Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
(Nearly) full tickless operation in 3.10
Bergius: The Dreams of the MeeGo Diaspora
Posted Jul 9, 2012 16:43 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784)
After all, the software got its outing at retail and apparently did rather well when the organisation was squeezed by competitors, investors and (presumably) internal forces, and had to deliver it. It makes one wonder why they didn't see the need to release such products earlier.
As for the Android versus Windows argument, it's conceivable that Microsoft will use their usual dirty tricks to limit Android's growth and win in the long term, but then one has to wonder whether Nokia will be around to see it happen.
Posted Jul 9, 2012 17:32 UTC (Mon) by slashdot (guest, #22014)
Microsoft isn't much bigger than Google, and Apple is much bigger than both of them (in several metrics), so they can't brute force the situation with money.
Extending their Windows "monopoly" also seems problematic, because mobile devices nowadays tend to be independent, and data tends to move to "cloud" solutions rather than being locked into Windows PCs.
They might somehow deliver a better product though, not sure about that.
Posted Jul 9, 2012 22:07 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784)
What dirty tricks?
First out of the bag, then: take a look at all the patent enforcement actions involving Microsoft and/or "patent licensing" companies having a certain connection to Microsoft that are targeted towards anyone shipping Android.
Posted Jul 9, 2012 18:40 UTC (Mon) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
In other words, Nokia was not only a threat for Microsoft's phone business, but also for its core products (Tizen and the EFL? ROTFL)
I've no doubt killing Nokia Linux initiatives was part of getting a better Microsoft deal, and that the choice was easy to do for Elop, once he decided he cared more about Microsoft than Nokia (and that was not a given, Paul Maritz did switch priorities when hired VMWare-side).
Posted Jul 9, 2012 18:44 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
Posted Jul 9, 2012 20:06 UTC (Mon) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
That's why Nokia is on a death march today: Elop decided it was more important to sell the products of its partner than to sell its own.
Windows Phone is not developed at Nokia but at Microsoft. No amount of Meego/Symbian killing was going to make Windows phone improve faster. OTOH the direct result of this killing was Nokia's inability to deliver differentiated phones (a must for a mass-market vendor, not for a niche player like Apple that focuses on the high-revenue segment). There is little difference between Lumia models because they are all declinations of the same Windows reference platform, that is too immature to permit much hardware differentiation (or even to keep compatibility with older hardware platforms, see how the current Lumia line has been obsoleted by Windows platform changes).
On a PC platform it does not matter much what the hardware is because of wide compatibility. In the embedded world if software and hardware do not fit you have nothing to sell.
The Series 60/Meego was not massively hipped but it *was* a massively profitable. The Lumias have been massively hyped (with record marketing expenditures and astroturphing) and try to emulate another massively hyped product line (Apple's) but they're not bringing any revenue. Now if you want to measure success in app store submissions Lumia is a stunning success. I'll take real users and real money any time.
Posted Jul 9, 2012 20:18 UTC (Mon) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
Posted Jul 9, 2012 21:50 UTC (Mon) by daniels (subscriber, #16193)
Posted Jul 10, 2012 4:32 UTC (Tue) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
Posted Jul 10, 2012 7:38 UTC (Tue) by daniels (subscriber, #16193)
This is a company who had probably the single most diverse product portfolio in the entire industry, stretching to at least hundreds of products. Throw in the prototypes and you're up to thousands. And this is going from the very very cheapest 1110, right up to the N9 and other smartphones.
What you're saying makes absolutely no sense, sorry.
Posted Jul 10, 2012 8:30 UTC (Tue) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
IIRC (and please correct if you have any proof to the contrary) it went like this:
1. New CEO decides to partner with Microsoft. Winphone requirements demand massive hardware reorientation
2. Nokia can't produce winphones at once. To held self-imposed deadlines Lumias needs to be subcontracted to one of the usual taiwanese winphone producers. It wraps an N9-derived shell around something very close to the Microsoft reference design
> Nokia outsourced the production of its Qualcomm-based Lumia 800 to
> Compal Electronics. According to Nokia, this was due to time constraints
> and Compal's experience with the chipset.
What madness is that? You don't externalize your core business ever. That's a basic rule. And if Lumia production was not Nokia's core business at this point why did it kill everything else?
3. Nokia publicly disparages its old product lines, tries to strong-arm all its parters (carriers, resellers) to accept winphones instead of what was previously agreed. Refuses to sell other lines if the partner doesn't push Lumias
4. Everyone switches to Android, Symbian tanks, Nokia does not want to sell Meego
5. Consumers recognize the taiwanese winphones they didn't want last year under the new Nokia cover and don't buy them
6. Nokia closes factories
I don't know if between 2. and 6. Nokia made any serious effort to re-internalise production, and even if they did (and taking into account that Compal almost certainly insisted on some volume commitments before producing) Lumia sales are so underwhelming they can't justify retooling most existing factories nor retraining the workforce.
Posted Jul 10, 2012 9:56 UTC (Tue) by daniels (subscriber, #16193)
It's not a massive hardware reorientation. Remember that Nokia had one of the most diverse product lines in the world, and I can assure you that they weren't reliant on a single supplier.
Even when they were, yes that does take time to ramp up in terms of sourcing and logistics, but it has absolutely nothing to do with shutting down factories. Zip, zero. The plant tools don't care whether the chip came from TI or OMAP or Sharp or Toshiba or Samsung.
Yes, it does take time, but Nokia - for all its strategic faults recently - has long been praised as one of the best handlers of its supply chain and logistics in the world.
Posted Jul 10, 2012 10:59 UTC (Tue) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
Really? Are not the test processes vendor-specific?
Posted Jul 10, 2012 11:01 UTC (Tue) by daniels (subscriber, #16193)
Posted Jul 9, 2012 20:14 UTC (Mon) by tuna (guest, #44480)
The same thing with cameras. Why do you think Nokia put their best camera ever on a Symbian phone? Well, MS' drivers do not support that camera and the WP7 probably can't handle images of that size.
Nokia is screwed, not because MS is setting the SW development but because they have to buy the HW that MS support. And that is not a nice place to be if you are a HW manufacturer.
Posted Jul 10, 2012 0:10 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
Posted Jul 10, 2012 1:29 UTC (Tue) by daniels (subscriber, #16193)
Not much change there then, as ITOS on the 770/N800/N810, Maemo 5 on the N900 and MeeGo-Harmattan on the N9, only supported one resolution each.
Posted Jul 10, 2012 8:56 UTC (Tue) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
Posted Jul 10, 2012 15:18 UTC (Tue) by shmerl (guest, #65921)
I'd say it was the most probable reason for Microsoft to bribe Nokia to kill Meego. They are in general trying to sabotage any success of Linux technologies which can benefit the Linux on the desktop. But it's still just a speculation.
Posted Jul 11, 2012 11:28 UTC (Wed) by tf (subscriber, #85123)
MeeGo was a *brand* which never really got beyond the PR releases, conference swag, and half baked compliance documents, to producing tangible technology. The decision to form MeeGo from Moblin and Maemo was technically ill informed and lacking in the most basic understanding of the two platforms. The profound incompatibility between the two meant that while either Moblin or Maemo were viable platforms in their own right, MeeGo never was, and so it's not very surprising the promised platform (as opposed to the brand) never materialized; what was shipping under the MeeGo brand (N9; 'Moblin aka MeeGo' Netbook) were essentially two different, incompatible (and discontinued) platforms.
The Nokia decision to pull the plug on its MeeGo involvement was not only perfectly rational, it would have been managerially irresponsible not to. If anything is irrational in the MeeGo story, it is both Nokia and Intel thinking it was a good idea to start with.
Posted Jul 11, 2012 12:39 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
Posted Jul 12, 2012 8:09 UTC (Thu) by tf (subscriber, #85123)
If you look up the MeeGo About page, you will see the statement 'the MeeGo project *provides* a Linux-based, open source software platform for the next generation of computing devices ... designed to give developers the broadest range of device segments to target for their applications, including netbooks, handheld computing and communications devices, in-vehicle infotainment devices, smart TVs, tablets and more – all using a *uniform* set of APIs based on Qt.' -- by this definition MeeGo as a platform never existed. (Emphasis mine.)
On the 1.1 release, the LinuxFoundation stated 'MeeGo supports a magnitude[!] of mobile client devices (handsets, connected TVs, in-vehicle infotainment ..., netbooks, and tablets)'. Again, this statement confuses aspiration and reality; MeeGo by its self-definition never supported any of these; looking at the 1.1 release page, it officially 'supported', netbooks, handsets and IVI, but only the netbook was of release quality (see the 'known issues'), and the Netbook continued to be just Moblin rebranded! This had not changed by the 1.2 release, except by then the handset as a supported platform is no longer on the release page.
So, the only form factor that MeeGo (as released) ever *really* supported (i.e., you could deploy the OS in production) was the netbook, and the netbook was based on the Moblin software stack, which is completely different from the MeeGo common APIs (clutter, gtk).
Harmattan was, by Nokia's own statement Maemo under the MeeGo brand; it overlapped with MeeGo only to the extent to which MeeGo borrowed from Maemo (see http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=529073).
So the only two things that ever shipped under the MeeGo *brand* were Maemo and Moblin rebranded (and both of these would have happened without any great differences, just under different branding, if the MeeGo project was not created; this is worth reflecting upon).
Posted Jul 12, 2012 9:00 UTC (Thu) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
Real-life successful products are mongrels that accept the holy platform is an ideal that won't be attained, and make it easy to reuse code written for previous platform endeavours.
Posted Jul 11, 2012 20:42 UTC (Wed) by shmerl (guest, #65921)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds