Re: Let's talk Nokia stock. Really.
 

@Lumianman

There is no delusion

Open is winning, Closed is not, the figures prove this, see earlier evidence.

It is obvious why if you think about it.

Any and All manufacturers can make Opensource code bend to their own will at no charge other than their own development costs and best of all with no payments to Microsoft.

So absolutely no downside.

result.

rgds

Re: Let's talk Nokia stock. Really.
 

I think I just explained to you that very little difference in android vs Microsoft model. Nothing to do with open vs closed. Did MS dominate PC because it was open?

Re: Let's talk Nokia stock. Really.
 

@Lumiaman

No Microsoft dominated the PC because they were a convicted monopolist.

We are still paying the price for that period.

You are of course free to explain or assert whatever you like.

This however does not change my opinion on the veracity of your statements.

rgds

Re: Let's talk Nokia stock. Really.
 

I am just saying, it has nothing to do with open software. It has to do with the business model. One licenses to multiple hardware manufacturers, one keeps it all in house and wants to attract a niche. Simple as that. Nothing to do with whether software is open or closed.

Re: Let's talk Nokia stock. Really.
 

@Lumiaman

As I said, respectfully, I disagree with you.

The Open model is proven to be winning,

The Closed model is not.

Simples

Evidence shows me you are quite simply wrong on its face.

Any assertion you make to contrary flies in the face of evidence and therefore must be discounted as either untrue at worst or delusional at best.

Good luck with that.

rgds

Re: Let's talk Nokia stock. Really.
 

Actually, it was the other way around. They became a monopolist because they managed to dominate the market. And they managed to pull that one off against all odds: a small garage company against a giant like Digital Research, but they were lucky (or clever) enough to sign a contract with IBM who were just introducing their new product line called PC. IBM did not expect the PC to compete with their main business model, the mainframe, and did not pay too much attention to it. To such an extent that they did not patent the technology and left it open for others to clone. We all know the result.

So we have come the full circle again. Open does win in the end. Even though Microsoft's software is closed, it ultimately owes its success to riding the wave of open hardware.

Re: Let's talk Nokia stock. Really.
 

Evidence shows that MS as a closed system dominated PC for decades. Evidence shows that iOS as a closed system makes more money than any current tech entity. It has nothing to do with open software.

Re: Let's talk Nokia stock. Really.
 

@Lumiaman

Time will tell.

@Pichlo

Yes agreed, I misstated.

Microsoft chose to act illegally once they had a sufficient foothold to dominate and I have no doubt would choose the same again if allowed to gain a similar foothold in the smartphone space, fortunately this is looking less than a likely outcome.

But this makes my earlier point that for Nokia to stay relevant they have to divorce from Microsoft and open their hardware, free for all to use fully documented and let the market use Nokia hardware to find new and innovative uses.

N900 with Maemo was almost there. if anyone doubts that look at the tenacity of this forum.

rgds

ps. Lumiaman I also prefer the resistive screen, I only have one use for a two finger gesture.

Re: Let's talk Nokia stock. Really.
 

NOKIA up to 4.15....not sure why

Re: Let's talk Nokia stock. Really.
 

Windows is a closed source OS but it isn't a 'closed system', far from it in fact. You can buy software from any source for any purpose and install it without needing Microsoft's approval. You can write your own software, in any programming language you like, that interacts with any/all of your PCs capabilities and install it on your own hardware without restriction. Your Windows PC will act as a USB host for any other device irrespective of the OS on the other device. Same with networking, same with bluetooth, etc...

Windows Phone would be a much more interesting proposition if it offered the same possibilities as Windows on a PC but it doesn't, instead Microsoft decided to mimic Apple's control freakery. That combined with a fugly UI isn't particularly enticing.

Another point to take on board is when you buy a PC it always has Windows preinstalled. Personally I wipe it and replace it with something better but a majority of users just live with what's installed on a device when they buy it. Windows dominates PCs by default not because users choose it. Microsoft don't have that luxury in smartphones and tablets.

Last quarter Samsung overtook Apple for profits on mobile phones too.

Here's a little teaser for you Lumiaman:
What do the Burj Khalifa, Taipei 101 and Petronas Towers have in common with a Galaxy S4?