3 ms·

> And prior to the app store, app writers dealt with carriers who wanted 70% of revenue, not 30% Disagree there. Maybe to preload apps. But in all my Symbian d

> And prior to the app store, app writers dealt with carriers who wanted 70% of revenue, not 30% Disagree there. Maybe to preload apps. But in all my Symbian dealings in Nokia-land, almost every app purchased was direct from producer, and pushed to the device by a sync cable, with zero revenue going to the carrier.

hinkley 3y ago
Nokia is not a carrier. They were on the right track but they evaporated after the iPhone (and maybe the Razr before it). At the time I left the industry the carriers had gotten so bold, they were trying to go around Motorola, Nokia, Ericsson and friends and get white label phones straight from the people who manufactured these phones, like HTC (before anyone had heard of them). Then they would have made no concessions to the likes of Nokia to allow what to them would be considered side loading. If the RAZR hadn’t been ridiculously successful, if the iPhone hadn’t kicked them while they were down, we’d be watching antitrust hearings to break up cellphone carriers right now.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  > Nokia is not a carrier. No, they're not. But AT&T didn't interfere with getting apps on a Nokia phone, be it Symbian or even the Java predecessors. They didn't insert themselves in the middle and demand 70% revenue like your claim. I owned probably nearly a dozen separate Nokia phones (and maybe half a dozen Sony Ericsson) over the years on different carriers. Hell, I started with a 2110 (now I'm feeling sentimental, so looking over a list: 2110, 6110, 8110, 8210, 3310, 6310, 7650, 9300 Communicator, 3250, N93, N95 before finally calling it quits... Damn.)