Boy, did Nokia elope after this with M$ft phone which was supposed to right Nokia's collective "ship". Elop joined the hallowed hall of fame of abysmal CEO's who ran their firms into the ground. Remember Lumia, Windows Phone 7,8 & 10 blehh.
I had a Windows 8 phone from Nokia around 2015 or so and other than the lack of apps it was a phone like pretty much any other at the time or even these days. By that I mean I don't remember anything really bad about it, especially because I mostly use the web anyway.
I have no idea why things succeed or fail and so I don't know for this either, but my guess is it was new, but didn't have anything that provoked an interest with mainstream users. And Microsoft does not have many faithful users.
I wonder if they threw in the towel too soon. I too had a Nokia Windows phone and I loved it. They were popular in South Africa as Nokia was a recognised brand. Bandwidth is still expensive here so most people just need WhatsApp and Facebook and they are fine. Perhaps the developed market needed more apps.
It didn't matter how good or bad it was, Windows was a toxic brand on mobile. A very large segment of potential customers was rejecting it off hand based on their desktop Windows experience. They may have been stuck with it on the desktop but on mobile even if they weren't sure what they wanted they definitely knew that it wasn't THAT.
I'm surprised how positive HN was about this. I don't remember reading any positive coverage at the time. I personally thought the guy was an idiot. He wound up performing worse than my expectations.
Looks like that discussion was before Windows Phone was announced as the replacement. E.g. " The idea of a Nokia device running Android is pretty appealing. They've always had good hardware, but Symbian has become a develpment dead-end, and Meego isn't yet here. "
Symbian definitely wasn't the way forward. MeeGo wasn't looking like it was gonna be an iOS or Android killer.
Elop was right about needing to change horses. Terribly wrong about which one to pick, in retrospect. One could argue that MS fucked that up as much as Nokia, though - this was before MS continually screwed up their WP strategy for several subsequent years, like with the WP8 hard reset. Even best case, though, it was a high-risk/high-reward gamble to try to be "the" WP7 phone instead of one of many Android contenders. Would've been interesting to see them take on Samsung instead of just HTC and zombie Motorola, though.
The way I remember it was that at the time the management-forced merge of Maemo and Moblin to Meego and the sudden switch from Gtk to Qt were thought to be risky moves and it was well known that Symbian supporters are doing anything they can to sabotage other platforms. Later I was told that N9 was incredibly polished but Meego wasn't that great behind the scenes and would have required massive rewrites if development had continued (which isn't that different from stories about early iOS).
The version of the story I was told that the Maemo/Moblin mashup was just as bad as the idea of combining two different frameworks that do essentially the same thing sounds like, nowhere near production ready, and the Harmattan aka MeeGo-branded Maemo with Qt was the only way it could be made to work at all. I haven't heard anyone say that genuine MeeGo would make things better.
That was the sentiment of my comment as well, I guess I weren't clear enough - Nokia N9 was made to work great on what technically was still Maemo, but since they were supposed to go with MeeGo afterwards it would still require a lot of work to actually do that.
Ok, I misunderstood. I thought it was clear at that point that Meego was a dead end, but Harmattan was missing things like app sandboxing and some app store and payment related features, the package management was a mess, etc.
Its funny that things like running videos while sliding window out of screen and live task switch all worked. But somehow package management was the problem. When I developed for iOS I was shocked how non of that existed.
Seems to me they had something really nice to go forward with.
Priorities tend to shift when your whole team has already been laid off, the product line cancelled and you still have the ability to make something flashy to put on your CV (again, I wasn't there myself). And probably there were a few demosceners in the team. But to be honest, the smoothness of the UI was really impressive, and even more when you know how underpowered the CPU was compared to Android phones at the time.
Maemo was debian-based and built around GTK. Its device target was effectively the N900. Nokia then rebuilt the interface (at fantastic dev speed, it has to be said) in QT (which had been blessed as the UI framework in order to facilitate onboarding of Symbian developers, who had been told to use Qt for new Symbian apps) and shipped it in the N9.
By then, however, management had struck an agreement with Intel to join forces over a Linux OS for devices. Intel had its own Linux distro, Moblin, which was based on RedHat. Moblin and Maemo were meant to merge into "MeeGo", a distro based on RedHat but with a QT interface. The project started fairly quickly but, by then, the N9 was basically ready, so Nokia effectively shipped what they had beforehand and just called it MeeGo.
Beyond the UI, iirc, the differences between Maemo and Moblin/MeeGo were the packaging system and some service daemons. The most annoying part, really, was that third-party apps built for Maemo would have had to be repackaged and retested for MeeGo, effectively throwing away all community efforts made over several years. Despite the best efforts by Nokia to placate folks, the community they had built around Maemo was completely pissed off and largely gave up, focusing on the actually-profitable systems. And then the burning platform memo happened.
This really reminds me of the Unix wars. Constantly companies announcing partnerships and then there developers spending time merging proprietary systems. And before they are ready another partnership bringing in some other thing that has to be merged. Not sure what exactly they gained with this Intel deal.
I guess they should have just continued with Maemo and attacked other software developers in general, rather then rewriting the whole stack just to attract Symbian developers.
A year after the N900 they should have been an N1000 by 2010. By the time late this memo happened the N1100 should have been ready to drop.
> MeeGo wasn't looking like it was gonna be an iOS or Android killer.
I had an n900 in 2009. I think they theoretically had a winner there.
But they never prioritized it above Symbian.
Then between the n900 and the n9, they totally rewrote the UI on a new toolkit, wasting resources and making it clear that if you write an app for it they may completely discard 95% of the app platform from release to release.
If they had iterated on Maemo 5 in that time and put all hands on deck behind it they could have used those ~3 years more productively and been more competitive. Maemo 5 was actually pretty close to what they needed.
Blackberry had a similar situation. Like meego, in bb10 they had a qt based platform in the early 2010s. But it was too late. The biggest blunder is not doing it sooner, before Android solidified.
I had a Nokia N9 as my daily driver for years (2011-2015 if I recall right) and still have it.
That phone was absolutely top tier at the time. It lacked some apps but overall it was an amazing phone. Everyone always wanted to know what it was I was using.
It really was a nice device. Great size, took excellent photos for the time, and that AMOLED screen with the always-on clock and black blacks. I'd probably have one today if it were LTE capable.
Qt/Sailfish worked well enough too but it definitely had its defects. My biggest complaint was they didn't ship complete source prepared for convenient reproduction of the firmware and out-of-box encouraged flashing of self-made builds. Then I would have been fixing the bugs I tripped over.
Nokia had a chance, but their developer experience was terrible. They should have invested in it. And also open source. They could have open sourced their platform and compete with Android.
What did they do instead? They made an extremely stupid bet on Microsoft, which by that time was even further behind in mobile world than Nokia itself.
Symbian was open sourced at one point and before that, available for others to make phones with, SonyEricsson had a couple, I think there were one or two others as well. The Nokia linux phones were open sourceish as well, in partnership with Intel.
If your platform is trash just opening it up doesn't matter.
And their linux based phones were pretty open but they had no power in the organization and having an open source platform with no phones is pointless.
People pick on nokia for making the wrong choice, but i dont think they were wrong. Apps are important and they are a bit of a winner takes all market (or at least half). Nokia was screwed and i think the memo correctly identifies that.
Unfortunately identifying the problem is only half the battle. Figuring out what to do next is the other half, and that is where nokia failed.
As everybody at the time was pointing out. If you are unwilling to make your own platform (Maemo/MeGoo) work, then just make Andoird phones. It wasn't really tha difficult and many people had been screaming about this since 2009.
But instead they just continued with the Symbian feature phones that nobody wanted.
I remember thinking at the time that is was a great metaphor, and then reading on HN that its straight from some business school text on how to motivate change.
A great metaphor, unless it’s used inappropriately, which is like 99% of the time. And Kotter is the excuse for a ton of change-by-imposition too. As someone interested in change, I kinda wish that the 1990’s hadn’t happened. There is a lot that’s good and exciting in the organisation development space, but that metaphor and Kotter’s model are not representative of it.
Switching to Microsoft seemed like the best decision at that time. Those criticizing are underestimating the software engineering effort required to build a modern OS and the app ecosystem.
But what about Symbian and Ovi? I've had a bunch of Symbian devices with the Ovi store. They were simply not in the same league; the apps were basic because the development tools were just not good enough; and targeted basic low-end experiences. Windows Phone was the most modern OS out there (including the dev tooling); and had the best shot at competing with the Androids. I also bought the N800 (which ran Maemo) from Nokia in 2007. It was ok - but it never looked like a phone platform.
Why was Windows a better choice than Android? You mentioned that Windows had “the best shot of competing with Android”, but why was that desirable? The adage, if you can’t beat them, join them comes to mind.
Maybe they concluded (rightly) that there are no margins in Android devices. Samsung is a rare exception, but by then the signs were clear that manufacturing (including the R&D around it) was shifting to East Asia.
Oddly, Windows Phone 8 had the best user experience of any phone I've ever used, by far.
I'd still be on it if it existed and wasn't laden with Windows 10 style telemetry. I don't care about having a wide selection of apps. I care about having a low-distraction, well organized UI that's optimized for specific tasks.
For instance, opening an entry in the address book produced a cross-social-network feed of everything they sent you recently (including call logs, email, SMS, twitter, etc...).
That was fantastic, but prepared to have your mind blown: Typing an address into the navigation app and hitting enter (or tapping on a destination) immediately started navigating.
8.1 was strictly a UI regression. I heard 8.5 was even worse.
Did you forget about Meego? They shipped the N9 with it. 12 years of iteration on that would have yielded an experience comparable to iOS or Android for sure.
I'm not saying this is a great letter, but he wasn't wrong. I owned both Symbian and Maemo devices, and the experience (both to use and develop) really was this bad. That's not to say everything about it was bad, or that there was nothing to like (as HN comments have often pointed out, there was), but it didn't hold a candle to iOS, or even Android. (And Android in those days was pretty hideous.)
Now what Nokia did in response... that may not have been right either. But they had to do something.
I think it’s simple enough to see why Nokia thought Windows would be the right choice. It was far more polished than Android at the time. It ran well on cheap hardware. And they would have Microsoft backing them.
As someone who owned a Windows phone around that time, and knew others who did as well, the shared opinion was that it was a pile of crap.
Nokia went for Windows because of the acquisition target, not because of quality of the OS. With that, they prioritized business strategy over product quality, and we all know what happened after.
> As someone who owned a Windows phone around that time, and knew others who did as well, the shared opinion was that it was a pile of crap.
and had no apps. Windows Phone/Mobile had atrocious developer share. There few apps that were available were of terrible quality. Ironic, considering this happened in the era of a sweaty Balmer screaming "Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!"[1]
My memory is completely different. I was an iPhone user, but I bought a Nokia Lumia 710 (I think) to play with and I was thoroughly impressed. It was fast, fresh, the tile interface really worked well for phones - it looked much better than the boring grid of apps and gave useful information at a glance.
But since Microsoft were 2-3 years late, there were not many apps. And then they shot themselves and all people who already bought a Windows Phone device in the foot, by completely forking the ecosystem with Windows Phone 8. Leaving early adopters stranded on Windows Phone 7 and no ability to run newer Windows Phone 8 apps.
WP7 was more polished than Android - I went from an HTC Evo to a Lumia - but a lot of that polish was in the same style as early-iOS: fewer features and capabilities, just done well and with better consistency.
I think betting on either (a) MS beating Apple at their own game or (b) there being room in the market for two premium-limited-but-smoother-UX systems was a dicey call.
Nokia's hardware design advantage over that HTC was MUCH larger than WP7's UI advantage over Android, anyway. I would've stuck with Android but moved to Nokia in a heartbeat if that sleek blue slab of plastic phone ran Android.
But that was at least a year after the memo. They already had an incredibly polished system, Meego. Now Meego like WP7 had the problem of limited apps for the platform, but there were quite a bit more than WP still, largely due to significant OSS apps having been ported. There was also a good development story using the qt framework.
Also at the time of this memo, WP was essentially nonexistent. It was with Nokias switch that they gained some momentum and polish.
Any WP7 polish advantage was skin deep at best. It took approximately 3-5 interactions for something to break in 3rd party apps and maybe twice that in first party apps.
What apps ?! That store they had was practically vacant so the phone basically ran on what it came installed with. Android was not as slick at that time but at least you had a ton of software and cooked ROMs
They brought in a trojan horse with Elop. Any sensible company at the time would have bet on both horses. E.g. Samsung and HTC had both Android and Windows Phone devices. IIRC there was even one Samsung model (I think a Samsung ATIV) that you could install both Android and Windows Phone 8 on.
> I think it’s simple enough to see why Nokia thought Windows would be the right choice. It was far more polished than Android at the time
Everyone knew at the time Elop had made a terrible choice crafted to sell Nokia to Microsoft. Here's a nice HN comment I saved that was written a few days after the memo: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2206437
And then the Nokia transition was supposed to take two years! Posting a memo like this and then taking two years to transition while expecting customers to buy inventory on the old platform? That's just a way to kill a company.
I was a consultant working on two Meego projects at the time, fancy mechanics and some pretty interesting ideas about graph data storage and inference. Super talented crew of diverse hackers, kind of a tech head dream project thinking back on it now. This all was such a gut punch. I always thought they should have just rallied behind their own OS, but I don't claim to understand the business all that well.
(edit: a highlight was getting to meet Dan Ingalls once; he was cool)
As a software engineer I'd have to disagree. In 2011 Windows on handheld devices was a consistently low quality product that had at least a decade of Microsoft failing at it behind it. Believing that Microsoft would suddenly be capable of producing a quality product after more than a decade of not being able to was a highly irrational view. And this isn't something you'd have to particularly clever to see back then.
Let's not forget just how bad Microsoft products for handhelds were in the 2000s. (In fact, if you have any devices from back then, dig them out and try them. They are a lot worse than everyone seems to remember. And Microsoft released this stuff with a straight face).
Android might have been behind in 2011, but it had more momentum and it didn't have bone cancer - it had sound bones. It was pretty obvious that Android was going to be the better bet when you have 1-2 years of lead time. As Nokia would have had anyway to get something put together.
It is really hard to see how rational people would make such poor choices - unless motivated to do so.
They already had Meego which was a true Linux distribution, already more polished than Android and fully Open Source; unfortunately the deal with Microsoft implied the termination of any further development of it in favor of Windows Mobile, and the rest is history.
The cheapness of the hardware is an interesting point.
I worked with an ex Nokia hardware engineer around that time and he said lots of them had left / been laid off (can't remember which) since Windows Phone could only run on quite specific chipsets (Qualcomm, I think), which basically made their jobs less useful.
But if cost was a factor then maybe that was part of the point, rather than a side effect of the decision.
That his letter pointed out a real problem never seemed controversial. The shocking part was tying themselves to MS without a reasonable backup plan.
They thought they couldn't build hardware good enough to compete with other Android makers, but somehow convinced themselves that the solution to that was to put their less competitive hardware onto a less competitive platform.
This is not true. In fact if you actually go back and read the articles on it, one of the strengths was how responsive it was on hardware that was much weaker then what android needed. It has its problems but you are literally taking it's strength and pretending it was a flaw 0_o
> That his letter pointed out a real problem never seemed controversial.
Only in retrospect. At the time, the internet was full of people who thought Symbian was Just Fine. And they had sales figures of millions of (mostly 12-key) "smartphones[0]" to prove it. And then this shifted to "Lost Causeism" when whatever MooMooMo platform never got off the ground.
[0] Okay, I had one of these and you could check your email or do a google search, but obviously the iphone it was not.
The letter talks about a man standing on a burning platform choosing to jump into the icy waters instead.
In this metaphor, Nokias actions were neither staying on the platform not jumping into the water but shooting itself in the head instead.
If the internally Nokia OSes were not going anywhere, which looked to be the case from the outside, the obvious solution was to go with Android. Something that already had the user base, had the apps, had the platform, was open source so it allowed for innovation and differentiation, and Nokia could tailor it to work well with their hardware.
Instead, he chose to go with Windows Phone which had absolutely no benefits. And had severe restriction the kind of phones Nokia could create and on the modifications they could make (they could barely even reskin it) and did not allow Nokia to leverage any software or hardware prowess they may have had.
Android was a choice. Not the obvious one. Seriously how many Android manufacturers are really successful? Samsung? Google? Pretty much everyone else is completely interchangeable in the crowd of low cost devices.
LG, HTC, Sony …etc have all but disappeared and they all chose Android. Sony especially had some solid hits back in the day.
Microsoft utterly failed Nokia but I don’t consider the decision at the time to be a terrible one.
Yeah, and it's not like Nokia was riding a winning streak in the pre-iPhone market. Nokia hadn't had a ubiquitous hit for several years - before the Razr, before the LG Chocolate, before the Blackberry, etc.
They could have probably produced better hardware than the other Android makers - the N9 and first Lumias were very nice devices to hold and use - but they weren't exactly coming in with a ton of momentum in the market.
I think you speak from a US perspective. Nokia phones were absolutely ubiquitous in other parts of the world, way into the time of the Razr etc.. Even at the time this memo was written it Nokia still had around 25-30% market share IIRC.
Regarding the N9, it was released essentially without any marketing push, with very little availability (I think they didn't even get it into live stores, you had to order online). It was also released after the memo, so obviously only few people got it.
And the follow up to the N9 was already ready. The N9 was delayed for reasons, but the next phone was already up and both of those phones were positive margin and would have made money.
Sony still has ten percent of the Japanese mobile market. Granted they'd be happier to be in the winners circle, but you've seen Sony's product strategy, selling a handful of phones to 10 million people is a business they're comfortable staying in. They'll sell you five different audio recorders, after all.
Edit to add: the most popular vendor, by far, is Apple, with more than 60% of the market. Steve Jobs studied Sony very carefully, back in the day. It shows.
Nokia could likely still have 5-15% in the European market. I know many people who liked Nokia and would have very much considered just getting Nokias.
> Android was a choice. Not the obvious one. Seriously how many Android manufacturers are really successful? Samsung? Google? Pretty much everyone else is completely interchangeable in the crowd of low cost devices.
> LG, HTC, Sony …etc have all but disappeared and they all chose Android.
Yeah, but that took a decade or more. Going with Windows was an insta-death. Going with Android would have given them at least a decade to decide on a strategy.
Windows over Android was an insane choice, no matter which angle you look at it from.
But N9 was not a maemo it was Meego. It was incredibly polished it definitely was on par or better than android and IOS of the time.
While some of the assessments in the memo might be correct (it took way too long to get the N9 out for example), shouting this out to the public is incredibly stupid. I mean he is lamenting the fact they only have one top of the line phone out, but then decides to completely axe the system (and the pending new tip of the line phone) for making them and only sell the Symbian version which he just decried as being for lower end phones. And then wait another year or 2 until they have a Windows phone, a platform that they don't control and where they are completely reliant on MS and which is totally unproven?
Edit: OK reading up again, it seems I misremembered. It was actually the N9 which was the Meego phone released after the memo. It was essentially released that you had to be order specifically through an online system only at Nokia. It still gained wide critical acclaim, but at that point was poised to fail already.
> it took way too long to get the N9 out for example
...which is mostly because of infighting with Symbian team. Nokia N810 was supposed to be a phone already. Nokia N8 was supposed to me a lower end Meego device. Both didn't end up that way because of internal politics.
The N9 was a better phone than anything they released subsequently. The TI OMAP being eol and the lack of 4g were for sure problems but Elops cure was worse than the disease.
I worked in Nokia at the time this happened and saw from the inside how the company was ran into the ground by internal incompetence, years of mismanagement, arrogance, and ineptness.
Stephen Elop gets the blame for this often but he was merely the messenger boy. Put there by a board that allowed all this to happen long before he was installed to quickly execute what had been decided by that board. And that board was lead by its former CEO Jorma Ollila. Who made Nokia big in the nineties and was instrumental in its demise and involved with all the key blunders in the ten years prior to selling the remains of the phone division to Microsoft.
Nokia thought they were being smart by jumping ship to Microsoft's Windows Phone. But the reality was that was the merely the latest in a series of very misguided moves that started in the late nineties when they failed to see the potential of Linux and bet on Symbian instead. Nokia's leadership had an enormous blindspot when it came to software. It's technical leadership consisted of people with radio and electrical engineering backgrounds. They were simply incapable of seeing what was happening very clearly in the industry in the late nineties. Linux was happening in a very big and obvious way. And it was inevitably going to run on phones. That was clear in 1999 and a reality before the first Symbian phones even shipped.
By the time Google bought Android, backing Symbian had very obviously been a bad move. By that time there were so many people trying to get Linux going on phones that it was just a matter of time before someone succeeded. Google wanted in on the action. Linux/Android was their quick way in.
Nokia was struggling to get Symbian to market while all that was happening. It was crap. The first versions crashed all the time and were really sluggish and klunky. Incidentally, Nokia actually killed a touch screen platform for Symbian that they never launced. In 2005 as the rumors about the iphone started circulating. Nokia was instead obsessing over flip phones and saw Motorola's razr as its biggest threat. So, it killed the touch screen platform mistakingly thinking that it was not needed.
All this was so obvious that in fact a department in Nokia took it upon themselves to build a Linux based platform. Maemo. The first product launched in late 2005. It was based on Debian Linux and featuring a UI built using GTK and a web browser that was based on Mozilla. A full six years before the first Ipad launched, Nokia had an linux based tablet with a touch screen. Exactly the right kind of thing to be bringing to market around then. Except the Nokia management was completely blind to this and kept on favoring Symbian.
Years later when Google finally unveiled Android after Apple launched the iphone. Google had been relying on a lot of the R&D that went into Maemo. As they lacked a phone until they launched the first Nexus, they even used the N800 as a development platform for Android. There was even a port of Android that you could boot on an N800. I know because I had one and tried it.
Google bought and eventually launched Android between 2005 and 2009. But it was Nokia that was doing a lot of the heavy lifting on kernel development. By 2008 Nokia had a very coherent platform strategy for launching a Linux based range of phones. By 2010 that strategy included a UI platform (QT), Meego, and a then still secret entirely new platform based on Linux aimed at feature phones that got unceremoniously cancelled in 2012 without a product ever having been launched.
Nokia's failure was favoring Symbian throughout this chaotic period until it was crystal clear that the market was never going to favor Symbian and that all attempts at open sourcing it and fixing it were simply not succeeding. By then Google was succeeding with Android and Apple was growing market share with the iphone without Nokia ever having gotten serious at even trying to compete with the platform it had all along.
The thing is, it took Google many years to turn Android ...
For me as a young outside software developer I saw the N900 and it was my dream phone. I couldn't afford a smartphone but I was ready to buy the N1000 when it came out. And then, it just didn't.
In the IT school I was at Nokia was a regular topic of conversation. All of us completely frustrated that they were apparently unwilling to invest in a Linux based phone and everybody eventually getting an Android or IPhone.
They really had a chance, they were at the right time with the close to the right product and just failed.
He wasn’t wrong, but he didn’t seem to understand what the impact this memo would have on the world outside of Nokia. Nokia relies on orders for phones from network operators and this memo pulled the rug from under those orders.
The Maemo/Megoo devices did a ton of stuff better then android. The multitasking was amazing in comparison. Some of basic apps were better.
And there is a pretty clear path to making an android comparability layer.
Also, even if you want to switch to Android (or Windows) just 'burn it all down' is a bad strategy. That was a profitable business and still had huge market share. Just pissing all over it wasn't a good plan.
My mother was one of 8 children born to Finnish immigrant parents in America. As an adult she used the local Mormon temple to research her ancestors, connected with them on Facebook, then re-established the family back into the old country. She then visited the matriarch and lived with her for 2 weeks as my distant cousins visited her and made their acquaintance.
Most recently my cousin, whose daughter has an extremely debilitating incurable illness, emigrated back to Finland on his sick daughter’s request. The whole family is attempting to learn Finnish but it is apparently a struggle compared to other languages they learned.
Totally off-topic, but Nokia is a sad story and Finland is a wonderful country with wonderful people.
Great hw engineers let down by less than stellar software decisions.
Nokia owned a significant slice of late stage pre internet telephony infrastructure level equipment, bridged over to the emerging mobile world and .. kinda missed the boat when Apple happend in with iPhone and then Android's emergence killed them.
A lot of people loved their handsets. Just not enough in any single market to make up for some bad decisions.
A similar fate: I wonder if the myriad of vendors who glued to the Japanese market regretted it, as that model shrank as internet rose?
The network / infrastructure side of Nokia still exists. When the handsets division was split or sold off, the network division continued as Nokia Siemens Networks (NSN), and was rebranded to Nokia Networks I think after the merger with Alcatel-Lucent.
So for the big mobile wireless telco's, the big players are basically Nokia, Erricson, and Huawei these days. My experience with Nokia's equipment did reflect the burning platform memo, but all the big players had lots to be desired in my experience with them.
Note: I've been out of the industry for several years, so I'm not totally up to date on the vendors.
> the network division continued as Nokia Siemens Networks (NSN), and was rebranded to Nokia Networks
It wasn't just a rebranding. Nokia wisely bought Siemens out from the Networks joint venture already in 2013, before selling the phones to Microsoft. Then in 2015, they acquired Alcatel-Lucent (including Bell Labs) to the mix. This way, they stayed in Fortune Global 500 even without the phone business.
And nowadays there are new Nokia branded feature phones as well as Android phones and tablets: https://www.nokia.com/phones/
That included me. I had fond memories of an near indestructible 3310 and I genuinely wish I did not miss the boat on N900 ( I just landed in US and phone was the least of my concerns then ).
<<Just not enough in any single market to make up for some bad decisions.
Sadly, clearly there are decisions that can sink even a dominant power in the market. He is not HP's Fiorina. He did have some wins in previous positions, which makes a person like me question whether the failures at Nokia was little more than a sabotage. Obviously, we will likely never really know.
> Great hw engineers let down by less than stellar software decisions.
I remember reading a deep dive into how exactly Nokia run it's cellular department, in it's corporate culture... and things there were not great. Everything were behind the red tape and countless meetings, every feature had someone who was appointed as an 'owner' of that feature and if you need to change something what would somehow involve that feature you needed an approval from that owner. And if the guy didn't want to give the approval, because he was afraid to take the responsibility than there was nothing you could with it. Same in the Symbian dept.
People like to shit on Elop, but with or without him the mighty Finnish giant would die anyway. With Elop and MS deal they, at least, tried to do something and saved jobs for a couple of years (though not all). Without MS deal all those people would been on the street in 2013 at best.
Internally they didn't miss the boat. They literally were on the boat and were crushing it. But they failed to make actual products and continued selling crappy Synbian based phones.
When compared to Android devices, Windows devices have more computing power, more memory, and a more powerful CPU. This is useful if you have a fat client with a lot of data for things like real-time visualizations and you want your devices to keep up with your users as they complete their tasks. However, all of this extra power means that the battery drains faster and the devices run hotter. When using a unit that is mounted or placed in a docking station with a constant power supply, this is not an issue.
I'm really having trouble understanding why this is even relevant in 2022. Who cares what the excuses and problems were within Nokia in 2011? Is Nokia's inability to keep up with cell phone technology in 2011 and important part of technical history? Business history? If so, why? I didn't even really get the burning oil rig analogy. It was a pretty melodramatic way of describing being beaten by a competitor, which happens all the time in business history.
Then I looked around the whole website, and there was interesting data. Which ended in 2018. The whole website seems abandoned.
Many people loved Nokia and I guess still feel nostalgic about the brand. My first phone was a Nokia, and it was super reliable and, though quirky, enjoyable.
Nokia also was the most successful European high tech brand. Losing it felt disheartening at the time.
If not for Elop, I might now develop apps for Meego instead of iOS.
So, I guess, there‘s a moral to the story: don’t let bad hires run your company to the ground?
You weren't the target for that memo. It was written to motivate Nokia employees and prepare them for strategic shifts. It showed employees there was an overarching plan in place for the changes that were to come. I'm sure you can find parallels from that to a website run by a VC for current, past, and potential investees.
Wasn’t it plainly obvious to everyone at the time? Elop did everything he could to devalue Nokia in preparation for a Microsoft buyout, with the outcome that Elop would be a Microsoft executive for a little while - before Microsoft inevitably “pivots” to some new shiny thing and discontinues everything under Elop’s remit. I can’t imagine how anyone expected anything else.
Nokia was one of the larger European company. A true competitor in the global tech space. Its total collapse is very important for European tech history.
Many of us also really liked what they were doing with N900 and wanted it to continue. But it didn't.
Nokia suffered from lack of direction from the top... They had both symbian and maemo, both officially blessed, but incompatible. Symbian was the past and maemo had promise, so what did management do... a hail mary bet on microsoft? It came out of nowhere and seemed desperate, I believe the market's reaction reflected this sadly.
To these days their gesture navigation implementation is the best. And they had Swype keyboard preinstalled.
Speaking of apps: Here maps, SoundHound, amazing mail client and calendar...
Gosh I miss that phone.
I used mine for about 3 years, I think, and sold it for more than a half of its original price in literally a couple of hours (which means my price was too low).
By the time the software started showing its age: no banking apps, browser failing to display more and more modern sites...
I believe, they should have pushed with Meego. With vendor support their OS could've been a hit.
My experience with the N9 was great, and never left me wishing I could go back to something more like a Sharp Zaurus with modern cell connectivity.
What is it that makes the N900 appealing? Is it strictly the physical keyboard? So the N950 would have been the N900 killer? Or was there something else about it?
The N900 was my favorite phone by far. Most of the reason come as a programmer, not all users might value them.
First of all ot was a true Linux phone. Running a derivative of Debian, complete with apt etc. Most of the apps on it, even the app to make a phone call where preexisting open source Linux applications with a nice mobile UI. An UI that was clean and consistent without the need off branding that other platforms suffer from.
I could simply write bash script for it to extend its functionality. For example I remember writing a script that would record and sent recordings of phone calls to my server.
I installed Pidgin the chat client and used it to chat with my friends when MSN was still popular in my county. It truly felt like having a PC in your pocket.
The keyboard was the best keyboard ever made in my opinion. I could actually type blind on it sensing a message without looking at the phone at all. I still own 3 N900's with the hope of every managing the find the enthusiasm to rig in the another phone or a pi.
I've had them all, including a Zaurus, various Palms with phone, various XDAs, Nokia N900, Free Runner, Firefox phone, Ubuntu phone, you name it... but IMHO the N900 was the best form factor and UI - the only reason why I got rid of it was the band didn't support where I was traveling to.
Still sad the NEO 900 went nowhere. I would jump at that. Still interested in trying the Purism and PinePhone, but with my time as limited as it is, I'll stick to my Pixel 4a running LineageOS for now - but can't wait to get me back a pure Linux phone that works without issues!
But all this points also apply to the N9, it was a fully fleshed Linux system and arguably qt for writing apps was significantly more comfortable for developers than the custom framework based on gtk. I even recall that it was quite straight forward to port desktop apps, with very minor adjustments.
On top of that it was actually usable for normal users which the n900 failed at, largely due to not being usable in many networks due to the radio IIRC. The UI of the N9 was also much more polished. So unless you never used an N9 I don't understand how you would prefer the N900 (except for the keyboard).
It's pretty simple: hacker vs. user points of view
i used both N9 and N900. N9 was a way more polished, user-centric device. I love the UX and even how the device looks
however, for (low-level) hackers, N9/N950 was a bit hostile environment compared to N900. The first major stumbling block was Aegis (somewhat similar to Samsung's Knox perhaps). With N900, you can just boot any other Linux by simply loading u-boot to memory using the flasher. Nothing else. N9/N950's Aegis prevented that kind of luxury, so you needed to mess with the OS first, deal with permanent ominous warranty warning, and risk bricking it (see https://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=81579). On the other hand, N900 is basically unbrickable. So N950 loses to N900 because of these reasons, even though it has a keyboard, a somewhat better one in fact
Yup, that's spot on. N9 felt good to use, but it was a disappointing device once you got used to the level of openness in a commercially supported product that N900 provided.
Still better than pretty much every alternative at that time though.
N900 was also the first phone with a full on browser capable of running any site. Other phones then were not able to run full JS. Also the resolution was higher than other phones.
The physical keyboard was certainly nice, especially for a linux sysadmin / programmer. I also miss the camera, the "normal" and familiar Linux environment, the unified messaging (native XMPP support, with A/V calling!). It was sturdy despite the moving (keyboard) parts. Phone experience was decent, certainly better than my current Android, but can't beat my first phone, the Nokia 3310.
Linux and Nokia were at one point the Crown Jewels of Finnish tech. One still remains. Would’ve been a match made in heaven but I believe they needed Microsoft’s cash to keep the company running. I remember testing the N900 at their store and was really impressed but I think it was too little too late
N900 was awesome, but it wasn't what the masses wanted. It had a lot of quirks, like UI freezing when someone calls you so you couldn't answer the call and suffering from slowing down over a relatively short period of time while being price competitive with the other high end phones.
The 1.0 was the N9. It had excellent reviews. Sadly it was commercially stillborn - Nokia had already publicly switched to Microsoft's bullshit, so it got no commercial push, and nobody wants to buy a dead phone.
Symbian was the biggest problem with Nokia phones. The hardware was always amazing.
I owned a Communicator 9290, and have yet to have a phone that performed as well on speaker. Bar none. Noise cancelling and volume both. I had an e90, and although it was less amazing on that front, the build quality, and look at feel just was... Great!
I'd pay iPhone Pro prices for (basically) an e90 running Android with a decent camera. Nobody's made one yet, but I keep hoping. And yes, in a matter of weeks I'll have my Astro Slide from Planet Computers, but I have little doubt the form factor will still fall short of the dream of a truly pocket phone you can type decently well on.
The N9 was not Symbian though. What I read was that there was a serious management culture issue at Nokia. Even before Elop Meego efforts were seriously sabotaged by the Symbian camp (the N9 was significantly delayed for example) .
Mind you that memo and the decisions made were either incredibly stupid or part of a strategy by the shareholders to break apart Nokia. I mean apart from the fact that you tell the public that you don't believe in your product while selling it, they also decided to axe the Meego version N9 successor even though it was essentially ready. Many believe that was done to not risk it being a success, which would have revealed the whole strategy change to be wrong.
> Symbian was the biggest problem with Nokia phones.
I actually miss it, those were simpler times where your phone didn't spam you with ads or notifications or didn't get outdated every 2 years. No constant data collection or surveillance to the scales we deal with now.
More so, I actually miss the feeling of how new everything was, in the sense that is you wanted to play some games you'd sometimes scour WAP sites for the game files (or pay exorbitant fees through magazines).
There was a certain charm to games back then, too, seeing what people could knock together with Java on such a limited platform. Games like Gravity Defied, Galaxy on Fire or Gish, or even Doom RPG.
I'm kind of nostalgic, admittedly, maybe for a time when not everything was so well optimized towards monetization. And before Wirth's law became so present on our devices.
The problem with Symbian was not the usability but the developer experience.
SDK available only for Windows and really awkward to install and use? Check. Pre-11 C++ but without exceptions and something called cleanup stack and ELeave macro instead? Check. Ok, a whole periodic table of string classes instead of std::string (which would still have been terrible because it was before C++11)? Check. GUI API that was designed for a Psion handheld (Uikon) and implementation for Psions (Eikon) and Series 60 UI implementation (Avkon) piled on top of that? Check. App architecture that doesn't really have a concept of standalone app but works on the idea that apps are views and controllers that handle files? Check. What about making every single phone model slightly different so that apps are not portable between Symbian phones by default but you have to actually test and port with every model? Check. And there was a lot more at deeper technical level that I never had to reach.
I understand that the developer experience was better for the last Symbian versions but at that point it was already late, iOS and Android were taking over and Symbian had a reputation to fix.
My definitive memory of Symbian development having a lunch at a Nokia cafeteria, a week after starting the job and all the dreams about having a computer in your pocket that could run anything as long at it didn't need huge amounts of CPU power, memory or screen area crushed, and complaining with a friend who was in similar situation. An older engineer had heard us, told us that we don't know anything about how bad S60 is and continued with a hour-long rant that as far as I know was all pure facts.
I was told by someone who had developed for both that S40 was much better for developers. Of course it was completely closed ecosystem except for J2ME apps so it didn't have much of future in competition with low end Android. I'd really like to know what Meltemi was like.
All of that is true, and that's why Nokia acquired Trolltech: Qt solved all those problems on Symbian, and provided an easy, mostly OS-independent, way to rebuild the apps for Maemo/MeeGo.
I must live in simpler times then, with an iPhone from 2017 that has notifications set where I want them to be.
I do have a newer one, that's because the camera is something I care about, not because an X isn't fast enough or whatever, it remains a capable phone.
I get nostalgic for the HipTop, personally. Probably because I never had one, by the time I was done with flip phones the slab-o-glass was the obvious winner. Seriously cool little gizmos though, I don't think a better typing experience has been made for a pocketable jeejah to this day.
I don’t see how it can happen, on the same way we’ve been stuck with the Mac and DOS/Windows duopoly since the 80s. The problem is a new platform isn’t just competing with the established OSes themselves, it’s also competing with the associated peripheral, software and services ecosystems. Those consist of thousands of companies providing thousands of products and services worth trillions of dollars. There’s just no way to get traction against that from a standing start.
> I don’t see how it can happen, on the same way we’ve been stuck
In-between Chromebooks and generic Linux distros (say what you will about the year of Linux on the desktop, use is only growing; slow paced or not, doesn't matter), specialised Linux distros (SteamOS - you might think it doesn't matter, it's only for a handheld console, the Steam Deck, but it will force many games to have Linux compatibility. And one of the main things keeping many tech savvy users on Windows is gaming) i think a duopoly is a bit of a strong word, and it's getting disrupted.
Oh sure, I was mainly addressing the current mobile OS landscape with the desktop as a historical case in point, but you're right. There have always been alternative options, especially for niche use cases. I think there are several things happening there right now. One is the erosion of the desktop as a native application platform, if you mainly only care about web apps then the desktop OS isn't an issue because the web is already a powerful platform.
The other is the advanced state of Windows emulation for games, you can bypass the platform effect if you can piggy back on an established platform's APIs. That's tricky though, plenty of mobile OSes tried to get traction with Android APK compatibility, but the problem with that is, why bother developing native apps for them? With games consoles it's a different situation, maybe emulation in the long term is just fine.
This is exactly what Nokia were working on; the N9 ran Meego, a Linux-based OS Nokia had been developing for years. There had been a string of "internet tablets" (eg N800, N810) and phones (N900) running Maemo, a precursor to Meego. They even bought QT as part of the development!
Meego, running on the N9, was an absolutely wonderful experience. It was smooth, fast, beautifully designed, and had simple elegant swipe-based navigation system, it had multiprocess app switching (AFAIK before iPhone OS did) and a brilliant newsfeed/notification system. It felt like it really had extraordinary potential. And Elop ditched it.
Nokia transit / HERE transit was my favorite public transit app back when I used windows phone. It had a unique way [1] of presenting transit options that was far more convenient than the simple list that every other app does. Sadly the current HERE WeGo app also does the simple scrolling list, so I see no reason to use it.
Did you try the Jolla phones? They tried to carry the Meego torch in their Sailfish OS (which currently works well with "last year's" Sony phones). Even though it has different UI decisions than the N9 I found it reasonably good over time, and today some of it's decisions (like using swipes for navigation) made their way into other mainstream mobile OSes.
The N9 was a regrettable purchase for me. I even feel that Nokia owes me, all these years later!
Paid a lot for the 64 gig N9. Soon after Nokia abandoned the OS, and I felt ripped off.
I remember the flash refused to stay off. I would disable flash for a photo, but next time I used camera the flash was back on. This was enough to move to a phone that remembered the flash setting.
Years later I tried to start my N9 but it was demanding a password that I didn't know. Some kind of recovery password I never knew I had set up. There was no way I could find to reset the phone even to factory settings. It's basically bricked with no way to restore, so I couldn't even sell it as a working phone.
That thing had also fully functional car navigation with all maps for free, and it had busybox shell... gosh how miserable are we now with smartphone options...
Applications. You can't take an existing Windows app and run it on Windows Phone, because the APIs are not there. You can take an existing Linux app and run it on Meego, because it's just a regular ARM Linux with a custom UI.
Microsoft backing is a help? Seems to me having the backing of the Linux community would have been way better.
Making UI for mostly existing apps, porting lots of existing apps over. Lots of free continues investments. Like you get other companies on board who use the same basic distro and apps and help with bug fixes and so on.
You can use the same distro on phones, tables and even sell laptops with that software on it.
And you can do all of that for no cost to anybody. Every single Nokia with Windows gives money away to Microsoft.
The N900 did NOT run Meego. I agree with OP 100% that the N9 was an amazing phone. Honestly it was brilliant. Super smooth and well thought out. Polished too. With an android emulation layer on top it could have been a success. Alas Nokia got Elop’d.
I'm pretty sure the metaphorical platform had already fully melted down by 2011, they just hadn't realized it yet. Nokia was not dead on January 9th, 2007 but maybe by 2008 when the App Store launched or perhaps in 2010 when FaceTime launched with the iPhone 4. At that time Nokia made very solid utility devices that admirably did their jobs. What they failed to ever make and what I suspect they failed to realize that Apple was making was a desire object - something that was more than the sum of its parts. The N9000 and the N9 were technically very good (on paper even better than the iPhone) but they lacked the integrated and holistic design decisions that made the iPhone special.
> Apple was making was a desire object - something that was more than the sum of its parts.
It's harder to do now with iPhone's market size, but I think we're looking at it with rosy glasses.
Where Apple succeeded is having a viable touch interface. That's where RIM, Nokia, Fujitsu, Compaq and countless other device makers failed at. Including Nokia.
Otherwise the iPhone was buggy and crashing all the time, battery life was trash compared to other phones or the iPod, I don't know anyone actually relying on it to make "serious" calls (we kept our feature phones) it would straight ignore some of the incomming calls and we just were willing to go through all of that to get a usable touch UI.
> I don't know anyone actually relying on it to make "serious" calls (we kept our feature phones) it would straight ignore some of the incomming calls
I know there was a lot of noise about dropped calls and all that in the US, but this was not a thing here in Europe. I would assume that the issue was at least as much with AT&T than with the iPhone.
Here there were controversies about a lot of things (for example, it became caught up in the electro-sensitivity pseudoscience argument, there was also some noise about the glass front being brittle), but not reception. At least not before the iPhone 4.
Yes, it might the difference on the network stacks. Perhaps it was decent on GSM ?
In asia it was the same deal (from iPhone 3G, not the original one). Most of the issues seemed to be when the phone ran from too long and/or was low on battery. From my understanding memory was leaking all over the place, and as the phone app isn't isolated from the system it was affected too (even if the network chip is a separate hardware and OS)
Basically rebooting every now and then was a good idea at the time.
I wish I could speak more to the experience directly. I eventually got a n900 used but after the fall, & I was a college kid with no real need for it.
What was thrilling & exciting & totally different was that the n900 was a computer. A regular computer. Trying to learn how to make GNOME an ok experience, on very low res mobile. But we knew essentially what it was; it obeyed & played within the regularinux desktop environment world. it was a linux desktop environment, and that gave it open potential. Everything is/was orchestrateable/controllable by dbus, the user's control plane. All the apps exposed themselves over IPC. It played in the connected desktop world as best of breed.
The failure of this situation to talk about how intensely stupid it was to give up on the platform is farcically bad. What was here was incredible. It needed improvement & work but the architecture was immensely omni-potential, more capable clearly & growing well known existing tech well, rather than alternate reality symbian or then counter respondes danger or android. weird new alternates to actual linux desktop. Selling out to MS was one of the most shortsighted sorry pathetic givings ups, in a time of vast growth with fantastically little belief in yourself & your people doing good. There was no technical reason to refocus. (But bad numbers, as most players saw). They should have kept going. This was a decision made by people who had faint sense, gailed to appreciate hope, missed clarity on what creating value was like, what value was. This was a pathetic ignorant stupid business decision, to end Maemo. Things rocked, that was a great could do possibility, the OLE COM competitor kf DBus was winning, the market just didnt see yet.
I use to work for HTC. I was there when iPaq launched and saw the birth of first PocketPC phone, a black and white screen phone for Sagem/Mitsubishi. I would like to share my opinion on this issue of tech disruption. From my point of view, Nokia did not have enough resource and time to meet the challenge which was brought about by Apple and Google/Android. All the tech companies need at least one dominating advantage in order to survive. This dominating advantage needs to crush all challenger in that specific area. Apple has operating system. Samsung has display. Chinese phone makers have CCP. Nokia had nothing that matter. They had two choices, create one or buy one. They were not able to do either so they fade away.
High hardware quality is always important but it is not enough to build a moat to stop the competition. I remember a Siemens quality manager told me the high hardware quality of Siemens's phone when HTC was building a phone for Siemens. High hardware quality did not save Siemens's phone business either.
Were they? I had a Lumia with WP7 and it had nearly zero apps, zero multitasking (accidentally click on the Bing button and your app state is lost) and near zero things to do. I remember a very visible metaphor for the whole device was the calendar's month view: it literally showed "Lorem ipsum" for the days you had some events. Supposedly due to performance concerns, and this lasted to WP8 as well.
The only cool thing was the grid but that only goes skin deep. Otherwise I hated the phone. Maybe WP8+ devices were better but WP7 was a piece of crap. I didn't want to try WP8 and got myself a Jolla instead.
The market's only thought about the OS is what features it supports. And lots of them are provided by 3rd party apps. Lots of people switch from Android to iPhone and back. People mostly just want to keep using their TikTok, Instagram, WhatsApp, ...
It's the app developers (and their companies) who wouldn't be happy with a third option, because the existing two cause enough problems, just think about how many frameworks for cross-platform app development exist, they were created for a reason..., and even with them you still have to do OS-specific stuff to tackle different app store policies, different privacy features, updated APIs breaking your app on new OS versions... or you can have two entirely separate teams working on two separate codebases and try to keep the feature parity...
I liked my Nokia phones - they were ergonomic but not innovative; they were great "just a phone"-type phones. My wife even purchased a re-make of one of their classic phones recently.
But I loved my BlackBerries - they were the perfect tool for email/chat/calling and nothing else, the perfect complement to a laptop, whereas iPads partially overlap with both mobile phones AND laptops in terms of functionality, which is why at airports you now see so many people carrying three devices instead of one.
So while I have fond memories of Nokia, I don't miss their devices, but I'd give my metaphorical leg for getting my BB back.
Agreed on BB. I was interested when they moved to Android, and then they died. There still isn't a good, high-end Android with a keyboard from a company I know I can trust.
I was interested that Blackberry didn't use Android - their QNX based OS had a lot of potential. At the time, my Android phone would get hot and drain the battery whenever a batch process decided to reindex my media.
313 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 244 ms ] threadhttps://seekingalpha.com/article/916271-how-stephen-elop-des...
Was it Balmer that hired Elop?
I have no idea why things succeed or fail and so I don't know for this either, but my guess is it was new, but didn't have anything that provoked an interest with mainstream users. And Microsoft does not have many faithful users.
I'm surprised how positive HN was about this. I don't remember reading any positive coverage at the time. I personally thought the guy was an idiot. He wound up performing worse than my expectations.
Symbian definitely wasn't the way forward. MeeGo wasn't looking like it was gonna be an iOS or Android killer.
Elop was right about needing to change horses. Terribly wrong about which one to pick, in retrospect. One could argue that MS fucked that up as much as Nokia, though - this was before MS continually screwed up their WP strategy for several subsequent years, like with the WP8 hard reset. Even best case, though, it was a high-risk/high-reward gamble to try to be "the" WP7 phone instead of one of many Android contenders. Would've been interesting to see them take on Samsung instead of just HTC and zombie Motorola, though.
What was wrong with MeeGo?
The memo just states:
> at this rate, by the end of 2011, we might have only one MeeGo product in the market.
But that's not soo bad considering that they started the platform in 2010.
It's not like changing to a different platformbat this point would make things faster anyway.
The way I remember it was that at the time the management-forced merge of Maemo and Moblin to Meego and the sudden switch from Gtk to Qt were thought to be risky moves and it was well known that Symbian supporters are doing anything they can to sabotage other platforms. Later I was told that N9 was incredibly polished but Meego wasn't that great behind the scenes and would have required massive rewrites if development had continued (which isn't that different from stories about early iOS).
That was probably because N9 didn't really use MeeGo - technically it was still a Maemo based system that was only disguised under MeeGo brand.
Seems to me they had something really nice to go forward with.
I remember the N900 coming out and wanting Maemo.
Then years later when I didn't care anymore I MeeGo peaked my interest, but I didn't really care anymore.
What other then GTK vs QT is different.
And why was it needed, I never understood why they simple didn't go forward with Maemo.
By then, however, management had struck an agreement with Intel to join forces over a Linux OS for devices. Intel had its own Linux distro, Moblin, which was based on RedHat. Moblin and Maemo were meant to merge into "MeeGo", a distro based on RedHat but with a QT interface. The project started fairly quickly but, by then, the N9 was basically ready, so Nokia effectively shipped what they had beforehand and just called it MeeGo.
Beyond the UI, iirc, the differences between Maemo and Moblin/MeeGo were the packaging system and some service daemons. The most annoying part, really, was that third-party apps built for Maemo would have had to be repackaged and retested for MeeGo, effectively throwing away all community efforts made over several years. Despite the best efforts by Nokia to placate folks, the community they had built around Maemo was completely pissed off and largely gave up, focusing on the actually-profitable systems. And then the burning platform memo happened.
This really reminds me of the Unix wars. Constantly companies announcing partnerships and then there developers spending time merging proprietary systems. And before they are ready another partnership bringing in some other thing that has to be merged. Not sure what exactly they gained with this Intel deal.
I guess they should have just continued with Maemo and attacked other software developers in general, rather then rewriting the whole stack just to attract Symbian developers.
A year after the N900 they should have been an N1000 by 2010. By the time late this memo happened the N1100 should have been ready to drop.
I had an n900 in 2009. I think they theoretically had a winner there.
But they never prioritized it above Symbian.
Then between the n900 and the n9, they totally rewrote the UI on a new toolkit, wasting resources and making it clear that if you write an app for it they may completely discard 95% of the app platform from release to release.
If they had iterated on Maemo 5 in that time and put all hands on deck behind it they could have used those ~3 years more productively and been more competitive. Maemo 5 was actually pretty close to what they needed.
Blackberry had a similar situation. Like meego, in bb10 they had a qt based platform in the early 2010s. But it was too late. The biggest blunder is not doing it sooner, before Android solidified.
I was afraid disaster would ensue...
Maybe it was impossible to do better, but it seems it would have been difficult to do worse.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2196311
That phone was absolutely top tier at the time. It lacked some apps but overall it was an amazing phone. Everyone always wanted to know what it was I was using.
I wish they had continued pushing it forward.
Qt/Sailfish worked well enough too but it definitely had its defects. My biggest complaint was they didn't ship complete source prepared for convenient reproduction of the firmware and out-of-box encouraged flashing of self-made builds. Then I would have been fixing the bugs I tripped over.
What did they do instead? They made an extremely stupid bet on Microsoft, which by that time was even further behind in mobile world than Nokia itself.
Open or closed source wasn't the problem, really.
Motorola A925, Motorola A1000, Motorola RIZR Z8, Motorola RIZR Z10 (aka 'banana')
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Motorola+Z8&t=ffcm&iar=images&iax=...
And their linux based phones were pretty open but they had no power in the organization and having an open source platform with no phones is pointless.
Unfortunately identifying the problem is only half the battle. Figuring out what to do next is the other half, and that is where nokia failed.
But instead they just continued with the Symbian feature phones that nobody wanted.
But what about Symbian and Ovi? I've had a bunch of Symbian devices with the Ovi store. They were simply not in the same league; the apps were basic because the development tools were just not good enough; and targeted basic low-end experiences. Windows Phone was the most modern OS out there (including the dev tooling); and had the best shot at competing with the Androids. I also bought the N800 (which ran Maemo) from Nokia in 2007. It was ok - but it never looked like a phone platform.
I'd still be on it if it existed and wasn't laden with Windows 10 style telemetry. I don't care about having a wide selection of apps. I care about having a low-distraction, well organized UI that's optimized for specific tasks.
For instance, opening an entry in the address book produced a cross-social-network feed of everything they sent you recently (including call logs, email, SMS, twitter, etc...).
That was fantastic, but prepared to have your mind blown: Typing an address into the navigation app and hitting enter (or tapping on a destination) immediately started navigating.
8.1 was strictly a UI regression. I heard 8.5 was even worse.
Now what Nokia did in response... that may not have been right either. But they had to do something.
Nokia went for Windows because of the acquisition target, not because of quality of the OS. With that, they prioritized business strategy over product quality, and we all know what happened after.
and had no apps. Windows Phone/Mobile had atrocious developer share. There few apps that were available were of terrible quality. Ironic, considering this happened in the era of a sweaty Balmer screaming "Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!"[1]
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhh_GeBPOhs
It took Android 10 years, for something like AGK to come up, and even then it is a mess of development experience.
But since Microsoft were 2-3 years late, there were not many apps. And then they shot themselves and all people who already bought a Windows Phone device in the foot, by completely forking the ecosystem with Windows Phone 8. Leaving early adopters stranded on Windows Phone 7 and no ability to run newer Windows Phone 8 apps.
Used all Windows Phone versions, and they all got more updates than most my Android devices.
Their market was around 10% in Europe when they decided to give up.
I think betting on either (a) MS beating Apple at their own game or (b) there being room in the market for two premium-limited-but-smoother-UX systems was a dicey call.
Nokia's hardware design advantage over that HTC was MUCH larger than WP7's UI advantage over Android, anyway. I would've stuck with Android but moved to Nokia in a heartbeat if that sleek blue slab of plastic phone ran Android.
Also at the time of this memo, WP was essentially nonexistent. It was with Nokias switch that they gained some momentum and polish.
Any WP7 polish advantage was skin deep at best. It took approximately 3-5 interactions for something to break in 3rd party apps and maybe twice that in first party apps.
Everyone knew at the time Elop had made a terrible choice crafted to sell Nokia to Microsoft. Here's a nice HN comment I saved that was written a few days after the memo: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2206437
And then the Nokia transition was supposed to take two years! Posting a memo like this and then taking two years to transition while expecting customers to buy inventory on the old platform? That's just a way to kill a company.
He was after all reaching its targets.
https://www.slashgear.com/stephen-elops-contract-revealed-as...
Our culture was pretty much anti-MS before he came on board.
On the server side we were using HP-UX, Perl, C++, in 2005 the transition for Red-Hat Linux and Java started.
On the devices, Symbian and the Maemo (Linux based).
Symbian was finally getting usable with PIPS, Qt and Eclipse based Carbide.
I happened to be in Espoo the week after this memo was published, I haven't found anyone that agreed with it.
Everyone thought the community would never jump of joy with Microsoft technologies, and right they were.
(edit: a highlight was getting to meet Dan Ingalls once; he was cool)
Let's not forget just how bad Microsoft products for handhelds were in the 2000s. (In fact, if you have any devices from back then, dig them out and try them. They are a lot worse than everyone seems to remember. And Microsoft released this stuff with a straight face).
Android might have been behind in 2011, but it had more momentum and it didn't have bone cancer - it had sound bones. It was pretty obvious that Android was going to be the better bet when you have 1-2 years of lead time. As Nokia would have had anyway to get something put together.
It is really hard to see how rational people would make such poor choices - unless motivated to do so.
I worked with an ex Nokia hardware engineer around that time and he said lots of them had left / been laid off (can't remember which) since Windows Phone could only run on quite specific chipsets (Qualcomm, I think), which basically made their jobs less useful.
But if cost was a factor then maybe that was part of the point, rather than a side effect of the decision.
They thought they couldn't build hardware good enough to compete with other Android makers, but somehow convinced themselves that the solution to that was to put their less competitive hardware onto a less competitive platform.
But that is so wrong. Hardware was their strength. They could've sticked to what they knew best and over time do what's necessary.
They were slow. Really slow. Typing was so slow. Opening the camera app even more so.
Starting with Window Phone 8 everything was native code, even .NET, while on Android the first Dalvik versions didn't even had a JIT.
Only in retrospect. At the time, the internet was full of people who thought Symbian was Just Fine. And they had sales figures of millions of (mostly 12-key) "smartphones[0]" to prove it. And then this shifted to "Lost Causeism" when whatever MooMooMo platform never got off the ground.
[0] Okay, I had one of these and you could check your email or do a google search, but obviously the iphone it was not.
In this metaphor, Nokias actions were neither staying on the platform not jumping into the water but shooting itself in the head instead.
If the internally Nokia OSes were not going anywhere, which looked to be the case from the outside, the obvious solution was to go with Android. Something that already had the user base, had the apps, had the platform, was open source so it allowed for innovation and differentiation, and Nokia could tailor it to work well with their hardware.
Instead, he chose to go with Windows Phone which had absolutely no benefits. And had severe restriction the kind of phones Nokia could create and on the modifications they could make (they could barely even reskin it) and did not allow Nokia to leverage any software or hardware prowess they may have had.
LG, HTC, Sony …etc have all but disappeared and they all chose Android. Sony especially had some solid hits back in the day.
Microsoft utterly failed Nokia but I don’t consider the decision at the time to be a terrible one.
They could have probably produced better hardware than the other Android makers - the N9 and first Lumias were very nice devices to hold and use - but they weren't exactly coming in with a ton of momentum in the market.
Regarding the N9, it was released essentially without any marketing push, with very little availability (I think they didn't even get it into live stores, you had to order online). It was also released after the memo, so obviously only few people got it.
Edit to add: the most popular vendor, by far, is Apple, with more than 60% of the market. Steve Jobs studied Sony very carefully, back in the day. It shows.
> LG, HTC, Sony …etc have all but disappeared and they all chose Android.
Yeah, but that took a decade or more. Going with Windows was an insta-death. Going with Android would have given them at least a decade to decide on a strategy.
Windows over Android was an insane choice, no matter which angle you look at it from.
While some of the assessments in the memo might be correct (it took way too long to get the N9 out for example), shouting this out to the public is incredibly stupid. I mean he is lamenting the fact they only have one top of the line phone out, but then decides to completely axe the system (and the pending new tip of the line phone) for making them and only sell the Symbian version which he just decried as being for lower end phones. And then wait another year or 2 until they have a Windows phone, a platform that they don't control and where they are completely reliant on MS and which is totally unproven?
Edit: OK reading up again, it seems I misremembered. It was actually the N9 which was the Meego phone released after the memo. It was essentially released that you had to be order specifically through an online system only at Nokia. It still gained wide critical acclaim, but at that point was poised to fail already.
...which is mostly because of infighting with Symbian team. Nokia N810 was supposed to be a phone already. Nokia N8 was supposed to me a lower end Meego device. Both didn't end up that way because of internal politics.
Stephen Elop gets the blame for this often but he was merely the messenger boy. Put there by a board that allowed all this to happen long before he was installed to quickly execute what had been decided by that board. And that board was lead by its former CEO Jorma Ollila. Who made Nokia big in the nineties and was instrumental in its demise and involved with all the key blunders in the ten years prior to selling the remains of the phone division to Microsoft.
Nokia thought they were being smart by jumping ship to Microsoft's Windows Phone. But the reality was that was the merely the latest in a series of very misguided moves that started in the late nineties when they failed to see the potential of Linux and bet on Symbian instead. Nokia's leadership had an enormous blindspot when it came to software. It's technical leadership consisted of people with radio and electrical engineering backgrounds. They were simply incapable of seeing what was happening very clearly in the industry in the late nineties. Linux was happening in a very big and obvious way. And it was inevitably going to run on phones. That was clear in 1999 and a reality before the first Symbian phones even shipped.
By the time Google bought Android, backing Symbian had very obviously been a bad move. By that time there were so many people trying to get Linux going on phones that it was just a matter of time before someone succeeded. Google wanted in on the action. Linux/Android was their quick way in.
Nokia was struggling to get Symbian to market while all that was happening. It was crap. The first versions crashed all the time and were really sluggish and klunky. Incidentally, Nokia actually killed a touch screen platform for Symbian that they never launced. In 2005 as the rumors about the iphone started circulating. Nokia was instead obsessing over flip phones and saw Motorola's razr as its biggest threat. So, it killed the touch screen platform mistakingly thinking that it was not needed.
All this was so obvious that in fact a department in Nokia took it upon themselves to build a Linux based platform. Maemo. The first product launched in late 2005. It was based on Debian Linux and featuring a UI built using GTK and a web browser that was based on Mozilla. A full six years before the first Ipad launched, Nokia had an linux based tablet with a touch screen. Exactly the right kind of thing to be bringing to market around then. Except the Nokia management was completely blind to this and kept on favoring Symbian.
Years later when Google finally unveiled Android after Apple launched the iphone. Google had been relying on a lot of the R&D that went into Maemo. As they lacked a phone until they launched the first Nexus, they even used the N800 as a development platform for Android. There was even a port of Android that you could boot on an N800. I know because I had one and tried it.
Google bought and eventually launched Android between 2005 and 2009. But it was Nokia that was doing a lot of the heavy lifting on kernel development. By 2008 Nokia had a very coherent platform strategy for launching a Linux based range of phones. By 2010 that strategy included a UI platform (QT), Meego, and a then still secret entirely new platform based on Linux aimed at feature phones that got unceremoniously cancelled in 2012 without a product ever having been launched.
Nokia's failure was favoring Symbian throughout this chaotic period until it was crystal clear that the market was never going to favor Symbian and that all attempts at open sourcing it and fixing it were simply not succeeding. By then Google was succeeding with Android and Apple was growing market share with the iphone without Nokia ever having gotten serious at even trying to compete with the platform it had all along.
The thing is, it took Google many years to turn Android ...
In the IT school I was at Nokia was a regular topic of conversation. All of us completely frustrated that they were apparently unwilling to invest in a Linux based phone and everybody eventually getting an Android or IPhone.
They really had a chance, they were at the right time with the close to the right product and just failed.
And there is a pretty clear path to making an android comparability layer.
Also, even if you want to switch to Android (or Windows) just 'burn it all down' is a bad strategy. That was a profitable business and still had huge market share. Just pissing all over it wasn't a good plan.
Most recently my cousin, whose daughter has an extremely debilitating incurable illness, emigrated back to Finland on his sick daughter’s request. The whole family is attempting to learn Finnish but it is apparently a struggle compared to other languages they learned.
Totally off-topic, but Nokia is a sad story and Finland is a wonderful country with wonderful people.
Nokia owned a significant slice of late stage pre internet telephony infrastructure level equipment, bridged over to the emerging mobile world and .. kinda missed the boat when Apple happend in with iPhone and then Android's emergence killed them.
A lot of people loved their handsets. Just not enough in any single market to make up for some bad decisions.
A similar fate: I wonder if the myriad of vendors who glued to the Japanese market regretted it, as that model shrank as internet rose?
So for the big mobile wireless telco's, the big players are basically Nokia, Erricson, and Huawei these days. My experience with Nokia's equipment did reflect the burning platform memo, but all the big players had lots to be desired in my experience with them.
Note: I've been out of the industry for several years, so I'm not totally up to date on the vendors.
It wasn't just a rebranding. Nokia wisely bought Siemens out from the Networks joint venture already in 2013, before selling the phones to Microsoft. Then in 2015, they acquired Alcatel-Lucent (including Bell Labs) to the mix. This way, they stayed in Fortune Global 500 even without the phone business.
And nowadays there are new Nokia branded feature phones as well as Android phones and tablets: https://www.nokia.com/phones/
That included me. I had fond memories of an near indestructible 3310 and I genuinely wish I did not miss the boat on N900 ( I just landed in US and phone was the least of my concerns then ).
<<Just not enough in any single market to make up for some bad decisions.
Sadly, clearly there are decisions that can sink even a dominant power in the market. He is not HP's Fiorina. He did have some wins in previous positions, which makes a person like me question whether the failures at Nokia was little more than a sabotage. Obviously, we will likely never really know.
I remember reading a deep dive into how exactly Nokia run it's cellular department, in it's corporate culture... and things there were not great. Everything were behind the red tape and countless meetings, every feature had someone who was appointed as an 'owner' of that feature and if you need to change something what would somehow involve that feature you needed an approval from that owner. And if the guy didn't want to give the approval, because he was afraid to take the responsibility than there was nothing you could with it. Same in the Symbian dept.
People like to shit on Elop, but with or without him the mighty Finnish giant would die anyway. With Elop and MS deal they, at least, tried to do something and saved jobs for a couple of years (though not all). Without MS deal all those people would been on the street in 2013 at best.
Then I looked around the whole website, and there was interesting data. Which ended in 2018. The whole website seems abandoned.
It is not intended to be flippant, but I believe this one time the entirety of the relevance boils down to the following:
“Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.”
<< It was a pretty melodramatic way of describing being beaten by a competitor, which happens all the time in business history.
Yes, and I am certain MBAs review Nokia rise and fall in great detail as a result.
Nokia also was the most successful European high tech brand. Losing it felt disheartening at the time.
If not for Elop, I might now develop apps for Meego instead of iOS.
So, I guess, there‘s a moral to the story: don’t let bad hires run your company to the ground?
Many of us also really liked what they were doing with N900 and wanted it to continue. But it didn't.
To these days their gesture navigation implementation is the best. And they had Swype keyboard preinstalled.
Speaking of apps: Here maps, SoundHound, amazing mail client and calendar...
Gosh I miss that phone.
I used mine for about 3 years, I think, and sold it for more than a half of its original price in literally a couple of hours (which means my price was too low).
By the time the software started showing its age: no banking apps, browser failing to display more and more modern sites...
I believe, they should have pushed with Meego. With vendor support their OS could've been a hit.
I'll counter with the Nokia N900.
> I believe, they should have pushed with Meego. With vendor support their OS could've been a hit.
So say we all.
I've never understood this about N900 fans.
My experience with the N9 was great, and never left me wishing I could go back to something more like a Sharp Zaurus with modern cell connectivity.
What is it that makes the N900 appealing? Is it strictly the physical keyboard? So the N950 would have been the N900 killer? Or was there something else about it?
First of all ot was a true Linux phone. Running a derivative of Debian, complete with apt etc. Most of the apps on it, even the app to make a phone call where preexisting open source Linux applications with a nice mobile UI. An UI that was clean and consistent without the need off branding that other platforms suffer from.
I could simply write bash script for it to extend its functionality. For example I remember writing a script that would record and sent recordings of phone calls to my server.
I installed Pidgin the chat client and used it to chat with my friends when MSN was still popular in my county. It truly felt like having a PC in your pocket.
The keyboard was the best keyboard ever made in my opinion. I could actually type blind on it sensing a message without looking at the phone at all. I still own 3 N900's with the hope of every managing the find the enthusiasm to rig in the another phone or a pi.
I've had them all, including a Zaurus, various Palms with phone, various XDAs, Nokia N900, Free Runner, Firefox phone, Ubuntu phone, you name it... but IMHO the N900 was the best form factor and UI - the only reason why I got rid of it was the band didn't support where I was traveling to.
Still sad the NEO 900 went nowhere. I would jump at that. Still interested in trying the Purism and PinePhone, but with my time as limited as it is, I'll stick to my Pixel 4a running LineageOS for now - but can't wait to get me back a pure Linux phone that works without issues!
On top of that it was actually usable for normal users which the n900 failed at, largely due to not being usable in many networks due to the radio IIRC. The UI of the N9 was also much more polished. So unless you never used an N9 I don't understand how you would prefer the N900 (except for the keyboard).
The keyboard made it. It was very usable too. I took it once to a hackathon and was able to follow along nicely.
> Or was there something else about it?
It's pretty simple: hacker vs. user points of view
i used both N9 and N900. N9 was a way more polished, user-centric device. I love the UX and even how the device looks
however, for (low-level) hackers, N9/N950 was a bit hostile environment compared to N900. The first major stumbling block was Aegis (somewhat similar to Samsung's Knox perhaps). With N900, you can just boot any other Linux by simply loading u-boot to memory using the flasher. Nothing else. N9/N950's Aegis prevented that kind of luxury, so you needed to mess with the OS first, deal with permanent ominous warranty warning, and risk bricking it (see https://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=81579). On the other hand, N900 is basically unbrickable. So N950 loses to N900 because of these reasons, even though it has a keyboard, a somewhat better one in fact
Still better than pretty much every alternative at that time though.
N900 was a great beta. We never got a 1.0 though.
Eventually got a Sailfish Jolla.
Some of the bugs you describe could have been fixed with simple software updates.
I owned a Communicator 9290, and have yet to have a phone that performed as well on speaker. Bar none. Noise cancelling and volume both. I had an e90, and although it was less amazing on that front, the build quality, and look at feel just was... Great!
I'd pay iPhone Pro prices for (basically) an e90 running Android with a decent camera. Nobody's made one yet, but I keep hoping. And yes, in a matter of weeks I'll have my Astro Slide from Planet Computers, but I have little doubt the form factor will still fall short of the dream of a truly pocket phone you can type decently well on.
Mind you that memo and the decisions made were either incredibly stupid or part of a strategy by the shareholders to break apart Nokia. I mean apart from the fact that you tell the public that you don't believe in your product while selling it, they also decided to axe the Meego version N9 successor even though it was essentially ready. Many believe that was done to not risk it being a success, which would have revealed the whole strategy change to be wrong.
I actually miss it, those were simpler times where your phone didn't spam you with ads or notifications or didn't get outdated every 2 years. No constant data collection or surveillance to the scales we deal with now.
More so, I actually miss the feeling of how new everything was, in the sense that is you wanted to play some games you'd sometimes scour WAP sites for the game files (or pay exorbitant fees through magazines).
There was a certain charm to games back then, too, seeing what people could knock together with Java on such a limited platform. Games like Gravity Defied, Galaxy on Fire or Gish, or even Doom RPG.
I'm kind of nostalgic, admittedly, maybe for a time when not everything was so well optimized towards monetization. And before Wirth's law became so present on our devices.
SDK available only for Windows and really awkward to install and use? Check. Pre-11 C++ but without exceptions and something called cleanup stack and ELeave macro instead? Check. Ok, a whole periodic table of string classes instead of std::string (which would still have been terrible because it was before C++11)? Check. GUI API that was designed for a Psion handheld (Uikon) and implementation for Psions (Eikon) and Series 60 UI implementation (Avkon) piled on top of that? Check. App architecture that doesn't really have a concept of standalone app but works on the idea that apps are views and controllers that handle files? Check. What about making every single phone model slightly different so that apps are not portable between Symbian phones by default but you have to actually test and port with every model? Check. And there was a lot more at deeper technical level that I never had to reach.
I understand that the developer experience was better for the last Symbian versions but at that point it was already late, iOS and Android were taking over and Symbian had a reputation to fix.
My definitive memory of Symbian development having a lunch at a Nokia cafeteria, a week after starting the job and all the dreams about having a computer in your pocket that could run anything as long at it didn't need huge amounts of CPU power, memory or screen area crushed, and complaining with a friend who was in similar situation. An older engineer had heard us, told us that we don't know anything about how bad S60 is and continued with a hour-long rant that as far as I know was all pure facts.
That you couldn't develop for at all.
I do have a newer one, that's because the camera is something I care about, not because an X isn't fast enough or whatever, it remains a capable phone.
I get nostalgic for the HipTop, personally. Probably because I never had one, by the time I was done with flip phones the slab-o-glass was the obvious winner. Seriously cool little gizmos though, I don't think a better typing experience has been made for a pocketable jeejah to this day.
In-between Chromebooks and generic Linux distros (say what you will about the year of Linux on the desktop, use is only growing; slow paced or not, doesn't matter), specialised Linux distros (SteamOS - you might think it doesn't matter, it's only for a handheld console, the Steam Deck, but it will force many games to have Linux compatibility. And one of the main things keeping many tech savvy users on Windows is gaming) i think a duopoly is a bit of a strong word, and it's getting disrupted.
The other is the advanced state of Windows emulation for games, you can bypass the platform effect if you can piggy back on an established platform's APIs. That's tricky though, plenty of mobile OSes tried to get traction with Android APK compatibility, but the problem with that is, why bother developing native apps for them? With games consoles it's a different situation, maybe emulation in the long term is just fine.
Meego, running on the N9, was an absolutely wonderful experience. It was smooth, fast, beautifully designed, and had simple elegant swipe-based navigation system, it had multiprocess app switching (AFAIK before iPhone OS did) and a brilliant newsfeed/notification system. It felt like it really had extraordinary potential. And Elop ditched it.
HERE was spun off, and is a great platform today. HERE WeGo is available for Android and iOS, plus web.
[1] https://mspoweruser.com/nokia-here-transit-now-covers-46-uk-...
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.schildbach....
It's a horrible buggy mess. Nothing like the smooth experience of the meego/Maemo n9
Android have copied some elements of this but it's nowhere near as simple!
The hardware was fantastic as well. I dropped mine several times without a case and it never broke.
The TI dac sounded great with my Sony XBA-3 iems I had at the time.
I did hate the USB port cover though. And hated that they didn't have a dedicated camera button like the N8 and n97.
Paid a lot for the 64 gig N9. Soon after Nokia abandoned the OS, and I felt ripped off.
I remember the flash refused to stay off. I would disable flash for a photo, but next time I used camera the flash was back on. This was enough to move to a phone that remembered the flash setting.
Years later I tried to start my N9 but it was demanding a password that I didn't know. Some kind of recovery password I never knew I had set up. There was no way I could find to reset the phone even to factory settings. It's basically bricked with no way to restore, so I couldn't even sell it as a working phone.
Making UI for mostly existing apps, porting lots of existing apps over. Lots of free continues investments. Like you get other companies on board who use the same basic distro and apps and help with bug fixes and so on.
You can use the same distro on phones, tables and even sell laptops with that software on it.
And you can do all of that for no cost to anybody. Every single Nokia with Windows gives money away to Microsoft.
It's harder to do now with iPhone's market size, but I think we're looking at it with rosy glasses.
Where Apple succeeded is having a viable touch interface. That's where RIM, Nokia, Fujitsu, Compaq and countless other device makers failed at. Including Nokia.
Otherwise the iPhone was buggy and crashing all the time, battery life was trash compared to other phones or the iPod, I don't know anyone actually relying on it to make "serious" calls (we kept our feature phones) it would straight ignore some of the incomming calls and we just were willing to go through all of that to get a usable touch UI.
I know there was a lot of noise about dropped calls and all that in the US, but this was not a thing here in Europe. I would assume that the issue was at least as much with AT&T than with the iPhone.
Here there were controversies about a lot of things (for example, it became caught up in the electro-sensitivity pseudoscience argument, there was also some noise about the glass front being brittle), but not reception. At least not before the iPhone 4.
In asia it was the same deal (from iPhone 3G, not the original one). Most of the issues seemed to be when the phone ran from too long and/or was low on battery. From my understanding memory was leaking all over the place, and as the phone app isn't isolated from the system it was affected too (even if the network chip is a separate hardware and OS)
Basically rebooting every now and then was a good idea at the time.
The failure of this situation to talk about how intensely stupid it was to give up on the platform is farcically bad. What was here was incredible. It needed improvement & work but the architecture was immensely omni-potential, more capable clearly & growing well known existing tech well, rather than alternate reality symbian or then counter respondes danger or android. weird new alternates to actual linux desktop. Selling out to MS was one of the most shortsighted sorry pathetic givings ups, in a time of vast growth with fantastically little belief in yourself & your people doing good. There was no technical reason to refocus. (But bad numbers, as most players saw). They should have kept going. This was a decision made by people who had faint sense, gailed to appreciate hope, missed clarity on what creating value was like, what value was. This was a pathetic ignorant stupid business decision, to end Maemo. Things rocked, that was a great could do possibility, the OLE COM competitor kf DBus was winning, the market just didnt see yet.
Nokia had extremely high hardware quality. Indestructible Nokia 3310 meme and all that.
Everyone who had one said so. It was the best of all the “third option” OS devices. All the WebOSes and such.
But the market just doesn’t want a third option… even back then the Android and iOS were ossified
The only cool thing was the grid but that only goes skin deep. Otherwise I hated the phone. Maybe WP8+ devices were better but WP7 was a piece of crap. I didn't want to try WP8 and got myself a Jolla instead.
It's the app developers (and their companies) who wouldn't be happy with a third option, because the existing two cause enough problems, just think about how many frameworks for cross-platform app development exist, they were created for a reason..., and even with them you still have to do OS-specific stuff to tackle different app store policies, different privacy features, updated APIs breaking your app on new OS versions... or you can have two entirely separate teams working on two separate codebases and try to keep the feature parity...
But I loved my BlackBerries - they were the perfect tool for email/chat/calling and nothing else, the perfect complement to a laptop, whereas iPads partially overlap with both mobile phones AND laptops in terms of functionality, which is why at airports you now see so many people carrying three devices instead of one.
So while I have fond memories of Nokia, I don't miss their devices, but I'd give my metaphorical leg for getting my BB back.