Most phones will not support MAJOR OS upgrades, making their OS "doomed" from a development perspective. Furthermore, why would you invest your time and labour resources in developing an OS upgrade path when it's only ever been released on one phone?
I bought my N900 knowing it was nothing more than a Nokia test bed, knowing that I was nothing more than a crash test dummy for Nokia's decision to implement a phone stack on the Maemo platform as a part of their decision to get things right for the next OS release. One which will never see official support for a device which is already falling behind it competitors in the eyes of most consumers.
why would a company out to make money, keep providing upgrade suppport to an existing device when they can make more money selling you a new one?

It's interesting to note that none of the Symbian ^3 devices we've seen "reviews" of are running production roms/firmware, and are the "glitches" referred to any different to those which are seen on most preproduction handsets? Furthermore, most of the *****ing relates to the fact that S3 looks a lot like earlier flavours. Obviously it's not new and shiny enough for the mindless consumer "experts" (read: anyone with a blog), which is hilarious considering one of the greatest strengths about nokia devices has always been the ability for a user to upgrade to a new phone and be able to start using it straight away, without the steep learning curve.

I've had more random application closures on my HTC Desire than I've had on my N900 and I've been using my N900 a whole lot more than my Desire.

The challenge for phone makers choosing Android will always be relying on a third party to fix the bugs which present on their phones (along with upgrades and the capacity of new OS releases to be able to work on their existing product line up). People will ***** about their crappy LG/Samsung/HTC/SE devices rather than pointing the finger at the 3rd party OS which runs on it.


....was I making a point?......can't remember