
Elop explains: why Nokia didn't choose Android to replace Symbian - AndrewDucker
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jul/12/elop-explains-nokia-android
======
RyanZAG
You're still competing with Samsung whether you're on Android or not. So now
Nokia is competing with Samsung with both inferior hardware verticals and
incompatible software. Obvious bit of common sense that a lot of experts seem
to miss. It's like Linux competing with Windows on the desktop.

They have a nice camera on the latest phone though - pity it's not Android or
it might even be worth trying out. I'm sure if it takes better pictures
though, by next year some Android phone will be offering something similar.
Open platform and all that.

~~~
miguelrochefort
The only reason Windows Phone is not the dominant mobile OS is because of the
social stigma around Windows.

For most people, Windows Phone is a MUCH better experience than Android.

The problem is that no one gives Windows Phone a chance. I don't know many
people that used Windows Phone and switched back to Android/iPhone. Beside the
app factor (which is much less of an issue than what people think), Windows
Phone is an excellent mobile OS.

~~~
igravious
Where I'm at, I'm the geek. I wouldn't ever recommend a Windows Phone to any
one of my less tech savvy relations because I haven't liked Microsoft the
company for years. It was with joy that I watched Android getting all shiny
and polished and taking off in a big way and getting loads of developers.
Microsoft long long ago used up the last remaining goodwill I had for them,
that's just the way it is.

For example: My sister wanted a laptop, I recommended a Macbook even though
I'd never used one; she bought one and loved it and now I do have one too. My
Mum has a Samsung S3 Mini, I have a HTC One X, all the rest have iPhones.
Microsoft would have to radically alter their DNA before I'd take a look at
any of their software or hardware offerings.

~~~
throwawaykf02
Well if we're trading anecdotes, my sister-in-law (a serious geek type
herself) wanted a MacBook and I convinced her to get a Windows PC instead. And
of the several computing devices in my house, Apple products outnumber those
running Windows 2:1.

The difference is, I bought my Apple devices for dirt cheap from my previous
employer, whereas she'd be buying one retail. Spending 2x the money for the
same hardware capability and an OS that's equivalent does not make economic
sense to me.

------
Ologn
You can tell what Elop is saying is nonsense just from the article title.
Specifically the word "choose".

Choose? Why did Elop have to "choose" Windows? Did Samsung have to choose
between Android or Windows? Did HTC have to choose between Android or Windows?

They did not. Samsung sells both Windows and Android smartphones. The Android
phones have sold spectacularly, the Windows phones have not. HTC sells both
Android and Windows phones. HTC's Windows phones do not sell. HTC's Android
phones sell well enough to keep them in the game - their profits are not
spectacular, but they're doing better than RIM and other companies. I'm happy
with my HTC One.

I go into a Sprint or AT&T or T-mobile or Verizon mobile store, and up front I
see the featured phones - an iPhone, a Samsung S4, and an HTC one. Way in the
back is a Blackberry kiosk. Next to it is a Windows kiosk with the HTC Windows
phone, the Samsung Windows phone, and - depending on the carrier - the Nokia
Windows phone. This is what Nokia is crowing about?

Maybe this type of talk might fool non-technical stock buyers who do not know
any better. All of us know that Nokia could have made both Android and Windows
phones, just as Samsung and HTC (and other companies) do. So we realize that
his invention of the idea that they were forced to choose one or the other is
nonsense. It's too late for Nokia to come in and be a big player in the
Android market now, but it was not when way back when he sent his "burning
platform" memo out.

Of course, some with perhaps more knowledge than me might say that Nokia was
in bad financial shape and needed Microsoft to bail them out financially or
they'd go under, and they were forced to go Windows only in that sense. That
may also be true, but again, it has no relation to the bogus reasons he says
he had to make a "choice" in the article. He seems to be in the only company
that had to make a choice.

~~~
throwawaykf02
To me, choosing one and focusing on it seems the only rational choice, rather
than making two halfhearted forays. Say Nokia did choose both. They'd have
invested a huge amount of money and resources (comparable to what they
invested for on WP), and most likely they'd just be down there with HTC
(despite the One), Sony and LG, who are all struggling in the smartphone
market. How is that better?

Samsung can afford to make that investment, of course, as well as experiment
with alternatives like Bada. They have a huge amount of resources at their
disposal. Nokia saw the coming adversity and realized they had to choose.

There were many reasons affecting that choice, of course... such as Google's
insistence that the Android trademark only comes with the full host of Google
apps, including their navigation app, which directly undercuts Nokia's Navteq
investment. Or Microsoft's willingness to pump billions into joint marketing
efforts. Even HTC realizes that heavy marketing is needed to compete with
Samsung.

~~~
Ologn
Former Microsoft Business Division head Elop became Nokia CEO in September
2010. In February 2011, he wrote his burning platforms memo. By the time April
2011 rolled around, Nokia stock was still worth more than HTC's. That month
the stocks would meet in (market cap) price, and then HTC would begin pulling
ahead of Nokia.

You say Nokia could be "down there with HTC (despite the One)" and that "HTC
realizes that heavy marketing is needed". HTC is worth $163 billion. Nokia is
worth $15 billion. For the first seven months Elop was CEO (late 2010, early
2011), Nokia was worth more than HTC. It would be a shareholder's dream for
Nokia to be "down their with HTC" right now. People were making the same
arguments back then (including Elop). If the market is the ultimate arbiter,
Nokia, which as worth more than HTC when Elop wrote his burning platform memo,
is now worth less than 10% of HTC. Investors who are putting their money where
their confidence of future prospects are don't have much confidence in the
decision for Windows. Nokia felt it had to make a choice and focus, and went
from being worth more than HTC to worth $15 billion. HTC put out two products
and is worth $163 billion.

HTC might be struggling to compete with Samsung and Apple, but it's still in
the ball game, Nokia has been left far, far behind. Even if Windows market
percentage does start picking up - Samsung and HTC put out Windows phones as
well. Nokia has to compete in the big smartphone picture, and they have to
compete even in the Windows smartphone picture. As I said, I go to the Windows
smartphone kiosk in the back of the store and Samsung and HTC have phones
alongside the Nokia. Wasn't one of the comments about Windows phones how
they're all more or less the same with tiles and such, while Android phones
could have their homescreens changed so much? So you have a Samsung, Nokia and
HTC Windows smartphone which in software is less distinguishable from one
another than a Samsung and HTC Android phone. It's more of a commodity. Plus
IDC says for 2013 Q1 sales, Android has 75% of the worldwide market, iPhone
17.3%, Blackberry 2.9% and Windows 3.2%. So Nokia competes with Samsung and
HTC for that 3.2% of the market, instead of competing with Samsung and HTC in
that 75% of the market.

Google Maps does undercut Navteq, but that's going to happen no matter what
Nokia does. If Apple can't move off Google Maps without a disaster, then it's
nothing that a company like Nokia can affect by its choice of platform.

You're right of course about Microsoft's willingness to pump billions into
joint marketing efforts with Nokia. It still doesn't seem to have helped
though. For 2013 Q1 sales, Nokia is fighting for a piece of Windows's 3.2% of
the marketplace against Samsung, HTC etc. Android's market share is 75%, with
all the benefits behind a market of that size. Many developers are focused on
Android. It's openness has helped it in many ways. Manufacturers get Android
for free, while they have to pay Microsoft for its unpopular OS.

I think Elop made a mistake back in late 2010, early 2011. The market seems to
agree with me. Nokia had a decent brand name in many parts of the world, they
were known to have good cameras and such. They could have had a chunk of
Android's 75% market share. Instead they fight for a piece of Windows's 3.2%
market share with Samsung, HTC etc.

------
snom380
I find it interesting that Maemo/Meego was not mentioned as an option. Nokia
had a platform they could have built off if they could have settled the
internal politics, and they could even have made a compatibility layer to
submit Android Apps to their store if they wanted to.

I think this, along with failing to see the threat from iPhone/Android will go
down in history as one of the biggest business mistakes.

~~~
tkorri
Maemo/Meego wasn't really an option. It wasn't ready back then and it doesn't
seem to be ready now either, since rumours say that Samsung has axed Tizen
development.

I think the only company currently developing Maemo/Meego succesor is Jolla
with their Sailfish OS. Although they've also missed deadlines they've given
themselves, so their product is starting slip more and more into to the
vaporware category.

~~~
ac
> Maemo/Meego wasn't really an option.

Now, why wasn't it? It was a solid OS, and there were two great products
running it (N900 and N9).

~~~
rodgerd
The N900 was a "great product" iff you wanted Linux on a phone. It had a bunch
of frustrating shortcomings otherwise, and minimal software outside the Linux-
on-a-phone use case.

------
alipang
So, now that we now Samsung is somewhat dominant in the Android space we get
an explanation that the reason Nokia went with WP was that Samsung would be a
dominant player in the Android space.

I guess I would have been kinda impressed if they actually gave this as the
reason two years ago.

~~~
barista
It was quite obvious even a couple of years ago that Samsung will basically
dominate Android to the extent that android == Samsung given the market share.
The whole open platform is a façade that Google has created.

------
speeder
I still think Nokia did a major shit.

First, they did not needed to replace Symbian in first place, for example here
in Brazil 60% of the mobile market was Symbian, until Nokia decided to kill it
(in two years almost all Symbians are gone).

Think about it, Nokia was selling in Brazil alone more than 100 million
phones.

People were perfectly happy with Symbian, people here LIKED Symbian, we had
huge internet forums for Symbian fans, we had Symbian software developers, and
so on... Nokia announcement that they would not use Symbian anymore killed all
that overnight.

And then, they choose Windows, and went for the high-end... They basically
dumped their old market, and tried to pursue what then was Apple and
Blackberry markets, they basically threw out all their loyal costumers.

I for one got really disappointed, I loved Nokias, I had a couple of Nokia
phones, a developer account, I made even J2ME stuff for non-Symbian Nokia, and
all of that, started because OTHER PEOPLE made me like it, because Nokia was
wildly popular (mostly because of its crazy resilience and quality
engineering, something more prized in a developing country than flashy
features). And they threw it all out in one shot.

Most people I know still feel that noone has risen to substitute Nokia, some
people think Nokia is 100% dead (along with Blackberry), but are unhappy with
Samsung... I personally saw so far a single android phone that impressed me
(that is the Xperia Play, that I own), and was quite disappointed with Sony
abandoning it too. I am yet to see a phone that make me want to buy it to
substitute my old Xperia Play

~~~
toyg
To be fair, in developed markets Symbian was crashing well before the "burning
platform" memo came out. The disappearance of Symbian in developing markets
has a lot to do with Android-induced price drops, which would have happened
anyway.

But yeah, they had a Qt-based transition roadmap that _could_ have saved their
ecosystem, and Elop threw all that out of the window. The rational move would
have been to make Qt run on WP and salvage at least some of their developer
partners.

~~~
fpgeek
The could have done even better. Qt for iOS and Qt for Android existed at the
time and have now become officially supported (despite all of the major
cutbacks Qt development has gone through since then):

[http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2013/07/03/qt-5-1-released/](http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2013/07/03/qt-5-1-released/)

If they had embraced Qt as a cross-platform layer back then, they could have
been "a better Xamarin than Xamarin". That would have been a great way to get
developers and users into their ecosystem. Qt apps could "run everywhere", but
they'd run best on Nokia phones (where it would be built-in and integrated).
Instead...

------
JanneVee
Abandoning Maemo/Meego made me sad. I'm not going to second guess the
decision. But when that decision was made they lost me as a customer forever.
My last Nokia was the N900. I loved that phone.

------
protomyth
Was Symbian so far gone that it couldn't compete? They bought Qt and it seemed
like they could make a go out it.

~~~
RyanZAG
As someone who gave Symbian coding a chance, Symbian was the most terribly
badly designed platform I've ever seen. The distribution restrictions made it
even worse. The core UI platform was truly awful.

The Nokia engineers on the N8 did an incredible job getting it to where it was
- semi usable - but it simply couldn't compete with Linux/Android/iOS.

