Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

maybe you are right and nokia intended to scare off the customers. maybe that's why it failed, maybe it's for it was supposed to fail. don't know - but i am very interested what the factors are that scare off the customers, be it intended or not.

you say its:
- form factor
- missing mms support.(do customers even know that the n900 is not mms capable until they bought it)

that's all? what else?

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

Try to google "Gartner N900" and you'll get 68,400 results!
Slashgear reports,

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

:confused: Who said Nokia intended to scare off customers?

The form factor should clearly show we should not be comparing with iPhones. Back to Marketing Fundamentals; First (1 Segmentation) determine the kinds of customers that exist, (2 Targeting) select which ones we are best off trying to serve and, finally, (3 Positioning) implement our segmentation by optimizing our products/services for that segment and communicating that we have made the choice to distinguish ourselves that way.

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

From whoever paid them to do the research.;)

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

I think there was kind of a disclaimer in the article...

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

I was kidding before, though it's true for some cases, anyway. My apology.

What you quoted is exactly where the controversial is.

Gartner did not state clearly in their disclaimer what exactly the statistics for operating systems are. It's impossible to count the licenses sold, as you may know Maemo has no licensing term of royalty as in Symbian.

Some guess that they use no. of unique IP that were accessing to the repositories. Again very little evident has shown that Gartner requested the Nokia to give the actual figure accessing their repositories, and Nokia obviously would not compile in giving such statistics.

So what exactly is the statistics and where do they come from? I personally think it's out of thin air as usual. Just in my personal opinion anyway.

I wondered if the predicted sales figures would be favourite to Nokia if they've not been cooperating with any business analyst in disclosing sales figure in the first place.

Anyway, I personally don't mind if N900 was sold less 10K in the first 5 months; if it's really the case, I'd even feel rather privileged in having a N900. :D

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

to be honest: when i bought the phone i thought, well thats a start for a linux phone. maybe some tweaks and it could be a showcase for a linux phone.
it took me few hours - at most a week to be sure: not possible. easier to replace the whole thing than to put it straight. now again replacing the whole thing is a problem for some closed cruft.
both together prevent from my point of view the phone from using it as a flagship that shows what a linux phone is capable of.

maybe i am not the smartest but if i look around it seems that no other was smart enough to do the trick. no matter if nitroid, debian, ubuntu, shr or whatever you take: nobody was able to get the thing up and running smoothly. so who can?

only now that it is almost outdated we get slowly the necessary stuff. and no surprise, as soon as the cruft is opened a little, everywhere something gets done: shr came out yesterday or was it 2 days ago? nitroid got it mostly running. ubuntu's phone stack supports n900(but the rest ...) and so on. and why is this? why not in the first place put the stuff in the open? and sure we can see the effect: now things start to work. and it will be for the benefit of maemo as well as will potentially get improved stuff for the device from upstream - unfortunately a little late and still obstacles to overcome.

like i said: maybe i am not the smartest. but nobody? i love to hear the experience of others. but i feel i cannot recommend the device to a casual user if i /and all the others/ have a hard time to really get it going.

and with some comments i get the impression of a "its a feature not bug" attitude i am confronted with.

i got the impression that it is easier to replace maemo than to fix it. nokia got that impression. was it maemos fault: i don't know. you tell me. but i have a felling that meego did a huge step in the right direction(thats the big movement we see out of a sudden) but doubt that it was big enough. and that step was not qt.

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

Theoretically, Gartner might have used data from retailers (how many N900/Blackberry/iPhone they sold) and use this proportion, along with known figures for some devices from manufacturers.

I have an N900 which came from country A (from Nokia retailer here?) through country B (middle-stop) to country C (the end user; the device brand new). The path took more than a year (warranty expired). It would be interesting to know how Gartner and Nokia counted it, to what year and country they attributed it.
Though it cannot explain all the discrepancies in data, of course...

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

I hope they're not getting their data from Google: http://www.google.com/insights/searc...%20N900&cmpt=q
:D:D:D

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

When Maemo came out on AU, it was the only phone I saw to be worth buying. I don't know the statistics but there is a possibility that the phone didn't do as well here. The main reason being it not supporting some mode making it only usable with certain company plans. But well, I still got it. Had to come back 4 weeks in a row because they kept running out of n900s each week within a short period of time of stocking. I even had to break my existing contract and pay fines to switch companies. As it looked to me, this phone had a lot more potential than most others on the market.

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

the only reason i see for the n900 not being where other models of its time were in terms of sales figures: you cant lock it down. providers cant sell it at "€ 0,-" and prevent you from using a different sim card. phones are sold by providers. it never really matters what consumers think as long as they're not offered the phone by the provider. nokia intentionally did not include such "features". they will come with harmattan. this is why harmattan is the consumer-ready version. user interface, size, features etc are factors, but aren't as important as carrier support.

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

I might be wrong, but the phone app in maemo is still close-source, and it's possible for Nokia to lock the sim for particular provider for more profit, like Apple does with iPhone in some regions. Nokia just choose not to do so.

I know a lot of people here would have knee-jerk reaction against any pro-Nokia comment, but imho, comparing to Apple, Nokia give more freedom to their customers even before N900.

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

I personally think that to answer the topic question we must answer this: will meego work flawlessly on N900?
Until we can say a definite NO the topic´s question cant be answered.
I throw some other questions because of this: When will be a complete ended Meego version released? I mean at least as ended and polished as Maemo 1.3 (cough cough).
And, will Meego be far more powerful and not-bugged than Maemo 5?

I´m really waiting for serious and reliable answers, not especulations.

Thanks to all of you.

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

whaaaat? seems a lot companies do what you say is impossible. sure: you do get the phone like others together with a contract for "free" or with some amount "paid back" if you choose the n900 together with a contract.

who says you have to lock it down? that's nonsense really! it's actually the opposite way round: the iphone as a locked down phone is limited to few companies. for that you can only get it with contracts of a limited number of providers. the n900 you get free with a contract of most major tecos.

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

who says they have to lock it down? their spreadsheets usually. When they give you a phone for free, they have to make sure that you will return the favour: you'll have to pay the price of the phone itself plus the price of the actual voice/data service over the next 24 or 36 months. depending on the calculations and the kind of contract you have, monthly fees may not be enough to cover all of this. telcos need to make sure you actually use their services for voice calls and data; they need to prevent you from using another sim card with the phone they gave you for free. that's why they lock it. (it's obvious though, isn't it? i mean... they do lock phones. they wouldn't if it wasn't necessary.)

so i get all phones that are locked for € 0,-: iphone, various androids, C7... but the N900 (when it was still available on contract, it isn't any more) was € 250,-. why? because the phone couldn't guarantee i wouldn't switch to a cheaper sim-card afterwards, paying only my monthly fees but generating profit for another carrier with each phone call. and the monthly fees alone aren't enough to give away a €500 phone for free.

so that's why it needs to have sim-lock capabilities to be attractive to carriers. they need that to include it into their pricing schemes. otherwise, there wouldn't be sim-locks in the first place, right?

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

]all major companies do give you the n900 at least for free together with a contract. go to your next cellphone shop and choose the provider and get the n900 for $0 or €0 or whatever currency you have. all you say is plainly wrong.

EDIT: for most its not 0 but some amount they pay you. if you choose the n900.

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

i don't need to "go there". i work at a place where the deals are made. cheapest N900 on contract was €250,- - and only few people ever chose this contract because of the high monthly costs of almost €50,- IIRC. at the same time, all competitors were € 0,- with contracts in the usual price range between €10,- and €30,- per month. So consumers had the tough choice between a free phone and €10/month and a €250-phone and €50/month. ...

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

maybe you should go somewhere else ...
others don't have your problems.

EDIT: i would certainly not recommend your shop ...
...

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

nokia failed on the consumer market because the device doesn't act like a user friendly device and didn't gain enough good reviews on the web, for it's original price it's hard to beat apple and high end handset of android, it's just not competetive at all. if you are a tech buff person you'll know that specs is one of the best and Yes very competetive but how about the average users? nokia should next time sugar-coat their products to gain more sales. for most people ... they say the device is quite complicated and hard to use.

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

That's why we have this nice and wonderful forum :D

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

Such a lame thread.

First of all, N900 did actually succeed pretty well in regards to their target audience: geeks and hardware enthusiasts.

Secondly, general populace was never the target audience and as such it was never optimized or designed with such audience in mind. Thus it's fairly obvious it would fail to appease to them.

Third, it was made clear from the get-go that N900 is more of an intermediary step and thus it would lack several features. The plan was to learn from N900 and whatever the community comes up with and use that experience in the making of a device actually aimed for more general usecases.

It's really simple and there is absolutely no point in even arguing about it. It wasn't aimed for Joe Sixpacks and thus Joe Sixpacks weren't really interested in it, and that's good IMHO. There's plenty of phones to suit such users, and while such phones may be inferior in our eyes the whole point of a phone is to suit its owner's needs, not to please all the rest.

EDIT: Fixed typo.

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

from where i come from, the n900 was not advertised as a geek phone at all. commercials on tv were showing shooting pics at a club party as if it was the next big thing in pop culture. lol

next time i won't believe tv ads anymore. heh

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

You could shoot pics anywhere with the N900. Check out really nice collection here http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php...=show+pictures

TV ads just try to sell a feature. If shooting pics at a club party is what most consumers expect to use a phone, then the TV ads just focus on that. 15 sec of airtime is NOT enough to sell all the N900 features and ways to use it! :cool:

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

Well I'm not sure what you expect in clubbing, I'm not there to dance or listen to music. In my experience the N900 is the best pickup tag to start with. You don't look like an idiot carrying a N900 around (unless, of course you hang it up your neck like a cattle on bell). You just can't get the same effect with an iPhone. My friend tried to pickup a girl with his iPhone knowledge and turned out she taught him back how to expert an iPhone. That's the most awkward situation he ever experienced in his whole life.

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

Haha :D Good for her! \o/ It's similar to how my ex-boyfriend used to get both really annoyed and really embarrassed every time I lectured him about electronics or computers ^^

Men, and your lame pick-up attempts.. :P

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

Never even saw an add for it in the US, ever. It was mentioned as a Zaurus alternative on OESF forums and so I took a look at it and fell in love.

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

Why? Doesn't the contract already provide enough safeguards for the operator? By signing the contract you have already committed to paying for cost of the phone and service for the term of the contract. Why the hell should they care if you choose to use different sim card?

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

I already explained that in detail, so I don't think repeating it would do any good. But again: The fixed monthly fees usually just aren't enough to make the whole deal profitable for the carrier. With most contracts the average monthly bill is a lot higher than the fixed costs. If a consumer who pays, say, €50-€70 per months could simply change his sim card, they'd be left with a monthly bill of €20 and another carrier would earn the remaining €30-€50.

Again, I don't see why we're even discussing this. Free phones are locked phones. Locking the phone is an additional step in the chain that costs money and that carriers would gladly avoid if they could.

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

[offtopic rant]
Srsly. Here in Finland selling phone as contract has been possible since 2006. It was forbidden because some consumer laws about locked phone number. I have to say that it might be the most stupidest thing ever. At least I and probably most of people who I know think that people who "rent" or buy phones with part payment are people who should not buy phones. If you do not have money now then why on earth you should let someone suck your blood slowly. It´s not too much money and if it´s too much then probably you have problems somewhere else and should not be even thinking buying smartphone.

Free? That pretty much reveals on what level person is when he/she is talking about contracts. Whenever I hear that word the maniacal laugher starts inside my head.

.edit
Hmmm maybe it was so that selling sim locked phones was forbidden and that is why we didn´t have same kind of contracts that e.g. UK operators have/had.

http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/htimes/d...ales-ban-.html

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

my BS detector got wild when reading this.

not doing things like iPhone does is bad usability?

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

Food for thought:

Which product, in this super-fast changing segment of mobile communication isn't an 'intermediary step'?

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

i dont know where u live , but here in greece no provider offered the N900 , it wasnt even on thier lists .
the n900 WASNT advertized , WASNT on shops ( at least the first 2-3 mounths ) the only way to get it was/is nokia stores and they even got it in limited numbers .
the only advert i ever saw was the one on utube . i learned bout the phone from this forum , and i fell in love with it , i had to preorder one from a nokia shop , and got it 3 days after it was released ( they had 10 n900 available for sale ) .


ps : " free" phones from providers are not so " free " , how can it be free when u make a 24 - 36 mounth contract ( thats 2 - 3 years ) with a provider and pay mounthly fees !!!
just to give an idea , i have pre paid card ( from wind ) i have 1500 min talk time 1500 sms ( for wind same provider usage ) and 1.5GB data per mounth FOR FREE , i never paid 1 sent ( well i bought the sim for 5 $ ) , THATS FREE , not 20-50 $ contract per mounth + call + data .

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

Huh? If a customer can simply walk out of a contract then it's not a contract, or the operator isn't doing enough to enforce it? All contracts for "free" phones that I've seen work something like this:

Now tell me again why should the operator care what sim you use in the phone?

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

u are right , but the thing is that not all countries have same laws . so different countries different operators = differrent contracts .
where i live there are no 24-36 mounth contracts , u only make a 1 year contract .
so most of the ops give u choises like get the phone with 250$ and a 12 mounth contract of 25$/mounth , or get it free and a contract of 70-80/ mounth .
now if u get a 24 or 36 mouth contract for 10$ lets say the op get 1/2 the device price so they see to get the money from ur usage of thier network .

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

my point was there wasn't any trace of xterm usage and any other geeky functionality on the ad like modding. and for some normal people like me, we actually rely on ads for a lasting impression.

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

You don't "walk out" of the contract. You continue paying €20/month or whatever it is until the contract ends. But because you use a different SIM-card, everything you pay on top of these €20,- (which is usually more than half of the monthly bill) you pay to a different carrier (who may have introduced better prices for your needs after you signed the original contract).

I really don't see what's so hard to understand here.

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

u should always do a little search on something b4 u buy it ..
no company on earth focoses on their products " weak points " they always try to show/ advert the " high lights " of a product , u should look for an intensive review/preview of the product b4 the purchase.

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

Well Shockgiga, I had to pay MYR 1,600 for my N900 (the prices here are d@mn stupid). That's like USD 500 or 266 Big Macs. So normally I would do more purchase research rather than just rely on ads.

FYI, I was using the E65 which broke and I was comparing the N900 with N97 mini, E72 (or iPhone) less geeky devices. Even the Nokia sales tried to persuade me to get the N97 mini, but I just felt the N900 was better. I'm glad I made the choice!

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

yeah. will surely do that next time.

Re: Why N900 failed on consumer market ?
 

thing is. i didnt mind spending 550usd thinking that it would bring me the same satisfaction like what my past Nseries handhelds gave me.
now im just sad that im stuck with this one for a long time coz it will deppreciate a lot if i sell it and i'll end up adding another $200 at the least to change handsets.