Re: Why maemo is not as popular as Android?
 

Actually, the Nexus S (made for Google by Samsung) is the second official Google handset (the original was the Nexus One, made for Google by HTC). Google's had their own phone for about a year now but I didn't really see a shift in their relationships with Google over that time.

Which is not to say that Maemo was bad--but you do make a good point: it's not particularly welcoming.

Re: Why maemo is not as popular as Android?
 

The producers of android phones and the iPhone give their customers the impression that their products have a future and are just the first step for a big future.

Nokia gives his users the impression that maemo is dying and that the products are the end of line.

Meego is no continuation but a new try that will also end this way.

No customer wants to buy dying products.


Nokia should offer new upgrades with surprising and revolutionary features if they want to show that there is still life.

Re: Why maemo is not as popular as Android?
 

I think you're possibly being melodramatic and hyperbolic, but I agree with your underlying point. If Nokia truly had intended Maemo to be groomed as the future OS for smartphones and other higher end devices, the least they could have done is supported it with frequent updates to applications (untie those applications from the flash OS images, for crying out loud!) and prompt bugfixes to make it seem like a current and supported product. Then, if they really wanted to make it feel more "alive" and current, they could have advertised it more to make people wonder what this thing is so that current owners have an opportunity to show it off. As it is, if I show off a Maemo product, it strikes people as a niche device--neat, but they wouldn't buy it for themselves or for family.

Re: Why maemo is not as popular as Android?
 

Here is another one point that nobody seems to be cover yet/
You all trying to simplify this to some point, so here is another one but very important.

It is perfect for youtube (except flash 10.1)

Somebody didn't realize that giving access to the Flash Dev community to play around is a smart business decision. Over 3 millions active community keep spreading the news about new area they can possibly enter. And here we go! Air apps, Flash 10.1 stuff, small steps but helping many people to make decision witch device I would like to buy and platform to support as Flash Dev. We are not talking about average Joe but geeks that playing with technology and n900 + Maemo + flash 10.1 would be perfect combination.

Base on this experience somebody realized the potential finally. New player with custom and fresh system on the market. Guess what they did. Prepared VM simulator of their OS and released it to Flash devs before its available on the market!

Yep..., http://us.blackberry.com/playbook-tablet/ They were trying to attract Flash guys and I have to say, they succeed already at some point.

Whatever you might thing about flash itself it's a huge factor in this game. Especially when comes to comparison iOS vs Android, don't overlooked that. It was the main reason for many people... ok IShine is cool because its shiny but flash.. hmm. I can show off that I have true and full web experience. Was it the one of the advert key point for Maemo and N900? Full experience? Really?

And here we go, so flash dev end up here, by mistake and trust that this OS will be future prove. I'm wondering how many more were so naive like me. Fact is, it's a shame since now I know how truly Maemo 5 unique is
and robust could be...

[Edit]

I can also add something in terms of OS classification these days.

Android, iOS - at some point i agree Android is a copy of iOS in terms of functionality and user experience. Mainly relaying on apps. Giving you wild race for get app for every single task you would like to make. Atomizing it to the level of uselessness.
Why I need so many apps to duplicate mainly web based stuff?

Chrome OS - as opposite to above, relaying on web based stuff only. Trying to convince you everybody is using one Application called web browser.

From one extremeness to another. Maybe there is even millions of customers that could find one of the ways useful but there is still huge amount of people that would like to have both. Even if the statement of Google is correct, we still need proper, local OS under our control. We don't need 2k apps if we have robust web experience, I agree. Maemo could perfectly fill the gap. But end up in nowhere in this case. No apps no Full web experience.

Re: Why maemo is not as popular as Android?
 

For however short it does it, since a slim device usually means a capacity-challenged battery.

Re: Why maemo is not as popular as Android?
 

For a fellow living in London, your English is somewhat hard to parse. If I understand you correctly, though, I would believe that you're arguing that Flash is what made Maemo. I disagree. I would like to point out to you that Maemo existed for many revisions and a few years before Flash had been available. I would further argue the point that iOS phones were popular despite the lack of Flash, and that Android was catching up quickly to iOS despite lacking Flash long before Flash was even announced coming to the platform. Most importantly, Maemo was never more popular than either of them at any point during their commercial availability to customers, even when Maemo was the only one of the three that DID have Flash for a time.

May I also add that I don't use Flash on my Android devices and yet they are able to browse and operate excellently on every website I've browsed with Dolphin or Firefox (I'm not a fan of the built-in Android browser, but then the argument here is about Flash making or breaking a platform). I sincerely doubt that Maemo succeeded as a fantastic platform because it had Flash to "help" show you a bunch of web ads.

As for Youtube, I sincerely prefer it without Flash. The YouTube app works GREAT on Android and I'm never left wanting a Flash based player. Not at all.

In my opinion, you give far too much credit and credence to Flash as if it would make or break an operating system. In my view, it's the annoying RealPlayer plugin-in of the 2000's: a plug-in that web site operators keep hinging on so much that they effectively make it feel like a plugin-in is a web standard requirement. Silly--especially in an operating system argument.

Re: Why maemo is not as popular as Android?
 

Nokia is one such flash-whore. At one stage (2-3 years ago) going to nokia.com you was presented with some friggin flash crap to select which localised version of their website to view, and they didn't provide any HTML navigation at all. So if like me you're running firefox with noscript you'll see an empty page.

Re: Why maemo is not as popular as Android?
 

Heh... I remember that. And THAT, my friend, is NOT a web page. You might as well compare sites that rely on Flash with old-school AOL service or Prodigy. You needed to use THEIR client to log in and see THEIR content on THEIR network. Flash is a little less exclusive than that, but it's not a far walk away from an Adobe owned "web" without the open and competitive standards. What kind of idiot communications hardware company creates their entire website in a non-standards based pure plug-in way? Nokia. They're all about the "open"... or some junk. :P

Re: Why maemo is not as popular as Android?
 

oh please...

Re: Why maemo is not as popular as Android?
 

From the PoV of user of device that doesn’t really attract official apps developers, ChromeOS argument sounds good enough. At least with browser that doesn’t have too much propietary function, those services will still be usable.

Websites made so many native apps for iOS and Android for something they could just make mobile website for.
Can’t bringing a function from desktop to mobile because the service limit themself to specific platform, it could outweight Maemo’s unrealizable potential :P

It's not just about get the device you wanted, not about black or white. I like those services, but don't like their “nationality”