7 ms·

As per my comment on the Stephen Elop Thread: Ex Microsoft Manager went to Nokia, destroyed its Market Value, sold the debris back to Microsoft is now leaving

As per my comment on the Stephen Elop Thread: Ex Microsoft Manager went to Nokia, destroyed its Market Value, sold the debris back to Microsoft is now leaving Microsoft again. Time to short whatever company he is going to next. ;)

walterbell 11y ago
At least he is assured a permanent place in business school case studies.
jpkeisala 11y ago
Nokia lost 17 million euros a day it's market value while Elop was CEO of Nokia. I guess he is going down in the history as one of the worst CEO's. Though, some say he wasn't a mole but was hired to sinking ship but somehow it is hard for me to believe from his actions.
- odiroot 11y ago
  Also killing the most exciting software platform -- Maemo/Meego. On the other hand we now have Jolla so it's not that bad.
- pjmlp 11y ago
  He was hired by the Nokia board to do exactly what he did. So blame the greedy board members only looking for their bank accounts. http://www.forbes.com/sites/terokuittinen/2013/09/24/nokia-admits-giving-misleading-information-about-elops-compensation/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/terokuittinen/2013/09/24/nokia-a... http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2013/09/24/nokia-board-criticized-for-incentivizing-elop-to-tank-stock-and-then-get-rescue/ http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2013/09/24/nokia-board-...
  - rbanffy 11y ago
    To destroy the company and reduce its value until someone (how odd it's his previous employer) acquires it? That's a bit hard to swallow.
    - pjmlp 11y ago
      Most likely because his previous employer was the company that had the better contacts. However I do believe he wasn't a mole rather another manager driven by greed alonside the board members. Once upon a time I worked for that Finn company.
    - ntakasaki 11y ago
      Boards have to approve every major move by a CEO and can fire a CEO at any given time for any or no reason. This person was the chairman of the board, read through his profile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorma_Ollila https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorma_Ollila >Prior to joining Nokia in 1985, Ollila worked for eight years in corporate banking at Citibank's London and Helsinki offices, and when he joined Nokia his tasks involved international investment deals. A year later, in 1986, Ollila found himself as head of finance during Nokia's renewal under then CEO Kari Kairamo. He was appointed as chief of the mobile phones section in 1990, and CEO two years later in 1992. When Ollila first came to power, the company had suffered from internal disputes and had had a financial crisis for a number of years. >As CEO of Nokia he has led the strategy that restructured the former industrial conglomerate into one of the major companies in the mobile phone and telecommunications infrastructure markets. >In 1999, Ollila seriously considered taking part in the Finnish presidential election, following a request from a member of the National Coalition Party, Sauli Niinistö[citation needed] who was at that time Finnish finance minister and who later became Speaker of the Finnish Parliament. This was in spite the fact that Ollila belongs to a different party, the Finnish Centre party, which he has been involved with since his activities in student politics at the University of Helsinki[citation needed]. >He was CEO of Nokia from 1999 to 2006. He was succeeded as CEO by Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo. On 15 September 2010, he announced he intended to step down from the position of Chairman in 2012[2] and did so on 3 May 2012.[3] >Ollila is the Chairman of the Research Institute of the Finnish Economy (ETLA), the most reputed economic and social studies think tank in Finland. Since 2005, he is chairman of the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT). That doesn't look like someone who would trash a company they built for whatever conspiracy theories people cook up about how Elop got hired. It's funny how Microsoft is ascribed the superpowers of a comic book super villian around these parts while they barely break 3% in the mobile market.
    - 11y ago
- freehunter 11y ago
  >one of the worst CEO's Leo Apotheker?
  - ameen 11y ago
    They're both up there. Having destroyed one of the most promising products (WebOS / Maemo) in recent times among other things.
  - hga 11y ago
    HP is much less dead than Nokia. On the other hand, Nokia was in much worse shape, right?
    - pavlov 11y ago
      Nokia isn't dead though. They are a top-tier player in network equipment along with Ericsson and Huawei. The company is profitable, its market cap is around $26 billion USD, and they recently announced a major deal to acquire Alcatel-Lucent. They seem to have survived the amputation of the mobile phone division quite well.
      - hga 11y ago
        That's why I said "less dead" ^_^. Buying Alcatel-Lucent suggests to me they aren't all that healthy, based in part on my working at Lucent in 2001 and paying attention to that field since then. And "amputating" what was once more than 2/3rds of the company, going back to 2002, yikes. But, still, you might be right depending on how you define this sort of business health. Scary how their revenue peaked the year the iPhone came out....
untog 11y ago
He will always be vilified, but the truth is that Nokia was on the way out anyway, no matter who was in charge.
- josu 11y ago
  So was Apple in 97.
  - freehunter 11y ago
    And Microsoft stepped in with their help and a huge cash injection, and Jobs was vilified for letting them.
    - macintux 11y ago
      Heh. IIRC, that was actually a payoff for IP infringement, and it wasn't particularly huge, relatively speaking. Having said that, committing to Office on the Mac was significant.
      - huxley 11y ago
        Yeah, it was related to QuickTime. San Francisco Canyon Company was hired by Apple to port QuickTime to Windows, later it was hired by Intel to do some work on Indeo. Intel and Microsoft used the work done by San Francisco Canyon Company to jointly to improve Video for Windows performance, but San Francisco Canyon Company allegedly included QuickTime code and proprietary information without Apple's permission. Things got nasty but Jobs opted to use this leverage to give Apple some credibility when it had suffered a serious blow from the Copland wreck. Jobs set the terms: Apple and Microsoft agreed to cross-license each others patents, current and prospective lawsuits were dropped, Apple agreed to make IE the default browser, Microsoft agreed to continue developing Microsoft Office for Mac for 5 years and Microsoft would announce the purchase $150 million in non-voting stock. It wasn't done out of pity, Microsoft's lawyers likely believed they would lose the case and this was a sweetheart deal which it would have been stupid to refuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_Company http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/02/01/maritz_on_apple/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/02/01/maritz_on_apple/
RyJones 11y ago
Steve Ballmer destroyed ~3.8 Enrons of shareholder wealth during his reign. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1754661_Shareholder_decimation__the_destruction_of_wealth_by_Steve_Ballmer.html http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1754661_Shareholder_decimat...
- ntakasaki 11y ago
  That doesn't even take into account dividends paid or the dotcom boom. My bad for clicking on a low quality non tech forum site.
rbanffy 11y ago
Microsoft has perfected the use of executive outplacement as an offensive weapon. Watching where he goes now will prove entertaining. Let's just pray he doesn't go to Blackberry. QNX deserves better.
- bernadus_edwin 11y ago
  Betting website should add this prediction. Elop new company will sell in two years -> 1 : 4
hbharadwaj 11y ago
As an ex-management consultant, I don't see any other plays that were possible for Elop. I am going off of the Bloomberg article for some conclusions. He is vilified simply because he became the last CEO of a beloved empire which was already gasping for it's last breaths. His plays were the right plays from a Business Perspective. But at that point, it was already too late and Apple/Google had already conquered the market. The only viable option would have been to re-invent the cell phone. 1. Nokia had a Maps business. Obviously, Elop wanted to see it on the chosen platform. 2. Nokia had a host of apps that they wanted to see on the chosen platform. 3. Google refused to allow modifications to their MADA. 4. Meego/Maemo were not viable/not ready. 5. Microsoft's offer came with an infusion of cash. (Bloomberg article: http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/magazine/content/11_24/b4232056703101.htm http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/magazine/content/11_24/b42320567...)
- tomjen3 11y ago
  I think what most of us hate him for is going the MS route rather than making Android phones. Nokia used to make great phones, but with sub-par OS. Why not combine the best of both worlds?
  - IanDrake 11y ago
    At the time, I don't think normal users would have called Android better than 'sub-par'. I'll admit that with Material Design and recent OS releases, they've gotten much better, but still many of my non-geek friends tolerate their Android phone that they got for "the big screen". Now that Apple has solved the "I want a big screen" problem, I think those people will run back to iOS. I'm sure Elop thought MS was going to put some more effort behind WP. They got a lot of things right, but not the UI and certainly not the marketing. For what it's worth, I've been using WP for about 3 years now. It's performance is underrated, but Metro went too far as a flat UI.
  - dworin 11y ago
    Making phones right now is really a game of supply chain mastery and scale. Nokia didn't have an particular advantage in either area, especially when it came to smart phones. If they started making android phones, it's more likely they'd be another HTC or LG than another Samsung or Apple.
nivla 11y ago
I am not sure if I agree with the statement that Nokia's market share were destroyed by MS. If I recall Nokia was on its downfall even before Apple's iPhone came into market. I grew up with the 3330, so I always have a soft corner for them, it was my first phone and lasted forever. However, with the emergence of the iPhone, Nokia's fate was sealed. Most people here on HN including me considered Nokia DOA and it wasn't until the emergence of Lumia phones with its incredible Camera that people started to take notice. The comments went from "pfft DOA" to "I would totally consider if they made one in android!". Strategically I think it was a better plan for Nokia to go with Windows regardless of the CEO. Apple doesn't do partnerships and the only other popular option was Android, which was ruled by Samsung and to compete against them would be to compete against a Goliath. So indirectly I think MS did help them even though it was for their own gains. Also keep in mind, only the phone division was sold to MS. The rest of the company is intact and still trading in the stock market.
rurban 11y ago
And a new unofficial national holiday for Finland. Finally!
fredgrott 11y ago
side note: MS does not pay premiums when buying companies..ever

walterbell 11y ago

At least he is assured a permanent place in business school case studies.

jpkeisala 11y ago

Nokia lost 17 million euros a day it's market value while Elop was CEO of Nokia. I guess he is going down in the history as one of the worst CEO's. Though, some say he wasn't a mole but was hired to sinking ship but somehow it is hard for me to believe from his actions.

odiroot 11y ago
Also killing the most exciting software platform -- Maemo/Meego. On the other hand we now have Jolla so it's not that bad.
pjmlp 11y ago
He was hired by the Nokia board to do exactly what he did. So blame the greedy board members only looking for their bank accounts. http://www.forbes.com/sites/terokuittinen/2013/09/24/nokia-admits-giving-misleading-information-about-elops-compensation/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/terokuittinen/2013/09/24/nokia-a... http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2013/09/24/nokia-board-criticized-for-incentivizing-elop-to-tank-stock-and-then-get-rescue/ http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2013/09/24/nokia-board-...
- rbanffy 11y ago
  To destroy the company and reduce its value until someone (how odd it's his previous employer) acquires it? That's a bit hard to swallow.
  - pjmlp 11y ago
    Most likely because his previous employer was the company that had the better contacts. However I do believe he wasn't a mole rather another manager driven by greed alonside the board members. Once upon a time I worked for that Finn company.
  - ntakasaki 11y ago
    Boards have to approve every major move by a CEO and can fire a CEO at any given time for any or no reason. This person was the chairman of the board, read through his profile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorma_Ollila https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorma_Ollila >Prior to joining Nokia in 1985, Ollila worked for eight years in corporate banking at Citibank's London and Helsinki offices, and when he joined Nokia his tasks involved international investment deals. A year later, in 1986, Ollila found himself as head of finance during Nokia's renewal under then CEO Kari Kairamo. He was appointed as chief of the mobile phones section in 1990, and CEO two years later in 1992. When Ollila first came to power, the company had suffered from internal disputes and had had a financial crisis for a number of years. >As CEO of Nokia he has led the strategy that restructured the former industrial conglomerate into one of the major companies in the mobile phone and telecommunications infrastructure markets. >In 1999, Ollila seriously considered taking part in the Finnish presidential election, following a request from a member of the National Coalition Party, Sauli Niinistö[citation needed] who was at that time Finnish finance minister and who later became Speaker of the Finnish Parliament. This was in spite the fact that Ollila belongs to a different party, the Finnish Centre party, which he has been involved with since his activities in student politics at the University of Helsinki[citation needed]. >He was CEO of Nokia from 1999 to 2006. He was succeeded as CEO by Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo. On 15 September 2010, he announced he intended to step down from the position of Chairman in 2012[2] and did so on 3 May 2012.[3] >Ollila is the Chairman of the Research Institute of the Finnish Economy (ETLA), the most reputed economic and social studies think tank in Finland. Since 2005, he is chairman of the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT). That doesn't look like someone who would trash a company they built for whatever conspiracy theories people cook up about how Elop got hired. It's funny how Microsoft is ascribed the superpowers of a comic book super villian around these parts while they barely break 3% in the mobile market.
  - 11y ago
freehunter 11y ago
>one of the worst CEO's Leo Apotheker?
- ameen 11y ago
  They're both up there. Having destroyed one of the most promising products (WebOS / Maemo) in recent times among other things.
- hga 11y ago
  HP is much less dead than Nokia. On the other hand, Nokia was in much worse shape, right?
  - pavlov 11y ago
    Nokia isn't dead though. They are a top-tier player in network equipment along with Ericsson and Huawei. The company is profitable, its market cap is around $26 billion USD, and they recently announced a major deal to acquire Alcatel-Lucent. They seem to have survived the amputation of the mobile phone division quite well.
    - hga 11y ago
      That's why I said "less dead" ^_^. Buying Alcatel-Lucent suggests to me they aren't all that healthy, based in part on my working at Lucent in 2001 and paying attention to that field since then. And "amputating" what was once more than 2/3rds of the company, going back to 2002, yikes. But, still, you might be right depending on how you define this sort of business health. Scary how their revenue peaked the year the iPhone came out....

untog 11y ago

He will always be vilified, but the truth is that Nokia was on the way out anyway, no matter who was in charge.

josu 11y ago
So was Apple in 97.
- freehunter 11y ago
  And Microsoft stepped in with their help and a huge cash injection, and Jobs was vilified for letting them.
  - macintux 11y ago
    Heh. IIRC, that was actually a payoff for IP infringement, and it wasn't particularly huge, relatively speaking. Having said that, committing to Office on the Mac was significant.
    - huxley 11y ago
      Yeah, it was related to QuickTime. San Francisco Canyon Company was hired by Apple to port QuickTime to Windows, later it was hired by Intel to do some work on Indeo. Intel and Microsoft used the work done by San Francisco Canyon Company to jointly to improve Video for Windows performance, but San Francisco Canyon Company allegedly included QuickTime code and proprietary information without Apple's permission. Things got nasty but Jobs opted to use this leverage to give Apple some credibility when it had suffered a serious blow from the Copland wreck. Jobs set the terms: Apple and Microsoft agreed to cross-license each others patents, current and prospective lawsuits were dropped, Apple agreed to make IE the default browser, Microsoft agreed to continue developing Microsoft Office for Mac for 5 years and Microsoft would announce the purchase $150 million in non-voting stock. It wasn't done out of pity, Microsoft's lawyers likely believed they would lose the case and this was a sweetheart deal which it would have been stupid to refuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Canyon_Company http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/02/01/maritz_on_apple/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/02/01/maritz_on_apple/

RyJones 11y ago

Steve Ballmer destroyed ~3.8 Enrons of shareholder wealth during his reign. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1754661_Shareholder_decimation__the_destruction_of_wealth_by_Steve_Ballmer.html http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1754661_Shareholder_decimat...

ntakasaki 11y ago
That doesn't even take into account dividends paid or the dotcom boom. My bad for clicking on a low quality non tech forum site.

rbanffy 11y ago

Microsoft has perfected the use of executive outplacement as an offensive weapon. Watching where he goes now will prove entertaining. Let's just pray he doesn't go to Blackberry. QNX deserves better.

bernadus_edwin 11y ago
Betting website should add this prediction. Elop new company will sell in two years -> 1 : 4

hbharadwaj 11y ago

As an ex-management consultant, I don't see any other plays that were possible for Elop. I am going off of the Bloomberg article for some conclusions. He is vilified simply because he became the last CEO of a beloved empire which was already gasping for it's last breaths. His plays were the right plays from a Business Perspective. But at that point, it was already too late and Apple/Google had already conquered the market. The only viable option would have been to re-invent the cell phone. 1. Nokia had a Maps business. Obviously, Elop wanted to see it on the chosen platform. 2. Nokia had a host of apps that they wanted to see on the chosen platform. 3. Google refused to allow modifications to their MADA. 4. Meego/Maemo were not viable/not ready. 5. Microsoft's offer came with an infusion of cash. (Bloomberg article: http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/magazine/content/11_24/b4232056703101.htm http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/magazine/content/11_24/b42320567...)

tomjen3 11y ago
I think what most of us hate him for is going the MS route rather than making Android phones. Nokia used to make great phones, but with sub-par OS. Why not combine the best of both worlds?
- IanDrake 11y ago
  At the time, I don't think normal users would have called Android better than 'sub-par'. I'll admit that with Material Design and recent OS releases, they've gotten much better, but still many of my non-geek friends tolerate their Android phone that they got for "the big screen". Now that Apple has solved the "I want a big screen" problem, I think those people will run back to iOS. I'm sure Elop thought MS was going to put some more effort behind WP. They got a lot of things right, but not the UI and certainly not the marketing. For what it's worth, I've been using WP for about 3 years now. It's performance is underrated, but Metro went too far as a flat UI.
- dworin 11y ago
  Making phones right now is really a game of supply chain mastery and scale. Nokia didn't have an particular advantage in either area, especially when it came to smart phones. If they started making android phones, it's more likely they'd be another HTC or LG than another Samsung or Apple.

nivla 11y ago

I am not sure if I agree with the statement that Nokia's market share were destroyed by MS. If I recall Nokia was on its downfall even before Apple's iPhone came into market. I grew up with the 3330, so I always have a soft corner for them, it was my first phone and lasted forever. However, with the emergence of the iPhone, Nokia's fate was sealed. Most people here on HN including me considered Nokia DOA and it wasn't until the emergence of Lumia phones with its incredible Camera that people started to take notice. The comments went from "pfft DOA" to "I would totally consider if they made one in android!". Strategically I think it was a better plan for Nokia to go with Windows regardless of the CEO. Apple doesn't do partnerships and the only other popular option was Android, which was ruled by Samsung and to compete against them would be to compete against a Goliath. So indirectly I think MS did help them even though it was for their own gains. Also keep in mind, only the phone division was sold to MS. The rest of the company is intact and still trading in the stock market.

rurban 11y ago

And a new unofficial national holiday for Finland. Finally!

fredgrott 11y ago

side note: MS does not pay premiums when buying companies..ever