But you know, feedback like "Hey, this thing doesn't work (it's not fast enough or good enough or easy enough or it's crashing), why don't you fix that" isn't always the most helpful one. Those are things that everyone is already trying to do right anyway: make things easy and fast and not crash. They generally aren't things that we could just snap our fingers and make things right upon hearing them from someone (or hearing about them for the 1000th time). (Edit addition: Please do file bugs about anything that you find. Bug reports are very useful. Naturally we are not aware of everything. )

Then, feedback like "Yes, I see what you're doing, but why don't you add features A, B and C" is problematic with the previous kind of feedback, balancing between quality vs. quantity of features.

And feedback like "Hey, why are you doing new features D, E and F when the previous ones A, B and C still suck" is also problematic, balancing between doing new things vs. supporting and improving existing ones.

Most feedback is amongst one of these three categories. Finding feedback that would have the silver bullets of how to fix problems is naturally much harder than feedback stating out the obvious.

No company has infinite resources, nor there is an infinite amount of skilled labourers available in the job market (take Maemo SW, or skilled Symbian developers, or any platform of your choice). Nor hiring people has an instant effect on improving quality: it takes time for the skill of the organization (and its individuals) to build up.

As everyone knows, every company struggles with the same problems. I'm generally an optimist, and I don't mind being the underdog. But I do think it's a misrepresentation of Nokia in general that we wouldn't gather feedback, or that we wouldn't listen to it. Then again, naturally I can't influence the perception of what things seem like. Perceptions are just what they are.