View Single Post
Posts: 341 | Thanked: 607 times | Joined on Dec 2008
#70
Originally Posted by pspbricker View Post
With all due respect Kanishou ; That's just naive. Nokia cannot afford for consumers to wait for kinks to be ironed out. The result of that would be the situation faced with the N97. The N97 has tarnished Nokia's image - hardware and software issues still remain long after launch. Many N97 owners look to the N900 to redeem Nokia, and if they were to read about the many bugs currently on the N900, they might easily be dissuaded. In other words, if consumers buy a buggy phone, chances are they won't wait long enough for several updates (Hell, I'll wager that the average consumer doesn't even know what an update is, let alone how to do the update!) and will move on to a stable environment.

Thank heavens Nokia did delay the launch until now(ish). The criticism of the pre-launch models would have been immense, and hopefully most of the bugs will be fixed with frequent updates.
So you are saying it would have been better for Nokia's image not to release the N900 at all, rather than risk another release with possible flaws. Well, we just have to agree to disagree on that front.

Unfortunately there is no magical way to guarantee that software is bug-free, especially when it is a completely new development.

P.S.: And honestly, why anyone would look at the N900 to redeem Nokia from an unstable N97 release is completely beyond me. The N900 should have been the last phone to have this expectation, considering that it is _far_ more experimental than the N97. There is a reason why the N97 was marketed as a flagship device and the N900 is not.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kanishou For This Useful Post: