I owned the N9. This was a phone which was perfectly good also for average users, and it seems it sold very well in the few markets where it was actually sold (sadly no major markets). But when it came to the market, it was already decided that Nokia will kill their own OS development in favor of Windows Phone, which then flopped spectacularly. A decision which many people called out for being stupid before the consequences had fully unfolded.
>This was a phone which was perfectly good also for average users
Not good enough to save it from the iPhone onslaught.
People on HN make this mistake to assume that they represent the "average user", the same mistake Steve Wozniak made. No, the average user wasn't interested in all the features of the N9. They much preferred the simpler iPhone and the proof is in the pudding.
>and it seems it sold very well in the few markets where it was actually sold
How do you know it sold well when Nokia never release official sales numbers for the N9?
Estimates put the N9 at less than 1 million sales in the 23 markets it was sold in. A drop in the ocean compared to total iPhone sales of the same timeframe in same 23 regions which estimate at 50 million total. Face it, the N9 was a sales flop no matter how you try to spin this, and launching in more markets would not have moved the needle significantly to make a dent in the iPhone.
>(sadly no major markets)
It launched in 23 markets mate, mostly EMEA and Asia. Not NA because even Nokia leadership realized the N9 won't stand a chance to compete with the iPhone and Blackberry on their home turf.
>A decision which many people called out for being stupid before the consequences had fully unfolded.
Nokia was already dead man walking even before that. Even their own employees said so when they got to play with the first iPhone in their HQ. The N9 was the band playing on the decks on the Titanic.
Blaming Nokia's inevitable failure on Windows Phone is historical revisionism. They would have failed either way since they lacked the software ecosystem beyond the phone that Apple and Google offered their users.
Fanboys praising the N9 as something that would have magically saved Nokia even they have done X or Y or Z with various Linux spins, are huffing some top end copium.
A million sales (I heard 1-2 million) for N9 are very good, considering that smartphone sales were in the millions at that time and that it was not sold in the US, Germany, UK, France, Italy, Spain etc. and had no marketing. Wikipedia says the original iPhone sales were 6 million in the first year which is a better comparison than the 93 million of total sales for 5 years for several iPhone generations. I think the "dead man" walking story is an interpretation which is not rooted in any hard fact. It is based on the idea that nothing can beat the iPhone, which is demonstrably wrong because Android did. And compared to Android (also a Linux phone), the N9 was definitely much better. But I also point out that far from everybody considered the iPhone impressive. In Europe initial sales for the iPhone were also not good.
In contrast the explanation I have for Nokia's failure gives a logical explanation: They panicked, prematurely declared thir existing phones obsolete, cancelled there next-gen development such as N9, and instead offered a poorer product (Windows Phone) at a later time. It is difficult to see how this can lead to anything else than failure.
Whether N9 and co. would be successful enough to save them in the long-run is pure speculation, but I see no fundamental why it could not, and it was ready at a time where Nokia was still big enough to get some app developers on board.
