Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 18th Oct 2012 10:56 UTC
Permalink for comment 539199
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-05-25
That´s untrue. Nokia had a problem of management and Elop improved it. But Elop created a problem that didn´t exist:
Nokia had a working strategy: there would be 1 ecossytem, Qt, running over different kernels (Linux and Symbian). That would create a synergy over the whole line of phones. It would take some time to implement (months to 1 year) but Nokia was not in inmediate danger, the sales were increasing. Then Elop worte "the burning plataform and leaked it (I am 99% sure) and destroyed the trust in Nokia´s products.
In overall Nokia was profitable when Elop arrived: it was under him that it started to lose money.