While all opinions here have probably at least some truth behind them and are good, it should be remembered that success and selection of OS's is much more than just libraries and lines of code and coding language. Sometimes what is "best" on coders or developers viewpoint does not justify the selection.

Sorry to say, but most often this is what is forgotten by developers. When making a phone for global markets, there is much, much more in play. Even with the company that Nokia was. Strategic alliances, investors, marketing and of course finally, the consumer. These just to name a few outside the actual tech realm.

Command line does not sell you phones. Period. It is a tool of only few when scaled to the magnitude of what Nokia was aiming to sell at those times. Added value of open boot loader or influence of Aegis or whatever, in grand scale does not matter when you are selling the phone to a consumer. Some say that n900 had great UI, and while I personally would agree to some extent, it was utter sh*t compared to even early iterations of iPhone when the phone was given to average user. This matter. The shine above the hood, not what is under them. It just needs to work well enough with others and shine for the customer.

Adding then to that, is what your OS can do for other companies that add to your, and theirs, revenue. Apple had all in place. Some say, they had the full ecosystem already. Android was already ahead of Symbian when it comes to opening your OS for added value, yes in expense of privacy, but U know, 90% of the consumers dont care. And the 10% doesn't matter.

If all cookies would have been put to same basket, could Nokia have made it with Maemo 5, Symbian or Meego? Impossible to say, of course, but if I had to quess gtk or qt would not have mattered. Maemo 5 UI definitely would not have made it. Marketing research was very clear of that. Meego was great on that side, but it would have needed so much more punch behind it. Android was already so far ahead and also backed up by Google. Could actually anything have compared with that?

All in all, I would really want to know what made them choose Win. Yes, I could see the potential of synergy with the de facto PC leader OS (kind of what Apple had done), but Win phone was SO MUCH behind all else, that in a situation where they also themselves were behind others, I can't see what were they really hoping to happen and what failed it?

Original opening of this thread is interesting. Stories we now hear of what was going on and how flawed development had become at Nokia sends shivers to your spine.

I personally like to have opinion that the management simply got too scared and froze/panicked. Result was terrible mistakes. Nokia had it all, but they simply didn't know/or manage what to do when things weren't going well.