CNN has a post on Nokia and how it changed mobile. Sure, when I watched Keanu Reeves and Lawrence Fishburne whipped out their Nokia phones and them dark glasses, I wanted both. But that was then. Waaaay back then. This is 2013 and, officially, Nokia is not more as a mobile concern.
While CNN's post regarding Nokia's role in mobile phones has a few valid points, the article as a whole seemed very stretched. You can say the same thing about any other companies in the 2000s.
The article begged the reader to conclude only one thing: Nokia messed up big: first when Blackberry came to dominate the smartphone market and no one else had an answer and in 2007 when the iPhone changed the whole mobile landscape. You can't say that this was Nokia's fault alone. As Motorola, Blackberry, and Palm. Motorola, the best known brand in cell along side Nokia, had its RAZR moment but then nothing. It's on life support because its daddy is a 800-lb search giant.
Some day, such posts may well be written about Apple, Samsung, or Microsoft. Even Google. But what's the relevance of such posts? If anything, it's the worst kind of obituary. This shows why tech journalism should be left to bloggers with industry immersion and years of experience, not mass media that has very little clue what's going on in tech, social, or mobile.
The worst was at the end of the post regarding now Nokia was the reigning king of the Windows Phone market. Seriously, CNN? Let's do the math. 80% of the 5% market-share of the mobile market is what?
Simply put, there is no way to put a good spin on Nokia's situation. If anything, CNN should have added how it had the option to gone Android but failed to see where market was headed. Maybe tech pundits agree. Had Nokia gotten into bed with Google instead of Steve Balmer, whose days as Microsoft CEO is not less than a year away at most, things would be vastly different.
Imagine the Lumia 1020 with its 41MP camera running Kitkat as Nexus 5. Hey, you reading this, you're drooling all over your keyboard or tablet.