Live data from Hacker News

Nokia CEO: Nokia is "standing on a burning platform"

engadget.com

201–208 of 208 posts

Re: Nokia CEO: Nokia is "standing on a burning platform"

#201

I worked for Sony Ericsson when the iPhone was revealed. My job was to translate the thousands of pages of operator requirements that came in (within my technology area: Java) to a technical roadmap for the coming 2-5 years. So I have a fairly good picture of how the market for mobile phones work wrt to the interplay between operators and manufacturers. It's hard to grasp just how revolutionary the iPhone was. There…

Apple releases iPhone, from the well-thats-not-very-exciting dept.

...

No 3G, no MMS, no video calling, shitty camera & bluetooth. Lame.

Re: Nokia CEO: Nokia is "standing on a burning platform"

#202
Not really impressed, yet. And here is why:

Zero points for coming out: Mr Elop was brought in by the board exactly with the goal of rescuing Nokia in mind. Looking from that angle the memo is a bit overdue.

Zero points for opening the letter with a metaphor - this is the way someone steering a major technologic corporation is expected to convey the direction - by projecting a vision.

Negative ten points for picking wrong metaphor. It broke down immediately. See for yourself: should Mr Elop's best employees take his advice literally and jump the burning platform? Followed with a change in behaviour meaning never again joining a severely fragmented bureaucracy ridden company? What was the lesson learned by the oil rig worker? What could he have done differently in the situation when he woke up on a burning platform in a middle of a sea?

I’d award one point for openly enumerating the challenges. But these are the symptoms of Nokia demise, he hasn't dug deep enough, the list is known at this point to every man and his dog.

Negative ten for the actual lack of a credible vision at this point. Let’s wait till the strategy comes out.

Re: Nokia CEO: Nokia is "standing on a burning platform"

#203
post #199
post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which technical point of view? From an enterprise standpoint, where it's on par with the iPhone and behind Blackberry, or an API standpoint, where CocoaTouch has about 30 years of development lead-time?

How the point of being far older makes it technically superior is far beyond me. You wouldn't say Symbian is the best mobile OS out there because it's one of the oldest, would you? Also, afaik CocoaTouch has been developed for iphone/ipod and thus can't be 30 years old. Anyway, features i find pretty neat are: - The concept of Activities - The concept of Intents and their connection to activities - real multitasking…

I’ll have to research Activities and Intents. It sounds counter to the app model on iOS, which—arguably—is bad for technical users. However, I consider the the fact that the UX enables my parents to use an app out of box, and not have to enable a DLL for some certain functionality. Either/or is sometimes an important part of UX.

I’m not sure why you like XML so much, is it that you can write an interface programmatically? While it’s true that a nib is nothing more than a writeout of a view’s object graph, it features a higher-level mode of internationalization (nib-level) meaning that interfaces don’t have to be shoe-horned into text fields. Besides, it’s always possible to create a blank view that’s drawn into.

However, Dalvik’s JIT is more a ripped feature of the JVM (hah), and Apple has worked against implementing similar, their memory management techniques are still mainly reference counting.

And the open source thing? Apple’s core OS is OSS as well, Google’s strategy is the same: open source the fundamentals, leave the important bits proprietary. Apple’s children are UX and native apps, Google’s is online apps, which is why the Open Source tide line is a bit lower on iOS: Google couldn’t care less about churn and boring, long-range updates, as long as they get the users doing web stuff. Both Google and Apple both protect what’s important to their business interests.

Re: Nokia CEO: Nokia is "standing on a burning platform"

#204
post #188
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nokia already produces some of the best phone hardware there is. If they got Android onto it, I'd upgrade in a heartbeat. They also know how to differentiate without creating fragmentation. Most Android products suffer because of fragmentation - different OS versions, different hardware, etc. Nokia should know to create a core platform or 2 (standard screen size, hopefully upgrade support), and then make money on mar…

Nokia could create a fairly vanilla Android phone with Ubuntu style LTS (long-term support) for upcoming Android releases. Buying one of these Nokiandroids, you could be sure to be able to run Android 5.0 in 2014 before the support dies out. Nokia was synonymous with quality ten years ago and while nowadays anyone can order a truckload of tegra2's and whip up a new Android model out of them, the end-user quality suck…

Exactly. 10 years ago, anyone could make a dumbphone. They all just made phone calls, and sent texts, kept memos, and had some terrible Java game system. Nokia came to the top because they offered quality dumbphones, not because they offered a completely different experience.

Now there's iPhones (which Nokia can't really do anything about), and Android phones (which Nokia can do better than anyone, if they really try), Windows Mobile (maybe) and burning platforms like Symbian (despite Qt rocking, or so I'm told).

Re: Nokia CEO: Nokia is "standing on a burning platform"

#205
post #203
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How the point of being far older makes it technically superior is far beyond me. You wouldn't say Symbian is the best mobile OS out there because it's one of the oldest, would you? Also, afaik CocoaTouch has been developed for iphone/ipod and thus can't be 30 years old. Anyway, features i find pretty neat are: - The concept of Activities - The concept of Intents and their connection to activities - real multitasking…

I’ll have to research Activities and Intents. It sounds counter to the app model on iOS, which—arguably—is bad for technical users. However, I consider the the fact that the UX enables my parents to use an app out of box, and not have to enable a DLL for some certain functionality. Either/or is sometimes an important part of UX. I’m not sure why you like XML so much, is it that you can write an interface programmatic…

I didn't mean to start the whole apple vs google debate here..

But let me tell what i find so nice about activities and intents by example of a simple usecase. I am browsing in my RSS reader and find a good article. Now if i want to share this article, i usually have a "share" option which sends the intent to the OS. Depending on the registered applications it let's me send this article via mail or twitter or sms or even bluetooth (or really whatever app supports this intent). After deciding i want to send this as mail to a friend the mail activity opens up, let's me send it and seamlessly send me back to right where i was (reading the article). This is integrated throughout the whole OS.

Now, if i am reading some rss article in Pulse on my iPad, i have two options: Use the facebooks-share button of Pulse. Ok, but if i want to mail it or the app doesn't offer that at all? I'll have to copy the URL, close pulse, open the mail app, write the mail, close the mail app, open up pulse again.

Another example is: Google places offers me a restaurant i want to visit. Now depending on the apps i have installed i can use google maps, some other navigation software or the public transport app i have to show me the way to get there. It makes the user experience quite seamless, despite the applications not "knowing" of each other. I don't have to write down the adress, open up some other app, enter the adress again.

It's also the way to replace core functionalities of the UI. Want another home application? When pressing the home button on the device it's firing an intent and this can be handled by some home app of your choice. Same for the search button.

The nice thing about intents is that it's very flexible. Depending on the apps i have installed it offers me interaction between those apps.

About JIT: If you want to believe Wikipedia, JIT is no JVM originated feature but was invented somewhere in the 60s. I find it quite hard to imagine how the Dalvik JIT could be a real rip-off of the JVM JIT, as those are based on quite different architectures. The only thing in common is that they both use the same syntax.

About Open Source: I may be corrected here but it's perfectly possible to have a working phone by taking the sourcecode from android. It will have a running kernel, a working UI, i can install apps and live with it. What would be missing would be gmail or the android market. But there are other markets and other mail applications. Could you please point me to where i can find a compilable open source version of iOS?

Re: Nokia CEO: Nokia is "standing on a burning platform"

#207
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android on Nokia hardware is an appealing idea, but given Stephen Elop's Microsoft background I wonder if they won't shift to WP7. Or both.

I see two things to make me hope they might not go with WP7. The first is the ecosystem: he correctly points out that the ecosystem is what they're lacking; but WP7 doesn't yet have one to offer. The second is that MS apparently exercises strong control over the design of WP7 phones, which would leave Nokia little room to distinguish themselves. An Android-based Nokia could come with improvements in the phone feature…

>The second is that MS apparently exercises strong control over the design of WP7 phones,

This is where I went wrong; Elop was able to negotiate an exemption for Nokia.

Re: Nokia CEO: Nokia is "standing on a burning platform"

#208
post #49

Ignoring the problems with WP7, if Nokia were to produce phones with other 'external' OSes why would they stick with just one? No one criticizes Samsung and they are pretty much a mobile-OS whore: SHP, Bada, WP7, Symbian (albeit a year or so ago), Android, Limo, etc. N.B. Regarding SHP: I can't remember the name properly but this was the old/existing Samsung feature phone platform, it probably has got rolled into Bad…

> No one criticizes Samsung Except me, maybe. I don't know anyone who's been satisfied with a Samsung device. I certainly wasn't with mine.

I'm thrilled with my Wave and the Bada OS.
Post reply on HN