See now, if Nokia continues this same way... in a few years we'll be saying "The name of that strategy WAS Symbian". Also, permit me to be a little provocative. Is Nokia #1 because of what they did right or because there was really not much competition before? Is Nokia's marketshare fading because of something Nokia is doing wrong or because of what other companies are now doing right?

I think it can go both ways... most might argue it's a combination of both. However, what can't be disputed is that.. there are more players in the game than there were when Nokia enjoyed a large slice of the pie. Players with strategies that are obviously catching on. This calls for strategic thinking and planning, more than Nokia has done before.

This age calls for much evolution for Nokia. Symbian has had to evolve. It's great to see the confidence.. however, I'm having trouble believing and surrendering my confidence since I can't decipher strategy amidst many of their choices. Unfortunately in some respects Nokia looks like an old dog trying to learn new tricks. Maybe that's a bit harsh.. but uhh... the maemo history is one I'm not overly impressed with... compare Maemo's biography with that of the iPhone's or Android (especially Android). I expect more from a company that calls themselves a "technology company".

To think how Google gained footing in a market that's not their niche market is nothing short of amazing. If Google or Apple is strategic what do we call Nokia?