Skip to main content

Symbian: the problem with crowds

I read an amusing article in Forbes last week about Symbian, the world's most common and least interesting mobile phone OS (link). The journalist's contention is that by 'crowdsourcing' (a repulsive management term that makes me flinch every time I hear it) Symbian produces an engaging and multifaceted product.

My opinion is the opposite. To me, the wisdom of the crowd is a con that excuses lazy or untalented product designers from their responsibilities. The great leaps forward in human understanding have almost all come from the inspiration of a few individuals, not from some loosely democratic design-by-committee. Even giant technological feats like the Manhattan Project were driven by a core group of smart people who had the vision and ability to see and accomplish their goal.

To take a more relavent example: Apple's design team consists of a small group, working out of California. Sure, they have great understanding of the needs of the crowd, but they certainly don't listen actively to their ideas or desires. Instead, Apple tells the crowd what they want and, invariably, shows them a new way of doing things and hence move the game on. Truth is that most of us are experts in one thing or another (however prosaic), but few of us can really envision a new way of using a handset or accessing the Internet or finding a Starbucks!

This, then, is the fundamental problem with the Symbian way of doing things and why, in my opinion it is the beige of handset operating systems. Inoffensive, but deeply flawed. Nokia's weak and weakening strategic grasp on the industry must be due in part to their continuing involvement with Symbian, which has damaged the usability of their handsets for no obvious gain. Meanwhile Apple and Google forge ahead with OS X and Android and Samsung, LG et al are capturing more and more share in the mass market.

Perhaps now is the time for the old guard (Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Motorola) to forget about the wisdom of the crowd and concentrate on good old fashioned product design. It worked fifteen years ago, so it might just work now...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Differences between Industrial and Digital businesses

Since I'm stuck on a Eurostar crawling through western France I thought I'd use the downtime to share this table I've made on the differences between Industrial and Digital companies across the main business functions. A strange insight into how my mind works... but hopeful a useful summary!

Strategic lessons from Debenhams

Yesterday’s news cycle brought with it the announcement that Debenhams, a staple of the UK high street, was now in the control of its lenders . This kind of news is sad for the employees of Debenhams and certainly for its shareholders, but it is also a good opportunity for reflection. A business that can trace its history back to 1778 may be about to cease trading forever. For leaders in the retail and associated consumer industries, now is a good time to consider what lessons can be learnt from Debenhams and what could be done to seize the opportunity presented by its passing. I’m thinking about the topic of strategic responses to emerging events at the moment because of the seeming inevitability of a recession this year or next, which will doubtless bring with it many similar situations. Before I get started, a disclaimer. I have no inside knowledge of Debenhams, I have never consulted for them, pitched to them or even met anyone in their management team. This post uses Debenham...

Impacts of a handset leasing model on mobile telcos

Following yesterday's post, here's some related thinking on the impacts on operators of handset leasing. Handset sales represent around 25% of operator revenues in a typical European market, but generate only around 5% of margin. It may therefore be the case that the scenario described would lead operators to a more profitable structural model than exists today. Oil companies are consistently and acceptably profitable, despite being (literally in some cases) the ‘dumb pipe’ that operators are so desperate to avoid becoming. One of the reasons for the oil majors sustained profitability is clear focus on their role in the value chain – to supply the fuel that enables transportation, relying primarily on location, then brand and finally product innovation to compete. BP or Shell do not need to subsidise the purchase of a car in order to drive consumption of fuel because consumers are ‘hooked’ on it (it gets them from place to place) and there are many credible car manufacturers an...