4 ms·

You can tell what Elop is saying is nonsense just from the article title. Specifically the word "choose". Choose? Why did Elop have to "choose" Windows? Did

by Ologn 13y ago

You can tell what Elop is saying is nonsense just from the article title. Specifically the word "choose". Choose? Why did Elop have to "choose" Windows? Did Samsung have to choose between Android or Windows? Did HTC have to choose between Android or Windows? They did not. Samsung sells both Windows and Android smartphones. The Android phones have sold spectacularly, the Windows phones have not. HTC sells both Android and Windows phones. HTC's Windows phones do not sell. HTC's Android phones sell well enough to keep them in the game - their profits are not spectacular, but they're doing better than RIM and other companies. I'm happy with my HTC One. I go into a Sprint or AT&T or T-mobile or Verizon mobile store, and up front I see the featured phones - an iPhone, a Samsung S4, and an HTC one. Way in the back is a Blackberry kiosk. Next to it is a Windows kiosk with the HTC Windows phone, the Samsung Windows phone, and - depending on the carrier - the Nokia Windows phone. This is what Nokia is crowing about? Maybe this type of talk might fool non-technical stock buyers who do not know any better. All of us know that Nokia could have made both Android and Windows phones, just as Samsung and HTC (and other companies) do. So we realize that his invention of the idea that they were forced to choose one or the other is nonsense. It's too late for Nokia to come in and be a big player in the Android market now, but it was not when way back when he sent his "burning platform" memo out. Of course, some with perhaps more knowledge than me might say that Nokia was in bad financial shape and needed Microsoft to bail them out financially or they'd go under, and they were forced to go Windows only in that sense. That may also be true, but again, it has no relation to the bogus reasons he says he had to make a "choice" in the article. He seems to be in the only company that had to make a choice.

throwawaykf02 13y ago
To me, choosing one and focusing on it seems the only rational choice, rather than making two halfhearted forays. Say Nokia did choose both. They'd have invested a huge amount of money and resources (comparable to what they invested for on WP), and most likely they'd just be down there with HTC (despite the One), Sony and LG, who are all struggling in the smartphone market. How is that better? Samsung can afford to make that investment, of course, as well as experiment with alternatives like Bada. They have a huge amount of resources at their disposal. Nokia saw the coming adversity and realized they had to choose. There were many reasons affecting that choice, of course... such as Google's insistence that the Android trademark only comes with the full host of Google apps, including their navigation app, which directly undercuts Nokia's Navteq investment. Or Microsoft's willingness to pump billions into joint marketing efforts. Even HTC realizes that heavy marketing is needed to compete with Samsung.
- Ologn 13y ago
  Former Microsoft Business Division head Elop became Nokia CEO in September 2010. In February 2011, he wrote his burning platforms memo. By the time April 2011 rolled around, Nokia stock was still worth more than HTC's. That month the stocks would meet in (market cap) price, and then HTC would begin pulling ahead of Nokia. You say Nokia could be "down there with HTC (despite the One)" and that "HTC realizes that heavy marketing is needed". HTC is worth $163 billion. Nokia is worth $15 billion. For the first seven months Elop was CEO (late 2010, early 2011), Nokia was worth more than HTC. It would be a shareholder's dream for Nokia to be "down their with HTC" right now. People were making the same arguments back then (including Elop). If the market is the ultimate arbiter, Nokia, which as worth more than HTC when Elop wrote his burning platform memo, is now worth less than 10% of HTC. Investors who are putting their money where their confidence of future prospects are don't have much confidence in the decision for Windows. Nokia felt it had to make a choice and focus, and went from being worth more than HTC to worth $15 billion. HTC put out two products and is worth $163 billion. HTC might be struggling to compete with Samsung and Apple, but it's still in the ball game, Nokia has been left far, far behind. Even if Windows market percentage does start picking up - Samsung and HTC put out Windows phones as well. Nokia has to compete in the big smartphone picture, and they have to compete even in the Windows smartphone picture. As I said, I go to the Windows smartphone kiosk in the back of the store and Samsung and HTC have phones alongside the Nokia. Wasn't one of the comments about Windows phones how they're all more or less the same with tiles and such, while Android phones could have their homescreens changed so much? So you have a Samsung, Nokia and HTC Windows smartphone which in software is less distinguishable from one another than a Samsung and HTC Android phone. It's more of a commodity. Plus IDC says for 2013 Q1 sales, Android has 75% of the worldwide market, iPhone 17.3%, Blackberry 2.9% and Windows 3.2%. So Nokia competes with Samsung and HTC for that 3.2% of the market, instead of competing with Samsung and HTC in that 75% of the market. Google Maps does undercut Navteq, but that's going to happen no matter what Nokia does. If Apple can't move off Google Maps without a disaster, then it's nothing that a company like Nokia can affect by its choice of platform. You're right of course about Microsoft's willingness to pump billions into joint marketing efforts with Nokia. It still doesn't seem to have helped though. For 2013 Q1 sales, Nokia is fighting for a piece of Windows's 3.2% of the marketplace against Samsung, HTC etc. Android's market share is 75%, with all the benefits behind a market of that size. Many developers are focused on Android. It's openness has helped it in many ways. Manufacturers get Android for free, while they have to pay Microsoft for its unpopular OS. I think Elop made a mistake back in late 2010, early 2011. The market seems to agree with me. Nokia had a decent brand name in many parts of the world, they were known to have good cameras and such. They could have had a chunk of Android's 75% market share. Instead they fight for a piece of Windows's 3.2% market share with Samsung, HTC etc.

by Ologn 13y ago

throwawaykf02 13y ago

To me, choosing one and focusing on it seems the only rational choice, rather than making two halfhearted forays. Say Nokia did choose both. They'd have invested a huge amount of money and resources (comparable to what they invested for on WP), and most likely they'd just be down there with HTC (despite the One), Sony and LG, who are all struggling in the smartphone market. How is that better? Samsung can afford to make that investment, of course, as well as experiment with alternatives like Bada. They have a huge amount of resources at their disposal. Nokia saw the coming adversity and realized they had to choose. There were many reasons affecting that choice, of course... such as Google's insistence that the Android trademark only comes with the full host of Google apps, including their navigation app, which directly undercuts Nokia's Navteq investment. Or Microsoft's willingness to pump billions into joint marketing efforts. Even HTC realizes that heavy marketing is needed to compete with Samsung.

Ologn 13y ago
Former Microsoft Business Division head Elop became Nokia CEO in September 2010. In February 2011, he wrote his burning platforms memo. By the time April 2011 rolled around, Nokia stock was still worth more than HTC's. That month the stocks would meet in (market cap) price, and then HTC would begin pulling ahead of Nokia. You say Nokia could be "down there with HTC (despite the One)" and that "HTC realizes that heavy marketing is needed". HTC is worth $163 billion. Nokia is worth $15 billion. For the first seven months Elop was CEO (late 2010, early 2011), Nokia was worth more than HTC. It would be a shareholder's dream for Nokia to be "down their with HTC" right now. People were making the same arguments back then (including Elop). If the market is the ultimate arbiter, Nokia, which as worth more than HTC when Elop wrote his burning platform memo, is now worth less than 10% of HTC. Investors who are putting their money where their confidence of future prospects are don't have much confidence in the decision for Windows. Nokia felt it had to make a choice and focus, and went from being worth more than HTC to worth $15 billion. HTC put out two products and is worth $163 billion. HTC might be struggling to compete with Samsung and Apple, but it's still in the ball game, Nokia has been left far, far behind. Even if Windows market percentage does start picking up - Samsung and HTC put out Windows phones as well. Nokia has to compete in the big smartphone picture, and they have to compete even in the Windows smartphone picture. As I said, I go to the Windows smartphone kiosk in the back of the store and Samsung and HTC have phones alongside the Nokia. Wasn't one of the comments about Windows phones how they're all more or less the same with tiles and such, while Android phones could have their homescreens changed so much? So you have a Samsung, Nokia and HTC Windows smartphone which in software is less distinguishable from one another than a Samsung and HTC Android phone. It's more of a commodity. Plus IDC says for 2013 Q1 sales, Android has 75% of the worldwide market, iPhone 17.3%, Blackberry 2.9% and Windows 3.2%. So Nokia competes with Samsung and HTC for that 3.2% of the market, instead of competing with Samsung and HTC in that 75% of the market. Google Maps does undercut Navteq, but that's going to happen no matter what Nokia does. If Apple can't move off Google Maps without a disaster, then it's nothing that a company like Nokia can affect by its choice of platform. You're right of course about Microsoft's willingness to pump billions into joint marketing efforts with Nokia. It still doesn't seem to have helped though. For 2013 Q1 sales, Nokia is fighting for a piece of Windows's 3.2% of the marketplace against Samsung, HTC etc. Android's market share is 75%, with all the benefits behind a market of that size. Many developers are focused on Android. It's openness has helped it in many ways. Manufacturers get Android for free, while they have to pay Microsoft for its unpopular OS. I think Elop made a mistake back in late 2010, early 2011. The market seems to agree with me. Nokia had a decent brand name in many parts of the world, they were known to have good cameras and such. They could have had a chunk of Android's 75% market share. Instead they fight for a piece of Windows's 3.2% market share with Samsung, HTC etc.