SYMBIAN OS SECTION
  -My-Symbian.com-
MAEMO  SECTION
-My-Maemo.com-
MEEGO  SECTION
-My-MeeGo.com-
SOFTWARE STORECONTACT


My-Symbian.com Forums

 
My-Symbian ~ My-Maemo ~ My-MeeGo
Symbian & Linux based Communicator and Smartphone Info Center
The Oldest Symbian Community Website - Since 1999
 
 Watched TopicsWatched Topics   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RulesRules   Log inLog in 
Lightweight, simplified version of the forumsMobile version
Nokia continues to FINISH OFF MeeGo, Symbian and ITSELF

Go to page  
Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    My-Symbian ~ My-Maemo ~ My-MeeGo Forum Index -> MeeGo Harmattan
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Michal Jerz
Admin/Founder/Owner
Admin/Founder/Owner



Joined: 01 Sep 1999

Posts: 29363

Thanks received:
1088 in 693 posts
Thanks given: 285

Location: Poland
Phone: Jolla, BB Z10, BB Passport, N950, N900, N8, Nexus 4 (Ubuntu Touch), Lumia 920

PostPosted: Wednesday, 07.Dec.2016 19:59    Post subject:   Reply with quote   

I'll be really curious to see how many people will pay extra just for the branding.

Also, people remembered Nokia as a maker of very sturdy devices. If these Chinese phones turn out to be average in terms of build quality and robustness, it may quickly kill the nostalgy.
Back to top
MeowTseDong
Forum Regular
Forum Regular

Please add your avatar!

Joined: 29 May 2014

Posts: 129

Thanks received:
9 in 9 posts
Thanks given: 2


Phone: Nokia

PostPosted: Wednesday, 15.Feb.2017 12:26    Post subject:   Reply with quote   

Nokia resurrect the old Nokia 3310 again. I don't know if this is good idea. This phone against cheap Chinese Android phones in world where you assume you can surf the net on the phone.

It sounds they are trying to resurrect the former glory days with a phone that is today completely obsolete. If they choose the exact same phone that is.

Then possibly you can add a larger screen but then the phone becomes significantly larger.
Back to top
ABCDKE
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie



Joined: 25 May 2013

Posts: 40

Thanks received:
2 in 2 posts
Thanks given: 26

Location: Yugoslavia
Phone: 700 not 4eva *sniff*

PostPosted: Wednesday, 15.Feb.2017 16:19    Post subject:   Reply with quote   

If I saw a 17 years old phone being sold again, I'd laugh out loud to be honest, maybe buy one just for the lulz.
Wait, they're actually doing it? That's not a dumb idea from the depths of your brain? Shocked
Back to top
Michal Jerz
Admin/Founder/Owner
Admin/Founder/Owner



Joined: 01 Sep 1999

Posts: 29363

Thanks received:
1088 in 693 posts
Thanks given: 285

Location: Poland
Phone: Jolla, BB Z10, BB Passport, N950, N900, N8, Nexus 4 (Ubuntu Touch), Lumia 920

PostPosted: Wednesday, 15.Feb.2017 21:01    Post subject:   Reply with quote   

Quote:

It sounds they are trying to resurrect the former glory days

I can't see how they could offer the original 3310's durability and sturdiness for a price that now people are now used to be paying for a cheap Chinese sh*t that totally wears out and breaks not later than the day warranty runs out. It takes a completely different manufacturing process and part quality, so it costs money.

Indeed, there are people who miss a very simple phone like the 3310, but mainly because of their nostalgy for its durability and sturdiness. Give them something that will break if you squeeze it a little bit too tight and their whole nostalgy will vanish.

So I'm afraid that either this phone will have to cost as much as smartphones (which I'm afraid not many people will want to pay) or it'll be a fragile piece of **** that will quickly kill the myth.
Back to top
DanC
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie

Please add your avatar!

Joined: 16 Oct 2011

Posts: 4

Thanks received:
0 in 0 posts
Thanks given: 0


Phone: Nokia 6800, 9300, 9500, E90, N900, E7-00

PostPosted: Wednesday, 29.Mar.2017 19:52    Post subject:   Reply with quote   

I find it particularly disappointing that in the US (and globally, but just a little more slowly I think), the network owners are turning off the old "2G" GSM/GPRS networks. This means most of the sturdy old phones, still very useful for making calls, texting and possibly even email, become useless. All to support more "4G" and "5G" bandwidth. To better support smartphones used mostly as entertainment devices, not tools to actually get something accomplished. Here in the US, I can still use my Nokia E7-00 because it can access the "3G" and "3.5G" bands, on both AT&T and T-Mobile. My Nokia N900 no longer works on AT&T ("2.5G" "EDGE" bands are no longer accessible) so only works on T-Mobile, and that only for another year or so until T-Mobile also turns off their slower bands. All my even older Nokia phones have no network to connect to. It's really sad not being able to use my old 9300. But then, modern email security protocols had already killed its email capability, so it had already become useless for a core function. Even though it is built like a brick and could probably survive many more years of daily use. In a consuming-driven economy, making perfectly useful products obsolete is supposed to be "progress". It's not just nostalgia that creates wishful thinking about old technology, but also the sense that as consumers we are like children being told what we can and cannot accept as useful and satisfying to our needs and wants, instead of being in charge of our technological choices.
Back to top
AVR4000
Site supporter
Site supporter



Joined: 16 Jul 2006

Posts: 1052

Thanks received:
59 in 43 posts
Thanks given: 8

Location: Sweden, Czech Republic, US
Phone: Nokia N70, Nokia N95 8 GB, Nokia E52, Nokia E61, Nokia 9300i, Nokia E90, Sony Xperia Z Ultra C6802 and C6833

PostPosted: Friday, 07.Apr.2017 16:36    Post subject:   Reply with quote   

I wonder what the difference is between a smartphone as an 'entertainment' device and one that is a 'productivity' device when it comes to network connectivity?

It sounds like there is a difference between 'productive' smartphones on EDGE and 'entertainment' smartphones on LTE, where the first ones are to get things done. I am afraid I have to disagree a bit here.

First things first: GSM were launched in 1993 (Sweden for example) and UMTS came around in 2003. GPRS/EDGE is old technologies with no particular benefit for a smartphone. *If* LTE had been available in 2001 when the Nokia 9210 Communicator were designed - it would have been equipped with such a radio.

It isn't the first time an old technology gets switched off - NMT450/900 and AMPS networks were shut down due to them being replaced by more sophisticated solutions. Shutting down 2G networks make sense when UMTS rolled out in... 2003 (14 years ago) and LTE arrived in devices in 2011 (6 years ago).

I wouldn't exactly consider the 2G radio in the Nokia 9000->9500 to be their best asset. They are still great devices but their cellular connectivity wasn't exactly a product of 'being enough for productivity' but rather a pure necessity since it is what was available at the time. Nokia *would* have put fast cellular connections in *if* they had been available.

It is possible to discuss consumerism but shutting down 2G networks isn't exactly the best example. I would also say that compatibility with smartphones made 15 years ago isn't the most important consideration. I would also say that the development of mobile connection speeds will eventually 'slow down' when the technology is able to deliver constant speeds of several hundred MBs per second - not like the situation back in 2001 when HSCSD and GPRS were the hottest technologies - with speeds approximately in the same league as a 56K modem (or lower).

One thing is for sure: Technology is progressing and the development is moving ahead. Keeping old networks 'just because' when new, faster and more efficient technologies are available. I think it is an issue that no new Communicator has been made after the N900/N950 (if we count them as Communicators) but it still doesn't make it 'negative consumerism' to shut down GSM networks from A. D. 1993.

Another simple question is: If it is 'negative consumerism' to shut down GSM, then what kind of technologies should we keep? Is it 'consumerism' when new technology are introduced? What replacement cycles are appropriate? There are a lot of questions.
Back to top
BentL
MODERATOR
MODERATOR

Please add your avatar!

Joined: 24 Oct 2002

Posts: 18634

Thanks received:
482 in 354 posts
Thanks given: 112

Location: Norway
Phone: N9, N900, E90, 9300i, 9300, 9210

PostPosted: Sunday, 30.Jul.2017 20:50    Post subject:   Reply with quote   

An interesting article about the organizational aspects of Nokia's demise as phonemaker, see Nokiamob:

Quote:
Weekend read: Did hostile environment kill Nokia (the phone maker)?

In her 150+ years long history, Nokia, among other things, was also the biggest phone manufacturer in the world. The “fall of Nokia” is probably already a topic in business school, because it really shows how volatile the tech industry is. In about 3 years, Nokia went from the largest feature phone and smartphone vendor to selling its historic Devices & Services business to Microsoft.

With the demise of Nokia in the phone business, a lot of theories arose who is to blame, and why did it happen. Some say it’s because of Microsoft, Stephen Elop, some higher forces didn’t want a non-America OS (Symbian), etc.

Two scientists from Finland and Singapore, Timo O. Vuori and Quy N. Huy, did a paper about how the hostile atmosphere inside Nokia affected the vendor’s overall performance, and was one of the factors for the fall. As Abraham Lincoln said: “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” and that could have been the case with Nokia, the phone maker.

The paper goes deep into the psychology of the workplace, and for most people, most of the parts won’t be that interesting (including myself), so I extracted the most interesting parts related to the situation inside Nokia. The paper was created using public records and interviewing ex-employees at all levels.

Nokia knew about the iPhone in Fall (Autumn) 2005

Quote:
Nokia’s TMs experienced high fear toward external entities in regard to both the long- and short-term survival of the organization. One described an intense fear reaction relating to long-term survival when reacting to news of the iPhone: ‘‘When [internal market intelligence] news of the iPhone arrived [in fall 2005], I asked which OS they were using. When I found out it was iOS, it made my hair stand on end. iOS was a bombshell. . . . It was shocking news. . . . iPhone was an extension of Mac—a Mac computer with radio added. They’d been building the applications and the OS for 35 or 40 years’


Nokia knew about the iPhone in Fall (Autumn) 2005

Quote:
Nokia’s TMs experienced high fear toward external entities in regard to both the long- and short-term survival of the organization. One described an intense fear reaction relating to long-term survival when reacting to news of the iPhone: ‘‘When [internal market intelligence] news of the iPhone arrived [in fall 2005], I asked which OS they were using. When I found out it was iOS, it made my hair stand on end. iOS was a bombshell. . . . It was shocking news. . . . iPhone was an extension of Mac—a Mac computer with radio added. They’d been building the applications and the OS for 35 or 40 years’


Then CEO (Jorma Ollila or Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo) pushed the team to develop touch screens

Quote:
One of the first things [the CEO] brought up was the touch screen. . . . He felt it was the next big thing . . . He brought it up with the executive group every way he could. And he spoke directly with technical middle management. . . . In every single executive-group meeting, they went over our outlook with the touch screen. And this was right after he was made CEO [a year before iPhone launch] . . .


Insiders say that the situation inside Nokia from 2005 to 2008 was delusional

Quote:
Our view of our competitors’ products’ usage was completely distorted in 2005– 2008. People didn’t know how good Android was, or the iPhone. . . . So, acertain small group knew, but it wasn’t known throughout the company how good the competitors’ products are becoming. The group of people who really knew the pain was way too small.


The lower and mid management had a reasonable fear from (some on) the top

Quote:
[The chairman] had the habit that if someone said that ‘‘things aren’t going so well,’’ then after that the person would be doing very poorly. [The chairman] had a distinctive style so that everyone had to tell him that things were going very well. (MM#7, software) [The chairman] was very cold and it seemed to me that many Nokians feared him. (Reporter close to Nokia) The atmosphere of fear was created through speech. The worst one was the presentation that [the chairman] gave at Tampere [a city in Finland] about R&D expenses. . . . He said that his only mistake had been to give us too much money, and that despite that, our products still weren’t good enough, and we weren’t making them fast enough. On top of that, he said that if things continued as they were, 15% of the people in that seminar hall would be gone by the time he came back next year. . . . This was my first encounter with [the chairman], and it left a permanent negative feeling.


Lower management and engineers knew Symbian cannot be updated to be competitive, but they were afraid to raise the issues

Quote:
I couldn’t say [publicly] that Symbian was no good and that we had to replace it with MeeGo as soon as possible, because I was afraid of the [negative effect on] Symbian sales. . . . Our organization had to have faith in it—you must believe in the gun you’re holding, because there’s nothing else. It takes years to make a new OS. That’s why we had to keep the faith with Symbian. (Top manager)


Lower and mid level managers lied to top managers about estimated product launches, features, etc., because of fear losing jobs

Quote:
In those forums, there was no way you would accuse someone of not telling the truth. [Culturally, it was not acceptable to] criticize someone else’s story in any way. . . . No one wanted to fight their battles in front of [the CEO] and others, because you knew that if you put someone [else] down, they’d put you down the first chance they got. (UMM#8, software) I should’ve been much, much more courageous. And I should’ve made a lot more noise, should’ve criticized people more directly. . . . I could’ve made more of an impact. And it would’ve been breaking the consensus atmosphere. . . . Nobody wanted to rock the boat, especially [among] the middle management [level]. …I didn’t want to be labeled as a mean person who was constantly criticizing the hard work of others. . . . I should have been braver about rattling people’s cages. (MM#1)


Having top managers without technical background proved to be fatal for the company, as described below:

Quote:
Question: Why didn’t you explain to TMs that software development would be compromised if you had to develop as many phones in the given time period as the TMs wanted?

UMM#9, software: Someone else always said yes [to unfeasible TM demands]. All I got was the information—that’s how it was. And then my responsibilities were cut. Because there was always some lunatic who promised they’d do all these ten fine and wonderful things within the timeframe given by TMs . . . even though it wasn’t true at all [that it would be possible]. . . . TMs trusted these people when they said it’s going to work out. They had blind faith. The management team . . . knew a lot of people—but they picked some young, fast-talking guy who said, ‘‘I have this little trick, I’ll fix this thing.’’


Symbian development team was under huge pressure

Quote:
The software people tried to say that things weren’t going so well, but the pressure to give the ‘‘right’’ answer [e.g., the next software version would be ready by a given date] to top management was high. Concerns were ignored during the conversation. The interaction was fragmented. If you were too negative, it would be your head on the block. If you said something couldn’t be done, then it’s about whether we should replace you. (TM) They [higher level MMs in charge of specific aspects of software] accepted interface concepts as targets [as requested by TM] without going over whether it could be done and how fast. They accepted the concept and set the target that it’d be in stores within a certain time, so it was ‘‘go for it’’—and then the guys started thinking about how they’re gonna build it. (MM#18, software) They [TMs] thought that if they just put pressure on the product-development organization, they would execute it. So maybe the product-development area should have been more assertive and said, ‘‘What you’re asking for is impossible.’’ . . . In product development, people didn’t have the courage to say, ‘‘Listen, it’s like this. We can’t give you anything more.’’ In Nokia’s R&D, the culture was such that they wanted to please the upper levels. They wanted to give them good news . . . not a reality check


Nokia N8, because of the above mentioned reasons, was late a year, and the next part perfectly describes why:

Quote:
The products were always late, but they were never late in [reporting] conversations. They came out one or two years late, but in conversations it was always that [our smart] phone would be ready in one or two months. And because it was said that it would be ready in one to two months, you never initiated bigger improvements that would have required six months. That would have created a long delay based on the understanding that prevailed then. You always imagined that the products would come out soon.


An ex-Nokia employee working for Apple compared the companies:

Quote:
If you consider Apple, the TMs are engineers. They tried to recruit [a senior Nokian] to Apple. He came back from having met Jobs and everyone and he said, ‘‘Nokia is business-case driven. We make everything into a business case and use figures to prove what’s good, whereas Apple is engineer-driven. It was pure technology and the top management was immersed in the technology.’’ That’s often how it is in a product company, you have to understand how the product is built. . . . You have to make a lot of product decisions based on what’s possible and what’s not. Of course you must have stretching goals, but just deciding to build a product [will not work].

More content and analysis can be found in the full paper that can be download by clicking the link here.

According to this paper, the situation inside Nokia wasn’t so bright as it seemed from the outside, and if it is true, Nokia faced a huge external threat (Apple, Google, Samsung) without having a consolidated company and clear strategy.

A fun fact is that just 3% of the people who worked at Nokia in 2013 are still in the company, and I bet that HMD (and the current Nokia) won’t make the mistake of creating the same delusional atmosphere inside the company, that was there present as per insider between 2005 and 2008.

Also, this shows how the things in workplace can affect a company on a much higher level. What could happen if a top ranked software engineer raised their voice on the meeting and said: “We need a new OS.” Or “Nokia N97 won’t be done in 3 years, don’t launch it.” You get the point.

What do you think about these “insider” information? Where you familiar with the situation back at Nokia? Are you maybe an ex-employee who has a different view on the topic? Tell us down below.

The paper referred to in the article can be downloaded from here. In the paper Nokia is painted as a dysfunctional organization with a high level of fear and a top management with low technogical comtetence. Only little is said about less than well toughtout product decisions.

--
Bent Laursen
Back to top

The following users say THANKS! for this post: Casanunda

Michal Jerz
Admin/Founder/Owner
Admin/Founder/Owner



Joined: 01 Sep 1999

Posts: 29363

Thanks received:
1088 in 693 posts
Thanks given: 285

Location: Poland
Phone: Jolla, BB Z10, BB Passport, N950, N900, N8, Nexus 4 (Ubuntu Touch), Lumia 920

PostPosted: Tuesday, 08.Aug.2017 04:28    Post subject:   Reply with quote   

Quote:

When I found out it was iOS, it made my hair stand on end. iOS was a bombshell. . . . It was shocking news. . . . iPhone was an extension of Mac—a Mac computer with radio added. They’d been building the applications and the OS for 35 or 40 years’

Very interesting. Because "iOS" in 2005 meant completely nothing, and certainly not "Mac OS", which it isn't even now and won't be anytime soon. Moreover, how could have they feared in 2005 "building applications" if Jobs himself did not plan iOS to support 3rd party apps at all - the original iPhone came out in 2007 without it and only an OS update in 2008 added support for installable 3rd party apps due to popular demand. Does that guy's memory serve him well?

Quote:

One of the first things [the CEO] brought up was the touch screen. . . . He felt it was the next big thing . .

That's very interesting, too. NEXT big thing? Symbian natively supported large, hi-res touch screens since Psion times. Symbian Quartz (UIQ) was built around touch UI right from its foundations and the UIQ-based Sony Ericsson P800 with beautiful touch screen and superb handwriting recognition (yet to be challenged) was on the market already in 2002. Similarly, there was a Symbian Crystal-derived platform that Nokia owned and developed (the Hildon platform, then marketed by Nokia as Series 90) which already in 2003 had a great support for huge touch screens, bigger and of twice higher resolution than what the iPhone came out with FOUR YEARS later. Nokia did not have to invent absolutely anything, not in 2005-2008 and not even several years EARLIER. Half a decade BEFORE the iPhone they already had it.

There were two fantastic Hildon-based devices with huge touch screens, ready for launch in 2003-2004 - the Nokia CX and MX, and Nokia just killed them both.

So I definitely wouldn't say that they focused on touch screens. On the contrary, they did everything to KILL all the EXISTING touch screen based platforms (the Hildon / Series 90 and the UIQ) and they focused on the only platform of theirs that DID NOT support touch screen and was never intended to have it - the Series 60 (Symbian Pearl). The SILLIEST thing they could have done.

Their fault was their terribly wrong decisions to kill touch screens that they HAD years before Apple, and not lack of touch screen technology and desperate attempts to develop it, as the guy tries to bullsh*t everyone.

Quote:

in 2005– 2008. People didn’t know how good Android was

At that time, and long after that, Android wasn't good at all. Its rapid rise past 2010 or so was SOLELY due to Nokia demise (it was hundreds of millions of former Symbian users who - due to no other choice as sh*tty Windows Phone was not an option for them and BB10 came out a year too late - shifted to Android and made it so big within months), not because it was good at that time. It just wasn't. iOS was dumb but at least it was pretty. Android wasn't even that, it was butt ugly, primitive, unstable and insecure. But at least it wasn't dumb, it could be rooted and done advanced things on, so for former Symbian users it became the only choice despite its drawbacks (it probably would have been BB10 if BlackBerry didn't delay it until early 2013 when all Symbian users already switched to Android). And THEN it got better and better to the point of normal usability and aestetics that no longer makes the user want to puke at its screen, but CERTAINLY NOT in 2005-2008, and not even in 2010.

Quote:

Lower management and engineers knew Symbian cannot be updated to be competitive

Oh, really? Wasn't it enough to add Qt to it to make the N8 the best selling Symbian phone since ever? And for developers to instantly start making tens of thousands of apps for Symbian, a striking difference after years of difficult native Symbian development that only experts were capable of? The VERY same Qt that now powers Sailfish OS and BB10, and I wouldn't say they're of "2005-2008" capabilities.

Besides, that guy mixes completely different epochs. MeeGo in 2005? Please.

Nevermind, MeeGo was Qt-based, too.

Quote:

Nokia N8, because of the above mentioned reasons, was late a year

Nokia N8 was late because it was purposedly delayed, period. I got the N8 (a complete, commercial unit with both software and hardware fully finished, certified and ready for launch) several months before it eventually launched. I was permitted to instantly publish a review because it was meant to be launched within days, and when I was in the middle of writing it I got a phone call asking me to hold on because "the launch was delayed". I was able to publish my review only a few months later.

Absolutely NOTHING to do with any technical issues, the sole reason was that it was the exact time when Elop came to Nokia and then became its CEO. It was one of the first decisions of his to delay it to miss the period of high sales. Then, when the sucess of the N8 (despite its delay) scared the sh*t out of him, he delayed the sibling E7 even more to completely skip the Christmas/New Year season. Originally planned in November/early December 2010 (and that's when I had a final unit in my possession), he kept it unreleased until February 2011, or - more precisely - until the VERY day of his "burning platform" memo, meant to completely undermine its sales.

Let me repeat it: I know very well what I've had in my hands and when. Both the N8 and the E7 came out with THE SAME software and hardware that my units had several months earlier. No changes were made in the meantime, so the delays had NOTHING to do with any unfinished work. What that guy says is plain bullsh*t.

Quote:

An ex-Nokia employee working for Apple

And now we know why he now praises Apple/iOS and curses Nokia/Symbian. With this single sentence he debunked himself. Regardless of that, I have not seen such a condensation of plain bullsh*t for a very long time.

Quote:

Nokia is business-case driven. We make everything into a business case and use figures to prove what’s good, whereas Apple is engineer-driven. It was pure technology

It is PURE APPLE PROPAGANDA, the purest form of it. There is no other company as business-driven as Apple. It is about NOTHING but money. They don't even care to ever attempt to surpass their <20% iOS marketshare barrier, as long as their PROFIT wins the rankings. For the same reasons they refused to allow Mac clones (or to now permit to legally install OS X on any Intel machine of any brand), which could have made them dominate the desktop OS market, but at the cost of PROFIT. For the same reason every kind of connector, cable or any other accessory of theirs is equipped with some sh*tty custom plug and socket, and a chip inside to prevent anyone else from making cheaper equivalents. Technology for the masses? My ass! When my neighbour's charger or some other accessory of his iPad or iPhone breaks and he comes to me to borrow one, I cannot help him even though I have a ton of standard chargers and other accessories for my devices. An Apple hell.

YES, Nokia did make an unbelievable lot of TERRIBLE mistakes and those mistakes indeed killed it. But none of what he says. None of technological background or lack of funds to develop anything they might have wanted, if they only wanted the right thing. Even in 2011 under Elop, there were still billions of Euros laying around and catching dust on Nokia's bank accounts (all of which Elop anihilated).

I was in very good and close contacts and relationships with Nokia since 1998 or so. I've had in my hands all Symbian phones, including many prototypes, many of which never came out as final products. I've seen the Nokia CX, MX in early 2003, I've owned the 7700 in early 2004. I've had the Sony Ericsson P800 in 2001 long before anyone has heard about UIQ. This site was Symbian Ltd.'s honorary Affiliate Partner, with a written certificate of it numbered #1. This site got the Nokia / S60 Consortium's "Evangelist Award" in 2003 in Nice, as the only site ever given such an award. I was in touch with top Symbian Directors, like e.g. Geoff Preston. I've talked with Symbian about the Symbian Signed security platform and Symbian 9 OS long before it was introduced, and I was asked to become a signing authority for all free Symbian apps, which I refused because I did not agree with certain Symbian Signed limitations (all of which time proved me right and them wrong, and soon they were forced to loosen the restrictions). I've had the N8 and the N7 many months before they launched, so I know who and why delayed them.

I know what I'm saying. That guy doesn't. Or maybe he does, and as an Apple guy now he says such a bullsh*t on purpose.
Back to top

The following users say THANKS! for this post: BentL, Casanunda, ABCDKE

AVR4000
Site supporter
Site supporter



Joined: 16 Jul 2006

Posts: 1052

Thanks received:
59 in 43 posts
Thanks given: 8

Location: Sweden, Czech Republic, US
Phone: Nokia N70, Nokia N95 8 GB, Nokia E52, Nokia E61, Nokia 9300i, Nokia E90, Sony Xperia Z Ultra C6802 and C6833

PostPosted: Saturday, 12.Aug.2017 14:53    Post subject:   Reply with quote   

It is interesting with all those articles - especially "iOS in 2005" is really amusing. I remember the system being named "iPhone OS" in 2007 and despite several rumors and renderings about "Apple making a phone" circulating during the 2000-2007 period, they didn't exactly indicate anything confirmed.

It is pretty evident that the mobile industry suffer from false history writing and paid propaganda since most things written about Nokia and their platforms are plain, utter rubbish. It is the same nonsense in 2017 as in 2010/2011.

Some people are so dumb and ignorant today that they make the argument that "Nokia tried with MeeGo and failed". OK, such a statement is just a 100% proof of the person being "less intelligent" considering that Nokia stabbed the system in the back by first cancel the N9-00 and then launched the N9 after the famous memo - with serious restrictions.

The problem has always been incompetence in the company since their treatment of the N9 is EXACTLY like their Series 90 killing. Claiming that they "tried" with the systems by launching devices with a clearly announced EOL is just amusing and downright insane.

I think all those articles about Nokia are just useless rubbish because of the common theme, repeated everytime:

1. The Hildon, Series 90 and CX/MX/7700/7710 are avoided (they doesn't fit in the propaganda picture and removal of evidence is common when people are to be indoctrinated).
2. The Internet Tablets are almost passed by without comment.
3. The articles focus on Series 60 as the "only" Symbian platform in order to blackmail the system.
4. They fail to understand the difference between OS and UI (hence all utter rubbish about the system being "outdated" etc).
5. A rosy, romanticized picture of the first iPhone is painted - it is claimed to be a "revolution" (I still remember that "revolution" like yesterday and the only thing I can say is that it was a dysfunctional toy for superficial people).
6. MeeGo and the history of the N9 is misrepresented into "Nokia tried and failed". They didn't try, they took Maemo Harmattan and made it "MeeGo compatible" rather than doing agreed work on the UI etc within the MeeGo partnership.
7. The statistics AFTER the Elop memo are translated into "this would have happened WITHOUT the memo" (it's significance is downplayed).

There was a lot of propaganda from "experts" against Apple in 1996-1997 and partly into 1998 but the worshipping of iOS and Android and bashing of Symbian are just insane.

Sooner or later I will get so upset with all those articles that I will get going with my idea of writing a book about smartphone development 1993-2007 since that period is grossly misrepresented - everything from the incredible statement that "smartphones didn't really exist before iPhone but Apple made them everyday items" to "the popularity of the smartphone came with Apple". I remember very well that Nokia sold smartphones by the millions after the 9210 and 7650 hit the market and were in an aggressive transition to them already at the time. Not to mention HTC, which were able to rise up making smartphones 2002-2007 (if those "experts" are to be trusted, that company can't have existed at the time - they were making an "uncommon, marginal" product)....Wink

I must admit that the way history is being twisted make me highly suspicious of other "mainstream" history writings. If the history of the smartphone can be so mismanaged in order to fit an "agenda" (namely that Apple and Google more or less "invented" and "introduced" them), it is pretty self-explanatory that other pieces of writing undergo similar treatment. I.e. facts are distorted in order to fit a specific picture.

Similar attempts to modify history can be seen with a case like the de Havilland Comet where it's significance is seriously downplayed by the 1954 accidents without proper recognition that it operated successfully for almost two years AND established the basic standards of jet operation and management for airlines. So downplaying it in order to promote two other big (US) players are as gross as blackmailing Symbian.

I also fully agree that Android in 2010 was a pretty pitiful system, it became "bearable" with HTC Sense but I wouldn't exactly say that it started to become more "matured" before ICS came out (the UI design of the 1.x/2.x was pretty much a giant question mark). It is pretty self-explanatory that it took Elop and the memo to help it expand.

Elop has been the best thing that ever happened to Android I would say. He is the "engineer" behind its success since the marketshare boost is just huge. The system would be sitting at a marketshare around 25-30% without him, i.e. with the rest being divided between MeeGo, BB10.x and iOS (Symbian would have continued forward for a while but I would have expected it to have been fully replaced by MeeGo around 2015-2016).

So Elop made better things for Google than he ever did for Microsoft.... Ah, the irony.Smile

It is pretty evident by just looking at the numbers that the rapid Android growth happened as a direct result of the Burning Platforms memo. I would also say that Samsung gained a lot from this since the Galaxy S II enjoyed a far better success than it would otherwise because it came to the market at a time when Nokia had been to the MWC 2011 with a disastrous, pathetic announcement, the N9 being killed at birth and everything. Not to mention when Elop repeated like a broken record how "outdated, fragile etc" MeeGo and Symbian were, thus making the new Galaxy looking at a far more attractive proposition from a company that actually backed it up (I still consider it absolutely insane to see "Elokia" doing everything to scare customers away from their products).

I would say the Nokia Devices & Services division went under because of insane management mistakes (killing all advanced Symbian platforms, treating Maemo as a hobby system, entering a partnership with Intel that led to Maemo Harmattan being made MeeGo compatible and killed anyway) and... suicide. The memo were simply suicidal and all statements made afterwards completely suicidal.

It is also interesting that the company committed suicide 2011-2014 without any kind of intervention BUT not only that: The whole thing being grossly misrepresented in 2017. All those idiotic articles that make it sound like some kind of "natural disease that befell Nokia".

The best citation ever was when Michal captured the situation with the words: "The N9 is competitive but it is Nokia who doesn't want it to compete".

Not to mention that the device in question sold 2.2 million during 8 months despite Elop trying to blackmail it all the time - and when it didn't work he just ceased production.

Any "expert" that try to avoid those facts are simply a paid idiot (I would say that being paid and/or acting on behalf of specific interests doesn't make their statements any less idiotic).

Edit: Posting rubbish articles and call them "interesting" is not a good behavior either. If an article is clearly rubbish because it try to paint a seriously incorrect picture it shouldn't be shared unless as a warning example.
Back to top

The following users say THANKS! for this post: BentL

BentL
MODERATOR
MODERATOR

Please add your avatar!

Joined: 24 Oct 2002

Posts: 18634

Thanks received:
482 in 354 posts
Thanks given: 112

Location: Norway
Phone: N9, N900, E90, 9300i, 9300, 9210

PostPosted: Saturday, 12.Aug.2017 20:12    Post subject:   Reply with quote   

AVR4000 wrote:
Edit: Posting rubbish articles and call them "interesting" is not a good behavior either. If an article is clearly rubbish because it try to paint a seriously incorrect picture it shouldn't be shared unless as a warning example.

The article is interesting with respect to some of the organizational aspects of Nokia's demise as phone maker in that some of the top managers and middle managers were interviewed. The article did paint Nokia as a rather dysfunctional organization.

I agree with you and Michal that it is misleading with respect to the history of mobile phones and specific phone models and operating systems.

--
Bent Laursen
Back to top
AVR4000
Site supporter
Site supporter



Joined: 16 Jul 2006

Posts: 1052

Thanks received:
59 in 43 posts
Thanks given: 8

Location: Sweden, Czech Republic, US
Phone: Nokia N70, Nokia N95 8 GB, Nokia E52, Nokia E61, Nokia 9300i, Nokia E90, Sony Xperia Z Ultra C6802 and C6833

PostPosted: Saturday, 12.Aug.2017 22:35    Post subject:   Reply with quote   

That Nokia had management problems were evident:

Killing Hildon/Series 90
Killing Series 80
Killing UIQ (when they essentially forced SEMC to ditch it when P5i was ready)
Killing Maemo
Killing MeeGo
Killing Symbian

So where did Nokia fail? Because they killed their platforms and generally went for the lowest common denominator. They ended up as a case designer for Microsoft more or less.

Even if an article would be "right" about "Nokia having management issues" it doesn't make it any more correct to make the outrageous claims about "iOS killing them" - i.e. that the system were so "superior" (not to mention the "superior" Android back in 2010/2011) that the "reason for the downfall" was "inability to compete".

I would say that Nokia did their major strategic mistake in 2003: Cancel CX/MX and 7700. The engineers that actually "saved" the Hildon UI by porting it to Linux should always be remembered as the heroes they were since they were able to extend it for several years.

The next strategic mistake was the reluctance of making Maemo a smartphone platform and to base the E90 on Series 60 rather than using that platform.

Their N900 treatment, i.e. "step 5 out of 6" is also amusing. The old Nokia was experts in one thing: Killing off products. And they kept doing it again and again and again.

And when they were on the right track - finally - with MeeGo and the N9-00 (N950) and the tablet, second keyboard device and what was to become the N9 "Elop the Destroyer" did his thing. Same thing with Symbian - when things finally were on track with Symbian^3 and Symbian^4 in the works - everything got killed.

Nokia managed to do it FOUR TIMES:

1. The 7700 "cancelled, only for mobile TV testing and carrier experimentation."
2. The 7710 "Series 90 is a dead-end, the first and last shipped device, the system to be aligned with S60."
3. The N900 "It's a step 5 out of 6, we are going MeeGo."
4. The N9-00/N950 and N9: "MeeGo is a dumped, dead system and we are going Windows Phone 7. The N9 is the first and last device with the system."

It is just tragic on one hand and on the other such an insanely bad management that it is almost unbelievable. The management must have been either blind OR the Microsoft sabotage started early on - especially the Hildon/CX/MX/7700/7710 story put the whole company on the wrong track.

What they did to the N9 including cancellation after 8(!) MONTHS is also almost unbelievable - especially when the company was bleeding cash....

So no, Android or iOS has nothing to do with this and any "expert" trying to claim that "Nokia failed because Android and iOS were better than anything they could provide" is just nonsense and falsification of history. Anyone claiming that "Nokia TRIED with MeeGo and failed" is just a complete idiot considering that they didn't even "try" unless that word is followed by "to kill the platform".

That the N9 sold 2.2 million is an impressive feat considering how Nokia treated it (repeating that MeeGo is dead like a broken record, restricting its availability, higher price than the Lumia etc). Yet... 2.2 million devices sold. With proper promotion I am pretty sure they would have sold 15-20 or even more.
Back to top
MeowTseDong
Forum Regular
Forum Regular

Please add your avatar!

Joined: 29 May 2014

Posts: 129

Thanks received:
9 in 9 posts
Thanks given: 2


Phone: Nokia

PostPosted: Monday, 14.Aug.2017 22:02    Post subject:   Reply with quote   

I discard the Nokiamob article because what they report are problems that any company of that size has, including Apple. I've been in large companies, I've seen it and I recognize it and all large companies had the problems that was brought up in the article. Instead I laugh at the Apple propaganda as Apple has the large company problems as well. It is just that Apple is going well right now and the problems aren't really surfacing.

The real reason was the quest for power over .... us. Note that the goal was never to destroy Nokia completely, only to remove any competing operating system. What many people don't understand if one country provide all the consumer operating system, they will simply have a lot of power. Killing any other operating system that they have no control over is low hanging fruit and of course they will do it.

The job of Stephen Elop was to kill Symbian and Meego in order to ensure that the operating systems are US provided which they clearly succeeded with. Windows didn't go well but it doesn't matter because the Nokia consumers flocked to Android instead.

The exact same thing is happening to Blackberry ... well it already happened.

Information is power and the people who understands this also understand how important it is to control the operating systems.
Back to top
Michal Jerz
Admin/Founder/Owner
Admin/Founder/Owner



Joined: 01 Sep 1999

Posts: 29363

Thanks received:
1088 in 693 posts
Thanks given: 285

Location: Poland
Phone: Jolla, BB Z10, BB Passport, N950, N900, N8, Nexus 4 (Ubuntu Touch), Lumia 920

PostPosted: Sunday, 20.Aug.2017 17:05    Post subject:   Reply with quote   

When making the first public presentation of the iPhone in 2007, Jobbs was instructed to do things in a particular order, only touch things which were working, and with certain delays between operations or else the whole damn thing would just freeze. He confessed it himself at some later time. That's how unfinished it still was in mid 2007 and they were seriously affraid if they'd be able to make it stable enough for release in 2007.

So in 2005 it must have been not much more than just an IDEA. And mostly an idea of an OS in general, but without majority of GSM related features and technological/hardware aspects, simply because Apple's expertise with cellular technology was NONE at that time. Let's remind ourselves that even the first iPhone models in 2007 and 2008 still lacked as basic things as MMS, most of Bluetooth functionality, and so on.

Apple needs a hype, a legend, because that's what sells them their stuff. Since the very beginning they've been trying to make everyone believe that it is them who invented smartphones and touch screens. And now they need it even more because - clearly - they no longer have any "revolutionary" ideas to deliver and for several years their new iPhones have just been performance upgrades (like any other smartphones) but with nothing really new and groundshaking. So they need that hype even more now to make people buy iPhones rather than something else that actually provides the very same features. That "oh, it is Apple who invented smartphones so I'll get a smartphone from them rather than some Samsung" is the only remaining "advantage" they still have now.

Hence false stories like that one about hopeless Nokia which just had to die the very day that Apple decided to make smartphones (they knew SH*T about in 2005). Their sole purpose is to keep naive (uninformed) people's faith in Apple having been the inventor of smartphones.

As I wrote, YES, Nokia did make an amazing number of deadly mistakes. But they were completely OPPOSITE to what that guy says. NO, it is not true that it was managers pushing the employees to deliver what they couldn't do - on the CONTRARY, there was a huge number of teams having great advanced projects READY to launch that the managers were then just discarding or ignoring.

The Hildon platform with its huge touchscreens, and those two great touchscreen devices - the MX and CX - were there already in early 2003. And they were just dumped.

The Maemo platform (based on the Hildon UI taken from Symbian) with its huge touchscreen (3x the resolution the iPhone came out with in 2007) was there already in early 2005 (the 770 Internet Tablet came out in late 2005), but until the N900 (or actually until N9 in 2011) it was never treated seriously by the top managers and never given the resources needed for quick development into a commercial project. They kept considering it a gimmick for a handful of geeks.

So, let me repeat it, it is completely not true that the managers were demanding things that the engineers could not deliver but were affraid to admit it in order to not lose their jobs. ON THE CONTRARY, the engineers had a MULTITUDE of projects since early 2003 (and actually ALL of them with huge touchscreens) that the stupid managers were either discarding one after another or - like in case of Maemo - just ignoring.

The technology way BEYOND Apple has ALWAYS been there, long BEFORE Apple. A few stupid directors who kept blocking it was the actual problem. Or maybe it wasn't stupidity. Maybe one should analyze how many of them went to Apple then.

Quite similarly, now that Apple wants to get into the car business, dozens of QNX engineers magically move to Apple. Quite possibly, in a year or two we'll hear similar false stories to the one above about how "Apple invented autonomous cars" and QNX just had to die as "nothing could withstand Apple's business culture and their technological superiority way ahead of everyone else".

https://9to5mac.com/2016/10/25/apple-blackberry-qnx-rd-office-canada-c ar-operating-system/

That's the way Apple "invents" things: they hire those who invented them earlier Razz
Back to top
AVR4000
Site supporter
Site supporter



Joined: 16 Jul 2006

Posts: 1052

Thanks received:
59 in 43 posts
Thanks given: 8

Location: Sweden, Czech Republic, US
Phone: Nokia N70, Nokia N95 8 GB, Nokia E52, Nokia E61, Nokia 9300i, Nokia E90, Sony Xperia Z Ultra C6802 and C6833

PostPosted: Sunday, 20.Aug.2017 17:26    Post subject:   Reply with quote   

All arguments about "Apple inventing" are just amusing. I can't really think of ANY feature that Apple "invented". Did such a thing exist?

The first Nokia 9000 Communicator meant a lot more for the smartphone development than any iPhone since it really brought the feature set of those devices to the market.

I must also add that my negative impression of the iPhone arrived right at its launch and Hintry didn't improve it... Articles like the one discussed here rather make a bad impression worse since it clearly indicate that we have a device for the ignoramus here. When a product need falsification of history in order to survive, there's something fundamentally wrong.

Nokia were able to bring smartphones to the market without altering history. The whole concept of ignoring 11 years of development (1996-2007) started with Apple.

I would also add that I still consider the Hildon UI of the Nokia 7710 to be more attractive than the latest iOS ditto in the iPhone 7 series.

The Nokia management mistakes are a parallell to the car development in DDR: Both Sachsenring and Wartburg developed several cars in the 60s, 70s and 80s but were always denied production rights. The result was pretty obvious: two stroke engines remained in production until 1988 even if Wartburg had a four stroke powerplant ready in the 50s (originally meant for the 311). Sachsenring tried to develop Wankel powered and later diesel Trabants and also attempted to source Skoda engines for the P610 but everything were just rejected due to terrible management decisions.

Nokia did the same thing: Developed technology and just killed it off until everything became a complete failure.

I think the best proof of the disease is the Maemo/MeeGo story and the hysterical fight against the N9.

The quality of mobile journalism and reporting went down when Apple entered this market and it is pretty evident that most things written about this industry are propaganda and history falsification, especially when things are put in the "Apple invented" context.

Edit: The hype and anti-intellectual arguments (it is 2017 and I haven't heard a logical, intelligent explanation as to why the iPhone is the "best device in the world" yet....) are what put me off anything mobile made by Apple. Their business practices are also a big deterrent, especially the proprietary vendor lock-in that are far worse than Microsoft did in their darkest ages.

It is pretty amusing that it is 2017 and Apple are still unwilling to provide such a basic thing as contact/calendar sync across platforms (such as native Google sync so it is possible to edit a contact on an iPhone and sync it to an Android device without any hassle).

The invention of the smartphone can only be credited to IBM (Simon) and Nokia (9000 Communicator), the latter being the device initiating the "unbroken chain of smartphones".


Last edited by AVR4000 on Sunday, 20.Aug.2017 17:32; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Michal Jerz
Admin/Founder/Owner
Admin/Founder/Owner



Joined: 01 Sep 1999

Posts: 29363

Thanks received:
1088 in 693 posts
Thanks given: 285

Location: Poland
Phone: Jolla, BB Z10, BB Passport, N950, N900, N8, Nexus 4 (Ubuntu Touch), Lumia 920

PostPosted: Sunday, 20.Aug.2017 17:32    Post subject:   Reply with quote   

Quote:

I can't really think of ANY feature that Apple "invented". Did such a thing exist?

Slide to Unlock perhaps? Very Happy
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    My-Symbian ~ My-Maemo ~ My-MeeGo Forum Index -> MeeGo Harmattan All times are GMT + 2 Hours

Go to page  
Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 9 of 10

 
Jump to:  
View previous topic :: View next topic

Similar Topics on this forum
Topic Author Forum Replies Posted
No new posts Request for 2015 Nokia N9 firmware flash links, and more qs harioh MeeGo Harmattan 4 Sunday, 07.Jun.2015 07:10 View latest post
No new posts Looking for Nokia N950 jbenj MeeGo Harmattan 0 Tuesday, 12.May.2015 10:01 View latest post
No new posts Nokia N9 puzzle ginniec MeeGo Harmattan 10 Tuesday, 24.Mar.2015 20:09 View latest post
No new posts Nokia N9 - Need Help to make a buying decision astalavista84 MeeGo Harmattan 13 Monday, 26.Jan.2015 15:13 View latest post
No new posts Nokia Store to be replaced by Opera Mobile Store BentL MeeGo Harmattan 73 Tuesday, 18.Nov.2014 17:04 View latest post
No new posts Nokia Maps and Drive to be supported by Nokia HERE BentL MeeGo Harmattan 27 Tuesday, 11.Nov.2014 16:24 View latest post
No new posts Nokia Beta Labs to be discontinued on September 5, 2014 BentL MeeGo Harmattan 0 Tuesday, 02.Sep.2014 10:46 View latest post
No new posts F1LT for MeeGo pieczar MeeGo Harmattan 4 Saturday, 05.Oct.2013 19:27 View latest post
No new posts Microsoft bought Nokia mobile division detten MeeGo Harmattan 112 Tuesday, 03.Sep.2013 08:09 View latest post
No new posts i'm really sad :( meego forget from every where mohammadalisolhjoo MeeGo Harmattan 15 Monday, 19.Aug.2013 23:34 View latest post

Posting/discussing/exchanging warez/cracks/serial numbers/links to web sites offering such resources and/or any other illegal content
is FORBIDDEN on this forum and results in an immediate BAN.


Symbian and all Symbian-based marks and logos are trade marks of Symbian Software Limited.
This website is not in any way endorsed or supported by Symbian Software Limited.    (C) 2001 My-Symbian.com All Rights Reserved