6 ms·

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. Tec

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.
- ldng 16y ago
  Could you elaborate on that please ? Personally I fail to see in what this choice is better, maybe I missed something.
  - kjhghjkjh 16y ago
    With Wp7 they are the preferred Wp7 platform. So every business that must buy Microsoft - because it's Microsoft - will now buy Nokia phones. With Android they would be competing to differentiate themselves from high end Korean makers and a bunch of cheap chinese makers - based on what?
    - ldng 16y ago
      Ok, maybe. That bring then the question why nobody wants WP7. Maybe one possible explanation can be find here : http://www.asymco.com/2011/02/11/in-memoriam-microsofts-previous-strategic-mobile-partners/ http://www.asymco.com/2011/02/11/in-memoriam-microsofts-prev...
    - sahaj 16y ago
      so microsoft just abandoned their initial WP7 launch partners?
  - kyberneticka 16y ago
    With Android, as others have pointed out, Nokia would have faced immense competition from HTC, Samsung, and others who are established in the marketplace. With WP7, they at least have an opportunity to come in at the ground floor. Also, given the relationship between Elop and MS, there can be some shared resources to make Nokia the flagship for WP7. With Android, they would have been just another manufacturer.
    - ldng 16y ago
      I would answer that implementing this strategy can't be a short term plan. This will take time to put in place meanwhile a lot of executives can change. Is it wise to rely on a relationship between one executive and another company as a long term strategy ?
dspillett 16y ago
I think the main thing people have an issue with is partnering with MS and using their platform rather than buddying up with Android or persevering with their own stuff. As you point out, and as they have publicly admitted, sticking with their current platform is proving to not be a viable way forward. The apparent indignation at them choosing MS is, in many cases, a bit of fanboy-ism. The average man in the street won't care, and those of us who would particularly prefer Android over Windows just won't be buying a Nokia phone in the near future, which depending on how big a demographic we are they may not care about. I think going with MS makes more sense for them than following the Android path, despite my vague allegiance with the Android camp. If they went that way they would just be another Android phone manufacturer which could work well if the hardware is good and competitively priced, but by going Windows which is a small part of the market now they have a chance of being the leader of that pack if it grows to be the preferred alternative to Apple's output. And it may yet manage to become a bigger player than Android - the Windows phone platform has the advantage of not having any association with the many cheap and grotty devices that are being shipped with Android (this association could tarnish the public view of Android devices on the whole). > It's like those people still using Windows XP because it's the best. But always remember that there are people like me who are still using XP because they have no particular reason to spend money on an upgrade. No DX10/11? Not a problem, the games I do play (including those released in recent months) seem fine and if it became a problem (games requiring later versions of DX) then I'd just find something else to do with my time. IE9 won't work? No problem - the only thing I use IE for VMWare Server's console (which has issues with FF and C) and for is downloading Firefox or Chrome. I'll have to upgrade in a while because security updates will stop. But until that time I'm unlikely to have reason to spend money and time on changing OS.
- jerf 16y ago
  "I think the main thing people have an issue with is partnering with MS and using their platform rather than buddying up with Android or persevering with their own stuff." No, I think it's stupid because A: Microsoft has shown little to no sign of "getting" the smart phone market B: Nokia has shown little to no sign of "getting" the smart phone market and inevitably C: Two companies who don't get it will probably not magically get it by joining forces. This is coming from my looking at their business and success up to this point, not a fanboy reaction. (I don't even have a smartphone. I have a Nokia 6205 in my pocket but not for any particular reason. It was cheap and I don't hate it but it's not generating brand loyalty for me either.) Sure, the new partnership might get it and pull it together and make it work, but if that was going to happen it seems if anything more likely to happen without the inevitable chaos of a culture collision induced by this sort of deal. I'm not saying this is a 100%-chance of failure, it just doesn't strike me as a move that really increases it for anyone.
raganwald 16y ago
> That's what this post is: someone refusing to face the changing landscape of tech. I didn't read that at all, what I read was someone saying that change is necessary, but that this change has huge benefits for Microsoft but questionable benefits for Nokia. We should be wary of falling into the "politician's fallacy" from the delightful Britcom "Yes, Prime Minister:" We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do it.
- davidw 16y ago
  Yes, I'd say that, if anything, Nokia has had entirely too much change. So much that you're never quite sure where they're headed. Symbian, Meego, Qt, now this... Also, from some other article: > Mr. Elop said “Nokia expects 2011 and 2012 to be transition years”. It's going to take them a while to really get this strategy under way. Two years is an eternity in this market.
- ashr 16y ago
  The way I see it Microsoft brings a lot to the table that only a few could: A fresh new OS in WP7, cloud computing infrastructure, it's own gaming ecosystem in XBox platform and its UX integration with the phone OS etc among other things. So I don't see that choosing WP7 (over Android?) is such a bad deal for Nokia. It wasn't a very long time ago that Android ecosystem wasn't very appealing to the mobile developers as iOS ecosystem was. So I would give this partnership some benefit of doubt and time to deliver on the promise.
  - marshray 16y ago
    Partnerships with Microsoft very rarely work out to the other business' advantage, unless it was their goal all along to be acquired by MS or be nothing more than a commodity hardware vendor. We'll know this is the case if Nokia announces "the new Nokia Online Superstore where you get all your WindowsTM-compatible accessories at discount prices".
    - tikkes 16y ago
      Microsoft has not "bought" Nokia, it's just merely a cooperation between the two companies...don't see the hazzle about all this really
btilly 16y ago
That's what this post is: someone refusing to face the changing landscape of tech. You clearly don't know http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jacquesm http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jacquesm very well. He is not at all resistant to change. To the contrary he understands tech better that most of us can ever dream of. Microsoft has been trying to figure out how to create a decent phone, and has been failing. There is no reason to believe that Microsoft's team has addressed the causes of their past failures, and therefore there is no reason to believe that they will suddenly, miraculously, start succeeding now. Theoretically Nokia can tell Microsoft how to do things better, there is a lot of expertise there. But there is every reason to believe that a lot of that institutional knowledge is about to be laid off. For better or worse, Nokia is now dependent upon a team with a history of failure. I know you believe differently. You expect Android to take the role of feature-phones now, while MS and Apple control and split the high-end market. So I'll offer you a bet. In 2010 Nokia is estimated to have held 33.1% of the phone market. I'll bet you $100 that by 2015 either Nokia and Microsoft have parted ways, or else Nokia will hold under 15% of the phone market. Care to take that bet?
- russell 16y ago
  Go for it. http://www.longbets.org/ http://www.longbets.org/
- maxklein 16y ago
  Of course I'm not going to bet on a company which the CEO describes as being on a burning platform. You do realise that jumping off a burning platform does not mean you fall into a safe bed, it means that you know what you're doing now doesn't work, so you're taking a wild jump into nothing. If the CEO thinks it's a gamble, so do I, and I'm not going to bet money on it. It's not a certain thing with a certain outcome, but it's the best chance they have. It can go wrong, but then, every big decision can.
- vijaydev 16y ago
  Wish jacquesm is here to contribute to this discussion (and defend his article). Having said that, the article cannot be evaluated to be good (or bad) just based on his reputation and I'm sure even he would agree. By the way, did you see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2206189 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2206189 :)
radioactive21 16y ago
Just think of Jerry Yang from Yahoo!. How did avoiding a buyout from Microsoft turn out? Yea not so good. Jerry's heart was in the right place, trying to be a rebel and avoid a big bad company coming in, but he completely ignored the business side. The truth was Yahoo! just had bad management, and it started with him. But having said that, I hope Elop made the right move by putting all his eggs in one basket because they will be thrown back at his face.
herval 16y ago
"So I expect Android to take the role of feature-phones now, while MS and Apple control and split the high-end market." is there really such differentiation these days? As every phone walks to become a smartphone, Android powers devices cheap and expensive and Apple plans on building cheaper iphones (at least according to the rumors), I'm not sure we'll see such a clear distinction in the future, as we saw in the past, when Symbian was pretty much the only higher-end OS in town...

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.

ldng 16y ago
Could you elaborate on that please ? Personally I fail to see in what this choice is better, maybe I missed something.
- kjhghjkjh 16y ago
  With Wp7 they are the preferred Wp7 platform. So every business that must buy Microsoft - because it's Microsoft - will now buy Nokia phones. With Android they would be competing to differentiate themselves from high end Korean makers and a bunch of cheap chinese makers - based on what?
  - ldng 16y ago
    Ok, maybe. That bring then the question why nobody wants WP7. Maybe one possible explanation can be find here : http://www.asymco.com/2011/02/11/in-memoriam-microsofts-previous-strategic-mobile-partners/ http://www.asymco.com/2011/02/11/in-memoriam-microsofts-prev...
  - sahaj 16y ago
    so microsoft just abandoned their initial WP7 launch partners?
- kyberneticka 16y ago
  With Android, as others have pointed out, Nokia would have faced immense competition from HTC, Samsung, and others who are established in the marketplace. With WP7, they at least have an opportunity to come in at the ground floor. Also, given the relationship between Elop and MS, there can be some shared resources to make Nokia the flagship for WP7. With Android, they would have been just another manufacturer.
  - ldng 16y ago
    I would answer that implementing this strategy can't be a short term plan. This will take time to put in place meanwhile a lot of executives can change. Is it wise to rely on a relationship between one executive and another company as a long term strategy ?

dspillett 16y ago

I think the main thing people have an issue with is partnering with MS and using their platform rather than buddying up with Android or persevering with their own stuff. As you point out, and as they have publicly admitted, sticking with their current platform is proving to not be a viable way forward. The apparent indignation at them choosing MS is, in many cases, a bit of fanboy-ism. The average man in the street won't care, and those of us who would particularly prefer Android over Windows just won't be buying a Nokia phone in the near future, which depending on how big a demographic we are they may not care about. I think going with MS makes more sense for them than following the Android path, despite my vague allegiance with the Android camp. If they went that way they would just be another Android phone manufacturer which could work well if the hardware is good and competitively priced, but by going Windows which is a small part of the market now they have a chance of being the leader of that pack if it grows to be the preferred alternative to Apple's output. And it may yet manage to become a bigger player than Android - the Windows phone platform has the advantage of not having any association with the many cheap and grotty devices that are being shipped with Android (this association could tarnish the public view of Android devices on the whole). > It's like those people still using Windows XP because it's the best. But always remember that there are people like me who are still using XP because they have no particular reason to spend money on an upgrade. No DX10/11? Not a problem, the games I do play (including those released in recent months) seem fine and if it became a problem (games requiring later versions of DX) then I'd just find something else to do with my time. IE9 won't work? No problem - the only thing I use IE for VMWare Server's console (which has issues with FF and C) and for is downloading Firefox or Chrome. I'll have to upgrade in a while because security updates will stop. But until that time I'm unlikely to have reason to spend money and time on changing OS.

jerf 16y ago
"I think the main thing people have an issue with is partnering with MS and using their platform rather than buddying up with Android or persevering with their own stuff." No, I think it's stupid because A: Microsoft has shown little to no sign of "getting" the smart phone market B: Nokia has shown little to no sign of "getting" the smart phone market and inevitably C: Two companies who don't get it will probably not magically get it by joining forces. This is coming from my looking at their business and success up to this point, not a fanboy reaction. (I don't even have a smartphone. I have a Nokia 6205 in my pocket but not for any particular reason. It was cheap and I don't hate it but it's not generating brand loyalty for me either.) Sure, the new partnership might get it and pull it together and make it work, but if that was going to happen it seems if anything more likely to happen without the inevitable chaos of a culture collision induced by this sort of deal. I'm not saying this is a 100%-chance of failure, it just doesn't strike me as a move that really increases it for anyone.

raganwald 16y ago

> That's what this post is: someone refusing to face the changing landscape of tech. I didn't read that at all, what I read was someone saying that change is necessary, but that this change has huge benefits for Microsoft but questionable benefits for Nokia. We should be wary of falling into the "politician's fallacy" from the delightful Britcom "Yes, Prime Minister:" We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do it.

davidw 16y ago
Yes, I'd say that, if anything, Nokia has had entirely too much change. So much that you're never quite sure where they're headed. Symbian, Meego, Qt, now this... Also, from some other article: > Mr. Elop said “Nokia expects 2011 and 2012 to be transition years”. It's going to take them a while to really get this strategy under way. Two years is an eternity in this market.
ashr 16y ago
The way I see it Microsoft brings a lot to the table that only a few could: A fresh new OS in WP7, cloud computing infrastructure, it's own gaming ecosystem in XBox platform and its UX integration with the phone OS etc among other things. So I don't see that choosing WP7 (over Android?) is such a bad deal for Nokia. It wasn't a very long time ago that Android ecosystem wasn't very appealing to the mobile developers as iOS ecosystem was. So I would give this partnership some benefit of doubt and time to deliver on the promise.
- marshray 16y ago
  Partnerships with Microsoft very rarely work out to the other business' advantage, unless it was their goal all along to be acquired by MS or be nothing more than a commodity hardware vendor. We'll know this is the case if Nokia announces "the new Nokia Online Superstore where you get all your WindowsTM-compatible accessories at discount prices".
  - tikkes 16y ago
    Microsoft has not "bought" Nokia, it's just merely a cooperation between the two companies...don't see the hazzle about all this really

btilly 16y ago

That's what this post is: someone refusing to face the changing landscape of tech. You clearly don't know http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jacquesm http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=jacquesm very well. He is not at all resistant to change. To the contrary he understands tech better that most of us can ever dream of. Microsoft has been trying to figure out how to create a decent phone, and has been failing. There is no reason to believe that Microsoft's team has addressed the causes of their past failures, and therefore there is no reason to believe that they will suddenly, miraculously, start succeeding now. Theoretically Nokia can tell Microsoft how to do things better, there is a lot of expertise there. But there is every reason to believe that a lot of that institutional knowledge is about to be laid off. For better or worse, Nokia is now dependent upon a team with a history of failure. I know you believe differently. You expect Android to take the role of feature-phones now, while MS and Apple control and split the high-end market. So I'll offer you a bet. In 2010 Nokia is estimated to have held 33.1% of the phone market. I'll bet you $100 that by 2015 either Nokia and Microsoft have parted ways, or else Nokia will hold under 15% of the phone market. Care to take that bet?

russell 16y ago
Go for it. http://www.longbets.org/ http://www.longbets.org/
maxklein 16y ago
Of course I'm not going to bet on a company which the CEO describes as being on a burning platform. You do realise that jumping off a burning platform does not mean you fall into a safe bed, it means that you know what you're doing now doesn't work, so you're taking a wild jump into nothing. If the CEO thinks it's a gamble, so do I, and I'm not going to bet money on it. It's not a certain thing with a certain outcome, but it's the best chance they have. It can go wrong, but then, every big decision can.
vijaydev 16y ago
Wish jacquesm is here to contribute to this discussion (and defend his article). Having said that, the article cannot be evaluated to be good (or bad) just based on his reputation and I'm sure even he would agree. By the way, did you see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2206189 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2206189 :)

radioactive21 16y ago

Just think of Jerry Yang from Yahoo!. How did avoiding a buyout from Microsoft turn out? Yea not so good. Jerry's heart was in the right place, trying to be a rebel and avoid a big bad company coming in, but he completely ignored the business side. The truth was Yahoo! just had bad management, and it started with him. But having said that, I hope Elop made the right move by putting all his eggs in one basket because they will be thrown back at his face.

herval 16y ago

"So I expect Android to take the role of feature-phones now, while MS and Apple control and split the high-end market." is there really such differentiation these days? As every phone walks to become a smartphone, Android powers devices cheap and expensive and Apple plans on building cheaper iphones (at least according to the rumors), I'm not sure we'll see such a clear distinction in the future, as we saw in the past, when Symbian was pretty much the only higher-end OS in town...