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 567105
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

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


What position? 3 straight quarters of underlying profitability? Double digit volume growth sequentially?

Morgan Stanley is predicting +43% QoQ growth for Lumia shipments in Q2, or 8 million units and a 4% margin for Devices which would mean they are definitely profitable again.

Let me see what makes more sense: Receiving billions from Microsoft, staying afloat long enough to make a difference, ramping up Lumia volumes, increasing their financial position gradually, and having a strong brand in Lumia

OR

Hoping Intel gets their shit together (Hello, Tizen? Where are you?). They'd still be waiting if they weren't dead.

They didn't have the money, time, or supply chain footprint to go up against Samsung. They'd be obliterated. Microsoft has a vested interest in Nokia's success, and that's worth more to them than a brain dead OS with Intel or becoming an also-ran under Samsung like HTC is.

Edited 2013-07-14 20:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2