Originally Posted by switch-hitter

No, they did not have a 'flat percentage of sales', they had 36% growth year on year, they had a respectable gross margin and their smart devices division was making healthy profits. Obsessing over market share when you have very healthy growth and a rapidly expanding market is vanity and vanity makes fools of us all.

iOS' market share is now declining against Android, I don't hear many people talking of how badly Apple are doing and how they need to abandon iOS and start again from scratch.

Originally Posted by switch-hitter

I assume you really mean the 5800 which had a 434MHz processor, 128 MB of RAM, resistive touch screen and no GPU.

I have used Android on a device with twice this spec and it was CHUFFING TORTURE.

The 5800 was great budget device of course, full of functionality, but stop pretending this was ever an iPhone competitor. Again it is a testament to Symbian you can get acceptable performance from such extraordinarily modest hardware.

Originally Posted by specc

The iPhone had a 412 MHz CPU.

Originally Posted by specc

The HTC magic a 528 MHz.

Originally Posted by gerbick

What was the market growth during that same period?

That will answer if it were a loss or flat percentage of growth.

Originally Posted by switch-hitter

Irrelevant, if you want to know if your sales have grown you compare them to your own sales of a previous period.

Originally Posted by Lumiaman

n8 was doing OK because they kept cutting prices and profits were going downwards. they knew they couldnt do this forever.....

Originally Posted by switch-hitter

Separate GPU, no multitasking, no USB, no bluetooth and all apps had to be written in Objective-C. Not only that but it pre-dated the 5800 by 15 months. Thank you, you emphasise my point, NOKIA were trying to shoehorn a smartphone OS into hardware more appropriate to the previous years feature phones.


Android SUCKS on low grade hardware, it did then and it does now.