop starts losing market share faster than it already is via the swiping idiot UI on windows 8....unless of course, some of the opposing forces within MS that are anti metro on windows get the madman to see some sense.

Glad you enjoy it but I won't be using anything with Metro on it in this lifetime, despite how much I would like to see Apollo and onwards succeed and halt the Google machine from knowing everything about everybody....these days for me, it's all about who I dislike the least, unfortunately Metro is something I can't get past, and doubt I'll be the only one going by the current 1000 MS employees and internet friends who think metro is "fresh" and....well....just swell.

[Mitlov]

My negative views of Windows Mobile are based not on first-hand experience, but second-hand (close friends who had WM devices), not just "stuff I've heard on the internet."

You say WP has never captured the same market share that WM has. But the smartphone market was smaller, more business/less consumer oriented, and frankly a whole lot easier to penetrated in 2000 (when WM debuted) than in 2010 (when WP debuted). Also, are you counting the market share it had during the peak of it's ten-year run, or it's market share after 18 months when it was still gaining momentum? Apples and oranges.

I don't see anything wrong with Microsoft slowly building Windows Phone loyalty while it refines it and adds features during the first two years, and saving the big marketing push for Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8. By then (about Q3 2012), Xbox owners will all be used to Metro's live tiles (which debuted on the Xbox 360 in December 2011), and computer users will be starting to learn them as well. I really don't see the relative lack of Windows Phone advertising at the current time as a sign that the OS is dying or anything. It's growth hasn't plateaued or anything...it's continuing to grow, slowly but steadily. I see Microsoft saving up ad resources for a massive, massive push later this year with Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8, instead of depleting those same funds with a smaller push here, smaller push there, etc.

[Varjak]

I have to admit, the big thing for me, is a reluctance to deal with Microsoft on any other devices. That's a real barrier to entry for me.j

I didn't quite understand the last paragraph of the review about having to 'alter WP' in order to make it more popular. Do you mean Nokia did? Or MS?

It is a bit surprising the camera isn't better. Zeiss used to mean something (at least on Sony products and good cameras); but maybe they're just licensing their name now for relatively inexpensive cellphone cameras.

BTW, I like the larger type and layout of the new review format, but why do the type in gray? It's a bit hard to read on my eyes.

[Mitlov]

I think the last paragraph kind of missed the point of Windows Phone:

By not offering a vastly different experience, the Lumia 900 ultimately does nothing to attract new users or convert those who are so staunchly against the Windows Phone OS and its Metro UI (seriously, a lot people seem to really hate Metro and I’m not sure why, I think it’s a very clean, simple UI). Don’t get me wrong, I love Windows Phone and I don’t fault Nokia; it shouldn’t have had to alter the Windows Phone experience at all to help it gain popularity. But if people didn’t like it before, there’s little here to change their minds.

Windows Phone is the anti-Android. It's supposed to be the exact same operating system regardless of the manufacturer. It's the opposite of heavily-skinned Android varieties where every manufacturer has its quirks and a different operating system (and a different set of bugs related to the skin as opposed to the OS itself). Microsoft learned the "bloatware" lesson the hard way with their PCs...Windows Phones are essentially meant to all be bloatware-free, all pure versions of the OS as Microsoft designed it. The fact that the OS on the Lumia 900 is the same as the OS on my 7 Pro is part of that. The Lumia has a nicer screen, nicer case, larger screen, and faster performance, but the same OS not laden down with added-on features from each hardware manufacturer and each carrier. In my book, that's a GOOD thing.

[Hook]

I think the last paragraph kind of missed the point of Windows Phone:



Windows Phone is the anti-Android. It's supposed to be the exact same operating system regardless of the manufacturer. It's the opposite of heavily-skinned Android varieties where every manufacturer has its quirks and a different operating system (and a different set of bugs related to the skin as opposed to the OS itself). Microsoft learned the "bloatware" lesson the hard way with their PCs...Windows Phones are essentially meant to all be bloatware-free, all pure versions of the OS as Microsoft designed it. The fact that the OS on the Lumia 900 is the same as the OS on my 7 Pro is part of that. The Lumia has a nicer screen, nicer case, larger screen, and faster performance, but the same OS not laden down with added-on features from each hardware manufacturer and each carrier. In my book, that's a GOOD thing.

Unless, of course, the sameness they pick is one too many people don't care for.