7 ms·

Nokia to get 'huge' payments from Microsoft

45 points by tshtf 16y ago

Udo 16y ago
Wait a second... so Microsoft is paying Nokia to use their software? Is "inverse licensing" a viable strategy now?
- gte910h 16y ago
  It is if you get 30% of sales on that platform.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - endtime 16y ago
    Pretty sure Zynga pays Facebook, not the other way around.
- ronnix 16y ago
  Not sure if it is viable, but Google has been doing it for some time with Android. The open-source version is free, and if the manufacturer includes the various Google Apps on top, they get a cut of the ads revenue.
- cookiecaper 16y ago
  Not for a startup of course, but Microsoft sees this as an investment in business development. MS wants Windows to be a solid mobile platform, and they're pouring a bunch of money into the Nokia deal to increase the availability of Windows Phone 7 handsets. It's the chicken-and-egg problem that effects so many things; a platform can't be successful without software to run on top of it, but no one will develop software for a platform that isn't successful. This problem is much less hard when you have a ton of money and can just pay people to use your platform, which is what MS is doing here. It's not much different than pouring a bunch of money into advertising; if you have a big partner like Nokia, it not only generates a lot of PR buzz, but it also means that since Nokia makes a lot of phones, there will be a lot of WP7 phones out soon, which is what Microsoft wants.
  - cma 16y ago
    Ballmer absolutely ridiculed Google for making Android free. A couple of short years later and Microsoft goes with a negative price.
    - hnhg 16y ago
      I doubt MS will extend this deal if they are successful in the market whereas Google would find it hard charging for Android.
      - nextparadigms 16y ago
        Google doesn't have to charge for Android. They will make $10 per user from mobile ads alone, according to a recent report.
    - PanMan 16y ago
      Actually, Google also seems to have a negative price for Android. As a device maker it's possible to get paid a percentage of add revenue on the devices you build.
- pedalpete 16y ago
  I don't know that it is true 'inverse licensing', as nobody has ever disclosed the amount or structure of the deal. I assumed it was an up-front deal which is more than covering the cost of Nokia getting the OS onto their hardware and maybe covering some cost of x-number of minimum handset licenses. Beyond that amount, I would think that Nokia would be paying microsoft per handset.
rst 16y ago
It's still not clear how these payments are structured. If Nokia gets paid for sales of all manufacturers' handsets (perhaps as royalties for the Nokia mapping software), that explains why Elop says that Nokia has a stake in the success of the platform as a whole. But it's hard to imagine HTC or Samsung being thrilled for Nokia to get money for sales of their handsets...
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  From a strategic standpoint I think HTC and Samsung will be in favor of this deal. Nokia still has dominance in a lot of places around the world. This deal locks Nokia into WP7 and with that being true other manufacturers can enter Nokia dominant markets as the only Android alternatives. Given these are companies that have bet their business on Android I suspect they think it's superior and welcome a chance to neutralize Nokia. So while this deal with Microsoft may give Nokia a little of the other carriers money I'd think it will be well worth it .
peterpaul 16y ago
I wish nokia would have just continued with their meego platform as their flagship. M$ is always posion.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  Headline: "Nokia to get 'huge' payments from Microsoft" HN participants: "oh noes, that person just said 'M$'! must vote that down because clearly that is a baseless insult!"
  - jarek 16y ago
    Can't be "must vote that down because the entirety of the argument is 'M$ is always posion' and that falls just barely short of my standard for HN discussion."
- coderdude 16y ago
  You wouldn't still happen to have that collection of gifs depicting Bill Gates as a Borg, would you?
mcantelon 16y ago
Apparently the Nokia CEO holds over $3M in Microsoft stock. In addition to this obvious conflict of interest, EU is going to be interested in this attempt to make a Finnish corp dependent on a US corp. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nokia-CEO-Elop-Denies-Being-siliconalley-273261050.html?x=0&.v=1 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nokia-CEO-Elop-Denies-Being-si...
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  Yes, Considering that the EU also recently paid Nokia to keep developing Symbian, my naive thought is the EU would be very interested in this. http://www.unwiredview.com/2010/11/02/explaining-symbeose-symbian-eu-funding-thing-relax-symbian-ain%E2%80%99t-dead-even-foundation-may-survive-now/ http://www.unwiredview.com/2010/11/02/explaining-symbeose-sy... But I would easily admit my naive ideas about could be wrong given the many things that happen under the radar these days... Edit: Elop denies being "the seventh largest Microsoft shareholder" despite being listed as such but confirms the level of share-holding which the list has. He's certainly not the seventh largest share holder of any kind, he certainly holds far less than Bill gates but it seems clear he is the seventh largest individual shareholder with ~$3 in shares.
  - jarek 16y ago
    He is, at most, the ninth largest known individual shareholder. He can't get rid of said shares for regulatory reasons. Please see the discussion at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2212555 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2212555.
    - mcantelon 16y ago
      Whether or not he can get rid of his shares in the short term, what is good for Microsoft is good for his net worth which, it would seem, creates a conflict of interest.
- ugh 16y ago
  This seems to be mostly FUD, here is the HN discussion about it: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2212555 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2212555 (I don’t know why it was manually dead-ed.)
charleso 16y ago
How much in the minority am I for thinking this is a good plan for Nokia? Echoing my post in another thread, Apple received $150 million in financing from Microsoft back in 1997 in exchange for including IE on the Mac (among other partnership goodies). If you don't recall that period of computer history (when Apple almost went bust), you may want to watch this Steve Jobs Macworld 1997 presentation discussing their joint venture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOp5mBY9IY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOp5mBY9IY "Kneeling before Zod" didn't turn out too badly for Apple.
- Pooter 16y ago
  I don't think the comparison between 1997 Apple and 2011 Nokia is particularly close, or instructive for understanding the deal. But I do agree that this probably is a good deal Nokia; and for Microsoft. Nokia was never all tha great with software, and is generally a hardware engineering focused company. Basically, they're outsourcing all the software dev work to Microsoft. And, apparently, getting paid (possibly very well) to do so. Microsoft, on the other hand, buys themselves exclusivity with a major hardware manufacturer. Instead of getting secondary consideration after Android from the likes of motorola or HTC, they get the whole smartphone focus from a company with a reputation for producing reliable and high quality hardware. Honestly, and all jokes about two dinosaurs getting together to avoid extinction aside, this is probably the best move for both companies, if they're going to stand an chance of being able to compete in the upcoming smartphone market.
  - Geee 16y ago
    I never got this argument that "Nokia is a hardware company, they don't do good software." That's a shallow argument which doesn't really mean anything at all. After all, most of their R&D budget is in software development. They have developed two dumbphone OSes (S30, S40) and two smartphone OSes (Symbian, Maemo), which are feature-by-feature the most complete software in the market. There's lots more of course. But their software sucks.. Why?
    - Pooter 16y ago
blinkingled 16y ago
I have no way to prove/disprove if or not Elop did this with straight face and without any conflict of interests but thinking about the decisions that were made and information that was provided - it all makes sense only if seen from Microsoft side. a) Nokia thought they could not differentiate enough with Android so they did not choose it. Then they said they will not customize the WP7 experience - so they would essentially differentiate on hardware/pricing alone. No reason they could not do the same with Android. b) To let go of a significant capability such as developing their own smart phone OSes and UIs - however unsuccessful they may be in the market - and betting your business on an as-yet under performing platform takes some amount of stupidity. c) Most of what Nokia sells today are not your typical smart phones. They are losing ground to people going Android and dumping their Nokia feature phones. But they still do not seem to have a "different" strategy for low end devices targeting the developed world and dumb phone users in developed world. WP7 is not it AFAICS. Both Google ($85 dual core Broadcom SoC) and Apple (with the recent rumors of half-iPhone for sub $200 unsubsidized) have a solid plan in place to attack that segment. It is a glaring omission from Nokia and WP7 strategy - especially so since that is an under explored market and they have the highest chance of succeeding. Even if they hope dumb phone users will somehow upgrade to premium WP7 handsets - they are still late to the game. c) Nokia's competitors who have some WP7 footprint today - how they will react tomorrow? Microsoft hasn't made any special deals with HTC/Samsung for example and their special treatment to Nokia is so close enough to them buying and running Nokia that those guys are going to be forced to rethink their WP7 strategies unless Microsoft offers them something to level the playing field. d) Microsoft paying them money sounds good in the near term but it comes at a cost of Nokia crippling themselves and risking a whole lot on Windows Phone 7 and Microsoft. The dependence on Microsoft is a huge deal - HP could've done that but they thought it was wiser to buy Palm and bet on their own capability. e) Why was it so hard to execute? Elop lost a golden chance of understanding this and fixing it. They won't have to execute on OS development now but still there is hardware and software integration work to do that requires lot of execution - they aren't simply going to dump hardware on Microsoft and let them deal with it. It wouldn't scale if Samsung/HTC and others expect the same.
- encoderer 16y ago
  Don't "a" and "c" sort of cancel each-other out? If other makers back-off of WP7 because of the way Microsoft got into bed with Nokia, doesn't that mean that Nokia can differentiate just by being the company that produces beautiful devices running Windows Phone? And even if HTC and LG continue their existing tepid embrace of WP7, Nokia is in a position to make the WP7 experience theirs. So much that if another maker produces a WP7 phone, it may well be seen as their "Nokia Competitor." The assertion that this makes sense only from Microsoft's POV seems totally off to me. Points c, d, & e would really be the same if they'd gone Android but surely the FUD peddlers wouldn't have made so much hay over that. And to point "c" -- that there is a "glaring omission from Nokia and WP7 strategy -- dude, it was made public like 4 days ago.
random42 16y ago
From someone who has not read the press-release/documents of the partnership, does teaming up with Microsoft, explicitly prohibits Nokia to use Android(or any other mobile platform) in the future, if need be?
- jpalomaki 16y ago
  Nokia and Microsoft don't yet have any kind of binding agreement. Only a term paper. This was mentioned in the press releases on friday. As I mentioend in the comments of the other post, I believe the whole "Nokia will get billions" is a misunderstanding from the reporters. Elop was speaking about Nokia getting substantial monetary value, measured in Bs not Ms. I don't think he was speaking about money changing hands.
sambeau 16y ago
Microsoft will be hoping to recoup losses by selling apps, services and advertising. If xbox live proves to be a big hit on Nokia devices the strategy could work. Nokia will also need to sell hundreds of millions of devices and the Windows App Store will need to take off bigtime. But it is a gamble: xboxes and Bing are loss-making at present. Maybe they have something else up their sleeve?
- dangrossman 16y ago
  I thought the entertainment division (Xbox+) had been profitable for some years now.
  - sambeau 16y ago
    Not according to a story that was on HN a few weeks back (unless I'm mis-remembering). I'll dig around and see if I can find it. They certainly lose money on each xbox but its possible that they make it back on the sale of games.
  - sambeau 16y ago
    Looks like I mis-remembered: http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Microsoft-Q1-2011-by-the-numbers-Beats-consensus-but-not-Apple/1288297586 http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Microsoft-Q1-2011-... Q1 2011 Income by Division • Windows & Windows Live: $3.32 billion, up 124 percent from $1.5 billion a year earlier (20 percent growth when adding deferral). • Server & Tools: $1.63 billion, up 32 percent from $1.24 billion a year earlier. Business: $3.39 billion, up 20 percent from $2.83 billion a year earlier. • Online Services Business: Loss of $560 million, up 17 percent from $477 million loss a year earlier. • Entertainment & Devices: $382 million, up 47 percent from $260 million a year earlier. although, this comment by puts it in perspective: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1842290 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1842290 "In 2009 it finally posted it's first profit - $165 million, though it's probably worth noting that as a percentage of the $6 billion it had lost to that point this is basically nothing."
thought_alarm 16y ago
Headline: Nokia CEO: Co. to get billions from Microsoft Fine print: Nokia will be contributing its Ovi mapping service and will be paying Microsoft royalties for the use of its software, as other manufacturers do. It will save money by not continuing development of its own software. The net benefit is still in the billions, he said. In other words, Nokia is saving billions by licensing WP7 and laying off most of its workforce. So it's exactly as everyone first assumed. Nokia is not getting "huge payments from Microsoft". Nokia is merely licensing WP7.

45 points by tshtf 16y ago

Udo 16y ago

Wait a second... so Microsoft is paying Nokia to use their software? Is "inverse licensing" a viable strategy now?

gte910h 16y ago
It is if you get 30% of sales on that platform.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- endtime 16y ago
  Pretty sure Zynga pays Facebook, not the other way around.
ronnix 16y ago
Not sure if it is viable, but Google has been doing it for some time with Android. The open-source version is free, and if the manufacturer includes the various Google Apps on top, they get a cut of the ads revenue.
cookiecaper 16y ago
Not for a startup of course, but Microsoft sees this as an investment in business development. MS wants Windows to be a solid mobile platform, and they're pouring a bunch of money into the Nokia deal to increase the availability of Windows Phone 7 handsets. It's the chicken-and-egg problem that effects so many things; a platform can't be successful without software to run on top of it, but no one will develop software for a platform that isn't successful. This problem is much less hard when you have a ton of money and can just pay people to use your platform, which is what MS is doing here. It's not much different than pouring a bunch of money into advertising; if you have a big partner like Nokia, it not only generates a lot of PR buzz, but it also means that since Nokia makes a lot of phones, there will be a lot of WP7 phones out soon, which is what Microsoft wants.
- cma 16y ago
  Ballmer absolutely ridiculed Google for making Android free. A couple of short years later and Microsoft goes with a negative price.
  - hnhg 16y ago
    I doubt MS will extend this deal if they are successful in the market whereas Google would find it hard charging for Android.
    - nextparadigms 16y ago
      Google doesn't have to charge for Android. They will make $10 per user from mobile ads alone, according to a recent report.
  - PanMan 16y ago
    Actually, Google also seems to have a negative price for Android. As a device maker it's possible to get paid a percentage of add revenue on the devices you build.
pedalpete 16y ago
I don't know that it is true 'inverse licensing', as nobody has ever disclosed the amount or structure of the deal. I assumed it was an up-front deal which is more than covering the cost of Nokia getting the OS onto their hardware and maybe covering some cost of x-number of minimum handset licenses. Beyond that amount, I would think that Nokia would be paying microsoft per handset.

rst 16y ago

It's still not clear how these payments are structured. If Nokia gets paid for sales of all manufacturers' handsets (perhaps as royalties for the Nokia mapping software), that explains why Elop says that Nokia has a stake in the success of the platform as a whole. But it's hard to imagine HTC or Samsung being thrilled for Nokia to get money for sales of their handsets...

TomOfTTB 16y ago
From a strategic standpoint I think HTC and Samsung will be in favor of this deal. Nokia still has dominance in a lot of places around the world. This deal locks Nokia into WP7 and with that being true other manufacturers can enter Nokia dominant markets as the only Android alternatives. Given these are companies that have bet their business on Android I suspect they think it's superior and welcome a chance to neutralize Nokia. So while this deal with Microsoft may give Nokia a little of the other carriers money I'd think it will be well worth it .

peterpaul 16y ago

I wish nokia would have just continued with their meego platform as their flagship. M$ is always posion.

burgerbrain 16y ago
Headline: "Nokia to get 'huge' payments from Microsoft" HN participants: "oh noes, that person just said 'M$'! must vote that down because clearly that is a baseless insult!"
- jarek 16y ago
  Can't be "must vote that down because the entirety of the argument is 'M$ is always posion' and that falls just barely short of my standard for HN discussion."
coderdude 16y ago
You wouldn't still happen to have that collection of gifs depicting Bill Gates as a Borg, would you?

mcantelon 16y ago

Apparently the Nokia CEO holds over $3M in Microsoft stock. In addition to this obvious conflict of interest, EU is going to be interested in this attempt to make a Finnish corp dependent on a US corp. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nokia-CEO-Elop-Denies-Being-siliconalley-273261050.html?x=0&.v=1 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nokia-CEO-Elop-Denies-Being-si...

joe_the_user 16y ago
Yes, Considering that the EU also recently paid Nokia to keep developing Symbian, my naive thought is the EU would be very interested in this. http://www.unwiredview.com/2010/11/02/explaining-symbeose-symbian-eu-funding-thing-relax-symbian-ain%E2%80%99t-dead-even-foundation-may-survive-now/ http://www.unwiredview.com/2010/11/02/explaining-symbeose-sy... But I would easily admit my naive ideas about could be wrong given the many things that happen under the radar these days... Edit: Elop denies being "the seventh largest Microsoft shareholder" despite being listed as such but confirms the level of share-holding which the list has. He's certainly not the seventh largest share holder of any kind, he certainly holds far less than Bill gates but it seems clear he is the seventh largest individual shareholder with ~$3 in shares.
- jarek 16y ago
  He is, at most, the ninth largest known individual shareholder. He can't get rid of said shares for regulatory reasons. Please see the discussion at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2212555 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2212555.
  - mcantelon 16y ago
    Whether or not he can get rid of his shares in the short term, what is good for Microsoft is good for his net worth which, it would seem, creates a conflict of interest.
ugh 16y ago
This seems to be mostly FUD, here is the HN discussion about it: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2212555 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2212555 (I don’t know why it was manually dead-ed.)

charleso 16y ago

How much in the minority am I for thinking this is a good plan for Nokia? Echoing my post in another thread, Apple received $150 million in financing from Microsoft back in 1997 in exchange for including IE on the Mac (among other partnership goodies). If you don't recall that period of computer history (when Apple almost went bust), you may want to watch this Steve Jobs Macworld 1997 presentation discussing their joint venture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOp5mBY9IY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOp5mBY9IY "Kneeling before Zod" didn't turn out too badly for Apple.

Pooter 16y ago
I don't think the comparison between 1997 Apple and 2011 Nokia is particularly close, or instructive for understanding the deal. But I do agree that this probably is a good deal Nokia; and for Microsoft. Nokia was never all tha great with software, and is generally a hardware engineering focused company. Basically, they're outsourcing all the software dev work to Microsoft. And, apparently, getting paid (possibly very well) to do so. Microsoft, on the other hand, buys themselves exclusivity with a major hardware manufacturer. Instead of getting secondary consideration after Android from the likes of motorola or HTC, they get the whole smartphone focus from a company with a reputation for producing reliable and high quality hardware. Honestly, and all jokes about two dinosaurs getting together to avoid extinction aside, this is probably the best move for both companies, if they're going to stand an chance of being able to compete in the upcoming smartphone market.
- Geee 16y ago
  I never got this argument that "Nokia is a hardware company, they don't do good software." That's a shallow argument which doesn't really mean anything at all. After all, most of their R&D budget is in software development. They have developed two dumbphone OSes (S30, S40) and two smartphone OSes (Symbian, Maemo), which are feature-by-feature the most complete software in the market. There's lots more of course. But their software sucks.. Why?
  - Pooter 16y ago

blinkingled 16y ago

I have no way to prove/disprove if or not Elop did this with straight face and without any conflict of interests but thinking about the decisions that were made and information that was provided - it all makes sense only if seen from Microsoft side. a) Nokia thought they could not differentiate enough with Android so they did not choose it. Then they said they will not customize the WP7 experience - so they would essentially differentiate on hardware/pricing alone. No reason they could not do the same with Android. b) To let go of a significant capability such as developing their own smart phone OSes and UIs - however unsuccessful they may be in the market - and betting your business on an as-yet under performing platform takes some amount of stupidity. c) Most of what Nokia sells today are not your typical smart phones. They are losing ground to people going Android and dumping their Nokia feature phones. But they still do not seem to have a "different" strategy for low end devices targeting the developed world and dumb phone users in developed world. WP7 is not it AFAICS. Both Google ($85 dual core Broadcom SoC) and Apple (with the recent rumors of half-iPhone for sub $200 unsubsidized) have a solid plan in place to attack that segment. It is a glaring omission from Nokia and WP7 strategy - especially so since that is an under explored market and they have the highest chance of succeeding. Even if they hope dumb phone users will somehow upgrade to premium WP7 handsets - they are still late to the game. c) Nokia's competitors who have some WP7 footprint today - how they will react tomorrow? Microsoft hasn't made any special deals with HTC/Samsung for example and their special treatment to Nokia is so close enough to them buying and running Nokia that those guys are going to be forced to rethink their WP7 strategies unless Microsoft offers them something to level the playing field. d) Microsoft paying them money sounds good in the near term but it comes at a cost of Nokia crippling themselves and risking a whole lot on Windows Phone 7 and Microsoft. The dependence on Microsoft is a huge deal - HP could've done that but they thought it was wiser to buy Palm and bet on their own capability. e) Why was it so hard to execute? Elop lost a golden chance of understanding this and fixing it. They won't have to execute on OS development now but still there is hardware and software integration work to do that requires lot of execution - they aren't simply going to dump hardware on Microsoft and let them deal with it. It wouldn't scale if Samsung/HTC and others expect the same.

encoderer 16y ago
Don't "a" and "c" sort of cancel each-other out? If other makers back-off of WP7 because of the way Microsoft got into bed with Nokia, doesn't that mean that Nokia can differentiate just by being the company that produces beautiful devices running Windows Phone? And even if HTC and LG continue their existing tepid embrace of WP7, Nokia is in a position to make the WP7 experience theirs. So much that if another maker produces a WP7 phone, it may well be seen as their "Nokia Competitor." The assertion that this makes sense only from Microsoft's POV seems totally off to me. Points c, d, & e would really be the same if they'd gone Android but surely the FUD peddlers wouldn't have made so much hay over that. And to point "c" -- that there is a "glaring omission from Nokia and WP7 strategy -- dude, it was made public like 4 days ago.

random42 16y ago

From someone who has not read the press-release/documents of the partnership, does teaming up with Microsoft, explicitly prohibits Nokia to use Android(or any other mobile platform) in the future, if need be?

jpalomaki 16y ago
Nokia and Microsoft don't yet have any kind of binding agreement. Only a term paper. This was mentioned in the press releases on friday. As I mentioend in the comments of the other post, I believe the whole "Nokia will get billions" is a misunderstanding from the reporters. Elop was speaking about Nokia getting substantial monetary value, measured in Bs not Ms. I don't think he was speaking about money changing hands.

sambeau 16y ago

Microsoft will be hoping to recoup losses by selling apps, services and advertising. If xbox live proves to be a big hit on Nokia devices the strategy could work. Nokia will also need to sell hundreds of millions of devices and the Windows App Store will need to take off bigtime. But it is a gamble: xboxes and Bing are loss-making at present. Maybe they have something else up their sleeve?

dangrossman 16y ago
I thought the entertainment division (Xbox+) had been profitable for some years now.
- sambeau 16y ago
  Not according to a story that was on HN a few weeks back (unless I'm mis-remembering). I'll dig around and see if I can find it. They certainly lose money on each xbox but its possible that they make it back on the sale of games.
- sambeau 16y ago
  Looks like I mis-remembered: http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Microsoft-Q1-2011-by-the-numbers-Beats-consensus-but-not-Apple/1288297586 http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Microsoft-Q1-2011-... Q1 2011 Income by Division • Windows & Windows Live: $3.32 billion, up 124 percent from $1.5 billion a year earlier (20 percent growth when adding deferral). • Server & Tools: $1.63 billion, up 32 percent from $1.24 billion a year earlier. Business: $3.39 billion, up 20 percent from $2.83 billion a year earlier. • Online Services Business: Loss of $560 million, up 17 percent from $477 million loss a year earlier. • Entertainment & Devices: $382 million, up 47 percent from $260 million a year earlier. although, this comment by puts it in perspective: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1842290 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1842290 "In 2009 it finally posted it's first profit - $165 million, though it's probably worth noting that as a percentage of the $6 billion it had lost to that point this is basically nothing."

thought_alarm 16y ago

Headline: Nokia CEO: Co. to get billions from Microsoft Fine print: Nokia will be contributing its Ovi mapping service and will be paying Microsoft royalties for the use of its software, as other manufacturers do. It will save money by not continuing development of its own software. The net benefit is still in the billions, he said. In other words, Nokia is saving billions by licensing WP7 and laying off most of its workforce. So it's exactly as everyone first assumed. Nokia is not getting "huge payments from Microsoft". Nokia is merely licensing WP7.