3 ms·

> No wonder it couldn't keep up with android and ios. I remember my first few years of Android/iOS, There would occasion where the 'old Nokia(Symbian) could do

> No wonder it couldn't keep up with android and ios. I remember my first few years of Android/iOS, There would occasion where the 'old Nokia(Symbian) could do it better'; On Android it was largely limited to battery management(similar screen size), Multitasking and on iOS it was everything from SMS forwarding to bluetooth sharing.

atleta 4y ago
Symbian did everything better than iOS and most things better than android. At least it could do a lot more than any of these. Symbian had 'push' email (i.e. email that would just arrive, like it does now), whereas at least with iOS you had to check for it, it had MMS (I think neither iOS or Android had it), backrgound apps, tethering, data connection over Bluetooth and in general, BT could be accessed from 3rd party apps for whatever purposes you wanted (this took quite a while for iOS), etc. Except for two critically important features: user experience and developer experience. (Actually, the first version iOS/iphones didn't even allow 3rd party apps.) It was a classic case of market disruption: a product (well, two products) inferior to the dominant, incumbent product in almost every respect gets a few things right while missing the mark on just about everything else. And the funny thing is that we'd bean hearing the term "disruption" for years from managers when they talked about strategy. In just about every meeting. They kept quoting Christensen, saying "we have to be disruptive" and even that didn't prevent the company from being disrupted big time. Now don't ask me how we would have been supposed to "disrupt" as the largest incumbents, the market leaders, but it was obvious that the management was not willing to take the required chances. (Hence they stuck with Symbian, despite what should have been obvious to anyone with a decent knowledge of software development.)

atleta 4y ago

Symbian did everything better than iOS and most things better than android. At least it could do a lot more than any of these. Symbian had 'push' email (i.e. email that would just arrive, like it does now), whereas at least with iOS you had to check for it, it had MMS (I think neither iOS or Android had it), backrgound apps, tethering, data connection over Bluetooth and in general, BT could be accessed from 3rd party apps for whatever purposes you wanted (this took quite a while for iOS), etc. Except for two critically important features: user experience and developer experience. (Actually, the first version iOS/iphones didn't even allow 3rd party apps.) It was a classic case of market disruption: a product (well, two products) inferior to the dominant, incumbent product in almost every respect gets a few things right while missing the mark on just about everything else. And the funny thing is that we'd bean hearing the term "disruption" for years from managers when they talked about strategy. In just about every meeting. They kept quoting Christensen, saying "we have to be disruptive" and even that didn't prevent the company from being disrupted big time. Now don't ask me how we would have been supposed to "disrupt" as the largest incumbents, the market leaders, but it was obvious that the management was not willing to take the required chances. (Hence they stuck with Symbian, despite what should have been obvious to anyone with a decent knowledge of software development.)