"Hardware" Rules At Nokia

S

sunface

New member
From Daring Fireball: http://daringfireball.net/2010/09/nokia_next

Per a former Nokia employee:
"Here?s the problem: Hardware Rules at Nokia. The software is written by the software groups inside of Nokia, and it is then given to the hardware group, which gets to decide what software goes on the device, and the environment in which it runs. All schedules are driven by the hardware timelines. It was not uncommon for us to give them code that ran perfectly by their own test, only to have them do things like reduce the available memory for the software to 25% the specified allocation, and then point the finger back at software when things failed in the field."
 
Well for those who know this business is not a big notice, normally hardware/software/marketing-GTM teams are independent and because of this sometimes they mess the things up, is not a Nokia exclusive, believe me.

When I become a XX former employee I can write a book with things like this.
 
This is still a BAD practice and since the mid 90's it should've ended with implementation of workstations in all facets of the business where they can all intercommunicate via some sort of a sharepoint like tool. Sure each team works in projects but they should not be so isolated to one another just waiting for the next step/stage.

I look forward to reading your upcoming book.
 
I'm not surprised. And in some ways still valid. I believe Nokia will sell lots of their lineup this fall and winter season, both ^3 and S60, regardless of the criticisms on the OS. Their current lineup certainly looks very attractive.
 
yes, this explains a lot. but it doesn't explain why not-fully-baked FW was released to begin with. or why software updates and feature updates take so long after the HW has been released.
 
Well to a degree it does. If i'm building sw that works perfectly through testing with 256mb of ram then that same sw gets put into a device with 128mb ram, it aint gonna work perfectly. The biggest complaint i've seen with the n97 owners was low memory. Put 256mb ram in that thing and i'm sure there would be a lot of happier campers.
 
Although its a real problem now, I think the hardware focused development is part of what draws me to nokia. Awesome spec sheets with every feature, a class leading feature like the camera, unique hardware design like the sliders.
 
Yeah, this isn't surprising. At all.

Maybe Elop changes that culture...or maybe in a year he resigns in frustration 'or takes time off to pursue other interests'.

I just can't see a Microsoft and Silicon Valley guy (ditto w/Skillman, the Palm guy) making any headway inside Nokia.
 
"Hardware" Rules At Nokia

Elop?s Microsoft culture is the same as Nokia or others, or do you think that the Excel team is the same as the OneNote team? Why do you think that everytime you open Excel the "send to onenote" plugin crashes, because they have everyday meetings?
 
Good point. Another good one: why can't the Zune, a Microsoft product, sync with *Windows* Media Player or even compatible with *Windows* Media Center? All these other companies make Apple look like geniuses by simply allowing compatibility among all their products.
 
Perhaps hardware rules, but I have a hard time believing that the hardware team got code that ran "perfectly" to begin with and then suddenly the hardware team decided that the memory allocation was to be 25% of what the software team used. The software team is still responsible for the ******** bugs that plague Nokia devices. On my E72 I have constant BT errors, we had the 7/8 menu bug and the device still insists on starting the phone setup wizard every freaking time I start the phone. So don't point the finger at the hardware guys for all the woes. Your code sucks.:mad:
 
"Hardware" Rules At Nokia

Right Jimmy, you score another good point with Zune example, and yes, Apple managed by control freaks achieve what the others can?t.
 
The honest truth is, the more software you produce, the harder it is to get it to work together. A company like Intuit, for example, is pretty successful because they stick to one area (finance) and develop products only in that area. It's easy for them to develop packages that work together, because that is their core competence.

Microsoft, on the other hand, is trying to compete in a lot of different areas, and it's hard to do that. They're in finance, development, publishing, business, education, mobile, entertainment, etc. That's why you have the (more than) occasional interoperability glitch with MSFT software. On the other hand, the fact that they've gotten so many disparate applications to work together is that they are primarily a software company.. software rules at microsoft, and any hardware they do produce (the xbox, zune, etc) is done to drive software sales.

Nokia is a hardware company that doesn't give a flip about software. Look at how arrogantly they've broken backwards compatibility in the past, how awful their API documentation was/is, and how much they've tried to rape developers for in order to build/publish applications.

Even after Apple/Google have waltzed in and shown that it's all about software and appearances, Nokia still doesn't get it. They've had years to turn their act around, and they continue to prove incapable of doing so, and I don't believe there's any reason they've seen the light.

The bottom line is, if you want your applications to play nicely together, if you want a phone with services that just work, buy an iPhone/Android/Blackberry. If you want a powerful camera, buy a Nokia.
 
The disconnect here is that Nokia's supposed development model works pretty darn well for feature phones. It wasn't all that long ago that there was no such thing as a smart phone. It seems like they didn't change the formula at all with that transition. The other issue is that they want the same software to run on the low end smartphone and the high end smartphone, so when features are developed and targeted at the high end smartphone, there's not enough memory on the low end smartphone for the software to work right.

This is likely partly due to poor communication and partly due to poor software design. Good software should adapt to the limitations of the hardware on which it is running. (within reason)
 
Back
Top