Nokia had options, they could have continued with it, they could have continued with Meego, but no, they announced they would stop development. This is what killed Symbian.
And the reason they killed Symbian was....
And I agree, he can be ded wrong sometimes/often/always...
No, it didn't work like a netbook. I owned an N800. It was very much a mini-tablet. It used full-screen apps, an ARM CPU, a touchscreen with on-screen keyboard and was an always on device.
Quite where you get the idea that it was a netbook is anyone's guess. The first model came out several years before the first netbook was released. I very much doubt you ever used one of Nokia's internet tablets.
The key: "full-screen apps." Sorry to confuse your train of thought with "netbook," as it certainly wasn’t a clamshell shape. But it was a simple scaled down PC experience from a company that didn’t get that what people needed wasn’t what they were asking for.
This Apple Insider's article is simply pure rubbish and lie. iPhone did not kill Symbian, the whole claim that it did is ridiculous. Symbian was killed by Elop and MicroSoft, not by Apple and iPhone. iPhone really has never been a threat to Symbian. iPhonr has never been capable of killing Symbian.
...
So it's ridiculous to claim that iPhone killed Symbian, IT DID NOT. And Symbian is still really not dead. There is still tens of millions active Symbian users worldwide, two years and 8 months after Elop officially destroyed Symbian market!!
Hill60 has it right. Your comments about what Nokia was trying to do before WP came in and terminated all other projects is interesting, and we can’t redo the experiment to see how those projects might have worked out. But we don’t need to. Nokia already lost its profitability. Apple established itself as the black hole for 75% of the mobile industry’s profits.
The problem with Nokia wasn’t that it needed time to finish various projects in 2011. It’s that it didn’t have those projects in place in time to compete with the iPhone four years earlier.
Nokia and its Symbian partners, along with Blackberry, Palm and Microsoft, all unintentionally left open a huge door of opportunity for Apple, which coincided with a masterfully orchestrated product in the iPhone. That door is no longer open, anymore than there were any opportunities for new alternatives to "Windows" to appear after 1995.
Calling Symbian a smartphone platform is a bit of a stretch. It’s an advanced feature-phone, and clearly not competitive with iOS even at a lower price. So the only place it exists is in the simple-phone market for devices <$100, which isn’t where the money is (ask Nokia!)
You can blame Elop for destroying the remains of Nokia and throwing away all sorts of viable technology, but that’s irrelevant at this point because simply having a 1.0 new product to float in 2012-2013 wouldn’t have saved Nokia any more than webOS saved Palm.
Saying that Symbian is "still alive" is some other conversation for people running a museum or Nokia fan site. The world rejected Symbian a very long time ago (but not before Samsung and Sony took year long, completely futile stabs at using it to compete against iPhone) and it has zero future.
The key: "full-screen apps." Sorry to confuse your train of thought with "netbook," as it certainly wasn’t a clamshell shape. But it was a simple scaled down PC experience from a company that didn’t get that what people needed wasn’t what they were asking for.
Your attempts to justify your use of the word netbook for an always-on, ARM-powered tablet are just laughable. It was not a scaled-down PC experience as anyone who has actually used one would tell you.
Netbook:
Tablet:
I know that Nokia's internet tablets don't fit as neatly into your narrative as you'd like but you're going to have to deal with that.
Your attempts to justify your use of the word netbook for an always-on, ARM-powered tablet are just laughable. It was not a scaled-down PC experience as anyone who has actually used one would tell you.
I know that Nokia's internet tablets don't fit as neatly into your narrative as you'd like but you're going to have to deal with that.
The definition of Post-PC isn't just that it has an ARM processor or that it doesn't run Windows (as you portray above).
You can attach a keyboard to an iPad and it will look more like your netbook image than your "Internet tablet," but that doesn't make it more like one PC device than that other. It works like neither of them.
I didn't own a Nokia 770/800/900, but I did try them out and actually tried to like it. Fact is, not many people owned one, because they weren't a great product.
They were a Linux PC shrunk down to a handheld screen, essentially the same thing Microsoft had already done with its Windows CE product (whether as a netbook, a "Palm PC" a slate or whatever form factor).
Whatever name you want to call them doesn't matter. Nokia's stuff, like Microsoft's, was really just not very good and subsequently was not popular and the company is now out of the running.
It is interesting that old platforms like Symbian and Maemo still have the same kind of raging fans that Microsoft collected: sort of an overwhelmingly arrogant, pretentious bag of dicks who will flip out if you portray this junk they loved as the uninspired failures actually they were.
Let it go Rich, no need to defend failure with such angry hostility.
It is interesting that old platforms like Symbian and Maemo still have the same kind of raging fans that Microsoft collected: sort of an overwhelmingly arrogant, pretentious bag of dicks who will flip out if you portray this junk they loved as the uninspired failures actually they were.
Let it go Rich, no need to defend failure with such angry hostility.
You really don't like it when you're proven wrong, do you? Apparently I'm the one getting angry! Thanks for making me laugh.
Calling Symbian a smartphone platform is a bit of a stretch. It’s an advanced feature-phone, and clearly not competitive with iOS even at a lower price. So the only place it exists is in the simple-phone market for devices <$100, which isn’t where the money is (ask Nokia!)
Daniel, please stop with this rubbish, it is starting to get old.
Symbian was and is a Smartphone OS, there is no two ways about it. And if you want to get into this rubbish, please remember that the original iOS wasn't a smartphone OS, you couldn't even install apps on it.
Daniel, please stop with this rubbish, it is starting to get old.
Symbian was and is a Smartphone OS, there is no two ways about it. And if you want to get into this rubbish, please remember that the original iOS wasn't a smartphone OS, you couldn't even install apps on it.
Well it appears meeting your/ABI Research's definition of "smartphone" doesn't mean much. It's certainly not a predictor of success.
But cling to it tenuously! You can argue how it matters as the "smartphone" makers all slide into obscurity.
Em, but Symbian is not dead (currently 'maintained' by Accenture). Secondly, what has Wall Street has to do with Symbian? It's a product, not a company. Accenture is a publicly trading company, but I'm failing to see how Wall Street has killed them; their stock has 'always' gone up.
For someone who is always zooming in on the smallest details, trying to be accurate instead of 'just being right' I don't get the Wall St. remark. At all.
Well it appears meeting your/ABI Research's definition of "smartphone" doesn't mean much. It's certainly not a predictor of success.
.
Daniel, as this ABI Research charges for their definition, magic word being, their, can you please post it since it appears to be the one that agrees with you, rather than everyone else.
Em, but Symbian is not dead (currently 'maintained' by Accenture). Secondly, what has Wall Street has to do with Symbian? It's a product, not a company. Accenture is a publicly trading company, but I'm failing to see how Wall Street has killed them; their stock has 'always' gone up.
Symbian, prior to being sold was part of Nokia (forgetting that the foundation rubbish that occurred), Wall Street started dumping Nokia as they believed they didn't have a competitive OS.
For someone who is always zooming in on the smallest details, trying to be accurate instead of 'just being right' I don't get the Wall St. remark. At all.
I'm sorry, this is all history, and was well published
As someone from asian country, I think I know why Apple never enjoyed a market share over other mobile devices here in asian countries. The main reason being the pricing which is in line with economies in developed countries like US,UK etc. People from developing countries were unable to find value-for-money in iPhones and it always remained as a show-off device for rich kids. Second reason was that, asians were always referred to as "nerds" or "geeks" and this is true to some extent. Most smartphone buyers I've seen here are tech heads rather than amateur users, so they want their phones to do what they wanted to do and not the other way around as in the case of ios devices. This in turn created lot of fans for symbian os and now android. iOS and newer windows phone os were more appealing to amateur users because of simplicity and ease of use while android and older platforms like symbian catered to "tech-heads"
First iPhone I owned was a 3GS and still have it alongwith a Nokia N8 and SE C905. I recently acquired a mid-end android device too - xperia c just for the sake of it. I develop apps for small business owners and these devices helped alot with testing them in realworld. I love technology and had the opportunity to get my hands on almost all mobile operating systems including webos, meego and geos. This gave a firsthand understanding of the usability and versatility of different operating systems and how they evolved overtime. When I had to buy my sister a phone, I knew where to look for and bought her a 4S as she aint any tech user or so.
It's ironic how all the Nokia fans switched their allegiance to Google, Samsung and others yet still make the same arguments.
That's not true, I've always had a Nokia in my bag, the Lumia 1020 being the latest and unfortunately the last one. Now that they are no longer making phones, I will switch over to Jolla and their new OS for my personal needs. I really like Windows 8 Mobile that runs my Nokia 1020 so I want to stay with that platform as well, hopefully MS will come out with a decent phone.
I really like Windows 8 Mobile that runs my Nokia 1020 so I want to stay with that platform as well, hopefully MS will come out with a decent phone.
I think MS has an even greater chance at creating a serious iPhone competitor than, say, Samsung. Mainly because they don't use Android, and have a history of simply keep on trying, slowly gaining market share. If nothing else, WP8 is different at least. And the argument that they don't have many apps is becoming moot, with 12,000 apps in their Store.
Good to see you post again, hope all is well. Considering.
I think MS has an even greater chance at creating a serious iPhone competitor than, say, Samsung. Mainly because they don't use Android, and have a history of simply keep on trying, slowly gaining market share. If nothing else, WP8 is different at least. And the argument that they don't have many apps is becoming moot, with 12,000 apps in their Store.
Good to see you post again, hope all is well. Considering.
Did you write this comment 2 years ago and just now hit submit? There's nothing in MS's device making history other than the Xbox that suggests that they have a chance to create a device that will sell well enough to compete with Apple, and the last I checked the only other company selling a significant number of devices and making a profit unfortunately is Samsung.
Did you write this comment 2 years ago and just now hit submit? There's nothing in MS's device making history other than the Xbox that suggests that they have a chance to create a device that will sell well enough to compete with Apple, and the last I checked the only other company selling a significant number of devices and making a profit unfortunately is Samsung.
Maybe you're right. WP is from Oct 2010 and are now at 3.7% market share. Samsung doesn't get software, really, and are building on Android. Some people might want something else, so I expected WP having a real opportunity, if nothing else, it's different. I think Elop said that as well. Maybe they should lock in Enterprise users with Exchange or Office. Though MS has their way of sticking with something, keep throwing money at it and slowly gaining market share.
Titbit from Wiki:
Manufacturer market share
HTC was originally making up most of Windows Phone's sales, holding 44% of the market in January 2012. However, Nokia has come from behind, rising at a fast rate and holding 78% of Windows Phone's installed base in February 2013, because of the popularity of the Lumia range. At the same time, HTC's share dropped to 13%. Nokia overtook Samsung in February 2012 and HTC a month later, and held a total of 50% share in May that year.
As of October 30, 2013, Nokia now makes up a dominating 89.2% Windows Phone market share worldwide, according to AdDuplex. HTC has a 7.7% share.
Developer mindshare
Microsoft's developer initiative programmes and marketing have gained attention from application developers. As of Q3 2013, an average of 21% of mobile developers use the Windows Phone platform, with another 35% states they are interested in adopting it. However, the main criticism of Windows Phone is still the lack of applications when compared to iOS and Android.
Maybe you're right. WP is from Oct 2010 and are now at 3.7% market share. Samsung doesn't get software, really, and are building on Android. Some people might want something else, so I expected WP having a real opportunity, if nothing else, it's different. I think Elop said that as well. Maybe they should lock in Enterprise users with Exchange or Office. Though MS has their way of sticking with something, keep throwing money at it and slowly gaining market share.
Titbit from Wiki:
Manufacturer market share
HTC was originally making up most of Windows Phone's sales, holding 44% of the market in January 2012. However, Nokia has come from behind, rising at a fast rate and holding 78% of Windows Phone's installed base in February 2013, because of the popularity of the Lumia range. At the same time, HTC's share dropped to 13%. Nokia overtook Samsung in February 2012 and HTC a month later, and held a total of
Samsung doesn't know software but they sure know how to get their devices in the hands of consumers. It's been profitable for them up to now but will they eventually go the way of Dell, Gateway, etc?
Comments
Daniel, I own a N800, it doesn't work like a netbook, maybe you should actually use one before commenting on them
And the reason they killed Symbian was....
And I agree, he can be ded wrong sometimes/often/always...
No, it didn't work like a netbook. I owned an N800. It was very much a mini-tablet. It used full-screen apps, an ARM CPU, a touchscreen with on-screen keyboard and was an always on device.
Quite where you get the idea that it was a netbook is anyone's guess. The first model came out several years before the first netbook was released. I very much doubt you ever used one of Nokia's internet tablets.
The key: "full-screen apps." Sorry to confuse your train of thought with "netbook," as it certainly wasn’t a clamshell shape. But it was a simple scaled down PC experience from a company that didn’t get that what people needed wasn’t what they were asking for.
This Apple Insider's article is simply pure rubbish and lie. iPhone did not kill Symbian, the whole claim that it did is ridiculous. Symbian was killed by Elop and MicroSoft, not by Apple and iPhone. iPhone really has never been a threat to Symbian. iPhonr has never been capable of killing Symbian.
...
So it's ridiculous to claim that iPhone killed Symbian, IT DID NOT. And Symbian is still really not dead. There is still tens of millions active Symbian users worldwide, two years and 8 months after Elop officially destroyed Symbian market!!
Hill60 has it right. Your comments about what Nokia was trying to do before WP came in and terminated all other projects is interesting, and we can’t redo the experiment to see how those projects might have worked out. But we don’t need to. Nokia already lost its profitability. Apple established itself as the black hole for 75% of the mobile industry’s profits.
The problem with Nokia wasn’t that it needed time to finish various projects in 2011. It’s that it didn’t have those projects in place in time to compete with the iPhone four years earlier.
Nokia and its Symbian partners, along with Blackberry, Palm and Microsoft, all unintentionally left open a huge door of opportunity for Apple, which coincided with a masterfully orchestrated product in the iPhone. That door is no longer open, anymore than there were any opportunities for new alternatives to "Windows" to appear after 1995.
Calling Symbian a smartphone platform is a bit of a stretch. It’s an advanced feature-phone, and clearly not competitive with iOS even at a lower price. So the only place it exists is in the simple-phone market for devices <$100, which isn’t where the money is (ask Nokia!)
You can blame Elop for destroying the remains of Nokia and throwing away all sorts of viable technology, but that’s irrelevant at this point because simply having a 1.0 new product to float in 2012-2013 wouldn’t have saved Nokia any more than webOS saved Palm.
Saying that Symbian is "still alive" is some other conversation for people running a museum or Nokia fan site. The world rejected Symbian a very long time ago (but not before Samsung and Sony took year long, completely futile stabs at using it to compete against iPhone) and it has zero future.
The key: "full-screen apps." Sorry to confuse your train of thought with "netbook," as it certainly wasn’t a clamshell shape. But it was a simple scaled down PC experience from a company that didn’t get that what people needed wasn’t what they were asking for.
Your attempts to justify your use of the word netbook for an always-on, ARM-powered tablet are just laughable. It was not a scaled-down PC experience as anyone who has actually used one would tell you.
Netbook:
Tablet:
I know that Nokia's internet tablets don't fit as neatly into your narrative as you'd like but you're going to have to deal with that.
The definition of Post-PC isn't just that it has an ARM processor or that it doesn't run Windows (as you portray above).
You can attach a keyboard to an iPad and it will look more like your netbook image than your "Internet tablet," but that doesn't make it more like one PC device than that other. It works like neither of them.
I didn't own a Nokia 770/800/900, but I did try them out and actually tried to like it. Fact is, not many people owned one, because they weren't a great product.
They were a Linux PC shrunk down to a handheld screen, essentially the same thing Microsoft had already done with its Windows CE product (whether as a netbook, a "Palm PC" a slate or whatever form factor).
Whatever name you want to call them doesn't matter. Nokia's stuff, like Microsoft's, was really just not very good and subsequently was not popular and the company is now out of the running.
It is interesting that old platforms like Symbian and Maemo still have the same kind of raging fans that Microsoft collected: sort of an overwhelmingly arrogant, pretentious bag of dicks who will flip out if you portray this junk they loved as the uninspired failures actually they were.
Let it go Rich, no need to defend failure with such angry hostility.
It is interesting that old platforms like Symbian and Maemo still have the same kind of raging fans that Microsoft collected: sort of an overwhelmingly arrogant, pretentious bag of dicks who will flip out if you portray this junk they loved as the uninspired failures actually they were.
Let it go Rich, no need to defend failure with such angry hostility.
You really don't like it when you're proven wrong, do you? Apparently I'm the one getting angry! Thanks for making me laugh.
Daniel, please stop with this rubbish, it is starting to get old.
Symbian was and is a Smartphone OS, there is no two ways about it. And if you want to get into this rubbish, please remember that the original iOS wasn't a smartphone OS, you couldn't even install apps on it.
Wall Street made the decision for them
Well it appears meeting your/ABI Research's definition of "smartphone" doesn't mean much. It's certainly not a predictor of success.
But cling to it tenuously! You can argue how it matters as the "smartphone" makers all slide into obscurity.
Em, but Symbian is not dead (currently 'maintained' by Accenture). Secondly, what has Wall Street has to do with Symbian? It's a product, not a company. Accenture is a publicly trading company, but I'm failing to see how Wall Street has killed them; their stock has 'always' gone up.
For someone who is always zooming in on the smallest details, trying to be accurate instead of 'just being right' I don't get the Wall St. remark. At all.
Daniel, as this ABI Research charges for their definition, magic word being, their, can you please post it since it appears to be the one that agrees with you, rather than everyone else.
Symbian, prior to being sold was part of Nokia (forgetting that the foundation rubbish that occurred), Wall Street started dumping Nokia as they believed they didn't have a competitive OS.
I'm sorry, this is all history, and was well published
First iPhone I owned was a 3GS and still have it alongwith a Nokia N8 and SE C905. I recently acquired a mid-end android device too - xperia c just for the sake of it. I develop apps for small business owners and these devices helped alot with testing them in realworld. I love technology and had the opportunity to get my hands on almost all mobile operating systems including webos, meego and geos. This gave a firsthand understanding of the usability and versatility of different operating systems and how they evolved overtime. When I had to buy my sister a phone, I knew where to look for and bought her a 4S as she aint any tech user or so.
It's ironic how all the Nokia fans switched their allegiance to Google, Samsung and others yet still make the same arguments.
That's not true, I've always had a Nokia in my bag, the Lumia 1020 being the latest and unfortunately the last one. Now that they are no longer making phones, I will switch over to Jolla and their new OS for my personal needs. I really like Windows 8 Mobile that runs my Nokia 1020 so I want to stay with that platform as well, hopefully MS will come out with a decent phone.
I think MS has an even greater chance at creating a serious iPhone competitor than, say, Samsung. Mainly because they don't use Android, and have a history of simply keep on trying, slowly gaining market share. If nothing else, WP8 is different at least. And the argument that they don't have many apps is becoming moot, with 12,000 apps in their Store.
Good to see you post again, hope all is well. Considering.
Did you write this comment 2 years ago and just now hit submit? There's nothing in MS's device making history other than the Xbox that suggests that they have a chance to create a device that will sell well enough to compete with Apple, and the last I checked the only other company selling a significant number of devices and making a profit unfortunately is Samsung.
Maybe you're right. WP is from Oct 2010 and are now at 3.7% market share. Samsung doesn't get software, really, and are building on Android. Some people might want something else, so I expected WP having a real opportunity, if nothing else, it's different. I think Elop said that as well. Maybe they should lock in Enterprise users with Exchange or Office. Though MS has their way of sticking with something, keep throwing money at it and slowly gaining market share.
Titbit from Wiki:
Manufacturer market share
HTC was originally making up most of Windows Phone's sales, holding 44% of the market in January 2012. However, Nokia has come from behind, rising at a fast rate and holding 78% of Windows Phone's installed base in February 2013, because of the popularity of the Lumia range. At the same time, HTC's share dropped to 13%. Nokia overtook Samsung in February 2012 and HTC a month later, and held a total of 50% share in May that year.
As of October 30, 2013, Nokia now makes up a dominating 89.2% Windows Phone market share worldwide, according to AdDuplex. HTC has a 7.7% share.
Developer mindshare
Microsoft's developer initiative programmes and marketing have gained attention from application developers. As of Q3 2013, an average of 21% of mobile developers use the Windows Phone platform, with another 35% states they are interested in adopting it. However, the main criticism of Windows Phone is still the lack of applications when compared to iOS and Android.
Samsung doesn't know software but they sure know how to get their devices in the hands of consumers. It's been profitable for them up to now but will they eventually go the way of Dell, Gateway, etc?