5 ms·

Did MS? Including the cost of the lay off ($1.6b says Recode), Nokia price was actually $8.8b. What was their business case that was so easily scrapped just mon

Did MS? Including the cost of the lay off ($1.6b says Recode), Nokia price was actually $8.8b. What was their business case that was so easily scrapped just months into the purchase? It may be successful on a tax/accounting perspective since the purchase was made in € with cash that couldn't be brought to the US. Yet this does look like a gigantic waste of assets. Warren Buffett says that a successful business is all about mindfully allocating its resources. This looks like the oppsite - no wonder that Nadella has a hard time explaining what happens in simple words.

DelwinAmber 12y ago
It can be argued that their patent portfolio was worth about that much.
- bergie 12y ago
  Except that Microsoft didn't get the Nokia patents, merely a license to use them. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-nokia-microsoft-patents-idUSBRE9820ZZ20130903 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-nokia-microsoft...
wes-exp 12y ago
Don't underestimate the value of the Nokia brand. Until recently, IIRC, Nokia was the world's largest seller of mobile phones. That brand image is worth a ton to help MS sell its phones.
- gr3yh47 12y ago
  Right up until they went windows phone only. The result is nokia's sales dropping, not windows phone sales increasing.
  - genericuser 12y ago
    Coincided with yes, but saying it was the result of is making a fault with logic as I am sure you are aware.
- mkozlows 12y ago
  Microsoft only has license to the Nokia brand through the end of 2015 (Nokia is still a separate company).
smackfu 12y ago
Adding layoff costs to the purchase price doesn't seem right. Severance is the bulk of it, and that's money you would have paid anyway if you had kept the employees on.
Bluestrike2 12y ago
There's no evidence that the initial case for the acquisition was scrapped. On the contrary, it's almost a given that MS was aware of the post-deal costs. This is all quite normal for M&A deals.

DelwinAmber 12y ago

It can be argued that their patent portfolio was worth about that much.

bergie 12y ago
Except that Microsoft didn't get the Nokia patents, merely a license to use them. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-nokia-microsoft-patents-idUSBRE9820ZZ20130903 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-nokia-microsoft...

wes-exp 12y ago

Don't underestimate the value of the Nokia brand. Until recently, IIRC, Nokia was the world's largest seller of mobile phones. That brand image is worth a ton to help MS sell its phones.

gr3yh47 12y ago
Right up until they went windows phone only. The result is nokia's sales dropping, not windows phone sales increasing.
- genericuser 12y ago
  Coincided with yes, but saying it was the result of is making a fault with logic as I am sure you are aware.
mkozlows 12y ago
Microsoft only has license to the Nokia brand through the end of 2015 (Nokia is still a separate company).

smackfu 12y ago

Adding layoff costs to the purchase price doesn't seem right. Severance is the bulk of it, and that's money you would have paid anyway if you had kept the employees on.

Bluestrike2 12y ago

There's no evidence that the initial case for the acquisition was scrapped. On the contrary, it's almost a given that MS was aware of the post-deal costs. This is all quite normal for M&A deals.