Yeah, but the rest of the flash is slow and if they did that, you would be complaining about a sluggish phone on which you spent €600. So they can't win either way.

As for people who claim that this would encourage Nokia to bring half baked phones to the market, well you always have the option not to buy a phone if it is half baked, right? Here we have a slightly different situation where most of us have already bought the phone because we assumed that it would be supported for a long time and it would be the future etc. Since that assumption is not correct, do we keep crying about what essentially is a sunk cost (sorry, but all of us have already paid for the phone and its not going to change irrespective of whether Nokia support it in future or not) or do we work towards making the situation better?

This whole thing reminds me of my former boss. He held shares in a big bank which he had bought for £8 a piece and in its hay day, the shares were worth £11 or so. However, when the market start collapsing and the share price dropped to £6, he wouldn't sell his shares... the reason he gave was that he just couldn't bear to sell the shares he had bought for £8 at £6, even though all indications were that the prices would drop even further. At the end of it all, the share price dropped to £0.30 and he lost a whole lot of money, and the reason was that he was stuck on what he had paid for the shares initially, not what the market reality was. Fact is that humans hate to admit, even to themselves, that they may have made a mistake.

So in a rational world, whatever you paid for N900 should have nothing to do with what you would pay for it in future. What you probably should be comparing it to is the cost of getting an alternative which would do what you would like your phone to do and if implementing those features on N900 is cheaper, you go for that, else you buy the alternative. Alas, we don't live in a world where people act rationally