Reply With QuoteNever said they should've stuck with Symbian - clearly they should've gone with Android. This maybe could've been their story if they hadn't chosen WinJunk - http://www.urtech.ca/2012/05/samsung...sales-numbers/Originally Posted by fraydog
|
|
|
|
|
I have a blue tooth
Microsoft had to make the changes to Windows NT to make it more efficient first before that would have been feasible. When WP7 launched, there was no chance that the NT kernel would have been lean enough to run on the then available hardware.
Given the technological constraints they were working with, they couldn't have done it much better.
The word 'Pentaband' means '5 Bands', from the Greek word 'pente' meaning '5'. For a phone to be pentaband it has to support 5 bands. If the phone has AWS support, it doesn't automatically mean that it is pentaband. The reason Wind and Mobilicity users like pentaband phones is because the reverse is true. We're not the only ones who like pentaband phones though, so please stop referring to phones that work on Wind and Mobilicity as pentaband. It causes unnecessary cofusion.
Phone Expert
Never said they should've stuck with Symbian - clearly they should've gone with Android. This maybe could've been their story if they hadn't chosen WinJunk - http://www.urtech.ca/2012/05/samsung...sales-numbers/
I've got more phones than fingers
OK. I just wanted to make sure you weren't one of the delusional Symbian crowd. I tend to agree with that analysis. Nokia would have been able to negotiate a better soft handoff between Symbian and Android.
Fiber backhaul for Verizon in Southern Illinois in 2013 - about time.
I have a blue tooth
No, Nokia couldn't even keep up with Samsung when it came to Symbian, let alone Fujitsu and Sharp in Japan (there's a reason they left the Japanese market a long time ago). They certainly couldn't keep up with Samsung in Android, and when it comes to Android, it's the latest and greatest specs that win, not refinements - Nokia's specialty. Since Windows Phone kept the specs all pretty constant, the only differentiating features are the refinements that Nokia is good at bringing in. Nokia would have been lost in a sea of Androids, with Samsung continuing to beat them and no chance to get any sort of lead on them.
Cryptonomicon
Microsoft offered them a ton of cash ($1 Billion in 'strategic partnership' benefits/payments) and pitched them the idea that Nokia could differentiate themselves better with WP than with the more crowded Android operating system. That, I believe, is what made the difference.
I have a blue tooth
And, they gave Nokia an opportunity to leverage the investments they made in Maps. They already had to ditch Share on Ovi (their version of Skydrive), and Ovi Mail, so they'd lost a lot of investments they'd made in a complete ecosystem. Going with Android would have meant losing everything.
Phone Collector
Also the fact that stephen elop came over from Microsoft I'm sure helped a lot in the decision to choose WP.
I have a blue tooth
More likely it helped Microsoft offer Nokia more favorable terms.
My screen is bigger than yours
Is Nokia going to stop producing Windows Phones?
I have a blue tooth
No, not a chance.
Phone Expert
How's the advice from your dog doing? Hmmm - let's see how well the M$ deal has been working for Nokia.
.
These days whenever I think about dogs, Nokia and M$ come to mind...
My screen is bigger than yours
That graph shows me how grossly overpriced Nokia was a year ago. Nokia's problems probably started a decade ago. They were somehow on top of the smartphone world, and then failed to (A) make major inroads into North America and (B) transition to a next generation OS. Meego and its brethren may or may not have been decent OSes, but they were years behind its competitors (yes, even Microsoft and Palm's webOS) in terms of adoption, building the ecosystem, etc.
Elop's description of a burning oil platform was correct. An even better description would have be that they are in the swirling water in a toilet right before it goes down the drain.
The best solution would be to make a time machine and go back 10 years to fix whatever internal issues there were and build an iPhone/Android-class OS. So if anyone has a time machines, please come see me as I write this so I can stop before posting it.
......nope...... no time machine.
The next best thing would be to go with one of the other 5 (at the time) OSes. iPhone and Blackberry were closed to them. Nokia probably tried to buy Palm, but didn't. That left Microsoft and Android.
Which one is better? That's up for debate, everyone has their own opinion. But neither option will bring Nokia back to the old Nokia. Nokia is now a very different company than it was a year ago, and investors are unsure about what that means. Don't ask me what investors thought a year ago, because a year ago it was worse and the stock price should have reflected that.
Nokia was like a Brother typewriter. Brother makes (or can make) amazing typewriters, but no one in 2012 wants a typewriter.
The Nokia Pureview 808 is representative of the old Nokia - an amazing piece of hardware with an amazing feature, but no one is buying it. In the US you can buy it off-contract only, for $700, and I doubt many people are buying it. No major North American carrier is carrying it directly. For $700 you can buy a $200 iPhone (on contract) and a $500 high-end point-and-shoot.
My screen is bigger than yours
Awesome! I'm waiting for a keyboard slider Windows Phone.
Phone Expert
No argument with that! However, my guess is that Nokia is still overpriced and will be lucky to find a suitor before it goes under. More wishful thinking by Nokia http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavi...rtner=yahootix . M$, finally, has seen the writing on the wall for their 1980's business model and are making major changes. Nokia, Dell, Lenova, etc. will all be casualties as M$ changes their model to direct sell of integrated solutions. Monkey see, monkey do as M$ is just following in Apple's footsteps although messing it up as they go along (note tablet vaporware announcement ala 1990...).
My guess is that the big winner of these changes is Google. Operating systems are worth $0 today and google is well positioned to take advantage of that new reality. M$ will do OK selling integrated devices but will become a mini-me of Apple and probably quite irrelevant. The real battle for supremacy is between Google and Amazon - that's where it will be interesting. Google owns information access and Amazon owns e-commerce information - there's definitely a major conflict brewing here.
I have a blue tooth
Nokia didn't try to buy Palm, they were too arrogant at the time. If they had, they'd be far, far better off (and MS would have a much harder time making inroads, but of course they would keep trying).
Bookmarks