I know these phones started life at Nokia before the purchase, but post-purchase why weren't they killed immediately?<p>Running an internal project to get Android working with Microsoft's services as a hedge against Windows Mobile failing - a bit like Apple did with OSX on Intel - I can understand.<p>But to actually release it as a product only to kill it a short time later I don't.<p>Good though they may have been (I have no idea), they should never have seen the light of day. It demonstrates a lack of focus, makes it clear Microsoft isn't confident in its own platform and is a waste of resources and effort. Like the Kin.
This is good. The Lumia 520 proves that Windows Phone runs fine on the lowest end - in fact, it proves that it might be a better choice there.<p>All Microsoft needs to do is come up with a way to support more than a very select set of Qualcomm SoCs. Bringing Windows Phone to the same markets as Android and maybe Firefox OS will go for is very hard if you stick to a subset of the SoCs made by one vendor.
Well Microsoft still makes more money off of Android than Windows Phone with their patent licensing deal.<p>Why go through the trouble of making your own Android phone when you make great money (some say $5 per phone, which is about $2bn) off of other people doing it.
This is probably for the best. Any Android phone without Google Play services (targeting a user base primarily in North America and Western Europe) is bound to be DOA. Minimal OS differentiation but a sizable gap in the app store when it comes to "must have" apps.
The thing that REALLY surprises me is that according to the article they pulled the plug on Asha and S40 phones. That's insane. In the market where the volumes are (Asia, Africa) they are everywhere.<p>In Q3 2013 Nokia sold 47 million feature phones (6 times more than their Lumias). In comparison, Apple sold 31 million iPhones in that time frame.<p>Pulling the plug on that seems crazy to me. Big opportunity for Firefox OS though, as it was created to compete at the Asha price level. If there is no competition from Nokia/MS anymore the only offering between 30-50 USD will be FFOS devices.
I think it's safe to assume this also means the end of the Windows Phone/Android dual boot concept that has been floating around for a while: <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/2107863/microsoft-shakes-up-windows-phone-with-dual-boot-android-hybrids-and-free-licenses.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.pcworld.com/article/2107863/microsoft-shakes-up-w...</a>
This was almost certain to happen. It would have been extremely uncharacteristic of Microsoft to continue this product line.<p>Unfortunately, this also closes off an avenue to Nadella to prod Windows Phone to become truly competitive as a mobile platform, and for Microsoft's ecosystem to have an in-house target for platforms other than Windows Phone.
Another win for the Windows division to the detriment of the company as a whole. Nokia X might have been a bad idea, but we'll never know for sure now.
Bummer. The only reason i stopped buying Nokia phones is because they didn't have an Android version otherwise the hardware is solid.<p>Nothing against windows phone but it doesn't have the apps I'm used to and I don't really want to switch to it.<p>The brief experience i had with it connecting other peoples phones to the WiFi the menus didn't seem very intuitive.
That was an unnecessary distraction from the get-go. How did Nokia/Microsoft ever expect to compete with the Huaweis or Xiamois of the world on price with an OS that is clearly seen as 'not theirs'. Odd to begin with.
They were never too serious about it. If they were, they would've put real Android on one of their flagship phones, not WP8's ugly step brother, with even fewer apps, and on a phone that was about as exciting as a rock.
So does that mean we are not getting rid of the Windows phone "scourge"? No offence, but it's just another OS to support which we don't really need... another copy of IE to tolerate... ;-)<p>(for the comically-challenged, this was a joke)