Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

the n900 is the only electronically device, that i bought 2 times just to be sure that if it will disappear from the market one day, i still have another one.

the fact that nokia didnt advertise it probably, is one big part of "why it failed" in your eyes. in my opinion, it was more like a test device and its much more than any other phone so people didnt want it maybe. also it had some problems at the beginning and not everybody likes the landscape view all the time. (i actually didnt like it as well at the first time)

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

Android is linux. It was done before Nokia did the N900. Nokia were copying to try and grab market %

I think the issue is, if it failed then support dries up and Nokia move on. Like anything that doesn't sell you ignore it and move on.

Vista died because of IBM not buying into it, when the worlds largest company says no you need to think why. Other large scale business' followed suit. There was device driver issues from all sectors because it didn't have the hardware tech checks prior to launch (MS announced this after launch), lack of MS understanding of the market, the hardware requirements being a big step up and too big for most people (even law suits in california because MS lied). Nothing to do with end users hating it as well. Even a MS director refused to upgrade his company laptop to Vista, his email explaining this was leaked.

Windows 7 is actually windows 6.1, (If you look at the source code) so it really is Vista with add ons. Most of those add ons were nicked from Linux (snap is from mandriva 2008 etc) And people accepted it because hardware cycles across the globe skipped Vista, so large scale business's were left with a choice, stay on XP and have MS cut support, continue the buggy and crap Vista or make the upgrade.

I am interested though, Maemo is 2 steps ahead???

It is a basic linux distro on a phone. It is the same as Android but you can jail break it and use it, something Google locked down to reduce the amount of messing that goes on inside. The kernel is the same as every other linux kernel, it is still just Linux and that puts it right back to the same basic logic as Android (upto 2.1 when they split off the kernel tree), Ubuntu, mandriva etc. What Nokia did was code it to a small black box, nothing more, and they didn't do that very well. Android is in version 2.2 now and still only Android. Maemo is on version 1.3 and now there is Meego 1.1. Google stuck it out and worked well to get it out there, even with their decision to split from the linux tree (which might be reversed.)Nokia failed at the first hurdle because the N900 did pants in the markets and then changed their minds to try another linux distro.

It isn't two steps, it is another direction from the same starting point.

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

because vista sucked hard compared to 7.

not that maemo5 sucks, but maybe meego is going to be what maemo5 tried to.

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

I don't think you quite understand what Nokia are trying to do with Meego/symbian now.

The big focus is on Qt! By using Qt what they have basically done is make it easier to port applications from symbian to meego and vice versa but ALSO port applications from Linux apps using Qt to Meego/symbian.

So you may think that Nokia are behind the game - but in actual fact the will be far ahead of the game in around 1-2 years time.

You just have to look at the number of (useful) apps in repos to understand the power of the N900 and the direction Nokia is headed!

Just a few days ago I received an email with a docx attachment on my phone - if I had an android/iphone I would be screwed - but my N900 has open office 3, so I just fired it up and was able to view it!

(After extracting it using xarchiver!).

That kind of power is not available with ANY phone! So you can say the N900 was a failure - but I don't see that!

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

it wasn't meant to consumer market in the first place. satisfied?

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

o'rly?

http://telecomblog.lv/wp-content/upl...okia-770-3.jpg

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

I really am glad that I have a N900. But then I have almost 20 years Linux experience and I was able to fit the N900 to my tastes.

The problem with the N900 is that out of the box it is a load of crap. Email client, Calendar, syncing, contacts and todo's are horrible. If Nokia had taken the trouble to ship decent applications with the N900, things may well have been different. And they have themselves to blame, because there are many excellent Open Source solutions for all those services, that they could have adapted without too much difficulties.

My experience with large corporations like Nokia is, that bad decisions generally do not 'just happen'. Someone, somewhere earns a lot of money.

Paai

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

It's the marketing!

iPhone and Androids are pushed out in the consumer market with strong marketing hype. Not many people know about the N900 because there's little/no marketing activity (compared with what Apple did for iPhone). Or at least in Nokia's perspective (justification), the N900 was meant for niche market.

Remember what Sony Ericsson did for one of it's model with James Bond (I can't recall which was it)? The only place people will hear about the N900 is from this forum.

Marketing strategy! That's how you effectively sell your products :cool:

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

sorry but this is complete nonesense. maemo has turned everything upside down, and for the kernel: no, it is really not standard linux kernel. it differs significantly or why do you think is it still a 2.6.28 derivative? we are heading towards a 2.6.37.

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

i think, problem, that the n900 wasn't promoted (in germany)
there were no ads like for the other phones.
and there was a long time, when tho n900 could only be bought in online shops.