Beyond Nokia: A love story
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
https://www.amazon.com/Mobile-Python-prototyping-application...
Python for Symbian (S60) was amazing - arguably the best way to develop smartphone apps at the time. It made you orders of magnitude more productive than native, convoluted version of C++. It came with bindings to camera, accelerometer etc. The underlying vision was to enable large masses of people to develop mobile apps quickly and thus unlock Nokia's capable hardware that was buried under a clunky OS.
A Python-based user-driven app ecosystem might not have killed iPhone but it might have filled some of the vacuum that gave rise to Android. Nokia was way ahead of its time with many ideas.
But I think it was kinda hard to get installation instructions clear enough for our partners to install the Python app. Not that I really remember anymore what the installation steps were...
Symbian architecture was quite interesting but the tooling was horrendous, first the Codewarrior IDE, then the two iterations of Eclipse based tooling, all having a pile of Perl and Bash scripts underneath.
This one reason why external developers went to more pleasant pastures, where programming didn't meant a daily fight with the tools.
What a shame things worked out the way they did.
I wish they hadn't hired Elop and done the bizarre bet-it-all to Windows thing.
I'm not sure why anyone signed up to make Android phones. I can only assume it was panic about how far ahead the iPhone was when it was introduced. Microsoft and Intel made all the profits in the PC industry, the manufacturers fought over table scraps. The survivors like Dell quickly moved into enterprise services where they could make actual money.
The cell phone suckers signed up for the same thing in mobile: Let Google and the carriers make all the money while they duke it out gladiator-style to eek out a meager profit. In that situation you're left without the R&D budget to compete with the likes of Apple (who takes most of the profit in cell phones) or Samsung (who has a massive conglomerate including chip fabs, a battery business, and a display business!).
So the tl;dr is that Nokia making Android phones would have been, at best, a shadow of its former self. It was institutionally incapable of making that transition because it wanted to protect its former business. They also believed their carrier relationships would save them (aka the Carrier is the real customer for phones, not the end-user... end-users will take what the carrier offers and like it.) Nokia was also incapable of creating their own platform. The number of surviving companies who have successful done that can be counted with your fingers and all of them are based on the US west coast. It takes a software-is-king culture that neither Nokia nor Blackberry ever had. The only way Blackberry or Nokia survive is to immediately pivot the day the iPhone is announced, open huge software engineering offices in the Bay Area, and start developing their own platforms ASAP. Act as if you're going out of business immediately.
There is also a cautionary tale for startups: By the time you realize your competitor is going to eat your lunch it may be too late to do anything about it. You can't wait until you are losing 20% of your customers to react because it will take you 3-12 months to turn the ship and catch up, then at least as long again to mature features, inform customers, and hit purchasing windows. That can be up to two years you've been focused on catching up while your competitor was free to keep innovating. By the time you get it all sorted out you'll be losing 80-90% of your customers, only now the market is bigger and network effects are even stronger so you'll have to work twice as hard to get back to where you were.
Blasted thing was a featurephone with a fancy screen.
If it had been anyone but Apple that tried to pitch it, the press had been laughing loudly.
Nah, thing about Android was that it was a free smartphone OS while Windows PocketPC/Mobile had a pr device license.
And Google also offered the OEMs the ability to modify the look and feel of Android way beyond what Microsoft had allowed (the flip clock that HTC uses to this day on their devices started out as part of their custom launcher on WinMob).
Which is why they never caught on. All the competitors had to do was put equally fancy screens on their phones as well and the iPhone was toast. Or something.
Whenever I see someone complain about the new directions, the focus on Windows phones I think of Maemo as the worthy alternative, not Android.
Now, even as a Maemo fan (still wearing the t-shirts to prove it) I still understand that a completely different system might've been .. difficult and/or scary. But for me that system was a differentiating factor, something other than 'another Android'.
The problem was that Nokia forgot what their strengths were. Their big problem was the software side, but in pretty much everything else they were way above the competition at the time: industrial design, logistics, marketing, sales channels, etc.
So it was in their best interest to adopt an open platform, because it would have let them focus in what they did best. But it was a mistake to try to do it all by themselves so late in the game.
Nokia had actually been working on a touch-based mobile Linux system for several years (the N770 came out in 2007). If they had bet on that line of work earlier on, things might have been very different.
Yes, there were closed components again, but as far as I was involved Nokia actually interacted with the community (I was at multiple events, meeting the Nokia guys of that time). If that happens around Android then I'm completely unaware of that.
I agree that Nokia was mostly a hardware shop. But I believe that they might've pulled off with Maemo (or MeeGo) what they did with Symbian.
(I also owned the N800 or N810? Can't quite remember)
This is a thing I see many people bickering about, but I think they are misguided. Elop tried what he could, and in fact the sale of handset business to Microsoft - which he negotiated - was a very good deal for Nokia, the company (and its shareholders). The price was good. Nokia, the company, is still very much alive and kicking.
The platform for handset business was indeed burning when Elop made the famous speech. His mistake was to signal so strongly to the public the ramp-down of Symbian, which accelerated its demise and loss of sales. But what was laying in the future was clear for anyone to see. The writing was on the wall.
I felt the things were going wrong in about 2005, when Nokia was the market leader, and complacency crept in. Managers and executives forgot about the outside world, and in their comfortable market-leader position the logistics side (always strong in Nokia) was allowed to run things. New phones had under-powered processors, for instance - just to save a few cents a piece, which is huge money when you make millions of devices, but in the end it meant that the user experience suffered and new UX innovations were dumped.
Too much trust in the "we're the gorilla now" position.
It looks a little bit like Apple is now in the same situation. Their cash flow seems unstoppable, but what new are have they recently brought in?
EDIT: FWIW, I was in the infra side (which is still there, although I was made redundant), not in the handset business. I had a lot of friends and former colleagues in the handset side. So I had some visibility and insight to what happened, but no personal axe to grind.
- Nokia 1100 was my first mobile phone (the days when you would need to charge a mobile phone once a week!)
- The Nokia Lumia 620 was the first smartphone I immediately fell in love with, both for the OS and the industrial design (it felt so good to hold in my hands!)
The leadership knew Symbian was getting frazzled around the edges, and was Maemo was their experiment with an alternative (the first Maemo interface was effectively their S90 interface ported to GTK), but they didn't want to sink Symbian before they knew they could transition their revenue over.
Sadly the board grew impatient and brought in Elop.
Between that and how HP pretty much installed a revolving door on the CEO office, i wonder if boardroom meddling is a massive curse on tech companies. This because a board will focus on quarterly increases in profits, even if the company is solvent and likely to remain so for a decade or more. Consider Dell taking his namesake company private again so that he could enact long term goals without the board constantly interfering.
With a mandate to sell the company, which many seem to be unaware of.
http://neo900.org/news/2016-week-47
This link was apparently posted to HN two days ago when it was published but with the boring title "Neo900 2016 Week 47". I think there is probably someone on HN interested in looking over it, so I posted it to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13002613 with a better title hoping someone who should see it sees it, though the time of day might be bad and even though I tried to use a better title it might still be too vague to attract any attention. I looked over the schematics myself but I don't have any input for the Neo900 guys, being just a second year EE student (also, though I'm interested in electronics and microelectronics I'm still going to go the path of the power subdisipline as has been my plan since before I started).
Why has it taken so long, and additionally cost so much to produce a single board? I feel like a project like this needs to just partner with a Chinese business like Xunlong and specify what they want & with what chipset, like how the OrangePi Plus 2E was built.
Board design is all in house, they're the original designer of quite a few non-Raspi SBCs on the market today, that being said they have just a handful of employees.
The soft spot in my heart for "simple genius" remains WebOS. Palm WebOS prefigured pretty much the last 5 years of "innovations" in both android and ios.
In a way, WebOS was reminiscent of Smalltalk or Lisp Machines, it was the future of software hampered by hardware.
This was a repeating theme in Nokia - get a good technology and fumble it. They did something similar with a cloud enabled RFID based application my company at the time was planning to use. They EOL'd it suddenly just as we'd had all the training and were doing initial R&D to bring it up in our product.
As you say, of course, the fact that I was working on rewriting the original Gtk version of the app was a pretty big warning sign.
Back in those days this phone even came as an accessory with certain cars, such as Mercedes-Benz.
However, placing it next to my iPhone made me appreciate our progress and the possibilities we've opened up by adopting the new smartphones and the whole app ecosystem.
However they have recently released just a few units of a new phone called the Jolla C. So they're not totally out of the hardware arena.
It'll be interesting to see how they go and if they manage to hang on. I had a Nokia N9 and then a Jolla (which is still my phone now), and I do really like the interface. Although the slightly curved screen on the N9 worked beautifully with the swipe-based Meego interface and the flat screen on the Jolla isn't quite the same.
http://www.ebay.in/itm/Intex-Aqua-Fish-4G-LTE-with-Qualcomm-...
The first time I used internet was in Nokia 3100 (which I love the most).
And what helped me learn programming was Nokia N70 (which I still own). I still remember the (g)olden days of pys60. :)
The 635 in particular I liked so much better than my current Galaxy J3 2016, I honestly consider switching back and the only thing holding me back is the hassle of transferring your data between Android/Windows Mobile.
- Contacts are straightforward, just export/import on their web platforms.
- Calendar is tricker; I ended up linking my old one to not miss existing events and just create new events in the new calendar.
Everything else, like photos, mails and 3rd-party apps have not been an issue for me because they connect to the same clouds/services as before.
Btw, since you can do most migrations from a browser, you may just try it without buying a phone first.