Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Mon 28th Feb 2011 11:23 UTC, submitted by Joao Luis
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless "Now that the dust has settled after Stephen Elop's big announcement on the 11th February 2011, many have come to realise that actually Nokia's move towards a a new Ecosystem is not as bad as what they thought. [...] But what does all this mean for the Nokia Developers? When the proposed partnership with Microsoft was announced, many felt betrayed and worried about their future, but after having heard and assisted a number of workshops at the Nokia Developer Day at this years Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, earlier this month, their outlook towards the new ecosystem has taken a 180 degree turn and are now looking at the proposed partnership with a lot more enthusiasm, recognising the potential it will bring them in the coming months."
Thread beginning with comment 464336
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

and Microsoft relationships also helped a lot of companies .. like basically every Windows OEM. Lol.

Or the thousands of small businesses who've invested in Microsoft's platform to reap the benefits and get dirt cheap equipment/tools.


Different kind of "partnership". MS has a history of bad partnerships, the kind that Nokia has now entered into. well, bad for the non-MS party, that is.

They'd be just another OEM had they gone with Android.

And now they'll probably end up just another OEM anyway, especially if WP7 becomes a success and other companies also wants it. It's pretty damn unlikely that Nokia will be favored then.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

The argument is that given the choices, Windows Phone 7 was seen as the best one. I think that's pretty much true.

They could have gone it alone (MeeGo) but that's a significant question mark. Could they have readied it in time? Pushed a competent developer ecosystem? Brought devices to market? At the end of the day what would differentiate it from Android, iOS, webOS, or Windows Phone 7?

Is the fact that its more "open" than Android going to translate into more handsets sold? Does the end user even know what that is?

The amount of question marks in the idea was staggering, not to mention based off of what Intel showed of MeeGo at Barcelona, very little development actually occured in a years time. The OS seemed woefully off track (Remember Microsoft went from reset to market with Windows Phone 7 in 18 months).

I think the arguments about Nokia becoming just another OEM are overblown. First off, if the units being moved have a Nokia logo on them, I doubt very much Nokia cares that it doesnt make the OS. In addition, if they get licensing fees from Samsung, HTC, etc. selling Windows Phone, then that's even better. That's a lot of bank.

Basically the only assumption they have to make, is that WP7 will eventually be successful. I'd say given the trajectory (marketing, developer ecosystem increase rate, and satisfaction reports) that its not too unrealistic to expect Windows Phone 7 to achieve some form of success relative to Android and iOS, especially moreso than webOS.

I think given what they knew, WP7 was the best decision Nokia could have made. Definitely better than Android in my opinion.

Reply Parent Score: 2

saso Member since:
2007-04-18

They could have gone it alone (MeeGo) but that's a significant question mark. Could they have readied it in time? Pushed a competent developer ecosystem? Brought devices to market? At the end of the day what would differentiate it from Android, iOS, webOS, or Windows Phone 7?


Nokia's principal problem was horrendous mismanagement of their software. They had a working next-gen OS (Maemo) long before Google or Apple did - sure it was flaky, but they had almost 2 years before the first iPhone even came out (remember the Nokia 770 came out in November 2005). The Nokia N900 was a great phone for its time in 2009. And instead of incremental upgrades on it (by developing MeeGo on the side and using Maemo as the main OS, possibly incorporating backported Qt support from MeeGo to Maemo - not that hard to do) they decided to go the software revolution route, which works out in the rarest of cases. WP7 is one of those revolutions and we still have to see it succeed. I'm not claiming it won't, eventually - Microsoft has always used its enormous reserves to allow them to try multiple times over, until they get it right.

Is the fact that its more "open" than Android going to translate into more handsets sold? Does the end user even know what that is?


The "open" aspect isn't what the end user will care about. What they will, however, care about, is having the power of a full PC in their pocket (needs proper marketing, of course). Android, iOS and WP7 are all specialized phone operating systems. They use specialized toolkits, specialized development environments and provide only a limited set of tools. If your idea doesn't fit in their development paradigm, though luck. The power of full operating systems is that they don't provide too many assumptions - you can do anything you like with them.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and provide my personal idea of what Maemo could have become using its more "open" nature than Android. Since it's much easier to port desktop software to it (than to, say, Android), why not build a Maemo device capable of Bluetooth peripheral attachments and HDMI (or possibly wireless) video output. You no longer have to drag that netbook around - it's just shrunk to the size of your pocket.

The amount of question marks in the idea was staggering, not to mention based off of what Intel showed of MeeGo at Barcelona, very little development actually occured in a years time. The OS seemed woefully off track (Remember Microsoft went from reset to market with Windows Phone 7 in 18 months).


Here's where crappy middle management gets you - pour as many resources into a project as you like, with bad management you might as well have burned the money in a furnace.

Reply Parent Score: 2

oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

I think given what they knew, WP7 was the best decision Nokia could have made. Definitely better than Android in my opinion.


Answer a few market place facts. Everyone else making WP7 devices is also Making Android. So competitors will make profit no matter what OS makes it. Nokia is bound basically to 1 OS. Not healthy really.

Android devices will start turning up Dual OS. Android for general usage. Ubuntu or some other arm based Linux for when docked. WP7 phones currently don't have a docked mode.

Now you might say Windows 8. Phones are cost picky. The battle field is altering. MS bottom line will also have to alter.

How is Nokia going to play well in this upcoming market.

Feature Phones that are most of Nokia market is a dieing breed. Reason Android Smart Phones are turning up at the same price.

Nokia will be needing to make themselves new market.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The argument is that given the choices, Windows Phone 7 was seen as the best one. I think that's pretty much true


Perhaps in the short term. The problem though is that this does NOT solve Nokia's core problem: that they can't deliver on time. If you can't deliver on time, you can't deliver on time. Changing phones isn't going to change that. It's a management problem and I'm still to see any management shakedown at Nokia.
If I was cynical I'd say this deal sounds like Elop realized how screwed Nokia really was and thought the best he could do was to make his MS stock go up.

Reply Parent Score: 4

spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

The argument is that given the choices, Windows Phone 7 was seen as the best one. I think that's pretty much true.

This is the argument I see a lot on American tech blogs. I don't get it. The choice was WP7 or Android, that is what you think? Why? Symbian is the best selling OS.

Android has had the biggest growth recently and outsold Symbian, right. People look at the chart and don't understand what it means. People buy devices, they don't buy OSes. 2 years ago, there was a few Android devices. Last year, every big manufacturer had a Android device, except Nokia, RIM and Apple. Every other manufacturer ditched Symbian and started producing Android devices instead. In that context, Android took market share from Symbian, no surprise here. Now look at how manufacturers producing Android phones instead of Symbian performed. Surprise: they shrunk. Motorola, LG and SE sold less devices in 2010 than in 2009. Nokia has had the biggest smartphone growth of all the manufacturers. Symbian grew faster than iOS and RIM. WP7 shrunk. Symbian is the 2nd fastest growing OS behind Android, and that is with less devices. Android grew from converting Symbian devices and shrunk the number of devices sold.
Only HTC and Samsung sold more devices in 2010. Samsung also sold Bada so there is no evidence that they sold more Android device than their previous Symbian line. Only HTC benefinted from Android.

Reply Parent Score: 3

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

That's the tech review perception but generally HTC did quite a good job and (IMO) improved android screen usability.
Whereas Motoblur approach to contact info aggregation was most innovative of the competiotion (within and outside of android world).

Reply Parent Score: 2