8 ms·

Nokia-Microsoft Deal Gets Signed

24 points by BrandonWatson 15y ago

hollerith 15y ago
Let me see if I have this right: the CEO of Nokia very publicly declares that he is going to bet the company on WP7 weeks before finalizing a deal for WP7. Didn't the very public declaration, which IIRC caused resignations by engineers working on Symbian and Meego, radically weaken Nokia's negotiating position? I must be missing something because it is unlikely that the leadership of a major corporation would be that unskillful at negotiation.
- pieter 15y ago
  They probably already signed an intention for the final agreement, and just had to fill in the details.
  - dspillett 15y ago
    Yes, final sign-off on these deals can be a slow and tortuous process. But it still seems impetuous and somewhat risky to make announcements based on a final sign-of that has not yet happened, no matter how secure your feel in the likely hood of that final sign-off happening. Unless, of course a separate agreement was made that if the deal did fall through at that late stage the halting party would compensate the other in some meaningful way.
    - sethg 15y ago
      I think that kind of multi-stage deal is common in large corporate transactions.
- G_Morgan 15y ago
  MS (and possibly Nokia) probably wanted an early public commitment. People were pronouncing WP7 dead on arrival. The Nokia announcement puts real weight behind the platform. In short by kicking up a fuss then they have killed the DOA claims. It means more people will have been looking at the platform. If they had delayed until now more mind share would already be locked into Android or iPhone. Unless a major player made a lot of noise about WP7 nobody would bother learning to develop for it.
- pohl 15y ago
  It has been suggested that Elop was installed at Nokia specifically to act in Microsoft's best interest. Indeed, his actions make sense when so viewed. Interestingly, this may be his specialty: check out his movements preceding the sale of Macromedia to Adobe.
  - endtime 15y ago
    Can you unpack 'was installed'? Microsoft doesn't have the ability to appoint Nokia's CEO.
    - pohl 15y ago
      Of course they wouldn't have the ability to appoint at will, but they certainly could install opportunistically. You start by spotting someone who manages their career in a way that indicates useful skills and mindset: http://www.siliconbeat.com/2008/01/11/microsoft-beware-stephen-elop-is-a-flight-risk/ http://www.siliconbeat.com/2008/01/11/microsoft-beware-steph... ...then you make them a high-valued member of your senior leadership team... http://www.crunchbase.com/person/stephen-elop http://www.crunchbase.com/person/stephen-elop ...then when opportunity strikes and Nokia tries to buy him away you set up an under-the-table quid-pro-quo deal that would, one presumes, dwarf the $6m signing bonus Nokia gave him: http://siliconangle.com/blog/2011/03/11/stephen-elop-of-nokia-receives-6-million-signing-bonus/ http://siliconangle.com/blog/2011/03/11/stephen-elop-of-noki... Sure, it's just conjecture, but it's not implausible.
      - endtime 15y ago
        You haven't answered my question at all. I'm asking how MSFT can "install" someone at Nokia. All you've said is that Elop was a good employee who got promoted, and then Nokia came and tried to hire him. That's not MSFT "installing" anyone. The far simpler explanation is that if Elop is going to make a big bet with Nokia, he feels safer doing it with MSFT (who need Nokia, and where he knows people) than Google (who don't, and where he doesn't).
        15y ago
- sethg 15y ago
  Given the large number of people across both corporate bureaucracies that would be involved in negotiating the final deal (and in providing information that the negotiators would need), if they had tried to keep everything under wraps until the final agreement had been signed, there would have been no end of leaks. By pre-announcing the deal the CEO could at least put his own spin on what was going on.
  - hollerith 15y ago
    Thanks.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- ghshephard 15y ago
  I've been involved in an $1B+ acquisition that stretched out over 12 months. The initial deal, that was announced publicly, had language of the form "All assest required to run the subsidiary will be transferred to the acquiring company." The next 3-6 months required us to determine exactly what was actually purchased. And finally, the last 6 months was us transferring those assets. The CEO doesn't get involved in the line item details - just announces the high level strategic decisions. There is a likely some perceived value, to both Microsoft and Nokia, in communicating this strategy to the market/developers/partners - I'm not sure _what_ that value is, mind you, but that would be one reason why the high level deal was announced before all the nitty gritty details were inked.
shareme 15y ago
Note, other MS partner deals that work oh so well: MS-Yahoo..the current revenue numbers indicate that with MS's help Yahoo will reach a floor of below $200 million within one year from now from a high of several yeas back of $500 million. How many restarts for winCE now? Is it not he 5th code base restart? Gee Nokia should be right at home than :)
- cooldeal 15y ago
  >How many restarts for winCE now? Is it not he 5th code base restart? Reference?
  - contextfree 15y ago
    As far as I know, there hasn't ever been a code base restart for Windows CE (the kernel and infrastructure components). The Pocket PC/Windows Mobile/Windows Phone interface/app platform layer above it has been restarted a couple times, hence the name changes.
mohoyt 15y ago
And here marks the beginning of Nokia's transformation to an OEM...
rajuvegesna 15y ago
This deal sounds very similar to MS-Yahoo deal. Abandon your existing technology, rely on competitors tech and expect growth. We have seen how MS-Yahoo deal played out this week. It won't be long before Nokia realized what they got into. By then, it'll be too late.
- 1337p337 15y ago
  It looks that way, which is pretty sad. I'm typing this on my beloved N900, which I found far more usable and open than Android (which I kicked when it wouldn't stop screaming "CLOUD! CLOUD!" at me, and Eric Schmidt kept coming into my house at night to smell my hair). Seriously, though, there are only two real competitors, Apple and Google, in the smartphone market, which is unfortunate for everyone. Windows phones have been floundering, WebOS seems to have lost traction, and Blackberries are...Blackberry who? I hope we're not entering the Dark Ages of Mobile Phones.
  - evanhanson 15y ago
    I've been waiting a long time for the successor to the N900. It's sad it'll never happen, and that there's nothing similar on the horizon (especially with Maemo/Moblin/MeeGo floundering).
- yuhong 15y ago
  Don't forget MS-Corel too from 1999-2000. I have a submission about it.
misterbwong 15y ago
Am I the only one that sees this as a good thing? Nokia gets an reasonably well made OS to replace its own, widely criticized, OS. Nokia instantly becomes the one of (if not the) largest WP7 vendor, thus giving it way more negotiating power than if they were to adopt Android. Microsoft gets the largest handset maker to adopt an OS that is struggling to gain traction, instantly upping their credibility in the market. The rest of us get a legitimate third player in a smartphone market dominated by iOS and Android.
- GoodIntentions 15y ago
  no, you are not the only one. Managed correctly I don't see how this won't benefit each party. Nokia makes good phones. The software, less good. Microsoft has tonnes of experience creating user interfaces that are user friendly. I'm a long time linux guy who uses a 6 year old Samsung dumb phone, but I bought NOK and MSFT after the initial announcement. No guarantees in this world, but I think it was a good bet.

24 points by BrandonWatson 15y ago

Let me see if I have this right: the CEO of Nokia very publicly declares that he is going to bet the company on WP7 weeks before finalizing a deal for WP7. Didn't the very public declaration, which IIRC caused resignations by engineers working on Symbian and Meego, radically weaken Nokia's negotiating position? I must be missing something because it is unlikely that the leadership of a major corporation would be that unskillful at negotiation.

pieter 15y ago
They probably already signed an intention for the final agreement, and just had to fill in the details.
- dspillett 15y ago
  Yes, final sign-off on these deals can be a slow and tortuous process. But it still seems impetuous and somewhat risky to make announcements based on a final sign-of that has not yet happened, no matter how secure your feel in the likely hood of that final sign-off happening. Unless, of course a separate agreement was made that if the deal did fall through at that late stage the halting party would compensate the other in some meaningful way.
  - sethg 15y ago
    I think that kind of multi-stage deal is common in large corporate transactions.
G_Morgan 15y ago
MS (and possibly Nokia) probably wanted an early public commitment. People were pronouncing WP7 dead on arrival. The Nokia announcement puts real weight behind the platform. In short by kicking up a fuss then they have killed the DOA claims. It means more people will have been looking at the platform. If they had delayed until now more mind share would already be locked into Android or iPhone. Unless a major player made a lot of noise about WP7 nobody would bother learning to develop for it.
pohl 15y ago
It has been suggested that Elop was installed at Nokia specifically to act in Microsoft's best interest. Indeed, his actions make sense when so viewed. Interestingly, this may be his specialty: check out his movements preceding the sale of Macromedia to Adobe.
- endtime 15y ago
  Can you unpack 'was installed'? Microsoft doesn't have the ability to appoint Nokia's CEO.
  - pohl 15y ago
    Of course they wouldn't have the ability to appoint at will, but they certainly could install opportunistically. You start by spotting someone who manages their career in a way that indicates useful skills and mindset: http://www.siliconbeat.com/2008/01/11/microsoft-beware-stephen-elop-is-a-flight-risk/ http://www.siliconbeat.com/2008/01/11/microsoft-beware-steph... ...then you make them a high-valued member of your senior leadership team... http://www.crunchbase.com/person/stephen-elop http://www.crunchbase.com/person/stephen-elop ...then when opportunity strikes and Nokia tries to buy him away you set up an under-the-table quid-pro-quo deal that would, one presumes, dwarf the $6m signing bonus Nokia gave him: http://siliconangle.com/blog/2011/03/11/stephen-elop-of-nokia-receives-6-million-signing-bonus/ http://siliconangle.com/blog/2011/03/11/stephen-elop-of-noki... Sure, it's just conjecture, but it's not implausible.
    - endtime 15y ago
      You haven't answered my question at all. I'm asking how MSFT can "install" someone at Nokia. All you've said is that Elop was a good employee who got promoted, and then Nokia came and tried to hire him. That's not MSFT "installing" anyone. The far simpler explanation is that if Elop is going to make a big bet with Nokia, he feels safer doing it with MSFT (who need Nokia, and where he knows people) than Google (who don't, and where he doesn't).
      - 15y ago
sethg 15y ago
Given the large number of people across both corporate bureaucracies that would be involved in negotiating the final deal (and in providing information that the negotiators would need), if they had tried to keep everything under wraps until the final agreement had been signed, there would have been no end of leaks. By pre-announcing the deal the CEO could at least put his own spin on what was going on.
- hollerith 15y ago
  Thanks.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ghshephard 15y ago
I've been involved in an $1B+ acquisition that stretched out over 12 months. The initial deal, that was announced publicly, had language of the form "All assest required to run the subsidiary will be transferred to the acquiring company." The next 3-6 months required us to determine exactly what was actually purchased. And finally, the last 6 months was us transferring those assets. The CEO doesn't get involved in the line item details - just announces the high level strategic decisions. There is a likely some perceived value, to both Microsoft and Nokia, in communicating this strategy to the market/developers/partners - I'm not sure _what_ that value is, mind you, but that would be one reason why the high level deal was announced before all the nitty gritty details were inked.

shareme 15y ago

Note, other MS partner deals that work oh so well: MS-Yahoo..the current revenue numbers indicate that with MS's help Yahoo will reach a floor of below $200 million within one year from now from a high of several yeas back of $500 million. How many restarts for winCE now? Is it not he 5th code base restart? Gee Nokia should be right at home than :)

cooldeal 15y ago
>How many restarts for winCE now? Is it not he 5th code base restart? Reference?
- contextfree 15y ago
  As far as I know, there hasn't ever been a code base restart for Windows CE (the kernel and infrastructure components). The Pocket PC/Windows Mobile/Windows Phone interface/app platform layer above it has been restarted a couple times, hence the name changes.

mohoyt 15y ago

And here marks the beginning of Nokia's transformation to an OEM...

rajuvegesna 15y ago

This deal sounds very similar to MS-Yahoo deal. Abandon your existing technology, rely on competitors tech and expect growth. We have seen how MS-Yahoo deal played out this week. It won't be long before Nokia realized what they got into. By then, it'll be too late.

1337p337 15y ago
It looks that way, which is pretty sad. I'm typing this on my beloved N900, which I found far more usable and open than Android (which I kicked when it wouldn't stop screaming "CLOUD! CLOUD!" at me, and Eric Schmidt kept coming into my house at night to smell my hair). Seriously, though, there are only two real competitors, Apple and Google, in the smartphone market, which is unfortunate for everyone. Windows phones have been floundering, WebOS seems to have lost traction, and Blackberries are...Blackberry who? I hope we're not entering the Dark Ages of Mobile Phones.
- evanhanson 15y ago
  I've been waiting a long time for the successor to the N900. It's sad it'll never happen, and that there's nothing similar on the horizon (especially with Maemo/Moblin/MeeGo floundering).
yuhong 15y ago
Don't forget MS-Corel too from 1999-2000. I have a submission about it.

misterbwong 15y ago

Am I the only one that sees this as a good thing? Nokia gets an reasonably well made OS to replace its own, widely criticized, OS. Nokia instantly becomes the one of (if not the) largest WP7 vendor, thus giving it way more negotiating power than if they were to adopt Android. Microsoft gets the largest handset maker to adopt an OS that is struggling to gain traction, instantly upping their credibility in the market. The rest of us get a legitimate third player in a smartphone market dominated by iOS and Android.

GoodIntentions 15y ago
no, you are not the only one. Managed correctly I don't see how this won't benefit each party. Nokia makes good phones. The software, less good. Microsoft has tonnes of experience creating user interfaces that are user friendly. I'm a long time linux guy who uses a 6 year old Samsung dumb phone, but I bought NOK and MSFT after the initial announcement. No guarantees in this world, but I think it was a good bet.