7 ms·

Nokia was doomed before Elop took over. Kallasvuo was CEO when Apple released the first iPhone, and Kallasvuo was the one who decided that Nokia's existing offe

Nokia was doomed before Elop took over. Kallasvuo was CEO when Apple released the first iPhone, and Kallasvuo was the one who decided that Nokia's existing offerings were good enough to compete, just keep minorly refining things every generation. By the time Elop came in, the ship was already sinking (or, if you prefer, the platform was already burning). Elop's decisions did not turn that around, but realistically, could he have?

rospaya 10y ago
I agree that Nokia was too slow to compete, but they had massive advantages over both Apple and Google and with good guidance could've survived successfully. Even years after the iPhone came out, Nokia outsold Apple, had a bigger R&D budget and a bigger foothold in practically every market except North America. Smartphones outsold feature (dumb) phones only in 2013, five years after the iPhone came out. When did Nokia slip to 3rd place by number of sold devices? Q1 2015. There was time, just no will.
- newjersey 10y ago
  I don't have any inside information but as an outsider the main thing that puts pressure on everyone is the margin that Apple commands on its products. People have repeatedly said that even when iPhone had 20% of the smartphones sold, they were taking in a much bigger slice of the pie when it came to profits. How do we tell potential shareholders "you can put your $1 on Apple or you can put your $1 on us but just so you know we have to ship n times as many phones as Apple does just to make the same amount of money that Apple does".
- biokoda 10y ago
  > Smartphones outsold feature (dumb) phones only in 2013, five years after the iPhone came out. Yes but who had higher profits? That's the real factor. Outselling by itself is meaningless if your margins are poor.
- nextos 10y ago
  > but they had massive advantages over both Apple and Google and with good guidance could've survived successfully. I can't agree more. Few people remember the Nokia 770 was released almost 2 years ahead of the iPhone. With a bit of polish it could have grown into a fantastic product line. In fact, the N9 was pretty much a masterpiece.
  - nickik 10y ago
    I remember wanting to buy it. I didn't because back then it was to much money for me. I remember thinking that I defently want a future version of it. For some reason that I don't understand, they continued to push Symbian, and those phones were not good. I remember thinking, either push further on the MeeGo stuff or drop it and move to Android. They did neither and suffered for it.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      Symbian devices were actually very good phones. For making and receiving voice calls, they were better than Android has ever been. Of course, as a platform for Web browsing, and particularly for app development, Symbian was not good. But I still miss the phone functionality of my E71, or the Symbian devices I had before it.
      - sangnoir 10y ago
        > Of course, as a platform for Web browsing, and particularly for app development, Symbian was not good. So in other words - they were great phones, but terrible smartphones? I fully agree.
        ptaipale 10y ago
        Again, depends on what is "smart". For many day-to-day things, Symbian phones were superior to current smart phones as well. Some of this is more about security/commercial setup than technology, but 15 years ago, I was able to synchronize Outlook calendar to a Symbian phone, and it would remind me of my meetings, and it worked great. Android or iPhone could do the same technically, but my employer can no longer use it. The company would give all data about meetings to Google or Apple. It's an absolute no-no. Thus I sometimes forget my meetings, as the phone no longer reminds me. Also, the alarm clock of Symbian was great, and i could depend on it. Even if you turned the phone off, it would wake you up. I'm nervous about trusting any Android device to wake me up in the morning if I have to catch a plane or a train (and I understand it's the same with iPhone).
- tn13 10y ago
  I agree. In India Nokia was voted as "Most Trusted Brand" for years. Cell phone == Nokia in India. All they had to do was to put Android in some phones as an arbitrage move and they could have still been the leader in that space in India. Which has grown like 8x in last 5 years.
twblalock 10y ago
If Elop had bet on Android instead of Windows Phone, Nokia would probably be doing well.
- x0x0 10y ago
  Almost certainly not. Have you seen the profit numbers at Samsung, Motorola, and HTC? They're getting destroyed by Android competitors like Xiaomi, Huawei, etc and Apple.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    What makes you think Nokia would have ended up like Samsung/Motorola/HTC rather than Xiaomi/Huawei/etc? Nokia at least had a chance to be one of the profitable ones.
    - godzillabrennus 10y ago
      There are no profitable android makers. Apple has 94% of the profits in mobile: http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/15/11/16/apple-inc-now-inhaling-94-percent-of-global-smartphone-profits-selling-just-145-percent-of-total-volumes http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/15/11/16/apple-inc-n... We will never know for sure by Nokia shareholders might have gotten an amazing deal out of going Windows Mobile and getting acquired by Microsoft. As for the employees, this would have happened either way with how badly the company was prepared for smartphones.
      - sytelus 10y ago
        Recent Samsung financial results say that their profit growth is fueled in part by Galaxy S7. So, no, there are fairly profitable android makers. http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/27/11523616/samsung-earnings-q1-2016-galaxy-s7-sales http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/27/11523616/samsung-earnings-...
    - x0x0 10y ago
      Because every android manufacturer will end with virtually no profit since they are producing a commodity. When you basically can't differentiate with your software except for which shitty skin you layered on top of Android, what makes a samsung better than an lg or any other android device?

rospaya 10y ago

I agree that Nokia was too slow to compete, but they had massive advantages over both Apple and Google and with good guidance could've survived successfully. Even years after the iPhone came out, Nokia outsold Apple, had a bigger R&D budget and a bigger foothold in practically every market except North America. Smartphones outsold feature (dumb) phones only in 2013, five years after the iPhone came out. When did Nokia slip to 3rd place by number of sold devices? Q1 2015. There was time, just no will.

newjersey 10y ago
I don't have any inside information but as an outsider the main thing that puts pressure on everyone is the margin that Apple commands on its products. People have repeatedly said that even when iPhone had 20% of the smartphones sold, they were taking in a much bigger slice of the pie when it came to profits. How do we tell potential shareholders "you can put your $1 on Apple or you can put your $1 on us but just so you know we have to ship n times as many phones as Apple does just to make the same amount of money that Apple does".
biokoda 10y ago
> Smartphones outsold feature (dumb) phones only in 2013, five years after the iPhone came out. Yes but who had higher profits? That's the real factor. Outselling by itself is meaningless if your margins are poor.
nextos 10y ago
> but they had massive advantages over both Apple and Google and with good guidance could've survived successfully. I can't agree more. Few people remember the Nokia 770 was released almost 2 years ahead of the iPhone. With a bit of polish it could have grown into a fantastic product line. In fact, the N9 was pretty much a masterpiece.
- nickik 10y ago
  I remember wanting to buy it. I didn't because back then it was to much money for me. I remember thinking that I defently want a future version of it. For some reason that I don't understand, they continued to push Symbian, and those phones were not good. I remember thinking, either push further on the MeeGo stuff or drop it and move to Android. They did neither and suffered for it.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Symbian devices were actually very good phones. For making and receiving voice calls, they were better than Android has ever been. Of course, as a platform for Web browsing, and particularly for app development, Symbian was not good. But I still miss the phone functionality of my E71, or the Symbian devices I had before it.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      > Of course, as a platform for Web browsing, and particularly for app development, Symbian was not good. So in other words - they were great phones, but terrible smartphones? I fully agree.
      - ptaipale 10y ago
        Again, depends on what is "smart". For many day-to-day things, Symbian phones were superior to current smart phones as well. Some of this is more about security/commercial setup than technology, but 15 years ago, I was able to synchronize Outlook calendar to a Symbian phone, and it would remind me of my meetings, and it worked great. Android or iPhone could do the same technically, but my employer can no longer use it. The company would give all data about meetings to Google or Apple. It's an absolute no-no. Thus I sometimes forget my meetings, as the phone no longer reminds me. Also, the alarm clock of Symbian was great, and i could depend on it. Even if you turned the phone off, it would wake you up. I'm nervous about trusting any Android device to wake me up in the morning if I have to catch a plane or a train (and I understand it's the same with iPhone).
tn13 10y ago
I agree. In India Nokia was voted as "Most Trusted Brand" for years. Cell phone == Nokia in India. All they had to do was to put Android in some phones as an arbitrage move and they could have still been the leader in that space in India. Which has grown like 8x in last 5 years.

twblalock 10y ago

If Elop had bet on Android instead of Windows Phone, Nokia would probably be doing well.

x0x0 10y ago
Almost certainly not. Have you seen the profit numbers at Samsung, Motorola, and HTC? They're getting destroyed by Android competitors like Xiaomi, Huawei, etc and Apple.
- twblalock 10y ago
  What makes you think Nokia would have ended up like Samsung/Motorola/HTC rather than Xiaomi/Huawei/etc? Nokia at least had a chance to be one of the profitable ones.
  - godzillabrennus 10y ago
    There are no profitable android makers. Apple has 94% of the profits in mobile: http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/15/11/16/apple-inc-now-inhaling-94-percent-of-global-smartphone-profits-selling-just-145-percent-of-total-volumes http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/15/11/16/apple-inc-n... We will never know for sure by Nokia shareholders might have gotten an amazing deal out of going Windows Mobile and getting acquired by Microsoft. As for the employees, this would have happened either way with how badly the company was prepared for smartphones.
    - sytelus 10y ago
      Recent Samsung financial results say that their profit growth is fueled in part by Galaxy S7. So, no, there are fairly profitable android makers. http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/27/11523616/samsung-earnings-q1-2016-galaxy-s7-sales http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/27/11523616/samsung-earnings-...
  - x0x0 10y ago
    Because every android manufacturer will end with virtually no profit since they are producing a commodity. When you basically can't differentiate with your software except for which shitty skin you layered on top of Android, what makes a samsung better than an lg or any other android device?