4 ms·

I think it would have been cheaper for Microsoft to just build their own devices than go through all of this to buy Nokia.

devx 13y ago
It was more of a desperate move than a well-planned move that needed to happen. Ballmer cared more about not wanting Nokia to go Android, than about them needing Nokia's hardware division and 35,000 employees.
rbanffy 13y ago
By building their own phones, they wouldn't get rid of a potential competitor. Without a company the size of Nokia, Windows Phone would be even more irrelevant than it is today.
mbesto 13y ago
You know what, I think you're right too. But I'm just an armchair M&A analyst. It's about risk reduction and this is a much safer bet than say perhaps, Kin?[0] There are so many dynamics to this, as it's not as simple as you may think. Just a few factors that often get missed: - Cost (and time) of go to market - Cost of marketing - Cost (and time) of branding - Emerging market opportunities This list goes on and on... Unfortunately what is produced as an offshoot of M&A is a whole bunch of people who start pulling at the windfall straws. [0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Kin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Kin
meepmorp 13y ago
Cheaper, maybe, but this way is probably a faster and less risky means to vertical integration a la Apple; buying Nokia means not having to build out mobile engineering, manufacturing, and supply infrastructure from scratch, as well as (likely) a pipeline of product designs for the next year or two. Plus, it knocks out some competition.
buster 13y ago
Not if you have the opportunity to smash one big opponent. After all Nokia was the biggest phone manufacturer worldwide and if Nokia would have chosen Android and produced high build-quality phones, it could have "easily" become the top smartphone manufacturer again, or atleast number 2. Now Microsoft has one enemy less and gained a company that was known for it's high-quality phones for years.
pjc50 13y ago
Cheaper? Possibly. Quicker? Almost certainly not.

devx 13y ago

It was more of a desperate move than a well-planned move that needed to happen. Ballmer cared more about not wanting Nokia to go Android, than about them needing Nokia's hardware division and 35,000 employees.

rbanffy 13y ago

By building their own phones, they wouldn't get rid of a potential competitor. Without a company the size of Nokia, Windows Phone would be even more irrelevant than it is today.

mbesto 13y ago

You know what, I think you're right too. But I'm just an armchair M&A analyst. It's about risk reduction and this is a much safer bet than say perhaps, Kin?[0] There are so many dynamics to this, as it's not as simple as you may think. Just a few factors that often get missed: - Cost (and time) of go to market - Cost of marketing - Cost (and time) of branding - Emerging market opportunities This list goes on and on... Unfortunately what is produced as an offshoot of M&A is a whole bunch of people who start pulling at the windfall straws. [0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Kin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Kin

meepmorp 13y ago

Cheaper, maybe, but this way is probably a faster and less risky means to vertical integration a la Apple; buying Nokia means not having to build out mobile engineering, manufacturing, and supply infrastructure from scratch, as well as (likely) a pipeline of product designs for the next year or two. Plus, it knocks out some competition.

buster 13y ago

Not if you have the opportunity to smash one big opponent. After all Nokia was the biggest phone manufacturer worldwide and if Nokia would have chosen Android and produced high build-quality phones, it could have "easily" become the top smartphone manufacturer again, or atleast number 2. Now Microsoft has one enemy less and gained a company that was known for it's high-quality phones for years.

pjc50 13y ago

Cheaper? Possibly. Quicker? Almost certainly not.