[curiousObject]

Case in point: Google providing Android for free killed Windows Phone, Symbian, PalmOS, Blackberry, and several other attempts to create a mobile device OS

Which was among the reasons that Google did that, not that the company would say so.

[toast0]

Microsoft ran Windows Phone into the ground. I could rant, but WP7 was interesting, WP7.5 was usable, WP8 and WP8.1 were pretty good, and then WM10 was very late and pretty meh. Had WM10 shown up on time and with quality, we would have a different discussion. Lots of OEMs were making phones for WP8, not many for WM10.

Symbian had flirted with Open Source, but IMHO, Nokia's fight with US carriers over shipping a SIP client and the resulting disappearance from the US market of most Nokia phones doomed Symbian... Tech journalism is dominated by US outlets and nobody reported on Symbian phones because they weren't there.

I assume you mean Palm's WebOS, cause PalmOS was pretty stylus driven and ux expectations had moved on. WebOS was neat, but Palm didn't have the corporate resources to support it.

Blackberry certainly had time and resources to compete. BB10 was supposed to be quite good, but maybe a little late.

All of these had what I like to call early mover disadvantage. Being first or at least early to a market makes it hard to adapt when the market changes. Coming in ten years late to smartphones was great for Apple and Google.

[curiousObject]

Thanks. You’ve made some strong points there

‘early mover disadvantage’ is a compelling phrase

[mcosta]

That and the fact that all those other OS were a complete disaster.