Welcome to PawProfitForum.com - LARGEST ONLINE COMMUNITY FOR EARNING MONEY

[Professional Writer]

Nokia's declining performance in the mobile phone market can be connected with a sequence of strategic errors as well as its incapacity to keep in line with the rapidly changing customer preferences and technological advancements. After being the leading figure in the mobile phone industry once, Nokia had the Symbian operating system which was the backbone of its phones while, in fact, touchscreen smartphones were becoming the new fashion. Whereas the opposition was making use of engaging user interfaces and defensible ecosystems for their innovative products, Nokia's decision to stick with the old technologies resulted in a substantial loss of market relevance. The necessity for developing a mobile app ecosystem was belittled by the company and it was unable to attract programmers like what the other platforms enjoyed. By teaming with Microsoft and then following the Windows Phone route, Nokia made a further step toward losing the existing customer base as it was more versatile previously. This strategy was not successful in regaining the users' interest mainly due to the lack of flexibility and the minimal application support of the platform that were demanded by the users. Thus, the belief of people in Nokia as a pace-setter in the mobile industry gradually faded away, and new generations of users flocked to the brands that were more in line with the changing digital lifestyle of the society. Consequently, Nokia's share in the smartphone market decreased continuously, and its name changed from a symbol of reliability and innovation to a mention tinged with nostalgia. In the most recent period, the company's endeavors to come back and make a difference with new leadership have not yet succeeded in imitating the original brand's dominance owing mainly to the persisting challenges from competitors and the far from slowing down pace of innovation cycles.

 

[perlcode]

Nokia was a big company, with established ways of working that made them hugely successful:

• They pioneered and created the first global cellular network.
• They employed 92,000.
• Up to 2012 was the leading mobile phone vendor in the world.

This is a company that innovated and did make it their goal to be the biggest meaningful player IN THE TELCO SPACE (this is very important to note).

When dealing at that scale, driving innovation and getting broader adoption of that innovation in your base is extremely hard and slow.

• Management have aggressive KPIs to reach as led by the board
• Driving change increases your cost of support, as established customers may reject aggressive changes (see the experiences of Apple in removing all ports and connectors…..they just released a product which put these back).
• Why modify a winning formula? is hard to drive through such a large organisation that is telco oriented, AND NOT RENOWNED for speed of innovation.
• You need to drive change and innovation within an entire distribution channel.

Driving change as a new-entrant with a small customer base is significantly easier than what an incumbent like Nokia needed to go through:

• Management fears failing as it costs them their jobs and bonuses if they fail (where I agree with you).

 

[kerryjoy]

I was both surprised and frustrated by Nokia's decline. For years, I admired the brand, but when smartphones began to change, I felt left behind as a user. I witnessed Nokia clinging to Symbian for far too long, while others adopted touchscreens and strong app ecosystems. I thought that when they eventually made the switch to Windows Phone, it would lead to a resurgence, but the platform's inflexibility and lack of apps simply didn't work. Like many others, I moved on and was attracted to companies that recognized the new digital lifestyle. I think that Nokia's demise had more to do with disregarding what we, the users, were obviously requesting than it did with technology.