Scribd
Upload
15 views2 pages

Nokia

Nokia, once a dominant player in the mobile handset market with a 40% share in 1998, struggled to adapt to the shift towards software ecosystems and app-driven smartphones, leading to its decline. Despite early successes in GSM technology and emerging markets, its reliance on the outdated Symbian OS and a failed partnership with Microsoft hindered its competitiveness. After exiting the consumer market, Nokia pivoted to focus on 5G infrastructure, where it has since regained a significant position in the telecom sector.

Uploaded by

Rutvik
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
15 views2 pages

Nokia

Nokia, once a dominant player in the mobile handset market with a 40% share in 1998, struggled to adapt to the shift towards software ecosystems and app-driven smartphones, leading to its decline. Despite early successes in GSM technology and emerging markets, its reliance on the outdated Symbian OS and a failed partnership with Microsoft hindered its competitiveness. After exiting the consumer market, Nokia pivoted to focus on 5G infrastructure, where it has since regained a significant position in the telecom sector.

Uploaded by

Rutvik
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

In 1998, Nokia stood atop the mobile world, controlling 40% of the global handset market.

Its journey began in 1865 as a Finnish pulp


mill. At the heart of Nokia’s rise was Jorma Ollila, a visionary CEO who transformed Nokia into a mobile-first company in the 1990s.
Ollila’s focus on GSM technology and aggressive global expansion into emerging markets like India and China solidified Nokia’s
dominance. His knack for hardware innovation—sleek designs, durable phones—made Nokia synonymous with reliability. However, his
leadership had blind spots. While competitors like Apple and Samsung bet on software ecosystems, Ollila clung to Symbian, Nokia’s
clunky operating system, underestimating the seismic shift toward app-driven smartphones.

A decade later, Stephen Elop inherited a “burning platform.” His infamous 2011 memo candidly acknowledged Nokia’s crisis: Symbian
was obsolete, and Asian manufacturers were flooding the low-end market. Elop’s bold decision to partner with Microsoft’s Windows OS,
instead of adopting Android, aimed to differentiate Nokia. Yet this move backfired. The Windows ecosystem lacked apps, and Nokia’s
Lumia phones struggled against iPhones and Galaxies. Elop’s rigidity—prioritizing differentiation over pragmatism—sealed Nokia’s fate
in the consumer market.

Nokia’s organizational DNA was rooted in engineering excellence. Its strengths—a robust R&D pipeline, vertical integration (from
chips to logistics), and a vast patent portfolio—allowed it to dominate feature phones. At its peak, Nokia’s Salo factory symbolized
efficiency, churning out devices tailored to local markets.

Yet its weaknesses proved fatal. The company’s hardware-centric culture ignored software’s growing importance. While Apple and
Google built app ecosystems, Nokia’s Ovi Store languished. Internal silos between divisions (e.g., networks vs. devices) stifled
collaboration, and its U.S. strategy faltered due to overreliance on carrier partnerships. By the time Nokia pivoted to Windows, it had lost
the ability to compete.

The mobile industry’s critical success factors shifted dramatically in the 2000s. Touchscreens, app stores, and seamless user experiences
became king. Nokia, however, misread these trends. While it pioneered early smartphones like the N95, its insistence on physical
keyboards and Symbian’s labyrinthine interface alienated consumers.

Meanwhile, Android’s open-source model democratized smartphone manufacturing. Companies like Samsung and Xiaomi leveraged
Android’s flexibility to offer affordable, high-spec devices. Nokia, in contrast, bet on Windows’ exclusivity—a strategy that isolated it
from developers and carriers. By 2013, Android and iOS controlled 92% of the smartphone OS market, leaving Nokia’s Lumia line
irrelevant.

The 2007 iPhone debut redefined mobility. Critical success factors shifted from hardware durability to:

1. Ecosystems: App stores, cloud services, and developer communities.

2. User Experience: Intuitive interfaces and seamless updates.

3. Speed to Market: Samsung’s 63 flip-phone models in 2004 vs. Nokia’s 2.

The iPhone’s 2007 debut ignited a short-term trend: touchscreens and app ecosystems became non-negotiable. Android’s open-source
model accelerated this shift, letting Samsung and Xiaomi flood markets with sleek, affordable devices. By 2012, hardware was
commoditized, and Nokia’s Symbian OS felt ancient. By the medium-term (2013–2020), survival hinged on software agility and 5G
groundwork. Apple and Google locked users into their ecosystems (iCloud, Google Drive), while Nokia’s Windows gamble flopped.
Asian OEMs dominated emerging markets with $50 Android phones, crushing Nokia’s low-cost strongholds. The industry’s new
mantra: Innovate or evaporate.

Globally, medium-term pressures intensified: China’s Huawei rose as a 5G rival, triggering U.S.-China tech wars, while Europe
tightened data laws (GDPR). Nokia, stripped of its phone business, pivoted to long-term bets: 5G infrastructure and IoT. By 2020,
sustainability became critical—governments demanded carbon-neutral networks, and AI-driven edge computing emerged as the next
frontier.

Nokia misread these trends. While it launched the N95 (a proto smartphone with GPS and a 5MP camera) in 2007, Symbian’s
complexity alienated users. Meanwhile, Asian OEMs like Xiaomi combined Android’s flexibility with hyper-localized marketing,
dominating price-sensitive markets Nokia once owned. Globally, Nokia thrived in emerging markets with durable, low-cost phones like
the Nokia 1100. Yet its macro-environment challenges were mounting. Nokia’s dominance in India and Africa (e.g., the $32 Nokia
1616) masked vulnerabilities. By 2012, Chinese rivals like Huawei and Xiaomi offered Android phones at similar prices, eroding
Nokia’s low-cost advantage. Elop’s decision to exit Japan and ignore CDMA markets (e.g., the U.S. and South Korea) further narrowed
its reach.

In Europe, regulatory pressures and 5G infrastructure costs strained its networks division. In China, local players like Huawei and
Xiaomi undercut Nokia with cheaper Android devices. Elop’s decision to exit Japan and neglect CDMA markets further narrowed
Nokia’s reach.

Post-2013, Nokia’s salvation came from an unlikely source: network infrastructure. The acquisition of Alcatel-Lucent in 2016 and focus
on 5G R&D repositioned Nokia as a telecom leader. Today, it controls 16% of the 5G infrastructure market, rivaling Huawei and
Ericsson.
1. Strategic Actions by Nokia: Successes and Failures
 Successes:
o GSM Leadership (1990s): Nokia’s early bet on GSM technology made it a global leader in mobile networks and
handsets, dominating 40% of the market by 1998.
o Emerging Markets Focus: Affordable, durable phones (e.g., Nokia 1100) captured India, Africa, and Asia, driving
growth until 2010.
o Post-2013 Infrastructure Pivot: Acquiring Alcatel-Lucent (2016) and focusing on 5G R&D transformed Nokia into a
top telecom infrastructure provider (16% 5G market share by 2020).
 Failures:
o Symbian OS Obsolescence: Clung to Symbian despite its complexity, losing to iOS/Android’s app ecosystems.
o Windows OS Partnership (2011): Betting exclusively on Microsoft’s OS alienated developers and consumers; Lumia
phones flopped.
o U.S. Market Neglect: Failed to adapt to carrier demands, ceding ground to Apple and Samsung.

2. Assessment of Nokia’s Organizational Structure and Scope


 Organizational Structure:
o Vertical Integration: Controlled chip design, manufacturing, and logistics (strength in 1990s), but rigidity slowed
software innovation.
o Silos: Hardware and software teams operated separately, hindering ecosystem development (vs. Apple’s integrated
model).
 Horizontal/Vertical Scope:
o Vertical Scope: Initially broad (timber, cables, TVs), narrowed to mobile phones (1990s–2010s), then expanded to
networks post-2013.
o Horizontal Scope: Focused on hardware; late entry into software/services (Ovi Store vs. Apple’s App Store).
 Geographic Scope:
o Dominated Europe and emerging markets but struggled in the U.S. due to carrier partnerships and CDMA neglect.
 Technologies:
o Strengths: GSM patents, hardware durability, 5G infrastructure.
o Weaknesses: Slow adoption of touchscreens, AI, and cloud integration.

3. Business Context and Drivers of Change


 Early Context (1980s–2000s):
o Drivers: Hardware innovation, GSM standardization, emerging market growth.
o Nokia’s Edge: Vertical integration, R&D ($5.7B in 2009), and global supply chain.
 Shift to Smartphones (2007–2013):
o Drivers: iOS/Android ecosystems, app economy, touchscreen adoption.
o Nokia’s Decline: Misread software’s importance; Symbian and Windows bets failed.
 Post-2013 Infrastructure Era:
o Drivers: 5G rollout, IoT, U.S.-China tech rivalry, sustainability demands.
o Nokia’s Revival: Exited consumer devices, invested in 5G networks, and leveraged geopolitical neutrality to compete
with Huawei.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy