There's no shortage of explanations as to the cause of the recent global recession as many economies have struggled in recent years. Finnish Prime Minister Alexander Stubb has taken a different approach, however, as he has accused Apple of single-handedly... Read more
I'm sorry mr. prime minister but Nokia made it's own bed. In the beginning -and I fondly remember- Nokia was a brand of quality, you knew you couldn't go wrong with a Nokia, even the cheapest of them all. But then smartphones came out, and Nokia got stuck in their Symbian OS, and then Microsoft came and... well do I need to continue? I'm not actually sure but I think I am, if Nokia would've assumed Android back when it was Nokia the history would've been different. The Nokia G... could you imagine the awesome of that awesomest device?
Kibaruk is absolutely right. First mistake was not going 'smart' then second mistake when they realized the first mistake was to go smart with Microsoft! They should have (and probably still can) start creating Android phones. Nokia make excellent hardware, I'd love a Nokia Android phone.
He can't really blame Apple for that, markets are ever changing along with tech and the rest of the world. It may be hard to believe now but one day there will be no more Apple, no more Samsung, no more Microsoft and hopefully no more Facebook etc. He's just reminiscing back to the days when he recalls the popularity of Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash but sadly for some ex Nokia (and paper industry) employees there will be no Jobs, little Hope and very little Cash. It's tough but it's the way of the world and they have to fight back if they are to survive.
How dare Apple help better improve phone technology and where the hell do they get off potentially saving trees!
I simply don't see what is wrong with a Windows based Nokia?!! Can you explain it to me? The phone hardware from Nokia is arguably better than any other on the planet, iPhones included. The OS is as capable as any out there and is quick and seamless. They have largely addressed all the quirks everyone was complaining about. The only thing that could still be said to be outstanding is the app department. However in that regard, who do you think is more to blame? Microsoft, or those that refuse to even give the platform a chance because they are too stuck up on Android to care. Is it that its different that you hate it? I assure you many of my friends have Android devices and the number of times they have malfunctioned for whatever is quite frankly appalling. Meanwhile my Nokia Lumia 920 has been dropped from significant height, kicked across floors, stood on, sat on and well, just about anything you can reasonably think of has happened to it and it still looks as good as I bought it, barring a few scratches. An iPhone or Samsung treated in the same manner would have been returned to the manufacture in a thousand pieces. The OS has also never been anything but fast, and simple to use. Apps are hardly a concern anymore, but until people like you decide to give it a go, it will always be stuck in the catch up game. Yes it is different, but that's the point, its not suppose to be ANDROID, its Windows so stop comparing the OS function for function because things inherently work differently by the very fact that's its a different OS. You may find that many things just work better, but you may also find a few things that could stand improvement. The same can be said about Android, but it wont change until you give it a go for more than the 5 minutes you play around with it in the store. 5 minutes isn't enough to get to grips with the device because you are still very much cemented in your habits on Android.
This article was like reading post game interview where the coach blames a playoff loss on the score.
@Kib + Nokia underestimated touch, and thought their old way will survive. I don't think switching to android would have made any difference, beside, except for Samsung everyone else is either a) making loses or b) barely surviving. The only real way to make money for these OEMs is to have their own in house complete solutions, which means they'll have to fork their own version of android, get rid of as many google services as they can and inject their own (provided they are as good if not better), but that isn't something smaller OEMs can do. Even Samsung is starting to suffer now, next quarter sales projections doesn't look that good either. So there is no easy answer to this question. IMO Nokia did the best thing it could do at that moment, they took the OS injected their own services (where they could) and tried to make best of it, unfortunately, Microsoft needed another few years to bring its OS almost on par with competition, rest is history. Although, Microsoft is reaping some benefits of Nokia’s efforts, as windows phone has crossed 10% share many markets, and rising in others.
You're right, using toxic materials to build disposable electronics is way better than killing trees!
Actually, if you cared to read the news, Microsoft only bought their phone division. The company is a lot smaller now, but they are still very much alive in the networking industry, and maybe a few others. Microsoft never bought the patent portfolio from Nokia, they are Licensing those to Microsoft, I believe it is only a few years that they are barred from producing phones following the purchase but after which Nokia is fully entitled to return to the smartphone industry if they so choose.
@Archean of course making the change now it wouldn't matter, but back then when it started, choosing between Motorola, Samsung, Nokia or even Sony, I'd have chosen Nokia hands down.
Its funny. Nokia lost out when they didn't go smart-phone. And yet smart phones are the governments way to all your data, as is FB and all the other unsmart choices we see so many sheep choose to make. And the powers that be rub their hands in glee, as they all get slaughterd in twos and threes...
Everyone, remember the phone you were using before iphone or android. It definitely sucked. No more horse and buggy.
“Between 2004 and 2007—the years leading to Apple’s first iPhone launch—Nokia’s total research and development spend was €17.1 billion ($22.2 billion at today’s exchange rate), against Apple’s $2.5 billion in the same period. So Nokia spent nine times more than Apple on R&D during those years. While noting this, one should keep in mind that Nokia’s sole focus was on making mobile devices and wireless network equipment, while Apple, by mid-2007, had only just started shipping its first iPhones and was still generating most of its revenue from its range of Mac computers and iPods.”
I never made that comparison, just said they might have saved some trees That said I am no expert on the subject and have no idea really but I am willing to bet the paper making process isn't that clean either mate.
It's just a subject I feel passionately about. People talk about how "green" using technology is when it is quite the opposite. The manufacture and disposal of electronics is devastating to the environment and some how people think that reading on their iPad is "greener" than reading a newspaper or book. It might be greener if people didn't get a new phone, computer and tablet every year and just dump it in the garbage. Even recycling programs for electronics end up just throwing a lot of the stuff out. Paper is at least 100% recyclable and biodegradable. On top of all this most peoples electronics are powered via fossil fuels. That electric lawn mower might not burn gasoline, but the electricity coming from that coal burning power plant is worse. People feel good because they aren't the ones burning it, but in reality there is no difference. say it takes 3.3X10^7 joules (amount of energy in 1qrt of gasoline) of energy to cut your lawn. It doesn't matter if it is chemical energy or electricity. The difference is that the chemical energy is being converted into electricity before you use it. You're either using 3.3X10^7j of gas in your mower or 3.3X10^7j of coal or natural gas in the electric mower. Get where I'm going with this?
Pretty sure most people understand that, you don’t need to do much if any research to come to those conclusions, it is common sense. The problem is what other option do most people have? You seem to be in the wrong either way. Hippie type folks might say buy a second hand book to read but that plan still relies on someone else doing the ‘wrong’ thing so you can do the ‘right’ thing Buying an electric lawn mower is better than a petrol option but as you say it depends on how that electricity is generated. Obviously it’s not coal powered in all countries/regions so the results will vary. Yes the problem with technology that hurts its green rating is the constant need to upgrade every other day. If someone bought the original iPad and used it for more than a decade to read books daily and charged it using some kind of green power source then I assume that would be better for the environment. Obviously this kind of thing is a rare occurrence, especially for iUsers who are now already lined up for the iPhone 7 while they unbox their current model.
So Finnish PM would rather see forests cleared for paper. In this case I'm glad the paper industry is declining. As for Nokia, well they only have themselves to blame for taking the worlds largest phone company to ruin. No different to to so many other companies run by dinosaurs that couldn't or wouldn't evolve and give the people what they wanted. And then you sell out to Microsoft as the final indignity.
Yeah Nokia did make its own death bed. Between carrier exclusive devices and an undiverse range of phones all running the same underdeveloped OS, they are bound to fail with time.
The internet got rid of a lot of wages, but 3d printing will counter it to bring manufacturing back to america.
OMG! I just had to post, that phone second from the right was my last phone, and the one on the right, is my current phone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yes!!! I hope to still be using it when it gets put in a museum!
That decision was a bit too late to have any real bearing on the fact Nokia were in serious trouble... and it is pretty poor to say a company that made your companies obsolete is to blame rather than you addressing the fact that you didn't innovate and keep up with technological change.
Add New Comment