Elop explains: why Nokia didn't choose Android to replace Symbian
guardian.co.uk
guardian.co.uk
They have a nice camera on the latest phone though - pity it's not Android or it might even be worth trying out. I'm sure if it takes better pictures though, by next year some Android phone will be offering something similar. Open platform and all that.
I think that's actually pretty smart on nokia's part.
However, that strategy seems to have changed, with Drive being licensed to all Windows Phone devices, regardless of manufacturer. So they do lose a major differentiating feature, but they gain something else: the ability to make money on any WP device sold. I guess they prefer to differentiate on hardware going forward.
So long as Samsung and HTC Windows Phones offer the same experience as Nokia, they've caught up already. In fact, they'd "caught up" before Nokia even shipped! So, who's playing catch-up here anyway?
- custom apps ( even if it's not on the phones by default) - marketing. once you've got your phones so much associated with and OS, it takes some time to convince your existing users that they'll need to change
They were right to predict Samsung would be the major Android player.
Instead of competing against a company that already had a major lead and essentially becoming one of the smaller fish in a larger Android pond, it's taking a bet on becoming a large fish in a smaller pond that has very real upside potential. I stress potential because we've all been a little disappointed with Microsoft's latest maneuvers, but there's still a chance for the company to turn it around.
At the end of the day I respect such a great risk being taken at a massive firm (you don't see a lot of that these days). Nokia still believe a third ecosystem can be a very real option for smartphone consumers and they want to be that third option. Takes guts. I'm all for a little more competition.
That leaves the hardware arena, where, by my reading between the lines, Nokia felt it would not be able to compete effectively enough given Samsung's "vertical integration", not to mention, their "resources" (read: marketing budget).
1) Branding
2) Hardware reliability
3) Customer service
4) Ownership events
5) Carrier logistics and partnerships
EDIT: 6) Industry 'firsts', such as SMS and MMS that were pioneered by Nokia. These days it's Samsung, Google and Apple coming up with new features while others struggle to catch up.
The 'OS customization' is just the potatoes of the business. Most people are just as happy - or happier - without any customization or differentiation on the software level. Windows Phone isn't exclusive to Nokia either, so the sheer stupidity of Nokia's strategy should be plainly obvious.
Or maybe... Could it be that Android has commoditized the handset business, just as Windows did the PC hardware business, so maybe all those things don't help as much any more?
In response to your edit: It's not really Samsung bringing new things to the table, it's Google and maybe to some extent Apple. The big innovations aren't in the hardware or even the software, it's in the services, such as Siri and Now. Sure every Android vendor and their grandmother have their own cloud services, but the ones everybody wants are Google's. Unfortunately, since it's not limited to a specific Android manufacturer, it wouldn't help Nokia either.
Is there any evidence of that? From what I could Google, Windows Phone market share is still under 5% and only recently surpassed Blackberry: http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24108913
I think that's a good demonstration that number of people determined to buy Windows Phone in the market is, in fact, entirely trivial.
Nokia could have, and probably should have run Windows Phone, Android, and Meego on their smartphone hardware. And the likely result would have been that WP would not sell well compared to the other choices.
EDIT: The parent post here sounded just a little too pat. But I didn't check until after I had posted a response. Yup. It's this first post even for this user. Hello Nokia PR!
According to their own site, Chevron is just a third-party implementation of the Android's "Unknown Sources" (i.e. sideloading) checkbox: http://chevronwp7.tumblr.com/post/1679668269/windows-phone-7...
Good for Microsoft for supporting for a while (and boo for changing their minds), but either way this doesn't get Windows Phone any brownie points vs Android.
For most people, Windows Phone is a MUCH better experience than Android.
The problem is that no one gives Windows Phone a chance. I don't know many people that used Windows Phone and switched back to Android/iPhone. Beside the app factor (which is much less of an issue than what people think), Windows Phone is an excellent mobile OS.
It's easy to say in a place like HN that there is a "social stigma" around using Windows, but for the average consumer this is clearly not the case. For a lot of typical desktop users, Windows is the computer ("reboot your Windows", "start up Windows", etc). Microsoft simply couldn't find a way to leverage that in the mobile space.
Most people do not even have a clue about which operating system their phone has. And they do not care. Just like they do not do with PC either.
If Windows Phone doesn't interest anyone. It is because they were unable to fit a niche. It is because their phone is a disaster. The operating system is irrelevant for most of phone users.
You just proved his point that no one talks about Microsoft because of the social stigma attached to it. You just proved that if you say something nice about Microsoft, your peers will make you an outcast.
1) In mainstream use, Microsoft and Windows are 'Big Business'. Nobody wants that anywhere near the photos of their kids.
2) For geeks, Microsoft is the devil because they've managed to annoy most long time geeks in some form or another.
Indeed, it really is the problem. But it's the problem Microsoft is going to have to fix - and believe me, their 'spam the forums' and 'give free things' approach is not going to cut it. They need to drop the Windows and Microsoft branding for consumer devices in the same way Lexus is not Toyota. They need to make sure that the business and consumer products look as different as possible also.
I realize Microsoft is doing the exact opposite of what I've said above - and that's the real problem. What you're complaining about is just the mis-branding and mis-management of Microsoft bleeding through into the general populace.
But I would ask that the platform be in some way open. Windows has always been open in that it will run on a variety of commodity hardware and there are no restrictions on who can develop for the platform and in how they can distribute their software. MacOS (and iOS) has always been restricted to Apple hardware. So Apple has always been more closed and walled garden-y than Microsoft with the exception that they use a load of open-source software in their OS stack once you look under the hood.
Microsoft (seeing as how they won't go the open-source model cuz it aint in their blood) could try and make the Windows Phone OS installable on a whole bunch of phones, it could allow for easy side-loading of apps and have a very low $ (perhaps even zero?) entry into their app store. That way Microsoft might eventually replicate the dominance they have on the desktop. But even then a lot of geeks are going to be wary.
Android really seems unstoppable. Nokia should never have gone exclusively with Windows Phone OS - it seems really strange back then and it seems practically suicidal now.
For example: My sister wanted a laptop, I recommended a Macbook even though I'd never used one; she bought one and loved it and now I do have one too. My Mum has a Samsung S3 Mini, I have a HTC One X, all the rest have iPhones. Microsoft would have to radically alter their DNA before I'd take a look at any of their software or hardware offerings.
The difference is, I bought my Apple devices for dirt cheap from my previous employer, whereas she'd be buying one retail. Spending 2x the money for the same hardware capability and an OS that's equivalent does not make economic sense to me.
Have you ever used a Windows Phone device? Probably not. Windows Phone is the most consistent mobile OS out there, and the simplest to use. I would never recommend an Android device to my parents (or any non-geek). iPhone is okay, but I'm not a fan of the skeuomorphism. Windows Phone is simple, elegant, affordable and extremely usable. It's NOTHING like Windows on PC.
I recommend Macbook Airs and Windows Phones to most people. I only recommend iPhones to "cool kids" and "early users" (those who want access to the cool new apps and games).
In the meantime, everyone I know working in enterprise transitioned to Android and iPhone (except some on BlackBerry) - this happened as soon as those platforms had working Exchange sync, encrypted storage and remote management. To get any significant market share Microsoft now has to pay their way to it with extreme subsidies and massive marketing, or wait for Apple and Google to stumble, something they have yet to do.
I wish. I own an N900: it's twice as big (and twice as heavy) as the original iPhone, with a very unsexy industrial design, and the OS is a hodgepodge of toolkits and hacks, deprecated the minute it came out. It was incredibly hackable and customizable, but nowhere as robust and coherent as an iPhone.
I loved the concept and would have loved to see it become a platform for commercial Python/PySide mobile apps, but it was nowhere near the iPhone when it came out. Its successor, the N9, was on par with the iPhone, but never got a chance, commercially, thanks to one Stephen Elop.
Choose? Why did Elop have to "choose" Windows? Did Samsung have to choose between Android or Windows? Did HTC have to choose between Android or Windows?
They did not. Samsung sells both Windows and Android smartphones. The Android phones have sold spectacularly, the Windows phones have not. HTC sells both Android and Windows phones. HTC's Windows phones do not sell. HTC's Android phones sell well enough to keep them in the game - their profits are not spectacular, but they're doing better than RIM and other companies. I'm happy with my HTC One.
I go into a Sprint or AT&T or T-mobile or Verizon mobile store, and up front I see the featured phones - an iPhone, a Samsung S4, and an HTC one. Way in the back is a Blackberry kiosk. Next to it is a Windows kiosk with the HTC Windows phone, the Samsung Windows phone, and - depending on the carrier - the Nokia Windows phone. This is what Nokia is crowing about?
Maybe this type of talk might fool non-technical stock buyers who do not know any better. All of us know that Nokia could have made both Android and Windows phones, just as Samsung and HTC (and other companies) do. So we realize that his invention of the idea that they were forced to choose one or the other is nonsense. It's too late for Nokia to come in and be a big player in the Android market now, but it was not when way back when he sent his "burning platform" memo out.
Of course, some with perhaps more knowledge than me might say that Nokia was in bad financial shape and needed Microsoft to bail them out financially or they'd go under, and they were forced to go Windows only in that sense. That may also be true, but again, it has no relation to the bogus reasons he says he had to make a "choice" in the article. He seems to be in the only company that had to make a choice.
Samsung can afford to make that investment, of course, as well as experiment with alternatives like Bada. They have a huge amount of resources at their disposal. Nokia saw the coming adversity and realized they had to choose.
There were many reasons affecting that choice, of course... such as Google's insistence that the Android trademark only comes with the full host of Google apps, including their navigation app, which directly undercuts Nokia's Navteq investment. Or Microsoft's willingness to pump billions into joint marketing efforts. Even HTC realizes that heavy marketing is needed to compete with Samsung.
You say Nokia could be "down there with HTC (despite the One)" and that "HTC realizes that heavy marketing is needed". HTC is worth $163 billion. Nokia is worth $15 billion. For the first seven months Elop was CEO (late 2010, early 2011), Nokia was worth more than HTC. It would be a shareholder's dream for Nokia to be "down their with HTC" right now. People were making the same arguments back then (including Elop). If the market is the ultimate arbiter, Nokia, which as worth more than HTC when Elop wrote his burning platform memo, is now worth less than 10% of HTC. Investors who are putting their money where their confidence of future prospects are don't have much confidence in the decision for Windows. Nokia felt it had to make a choice and focus, and went from being worth more than HTC to worth $15 billion. HTC put out two products and is worth $163 billion.
HTC might be struggling to compete with Samsung and Apple, but it's still in the ball game, Nokia has been left far, far behind. Even if Windows market percentage does start picking up - Samsung and HTC put out Windows phones as well. Nokia has to compete in the big smartphone picture, and they have to compete even in the Windows smartphone picture. As I said, I go to the Windows smartphone kiosk in the back of the store and Samsung and HTC have phones alongside the Nokia. Wasn't one of the comments about Windows phones how they're all more or less the same with tiles and such, while Android phones could have their homescreens changed so much? So you have a Samsung, Nokia and HTC Windows smartphone which in software is less distinguishable from one another than a Samsung and HTC Android phone. It's more of a commodity. Plus IDC says for 2013 Q1 sales, Android has 75% of the worldwide market, iPhone 17.3%, Blackberry 2.9% and Windows 3.2%. So Nokia competes with Samsung and HTC for that 3.2% of the market, instead of competing with Samsung and HTC in that 75% of the market.
Google Maps does undercut Navteq, but that's going to happen no matter what Nokia does. If Apple can't move off Google Maps without a disaster, then it's nothing that a company like Nokia can affect by its choice of platform.
You're right of course about Microsoft's willingness to pump billions into joint marketing efforts with Nokia. It still doesn't seem to have helped though. For 2013 Q1 sales, Nokia is fighting for a piece of Windows's 3.2% of the marketplace against Samsung, HTC etc. Android's market share is 75%, with all the benefits behind a market of that size. Many developers are focused on Android. It's openness has helped it in many ways. Manufacturers get Android for free, while they have to pay Microsoft for its unpopular OS.
I think Elop made a mistake back in late 2010, early 2011. The market seems to agree with me. Nokia had a decent brand name in many parts of the world, they were known to have good cameras and such. They could have had a chunk of Android's 75% market share. Instead they fight for a piece of Windows's 3.2% market share with Samsung, HTC etc.
I think this, along with failing to see the threat from iPhone/Android will go down in history as one of the biggest business mistakes.
I think the only company currently developing Maemo/Meego succesor is Jolla with their Sailfish OS. Although they've also missed deadlines they've given themselves, so their product is starting slip more and more into to the vaporware category.
Now, why wasn't it? It was a solid OS, and there were two great products running it (N900 and N9).
Harmattan and Meego did not have a managed language runtime like Android, but it sure looks as if Nokia would have sold more phones had they used anything but Windows Phone as an OS.
I guess I would have been kinda impressed if they actually gave this as the reason two years ago.
First, they did not needed to replace Symbian in first place, for example here in Brazil 60% of the mobile market was Symbian, until Nokia decided to kill it (in two years almost all Symbians are gone).
Think about it, Nokia was selling in Brazil alone more than 100 million phones.
People were perfectly happy with Symbian, people here LIKED Symbian, we had huge internet forums for Symbian fans, we had Symbian software developers, and so on... Nokia announcement that they would not use Symbian anymore killed all that overnight.
And then, they choose Windows, and went for the high-end... They basically dumped their old market, and tried to pursue what then was Apple and Blackberry markets, they basically threw out all their loyal costumers.
I for one got really disappointed, I loved Nokias, I had a couple of Nokia phones, a developer account, I made even J2ME stuff for non-Symbian Nokia, and all of that, started because OTHER PEOPLE made me like it, because Nokia was wildly popular (mostly because of its crazy resilience and quality engineering, something more prized in a developing country than flashy features). And they threw it all out in one shot.
Most people I know still feel that noone has risen to substitute Nokia, some people think Nokia is 100% dead (along with Blackberry), but are unhappy with Samsung... I personally saw so far a single android phone that impressed me (that is the Xperia Play, that I own), and was quite disappointed with Sony abandoning it too. I am yet to see a phone that make me want to buy it to substitute my old Xperia Play
But yeah, they had a Qt-based transition roadmap that could have saved their ecosystem, and Elop threw all that out of the window. The rational move would have been to make Qt run on WP and salvage at least some of their developer partners.
http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2013/07/03/qt-5-1-released/
If they had embraced Qt as a cross-platform layer back then, they could have been "a better Xamarin than Xamarin". That would have been a great way to get developers and users into their ecosystem. Qt apps could "run everywhere", but they'd run best on Nokia phones (where it would be built-in and integrated). Instead...
The Nokia engineers on the N8 did an incredible job getting it to where it was - semi usable - but it simply couldn't compete with Linux/Android/iOS.