It's not just bad, it's positively appalling in the US, as near as I (and everyone I know personally) have experienced, and from what I've read and what's clearly stated as support from Nokia. If it's outstanding everywhere else in the world, then clearly I'm pointing out a US business' case for why you wouldn't want anything made by Nokia. On the other hand, their shrinking global marketshare might be saying otherwise, despite the shiny new devices coming out of Nokia. I would still argue that it would be interesting to see whether someone else will support their products far better than Nokia would when you depend on a product whether for your life, business or pleasure.

I neither generalized nor specified. You inferred a generalization, understandably. But then, where are you located that you're getting such excellent support? Are you able to order new spare parts? Repairs? Replacement without mailing your phone off for a month? Or are you inferring that the lack of these, otherwise very critical concerns for business and personal customers, are not at all important?

I clearly argued that it does. If a product is GREAT for business but then can't be supported, repaired or replaced promptly, that product is as useful as the support offered. It's certainly not business grade support by a LONG shot.

You didn't make any sense. Care to rephrase your argument?

I'm intrigued at the direction you took your argument, lad. So, you argue the point of a company's clearly appalling record of supporting customers is a nationalistic issue? If you had otherwise argued, say: you had bought several items made by company X, and their workmanship and their history of support of their product was awful, then I can assume the rest of company X's products are not worth purchasing. Then, I would have agreed. A company decides their level of support and dedication to customers, not their race, creed or nationality. Wouldn't you agree? Or, would you disagree?