I think browsing this gives you a good idea of why Nokia failed. they really thought they had it all figured out and it was now time to lay back and just try out random shit.
they would never have the same kind of focus or philosophy as Apple, nor the willpower to pivot to real smartphones and a proper OS for them
Nokia had some of the first commercially successful smart phones in the world. The Nokia 9100, 9300 and 9500 were tremendously powerful devices in terms of their capabilities, running full multitasking operating systems.
There were two things that hampered companies like Nokia going further: battery life and data.
The relationship between handset manufacturers and telcos in the 2000s was ... Complex. Telcos had an immense amount of influence over manufacturers and dictated many of the terms, from how handsets could interact with their network, through to branding and "value added services" provided through customised software. Failure to comply would mean a handset could be blacklisted from the network.
So companies like Nokia had to play the game. They couldn't run full desktop-class browsers, for example, because the carriers were worried about their networks crumbling.
Then Apple came along, and reversed the relationship. They dictated the terms and told the carriers they needed to meet their requirements to carry their handset.
Many carriers resisted. Many only agreed to carry it once all their competitors had agreed to carry it.
And the first iPhone ... wasn't great. Carrier networks initially struggled under the load. Pages loaded slowly. Battery life was abhorrent. The first iPhone didn't support apps. In most ways, the iPhone was far less sophisticated than available Nokias, Blackberries and Windows Mobile devices.
But people gravitated towards it because it was stylish. It was fluid. It was responsive. It did less than a Nokia, but it had a better user experience for the average Joe who wasn't a power user.
It sold exceptionally well, and it changed consumer expectations around what a mobile could be. Carriers added capacity in response to ever growing demands for data.
>from how handsets could interact with their network
Yes? Imagine millions of devices spamming your radio and core network to death?
>because the carriers were worried about their networks crumbling.
? The performance just want not there until 4G LTE came around. You could only push 2G and 3G so much. 2G was built for voice, data was bolt-on. Just physics. If you have another brilliant idea on how to solve that please comment.
Yes, obviously there needs to be standards and controls in place in the lower network layers to prevent degradation of the network. This continues to be true. However, carriers at the time were enforcing things like requiring handsets to use the carrier's own compressing web proxy for access to the web, or whitelisting sites that handsets could access. It was incredibly rare for a handset to have access to the "full web" to save data.
When the iPhone originally launched on 2G, it offered access to the "full web" via Safari, bypassing the carrier's proxies. Many carriers setup dedicated GPRS APNs specifically for the iPhone, which (with the exception of Blackberry), was somewhat unprecedented. The iPhone did place massive strain on networks as a consequence.
Then you had companies like Blackberry, who invested significant R&D in minimising radio traffic to play nicely with carriers - and the value of that R&D evaporated because Apple changed the rules.
Carriers were terrified of the iPhone, because it represented a fundamental shift in the dynamic. I was working for a carrier outside the US when the iPhone 3G launched. It was the first model to be available in my country, and carriers were not convinced they would even make it available. The carrier I was working for only made the decision to move forwards in supporting it four weeks before the launch date. Even with 3G (UTMS) being widely available at the time, it still proved problematic.
r_lee · · focus · HN ↗
they would never have the same kind of focus or philosophy as Apple, nor the willpower to pivot to real smartphones and a proper OS for them
publlus_enigma · · focus · HN ↗
Nokia had some of the first commercially successful smart phones in the world. The Nokia 9100, 9300 and 9500 were tremendously powerful devices in terms of their capabilities, running full multitasking operating systems.
There were two things that hampered companies like Nokia going further: battery life and data.
The relationship between handset manufacturers and telcos in the 2000s was ... Complex. Telcos had an immense amount of influence over manufacturers and dictated many of the terms, from how handsets could interact with their network, through to branding and "value added services" provided through customised software. Failure to comply would mean a handset could be blacklisted from the network.
So companies like Nokia had to play the game. They couldn't run full desktop-class browsers, for example, because the carriers were worried about their networks crumbling.
Then Apple came along, and reversed the relationship. They dictated the terms and told the carriers they needed to meet their requirements to carry their handset.
Many carriers resisted. Many only agreed to carry it once all their competitors had agreed to carry it.
And the first iPhone ... wasn't great. Carrier networks initially struggled under the load. Pages loaded slowly. Battery life was abhorrent. The first iPhone didn't support apps. In most ways, the iPhone was far less sophisticated than available Nokias, Blackberries and Windows Mobile devices.
But people gravitated towards it because it was stylish. It was fluid. It was responsive. It did less than a Nokia, but it had a better user experience for the average Joe who wasn't a power user.
It sold exceptionally well, and it changed consumer expectations around what a mobile could be. Carriers added capacity in response to ever growing demands for data.
It could have gone very differently.
Lagoon3384_SWE · · focus · HN ↗
Yes? Imagine millions of devices spamming your radio and core network to death?
>because the carriers were worried about their networks crumbling.
? The performance just want not there until 4G LTE came around. You could only push 2G and 3G so much. 2G was built for voice, data was bolt-on. Just physics. If you have another brilliant idea on how to solve that please comment.
publlus_enigma · · focus · HN ↗
When the iPhone originally launched on 2G, it offered access to the "full web" via Safari, bypassing the carrier's proxies. Many carriers setup dedicated GPRS APNs specifically for the iPhone, which (with the exception of Blackberry), was somewhat unprecedented. The iPhone did place massive strain on networks as a consequence.
Then you had companies like Blackberry, who invested significant R&D in minimising radio traffic to play nicely with carriers - and the value of that R&D evaporated because Apple changed the rules.
Carriers were terrified of the iPhone, because it represented a fundamental shift in the dynamic. I was working for a carrier outside the US when the iPhone 3G launched. It was the first model to be available in my country, and carriers were not convinced they would even make it available. The carrier I was working for only made the decision to move forwards in supporting it four weeks before the launch date. Even with 3G (UTMS) being widely available at the time, it still proved problematic.