Does it matter? Are you saying that it's not allowed for someone to boycott a product range from a company they dislike? It's like suggesting that a SCO Phone should be hunky-dory even though it's from a company that has performed some morally repugnant actions in other industries related to computing.

MS should learn that their reputation in some areas will follow them into others. Do you not notice how horrified some people are that their *car* might run Windows? Or that Windows might come onto their phones? Eek.

And are we supposed to discount all history from, say, Windows CE too? Every product release is a whole new ball game and we have to wipe the slate clean? Sorry, it doesn't work that way even if MS want it to. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Or maybe the guy just evaluated the currently available products and found Windows inferior. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy against MS, and even if it is (I tell you now, that I wouldn't buy a phone with MS's name on it) then there's nothing wrong with that.

If MS want to avoid this, they need to clean up their reputation across the board, not pretend that their secondary businesses are somehow running under some improved management that makes them not subject to the mistakes and business decisions they already use in other subsidiaries.

On the other hand, it also works the same way - if you have a good reputation, I *will* try a product on the basis of that reputation. But what you seem to be saying is that's it not okay for someone to boycott a company that has (with them) a bad reputation? How ridiculous.

How about we judge everything on its merits, including previous history of that corporation. Yes, it might have been a Sony subsidiary that enforced a rootkit DRM on its users, but that should equally tar all other Sony products too. Especially if, as history shows, they go on to make more mistakes and more problems under that brand.

Personally, you couldn't get me to touch a Windows phone with rubber gloves and a face mask. Hell, I'd rather try making my own first. Unreasonable? Only if you've never tried any Windows product at all and/or you've never heard bad things about Windows products from others. Otherwise, you're an idiot to think that their reputation shouldn't carry over to new industries and products.

And, besides all that, Windows Phone is inferior if everything I expect from a product on my Phone. And has a certain price tag associated with it. But even if it wasn't, it doesn't mean I *MUST* use it. A philosophy that saved me from Vista, ME, and all manner of other horrors, despite the fact that my desktop OS *is* a Microsoft one.

Re: Don't fracture your base

Attempting to support multiple operating systems on a suite of mobile devices is divisive (pun intended) to an organization. Can you imagine Apple supporting anything other than iOS, or Google anything other than Android

Apple - iOS & OSX; Google - Android & Chrome.

Your point?

Did we want to be just another Android vendor?

So you'd rather be just another Windows Phone vendor, competing neck and neck with Bada for market share?

This does not reduce our challenge in getting back into contender/leader status in the mobile phone market place, but I think we can do it.

When hell freezes over - sorry, but Nokia as a leader in any shape or form, now that it's divested itself of all R&D capability, is about as likely as HTC becoming the dominant global smartphone supplier.

Nokia is just an OEM for Microsoft now, you'll do what you're told by Redmond and that's it.

Are you really a Nokia employee, or a shill posing as one? I've been a loyal Nokia customer throughout the last 15 years but given the destruction of Nokia under Elop there is now no Nokia in my future. And I'd hazard a guess that if you really are a Nokia engineer, the same will likely apply to you within the next 12 months.