Regardless this position was wrong for those who could execute, Android has been very good for Samsung for example. FWIW Nokia could have released a device with simply a better camera (very easy for them) and taken market share.
Very good for Samsung, not so good for a lot of other players. HTC started off strong, and is now fading. Motorola started off strong, and is now fading. Sony started strong, then declined, and now they are back on solid footing. LG is slowly declining. ZTE shot up fast, due to the Chinese market, and is now declining.
Basically if you aren't Samsung then you're going to have a tough time of it outside of China with an Android phone. And even in China, Samsung is now starting to take away marketshare from the Chinese companies.
Considering the headstart that Samsung, HTC, LG, Sony, Motorola, etc. had over Nokia, what makes you think Nokia would be better off than they are now? If they were lucky, they might be in a similar position to HTC, who was once the darling of the Android makers. Only without HTC's strong Android start, they likely would have been even farther behind by now. IMO, Nokia would likely be bankrupt and sold off piecemeal for a much smaller amount had they gone with Android.
IMO, I don't like Microsoft buying Nokia's devices division, but I'm not sure Microsoft had a choice if they wanted Nokia to have a shot at being a premium smartphone manufacturer.
It's just a shame that Nokia couldn't have stuck around for another year or two. Their low end WP phones are finally starting to pay off with the Nokia 520 being very popular in Africa and India from what I've read. It certainly doesn't hurt that it is the best performing smartphone in the 150 USD (unsubsidized) price bracket.
Regards,
SB