Numbers scare people. Windows phone 8 sounds scary. Why not Windows "Portal" or Windows "Air" or simply "Air".
Microsoft just sucks at marketing and so does Nokia; which is run by an ex-Microsoft employee. I swear he went to Nokia to ruin them and put them in a position where Microsoft could acquire them.
Don't account to malice what can be accounted to incompetence. :)
If MS acquired Nokia it would sink only lower, and MS knows it, that's why they killed the deal.
I do think you're ignoring the market reality. Before elop, Nokia had a 12-15% global market share and windows had 3. As a consequence of the migration away from Symbian (the infamous burning platform memo) Nokia went from 12-15% to 3.2% in very short order, like 2 years. The lift to Windows phone? .4% market share.
In short, Nokia burning 10-12% market share to boost Windows by .4%. It's one of the worst business case studies ever: how to kill a manufacturer.
There's no way Nokia would be at 3% market share if they'd gone after the future OS after Symbian. There's no way Nokia would be at 3% if they went with Android. All of the mobile OS geeks knew Windows was doomed because in the 10+ years they've been releasing Mobile OS systems, every single one has been pure crap. Why would WindowsP8 be different?
Seriously, Nokia was a sacrificial lamb on the altar of Baller with Elop as high-priest.
Blackberry went with the "future OS" and now has cratering market share (under 3%). HTC went with Android, and had a head start over Nokia, and it too has less than 3% market share. Motorola is owned by Google and has virtually no market share.
Everyone seems to assume that Nokia would do well if only it had used another platform. Why? Most of it's competitors haven't.
Comments
Numbers scare people. Windows phone 8 sounds scary. Why not Windows "Portal" or Windows "Air" or simply "Air".
Microsoft just sucks at marketing and so does Nokia; which is run by an ex-Microsoft employee. I swear he went to Nokia to ruin them and put them in a position where Microsoft could acquire them.
Don't account to malice what can be accounted to incompetence. :) If MS acquired Nokia it would sink only lower, and MS knows it, that's why they killed the deal.
I do think you're ignoring the market reality. Before elop, Nokia had a 12-15% global market share and windows had 3. As a consequence of the migration away from Symbian (the infamous burning platform memo) Nokia went from 12-15% to 3.2% in very short order, like 2 years. The lift to Windows phone? .4% market share.
In short, Nokia burning 10-12% market share to boost Windows by .4%. It's one of the worst business case studies ever: how to kill a manufacturer.
There's no way Nokia would be at 3% market share if they'd gone after the future OS after Symbian. There's no way Nokia would be at 3% if they went with Android. All of the mobile OS geeks knew Windows was doomed because in the 10+ years they've been releasing Mobile OS systems, every single one has been pure crap. Why would WindowsP8 be different?
Seriously, Nokia was a sacrificial lamb on the altar of Baller with Elop as high-priest.
Blackberry went with the "future OS" and now has cratering market share (under 3%). HTC went with Android, and had a head start over Nokia, and it too has less than 3% market share. Motorola is owned by Google and has virtually no market share.
Everyone seems to assume that Nokia would do well if only it had used another platform. Why? Most of it's competitors haven't.