[General Topics] blacmack:
First of all, props to anyone who gets the reference in the title. This thread is to talk what about OEMs could do better when selling their phones. This is what they need to focus on if they want to sell.

Disclaimer: I like Samsung. I don't like HTC, only because they bought a big part of Beats. I hate Beats, it's overpriced, terrible, and only exists to line Dre's pockets. The One isn't bad, I've tried it myself, but meh. I don't get everyone's need for build quality. Most people use cases anyways. This isn't a flame post, but I see a lot of things they could do better. And since it's competing at a high level, it receives most of my critiism.

Before we get to that, let's split up the OEMs into tiers, based on usage, coverage, and general awareness.

Tier 1: Apple and Samsung

Tier 2: HTC, LG, Motorola, Nexus, Nokia, Sony

Tier 3: Blu, Pantech, Kyocera, and any other OEMs that make low / mid range carrier phones.

All the Tier 2 (T2) brands are completely capable of battling Apple and Samsung, but they're doing things wrong. But, what exactly are they doing wrong?

Mainly, Naming and Branding

This problem applies to all of the T2 brands except for Nexus. Nexus has it right, but all the others have a problem with creating a brand name. Samsung may slap the Galaxy name on everything, but people know what it is. Consumers can't distinguish the individual models yet, but Samsung is heading in the right direction. But how come everyone else can't seem to get this right? Here are some general branding rules.

1. Create a memorable cohesive brand name (Nexus, Galaxy, Optimus, Lumia)

This does not need to be explained.

2. Do not use numbers and/or letters in any form in the phone name (Lumia 920, 925, 928, One X, One)

*Does not apply to sequels

Nokia, these numbers are confusing, and not memorable.

HTC, using numbers and letters are very confusing when you try to name sequels. What's next? The One One? One Two? One+? One+One?

3. Do not use vague sounding buzzwords. (Optimus G Pro, One X+)

Pro, +, and X are all marketing cliches here. They're not memorable.

The moral here is create a strong brand and then insert various words to name your phones.

Nexus_______, Optimus__________, Lumia__________, Galaxy__________, Xperia ________

HTC, ditch the One brand.

Motorola, use Razr as a name, not a brand. And I hope Moto X is just a codename.

Availability

Samsung and Apple are to be commended here, for making their phones available on all the major carriers. The S3 is available on 5/7 of the largest carriers in the US, and on MetroPCS when it was not owned by T-Mobile. This works for them, just look at the market share. In addition, every carrier seems to have a Galaxy ___________. That's a combination of availability and strong branding. HTC has almost done (it) the same thing with the One. It's their most available phone yet, and will only get stronger once it hits Verizon. So it's been obvious over the last year that carrier exclusives don't work. And why would they? I'm not sure on the business behind it, but the OEMs have to do what they can to get their Hero phone on every carrier. It's obvious that Hero phones only sell well when they're available to all.

The moral here is to make your phones as accessible as possible.

Marketing

Availability only matters when you can market. People need to know about the phone. Samsung's major success with its Galaxy S and Note lines are widely attributed to its massive marketing budget, and for good reason. Their marketing team is killing it. Their commercials are funny, clever, and show what you can do with the phone. That's important. Apple doesn't play the marketing game, they have great brand awareness and word of mouth. As we've seen with the HTC commercials, it's not enough to make ads. They have to be good. Samsung's commercials show people interacting with the device, because that's what people care about, how they can use it. The Droid DNA commercials are a great example of what not to do. Normal people don't care about specs.

[YOUTUBE]IYIAaBOb5Bo[/YOUTUBE]

*I read all of this somewhere (maybe Verge forums) and it made a great point. I'm just paraphrasing here.

The moral here is to make ads with people using the phone, not the specs.

Features

This ties back into marketing. Samsung has been slammed for all the features that they've included in the S4, but why slam an OEM for including too many features? Because it lags? Everything lags, and I'd much rather have a little lag for a lot more features. Seems like a fair deal. The only version of Android I've seen that doesn't lag at all is stock. (Avatar rom on Samsung Captivate/ S1 for AT&T) But why would an OEM use stock? Because you guys think it will sell well? It won't. OEMs need to add features to distinguish themselves from the pack. The S Pen has no real features when you're not using it on Touchwiz.

Instead of slamming Samsung, the criticism should be on Motorola, HTC, LG, Nokia, for not including any notable features. "But they have features!" so you say. I don't see the Zoe and Blinkfeed being something notable. I've seen the ad for Blinkfeed, it has what I want in an ad but it's alright. Too exaggerated with the dirt though. Boomsound is good, but has to be marketed better. If HTC really sees this as features, they have to convince me. They have to make ads where I can see it being used in normal situations, like Samsung and their S4 Graduation party commercial. This commercial is a great demonstration of features.

[YOUTUBE]NLLLZVCojWE[/YOUTUBE]

The moral here, add features, then make ads on those features.

That's all I can remember for right now. But what do you guys think? Do you agree? Or am I way off? I'd love to have a civilized argument about this.

Personally, I want Motorola X to compete with Samsung. I think Motorola could make some great stuff. It would be even better if Google bought Nokia and merged them. Nokarola. Can you imagine? Camera, battery, colors, and super slim phones? And it would piss off Microsoft, which I know Google likes to do.