49 ms·

Microsoft just bought Nokia for $0

• innes 16y ago
  Sorry, but reflexively mentioning 'the BSOD' is pretty much a red flag for me when it comes to taking an argument seriously.
• arethuza 16y ago
  I think the "the same happen without any risk to MS" is an excellent point - the downside for Microsoft is limited and the upside is pretty good. For Nokia the upside is limited (at best you are yet-another Windows Mobile 7 handset manufacturer - it's not like they have an exclusive) and the downside is huge.
  • saturdaysaint 16y ago
    "The downside is huge." Compared to what? I don't think the downside is greater than the downside of maintaining their own incredibly expensive and increasingly obsolete platform(s). This gives them their only hope of delivering a stable smartphones with a modern UI in the first half of this year (bonus: without spending tens-of-thousands of developer hours). I consider that "upside".
    • zmmmmm 16y ago
      Compared to what? Compared to joining an ecosystem that has already succeeded (Android). The downside if WP7 turns out to peak at 5% of the market - which is entirely possible at this juncture - is that Nokia will suffer a horrific drop in profits and probably go out of business. They now need WP7 to reach 30 - 50% of the market simply to consider this strategy a success. It's incredibly risky to take a bet like that.
      • silversmith 16y ago
        And it is entirely possible. Remember, Nokia has a huge hold of lower/middle-end mobile market. If they can manage to get WP7 on devices in that segment without making them much more expensive, WP7 might just as well become a respectable competitor.
        • whatusername 16y ago
          Remember that the burning platform memo was specific.. Not only are they losing on the top end -- there's phones coming out of China now beating them on the bottom end.
      • saturdaysaint 16y ago
        Elop has given a credible reply to this argument: Android would put them on the fastest track imaginable to commoditization. Nokia's support and supply-chain would have taken Android from the marketshare leader to the undisputed ruler of the smartphone market. In this kind of atmosphere, it could be safely surmised that no manufacturer would have any leverage with Google and there would be very little opportunity for interesting differentiation.
        • zmmmmm 16y ago
          > Android would put them on the fastest track imaginable to commoditization The way I see it they are on that track anyway. As far as I can tell they got absolutely no hard concessions from MS about control of WP7 - I'm sure Microsoft said lots of nice things but when it comes to the crunch Nokia has to be delusional if they think Microsoft is going to let them have any real influence over WP7. If you are going to get commoditized it might as well be in a market that is a known success rather than one which might totally fail. > In this kind of atmosphere, it could be safely surmised that no manufacturer would have any leverage with Google Nokia is easily big enough and powerful enough that they could take Android their own way. They could forgo licensing Google's apps and put their own on, thus maintaining a foot in the ecosystem but remaining entirely independent. Android would have given them a lot more options than just becoming subservient to Google (which, even if they did do, I would maintain is better than being subservient to MS). This deal is strange enough to me that I half suspect there is another surprise - perhaps MS and Nokia joining together to sue the living daylights out of Google with every patent in their arsenals.
    • lsc 16y ago
      eh, tens of thousands of developer hours is pretty small potatoes to Nokia. consider 2000 hours a year, give or take, per developer. Consider that nokia just completely alienated all of their external developers, and likely most of their internal software people. Even if the windows mobile 7 turns out to be reasonably good, they've just thrown away the software half of their organization. It's gone. If windows 7 doesn't work out for them a year from now? they will have to start over from scratch. Developer goodwill? gone. Developer mindshare? gone. those are some pretty valuable things they just threw away. Personally, I think their shareholders would have been a whole lot better off if they had sold to microsoft outright.
  • okaramian 16y ago
    They're currently going from not making smartphones... to making smartphones and actually trying to compete in the current market. It's better than nothing.
• bambax 16y ago
  This post is so true and so sad. > most of Nokia's brand loyalty is because of the indestructible and unbelievably reliable phones they made in the 90's, since then they've been steadily dropping on that front Nokia phones are still the most reliable and solid, by far... for now.
  • michael_dorfman 16y ago
    Really? Here in Norway, people are complaining constantly about a few Nokia models that are notorious for bad reliability, and I've never heard complaints about iPhones, for example. If Nokia phones are actually "the most reliable and solid, by far", they've got a serious perception problem in the marketplace, at least in these parts.
    • haraball 16y ago
      My perception of this is a bit different; Nokias and iPhones are the most seen brands on the different meetings I attend, and especially the E-series from Nokia which are considered solid and straight to the point for busy business people. (I'm also in Norway)
    • daliusd 16y ago
      The last complain about iPhone I heard was from Norway: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Extreme-Cold-Causes-iPhone-to-Explode-in-Norway-Apple-Denies-Repair-178288.shtml http://news.softpedia.com/news/Extreme-Cold-Causes-iPhone-to... I would like to see statistical information how people perceive reliability of their phones. I have 3 years old Nokia smartphone and I'm constantly dropping it on hard surfaces.
    • bambax 16y ago
      I don't buy phones everyday, so maybe the most recent models are weaker, but I have a Nokia from 2009, and so does my wife. Our kids have taken them to the most incredible abuse imaginable and they're still working fine. I had Sony phones, Samsung phones, all very fragile and sensitive to dust, water, being stepped upon, etc. We don't have iPhones but we have iPads (which are a different beast altogether, of course)... the fist iPad to enter our home lasted exactly one day (it doesn't like being dropped from a table -- even a low table).
• wippler 16y ago
  I think the post is unnecessarily harsh on both Nokia and Microsoft. Windows Phone is now a lot better and is comparable with iOS/Android, only thing it is lacking is apps. Nokia making this decision much late in the game clearly knows that Microsoft also came late to the game. It needs MS as much as MS needs Nokia. Together with huge marketing muscle of MS, they can surely make something out of the partnership.
  • jawee 16y ago
    I found webOS to be superior to iOS and Android in most ways, only to be hindered by poor hardware and marketing. WP7 will not take off just because it is objectively better in some ways.
  • silvestrov 16y ago
    Missing apps is like being BeOS: you can be the best OS in the world, but without apps you are not going to sell. App-less, you are nothing in this product segment. Besides, their Mac support is not that great, no support for syncing calendars. This is not 90'ies anymore, you need Mac support at this time to get the teenagers and cool people to use your product.
    • neutronicus 16y ago
      I don't think it's the same at all. All I use on my Android phone is e-mail, maps, the browser, and general phone stuff - honestly, I would trade the entire app store for a little more reliability and a better touch screen.
      • bad_user 16y ago
        That's why I bought an iPhone; even though I'll never buy a Macbook or other Apple products. Being able to sync contacts / calendar back and forth to my Google Apps account is priceless.
        • neutronicus 16y ago
• shareme 16y ago
  Considering that Nokia's decision to stab other Symbian partners in the back form way back and do an UI and than have the failure of Symbian for years blow up in their face I would state that Nokia is about worth $0.
  • bb1000 16y ago
    Yeah right. They still have the largest market share for smartphones:37% and mobile phones: 31%. And made a profit of €2billion 2010.
• pietrofmaggi 16y ago
  The main problem of the late Nokia is the (lack of) speed in innovation. If they jump on the Android boat they'll have to fight against Samsung, Motorola, HTC, LG, etc.. Look at the current performance of Sony-Ericsson. On the Windows Phone 7 boat they are the big fish, and they can try to deliver some good products without to much competition (in the WP7 environment).
  • davidw 16y ago
    Microsoft does not want a platform dominated by one hardware manufacturer. Their interest is for Nokia to be the Compaq of phones, or something along those lines. There's no way that Nokia can really own the platform so that the same stuff that runs on their phones won't run on other phones in the future. Microsoft owns it, period. With Android, being open source, they would have had a bit more leverage.
    • unp3rs0n 16y ago
      Android is already saturated with almost all hardware vendors jumping in and entry of low cost Chinese handsets. Microsoft may own it, but remember that they are an upstart now in the mobile business, not an established player. I am pretty sure this deal would allow them a lot more leverage to influence the OS design and software. Pretty much like the early WinTel era.
      • davidw 16y ago
        > Pretty much like the early WinTel era. The company that got really, really rich off the early WinTel era was none other than Microsoft. Not Compaq, not IBM, not any of the other clones.
        • rick_bc 16y ago
          Well, it's actually Intel.
    • mortenjorck 16y ago
      There is one non-disastrous way for this to work out. Nokia becomes the Dell of smartphones.
• noonespecial 16y ago
  The whole thing feels like shark-jumping if you ask me. I'd watch Nokia stock today and see if investors don't agree. I'm betting they do. I wish I knew a damn thing about investing, I'd short this one for sure.
  • Kilimanjaro 16y ago
    Like jumping from a burning platform to shark-infested waters?
    • detst 16y ago
      ... as Google hovered with their Android rescue helicopters?
      • masklinn 16y ago
        Android and WP7 make no difference for Nokia. In fact WP7 is clearly a better deal as they can talk and negotiate with Microsoft's moneyhat and they become by far the foremost WP7 phone maker. They bring a lot of hardware expertise and knowledge to Microsoft's camp. Going with Android, they'd just get to get bent. If their choice was to get out of software and choose between WP7 and Android, WP7 is a much better idea.
        • deleted 16y ago
          [deleted]
        • danh 16y ago
          It seems that Nokia will "become by far the foremost WP7 phone maker" mostly because everyone else shuns it.
          • daeken 16y ago
            Err, what? HTC has 3 (4? Not sure) WP7 phones, LG has at least 2, Samsung has at least 1, Dell has 1, and those are just the ones that I know about. Are there any big exceptions here except Nokia, Motorola, and Sony Ericsson?
• latch 16y ago
  Some reports suggested that [considerable] money was part of the deal. Do we know for sure whether this is or isn't the case? "Microsoft invests $300 million in a strategic partnership with Nokia" is a lot different than "Microsoft just bought Nokia for $0."
  • jsnell 16y ago
    A one-time few hundred million would be peanuts at this scale, I can't imagine it affecting the decision unless it was quietly deposited to somebody's private Swiss bank account.
    • Geee 16y ago
      Microsoft will help a lot in the marketing department for the new devices, with money and with mind-share. One important point in this deal is the US markets, it would be impossible marketing effort for Nokia to gain ground on with Symbian and MeeGo, even if they succeeded in making them technically superior.
    • StrawberryFrog 16y ago
      $0 is a precise number. "Microsoft bought Nokia for $300 million" doesn't have the same ring to it, but seems to be closer to the truth. Which makes the headline sensationalistic.
  • Luc 16y ago
    Nokia has of the order of $13 billion cash on hand. I imagine it would have to be a substantially larger investment to make their heart beat faster.
  • astrodust 16y ago
    When you're Microsoft, $300M is the same as $0 for any other company. They're losing a few billion a year on their online division, yet still stay profitable overall, so $300M is really bus fare for a company that scale.
• therockhead 16y ago
  Nokia made a lot of mistakes in the past but I think the biggest one was not buying Palm/WebOS.They could have had a great OS and have total control of there future.
• ig1 16y ago
  I sincerely hope that Elop sold all of his Microsoft shares before he joined Nokia, otherwise he could be breaking all kinds of laws right now.
  • ig1 16y ago
    This is a legitimate point, Elop would have got options while he worked for Microsoft, that creates the scope for both insider trading problems and conflict of interest issues which are legally regulated.
    • Maakuth 16y ago
      I'm fairly sure this has been explored very thoroughly by the lawyers of both companies. Actually, I think this deal was something that the board was preparing for when they decided to hire a Microsoft man.
• aniket_ray 16y ago
  Contrary to everyone else I actually think this is a smart move. Personally, I didn't find Windows Phone 7 too bad compared to an iPhone. The only thing that Apple has in its favour is the RDF. Nokia needs a differentiating OS, Android is not that OS. I don't think Nokia wants to become a bit part commodity hardware manufacturer. So Windows Phone 7 might turn out to be a smart move. Nokia is in a position to capture the cheap smartphone category, a category that is still up for grabs.
  • stopmi 16y ago
    but other companies like htc, motorola etc. can also manufacture WP7 phones. and nokia cannot make too many changes to functionality even if allowed as it would fragment the WP7 app-market. even gui based changes would kill the ui-consistency that MS is touting.. so i do not understand how nokia is differentiating itself by becoming a WP7 phone manufacturer...
    • iqster 16y ago
      I think it is about the developer/apps/market place "ecosystem". Elop mentioned that in the burning platform memo. I'd give Microsoft some credit in their developer relationship machine that's already in place. The deal makes sense to me in terms of economies of scale ... more popular OS = more developers/apps.
• cincinnatus 16y ago
  A fair bit of hyperbole and fanboy-ism happening here. Which is completely understandable. It is pretty clear that WP7 is not Windows Mobile, that Microsoft does in fact finally get it. Jumping on the Android bandwagon is not in any way clearly a better or safer move. In fact from a market perspective those waters are considerably more bloody and getting worse every day. This is a desperation play by Nokia in the high end of the market for certain, but of all the bad choices they had available this may be the least bad. I is also likely true that there is no move they could make that would ever result in bringing them back to the heights of their past. Innovators dilemma in action.
  • ansible 16y ago
    Yes, this is a desperation play. Ideally, they'd have made this decision 2 years ago, and already be shipping their first few WP7 phones.
• mariusmg 16y ago
  "And to those whose Nokia/Windows smartphones will give them the mobile variation on the MS 'BSOD' while calling 911, my condolences to you too." Just a giant frustrated douchebag who likes Android. Why is this even submitted? It's clearly trolling
  • FiddlerClamp 16y ago
    Yeah, he can't even get the name of Windows Phone right.
• ThomPete 16y ago
  As always here in HN we tend to focus on the actual technology and platform rather than what it do for normal people. This is a great win both for Microsoft as it is for Nokia and as it is for the millions of people who are just regular phone users. Yes nokia will have to build an ecosystem (http://000fff.org/the-power-of-digital-ecoystems/ http://000fff.org/the-power-of-digital-ecoystems/) But they still have huge market share with people who are not likely to care that there exist an iPhone because it's too expensive. And if the market is in fact trending smartphones in 2011-2012 nokia will have great opportunity to develop a market into a smartphone market with their existing base.
• Swannie 16y ago
  Nokia were clearly the leader 10 years ago. Whilst at the front of the race they took their eye off for a little distraction called Symbian. The problem there was the complete lack of control over the UI. Symbian forked their UI for phone and tablet, and phone producers forked their own UIs again (UIQ, Series 60,80,90), making upgrading the existing UI centrally practically impossible. The only option was to start from scratch... oops. The committee appears to have made a big deal out of binary compatibility. Yet with today's consumer, that is not important on a smart phone, when we want to get apps from a store. Nokia looked up and has realised it's now running on a different track to everyone else - the finish line moved and they can't catch up (3 years to get from the old UI's, and we've still not got shiny new Symbian in mass market products). Time to get into the current race. The problem with branching Android, is that it puts them back in exactly the same sort of situation they were in when they backed Symbian. By going with Microsoft they have moved to a much more controlled system. Microsoft have buckets of experience with smart phones, and I believe that WM7 will be the XP of mobile. Let's just hope they don't Vista it.
• maxklein 16y ago
  When I read such articles, that's when you realise that people are resistant to change. It's like those people still using Windows XP because it's the best. Tech is in constant change, but at some point, some people just give up and decide not to join in anymore: not to make facebook accounts, not to join twitter, not to upgrade their OS, not to switch browser. That's what this post is: someone refusing to face the changing landscape of tech. Mobile is greater than what it seemed to be at the start. Mobile operating systems are no longer button phones, they are computers, and they are going to integrate with the desktop tightly. That's the new world, and in such a world, there are only going to be just a few platforms. Nokia had almost zero chance of being the new platform. Microsoft continues to maintain strong platform presence on the desktop, browser, gaming console/set-top, and they have brought in a strong mobile platform, even if sales are lack-luster now. Android provides a free, single platform for everybody else. Apple has their iPhone eco-system, which is not open to others to use. If Nokia stays on their platform, they will surely fade into irrelevance, and at some point they will need to switch to Android, and be years behind all the other Android clones. That would be the end of Nokia. The Microsoft-Nokia deal basically has given the Microsoft mobile platform relevance, and it means that a big chunk of the mobile market will be MS/Nokia, and that will ensure that Nokia remains relevant. With this move, the integrated platform market has basically been divided into three equal chunks (Android, iOS, MS) and for the new few year people are going to have to choose between those. Nokia as a hardware manufacturer - if it does good deals with MS, will basically form one-half of the third major platform. That's how it will stay relevant. After this deal, Android is likely going to become more popular, because most other hardware manufacturers will bet full-scale on android. However, the problem is that Android lacks a desktop environment, so canot be as tightly integrated as the other two platforms could. So I expect Android to take the role of feature-phones now, while MS and Apple control and split the high-end market. I'm not sure what role blackberry will play in all this.
  • masklinn 16y ago
    > and that will ensure that Nokia remains relevant. Nokia becoming a WP7 OEM does not make them relevant. They're going to go the same path as they would have had they gone with Android instead: just another phone OEM. Though between WP7 and Android, WP7 is probably a much better choice for them.
• tomelders 16y ago
  um... didn't Microsoft pay Nokia a lot of money for this deal?
• Uchikoma 16y ago
  Nokia wants to be Apple but acts like Dell, this does not make any sense. Disclaimer: Being Dell is nice, but you need to think like Dell concerning their, much lower, margins. And whatever Microsoft tells you, you're just one of many and compete with HTC, not Apple.
  • rm445 16y ago
    Nokia used to have levels of consumer satisfaction and devotion similar to what Apple have. Consistently, for about a decade (from the mid-nineties), they made the most desirable phones, with the best combination of hardware and user experience. But the user experience just didn't keep up as phones developed more features. To continue the Apple analogy, the current Nokia smartphone experience is as though Apple had continued to push OS9 while the rest of the world moved on around them. Symbian is Mac OS classic in 2011.
    • Uchikoma 16y ago
      It's not about consumer satisfaction but about business models. They want the high margin Apple model (into which HP also wants so they bought Palm and in which RIM is). Then they need their own OS. That their OS setup is behind the market hurts their sales, but is irrelevant to the Apple vs. Dell business model discussion (full stack high cost high margin vs. commodity hardware low cost low margin)
• abijlani 16y ago
  I completely disagree with the article. He treats both Nokia and Microsoft as though they have no idea what they are doing. Microsoft has decades of experience in coming up from behind place and crushing the competition. As for Nokia, they make really good hardware. They got caught up in selling cheap handsets because it was great business for a while but that does not mean they cannot make great hardware. I think this is a great move for both companies and even better for consumers.
  • marshray 16y ago
    I can't think of many times when Microsoft has "come up from behind place and crushed the competition" when the competition was less than ten times smaller than they were. Perhaps enterprise adoption of .Net over Java is once such example. Can you think of others? I'd probably put Microsoft and Nokia at even odds in the phone market, but I really don't expect them to pass Android with something non open-source.
    • Yzupnick 16y ago
      Xbox for one
      • marshray 16y ago
        Looking at the numbers here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_%28seventh_generation%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_... it looks to me like Xbox has been successful and competes well with the PS3 in North America, but has dismal acceptance in Japan. But both of them are trailing behind the Wii. So that's clearly a success compared to the Windows-on-phones idea, but I don't think it counts as having "crushed the competition".
        • unp3rs0n 16y ago
          Xbox has been the highest selling console for six straight months now. Expect that to continue given how wildly popular Kinect has been over the holiday season.
• ghenne 16y ago
  Here's what is happening. Microsoft wants to buy Nokia, but not with all those buildings full of people. The announcements mean than Nokia can now get to work laying off tens of thousands of people. They don't need 120,000 employees anymore. Everybody involved in Symbian can go. Most of the Meego staff, too, as well as lots of middle and upper management. It won't cost Microsoft a cent in severance pay. Once it's all cleaned up, Microsoft can complete the purchase. The stock price should be lower too, reducing the total cost further.
  • shareme 16y ago
    ah what have you been smoking? Nokia kept both MeeGO, Qt, and Symbian groups..
    • ghenne 16y ago
      Check out these two slides from the Nokia-Microsoft presentation: http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/11/rip-symbian/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/11/rip-symbian/ Symbian goes to 0. Meego is cut 75%. Services cut 20%. As for QT, here is what the press release says: "Qt will continue to be the development framework for Symbian and Nokia will use Symbian for further devices; continuing to develop strategic applications in Qt for Symbian platform and encouraging application developers to do the same. With 200 million users worldwide and Nokia planning to sell around 150 million more Symbian devices, Symbian still offers unparalleled geographical scale for developers. Extending the scope of Qt further will be our first MeeGo-related open source device, which we plan to ship later this year. Though our plans for MeeGo have been adapted in light of our planned partnership with Microsoft, that device will be compatible with applications developed within the Qt framework and so give Qt developers a further device to target. " So, QT on Symbian dies with Symbian, but stays on with crippled Meego.
• SudarshanP 16y ago
  Nokia to developers: no Qt for Windows Phone development as posted on another HN thread. http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/11/nokia-notifies-developers-that-qt-is-out-for-windows-phone-devel/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/11/nokia-notifies-developers... Linux(KDE) has a lot of Qt stuff. Will the Nokia Microsoft marriage hurt Linux badly in some way?
  • marshray 16y ago
    Oh wow, I hadn't thought of that. Yeah I imagine this is likely to piss off Nokia's most loyal developers. I doubt Linux distributions are going to notice. QT will continue to be a rock solid first class platform even with minimal new development. It already has more features than it needs. They could probably coast for a decade before it begins to hurt on Linux.
    • msg 16y ago
      When I used it Qt was dual licensed, one way for commercial closed source, and GPL for open source. It can just be forked right?
      • marshray 16y ago
        Sure, but who's going to enhance it and promote it and keep it growing and alive? KDE? Oracle? :-)
• paolomaffei 16y ago
  Wasn't the 3310 the Nokia high point?
  • threepointone 16y ago
    +1. what a gorgeous little phone that was. I honestly still believe that, for that time (and a few years beyond it), the 3310 was the best phone a non-business type could have. The buttons on it were perfect, and no one did t9 like it. /nostalgia.
• ashr 16y ago
  No doubt that MS has a great opportunity now and so has Nokia. Their partnership better move fast otherwise it won't be able to benefit. Without knowing the details of the partnership, the content in the OP sounds mostly hyperbole and opinion at best.
• iuguy 16y ago
  My favourite phone was the Nokia 6210. That thing was damned near indestructable. The 6310i was also great but it only really added bluetooth and had no authentication on the AT modem profile (which meant anyone could connect to it and dial up to the Internet, snarf data and so on whenever bluetooth was on). The problem with Nokia was that they kept messing around with Symbian and didn't really know what it was for, making clunky interfaces that while better than Windows Mobile at the time were just blown away by the iphone. Instead of trying to provide a better experience than the iphone, they went crazy trying to imitate it and as a result failed to innovate. Ultimately Nokia's marriage to Symbian pretty much screwed the pooch. They had to ditch it but for what? If they're just another android OEM they're going to have some interoperability issues and it'll still be quite expensive. Switching to Microsoft means that if the tech is good it'll be well supported with a long term roadmap by guys with a good track record elsewhere. Nokia won't be just another OEM - they will be able to influence Microsoft's development. They still shift huge amounts of phones especially at the lower end of the market, and Microsoft will recognise that. Sure Nokia are down but not out, and I think this is better for both than the title suggests.
  • ansible 16y ago
    Years ago it seemed to me that Symbian was a dead-end. Just reading about the programmer APIs was enough to convince me of that. Motorola finally realized that P2K and their other proprietary stuff wasn't going to cut it for the future. Most of these mobile phone OSs were designed for very small, resource-constrained devices. Which is fine... that's all that was viable in the market at the time. But they weren't designed to scale up. For example: Android uses Linux, and it has had MP support for a long time (late 1990's?). Even as of five years ago, many people would have thought that a phone with a multi-core CPU is crazy. Why would you need all that power (and power consumption)? And here we are in 2011, with the Nvidia Tegra 2 and other CPUs in shipping phones. For most of those phone OSs, adding multi-core support would be a multi-year re-write. Linux? No problemo. And beyond that, there is database support, and support for various Internet-based protocols (chat, radio, web, etc.). And what is needed for that is a really solid TCP/IP stack. I've seen (and done) things to a TCP/IP implementation to get it running on a small device. It wasn't pretty. Or high performance. It will 'work', but not for heavy duty use like you'd need on a smartphone these days. Edit: grammar. Mention of TCP/IP stack.
• rodh257 16y ago
  Why is this on the front page? Come on. Anyone who thinks this deal isn't good for both parties is kidding themselves. After years of trying to create their own operating system Nokia have finally admitted they need to invest in an ecosystem. If they were to take on Android they'd be late to an already full party. With WP7 there's no one seriously pushing it, Dell, LG both aren't famous for their phones. HTC owes most of what they have to Android. Nokia and Microsoft working together is a partnership not to be written off. It's a point of difference for Nokia, and Microsoft isn't going to be out of this game, they'll invest and invest and they will be a major player, you watch. A lot of ridiculous statements have been made by bloggers of late when discussing smartphones, but I don't think I've heard any as silly as this: "And to those whose Nokia/Windows smartphones will give them the mobile variation on the MS 'BSOD' while calling 911, my condolences to you too."
  • gorog 16y ago
    Plus Nokia certainly negotiated a great deal. If they get WP7 licenses for 1$ when others get it for 10$, they have room to provide better quality for the same retail price, while making comfortable margins. It's not because Apple develops its own OS that this strategy is the best for everyone. Nokia should better be the next Dell than the next Amiga. Also, carriers can't break WP7 like they can break Android (and block its updates).
    • rick_bc 16y ago
      But is that legal? Even if it's legal, the other manufacturers will just abandon Windows Mobile 7. Not a nice scene.
      • rodh257 16y ago
        I think it would be just like giving a discount to bulk orders. Nokia will buy a huge amount of licenses compared to dell, htc or any other supplier. Once the app ecosystem grows other suppliers will want to be a part of it.
• ErrantX 16y ago
  Ok really thick comment. If the mass market is being stolen by Android... why didn't Nokia start using Android? It would seem the logical idea; if the platform is burning rather than trying to stand on a piece of planking that has a history of falling in the ocean.. why not dowse yourself in petrol and fling yourself into the inferno. I mean; if the argument is that Android is eating up the market Nokia wants... then why not have the easiest slice?
• johnyzee 16y ago
  What do you mean $0? From what I heard Microsoft paid several hundred million dollars in this deal. Ah, here it is: http://blogs.computerworld.com/17800/google_and_microsoft_offer_nokia_hundreds_of_millions_to_abandon_meego_symbian http://blogs.computerworld.com/17800/google_and_microsoft_of... Note that a couple of hundred million was on the table from several bidders. If there are more than a few living braincells left at Nokia they probably got significantly more out of it than that.
• martythemaniak 16y ago
  Now imagine what Nokia could have done had they picked up Palm and installed Jon Rubenstein as their CEO instead. facepalm
• jogjayr 16y ago
  So months ago, using an external OS (Android) was like "Finnis boys peeing their pants to keep warm", but now it's a good strategic partnership? And especially given Elop's very recent Microsoft ties, could there possibly be some other agenda?
  • Maakuth 16y ago
    That was a quote from Nokia exec called Anssi Vanjoki, who leaved the company when Elop was hired.
• pessimist 16y ago
  I predict that Nokia will sue Android for patent violations soon.
• ericmsimons 16y ago
  Seems pretty naive to say Windows Phone 7 is a bad platform when you haven't even touched it...
• tewks 16y ago
  This is a great article, but the conclusion is flawed in that high point for Nokia was not the Nokia 2110! It was instead Series60 third edition, which included a WebKit browser and SIP support in 2006. Afterwards, nothing happened... it was as if the company threw its hands up in resignation post-iPhone.
• andrewljohnson 16y ago
  I dislike when essays swear at me, particularly long ones. If you want me to take what I am reading seriously, I expect you to choose your words carefully, and using the word "shit" doesn't smack of careful word choice. I kind of swear like a sailor when I talk sometimes, but not when I write.
  • sfphotoarts 16y ago
    you just did.
• teyc 16y ago
  There are two key drivers here: 1) Smartphones will replace feature phones 2) Nokia still leads in feature phones in terms of ruggedness and reliability If my wife is replacing her current Nokia, she'd certainly weigh towards Nokia. But she'd want something a little more current, as long as it is just as reliable. As nice touch phones are, the form factor required for finger interaction means it is not as convenient as a smaller phone. Symbian will continue to have a life for a very long time.
• nickzoic 16y ago
  When jumping off a burning oil platform into the freezing North Atlantic, don't look down and think "Oooh, I'll jump into the burning oil slick, that'll be warmer!"
• jsz0 16y ago
  This is a ridiculously bad article that glorifies Nokia as something they haven't been in many years. It was sink or swim time for them. Choosing Android 2 years ago may have been a really smart move but there are already established leaders in Android handsets. It was too late for Nokia to go anywhere with Android. They will be a first class citizen of WM7 and get a tremendous amount of support from Microsoft who will be willing to piss away millions, if not billions, of dollars to promote WM7. They could have never got that type of treatment from Google. They'd be just another player in an overcrowded market. At least this gives them some potential to offer a unique product.
• dtyuldtulfdyu 16y ago
  http://www.tkkshow.com http://www.tkkshow.com The company products cheaper price, reputation first, quality first, welcome friends order. Fashion, trends, avant-garde; the global epidemic. Woman Boot $40 + Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 bag $30 + Tshirts $ 16 Low-heeled shoes $40 Air Max SHOE(Air Max 24-7,Air Max 2011,Air Max 2010,Air Max 2009 )$38 Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi) $ 30, Sunglasses (Oakey, coach, gucci, Armaini) $ 16, New era cap $ 15, jacket(Gucci,G-STAR,Ed Hardy,ARMANI,AF ,) $40 Woman Boot: (Christian Louboutin,NIKE,LV,Jordan,)$48
• sunstone 16y ago
  This is true. And Nokia just bought WP7 for 0$. The question that remains is... How are they going to split the revenue from mobile search.