Nokia, the undisputed king of mobile just a few years ago, has posted a $1.7 billion loss for the quarter. 

Some of it was restructuring costs, but a lot of it was the ever-increasing competition (meaning Apple and Samsung, basically the only two phone makers actually making money).

Nokia expects these types of losses to continue into next quarter as well.

Even more troubling is CEO Stephen Elop, the ex-Microsoft executive who has tied his company’s fate to Windows Phone, talking about the Lumia, the first true flagship phone of the partnership:

We have launched four Lumia devices ahead of schedule to encouraging awards and popular acclaim. The actual sales results have been mixed. We exceeded expectations in markets including the United States, but establishing momentum in certain markets including the UK has been more challenging.

Did you catch the nut behind the sugar-coating? “The actual sales results have been mixed.”

I think Farhad Manjoo has this exactly right on Twitter:

The Lumia 900 is the first phone since the iPhone that I want without even touching it. bit.ly/zMeyqd

— Farhad Manjoo (@fmanjoo) January 9, 2012

I have yet to touch this (or the Lumia 800 for that matter), but what was shown today immediately makes every Android phone look like shit. Well, the iPhone has done that for years. Even more like shit, let’s say. 

This is how you need to make a phone in the post-iPhone world. I fully intend to try this phone out to see how it stacks up against the iPhone.

See, it’s not that hard. Make something that looks awesome with a clear attention to detail and people like me will want to try it out. Hopefully this quiets the notion that anything that’s not the iPhone will get no love simply because it’s not the iPhone. (Sadly, it won’t.)

The iPhone is a great product. To beat it, you need to be better than it. No one has done that yet — but even worse, it hasn’t looked like anyone was even trying until now.

Coincidentally, it was exactly 5 years ago today when the iPhone was first unveiled on stage during the Macworld keynote in 2007.

This looked bad last night. A Windows Phone Blog post indicating that Microsoft was taking steps to be less transparent about phone updates. And it sure read like they were doing it at the behest of the carriers. 

But not to worry says Mary-Jo Foley. She spoke to some Microsofties who told her nothing had actually changed in the Windows Phone update/carrier relationship. Microsoft simply didn’t want to have to keep updating the Where’s My Phone Update? page as the number of devices and carriers grew.

Okay, fair enough, just awful framing on Microsoft’s post apparently (nothing new there). But this line still sends a shiver down my spine:

The update, available to all carriers that request it, is part of our ongoing maintenance of Windows Phone.

Again, is this just really poor wording, or is that true? Can carriers decide not to accept Windows Phone updates? If so, how is that better than Android’s laughable model? 

Or is this only referring to small updates that are only meant for certain Windows Phone devices? This really needs to be more clear. 

140+ comments on that post are thinking the same thing.

Idea for Microsoft: whenever you decide on something brand-related, you should pause — then pick something that’s the exact opposite of your initial thought. 

Also, the bigger problem remains. If the “Superphones” are coming in Q4 2012, they’re going to run headfirst into dozen of Android “Superphones” and likely one big “iSuperPhone” — which is I’m sure what Apple will call it. It just has such a nice ring to it.

Update: As Hunter Walk reminds me, there’s actually a name for my new strategy for Microsoft: The “Costanza”. 

I really like the Windows Phone OS. And I’d love to try one of the new Nokia devices. I’ve heard nothing but good things. But despite a nice array of talent, Microsoft is in a playoff race and they’re getting absolutely smoked. What do you do when that happens? You switch coaches. Hence, out with Andy Lees, in with Terry Myerson.

It’s interesting to see Microsoft in this position. They’re seemingly learning an old Apple lesson: great products alone don’t always win. In the past, Microsoft has been able to leverage Windows to propel even shitty products to the title. But they haven’t done that here yet — except in name (which remains ridiculous, there are no goddamn windows).

I fully expect to see more Windows Phone/Windows PC synergy in the near future. But I fear this will only hurt Windows Phone, the product.

Well, we all knew this was coming. 

In a sit down with Forbes’ Eric Savitz, Microsoft Chief Research and Strategy Officer Craig Mundie talks about how Microsoft has actually been doing what Siri offers for the past year with Tellme technology on Windows Phone. He dismisses Siri’s buzz as basically just good marketing and people being “infatuated” with Apple. 

Sadly, the majority of the time a company comes out with something that excites people, a competitor will come out and yell “FIRST!”. When Apple makes the product, it tends to happen every single time. And Microsoft is the worst at this type of “us first” nonsense. They don’t seem to realize that it just makes them look pathetic — or worse, highlights their own irrelevance in the space. 

I’m reminded of a line from the Mark Zuckerberg character in The Social Network:

“If you had invented Facebook, you would’ve invented Facebook.”

I got to play with a Playbook briefly a couple weeks ago. It looked pretty nice and seemed to run smoothly. But the RIM guy must have said “Flash” 200 times. I simply don’t care if it runs Flash or not.

Others might, but even then, it’s probably item 20 on the list of important things. If that’s going to be their main selling point, they’re in trouble. And when the Flash was shown in action, guess what, it looked jittery. No surprise there.

Speaking of important things on a tablet — number one: apps. Running Android apps might be a good idea — if they weren’t Android 2.3 apps which aren’t tailored for tablets in any way, shape, or form. Literally.

But the most important point is the ending of Krazit’s article. 

Perhaps the old-school PC company, Microsoft, is finally ready to make an honest man or woman out of all the rumormongers predicting a Microsoft-RIM merger for years. 

Phase one of Microsoft’s catch-up in mobile plan was Windows Phone. Phase two was the Nokia partnership. Phase three may well be an acquisition of RIM. 

And Microsoft is actually in a position to do it (from a regulatory perspective) because Apple and Google are utterly dominating the space.

So much for the easy, streamlined Windows Phone update process. The first update roll-out was a disaster. The second one is more like a riddle. One that required this post.

Microsoft:

Much like when you buy a PC online, you’ll be able to see when the update is being tested and packaged, when it’s about to ship, and when it’s “left the warehouse.” We’ll update the site once a week with the latest status changes.

That’s exactly what I want my phone updates to be like: buying a PC online. 

The fact that this chart is needed — and has three stages — is ridiculous.

I particularly love “Stage 3: Delivering update” (a title only Microsoft could come up with). Here’s the message customers get about this stage:

Microsoft has started to send out the update. Because updates are typically delivered to customers in batches, it might take several weeks before you receive notice that an update is available for you.

So the final stage — the one beyond both “testing” and “scheduling” and the one they compare to “left the warehouse” might take “several weeks”.

Maybe “final” refers to the fact that it will be the last time the customer ever buys a Windows Phone.

No real surprise here that Microsoft is (indirectly) paying Nokia upwards of $1 billion to get Windows Phone on their devices, but this is humorous:

Nokia will pay Microsoft a fee for each copy of Windows used in its phones

It’s so ridiculous that Microsoft is sticking with this licensing system. You can license Android, the market leader now, for free. Microsoft? There’s a fee. For each phone. Who in their right mind would do that?

Wait — let me rephrase. Who in their right mind not getting $1 billion in free advertising/development costs and not run by a recently departed Microsoft executive would do that?

Unless this Nokia gamble pays off — and in a big way — the answer will be no one. 

Microsoft just doesn’t know another way beyond the Windows/Office licensing way. And that’s just not the right way in mobile. Didn’t they learn anything from Windows Mobile?