10 ms·

Nokia USA president is out, replaced by Microsoft vet Chris Weber

39 points by mfukar 16y ago

danilocampos 16y ago
Is this how things are done now? Definitely cheaper than a buyout and you don't have to worry about regulatory backlash from either country's government.
- brudgers 16y ago
  When corporations are suffering as Nokia is, regional management changes happen all the time. I don't think anyone can argue that Mark Louison was doing a swell job of promoting Nokia in the US and that Nokia's US market share will suffer because of the change.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    The good thing is that it can't get negative
    - shareme 16y ago
      yes it can.. see any Siemens USA handsets lately?
- Vivtek 16y ago
  Corporate colonization.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Next time you send an army to invade a foreign country, you can call it a "partnership".
    - yuhong 16y ago
      Yep, I know about the MS-Novell deal fiasco, for example.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  I think the main thing that's happening is the common philosophy among investment consultants today that when a stock isn't making bank for a few quarters, it is time to sell it for spare parts. It might that this is "responsible". But it is worth consider that Apple wouldn't exist if that logic had been followed.
- saturdaysaint 16y ago
  Why do you imply that Microsoft is the prime mover in this whole turn of events? I think it's clear that the board, shareholders, and much of the public (witness the hemorrhaging marketshare) had lost faith in the ability of Nokia to develop a modern smartphone operating system internally. It's likely that the board brought in Elop (and , yes, some of his former colleagues) to make a deal like this happen under the most favorable terms for Nokia.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Considering the beating Nokia shares took after the announcement, I don't think that same public has any faith on Microsoft's ability to deliver a modern operating system.
    - saturdaysaint 16y ago
      This falls squarely into the "buy on the rumor sell on the news" pattern we see shortly before every Apple announcement. There was a run-up on Nokia stock in the preceding week, quite possibly out of the hope that Nokia was going to make a drastic move or sell outright to Microsoft or Google. You can't interpret stock signals on such a short-term basis. A better snapshot of the market's confidence in Elop would be to look at NOK performance since his hiring (since many have been predicting this move for MONTHS) - NOK is up over %15 since September 2010.
  - rst 16y ago
    What's not so clear is that this strategy was the right one. Particularly since the big, bold move isn't doing Windows Phone 7. (They're late to that party already; LG, Samsung and HTC already have phones out now.) Instead, what distinguishes Nokia so far is what they're not doing: fielding an Android device. And if you think Nokia doesn't have enough resources to do both, why haven't they dumped Meego yet? There may be unannounced considerations that make this deal reasonable. But if you're going to bet your company on a single third-party platform (something that you don't need to do), it seems odd for it to be one that has yet to gain any serious traction in the marketplace. Hence (I think) the suggestions that, to put it politely, Elop's past affiliations have skewed his judgment...
endtime 16y ago
If I were Elop, I'd want to hire someone I knew and felt I could trust to do the job. Elop probably knows a lot of people at Microsoft. Expecting him not to hire a Softie would be tying a hand behind his back.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  And that is exactly the problem of hiring softies - they export the amazingly successful practices that resulted in blockbusters like Vista, Zune and Kin.
  - endtime 16y ago
    Your comment seems like a total non sequitur. Plus, you conveniently exclude successes like Windows XP, Windows 7, Office, SQL Server, Sharepoint, XBox, etc.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      All these products, with the exception of the Xbox and SQL Server, owe their success more to marketing than to anything else. Windows XP and Windows 7 are sold bundled with computers - you basically can't buy one without the other. The case of Vista is different - it was so awful people bought computers with Vista (counting as a Vista sale) and upgraded them to XP. Low sales indicated people put off buying new computers because it wasn't worth it - the new computer with Vista would be worse than the old one with XP. Windows 7 success was caused, in part, by those computers - they wouldn't last forever and, one day, would have to be replaced. Windows 7 was being bundled by then. And it was good enough as not to warrant upgrades to XP. Office has no credible competition. Weren't various versions of Office using undocumented Windows APIs that their competitors couldn't and, thus, had lower performance and worst integration with the environment? I remember something in these lines. That and bundling it with Windows in corporate licenses that made others non-competitive. And, please, Sharepoint is a joke. The only reason someone still uses it is because it's impossible to migrate its contents to any sane platform. And, of course, fear of admitting such an incompetent decision choosing it. As for SQL Server, it's a decent platform. I have to admit it is Microsoft third best product, behind only the natural keyboard and their mice.

39 points by mfukar 16y ago

Is this how things are done now? Definitely cheaper than a buyout and you don't have to worry about regulatory backlash from either country's government.

brudgers 16y ago
When corporations are suffering as Nokia is, regional management changes happen all the time. I don't think anyone can argue that Mark Louison was doing a swell job of promoting Nokia in the US and that Nokia's US market share will suffer because of the change.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  The good thing is that it can't get negative
  - shareme 16y ago
    yes it can.. see any Siemens USA handsets lately?
Vivtek 16y ago
Corporate colonization.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Next time you send an army to invade a foreign country, you can call it a "partnership".
  - yuhong 16y ago
    Yep, I know about the MS-Novell deal fiasco, for example.
joe_the_user 16y ago
I think the main thing that's happening is the common philosophy among investment consultants today that when a stock isn't making bank for a few quarters, it is time to sell it for spare parts. It might that this is "responsible". But it is worth consider that Apple wouldn't exist if that logic had been followed.
saturdaysaint 16y ago
Why do you imply that Microsoft is the prime mover in this whole turn of events? I think it's clear that the board, shareholders, and much of the public (witness the hemorrhaging marketshare) had lost faith in the ability of Nokia to develop a modern smartphone operating system internally. It's likely that the board brought in Elop (and , yes, some of his former colleagues) to make a deal like this happen under the most favorable terms for Nokia.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Considering the beating Nokia shares took after the announcement, I don't think that same public has any faith on Microsoft's ability to deliver a modern operating system.
  - saturdaysaint 16y ago
    This falls squarely into the "buy on the rumor sell on the news" pattern we see shortly before every Apple announcement. There was a run-up on Nokia stock in the preceding week, quite possibly out of the hope that Nokia was going to make a drastic move or sell outright to Microsoft or Google. You can't interpret stock signals on such a short-term basis. A better snapshot of the market's confidence in Elop would be to look at NOK performance since his hiring (since many have been predicting this move for MONTHS) - NOK is up over %15 since September 2010.
- rst 16y ago
  What's not so clear is that this strategy was the right one. Particularly since the big, bold move isn't doing Windows Phone 7. (They're late to that party already; LG, Samsung and HTC already have phones out now.) Instead, what distinguishes Nokia so far is what they're not doing: fielding an Android device. And if you think Nokia doesn't have enough resources to do both, why haven't they dumped Meego yet? There may be unannounced considerations that make this deal reasonable. But if you're going to bet your company on a single third-party platform (something that you don't need to do), it seems odd for it to be one that has yet to gain any serious traction in the marketplace. Hence (I think) the suggestions that, to put it politely, Elop's past affiliations have skewed his judgment...

endtime 16y ago

If I were Elop, I'd want to hire someone I knew and felt I could trust to do the job. Elop probably knows a lot of people at Microsoft. Expecting him not to hire a Softie would be tying a hand behind his back.

rbanffy 16y ago
And that is exactly the problem of hiring softies - they export the amazingly successful practices that resulted in blockbusters like Vista, Zune and Kin.
- endtime 16y ago
  Your comment seems like a total non sequitur. Plus, you conveniently exclude successes like Windows XP, Windows 7, Office, SQL Server, Sharepoint, XBox, etc.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    All these products, with the exception of the Xbox and SQL Server, owe their success more to marketing than to anything else. Windows XP and Windows 7 are sold bundled with computers - you basically can't buy one without the other. The case of Vista is different - it was so awful people bought computers with Vista (counting as a Vista sale) and upgraded them to XP. Low sales indicated people put off buying new computers because it wasn't worth it - the new computer with Vista would be worse than the old one with XP. Windows 7 success was caused, in part, by those computers - they wouldn't last forever and, one day, would have to be replaced. Windows 7 was being bundled by then. And it was good enough as not to warrant upgrades to XP. Office has no credible competition. Weren't various versions of Office using undocumented Windows APIs that their competitors couldn't and, thus, had lower performance and worst integration with the environment? I remember something in these lines. That and bundling it with Windows in corporate licenses that made others non-competitive. And, please, Sharepoint is a joke. The only reason someone still uses it is because it's impossible to migrate its contents to any sane platform. And, of course, fear of admitting such an incompetent decision choosing it. As for SQL Server, it's a decent platform. I have to admit it is Microsoft third best product, behind only the natural keyboard and their mice.