A success by what metric?

As a platform, surely not. The wheels came off by the end of 2008 when S60 5th Edition went touch-only, leaving keyboard devices still shipping with the hopelessly outdated 3rd Edition. Symbian touch devices never gained any platform traction.

Was it a success as a software foundation upon which handset makers could innovate, as had been the original idea behind Symbian? No. Everyone that used Symbian abandoned it for more flexible alternatives. The lack of a unified UI development track didn't lead to the hoped innovation, but merely fragmentation that ultimately doomed Symbian. (It didn't help that the most popular UI layer, Nokia's S60, was so poorly designed and thoroughly mismanaged.)

I actually use a Symbian^3 device, the Nokia N8. It's not bad at all. I love the physical design, and the software works fine for what I do (although the browser is a turd, it's replaceable by the fine Opera).

Still, I can't escape the feeling that this is the OS that Nokia should have had over two years ago. Also, it's a development dead end. Symbian^4 was supposed to be a UI rewrite, but it failed. The promised improvements to S^3 have been slow in coming. (Still no Qt 4.7...!)

How is Symbian a success at this point? What reason would Elop -- or anyone else -- have to believe that the existing software development structure at Nokia could substantially improve this situation?

<em>A success by what metric?</em>

how about global market share?

2008: 52.4% of smartphones (RIM 17%, Apple 10%) [1]

2009: 47.2% of smartphones (RIM 21%, Apple 15%) [1]

Android came in at 0.5% and 5% for those two years.

Gartner forecasts that Symbian will remain in the number one smartphone OS position until 2014 when it is contested by Android [2]

Sure, it's in decline now, but it's been a phenomenal success.

[1] http://www.canalys.com/pr/2010/r2010021.html

[2] http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1434613

Comparing market share of Symbian devices to iPhone or Android is like comparing market share of bicycles to market share of cars.

Symbian OS has several version. The version that ships in volume powers devices like Nokia C1-01 http://store.nokia.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/productdeta... or worse. It's not the same product as iPhone or Android or even the old Palm OS shipped on Treo.

The share of Symbian OS devices shipping a version comparable to iPhone or Android is a blip on the radar. A drop in the ocean. And a peasant among Kings.

No, that's a misunderstanding. The C1 and its ilk are not Symbian devices.

Most of Nokia's cheap phones are on the Series 40 platform, which is a closed "non-smart" OS (that has nevertheless grown some fairly smart features recently, like QWERTY keyboards and a HTML browser).

Symbian by Nokia comes in three flavours:

- Symbian^3, the latest and greatest -- e.g. the E7: http://www.forum.nokia.com/Devices/Device_specifications/E7-...

- Symbian^1, the previous touchscreen Symbian version (a.k.a. S60 5th Edition): http://www.forum.nokia.com/Devices/Device_specifications/C5-...

- Symbian S60 3rd Edition, still used on keyboard devices: http://www.forum.nokia.com/Devices/Device_specifications/E72

>by what metric?

sign of the first derivative.

I think integrating would be better, because it seems wrong to judge a products "success" only at some specific instant of time, rather than judging it over a full period of time.

The sign of the first derivative only gives you the present rate of adoption/abandonment of the platform, while integrating gives you a measure of success over the platform's entire existence.

I was just answering his question. Thank you for defining the opposing view quantitatively. I have never used a nokia phone, but certainly I would count myself a success if I had area under the curve like that.

At which point on the curve?

the window defined by his data points

> A success by what metric?

Pretty much since the time it was called EPOC. It failed to grow and support more resources, as phones became more powerful than the desktop computers of the time it was designed in, and it's no longer suited for current smartphones. It still excels on the low end, where neither Android nor WP7 reach.

yes but MS-DOS was followed up by windows 3.1 and then windows 95 both of which were a huge success. What followed up symbian was not. I think this is very sensible for them to focus on hardware while let somebody else do the software. Though I must agree their choice of MSFT is startling. I expected them to fragment Android even further. Glad that didn't happen.

I'm actually not surprised by the choice of wp7, and not simply because the new ceo is ex-MS. Going with Android would make Nokia just another Sony/Samsung/HTC, but throwing all of their eggs in the WP7 basket at least gives them a chance to maintain some relevance as a distinct entity. It's going to be rough on the hardware guys though, making every new phone with a Windows logo on it.

Why does Winphone 7 make them more distinct? It offers far fewer opportunities for distinction than Android.

Because there is such a limited range of Winpho7 handsets (and as a matter of personal opinion, I feel they're all token efforts) Nokia can step in and become "the" Windows phone handset. Microsoft needed a hardware partner that was all in with them, not diddling android on the side.

If you put out android phones, you're just another fish in a sea of commodity handsets, no matter how you differentiate your product.

> Going with Android would make Nokia just another Sony/Samsung/HTC

IIRC, Samsung, HTC and Dell are offering WP7 phones.

But they're doing it as an afterthought. They're committed to Android, and are supporting wp7 to cover their bases. Nokia's going all in, which would position them at the top of the WP7 hierarchy. If wp7 is a hit, Nokia rides the wave back to relevance, If not, well, they tried.

> would position them at the top of the WP7 hierarchy

This is a mistake many Microsoft partners make. Nobody but Microsoft is at the top of the WP7 hierarchy. If WP7 is a success, Nokia's efforts will be rewarded by lots of competition with more money (because they are already riding the other hit, Android), not relevance.