gjtorikian
11-13-2009, 08:43 PM
You may probably tell by my reg date and number of posts that I'm a new member to the entire Maemo 5 / N900 scene, and many hardened Nokia users will probably take what I say with a grain of salt. I obviously wasn't around during the OS2007 Hacker Editions and various other Nokia system incompatibilities, but I've read enough articles to satisfy me that what I'm going to say is reasonable.
There's been a lot of antagonism on these forums regarding Nokia's outright statement that Maemo 5 / N900 represents only "step 4" of their 5-step Plan to Success (tm). People have been downright hostile, insisting that they will skip this upcoming device in favor of Maemo 6 / N910 / whatever. While I certainly don't think the decision was brilliant, I would say that Nokia's admission for their business strategy is admirable, to say the least. How many users of the G1 really thought that Google's very first attempts into mobile phone technology would be flawless, uncompromising, an experience to last years? The device has a limited capacity to store essential data, and will likely be hell to get to the next Android flavor. The same goes for Apple--they got a lot of things wrong with their first-gen iPhone.
Now, the argument can be made that while Apple's earliest iPhone doesn't have the same functionality as the later two (due to hardware limitations), at least the OS across all phones is the same. That's true, and tough to argue against. Android phones across the board are running different OS versions, and I imagine a lot of non-Droid users are downright indignant at their "obsolete" equipment.
These two phones represent, in my mind, the mainstream spectrum of a closed system and a (seemingly) open one. Apple may lock everything down, but at least the experience overall is somewhat the same. Google is hands off on phone manufacturers, but they in turn are unable to devote the R&D time to play "catch-up." With the N900, at least the OS is open, AND dedicated to a single piece of equipment. That's huge. Whatever can be added on as a result (portrait mode, MMS, Harmattan) may not come from Nokia, but if it doesn't, it has a much stronger chance of coming from the user community. Apple and Google can't say that at all. Would you rather have a device that's frequently fixed, but never on your own terms? Would you rather have a device that needs to be replaced every year? Or would you rather have the power to augment and build on what you already have? Developers aren't magicians, but they're effing close. Money and time are important, but respect goes a long way too. I see a lot of that in this community, and that pleases me, so much so that I'm willing to drop a bunch of money on an experiment I believe in.
But back to the original point: step 4 of 5. I'll just wait it out. The N900 isn't ready yet. Why would I buy a phone that's going to be abandoned? I find this sentiment unreasonable. Any hardware that is purchased becomes obsolete quite quickly, and so people with this sort of "wait it out" mentality will always find themselves frustrated.
There was a company in the '80s that introduced their new computer model, at CES or some other trade show. During the presentation they announced that next year they would bring out a computer with even more memory, a faster processor, etc etc. Know what happened? No one bought the trade show computer because everyone waited for the next one. The company went bankrupt, and the next one never came. (I have exhausted my search abilities to get the name of the computer, but I'm pretty sure this is a true story. I don't think it was an Amiga/IBM/Commodore line.)
I think the comparison to Nokia here is apt. Again, I have no idea why they would admit that their next phone / system would have multitouch or other features omitted from the upcoming device. And I'm not saying we should respect their omissions. But at the very least users have the potential to supplement whatever is lacking in Maemo themselves. For some that might not be enough: fine. For some, multitouch is an essential feature, and they won't want to purchase a phone that lacks it, just like for others GSM is essential, and they won't buy a CDMA phone That's fine.
But I don't think it's a legitimate argument to say, I boycott this product because it is not as good as the next one. I think you'll eat yourself alive if you feel this strongly.
There's been a lot of antagonism on these forums regarding Nokia's outright statement that Maemo 5 / N900 represents only "step 4" of their 5-step Plan to Success (tm). People have been downright hostile, insisting that they will skip this upcoming device in favor of Maemo 6 / N910 / whatever. While I certainly don't think the decision was brilliant, I would say that Nokia's admission for their business strategy is admirable, to say the least. How many users of the G1 really thought that Google's very first attempts into mobile phone technology would be flawless, uncompromising, an experience to last years? The device has a limited capacity to store essential data, and will likely be hell to get to the next Android flavor. The same goes for Apple--they got a lot of things wrong with their first-gen iPhone.
Now, the argument can be made that while Apple's earliest iPhone doesn't have the same functionality as the later two (due to hardware limitations), at least the OS across all phones is the same. That's true, and tough to argue against. Android phones across the board are running different OS versions, and I imagine a lot of non-Droid users are downright indignant at their "obsolete" equipment.
These two phones represent, in my mind, the mainstream spectrum of a closed system and a (seemingly) open one. Apple may lock everything down, but at least the experience overall is somewhat the same. Google is hands off on phone manufacturers, but they in turn are unable to devote the R&D time to play "catch-up." With the N900, at least the OS is open, AND dedicated to a single piece of equipment. That's huge. Whatever can be added on as a result (portrait mode, MMS, Harmattan) may not come from Nokia, but if it doesn't, it has a much stronger chance of coming from the user community. Apple and Google can't say that at all. Would you rather have a device that's frequently fixed, but never on your own terms? Would you rather have a device that needs to be replaced every year? Or would you rather have the power to augment and build on what you already have? Developers aren't magicians, but they're effing close. Money and time are important, but respect goes a long way too. I see a lot of that in this community, and that pleases me, so much so that I'm willing to drop a bunch of money on an experiment I believe in.
But back to the original point: step 4 of 5. I'll just wait it out. The N900 isn't ready yet. Why would I buy a phone that's going to be abandoned? I find this sentiment unreasonable. Any hardware that is purchased becomes obsolete quite quickly, and so people with this sort of "wait it out" mentality will always find themselves frustrated.
There was a company in the '80s that introduced their new computer model, at CES or some other trade show. During the presentation they announced that next year they would bring out a computer with even more memory, a faster processor, etc etc. Know what happened? No one bought the trade show computer because everyone waited for the next one. The company went bankrupt, and the next one never came. (I have exhausted my search abilities to get the name of the computer, but I'm pretty sure this is a true story. I don't think it was an Amiga/IBM/Commodore line.)
I think the comparison to Nokia here is apt. Again, I have no idea why they would admit that their next phone / system would have multitouch or other features omitted from the upcoming device. And I'm not saying we should respect their omissions. But at the very least users have the potential to supplement whatever is lacking in Maemo themselves. For some that might not be enough: fine. For some, multitouch is an essential feature, and they won't want to purchase a phone that lacks it, just like for others GSM is essential, and they won't buy a CDMA phone That's fine.
But I don't think it's a legitimate argument to say, I boycott this product because it is not as good as the next one. I think you'll eat yourself alive if you feel this strongly.