It was also impossible for Google and Apple to compete with Blackberry and Symbian. I guess there's impossible and then there's impossibly impossible.
What’s the corollary today? What need are Google and Apple underserving, and what company is large enough to mount a challenge to their duopoly?
Edit: To be fair I saw some phones from Microsoft on my carrier, but their battery life that was advertised was terrible, and there were few of them. If there had been 2 ~ 3 phones and new ones every few months, now we're talking... Ah well. I would prefer to see a Linux phone but I wouldn't mind buying a Windows one if they didn't feel like they could be abandoned like a couple of Microsoft's products wind up.
I never really understood this line of reasoning. Is there a reason why people can't opt to buy an unlocked mobile device online and just put their SIM in it [1]. That's what most people do for other types of hardware like desktops, laptops, and tablets.
[1] I'm not sure how this would work for devices on Verizon or Sprint (which is why I don't do business with them a opposed to AT&T or T-mobile).
But fair point, sheer size isn’t enough to disrupt a market, but it damn well helps. It’s also worth remembering that Apple had to grant AT&T exclusivity to get their way initially. That’s how powerful the carriers were.
Definitely just your opinion. Many people thought WP was a great OS.
Whose time and resources?
> that would be good enough to challenge Android / IOS
That's a big assertion. What's the basis? Like, time-and-resources went into WebOS, into Windows Phone--what makes this so special?
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/07/russia_bid_mobile_s...
https://jolla.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/China_announcem...