But what most people can agree on is that Apple truly understands hardware. For years now, the company has been delivering the most innovative hardware designs in the industry. And its success in the marketplace has largely been a result of that.

Still, I’m suspect of claims that Apple still holds the crown as the world’s best hardware designer. Yes, the company’s products are nice-looking and I’ll freely admit that the iPhone, iPad, and MacBook Pro with Retina Display have rightfully earned Jonathan Ive his place in the spotlight. But when we take the entire industry as a whole, is it not possible for us to accept the idea that maybe – just maybe – Apple’s design cred has been hurt a bit?

Looking at Apple’s products, I’m not all that impressed any more. Although the iPhone 5 came with some design improvements, it’s basically the same device we’ve been seeing for years with a few changes here and there. And since so-called “major” updates only come out every other year, I sit and see nothing that’s so revolutionary that I’d commend the company on design.

Moving to the iPad, I think we can say the same thing. The iPad is certainly nice-looking, but is it really so much better looking than any other device on the market right now? Samsung, Google, and Amazon are all offering tablets that have similar designs, and they’re no less appealing.

But it’s in the notebook space that I think we need to seriously reconsider the idea that Apple is the world’s best hardware designer. Sure, the MacBook Pro with Retina Display is nice-looking, but is it really any better than any Ultrabook on the market right now? And when it comes to innovation, who can really take issue with what Lenovo is doing with half-tablet, half-notebook IdeaPad Yoga? It appears that Apple is the company that now likes to stay the course, and it’s allowing other companies to deliver the truly interesting products.

So, I pose this question: has Apple officially lost its credibility as the technology industry’s leading hardware designer? Apple fans will instinctively say that it hasn’t. But perhaps it’s best if we take a step back and evaluate what’s really going on in the marketplace. Apple is by no means a design slouch and its products are good-looking. But can we stop pretending like it’s the only company that truly understands what design is all about?

It might have taken competitors longer to catch up to Apple on design, but catch up they have. And it’s high time we accept that and give credit where it’s due.

Over the last year or so, we’ve been hearing rumors that Microsoft’s next console, currently codenamed Durango, could ban used games. Microsoft, of course, hasn’t said anything on the matter, deciding instead to keep its plans close to the vest until it finally has the chance to unveil the device to the world. But the steady drumbeat of claims that the console won’t support used games is concerning.

The video game industry can’t stand used games. Gamers run out to buy a new title and before long, turn around and sell it back to their local game retailer, like Gamestop, to get back some of their cash. In many cases, those gamers then put the credit towards another game.

For gamers and Gamestop, it’s a great model that works exceedingly well. But the game developers have a real issue with used titles.

See, after a game is sold back to a company like Gamestop, there’s no way for the developers to generate cash off the secondary sale. That means that all of their hard work can’t be profited on, and retailers can double-dip on the games they’re investing in.

I’ll be the first to admit that I think the system is flawed. I know of several developers that can’t stand the thought of used-game sales and I totally understand why they have those feelings. Revenue sharing on used-game sales really is unfair. And it’s something that the industry should not – and perhaps, cannot – overlook; it needs to be fixed.

That said, used games have a place in today’s console space. Used games are cheaper, which makes it easier for gamers to enjoy the entertainment they so desire. For many people around the world, spending $60 on a video game is impossible when bills need to be paid and kids need to be fed. But buying a title for, say, half the price, isn’t such a bad deal.

Used games, let’s not forget, have also done wonders for the online services Sony and Microsoft offer. The more used games that customers buy, the more people playing titles online. And thus, revenue across the industry goes up. It’s a win-win.

And yet, the steady drumbeat of claims that Microsoft might do away with used-game playing in the next Xbox grows louder by the day. If it’s true – and let’s be clear, we’re not sure if it is – that would mean Microsoft’s console would be the only next-generation hardware to not allow for used titles. What’s worse, it would be the first console in history to not support such a key part of the game-buying experience.

I can say unequivocally that if Microsoft does not support used games in its next console, I will not buy the hardware. And I have a feeling there are thousands, if not millions, of gamers who will stand alongside me.

Look, I’m all for giving developers the proper compensation for what they’ve created. And I, too, think the used-game market is hurting developers. But not allowing used games isn’t the answer; stopping retailers from taking advantage of gamers and developers is.

What Apple should do, on the other hand, is tap two markets that it’s been avoiding since the dawn of the iPhone. The first of these is the customizing developer/hacker community that so ravenously devours each new Android phone. The second is the vast group of people rather rapidly accepting the ultra-large (but not quite tablet-sized) smartphone screen.

With the amount of attention each post about Jailbreaking gets here on SlashGear compared to the chatter that comes up each time iOS is updated, an instant conclusion can be drawn: it’s much more interesting (to those that reach tech blogs) to see the iPhone broken into than it is to see Apple bring on updates and upgrades. Where it gets really interesting is when Apple’s updates appear to be the direct result of Jailbreaking – hacks take a turn, Apple takes a turn, and so on and so forth.

So what if Apple created a Developer Edition iPhone?

Would it be so very anti-Apple to release a device that they encouraged the very real – and rather giant – developer community to customize?

Or would it be releasing their hardware to those that would change the software as they saw fit that made the iPhone into a device that’s not all that different from phones made by the Android-toting competition?

Then there’s the more obvious next step for the iPhone – a larger display size. Now that Apple has cracked the illusion that the iPhone 4′s screen size was the only one that – because of the massive amount of time that went into perfecting it – was ever going to be perfect, they can move on. Apple should and will create an iPhone that’s larger that the iPhone 5′s 4-inch display size limit.

But before they do that, they’ll have the ability to make this handheld machine bring on innovations we’ve not yet seen implemented on smartphones. If the rest of the smartphone universe is the Borg, they’ve already assimilated vast amounts of the “cool” that has pushed the iPhone to the top spot and kept it there for so many years. "The iPhone and Apple do not need help surviving"

The iPhone and Apple do not need help surviving – this is no call to action for Apple – they’ve still got one massively successul smartphone line on their hands. Instead consider this a call-to-action on the part of you lovers of game-changing innovation: Apple creates products people love. If everyone on the planet made it clear to Apple that they loved iOS better on the iPad mini than they do on the iPhone 5, you’d see a smartphone right between the two rather quick.

The same goes for you Jailbreaking-loving developers out there – continue to spread the love that is community evolution in software and you might – not any time soon – see an iPhone Developer Edition in your holiday stocking. Some day!

See, Nintendo was to me, like so, so many others, the company that made us realize how much we loved gaming. We played the first Super Mario and were mesmerized. When The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past was released, I must have completed it ten times in the first couple weeks. Nintendo and its hardware and its game library all hold a special place in my heart.

That’s why I’m worried. I think there are millions of people across the globe – including many in Japan – that have long-viewed Nintendo as the face of the gaming industry. When Nintendo succeeded, those folks believed that the game industry was doing just fine. And when Nintendo wasn’t doing so well, they questioned the value of status quo in the industry.

When the Wii was flying high, there was a palpable sense that the games industry, despite some softening during the economic downturn, would be just fine. But now that the Wii U is turning out to be a bit of a loser, the beating drum of doubt over the traditional industry’s ability to hang tough against Microsoft and Sony is growing louder. The world is changing, they say, and traditional game companies are in trouble.

So, I need to pose a question: if Nintendo fails, will the traditional game industry go with it?

I can appreciate that Sony and Microsoft are trying to appeal to a different market segment with their products, which lends them to not worry so much that Nintendo is in trouble, but there’s something to be said for determining how the Mario maker’s decline is impacting the industry.

Unfortunately, I can see a scenario play out in which Nintendo starts to go into decline and the next thing you know, all hell breaks loose. A major game console maker has gone into a death spiral, the headlines would read, and now, like a domino effect, Microsoft, Sony, and major game developers are going down the tubes with it.

But perhaps I’m placing too much importance on Nintendo. Sure, the game company is huge and was always important, but perhaps it’s not what it used to be. Nintendo might be the world’s biggest console maker right now, but it might soon give way to Microsoft and Sony. More importantly, it could give way to companies like Valve and Apple.

The traditional game industry could very well be in a state of flux. Nintendo, its spiritual leader, seems to be falling to its knees. And unless it can be brought back up and returned to its former place of glory, I can’t help but wonder if new companies or mobile gaming in general might just put the final nail in its coffin.

I guess we just have to wait and see what happens.

Many Android users pick Google’s mobile platform because iOS is claimed as a “closed” ecosystem, and that users will have more freedom if they pick Android, but Android actually has most of the same restrictions, some of which are thanks to the carriers. Granted, the Nexus series of devices are the closest thing you’ll get to a real, “open” Android experience, but those only account for a small fraction of all the Android devices available, and even then carriers still apply restrictions. Most Android handsets are locked down hard, and rooting wouldn’t exist if Android was as open as users think it is.

Just like jailbreaking iOS, rooting Android opens up a world of abilities, customization, and tweaks. For starters, just like iOS, rooting allows Android users to dig deep into the phone’s software and hardware in order to optimize performance and boost battery life. Battery life is obviously one of the biggest caveats to Android devices, and rooting is the only way to truly improve it, with custom kernels and CPU-altering apps that can make your phone last all day and more on a single charge.

And don’t even get me started on the numerous Android versions roaming around. Currently we’re on Android 4.2 Jelly Bean, but manufacturers and carriers are making things harder than they need to be by releasing new handsets with an OS that’s 16 months old (Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich for those keeping track). Rooting your Android device is the only way to receive the latest OS version through custom ROMs, including CyanogenMod, which is arguably the most-popular ROM out there, and you can use CyanogenMod to push Jelly Bean to your older device if it’s available.

Let’s not forget about the bloatware, though. Carriers have been having a blast sneaking in pre-installed apps, and while Jelly Bean will let you at least hide them from your sight, only rooting will be able to completely banish them. Plus, you’ll be able install apps that Google and carriers normally wouldn’t allow, some of which are of questionable legality. Either way, if an OS was truly “open,” you’d be able to install any app you wanted.

Of course, in the long run, I can’t say that iOS is as open as Android, since Google’s mobile platform does allow a bit more customization and leeway with their OS, but there’s definitely plenty of restrictions that Android and iOS users regretfully share. Again, getting a Nexus device is pretty much the only way to go if you’re wanting a true Android experience in order to taunt your iOS counterparts effectively, but even then there’s plenty of setbacks that don’t exactly qualify Android users to scoff at the popularity of iOS jailbreaking — rooting Android unlocks just as many capabilities that iOS users get to enjoy when unleashing their iPhones and iPads.

I decided to conduct an informal poll with other people I know who also own a Wii U. I asked them if they’ve been playing with the console much since its launch. Nearly every person said that they played it somewhat heavily in the first week after launch, but little after that.

Granted, my study is by no means scientific and it doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about the average Wii U player. But it does underscore an issue: the Wii U might not have as broad an appeal as its predecessor did. Furthermore, the console’s novelty might be wearing off much sooner than the Wii’s did.

Realizing that current owners might not be the best way to figure that out, I decided to look around and see if Wii U consoles were readily available for those looking to buy. I found that Amazon is selling the Basic set, but the Deluxe set is on backorder. Those looking to buy the console elsewhere, like on BestBuy.com or other online retailers, will find that they can buy one today and have it in time for Christmas.

I then decided to call around to my local game and retail stores. And nearly all of them have ample supply for those who want to walk in and buy the new console.

Maybe it’s me, but I’m shocked by that. When the Wii launched, it was hard to come by for months. And during the holiday season, especially, it was impossible to even find it on store shelves. Each weekend, folks would stand in line for hours just to get their hands on a handful of consoles that were available. It was shocking.

But the Wii U appears to be different. After just a month of availability, the console can still be purchased quite easily.

So, what does that mean? It’s tough to say. On one hand, it’s possible that the Wii U’s sales are slightly disappointing. After all, Nintendo sold only 425,000 Wii U units in the U.S. in November, and has been surprisingly tight-lipped about its progress. And since it’s readily available, there appears to be somewhat sluggish demand for the console.

Then again, it could have something to do with supply. Maybe Nintendo did a better job of anticipating demand and was able to produce enough consoles to satisfy its early adopters. Now, the company has ample supply to take advantage of holiday shoppers.

Still, I can’t help but go with my gut here. And in keeping with that, I believe the Wii U’s popularity is waning. And Nintendo, much to its chagrin, is scrambling to address this issue.

Believe it or not, the Wii U just might not be as popular as Nintendo and its legion of fans would have us believe.

“So what do you think of the autumn sale?” one of my friends asked.

“Not impressed,” I replied. The look his face indicated that he agreed with me.

Don’t get me wrong, I love a good deal as much as the next gamer, and I am always willing to spill some serious cash during a Steam sale. I went into the autumn sale thinking that I was going to be buying up games left and right, but we’ve now entered the final day of the sale and so far I’ve purchased two games for a grand total of $17.48. I’m in fine standing with both my bank and my girlfriend as a result, but I can’t help but feel a little underwhelmed.

There have been some good deals, to be sure – earlier in the sale, Skyrim took the stage as a featured deal, and right now Dishonored and Torchlight II, the latter of which being one of my 2012 favorites, are both 50% off. The problem, though, is that there’s going to be another Steam sale in less than a month. It’ll be big too, as Steam holiday sales always are. The autumn sale just pales in comparison to the blowout events that the holiday and summer sales have traditionally been, which leaves me wondering why we even need the autumn sale in the first place.

I understand why the autumn sale exists – everyone is going nuts over Black Friday and Cyber Monday, so Valve holds a sale of its own to net some of the shoppers who have cash and are ready to spend it, provided the deals are good enough. With the autumn sale, however, it’s hard to get excited in the same way I’m excited for the holiday sale. In fact, it feels like the autumn sale is intentionally watered down in anticipation of the incoming holiday sale. It’s shorter than its summer and holiday siblings, there aren’t any publisher catalogs on offer, and the discounts don’t seem as deep. So, what’s the point when the holiday sale is knocking on the door?

Maybe this is all in my head. Maybe the problem is with me and not with the sale itself. With the holiday sale on the horizon, I’m hesitant to spend money during the autumn sale because there’s a feeling that they might be even cheaper in just a few short weeks. Even if I see a deal I know is good on a game I’ve been wanting to play, I question whether or not I should take advantage of it since I know (or at least assume) I’ll spend a lot of money during the holiday sale.

I can’t be the only one who feels that way, can I? I’d be interested to see how many people bite during the autumn sale in comparison to the summer and holiday sales, because I would imagine that the numbers for the autumn sale end up falling short. Valve – and other digitial distribution platforms for that matter – have something of a unique problem here. Most retailers don’t hold a holiday sale on the scale of Valve’s, only hosting massive sales for Black Friday and Cyber Monday. Since PC gamers are used to blowout holiday sales and therefore expect them year after year, it makes pulling off an equally impressive Black Friday and Cyber Monday sale a bit trickier for those in the digital distribution arena.

What about you – has this been a great sale for you, or are you like me and feeling a little underwhelmed at the end of it all?

But perhaps companies like Amazon, Apple, and Google won’t dominate November. Instead, the month might be marked as the very best yet this year for gamers.

From a software perspective, it’s hard to not get excited. The latest installment in the wildly popular Call of Duty Franchise, Black Ops 2, is launching in just a few short days. In addition, Microsoft-owned 343 Industries will finally launch the long- awaited Halo 4. Add that to a new Medal of Honor game and a long list of Wii U titles led by New Super Mario Bros. U, and it’s clear why so many people are excited.

But it gets better. November will also mark the month that Nintendo launches what it’s calling, the first next-generation console, the Wii U. That device, which will come with a 6.2-inch LCD-equipped controller, will finally offer the HD graphics Nintendo fans have been expecting. And by delivering what it is effectively a dual-screen gaming experience, it might just prove to be an important addition to the gaming market.

It’s hard for me to say what I’m most excited about at this point. Although I’ve often railed against first-person shooters and their derivative gameplay, I do believe that Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 and Halo 4 will top my list of must-plays this time around.

And despite my concerns with Nintendo jumping into the next-generation console market so soon, the Wii U is at least a bit exciting. As I’ve noted on these pages many times before, I’m a sucker for new gaming hardware. And I’m at least a little intrigued on the way in which the Wii U’s GamePad will interact with titles. I think it has the potential to do some really neat things in the living room.

But with all of that excitement for November gaming comes some disappointment. It seems that the gaming industry has lately focused much of its time on delivering the best titles around the holiday-shopping season and largely ignoring the rest of the year. In far too many cases, months go by without a high-quality title hitting store shelves. For most game publishers, November is the month they care most about because it’s the time when they can capitalize most effectively on the holiday-shopping season.

Perhaps I’ve become cynical as I’ve gotten older or I just trust game publishers a bit less than I used to, but I think it’s time for a change in the gaming business. As nice as it is to have so many great titles available in one month, wouldn’t it be better for us all if they were spread throughout the year? Gamers would have more time to dedicate to a single game, and the publishers could spread out some of their revenue to make up for bad quarters.

But alas, publishers are unfortunately ignoring my pleas. The gaming industry is officially commercial. And there’s nothing we can do about it other than sit back and enjoy a November of downright awesome gaming.

For those in the dark (or too young to remember the game), Super Mario Kart launched in 1992 on the Super Nintendo Entertainment System and is the first in the go-kart racing series. It featured all of today’s Nintendo favorites, including Mario and Donkey Kong, and kept gamers engaged for hours at a time.

I can still remember breaking Super Mario Kart out of the box and playing the game for the first time. At the time, it was state of the art. And after playing it for minutes, I knew that it was special. I was rounding corners with ease, picking up items, and enjoying it with friends. It was the very best option out there for what I needed at that time.

Super Mario Kart became the inspiration for many games over the years. In just a few short months, other developers were lining up titles that would, in one way or another, try to compete with Nintendo’s.

But as we all know, none of those games, including Sega’s Sonic Drift or later titles, like South Park Rally, could match up. Super Mario Kart delivered the right mix of fun and excitement, and its graphics and control for the time were unmatched.

As time went on, the Mario Kart series became a huge revenue-getter for Nintendo. The franchise made its way to the Nintendo 64 and GameCube, and had a strong showing on the Nintendo Wii. Simply put, the franchise is an icon in the gaming industry. And most gamers will readily acknowledge the indelible mark it has left on the gaming business.

It takes a special video game to elicit strong emotions 20 years after its launch. And I can honestly say that out of the thousands of video games I’ve played over the years, few have been able to leave such a mark on my life the way Super Mario Kart did.

You see, the game wasn’t the best looking I’ve every played nor did it come with the best story. What Super Mario Kart did was help friends bond. Everyone I knew wanted to come over the house and play Super Mario Kart. And when I headed over to a friend’s house, it was the first game we popped in for years.

How many games can you find in your history that did the same? Surely the first time you played a Mario game, you were entranced, and chances are, the original Halo impressed you to no end. But how many more games have delivered such an impact? Moreover, how many more games have delivered that impact for 20 years?

Call me crazy, but Super Mario Kart is one of those games that, when pressed for something to play, I’d still consider booting up.

So, happy birthday, Super Mario Kart. You’ve officially entered the pantheon of old-time gaming greats. And in my book, you’re still in the top ten.

DNSChanger was undoubtedly a high-risk issue, certainly before the FBI weighed in. The trojan changed user DNS settings so as to rely on compromised servers, serving up pages with malware, sites that secretly collected user-data, and adverts for fake products. The FBI seized the network and a temporary – and safe – DNS replacement system was set up for those unknowingly relying on the dangerous one.

All good things must come to an end, though, and on July 9 the FBI’s mandate to run the replacement servers ran out. With hundreds of thousands of computers still relying on the makeshift DNS provisions to bridge browsers and sites, that meant warning those users that they’d need to take an active role in their system security if they wanted to stay online.

Problem is, the sort of users who were inadvertently infected and didn’t realize might not be the sort who would also go hunting for the latest news in malware. What we lack is a single point of communication to highlight security problems; instead, we have a pretty much all-or-nothing hosepipe of rising hysteria.

Microsoft has attempted something like that single point, with its Security Center in Windows. Apple, late to the game when it comes to malware and virus threats, hasn’t a centralized security hub in OS X, though the company has been doing more to prevent insidious apps working their way into the platform.

Windows Security Center is too easily overlooked. Third-party security firms individually push alerts to their blogs – and to their (generally paid) software packages – but there’s no all-inclusive feed that distills all of that to the user’s desktop in an easily understood way.

It’s a problem with no easy solution. In the aftermath of the DNSChanger anticlimax, there’s likely to be no shortage of accusations that the malware was “over-hyped” and its potential impact “overstated” so as to drive pageviews. Still, while we’ve gotten off easy now – a somewhat breathless and clogged news-cycle notwithstanding – there’s the distinct possibility that the next big security crisis could be made exponentially worse when contingency gives way to uncontrollable FUD and users’ eyes glaze over.

[Image: Associated Press]

Nobody could quite predict what would happen in the IPO, and that’s probably what made it so popular a topic. Everybody would love to be an expert – especially in the aftermath of not only the original dotcom bubble, but the more recent economic downturn – and speculating online, in newspapers and on TV and radio about how shares in Zuckerberg’s empire could make not only him and his team rich, but the rest of us too, held an inescapable allure.

That Facebook is, by now, a household name made it all the more wonderful. Sure, if Samsung, or Microsoft, or even Google had their IPO over, there’d be plenty of tech and finance press hyperbole, but Facebook has managed to embed itself into non-techie culture. Your mom knows what Facebook is, though she might not quite understand what Microsoft does or why the new Samsung smartphone is whipping up geek frenzy.

One of the more prevalent questions has been why that excitement Facebook mustered came about in the first place: why, in short, anybody cares. Overlook the addictive frottage of punditry at your peril, however. In that way, the social site is no different from, say, Samsung’s Galaxy S III, or the Apple television: speculating, rumormonging and generally arguing about what-might-be is perhaps more interesting than the actual news itself. In fact, once that news coalesces into something legitimate – shares are sold, products launched – the core cadre of opinionists often move on to the Next Big Thing.

Facebook already had a bulging wallet of money; now it has even more. In itself, that’s not especially interesting. The tech world will really wake up when Zuckerberg & Co. reveals what it will do with all these new billions.

Much has been made of the comparative valuations of Facebook and Apple, with social network skeptics pointing out that Zuckerberg’s site is just a place to share anecdotes and photos of your breakfast, while Apple actually makes products that people buy. It’s a closed-minded view of value, however. Facebook may not have a physical device that you can walk to a brick-and-mortar store and exchange case for – at least, not yet; the Facebook Phone rumors simply refuse to die away completely – but it does have a service that has embedded itself into the lives of millions upon millions of people.

That degree of engagement isn’t going to go away easily. True, it will be perhaps more difficult for Facebook’s board to leverage those users into cold, hard cash – recent stats on just how few people consider ever clicking on a Facebook advert or promotional post have likely given those in charge a few sleepless nights, if the IPO itself wasn’t proving sufficiently insomnia provoking – but it’s certainly not impossible.

TV channels where ticker-tapes dominate the screen will soon move on to fresher financial pastures. For actual users of Facebook, however, nothing is different today, in the post-IPO glow, than it was on Thursday. Their excitement – and, a further orbit out, the rest of the world who will watch as Zuckerberg acquires, challenges or destroys companies, products and services we currently use or own – is still to come. Sixteen billion is a nice, hypnotic number, certainly, but it only really shows its true worth when it’s spent on something.

Nokia’s mobile phone division – which makes basic dumbphones – has always been the volume side of the company’s business, versus the “smart devices” team pushing out smartphones. In Q1 2012, Nokia apparently sold 71m mobile phones and 12m smart devices; of that 12m, around 2m were Lumia Windows Phones, the remainder running Symbian of one version or another.

The company blamed “competitive industry dynamics … particularly in India, the Middle East and Africa and China” for the slump in sales, though that shouldn’t have come as too great a surprise. Nokia warned that the so-called developing markets it had counted on for steady turnover was declining faster than expected back in January.

“Changing market conditions are putting increased pressure on Symbian” Nokia CEO Stephen Elop said at the time, highlighting that in “certain markets, there has been an acceleration of the anticipated trend towards lower-priced smartphones with specifications that are different from Symbian’s traditional strengths.”

The painful lesson is that while the “Next Billion” may be one of Nokia’s primary targets, owning a Nokia device no longer appears to be an aspiration for that audience. That’s a big rug pulled out from under the company’s collective feet: smartphone gross margins continue to tumble, down from 19.9-percent in the previous quarter to 16-percent in this one. In fact, what appears to be aggressive discounting so as to drive Windows Phone sales has pushed the average selling price of each handset to just €220 ($289) apiece, considerably lower than the €270 list price of the Lumia 710 (that, for the period in question, was the cheapest Windows Phone Nokia offered).

Sometimes playing underdog works in Nokia’s favor. The company’s response to the AT&T Lumia 900 data bug – crediting customers $100 as well as in effect dropping the price of the handset to free until April 21 – was admirably swift. However it also gives Nokia an excuse for slashing its prices to drive adoption: further short-term price cuts to the Lumia 900 seemed inevitable, especially as AT&T reacted to third-party retailers further discounting the phone. Now, rather than facing criticism that it has been forced to make the phone cheaper because of mediocre sales, Nokia could instead portray keeping the Lumia 900 at free-on-contract as a generous continuation of its prompt apology.

Good vibes don’t keep stockholders satisfied, however, and Nokia’s share price is down around 15-percent after its bad news this morning. The short-term outlook seems equally grim; Nokia’s position in the phone ranking charts is only likely to slump before there’s any sign of a turnaround. Nokia hasn’t failed with its Lumia line-up, but it needs to accelerate into 2012 if it’s to balance out the dwindling appeal of its cheaper devices.