Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Product & Design · Product decision · 2009

Nokia's N97 was its 'iPhone killer' — with a resistive touchscreen that needed a stylus

The 2009 N97 was Nokia's answer to the iPhone. It had a resistive touchscreen that required a stylus, a buggy OS and a $650 price. The iPhone 3GS ate it alive.

Nokia · 2009-06

What happened

The Nokia N97, launched in June 2009, was positioned as Nokia's flagship 'iPhone killer.' It featured a slide-out QWERTY keyboard, a 3.5-inch touchscreen, a 5-megapixel camera and 32GB of storage. On paper, it competed with the iPhone 3GS.

But the N97's touchscreen was resistive, not capacitive — it required pressure (or a stylus) to register input, making the multi-touch gestures that defined the iPhone experience impossible. The Symbian S60 operating system was buggy and sluggish. The phone's build quality was criticized, with a loose slide mechanism and a screen that wobbled.

The N97 sold reasonably well in Nokia's existing markets but failed to attract the premium smartphone buyers Nokia was targeting. It was a transitional product: too late to be a great Symbian phone, too early to be a modern touchscreen device. The case illustrated how a company can check every spec box and still miss the experience that defines the category.

Why it happened

  • The N97's resistive touchscreen required a stylus, making multi-touch gestures impossible.
  • The Symbian S60 OS was buggy and sluggish compared to iOS.
  • Build quality was criticized: loose slide mechanism, wobbling screen.
  • The phone checked spec boxes but missed the touchscreen experience that defined the smartphone category.
What it costfailed to attract premium buyers; brand decline acceleratedcostly

The lesson

Specs are not the product — the experience is. The N97 had more storage and a keyboard. The iPhone had a screen you could touch. The customer buys the experience.

Aftermath

The N97 was followed by the N97 Mini and the N900 (Maemo), but Nokia's smartphone decline continued. The case is cited as an example of how a company can misread the category shift from features to experience.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →