I agree that there’s plenty of features that matter to the geek crowd, that honestly don’t matter to anyone else. My phone can’t play OGG Vorbis, but it hasn’t troubled me for a second. Just like wireless syncing of music never proved to be that big a deal breaker.
Yet I don’t think that article showed that the technically inclined don’t “get” it. I think it more shows that they’re about as capable as everyone else at judging a product purely on a feature list and without hands on experience. Fast forward a few years and there’s plenty of those exact same people who love their little iPods, but only once they’d actually got their hands on one and realised that it was the way it performed its limited features that made it a great product.
So yes, if someone stands up and criticises the Vodafone branding on phones from a purely uninformed standpoint, then I totally agree that history has a great chance of making them look the fool. But if they’ve actually used a BlackBerry and a Nokia Symbian phone, both skinned in the maybe ugly red and grey Vodafone livery, and found that due to fundamental underlying differences in the way the operating system is organised:
1) it’s no easier to find ones way when switching between the two phones
2) it’s harder to find help because the phone is laid out differently to other unbranded Nokias
then it becomes harder to shake off the cynical feeling that it’s more just an attempt to get their branding everywhere, rather than a genuine desire to aid the consumer. And I think that even if someone who is technically inclined points it out, it can still be a valid point.
Either way I did find this post interesting, thanks for putting it up!