4 ms·
Not really. Nokia wishes it were a startup, what they have is far harder to fix. Startups are usually trying to construct a platform in some capacity (eg: relea
by pclark 16y ago
Not really. Nokia wishes it were a startup, what they have is far harder to fix. Startups are usually trying to construct a platform in some capacity (eg: releasing as early as possible and making something someone wants as a stronghold to expand from and take over the world) before they run out of cash.
Nokia has legacy junk (products, technology, software, patents, brand perception) all of which is declining in value. Nokia is still profitable - for now.
The idea that Nokia will be able to change, is, IMHO, hilarious. Most leaders can assess why a company is dying, but understanding how to fix it - is exceptionally hard. His memo states the same advice any idiot would tell you (why yes, we should focus on something and crush it) but what?
It took Nokia over 3 years to realise this? How long will it take to resolve it? A decade?
Nokia will never convince stakeholders (being a public company and having 130,000 employees) to scrap products that generate billions of dollars - even if it is in decline. It's like asking news orgs to stop printing newspapers.
this is why big companies die to startups
You probably think you can continue your mediocre efforts and products and also do something new and innovative, but when you put it like I just did - it sounds impossible. It is.
I could go out and raise $10M and do a better job at doing what Nokia wants to become, than Nokia itself. True story.
- xentronium 16y agoWhile I agree with most things you said, I don't agree that nokia has no chances in pivoting. They've got good engineers and they can start a new brand with a fresh new approach to products.
- pclark 16y agoWhy do they have good engineers? Surely even people internal of Nokia are aware their products have been shockingly poor for the past few years? Why would you stay?
- wheels 16y agoBecause there isn't really anyone to defect to in Finland? Just to get a sense for the dominance of Nokia in the Finish economy – Nokia is a full quarter of Finland's GDP.
- kiiski 16y agoThere is always the rest of EU.
- wheels 16y agoSure, but if you're asking, "Why wouldn't they leave?" for a lot of folks, "I'd get to work on more interesting projects" doesn't trump, "I'd have to move my family to a different country."
- nuje 16y agoNokia accounts for about 1.6% percent of .fi GDP. http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/htimes/domestic-news/business/10998-nokias-share-of-finnish-gdp-down-to-16-per-cent-etla-.html http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/htimes/domestic-news/business/10... Also, I don't think Nokia currently attracts the best and the brightest around here, or has for some time.
- wheels 16y agoI wonder how the number sited there is calculated. Nokia's 2010 revenues were $58 billion, whereas the Finish GDP was $240 billion.
- swombat 16y agoI didn't meant that Nokia has all the benefits of being a startup. Clearly, it doesn't. But it has most of the drawbacks of being a startup (i.e. limited runway, need to innovate or die, etc). I also suspect that it will fail, but you never know... your analysis would have been correct for Apple 10 years ago - and yet, things turned out very differently. This Stephen Elop is an unknown quantity at this stage. This memo is certainly a decent start in the right direction. He's only been there for 6 months or so, and it takes that long before you have the credibility to make this kind of statement about a 130'000 people profitable company. So yes, they have hurdles, and they're very hard to jump over, but it is technically possible to do so.
- neutronicus 16y agoI could go out and raise $10M and do a better job at doing what Nokia wants to become, than Nokia itself. True story. That's quite a claim.
- pclark 16y agoAt least I didn't say I could do it in a weekend.