Linked by David Adams on Sun 14th Jul 2013 17:49 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless A perennial question that revolves around Nokia is: why didn't it choose to go with Android to replace Symbian when it decided to kill that as its smartphone operating system in late 2010?
Permalink for comment 567113
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Breaking all eggs that didn't fit in Microsoft's basket is the reason why Nokia finds itself in the current difficult situation.

What position? 3 straight quarters of underlying profitability? Double digit volume growth sequentially?

Morgan Stanley is predicting +43% QoQ growth for Lumia shipments in Q2, or 8 million units and a 4% margin for Devices which would mean they are definitely profitable again.

Let me see what makes more sense: Receiving billions from Microsoft, staying afloat long enough to make a difference, ramping up Lumia volumes, increasing their financial position gradually, and having a strong brand in Lumia


Hoping Intel gets their shit together (Hello, Tizen? Where are you?). They'd still be waiting if they weren't dead.

They didn't have the money, time, or supply chain footprint to go up against Samsung. They'd be obliterated. Microsoft has a vested interest in Nokia's success, and that's worth more to them than a brain dead OS with Intel or becoming an also-ran under Samsung like HTC is.

Edited 2013-07-14 20:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2