My experience has been that ANY concern expressed by posters here (for one) is immediately and soundly rebutted--regardless of the merit. The decision has been made and nothing further, despite how poignant or relevant, will alter the destiny of the device in question.

That has been a big problem in Nokia, but Nokia leadership does not see it as a problem... just compounding the problem.

Nokia has been consistently hammered, IMO rightfully so, on its general portfolio being too broad and in some cases self-defeating. Last year this was brought up to OPK at a gathering and he reiterated the standard line that Nokia's portfolio approach is what it is (ie, lacking flexibility for markets that need it) and won't change. Sure, there can be a sharp tradeoff between making 60 or so devices to cover a broad spectrum versus 10 that are highly configurable, and yet it's been managed by other companies. Nokia is just not nimble enough and this is a reflection of its rigid (and antiquated IMO) organizational structure more than anything else.

This structure often leads to severe disconnects between Nokia product development and consumers. It also induces significant lag between identification of a segment and release of a product fitting that segment. Nokia spends much more time in the tails of novelty than the heads.

I once remarked to an unnamed fellow here that in trying to bridge the chasm between open source and commercialization, Nokia would find that customers would want even more say over product decisions than those involved in the standard we-make-it-you-just-buy-it-or-don't segment. IE, my point was that Nokia would find people here more capable of "driving the bus" than the current drivers. That remark was met with strong resistance-- but I still believe it is accurate. And the more Nokia as an entity argues and resists that reality, IMO the more share it ultimately stands to lose to companies much more willing to embrace the unconventional.

/soapbox