
First Nokia-branded Android smartphone to be released exclusively in China - kenrick95
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-38546676
======
ploggingdev
It was sad to see the decline of Nokia from being the most ubiquitous brand of
phones to literally nothing today (in the smartphone and feature phone
market).

If they had adopted Android instead of going with Windows Phone, things could
have been a lot better. Even when they made Windows Phone devices, at least
the high end devices where critically acclaimed with everyone's only gripe
only being Windows Phone (mainly the lack of apps). IIRC Samsung started
becoming incredibly popular at around the same time. In some ways Samsung
become the new Nokia, especially in developing markets where low end Android
devices became very popular. At the time Nokia also had what seemed like
technical advantages one of which was the PureView camera technology.

I think Nokia's decline was also largely because of very poor management
decisions and also to some extent political. Microsoft aggressively pursued a
deal with Nokia to adopt Windows Phone and they gave incredible incentives as
well, billions of dollars in aid/credit/support (I don't remember the exact
nature of the transfer of cash). This probably swayed their decision away from
Android towards Windows Phone. I can't help but take a cheap shot: Stephen
Elop was a Trojan Horse.

As the title says, this is a _Nokia branded_ device, so HMD uses the Nokia
brand for it's phones. It's not a _real_ Nokia device from the company itself.

PS : Seeing Nokia and Android in the same sentence always triggers a
nostalgic/angry rant.

~~~
mdasen
It is sad, but I don't think it was the Microsoft deal that did Nokia in.

Nokia had already been left behind when they finally realized that Symbian
wasn't going to cut it against iOS and Android. I think they made a calculated
decision: they could try and create an Android device to compete against the
likes of Samsung, HTC, Motorola, and LG with basically no differentiation -OR-
they could take Microsoft's money and put their hopes on Windows Phone.

If they had gone the Android route, it doesn't seem like they would have
gotten a better result. Samsung can make its own displays and chips and that
advantage has ground a lot of the competition to dust. LG makes its own
displays. Facing this, HTC (who had a nice Android business) has really
struggled. Motorola struggled and then got bounced around and still doesn't
really make money. Nokia would likely have struggled as well.

Let's look at the Lumia 800 flagship launched in November 2011. The Galaxy S2
was launched in May 2011 with a dual-core processor (as opposed to the single-
core Lumia), 1GB of RAM (rather than 512MB), a 4.3" display (rather than 3.7"
\- and people want larger screens), a 3-colors-per-pixel AMOLED Plus display
(rather than the 2-color-per-pixel PenTile on the Lumia), a microSD card slot
(while the Lumia had no expandable storage), a front camera the Lumia lacked
entirely, and a larger battery. A Lumia 800 Android phone wouldn't have sold
well. It was way worse (hardware wise) than a Samsung phone introduced 6
months prior.

Not to go on too much of a tangent, but in a way it was like the Palm Pre.
Palm introduced it, but it had a smaller display than the iPhone, underclocked
processor, half the storage, 40% thicker, creaky build quality, and the same
price tag. Sure, it had the niche feature of the keyboard, but in most ways
the hardware was simply inferior. It was easy to write off the Palm Pre as a
device that could have been great if not for an OS that wasn't popular enough.
If it had run iOS, it would have tanked against an iPhone that was simply
superior.

It's very easy to critically acclaim something when one sees one specific flaw
that's a dealbreaker. In that case, all other flaws tend to go unnoticed or
just get attributed to the dealbreaker. If the Lumia 800 ran Android, it would
have been crappy compared to Android phones of the day.

Nokia did a couple cool things like the 41MP Lumia 1020 (or PureView 808). But
a camera just isn't enough, especially when wedded to a bulky, underpowered
phone with a crappy display. Nokia's hardware was simply poorly matched
against what you could get from competitors.

It's always sad to see a brand that once meant so much end up the way it did.
But it wasn't Microsoft that did Nokia in. Like many others, they failed to
notice how important the iPhone was going to be. Even those that saw the
iPhone for what it was (like HTC) weren't spared. Nokia wouldn't have done
much better if they'd released their devices as Android phones. They would
have been underpowered and overpriced. Sure, some would have bought it for the
Nokia name, but not enough. The market was flooded with better hardware. Nokia
would have introduced Android phones that would have been mediocre with a
premium price. A lot of us remember Nokia fondly and would have rooted for
Nokia to introduce something without the dealbreaker of Windows Phone, but we
would have been disappointed when we compared a Nokia Android against other
options in the market. Maybe it's best that we can just write off Nokia's
failure as due to Windows Phone rather than noting that most of their
smartphone devices also just weren't great hardware.

~~~
gareim
Disagree. It's likely that Nokia, like many manufacturers, used the minimum
specs possible to get a certain experience level. It could be that WP7
required lower specs to get the same smoothness that Android could achieve.
That wouldn't be hard to believe, as Android wasn't even focusing on feeling
"smooth" until long after the Galaxy S2 had come out. Nokia isn't somehow
incapable of sourcing competitive parts aside from Samsung's AMOLED.

I dislike the "Windows Phone or become a commodity Android OEM" argument
because it holds no substance. First of all, if Nokia is successful at
executing WP, then other manufacturers will license WP and Microsoft sure as
hell won't let an OEM customize WP, so how does your argument hold weight?
Nokia would only be able to compete in build quality, which it can do
regardless of OS, so why not jump in with the popular, entrenched option?

As for differentiating as an Android OEM, if they had gone that route, that
common argument always seems to ignore the fact that every single manufacturer
has had no issue making their own skin. In fact, one popular OEM's schtick is
that they provide a near-stock experience. Shit, if Nokia had done that
coupled with their reputation for good build quality (something that
aforementioned popular OEM lacks), then they would be doing better than most
of the guys on the market now. At the very least, they'd be doing better than
how they actually did.

I LOVED Nokia at the time, so I followed news of their phones closely. No one
will ever be able to convince me that it was a good idea to pick a dead end OS
(it was obvious even at that time) over a popular juggernaut, publicly
destroying their current OSes before even implementing their dead OS properly,
destroying the N9 which had pretty much only great reviews, and then undoing
all of that in the span of a few years. I hated it when it happened and I hate
it now.

~~~
mdasen
I loved Nokia too. I think it was a bad idea to pick Windows Phone. I still
think that by November 2011, Nokia wasn't going to become a great smartphone
company regardless of their OS choice.

Nokia wouldn't have been able to competitively source parts. Apple and Samsung
were putting down huge component orders (and Samsung makes a lot of its own
parts like processors, RAM, storage, and displays). As Nokia's first Android
phone, they would have made smaller orders at higher cost.

If you're going to argue that they only needed certain specs to get the same
experience, it undercuts your argument that they're able to competitively
source given the price of the Lumia 800 against the competition. If you're
going to say that Android needed the more power, than if the Lumia 800 were an
Android phone, it would have been terrible - or they would have had to spend
up on parts.

Nokia was great, but they ignored smartphones for too long. I don't think the
Microsoft deal did them in - they were done-in before that. They spent too
much time pursuing Maemo and Symbian alternatives to Android. When they came
out with the Lumia 800, it wasn't amazing. It was another slab phone with
mediocre specs.

 _By November 2011, you had to do something really impressive and Nokia wasn
't doing something impressive._ That's my argument. The market had already
decided that it didn't give a crap about brands from the dumbphone era. It
might have given a crap about Nokia. I mean, Nokia was great. The fact still
remains that even if they went with an Android device, they needed a better
phone. People were already quite happy with Samsung Android devices, while
HTC, Motorola, SonyEricsson, and LG were all competing in that space with
established brands.

Even if we ignore the single-core CPU and 512MB of RAM, the Lumia 800's
display simply wasn't competitive against other offerings.

Frankly, Motorola and HTC have both come out with really nice, compelling
Android devices and both of them haven't been able to keep up. They both got
on board the Android train a lot earlier than November 2011.

Yes, I liked Nokia's brand better. Yes, Nokia made some great build-quality
devices. I even have a Lumia sitting on my dresser as I type this. I still
think that a Nokia Android phone released in November 2011 would have been
below-par compared to other available Android devices. It certainly would have
sold some, but HTC, Motorola, LG, Sony sell some. But even if it had 1GB of
RAM and a dual-core processor, the Lumia 800 had a small display compared to
Android phones, a comparatively low-res display, it was a good deal thicker
(40% thicker than a Galaxy SII) and heavier (22% heavier than a Galaxy SII),
with a smaller battery.

That's the thing one can't account for. Maybe the RAM and CPU were spec'd by
Microsoft. Maybe the RAM and CPU were competitive in terms of experience
against Android phones. The fact is that Nokia couldn't manufacture something
that was physically competitive in terms of weight, size, and battery
capacity. A Lumia 800 Android phone with 1GB of RAM and a dual-core processor
would have been thicker, heavier, and had less battery life with a smaller
display. Customers wanted the larger display. Customers want more battery
life. Even if Nokia had made it run Android, customers would have looked at it
next to a Galaxy SII and most of them would have decided on the larger
display, better display, better battery, while being thinner and lighter.

That's ultimately the issue. Regardless of RAM and CPU, the Lumia 800 just
wasn't a superb phone. It was bulky and heavy. Nokia put a smaller display on
it than consumers wanted.

I miss Nokia too. I wish they were still around. I just don't think that
Windows Phone was the determining factor. I did like the build quality of the
Lumias, but I don't think that would be enough to get most people to choose
them over a competitor that was better in all other respects - especially as
competitors ramped up their build quality a lot in 2012. Nokia had squandered
their chance in the smartphone race regardless of OS. They were late to the
game and the Lumia 800 just wasn't a flagship device. I miss Nokia, but
blaming it on Windows Phone given that Nokia was late to smartphones generally
and that the Lumia 800 was a poor offering with respect to what consumers
wanted seems like shifting the blame because it's easier to hate on Microsoft
for destroying the brand we loved than recognizing that Nokia just didn't make
the transition to smartphones more generally.

------
aceperry
The Nokia name and brand reminds me of what happened to Blackberry. Former
giants in the pre-smartphone era (Apple iPhone) that couldn't pivot to making
successful smartphones. I know Microsoft has always had computerized phones,
but they sucked and didn't have the wow factor of the iPhone. The iPhone's
open app ecosystem (relatively, for its time) also seemed to have contributed
to it's success.

~~~
samfisher83
Nokia made smart phones with browsers before iphone. It wasn't great, but they
were on the smartphone thing from the start. Also I don't know how you can say
iphone is more free than symbian. You could put what you wanted into your
phone.

~~~
pjmlp
One thing was that iPhone SDK surely felt like heaven when compared to the
clunky Symbian C++ one, which after three reboots still felt bad.

------
coconutoperator
It's a good sign but not that impressive, people are expecting a top-notch
change-maker one from Nokia. At least it should be with flagship android
specs. Not many people would pay the 'Nokia premium' for the specs of this
phone nowadays. There are plenty of homogeneous ones are just doing fine with
lower prices.

------
hsivonen
Still waiting for an Android vendor to differentiate by matching Apple in the
length of time a given device gets security patches for the software.

~~~
remir
Imagine if you had to wait for HP or Acer to update your Windows PC. How
terrible would that be. Nvidia, AMD and Intel stop making new drivers because
they want to sell new chips, OEM stop making updates because they want to sell
new machines. Truly crappy model.

But this is what we have with Android phones. Qualcomm is not compiling new
kernels past 2 year because they want to sell new chips and OEM don't bother
updating their phones because, hey, here's a new model!

~~~
megablast
Apple also wants to sell new devices.

So there is something to be said for longer support times, it must be good for
something.

------
Nokinside
HMD Global is Finnish company behind these phones, Nokia provides the brand
and huge patent portfolio in exchange of royalty payments. Nokia did not
invest into this company.

Third big player behind the scenes is Foxconn Technology Group. They bought
all Microsoft/Nokia phone manufacturing plants, and they will build these
phones. This provides them the opportunity to diversify their customer base.

~~~
antoniuschan99
good time to buy shares? They also offer 5.68% div yield.

~~~
Nokinside
As a someone who has Nokia shares and follows the company, I would say Nokia
is still 'hold', not necessarily buy. This phone/tablet deal is low risk
reasonable reward deal for Nokia. If HMD Global reaches its goals, Nokia will
get nice royalties and the brand value grows.

Nokia's two main businesses are Nokia Networks (Mobile Networks, Fixed
Networks, IP/Optical Networks and Applications & Analytics ) and Nokia
Technologies (patent licensing, proprietary technology licensing, brand
partnerships, incubation and research labs).

Nokia Networks business model is clear and in good shape. Nokia Technologies
is basically massive patent portfolio and large R&D arm without products
(unless research goes to Networks). Profits come trough licensing deals.
Whitings, VR efforts etc. might pay off or not.

------
bdz
>The specifications are mid-range, and so is the price: 1,699 yuan ($245;
£200).

Nice it will be dirt cheap on Aliexpress then. I might order one

~~~
kyriakos
It's quite expensive for the specs. In comparison xiaomi mi5s with 4gb ram/
sd821 costs just 20 usd more in online stores today.

------
kenrick95
If anyone could read Chinese, here is the product page on Nokia's website:
[http://www.nokia.com/zh_int/phones/nokia-6](http://www.nokia.com/zh_int/phones/nokia-6)

~~~
abrowne
The new Google Translate works pretty well on it.

------
lucaspiller
What about the Nokia X? It didn't come with Google Play Services, but under
the hood it was Android.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_X](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_X)

~~~
digi_owl
That was passed on to Microsoft as part of the sale of the old handset
division. As part of that deal, MS got to use the Nokia trademark for a couple
of years. But since then it passed back to Nokia proper (they still exist,
focusing on mobile network infrastructure), and is now licensed by HMD Global
(a company based in Finland and formed by former Nokia handset people).

Also i suspect that it, like Amazon's Fire platform, learned first hand how
much of the app side of Android is actually housed in Google Play Services...

------
MarkHub
Great. Atleast they learnt something after being lost their competitors. Nokia
once loved by everyone for its phones but they failed to understand that
Android is going to lead in OS race.

------
akjainaj
Is this an actual Nokia phone, or a device made by another manufacturer but
branded as "Nokia" like that tabled they made some time ago?

~~~
dazc
Quote: Headquartered in Espoo, Finland, HMD Global Oy is the new home of Nokia
phones and tablets. HMD designs and markets a range of smartphones and feature
phones targeted at a range of consumers and price points. With a commitment to
innovation and quality, HMD is the proud exclusive licensee of the Nokia brand
for mobile phones and tablets. Nokia is a registered trademark of Nokia. For
further information, see www.hmd.global.

~~~
Fnoord
"Manufacturing and distribution is performed by Foxconn's FIH Mobile
division." [1] aka, in China.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMD_Global](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMD_Global)

~~~
akjainaj
Exactly! That tablet I was talking about was made by Foxconn

------
illuminati1911
"to be released exclusively in China."

Why?

~~~
dazc
"The decision by HMD to launch its first Android smartphone into China is a
reflection of the desire to meet the real world needs of consumers in
different markets around the world."
[http://www.hmdglobal.com/press/2017-01-08-nokia-6/](http://www.hmdglobal.com/press/2017-01-08-nokia-6/)

~~~
tatoalo
"[...]With over 552 million smartphone users in China in 2016, a figure that
is predicted to grow to more than 593 million users by 2017, it is a
strategically important market where premium design and quality is highly
valued by consumers."

I would honestly consider India also a strategically important market which is
bound to grow quickly...

~~~
vertex-four
And so Samsung releases their Tizen-based phones in India.

The market in the US is full of broken incentives due to the sales model
there, and a lot of the rest of the world seems to be sold whatever works in
the US, so inherits the results of the broken market. There's only a few
countries which are large enough to have special effort put in.

------
godmodus
Finally!

