Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft In Talks To Buy Nokia's Smartphone Division?

lightbox32 writes "Analyst Eldar Murtazin announced today that Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer was soon to meet his Nokia counterpart Stephen Elop to finalize the purchase of Nokia's smartphone division, which would see patents, staff, and some plants transferred to Microsoft, for an undisclosed price. From the article: '“Steve Ballmer, Andy Lees and Stephen Elop and Kai Ostamo will meet in Las Vegas to finalize agreement about Nokia smartphone unit. Bye Nokia,” he tweeted on Thursday morning."

47 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. This story is a lie by DCTech · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nokia already said that they won't sell their smartphone division several hours ago. Why is this rumor still echoed on slashdot?

    1. Re:This story is a lie by sconeu · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:This story is a lie by Microlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because companies deny everything up until it happens.

    3. Re:This story is a lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because that's what Slashdot is for. A lie is set forth and geeks who think they know stuff yammer on about it for about 500 comments. Stories like this are practically a slashdot lubricant.

    4. Re:This story is a lie by leoplan2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They will keep denying that rumor... If they accept it, it will be a huge PR disaster...

    5. Re:This story is a lie by Tridus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because no company has ever denied something right up until it happened, right?

      Nokia denying it means absolutely nothing.

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    6. Re:This story is a lie by tgd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nokia already said that they won't sell their smartphone division several hours ago. Why is this rumor still echoed on slashdot?

      Because it gets ad views. Duh.

    7. Re:This story is a lie by Skal+Tura · · Score: 3, Insightful

      because the /. staff don't check the stories?

      Besides, this is the kind of thing which i would expect to see 1st of April, not anytime else.

      Nokia's business has, and always has been, to advance mobile phone technologies through hardware innovation. Selling their smart phone business would be bit like selling your left arm.

    8. Re:This story is a lie by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 3, Funny

      I thought slashdot lubricant was caffeinated Astro Glide.

    9. Re:This story is a lie by dokc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nokia's business has, and always has been, to advance mobile phone technologies through hardware innovation. Selling their smart phone business would be bit like selling your left arm.

      More like a selling the head and I wouldn't be surprised if they really do it.
      Stephen Elop did the *great* job as a M$ mole and he gave Nokia on a silver platter. Smartphones will be rebranded as M$ phones and Nokia brand will be sold to some Chinese manufacturer.

      --
      In love, war and slashdot discussions, everything is allowed.
    10. Re:This story is a lie by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nokia already said that they won't sell their smartphone division several hours ago...

      Why would Microsoft buy it when they already got it for free?

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    11. Re:This story is a lie by TeXMaster · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nokia already said that they won't sell their smartphone division several hours ago...

      Why would Microsoft buy it when they already got it for free?

      Because Nokia can pull out of the deal at any time now, and considering how much their Linux and Symbian smartphones are still in high request compared to their WinPhones (which is ridiculous if you consider that the N9 is essential an EOL, and still there's people in Italy, where it's not officially sold, getting it from Switzerland just to be able to put their hands on it), they actually might realize they're doing the stupidest possible thing by tying their technology to the MS o.s. —if MS buys their smartphone division, MS has the o.s. and hardware under its control. Much cheaper in the long run. I wouldn't be surprised if patents get in the deal as well, just so that they might fight a legal battle with android phones (specifically the reason why Google bought Motorola).

      --
      "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
    12. Re:This story is a lie by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Nokia already said that they won't sell their smartphone division"

      Yet.

      Come on, the whole Nokia thing has been a done deal since Elop as their new CEO was announced.

      It's clearly been planned all along, that if the major shareholders let Elop become head of Nokia as a Microsoft puppet, and turn it into a Microsoft only shop, and make a success of it, that Microsoft will then at some later date when Nokia is fully turned around as a Windows Phone producer buy the shares.

      The whole Elop thing didn't make sense whatsoever, when he was taken on it was obvious Android was the best bet for Nokia, yet they took someone on with disturbingly close ties to Microsoft, they let him choose Windows Phone when there was no evidence it was going to be a success despite the fact Android was already succeding and could've saved Nokia too. The only argument was that Nokia couldn't differentiate with Android, but it's bollocks - Samsung most certainly has managed to.

      Really, the only explanation for the shareholders allowing such an insanely weird set of choices to go through is that they were going to get something out of it. Promises of an eventual Microsoft buyout would be the most obvious something - it's the only way many of them would ever see their money back on their investment after Nokia lost it's way and share values plummeted. Chances are they'll still get to keep their shares in Nokia's networks business when the sale is split on top.

      Elop's takeover of Nokia was a coup by Microsoft, that much was obvious. Even at the time I assumed and said there's a high likelihood it would lead to eventual takeover. This leaking of the story and subsequent denial could just as well be a tactic by the two companies to test the water on public and business opinion and see if it's safe to go ahead and do it yet.

      Sure there's a number of ways it may not happen - regulators saying no, opinion being far too negative to make it feasible, Nokia still failing to turn itself around and so on, but I'd wager the basic premise of the story has some truth to it - that there is intention by Microsoft to take it over, and will from the shareholders to let it be taken over by Microsoft. If there wasn't some degree of this they wouldn't have let it go so foolishly and riskily down the completely untested Windows Phone route in the first place when the slightly less risky option of investing in improving MeeGo was there, or perhaps more obviously, the perfectly safe Android was sat in waiting.

    13. Re:This story is a lie by qbast · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nokia also had been reassuring everybody about Symbian and Qt future until last moment before Elop declared them dead.

    14. Re:This story is a lie by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not any more unbelievable than ruining your smart phone business by picking the worst available OS option and publicly announcing you are running with it no matter what.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  2. Photoshopped by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Funny

    This story has been photoshopped. You can tell by the pixels and the smoke coming out of the track.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  3. Thats a great way to gain marketshare by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Go tell your OEMs that you are not a competitor? Gee, that will really make them want to leave Android for Windows Phone Mango. lol

    Go look up OS/2 would be my advice. OS/2 beat the crap out of Windows 3.1 and even Windows 95. No OEM would touch it as IBM was a competitor.

  4. Apple? by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They really do want to be Apple don't they. :)
    First the Microsoft stores, emulating (Badly) the Apple stores.
    Now jumping into the phone business.
    At least it is entertaining to watch.

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    1. Re:Apple? by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Microsoft was in the phone business before Apple, albeit only from the software side. Microsoft missed some huge, huge opportunities in that arena. If only they could've ditched the stylus-centric GUI design (ie itty bitty tiny controls and no gestures) they could've held at least some ground with Windows Mobile.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    2. Re:Apple? by roc97007 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      > If only they could've ditched the stylus-centric GUI design (ie itty bitty tiny controls and no gestures)

      That's right on the money, (from an ergonomic standpoint, how did anyone ever think a "start" button an eighth of an inch wide was a good idea?? [1]) although I'm not sure it's a complete explanation. My Windows 6 phone would fail periodically with a popup something like "the audio driver has encountered an unexpected error and will now terminate". If you didn't catch it when it happened and reboot the phone, on the next call the phone wouldn't ring.

      Let's savor that for a moment.

      The phone wouldn't RING!!

      The second or third time I failed to get a call while on-call, due to the audio driver malfunctioning, I had to dump the phone or risk losing my job.

      As a result, I will never, ever, EVER have another Windows phone. In my line of work it's just too risky to have a phone that may at some random time decline to RING.

      Ok, so I could be the only one to ever have that problem or problems like it, but if not, Windows 7 has a huge uphill battle to gain acceptance in the business market.

      [1] From a code reuse standpoint, it makes perfect sense.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You are definitely not the only person to have that happen to them; I had the exact same issue, and made the exact same decision, including the promise to never buy a Windows Mobile product again.

      I also had the fun error that my Windows phone would randomly end calls. I would be happily chatting away and the phone would just hang up. I would joke "Windows has found your conversation tiresome and no longer wishes to continue," (said in a German accent).

      Try explaining to your boss why you almost never pick up when he calls, and then when he does call you, you hang up on him.

      Windows Mobile was far and away the worst phone experience I have ever had, and it soured me on Windows phone products forever.

    4. Re:Apple? by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Try explaining to your boss why you almost never pick up when he calls, and then when he does call you, you hang up on him.

      The very last call I (didn't) receive was from my boss, strategic update during a production outage. And I missed it. The next business day, I put in an order for a Blackberry Bold. My boss couldn't approve it fast enough. (He needs me to be connected.)

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    5. Re:Apple? by lucm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They really do want to be Apple don't they. :)

      First the Microsoft stores, emulating (Badly) the Apple stores.

      Now jumping into the phone business.

      At least it is entertaining to watch.

      Nah Microsoft wants to be everything, not just Apple. It became clear to me once I saw that in SharePoint there is a button "I Like It". (And as usual it's big, annoyingly friendly and takes a lot of screen real estate).

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    6. Re:Apple? by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um, you need to look up "on-call". But, no, wait. I see the misunderstanding. I get *paid* to be on-call. Does that make more sense? Or is this some ninety nine percenter thing I don't understand?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    7. Re:Apple? by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes because being on call might be part of the job description. If you are getting 2X or more times a normal salary and have specialized skills your employer isn't likely to keep a bunch of spare "yous' around for after hours support. You're special which means in the ways you are special you are expected to "make it go" whenever it is needed. That is part of the reason for the good salary: you have more responsibility. Oh and you can add that on call is a very nice leash much preferable to actually having to sit at a desk at 10pm "just in case". Getting paid beer money to watch Star Trek reruns and than (at least anywhere I've worked) getting overtime pay if you actually get called is a pretty sweet deal.

    8. Re:Apple? by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep, that's it, pretty much exactly.

      So what is it with kids these days? What happened to, you know, working for for a living? It seems like an entire generation wants ipods handed to them for nuthin.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  5. Qt by c++0xFF · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here's hoping such a deal (if it's not just a rumor and actually goes through) doesn't touch Qt. I was happy when Nokia bought it, but I really, really don't want MS to get control over Qt.

    I guess it comes down to corporate structure. Is Qt part of the smartphone division? The two are closely related (and it's why Nokia bought Qt to begin with), so I wouldn't be surprised.

    1. Re:Qt by Microlith · · Score: 4, Informative

      The agreement still stands, and since it's LGPL you could fork from the last LGPL version and still use it in commercial projects. Of course, losing corporate support would be crippling to no small extent, which is one reason the Qt people have been working overtime to separate Qt from Nokia as much as they can short of being spun off.

  6. Not plausible by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is there any point in posting an unsubstantiated rumour by someone who has previously claimed that the deal was happening back in May and that Nokia's phone division would be sold by the end of 2011? Nokia is predominantly a phone maker, and I really can't see them wanting to sell the main business of their company to anyone. What would be left of the company?

    And would Microsoft really want to spend the claimed $19 billion on a division that has yet to prove that anybody wants to buy one of their Windows phones? And Nokia have the connections with the carriers that is required to get the phones into the retail system. Given the way Windows phones haven't really been pushed by the carriers, I would think that they need the sales team at Nokia. Buying the patents and manufacturing plants only solves part of the problem - and that assumes that there is a problem in the first place that requires the purchase.

    Finally, I don't think the other phone companies like HTC, LG, and Samsung would feel happy about Microsoft moving into their territory. This sale would only cause friction with those companies, is an expensive risk, and provides no benefit considering that Nokia are already committed to selling Microsoft's platform now.

    1. Re:Not plausible by Microlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is there any point in posting an unsubstantiated rumour by someone who has previously claimed that the deal was happening back in May and that Nokia's phone division would be sold by the end of 2011?

      Eh, if it happens in the next couple months he's not far off in corporate-acquisition-time. He nailed the forced move of Nokia to Windows Phone back months before it happened and people said the same things about him then.

      Nokia is predominantly a phone maker, and I really can't see them wanting to sell the main business of their company to anyone. What would be left of the company?

      Nothing, but I suspect that Microsoft is, by far, the party with the most power here. They have a friendly CEO in charge and a pliable board, willing to do as they say. What would be left? A shell of a company, loaded down with restrictions that would bar them from entering the smartphone space and, for spite, from ever using the patents they sell with Linux.

      And would Microsoft really want to spend the claimed $19 billion on a division that has yet to prove that anybody wants to buy one of their Windows phones? And Nokia have the connections with the carriers that is required to get the phones into the retail system. Given the way Windows phones haven't really been pushed by the carriers, I would think that they need the sales team at Nokia. Buying the patents and manufacturing plants only solves part of the problem - and that assumes that there is a problem in the first place that requires the purchase.

      If they do it, I imagine they could always work out a "discount" of some sort. But most importantly, they have someone who can part the company out to get MS the best deal, rather than having to buy the whole company and all the stuff they don't want (dumbphones, symbian, the N9/Maemo legacy.) Microsoft would probably redouble their efforts to be like Apple, which is why they'd probably also take all the sales teams as well.

      Finally, I don't think the other phone companies like HTC, LG, and Samsung would feel happy about Microsoft moving into their territory. This sale would only cause friction with those companies, is an expensive risk, and provides no benefit considering that Nokia are already committed to selling Microsoft's platform now.

      If I were going to fling (more) barbs in Microsoft's direction, I expect they'd leverage the patents they have to raise the "price" of Android even further above Windows Phone 7, and constrain the options of other vendors so that they have no choice but to compete directly with MS or pay them a ton of cash.

    2. Re:Not plausible by Dracos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If this does happen and anyone is surprised by it since Elop took over, they're idiots.

      The Nokia/WP7 partnership has already done damage to Nokia. MS knows (or or expected) that WP7 wouldn't gain traction, and that they'd have to buy a handset maker to make it competitive. Now that Nokia has submitted to their doom, MS can become an OEM for almost peanuts. I'm surprised that Ballmer didn't let Nokia bleed out longer.

      The people within Nokia that have carrier relationships would be kept on and assimilated to doing sales the Microsoft way. Redmond may have their flaws, but sales really isn't one of them... they need to get their foot further in the door with the carriers.

      Plus, none of the other OEMS really screamed when Google bought Motorola Mobility.

    3. Re:Not plausible by Junta · · Score: 5, Interesting

      On the first part, I would have no trouble believing that Nokia would sell themselves completely to MS. I wouldn't think selling their phones separately would ever happen, but Nokia is pretty well going to do anything that MS asks of them at this point unless their leadership changes away from the MS cronies in place now.

      Which makes this story even less plausible, why would MS buy the cow while they get the milk for free? In Nokia they have a partner that is pretty well willing to bet their whole business on MS and do exactly what MS would have them do if they owned them, without the complications of an acquisition, particularly in fairly MS-hostile territory of EU.

      In terms of other manufacturers being 'happy' with MS, I think the handset makers are likely not particularly pleased with how the WP7 ecosystem is set up anyway. By design, the hardware manufacturers are relegated pretty much to producing the exact same equipment with the same exact software, chips and screens as their competitors. There is pretty much zero room in the WP7 ecosystem for any differentiation, making it pretty much a pure commodity business with race-to-the-bottom margins. I think MS has most of them scared enough to at least participate by making a few handsets to hedge their bets in case of an Android collapse, but there seems to be pretty much no enthusiasm among manufacturers or carriers with MS and Nokia the only ones actively really *pushing* the platform.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    4. Re:Not plausible by Microlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But Nokia lacked direction the with Maemo which got merged with Intel's Moblin to become MeeGo.

      They produced the N9, which was "MeeGo compatible" and based on Maemo. It has apparently sold quite well and met with extremely favorable reviews. They had a direction and had to fight to get where they did due to the Symbian camps in the company interfering. Had that problem been solved and Maemo/MeeGo been pushed to the forefront instead of WP7, I doubt that Nokia's ability to compete would have been questioned. Problem is that would take a CEO with a vested interest in Nokia's success and independence and I don't believe Elop ever had that.

    5. Re:Not plausible by symbolset · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Microsoft needs Nokia more than Nokia needs Microsoft.

      This is not true. Microsoft spins off many billions of profit each year, mainly from Windows and Office. They could dump 5 billion a year into mobile just to keep the dream alive. They pour something like 2 billion a year just into Bing and their other online efforts. They could keep this up forever. I don't think doing so is going to do them any good, but they can.

      Sendo had the same problem. It didn't work out well for them.

      While doing research for this comment (sad but true, I do research for /. comments as if I were an actual credible analyst) I went to look at Nokia's financial statements to see how long they could hold out with a failing smartphone business. What I found is a grand surprise: I find that Nokia has been hugely bulking up the cash portion of their balance sheet. They now have $16B cash and equivalents - a level they haven't seen since 2008 when their market cap was 3x what it is now (Currently $20B), and $4B more cash than they had a year ago. The annual run rate on last quarter's profits is $10B. That means less cash you could buy the Nokia business for $4B net of cash - patents, employees, hardware, manufacturing, real estate, the whole magilla. This brings the price of Nokia's earnings as a business (about $10B/year) less cash to about 40 cents. For 40 cents a buyer could buy $1/yr of profits. $1 buys what the company is accumulating in cash each year. That's a screaming deal - and with that much cash to leverage lots of the '80's LBO kings could get financing on that deal. It's a hell of a lot better deal than $8B for Skype, who never made any profits ever.

      After reflecting on the above paragraph, TFA becomes plausible. Somebody's probably buying Nokia because at this price it's like buying a money tree at the price of five months' harvest. I see that you can buy a call option with a 7/21/2012 strike price of $6 for $.71, or the in-the-money $5 call for $1.14. Both of these look like a good deal to me, and I'd probably take the in-the-money one in case there was no bidding war. Naturally takeovers usually buy a company at a premium over the day's stock price.

      I am not an investment advisor - especially not yours. I don't hold a position in any of these companies. This is just for fun.

      If Google can buy Moto Mobi and get away with it, why can't Microsoft buy Nokia - especially when it's such a screaming deal?

      Despite what the market thinks of Elop's plans (and my own prognostications) his austerity program does seem to be bearing fruit even if his strategic choices seem to be lacking.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    6. Re:Not plausible by TeXMaster · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sold well? Who bought it ? I hardly know anyone anymore who owns a Nokia phone, just eighteen months ago half my friends had one, hell I had a N900 myself. I had high hopes for the N900, sadly Nokia didnt...

      Many people with N900 didn't get an N9 because the N9 is EOL. Despite this, though, there are markets where the N9 has not been officially sold (like Italy) that have to go look for their N9s eslewhere (e.g. Switzerland) _and they do_ (there are quite a few online Italian shops that sell imported N9s).

      Nokia expresselly killed their Linux line of phones, by making the N950 a "developer preview" only and only releasing the N9 in "selected" market. _Despite_ this, and their Lumia phones being everywhere, the N9 is still in high demand.

      --
      "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
  7. But... by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought they already "bought" Nokia by having their cuckoo-CEO Stephen Elop installed as chief ramrod and bottle washer.

    Could this mean that Microsoft isn't sure that Elop is going to stick around and that the board might get rid of him? Oh that would be fun to watch.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:But... by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Informative

      It means he's done enough damage to the stock price to make it affordable. It amazes me that what they did is considered legal.

    2. Re:But... by Desler · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nokia lost 80% of their stock value high of ~40 bucks in Nov of 2007 to under 10 dollars in March of 2009 and it was riding in the low teens until Elop was announced as joining. Any :"damage" he has done was far less than Nokia was already doing to itself during the prior 3 years before Elop came along.

  8. Did I make this all up? by Spykk · · Score: 4, Funny

    Slashdot would be much more pleasant if all the headlines that end in question marks were removed.

  9. QT? by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If this were to happen, what about QT?

    The phone division i don't think anyone cares about at this point. I didn't even know there still was one :). But we would NOT want QT to fall into the wrong hands.

    But if this is BS like it seems to be.. then who cares.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:QT? by peppepz · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The good news is that QT has been moved to an open governance model, and it's still needed for Nokia's dumbphone division, which is not being sold to MS.

      http://blog.qt.nokia.com/2011/09/12/qt-project/
      http://labs.qt.nokia.com/2011/10/21/the-qt-project-is-live/

  10. I'm not laughing... by jimmydigital · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not laughing.. but Microsoft is still a joke. First they pre-announce a super smart phone a year before it's said to be out and now they are trying to buy their way into the smartphone market from another company that can't compete with Apple. How many phones have they already tried to launch that all failed miserably? Yea.. good luck with that. I'm sure the next phone venture will be worth every penny.

    --
    Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -HLM
  11. What if they did? by MrCrassic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nokia's strong point (or given their performance lately, least weak point) is very much in their mobile phone business. If you look at their latest quarterly earnings, the net sale of mobile phones decreased (-14% from last) significantly less than their smart phones (-39% from last). On top of that, their smartphone sales dropped significantly in NA since last year, presumably because of the competition in the market and their lack of a real offering lately.

    Furthermore, it's pretty clear (as in their only choice at the moment) that they will use Windows Phone as their only smartphone platform and are dropping any commitments to any alternatives they had on the shelf. There is a good chance they will make deep system changes in their ROMs to enhance the experience as well, further enveloping their relationship with them. I doubt they will commit to Android sometime down the line, since (a) Elop has obvious ties with MS and (b) it will be way more work for them to "Nokia"-ize the UI to make it appealing to people like every other manufacturer did.

    So what if they sold that division to Microsoft? Their bread-and-butter won't change and won't be influenced by the move. Microsoft won't build any devices; if anything, they will have an easier hand in making sure the hardware gels perfectly with Windows Phone to make the experience as awesome as possible. Both companies would be better positioned to compete with Apple and Android since they will be able to use them as the "Nexus" of Windows Phone and, if they don't step on Nokia's toes, provide an awesome experience that neither company can match AND have manufacturer variety that gives people just enough choice to be appealing without being overwhelming. It's a win-win, though I'm probably being naive and overly simplistic.

    I know the news is fake, but I'm really excited about this collaboration. I love Nokia and I think this will finally make them relevant again if they don't let Microsoft run the hardware design show too much. They already did the right thing by setting a tight hardware baseline; Nokia can handle the rest.

  12. Nokia Who's your daddy? by strangeattraction · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They became M$'s bitch the moment they hired an ex-M$ CEO. The only surprise here is why did it take so long?

  13. $8.5 billion for Skype by chrb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And would Microsoft really want to spend the claimed $19 billion [businessinsider.com] on a division that has yet to prove that anybody wants to buy one of their Windows phones?

    Just to add to this point: Microsoft paid $8.5 billion for Skype, a company that has never made a profit, and is not expected to any time soon. These kind of purchases are strategic, and aim to expand market share indirectly by forming synergies between different products; they don't have to be directly profitable in the short-term.

  14. logical by Tom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That really was the next logical step. They've already ruined any hopes of Nokia ever getting back into the game with their mole who turned them on windows mobile as the OS of choice, now taking official control of the mobile arm of Nokia really is nothing new, it's just going the whole nine yards.

    Most likely future: MS will pour a couple billions into it, like they did with the xbox, bleeding money quarter after quarter. They will be waiting (and bleeding money) until their competitors make a blunder (like Sony did with the PS3) and then stand ready to take over market share with their 2nd rate product simply because it's there and it has marketing muscle. They will probably buy up a couple App providers along the way and make them windows-mobile-exclusive (hello, Bungie).

    Why? Because Balmer has no vision and isn't the guy to come up with anything resembling a new strategy. We will see what we've seen them do virtually everywhere else.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  15. No it's even simpler by backslashdot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How to acquire a company:

    1. Send one of your own executives to be target companies CEO
    2. Target company's new CEO implements total dependency on your companies product
    3. Target company's share price collapses as they lose market share
    4. Acquire target company for cheap
    5. Profit! (though possibly in this case .. loss!)