To expand on that, even long before 2010 it was really clear that Symbian as a technology could not compete with newer approaches like iOS and even Android and Nokia's own Meego/Maemo. Maybe Nokia could have changed that situation by actually improving Symbian dramatically, but they didn't. It's pretty much a turd of an operating system from the user's and technological point of view. (Now don't get me wrong, I absolutely accept the Joel Spolsky "Never do rewrites" school of thought, but it's no excuse to let your software stagnate.)
And in 2010, iOS and Android were growing much faster than Symbian and Blackberry, even if the latter had some growth - mostly due to price reductions, I suppose. I know that in 2010, I no longer considered Symbian a smartphone operating system. "Smartphone" is a relative term: the bar rises with time.
By the way: one thing that struck me as odd in the original Elop presentation was that he projected that a very large fraction (IIRC half or so) of the future handset sales would be feature phones and dumbphones that wouldn't even run Symbian...
You are right about Symbian losing, but it is definitely a smartphone in the true sense of the word.
From a user's perspective, the poor UX of the OS and apps is what dragged it down. From a technical perspective it had huge technical debt, which led to enormous development time and bugs.
And in 2010, iOS and Android were growing much faster than Symbian and Blackberry, even if the latter had some growth - mostly due to price reductions, I suppose. I know that in 2010, I no longer considered Symbian a smartphone operating system. "Smartphone" is a relative term: the bar rises with time.
By the way: one thing that struck me as odd in the original Elop presentation was that he projected that a very large fraction (IIRC half or so) of the future handset sales would be feature phones and dumbphones that wouldn't even run Symbian...