Hot damn! Chuck Norris kickin' ***!



Thanks for that posting--although, I still think mine is, as you said, a far better definition.


The irony of your calling THEM a leader is that they made a decision that was probably based purely on the fact of the matter that Android makes them far more money and is far more flexible for them to work with. More importantly, I'd argue that you would be a poor and stupid business if you persist in making phones that customers aren't buying up and clearly don't want.

Not really, but if you didn't try to frame it as an insult it might have instead been much more better received. Now it reads as BOTH insincere AND an insult, where before it might have simply read as an opinion. It's hardly a language barrier and more of a tactical blunder. For example, I'm pointing this out to you so that you might understand and perhaps keep it in mind when you communicate to Americans. You can interpret it as an insult if you want but I'm not going to apologize for it. If you take it as an insult then you'll miss out on some possibly good information, or at the very least an opportunity to explain yourself better if it's not understood the way you wanted.

...For example, the above. You could have simply framed your original statements better with information like this if someone questioned your opinion. Instead, you're pointing this out just to explain why you weren't trying to be insulting--a bad reason to have to relate this information.

Perhaps, could it be because Nokia has had so little heritage and role in making smartphones what they are today in the US? Sometimes, you can easily forget that you're criticizing a country full of people who are now grown adults and never heard of the name Nokia except as that cheap plastic throw-away phone at the 7-Eleven convenience store, sitting right next to the alcohol. Yes, the sad fact is that 20-something year olds REALLY never had any other exposure to Nokia, thanks to--guess who?--Nokia. They decided to ignore an entire continent, so hey pay that price.

They barely TRIED to "conquer" North America, carriers or not. They barely made their presence known aside from the cheap junk phones they eventually commonly became known for in the United States. Tech journalists can hardly be blamed for not knowing a brand that had so little to do with their own market. I'm pretty certain you don't know plenty of US companies and entities that had much to do with many things you now take for granted and I don't expect journalists in a foreign press to necessarily pay attention to them either. If Nokia was serious about "conquering" North American carriers, they would have made better efforts to make their presence known and to sell to the customers. They didn't try to sell what customers wanted, didn't take care of customers competitively (better support, better repair SLA's, point of presence like kiosks, etc.) and were asking for and ended up losing out in the end. We've been repeating those suggestions here and elsewhere over the years, but Nokia doesn't seem to care.

That might also explain why the XBOX division is one of the few successes in Microsoft; By leaving out the 'Windows' name, they've probably improved its image MANY times over. The moment Microsoft decides to throw 'Windows' into the name of a game console, watch how many people will avoid it like the plague for exactly the reason you pointed out. Even just thinking about it made my gut queeze just a little bit.

I seem to remember Balmer throwing his chair across the room and saying (quoting word for word, here): "****ing Eric Schmidt is a ****ing *****. I’m going to ****ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I’m going to ****ing kill Google."

How's that temper working out for you and your company, Balmer? Just, please.. if you do take it out on Elop, make sure you post the video. Preferably to YouTube so we can all see it. Oh wait... YouTube! Just.. post it... somewhere?

Lastly...