the60sproject says: I think your Nokia post—particularly the theverge re-blog part—ignores the real thrust of this story as it focuses on the end of the "Nokia smartphone." While the company is certainly an iconic name in the mobile universe, Nokia's problems stem from the fact that it (like RIM) never really evolved into the smartphone era. In fact, almost all the phones shown in your post are simple old-style cellphones, not smartphones. How the un-innovative Microsoft will get a win from this is beyond me.
» SFB says: One thing worth keeping in mind is that a “smartphone” in 2001 isn’t the same as a smartphone in 2013. For one thing, I don’t think
RIM BlackBerry was anything other than a smartphone company. Meanwhile, Nokia’s use of Symbian software, while hopelessly outdated now, was foundational in building out the space worldwide—they got the fundamentals down so everyone else could focus on next steps. Even if the company itself merely created the template that other companies followed, they proved it could happen. I think that both companies failed to adapt to the touchscreen era, but the fact that we equate touchscreen with smartphone these days only proves how far iconic companies like RIM BlackBerry and Nokia have fallen behind.
But that said, in regards to your point on Microsoft, check out what Farhad Manjoo wrote today—he suggests the move is an implicit admission that the OEM model doesn’t work for the company anymore. That’s a big deal. — Ernie @ SFB