If Android or WP failed, Google and Microsoft could both walk. The difference is that if Nokia was on Android and Nokia failed then Android would keep going. If Nokia fails on WP then Microsoft probably walks and that is a huge blow to Microsoft.
Google can advertise at you almost irrespective of platform you are using. But Microsoft is getting no relevance (or revenue) when you use the new mobile platforms. It is a mistake to think of the "phone" platforms as phones. They are really a new software platform that coincidentally can sometimes make phone calls (on some of the devices). http://daringfireball.net/2012/07/iphone_disruption_five_yea...
Do you realise that non-desktop (Android, iOS etc) devices/platforms will soon (~2013) outship desktops and that the prognosis is a consequent decline in Microsoft's relevance? That would such an incredibly bad thing for Microsoft to walk away from.
See platform stuff above. It is all about the software. You'll always want to personalise your offering in some way, even if it is as trivial as changing the default search engine in response to kickbacks. But generally you'll want to do more. Nokia also has divisions like Navteq (maps).
On the personalization point, no you don't have to. Honestly, I find that all changes done to Android by manufacturers tend to make it worse and not better.
Also, before iPhone and Android came along, Nokia was pretty much the only company that knew how to execute on hardware. In 2006, I would never have considered buying anything other than Nokia. Samsung, HTC and Motorola all made shitty flimsy phones.
If Nokia had gone with Android early, they wouldn't have needed to customize their offering. I'm willing to bet that Nokia hardware running stock Android would've sold like hotcakes in 2008-2009
> On the personalization point, no you don't have to. Honestly, I find that all changes done to Android by manufacturers tend to make it worse and not better.
We never talked about whether the others were any good at software either. The reality is that the iPhone was a transformation from a hardware centric device to a software centric one. And most manufacturers are terrible at software. Have you ever heard anyone praising the quality and usability of software from Samsung, LG or HTC?
Android let them avoid doing software, but for commercial reasons you still want to do something. If you have exactly the same software on two devices then the user will use price as the differentiator. Software is an easy way to make them look different, and to give people a reason to pay more you need to have something unique. As a Motorola person explained there is no way Verizon is going to stock a bunch of different phones where the only difference is a little Samsung/Motorola/LG logo.
Nokia's plans were all over the place. They were developing multiple different platforms concurrently, but weren't getting traction on the new ones. They had no idea there was a problem, hence no inkling of an Android solution.
If they went Android they too would have customized it to give people a reason to buy their devices over the competition. (The million people a day activating devices are not you or me.)
You can of course prove every manufacturer wrong by starting your own company that does stock only, and make reasonable profits. We'd all love to hear a success story like that :-)
It's certainly true that differentiation matters, but I'm not sure how it benefits Verizon when training sales people on platforms is so important and they barely succeed on getting people who can answer questions about iPhone and Android.
Interesting quote from the Motorola person, I'm guessing the reason to favor Samsung is more subtle. (Such as, the Galaxy is a sexier phone and easier to push, or the Droid name got old and is closely associated with Motorola, or Motorola moved too slowly on 4GLTE devices.)
Verizon needs differentiation so they can play manufacturers off against each other. If the phones from several different manufacturers are essentially identical (aka "stock") then there is no point stocking all of them since that really would cause consumer confusion. By having a variety of devices they don't become too dependent on one manufacturer.
Like any geek I strongly prefer stock. But if I was in the business there is no way I would do it. Since Google is weak on social I'd make sure my "enhanced" software experience put Facebook front and centre. I'd make my screen contents seem bright (choice of theme and default wallpaper). Consumers are notorious for buying the loudest sound systems (something Bose exploits) and the brightest TVs (hence default modes on them). HTC's stuff looks good - it shows the time in big digits, somewhat retro with the weather. And then I'd sure as heck make it sound like you are getting more. Literally by claiming various enhanced sound apps, I'd do something about storage (eg a partnership with Dropbox), and something about peace of mind should you lose the device (remote wipe, lock, gps find me) and more.
The moment you start the customizations even if it is just additional widgets & apps, extra wallpapers etc it becomes a simple slippery slope from stock. They all give people a reason to buy your "enhanced experience" phones versus anyone saying they have just stock.
Google can advertise at you almost irrespective of platform you are using. But Microsoft is getting no relevance (or revenue) when you use the new mobile platforms. It is a mistake to think of the "phone" platforms as phones. They are really a new software platform that coincidentally can sometimes make phone calls (on some of the devices). http://daringfireball.net/2012/07/iphone_disruption_five_yea...
Do you realise that non-desktop (Android, iOS etc) devices/platforms will soon (~2013) outship desktops and that the prognosis is a consequent decline in Microsoft's relevance? That would such an incredibly bad thing for Microsoft to walk away from.
http://www.asymco.com/2012/03/02/when-will-the-tablet-market...
http://www.asymco.com/2012/01/17/the-rise-and-fall-of-person...
http://www.asymco.com/2012/06/19/the-evolution-of-the-comput...
http://www.asymco.com/2012/05/23/the-pc-market-overview-for-...
> They run a third party software stack
See platform stuff above. It is all about the software. You'll always want to personalise your offering in some way, even if it is as trivial as changing the default search engine in response to kickbacks. But generally you'll want to do more. Nokia also has divisions like Navteq (maps).