Doesn't "failing" somehow imply "trying"? Maemo wasn't meant for the consumer market, so while it's true to say it wasn't successful there, I wouldn't use the word "fail". AFAIK, it was even more successful than Nokia had planned - which isn't necessarily a good thing in terms of image, cost for customer care etc.
Doesn't "failing" somehow imply "trying"? Maemo wasn't meant for the consumer market, so while it's true to say it wasn't successful there, I wouldn't use the word "fail". AFAIK, it was even more successful than Nokia had planned - which isn't necessarily a good thing in terms of image, cost for customer care etc.
Whenever I see this argument, it's hard for me to believe. Like executives were saying, "hey, let's make a quality product and lose a lot of money! Yeah, that would be cool!"
True, any company wishes that their product will be the next big thing. But when you set your sights low for sales volume and adjust your business model accordingly with limited marketing/support, the definition of success changes.
I believe Nokia has actually stated that the n900 sales far exceeded their expectations (wish I had a citation for this). Then to Nokia, this is the exact opposite of failure.
yes. but somehow it puzzles why they put a badly supported unfinished prototype instead of a quality product on the marked. in regard to quality the n900 is realy bad in regard to capabilities its rather highend.
i don't think realy like they wanted it to be a flop but well its nokia: nokia always diversified instead of concentrating on one successfull device. they allways put out a lot of different devices. well the next is different and might be a hit.
Whenever I see this argument, it's hard for me to believe. Like executives were saying, "hey, let's make a quality product and lose a lot of money! Yeah, that would be cool!"
I disagree with your disagree. No company puts out products hoping they will have limited appeal/sales, if the tablets are niche, they became niche when they never took off, not because nokia wanted a niche product. Evidently they were not made or marketed right, as look what certain tablets are doing now. In 20/20 hindsight its is easy to just say stuff was meant to be niche, but I doubt that was how the devices were pitched internally within Nokia.
What about when a company says in a live world wide broadcast that product A is just step 4 of 5? How does that fit into your ideal business plan scenario?
Take a good, long, hard look at the n900. Who the fvck were they marketing it to? It's got an IR and FM transmitter for Christ's sake!
everything is a step in a process, 4 of 5 2 of 3 or 1 of 100. Was the original iphone a step 5? And it has not been improved since? How did that step 1 device sell? I really don't know what this step 4 business is. It is a product and they wanted it to sell like hotcakes.
