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 567158
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

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.


You're spinning again. This is what you said:

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

...but now, you're suddenly talking about market share collapsing. Those are two different things. Symbian sales were still rising quite steadily and quite well, up until Elop Osbourned his own company.

So yes, you were lying.

You may argue that market share is more important - and you might very well be right - but that would be quite inconsistent of you, because when you point out that Nokia's Windows Phone sales are rising (every so slightly), and I consequently point out that Nokia's/WP's market share is NOT rising, you argue that market share doesn't matter as much as mildly rising sales.

This takes critical thinking.


We call that spinning.

Edited 2013-07-15 11:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Windows Phone market share has been steadily rising, Symbians was not. Nokia also trimmed a lot of fat, they were twice as large as their nearest rivals in 2010-2011.

http://www.kantarworldpanel.com/global/News/Samsung-nears-50-share-...

Its also important to note, and you can look at my comment history, that I was arguing against a backdrop of doomsday Windows Phone comments. I never once implied all was well, only that trends were looking up and where there was smoke there was fire.

Windows Phone market share never dropped off like Symbians did, but of course, you do like to have a field day with false equivalencies.

Osborn effect is some magical fairy tale that Nokia haters tell themselves, Mr. Elop supposedly killed something that was dying a full year prior. Even before he became CEO. This is absurd.

Edited 2013-07-15 11:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You didn't address my point. Symbian sales were not collapsing, despite your claims. In fact, sales were rising quite well until Elop Osbourned them - this is not up for debate; the numbers are quite crystal clear.

You seem to think that we believe that Symbian had a future and that Elop's call to kill it was a bad one - we do not. Symbian had run its course, and nobody is arguing otherwise. What we're saying is that his timing was terrible - and that, as many suspected and has now come true, he banked on the wrong platform. Again - the figures are clear.

And now, with the total lack of updates and improvements to Windows Phone, this is only going to get worse, and it will take more than megapixels to turn Nokia around.

Reply Parent Score: 2

hhas Member since:
2006-11-28

[Thom to Nelson] You're spinning again.


This is true; but then, so are you. By Jan 2011 Symbian sales weren't worth shit in themselves; maybe a bit of revenue (assuming margins could be maintained) to keep stockholders on board for a few more quarters, but that's all.

All Nokia's existing Symbian base was actually good for was 1. buying its senior management a little more time in which to get its sorry act together and ship a viable replacement, and 2. once released, bootstrapping that replacement with with an instant 20-30% market share(!)

...

Had Elop done the sensible thing and circulated his 'burning platform' memo amongst major department heads only as absolute-top-secret-on-pain-of-death instead of across the entire company as he did, it still would have had enough of the desired effect (i.e. motivating indolent and apathetic senior management to make radical changes while they still had time) without incurring a 99.999% risk of instant press leak.

Elop's was a single incredibly dumb newbie error, saying in public what should've been private. I've no doubt he was sincere (he was certainly right), but it showed a stunning lack of people-awareness skills for someone given that level of responsibility. I suspect Stephen Elop fancied himself as the next Steve Jobs, forgetting that it took Jobs a decade of his own leadership screwups plus another decade in the wilderness properly learning his craft to become the sort of CEO whose entire staff would rather throw themselves under trucks than leak a critical memo.


Before that memo leaked, Nokia had about a year of leeway in which to get their new WinPhone platform shipping plus maybe a hundred million existing customers they could quickly and smoothly migrate across in order to create an instant mass audience for WinPhone and allow it to challenge Android directly. Those were the two utterly priceless assets they had, and they lost both the moment that memo went public.

Symbian sales and revenue - which is what most armchair commentators seem to think most important - were almost irrelevant next to time and customer base. Heck, if they'd had to, Nokia could've ridden out that year on cuts, savings and loans, even giving away Symbian to keep those bums on seats just another year more. Their Symbian-to-WinPhone transition could've been a strategic masterstroke that would've had Elop hailed as the Third Coming of the Saint Jobs; instead it was a total faceplant that's done huge damage both the company's standing and his own.

Nokia should've pleasantly spent the last 18 months [re]building significant market share atop an easy starting point of a hundred million instant Symbian-WinPhone switchers. Instead, they've now having to rebuild their entire market share entirely from scratch, using an OS platform that is now - rightly or wrongly - forever tainted in the public perception largely thanks to their amateur mishandling of it.


I won't rule Nokia out just yet - occasionally others have fought their way back from similarly dire odds (e.g. Apple, Mozilla) - but their chances of recovery still aren't great and compared to what they could have had if they'd only played their original hand better... eesh.

Reply Parent Score: 4