4 ms·

"microsoft killed nokia" nokia did that to themselves, microsoft aquisition just prolonged its inevitable ends

skrebbel 2y ago
Sure, though if you strangle a junkie about to OD, you still strangled them.
KingOfCoders 2y ago
Loved my yellow Lumia 920. I thought the panels and scrolling start screen was much better (concurrently used Android and iOS at that time). Just like with Zune, it was not part of MS strategy and therefor dropped. You need to keep working on something like this for years to make it successful. Large companies though drop products that are not a huge success after two years, associated with such products is a career killer. [Edit] I got the Lumia to decide as a CTO at that time if we would go into Windows phones or not. I asked for more Lumias and XBox (to show cross plattform eCommerce) from MS to evangelize inside the company, but was let hung dry. So we did not support Windows phones. They never went full in.
- tonyhart7 2y ago
  absolutely the fact they just give out on hardware side eg:nokia,surface device,zune,vr headset etc is just disappointing I think this is about company culture as a whole too, MS only know how to make software this is same problem with google too, with pixel device is very underwhelming success given how many resource they have
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  If I remember correctly, the CEO at the time Steve Ballmer said they were betting the farm on mobile and ARM-based tablet computing. They went very hard on mobile until SatNad came along and killed it. (Former Touch Diamond user here.)
  - KeplerBoy 2y ago
    And here we are, in a world where Apple has made arm work wonders for them and Windows still isn't really a thing on ARM 10 years after ballmer resigned. Then again arm doesn't seem to be necessary when looking at AMDs APU offerings. It was just a decade of intel struggling with their fabs.
    - dcow 2y ago
      Windows is definitely on arm. It just sucks because Qualcomm failed to deliver a good cpu package. The experience is within a stones throw of Apple, though. I also have one of the new AMD 300 AI platforms, and it still can’t do power right. Either the laptop is miserably slow on battery, or runs way too hot on power.
      - KeplerBoy 2y ago
        Yes, it is on arm and has been for decades in some form, but it's still nowhere near its M1 moment.
      - etempleton 2y ago
        I think the bigger issue is legacy software on Windows. It is Windows biggest moat and also their biggest albatross. So many companies and individuals rely on a specific piece of software that will never be ported to ARM. Microsoft can’t force the conversion. Developers have no incentive to support both until there is a critical mass of users and there will never be a critical mass of users unless ARM is 3x better than whatever Intel / AMD can deliver. On mobile it got close for a moment in terms of efficiency and then Intel and AMD immediately closed the gap. No incentive for users to switch.
        kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
        They really should do a clean slate OS where native apps are all C# and legacy stuff is run in a VM. An ARM Xbox would also help develop a gaming ecosystem without the massive legacy concerns.
out_of_protocol 2y ago
That was the funny story - Nokia got it's latest CEO (Stephen Elop) from M$, successfully almost-destroyed company, got it acquired by M$ and hopped back to M$. So, probably, it was the plan all along
- tonyhart7 2y ago
  why do you think this is happen in the first place??? the Board and Shareholder knew that it was sinking ships so it want cashout to Microsoft at least before its going to rubble
  - spwa4 2y ago
    Exactly. There's a business reason hardware companies like Nokia got killed (because it wasn't just Nokia. Lots of telco hardware companies were making handsets before and aren't anymore). That seems to me to be that Nokia didn't know how to make $100/user/year by controlling the software like MS and Google do (MS with "enterprise" sales and ads, Google with ads) Also makes the choice for Microsoft, as opposed to anyone else, very understandable. The other choice that "worked" for cell phone companies was to be a Chinese company, with state subsidies amounting to zero, maybe even negative tax, no environmental regulations at all (my favorite whoopsie was an algae bloom that started inside China and reached 1/4th to 1/3rd the way from China to the US. It is terrifying to think about just how many fish, animals and plants must have suffocated when that happened), plus definitely using WAY cheaper labor, maybe even using slave labor.
    - tonyhart7 2y ago
      I think you just hating and out of touch with reality (if this is not satire) cause how much less substance this comment are the simple reason they die is because they sucks, that's just it. HN user just overthinking this simple reason the CONSUMER want user just want something that's good, that's why nokia and blackberry die not because they got killed by another big corpo, but because they can't adapt
      - 2y ago

Sure, though if you strangle a junkie about to OD, you still strangled them.

Loved my yellow Lumia 920. I thought the panels and scrolling start screen was much better (concurrently used Android and iOS at that time). Just like with Zune, it was not part of MS strategy and therefor dropped. You need to keep working on something like this for years to make it successful. Large companies though drop products that are not a huge success after two years, associated with such products is a career killer. [Edit] I got the Lumia to decide as a CTO at that time if we would go into Windows phones or not. I asked for more Lumias and XBox (to show cross plattform eCommerce) from MS to evangelize inside the company, but was let hung dry. So we did not support Windows phones. They never went full in.

tonyhart7 2y ago
absolutely the fact they just give out on hardware side eg:nokia,surface device,zune,vr headset etc is just disappointing I think this is about company culture as a whole too, MS only know how to make software this is same problem with google too, with pixel device is very underwhelming success given how many resource they have
robertlagrant 2y ago
If I remember correctly, the CEO at the time Steve Ballmer said they were betting the farm on mobile and ARM-based tablet computing. They went very hard on mobile until SatNad came along and killed it. (Former Touch Diamond user here.)
- KeplerBoy 2y ago
  And here we are, in a world where Apple has made arm work wonders for them and Windows still isn't really a thing on ARM 10 years after ballmer resigned. Then again arm doesn't seem to be necessary when looking at AMDs APU offerings. It was just a decade of intel struggling with their fabs.
  - dcow 2y ago
    Windows is definitely on arm. It just sucks because Qualcomm failed to deliver a good cpu package. The experience is within a stones throw of Apple, though. I also have one of the new AMD 300 AI platforms, and it still can’t do power right. Either the laptop is miserably slow on battery, or runs way too hot on power.
    - KeplerBoy 2y ago
      Yes, it is on arm and has been for decades in some form, but it's still nowhere near its M1 moment.
    - etempleton 2y ago
      I think the bigger issue is legacy software on Windows. It is Windows biggest moat and also their biggest albatross. So many companies and individuals rely on a specific piece of software that will never be ported to ARM. Microsoft can’t force the conversion. Developers have no incentive to support both until there is a critical mass of users and there will never be a critical mass of users unless ARM is 3x better than whatever Intel / AMD can deliver. On mobile it got close for a moment in terms of efficiency and then Intel and AMD immediately closed the gap. No incentive for users to switch.
      - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
        They really should do a clean slate OS where native apps are all C# and legacy stuff is run in a VM. An ARM Xbox would also help develop a gaming ecosystem without the massive legacy concerns.

out_of_protocol 2y ago

That was the funny story - Nokia got it's latest CEO (Stephen Elop) from M$, successfully almost-destroyed company, got it acquired by M$ and hopped back to M$. So, probably, it was the plan all along

tonyhart7 2y ago
why do you think this is happen in the first place??? the Board and Shareholder knew that it was sinking ships so it want cashout to Microsoft at least before its going to rubble
- spwa4 2y ago
  Exactly. There's a business reason hardware companies like Nokia got killed (because it wasn't just Nokia. Lots of telco hardware companies were making handsets before and aren't anymore). That seems to me to be that Nokia didn't know how to make $100/user/year by controlling the software like MS and Google do (MS with "enterprise" sales and ads, Google with ads) Also makes the choice for Microsoft, as opposed to anyone else, very understandable. The other choice that "worked" for cell phone companies was to be a Chinese company, with state subsidies amounting to zero, maybe even negative tax, no environmental regulations at all (my favorite whoopsie was an algae bloom that started inside China and reached 1/4th to 1/3rd the way from China to the US. It is terrifying to think about just how many fish, animals and plants must have suffocated when that happened), plus definitely using WAY cheaper labor, maybe even using slave labor.
  - tonyhart7 2y ago
    I think you just hating and out of touch with reality (if this is not satire) cause how much less substance this comment are the simple reason they die is because they sucks, that's just it. HN user just overthinking this simple reason the CONSUMER want user just want something that's good, that's why nokia and blackberry die not because they got killed by another big corpo, but because they can't adapt
    - 2y ago