Nokia would have been #1 (Samsung #2) had Nokia went with Android

Discussion in 'Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices' started by EbookReader, Sep 4, 2013.

  1. EbookReader, Sep 4, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2013

    EbookReader macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    #1
    http://stratechery.com/2013/blackberry-and-nokias-fundamental-failing/
    BLACKBERRY – AND NOKIA’S – FUNDAMENTAL FAILING

    Nokia should have adopted Android-stock, and used their unmatched supply chain and distribution to do to their competitors, well, exactly what Nokia had been doing to their competitors for the last decade (if you think Samsung is running roughshod over everyone today, in 2007 they could only manage 41 million phones compared to Nokia’s 110 million3).


    As an aside, a few months ago Stephen Elop came up with a new reason why Nokia was right to choose Windows Phone:

    This is revisionist ******** of the first degree. Had Nokia gone with Android, and the result had been one dominant player, it very likely would have been Nokia. More likely it would have been Nokia in first, Samsung in second, and everyone else fighting over scraps.





    Both BlackBerry and Nokia would have gotten a good OS and thriving ecosystem for free and been able to compete and differentiate themselves on the exact same vectors they had previously. To put it another way, RIM and Nokia had never been successful because of their OS or ecosystem, yet both decided their best response to iOS and Android was to build a new OS!

    In fact, the strategic superiority of the Android option for RIM and Nokia was even then so obvious that I suspect their core failing was not so much strategic as it was all-too-human: pride. Owning an ecosystem seems much more important than owning services or supply chains, even if building said ecosystem completely devalues what you’re actually good at.




    -------------------------------------

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    Nokia got Samsung dominated in 2010 (100 million smartphones to 23 million smartphones). Yet, 1 month later


    On 11 February 2011, Nokia's CEO Stephen Elop, a former head of Microsoft business division, unveiled a new strategic alliance with Microsoft, and announced it would replace Symbian and the MeeGo project with Microsoft's Windows Phone operating system.


    Who was stronger on February 2011?

    Nokia

    or

    Samsung
     
  2. mattopotamus macrumors G5

    mattopotamus

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    #2
    I don't think there is any question about that. Most people would prefer Nokia hardware. The quotes you posted seem logical..they felt like they were already late to the party.
     
  3. EbookReader thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    #3
    [​IMG]

    Nokia >>>>> Samsung by 4 times for the whole year of 2010.

    And yet, Nokia switched to WINDOWS in February of 2011.

    Biggest beneficiary? SAMSUNG

    There are people who said that Stephen Elop is a Trojan Horse sent by Microsoft. But if Stephen Elop was a spy/agent of Samsung, he couldn't have done a better job.

    He singlehandedly increased Samsung value by at least $30 billion USD.
     
  4. KentuckyHouse macrumors 68020

    KentuckyHouse

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Location:
    Lexington, KY.
    #4
    I most definitely agree with this. If Nokia had gone with Android instead of "all-in" with WP, I have no doubt they would be in Samsung's position today. It was a MAJOR fail in decision making.

    I've loved my Samsung phones, but the Lumias that I've had had such a more "premium" feel to them. Can you imagine a 4.7"-5" Lumia with the 1020's camera and running Android? Good grief...talk about a dream phone.

    Of course, I also like my phones to have SD support (something that's going the way of the Dodo). It's one of the reasons I've stuck with Samsung for so long. But now that the Xperia Z1 is rumored to have SD support (and a 20 megapixel camera), is waterproof, and has my sweet spot 5" screen...that may very well be my next phone, as long as they actually bring it to the US and don't completely overprice it (which, knowing Sony...they will).
     
  5. Dontazemebro macrumors 68020

    Dontazemebro

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Location:
    I dunno, somewhere in West Texas
    #5
    I actually prefer Samsung not a fan of Nokia's and that's not to say they would have been every bit as successful as Samsung if they had joined the android coalition at the time.

    One thing backing Sammy is

    a) advertising dollars
    b) every thing being built in-house and
    c) the fearlessness to let it ride.

    That's a winning recipe only a few possess and I definitely haven't seen that with the focus plan Nokia has been keeping of late.
     
  6. scott craft macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Location:
    Louisiana
    #6
    I read an article last night on another forum that basically states the same as this thread that Nokia had no need to switch to Windows Phone because they were so dominant at the time.
     
  7. Michael Goff macrumors G4

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #7
    No, I disagree with the assessment.

    Samsung still had the ability to subsidize their mobile business while Nokia wouldn't have has that power. That is one of the biggest reasons why Samsung was able to weather it out until they started to do better... they could throw money at it.
     
  8. Twixt macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    #8
    +1

    Samsung has other divisions that bring cash flows which money was heavily invested into mobile business AND marketing effort. Also please note that Samsung controls some key elements such as displays and memory

    Nokia could only count on historical feature phones business (mostly low end ones) and some infra business to get some cash for smartphone development. Obviously not enough so as to compete with Samsung
     
  9. Dr McKay macrumors 68040

    Dr McKay

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Location:
    Kirkland
    #9
    That's the annoying thing, don't Windows Phone handsets run the same hardware as Android phones? How come Lumias have never seen the likes of an Android ROM? Heck a lot of the older Windows Mobile Handsets saw Android ported onto them. Heck there was even an Android 2.3 ROM that ran on the iPhone, the 3G and the 3GS.
     
  10. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #10
    Nokia did not need to go Android.

    They would have stayed at #1 with Meego and Meltemi.
     
  11. flameproof macrumors 6502a

    flameproof

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    #11
    Why instead? HTC makes Android and WP phones, Samsung too. Nokia should have simply do Android phones too.
     
  12. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #12
    I don't think so.

    Samsung skyrocketed to fame off the GS2, which combined big hardware, and and graphics acceleration throughout the UI. It was the first time android was smooth, and responsive enough to be considered an iOS alternative.

    In all likelihood Nokia would have been nothing more than another laggy skinned android also-ran, and Samsung still have been committed to chasing down Apple and created the Galaxy series.
     
  13. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #13
    Totally agree. Would Nokia have went bigger than 3.5 or 4(screen wise) if Samsung didn't lead the way?
     
  14. adder7712 macrumors 68000

    adder7712

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Location:
    Canada
    #14
    Not rumoured but it will in fact have a microSD card slot, as with its predecessor, the Xperia Z.
     
  15. 12vElectronics macrumors 68040

    12vElectronics

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Location:
    California
    #16
    I love Nokia. Had they chosen Android, it might have made me switch. But nope, I'll stick to the iPhone forever.
     
  16. skratch77 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2013
    #17
    Samsung got to where its at with its wilingness to push the limits of its in house hardware (true arm cores) with there own made exynos socs and being open and unlocked from the get go and yelling at devs saying hayyy we have this awesome arm arch and its open for you to molest the android kernel .

    Samsung started getting huge before it even had a single commercial in the united states with the galaxy s2 and that cell barely made it here in the states and to this day Verizon(the number1 carrier) never even got that phone.

    After its momentum with the galaxy s2 Samsung hired head programmer from cyanogen to work out the galaxy s3 ROM and was literally blowing the doors off of any other android phones out there in fluidness and stability.

    Then the gs3 skyrocketed Samsung to where it us now along with major marketing behind it but name no mistake Samsung got to where its at before any of you even thought about android when the gs2 skyrocket was blowing the doors off of ever other cell at the time.

    It was a developers dream of a device and Samsung has officially pushed the latest 4.2.2 android to it also.

    Not bad for an almost 3 year old phone!

    Now for ***** and giggles go back in time and look at the pos Nokia phones that were out when the gs2 came out
     
  17. aneftp macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    #18
    Things can change very quickly in an emerging tech market. Sure smartphone have been around before the iPhone. But the iPhone and its OS brought a new generation of smartphone platforms (iOS, android, BB10, windows phone (not windows mobile)

    Both Nokia and RIM (now blackberry) failed to recognize this before it was too late. Both RIM and Nokia failed to change course until well after 3 years after the iPhone was announced in Jan 2010. RIm didn't buy QNX until April 2010. And Nokia didn't change to Windows phone until early 2011.

    Way way too late in an emerging market. The key to maintain relevance in the tech market is to just copy the leader than hope to buy time to develope your own niche. Palm failed not because they failed to move forward. Palm started their webos soon after the iPhone was announced and released it in 2009. But Palm was severely restricted in money and by choosing the wrong carrier to launch a new product (Sprint).

    I am sure if Verizon would have chosen Palm than maybe palm would have had a fighting chance. Instead the "Droid" marketing was probably already in the works with Motorola and Google after Google quickly realize using G1 and T-Mobile wasnt the best idea to gain market share.

    Samsung hedges their bet with both Windows Phone and Android plus their own OS. Samsung will copy whatever they can. And it's proving to be a good business strategy. Nokia and RIM both had knuckle heads running the company who failed to see how fast the market was changing from 2007-2008.

    Microsoft is only still around because they have billions in cash to promote windows phone. Microsoft themselves also make huge mistake by trying to hang on to Windows Mobile platform well until middle of 2008 before changing course. It takes about 2 years to get a platform up and running. That's why windows phone wasnt launched until late 2010. If Microsoft had made decision to ditch windows mobile in 2007 and launched windows phone in 2009 than we may be talking about Windows phone being the market leader.
     
  18. Michael Goff macrumors G4

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #19
    While that chart is using correct information, it's being used to portray a bad piece of information. Nokia would have lost marketshare regardless of what happened, even if they went with Android or stuck with Meego.
     
  19. kenypowa macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Location:
    somewhere
    #20
    Their marketshare would have stabilized had they gone Android.
     
  20. Michael Goff macrumors G4

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #21
    Why do you think that?
     
  21. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #22
    Loyal Nokia customers would have gone with Meego and Meltemi, instead of massively rejecting Windows Phone, and abandoning the zombie Symbian.
     
  22. Michael Goff macrumors G4

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #23
    We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

    They would have gone for cheap Android phones like they did.
     
  23. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #24
    Loyal Nokia customers...? That's bad comedy.

    Sticking with Meego would have done nothing but bolster Apple's iPhone user base.
     
  24. Savor Suspended

    Savor

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    #25
    Exactly.

    I admit I am NOT the biggest fan of Samsung but I respect how hard they worked to get this far. Back in the my teen years, my mentality was JAPANESE products were always better. A Korean company like Samsung was no better to me back in the 90's like what the brand Coby is today. I used to think Hyundai was crap only to realize they improved alot after renting a Sonata for a day back in 2005.

    Many Japanese electronic companies like Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, Hitachi, NEC, Sharp, etc fell from grace for many reasons. A weaker Japanese economy, a LOST generation from the 90's/00's after Japan had peaked in the 80's, clueless CEO's, and Koreans starting to build products cheaper, faster, and even better products than their Japanese counterparts.

    Many retired-Japanese engineers also were recruited from companies in South Korea, China, and Taiwan.

    This is a decent read albeit a bit too long -
     

Share This Page