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 567103
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

The cash problem would have been less pronounced if a smooth transition away from Symbian had been executed.

With MeeGo and assistance from Intel, transitioning the ecosystem was possible, as Qt allowed to write apps that targeted Symbian, Maemo and MeeGo. And even if it didn't work out immediately, Android would have been able to keep Nokia factories busy until the Qt ecosystem became sustainable.

Breaking all eggs that didn't fit in Microsoft's basket is the reason why Nokia finds itself in the current difficult situation.

Reply Parent Score: 9