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 567102
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29


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?!


I don't think he cared. Qt/C++ still is a while away from being a viable ecosystem in and of itself.

Symbian, Metelmi, MeeGo. They all basically said the same thing: Time, time, time.

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, Symbian sales were collapsing a full quarter prior to the Windows Phone announcement.

Allow me to provide you with a quote:


but even in its worst period, never did Motorola lose a quarter of its market share in any six month period. I don’t mean this is the end for Nokia, but the signs are very dangerous, if two quarters have already gone like this, the cause is no freak accounting error or component shortage, it is a major systematic problem that has to be corrected immediately before Nokia finds itself ranked 3rd or 5th or – like Motorola which went from 2nd to 9th in all mobile phones (smartphones and dumbphones combined) in only 4 years. Right now the Nokia market share is not in decline, it is in a dive.“


Who am I quoting? Tomi Ahonen, the hero of many Nokia haters here. This was in January 2011, before Stephen Elop announced the Windows Phone deal.

As far as developers are concerned, Nokia didn't need developers. Not a single Symbian developer needed to cross over. Microsoft had the .NET army. Nokia needed to provide the operator relations, manufacturing foot print, and phone hardware support (along with mapping IP and other stuff).

Reply Parent Score: -2

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

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

Reply Parent Score: 6

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

If thats the best you've got, I'm comfortable with that.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

winter skies Member since:
2009-08-21

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

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


Because anything different wouldn't be functional to his narration. "Nokia needed Microsoft, Nokia couldn't have done anything alone, Elop made the right moves for Nokia, his strategy was a success".
Any fact like "Nokia was selling more than ever before the memo" or "Nokia was a large, successful global company which was dismembered and shrinked to a smallish OEM losing any hope of being independent in order to seem profitable again" doesn't fit in this theory and thus must not be taken into account.

Sorry for the harshness, but it is clear this partnership makes absolute sense when seen from Microsoft's point of view, while it makes close to zero sense from Nokia's.

Reply Parent Score: 7

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Oh my, liar? That is a terrible charge.

Lets look further into this, shall we?
First I'm assuming you've read the relevant financial reports, hopefully your working knowledge is deeper than a reposted chart.

Now, if you'll look at Q410 financial results, you'll see Symbian sales rose 30%, but market share actually fell 14% because they were greatly outpaced by the market. All prior to this mythological Osborn effect.

Now I'll ask you to look back further into Q3 and Q2 2010 where they lost around 25% of their share in six months. A year before this mythological Osborn effect.

By January 2011 (a month prior to the WP announcement), Nokia for example had lost a third of their UK market share.

Starting in Q2 2010 Nokia went from
39% to 33% to 28% to 24% up through the Windows Phone announcement.

So actually, no, I'm not lying thank you very much. This is why I ask people to read the financial reports. What a new and radical idea, asking you to do your own research.

Given these rather steady declines, how can the Windows Phone announcement be attributed to something that never accelerated? The decline was linear, as I've demonstrated.

All of this is verifiable from Nokia financial reports from Q2 2010 and on.

You can't possibly positively speak about a 30% sales rise without qualifying it with market share, or you'd also have to mention the 400% Windows Phone growth, or 100% YoY performance Nokia is going to have in Q2, but for some strange reason I don't see a post on those incoming.

This takes critical thinking.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

jeffb Member since:
2005-07-19

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?


The N9 at the time Elop pulled the plug wasn't finished and was part of a 4 phones they had in the pipeline till 2014. The one that was released because it was terminal had less structural issues than an actual N9 would have.

It was a great phone and shows the potential of MeeGo. Nokia just didn't make it in time.

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?


If the Osborne effect was the reason for Nokia's collapse:

a) Why did other companies like RIM experience a similar collapse at the time?

Does the Osborne effect cross company boundaries even when the companies have different customer basis and different strategies?

b) Why was Nokia experiencing the collapse starting about 8 months before the burning platform memo?

Does the Osborne work backwards in time?

Symbian collapsed because Apple and Samsung brought out substantially better products and hit their price points.

Reply Parent Score: 2