Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 11th Feb 2011 11:35 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless A lot of people are wondering why Nokia didn't choose to go with Android. How can Nokia differentiate themselves when Android is a lot more open and free than Windows Phone 7? As usual, the key to this is in the details. If you read the announcements carefully, you'll see that Microsoft offered Nokia something Google most likely didn't. Update: What a surprise. Elop just confirmed Nokia has a special deal with Microsoft. Whereas HTC, Samsung, and so on are not allowed to customise WP7 - Nokia is, further confirming my theory.
Thread beginning with comment 462159
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

How long has Nokia been working on Maemo/Meego? Something is very wrong with the company when it takes them this long to get a Linux-based OS to market. It isn't as of they are building an OS from scratch and they spend plenty on R&D.

Then they partnered with Intel who has no experience in mobile phones or operating systems.

Even if they got their one MeeGo phone out at the end of the year it would not have caused a Qt revolution. At current rates it would probably would have had bugs and required another year of tweaking. That would be well into 2012 and it would have to compete with a slew of new phones, all offering more to consumers.

The CEO made the right decision to abandon ship. MeeGo was on track to bomb, Qt wouldn't have saved it.

Reply Score: 2

Hiev Member since:

It can be that Qt wasn't the wonder they thougth and was totally overrated and full of bugs? I do think so.

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:

MeeGo phones were supposed to come out last year and the CEO has stated that they still don't have anything comparable to the first iphone.

They are having development problems, I don't see how anyone could conclude otherwise.

Edited 2011-02-11 19:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Nth_Man Member since:

To avoid repeating it again, we can see

Reply Parent Score: 1

dsmogor Member since:

Maybe there's something fundamentally wrong with that linux distro inspired development model. I've seen to many companies that announce linux revolutionary products in mobile to eventually come up with nothing but burned milions.

On the other hand Google and HP are basically using heavily customized linux kernel as a HAL slapping own user space over it. Quite pragmatic choice.
For one they are strongly discouraging end devs from accessing the native system layer.
I think nothing stops the two from dumping linux in the long term (the Alien software seems like a prove to that).

Reply Parent Score: 3

nt_jerkface Member since:

That's a good point.

Going with the mini Linux distro approach has caused a lot more problems for companies than the modified kernel as a base for a new OS approach.

The problem is definitely not the Linux kernel. It's well established that even unmodified it can be relied upon for embedded use.

Linux is very portable but it seems that a lot of what goes into a distro is not. The mini Linux distro approach has been a tar baby for companies like Nokia. They think they are saving time but run into unforeseen interdependencies.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Radio Member since:

Yeah, goode point.Complicated userland and complexity of full modularity (the "UNIX Philosophy").

Reply Parent Score: 2