4 ms·

Fun fact. When Samsung adopted Android, Nokia still had twice the market share in phones that Samsung did. Adopting Android early would've absolutely helped. I

by mtgx 10y ago

Fun fact. When Samsung adopted Android, Nokia still had twice the market share in phones that Samsung did. Adopting Android early would've absolutely helped. Instead they wasted time first with Maemo, which the executive team never took seriously enough to expand across the product lines, then with "touch Symbian", which they should've known it would have never worked, and then with Windows Phone, when it was already too late and it was clear to many at the time that there wouldn't be a "third" large ecosystem for smartphones, because there was no reason for one. Maybe Android would've helped, maybe it wouldn't have, because it was already a little late for such adoption, but Nokia still have relatively strong brand at the time. And there were much fewer chances it would've worked with the "different" Windows Phone, because people were looking for ecosystem, not difference.

tunap 10y ago
"Wasted time first with Maemo"... Damn that hurts my brain to read, and in hindsight, I have to agree. The n900's open platform built on debian, functional resistive touch and a hardware keyboard should have gained traction. Of course, without the monetized ecosystems of app stores and specialized accessories it is no wonder the policymakers didn't want it.
- jldugger 10y ago
  If you think back to 2009, it was a different era. People were still paying carriers for _ring tones_, and they were loathe to give up that level of profitable device control. For the first year of iPhone's life, there was no app store to speak of. And the n900 did have an App store. It was shitty, and suffered from the typical platform bootstrapping problem. And if I recall, there were some security holes that let people download apps for free. n900's problems were: a) resistive touch sucks b) tiny, tiny hardware keyboard keys c) a pathetic, zero subsidy US launch d) incredibly late to market -- iphone had a 2 year head start e) zero developer credibility f) no support for MMS g) surprisingly flaky USB charging port
  - tunap 10y ago
    Valid points, but while I agree resistive sucks in every other instance I have experienced, the n800 and n900 were extremely well implemented iterations. Precision was spot on using fingers, fingernails or the included stylus. As for the small keys: thumbnail precision. I had rare typos and multi factors more wpm than this on-screen capacitive nuisance I have no choice but to edit every 3rd word with now. edit: additionally, 2009 was already too late. Android's release from Tmo exclusivity and iPhones release from AT&T exclusivity had opened the gates to mass consumption with ectremely effective marketing & fanfare. The writing was on the wall, RIM & Nokia didn't or couldn't see it in time, nor adapt. edit 2: maemo app store was free as in speech & free as in beer, like any other linux distro's repository.
- BuuQu9hu 10y ago
  N900 is coming back: https://neo900.org/ https://neo900.org/
mdasen 10y ago
> Adopting Android early would've absolutely helped. Yes, if they had adopted Android when Samsung or HTC did, it certainly would have helped. But they didn't. I'm not arguing that Nokia shouldn't have come out with Android phones in 2009. I'm saying that by 2011, the market was different and they were offering an inferior experience then against a well-established market. Nokia, like RIM, didn't take smartphones serious for too long. Both thought that there was some non-full-smartphone thing like classic BlackBerry or Symbian devices that would be competitive in a post-iPhone, post-Android world. It's true that Nokia had a strong brand, but that doesn't seem to have mattered in the move to smartphones. Motorola had a strong non-smartphone brand that didn't translate to smartphones. HTC had no non-smartphone brand and became one of the larger players there before Samsung started just out-producing them. SonyEricsson had a strong non-smartphone brand that just didn't make it through to smartphones. It's true that Nokia's brand was stronger than SonyEricsson or Motorola, but I think it's more likely that the Nokia brand wouldn't be as meaningful as what Samsung was bringing to the party. In 4Q2006, Nokia had 36% of the market compared to 22% for Motorola, 11.3% for Samsung, 9% for SonyEricsson, and 6% for LG. Samsung seems to be the only one to have stuck on the leaderboard through 2Q2016 at 22%, Apple at 12%, Huawei at 9%, OPPO at 7%, and vivo at 5%. And Motorola got into the Android game early. I always preferred Nokia, but it's not like Motorola wasn't a strong brand pre-iPhone. I think it's easy to say that Windows Phone was the only reason. I think you're spot on that if Nokia had adopted Android when Samsung had, it's a completely different story. But in November 2011, the market had already been shaped against them. It was already a little late for adoption :-(.

by mtgx 10y ago

tunap 10y ago

"Wasted time first with Maemo"... Damn that hurts my brain to read, and in hindsight, I have to agree. The n900's open platform built on debian, functional resistive touch and a hardware keyboard should have gained traction. Of course, without the monetized ecosystems of app stores and specialized accessories it is no wonder the policymakers didn't want it.

jldugger 10y ago
If you think back to 2009, it was a different era. People were still paying carriers for _ring tones_, and they were loathe to give up that level of profitable device control. For the first year of iPhone's life, there was no app store to speak of. And the n900 did have an App store. It was shitty, and suffered from the typical platform bootstrapping problem. And if I recall, there were some security holes that let people download apps for free. n900's problems were: a) resistive touch sucks b) tiny, tiny hardware keyboard keys c) a pathetic, zero subsidy US launch d) incredibly late to market -- iphone had a 2 year head start e) zero developer credibility f) no support for MMS g) surprisingly flaky USB charging port
- tunap 10y ago
  Valid points, but while I agree resistive sucks in every other instance I have experienced, the n800 and n900 were extremely well implemented iterations. Precision was spot on using fingers, fingernails or the included stylus. As for the small keys: thumbnail precision. I had rare typos and multi factors more wpm than this on-screen capacitive nuisance I have no choice but to edit every 3rd word with now. edit: additionally, 2009 was already too late. Android's release from Tmo exclusivity and iPhones release from AT&T exclusivity had opened the gates to mass consumption with ectremely effective marketing & fanfare. The writing was on the wall, RIM & Nokia didn't or couldn't see it in time, nor adapt. edit 2: maemo app store was free as in speech & free as in beer, like any other linux distro's repository.
BuuQu9hu 10y ago
N900 is coming back: https://neo900.org/ https://neo900.org/

mdasen 10y ago

> Adopting Android early would've absolutely helped. Yes, if they had adopted Android when Samsung or HTC did, it certainly would have helped. But they didn't. I'm not arguing that Nokia shouldn't have come out with Android phones in 2009. I'm saying that by 2011, the market was different and they were offering an inferior experience then against a well-established market. Nokia, like RIM, didn't take smartphones serious for too long. Both thought that there was some non-full-smartphone thing like classic BlackBerry or Symbian devices that would be competitive in a post-iPhone, post-Android world. It's true that Nokia had a strong brand, but that doesn't seem to have mattered in the move to smartphones. Motorola had a strong non-smartphone brand that didn't translate to smartphones. HTC had no non-smartphone brand and became one of the larger players there before Samsung started just out-producing them. SonyEricsson had a strong non-smartphone brand that just didn't make it through to smartphones. It's true that Nokia's brand was stronger than SonyEricsson or Motorola, but I think it's more likely that the Nokia brand wouldn't be as meaningful as what Samsung was bringing to the party. In 4Q2006, Nokia had 36% of the market compared to 22% for Motorola, 11.3% for Samsung, 9% for SonyEricsson, and 6% for LG. Samsung seems to be the only one to have stuck on the leaderboard through 2Q2016 at 22%, Apple at 12%, Huawei at 9%, OPPO at 7%, and vivo at 5%. And Motorola got into the Android game early. I always preferred Nokia, but it's not like Motorola wasn't a strong brand pre-iPhone. I think it's easy to say that Windows Phone was the only reason. I think you're spot on that if Nokia had adopted Android when Samsung had, it's a completely different story. But in November 2011, the market had already been shaped against them. It was already a little late for adoption :-(.