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 567192
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

So are you saying they didn't have the N9 launching around that time, running the fruits of their years of MeeGo endeavours and winning plaudits despite Nokia pulling marketing and competitive pricing?

The N9 at the time Elop pulled the plug wasn't finished and was part of a 4 phones they had in the pipeline till 2014. The one that was released because it was terminal had less structural issues than an actual N9 would have.

It was a great phone and shows the potential of MeeGo. Nokia just didn't make it in time.

Are you also suggesting that killing off sales of current inventory and even future products for an unpopular platform that wouldn't be available for aeons in the mobile industry doesn't form part of a superb effort to surpass the great Osborne Corp?

If the Osborne effect was the reason for Nokia's collapse:

a) Why did other companies like RIM experience a similar collapse at the time?

Does the Osborne effect cross company boundaries even when the companies have different customer basis and different strategies?

b) Why was Nokia experiencing the collapse starting about 8 months before the burning platform memo?

Does the Osborne work backwards in time?

Symbian collapsed because Apple and Samsung brought out substantially better products and hit their price points.

Reply Parent Score: 2