Nokia is putting new open RAN technology at the center of its effort to revive its 5G equipment business, while Ericsson, its chief European rival, remains notably reluctant to follow the same path.

The divergence between the world's two largest non-Chinese mobile network vendors has become one of the defining storylines of the current 5G cycle. Nokia has decided that openness — the ability to mix radio units, baseband products and software from different suppliers — can help it win back customers and relevance. Ericsson has so far demurred, treating open RAN more as a future possibility than a commercial imperative.

For Nokia, the stakes are commercial rather than ideological. The Finnish vendor has lost ground in the 5G radio access market over the past several years, and open RAN gives it a fresh argument in operator tenders. Carriers in North America, Europe and Asia have shown varying degrees of interest in interoperable interfaces, partly to widen their supplier base beyond the traditional incumbents and partly to pressure pricing.

Ericsson's hesitation rests on a straightforward calculation. The Swedish vendor argues that today's open RAN products often carry cost and performance penalties compared with tightly integrated systems, because splitting the radio network into components from different suppliers introduces integration work and frictions at the interfaces. Its executives have repeatedly said they see few operator demands that justify a rapid shift, and that they will move when the economics and performance match what integrated platforms already deliver.

The backdrop to the vendors' strategic split is regulatory and political. Authorities in several Western markets, most prominently the United States, have promoted open RAN as a way to reduce dependence on Huawei and ZTE, the Chinese suppliers that face bans or restrictions in a growing number of countries. Governments have also put funding behind the technology, and standards bodies within the O-RAN Alliance have spent years specifying the open interfaces that make mixing vendors' products possible in the first place.

That policy support matters because operator enthusiasm for open RAN has been uneven. Some large operators have run trials and small deployments; others have concluded that the technology is not yet mature enough for dense national networks. Vendors therefore face a judgment call about how much engineering effort to commit to a technology whose near-term revenue remains modest relative to conventional 5G radio sales.

Nokia's choice signals that it sees the balance tipping. By developing new open RAN products rather than merely restating marketing commitments, it positions itself to capture operator contracts as those operators — under regulatory encouragement and cost pressure — begin asking for interoperable gear in earnest. The company is effectively wagering that open RAN moves from pilot projects to mainstream procurement fast enough to justify the investment.

Ericsson, by contrast, is betting that integrated systems will dominate operator spending for years, and that a slower open RAN approach will not cost it critical accounts in the meantime. If open RAN adoption accelerates faster than Ericsson expects, the Swedish vendor risks arriving late to tenders that specify open interfaces. If it stays niche, Nokia will have spent development resources on a market that never scales.

Neither vendor's position is fixed. Both have said they support the open RAN direction in principle, and both belong to the industry bodies shaping the specifications. The disagreement is about timing, pace and commercial payoff, not about the end state.

The market will render its verdict through operator purchasing decisions over the coming years. Each new tender that specifies open interfaces — and each one that does not — will sharpen the contrast between Nokia's urgency and Ericsson's patience, and determine whether open RAN becomes the revival story Nokia is counting on.