Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 20th Jun 2013 18:29 UTC, submitted by MOS6510

Permalink for comment 565345
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-07-19
No, it did grow.
http://www.asymco.com/2013/01/10/getting-to-know-the-meaning-of-sis... "
How does that graph show what you want? It has 1Q2011 way below 4Q2010. And that's raw numbers. The smartphone market was growing rapidly so if you look at marketshare the falloff is earlier: http://dominiescommunicate.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/android_bypa...
Its just that that "transition" completely failed except the plan was from the beginning transition Nokia customers to Apple and Samsung. Was it? "
The plan was to transition Nokia over from a maker of Symbian phones to a maker of Asha at the low end and Windows Phones at the high end. That didn't fail. it happened. Nokia's customers are still mostly dumb phone customers and they still are dumb phone customers mostly. Certainly they have had tremendous erosion of Symbian customers but their products were comparatively terrible. That problem predates Elop.
The only reason why N9 came to market where contractual bindings with Intel. Elop still did his best in declaring the N9 dead before arrival, no matter how it would perform, in not delivering to any major markets, no marketing, no support. "
Yes, it was a dead product. A cool niche phone by the time it was released.
Nokia did not passed RIM. Q1/2013:
http://phandroid.com/2013/05/14/gartner-q1-2013/ "
IDC and Kanter have closer to 7m. That number seems low but I'd agree that Gartner is a reasonable source and that based Gartner's numbers Nokia did worse.