Nokia Had an Android Phone In Development 189
puddingebola writes "Perhaps influencing Microsoft's $7.2 billion acquisition, the New York Times is reporting that Nokia had an Android phone in development. From the article, 'A team within Nokia had Android up and running on the company's Lumia handsets well before Microsoft and Nokia began negotiating Microsoft's $7.2 billion acquisition of Nokia's mobile phone and services business, according to two people briefed on the effort who declined to be identified because the project was confidential. Microsoft executives were aware of the existence of the project, these people said.' Perhaps Nokia feared they had put too many eggs in one basket? Whatever the case, the project is most likely dead at this point."
Like Nokia itself (Score:5, Informative)
(dead at this point)
Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
When someone says that something is an "Android Phone" or a "Windows Phone" or an "iOS Phone" then all they say is that it's a general purpose computer that has been locked down to running that particular OS. There's no technical barrier in installing Android on a "Windows Phone", just like there's nothing stopping you from installing Debian GNU/Linux on a "Windows Computer."
Re: (Score:2)
That's no different than saying "Linux PC" or "Windows laptop". Just like the Android phone or the Windows phone; it's simply descriptive of the OS it uses, and face it -- the OS is the computer from the user's point of view. What difference does the hardware brand make? Nokia, Samsung, Kyocera, who cares? Actually, I like my Kyocera because it's cheap and waterproof, I'd hate to drop a $600 Samsung in the sink. There isn't anything a $600 Samsung will do that my $100 Kyocera won't, except be destroyed if y
Re: (Score:2)
Phones are not general purpose. The hardware is tweaked to work with the OS. For example the camera in the Nokia 920 would not function under Android, Microsoft had to write custom low level code to integrate camera components in a different way. The video system for the 920 is specific to the camera, now maybe 95% of the code was shared with other camera of a similar type but it is entirely possible that a very different camera design wouldn't work at all on Windows. Android is designed for greater har
Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed? (Score:4, Insightful)
What you are descibing is essentially regular drivers. It's exactly the same thing that regular computer operating systems uses. The camera is not in any way built for Windows, it just happens that it require a driver and that driver is available for Windows Phone. With the appropriate driver the same camera should work in any operating system.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a very complex driver. But the difference is the subsystem is tweaked to the driver not the driver tweaked to the subsystem. That's more like the way the workstation market used to work than the way x86 hardware works.
Re: (Score:2)
> It is a very complex driver :D
Well, you have to put the spying code SOMEWHERE
Re: (Score:2)
Those aren't classic workstations. We are talking from the 1980s or mid 1990s. And it is much different if you are taking advantage of the subsystems that make them special not just trying to get them to run.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't agree with Hairy on a lot. And yes, 2011 I believe Samsung and Apple combined made 101% of the profits in the industry the other players on average lost money. The situation is not pretty. This doesn't include the smaller players like LG but the
Re: (Score:2)
"So what you are saying is that a consortium of non-Samsung mutually opposed companies are colluding to build 400 million devices this year, selling them for perhaps $120 billion, and losing money on every one"
No, what he said is that a *group* of non-Samsung mutually opposed companies are *competing wildly* to build 400 million devices this year, selling them for perhaps $120 billion, and losing money on every one.
That's what a race to the bottom *is*. That there is a race to the bottom is undeniable, the
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are saying is that a consortium of non-Samsung mutually opposed companies are colluding to build 400 million devices this year, selling them for perhaps $120 billion, and losing money on every one. Because they love Google, I suppose, and want them to do well despite their duty to their own shareholders.
Well of course they're not losing money intentionally. However, they are losing money--it's called getting beaten in the marketplace.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No I'm saying having Ferrari make Yugo mini-cars would end up with a bankrupt Ferrari?
Why people has so much trouble following a simple concept is beyond me, but for those that seem to have trouble grasping the concept (which from the replies seems to be the majority) I'll spell it out....in a race to the bottom only the tightest ships will survive those that can pinch the most pennies, lower the material costs down to the absolute minimum, shave every penny and pinch it until it screams...remember Dell? Remember why they became the #1 PC maker? Because they were only making $8 a sale that's why!
What everyone seems to have trouble grasping is that Nokia had too many upfront costs, too much overhead to compete in a sharktank like a race to the bottom, they would have died just as many OEMs died in the PC Price Wars, inability to shave costs equals dead company. They have a factory in Europe, one of the most worker friendly places on the planet, no fucking way that factory can compete with a place in China whipping off phones while paying workers less than $5 USD a day, they had a large R&D that frankly wasn't delivering the D part of that, again not gonna be able to compete with the likes of LG and Huawei who have their businesses striped down as a ricer racer, its just not possible.
But of course I'll be marked down for daring to point out the reality of the market, because I refuse to guzzle the koolaid and pretend that RMS farts rainbows and anything that the Linux kernel touches is magically a hit, News Flash...its not. Out of the dozen companies making Android phones? Only ONE is making consistent profits, the rest? They are making money alright, but their profits are less than what Nokia was making on dumbphones in 2011, they just aren't making the kind of bank Nokia would require to survive, the ONLY company making the kind of green a top heavy company like Nokia would require to keep the stock from continuing its free fall? Samsung. Again better companies have tried to beat Samsung, companies that have a hell of a lot more experience, advertising budgets, and brand recognition than Nokia, and they have failed. Nokia would have been curbstomped.
Frankly its amazing how few here can even understand markets, whether its the FOSS blinders or magical thinking? Fuck if I know, you act like that because a company is making profits that means Nokia could make enough to thrive...wrong,for the same reason that Compaq and Maxtor ended up being bought out during the price wars by companies that ran leaner and meaner. if you have an expensive to run company a race to the bottom is corporate suicide. The only way Nokia would have made bank in Android is to close up shop and move to Asia so they could compete with LG and Huawei, but that would have cost billions they just did not have.
Like it or not Nokia was fucked and the Android fairy wouldn't have stopped the freefall, it would have accelerated it. The best thing would have been to buy WebOS back in 08, they didn't do that. By the time the board got its head out of its ass they were too far behind, too bloated, too toxic, they were fucked.
You are beyond silly.
Nokia *was* premium brand. They wouldn't be competing with bottom of the barrel if they went with Android, they'd be competing with Galaxy S and iPhone models. And people would be buying them. You think Lumia phones with Android wouldn't be nice, but would be competing with 50$ shitty Chinese devices? Sure thing chief.
Nokia had a loyal customer base. Until they sold out to Microsoft.
Re:Scale (Score:2)
The annual figure you're talking about is $120 Billion. It is roughly the GDP of Iraq. Enough money to feed the entire world for a day. And you're talking about dozens of the most powerful companies in the world - the technology elite, manned by the greatest minds resources like this can assemble, choosing to make no money, unable to think of something profitable to do with their money.
Sorry, no sale. I don't care what the reports say. It is just not credible.
Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed? (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed, Android was not the ideal choice for Nokia. If only they had their own next-gen mobile operating system, ready to go, and consistently praised by reviewers... oh, wait. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed? (Score:5, Informative)
By what standard was it too late? They weren't exactly late to the smart phone market, they were early, and out of step. Symbian was under featured but still selling well all over the world. Symbian sales were still growing. They were profitable in smartphones. The switchover to Maemo would have been a challenge, but nothing like the challenge that Windows phone presented.
Quarter 3 2010 Symbian based Nokia smartphone sales: 26.5 M units and 3.6 B Euros revenues;
Nokia smartphone Average Sales Price 136 Euros, profits in smarpthone unit 335 M Euros
Quarter 4 2010 Symbian based Nokia smarpthone sales: 28.3 M units and 4.4 B Euros revenues;
Nokia smartphone Average Sales Price 155 Euros, profits in smarpthone unit 548 M Euros
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/06/the-final-reckoning-of-burning-platforms-memo-damaged-nokia-by-wiping-out-13b-in-revenues-and-destro.html
Re: (Score:2)
They are still general-purpose phones that could run native programs. I bought my first smartphone, the Nokia E50, because I could run car navigation on it. I still use a Symbian device (Nokia E72) today (mostly because it has a decent keyboard, I'm not a touchscreen fan) and it can do almost the same as most Android phones (although it doesn't run Angry Birds and I'm still looking for a decent usenet text group application).
Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed? (Score:5, Informative)
Very true. I used a Nokia N770 tablet starting in 2006. It was fantastic for the time. Maemo (later Meego) was still a little rough around the edges, but very good. I thought at the time that surely it was only a year or so of polishing from mass release, and Nokia ARM-based tablets and smartphones starting at resolutions of 800x480 would sweep the market. And time ticked by. Even 2 and a half years later, Apple was still playing around at well under half the resolution, but time kept moving.
I still have my patched N800 somewhere with a (ridiculous for 2007) 65GB of storage.
Nokia could have dominated that market, or, at worst, been highly competitive with Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't ready to go they only 4 models in the pipeline though 2014. Moreover to get the N9 version out it had to be end of life because otherwise the conflicts between MeeGo and Symbian conversion were too large. MeeGo could have been excellent. But there were tough choices that were never made and Nokia took much too long in what they were doing.
Re: (Score:2)
The N950 never released. It wasn't ready. I don't know that there was ever a production version. What other model was killed?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given all that, they could have competed. Not because Android is magic, but because WP8 counteracts any benefit their phones ever had. Buy an Android with an amazing camera? Sure! Buy WP8 with an amazing camera? Does it even have a fart app?
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have the best camera on any Android. They have a very good camera given a normative form factor. I think Apple on balance is better (920, 1020 Nokia is the clear winner) but that's a matter of taste. Nikon makes an Android with an insanely good camera and Samsung has a camera phone which is better. In the end software is cool but things like lens size dominate for people who want camera quality.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Android may not be magic, but 'Android == Samsung' is just as misguided as "Nokia + Android == Success". There are many reasons for Samsung's success with Android, but a primary one is name recognition. Everyone's heard of Samsung. HTC, ZTE, even LG - much less. Nokia would've had the name recognition bit sewn up. In any case, the barrier to entry for Android devices is low - that's why there are so many of them. And the barrier for adoption is zero - i.e., the apps are there for any new entra
Re: (Score:2)
There are many reasons for Samsung's success with Android, but a primary one is name recognition.
That appears to be what HTC is hoping with their latest advertising campaign
Re: (Score:2)
Nokia had the best reception of any cell phone company (at least, that was their reputation). They made nice hardware. Apparently they have the best camera of any cell phone. Given all that, they could have competed. Not because Android is magic, but because WP8 counteracts any benefit their phones ever had. Buy an Android with an amazing camera? Sure! Buy WP8 with an amazing camera? Does it even have a fart app?
The thing is... if the guys at cyanogenmod had a ROM for the LUMIA, maybe I could've bougth one, even if there was no Nokia-native Android. Problem now is... nokia hw is MS... and I don't feel fine on giving MS more lawyer-power than they already have.
Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They all feel like easily-breakable plastic and the button at the bottom feels like it could break off. These are just a few reasons I chose a Motorola Razr HD over a Galaxy Note 2.
If Samsung could make a solid-feeling phone, I might change my mind. I've got to admit that TouchWiz is looking better these days than in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
I for one would have welcomed Nokia as a hardware option for Android devices. Hardware options are exactly what we're missing... you can go with plasticky Samsung, patchy HTC (nice build quality on the One, but the software support is spotty at best) or only-one-option Google Nexus. LG? Pfff, outside of the Nexus 4, I wouldn't even consider it.
Re: (Score:3)
In global terms it dominated sales in every mobile phone type and the only worry was that the rate of growth was slowing. The decline didn't happen until Elop took the seat.
Re: (Score:2)
The decline in margins started in 2002. The crash in Symbian sales started in 2010 several months before Elop was even hired. The failure to get MeeGo out on time was his predecessor.
What Elop did was get a company that was on its way to bankruptcy through a tough restructuring bring them back to profitability and get them sold for a moderate amount. I don't agree with everything he did, but Nokia fans have an analysis which is frankly clueless. They should read more of the business press.
Re: (Score:3)
So when were they making a loss before Elop? 1871 appears to be the number, then a profit each year since.
I really do not understand what motivates such blatant liars as the above poster. If he wasn't so incompetent at i
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you cheering for this blatant corporate raid anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what? They still are a huge vendor of mobile phones like #2 for 2013.
Re: (Score:2)
I said decline in margins. Try responding to what is wrote.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're correct that Samsung is the only company that consistently makes a profit with Android. But... it doesn't make any business sense to exclusively focus your entire phone business on a single mobile platform (Windows Phone) that hasn't shown to be particularly popular or profitable to anyone, without having say Android phones as something to fall back on if the gamble doesn't pay off. That to me screams ulterior motives.
Nokia didn't even TRY (as in, never actually put to market an Android phone, not in
Re: (Score:3)
doing some profit is better than doing no profit at all.
but, you could put it this way: I might have bought another Nokia if it ran android. with windows phones no fucking way.. I can take them for free and develop for them if someone pays but no fucking way I'm paying with my own cash for them. compared to windows phone ANDROID IS LITERALLY LIKE MAGIC when it comes to (potential) functionality. windows phone objectively feels as limited as a s40 phone from 5 years ago(and the api's are quite literally comp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I am so sick of this "magical thinking" when it comes to Android. There is something like a dozen making Android phones, how many of those have been consistently profitable with Android? ONE, and that is Samsung. HTC and LG have made profits, not consistently mind you, and with LG their profits on a lot of phones can be measured in pennies.
Like it or not folks, and this is coming from somebody that uses an Android phone that I'm quite happy with, with Android you have a race to the bottom where the VAST majority of Android sales in the under $185 price range and this market, the ultra low end? is a market that Nokia could NEVER compete in, okay?
You're stupid. Look up Asha. Nokia succesfully competed not in just sub-185$ market, but in sub-100$ market as well.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
and selling Lumia's at a loss was not a race to the bottom? you got to be kidding.
Re: (Score:2)
and selling Lumia's at a loss was not a race to the bottom? you got to be kidding.
With Windows OS installed you aren't in a race to the bottom, you are already in a deep dark hole never to see the light of day.
Re: (Score:2)
the ultra low end? is a market that Nokia could NEVER compete in, okay?
They have done pretty well in there before.
Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nokia could have had excellent success with an Android phone. Unlike the many upcoming phone makers you see today, Nokia had a huge market share with lots of loyal costumers who always chose Nokia phones when they needed a replacement phone. Nokia was a premium brand among consumers.
By not making a Android phone, all their loyal costumers were forced to go elsewhere. For years, 9 out of 10 Nokia costumers have chosen another brand of smartphone when they needed a new phone.
If Nokia could have kept most of those costumers with a Android phone, they would be dominating the market this day, and they would have kept the up coming competitors down, in stead of just handing over the smartphone market to them without a fight.
Re: (Score:2)
Man, even now Nokia makes awesome distinctive hardware. I've often glanced with jealousy at some of the WP phones by Nokia (and HTC, for that matter), only to feel regret that similar hardware wasn't available with Android.
Considering their brand image is still rock solid - a source of popular (positive) memes even [nokia.com] - I seriously think that Nokia would make a killing if they released similarly awesome Android devices.
Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like it or not folks, and this is coming from somebody that uses an Android phone that I'm quite happy with, with Android you have a race to the bottom where the VAST majority of Android sales in the under $185 price range and this market, the ultra low end? is a market that Nokia could NEVER compete in, okay?
I find it very strange that you argue that Nokia couldn't sell cheap phones when that was what they're best at. Nokia wasn't exactly the Ferrari of the cell phone world, they built boring solid cheap phones that the first world found dull and emerging markets gobbled up. Take those hardware skills, massive economics of scale, brand and sales network, build a cheap Android phone and they'd be giving Samsung a run for their money instead of maybe soon clawing their way back to second tier.
If there's a race to the bottom, you can either get in or get out but if you stand around thinking your customers will be happy to pay a huge premium for your product then 95% of the time you're wrong. For example just look at all the expensive solutions that have been replaced by cheap x86 desktops and servers. If you can take a cheap SoC from China, slap a $0 version of Android on it, put it in a phone chassis and sell it then that's what it is worth today, what that was worth yesterday doesn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it very strange that you argue that Nokia couldn't sell cheap phones when that was what they're best at. Nokia wasn't exactly the Ferrari of the cell phone world, they built boring solid cheap phones that the first world found dull
So, the were the Toyota of the cell phone world?
Re: (Score:2)
Flash is on the way out (thanks in part perhaps to all those complaining iPad users), and the web is a better place for it. Nokia investing in a good mobile Flash player would prove once again that they are late
Wasted opportunity (Score:4, Insightful)
Pricing (Score:4, Insightful)
I was actually more fascinated that the once-pioneer and market leader in mobile phones (outside the US) was being sold off for more than $1Bn less than the sloppy-thirds of Skype which is widely duplicated by free services.
Re: (Score:3)
Nokia is now just a device manufacturer, it squandered its 'network' when it abandoned the Symbian users and developers.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft buys Microsoft (Score:3)
... who declined to be identified because the project was confidential. Microsoft executives were aware of the existence of the project
Only Microsoft would buy have to a company they already owned.
It's been known for years now that their CEO was a trojan horse planted by Balmer.
Too bad for Nokia, because they were actually a very good company that made good products.
Then Mr. Microsoft-Assfucker became their CEO and burned them to the ground.
Now they make shit products and will face the same fate of all other MS mobile offerings.
Re:Microsoft buys Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
cos they think having MS on their resume is 1337 creds
I have 20+yrs of experience, tertiary qualified, with good stints at the world's top three IT service companies on my resume, I've hired more than a few developers over those years. I don't have MS on my resume, and judging from the content of your post, I wouldn't want your name on it either for exactly the same reason.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand. They didn't stop progress - Firefox and Chrome were developed and went past IE, along with the rest of technology to the point where Microsoft is now caught on the left foot because THEY didn't progress.
Firefox v1 wasn't released until 3 *years* after IE6 went public. It then took several years of active PR efforts and reports on IE6's serious security issues before IE share was driven convincingly below 75% and management finally started "allowing" web application development to include standards compatibility and testing (fortunately I'd already been doing that for several years at that point).
Even at that point, Microsoft managed to screw with web developers. IE7, 8 and 9 each had their own non-standard
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about?
Microsoft owned very little of Nokia prior to the sale. What was the mechanism by which Microsoft got Nokia's board of directors and executives to implement plans to the disadvantage of minority shareholders? For that matter, how were minority shareholders disadvantaged by Nokia not going bankrupt and receiving subsidies from Microsoft followed by a buyout for more than the phone division was worth.
The stock jumped not fell on the buyout Your post doesn't even make sense.
Re:Microsoft buys Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
rtb61's argument is well known, but I'll explain it.
So you understand this much already, which is good. However you are failing to take into account Stephen Elop who arrived a few years ago, from Microsoft, to become Nokia CEO, and eventually sell Nokia at a greatly reduced price to Microsoft, (which paid for the transaction with offshore profits that couldn't be repatriated into the US easily anyway.
Stephen Elop
By ditching their own OS efforts, i.e. Meego, and doing an exclusive for Windows Phone which failed dramitically.
Please, let me cite some Stephen Elop CEO facts for you to decide yourself:
NOKIA CORPORATION UNDER ELOP
First 6 months - Corporate quarterly revenues up 26% from 10.0B Euro to 12.6B Euro
Next 2.5 years - Corporate quarterly revenues down 55% from 12.6B Euro to 5.6B Euro
First 6 months - Corporate quarterly profit up 200% from 295M Euro to 884M Euro
Next 2.5 years - Corporate quarterly profit of 884M Euro turned into loss of -115M Euro
During first 6 months - Standard & Poor's rating for Nokia A, Moody's rating A2, Fitch's rating A
On last day of office - Standard & Poor's rating for Nokia junk, Moody's rating junk, Fitch's rating junk
On day before Elop announced as new CEO - Nokia share price $9.70
On day before Elop released his Burning Platforms memo - Nokia share price $11.28 (up 16%)
On day before Nokia announces Elop to step down as CEO - Nokia share price $3.90 (down 65%)
NOKIA HANDSET UNIT PERFORMANCE UNDER ELOP
First 6 months - Handset quarterly revenues up 25% from 6.8B Euro to 8.5B Euro
Next 2.5 years - Handset quarterly revenues down 69% from 8.5B Euro to 2.6B Euro
First 6 months - Total handsets profit first 6 months 1.8B Euro
Next 2.5 years - Total handsets loss next 2.5 years 361M Euro
First 6 months - North America quarterly handset volume flat from 2.6M units to 2.6M units
Next 2.5 years - North America quarterly handset volume down 80% from 2.6M units to 0.5M units
First 6 months - China quarterly handset volume up 13% from 19.3M units to 21.9M units
Next 2.5 years - China quarterly handset volume down 81% from 21.9M units to 4.1M units
Nokia handset market share when Elop started - 33%
Nokia handset market share when Elop departed - 14%
Nokia ranking handsets when Elop started - 1st
Nokia ranking handsets when Elop departed - 2nd
Gap to leader when Elop started - Nokia 50% bigger than number 2 (Samsung)
Gap to leader when Elop departed - Samsung 30% bigger than Nokia
This handset unit has now been sold (plus patents and mapping licences) for 5.3B Euro to Microsoft
NOKIA SMARTPHONE DIVISION PERFORMANCE UNDER ELOP
First 6 months - Smartphone quarterly revenues up 29% from 3.4B Euro to 4.4B Euro
Next 2.5 years - Smartphone quarterly revenues down 73% from 4.4B Euro to 1.2B Euro
First 6 months - Smartphone quarterly profit up 94% from 283M Euro to 548M Euro
Next 2.5 years - Smartphone quarterly profit of 548M Euro turned into loss of -168M Euro
First 6 months - Smartphone quarterly volume up 18% from 24.0M units to 28.3M units
Next 2.5 years - Smartphone quarterly volume down 74% from 28.3M units to 7.4M units
Nokia smartphone market share when Elop started - 35%
Nokia smartphone market share when Elop departed - 3%
Nokia ranking smartphones when Elop started - 1st
Nokia ranking smartphones when Elop departed - 9th
Gap to leader when Elop started - twice a
How much of a role did an Android phone play... (Score:2, Insightful)
in the acquisition? Exactly fuck all. Really, do you think Microsoft would pay $7.5 just to avoid yet another Android also-ran competitor?
Re:How much of a role did an Android phone play... (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt they would have been concerned about Nokia as an Android competitor - but they would have been very, very worried about losing their partnership with the maker of 80% of the Windows phones sold. Nokia is the only thing that is currently letting Microsoft believe that it has any chance at all with phones.
Windows already has fuck-all share of the smartphone market - reducing that to only 20% of fuck-all would just be humiliating.
Re:How much of a role did an Android phone play... (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect it's a bit of both. Losing market share would be really bad, but just as bad would be if their Windows Phone poster child Nokia did really well with an Android phone (and I can't see why they couldn't... they do good hardware) to the point that they no longer needed Microsoft propping them up financially. It would send one hell of a message to other mobile manufacturers... namely, "not worth the bother".
That perception matters a lot. Technology-wise, I doubt Windows Phone is that bad (I haven't seen one, myself). But the market thinks it's tainted, and that's what's killing it as much as anything else.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what they got. They avoided the embarrassment of having the producer of their flagship Windows phone drop them like a hot potato in order to produce an Android phone. In addition they bought continuing production of the Windows phone.
Nokia is volume (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nokia is volume (Score:5, Insightful)
My prediction is that Microsoft will almost give away phones when they own Nokia's handset business. Micorsoft realizes that they are in danger of an entire generation learning that they don't need a PC running Windows and that this is complete disaster for Microsoft in the making.
How much money has Microsoft dumped into Xbox over the years? I suspect that those billions will pale into insignificance in comparison to Microsoft's plans for Windows Phone.
Re: (Score:3)
My prediction is that Microsoft will almost give away phones when they own Nokia's handset business. Micorsoft realizes that they are in danger of an entire generation learning that they don't need a PC running Windows and that this is complete disaster for Microsoft in the making.
The same logic would apply to their Surface tablets, but it hasn't happened. Of course, things may change when Ballmer is gone.
Re:Nokia is volume (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows phone picked up about 3.7% of the market in 2Q 2013 - or 8.7 million devices. Of those Nokia shipped 7 million, and Samsung 1 million + other.
Now lets look at android. Sure, samsung shipped 73 million devices, but numbers 2-5 each shipped between 10 and 12 million units. LG, Lenovo, Huawei, ZTE
So while Nokia - and everyone else is getting completely smoked by samsung, they're actually catching up to the second tier of the pack at around 10 million units a quarter.
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24257413
So sure, nokia is managing about 1/4 the sales of apple with MS. And had 77% year on year growth. That'... well, is surprisingly good honestly. Even if they get half that much growth this year they'll be in the 2nd rung of smartphone makers behind samsung. Which given that they don't have semiconductor fabs is about as good as you can hope for.
shipped vs sales (Score:2, Interesting)
Shipped and sales are not the same thing. You are comparing apples and oranges. Nokia might have shipped that many but sales are much lower. Almost no one who has experiences Windows on the desktop wants that on their phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Shipped and sales from quarter to quarter may not be. When we are looking at multi quarter trends, yeah... pretty much they are the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
So after being number one they may in a perfect world claw their way back to second place?
Well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Android (Jellybean) is at least partly running on the N9. Last time I checked, they hadn't managed to get calls going - but 3G data was working.
Estrategy (Score:2)
Everybody knew Microsoft were going to buy the Mobile Division from Nokia since the first day Elop laid this butt on that chair. The question were for how much.
I think that all that Android effort was a strategic move to prevent Microsoft to buy the Division too much cheap.
Two Ways This Could Have Affected the Deal (Score:2)
Ballmer told Nokia, "look, if you put Android on your phones, you're going to end up paying us so much in licensing fees you might as well just sell yourself to us now."
Or, Ballmer realized there wouldn't be many Windows phones left [slashdot.org] if Nokia switched to Android, and decided it was worth $7 billion to keep one major handset manufacturer putting Windows phones into the marketplace.
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft was paying Nokia fees for an exclusive ($250m / quarter). When the renewals came up the 2 or 3 year cost was likely so high (probably at least double that) that Microsoft realized it would just be cheaper to buy the phone division outright....
Most likely??? (Score:2)
Kidding, right?
Newkia (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt this will get very far. Microsoft bought Nokia in part for its patent portfolio*. Anyone that thinks they can carry a set of hardware blueprints out the door and into a new competitor is in for a rude surprise.
* Patent portfolio plus mutual licensing deals with the other major IP holders. Anyone that thinks they can build a phone from scratch these days is going to end up with one like this [clientk.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When Nokia becomes a subsidiary of Microsoft, the point will be moot. If Microsoft doesn't want a spin-off using Nokia technology with a competing O/S, licenses will not be granted. From which shell company the licenses will not be granted really doesn't matter.
If Newkia doesn't have those rights in its pocket NOW, forget about it. In addition, they have little to deal with when negotiating for licenses from other manufacturers like Samsung, Google, Apple, etc. Other than a desire on the part of these play
Most profitable android development evar! (Score:2)
Well done, Nokia, you have learned the lessons of all those municipalities and governments threaten
Platform was already compatible (Score:2)
The Vertu luxury brand phones use Nokia HW platform, and switched to Android apparently without much work. Nokia Android phone was speculated [tomshardware.com] early this year.
Dropping an Android alternative ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... might be difficult to explain to shareholders.
Not any more.
they had better clue-up on the salability issue.
When Microsoft tires of Nokia, there isn't going to be anything left to sell.
Samsung's research center in Finland (Score:2)
Very few people seem to remember that Samsung announced opening a research center in Finland, few months ago.
People laughed at the time, but hopefully these funny guys now understand why Samsung did it.
They really played it smart :)
Re:7.2 bil...That's $7.20 in poor peoples' money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:7.2 bil...That's $7.20 in poor peoples' money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
people get tablets that are like their smartphone and work well with it, not one that works well with and like their PC.
And that is the brilliant idea that brought us Win8, because MS thought they could unite this ecosystem and offer interoperability for... profit?
Re: (Score:2)
people get tablets that are like their smartphone and work well with it, not one that works well with and like their PC.
And that is the brilliant idea that brought us Win8, because MS thought they could unite this ecosystem and offer interoperability for... profit?
Exactly, Microsoft is at the '???' stage of their plan, the next being 'Profit!!!'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No one has allegience to Samsung (all my family are Samsung users).We buy the best Android phone on the day our contract runs out. We have a
Re: (Score:2)
Change of tack on this and HTC could be No1 again. The build quality of their Android phones is good.
That's funny, I see the most complaints about HTC phones disintegrating.
Re: (Score:2)
Elop has already left the country and is taking up a new position at Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
If Nokia walks away from this deal they walk away from their Windows exclusive subsidies. They walk away from some of the promotional money for Lumia, They don't own their own OS anymore. So what do they get: the ability to fight with Asian manufacturers over who can put parts in the box more cheaply?
The stock shot up on the news of this buyout. Why would the shareholders not be interested? The US is going to approve it. The EU is going to be thrilled that Microsoft's phone division is going to be base
Re: (Score:2)
If they wanted to keep Nokia they could have. Finland could have waived the requirements for unemployment that drove the high restructuring costs that required the subsidies from Microsoft. They didn't. Finland didn't step up and nationalize Nokia. If the realistic alternatives are: Microsoft buys Nokia and Nokia dies they pick Microsoft.
They don't need to use anything to block the merger. They want to block it they can. But no one is talking about blocking the merger because they want Nokia to live a