7 ms·

Sad but unsurprising. And there are quite a few points I would disagree with the author on: 1) Implying that Elop is not competent or responsible because he fi

Sad but unsurprising. And there are quite a few points I would disagree with the author on: 1) Implying that Elop is not competent or responsible because he fired the team rather than "talking to them" is ridiculous. It is the only sensible option. Qt developers are not .Net developers and retraining so many at one time is impossible. 2) Finding developers for Nokia's strategy won't be a problem. There are lots of .Net developers around. And I am sure more than a few would be interested in the mobile space. 3) I fail to see what possible benefit Qt brings to Nokia's future strategy. They are unquestionably a Microsoft shop now. It is irrelevant how great Qt is as a technology. 4) The blame for Nokia's current woes does not lie with Elop and his current strategy. It lies with the previous one. And those employees need to start taking some responsibility for letting Nokia lose control of the industry. And it is not just CEO level it is product manager and engineer level.

sho_hn 14y ago
> 2) Finding developers for Nokia's strategy won't be a problem. There are lots of .Net developers around. Just FWIW, Windows Phone 8 adds a native development option, so .Net is no longer the only game in that town. (It follows that it may be possible to put Qt there, too, but that's not really what I was going for.) > 3) I fail to see what possible benefit Qt brings to Nokia's future strategy. They are unquestionably a Microsoft shop now. It is irrelevant how great Qt is as a technology. That's true, but to add the historical context: Until this round of layoffs, Nokia had several hundred people at their Ulm office work on a new Linux/Qt-based mobile operating system. It is now, with that project shut down, that they have no internal use case for the technology anymore. Many of the workers at Ulm were genuinely surprised at this development.
nitrogen 14y ago
I see you consistently making posts that go against the local grain by glorifying the decisions of CEOs, defending ideas that most hackers attack, etc. What is your background that gives you this radically different perspective?
- taligent 14y ago
  What radically different perspective ? It's common sense that Nokia was not going to have a use for Qt or anyone involved with it once they moved to a MS strategy. I would honestly love to know what is being communicated internally for Nokia employees to be surprised at this.
  - sho_hn 14y ago
    FWIW, Elop made public comments along the line of, roughly, "we're currently working on something that is going to make everything we're selling right now, including Lumia, irrelevant", which may serve as a basis for extrapolating what was being communicated internally, or at least how it was understood by some.
  - Retric 14y ago
    It's generally understood that finding a talented Dev team is far harder than transitioning a team to a new technology. Many company's have transitioned code from platform A to platform B without building a new team from scratch. Not because everyone will make the transition but because what separates a great QT/.net/java/c++ developer from an average one has vary little to do with experience. So, while such transitions are a great time to remove deadwood, and you want to find some experts in the new stack laying off the old team is expensive and rarely worth it.
  - batista 14y ago
    >It's common sense that Nokia was not going to have a use for Qt or anyone involved with it once they moved to a MS strategy. The radical perspective is that they have a "MS strategy" and that that "MS strategy" will do them any good. You seem to believe something which, judging by Nokia's results and MS recent (10 year) history, it seems ludicrous if not suicidal. Plus, if that "Surface" thing goes well, what's to stop MS trying to build their own phones? From a mobile leader that it was in the past, Nokia will become --at best-- a insignificant MS home making division, and at worst an ex-partner with no recourse. Of course the more probable outcome is that Windows Phone 8,9,10,x will continue it's Zune-like irrelevance, and Nokia with enter a RIM like free fall...
luminaobscura 14y ago
> 4) The blame for Nokia's current woes does not lie with Elop and his current strategy. It lies with the previous one. wrong. see http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2011/12/calculating-the-elop-effect-hes-already-destroyed-a-company-the-size-of-oracle-and-profits-the-size-.html http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2011/12/calcula...
- taligent 14y ago
  Sorry but that is just nonsense. Nokia is not in trouble because of Elop. It is in trouble because of two trends. One is the rise of the middle class in emerging markets who don't want cheap, nasty feature phones. And two is the move from both Apple and Android into lower and lower price points. And the fact is that Meego had nothing going for it. It had no apps and no related ecosystems like Google, Microsoft and Apple have. And as we are seeing with RIM developers simply aren't interested in building 4 versions of their apps. So this idea that Meego was going to save the day is pure delusion.
  - luminaobscura 14y ago
    of course the root cause is not Elop. But Elop grossly mishandled the situation and now company is near bankruptcy. If only Elop had been more cautious, nokia would be still profitable and maybe in a position to utilize this great QT technology which they invested a lot. There was no need to declare the death of Symbian and MeeGo so early. There was no reason to jump to Windows Phone bandwagon as their sole hope a year before WP8. And Elop was aware that WP7 devices would not receive update to WP8. What a shame... Aside from timing and suicidal memos, given the obvious incompetency of Elop, I doubt WP was the right decision at all. Of course I do not have all the information that Elop had back then, but I wonder did they consider other options, such as forking android (maybe in cooperation with amazon), seriously. I wonder what role his previous employment played here.
    - recoiledsnake 14y ago
      >this great QT technology which they invested a lot Sorry but only a few geeks care about QT, and other developers care about the ecosystem and go where the money is. I wrote some QT code about 10 years ago and it was good, but is it so great compared to iOS/ObjC, Android/Java and WinRT/C# that developers would just flock to it blindly? I seriously doubt it.
edragoev 14y ago
Is this the common wisdom these days? Experienced software developers who are good at C++/Qt can't learn themselves to use C#/.NET? They have to be trained? And that's impossible to do? If we are talking about full time employees - they should have been given the option to work with .NET if this is what they wanted. Also - employees have to take responsibility for Nokia's previous strategy? Weren't you just talking about those employees like an easily replaceable cogs? Get rid of a few "C++/Qt"s and get a few new "C#/.NET" ones. Regular employees are responsible for managing their own career not the company. About Elop - his statement about the burning platform reminds me about the Léo Apoteker public announcement about dumping the PC division of HP. Even if we assume both decisions about new strategic direction were correct - the public announcements were not very helpful to say the least ... -- 1) Implying that Elop is not competent or responsible because he fired the team rather than "talking to them" is ridiculous. It is the only sensible option. Qt developers are not .Net developers and retraining so many at one time is impossible. 2) Finding developers for Nokia's strategy won't be a problem. There are lots of .Net developers around. And I am sure more than a few would be interested in the mobile space.
- taligent 14y ago
  It's not impossible but retraining 100+ developers in a new platform takes a lot longer than hiring a new team. And it is not just about knowledge but also culture and enthusiasm. Can you not see how the clean slate approach where you leave behind all of the Linux/Qt/Symbian baggage could be appealing ? It's not dissimilar from what happen with Apple's failed Copland project where a new team came in (NeXT), took control of a new OS/apps strategy and ultimately saved the company.
  - emidln 14y ago
    Why do you need to retrain developers? I'm certain that I've never had any corporate training outside of what jokes not to make, places not to touch others, and things not to give to anonymous (yeah, seriously). I've never undergone technical training through a career that has gone through at least a few pretty big companies (Omron, Abbott, EADS).
  - 14y ago
raverbashing 14y ago
Yes The issues were: (from the gravepine) Old Symbian team kept beating the Symbian drum and heading towards the cliff At the same time, Linux team developing Maemo, viewed by the rest of the company as "the linux kids and their toys" Linux team trying to assemble a jigsaw puzzle of several Linux services (and since most of them are not focused on mobile, and some are just crap but it's the only solution) it takes a lot of time Not to mention "ok, let's merge with Intel and rewrite a crapload of stuff" then "ok, let's buy Qt and rewrite a boatload of stuff with Qt" (not sure how those are ordered, still) Meanwhile Android just built the bare minimum, discarding lots of Linux infrastructure and came ahead So when Stephen Elop got there, sorry, boat had already sank
- mcbridematt 14y ago
  I agree. They seem to have reinvented Maemo/MeeGo on every release. You can't really have an ecosystem around that. I don't believe being (yet another) Android OEM would have done them any good either. Microsoft was the way to go.
fpgeek 14y ago
Of course the blame is Elop's. Putting all of Nokia's chips on Windows Phone was stupid no matter how it turned out. Lowering Nokia's risk by doing an Android phone or two was a no-brainer. The smarter play was doubling down on Qt. Not just Symbian, Meego and the desktop - we know they could have added Android (demonstrated), iOS (community projects existed and still do) and Windows Phone. And don't say Microsoft wouldn't allow it. Windows Phone was irrelevant and Nokia was Microsoft's few chances to change that. And more than that, Microsoft needed access to Nokia's patents (to keep up the pressure on Android, among other things). Nokia was in the driver's seat and could have written their terms. Instead, they let Microsoft effectively acquire them for peanuts. If Nokia had only kept their options open and jumped on what worked, today's mess was entirely preventable.
- berntb 14y ago
  >> Putting all of Nokia's chips on Windows Phone was stupid no matter how it turned out. I agree, but hopefully/probably Nokia got something in the deal making, for shutting down a Linux based competing system.
- brudgers 14y ago
  Elop's strategic move was to get Nokia out of the Operating Systems business where they were clearly losing - and likely to continue to lose over the short, medium and long terms - and to focus on their core competencies which are those of manufacturing and logistics. The switch to Windows Phone was tactical in that sense. The strategic aspect of the switch was that Microsoft offered a long term partnership, allowed them to liquidate maps, and could provide a clear technology roadmap for their product line. Nokia's software was good and competent, but they simply don't have access to the mountains of UX data needed to develop the next generation of OS's to compete on the touch screen.
  - machinagod 14y ago
    >>> Nokia's software was good and competent, but they simply don't have access to the mountains of UX data needed to develop the next generation of OS's to compete on the touch screen. This statement doesn't seem correct to me. Nokia has a vast amount of research on mobile UX, even from before Apple joined the play, probably as no one other company. As a (stellar) example, check out Jan Chipchase's work (http://janchipchase.com/ http://janchipchase.com/) with a ton of in-loco research on mobile phone usage, and many research papers presented - with a particular focus on the non-developed world. In my opinion Nokia suffered from big-company chronic slowness: the current cash-cow was still providing the income, hence all future investment was unfocused, under-funded. PS: A nice question is still how much/if any of the investment of Nokia in the undeveloped world will still be able to bring some returns. Windows Phone completely eschews that...
lebski88 14y ago
> They are unquestionably a Microsoft shop now This is only true on the phones themselves. Nokia are mostly Java based on the server side.

sho_hn 14y ago

> 2) Finding developers for Nokia's strategy won't be a problem. There are lots of .Net developers around. Just FWIW, Windows Phone 8 adds a native development option, so .Net is no longer the only game in that town. (It follows that it may be possible to put Qt there, too, but that's not really what I was going for.) > 3) I fail to see what possible benefit Qt brings to Nokia's future strategy. They are unquestionably a Microsoft shop now. It is irrelevant how great Qt is as a technology. That's true, but to add the historical context: Until this round of layoffs, Nokia had several hundred people at their Ulm office work on a new Linux/Qt-based mobile operating system. It is now, with that project shut down, that they have no internal use case for the technology anymore. Many of the workers at Ulm were genuinely surprised at this development.

nitrogen 14y ago

I see you consistently making posts that go against the local grain by glorifying the decisions of CEOs, defending ideas that most hackers attack, etc. What is your background that gives you this radically different perspective?

taligent 14y ago
What radically different perspective ? It's common sense that Nokia was not going to have a use for Qt or anyone involved with it once they moved to a MS strategy. I would honestly love to know what is being communicated internally for Nokia employees to be surprised at this.
- sho_hn 14y ago
  FWIW, Elop made public comments along the line of, roughly, "we're currently working on something that is going to make everything we're selling right now, including Lumia, irrelevant", which may serve as a basis for extrapolating what was being communicated internally, or at least how it was understood by some.
- Retric 14y ago
  It's generally understood that finding a talented Dev team is far harder than transitioning a team to a new technology. Many company's have transitioned code from platform A to platform B without building a new team from scratch. Not because everyone will make the transition but because what separates a great QT/.net/java/c++ developer from an average one has vary little to do with experience. So, while such transitions are a great time to remove deadwood, and you want to find some experts in the new stack laying off the old team is expensive and rarely worth it.
- batista 14y ago
  >It's common sense that Nokia was not going to have a use for Qt or anyone involved with it once they moved to a MS strategy. The radical perspective is that they have a "MS strategy" and that that "MS strategy" will do them any good. You seem to believe something which, judging by Nokia's results and MS recent (10 year) history, it seems ludicrous if not suicidal. Plus, if that "Surface" thing goes well, what's to stop MS trying to build their own phones? From a mobile leader that it was in the past, Nokia will become --at best-- a insignificant MS home making division, and at worst an ex-partner with no recourse. Of course the more probable outcome is that Windows Phone 8,9,10,x will continue it's Zune-like irrelevance, and Nokia with enter a RIM like free fall...

luminaobscura 14y ago

> 4) The blame for Nokia's current woes does not lie with Elop and his current strategy. It lies with the previous one. wrong. see http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2011/12/calculating-the-elop-effect-hes-already-destroyed-a-company-the-size-of-oracle-and-profits-the-size-.html http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2011/12/calcula...

taligent 14y ago
Sorry but that is just nonsense. Nokia is not in trouble because of Elop. It is in trouble because of two trends. One is the rise of the middle class in emerging markets who don't want cheap, nasty feature phones. And two is the move from both Apple and Android into lower and lower price points. And the fact is that Meego had nothing going for it. It had no apps and no related ecosystems like Google, Microsoft and Apple have. And as we are seeing with RIM developers simply aren't interested in building 4 versions of their apps. So this idea that Meego was going to save the day is pure delusion.
- luminaobscura 14y ago
  of course the root cause is not Elop. But Elop grossly mishandled the situation and now company is near bankruptcy. If only Elop had been more cautious, nokia would be still profitable and maybe in a position to utilize this great QT technology which they invested a lot. There was no need to declare the death of Symbian and MeeGo so early. There was no reason to jump to Windows Phone bandwagon as their sole hope a year before WP8. And Elop was aware that WP7 devices would not receive update to WP8. What a shame... Aside from timing and suicidal memos, given the obvious incompetency of Elop, I doubt WP was the right decision at all. Of course I do not have all the information that Elop had back then, but I wonder did they consider other options, such as forking android (maybe in cooperation with amazon), seriously. I wonder what role his previous employment played here.
  - recoiledsnake 14y ago
    >this great QT technology which they invested a lot Sorry but only a few geeks care about QT, and other developers care about the ecosystem and go where the money is. I wrote some QT code about 10 years ago and it was good, but is it so great compared to iOS/ObjC, Android/Java and WinRT/C# that developers would just flock to it blindly? I seriously doubt it.

edragoev 14y ago

Is this the common wisdom these days? Experienced software developers who are good at C++/Qt can't learn themselves to use C#/.NET? They have to be trained? And that's impossible to do? If we are talking about full time employees - they should have been given the option to work with .NET if this is what they wanted. Also - employees have to take responsibility for Nokia's previous strategy? Weren't you just talking about those employees like an easily replaceable cogs? Get rid of a few "C++/Qt"s and get a few new "C#/.NET" ones. Regular employees are responsible for managing their own career not the company. About Elop - his statement about the burning platform reminds me about the Léo Apoteker public announcement about dumping the PC division of HP. Even if we assume both decisions about new strategic direction were correct - the public announcements were not very helpful to say the least ... -- 1) Implying that Elop is not competent or responsible because he fired the team rather than "talking to them" is ridiculous. It is the only sensible option. Qt developers are not .Net developers and retraining so many at one time is impossible. 2) Finding developers for Nokia's strategy won't be a problem. There are lots of .Net developers around. And I am sure more than a few would be interested in the mobile space.

taligent 14y ago
It's not impossible but retraining 100+ developers in a new platform takes a lot longer than hiring a new team. And it is not just about knowledge but also culture and enthusiasm. Can you not see how the clean slate approach where you leave behind all of the Linux/Qt/Symbian baggage could be appealing ? It's not dissimilar from what happen with Apple's failed Copland project where a new team came in (NeXT), took control of a new OS/apps strategy and ultimately saved the company.
- emidln 14y ago
  Why do you need to retrain developers? I'm certain that I've never had any corporate training outside of what jokes not to make, places not to touch others, and things not to give to anonymous (yeah, seriously). I've never undergone technical training through a career that has gone through at least a few pretty big companies (Omron, Abbott, EADS).
- 14y ago

raverbashing 14y ago

Yes The issues were: (from the gravepine) Old Symbian team kept beating the Symbian drum and heading towards the cliff At the same time, Linux team developing Maemo, viewed by the rest of the company as "the linux kids and their toys" Linux team trying to assemble a jigsaw puzzle of several Linux services (and since most of them are not focused on mobile, and some are just crap but it's the only solution) it takes a lot of time Not to mention "ok, let's merge with Intel and rewrite a crapload of stuff" then "ok, let's buy Qt and rewrite a boatload of stuff with Qt" (not sure how those are ordered, still) Meanwhile Android just built the bare minimum, discarding lots of Linux infrastructure and came ahead So when Stephen Elop got there, sorry, boat had already sank

mcbridematt 14y ago
I agree. They seem to have reinvented Maemo/MeeGo on every release. You can't really have an ecosystem around that. I don't believe being (yet another) Android OEM would have done them any good either. Microsoft was the way to go.

fpgeek 14y ago

Of course the blame is Elop's. Putting all of Nokia's chips on Windows Phone was stupid no matter how it turned out. Lowering Nokia's risk by doing an Android phone or two was a no-brainer. The smarter play was doubling down on Qt. Not just Symbian, Meego and the desktop - we know they could have added Android (demonstrated), iOS (community projects existed and still do) and Windows Phone. And don't say Microsoft wouldn't allow it. Windows Phone was irrelevant and Nokia was Microsoft's few chances to change that. And more than that, Microsoft needed access to Nokia's patents (to keep up the pressure on Android, among other things). Nokia was in the driver's seat and could have written their terms. Instead, they let Microsoft effectively acquire them for peanuts. If Nokia had only kept their options open and jumped on what worked, today's mess was entirely preventable.

berntb 14y ago
>> Putting all of Nokia's chips on Windows Phone was stupid no matter how it turned out. I agree, but hopefully/probably Nokia got something in the deal making, for shutting down a Linux based competing system.
brudgers 14y ago
Elop's strategic move was to get Nokia out of the Operating Systems business where they were clearly losing - and likely to continue to lose over the short, medium and long terms - and to focus on their core competencies which are those of manufacturing and logistics. The switch to Windows Phone was tactical in that sense. The strategic aspect of the switch was that Microsoft offered a long term partnership, allowed them to liquidate maps, and could provide a clear technology roadmap for their product line. Nokia's software was good and competent, but they simply don't have access to the mountains of UX data needed to develop the next generation of OS's to compete on the touch screen.
- machinagod 14y ago
  >>> Nokia's software was good and competent, but they simply don't have access to the mountains of UX data needed to develop the next generation of OS's to compete on the touch screen. This statement doesn't seem correct to me. Nokia has a vast amount of research on mobile UX, even from before Apple joined the play, probably as no one other company. As a (stellar) example, check out Jan Chipchase's work (http://janchipchase.com/ http://janchipchase.com/) with a ton of in-loco research on mobile phone usage, and many research papers presented - with a particular focus on the non-developed world. In my opinion Nokia suffered from big-company chronic slowness: the current cash-cow was still providing the income, hence all future investment was unfocused, under-funded. PS: A nice question is still how much/if any of the investment of Nokia in the undeveloped world will still be able to bring some returns. Windows Phone completely eschews that...

lebski88 14y ago

> They are unquestionably a Microsoft shop now This is only true on the phones themselves. Nokia are mostly Java based on the server side.