I think the assumption that Android would be a 'easier and safer bet' is a bit shortsighted. Nokia would be just another Android device maker competing with dozens of companies offering basically the same exact product except it would have a Nokia logo and some Nokia skin installed. That might have worked 2 years ago but I think it's too late now. There are established players in the Android space. How can Nokia beat HTC or Motorola if they are essentially selling the same product? Things like Zune Pass, Xbox integration, and potentially tight integration with Windows client/server could be a big competitive advantage. These are things Nokia could not do on their own. Google isn't going to piss off Samsung/HTC/Motorola by playing favorites with Nokia either. Worst case is the partnership doesn't work out and 3 years from now Nokia is puking out Android handsets. Strategically I think it's better to take a big risk early and have a solid Plan B to fallback on. Nokia can afford to take the risk now.
> Nokia would be just another Android device maker competing with dozens of companies
Why would Microsoft favor Nokia over its own interests of selling WP7 to every phone maker out there? The only reason Nokia faces little competition is because nobody wants WP7. If Nokia takes the risk and proves WP7 is viable, other phone makers will use it. If it fails, it's doomed. From Microsoft's point-of-view this is perfect - all the downside is Nokia's and all the upside is theirs.
> offering basically the same exact product except
I can tell you Android phones from Sony Ericsson, HTC, Motorola and Samsung are quite different from one another. Some are more alike, having more in common with Android base implementation, and some others are totally different. My Nook, although running Android and having 3G doesn't look like an Android phone at all.
> Google isn't going to piss off Samsung/HTC/Motorola by playing favorites with Nokia either
Your assumption that Microsoft would not piss of Nokia, now that Nokia bet its future on their cooperation, is very risky. Microsoft will do whatever it needs to increase market penetration of WP7, with no regard whether that pleases Nokia.
Microsoft will do whatever it needs to increase market penetration of WP7, with no regard whether that pleases Nokia.
I think this dynamic has already been at play with the 1000 employee walkout. It seems the C-level at Nokia's view of what would be best for Nokia is clouded by interaction with former Microsoft colleagues.
Ignoring corporate culture is a mistake. Purposely alienating employees is usually another one. One of these two happened here.
> It seems the C-level at Nokia's view of what would be best for Nokia is clouded by interaction with former Microsoft colleagues.
When I imply working for Microsoft damages people (often beyond repair), I tend to get heavily downvoted. I have friends there and those who aren't cynical took the corporate issued Kool Aid and really believe the partly line on Linux, Android, iPhone etc.
The WP7 team burial of the iPhone is a typical symptom of this disconnection with reality. Those folks really believed they built an iPhone killer.
When I imply working for Microsoft damages people (often beyond repair), I tend to get heavily downvoted. I have friends there and those who aren't cynical took the corporate issued Kool Aid and really believe the partly line on Linux, Android, iPhone etc.
People say Jobs has a "reality distortion field." Instead, I think he actually sees a lot of things more clearly than the average person. We just think his view of the world is weird because we can't take off our own weird goggles.
Those folks really believed they built an iPhone killer.
In the hands of the right company, WP7 and webOS both could have been iPhone killers. It's like putting a fancy new attack in the hands of a mediocre fencer. The fancy new attack might indeed be awesome, but it won't matter if a better opponent wins anyways by exploiting your flaws in stance or basic technique.
Jobs may have a reality exaggeration field. OSX, the iPhone and the iPad are nowhere nearly as cool as he says they are.
Microsoft, on the other hand, exists in an entirely different reality. WP7 is nowhere near cool, much less than what the iPhone actually is and an entirely different thing than what Jobs thinks it is.
>Why would Microsoft favor Nokia over its own interests of selling WP7 to every phone maker out there? The only reason Nokia faces little competition is because nobody wants WP7. If Nokia takes the risk and proves WP7 is viable, other phone makers will use it. If it fails, it's doomed. From Microsoft's point-of-view this is perfect - all the downside is Nokia's and all the upside is theirs.
Because you don't license software from Microsoft without getting an exclusive license (or at the very least a preferable one).
Microsoft versus IBM is the canonical example of why you don't. Nokia couldn't possible have been stupid enough to forget that.
> Because you don't license software from Microsoft without getting an exclusive license (or at the very least a preferable one).
Other phone makers already make WP7 phones. Nokia doesn't have an exclusive deal and Microsoft would never, ever, even think about allowing Nokia to be the only WP7 phone licensee (or even a very preferred one). Microsoft likes leverage.
as far as i can see nokia could differentiate themselves a hell of alot more and with far more confidence with android then with ms win mobile.
now nokia is dependent on microsoft to let them differentiate. and while android is open source there is less scope for google to "play favorites" then with win mobile, i.e. there is "no freedom fork" anything, microsoft is perfectly within their rights to go play favorites with Samsung/HTC/Motorola (just as they are now apparently doing with nokia).
but i have heard what you are saying a few times now so i would like to know why/how microsofts tightly controlled platform will deliver nokia greater power to differentiate themselves?
Android may be open source but realistically how far can anyone diverge while maintaing compatibility, consistency, and the ability to push updates out in a timely fashion? At least with Microsoft they are entering a formal agreement. All these details have probably been worked out. Microsoft may have offered to let Nokia into the inner-circle of WM development. They may have agreed to have MS developers work very closely with Nokia for customizations. Hard to say without knowing all the details but it's doubtful Google would have agreed to the same terms since they simply don't need Nokia.
It reminds me of this story about K-9 developers wanting to re-integrate some of their enhancements back into ASOP and Google's response was basically 'nahhh' or Google giving Motorola sweetheart access to Honeycomb while leaving other tablet makers moaning & groaning on the CES floor. Those types of things probably contributed to Nokia's choice. Nokia wants to be actively involved in OS development. Their own efforts failed. Nokia being a somewhat old fashion sort of company was probably not comfortable with the uncertainty behind Google's rather blackbox-ish control of Android. In an ironic way Microsoft was actually offering more flexibility and openness of development plus all the perks of free marketing dollars, joint promotions, and generally being treated like a first class citizen with a contract to define the exact terms of the relationship.
> They may have agreed to have MS developers work very closely with Nokia for customizations. Hard to say without knowing all the details
if thats true
> In an ironic way Microsoft was actually offering more flexibility and openness of development
then yes that would be the case.
personally i doubt that microsoft gave up any significant control of win mobile and there has been little evidence to suggest it has. that said microsoft would not want nokia going on about how they get to do what they want with ms win mobile as that would only discourage investment in the platform by Samsung/HTC/LG who ms still need as it will be a good 18~24 months before nokia is shipping significant volumes.
Android may be open source but realistically how far can anyone diverge while maintaing compatibility, consistency, and the ability to push updates out in a timely fashion?
Maybe further than their competitors if they could have leveraged their Meego and general engineering expertise... but naturally we'll never know now.
> as far as i can see nokia could differentiate themselves a hell of alot more and with far more confidence with android then with ms win mobile.
GP had a whole bunch of reasons why going with MS is probably a better strategic decision for Nokia. You have given none to counter those.
Regarding playing favorites: so what. That's business. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Could have made the same argument regarding favoritism about Symbian a few years ago before Nokia bought them out completely.
I think when he said "play favourites" he was more referring to how one marque gets made the favourite for each major android release. Motorola for 2.0, HTC for 2.2, Samsung for 2.3, Motorola for 3.0 tablets etc... all the other manufacturers are effectively let out in the cold until the big launch is over.
We have no idea exactly what the Nokia/Microsoft deal entails, but as a worst possibility they will get updates at the same time as other makers. I don't think Microsoft is going to delay updates for HTC/Samsung et al in favour of Nokia, but there will be something in the deal for Nokia.
Yes. Specifically the Motorola/Honeycomb deal. There were some unhappy Android tablet makers at CES. That plus Google dropping 2.3 source about 2 weeks before CES leaving so many companies showing off 'dated' 2.2 products on the floor -- not endearing. Practically speaking it may not be a major issue but I think Nokia has a little too much pride for that. You can bet good money Nokia will be showing off the first WM8 device.
Nokia has MeeGo, which is able to run Android apps using Alien Dalvik (sure, this is more proof-of-concept for now, than the real thing, but this is certanly feasible).
They could profit from two already strong ecosystems at once (GNU/Linux and Android), while not being Yet Another Android Vendor.
Now they are just a hardware vendor for WP7 platform (which is not a "ecosystem" yet).
Yes Nokia has MeeGo, but for some reason they just haven't been able to get it out of the door. It has been nearly ready for months and months, and it's a real shame because even as 'nearly ready' it's a really nice environment.
I haven't been able to find out just why MeeGo development didn't deliver, but it's apparent that whatever was going on internally, Nokia just wasn't willing to bet the company on it.
>Nokia would be just another Android device maker competing with dozens of companies offering basically the same exact product except it would have a Nokia logo and some Nokia skin installed
Excuse me for asking, but how is this different to being just another WP7 device maker?
Far less of them. All other things being equal, I would likely go with a windows phone, and likely a lot of other people would....all other things being equal, which we may never see.
Nokia can differentiate themselves by making better hardware (build, screen, camera, keys, battery, etc) than all the other Androids. They did that quite successfully when they were competing in the mobile phone market (which has now been killed by the smartphone actually getting smart). A mobile is a fashion statement, and Nokia is only second to Apple.
That said, Windows is still an option. In China, Nokia's best market, even Apple computers run Windows, so a Windows phone might have an advantage over an iPhone. Hacker-news readers (myself included) won't love it as much as a Linux / OSX phone, but it's still reasonable business sense.
I don't like WinCE, but it might have come a long way. Maybe it's as good as Android now.
exactly. Despite being a fan of Android I'd have been disappointed if they headed in that direction. Adopting Android would have been surrendering and becoming 'one of the crowd', they needed a point of differentiation, rocking up late to the Android game wasn't going to turn that company around.
What the hell is with all that anti-microsoft hatred. I'm really tired of reading articles about how MSFT took NOK over and are gonna screw them big time for free. It's like seventh or eighth article in hn top with that mood.
Alliance with Microsoft seems to be the only sensible choice for Nokia at the moment. True story.
I believe the most relevant at IBM and the OS/2 story, and the SGI move to Windows NT.
In both cases, the other party made many strategic mistakes, but Microsoft did many things to contribute to their downfall.
Others have mentioned Compaq (whose history is not one of unmarred success) and Dell, but those are companies that exist because of Microsoft, and have pretty much never gone against Microsoft's wishes. It took years before Dell started offering Linux boxes, and even now, the Dell Linux line is more expensive and lower quality than the equivalent Windows systems. For instance, when I was shopping for a laptop, the only Linux laptop from Dell had a non-LED and lower resolution display than the much cheaper Windows equivalent. Same model number, but the Linux version was crappy and $200 more. I bought the Windows version and put Linux on it with no driver issues, so it wasn't that they had to make compromises to make it all work...they just like toeing the line for Microsoft. (It's turned out to be a crappy laptop, anyway, so I won't be buying another Dell.)
Most of those examples are basically "company x tried to sell a Windows Mobile phone back when smart phones weren't anywhere near the market they are today, and when Windows mobile was very average and it didn't work out." Hardly seems like Microsoft was at fault for anything other than not making a better Windows Mobile. And most of the companies in that list were notorious for selling poor quality phones anyway, regardless of the software.
Partnerships don't work out, but there doesn't seem to be many examples in that list of Microsoft leaving those partners out to dry, it's just a case of the product wasn't good enough (from both Microsoft and the phone manufacturers).
IBM has a $201 billion market cap. Their problems of 20 years ago were due to changes in the industry, not Microsoft (their contract with Microsoft was not the first one they ever signed).
IBM has recovered extremely well from their partnership with Microsoft, but it took them over a decade to do it.
OS/2 was a horrible hit to IBM, and Microsoft is a huge part of why OS/2 went so horribly awry (IBM also made many strategic mistakes of their own, so it's not just that Microsoft behaved in a duplicitous way).
I think you may be underestimating the misstep IBM took with the PS/2 and the impact that tying their desktop systems to a proprietary MicroChannel Architecture had on their ability to compete with clone makers at a time when the PC market was rapidly expanding. They could not compete on price and could not compete on specs - and could not compete on customization in the PC market; the model 25 and 30 had limited expandability despite their ISA architecture. Throw in that they were pushing two obscure OS's and it's hard to lay the blame at Microsoft's door.
Furthermore, to characterize Microsoft as the dominate player in that partnership is simply rewriting history.
> Alliance with Microsoft seems to be the only sensible choice for Nokia at the moment. True story.
Your wisdom ends where Nokia's share price begins. Seriously, the whole market read this as a stupid move where far better, saner, alternatives were available.
Gosh that seems like such an easy coup to pull off. I wonder why Microsoft hasn't stuffed more of their short tenure employees into management at other companies for discreet takeover purposes.
I remember the fiasco with Yahoo, where DOJ declared the Google/Yahoo deal anti-competitive. Unfortunately the problem was that they forgot that Yahoo was already not a real competitor anymore. Anyway, thanks to the deal's failure, the takeover by Carl Icann was allowed to proceed. And exactly that kind of coup happened during the takeover.
When SGI switched from IRIX to Windows, or when HP switched from HP/UX to Windows, or when DEC switched to Windows...
What a trail of bodies.
The *NIX community should've banded together to make a POSIX-like standard for graphical applications and they would've maintained their position as a viable platform. X isn't enough, it's too low-level. Something at least on par with OpenStep is required.
This seems pretty far fetched to me. It's also likely that Elop just realizes (perhaps more so given his background) how much Microsoft wants to be a major player in this game, how much money and talent they're willing to throw at it and knows that there's an opportunity for someone to be there and 'ride the bear' as they go forward. (Ride the bear being a reference to what Gates/Ballmer said they did in Microsofts early days with IBM http://www.pbs.org/nerds/part2.html)
Nokia being Microsoft's puppet is not necessarily bad. Apple was NeXT's puppet, and this worked incredibly well.
Perhaps this case will indeed lead to failure, but to show that, you have to point to some specific problem (and there seem to be many) with Microsoft and/or Nokia other than the fact that they are closely tied now.
Apple paid NeXT to take them over, and got their CEO installed in place of Apple's. A guy called Steve Jobs, you might have heard of him. NeXT knew what they were doing (hardware, software)-wise, and Apple at that point in time didn't.
Whereas Microsoft have no idea how to phones (Kin, anyone?); the jury is still out on the phone software but it doesn't look good (iOS and Android are mopping the floor with WP7). And if Ballmer is installed as CEO of Nokia, I'm going to short it.
Boycott Novell/Techrights also has claimed that Microsoft has infiltrated and taken over: HP, NPR, the BBC, the Department of Education, the White House, VMWare, TED, Facebook, the French government, NBC, the New York Times, the Huffington Post, Samsung, Canonical, the United Nations, and a whole bunch of other companies, governments, newspapers, and magazines.
I don't think it is tht simple. Nothing that was announced mentioned exclusivity either to MSFT or NOK. This means that they are open to walk away in GOOG's arms if this thing does not work out for them.
Though the events make it seems like so. I think that's just a conspiracy theory.
I think there's a lot of frustration venting. I'm frustrated. Nokia's move leaves a lot of open source initiatives dangling as well as a lot of jobs lost. Maybe it's a harsh but necessary act to save the company or some part of it. But maybe it's just a harsh and foolish act which will cause in harm both the long and short term harm to all involved.
I have to admit that I can't say for certain which it will be in the end. But I can understand how all those who fear being hurt by it would have a tendency to believe the later choice.
Perhaps. If Android was chosen Nokia could put many of their displaced Symbian developers to work on a Nokia application ecosystem and services platform. This would allow them to use Android without having to pay Google.
It's my understanding that the payments to Google are for access to their built-in apps and services (without which an Android phone seems like something less).
