4 ms·

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

by Udo 16y ago

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.

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

by 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.