I'm not impugning your honesty, but I have doubts; would you really buy that phone if your cell provider was giving one with close-enough specs away for free with contract? If you don't have a contract or use pre-paid, how much would you pay, given that basic pre-paid phones are plentiful in the $10-$30 range?
First, I'd take issue with the notion that it's an unmet demand. It's a pretty decent description of the Motorola Razr, which ruled the roost before smartphones became mainstream.
Second, while there might be a huge market today, it's a shrinking one. It's commodity last-generation technology where it's difficult to differentiate based on quality, and where profit margins are minuscule. Nokia would have to compete with the cheapest handsets to come out of Shenzhen.
“Second, Nokia should design and build the ultimate smartphone based on Windows Phone 7. It should provide a much better call quality than the iPhone (not hard to do), have a better camera, better screen, better everything than existing smartphones.”
That doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, but what the author omits is that it has to be so much better that it makes up for the lack of software and accessories relative to other smartphones; and it has to be less expensive.
“would you really buy that phone if your cell provider was giving one with close-enough specs away for free with contract?”
Yes.
Close-enough isn’t there.
There is a reason why the most popular music player isn’t the cheapest by a long shot.