5 ms·

Symbian was not a failure... it was a giant succes for quite a long time. That's like calling MS-DOS a failure.

barista 16y ago
yes but MS-DOS was followed up by windows 3.1 and then windows 95 both of which were a huge success. What followed up symbian was not. I think this is very sensible for them to focus on hardware while let somebody else do the software. Though I must agree their choice of MSFT is startling. I expected them to fragment Android even further. Glad that didn't happen.
- redthrowaway 16y ago
  I'm actually not surprised by the choice of wp7, and not simply because the new ceo is ex-MS. Going with Android would make Nokia just another Sony/Samsung/HTC, but throwing all of their eggs in the WP7 basket at least gives them a chance to maintain some relevance as a distinct entity. It's going to be rough on the hardware guys though, making every new phone with a Windows logo on it.
  - yangyang 16y ago
    Why does Winphone 7 make them more distinct? It offers far fewer opportunities for distinction than Android.
    - jackvalentine 16y ago
      Because there is such a limited range of Winpho7 handsets (and as a matter of personal opinion, I feel they're all token efforts) Nokia can step in and become "the" Windows phone handset. Microsoft needed a hardware partner that was all in with them, not diddling android on the side. If you put out android phones, you're just another fish in a sea of commodity handsets, no matter how you differentiate your product.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > Going with Android would make Nokia just another Sony/Samsung/HTC IIRC, Samsung, HTC and Dell are offering WP7 phones.
    - redthrowaway 16y ago
      But they're doing it as an afterthought. They're committed to Android, and are supporting wp7 to cover their bases. Nokia's going all in, which would position them at the top of the WP7 hierarchy. If wp7 is a hit, Nokia rides the wave back to relevance, If not, well, they tried.
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        > would position them at the top of the WP7 hierarchy This is a mistake many Microsoft partners make. Nobody but Microsoft is at the top of the WP7 hierarchy. If WP7 is a success, Nokia's efforts will be rewarded by lots of competition with more money (because they are already riding the other hit, Android), not relevance.
pavlov 16y ago
A success by what metric? As a platform, surely not. The wheels came off by the end of 2008 when S60 5th Edition went touch-only, leaving keyboard devices still shipping with the hopelessly outdated 3rd Edition. Symbian touch devices never gained any platform traction. Was it a success as a software foundation upon which handset makers could innovate, as had been the original idea behind Symbian? No. Everyone that used Symbian abandoned it for more flexible alternatives. The lack of a unified UI development track didn't lead to the hoped innovation, but merely fragmentation that ultimately doomed Symbian. (It didn't help that the most popular UI layer, Nokia's S60, was so poorly designed and thoroughly mismanaged.) I actually use a Symbian^3 device, the Nokia N8. It's not bad at all. I love the physical design, and the software works fine for what I do (although the browser is a turd, it's replaceable by the fine Opera). Still, I can't escape the feeling that this is the OS that Nokia should have had over two years ago. Also, it's a development dead end. Symbian^4 was supposed to be a UI rewrite, but it failed. The promised improvements to S^3 have been slow in coming. (Still no Qt 4.7...!) How is Symbian a success at this point? What reason would Elop -- or anyone else -- have to believe that the existing software development structure at Nokia could substantially improve this situation?
- asynchronous13 16y ago
  <em>A success by what metric?</em> how about global market share? 2008: 52.4% of smartphones (RIM 17%, Apple 10%) [1] 2009: 47.2% of smartphones (RIM 21%, Apple 15%) [1] Android came in at 0.5% and 5% for those two years. Gartner forecasts that Symbian will remain in the number one smartphone OS position until 2014 when it is contested by Android [2] Sure, it's in decline now, but it's been a phenomenal success. [1] http://www.canalys.com/pr/2010/r2010021.html http://www.canalys.com/pr/2010/r2010021.html [2] http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1434613 http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1434613
  - kkowalczyk 16y ago
    Comparing market share of Symbian devices to iPhone or Android is like comparing market share of bicycles to market share of cars. Symbian OS has several version. The version that ships in volume powers devices like Nokia C1-01 http://store.nokia.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/productdetail_10500_10101_-1_10000740 http://store.nokia.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/productdeta... or worse. It's not the same product as iPhone or Android or even the old Palm OS shipped on Treo. The share of Symbian OS devices shipping a version comparable to iPhone or Android is a blip on the radar. A drop in the ocean. And a peasant among Kings.

yes but MS-DOS was followed up by windows 3.1 and then windows 95 both of which were a huge success. What followed up symbian was not. I think this is very sensible for them to focus on hardware while let somebody else do the software. Though I must agree their choice of MSFT is startling. I expected them to fragment Android even further. Glad that didn't happen.

redthrowaway 16y ago
I'm actually not surprised by the choice of wp7, and not simply because the new ceo is ex-MS. Going with Android would make Nokia just another Sony/Samsung/HTC, but throwing all of their eggs in the WP7 basket at least gives them a chance to maintain some relevance as a distinct entity. It's going to be rough on the hardware guys though, making every new phone with a Windows logo on it.
- yangyang 16y ago
  Why does Winphone 7 make them more distinct? It offers far fewer opportunities for distinction than Android.
  - jackvalentine 16y ago
    Because there is such a limited range of Winpho7 handsets (and as a matter of personal opinion, I feel they're all token efforts) Nokia can step in and become "the" Windows phone handset. Microsoft needed a hardware partner that was all in with them, not diddling android on the side. If you put out android phones, you're just another fish in a sea of commodity handsets, no matter how you differentiate your product.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > Going with Android would make Nokia just another Sony/Samsung/HTC IIRC, Samsung, HTC and Dell are offering WP7 phones.
  - redthrowaway 16y ago
    But they're doing it as an afterthought. They're committed to Android, and are supporting wp7 to cover their bases. Nokia's going all in, which would position them at the top of the WP7 hierarchy. If wp7 is a hit, Nokia rides the wave back to relevance, If not, well, they tried.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      > would position them at the top of the WP7 hierarchy This is a mistake many Microsoft partners make. Nobody but Microsoft is at the top of the WP7 hierarchy. If WP7 is a success, Nokia's efforts will be rewarded by lots of competition with more money (because they are already riding the other hit, Android), not relevance.

pavlov 16y ago

A success by what metric? As a platform, surely not. The wheels came off by the end of 2008 when S60 5th Edition went touch-only, leaving keyboard devices still shipping with the hopelessly outdated 3rd Edition. Symbian touch devices never gained any platform traction. Was it a success as a software foundation upon which handset makers could innovate, as had been the original idea behind Symbian? No. Everyone that used Symbian abandoned it for more flexible alternatives. The lack of a unified UI development track didn't lead to the hoped innovation, but merely fragmentation that ultimately doomed Symbian. (It didn't help that the most popular UI layer, Nokia's S60, was so poorly designed and thoroughly mismanaged.) I actually use a Symbian^3 device, the Nokia N8. It's not bad at all. I love the physical design, and the software works fine for what I do (although the browser is a turd, it's replaceable by the fine Opera). Still, I can't escape the feeling that this is the OS that Nokia should have had over two years ago. Also, it's a development dead end. Symbian^4 was supposed to be a UI rewrite, but it failed. The promised improvements to S^3 have been slow in coming. (Still no Qt 4.7...!) How is Symbian a success at this point? What reason would Elop -- or anyone else -- have to believe that the existing software development structure at Nokia could substantially improve this situation?

asynchronous13 16y ago
<em>A success by what metric?</em> how about global market share? 2008: 52.4% of smartphones (RIM 17%, Apple 10%) [1] 2009: 47.2% of smartphones (RIM 21%, Apple 15%) [1] Android came in at 0.5% and 5% for those two years. Gartner forecasts that Symbian will remain in the number one smartphone OS position until 2014 when it is contested by Android [2] Sure, it's in decline now, but it's been a phenomenal success. [1] http://www.canalys.com/pr/2010/r2010021.html http://www.canalys.com/pr/2010/r2010021.html [2] http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1434613 http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1434613
- kkowalczyk 16y ago
  Comparing market share of Symbian devices to iPhone or Android is like comparing market share of bicycles to market share of cars. Symbian OS has several version. The version that ships in volume powers devices like Nokia C1-01 http://store.nokia.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/productdetail_10500_10101_-1_10000740 http://store.nokia.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/productdeta... or worse. It's not the same product as iPhone or Android or even the old Palm OS shipped on Treo. The share of Symbian OS devices shipping a version comparable to iPhone or Android is a blip on the radar. A drop in the ocean. And a peasant among Kings.