Hacker News Reader

They assumed widespread adoption of their platform was sufficient, and saw no need to innovate. What happened to Nokia is what happens to many large companies that become complacent - they gradually lose whatever stronghold they had.

One thing Nokia didn't have was a strong presence in the US marketplace. RIM had it, and still does, but Nokia never really did, despite it's general global dominance. I wonder if they did, if that would have made a difference.

View on HN

It would have mattered greatly, in Nokia's favor as it would have forced them to innovate, and if not, at least replicate in order to maintain market in the US. The problem is now, they had such a huge market share in the "non" smart phone world which is now beginning to move to the smart phone world, only to find that they are the bottom of the list now. Having a market presence amongst real competition will not only help you, but will force you to stay alive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com