Slashdot Mirror
Apple Agrees To Pay Licensing Fees To Nokia
dkd903 writes "After almost two years of litigation of Nokia and Apple suing and counter-suing each other, the patent war between the two companies has come to an end. The winner of this settlement is, however, Nokia. As a part of the settlement, Apple has agreed to become a licensee of Nokia's patents. As a part of the licensing agreement, Apple has agreed to give Nokia a one-time payment and ongoing royalties. The exact terms of the agreement have not been disclosed."
I thought Apple was the company doing all the innovation.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
The real reason behind this is that Apple knows that Nokia won't be a threat now that they have decided to go with Windows. This way they get a license for all of Nokia's patents, and they get rid of one arm of the litigation. I bet the story would be different if Nokia had chosen Android.
Why isn't the details of this transaction public information, it completely destroys both company's credibility to not immediately disclose the financial costs in this agreement.
I had to look it up, it's hard to keep track of who's starting the wars and who's responding. Nokia sued and sued again. Apple counter-sued in the middle there.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Their deal with MSFT is probably good for them because Nokia was in a death spiral, without any kind of a mobile OS that could compete in this market. Selling their soul to MSFT gets them the OS, and it might get them back into retail here in the US. (When was the last time you saw anything from Nokia at the Verizon/ATT store...?)
I'm sure part of the agreement was to gang up and start slapping Google around a bit more.
So, that's Apple and Nokia together (and through Nokia now, Microsoft too).
Waiting for an amusing sig.
Yes. It's never been a question whether Apple needed to license the patents. The sticking point has always been the terms. Normally these licenses involve some sort of cross licensing. I think Apple originally objected to the specific patents that Nokia wanted from them as they felt the patents were not cell phone patents but patents to their other technology. Frankly Apple didn't have a lot of cell phone patents so they didn't have many to offer. So Nokia then raised the licensing cost if they were not getting the patents they wanted. Apple objected to that.
Since we don't know the terms, we can't speculate how it was settled. There are two factors that may come into play. (1) Nokia is in a bit of trouble right now; they need to focus on their business and not a resource draining litigation where in the end only the lawyers may win. (2)Apple bought 200 patents from Freescale (former Motorola semiconductor division). So Apple now has patents to offer in cross licensing.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Nokia's problem is software. They have always made the best hardware of anybody but their software was always outdated and clunky compared to whatever was current.
If they had just embraced Android from the beginning I'm positive they would be dominating the market on every side. The "phone" side of their hardware just plain works better than everything else (better reception, better sound, better reliability, etc).
It's a similar situation to AMD/ATI versus nVidia. ATI's drivers have always sucked and that has held them back even at times when their hardware was better.
Of course it will keep them alive - Nokia will just shift from being an engineering company to being a patent troll. All they need to do now is to get rid of those pesky engineers.
Really? So iPhone 5 is dropping GSM support?
Pure VoIP phone or what?
I bet Lawyers from both sides are buying each other drinks today. ;)
I was hoping this will end detonating all the patents nuclear weapons by going to court. This only delays the atomic patent war. My hopes goes now with "Microsoft vs Barnes & Noble"
Patents were originally intended to protect the designers of original and novel means from others copying or replicating their ideas in the interest of profit seeking. The system has been often exploited by organizations or individuals who have patented an idea which is too general or universal, or who have simply purchased licensing rights from the original creator. I think the right to sell a patent has deteriorated the purpose of patents.
TFA suggests that Nokia sued also in the areas of WLAN, UI, camera, antenna and power management.
They had the MeeGo option, which was the real linux on a smartphone rather then a bastardised java VM driving OS in android, which microsoftie boss dropped like a hot cake.
Yeah, turns out not so much.
Do you know something that we don't? Did they cut their licensing costs or not? Are they worse off than if they'd just paid Nokia in the first place?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
"Always" != "Couple of recent years".
n95 with its symbian 9.2 was the #1 smartphone in the world at the time of release, absolutely no doubt about it anywhere except maybe some truly hardcore anti-nokia folks.
But then touchscreen phones came and essentially disrupted the market. That's when nokia's problems started.
I suspect this is because Nokia or rather Microsoft and Apple realize that by the time they would be through bickering, Android had already taken the market. I expect Nokia to sue everyone with even a hint of mob* and Android in their product portfolio about the same time as Nokia manages to get some crappy WP7 phones out the door.
HTTP/1.1 400
I would rather see msft as a pinapple up the a**
No means no!
HTTP/1.1 400
Apple have been fighting all along to pay royalties. Nokia wanted Apple to hand-over some of their patents relating to mobile 'phones but Apple refused.
Apple got what they wanted, not Nokia.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
They will make profit anyway. And they have been making more profit than the others by using something for free and asking money for it.
This is sort of like deciding whether to commit a crime or not. If you get only to pay for it it'st just matter of having enough money.
It would be interesting to see what the ethics would be if the executives were personally responsible.
Nokia gets 10$ for every iphone sold. Sure Apple is the winner!!
Now with Apple and Nokia making up, users of Android are likely in for it next. Consider Apple has more than enough money to make Nokia go away and settle this suit. Apple almost makes more money in this space this all the mobile handset makers combined. This does imply that while the Android makers ship plenty of devices, (more than apple) they don't make a great deal of profit at it.
Nokia is in need of money. A lot of money. So they went after Apple and Apple gave them what they wanted and needed. Apple while no friend of Nokia is slaughtering them in the market... course so is everyone else.
However the next competitors to Nokia are the Android handset makers. Nokia needs more money, so I don't doubt we'll see more lawsuits but now aimed at Android.
That's ok. Apple gets about $600 for every iPhone sold.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
http://thisismynext.com/2011/06/14/nokia-and-apple-settle-patent-disputes-apple-to-pay-one-time-fee-and-ongoing-license-fees/ This article explains the situation much better.
Since we don't know the terms, we can't speculate how it was settled
Actually, since we don't know the terms, all we can do is speculate.
No, the case started because Apple believed they had already paid because the manufacturer of the GSM-chip had paid the license and Apple believed Nokia was double-dipping. The court rules Apple had to pay up.
Why are you rewriting the case?
No one, everybody but Apple was already paying the licensing fee, or was a co-developer of the technology. This is part of the reason why Apple's case has been so weak.
I have been following this somewhat without interest... /. only...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Nokia demand to see new Apple products before they were announced and released? Did this ever happen, or did Apple protect their cult/marketing steamroller and pay Nokia instead of potentially leaking new products ahead of time?
I could see that damaging the mystique of the "will they release it" factor of Apple. Was this their way of protecting that?
Something witty.
...and let me first say, I don't like Apple, don't like their snobbish, and inferior (imho) interfaces, their lock-in, and their outrageous prices.
However...
Apple, though I don't agree with how they do it, are able to bring together X, Y, and Z in a one of the most fascinatingly memetic way that touches something in a global manner. They are not innovators, because they don't own X, Y, or likely Z either. They design in such a way as to make people say, "What an innovation!" Yet, they are looking at the same X, Y, and Z as before. Mozart didn't invent musical instruments, he simply mastered their use and composition.
But there is a price. Mozart didn't get free pianos or violins simply because he knew how to use them. We shouldn't assume that because Apple uses a technology better that they invented or even improved it. And, in their defense, maybe they fell into the same fallacy of "I use it best, I should therefore not be bound to pay or give others credit." Unfortunately, this is much like those of us (and I do mean myself in that "us") who love FOSS and bristle that we have to actually "pay" for code sometimes.
I8-D
Their deal with MSFT is probably good for them because Nokia was in a death spiral, without any kind of a mobile OS that could compete in this market. Selling their soul to MSFT gets them the OS, and it might get them back into retail here in the US.
In Q1 2011, even after Elop killed it at the beginning of the year, Symbian's worldwide marketshare was 24% .
Apple was five points lower, at 19%.
The sales of Windows Phone, the supposed saviour of Nokia, sum up to 2.5%, ten times lower than the dead Symbian.
I don't know if WP7 will bring Nokia into retail in the US (I don't know that market, but if the numbers are those, there's not much to hope for); but what is certain is that Elop's announcement destroyed their sales outside the USA, which is where they actually did sell phones.
We don't know if Nokia got the patents. All we know is they settled. The announcement does not say either way.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Wow! Really! Never thought about it.
There is no ruling here. Nokia and Apple have agreed to settle. All we know is Apple will pay an upfront payment and periodic licensing fees later.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Subsidies are what has made Apple very, very rich.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
That implies that the system (in particular, the patent examiners) should be improved, not abandoned.
I don't see why that's bad. If I invent a new widget and patent it, but I don't have the means to mass-produce and market my widget, why shouldn't I be allowed to sell the patent rights to some company who can and will for a tidy sum?
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
Since we don't know the terms, we can't speculate how it was settled
Actually, since we don't know the terms, all we can do is speculate.
OK here goes. The chairman of Nokia gets to screw the Chairman of Apple's daughter.
So Nokia spends billions of R&D helping to develop wireless standards like GSM and you expect them to eat the costs? I'd hardly call that "exploitation" by Nokia.
But Apple has to produce the iPhones, whereas Nokia basically gets money for doing nothing.
I'd say I'd prefer to be Nokia in this situation.
A perfect example of where percentages are meaningless.
Nokia makes an infinite percent, but actually only $10 per phone.
Apple makes about 83 percent, but actually makes about $500 net per phone.
And why would you rather be Nokia?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
The most important info was left out. The reason this all played out was that Nokia was unwilling to license to Apple on the same RAND terms that they had committed to, and used with everyone else. They wanted access to specific 'touch' patents held by Apple in addition to the usual monetary payments that Apple had always expected to pay.
We now know Apple is paying to access Nokia's patents, but:
Did Apple give access to their iPhone-related patent portfolio in return?
Did Apple pay a premium over RAND terms?
Did Nokia no longer need access to Apple's patents due to indemnity from Microsoft since they are moving to WP7?
I humbly disagree. I am European, and i can say, that although Nokia was never "bad", they didn't always have the "tech" hardware, or software, their price tags warrented.
I have owned, or had access to a huge variaty of phones from 1997, to present, including the Nokia 8110 ( the Matrix phone), 6150, 6210, 8210, Ericsson T68, T610, P800, S700, K800, N95, Moto v3i, and many other brands, including HTC, and Apple.
Take the early days (1995 - 1996) when i first got my mobile phone. Of the "big three", Nokia Ericsson and Motorola. Moto was known for "cheaper" but relatively solid, if basic phones. Nokia's flagship was the 2110, and Ericsson had the EH337. The Ericsson phone was by far better build quality, was more robust, had more "features".
Nokia then brought out the 8110 in 1996 (the same phone that later appeared in the Matrix) and that phone pushed Nokia into the market due to its style, and "number of ringtones". However, the phone was not as well built as Ericsson, and arguably lacked many key features (keyguard, clock, etc). the Phone was a marketting success for Nokia, not nessesarily a tech one. I had one myself.
After that, Nokia improved their platform, starting with the 6110, the 2110, which launched the infamous "nokia ui" together with the prorietry Ringtones/Logos, etc. The current Series 40 is an evolution from that. Right up until 2001 with the release of Ericsson T68, Nokia had the UI experience that beat other manufacturers.
Their tech may have not always been the most advanced: indeed Others had POP email, Bluetooth, open ringtones/picture support. Nokia's first bluetooth implementations were a joke, with phones being shipped with bluetooth on and discoverable as standard, resulting in those Nokia users being easy pickings for BlueJacking. Even today, Nokias implementation of Bluetooth although a lot better than android/iphone/ and most others, are still not as good as most comparable Sony Ericsson feature phones, still not supporting multi connections. Their email support still doesnt support IMAP idle in a sane way (Sony ericssons have been supporting that since the K800i)
However the Nokia UI, and propritry customisations drove the market. The problem for nokia came when they originally released the Series 60, they wanted to emulate the Original Nokia UI as much as possible. It was argued that UIQ by Symbian was a better implementation, which would have been more "touch friendly" from the go, as it was already a pen interface.
This was what caused the huge legacy problems in the future. When I got my Nokia N95, although i was really impressed by the hardware, the tech was amazing, the software was really confusing, and long in the tooth. For example:
- Nokia still has the same T9 implementation it had on earlier phones, whereas other manufactureres have improved the technology incredibly.
- 3 different places to set varies WiFi parameters (grrr)
- disjointed settings, lack of clarity.
This was the reason Nokia messed up. IT wasnt as much that the Apple iphone touch interface was soo "good", whcih admittedly it was, it was more the case that Series 60 became so "bad", and apple just polished up.
Have a nice day!
Since when? They've been buidling hardware for >30 years and have thousands of hardware patents.
The whole case was that Nokia insisted on unfettered access to Apple's intellectual property as a condition of Apple implementing a global standard (which was supposed to be offered under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms).
Nokia innovated in the 1990s, led the industry, and then totally gagged. Apple innovates over the last few years in a new area for them (phones) and has to pay Nokia. I guess this makes sense. A little. Sorta.
Why is it you bring up the $150M payment as a "bailout" when Apple's own financial statement at the time state clearly that they were sitting on $1B in cash. Is your hatred of Apple so much that you have to invent things?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
If someone has something in their sig that is stupid, I'm going to comment on it...it was an Apple topic, so it really isn't that far off.
You are just upset that I have a belief different than your own...and that you realize yours is wrong.
I'm not even sure if most/any of patents that Apple is suing over are relevant now that Nokia has decided to use Windows Phone 7 instead of their own work that's been done on Maemo, etc. If that's the case, Apple would have to go after Microsoft too, and any damages caused to Apple by sales of Maemo devices would be laughable given the low sales figures. Apple probably got the same price as everyone else in the end and had to give up some of their own technology for it, but I don't think they care all that much now that Nokia is going to be using Microsoft's OS instead of their own (or expects Nokia's downwards spiral to continue for several more years, making them irrelevant).
Remember that European patent law apparently isn't any more enlightened. Nokia was able to sue Apple because they have patents covering GSM, UMTS, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth (or some aspects thereof)?
#DeleteChrome
Ha! The next iPad and iPhone just got more expensive.. have fun with that! :)
Fair enough. Sounds like Apple backed down from their lawsuit, but settlements does have the benefit of being possible to portray as a win for both sides, especially if the details are kept secret.
hooray! =)
http://seekingalpha.com/article/177955-apple-launches-countersuit-vs-nokia-no-punches-pulled-in-court-documents
Which of these statements is false?:
1. GSM is a global standard.
2. Nokia agreed to F/RAND standards for licensing all patents required to implement GSM as a condition of making it a global standard
3. Nokia was insisting on disproportionate value from Apple (compared to other licensees) in exchange for the licenses to implement GSM. They wanted either far more money than they were charging other licensees, or unfettered access to Apple's intellectual property (not part of any standard) on a hundred billion dollar business.
So, who is the bully and who is the victim here?
Nokia gets 10$ for every iphone sold. Sure Apple is the winner!!
Nokia gets some undisclosed amount of money for licensing their patents to Apple (as the law requires), you mean. You can be sure it's not $10/iPhone.
a bastardised java VM driving OS in android
Admittedly though, a VM is the best bet for a current smartphone OS, since nobody can say in which architecture your phone will be running in 2 years, let alone 5.
Besides, Android's now moving from smartphones to tablets, to car stereos, TVs, and who knows what else.
Using native code for apps would kill their options to grow in the future. MS also saw that, and so did Palm.
I don't know about Apple or RIM, I think they compile their apps to native code. While that's a better idea on the short term, eventually they'll want to run on a different architecture, and have to choose between using an inferior arch; dropping all legacy apps; or running them in "emulation mode", which is usually worse than a VM.
Having handsets turned on today is no indication that your place in the market will be there in a year. They had residual market share with a dying OS that was being left further and further in the dust over time.
RIM has a big chunk of market share too, but that doesn't mean they are in wonderful shape. I'm certain that RIM sees the bottom coming up at them too.
It *was* a factor. Sub-sub-sub 1%, but most of them were developers they managed to push away from their future platforms.
Doesn't "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory" mean that they have to offer the same terms to Apple that they would offer to Motorola, HTC, et al?
Is your hatred of Apple so much that you have to invent things?
Based on his posts to this story, I'd have thought this was obvious. The poor guy has clearly blown a fuse.
No, they thought they weren't special, and thus didn't have to give Nokia more in addition to the same license fees everyone else was paying.
Doesn't "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory" mean that they have to offer the same terms to Apple that they would offer to Motorola, HTC, et al?
The requirement for RAND terms applies only to members of the GSMA. Apple is not a member, initially because it saw no need to become one twenty years ago, and more recently perhaps because membership would require it to grant RAND terms on some of its own patents to the other members of GSMA. Hint: GSMA membership includes Ericsson, HTC, Intel, Microsoft, Nokia, RIM, Samsung, and many others, but not Apple or Motorola.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Sweet! Lisa FTW!
It's mostly a question of how broad the standard cross-licensing agreements between phone manufacturers, I guess. I get the impression the reason this ended up in court is because they're broad enough that Apple didn't want to sign them.
Wasn't Nokia specifically asking for multitouch patents?
You're wrong. The summary is correct:
"Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a license covering some of each other’s patents"
Nokia may have got less than what they originally wanted, but it's certainly not just cash.
In Q1 2011, even after Elop killed it at the beginning of the year, Symbian's worldwide marketshare was 24%.
To which had plummeted around 40% in past couple of years.
The sales of Windows Phone, the supposed saviour of Nokia, sum up to 2.5%, ten times lower than the dead Symbian.
But with potential to grow, unlike Symbian that is rapidly dying. The question is would you rather jump on board an existing established OS (Android) where you bring little to the market or be responsible for bringing marketshare to a fledgling operating system?
Nokia had to do a hell of a lot wrong to be in this position, because they were doing a hell of a lot right with Maemo/Linux. As a satisfied N900 user I'm quite happy to see Nokia dying after such a betrayal of it's active community.
Great phone for hackers, but not so much for end-users.
Well everyone else was paying cash+crosslicense. Apple only wanted to pay cash, and only the same amount as the others. I.e. they wanted to pay less than everyone else.
Hence... ah screw it. You'll just revise history like every Apple fanboi does when confronted with something they don't like.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
But with potential to grow, unlike Symbian that is rapidly dying.
But I question the factual consistence of both of these statements: what theoretical suppositions support WP's hope of growth, and what pratical facts confirm them?
What made it impractical to keep the declining Symbian alive, while the switch to Maemo was being completed?
The question is would you rather jump on board an existing established OS (Android) where you bring little to the market or be responsible for bringing marketshare to a fledgling operating system?
If I was to launch a new product line to suit the specific taste of the USA market, while keeping alive the products that are successful in the rest of the world, then I could think about betting on an emerging operating system, yes.
On the other hand, if I was to kill all of my current products, destroy my development and services ecosystem, irreversibly burn all bridges toward any "plan b", then of course I would make sure to choose a successful OS instead of an unproven one.
And moreover, I wouldn't have done it one year before the new products are ready; but that's another story.
But with potential to grow, unlike Symbian that is rapidly dying.
But I question the factual consistence of both of these statements: what theoretical suppositions support WP's hope of growth, and what pratical facts confirm them?
I don't see how you can question the factual consistence of the rapid decline of Symbian, it's all blindingly obvious.
Given that WP has a good user experience and rapidly growing app store coupled with an announced update bringing it to general feature-parity with iOS and Android means it certainly is a viable competitor and thus has potential for growth in the market.
What made it impractical to keep the declining Symbian alive, while the switch to Maemo was being completed?
Probably the fact that it was completely uncompetitive in terms of user experience. Maemo just wasn't successful (great for hackers, not so much for the general populace), so they merged with Moblin for Meego, but even then the versions that were available and progress being made were painful, who knows how long it would take to get it working much less have a competitive user experience.
On the other hand, if I was to kill all of my current products, destroy my development and services ecosystem, irreversibly burn all bridges toward any "plan b"
They aren't killing all of their current projects, not sure where you got that from. They aren't destroying their services ecosystem, again not sure where you got that from. Irreversibly burn all bridges? I don't see any evidence to support that either.
Isn't "belief" something you apply to a religion, rather than anything to do with an operating system?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
This sounds like a definite attempt at verbal "depth-charging" - i.e. slinging criticism at every OS you can hoping that you will get a bit from me. So let me help you out a bit.
I'm an 80% Linux / 20% Windows user with 30 years working and hobbying with computers. Never in all those years has it once crossed my mind to part with good money for anything made by Apple, and that is unlikely to change any time soon.
Now go ahead and do your worst. But understand that I treat a computing platform as a productivity and entertaimment tool, not a fashion accessory or religious motif.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
One question - why would a company as profitable as you say it was take the $150M from Microsoft in the first place then? I remember the uproar from the fanbois when it happened, it strikes me as a very stupid thing to do, from Apple's perspective, if it results in pissing off your users so much. ...unless, of course, they needed the money.
Oh, and the $1 billion you mentioned is a figure plucked from the air by you - it was $1.5b *revenue* not profit - big difference.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I don't see how you can question the factual consistence of the rapid decline of Symbian, it's all blindingly obvious.
decline != death. If you put things this way, the commercial failure (in the same time span) of WP7 is even more obvious.
Given that WP has a good user experience
Subjective. So far very few users found that interface worth of being bought.
and rapidly growing app store
Its growth was "doped" by microsoft funding applications development, and letting developers post more than 20 "applications" per day. Nokia already had an app store up and running, with a bigger, and growing, download count. But they announced overnight they'd be closing it. This is what I call "burning bridges".
coupled with an announced update bringing it to general feature-parity with iOS and Android means it certainly is a viable competitor and thus has potential for growth in the market.
I don't know about iOS, but certainly it's not even remotely on feature parity with Android. If we look at features, WP7 is the most disadvantaged OS, missing some features which can be found on Nokia's S40 featurephones.
Probably the fact that it was completely uncompetitive in terms of user experience.
There were plans to fix that using Qt, which is perfectly competitive in terms of development experience. Nokia failed to execute those plans in a reasonable amount of time, but much smaller companies (e.g. Opera) managed to obtain much better results on the very same platform. This means that the problem was more within Nokia than in the OS.
Maemo just wasn't successful (great for hackers, not so much for the general populace), so they merged with Moblin for Meego, but even then the versions that were available and progress being made were painful, who knows how long it would take to get it working much less have a competitive user experience.
That's why they were developing Maemo 6, which is in a much more advanced state of completion than Meego. The few ones who knew about Maemo, could afford it, and bought the N900, were satisfied with the product (not so much with the support that Nokia gave to the platform...).
They aren't killing all of their current projects, not sure where you got that from.
They are ditching Symbian in one year, with no future plans for it. This means that nobody wise will develop anything for it. This means in turn that nobody wise will buy Symbian handsets (if not for the "Nokia" brand printed on them). They are ditching Meego as well, and before launching their first handset they announced that they won't release any more phones running it. Does that bode well for future sales of those products?
They aren't destroying their services ecosystem, again not sure where you got that from. Irreversibly burn all bridges? I don't see any evidence to support that either.
They're dropping the Ovi services (while Apple announces similar services for the iPhone as the "big new feature" of iOS 5). They're dismantling their development network. They provide no migration path from Qt to Windows Phone 7 after they had been telling all of their developers to invest in Qt training. They're killing all their development tools to adopt Microsoft's ones. I call this "burning bridges" because in the future people will think twice before investing again in development for Nokia platforms, imho.
Your memory needs an upgrade. We discussed this same topic not four days ago.
Oh, and the $1 billion you mentioned is a figure plucked from the air by you - it was $1.5b *revenue* not profit - big difference.
Again we discussed that 4 days ago, but to refresh your memory: Apple's financial results again. Under assets--> Cash and cash equivalents: $1,193M == $1.193B . Again cash != revenue in accounting. This shows you have little either have understanding of basic accounting principles or you don't care on being accurate.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
See The Guardian (Great Britain):
"Apple to pay Nokia big settlement plus royalties in patent dispute
Tuesday 14 June 2011 18.20 BST
The Finnish phone-maker Nokia could receive a one-off payment of more than €800m (£700m) from Apple and receive further royalties of €8 per iPhone sold in future, after winning a settlement in a long-running patents dispute.
Although terms of the settlement were not disclosed, previous patent licensing deals in the phone industry have been worth up to 5% of the price of the device involved. At €8, or $11.50 (£7), they would represent about 4.5% of the estimated average $264 cost price of an iPhone, which Apple sells to retailers and phone networks for an average of $660. Apple has sold 108m iPhones since their launch."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia-patent-case
If you actually know, you violated a court order in saying this. If as I suspect you are just blowing smoke, then it's a pretty shade of pink out your butt. If you violated the court order of the settlement I'm happy I am not you. Neither side wants the details released. You think MS is happy that it was leaked that every Android phone pays them a royalty of $5... Not at all as it boosts Android at the expense of sales of MS phones. The only clue that is public is that Nokia updated their next quarter to break-even financially. If you found an online source of this info, then point it out for fact checking.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
decline != death. If you put things this way, the commercial failure (in the same time span) of WP7 is even more obvious.
No, get your facts right, WP7 has not had a decline like Symbian.
Subjective. So far very few users found that interface worth of being bought.
A hell of a lot less users found Maemo to be worth using, so by your logic WP7 is miles in front of Maemo.
I don't know about iOS, but certainly it's not even remotely on feature parity with Android. If we look at features, WP7 is the most disadvantaged OS, missing some features which can be found on Nokia's S40 featurephones.
You clearly haven't looked through the Mango update changes. The fact is the features in nokia's smartphones clearly aren't enough to attract users away from platforms like Android and iOS even though Nokia had over a decade headstart in the market.
There were plans to fix that using Qt, which is perfectly competitive in terms of development experience.
And they took far too long and got left behind with a MASSIVE decline in marketshare.
Nokia failed
Damn right, they needed a drastic change of plans.
The few ones who knew about Maemo, could afford it, and bought the N900, were satisfied with the product (not so much with the support that Nokia gave to the platform...).
The only people that bought them were geeks, it has never been a consumer-level platform. I had an N900 and as a handheld linux computer it was great, as a phone it was not, the problem is the general populace does not want a handheld linux computer, they prefer something like android where linux is invisible to them. It is bulky, heavy, the touchscreen isn't great, it lacked the responsiveness of modern smartphones (unless you overclocked the crap out of it), the built in applications are slow (the mail client is particularly awful).
They are ditching Symbian in one year, with no future plans for it.
They aren't killing all their current products though, all their low-end phones will still exist.
They're dropping the Ovi services (while Apple announces similar services for the iPhone as the "big new feature" of iOS 5).
Show me where they've said that, AFAIK they are integrating features from their Ovi services (particularly maps) into MS's offerings.
They provide no migration path from Qt to Windows Phone 7 after they had been telling all of their developers to invest in Qt training.
Of course not, they aren't compatible platforms.
If Nokia had focussed on Maemo in the early days of the project it could have been a viable competitor by now, but it never progressed enough to appeal to the general consumers and it's too late now.
No, get your facts right, WP7 has not had a decline like Symbian.
Nobody talked about decline for WP7. Of course WP7 isn't declining, it's new, so when compared to zero, any sale would be better than that. However, if you compare its sales to Windows Mobile, then it's more than a decline, it's a crash. And by the way, Windows Mobile is still selling more than WP7.
My facts are, that a lot less people buy Symbian than in the past, and almost nobody buys WP7.
A hell of a lot less users found Maemo to be worth using, so by your logic WP7 is miles in front of Maemo.
And it would be entertaining if it wasn't so, given the difference in the amount of resources thrown behind the two projects.
You clearly haven't looked through the Mango update changes.
Yes I did, they're the bare minimum to call an OS "smartphone" in 2011. HTM5? Multitasking? Threaded messages? Podcasts? I would be surprised if they sold "smart" phones in 2010/2011 without them. And in fact, they didn't sell many.
The fact is the features in nokia's smartphones clearly aren't enough to attract users away from platforms like Android and iOS even though Nokia had over a decade headstart in the market.
The fact is that today, after almost five years of decline, Nokia still sells more smartphones than Apple. I'll repeat it, Nokia still sells more smartphones than Apple. So whatever they had done wrong in the past, they still had margins to fix it.
The only people that bought them were geeks, it has never been a consumer-level platform.
That's because Nokia relegated it in that position with their stupid internal competition. This was going to change when Maemo became Nokia's flagship platform. We'll see what the potential results could have been when the N950 is out.
They aren't killing all their current products though, all their low-end phones will still exist.
S40 tough. They've been very clear about canceling their plans to move Symbian to low-end phones (and I don't understand why - such an announcement unnecessarily damaged Symbian and was only advantageous to Microsoft).
Show me where they've said that, AFAIK they are integrating features from their Ovi services (particularly maps) into MS's offerings.
Go to ovi.com and see what's remaining - only music, store (soon to become only a "channel" in WP7 store or something like that) and maps (soon to become the mapping provider for WP7).
Of course not, they aren't compatible platforms.
A migration path was still possible. I'm not talking about binary compatibility.
If Nokia had focussed on Maemo in the early days of the project it could have been a viable competitor by now, but it never progressed enough to appeal to the general consumers and it's too late now.
Then it would be too late for WP7 too, since on the market it's almost non-existent now, and Mango won't be here before autumn.
The truth is that it's impossible to develop a competitive mobile OS in a little more than a year. Apple took much longer than that, and Google took much, much longer than that. It wasn't too late when Apple kicked in, and likewise it wasn't too late when Android arrived.
My facts are, that a lot less people buy Symbian than in the past, and almost nobody buys WP7.
Symbian is declining rapidly, WP7 is growing very slowly.
Yes I did, they're the bare minimum to call an OS "smartphone" in 2011. HTM5? Multitasking? Threaded messages? Podcasts? I would be surprised if they sold "smart" phones in 2010/2011 without them.
So what are the features missing that make it so far from feature-parity with Android and iOS?
And in fact, they didn't sell many.
Yet they sold an absolute boatload more in 8 months than Maemo in its 5 year life.
The fact is that today, after almost five years of decline, Nokia still sells more smartphones than Apple. I'll repeat it, Nokia still sells more smartphones than Apple. So whatever they had done wrong in the past, they still had margins to fix it.
Nokia's margin on phones is *FAR* less than Apples, they make *FAR* less profit on the phones they sell.
That's because Nokia relegated it in that position with their stupid internal competition. This was going to change when Maemo became Nokia's flagship platform. We'll see what the potential results could have been when the N950 is out.
That's absolutely nothing but baseless speculation. The product was there, basically no-one wanted it.
Go to ovi.com and see what's remaining - only music, store (soon to become only a "channel" in WP7 store or something like that) and maps (soon to become the mapping provider for WP7).
So like i said the haven't killed all their services.
A migration path was still possible. I'm not talking about binary compatibility.
Like what? The OS paradigms are completely different.
Then it would be too late for WP7 too, since on the market it's almost non-existent now, and Mango won't be here before autumn.
Maemo had been on the market for 5 years before WP7 came out and yet it still has gotten nowhere.
Yes, and you talked complete bollocks 4 days ago also...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Oh, and the $1 billion you mentioned is a figure plucked from the air by you
It's on Apple's financial statements. It's not something I made up. But you say it's all bollocks. That is covering up (1) you can't read a financial statement and (2) you have a horrible memory. Either that or you are not really a person but multiple people and paid shill account.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.