Think about it: it would have the openness and stability of Linux with the single hardware configuration and quality of the iPhone, total win-win.
Now they are going to android as the cheap option which means only crappy hardware that only "looks" like a lumia.
Had Nokia gone the other way it would be in an even better position than Samsung Mobile is in now, mostly thanks to it's vastly superior software resources.
Then again the exact same thing could be said about RIM.
In fact, N9s still retail for pretty high amounts despite being unsupported and outdated hardware.
I think they could have kept working on it on the side, and released a phone every 1-2 years. Even with the minimal size MeeGo team at Nokia, they released 3 major updates.
So do Neo-Geos. Nobody cares how high you can price products that'll only be purchased by a few fanboys.
Elop played the game straight forward. Forking is a half baked option and when you are leveraging your company, forking is not an option. You need full scale OS support and that means, Nokia could have either gone with MS or Google. Google apparently refused to make space for Nokia's competing service suite (Read-Business Week) and as such, the option was only MS. I know the hate is strong for MS in this community but it's way too illogical to think one man alone could have played his tactics and strategies to influence Nokia to switch to a MS OS for his career progression.
Meego was ruled out as an option as well. A tech-pretty thing may not always work out. WebOS taught us that lesson. So conspiracy theories are pretty meaningless.
Second, opennes. The Linux kernel is open, but most of Android is not (and with each Android release this gets worse). Forking would mean rewriting all the closed parts. A lot of Google Play apps don't even work on the Kindle Fire because of the closed parts being different. The only reason forking worked for Amazon in the first place, was that they were selling based on their already existing Kindle ecosystem, not based on Android, Android was just the enabler.
Shifting gears to Android that late in the game would not have suddenly allowed Nokia to catch up to Samsung. Samsung had been organising themselves for years to reap the advantages that come with Android. They didn't just release an Android phone and become an industry leader overnight.
I still think Windows Phone was the better option for Nokia given how immature Maemo/Meego still was (which was primarily Nokia's fault for not anticipating the market and not prioritising it higher). At the end of the day, even a smart decision won't help you if you make it too late.
Nokia's only hope was to make their phones non-fungible with Android phones, and get access to Microsoft's capital stash. If that doesn't play out, they're in the same boat as RIM, HTC, etc.
If Nokia had "stayed the course", they probably would have suffered a similar fate of RIM (though having the lower end market share/phones to help them limp along a bit longer...)
The alternative was being another Android manufacturer when HTC & Samsung were leaders in that area, and it looked like Google might take the oxygen out with the Nexus line and Motorola. (not sure whether those all line up perfectly chronologically, but none of them are critical to the point of Nokia not wanting to be "another Android manufacturer")
Is this close enough?
I lol'd
I would bet they know at least 5 OEMs in China who would like a similar product.
>What is Windows Phone lacking? Apps.
Elop must be very pissed with the Nadella thing...
I think it's fair to say that the only handset makers profiting off of Android today are...Samsung...and...that's about it really. Meager pickings for the rest of them.
I don't see this succeeding at all. And in any case it's dead in the water once the Microsoft deal goes through because it just muddies the waters. A person that buys one of these cheap Nokia/Android phones would reasonably expect that "upgrading" to Nokias "premium" Lumia handsets will mean his apps/features carry over too.
Oops.
So I don't think that argument holds much water - if Nokia made an Android phone that people wanted, they could very easily charge a premium (Sony does after all, but they just barely break even on massive staffing costs) and potentially make profits too.
I have to wonder about that statement, because WP created a smaller memory requirement version that was supposed to be run on lesser hardware phones.
From my perspective, this is a very good move by Nokia. Good hardware and nice software polish will make for nice phones. Don't forget, Nokia knows how to bring the phone at a good price point. They will actually put quite a bit of pressure on Samsung and Google. This is why Lenovo will take over Motorola. Lenovo also has solid hardware chops.
It will be very interesting and good for consumers.
Due to anti-trust law, Microsoft can't have any influence over decisions Nokia makes before the acquisition[1]. Even if Microsoft hated the idea of Nokia building and Android phone (likely) it could do nothing about it. And, even more importantly, Nokia could NOT change its plans even if Microsoft wanted them to.
[1] http://hal2020.com/2013/10/16/how-much-influence-is-microsof...
which is a huge let down. it will be yet another candy bar phone.
if you had hopes of a n900 successor as well, it may be the time to give up already :(
Quite to the contrary. Nokia has been making some of the best smartphone hardware for a while now - I considered switching to WP just so that I could use the 1520 (or whatever the one with the great camera was). I didn't in the end - if it supported Android I wouldn't hesitate.
Unfortunately, this sounds like something quite different.
It may have started before Microsoft bought them, but it looks like it's not the complete truth to say 'This isn't Microsoft.' It's a little bit Microsoft, at least.
Possible WSJ link that works: http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304...
We actually do need a third choice.