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?
Thread beginning with comment 567087
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I think we all know the real reason...
by jasutton on Sun 14th Jul 2013 18:17 UTC
jasutton
Member since:
2006-03-28

It was as clear then as it is now: Elop was an MS plant who was placed there for the sole purpose of ensuring that Nokia chose Windows Phone.

Reply Score: 20

chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

While Elop's decisions might not have been the best for Nokia, I think that he genuinely believed that Nokia could make the transition to Windows Phone a success.

My theoriy is that he believed the analysts who made ridiculous forecasts regarding Windows Phone sales. For example this one from IDC[1] who projected in 2011 that WP would pass iOS and reach 20.9% share in 2015 - a prediction that has later been revised to 11.4% in 2016. And that was by far not the most absurd prediction[2].

[1] http://www.neowin.net/news/2017-forecast-windows-phone-at-127-1bn-a...
[2] http://www.pyramidresearch.com/points/item/110509.htm

Reply Parent Score: 2

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

While Elop's decisions might not have been the best for Nokia, I think that he genuinely believed that Nokia could make the transition to Windows Phone a success.


This is a joke, right?

How could he never heard of the Osborne effect?

Did he really believed that with the death announcement of Symbian, after making Symbian developers believe that Symbian C++ was dead and the way forward was Qt/C++, developers would bet the farm again on their products?!

Symbian C++ was a pain to develop for, and many software houses did invest a lot to transition their development to Qt/C++.

Then they needed to do the same again, and on top of that to .NET, which is not properly loved in C++ circles.

Really!? What were they smoking?!

Reply Parent Score: 16

Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

While Elop's decisions might not have been the best for Nokia, I think that he genuinely believed that Nokia could make the transition to Windows Phone a success.

Then he is genuinely stupid and the shareholders even more stupid. Nokia could have gone for: symbian, maemo, android and windows phone. They would not have a 2+ year time period without compelling products. They wouldn't have had to fire all those software people. They would still have the possibility to distinguish themselves by hardware, software and their own appstore.

This article does not explain why they did not use android. I hope samsung goes full force for the windows phone market and capture 90% of its marketshare. That would be a great laugh.

Reply Parent Score: 8

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

It was as clear then as it is now: Elop was an MS plant who was placed there for the sole purpose of ensuring that Nokia chose Windows Phone.


In your imaginary world of how corporations work, the CEO of Nokia apparently had unilateral control over such a decision.

In reality, this is not true. The entire deal was approved by the board after considering other alternatives (yes, even Android)

Reply Parent Score: 2

chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

The Nokia board did not really exert control over what Elop did. And no, they did not consider Android, because they feared that Nokia would lose control over its destiny.

It can be read in a highly interesting interview with industry expert Jean-Louis Gassée from last year.
http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2188976/nokia-elop-board-jean-l...

Reply Parent Score: 4

Who cares about 2010?
by aliquis on Mon 15th Jul 2013 20:21 in reply to "I think we all know the real reason..."
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

The question is why they decided to go alone with Maemo 5 and the Nokia N900 rather than with Android.

And that's fairly easy to answer I suppose. They wanted it all / be big in services / growth. Not something they was good at and not something they managed. But they wanted to.

Risk taking for possible award I suppose. But they failed.

Edited 2013-07-15 20:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2