4 ms·

They should have. It really made no sense when they decided to bet the farm on Android, just as it didn't make sense for Nokia to bet the farm on Windows Phone.

They should have. It really made no sense when they decided to bet the farm on Android, just as it didn't make sense for Nokia to bet the farm on Windows Phone. Well, those decisions make sense from the perspective of eventual acquisitions I suppose. Though there is a bit more justification for skipping a platform like Windows Phone, as it was one where Microsoft dictated the hardware -- the processor, GPU, screen, etc. So there could be a lot of engineering hassle with something like that -- you pretty much had to engineer hardware specifically for Windows Phone -- versus Android where Nokia really could easily adapt it to pretty any handset they have. And I doubt Microsoft's concern was Nokia putting Android on some low end joke. They knew if the day came when a Lumia XXXX was available with either Android or Windows Phone, it may quickly yield some very poor press for the platform.

Steko 13y ago
It made no sense for Motorola to bet on Android? What other options were carriers interested in buying that Motorola could have shipped? "didn't make sense for Nokia to bet the farm on Windows Phone" Who else was lining up to write Nokia billion dollar checks?
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  The problem is that Moto being Android-only didn't distinguish it in anyway. It was just another gray label Android vendor, for all everyone was concerned. What other options did they have? To be honest, I don't think Moto had any good options at all at the point the Android-only option was chosen.
- corresation 13y ago
  We're talking abstractly about platforms, excluding externals like payola. Motorola went all in on Android back in late-2008, which was incredible as the OS had close to no marketshare and was rather a PoS at the time. As primarily a maker of hardware, it made no sense that Motorola would cut out the possibility that Microsoft (or others) would come up with something compelling, but that's what they did. Samsung, HTC and others were poised to be there if Windows Phone succeeded. It didn't and likely won't, but they didn't cut themselves out. Just to respond to the other chap who responded to you -- I have never, ever bought the "just another Android maker" argument. It doesn't make sense, and has never been the case in the market. Each vendor tries to get your purchase through their own compelling merits, and the platform really does become a commodity, but in a good way for them. That is why Nokia and their hardware/imaging focus could likely have done gangbusters with Android.
  - Steko 13y ago
    "Motorola went all in on Android back in late-2008, which was incredible as the OS had close to no marketshare and was rather a PoS at the time. " Right but in hindsight Android is a huge success so that was the right move. "made no sense that Motorola would cut out the possibility that Microsoft (or others) would come up with something compelling" Did they? Sanjay explains that his company is willing to work with Microsoft on developing a handset based around its new OS, so long as the offering is "compelling." He notes that the first call he received upon becoming co-CEO and handset division chief back in 2008 was from none other than Steve Ballmer, but Microsoft's failure to deliver a new OS in '09 is what compelled him to go the Android route http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/06/motorola-is-open-to-developing-windows-phone-7-devices-but-on/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/06/motorola-is-open-to-devel...
    - pinaceae 13y ago
      the right move for whom? Moto got bought. android destroyed the market for mobile OS due to its gratis nature. no mobile OS can be sold/licensed anymore, android has destroyed the price point. apple is building its own OS, MS needs to do the same incl. the hardware. the rest of mobile companies are now all on android, wait for google to do the heavy lifting, for free.
      - Steko 13y ago
        "the right move for whom? Moto got bought." Saying the decision to go with Android is what killed Motorola is like blaming the chef for the Titanic sinking. I mean they could have served duck that night instead of pheasant.
      - corresation 13y ago
        apple is building its own OS Just saw this post, and to be clear most other examples of companies making their own smartphone OS have been completely failures. Blackberry had their moment, but they are done. All of the various in-house OS' at the other makers are sputtering or dead. Apple is the anomaly here, and when people use Apple as the example of anything to follow, it ignores the enormous counterexamples. Apple succeeded with the iPhone because of the iPod and iTunes. Those early sales -- the ones that protected it from being end-of-lifed -- were almost entirely to people who had a big knowledge and investment with the iTunes ecosystem. Microsoft has nothing like that.
- GFischer 13y ago
  "Who else was lining up to write Nokia billion dollar checks?" They didn't need them, they would have had a lot more than that just by growing their already impressive market share back then. Symbian was extremely dated even by 2008, so the writing was on the wall - they needed a new OS. edit: see for example a random(1) analysis by an MBA student in 2009/10: http://es.slideshare.net/nomanalhasan/situation-analysis-of-nokia http://es.slideshare.net/nomanalhasan/situation-analysis-of-... Bullets from the 2009/10 presentation: "About Nokia: largest producer of mobile phones Facing tough competion from rival companies Losing market share (lost 3% market share last year) Weakness of Nokia - slow reaction to new rivalry - low popularity of symbian operating system - poor design of smart phones - low performance of smart phones Opportunities - mobile device market is growing at the rate of 14% - smart phone demand is growing faster than ever Threats to Nokia - rival apple is taking up market share from nokia - iPhone is the most popular mobile device - Samsung, Motorola, Sony Ericsson are using Google Android which is more popular than symbian" the analysis concluded the N8 would save Nokia, which obviously didn't happen. So anyone saw it coming (Nokia execs obviously too) (1) first result from a Slideshare search
- cpeterso 13y ago
  Those billion dollar checks didn't float Nokia for long.

Steko 13y ago

It made no sense for Motorola to bet on Android? What other options were carriers interested in buying that Motorola could have shipped? "didn't make sense for Nokia to bet the farm on Windows Phone" Who else was lining up to write Nokia billion dollar checks?

seanmcdirmid 13y ago
The problem is that Moto being Android-only didn't distinguish it in anyway. It was just another gray label Android vendor, for all everyone was concerned. What other options did they have? To be honest, I don't think Moto had any good options at all at the point the Android-only option was chosen.
corresation 13y ago
We're talking abstractly about platforms, excluding externals like payola. Motorola went all in on Android back in late-2008, which was incredible as the OS had close to no marketshare and was rather a PoS at the time. As primarily a maker of hardware, it made no sense that Motorola would cut out the possibility that Microsoft (or others) would come up with something compelling, but that's what they did. Samsung, HTC and others were poised to be there if Windows Phone succeeded. It didn't and likely won't, but they didn't cut themselves out. Just to respond to the other chap who responded to you -- I have never, ever bought the "just another Android maker" argument. It doesn't make sense, and has never been the case in the market. Each vendor tries to get your purchase through their own compelling merits, and the platform really does become a commodity, but in a good way for them. That is why Nokia and their hardware/imaging focus could likely have done gangbusters with Android.
- Steko 13y ago
  "Motorola went all in on Android back in late-2008, which was incredible as the OS had close to no marketshare and was rather a PoS at the time. " Right but in hindsight Android is a huge success so that was the right move. "made no sense that Motorola would cut out the possibility that Microsoft (or others) would come up with something compelling" Did they? Sanjay explains that his company is willing to work with Microsoft on developing a handset based around its new OS, so long as the offering is "compelling." He notes that the first call he received upon becoming co-CEO and handset division chief back in 2008 was from none other than Steve Ballmer, but Microsoft's failure to deliver a new OS in '09 is what compelled him to go the Android route http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/06/motorola-is-open-to-developing-windows-phone-7-devices-but-on/ http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/06/motorola-is-open-to-devel...
  - pinaceae 13y ago
    the right move for whom? Moto got bought. android destroyed the market for mobile OS due to its gratis nature. no mobile OS can be sold/licensed anymore, android has destroyed the price point. apple is building its own OS, MS needs to do the same incl. the hardware. the rest of mobile companies are now all on android, wait for google to do the heavy lifting, for free.
    - Steko 13y ago
      "the right move for whom? Moto got bought." Saying the decision to go with Android is what killed Motorola is like blaming the chef for the Titanic sinking. I mean they could have served duck that night instead of pheasant.
    - corresation 13y ago
      apple is building its own OS Just saw this post, and to be clear most other examples of companies making their own smartphone OS have been completely failures. Blackberry had their moment, but they are done. All of the various in-house OS' at the other makers are sputtering or dead. Apple is the anomaly here, and when people use Apple as the example of anything to follow, it ignores the enormous counterexamples. Apple succeeded with the iPhone because of the iPod and iTunes. Those early sales -- the ones that protected it from being end-of-lifed -- were almost entirely to people who had a big knowledge and investment with the iTunes ecosystem. Microsoft has nothing like that.
GFischer 13y ago
"Who else was lining up to write Nokia billion dollar checks?" They didn't need them, they would have had a lot more than that just by growing their already impressive market share back then. Symbian was extremely dated even by 2008, so the writing was on the wall - they needed a new OS. edit: see for example a random(1) analysis by an MBA student in 2009/10: http://es.slideshare.net/nomanalhasan/situation-analysis-of-nokia http://es.slideshare.net/nomanalhasan/situation-analysis-of-... Bullets from the 2009/10 presentation: "About Nokia: largest producer of mobile phones Facing tough competion from rival companies Losing market share (lost 3% market share last year) Weakness of Nokia - slow reaction to new rivalry - low popularity of symbian operating system - poor design of smart phones - low performance of smart phones Opportunities - mobile device market is growing at the rate of 14% - smart phone demand is growing faster than ever Threats to Nokia - rival apple is taking up market share from nokia - iPhone is the most popular mobile device - Samsung, Motorola, Sony Ericsson are using Google Android which is more popular than symbian" the analysis concluded the N8 would save Nokia, which obviously didn't happen. So anyone saw it coming (Nokia execs obviously too) (1) first result from a Slideshare search
cpeterso 13y ago
Those billion dollar checks didn't float Nokia for long.