Ask HN: Why U.S. people dislike Nokia?

[Vargas]

Disclaimer: I'm European. I have never been in the U.S. I am not related to Nokia at all.

Reading Hacker news and other U.S-centric news sites, it looks like there is nothing but Apple and Android. Whenever Nokia gets mentioned, there is some disdain. However, Nokia sells about 35% of all mobile devices in the world. I myself own one. I really like the platform. It is open source, it runs Java, it supports Flash and it is very pleasant to write applications using C++ and QT. It is a no-BS platform, just unlike Apple's policy-hell. In short, from my point of view is the ideal platform to build for: huge market, no politics, solid open source platform.

Why is it almost always ignored? Did they do something horribly wrong in the U.S. market and never recovered? Is it seen as "unpatriotic" because is foreign? Do you feel it as technically inferior?

[byoung2]

I'm European. I have never been in the U.S

That's Nokia's problem as well. The cell-phone market in the US is much different from Europe and the rest of the world. It is my understanding that in Europe and the rest of the world people by phones (usually in cash) and service separately (often prepaid), so cell phone makers have only one customer to please: the end user.

In the US, where we are addicted to credit, people buy phones primarily through the cell phone provider for a big discount in exchange for signing a 1 or 2 year contract. Since the selection of phones drives the profit for the cell phone provider (See AT&T and the iPhone for an example), the phone company has a huge stake in making sure the phones fit their image. So the cell phone maker has 2 customers - the phone company and the end user. Every carrier has a signature phone: AT&T - iPhone, Verizon - Droid, Sprint - EVO 4G. These phones become almost synonymous with the carrier, and less with the brand (iPhone being the big exception).

Nokia's problem for the last decade is that they have been used to pleasing only the end user, that they have not been able to win over the American cell phone providers. A good example is the late 90's, where Americans had moved on to flip phones, but Nokia was still pushing brick/candy bar phones. They are starting to innovate, but they still haven't captured the heart of the American cell phone buyer.

The other hurdle for Nokia is CDMA. I'm not sure if they have CDMA versions of their phones (this is probably because they'd have to work with Sprint and Verizon to do so). They'd have to retool most of their phones to work in the US, which might not be worth it if the cell phone companies aren't on board.

[alanh]

Of course Nokia has CDMA phones. For example, I used to have a Nokia feature phone on Tracfone, which piggybacked off the Verizon network.

There is little awareness of or marketing for Nokia smartphones. In my mind and in likely many others, Nokia phones belong to the past generation of button-only, non-touchscreen phones.

[sounddust]

I haven't seen a Nokia phone that has the kind of intuitive, well-organized, attractive, and responsive UI that we see with the iPhone and Android phones. I have some friends who have expensive Nokia phones and like to brag about their capabilities, but when you actually see these phones in use, they just aren't as enjoyable to use due to the OS which seems unrefined (I'd go so far as to say it seems unfinished).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJpEuMidcSU is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. If you were to make a list with checkboxes, it would seem that the N97 is as good as an iPhone. But if you actually use it...

I don't think it's a U.S. vs Europe thing; it's just that Nokia had a headstart in Europe. I would bet that they're losing market share here in Europe as well. At least in France, it seems that everyone has an iPhone these days.

That having been said, I do think Nokia makes excellent hardware, particularly the actual phone functionality (voice quality, not dropping calls, etc). If they could just bring their OS up to par, they would see some attention and success in the US.

[potatolicious]

I have to echo this. In fact, I had the chance to use a N900 just a couple of days ago. I'm not going to lie, it's a gigantic piece of junk, let me enumerate the ways:

- Resistive touchscreen in this day and age? The light touches that I can use on every Android phone and iPhone turn into concerted screen-mashing on the Nokia. The drags and flicks that have become popular (and important) gestures are hard to do on the N900, if not impossible, because the hardware itself simply isn't up to the task.

- The UI was painfully, ridiculously slow. IMHO Android's UI on most current phones is already sluggish, but usable. Nokia's is just way into unusable-land. Button-press lag of over a second (sometimes several seconds) was common, and would elicit double-pressing by the user (which the OS will then happily process). Navigation of menus and other UI elements was just about completely impossible because of the slowness. How enjoyable would your computer be if every mouse click took a whole second to register, and you had no hint that the phone is actually working in the background? Couple this with an insensitive screen that would routinely miss presses in-hardware, and you can see where this is going.

- An insistence on animation on a platform that is clearly too slow for it. Apple's UI is a joy to use because of the transitions and animations that accompany many user actions. Android does this too, but the slight sluggishness makes this appear somewhat unrefined - but that's okay. The framerate I got on the Nokia apps was so slow that it became confusing if the machine is in the middle of a transition or just plain done.

The UI was also somewhat confusing - but I'm willing to let that one slide. Every platform has certain metaphors and paradigms that the user must learn, so having not used one on a day to day basis I can't really comment on whether or not the UI in fact sucks.

[aidenn0]

[edit] Quick clarification: The OP compared Nokia to Apple and Android, so my answer was specifically about Nokia smartphones. Nokia feature-phones have always had a decent market share in the US, and I think that the average person in the US thinks of those feature-phones when they hear the word Nokia, and has no clue that the E or N series phones even exist. [/edit]

I live in the US. I've never actually seen a phone running Symbian in person. The only Nokia phones I've ever seen are feature phones. I don't just mean I don't know anyone that has one, I've never seen one in a store when shopping for a cell phone; of course I don't own one!

I work at a tech company where probably about half the people have smartphones of some sort. Until the iPhone, that meant something from RIM or Palm/Treo.

I would bet that the cell phone providers are primarily the ones at fault for this, but I'm not sure. Verizon is the largest Cell provider in the US by a large margin, and I understand they have all sorts of requirements if you want your phone to work on their network.

[edit] I just looked at the wikipedia page for the nokia E series and N series, and notice they are GSM only. I've only ever been on CDMA (and AMPS) based networks, so that explains a lot right there.

Here's an example of what people in the US think of when they hear "Nokia" it's the Nokia phone I've seen the most, with the possible exception of the old monocrhome candybars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_6255i

[notauser]

Which is odd because BestBuy used to sell unlocked E71 handsets (one of the best phones Nokia ever made) for 60-70% of the European retail price! They are like BlackBerries but actually good.

I got mine for $250 SIM free, no contract. It worked fine on AT&T and T-Mobile (US).

They also made an AT&T specific locked version called the E71X which had horrific software deformities and was much more expensive.

[joe_the_user]

I developing desktop QT app currently.

I'd love to get a phone that supports QT just to start looking at a mobile port. My current provider, Sprint, doesn't seem to have any and I can't see any other providers who do.

There's talk of a port of Qt to Android port but I haven't gotten any details (obviously Java versus C++ is an issue).

[rokhayakebe]

Obviously you do not know any drug dealer :).They love those Nokia prepaid phones.

[tom_ilsinszki]

A week ago, I watched the movie 'Who killed the electric car?'. At one point the narrator said something like:

>> US customers feared that by getting accustomed to small electric cars, they wouldn't be able to have large SUVs, and would eventually be forced to live like Europeans!

At that point I laughed out loud and rewinded the video just to hear it one more time. Maybe for people in the US, Europe reminds them of the concept of compromising; which is not great, as far as marketing goes.

I agree, that iPhones and Androids are superior now, but how come Nokia wasn't really successful in the US, before the iPhone? I think they had (and still have) great non-smart phones.

[garyrichardson]

I've owned several Nokia phones and used to love them before mobile apps. They were super hardy and functional phones. Plus, I could use the same chargers for about a decade! Imagine that, a cell phone manufacturer that didn't invent a new charger for every phone!

Before the iPhone, there wasn't a huge market for apps. They were hard to write for all the different platforms. The UI experience was awful. It was so bad I really only used my phone as a phone and not the super device that iPhones/Androids are.

Since the iPhone gave us a decent interface and an app store, apps are what drive the sale of smart phones. For the last Nokia I owned, it was super sketchy install apps compared to the managed app store method. As a consumer, I trust the app store not to screw up my phone. Installing JAR files from unknown sources always made me a bit worried.

Also, since iPhone/Android, Nokia was no longer classified as a smart phone producer. I've heard several people refer to Nokia phones as 'Feature Phones'. IE, they have some gimicky feature (like a flashlight in the top or they play Mp3's), instead of being a complete phone.

Granted, Nokia could have an app store now and real smart phones, but I don't really care any more. At the end of the day, I want a phone that works reliably. I want to find apps that work quickly. I also want the same phone my parents are using so when I have to help them out, I don't have to relearn the whole interface. iPhones do this for me, so that's why I no longer look at Nokia phones.

[jboydyhacker]

Two Big Reasons

1. Bad Software design. Nokia needs to pick up some solid software talent. Nokia isn't used to having to compete on software yet while U.S. companies have been doing that for years. That doesn't mean Nokia has to acquire a U.S. co, just get aggressive about some great hacker talent. 2. Carrier deals. Even when Nokia does come out with a decent phone, it rarely gets any share gain in the U.S. because of inadequate carrier deals. Usually the few people that know about them acquire them from Europe, or by the time it does land in the U.S. somebody has already launched something better.

[alanthonyc]

All the "features" you list are things a developer would like.

I haven't owned a Nokia in several years, but if they ever want my business again, then they would need a list of features that a customer would find appealing.

[culturestate]

I don't think Americans dislike nokia as much as we misunderstand nokia. Since they aren't marketed very well here, our idea of what nokia is as a brand was shaped by a cheap nokia candybar that was our first cell phone. That impression of nokia as "the free phone company" has just never changed.

[sliverstorm]

I own myself an unlocked E72 that I paid full retail for.

The hardware is fantastic, better than any phone I've owned, and better than any phone I've seen. It hasn't got a fancy touch-screen like the iPhone, but I like it better. That's why I forked out money for it.

The software is flawed and occasionally a little buggy.

There are, as far as I'm concerned, no apps. I mean, there are apps, but not enough, and not ones I care about. An when I do care about them, they are usually unusably buggy.

I personally would like to see how Android does on a Nokia phone. Wish I could stick it on my E72, actually. I have no prejudice against Symbian, but right now it doesn't seem to be up to par.

Don't forget, Nokia's market share is largely tied to basic phones. The iPhone and Android are flagship devices; they are what gets all the press coverage. Nokia's current position reminds me of Microsoft's a little while back. Apple got all the press and the hype and the hey-isn't-this-amazing, while Windows was actually more widespread and probably making more money.

P.S. I have heard it's kind of an awful platform to develop for. It's allegedly more difficult to program, the platform is extremely fragmented, and a general lack of interest means it's not worthwhile.

> Is it seen as "unpatriotic" because is foreign?

^ America doesn't really do this anymore. Even if we wanted to, not enough good stuff is made here anymore, which is a shame. Most of the stuff I've owned that was very old or old-fashioned and was made in the USA was top-quality.

[coderdude]

When I first noticed cell phones getting popular among the general populous (maybe around 12-14 years ago) the Nokia 5110 (or a model that looks very much like it) was the shit. Everyone had one. Since then they have steadily fallen out of the race for best phone in the US.

[zyb09]

Well quiet simple, it has something to do with how the cellphone market in the US is much younger then Europe's. Back in the mid-to-late 90's Nokia made the best cellphones out there. They were clearly superior and pretty much everybody was buying Nokia phones. At least pretty much everybody in Europe was, because at that time having a cellphone in the US was still considered somewhat unusual. Thous Europe got into into the habit of using and trusting Nokia phones, while the US did not. When Apple, Google and RIM joined the market, Nokia phone were really nothing extraordinary anymore and without a large user-base trusting your brand, there's just no reason to buy one. Edit: RIM has the opposite problem, btw.

[john_conroy]

1) I consider Apple and Android to be the future of phones. Nokia, Microsoft, RIM and all other phone OS's are treated more or less the same, relative to Apple and Android. The fact that it's pleasant to write apps for Nokia doesn't matter when you can write better apps for Apple or Android.

2) As you pointed out Hacker news is US centric. Historically, Nokia has had a smaller presence in the US. There are many factors which contributed to this, off the top of my head - * Motorola was based in the US, and took market share from Nokia. * Nokia was slow to make flip phones, and the US went through a flip phone craze. * Nokia is a strong brand, and US carriers favored no name phones that they could brand themselves, companies like HTC or LG were amenable to this. Also, European carriers were slower to do this. * Apple went for the (relative) mass market, they forced AT&T into offering the iPhone for a cheap initial price, and a cheap data plan (again, relatively, starting with the 3G). Contrast this with Nokia's somewhat lackadaisical approach to launching a new high end phone - announce a couple of new phones, release them months later, sometimes not on any carrier, often with different os's. * Nokia took a break from making progress, roughly around 2003. They started making very different phones, as if attempting to start or catch fads. They started treating phones as fashion accessories. The 2 year gap between their "professional" phones (the 6310 and the 6230) was horrendous.

Personally, I think Nokia made the best phones, of the last generation.

[chrismealy]

I'm an American and I love everything from Finland (Marcus Grönholm, Marimekko, Moomin, you name it). I loved my Nokia 8290 but that was ten years ago. It's no iPhone.

[omnipath]

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that to get most of Nokia's smartphones, you have to pay full price? It seems like most people here in the US don't want to do that. They would rather get 60%-80% off at the beginning and stay with the seemingly standard 2-year contract.

That, and it seems like most of Nokia's smartphones only works on T-Mobile's network. While T-Mobile has nice customer service, it isn't the most reliable network in US.

[kennu]

Symbian is a horrible platform to develop applications on. I developed some C++ apps maybe 5 years ago, before iPhone and Android existed. The API design just sucked, and especially the dev tools. Development was slow and painful. And everything kept changing all the time, different and incompatible for each phone model. I don't think they have learned much, considering the current Maemo/MeeGo/Qt/GTK/Whatever mess. I don't want to learn it because next year they come up with something different again.

Developing apps on Xcode and iPhone SDK is a totally different world. You have a clear MVC model, including even the nice graphical SQLite / Core Data designer stuff, and the APIs are quite logical and simple to understand. (Well actually, Core Data is the fugliest API, but I can live with it.) Apple has really concentrated on making app development easy and enjoyable. The licensing/approval bs is uncool of course.

[rradu]

I used to be a big Nokia fan. Back when phones were simple. Just calls, text, a game of Snake, and maybe a camera. But then features started being added.

Some phones handled it gracefully. Nokia did not. I find them difficult to use, and in a place where iPhones, Androids, and BBerrys have taken over, today's Nokias don't stand a chance.

[TomOfTTB]

HN and the Tech Blogosphere tend to be populated by a certain community and that community is influenced by their common opinions and tastes.  Right now the common belief amongst that community is we’re moving into a period where software matters more than hardware and platforms are more important than phone companies.

Call it the “App Store Mentality” 

Sure you can build apps for Symbian just as you can build apps for the now redubbed Classic Windows Smartphone.  But the lack of an app store represents a barrier that seems to prevent normal people from installing apps.  This in turn makes Symbian look like an OS that’s built around the old model of apps just being a cool thing that power users can do.

So I don’t think it’s Nokia as much as it’s their dedication to a platform that seems to be trying to maintain the old status quo where Manufacturer and Carrier are more powerful than platform.

[csmeder]

I'm from the US. In my mind Nokia has always meant:

Expensive and just not worth the price.

I think most americans were used to paying $0-$50 for their phone. Of if they were going to pay more they bought a black berry.

Things changed when the iPhone came out (and then the android). Basically, iPhone did well because it was expensive, but worth it.

[Tichy]

They are lagging behind at the moment, but I wouldn't say they are out of the equation yet. They just have to come up with one decent device (hardware), then the things you mention are in their favor.

Also, I don't think there will be only iOS and Android in the future. iOS limits you to Objective-C, Android to Java (JVM languages like Clojure seem to run not well on Android). So Nokia might be the only one allowing real freedom to pick the development tools in the end. Since it has native apps, all sorts of languages should be possible.

Yes, as somebody else mentioned, these are things that appeal to developers. But developers mean more apps, and developers/techies influence the buying decisions of non-techies.

Also I think their name has not faded completely yet. If they build one good modern phone, they can regain user's trust.

[jolan]

1) They don't do any sort of PR in the US.

2) Open source doesn't matter to the vast majority of consumers.

[davidw]

Nokia isn't really a big open source company. They're kind of ambivalent about it, actually. The real open source play, is of course, Android.