So, I didn't read all the thread, mainly starting at the point just before the launch event. Perhaps I am repeating what others might have said, but here's my two-cents.
Yes, the M9 wasn't a gee-whiz uber-sexy phone that made all the other device makers hang their heads in shame and/or fire their design departments. However, I think we've reached the same point that CPUs, GPUs, and other enthusiast hardware has: Manufactures realize that only the smallest of slivers of their customer bases upgrade the next time the newest thing comes out.
Intel was the first (that I recall) to just outright say that each generation wasn't a wholesale improvement over the last; it was either a process shrink or a new architecture on the same process as the last core. That meant for most, the upgrade cycle spanned two or even three generations. The recently released 9XX series from NVIDIA was nice, but it wasn't really enough to pry people off of their 7XX and Titans while being a great upgrade for those still on a 5XX or 6XX (or in my case, the ATI 4850... ).
And in the phone world, it might be time to realize that the M9 (or S6) was not meant to be a direct upgrade to last year's model. Two-year upgrade cycles are the rule, not the exception. As an M7 owner, I can say with honesty that the M9 looks great, especially as I own a two-year old phone that I've dropped a dozen too many times, in addition to getting a bit long in the tooth. People (usually) can't afford to drop $600+ on a new phone each year, so this is probably the new normal for phones like it is in the computer space.
So yes, it was disappointing that the M9 wasn't enough to make me fly out to HTC's factory and hold the place hostage for my new phone. But from a business perspective, this makes sense. It's the sad reality of a resource-constrained world.
Yes, the M9 wasn't a gee-whiz uber-sexy phone that made all the other device makers hang their heads in shame and/or fire their design departments. However, I think we've reached the same point that CPUs, GPUs, and other enthusiast hardware has: Manufactures realize that only the smallest of slivers of their customer bases upgrade the next time the newest thing comes out.
Intel was the first (that I recall) to just outright say that each generation wasn't a wholesale improvement over the last; it was either a process shrink or a new architecture on the same process as the last core. That meant for most, the upgrade cycle spanned two or even three generations. The recently released 9XX series from NVIDIA was nice, but it wasn't really enough to pry people off of their 7XX and Titans while being a great upgrade for those still on a 5XX or 6XX (or in my case, the ATI 4850... ).
And in the phone world, it might be time to realize that the M9 (or S6) was not meant to be a direct upgrade to last year's model. Two-year upgrade cycles are the rule, not the exception. As an M7 owner, I can say with honesty that the M9 looks great, especially as I own a two-year old phone that I've dropped a dozen too many times, in addition to getting a bit long in the tooth. People (usually) can't afford to drop $600+ on a new phone each year, so this is probably the new normal for phones like it is in the computer space.
So yes, it was disappointing that the M9 wasn't enough to make me fly out to HTC's factory and hold the place hostage for my new phone. But from a business perspective, this makes sense. It's the sad reality of a resource-constrained world.