Nokia chose Windows Phone because it was scared of Samsung's Android dominance

Back in 2011, when Nokia chose Windows Phone for the platform for the next generation of devices, it was a huge shift for the company as they were dropping Symbian in favor of the Redmond OS. In an ‘Ask me Anything’ session, Stephen Elop gave a few more details about the transition into the world of Windows.

When asked,  “Hi Stephen, do you think that Nokia with Android is a good idea?”, Elop responded:

When we made the decision to focus on Windows Phone back in 2011, we were very concerned that a decision to pursue Android would put us on a collision course with Samsung, who already had established a head of steam around Android. That was the right decision, as we have seen virtually all other OEMs from those days pushed to the side. Today, we are using AOSP to attack a specific market opportunity, but we are being thoughtful to do it in a way that accrues benefit to Microsoft and to Lumia.

It’s quite clear that Nokia feared a clash with Samsung and its Galaxy line of devices that were quickly taking the position as the dominant player in the Android arena. Seeing how HTC continues to struggle in this area, it would seem that making a run for Windows Phone was the right move.

Nokia was able to establish itself as the dominant player in the Windows Phone camp and was able to avoid a costly battle with Samsung. Sure, Samsung may have pushed Nokia away from Android but for Microsoft and Windows Phone, this was a huge win.

As for why they dumped Symbian, Elop said the following:

Now that there is a lot of emotion around some of the hard decisions that we had to make. Back in late 2010 and 2011, we carefully assessed the state of the internal Nokia operating system efforts. Unfortunately, we could not see a way that Symbian could be brought to a competitive level with, for example, the iPhone that had shipped THREE years earlier! And the Meego effort was significantly delayed and did not have the promise of a broad enough portfolio soon enough. We had to make a forceful decision to give Nokia the chance to compete again

Many thought that Meego would have been the natural move for Nokia as it would have been in control of the OS, unlike Windows Phone that is controlled by Microsoft. But, if Meego was that far delayed, it would have been a disastrous move as the company tried to innovate on hardware and software, so they outsourced the OS to Microsoft and focused on innovative hardware like the Lumia 1020.

Source and Image Credit: Nokia

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Interview: The Decline and Fall of Nokia, David Cord tells us more about the Finnish company

Next Story

Microsoft reveals TV, film projects under Xbox Originals banner

52 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I think WP will start to get some serious traction soon now that MS have caught up to android in the specs war which means the employees in phone stores got jack to say about the specs between android and WP.... This is the phone im waiting for and maybe if apple did there 5C colour like this, it probably wouldnt have flopped cus i think this phone looks stunning and packs in everything except the kitchen sink :-

http://www.nokia.com/global/products/phone/lumia930/

psionicinversion said,
I think WP will start to get some serious traction soon ../

It is starting to sound like "'this is the year of the linux" a lot to me. Every now and then people are claiming that WP will soon get traction but it simply doesn't happen. Windows Phone is now close to 4 years old and has been pretty much staggering in the last year and an half or so. I don't say it wont happen but there's nothing indicating it will. I'm sure WP will continue to slowly climb the ladder but i don't see it with more than 10-15% worldwide market share anytime soon.

LaP said,

It is starting to sound like "'this is the year of the linux" a lot to me. Every now and then people are claiming that WP will soon get traction but it simply doesn't happen. Windows Phone is now close to 4 years old and has been pretty much staggering in the last year and an half or so. I don't say it wont happen but there's nothing indicating it will. I'm sure WP will continue to slowly climb the ladder but i don't see it with more than 10-15% worldwide market share anytime soon.

Thats good enough, android is saturated so with the shops youll see a section for iphone a massive section for android cus there smillions of them and a small section for WP, and apparently even the phone store employees didnt recommend WP cus for whatever reason but theres no reason really to not go WP... its got the specs, the store is pretty much there, its a great OS dunno what ppls problem is with it.

Although the HTC One M8 does look pretty good to so theres still alot of compeition and those invested in android will prolly want to stick there, or there just used to it so they dont want change

Samsung is the dominant force in the android market and it would have been a silly idea to compete with them on the same platform under the same support umbrella of google. If Nokia started to struggles I doubt they would have had the same support that Microsoft gave them, not including the purchase of Nokia of course.

Elop made the right decision and has put himself, his company, employees and shareholders in a very good place. I think it is a good relationship.

Nokia was already hanging on to symbian way to long before Elop and before WP7 or WP8 they were already in a spiral.

Had they just gone Android they would be out of business completely today, they could not compete with Samsung and being just another android provider like HTC would have killed Nokia cause they were already having issues with their Symbian love.

Anyone that has the idea that putting out android phones is some magic revenue stream is fooling themselves.

Out of 3rd parties only Samsung and ironically Microsoft make any real money from Android phone sales. Everyone else is over shadowed and doesn't make crap money.

"Nokia was able to establish itself as the dominant player in the Windows Phone camp and was able to avoid a costly battle with Samsung".

Were there really any "players" in this market initially. Yes I know there were manufacturers offering a Windows Phone, but nothing substantial. A Windows Phone was that "special" phone tucked away in the back of the store next to the emergency exit. However, they are now front and center in most stores along with the "big boys".

There were a few, but they put next to no effort to market their devices. Not to mention, even low-end devices were vastly overpriced before Nokia came on board.

Edited by zhangm, Apr 28 2014, 3:29pm :

JHBrown said,

Were there really any "players" in this market initially.

That's a good question. Another is, is 3% really a market at all? Personally, I think 10-15% of 80% is better than 90% of 3%. But that's just my opinion :D

I still look at it from this perspective. Nokia made WP come to life. Without Nokia WP would be dead in the water. I don't think the same could be said if they went Android. Could they have succeeded, yes, but I don't think they would have beat samsung. Just look at HTC. Also Nokia has always been a bottom up company. Start with the low end phones and work your way up to premium. This is pretty much the exact opposite of every Android manufacture.

IMHO, if Nokia had chosen Android at that time, with their operator contracts they wouldn't have become Microsoft and would have most likely be very close to Samsung because of the brand recognition. It was a dramatically wrong decision to go for WP, and losing their phone company is the result.

Losing their Phone division ?
Please they gained 7.4Billion dollars, no one lost in this deal, even the employees ( 25000 of them ) are now with MS
At the time, Nokia needed money to build, MS were happy to provide, and I don't think Google would had offer to help

I expect Nokia analyzers did consider brand recognition, and seeing they still opted to avoid Android at the time, it's very possible they had reason to believe brand recognition alone would not be enough.

And the opinions of Nokia counts for a lot more than our opinions. I very much doubt you (and me alike) know enough to have a well-informed opinion about their situation and what would be the best direction to go from there. :)

Nokia didn't loose out on anything, if anything, the Lumia line is much more recognizable now No one really knows what would have happened had they gone with Android. They could have very easily flopped with Android and lost a lot of money, or they could have taken the Android market.

It would be a dead end for them if they tried to compete with Samsung in Android market. They did not have the big funding to fight that war. Look at Samsung, they can't even fight Nokia in WP market, even though they have funds to do that.

Yogurth said,
IMHO, if Nokia had chosen Android at that time, with their operator contracts they wouldn't have become Microsoft and would have most likely be very close to Samsung because of the brand recognition. It was a dramatically wrong decision to go for WP, and losing their phone company is the result.

Yogurth said,
IMHO, if Nokia had chosen Android at that time, with their operator contracts they wouldn't have become Microsoft and would have most likely be very close to Samsung because of the brand recognition. It was a dramatically wrong decision to go for WP, and losing their phone company is the result.

HTC makes much better phones than Samsung and they have a very strong brand (not as much as Nokia though) recognition as well. See how they are doing. Samsung would have made Nokia a small fish like HTC.

Nokia was heading towards inevitable bankruptcy, with its stock rated as junk by every major financial analyst. What Stephen Elop did was to position the company for a takeover by aligning itself with Microsoft, which he knew was interested in investing in mobile - as he was a former Microsoft executive it was hardly a surprising move.

Going Windows Phone didn't help Nokia in the marketplace but it did save the company from bankruptcy.

Yogurth said,
IMHO, if Nokia had chosen Android at that time, with their operator contracts they wouldn't have become Microsoft and would have most likely be very close to Samsung because of the brand recognition. It was a dramatically wrong decision to go for WP, and losing their phone company is the result.

Exactly. Nokia only have themselves to blame. It was pure arrogance that lead them to Microsoft. They thought they should get preferential treatment from Google before adopting Android. Something even Samsung doesn't get.

The funny thing is, after going WP, they crowed about how they would get preferential access to the source code. In the end, they did absolutely nothing with it. The only differentiation shown was in hardware and apps offered, something that could have easily been done on Android. They could have even created their own unique skin.

Well the whole debacle has shown us one thing at least - don't bet the house on a Microsoft platform, unless you're prepared to lose it. I've said it before, but the moment Nokia went WP exclusive, it was a death sentence for the devices unit. Any CEO with sense would have spread the bet at a minimum, and built an Android phone just in case it went pear shaped. Not Elop though, he was on a suicide mission so that he could collect that juicy $25 million pay packet. Nokia's board should be investigated for its behaviour.

wv@gt said,
Nokia didn't loose out on anything

Nokia did lose something, they lost their position as a top smartphone manufacturer, not to mention their profits, prestige, and devices unit. Anyone who thinks Nokia did well out of this is mind-bendingly inane. The only company that benefited from Nokia going WP exclusive was Microsoft, as well as Elop of course.

wv@gt said,

if anything, the Lumia line is much more recognizable now No one really knows what would have happened had they gone with Android. They could have very easily flopped with Android and lost a lot of money

You mean more than the countless billions they lost propping up Windows Phone's 3% marketshare? No one with any sense would go exclusively with a platform that had less than 3% marketshare. There was nothing stopping Nokia going both WP and Android, except its ego.

wv@gt said,

or they could have taken the Android market.

10% of the Android market would have been better than 90% of 3%, which was all they got from Windows Phone.

Nik L said,
The lost nothing. By "they" I mean Elop. The guy running the show...

So true haha. He made a cool $25 million for running a company into the ground.

EvilAstroboy said,
Losing their Phone division ?
Please they gained 7.4Billion dollars, no one lost in this deal, even the employees ( 25000 of them ) are now with MS

Let's see, which is more preferable? A world leading smartphone division that generates a good profit quarter after quarter, or 7.4 billion sitting in the bank doing squat? Perhaps Apple would accept 100 billion to sell their smartphone unit eh? ... After all money in the bank alone does wonders for shareprice doesn't it?

EvilAstroboy said,

At the time, Nokia needed money to build, MS were happy to provide, and I don't think Google would had offer to help

At the time, Nokia was still dominating the phone market with Symbian and making a large profit, well, until Stephen "The Trojan Horse" Elop wrote the now infamous "Burning Platform" memo, which in the space of a day destroyed everything Nokia had built up over years. Now referred to as the Elop effect.

As far as needing money is concerned, Nokia had billions in cash surplus. What they needed was direction, and something to revitalise the company. What they got was Elop, and history tells us the rest.

simplezz said,
So true haha. He made a cool $25 million for running a company into the ground.

The company was in terminal decline when he took over - it was never going to recover. What Elop managed to do was to align Nokia with Microsoft's mobile strategy and negotiate a takeover. Obviously the cynic in me questions his motives, as he acted like a trojan horse for Microsoft and furthered his career, but he did also protect the jobs of those working at the company.

theyarecomingforyou said,

The company was in terminal decline when he took over

The quarterly results prior to Elop's arrival disagree with you. Yes, the company needed to refocus and improve its smartphone offering to maintain competitiveness, but sacrificing its profitable Symbian sales on the altar of Windows Phone exclusivity (Burning platform memo), was suicidal.

Elop even had the gall to say if the N9 was successful, he'd still cancel Maemo. This guy was on a one man mission to destroy Nokia, and he succeeded.

theyarecomingforyou said,

it was never going to recover.

And how can you be so sure?

theyarecomingforyou said,

What Elop managed to do was to align Nokia with Microsoft's mobile strategy and negotiate a takeover.

If by that you mean lower the share price to the point that it becomes attractive, then yes. The devices unit was making a health profit before Elop came along. Sure it needed to diversify, but WP exclusivity was a death knell for it.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Obviously the cynic in me questions his motives, as he acted like a trojan horse for Microsoft and furthered his career, but he did also protect the jobs of those working at the company.

You really think Microsoft are going to keep all those people around? Hehe. I foresee a ruthless campaign of job cuts squarely aimed at the former Nokia devices unit in the near future. Mark my words.

Microsoft probably had to agree to keep all those jobs, for a time anyway, in order to receive approbation from the finnish regulators.

As far as Elop is concerned, he earned his $25 million alright. He systematically destroyed Nokia's profitable devices unit, squandered billions on marketing Windows Phone, and mercilessly cut the workforce and sold off assets in order to keep the WP gravy train running. And finally, when the buy out talks broke down, his pièce de résistance - the threat of releasing an Android phone, the Nokia X. Just enough to push Microsoft over the edge and acquiesce to the purchase. And so his contract clause kicked in. Quite brilliant really, for him at least. Not so much for Nokia, or even Microsoft.

simplezz said,

The funny thing is, after going WP, they crowed about how they would get preferential access to the source code. In the end, they did absolutely nothing with it. The only differentiation shown was in hardware and apps offered, something that could have easily been done on Android. They could have even created their own unique skin.

As usual you have no clue what you are talking about :) Go get a Lumia and compare its firmware features against the ATIV or 8X

Shadowzz said,

As usual you have no clue what you are talking about :) Go get a Lumia and compare its firmware features against the ATIV or 8X

Please do enlighten us. What are these features you speak of? Did Nokia modify the WP source code? Not that I'm aware of, yet that's one of the things they were boasting about after having adopted the platform exclusively.

I still remembered many said WP OS is DOA, 'cuz there was no room for new mobile OS besides Android, iOS, BlackBerry. Yet, even though slowly, but WP OS is still alive, but BlackBerry is almost dead.

suprNOVA said,
10 years, we can look back at my comment today and see that WP will be dominant. guaranteed

MDboyz said,
I still remembered many said WP OS is DOA, 'cuz there was no room for new mobile OS besides Android, iOS, BlackBerry. Yet, even though slowly, but WP OS is still alive, but BlackBerry is almost dead.

WP isn't dead, but it's certainly on life-support. That support being Microsoft's act of paying billions to app makers, OEM's, and carriers to not abandon it. When you have to pay everyone to keep supporting your platform it's all but dead.

And don't forget, WP hasn't increased its marketshare, it's actually lost some. It went up to about 3.5% at its height, and it's now gone back down to 3%. That's not growing platform, that's a dying one, only kept alive by the virtue of its owner pumping billions into it.

Ignorant will take the best of you. It's not only Microsoft. Everyone else does it as well.

simplezz said,

WP isn't dead, but it's certainly on life-support. That support being Microsoft's act of paying billions to app makers, OEM's, and carriers to not abandon it. When you have to pay everyone to keep supporting your platform it's all but dead.

And don't forget, WP hasn't increased its marketshare, it's actually lost some. It went up to about 3.5% at its height, and it's now gone back down to 3%. That's not growing platform, that's a dying one, only kept alive by the virtue of its owner pumping billions into it.

simplezz said,

WP isn't dead, but it's certainly on life-support. That support being Microsoft's act of paying billions to app makers, OEM's, and carriers to not abandon it. When you have to pay everyone to keep supporting your platform it's all but dead.

And don't forget, WP hasn't increased its marketshare, it's actually lost some. It went up to about 3.5% at its height, and it's now gone back down to 3%. That's not growing platform, that's a dying one, only kept alive by the virtue of its owner pumping billions into it.

Actually, worldwide (the only market that counts) It is the fastest growing platform. You are trying to use figures of the us market to make us believe WP has already peaked (or are including winmobile into the mix). Fact is the o's is growing at a fast rate and has reached second place in some markets already.

Your notion that you somehow know Nokia, their motives and the market they have been operating on for decades, better than Nokia is curious at the least.

sjaak327 said,

Actually, worldwide (the only market that counts) It is the fastest growing platform.

It was. Now it's the fasting shrinking platform.

sjaak327 said,

You are trying to use figures of the us market to make us believe WP has already peaked (or are including winmobile into the mix).

No, 3% is the worldwide figure. Well 3.1% to be exact. Regardless it has shrunk, not increased.

sjaak327 said,

Fact is the o's is growing at a fast rate and has reached second place in some markets already.

Except it's not growing at a fast rate. It's been hovering around 2-4% for years. If that's a fast growth rate, I'll eat my hat.

Some markets? Which? And by what margin? If second place has 10% and first 90%, that's a bit of pyrrhic victory isn't it?

sjaak327 said,

Your notion that you somehow know Nokia, their motives and the market they have been operating on for decades, better than Nokia is curious at the least.

I don't, but Tomi Ahonen certainly does, and I get my information from him.
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/

simplezz said,

It was. Now it's the fasting shrinking platform.


No, 3% is the worldwide figure. Well 3.1% to be exact. Regardless it has shrunk, not increased.


Except it's not growing at a fast rate. It's been hovering around 2-4% for years. If that's a fast growth rate, I'll eat my hat.

Some markets? Which? And by what margin? If second place has 10% and first 90%, that's a bit of pyrrhic victory isn't it?


I don't, but Tomi Ahonen certainly does, and I get my information from him.
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/

Please provider the actual figures, pass ALL relevant market share research claim it is growing not shrinking.

I have read some of Tomi's posts, and he has a clear problem with ignoring some facts to support his claims. The fact that Nokia, prior to the decision to move to WP was already on life support, with a massively shrinking market share in the smartphone market due to Symbian failing right left and center, facts that are conveniently left out of the discussion to support his views.

To someone that pays attention, a clear sign of an agenda. I personally don't care about his agenda, and I personally aren't so naïve to believe Elope would be allowed to be a Trojan horse, which is absolutely ludicrous to suggest, as if people at Nokia are stupid. They are not, and they sure do know their company and the market they participate in.

The current outcome is actually a result they could only dream off three years ago.

sjaak327 said,

Please provider the actual figures, pass ALL relevant market share research claim it is growing not shrinking.

Windows Phone Q4 2013 vs Q3 2013: 2.9 % - 3.6 % (0.7% loss for quarter)
http://communities-dominate.bl...top-10-brands-plus-os-.html

sjaak327 said,

The fact that Nokia, prior to the decision to move to WP was already on life support, with a massively shrinking market share in the smartphone market due to Symbian failing right left and center, facts that are conveniently left out of the discussion to support his views.

It's true Symbian was losing ground, but it was nowhere near on life support. It was still generating a healthy profit. In fact Maemo was about to be released. Unfortunately, when Elop took over he delayed the N9, and when it eventually hit the market, it was given a limited release and very little marketing.

Nokia should have continued with Maemo as well as developing a real Android phone, not some cynical attempt to get Microsoft to buy it out like the X was.

sjaak327 said,

To someone that pays attention, a clear sign of an agenda.

From what I can tell, his only agenda is to expose the truth. I prefer that to the Koolaid filtered variety that often springs from Microsoft and Nokia.

sjaak327 said,

and I personally aren't so naïve to believe Elope would be allowed to be a Trojan horse, which is absolutely ludicrous to suggest, as if people at Nokia are stupid. They are not, and they sure do know their company and the market they participate in.

There are only two possible explanations for the behaviour of the Nokia board. 1. They were so incompetent and neglectful, that they invited and allowed Elop to wilfully ruin the handset division, or 2. They were complicit. Either way, they need to prosecuted by the shareholders.

sjaak327 said,

The current outcome is actually a result they could only dream off three years ago.

So Nokia's ambition four years ago was to destroy their profitable and world leading handset division, then sell it off for peanuts. Impressive..

simplezz said,

Windows Phone Q4 2013 vs Q3 2013: 2.9 % - 3.6 % (0.7% loss for quarter)
http://communities-dominate.bl...top-10-brands-plus-os-.html


It's true Symbian was losing ground, but it was nowhere near on life support. It was still generating a healthy profit. In fact Maemo was about to be released. Unfortunately, when Elop took over he delayed the N9, and when it eventually hit the market, it was given a limited release and very little marketing.

Nokia should have continued with Maemo as well as developing a real Android phone, not some cynical attempt to get Microsoft to buy it out like the X was.


From what I can tell, his only agenda is to expose the truth. I prefer that to the Koolaid filtered variety that often springs from Microsoft and Nokia.


There are only two possible explanations for the behaviour of the Nokia board. 1. They were so incompetent and neglectful, that they invited and allowed Elop to wilfully ruin the handset division, or 2. They were complicit. Either way, they need to prosecuted by the shareholders.


So Nokia's ambition four years ago was to destroy their profitable and world leading handset division, then sell it off for peanuts. Impressive..

The figures quoted by you show a year over year increase in both market share and absolute numbers.


At the time of the decision, Symbian was well and truly on life support. The prospects for the system were simply devastating. A sharp decline in market share and mindset. Symbian was viewed as antiquated and last century. There was no viable way to continue with it, that much is undeniable.

The people at Nokia shouldn't be prosecuted, they have saved the company from a certain bankruptcy.

Nokia's world leading handset division was world leading due to their feature phones, not due to Symbian. That lead was in sharp decline also (for obvious reasons), they would have lost that lead, regardless of what their decision would be, as the writing on that lead was on the wall.


unfortunately google would have not supported nokia going into android and as we know it can be expensive developing a google android phone, Nokia would have gone belly up going into android at that time. MS pumped much needed money into Nokia at a time that was very critical for them to even survive and get by. I wish people would realize the costs of actually going android and trying to compete in an android market already owned by Samsung, look at HTC and the likes who are constantly loosing money with android even when they have excellent devices to offer. Nokia made the correct choice in going WP as it kept them in business and being able to be sold for a very handsome price without loosing anything.

please show me the countless billions they have lost making WP devices, you my friend just pull crap out of your ass with all you are saying. Do you see any shareholders complaining that the handset division has been sold to MS?

simplezz said,

No one with any sense would go exclusively with a platform that had less than 3% marketshare.

When Samsung selected Android it had less than 3% market share. If everyone followed your logic we'd never have anything new on the market. Boring. Zzzzzzzzzz.

Crimson Rain said,

HTC makes much better phones than Samsung and they have a very strong brand (not as much as Nokia though) recognition as well. See how they are doing. Samsung would have made Nokia a small fish like HTC.

Last time i checked HTC is still HTC. Nokia is no more.

LaP said,

Last time i checked HTC is still HTC. Nokia is no more.


It is about trends.

HTC going downwards while Nokia was going up. Key HTC people leaving, HTC posting (near) losses.

Also, Nokia is very much alive and kicking.

Major_Plonquer said,

When Samsung selected Android it had less than 3% market share. If everyone followed your logic we'd never have anything new on the market. Boring. Zzzzzzzzzz.

Samsung was never Android exclusive.

Crimson Rain said,

It is about trends.
HTC going downwards while Nokia was going up. Key HTC people leaving, HTC posting (near) losses.

If Nokia was going up, why would they sell their devices division? Could it have something to do with the fact that since Elop took over as CEO, the smartphone unit never made a profit?

Crimson Rain said,

Also, Nokia is very much alive and kicking.

The smartphone unit isn't, which is what we're talking about here.

sjaak327 said,
The figures quoted by you show a year over year increase in both market share and absolute numbers.

The figures show an increase in unit sales with a slight increase in market share over the full year, but there is a decrease in market share from Q3 to Q4. It remains to be seen whether the decrease is seasonal (i.e. WP doesn't do well in Q4), based on the lack of compelling handsets or part of a new downward trend.

WP is stagnating at around 3% market share, which compares to Nokia's 77% and Apple's 18%. WP is way behind where Windows Mobile was in market share and it seems to be struggling to gain any traction.

theyarecomingforyou said,

The figures show an increase in unit sales with a slight increase in market share over the full year, but there is a decrease in market share from Q3 to Q4. It remains to be seen whether the decrease is seasonal (i.e. WP doesn't do well in Q4), based on the lack of compelling handsets or part of a new downward trend.

WP is stagnating at around 3% market share, which compares to Nokia's 77% and Apple's 18%. WP is way behind where Windows Mobile was in market share and it seems to be struggling to gain any traction.

There is a reason why market share figures and financial figures are compared year over year or quarter over quarter. So the correct way is to compare Q4 2013 to Q4 2012 not the previous quarter.

This is what I mean by having an agenda, the guy quoted is using unusual comparisons do make some kind of point. His suggestion that the 8.2 million sales are WP, Android and Symbian together further proves my point, considering Symbian has been discontinued months before Q4 started.

sjaak327 said,
There is a reason why market share figures and financial figures are compared year over year or quarter over quarter. So the correct way is to compare Q4 2013 to Q4 2012 not the previous quarter.

Unfortunately these are the only figures I've been able to find, so we're rather limited in the comparisons we can make.

What's worth pointing out is that Nokia's market share in 2012 was 5.0% (35m units) but dropped in 2013 to 3.1% (30.5m units). That's important as Nokia represents 90% of the WP market, so while WP is growing as a percentage of phones (a cumulative statistic) it is actually shrinking in terms of new sales. Nokia lost 4.5 million sales in 2013 while Samsung gained 96.4m.

WP is far from a successful platform.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Unfortunately these are the only figures I've been able to find, so we're rather limited in the comparisons we can make.

What's worth pointing out is that Nokia's market share in 2012 was 5.0% (35m units) but dropped in 2013 to 3.1% (30.5m units). That's important as Nokia represents 90% of the WP market, so while WP is growing as a percentage of phones (a cumulative statistic) it is actually shrinking in terms of new sales. Nokia lost 4.5 million sales in 2013 while Samsung gained 96.4m.

WP is far from a successful platform.

The important thing here is that Nokia's decline isn't due to WP (remember according to the quoted figures WP had a year over year increase of little over 1%) it is due to the fact that Symbian was completely discontinued.

To add WP's 2012 total sales were 16 million as opposed to 33.1 million in 2013. Unit sales actually doubled, market share was 33% up.