Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 1st Feb 2012 22:24 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless How many N9's did Nokia sell, and how many Lumias did Nokia sell? It's an interesting thing to ponder, because estimates by Tomi T. Ahonen seem to indicate that, despite decidedly undermarketing the thing, the N9 faired considerably better in the marketplace than the Lumia did.
Thread beginning with comment 505558
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
So..
by wannabe geek on Wed 1st Feb 2012 22:57 UTC
wannabe geek
Member since:
2006-09-27

What was wrong with Android again?

Reply Score: 0

RE: So..
by leech on Wed 1st Feb 2012 22:59 in reply to "So.."
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

Android stinks. ;)

As far as the article goes. Hahahaha!

Take that, Elop!

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: So..
by ebasconp on Wed 1st Feb 2012 23:06 in reply to "So.."
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Nokia did not need Android, Windows Phone or anything: They already had their Meego-Harmattan and that would have been enough.

Let's hope (though I really think this will never happen) Elop will change his mind and reconsider moving Meego to the upstream.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: So..
by shmerl on Wed 1st Feb 2012 23:38 in reply to "RE: So.."
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Better hope for Elop to be kicked out of Nokia first. I doubt he'll ever change his mind.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE: So..
by glarepate on Thu 2nd Feb 2012 01:14 in reply to "So.."
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Nominally Nokia was looking for a differentiator to distinguish their products from the others in the marketplace and thus increase sales by virtue of that distinctiveness. That was the explanation given for why they wouldn't go with Android.

There was an article in Forbes awhile back saying that Nokia wanted a deal with Google that gave them advantages that other handset makers didn't have and Google told them no. This was spun as Google telling them they couldn't license Android. Obviously that is incorrect. Maybe they couldn't license the Android logo/name, but the code is freely downloadable and there are many forks of it already.

So now they have a phone OS that they have special rights to that other handset makers don't.

But wait! Wasn't that going to be the problem that would kill Android when Google bid for Motorola? o-:)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: So..
by JAlexoid on Thu 2nd Feb 2012 10:08 in reply to "RE: So.."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

So now they have a phone OS that they have special rights to that other handset makers don't.

Except that they failed to get the main element they desperately needed - differentiating factor. There is none.(Unfortunately hardware is not enough for a distinctive feel)
I like Nokia Lumia's hardware, but buying it only because it has a polycarbonate unibody?


But wait! Wasn't that going to be the problem that would kill Android when Google bid for Motorola? o-:)

Maybe Moto will become the vanilla ODM? And everyone else will have the ability to differentiate in software as well as hardware.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: So..
by cdude on Mon 6th Feb 2012 07:21 in reply to "RE: So.."
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

Since Qt is running on Android they already had a way to distinguish their products from the others, offer a upgrade-path from Symbian to Android via Qt and combine both worlds (existing Android applications and Symbian/Qt applications) in there marketplace.

Reply Parent Score: 1