4 ms·

It's really no where near as simple as that, not even close. There is lots of politics, and red tape to keep in mind as well that has to be overcome before the

by se85 14y ago

It's really no where near as simple as that, not even close. There is lots of politics, and red tape to keep in mind as well that has to be overcome before they can even think about Android, let alone delivering on it. Getting rid of Elop, really doesn't change this painful process of software migration (which is never, ever "pretty easy") or everyone else that thinks Nokia/Android is a terrible idea from a business perspective (it is). Nokia has already had to go through all of this recently to accomodate the Microsoft Plan, and it is just extremely unlikely that a company the size of Nokia could survive a second transition and come out the other end smelling like roses. We are talking at least a year (and thats being very conservative and ignoring all existing and future plans that are currently in place that would need to be dismantled) before there would be a tangible Nokia Android product. There is also the large layoffs and rehires that would need to occur during this transition and this stuff takes time, lots of time when talking about a company at the scale of Nokia. I'd imagine they would lose lots of partners over this transition as well, the list is endless. My bet is it would be another year or two on top of that before Nokia was at its current state as of today on the market with Android instead of Windows, except the market will be much bigger, and Nokia will be much smaller, but hey at least they have an Android phone right? ;-) I'm sure Microsoft has Nokia by the balls as well (contractually speaking), which is just another reason amongst many others not to attempt such a transition from the business perspective. Also, it would be a very tough sell to the stakeholders, and upper management, as well as everyone else on the front lines that such a move would yield anything for Nokia besides a quicker path to hard times ahead and/or bankruptcy. The cards are all on the table, it's too late to make an "effective" transition and they know this. In an ideal world, business wouldn't get in the way of releasing a good product, but in the real world, business almost always mandates what the product is, and in Nokia's case, the business decision was made years ago and it is not something they can pivot on overnight like your typical Sillicon Valley startup.

bad_user 14y ago
Well, yes, I don't think it's feasible for Nokia either, because of the costs involved and because of politics. However, all of us here that are familiar with the landscape and with Microsoft's history thought this was a bad idea from the beginning. A lot of people freaking told them so. This is especially infuriating since their N9 was a success, limited only by Nokia's decision to discontinue it from the start, with many reviewers calling it "one of the most fascinating phones of the last few years". And Nokia is not a startup, but a big company that should have the resources to branch out a little and test the water with an Android phone. That's how smart companies are doing it - they are A/B testing competing solutions. Take a look at Google - that's still working on Chrome OS, in spite of Android being a success. And I get that Nokia wanted to focus on fewer products, to preserve resources, however they've gone to the extremes, throwing away years of hard work and even consumer goodwill, adopting an operating system that they don't and will never control - at least with Android, if anything had gone wrong with the Google partnership, they could have forked it, just like Amazon did.
- se85 14y ago
  However, all of us here that are familiar with the landscape and with Microsoft's history thought this was a bad idea from the beginning. And I'm not? Talk about judging someone without knowing anything about them, wow! When did I say that the Microsoft idea was a good idea? It wasn't. "And Nokia is not a startup, but a big company that should have the resources to branch out a little and test the water with an Android phone." I never said or implied Nokia was a startup either? Nokia is a big company with big problems without the resources to branch out a little and test the water with anything, and this will probably be their downfall. That was the whole point behind my previous post! That's how smart companies are doing it - they are A/B testing competing solutions. Take a look at Google - that's still working on Chrome OS, in spite of Android being a success. I'm not even sure if your talking to me now? And I get that Nokia wanted to focus on fewer products, to preserve resources, however they've gone to the extremes, throwing away years of hard work and even consumer goodwill, adopting an operating system that they don't and will never control I completely agree? at least with Android, if anything had gone wrong with the Google partnership, they could have forked it, just like Amazon did. Yeah, but they had Meego back then, and the Android platform was unproven, so tell me why they should have chosen Android over Meego again? Actually, I have a better idea, don't bother, I'm not interested in talking about "what if's" only "what now's".

by se85 14y ago

bad_user 14y ago

Well, yes, I don't think it's feasible for Nokia either, because of the costs involved and because of politics. However, all of us here that are familiar with the landscape and with Microsoft's history thought this was a bad idea from the beginning. A lot of people freaking told them so. This is especially infuriating since their N9 was a success, limited only by Nokia's decision to discontinue it from the start, with many reviewers calling it "one of the most fascinating phones of the last few years". And Nokia is not a startup, but a big company that should have the resources to branch out a little and test the water with an Android phone. That's how smart companies are doing it - they are A/B testing competing solutions. Take a look at Google - that's still working on Chrome OS, in spite of Android being a success. And I get that Nokia wanted to focus on fewer products, to preserve resources, however they've gone to the extremes, throwing away years of hard work and even consumer goodwill, adopting an operating system that they don't and will never control - at least with Android, if anything had gone wrong with the Google partnership, they could have forked it, just like Amazon did.

se85 14y ago
However, all of us here that are familiar with the landscape and with Microsoft's history thought this was a bad idea from the beginning. And I'm not? Talk about judging someone without knowing anything about them, wow! When did I say that the Microsoft idea was a good idea? It wasn't. "And Nokia is not a startup, but a big company that should have the resources to branch out a little and test the water with an Android phone." I never said or implied Nokia was a startup either? Nokia is a big company with big problems without the resources to branch out a little and test the water with anything, and this will probably be their downfall. That was the whole point behind my previous post! That's how smart companies are doing it - they are A/B testing competing solutions. Take a look at Google - that's still working on Chrome OS, in spite of Android being a success. I'm not even sure if your talking to me now? And I get that Nokia wanted to focus on fewer products, to preserve resources, however they've gone to the extremes, throwing away years of hard work and even consumer goodwill, adopting an operating system that they don't and will never control I completely agree? at least with Android, if anything had gone wrong with the Google partnership, they could have forked it, just like Amazon did. Yeah, but they had Meego back then, and the Android platform was unproven, so tell me why they should have chosen Android over Meego again? Actually, I have a better idea, don't bother, I'm not interested in talking about "what if's" only "what now's".