My Passport displays the "potential spam call" message for incoming calls (a T-mobile feature); not bad for an "obsolete" phone.
Printable View
My Passport displays the "potential spam call" message for incoming calls (a T-mobile feature); not bad for an "obsolete" phone.
Your right I don't... as Symbian wasn't big here in the US. Which is probable part of the problem... The tech press is US-centric, the app market is US-centric, and those are what were driving smartphone sales back then.
As great as yours and other Symbian developers apps are, they aren't what MAKE or BREAK a platform. It's the commercial apps (Instagram, Netflix, WhatsApp....) that make a platform and by 2013 most of those were moving away from open APIs, they only way to get their app was for them to create it. And in 2013 Android and iOS had 90% of the market...
And like everyone else Symbian owners were looking to upgrade to a modern ecosystem - not a modern OS. Millions of BBOS owners didn't mean millions of BB10 buyers.... anymore than I think millions of the Symbian owners would have mattered either.
No resurrection needed. Just be happy with the Passport if it serves you well. I love it, it works fine and would buy another two if I could (1 backup and one for a family member). A security officer in Manchester Airport was shocked: "Oh my...! Is this a phone or a computer? I have never seen such unique device! Is it still available on the market? I have seen Blackberries but not this particular one! :)
Back in those Symbian days, the US smartphone market was still small and relatively unimportant. Nowhere near what it is now.
Look at the Gartner 2010 report published in Feb 2011 (right when Elop announced ditching Symbian):
https://betanews.com/wp-content/uplo...ia/59/5907.png
Nokia still at the first place way ahead, with nearly 500 million units shipped, twice the number of units Samsung sold, 4x the LG, 10x Apple. Right after that Mr. Elop the Trojan Horse came and destroyed it within a year.
In global scale, it didn't really matter if Symbian was popular in the US or not, if the Nokia N8 sales alone in Q4 2010 equalled 1/4th of sales of all Apple devices in the same quarter. The next quarter the Nokia E7 came out and doubled it. Just those two Symbian models (out of 30 or so that Nokia manufactured at that time) equalled half of Apple sales. And then in Feb 2011 Elop announced his "Burning platform memo" and everything collapsed within a few months.
It's the chicken and egg type problem. Like I said, if Symbian users were given the opportunity to switch to BB10 in early 2012, it would have made the platform so big BEFORE 2013, that no one would dare not to port his apps to it in 2013. It was early to mid 2012 when most of Symbian users were making their their choices of which platform to switch to.As great as yours and other Symbian developers apps are, they aren't what MAKE or BREAK a platform. It's the commercial apps (Instagram, Netflix, WhatsApp....) that make a platform
The following table clearly shows where did hundreds of millions of Symbian users go. As the Symbian marketshare figures diminish in 2011 and 2012, Symbian users weren't evaporating, they were moving mostly to Android (due to no other choice) making its figures rise at the same time.
Attachment 443406
Except for that by 2012 there were some ~100 times (i.e. 10,000%) more of Symbian users than BBOS users. So even if only every 10th Symbian user went BB10 rather than Android it would have made it a 10 times bigger platform than BBOS. And, based on my knowledge of the Symbian community, I can say that much more than that would have switched to BB10 if it only came out by then. It didn't, and still not a year after that, so all Symbian users just had no other choice but to go Android that they truly disliked (but less than iOS).Millions of BBOS owners didn't mean millions of BB10 buyers.... anymore than I think millions of the Symbian owners would have mattered either.
Nice explanation!
I was one of those symbian users that moved to android(at first HTC and than others) and I was really unaware of BB10!
Hack I alone would have buy at least 10 BB10 devices (curently I do have 3 BB device which two of them I bought after EOL)
Send by PassPort Silver Edition
Don't worry, millions of former Symbian users have never heard that such a thing as BB10 ever existed - even by today (and those who've heard thought that it was an Android clone), thanks to RIM's exceptional marketing achievements.
Why did Symbian die?
Passports still my favorite, it's still a monster for email, texts and calls with the hub. The touch scrolling and keyboard is still awesome with Web browsing as well
Just read that Burning Platform memo.
BB was in the same platform. Nokia partnered with MS and burned down. BB eventually jumped off the mobile biz and prospers today. For all the grief we give BB, seems they were smarter than Nokia.
Symbian didn't die, it was murdered alive and kicking in its best times. Nokia management were so naive (or paid so well) that they believed they could cooperate with Microsoft, while Microsoft's only goal was to actually take it over and finish it off (in order to both make space on the market for own OS and to cheaply acquire Nokia technology and know-how).
10 years earlier (as their first attempt to enter the smartphone market with their sh*tty "Microsoft Smartphone" aka Stinger platform) they screwed British Sendo company the very same way. Read e.g. this article about how Sendo was f***** up. SAME STORY.
But Nokia didn't learn any lesson from that.
In Sept 2010 when Symbian still had the biggest marketshare and Nokia was the biggest and wealthiest smartphone manufacturer selling twice more devices than Samsung, LG and Apple combined, they let Elop (one of top Microsoft directors) in and made him Nokia CEO, and within a few months he finished it off. In Feb 2011 (when the just introduced Nokia N8 and the E7 were the best selling Symbian devices of all times) he announced that Symbian was "obsolete, outdated and ugly and would not be further developed in favor of new and amazing Windows Phone OS", which instantly ruined all sales. Nokia had nothing else to sell, as the Windows Phone OS 7.5 wasn't ready until late 2012 (i.e. nearly 1,5 years after Elop's memo), so they quickly went into trouble. And even then, after they finally could start shipping the first Lumia models in late 2012, no one wanted to buy them, while Nokia had to pay Microsoft licence fees for every WP device they MANUFACTURED, not sold. So they not only paid for production of devices they were literally giving away for free, but additionally they paid fees to M$ for the OS installed on them. Within just 2 years from the biggest and richest company on the planet they became insolvent. So Microsoft just bought them, twice cheaper than what they paid for..... Skype, whereas only two years earlier, just before Elop came, the company was worth around 100 times more. And that was the plan.
Let's see if in the next 10 years another company is again stupid enough to follow the same crash course and enter cooperation with Microsoft on their third attempt to enter the smartphone market.
Bit of revisionist history. Let’s correct a few things from a business perspective. Nokia market share lead was like BB market share lead with BBOS at it’s peak. Android/IOS development in 2007/2008 put Microsoft, BB and Nokia mobile divisions to sleep competitively because of their respective business models and strategies.
Elop was brought in like Chen to BB to save Nokia from poor decisions in 2006-2009 regarding OS licensing. Only after Google offered Android to OEMs and stole away Microsoft and Nokia OEMs did Nokia respond with ecosystem attempt. Meanwhile, Apple with IOS closed ecosystem was killing BBOS and it’s SAF model giving carriers exclusive demand.
Nothing could save anyone from themselves at that point. Essentially, the economic resources of Microsoft couldn’t defeat the Apple/Google duopoly model anymore than Apple/Microsoft in the laptop/desktop space..
Hahaha. I almost forgot that you always know better.
Nokia ruled the global mobile phone market since around 1998 or so until the exact time that Elop released his "Burning Platform memo". Whopping THIRTEEN YEARS or so. And ever since launching the very first Symbian smartphone in 2001 (the 9210 Communicator) until Elop announced killing Symbian, not even for one single day did Symbian OS stop leading the mobile OS market, way ahead of any other. And so it was when Elop came, and phones based on just then introduced Symbian^3 were selling better than ever before. Plus, MeeGo was ready for launch, and the plan was to gradually switch from Symbian to MeeGo (their UIs already got unified in Symbian Belle and MeeGo Harmattan) and end up with a Linux based OS looking and working identically, but much easier to futher develop. Both were Qt-based (and Nokia owned Qt), so even compatibility would have been preserved. Even a simplified version of MeeGo for simple feature phones (code-named Meltemi) was under heavy development.Nokia market share lead was like BB market share lead with BBOS at it’s peak.
Also remember that at that time Nokia had a great and possibly very successful MeeGo partnership with Intel, that Elop so rudely cancelled as one of his first decisions. The first MeeGo based tablets and laptops were already starting to ship at that time and Intel worked hard on an intel CPU based MeeGo handset and MeeGo versions for cars and infotainment devices - long before QNX, Google or Apple. Elop interrupted the partnership in such a way that Intel publicly called Nokia a partner they shouldn't have trusted.
Those are facts, everything else is just a speculation of what could have or couldn't have happened. Until Elop, Nokia was rich and big enough to do almost everything, including giving away MeeGo licences for free to everyone, if they only decided so rather than inviting the wolf in sheep's skin to eat them alive.
So it's completely incomparable with BBOS, a wholly different order of magnitude. It's about BILLIONS of phones on the market not millions, and a company with some $15 billion of spare cash (that not including all the other assets), not debts. And one OS still on top of GLOBAL marketshare and the other ready for launch, developed in a strategic partnership with Intel, where Nokia was responsible for the smartphone version and Intel was to develop computer and infotainment versions.
In early 2011 Nokia had 15 *billion* dollars of spare cash on their bank accounts. And a dozen of factories worldwide. And divisions in all countries, including Africa. And a user base of billions of users. They had dozens of OS developers so skilled and qualified that after Elop fired the Symbian and MeeGo dept. a few of them in their spare time were able to create Sailfish OS from scratch within a year or so.Android/IOS development in 2007/2008 put Microsoft, BB and Nokia mobile divisions to sleep competitively because of their respective business models and strategies.
So saying that Nokia was destined to fail is ridiculous, because they were big and rich enough to be able to do literally anything, more than anyone else. It's just that they did the worst thing they could have, i.e. they let the trojan horse in that within one year made all their assets evaporate, as that was the plan.
And it couldn't have ended up any different if he publicly announced ditching Symbian (and called it obsolete and outdated) a whopping 1,5 years before the first Lumias could have been made. He knew very well that over the next 18 months Nokia wouldn't have ANYTHING else to sell, so it was done fully consciously. As such, it CLEARLY was a plan to DESTROY Nokia, and NOT to save it.
It's like if Chen announced ditching BB10 and moving to Android already in 2013, two years before the first BB Android phone could have been released. BBRY would have been dead and gone for a long time now. So, again, two completely different things. YES, Chen waited until they knew they could start shipping Android phones. No, Elop did not wait a second. He leaked his "Burning Platform memo" on the very day of the Nokia E7 (Nokia's new Symbian flagship) launch. Why exactly then, if not to instantly ruin its sales?
As I wrote, Microsoft did the EXACT same thing already 10 years earlier with Sendo. The EXACT same thing. Which should have been a lesson for everyone. But not for Nokia.
Whatever Elop was BELIEVED to do by some naive people, in reality he did everything to destroy the company, as quickly as possible. There is just no valid excuse for publicly announcing ditching Symbian and MeeGo when he knew that the process to design and launch the first Lumia model would take 18 months. If his plan was indeed to SAVE Nokia, he would have continued to support and promote Symbian (with the N8 and E7 selling like crazy at that time) until the Lumias were ready. But no, every single move of his was to finish it off. Even the E7, which was ready for launch in 2010, was purposely delayed by him until Feb 2011 and released A DAY AFTER his "Burning Platform memo" - CLEARLY to ruin its sales. And yes, I know well that the E7 was ready for launch already in Nov 2010, because as an owner of one of the biggest Symbian sites working closely with Nokia I got one for review at that time and it was a final model with commercial IMEI. Then they called me and asked me to hold on with the review until unspecified time because the release was postponed. That's how Elop acted.Elop was brought in like Chen to BB to save Nokia from poor decisions in 2006-2009 regarding OS licensing.
Microsoft didn't need Nokia for absolutely anything else but their technology and highly qualified human resources. Just like 10 years earlier they didn't need Sendo for anything but that. And both ended up identically.
With their assets, Nokia could have done a ZILLION different things. Including e.g. starting to manufacture Android smartphones that in 2011 everyone would have preferred over Samsung or LG which back then weren't a fraction as reputable as the Nokia brand. So, once again, saying that Nokia was destined to fail is ridiculous.Nothing could save anyone from themselves at that point.
As for iOS, I don't recall them ever surpassing some ~25% marketshare, i.e. not much more than half of what Symbian had when Elop arrived.
Microsoft has an exponential level of cash within any given metric chosen. The point was simply that second place was first place loser within Mobile OS space. Spending cash like Nokia had or Microsoft has was irrelevant since nobody is or was changing back then or now. Your comment started about how BB could have picked up all this market share. If Microsoft and Nokia couldn’t hold onto it, how was BB with a fraction of the resources supposed to earn it. Business models aren’t built in a vacuum and if you weren’t Android/IOS before 2010/2011, you were DOA as history shows us. One person in front of a train won’t stop it. One hundred people in same place lined up will be flattened dead just the same.
Facts, and not speculations, are that in 2010 Nokia had:
- nearly 40% marketshare, i.e. hundreds of millions of Symbian smartphone users, MORE than Android
- even better in the feature phone segment (i.e. people who were then gradually switching to smartphones), something like 70% IIRC
- customers who were very loyal to the brand. As the table I posted earlier clearly shows, 112 million of them bought a new Symbian phone in 2010, TWICE more than an Android phone and THREE TIMES more than an iOS phone. In just Q4 2010, right after launch, Nokia sold over 4 million N8's, i.e. 10% of all phones Apple sold in entire 2010. Then the same number of E7's. And we're talking about just two devices out of two dozen or so they were selling at that time.
That's how it looked by the very end. A month later Elop killed Symbian and MeeGo, so everything past early 2011 was a RESULT OF IT and would have looked entirely different if not that. Android's boom in 2011-2012 was a RESULT of Symbian assassination, and not vice versa.
As I said, by Feb 2011 Nokia had all the resources needed to change things: enormous user base (still bigger than anyone else), expertise and most qualified staff, very deep pockets, own factories worldwide, Qt ownership, and much more. Any comparisons to BBRY's potential aren't serious. Nor even Microsoft, who had big money but absolutely no expertise or technology in the mobile business and couldn't do a thing without hardware partners. Symbian^3 only came out and didn't even have the time to spread (but initial sales of the N8 and E7 were stunning), and ^4 was in development (then only partially released as Anna and Belle upgrades) - people didn't even see it before Elop threw mud at it. So was MeeGo and Meltemi - the MeeGo based N9 only came out after Elop's memo and still sold in millions of units, which scared the sh*t out of Elop, just like enormous N8 sales made him announce killing Symbian so early. The Intel partnership was in progress and the MeeGo platform could have became something really serious (especially with its tablet, netbook and infotainment versions) and was planned to smoothly replace Symbian. With Nokia and Intel powers combined, things might have ended up completely different. If not Elop the Destroyer.
Second, as for BB, as I said, the day Elop killed Symbian, dozens of the most skilled Nokia's Qt developers started hunting for a new job. BBRY could have hired them and have BB10 finished a year earlier. But no. Those developers kept killing time making Sailfish OS while BBRY kept struggling to make BB10 even boot up. Then they wasted billions on trying to save BB10 past its death, rather than having invested a few percent of it in 2011 to hire some qualified staff. If those guys, having nothing better to do, made Sailfish OS from scratch within a year, they probably would have finished BB10 within a few months. Or maybe weeks, who knows.
As for Symbian users who had to find themselves a new platform, some of them would have gone Android and iOS like they did, but some would have gone BB10 if it existed. Where in case of an OS with a user base of hundreds of millions, "some" translates to enormous numbers. So if even only every 5th Symbian user at least gave BB10 a try, it might have meant a marketshare of iOS.
History only shows us what happened AFTER Nokia was killed by Elop, and its nearly 40% marketshare (in 2010 still bigger than Android and almost 3x bigger than iOS) went Android due to no other choice and made it so big. It does NOT show us what would have happened if Nokia didn't let that trojan horse in (and therefore wasn't killed), and what would they have done instead. Everything that happened after Elop's memo is a CONSEQUENCE of it, not a REASON of it. What might have happened instead is just a SPECULATION, not a fact, because no one has a shadow of idea of what they would have done instead, and their giant 40% marketshare (combined with their money and their world's best team of engineers and OS developers) was making a lot of different scenarios possible. YES, Microsoft also had money, even bigger. But NO, Microsoft never had a PROMILLE of Nokia's marketshare nor absolutely any expertise in mobile technology, so any comparisons between them are entirely wrong. Their initial WP 7 / 7.5 OS was so sh*tty and it took them so long to bring it to a state that anyone would want to use it that it indeed was too late (the semi-usable 8 version came out in late 2012 and 8.1 only came out in mid 2014). Nothing to do with such an established and renowned brand as Symbian was in 2010-2011, or even a new OS such as BB10 if it only came out in 2011 or early 2012 before everyone went Android and didn't care anymore. Heck, guess what, knowing how Nokia customers were loyal to the brand, I'd even risk saying that Windows Phone could have been successful on such a then-good hardware as the Lumias (and their then-spectacular cameras) and the Nokia logo on it, if it also came out on Nokia hardware right after Elop announced the switchover (and not a year later) and if it was usable and not making every Symbian user want to puke after any contact with it. The truth is that by version 8 (or even 8.1) which came out way too late it was simply an ENORMOUS P.O.S. lacking the most basic functionality (and as if it wasn't enough also butt-ugly) and that's the whole mistery behind its failure. Just like Millenium or Vista were failures not because of any "market situation" but simply because they were sh*tty. No need for any ideology.if you weren’t Android/IOS before 2010/2011, you were DOA as history shows us.
Interesting. Is this also one of those USA vs the rest of the world market things?
Reason I ask is that, I knew Nokia made phones, but never ever heard of Symbian. And I was an IT guy.
When I went to purchase my first cellphone in 2010, my choices were Windows, iOS, Android, and BBOS. Briefly playing with the phones in the AT&T store, it was quickly obvious that Android and Windows were non-starters, leaving iPhone and BlackBerry.
Went with Torch 9800.
Carriers were supporting Android/IOS OEMs and their ecosystems. While existing users might own Symbian, it doesn’t mean they wanted to keep it going forward. Many consumers had Symbian or BBOS simply because they were the only affordable choices until Android/IOS came along.
OEMs were dropping support for everything not Android in 2009-2010 to please carriers who like the Google Android model of business of data gathering and increasing data consumption.
This was simple Economics 101 for the carrier networks to increase profits and the old mobile OS and their creators were following business models that were no longer interesting profit-wise.
Consumers, as usual, chose to support what carriers encouraged. Android/IOS was already well along the path of success and nothing ever was stopping the duopoly long before Elop was hired. Microsoft, back then, was already most likely calling the shots in the Nokia division that was everything later purchased.
For Nokia or BB to continue to succeed would have meant Apple/IOS, Google/Android or both would have failed. It’s not always who has best technology. Android/IOS locked out everyone with a business model that carriers embraced and consumers supported with open wallets.
Just want to add on to what you're saying; corporations were signing up to get their apps out to the main OS's for today and for the future. Plus apple and google have way more resources and money to throw into R&D and marketing than any one. When you that kind of power, everyone else falls to the waste side. Companies don't want to spend BILLIONS of dollars to just to move up a few percent more than where their at. What Nokia should have done was figure out a way to have android and/or IOS apps on their devices, keep making superior hardware, and get the flagship products in the US.
Posted via CB10
NSN (Nokia Solutions and Networks, formerly Nokia Siemens Networks) was along with Ericsson the biggest manufacturer and supplier of mobile network infrastructure, used by most carriers worldwide (in early 2011 NSN additionally acquired Motorola's networks division and completely dominated that business). Not a single carrier using Nokia or Motorola infrastructure (i.e. majority of them) would refuse to provide continued support for Symbian if the conditions of their multi-billion purchases of Nokia network infrastructure equipment depended on it. But that's of course only if Nokia management demanded it, which wasn't the case with the board ruled by Elop whose goal was to kill Symbian and not to sustain it. Undermining Symbian sales as quickly as possible was Elop's first target, as otherwise he couldn't have convinced shareholders that switching to Windows Phone was making any sense. So, in reality, carriers did not care to continue supporting Symbian because Elop-driven Nokia itself didn't want it. If it did, carriers would happily follow for their own good.
I quoted 2010 sales of Symbian phones many times already, but you keep ignoring it. Kindly note the Gartner report table posted earlier: TWICE more Symbian phones sold in 2010 than Android and THREE TIMES more than iOS, which simply speaks for itself. That's a hard FACT, and everything else is just an assumption. It is simply UNKNOWN how Symbian would sell in 2011 and beyond if Elop didn't kill it in early Feb 2011, which instantly stopped its sales. All the post-2010 figures are already strongly affected by the fact that Symbian had been officially discontinued. As I wrote, they show the EFFECT of it, not the REASON.While existing users might own Symbian, it doesn’t mean they wanted to keep it going forward. Many consumers had Symbian or BBOS simply because they were the only affordable choices until Android/IOS came along.
As for "affordable choices", the Symbian based N8 and E7 weren't any cheaper than iPhones, because Elop didn't want to make them affordable - it was part of the plan to undermine Symbian sales in order to show to shareholders that going WP was a must. Yet, regardless of that huge price, they were selling amazingly well (4 million units a quarter each), which forced Elop to make his statement so early to ultimately kill their sales as otherwise shareholders could not be convinced that going Windows Phone was making any sense.
Besides, if not Elop, Symbian wouldn't have stayed in place. On the contrary, the Symbian ^3 OS (very seriously upgraded and modified, with Qt finally onboard and a wholly new UI) only started shipping merely two months before Elop's announcement (only one phone model - the N8 - was released with Symbian ^3 onboard before Elop's memo) and Symbian ^4 was in development. And then transition to MeeGo was scheduled, which was meant to fully replace Symbian. And that in partnership with Intel, that Elop instantly cancelled. So it is completely unknown what reception it would get if it wasn't officially killed, as - like I said - all figures PAST Elop's statement already show the instant effect of it.
Last but not least, the Alien Dalvik Android runtime was ready for Symbian and MeeGo in 2010 and was going to be included in one of the upcoming OS upgrades, just like it was three years later on the BB10, so if not Elop then Symbian and MeeGo phones would have gotten Android app compatibility already in early 2011, which would have had for them a wholly different effect than for BB10 in mid 2013.
All fine, if you ignore the aforementioned strong dependency of most carriers on multibillion investments in network infastructure, mostly bought from Nokia (NSN), the biggest supplier of such equipment in the world. That alone was a sufficient tool to make carriers want to support Symbian, if conditions of their deals with NSN depended on it, i.e. if Elop ever demanded it. Whereas, on the contrary, judging by all other moves of his, I have reasons to suspect that he explicitly told carriers not to bother. Just like he told Intel to f**k off and Google to "pi.ss their pants to keep warmth".OEMs were dropping support for everything not Android in 2009-2010 to please carriers who like the Google Android model of business of data gathering and increasing data consumption.
I think you're not familiar with how huge Nokia was at that time. Not just the mobile phones division (NMP), in which Symbian was actually just a small part and the true giant was feature phones they were selling in billions of units (which even in today's standards is impressive but at that time it was simply monstrous), but also the giant NSN (Nokia Siemens Networks) and a few other such branches of theirs. And other companies they founded and owned like e.g. Vertu, selling gold plated phones with diamonds. Money wasn't the problem. Nor carriers, who, as I wrote earlier, depended on network infrastructure supplied by NSN, so they could have been 'convinced' to support Nokia OS platforms. Nor actually anything else but a series of EXTREMELY stupid and suicidal decisions of their own which killed them and it didn't really take Google or Apple for that.
Nokia DID have the Android runtime (the same that a few years later appeared on BB10, i.e. Alien Dalvik) ready for both Symbian and Maemo/MeeGo. It was ready since 2010 and officially demoed fully working on a Symbian phone and the Maemo-based N900 in early 2011 by its maker (a company called Myriad). The plan was to include it in the upcoming OS releases, but Elop obviously wasn't interested in it so it never came out.What Nokia should have done was figure out a way to have android and/or IOS apps on their devices, keep making superior hardware, and get the flagship products in the US.
Yes, you're right, it's the US vs. the rest of the world type of thing. Why didn't Nokia ever care to enter the US market with Symbian has always been beyond me - especially that they were quite strongly present in the US with their plain mobile phones. Maybe it was simply one of those incomprehensible, stupid decisions they excelled at throughout their entire existence. Some big Nokia boss might have simply decided so, and that's it. Or maybe it had something to do with the CDMA bands that they did not bother to make Symbian support? I don't know. Except for North America, until 2011 Symbian was the top mobile OS literally everywhere else...
Assumptions don't get updated much around here...
Posted via CB10
I missed the n900 phone. The phone was waay ahead of its time. It just suck that I didn't get a chance to use more symbian phones back in the day. The issue I had with nokia was them going with microsoft. I new the hardware side was going to be top shelf, but windows 8-10 just couldn't make it happen. My issue with these phones is that they don't put enough core features in the OS. I don't want to download an app for things the OS should handle
Posted via CB10
Why did Nokia & Symbian fail, same as BlackBerry...ARROGANCE. They taught the iPhone was a joke, even up to 2010 they make fun of the iPhone at developer conferences.
Symbian market share in 2010, doesn't help if you don't have a next gen experience that people want. A big part of that was the UI - Noka had an engineering, not a design culture (like BlackBerry). Another part of it was that many of the important apps in 2010 were US-Centric, Symbian didn't even exist in the US so those commercial developers didn't bother with it.
Unlike BBOS, Symbian had a good foundation and as an OS could evolve to offer what users wanted.
was actually a great OS with many features that others copied.. And in 2010 Symbian switched to using standard C++ making development much easier on developers and Symbian 4 wold have gotten the UI on equal footing. But a great OS doesn't equal commercial developer support. Look at all the failed Mobile OS projects... I think the battle was lost pre 2010 and Nokia understood it and accepted it.. and bet the bank on Microsoft having the resources to make a go of it. The fact that Microsoft failed, only shows how hard it would have been for Symbian on it's own.
Heck even Android hasn't always gotten a lot of commercial developer love.... back in 2013 when BB10 launched, there were a number of those commercial developers that still focused only on iOS. Wasn't until Android started really gaining in marketshare in KEY markets that those commercial developers could not keep ignoring it.
Reality is I doubt commercial developers would have supported a 3rd or 4th OS...
You don't know (nor do I) if Symbian^4 (whose UI was to be aligned with MeeGo) wouldn't bring such a next gen experience, because Elop cancelled it and it never came out. The same for MeeGo and Meltemi, both actually aborted by Elop before birth. The N9 with its **amazing** UI (see below) came out (without absolutely any promotion and only in a few countries) months after Elop announced ditching Symbian and MeeGo, so only geeks managed to buy it and average users didn't even know about its existence. Most of them haven't heard about it even by today.
Check the videos below and notice how the MeeGo UI of the N9 closely resembles BB10 10.2+, almost 3 years earlier. Guess who copied from who :)
Oh, how untue it is. Please check the UI of the Nokia N9, which in 2011 was innovative and beautiful even in today's standards. It was the first OS fully controlled by gestures, that BB10 then copied. Some of its UI parts were actually more advanced than in BB10, e.g. app thumbnails (active covers) were actually fully active. It also had the 'advanced interactions' like e.g. double tap the screen to wake up, or peeking. Two years before BB10, as the only then existing OS. Compared to it, UIs of Android or even iOS were extremely DUMB. Especially Android 4.x looked like SH*T compared to it and was taking multiple operations wasting many seconds to do things that on the N9 you were doing with one pleasant gesture. Only the current release of iOS shamelessly stole gestures that the N9 had (and much more) in 2011, 8 years earlier.A big part of that was the UI - Noka had an engineering, not a design culture (like BlackBerry).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfv5c59fSds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCFNXhiFnKY
So, once again, we don't know what kind of reception it would have gotten if Elop didn't kill it, because except for a handful of geeks who managed to get it and a few expositions where it was presented it actually didn't make it to the market. That UI was going to be used across the whole range of products, both Symbian and MeeGo. And a simplified version (Meltemi) on billions of feature phones.
One look at those videos is enough to understand why Symbian and MeeGo users didn't consider the dumb and ugly as **** Windows Phone 7.x an acceptable Symbian/MeeGo replacement.
As I already said, the Android runtime (Alien Dalvik, same as then on BB10) was ready for all Nokia platforms (Symbian, Maemo and MeeGo) since late 2010 (it was publicly demoed running on the N900 on Mobile World Congress in early 2011) and was planned to be included in all those platforms in 2011. So availability of apps wouldn't have been a problem. If not Elop, who obviously cancelled it.Another part of it was that many of the important apps in 2010 were US-Centric, Symbian didn't even exist in the US so those commercial developers didn't bother with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcoXIG6Bi8c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEg5Vckaa-g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2qZ4hk9hGs
and many more.
It was actually more functional than the BB10 implementation two years later, because BBRY restricted/sacrificed some of its features for increased security reasons, whereas on those Nokia platforms it wasn't subject to such restrictions.
If Nokia thought the battle was lost pre-2010, they wouldn't have risked their existence trying to push the brand new Windows Phone OS. Those two things contradict themselves.But a great OS doesn't equal commercial developer support. Look at all the failed Mobile OS projects... I think the battle was lost pre 2010 and Nokia understood it and accepted it..
As for failed mobile OS projects. Sure, but much later, and done very poorly. All those Tizens, Ubuntu Phone, etc., were actually never really finished or seriously marketed. Symbian (or MeeGo which was going to smoothly replace it) were something completely different - existing, established, with giant base of loyal users.
Two different things. In 2010 and early 2011 Symbian existed, had hundreds of millions of users - more than Android and twice more than iOS, and the last device introduced before Elop killed Symbian, the N8 based on the brand new Symbian^3, was selling better than any other in Symbian's history. Heck, even the E7 released on the day that Elop announced ditching Symbian was selling equally well (4 million in a quarter), until people realized that he was serious and he's really going to kill the platform - only at that point sales stopped. As for Microsoft, whose existing user base was niche (a few percent of Windows Mobile users at most), their new WP 7.x OS was so cr*ppy, incompatible with existing WM software and unacceptably DUMB, that even existing Windows Mobile OS users didn't want it and considered it an unacceptable downgrade in terms of features and user experience. It took Microsoft actually until mid 2014 (when 8.1 version came out) to make anyone want to seriously consider it, but at THAT point it was indeed much too late.The fact that Microsoft failed, only shows how hard it would have been for Symbian on it's own.
And, once again, if along with all the improvements that Symbian ^3 and ^4 (and then seamless transition to MeeGo) were going to offer, Symbian users also got the Alien Dalvik Android app compatibility as it was planned, and all that in 2011, then the only remaining problem that I can see would be to finally enter the US market. But the aforementioned dependency of carriers on Nokia (and Motorola, then acquired by Nokia) mobile network infrastructure would make it possible to make US carriers want to support Symbian, if only Nokia had a CEO (and not a trojan horse) who ever wanted to take advantage of it.
By Feb 2011 (Elop's memo) Symbian had twice more users than iOS. The difference was hundreds of millions. Qt (that only Symbian ^3 introduced in late 2010, as formerly it was just an optional component installable with applications) finally made development for Symbian (and MeeGo) a wholly different thing. So we don't know how commercial developers would have eventually reacted to it if Elop didn't kill Symbian RIGHT WHEN Symbian ^3 came out. He didn't even give it a chance to show how the market would react to it or whether developers would support its integrated Qt, which clearly indicates that his intention from the very beginning was to kill it, completely REGARDLESS of its market position, to make space for Microsoft OS.Reality is I doubt commercial developers would have supported a 3rd or 4th OS...
The very fact that Nokia was going to include an Android runtime is evidence that they knew that they weren't going to get important native apps - but history also clearly shows that if your OS depends on another platform's apps, it's only a matter of time before your users end up on that platform instead, so they can run those apps natively.
