Hacker News Reader

Comment by plq | Hacker News Reader

Here's my dream scenario: Nokia offers the same hardware with two different OS selections and also has Qt working on both Meego and WP platforms.

This would obviously be a win-win situation for both the developer and the user. But this would be beneficial for Nokia as well, because:

1) It'd provide Nokia with hard data based on sales and user feedback on which platform performs better in real-world scenarios. Currently, the decision to drop Meego for WP platform is mostly based on "hopes and promises".

2) Having both platforms compete on even terms would also improve the overall Nokia experience on both platforms as this open and fair competition would motivate both the Microsoft and the Meego teams to do better.

So, why this wouldn't happen?

View on HN

(disclaimer: Nokia employee)

On the one hand, maintaining two OS teams for the same hardware would be a waste of resources. On the other hand, I have heard stories of how Microsoft would often commit several teams to build a product to the same spec: the team that got something market-ready first was handsomely rewarded, and the teams that didn’t got reassigned to wash Bill Gates’s car. On the other other hand, Microsoft (alas) has more cash to burn on this kind of adventure than Nokia does.

Nokia’s pre-Elop strategy was to encourage app developers to use Qt, which could be compiled to run on either Symbian or Meego, and then the company could gracefully phase out Symbian in favor of Meego. I work on back-end stuff rather than on apps, so I don’t know how well this could have worked in practice, but I did observe that when my company phone was a (Maemo) N900, the Ovi Maps client for Maemo was several revisions behind the client for Symbian.

I have heard stories of how Microsoft would often commit several teams to build a product to the same spec: the team that got something market-ready first was handsomely rewarded...

This is how large companies should run projects. Bureaucracies often suck because they have a captive audience -- because they have no competition. Development teams can suck for exactly the same reasons.

In comparison to the potential impact of bad software in a large company, the cost of 1 or 2 extra development teams is chump change. I remember being in line at the airport to pick up a rental car, thinking, "The software this rental car company uses is clearly very bad. They won't be in business for much longer." I noticed a few years ago, that they were bought. Actually, I just looked it up and they were delisted in 2002.

As a counterpoint, there are innumerable software projects that would better our world and create wealth, but only a limited number of developers. Assigning two teams to do nearly the same thing is a waste.

Yes, but those are very different contexts -- mine was the big corporation with tons of cash on hand, with in-house development projects that could facilitate activities generating 100's of millions of billions of dollars. Going the extra mile to ensure the organization has access to the best of several options has a definite payoff.

> On the other hand, I have heard stories of how Microsoft would often commit several teams to build a product to the same spec: the team that got something market-ready first was handsomely rewarded, and the teams that didn’t got reassigned to wash Bill Gates’s car.

Apple did this for iPhone; two teams, the leader of one became a senior vice president, the leader of the other makes thermostats.

This story is not proven. There exists counter evidence from the thermostats guy himself.

Disclaimer: I have never owned a handset from a maker other than Nokia :) I just want you guys back to the smartphone game.

> On the one hand, maintaining two OS teams for the same hardware would be a waste of resources.

Nokia will have to make a very serious platform decision in the not-so-distant feature. If resources spent on developing both will place that decision on sound arguments, I say it could be worth it. The tech scene is not (yet) persuaded that Meego is a dead end and a re-invented, unproven Windows Phone platform is the last chance to save Nokia.

The tech scene is not (yet) persuaded that Meego is a dead end

Perhaps the tech scene isn't, but everyone else is. Aside from anyone else, phone operators really aren't going to be interested in stocking Meego handsets because no-one wants them or even knows what Meego is.

That's apparently wrong:

http://nokiagadgets.com/2011/10/20/n9-broke-pre-order-record...

in Russia, where it broke the countries record for pre-orders

What was the previous record? For all I know it could be 10.

the phone was sold out by the end of the N9 launch in Russia’s Nokia flagship Store

So it sold out in the main flagship store? That's not really saying a lot. We also don't know how much stock they got in.

>"Currently, the decision to drop Meego for WP platform is mostly based on "hopes and promises"."

There's a long track record of successful B2B partnerships between Microsoft and hardware providers, a standardized hardware spec, an integrated lognterm roadmap, and a deep bench of talent in Redmond to provide support.

On the other hand, Nokia woke up to find iOS eating their lunch and realized that OS development was no longer profitable enough to consider one of their core competencies - the paradigm shift had left them trailing.

Some strongly disagree with the `successful' part: http://www.asymco.com/2011/02/11/in-memoriam-microsofts-prev...

Successful for Microsoft, indeed. How much money does Dell make on an average Laptop?

Nokia should have taken the meego-road.

Dell had more operating income last year than eBay or Amazon or Adobe.

Michael Dell is worth $15 billion.

I guess we have different measures of success.

Any app that wasn't specifically designed for Windows Phone 7 is going to feel really out of place of the platform.

I'd be very surprised if they weren't already working on a Qt to CIL compiler.

Don't you mean a C++ to CIL compiler?

The problem is that very few would develop for Meego, even in the absence of WP7. As Nokia's CEO said, the smartphone game has changed from a battle of devices into a war of ecosystems.

At the moment WP7 is an obscure product, if Nokia successfully push the OS then Microsoft will gain hugely (being the owner of the platform), whereas Nokia will suddenly face competition from manufacturers with much smaller margins.

Agreed, that forces them to keep churning out designs products that the public perceive as premium and the competitors can't easily replicate.

They might then look at leveraging the right to modify the OS that no other OEM got, apart from a big bag of much needed cash from MS to survive this year without spiraling down in the face of marketshare losses, so I guess that evens it out a little.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com