In 2010 the smart devices division was profitable, check NOKIA's accounts. Sales were up, volumes were up, margins were up and ASP was up. The N8 was only just released in Q4 2010 so NOKIA had achieved those figures with very mediocre devices. Iirc N8 was the first Symbian device with separate GPU (but it still had a tiny processor and stuff all RAM). Perhaps NOKIA should have tried putting Symbian on some half decent hardware consumers might actually have wanted before assuming it was the problem.

As for MeeGo, whatever issues it had it was still > 12 months ahead of Windows Phone 7.

Also let's not forget in terms of revenue Ovi was bigger than the Android Marketplace back then.



Why not be the Android vendor rather than awarding Samsung that privilege by default? Only Elop forced NOKIA to put all their eggs in one basket.

As an aside, of all the Symbian manufacturers that migrated to Android back then, how many have been consistently profitable since?


A recent survey of UK smartphone users found the number 1 desired feature was long battery life. More than half of adult smartphone users in the UK had never installed a single app.

Tech bloggers seem to imagine platforms can't sell without a huge app catalogue to rival Android but real world data seems to suggest there are other things that prevent Windows Phone getting a foothold. Maybe it's just that most consider it fugly. That UI didn't go down well on desktops either, did it?

I think Smartphone enthusiasts and even industry insiders seem to have a rather distorted view of why some platforms succeed and others don't, for a sizeable percentage of consumers it's not all about apps. Many of my own family and friends have Androids but just because they're cheap, they don't give a monkey's bugg3r about Android or apps. If they could get a Tizen phone for the same price but with better battery life and camera then that would do fine, just as long as it's not fugly.