Former Nokia executive blasts CEO Stephen Elop

Nokia has been having a bit of an up-and-down month. On the one hand, the initial sales of the Lumia 900 in the US, which launched on April 8th, have exceeded expectations. On the other hand, the company reported a huge loss for the first quarter of 2012 and got its credit rating downgraded to junk status by Fitch just this week.

Now a former executive at Nokia has come out to blast the current direction of the company and its CEO Stephen Elop. Crave.co.uk has posted an extensive interview with Lee Williams, who as a senior vice-president of Nokia's Series 60 software division from 2006 and 2009 and later became the Executive Director of the Symbian Foundation. He is currently a partner in a company called Sourcebits.

Williams believes that under the leadership of Elop, Nokia doesn't have much in the way of a grand plan, saying:

Elop hasn't delivered a roadmap. He's been there for two to three years and there's really no roadmap. There's no overarching vision for this company. That to me is akin to stepping completely out of the leadership role and running behind the bus now... Before Elop, Nokia would never give up that leadership position and role in the marketplace, would always talk about the future.

Williams also believes that Elop made a mistake in putting all of Nokia's eggs in the Windows Phone basket. He states:

It might have made sense to introduce a product or two into the portfolio based on Windows Phone. What I do not think they should have done is pretend it is a one horse race, and that one software system is all you need. They have executed in this fashion, and are paying for it.

Williams says that Nokia might give Elop between six to twelve more months before the company's board of directors decides to make another major move, saying, "I'm confident they'll be able to course correct and that they have the kind of assets and talent left to be able to do something here. I don't see them going out in a fire sale."

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Galaxy S III specs outed in benchmarking app [Update]

Next Story

Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City, Prototype 2, Torchlight II pre-orders on Steam

79 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Nokia was is taking a gamble (for there life) with going all WM7.

They've been downgraded by rating agencies, because the Symbian errorison (lack of sales) is happening FASTER then predictions, and the WM7 adoption (sales) haven't happenes as fast as predictions. There also having trouble in the European Market with the new WM phones.

If they can't get WM7 sales up faster / quicker / more volume before they run out of cash (they keep losing money each qtr), there done / bankrupt / take over bait.

Simple as that. Not saying the Lumia 900 isn't a great phone, it looks like it is a top end phone, just it might not be enough to save them.

Jason Stillion said,
Nokia was is taking a gamble (for there life) with going all WM7.

They've been downgraded by rating agencies, because the Symbian errorison (lack of sales) is happening FASTER then predictions, and the WM7 adoption (sales) haven't happenes as fast as predictions. There also having trouble in the European Market with the new WM phones.

If they can't get WM7 sales up faster / quicker / more volume before they run out of cash (they keep losing money each qtr), there done / bankrupt / take over bait.

Simple as that. Not saying the Lumia 900 isn't a great phone, it looks like it is a top end phone, just it might not be enough to save them.

WP7 isn't where Nokia is focusing IMO. It's WP8 and that entire ecosystem (possibly Nokia tablets running WinRT). Nokia have already stated poor Q1 and Q2 expectations. What you're saying could've been the case had MS not come in. I'm confident MS is going to be backing Nokia, at least, for FY 2013 and 2014. I don't see them letting their biggest phone OEM fall so them going bankrupt anytime soon is highly unlikely. (They also have reserved cash)

Nokia should not have killed Meego so quickly. In my opinion, it had several features which made it appealing: simple, elegant and it was an underdog. Many customers, including myself like an underdog. The windows phone os seems too immature for me and does not do the lumia series justice .

valkyr09 said,
Nokia should not have killed Meego so quickly. In my opinion, it had several features which made it appealing: simple, elegant and it was an underdog. Many customers, including myself like an underdog. The windows phone os seems too immature for me and does not do the lumia series justice .

This seems contradictory. Meego was not much mature than Windows Phone. Windows Phone is also considered an underdog in this race and is, arguably, simple and elegant too.

MS should use Nokia exclusively for their hardware. The other guys have only produced 2 or 3 decent looking devices. They all have their heads in the Android cloud, so might as well cut them out completely.

What was Nokia doing in past 10 years going anyway that now everybody blaming Elop for it. Its the first time a Nokia phone is this much amazing and doing amazing in US market after iPhone. I have had Symbian before. It should have died before.

S3P€hR said,
What was Nokia doing in past 10 years going anyway that now everybody blaming Elop for it. Its the first time a Nokia phone is this much amazing and doing amazing in US market after iPhone. I have had Symbian before. It should have died before.

Absolutely. Haters just want to hate. They don't need to be rational about it. lol

S3P€hR said,
What was Nokia doing in past 10 years going anyway that now everybody blaming Elop for it. Its the first time a Nokia phone is this much amazing and doing amazing in US market after iPhone. I have had Symbian before. It should have died before.

Which phone did you have? Are you comparing Symbian version of the past to present version of other OSs?

Former! So he was the one that ****ed up and now is blaming Elop for trying something different.

Nokia windows 8 tablets will be awesome. So far people love the Lumia line, Especially the 900. With over a billion windows users world wide. I see Nokia doing well going forward.

BTW who on this blog will be getting a Nokia tablet this fall?

wetworker said,

BTW who on this blog will be getting a Nokia tablet this fall?

If they actually make one, I would. Except it would probably run Windows RT (Windows on ARM)… and I want an x86-64 based device.

Albert said,
no fire sales huh? how much is nokia's stock price again?

On a brighter note. at least Elop has ensured his former masters will get a bargin price.

So this was the guy who was in charge of software when Nokia screwed everything up. Symbian was in such a bad state it couldn't be rescued and MeeGo was so far behind the curve that it STILL hasn't made it to market (the N9 crashes at least once every hour).

Elop was likely hired to clean up this tosser's mess.

Major Plonquer said,
So this was the guy who was in charge of software when Nokia screwed everything up. Symbian was in such a bad state it couldn't be rescued and MeeGo was so far behind the curve that it STILL hasn't made it to market (the N9 crashes at least once every hour).

Elop was likely hired to clean up this tosser's mess.

I don't think WP7 is a bad platform, but if what you say is true, we won't have Symbian Belle today (after all it "cannot be rescued"). It did not have the ecosystem, but "cannot be rescued" is ridiculous... after all Symbian still has a larger market share than WP7, and still does, especially in Asia and Europe (Nokia has been having problems entering the US market for some reasons).

I do await WP7 to come to feature-parity with Symbian though. Symbian was a bit more difficult to use - though they have simplified it over the years, and being someone who reads Neowin (read: reasonably tech savvy) I had no problems with the Symbian UI after a few days. But for the slight increase in difficultly, it was indeed extremely powerful. Like having a proper file system with zip functionality. The ability to turn a phone into a hotspot through a 3rd party app without rooting/jailbreaking (and no need for operator support!). The ability to customize input methods. And many more - in fact the flexibility and features of Symbian was what made me choose my next phone as an Android as Android has most of the flexibility of Symbian with a vibrant ecosystem...

Edited by Kai Y, Apr 26 2012, 3:16am :

It's almost humorous when form employees (CEOs or otherwise) decide to open their big yaps and whine about the successors. Note to Lee Williams: There's a reason you're NOT an Nokia executive anymore. Just sit down, shut up and color, you feeb. You mean nothing.

ScubaDog said,
It's almost humorous when form employees (CEOs or otherwise) decide to open their big yaps and whine about the successors. Note to Lee Williams: There's a reason you're NOT an Nokia executive anymore. Just sit down, shut up and color, you feeb. You mean nothing.

Exactly. In fact I am wondering how this is news? Why would anybody care what a disgruntled former employee had to say. It also seems like this guy might want to shut up, who would want to hire someone who is constantly bashing there previous employee.

ScubaDog said,
It's almost humorous when form employees (CEOs or otherwise) decide to open their big yaps and whine about the successors. Note to Lee Williams: There's a reason you're NOT an Nokia executive anymore. Just sit down, shut up and color, you feeb. You mean nothing.

This. He almost destroyed Nokia with his incompetence and now he's acting like he was the best CEO in the world.

Drossel said,

This. He almost destroyed Nokia with his incompetence and now he's acting like he was the best CEO in the world.

Agreed. It's really ridiculous. lol

symbian was dying.....i dont think meego had much developer support...now think you need to sell a phone...either you get intel support or MICROSOFT....which one would you go for ?

Gondya bhau said,
symbian was dying.....i dont think meego had much developer support...now think you need to sell a phone...either you get intel support or MICROSOFT....which one would you go for ?

Add Nokia Windows 8 tablets to that mix.

No one company likes to say they want to put all their eggs in one basket. Nokia is on its last leg with symbian but it will continue to support the millions of users of it for a while. It is a given.

When some of you say that you should not put all your eggs in one basket how many eggs in one basket and how many in the other.

Samsung = 95% Android and 5% Windows OS - I am being generous. Sprinkle some of their own stuff in there while you are at it. A very small sprinkle.

Motorola = 100% Android as far as the DROID/RAZR line up goes and Verizon goes. Blackberry well we know where thats at currently.

LG = 95% Android
HTC = 95% Android currently - could shift more as WP8 comes along.
IPHONE = 100% IOS

Then you have the others mostly Android.

So what is Nokia doing any different than the other MFR's at the moment?

They decided that to move into an overly saturated market like Android would not get them where they wanted to be. You have Google Maps which directly competes against their NAVTEQ Maps. You have Google Music which directly competes with their Nokia Tunes. You have Google Nav which competes with Nokia Drive and both are pushing for Rail System updates as well.

They saw the roadmap from Google/Android when they sat down and weighed their options. It competed against their differentiators and that would not have been a wise choice to get into bed with them at that point.

MS WP7 was in its infancy and still is in some ways and matured in others. It has come a long way in a short time. Adoption was slow but with the Nokia branding being a hot ticket item right now in the US it stands a good chance to become successful under this direction.

What other path could they have gone down and not be just another Android Device? The simplicity in their new designs compliments WP 7.5 and the Metro design themes. It has been said time and time again that Nokia is one of the only companies that really can compete with Apple from a design standpoint.

With Apollo I will bet the farm they will provide the quality optics and camera features from the N8 if not better. HD screens and better performance. Developers with the WP platform have a chance to really make a market for themselves if they can adopt and hang on. MS and Nokia are paying them very good incentives. So what you think that Apple never did any of those deals early on? Or Android for that matter?

I used the N9(Meego), Lumia 800, Samsung Nexus GSM and IPhone 4S. The N9 sorely lacks multiple exchange accounts but I did enjoy it. The lumia 800 is my other go to phone after the iPhone 4S. The Nexus has dropped in half of what I paid and I will just sell it and call it a day. I am done with trying to adjust to larger 4.5" plus phones. TOO big for my taste. Keep me in 4" range with a very sharp non-pentile HD screen and I will be a very happy camper.

I know Nokia will make a big impact with WP8/Apollo and so will Samsung and HTC.

The next IPHONE will make it that much harder in the market because most people won't pay the termination fees to get out of WP 7.5 or Android but they will do it for IPHONE. It has been proven time and time again.

mrmomoman said,

When some of you say that you should not put all your eggs in one basket how many eggs in one basket and how many in the other.

Samsung = 95% Android and 5% Windows OS - I am being generous. Sprinkle some of their own stuff in there while you are at it. A very small sprinkle.

Motorola = 100% Android as far as the DROID/RAZR line up goes and Verizon goes. Blackberry well we know where thats at currently.

The difference with Android is it's a popular and successful platform with hundreds of thousands of Apps. Putting all your eggs in one poor performing platform basket is infinitely worse.

[quote=mrmomoman said,]
When some of you say that you should not put all your eggs in one basket how many eggs in one basket and how many in the other.

Samsung = 95% Android and 5% Windows OS - I am being generous. Sprinkle some of their own stuff in there while you are at it. A very small sprinkle.

Motorola = 100% Android as far as the DROID/RAZR line up goes and Verizon goes. Blackberry well we know where thats at currently.[/quote]
[/quote]
The difference with Android is it's a popular and successful platform with hundreds of thousands of Apps. Putting all your eggs in one poor performing platform basket is infinitely worse.

simplezz said,

The difference with Android is it's a popular and successful platform with hundreds of thousands of Apps. Putting all your eggs in one poor performing platform basket is infinitely worse.

It's not poor performing, it's new. Android wasn't selling millions right off the bat. Microsoft understood going in that this was a marathon and are committed to that. No one other than Android fanatics claimed to expect them to take over the world in a year...

mrmomoman

Samsung = 95% Android and 5% Windows OS - I am being generous. Sprinkle some of their own stuff in there while you are at it. A very small sprinkle.

Samsung's "very small sprinkle of own stuff" is called Bada OS, and has been selling more than all the WP7 devices from every OEM combined.

mrmomoman said,
... The N9 sorely lacks multiple exchange accounts but I did enjoy it.

Nokia N9 supports multiple Mail for Exchange accounts, in fact it is the first Nokia device to do so.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this is how I see it.

-Nokia were failing with Symbian. They got complacent with their portfolio and the iPhone and Android platforms caught them off guard.

-Nokia now need to compete, so they ditch Symbian and either go towards Android or Microsoft.

-Going towards Android would mean that they would need to produce high-end devices in order to compete, without the help of Google.

-Going towards Android would also mean that they would be competing with more OEMs, who were already established at that time.

-Going towards Android would also open them up to patent issues and would they would have to pay MS/Apple et al. license fees.

Could they afford to all of that from their 'burning platform'?

The alternative, which they took, was to shore up investment in the form of MS. Unlike Google, MS have to prove themselves and have to invest. Therefore, it's in MS's interest to actually help out Nokia in terms of resources and finance. Furthermore, Nokia and MS are two of the biggest researchers so now they can pool resources to come out with innovative tech compete with Android and iOS. They are less likely to fail as a company when they have MS backing them than if they were out there on their own, considering what position they were in at that time.

That's how I see it.

keyboardP said,
Maybe I'm missing something, but this is how I see it.

-Nokia were failing with Symbian. They got complacent with their portfolio and the iPhone and Android platforms caught them off guard.

-Nokia now need to compete, so they ditch Symbian and either go towards Android or Microsoft.

-Going towards Android would mean that they would need to produce high-end devices in order to compete, without the help of Google.

-Going towards Android would also mean that they would be competing with more OEMs, who were already established at that time.

-Going towards Android would also open them up to patent issues and would they would have to pay MS/Apple et al. license fees.

Could they afford to all of that from their 'burning platform'?

The alternative, which they took, was to shore up investment in the form of MS. Unlike Google, MS have to prove themselves and have to invest. Therefore, it's in MS's interest to actually help out Nokia in terms of resources and finance. Furthermore, Nokia and MS are two of the biggest researchers so now they can pool resources to come out with innovative tech compete with Android and iOS. They are less likely to fail as a company when they have MS backing them than if they were out there on their own, considering what position they were in at that time.

That's how I see it.


Also I'm quite sure that Nokia sold staff to Microsoft, why would you not want to partner up with the biggest software company in the world when your issue is software?

Gaffney said,

Also I'm quite sure that Nokia sold staff to Microsoft, why would you not want to partner up with the biggest software company in the world when your issue is software?

Exactly. The whole situation is far from what Nokia would've liked, but the 'jump to Android', or 'avoid Windows Phone' sentiment seems somewhat short-sighted IMO.

keyboardP said,

-Nokia now need to compete, so they ditch Symbian and either go towards Android or Microsoft.

Why did it have to be one or the other? Samsung, HTC, and many others produce both. It makes financial sense to spread the risk.

As it stands today, Nokia is now completely reliant on Microsoft for their future existence. That's corportate suicide.

simplezz said,

Why did it have to be one or the other? Samsung, HTC, and many others produce both. It makes financial sense to spread the risk.

As it stands today, Nokia is now completely reliant on Microsoft for their future existence. That's corportate suicide.

Samsung, HTC, and the others weren't losing money dumping a previous operating system and laying off staff. They can't afford to spread the risk because otherwise they'd be spread too thin in the Android department and too thin in the WP department. Considering you need to produce high-end phones at low prices to survive in Android, I hardly think Nokia would've been able to afford that risk.

keyboardP said,

Exactly. The whole situation is far from what Nokia would've liked, but the 'jump to Android', or 'avoid Windows Phone' sentiment seems somewhat short-sighted IMO.

I agree. Not to mention how much more costly Android has become than Windows Phone. I don't even see this as a hard decision.

Coming from the man that overseen Nokia fall behind in the market by putting all of his eggs into Symbian, at least BlackBerry had a slightly better OS and their recognised phone design with the keyboard. You can clearly see that Symbian was going down hill and the latest sale figures show the same(I doubt the Symbian sales would have improved much if the new Lumia's were powered by Symbian).

I think Meego looked good but Nokia can't seem to get the WP7 devices out fast enough so developing another device or two for meego and focusing advertising on that probably wouldn't have been a good idea. Meego might have had a chance if it came earlier.

Gaffney said,
Coming from the man that overseen Nokia fall behind in the market by putting all of his eggs into Symbian, at least BlackBerry had a slightly better OS and their recognised phone design with the keyboard. You can clearly see that Symbian was going down hill and the latest sale figures show the same(I doubt the Symbian sales would have improved much if the new Lumia's were powered by Symbian).

I think Meego looked good but Nokia can't seem to get the WP7 devices out fast enough so developing another device or two for meego and focusing advertising on that probably wouldn't have been a good idea. Meego might have had a chance if it came earlier.

Exactly, he's mad because Nokia moved on from Symbian, nothing more. As if they were doing gang busters with Symbian...

M_Lyons10 said,

Exactly, he's mad because Nokia moved on from Symbian, nothing more. As if they were doing gang busters with Symbian...


They were not doing gang busters but Symbian sales were actually growing prior to Feb 11, 2011 and they had a perfect transition path for Symbian users to Harmattan. Instead they went with what is more of a glorified feature phone OS as their 'principal smartphone platform' and alienated the Symbian/Maemo power users and their longstanding fans.

Nokia made it this far without WP7, it shouldn't bet on one major OS unless it made the OS itself. Betting on another company's product to accelerate sales of your product is always risky. but if you spread the risk to a few companies products, there has to be success somewhere. ALL phone manufactures have a weakness and that's going head first focusing on a particular device and hyping it up, when it brings nothing substantial to the market. such as the Lumia, I've used one and it brings nothing that ordinary WP7 consumers would benefit from as far as I can tell.

Most people who buy it is because it looks awesome and of course you get the exclusive Nokia apps. I think those are more than "nothing." I would got one already if it weren't for Tmobile. They had a few choices:

Symbian
MeeGo
Windows Phone
Android

Lorddresefer said,
Nokia made it this far without WP7, it shouldn't bet on one major OS unless it made the OS itself. Betting on another company's product to accelerate sales of your product is always risky. but if you spread the risk to a few companies products, there has to be success somewhere. ALL phone manufactures have a weakness and that's going head first focusing on a particular device and hyping it up, when it brings nothing substantial to the market. such as the Lumia, I've used one and it brings nothing that ordinary WP7 consumers would benefit from as far as I can tell.

nokia drive, nokia apps, nokia future apps...

It might have made sense to introduce a product or two into the portfolio based on Windows Phone. What I do not think they should have done is pretend it is a one horse race, and that one software system is all you need. They have executed in this fashion, and are paying for it.

The current failure of Nokia has nothing to do with their selection of Windows Phone, and everything to do with the "burning platform" that is Symbian. Even if they had selected Android, Symbian would still be crashing.

rfirth said,

The current failure of Nokia has nothing to do with their selection of Windows Phone, and everything to do with the "burning platform" that is Symbian. Even if they had selected Android, Symbian would still be crashing.

I love the Lumia phone. If it was Android I would buy it and keep it. Sadly it isn't. I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels that way.

rfirth said,

The current failure of Nokia has nothing to do with their selection of Windows Phone, and everything to do with the "burning platform" that is Symbian. Even if they had selected Android, Symbian would still be crashing.
Exactly. And you don't save the burning house by playing around with a garden hose. You go "all-in" on the fire hydrant.

UndergroundWire said,
I love the Lumia phone. If it was Android I would buy it and keep it. Sadly it isn't. I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels that way.

Sadly, Android wouldn't run well on it without driving specs and price higher to something unaffordable.
Plus the Android toolset sucks compared to WP.

SiLeNtDeAtH said,
Exactly. And you don't save the burning house by playing around with a garden hose. You go "all-in" on the fire hydrant.

Well, announcing to the World that the platform you are using now is a "burning" one while you know that the products based on the "new" will not be available for months is not a smart strategy, no matter what.
The reason behind that pathetic statement was simply burning all the bridges behind and effectively locking Nokia with MS.
Nothing wrong in the way MS played the plot; Elop, CEO of Nokia, though....... a different story.....

UndergroundWire said,

I love the Lumia phone. If it was Android I would buy it and keep it. Sadly it isn't. I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels that way.

That's certainly true. There will always be a significant number of people who will dislike the way WP looks and feels, whether they're genuine or prejudiced. Those people will refuse to buy a Lumia on general principles even if they love the hardware. But of course for Nokia it's a numbers game and they're betting that the majority will like WP and be swayed to buy one of their devices. From what I've heard, most people who play with WP actually DO like it, so perhaps they'll do well.

deadonthefloor said,

Sadly, Android wouldn't run well on it without driving specs and price higher to something unaffordable.
Plus the Android toolset sucks compared to WP.

I didn't like how slow Android was on my Motorola Droid. But I loved how smooth it was on my HTC Droid Incredible. Funny, both were single core processors. It is just that the Incredible had 1Ghz processor, 768 RAM. You mean Nokia can't even match these specs in 2012?

rfirth said,

The current failure of Nokia has nothing to do with their selection of Windows Phone, and everything to do with the "burning platform" that is Symbian. Even if they had selected Android, Symbian would still be crashing.

Except if that had gone with Android as well, they could have replaced their low end feature phone and symbian devices in markets like China immediately instead of watching their share dwindle away to local Chinese OEM's. I'm sure Elop's burning platform statement didn't help either.

And by all accounts, WP7 is now a burning platform too.

deadonthefloor said,

Sadly, Android wouldn't run well on it without driving specs and price higher to something unaffordable.

Completely false. I have a Novo 7 Elf tablet running ICS 4.03 that uses a 1.2ghz single ARM cortex CPU and 1GB of RAM (others run fine at 512 as well), and it runs very smooth.

Price? My 7" tablet cost me £100. Let's compare that to the price of the Lumia without carrier subsidy shall we?

deadonthefloor said,

Plus the Android toolset sucks compared to WP.

Open source and patent free toolsets, API's, and JAVA vs proprietary and patent encumbered single platform language and toolset for DotNet. Yeah I know which one i'd choose.

jubbbird said,

That's certainly true. There will always be a significant number of people who will dislike the way WP looks and feels, whether they're genuine or prejudiced. Those people will refuse to buy a Lumia on general principles even if they love the hardware. But of course for Nokia it's a numbers game and they're betting that the majority will like WP and be swayed to buy one of their devices. From what I've heard, most people who play with WP actually DO like it, so perhaps they'll do well.

Absolutely. Everyone that plays with my phone wants one. So far 3 friends have gotten Windows Phones and several others are waiting for WP8 or their contract to renew. It's a great OS.

simplezz said,

Open source and patent free toolsets, API's, and JAVA vs proprietary and patent encumbered single platform language and toolset for DotNet. Yeah I know which one i'd choose.

Open source but certainly not patent free (As has been proven over and over). Just because Google doesn't handle the patent dealings doesn't mean no one has to. Meanwhile, with Microsoft, you have an incredible development environment where you genuinely don't have to worry about patents as they offer patent protection, you know when you develop something that it will run on all devices and not a subset of what's out there, etc. Clearly you're not familiar with .NET or the development tools if you seriously don't think they're better than Android's (Which I've actually looked at).

SiLeNtDeAtH said,
"former executive at Nokia" + "Executive Director of the Symbian Foundation" = self-serving, grinding axe.

That's what I was thinking as well. Just because you don't like the plan, doesn't mean there is no plan. I'd say Nokia is certainly showing that they are moving forward in a very organized way (Which suggests a plan)...

This guy just sounds very juvenile.

Dot Matrix said,
One OS is key, it gives you focus, and doesn't force you in different directions at once - Like Android would have.

I agree with you. Very smart business decision. Everyone should learn from Nokia and eFlop. Put all your eggs in one basket.

*Everybody claps*

UndergroundWire said,

I agree with you. Very smart business decision. Everyone should learn from Nokia and eFlop. Put all your eggs in one basket.

*Everybody claps*


haha made me laugh.

Dot Matrix said,
One OS is key, it gives you focus, and doesn't force you in different directions at once - Like Android would have.

Exactly!

UndergroundWire said,

I agree with you. Very smart business decision. Everyone should learn from Nokia and eFlop. Put all your eggs in one basket.

*Everybody claps*

So we will soon have an option to purchase iPhones with Android, and Motorola phones with WP7.

UndergroundWire said,
I agree with you. Very smart business decision. Everyone should learn from Nokia and eFlop. Put all your eggs in one basket.

*Everybody claps*


I think once Nokia get WP running on a $99USD retail device we'll all see how smart a decision it was.

Symbian was costing way too much money for crap toolset.

nohone said,

So we will soon have an option to purchase iPhones with Android, and Motorola phones with WP7.

Let me let you in on a little secret here.

First of all, Apple is allowed to do what they do because it is their software. They never were in the smartphone business. They are allowed to put all their eggs in one basket.

In 2009, Motorola was in a bad position. They were losing money, they didn't have a cash hoard. So in 2009, they went with Android. Obviously that decision was very profitable for them. In 2009, there were no other options for them. Obviously today, they can afford to like through that decision. If Android is not profitable for them, they can always jump to the next best thing.

Dot Matrix said,
One OS is key, it gives you focus, and doesn't force you in different directions at once - Like Android would have.

If that were true why are they the only company doing it with WP?

deadonthefloor said,

I think once Nokia get WP running on a $99USD retail device we'll all see how smart a decision it was.

Symbian was costing way too much money for crap toolset.

Agreed. Only a fool wouldn't have expected a loss during a transition such as this. It's amazing to me how little people are able to understand. As Nokia gains market share (Which they are doing now), and get more devices out there, they will see their position improve.

UndergroundWire said,

Let me let you in on a little secret here.

First of all, Apple is allowed to do what they do because it is their software. They never were in the smartphone business. They are allowed to put all their eggs in one basket.

In 2009, Motorola was in a bad position. They were losing money, they didn't have a cash hoard. So in 2009, they went with Android. Obviously that decision was very profitable for them. In 2009, there were no other options for them. Obviously today, they can afford to like through that decision. If Android is not profitable for them, they can always jump to the next best thing.

And Nokia is allowed to do what they want with their own devices, including installing only WP7 on them if they want. And Microsoft is allowed to do what they want with their own software, such as install IE - oh, wait, people will whine and complain about it until the DOJ gets involved.

And apparently Apple is not permitted to do what they want all times, either, since they are being investigated right now...

nohone said,

And Nokia is allowed to do what they want with their own devices, including installing only WP7 on them if they want. And Microsoft is allowed to do what they want with their own software, such as install IE - oh, wait, people will whine and complain about it until the DOJ gets involved.

And apparently Apple is not permitted to do what they want all times, either, since they are being investigated right now...


The point was Nokia is taking a gamble by relying on the success of another company's software.

Apple is gambling on it's own hardware and software. So you can't compare Apple to Nokia. Motorola was taking a gamble on another company but that was in a time when they couldn't do anything but Android. As you can see, it has proven to be successful. They don't need to go any other route now.

Und3rgr0undW1r3 said,

The point was Nokia is taking a gamble by relying on the success of another company's software.

Apple is gambling on it's own hardware and software. So you can't compare Apple to Nokia. Motorola was taking a gamble on another company but that was in a time when they couldn't do anything but Android. As you can see, it has proven to be successful. They don't need to go any other route now.

This is just dumb. Just because Nokia has the choices doesn't mean they have to go with all of them. Moto also had a choice, which was to make their own software. Given that they aren't a software company, I understand their decision to just go with Android. However, they were still betting the success of their smartphone business on the success of Google's OS. Nokia is just doing the same things, but with the world largest software company, which makes the success less risky IMO.

Microsoft reiterated time after time that WP is a long term effort and they understand they have an uphill battle. It will not fail and it has no reason to why it should. Which is likely one reason Nokia went with it over Android.

Enron said,
Lumia is awesome. The former executive should go get himself one before he continues blasting anything.

Personal experiences can differ a lot: I found my Lumia 800 not impressive at all compared to my previous HD7. The only aspect the Lumia is way better is the screen, much, much better than the HD7 washed out one.
Other than that, as I said, not impressed at all: battery life shorter than the HD7 ( and yes I have the latest firmware), lot of crashes with the phone suddenly freezing, ringer volume too low, etc.

Enron said,
Lumia is awesome. The former executive should go get himself one before he continues blasting anything.

Personal experiences can differ a lot: I found my Lumia 800 not impressive at all compared to my previous HD7. The only aspect the Lumia is way better is the screen, much, much better than the HD7 washed out one.
Other than that, as I said, not impressed at all: battery life shorter than the HD7 ( and yes I have the latest firmware), lot of crashes with the phone suddenly freezing, ringer volume too low, etc.

I'm always interested to identify legitimate faults with devices when opinions are wafting around, but in cases like these it's important not to forget the fundamental issues which continually, blindly plague perceptions of ALL devices.

We're 'enjoying' something of a techno-lottery these days. Your examples: shorter battery life and crashing. Both of these things are nothing at all to do with the 'Lumia 800' in general. You'll find many more people who would have stayed quiet with no reason to shout about the fact that their phone hasn't put a foot wrong since they bought it on release day. I've got a first gen HTC 7 Pro from near-launch which still gets me a couple of days battery (nearer one with heavier usage, granted), and has crashed literally 3 times in about 18 months. One of those crashes occurred shortly after I took it apart and replaced the uSD card with a 16gb equivalent.

Just the other day I had a call from a client with an iPhone 4s, asking me if he should contact the provider to get a replacement because his battery would run out by 6pm every day. Brand new device, had it 4 weeks tops.

Both these important issues are caused by unique hardware 'fluxuations'. Buy any device and your battery life will essentially be random. A given model will end up witha published average, but there will always be people like you with a rubbish battery and people like me with pretty good ones. People like you with phones that crash continually and people like me with the most solid experience I've ever had.

It's a mistake to blame the Lumia, just as it's a mistake to blame any other device until it's proven that there's a real issue with a significant number of handsets. My understanding is that post-update the Lumia 800, on average, now has a perfectly reasonable battery life, and it certainly doesn't crash frequently.

jubbbird said,
I'm always interested to identify legitimate faults with devices when opinions are wafting around, but in cases like these it's important not to forget the fundamental issues which continually, blindly plague perceptions of ALL devices.

We're 'enjoying' something of a techno-lottery these days. Your examples: shorter battery life and crashing. Both of these things are nothing at all to do with the 'Lumia 800' in general. You'll find many more people who would have stayed quiet with no reason to shout about the fact that their phone hasn't put a foot wrong since they bought it on release day. I've got a first gen HTC 7 Pro from near-launch which still gets me a couple of days battery (nearer one with heavier usage, granted), and has crashed literally 3 times in about 18 months. One of those crashes occurred shortly after I took it apart and replaced the uSD card with a 16gb equivalent.

Just the other day I had a call from a client with an iPhone 4s, asking me if he should contact the provider to get a replacement because his battery would run out by 6pm every day. Brand new device, had it 4 weeks tops.

Both these important issues are caused by unique hardware 'fluxuations'. Buy any device and your battery life will essentially be random. A given model will end up witha published average, but there will always be people like you with a rubbish battery and people like me with pretty good ones. People like you with phones that crash continually and people like me with the most solid experience I've ever had.

Actually I was replying exactly the same thing to someone that mentioned that Lumia was an " Awsome" phone; after the latest firmware the device indeed stopped freezing and battery life improved a lot.
Besides if you spend some times browsing Nokia's NGs you will see many people complaining about the same issues.
Bottom line my opinion about the Lumia 800 is that the device is a good phone but as a second generation WP7 Phone is, overall, not better than the HD7, a first generation one.

jubbbird said,
I'm always interested to identify legitimate faults with devices when opinions are wafting around, but in cases like these it's important not to forget the fundamental issues which continually, blindly plague perceptions of ALL devices.

We're 'enjoying' something of a techno-lottery these days. Your examples: shorter battery life and crashing. Both of these things are nothing at all to do with the 'Lumia 800' in general. You'll find many more people who would have stayed quiet with no reason to shout about the fact that their phone hasn't put a foot wrong since they bought it on release day. I've got a first gen HTC 7 Pro from near-launch which still gets me a couple of days battery (nearer one with heavier usage, granted), and has crashed literally 3 times in about 18 months. One of those crashes occurred shortly after I took it apart and replaced the uSD card with a 16gb equivalent.

Just the other day I had a call from a client with an iPhone 4s, asking me if he should contact the provider to get a replacement because his battery would run out by 6pm every day. Brand new device, had it 4 weeks tops.

Both these important issues are caused by unique hardware 'fluxuations'. Buy any device and your battery life will essentially be random. A given model will end up witha published average, but there will always be people like you with a rubbish battery and people like me with pretty good ones. People like you with phones that crash continually and people like me with the most solid experience I've ever had.

It's a mistake to blame the Lumia, just as it's a mistake to blame any other device until it's proven that there's a real issue with a significant number of handsets. My understanding is that post-update the Lumia 800, on average, now has a perfectly reasonable battery life, and it certainly doesn't crash frequently.

Allow me to disagree, randomness has a limited effect in manufactured goods. Issues can happen, but good Quality Assurance should guarantee that these issues are few and rare. When it is a widespread issue it is a design/project mistake (see Apple's antennagate and MS rrod).

I agree. Nokia shouldn't have put all their eggs in one basket. They killed MeeGo without really ever giving it a chance, except to the European market. It had a real chance, but Nokia wanted to put their eggs into the Microsoft basket and ditch everything else.

I do own a Nokia Lumia 800. Just wanted to state that before all the MS lovers start to try and flame. I like the phone and whatnot, but it still is very lacking in application and functionality. Hopefully WP8 will fix this.

I still think that Nokia should've offered Android, WP7 and MeeGo together. That would have maximised the growth of sales and market. If one died off, they would have another to rely on. Now, if WP7 fails, they have nothing to rely on for plan b.

KomaWeiss said,
I agree. Nokia shouldn't have put all their eggs in one basket. They killed MeeGo without really ever giving it a chance, except to the European market. It had a real chance, but Nokia wanted to put their eggs into the Microsoft basket and ditch everything else.

I do own a Nokia Lumia 800. Just wanted to state that before all the MS lovers start to try and flame. I like the phone and whatnot, but it still is very lacking in application and functionality. Hopefully WP8 will fix this.

I still think that Nokia should've offered Android, WP7 and MeeGo together. That would have maximised the growth of sales and market. If one died off, they would have another to rely on. Now, if WP7 fails, they have nothing to rely on for plan b.

I respectfully disagree. The problem with a lot of the big companies today is they have no focus, which is extremely important in the consumer market. Having 3 platforms to support for is not efficient at all and would be detrimental to Nokia I think.

Also, Windows Phone will not fail and Microsoft will see to it that it doesn't.

wixostrix said,

I respectfully disagree. The problem with a lot of the big companies today is they have no focus, which is extremely important in the consumer market. Having 3 platforms to support for is not efficient at all and would be detrimental to Nokia I think.

Also, Windows Phone will not fail and Microsoft will see to it that it doesn't.

If this day and age. You can't guarantee that it will not fail.

KomaWeiss said,

I still think that Nokia should've offered Android, WP7 and MeeGo together. That would have maximised the growth of sales and market. If one died off, they would have another to rely on. Now, if WP7 fails, they have nothing to rely on for plan b.

This ^^

It was really suicidal of them to go all out Windows Phone. I could understand it more had the platform already been popular and successful, but it's none of those things.

To me, this is the result of hiring an ex-Microsoft employee to run the company. They tend to have provincal outlooks that can't see past the Windows platform. They don't understand anything else.

simplezz said,

This ^^

It was really suicidal of them to go all out Windows Phone. I could understand it more had the platform already been popular and successful, but it's none of those things.

To me, this is the result of hiring an ex-Microsoft employee to run the company. They tend to have provincal outlooks that can't see past the Windows platform. They don't understand anything else.

I understand that the hiring of Elop was done because the board had already decided to move to the Windows Phone plataform. So, hiring a MS employee would be the best option to speed up the change and help with dealing with MS.

wixostrix said,

I respectfully disagree. The problem with a lot of the big companies today is they have no focus, which is extremely important in the consumer market. Having 3 platforms to support for is not efficient at all and would be detrimental to Nokia I think.

Also, Windows Phone will not fail and Microsoft will see to it that it doesn't.

This also saved them a ton of money in R&D on the software side. This was a big gamble, but big gambles can have huge payoffs. Obviously, that is what Nokia is counting on.

personally, I think it's better to focus your business on one OS. That way, you can focus on making _one_ experience work great, instead of developing your apps for Android/Symbian/MeeGo/Windows Phone and having to somehow encourage developers to develop apps for 4 different devices (on top of iOS, which is almost a given). Also, especially with a lesser-known/lower-market-share OS like Windows Phone, they're able to carve out a niche for themselves as "The Windows Phone..." CIP: I recently went to our Microsoft store asking which Windows Phone the employee there thought was the best, and she replied that it was between the Lumia 900 and the Titan II (while almost every employee there had Lumia 900s). In a short period of time Nokia's been able to make themselves "the best overall windows phone," and so if the WP platform succeeds, they stand to profit a lot just my 2c