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 567095
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

As my former employer, I think I know what I am speaking about.

Reply Parent Score: 6

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This whole "Osborn Effect" thing is overblown, Symbian sales were collapsing a full quarter prior to the Windows Phone announcement.


This is a lie, Nelson, and you know it. Up until Elop announced the switch, Symbian sales were rising.

http://www.osnews.com/story/26959/Nokia_s_quarterly_results_paint_a...

You know this, because I mentioned it twice and you commented on both stories. Why purposely lie?

Reply Parent Score: 13

BushLin Member since:
2011-01-26

Windows Phone devices from Nokia hit the market eight months after the announcement. That wasn't going to happen with any alternative.

This whole "Osborn Effect" thing is overblown...


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?

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?

Reply Parent Score: 2

chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

How could he never heard of the Osborne effect?

I already said that the decisions were not the best for Nokia. Nokia had the cash reserves to sit through Symbian sales collapse. Also killing Symbian quickly could have made consumers more ready to adopt Windows phones (in reality almost all went to Android).

Really!? What were they smoking?!

Smoking? Not sure. But they were drinking the Microsoft kool-aid.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Nokia could ride out a collapse, but could they bootstrap an ecosystem with the cash remaining? Market it on their own? Establish a brand awareness with a new line of phones?

If they could, obviously we wouldn't be having this conversation. They couldn't. MeeGo was late. The project was going nowhere. Everything else was floundering as well.

Nokia was a company in 2010 with many cancerous divisions attached to it. Underperforming divisions that quarter after quarter had slipped schedules due to mismanagement.

Reply Parent Score: 1