I'm an engineer working in an advanced R&D lab in Europe. I was at the heart of this event. The main issue was the OS, Symbian was not adapted to the evolution, we tried to convince Nokia with the development of eLinux which is the ancestry of Android. But in vain
@@Jurgen_Ibro First of all, Symbian was a good RTOS (Real-Time Operating System) for telephony at that time. However Symbian was and still is a proprietary Operating System of Nokia. This by definition makes only Nokia able to maintain and update it, and they refused to make it open source. Resulting to a hard, costly and slow adaptation and evolution of Symbian while the technical capabilities of the hardware (the mobile phones) were needed and inevitable like, Vibration control, Bluetooth stack, GPS stack, NFC stack, 3G stack, different screen sizes, etc ... Without mentioning the continuous needed security issues fixing and patches. Android in another had and because it was and still an open source OS a huge community is contributing for iits maintenance and updates which makes the task for the Google team easier for the setup of their continuous final versions which a modified version of the open source of course. Sorry for my long answer my friend but I am an engineer specialised Real-Time Systems and I was at the heart of this revolution back at university so I had to give you a proper answer 😅 I hope it was sufficient ! Take care. Cheers ...
@@Jurgen_Ibro First of all, Symbian was a good RTOS (Real-Time Operating System) for telephony at that time. However Symbian was and still is a proprietary Operating System of Nokia. This by definition makes only Nokia able to maintain and update it, and they refused to make it open source. Resulting to a hard, costly and slow adaptation and evolution of Symbian while the technical capabilities of the hardware (the mobile phones) were needed and inevitable like, Vibration control, Bluetooth stack, GPS stack, NFC stack, 3G stack, different screen sizes, etc ... Without mentioning the continuous needed security issues fixing and patches. Android in another had and because it was and still an open source OS a huge community is contributing for iits maintenance and updates which makes the task for the Google team easier for the setup of their continuous final versions which a modified version of the open source of course. Sorry for my long answer my friend. I hope it was sufficient ! Take care. Cheers ...
@@Jurgen_Ibro First of all, Symbian was a good RTOS (Real-Time Operating System) for telephony at that time. However Symbian was and still is a proprietary Operating System of Nokia. This by definition makes only Nokia able to maintain and update it, and they refused to make it open source. Resulting to a hard, costly and slow adaptation and evolution of Symbian while the technical capabilities of the hardware (the mobile phones) were needed and inevitable like, Vibration control, Bluetooth stack, GPS stack, NFC stack, 3G stack, different screen sizes, etc ... Without mentioning the continuous needed security issues fixing and patches. Android in another had and because it was and still an open source OS a huge community is contributing for iits maintenance and updates which makes the task for the Google team easier for the setup of their continuous final versions which a modified version of the open source of course. Sorry for my long answer my friend. I hope it was sufficient ! Take care. Cheers ...
@@seneca983Yes … In fact it was originally a logging company. The name was from the Nokia river which they launched their logs into for initial transport. It was the children from that successful wood processing concern who began to dabble into electronics with valves and transistors …
I had a Lumia 525. Too bad that it was too underpowered that Microsoft decided that Windows 10 for phones would abandon it, so it was stuck with Windows Phone 8. They shouldn't have made it. If only I had bought Lumia 535, instead. I'm using Nokia 6.1, but Nokia has given up on midrange and high-end phone markets. New Nokia phones now has low performance.
That's not Nokia, the Nokia he was talking about in this video. It's HMD, they bought the mobile division from Microsoft. They got the name with it. It has nothing to do with the actual Nokia, apart from licensing the name. They will also scrap the Nokia name, going with HMD from now on. However, HMD is still a Finnish company. They aren't Nokia but if you go far enough back, they once were part of Nokia.
Honestly agreed. I never use the front camera and iPhones would look way better without the notch or cutout. Though, I always thought I was part of a fringe minority haha
Generally good video, but I feel like your reasons for why the Windows Phone failed are incorrect. You mentioned that it was “unnatural” and that it was “obvious a desktop-first company made the software,” meanwhile it had large icons that were easy to tap. Really, the biggest issue was that it was late to the party and as such had little developer support for new apps. As a result no one was buying them because Android and iPhone at this point had thousands of more apps that were far more refined than anything that could be found on the Microsoft Store
True, Lumia phones were never bad phones or running a bad systems, they were on the other hand always worse than competing offerings with iOS or Android. I looked at Lumia phones many times when they were still viable but no matter the price point they always came up short against Samsung et al, being 25 percent more expensive when they had to be 25 percent cheaper to make up for the less mature app market. I also don't know why Nokia/Microsoft just didn't pay the say 100 biggest app developers to make WP apps. Let's face it, the 100 largest apps are far more important than the remaining 100 million apps.
what competitor ? MS does not make phone back then, it does not do that today it makes tablets using the surface name but its literally a laptop with a touch screen and expensive keyboard sold separately. its literally a failure of nokia by selecting stupid people to head your business, board needs to understand just because someone has a MBA or ran some business does not mean that they can head "YOUR" business, a CEO without insight in the industry does not look longterm but short term quarterly. it your ruin your business in the long term because he does not understand the business
@@siliconhawk An academic is more interested in his/her own professional career than in the well-being of a company that he/she did not found and is only employed by.
quick note about the history: nokia had had a touch screen phone released a few years prior to iphone. Those models weren't seen as anything too special by consumers. Apple had proper marketing, slick OS, and also saw the future in just ignoring the basic drop test, which all worked out well for them
I hate that so many people don't care about the drop test. This is why most people remain poor, spending money on slick shit that breaks if you look at it funny.
The big thing with iPhone was multitouch. IPhone was not the first touchscreen phone but first with multitouch. At 2007... IPhone: capacitive, multitouch, finger Competition: resistive, not multitouch, stylus Apple created iPhone OS to be optimized with the finger and not with stylus. This is what people appreciated. It felt natural. As Steve Jobs said in january 2007: "who wants a stylus?"
It is not just marketing. I had the phone. It was simply shit. It did not have capacitative touch, had bad and complicated software. It had those pressure touch screens, which had no multi touch support, had very bad scrolling and didn't feel comfortable at all. iPhone was like 10 years ahead of that product. Nokia itself knew they were done the day they had their hands on an iphone
@@cjeelde Exactly. There were phones with touchscreens also in the '90s, that's not the point. It's no only that they didn't have multitouch (which is a very important difference) but also (and in my opinion more important) that they had a resistive touchscreen rather than a capacitive one. I admit, I never had one of these phones, or a PDA, but I have used resistive touchscreens many times in my life and they kinda suck. If you use your finger, often times you need to try 5 times before you finally hit the intended (virtual) button. So, you have to use a stylus, but styli are not a very comfortable thing to have to use just to hit the right button. These phones also didn't have inertial scrolling, so whenever you wanted to move down the page you'd have to use your stylus to click the tiny bar on the right and drag it. My assumption is that for most people the whole experience - after the novelty wore off - would have been too cumbersome. There's no comparison to the iPhone's capactivie touchscreen with multitouch, buttons that are big enough for a touchscreen used with the fingers and so on and so forth. And I say that despite hating Apple. But, you know, credit where credit's due.
LG and Samsung had "smartphones" with touchscreen few years before Apple, and they were popular amongst enthusiasts . IMO, Apple took the spotlight with their marketing, design and their less-is-more approach. Apple lacks innovation but they excel in meeting consumers' needs, which ultimately the only thing that matters.
Yes I had very early LG touchscreen, with animated background and I loved it but was so used to physical buttons I couldn't adjust and went back to old Nokia.
Stephen Ellop killed Nokia and it was intentional. We could all see Nokia burning to the ground back then. In my opinion, Nokia could have modified symbian OS and made it better.
Nokia's murder weapon was symbian. Nokia's managers are the worst. they were so blind to see that symbian had nothing to do against apple. Nohia had a pretty OS called maemo, that evolved to meego. Sadly, the managers choose the worst and went all into the hell with symbian.
To be honest, Symbian wasn't even bad, especially compared to Android, which was a dumpsterfire until KitKat, and that thing released in 2013. So I honestly have no idea how Android gained market share over Nokia with phones that had zero features. Early androids couldn't use the camera or music player without an SD card, had no multitasking, the UI was terribly slow, the screens were cheap garbage, and the battery life was terrible.
And the just about to be released but killed by Microsoft, Linux - based OS from the midrange group in Ulm, 600+ laid off less than a month before release.
The Windows OS was not the problem for Nokia; it was one of the best operating systems for mobile devices. The real issue was Google. Google never published any of their apps for Windows OS, whereas they developed high-quality apps for iOS. Google and Apple have a deep partnership where they help each other in their monopolistic practices. It's important to remember that Google is not a rival of Apple; its rival is Samsung. Facebook developed high-quality apps for Windows OS, as did Microsoft. Even Amazon, Uber, Spotify, and banks all did, but the main thing missing was RU-vid, Google Maps, and Gmail. Google always saw Windows OS as a threat to their business and tried everything they could to destroy it. Microsoft even went ahead and developed a RU-vid app for Windows Mobile, but Google blocked it, stating that it violated policies, while hundreds of other RU-vid clone apps live on the Play Store without violating that policy. Microsoft could retaliate by stopping office apps for Android, but it would cost them money. Microsoft even tried to add support for porting Android apps to Windows OS, but Google blocked that from happening. Google was the reason for Windows OS's failure with their monopolistic practices.
@@007alztruli I was actually reffering to Google's hatred towards Windows Phone. Because honestly, I would gladly accept Android's death if it meant that Windows Phones made a forever comeback on the market. Android is such a janky mess on lower end smartphones.
Correction" It was Steve Balmer's fault not Microsoft as a company get outta here with your obvious dislike for microsoft, should have no place in your ability to think
Steve Balmer definitely did some damage. Making the Windows phone incompatible with Windows was just stupid. However, Microsoft just kept getting worse.
@@DrSamThelin x86 applications cannot run on ARM. For the same reason when you download software you have to pick the right one for your processor. On mobile devices that run iOS or android, the app store does that automatically. x86 Processors are widely used in PC's while ARM is typically found in the majority of mobile phones, routers and other small devices. This wasn't microsofts fault, you just need to get developers to port their applications to the windows phone.
You are quite wrong. Nokia had iPhone style device about 2 years before any whff of any iphones. There was a working prototype, and that was shown to the Nokia Mobile Phones management board. They loved it. The last question was: "does this run Symbian?", and of course the answer was no, it ran Linux. Nokia mobile phones executive board sad no, as they had fallen in love with the Symbian, and did not accept anything else. Symbian is great and very power efficient for texts/calls, but that is about it. Symbian just could not run anything of that category, so NMP board were not interested to do that. Later one (1) board member knew NMP would be killed on their love for Symbian. So this one board member made secretly the N-9x series. It was a great phone, running linux, and would have been a success as it really was something that worked really well, and it had open linux OS. But as the project was made in secret, the NMP board killed that project about as fast as they could, which took about 1.5 years. Now NMP was toast, and the NMP was sold to Microsoft, and Elop hopped in. There is still a separate Nokia Networks, creating mobile networks, but the phone production went to the Lumia series phones. Lumias were not too bad, but they did not have too much of app market, so those were scrapped too. Of course Elop screwed up even bigger time, but nope, NMP was and is toast. And no, when NMP was sold to Microsoft, the sellers knew that Microsoft wanted to buy either Nokia or Huawei. If they bought Huawei, they would just be another Android provider, among hundred others. When Nokia was sold, they got paid quite well, as NMP knew that Microsoft wants to make their own phones and OS, not just another Android company. Nowdays, Nokia mobile brand has been licensed to a Finnish company HMD, which makes great phones. The phones are good speed, good flash, mSD, and absolutely no bloatware. Those phones were great, and they still are. Now HMD did not continue to license the Nokia brand, and how HMD makes phones with their own name. HMD stated to make phones with "right to repair" in mind. Phones are good and reasonably priced. They underline that the users can change the display, battery, charging connector etc easily by getting official spare parts from IFixit. The repair info/videos are also available from IFixit. That is a good way, and I am still a happy user of all of the previous products. I do love their "no bloatware" policy, which is how phones must be.
@@heyitsnemo it was a proper read, but here's some of it. Nokia had smart phone prototypes (linux OS) before iphones. Execs wanted Symbian. Protoing with Linux OS continued behind execs backs, until execs found out and scrapped it. All bets on Lumia, it doesn't sell well, gets scrapped. Some revolving doors, the phone biz is sold to MS. Currently, the phone brand is licensed to some finnish company, which seems have proper values.
Having a “prototype” that never gets to market does not make you leader of the pack. Apple got there first and everything today is just a clone of the 1st gen iPhone. Hate that all you want but it’s the truth.
more than 10 years ago, i was on a Microsoft event about Windows Phone. One guy from Nokia middle management told me the same story. Nokia had a running modern OS but decided to stick with Symbian.
Reason why Nokia did choose windows was that Microsoft had "bought" few of the biggest shareholders minds and that's why management had to put side all others, even that windows phones was not ready
I have owned the 3110. 3210. 3310. 5210. 6210. 6510. 6600. N80. N95. N95 8GB. Then moved to iPhone. (Before a brief flirt with HTC touch HD 1 and 2.) then back to iPhone. This was nostalgia beyond belief. Thank you for your dedication and video. I appreciate the memories you brought back with those moments with each one. Broken legs. Mountain hikes. Midnight swims. International trips. All of it. Thank you. EDIT: I forgot my E61. It will never forgive me. Nor will mothers 9300i
The first Lumia's ran Windows Phone 7, not 8. In fact they never even got WP8 so they were pretty much on a dead OS just a year after release. The phone shown at 8:47 is not a Windows Phone. That's the Nokia N9 running MeeGo Harmattan which was way ahead of its time.
Nokia bought Bell Labs/Lucent Technologies/Alcatel's assets. I used to work for them in the Bell Labs/Lucent era. Nokia now OWNS all those legacy Bell Labs patents. THAT is where all the 5G stuff came to Nokia from
Many mobile phone patents are owned by Google, which once acquired Motorola. When Motorola was sold on, Google kept the mobile phone patents. Google has thus successfully ensured that Apple cannot threaten Android with patent lawsuits.
Not correct. Yes, Nokia did get 5G patents when bought different companies but Nokia had had always very good research center and they are developing 5G, currently already testing 6G in Oulu, Finland. Nokia has owned essential patents since 90's when Nokia was one of the key developers for GSM, first digital mobile phone system
There is no rebirth to it's former glory since the phone division is sold to Microsoft. Nokia is making 20 billion dollars annually compared to Apple's 380 billion dollars annually. It's just a normal telecommunication company like Ericsson which also makes around 20 billion dollars.
There was nothing anyone could do to save Nokia. It was literally the CRT TV vs the LCD TV. The only thing they could have done was to be like Samsung. Even Microsoft gave up on competing with iOS and Android, what more for a hardware company like Nokia. They were doomed as soon as Steve Jobs revealed to the world the iPhone.
@@XGD5layer Literally nothing survived unless you are using Android or iOS. Like I said, even Microsoft, a giant software company tried but failed. It was all about the software back then. If Nokia went full Android like Samsung did, they would have been what Samsung is today.. the dominant other option besides an iPhone.
I had a Nokia N9. I loved it so so much. I knew about what was going on at Nokia at the time, and it was disheartening. What a shame what happened to Meego. It was an incredible platform and was years and years ahead of its time in many ways. My only gripe with this video is that you didn't talk about it at all. It was an important part of this story. And it HAS to be remembered.
@@ettoreatalan8303 True, but a moot point. Nokia made clear they would not make any more phones with the system even before launch, so developers had no incentive to even give it a go.
I feel you. If MeeGo was not killed before it even shipped then today's smartphone market would be very, very different. BTW, check out Sailfish OS. It is based on Mer Project, which was a fork of MeeGo, and it is still in active development. It's made by Jolla, a Finnish company made out of engineers from Nokia which worked on MeeGo (at least it was made by this company, it got restructured not long ago).
Symbian OS was good for its time and it did well... but in my opinion, Nokia's biggest mistake was not to identify that being developer-friendly was SUPER IMPORTANT. Compared to Android and iOS, Windows Phone was a nightmare for developers... Many jumped ship to Android and iOS. Developers didn't think that it was wise to burn money on Windows Phone that too when their phones weren't selling as well as Androids and iPhones. Microsoft tried paying good salaries to its developers to try to get them to make good apps. Simply, having decent UI with live tiles and a high MP count camera was just not enough. Nokia and Microsoft both failed to see where the market was headed.
Using windows mobile is actually a smart move, it made Nokia stand out back then. It was just windows mobile sucks big time, it's on them and not Nokia's fault.
They actually tried all, They even had newer Symbian model flagship after their first Lumias like the Nokia 808 PureView. They tried Android with their X platform with Nokia X, Nokia X+ and Nokia XL. BUT IMO, What really killed Nokia was when they said they won't support MeeGO (Maemo OS successor) even if the Nokia N9 sells well, They didn't commercialise it in France, UK, the USA. It had the BEST UI and LIVE multitasking device at the time.
@@anttikaipainen6072 Yeah, the N900 was a dream phone for me and I still got mine. Almost buy the N9 but because of Elope decision to not support it, I canceled my purchase as I knew what it was to have store like Google Play or App Store. Nokia's Lumia device was really good as well actually, they were smooth even for the the cheapest Lumia 6xx lines. Battery was good as well but didn't have many back then popular app official support.
Amazing documentary of the rollercoaster back to rebirth. Been on the Nokia ride a long time selling and buying, all while remembering the nostalgia of their indestructible phones of my childhood playing snake
I agree, but what you mean specifically which app did you miss?I'm missed snapchat. RU-vid was better viewed on the browstory. Anyways, and the maps thing they could have made some kind of work around with the browser there as well, maybe
@@brentsummers7377 We reached a point where there's no room or need to improve with phone design. It's all about the hardware inside and the price. It's impossible to compete with China, only Samsung, which won't be able to compete much longer and Apple with its millions of fanboys feeding their greed.
nokia losts it empire.... hmd global may try new things but they are not gonna win with overpriced subpar phones with specs 1-2 years old in current market... too many players and too steep of a competition...
Hindsight is truly 20/20. Windows Phone COULD have been king. It was certainly a gamble to put all your eggs in one basket, but honestly, it was probably the right move. The alternative was to become 'just another' android manufacturer, and look how many of those have diminished to nothing. If Microsoft had actually paid attention to what people wanted, vs shoving crap down their throats (my brain was simply never compatible with Windows Phone OS), they might have taken over. So all the 'hate' is really misplaced. Sometimes you take a shot and see what it gets you. Sometimes you lose, sometimes you win. Nokia is one of the biggest customers for the company I work for. I once visited one of their sites in Finland (after they became mostly a wireless network equipment provider) to perform some training. It was honestly really cool walking through those halls. They had little displays showing pivotal phones over the years. Plus they had a fantastic employee cafeteria, I filled my plate with liver and one of the employees escorting me was concerned I didn't know what I had on my plate. It was pretty funny (and seriously delicious).
Nokia was primarily a phone manufacturer, who already supported multiple OSs. There was no need to put all the eggs in a single basket which smelled from a mile away anyway.Microsoft made Windows Phone 7 neither backwards, nor forwards compatible, their strategy was a complete mess. At the time when I heard the news, it was quite clear that Elop was a trojan horse from Microsoft. With choosing Microsoft as the sole partner, all the risk was on Nokia's side. It was one of the dumbest business decisions I saw in the last 25 years.
@@feamatar Devil's advocate: the OS's Nokia did support were all trash, relics from an earlier time. Dumping them made total sense. Going 'all in' with Microsoft wasn't as one sided as many would have you believe, Microsoft WANTED Windows Phone to win, and they put ALOT of money both into their development efforts, and into Nokia. The problem that's so easy to see IN HINDSIGHT is that Microsoft had NO CLUE what a mobile OS should be. They were in their 'win 8' mode of thinking where they felt they should be able to shove whatever solution they felt was best down the throats of customers. And to be fair, it wasn't that far out a position, as Microsoft had been doing that for quite a while already. The difference in the mobile space, which Microsoft just wasn't capable of understanding, is they had competition. They didn't just have the token competition that something like MacOS was, no, they had REAL competition, competition that had better solutions and far better execution. Had Microsoft made a Windows Phone OS that people actually wanted they easily had the might to become number 1. But they were so myopic and just couldn't see what the market really was. The failure was all on Microsoft. Again, it was a gamble, that Nokia lost badly. But lets be real here: where else could Nokia have gone? Sure, by picking up Android they had a CHANCE of becoming successful, but they would NEVER have reached the peak they came from, they just had too much real competition for that. Nokia was going to sink, how much was the question, and given how 'stuck in the past' they were, I'm not convinced they wouldn't have tanked if they went the Android route as well. It's the Kodak effect, former kings of markets can't adapt and fail.
@@repatch43 The point is that Nokia was capable supporting multiple OSs before, not that Nokia's own OSs were relevant. Going with Microsoft Mobile only was a gamble only for Nokia, Microsoft could anytime pay to another company to adopt their product. This was a very onesided deal, and by 2010 it was very clear that Microsoft was lacking in execution. We had these arguments with my colleagues back in the day, I am not talking about hindsight.
Nokia Lumia did had single core processor but was snappy than most Android phones which had better RAM/CPU , i still have moderate Nokia collection and Lumia still outshines average Android phones in terms of Snappy Performance
I hope Nokia comes back to the smartphone business some day and be the leader that it once was. Although there are Nokia handsets now (and they are really good), these are manufactured by another company that got the licensing/branding rights. We want to see "proper" Nokia smartphones again some day.
Funny thing that while I was working for Nokia Networks we were the poor bastards, barely making any real money, while NMP was the poster child, the goose laying the golden egg. Things turned around since then, NMP does not even exist. Networks merged with the remains of Siemens ICT, and ALU and became even larger than its archenemy, Ericsson, the last oldschool telco company still standing.
Wrong, windows 8 had a great interface..... for tablets and phones. I worked at Microsoft surface support, the OS was fine, but if you wanted a desktop experience you didn't use it.
Yeah, but it was a dumpster fire release. First generation of Nokia phones went with Windows 7.5 and it was not possible to upgrade to Win8 which came like a half year later. And of course Win8 did not support anything from Win7. Typical MS fashion and consumers just jumped to Android. At least they didn’t break ecosystems all the time
I love android and wasn't tempted to go to Windows Phone. However, as someone who loves widgets, i think Windows Phone was really, really cool. I think the competition wouldve been healthier too, to have 3 players in the mobile os market
Yes, both Blackberry and Nokia pivoted away from what made them successful and managed to survive as much smaller versions of their former selves. As a former Lumia 1520 owner, I was a big fan and I think MSFT pulled the plug too soon.
WP7 was fine and Nokia stood a great chance with it. WP8 caused a massive app reset and Google’s antitrust violation policies killed it. If Nokia had gone Android they would’ve died too - as seen now, no one except Samsung really survived that.
Nokia's biggest mistake was launching the Windows Phone in Q4 2011, which was too late. If Nokia had adopted it in Q4 2010, it might have been a game changer.
8:47 this is Linux based MeeGo Os btw not the WindowsPhone. Also the phone is Nokia N9 which was launched before Nokia started the Lumia series. Had Nokia doubled down on this OS instead of Windows-Phone, God knows how successful this MeeGo OS would be because it was just ahead of its time.
Former QA tester here: Nokia did have prototype devices running Android 4 in 2011, specifically running games in order to have them ready for launch in the PlayStore in 2012, alongside the devices. Sadly, it never came to be and they were either scrapped or are somewhere in storage at EA's headquarters in Bucharest, Romania.
Well Nokia could have still died even if they adopted Android instead of windows. And it's because of Chinese smart phones that have taken life of many big Android based phone companies.
Forget folding screens, I want hardware keyboards back. The way the hit boxes for letters resize based on what the algorithm _thinks_ I want to type next is the cause of 90% of my typos
The big difference is the silver bullet versus incremental. Many poor CEO want to make big bold decisions which change everything overnight, they go for the silver bullet. The reasons are easy to understand, its good for the ego, its easy and its quick. The issues are if you don’t understand what you are doing, it always fails. Successful Big and Bold changes are normally built on solid foundations which take years to build, try it on a foundation of sand and you will fail. The best CEO are normally boring CEO's.
If Nokia would have gone for "incremental changes" at that time they'd have ended in the same place they ended anyway. In my opinion, their only chance of preserving their place as a major phone manufacturer was to try something bold (and advertise it widely - which, to my memory, they did). Their only problem is that they tried that bold thing too late. They were in the "incremental changes" business for way too long after Jobs revealed the iPhone.
@@ZiggyMercury I agree they waited too long, but the Microsoft O/S choice was the wrong choice. I had a Samsung Microsoft phone and it was awful. Going down the android path was the safe path that would of been quicker and retained part of their market share, but I agree that it was too late to retain their existing market share.
NSN is big. I've worked at telecom infrastructure companies for the last 5 years. Nokia is a constant presence. They match the likes of ZTE and Huawei with their sheer presence as well as diverse products and services. They're clearly doing well too, if their office at Capital Place is any indicator.
1:09 that was not a so called press conference. That was Steve Jobs' keynote at Macworld. People from media/press sat probably there but it was not a press conference.
I worked in the telecoms infrastructure industry in the last few years and when I realized that Nokia was doing well in networking, I cried inside. I love the company.
My first smartphone was also my first non-Nokia phone. it was a razor-thin htc windows phone. i loved it. I'm one of those rare people who really liked the windows phone. As someone who was going through college in the early 200s, there's something emotional in our bond with Nokia.
Am not too sure of that! HMD is of today a contractor, and as a such, they both wants and needs money! To drop Nokia and thereby the name that keeps them with a good renenue would probably be a sweet suicide since almost noone knows what HMD is but as good as whole the world knows what Nokia is! So to expect HMD to kill their golden goose and replace it with a goat who gives sour milk is nothing i think will happen anytime soon! /L
Nokia makes the equipment, that your phone connects over. Well it is one of top 3 in the world. Frankly they were always infrastructure first. They are a phone cable and phone switch maker with over century of history who in 1980's and 1990's got into cell phone game, since they needed phones for people to call with to use the base towers and switches they were making for the telecoms companies. On 100+ years history, mobilephones is a 20 year hyper growth and success period, boom and bust period/cycle. Now they are back to basics, well the basics never left. Make the tower antennas, switches, fiber optic equipment and modems the call/data/message runs on. They aren't irrelevant, rather they just aren't consumer facing. You don't get flashy news articles or review videos of the new gadget they made. However that someone elses gadget connects to internet in lot of the world via a Nokia radio head, over Nokia fiber optic equipment and routed over a Nokia network switch. Without companies like Nokia, iPhones would be iPods. Nor is it a commodity item. Mobile network hardware isn't something just any company makes and can be replaced by myriad of other offerers with no problem. There is only like dozen companies in the world making this gear and trusted by network operators with suppliying it. Big players can be counted by one hands fingers. Huawei, Nokia, Ericsonn (another "didn't they go bankrupt, no they didn't, they just got out of consumer devices" company), Samsung, ZTE. There is many many makers of commodity level smart phones, but the network equipment those phones rely on, way more exclusive business.
For B2C probably, but Nokia seems to be focused on B2B now in the telecommunications sector and doing well for themselves. HMD and Nokia will just go their own separate ways
Some corrections for you... First off iPhone wasn't the 1st touch screen. For example in 2006 I was already using the Eten M600, that phone didn't even have a physical keyboard and it run on Ms Windows Mobile. In 2010 I got the Nokia N97 and still have it to this day. The screen is still very responsive I might add. I even dropped it into a cup of tea, then soaked it in a bucket of water for a few hours to wash away the milk and sugar then left it to dry on my bedroom window. about a month later it was working like new. I don't use it today but it still powers on... 14 years later. When Lumia 720 came out I got one and followed up with newer models, again that phone was different but very responsive. I hated that it was lacking in apps but I loved the build quality of Lumia. I had all these phone because I used to be an engineer developing enterprise apps on the Symbian platform until 2010
Loved Nokia. Had the 8910, the 8800 and the N95 8GB. When Apple released the 1st iPhone I was one of those people who said, I would never switch from Nokia to Apple and here I am years later with 4 iPhones under my belt and a whole slew of other Apple devices. Glad to see the company still doing well 👍
still have my Nokia C2-01 and it's still my daily-use phone (no, I don't have a smartphone, I don't need one) .. I've probably had this phone for ~12 years now, and its never been repaired or had anything replaced.. this thing is a fucking tractor; absolutely indestructible
As I have an I-Pad Pro I have no need for a smart phone. I have a Nokia 2660 flip phone. It does a text and I can ring. And I’m not a phone addict like most people are.
i miss the old nokia they were unbreakable this was 2002 my older brother he was a grown man he was 20 at the time i was 12 him and his friends was kind of picking on me i had my nokia phone in my hand i just threw it at his head it completely KO him he was on the floor sleeping i went to my phone expecting it to be broken after it hit his head it bounced on the floor a few times it was not a scratch on that phone it worked perfectly and my brother never picked or bullied me ever again his friends started laughing at him then he got owned by a 12 year old in his ninja turtles pajamas his friends started being nice to me because i stood up to him so an old nokia is the best weapon to have and the lesson to learn from this dont mess with a 12 year old with a nokia in his hand.
great rendering, thanks. Also, it's nice to see your face one in a while, it's different from others in that sense. At least, others i watch in the same genre
My phone for the past 3 years has been the Nokia G50 smartphone which is 5G and runs Android. It runs very well and came at a fraction of the cost of comparable models from competitors. I would say that if Nokia keeps putting out such models with regular updates, it can still be a player in the smartphone sector.
I bought a new Nokia 7.1 a few years ago. The advertising on its amazon page lied about wireless charging. The charging port became loose and wouldn't charge unless held a certain way. Then the phone bricked itself and surprise surprise the solution was to remove the battery and reconnect it. Which thanks to the crap sealed design we have nowadays meant accessing the battery isn't the simple solution we had before.
I was a Nokia fan. I wasn't very happy with that Stephen Elop. This video confirms and affirms my thoughts and suspicions about Stephen Elop. I simply hope that Nokia will manufacture smart phones with their very own OS that will outshine both Android and iPhone OS.
I remember at the time the tech commentators pointed out that similar partnerships with Microsoft never worked out well for the partners. When windows 10 mobile finally shipped, all the devices where the beta versions of the OS worked just fine where excluded by forcing arbitrary requirements. This contributed to push users away to iOS and Android.
