Management/marketing claim that a technical limitation is for the customer's own good? Reminds me of Apple before iOS4 ("multitasking just reduces battery life")
Elop went on to claim that the company’s flagship Lumia 900 has never been defeated by the iPhone or an Android smartphone, despite the dual-core and quad-core processors found in those devices.
Management/marketing claim that a technical limitation is for the customer's own good? Reminds me of Apple before iOS4 ("multitasking just reduces battery life")
What's hilarious about this statement is it's been proven the new dual core processors are actually more energy efficient than the older single core counter parts.
Nokia to me lost it when they decided to make Windows phone only. Windows was behind Apple and Android not to mention you are struggling as well, so why would you limit yourself as a company?
Back in the day (before Android) I always considered Symbian to be a smart phone OS. It's predecessor EPOC was one of the original PDA OSs. Symbian is not looking quite so smart now though.
Nokia used to have one of the biggest share in mobile phones market as far as developing countries are concerned. In south east asia, everyone had a nokia cellphone. Thats good as nokia made technology available to the poor in cheap prices.
But those phones were actually very basic and cheap.
In terms of smartphones, i'll not even consider nokia's symbian. But that's just me. Nowadays, more and more people in south asia are buying android smartphones because of knowledge from internet and pals, power, freedom, and affordability..
I hope god gives an android in every human hand. It should become standard.
Back in the day (before Android) I always considered Symbian to be a smart phone OS. It's predecessor EPOC was one of the original PDA OSs. Symbian is not looking quite so smart now though.
I was on PalmOS, though a PDA rather than a phone since I never liked the candybar+thumboard style. But Hawkins was convinced that was the one true form-factor for the smartphone, so they never tried anything else until way too late.
If you want a prime example of how to throw away an early-mover advantage by a combination of inflexible thinking and spectacularly bad business decision making, the history of Palm is a great place to start!
Going back to Nokia, I can sympathize with their choice to go with MS. There were some similarities with Palm: Symbian had run its course, and their new platform (Maemo) was probably too late into a crowded market. Becoming just another android licensee, very late in the day, isn't an obviously winning strategy, especially when you used to be the market leader. So strike a deal with MS, take some financial support, become the dominant player in that pond and hope the pond can grow big enough to survive (and MS have deep pockets and are generally happy to play a long game). I don't know whether it's what I'd have done, but I do see a logic behind it.
But that doesn't mean I'd talk bovine excreta like Elop was doing here
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.