Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

£6700 Phone Uses Android Instead of Windows

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the fool-money-separator dept.

Android 142

judgecorp writes "Vertu, the luxury phone maker formerly owned by Nokia, has chosen Android over Windows Phone for its new £6700 Vertu Ti device. The bling brand is no longer part of Nokia, so is free to shun Windows Phone — apparently because there are not enough apps there for Vertu's rich customers." Previous Vertu handsets used Symbian. Note: £6700 is just over 10,000 USD.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

only 1gb ram?? cheaper phones have 2gb (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42872879)

only 1gb ram?? cheaper phones have 2gb

You're not supposed to use it (4, Insightful)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year and a half ago | (#42872929)

You're supposed to be seen with it. To be honest, I'm surprised they didn't buy an Iphone and re-case it from scratch. The market is clearly brand conscious people who get all hot and bothered about overpaying for mediocre performance. How does that not scream Apple?

Re:You're not supposed to use it (3, Insightful)

acariquara (753971) | about a year and a half ago | (#42872997)

Because iPhones actually perform well?

Re:You're not supposed to use it (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873103)

[Citation needed]

Re:You're not supposed to use it (4, Funny)

greenfruitsalad (2008354) | about a year and a half ago | (#42874687)

Because iPhones actually perform well?

Re:You're not supposed to use it (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873039)

Isn't that just an iPhone and the I am rich app?

Re:You're not supposed to use it (5, Interesting)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875343)

Key features of this are things like a sapphire display which is much better than and much much more expensive than gorilla glass. The other thing is the "I am rich" button - to call your conceierge. This is to an iPhone as an iPhone is to a really cheap Android phone. Which is to say, on a cheap Android phone you will get a bunch of features that the iPhone doesn't have, such as the ability to side load applications, but your iPhone geek will just say "don't want" and point at his better display. This is the reason why top end Android phones devices to outclass the iPhone on display technology. Everybody knows the iPhone fans have to grit their teeth as they pretend not to care.

The other thing is that this is very clearly saying that their customers are wanting something that integrates with their surroundings properly. "You need to be part of an ecosystem," is the key quote in the BBC article [bbc.co.uk] in explaining why they avoided WP8. Coming from a former Nokia person, and almost directly a quote from Steven Elop on why they chose Windows, I think that could be a sign that Windows Phone will be abandoned sooner rather than later. Possibly with Elop going with it. It's certainly a pretty direct hint to the board members of his former employer.

Re:You're not supposed to use it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873047)

The market is clearly brand conscious people who get all hot and bothered about overpaying for mediocre performance. How does that not scream Apple?

You have no clue at all. Their market is the people who are setting themselves above the Apple users (in their own minds). They do not want Apple.

Re:You're not supposed to use it (-1, Flamebait)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873125)

Yeah, but Android? OS of the Droid and Google and the unwashed neckbeards? It just doesn't seem to fit. My bet is that if they could have gotten away with it, they would have used iOS, but the next best thing was Android. I mean, at least on Android there's a decent volume of apps in the app store. And they can probably customize the interface so you don't really know you're using Android.

I think their market would have been fine with a version of iOS that looked all monochromey and twill patterened.

Re:You're not supposed to use it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873291)

Red Hat disagrees.

Re:You're not supposed to use it (3, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873739)

How exactly do you expect them to get a license to use iOS? Apple doesn't give those out, their options are Android or Windows Phone. Of course they're going to choose Android.

Re:You're not supposed to use it (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873209)

Its all about position. Apple product is just to affordable for these people. Joe public can get an iPhone if he wants one. Might not be the best use of his money but its option for him. These people want to have something you and I just can't touch, or can't touch without make other sacrifices that would make us appear foolish ( you can't roll up in your 12 year old rust bucket and look cool even if you are holding $7000 cell phone to your head ).

I was once out to lunch with my grandfather at the club he belonged too. It was just down the street from a similar institution widely regarded as somewhat more prestigious to which he had once belonged and claimed to have left for personal reasons ( I interpret that as a euphemism for being kicked out of for having opinions deemed to egalitarian). The club we were at was open to anyone who could pay the membership dues and could find a current member to vouch for you, the one he had left generally required you demonstrate you had relation to some old money. We are dining on an upper floor looking out the window, the other place had a roof top dining area. He commented "You know whats funny? here we ware looking down on them and there they are looking down on us."

The point being that arguably we were in better facilities, physically up higher, eating food that was probably of the same high quality; and he was paying less for the privilege. Yet they were very pleased with themselves simply because they belonged to something more exclusive.

Re:You're not supposed to use it (1)

Maritz (1829006) | about a year and a half ago | (#42874599)

( you can't roll up in your 12 year old rust bucket and look cool even if you are holding $7000 cell phone to your head ).

To me, any dick with a seven grand tacky jewel-encrusted phone will always be a tryhard asswipe, and never, ever cool. But each to their own.

Re:You're not supposed to use it (-1, Troll)

ruyagatu (2839505) | about a year and a half ago | (#42874835)

http://www.cloud65.com/ [cloud65.com] Kennedy. if you, thought Jack`s st0rry is unbelievable, last week I got a top of the range Mercedes-Benz S-class from earning $9750 this-last/five weeks and-also, 10 grand last month. it's actualy my favourite work I have ever done. I started this 10-months ago and pretty much immediately earned at least $76 per-hour. I went to this site,

Re:You're not supposed to use it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42875249)

Apple is for pretend rich. It's a status symbol only for people who think $500 is a lot of money. And Apple probably wouldn't you let you rebrand an iPhone. Android's just an operating system. The phone can be branded completely different and as such can be a brand that poorer people haven't even heard of.

Re:You're not supposed to use it (1)

Lawrence61 (868933) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875357)

mediocre performance comes from android, not apple.

That was my first thought. (2)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873153)

My old Droid was RAM-limited (256MB), but I haven't run into any isues with my S3 with 2GB of RAM. I've got "889MB used, 705MB free" - of course, I don't run a bunch of stupid background apps.

When you're using titanium for the case and sapphire for the screen, you cant spring for a 2GB chip instead of 1GB? Seriously?

Re:That was my first thought. (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about a year and a half ago | (#42874039)

When you're using titanium for the case and sapphire for the screen, you cant spring for a 2GB chip instead of 1GB? Seriously?

Amount of RAM has a significant effect on battery life. It's not just a cost issue.

Re:That was my first thought. (1)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | about a year and a half ago | (#42874163)

Amount of RAM has a significant effect on battery life.

Do you have data sheets or something to support that? From everything I've seen, that would be peanuts compared to the screen.

Re:That was my first thought. (1)

tqk (413719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42874421)

When you're using titanium for the case and sapphire for the screen, you cant spring for a 2GB chip instead of 1GB? Seriously?

Performance is not their priority. Cachet is.

Why do these phones always suck? (5, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42872919)

I get it they are to show off how rich you are, but seems like for $10k I would want something a little better specced.

Why do they then always suck? You could get a real top of the line phone and have a custom solid gold body made for it for less and have a better device.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (4, Informative)

sharkytm (948956) | about a year and a half ago | (#42872969)

b-b-b-b-b-but it wouldn't be a LUXURY BRAND (R)(C). Heck, most of a Lexus is Toyota, Acura-Honda, Infiniti-Nissan. Wealthy ( and more importantly)Image-conscious people don't care about functionality, they care about appearances. Plain and simple.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (3, Interesting)

Graydyn Young (2835695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873397)

The great thing about Vertu Ti is, unlike Lexus, it's not even a widely recognized brand. So when you're showing off you're fancy new phone and say "It's an authentic Vertu Ti!" nobody is even going to know what you're talking about.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873565)

That's what I was thinking. It's so ridiculously luxurious that nobody's ever heard of it. This reminds me of the coffee that comes from beans with have been through the digestive system of a civet [wikipedia.org] . Paying absurd prices for stuff that isn't even better than the cheaper stuff.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873647)

Well duh - you're not wealthy enough to know about them - think maybach, etc.

there are people who exist solely in the most expensive parts of tier-1 metropolis cities and dont descend elsewhere unless they
choose to do so.. there are people that rich. hang out in venice or monoco for a while and look for the clues, and
you will find them. I'ts called 'conspicuous consumption'. certain stores and brands only locate themselves in these places
and market via similar exclusive channels - if you don't look for these things and never cross paths in one of these areas
you will likely never know of their existence.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42874483)

Even Maybach drivers might make a fuss if they bought a new vehicle, and found the engine technology behind the pack of the industry, even the average Chevrolet.

For over five digits in US dollars, I'd expect a device with at least the minimum features:

1: Android 4.2, with multi-"world" support so my work stuff can sit on one VM, my personal books on another, the books I show authorities another, and other client stuff, still another VM. Nothing would be worse than having my personal FB contacts get jumbled up with clients.

2: A decent duo or quad core CPU. Doesn't have to be a barn-burner, but enough to run modern apps without issue.

3: At least 2, if not four gigs of RAM.

4: MicroSDxC capability, with a 64 GB card included.

5: 64-128GB storage onboard.

6: A high PPI screen, at least on par with Apple's offerings, if not better.

7: A phone. Not a phablet.

8: Decent battery life. If designing a phone from scratch, a quad CPU layout could be done with two low power cores, and two higher power cores, then using task scheduling and powering them on and off for helping with battery life.

9: Good encryption.

10: State of the art antennas. If I'm paying over 10 grand for a phone, it needs to at least be on par with a $800 iPhone.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (1)

Stoutlimb (143245) | about a year and a half ago | (#42874791)

The problem is that once such a beast is designed and built, it's relatively easy to build the factory to stamp them out by the millions, and that's where the real profits are. The only players big enough to pull that off are too big to care about the few rich fools who would pay that kind of markup. Until the rate of technological progress slows, it will be the masses that are closest to the bleeding edge, and any $10,000 phone will either be a prototype on it's way to market (and subject to so many NDA's that no rich person could pay enough to be allowed to show it off), or a sub-par phone with diamonds glued to the case. That what you wish for cannot exist is a quirk of the amazing world we live in.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (2)

horza (87255) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875477)

As you are posting as anon I cannot tell if you are a billionaire or not, but I would say for it to sell in the luxury market it will need:

1: any version of android, as long as it has a stunning wallpaper
2: a processor of some sort
3: at least enough memory to run Facebook and Youtube, possibly Angry Birds
4: no card storage
5: enough on-board to copy an iPod worth of contents
6: a colour screen
7: a stunning design case
8: ok battery life
9: a copy of something like Cerberus pre-installed
10: good enough antenna

It's all about style. Even the 1998 model Nokia 8810 fetches the price of a Nexus these days, and that has a mono screen. Think about it more like a pair of sunglasses than a car, something you put down on the table in the bar and others will judge you by it.

Phillip.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873675)

Huh? I thought it was quite popular spam mail topic: "Buy elite replicas of Rolex, Vertu, ..."

I always liked how it's _elite_ replicas, not your cheap plebeian replicas.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873747)

I'm sure that the people who hang out in those circles know perfectly well what it is.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (1)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873433)

Not only is most of a Lexus Toyota, Lexus is 100% Toyota. Lexus is just a badge at the front of a Toyota made car (and here around, they even share the showrooms).

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (1)

sinij (911942) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873557)

>>>Not only is most of a Lexus Toyota, Lexus is 100% Toyota

Can someone explain this with a car analogy?

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (1)

leonardluen (211265) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873969)

I believe it is...

you are so rich that the trunk of the car is too small to fit all your bags of money. so you need to spend extra money for the same car that everyone else is buying, so the car maker graciously put a fancy logo on it indicating they would allow you to pay more for that particular model.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (4, Insightful)

afgam28 (48611) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873593)

Not really. Lexus cars are always better spec'd than their Toyota counterparts. Same goes for Acura and Infiniti. The specs might not go up linearly with the price, but they are objectively better cars.

Vertu's phones on the other hand are not as good as the iPhone and a lot of Android phones.

The only thing that might justify Vertu's prices are the luxury services that come with the phone (Vertu Concierge), but forcing their customers to use such a crappy handset is a serious drawback that brands like Lexus do not have.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (1)

fafalone (633739) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875205)

The precious metals and gems matter to these people too. And the design. See something like worldlux.com. They sell a $26895 roller ball pen there. I've never written with it but I don't suspect it's that much better than regular roller balls. How much better is the $12000 ST Dupont lighter than a Zippo? Multi-thousand dollar platinum ashtrays aren't any better than their non-platinum counterparts either.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873685)

Hi, I own a Lexus RX 350. It's a computer nerd's dream car. Show me the Toyota that has a haptic joystick that controls the navigation/entertainment center and I'll consider your argument that it's just about the name. I'm pretty sure that most of the shit talking about luxury cars under $100,000 is just sour grapes. There are features that simply don't exist below a certain price range. Of course, wait 5 years and all of this stuff will trickle down to cheaper cars. I had the money and didn't feel like waiting.

Image-conscious people don't care about functionality, they care about appearances

Yes, tautologies are true. Performance-conscious people care about performance. That's not very informative or insightful.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (1)

Stoutlimb (143245) | about a year and a half ago | (#42874879)

That is for cars, where those features actually cost a lot to manufacture. For cell phones there are no features that could raise the price to $10,000. Diamonds glued to the case aren't functional, so this excludes decoration.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873777)

Not most of Lexus is Toyota, all of it is. Yet, to say that there is no improvement in functionality between the two lines is just silly.
Fiat is (or was until recently) the main Ferrari stakeholder, and nobody in his/her right mind would say that a Ferrari is just an overpriced Fiat.

Unlike phones, luxury cars do have much better specs than standard ones.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (5, Insightful)

Improv (2467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42872977)

The kind of person who would waste that kind of money on a phone merits a phone that sucks.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873015)

I get it they are to show off how rich you are, but seems like for $10k I would want something a little better specced.

Why do they then always suck? You could get a real top of the line phone and have a custom solid gold body made for it for less and have a better device.

Exactly. YOU would want something a little better specced.

But no, you very clearly DON'T get that it's to show off how rich you are if you're then asking why they always suck and suggesting what is, for all intents and purposes, a no-name custom knockoff instead of a recognized brand name that rich people can point to in front of their rich friends they wish to impress (and poor friends they wish to intimidate), grunt, and have the point understood without further explanation that doesn't sate their magpie-like lust for shinies.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (3, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873087)

That does not explain why they suck though. They could charge $12k and make it a decent device.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (1)

TheSunborn (68004) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873439)

No they could not. The problem is development time. When they started the development they most likely started with state of the art available hardware, but it take them so long to develop and release a phone, that its performance will be meh once they release them.

And it take them so long because their development staff is extreamly small, compared to Samsung, HTC and Apple.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873731)

They did not have to do any of that.
You can call an OEM up right now and order X devices built for you. Hell make your own chassis for it even, or glass. Google does this with the Nexus Line. The Nexus 4 is pretty much an LG Optimus.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873441)

The majority of ads available will be filled with ads. They have no control over that. Device will suck.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873695)

No one wants to pay more for something they won't use and don't want. The $10k bling/cache factor is worth it. The $2k high-specs is a waste. You may disagree but I don't think you would buy a $12k phone, so no one is going to make a $12k phone just for you.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873105)

So, the selling point is that you can show off how much of a mark you are?

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873129)

I get it they are to show off how rich you are, but seems like for $10k I would want something a little better specced.

Why do they then always suck? You could get a real top of the line phone and have a custom solid gold body made for it for less and have a better device.

Tech is a pretty brutal market to do 'luxury' goods in. R&D and design costs are extremely high, while manufacturing is (relatively) cheap per unit. So, the guy who is stamping out several million pieces of consumer shit can spend more on making the software not suck and the case(while possibly plastic) elegantly designed than the guy stamping out 1,000 'luxury' devices. It doesn't help that phones are harshly power constrained, so you can't even make something 'better' by splurging on fancy silicon(at least with a desktop, you could shove the fastest i7 that Intel makes and several times as much RAM as the customer could ever need into the chassis as a value-add). The thermal envelope and battery size are so small that mass-market junk, made in huge volume on refined processes, will offer a better experience than any custom or super-overclocked, or 'just-plain-excessive-amounts-of-RAM' configuration would.

This still doesn't explain why 'Vertu' hardware is actively worse than generic Nexus gear, since they could probably just buy Nexus hardware at retail and rip the case off for less money than designing their own hardware; but tech in general is pretty hard to do 'luxury' in.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873179)

Why not do a Lexus?

Just get a big boy to provide you with everything done and you can make a fancy body for it?

Hell why not do what Google does with the Nexus line? Work with one of the big players to do the whole thing for you but put your branding on it.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873297)

That's the part I don't understand: it makes sense that 'luxury' electronics can't actually afford to be much better than much more modestly priced consumer gear; but it is quite mysterious why they are actively worse when the same people who OEM the good stuff would be more than happy to sell you the same guts that you can then cover with artisinal hand-tanned tiger foreskin leather or gold-encrusted ivory or whatever.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873263)

From the article, the phone comes with concierge services – i.e. you hit a call button and can get a real person on the phone – which – if I had to guess – would be why it is so expensive.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873771)

A screen made from sapphire will also add to the bill. I doubt the leather really costs that much, but a sapphire screen can't be cheap.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42874353)

I doubt it. Sapphire crystals (the glass bit) are pretty common in even relatively cheap watches. It's synthetic sapphire, probably not much more than £50 for a screen that size.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873787)

> you hit a call button and can get a real person on the phone

That's... amazing invention! Never though you could use a phone like that.

Seriously, though, don't people who buy Vertu have secretaries and a'that to call with a single call button press, who'll take care of boring details?

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873587)

Why do they then always suck? You could get a real top of the line phone

Not sure if you're an Apple Fanbois angling for sentiment among the brethren, or largely just annoyed by the design of the phone but perhaps you can find some solace in knowing they only sell (FTFA) around 320,000 of these a year. That percentage isn't even mentionable in comparison to the number of iOS devices in the US, or even Android devices globally.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873863)

320,000? I see a market for an even more exclusive phone...

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (1)

HiThere (15173) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873971)

I don't think you've priced gold recently.

P.S.: Solid gold wouldn't work as a case. It's too soft. You need to alloy in some copper or something to make it harder. 24K gold might work, though. It seems pretty hard in a ring, but I've never seen a large sheet of it, so I don't really know if it's strong enough.

Re:Why do these phones always suck? (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about a year and a half ago | (#42874165)

24K gold might work, though. It seems pretty hard in a ring,

When have you seen a 24Kt gold ring? Answer, you haven't. 18Kt perhaps, but not 24Kt. As you say, it's too soft. Perhaps you might have seen jewelery with 24Kt plating.

You ask: "Why a $10000 phone!?!?" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42872949)

Answer: Because some people think status symbols will some day feed their empty souls.

Re:You ask: "Why a $10000 phone!?!?" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42874195)

Status symbols are more likely to eat what's left of a person's soul.

Apps (1, Troll)

DogDude (805747) | about a year and a half ago | (#42872955)

apparently because there are not enough apps there for Vertu's rich customers.

This was nowhere in the article, so I have to assume that the summary writer hasn't used a Windows Phone. Windows Phones don't need access to a bazillion apps, usually, because the phones do so much more out of the box than the other two big competitors. But, all of the major apps are certainly available. I guess if you need 500 different fart apps, then the Windows Phone may not be for you. I only counted about 30 in the Windows Phone app store.

Re:Apps (5, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873049)

All the major apps? Yeah, right. Even top games are not available. Temple Run and the like. Hell they had to bribe Rovio to bring angry birds over.
What exactly does your magic phone do out of the box the others don't?

Considering the desktop OS in 2013 still does not support ipsec vpn out of the box I have a hard time imagining what they added to WinPhone.

Re:Apps (0, Troll)

DogDude (805747) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873177)

I don't know what "Temple Run" is. Sorry, I guess I misspoke. I use my phone for work, and it's got everything I need to work. It may not make the ultimate game machine, if that's what you're looking for.

You should check out some info on the phone, if you're interested. I'm not going to build a chart comparing and contrasting the different phone OS' for you. All I know is that looking at iPhone and Android phones, I see they've always got tons and tons of "apps" to do everything, in cluding different apps for email, messaging services, social stuff, etc. The Windows Phone has all of that built in. I've got access to everything I need on my phone with just a few buttons on the start page. The only "app" I've needed to install onto it was a free flashlight "app" from my phone manufacturer (HTC).

Re:Apps (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873231)

The other phones have that built in as well. Often the replacement applications are just better or the users preference. Does winphone have skype working properly yet? Meaning it can fireup the app when a call comes in? I know that was a no go with 7.5.

You must not be using your device very often. I often work from mine, yes ssh on a 4 inch screen is not great but better than nothing.

Re:Apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873363)

Does winphone have skype working properly yet?

Yes. As of WP8.

Meaning it can fireup the app when a call comes in?

Yes. As of WP8.

ssh

Have fun. [windowsphone.com]

Re:Apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42874579)

What desktop OS doesn't support ipsec vpn out of the box? Mac OS? Linux?

Re:Apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873093)

Windows Phones don't need access to a bazillion apps, usually, because the phones do so much more out of the box than the other two big competitors.

"Other two" big competitors? Nevermind big, are you trying to imply that Windows phone has reached third place?

Re:Apps (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873181)

modded up - why the fuck?

there's a bunch of apps you can't do on wp. it's not the number of apps, it's about what they can do. and out of the box wp does shit all nothing, it's just that you can't do add-on features as much.

and perhaps that's why they went with android. other reasons: choosing any hw they happen to want to run it, choosing any resolution they want, not being tied to ms ties for camera drivers, customizing the sw any way they want..

Re:Apps (0, Troll)

DogDude (805747) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873229)

and out of the box wp does shit all nothing, i

You're right. I don't know anything. Running a multi-million dollar business via my phone is "nothing". Apparently, a phone today is pointless without a "Temple Run" app, whatever the fuck that is.

Re:Apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873503)

The "missing apps" argument is an ever lasting game of moving goal posts. First it was Facebook then we got that. Then it was twitter and we got that. Then it was Angry Birds and we got that. Now apparently it's Instagram and Temple Run (I've played it on . The funny thing is iOS users can play this same game with Android users... especially with Instagram and Temple Run which were apparently iOS only for a good while. Whatever platform you choose you're going to get features and apps the other doesn't have. I personally don't give two shits about hipser instagram and a boring and depthless game like temple run. Maybe instagram is the most important feature to you. Then by all means use Android and iOS. But that doesn't mean WP is useless.

Re:Apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873295)

Thanks for enumerating all those things you can't do instead of a making another moronic fanboy rant. Oh wait....

Re:Apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873193)

Agreed. The "not enough apps" conversation/excuse is a dumb one. 95% of the apps people are installing never get used. They just sit there for epeen measuring and "just in case I need it". If you disagree I dare you to actually count the number of apps you use in a day.

Re:Apps (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873615)

Windows Phones don't need access to a bazillion apps, usually, because the phones do so much more out of the box than the other two big competitors.

What "so much more out of the box" does a Windows Phone do that the others don't?

You're making a bold claim with nothing to support it, and I'm genuinely curious to know if that's true. I've certainly never heard of anything those phones do that Android and Apple can't do.

My guess is it does the exact same thing as other phones for the most part.

Re:Apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42875493)

Yeah. I have both an iPhone 4S and a HTC 8X and frankly the latter leaves a lot to be desired. A mail app I have to manually sync updates from? Stupid. And IE is craptastic on it, their idea of "tabs" is from the Bizarro planet. And unlike my iOS devices, it probably will never get Chrome anyway... But there are twenty different Sudoku and fifteen Hangman clones on the marketplace!

Re:Apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873621)

Do you really think that "good enough features for average people" is a selling point for luxury phones? Especially something that is struggling hard to be only the third choice for average people?

Re:Apps (1)

Aqualung812 (959532) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873781)

I bought a Windows Phone. I really wanted to like it.

I LOVED the interface, I really think live tiles are great for phones (don't get me started on how much they suck for Windows).

All that said, when I got an iPhone 5 after having the Windows phone, I was happy to have the apps back.
Very short list of apps I could not get on Windows Phone that are not fart apps & I use often:

Glympse (WP wouldn't run in the background)
Pandora
Dish Network (Streaming from my DVR at home)
Fitbit
Starbucks
Flickr
Swiss Trains app (and about 20 other BUSINESS travel related apps that are usually done for iPhone first, Android second, and low support for anything else)
*Microsoft* Photosynth - Yes, I know they finally have it for WP now, but for the longest time, Microsoft's app was only available on iPhone.
Skype - My WP couldn't receive calls on it, because Microsoft wouldn't update my phone to WP8

I really want WP to be a good 3rd option, but they have to get the app support. This is the EXACT same reason I suggested Windows to people for the previous 20 years - Macs might be fun & cute, but Windows has the applications. When it comes to mobile, it is now the opposite.

Re:Apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42874097)

There's a third party Pandora app called metro radio. For some reason it doesn't even serve me Pandora ads.

Re:Apps (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about a year and a half ago | (#42874021)

apparently because there are not enough apps there for Vertu's rich customers.

This was nowhere in the article, so I have to assume that the summary writer hasn't used a Windows Phone. Windows Phones don't need access to a bazillion apps, usually, because the phones do so much more out of the box than the other two big competitors. But, all of the major apps are certainly available. I guess if you need 500 different fart apps, then the Windows Phone may not be for you. I only counted about 30 in the Windows Phone app store.

Wait - are you a WP defender or a BlackBerry defender?!

I get so confused anymore...

For $10K, don't give me a 1.5 year old OS. (3, Insightful)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42872971)

Why Ice Cream Sandwich? 4.2 has more features.

Re:For $10K, don't give me a 1.5 year old OS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873339)

Get back in your cubicle, plebian! If you want a gee-whiz bleeding edge phone, then buy one with the scraps we toss your way that we sarcastically refer to as your salary. The leaders and the movers and shakers have no time to care about the latest release of the OS.

Saboski (1)

WillgasM (1646719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42872981)

Jus glue some crysals to ur iPhone. Saboski crystal are cheaper than diamonds, but they're diamonds.

Re:Saboski (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873979)

Not for nuthin', but I would gladly mortgage my house to buy this horrible phone if Cecily Strong would hand-deliver it to me personally.

Vertitude (5, Funny)

Empiric (675968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873063)

Apple should now officially start worrying: Android has cracked a market segment with the stratospheric level of pretentiousness and narcissism that Steve Jobs can now only haunt wistfully from his new no-margin domain.

For that much money... (3, Interesting)

jonadab (583620) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873077)

For that much money, I'd think these rich customers could hire a team of engineers to design a custom phone just for them, with their name spelled out in the actual circuitry as well as embossed on the case, which could be custom-ergonomized to fit perfectly in their personal hand.

Re:For that much money... (1)

kakaburra (2508064) | about a year and a half ago | (#42874043)

you couldn't hire one engineer for 10k let alone team of engineers.. anyway those are the kind of people who buy stuff because of the price not because of functionality

Im not the target market for these.. (1)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873117)

I always thought a Vertu was like the "I Am Rich" [wikipedia.org] app - an easy way to broadcast that you have enough money to purchase expensive frivolous things. As such the cascade of "well, the Galaxy S4 has more RAM...." will also be irrelevant.

I guess I'm just too paranoid - I'd always think of these phones as a big "please rob me" signs, even worse than an iPhone. I guess you'd hire a phone bodyguard when you got one.

Re:Im not the target market for these.. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873227)

Oh, you proles will just never understand what quality really means. In particular, the sapphire-coated screen is much less likely to scratch when your butler or nubile trophy wife is preparing a line of coke for you.

Glass isn't nearly as bad as plastic; but I probably went through 3 iPhones a week back when I was snorting coke off those...

Choosing Windows would have been more surprising.. (2, Insightful)

dtjohnson (102237) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873139)

Let's see...should we choose: 1) the most widely used handset OS in the world with a huge number of apps and open-source code or 2) a much less popular proprietary system with more limited functionality, a limited number of apps, and proprietary code owned by one of the most overbearing software companies that has ever existed? Decisions...decisions...

Re:Choosing Windows would have been more surprisin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42873347)

Let's see...should we choose: 1) the most widely used handset OS in the world with a huge number of apps and open-source code or 2) a much less popular proprietary system with more limited functionality, a limited number of apps, and proprietary code owned by one of the most overbearing software companies that has ever existed? Decisions...decisions...

The real reason (which should be obvious, even to those who don't work in that space) is that Android is open source and doesn't have minimum license count requirements the way Windows Phone does.

You can make a very limited run of Android phones, you can't of Windows Phone. Simple as that.

As a developer... (2)

BenJeremy (181303) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873223)

...I have a burning urge to repackage my current apps and make a few special for this phone, and charge $599 per app.

WVGA? (1)

sanosuke001 (640243) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873311)

Why the hell would a $10,000 phone only have a WVGA display? (800x480) That is beyond ridiculous.

Sailfish or Ubuntu OS (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873373)

That would be nice OSs for luxury phones. Noone else would be able to have those OSs for months, they could probably be able to run android apps to have enough apps to play before having a strong native app base, and the owners would have nice set of new gestures to answer people that shows some particular gesture to them.

10 grand for ICS? (2)

tom229 (1640685) | about a year and a half ago | (#42873405)

Does it have CM10 support?

Why wouldnt it use android? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42874055)

Whether it be a cheap phone or a insanely expensive phone android is the superior choice.

This is a pointless "story". Of course your going to go with the best option. Going with windows on ANY phone is about as stupid as buying a high end 3,000 dollar computer with 4 video cards, 64gb of ram and so on and then putting windows 95 on it.

Ten Grand for a Phone? (3, Funny)

Westwood0720 (2688917) | about a year and a half ago | (#42874087)

I could buy 20 of my pickup trucks for that much. I must be out of touch with reality.

Really, that much! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42874393)

Who in gods sake is retarded enough to pay $10000 for the stinking phone? Is the frame made out of solid gold and the screen is made out of diamonds, holy shit....

Better to get an iPhone with a $10,000 case (1)

gig (78408) | about a year and a half ago | (#42874399)

You're going to spend $10,000 on a phone that doesn't have a video editor? That can't run C apps? That has viruses (and in fact has more viruses than apps?)

Better to get an iPhone and a $10,000 diamond-encrusted case.

Cheap thanks to Open Source (1)

puddingebola (2036796) | about a year and a half ago | (#42874919)

And thanks to open source none of that $10,000 price is due to software licensing for Android.

Black card owners already have a concierge (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875043)

So having a concierge with the phone is useless.

TEN GRAND?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42875119)

how long is the contract to get it FREE?

For people with money and no taste (1)

DrXym (126579) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875311)

It's too bad some of the money doesn't go into creating an elegant design - they look ugly as fuck. People who buy these might be advertising their wealth but they're also advertising the fact they have very poor taste.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?