You don't know, so why create something so low? I've got 4, I'm sure theres people with 5+, so why not give the ability to have 200? It was a serious question, not a dig. Is there some iOS API restriction on the amount of "pollers" per app you can have some something?
Here is my perspective, as a product manager at a large (Fortune 500) corporation for the past two years...
I don't know how to code (well, anyway...), but I try to take care of the dirty work so that the development team can focus on doing, you know, development. This means figuring out the flow of transactions (we work with web services, and expose our own web services to clients), field level details, managing the intake of feature requests, figuring out why certain things are broken or behaving in unexpected ways...
Basically, I move all around to make sure the developers are able to focus on they are able to do, and protect them from the headaches that upper management and business sponsors produce. I try and manage the goals of business asks and user experience with the abilities of our development team. If there is a major change in design or scope, I make sure to consult with the development lead before I commit to anything.
I don't assume to be more important than any developer, or that I know more than them. I understand what my role in the organization, and my relationship to the development team, and I know who is doing the work that makes us all look good.
I don't know if this satisfies any developers who read this, but this is what I come into work trying to accomplish.
Given the state of useful information on home/lockscreens in competitors (Windows Phone 7, Android, WebOS), it's almost necessary for Apple to make a UI overhaul in iOS 5. I'm loathe to jailbreak (performance issues), but when I have jailbroken my phone, the lockscreen with usable info (weather, notifications) was brilliant. I don't think Apple should open up the lock/home screen to the app environment necessarily, but Apple should do something to make their devices more useful when they aren't in active use.
With Android, as others have pointed out, Nokia would have faced immense competition from HTC, Samsung, and others who are established in the marketplace. With WP7, they at least have an opportunity to come in at the ground floor.
Also, given the relationship between Elop and MS, there can be some shared resources to make Nokia the flagship for WP7. With Android, they would have been just another manufacturer.
I would answer that implementing this strategy can't be a short term plan. This will take time to put in place meanwhile a lot of executives can change. Is it wise to rely on a relationship between one executive and another company as a long term strategy ?
I didn't say it was wise. I just believe that it is the reality of the situation. We have watched Nokia throw their immense resources in every direction, from Symbian to Maemo to Meego, all resulting in failure. The pathways for Nokia to take were pretty narrow, and I think spending more time in developing yet ANOTHER platform would have been death. Nokia cut their losses here, and went with a platform they could work with. They can focus their efforts on developing killer hardware and optimizing WP7 for it. It takes the biggest weakness of Nokia (interface design and software) out of their hands. It also makes the platform more attractive for developers - with Nokia backing WP7, there's guaranteed distribution and handset sales.
Windows Phone 7 has been on the market for less then a full quarter. It is a brand new OS, better on initial release then iOS 1.0 or Android 1.0. So stay calm. In time, people will see Windows Phone as an attractive alternative in the market.
RE point 1 and 3, Nokia did this already - it was supposed to be Maemo. They didn't go anywhere with it. They turned it into Meego. We know what happened with. Nokia failed MISERABLY in this regard.
App ecosystem, better camera software, better social integration, better notifications. These are all better. It's a given that WP7 1.0 is competing with the most recent revs of iOS and Android, but the gap of what they have to make up is much smaller, which works to Microsoft's advantage, if they're willing to put resources into iterating quickly (which they haven't so far).
Google has basically solved the question of how to determine what is most "relevant" based on inbound and outbound links, etc. What Google (or Bing, or any other competitor) has to figure out now is how to source the best "authority" per search. This is almost the holy grail of search - find me the best, most relevant item to the arbitrary, nebulous concept I'm poorly phrasing. There are a ton of amateurish suggestions I could make, but I'm not in any position or power to suggest anything.
I do think that given what the article points out, Aol's purchase of the HuffPo seems more ill-advised. If Google is able to determine that the large majority of the content on HuffPo is rehash of another site, kiss that investment goodbye. I've always been on a mission to get as close to the source of things as I can. I'm all for relevant analysis, but summarizing an article word for word is tough to accept.