Nokia Selling Its Headquarters To Raise Funds

PolygamousRanchKid writes with news the Nokia is looking to generate some cash by selling its headquarters and leasing it back from the new owner. The sale price for the 48,000 sq. meter building is €170 million. "The struggling mobile phone company has operated in the glass and steel building in Espoo near Helsinki, known as Nokia House, since 1997. The sale is another step towards reducing costs and concentrating on its core business. Nokia has spent almost a third of its cash reserves in 12 months, and in October had about €3.6bn left in the bank to turn itself into a smartphone manufacturer capable of competing with Apple and Samsung."

Comments

Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is SLASHDOT. We are BIAS.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[ipquickly]

This is SLASHDOT. We are BIAS.

Damn it! And I had a good one planned, now you spoiled it.

Wait, I think I hear my 5 year old Nokia Communicator crying in the other room. ...

damn moisture sensor changed color

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Flipao]

This is SLASHDOT. We are BIAS.

You mean the company that single handedly set the web back at least five years and has been criminally convicted for anti competitive behavior and the company that is being run into the ground by the 8th largest shareholder of the previously mentioned company?

Gee, I wonder why anyone would hate them.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's CUE, you stupid retarded bastard. CUE. A cue is a signal you give a performer to let them know it's their time. A queue is a bunch of things in a row, you stupid retarted illiterate bastard.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Anonymous Coward]

...Oh, and I forgot to add something before I posted:

Exactly how did MS set the web back 5 years? Why is Microsoft always blamed for the fact that nobody else was making a better internet browser in the early 2000s?

People used IE in the early 2000s because it was the best browser. As soon as a better one came along (Firefox in 2004) IE started losing share. If a better browser had existed in 1998 then people would have used THAT browser instead of IE because. Contrary to the myth, Microsoft never put a gun to grandma's head and forced her to use IE.

The ones who failed were the people who simply couldn't or wouldn't innovate a better browser than MS's offering. That's not MS's fault.
http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/12/12/04/2252205/nokia-selling-its-headquarters-to-raise-funds#

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's retarded, not retarted. Literate much?

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a question for Slashdot - was the judge right when he said Linux and Apple weren't viable threats (thus making Windows was a monopoly), or is Linux actually a viable replacement for Windows?

I've seen many variations of this same comment posted all over the interwebs this week. Is this the new script from Burson Marsteller's astroturf division?

Microsoft was actively threatening OEMs who installed other OSs on PCs to develop and maintain their monopoly.
Since then, they've used format, API and communication protocol lockin to prevent interoperability and make it difficult to switch away from their products.It's very destructive to innovation and affordability.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Divebus]

I'll try that one - the ruling forced Microsoft to survive on the merits of their products rather than strong arm tactics to force business partners to submit to their wishes. No innovation allowed that would circumvent their leverage of Office into every other aspect of business computing.

There was lots of innovation going on and lots of excitement about what could be done with a microcomputer. Microsoft uniquely understood the power of cross platform capabilities (that's exactly where they started - porting software to the myriad platforms out there). When they suddenly realized they had created their own platform, everything shifted to protecting it. They would "partner" with countless software companies like the old days, modify the product to be Microsoft only, release it to the masses stripping away any cross platform capability and made the original technology irrelevant.

That was the death of any threats against Microsoft for several years.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Anonymous Coward]

Literate has no verb form, you illiterate bastard.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Anonymous Coward]

People used IE in the early 2000s because it was the best browser.

What? I don't even. IE 6? The Windows Me of browsers? God...Netscape Communicator? Opera? Anything that cared about standards? IE might have had the largest market share, but that was because of...ooooh...monopolistic practices.

Bill Gates, for all his current philanthropy which I do say we all should appreciate, delayed the innovation of the Internet with his business practices. That is all. Once MS's monopoly was given the slap on the wrist, things got better for everyone.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[samkass]

...and has been criminally convicted for anti competitive behavior...

Not to nitpick too much, but the court decision was not criminal and therefore not a "conviction". It was a civil anti-trust suit.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually a viable replacement yes, but it wasn't a threat, no. That is precisely the problem with abusing monopoly powers to prevent competition from viable alternatives.

It is becoming a threat, because it allows people to escape MS in a product space that isn't controlled by MS, so it is easy for people to do. It is becoming a threat, because MS "partners" no longer want to put up with their selfish backstabbing controlling bullshit.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Anonymous Coward]

A typo is one thing (obvious since it was spelled right the first time); using a completely wrong word (queue vs cue) is another you ignorant ape.

Also, it beg's the question, irregardlessly, I could care less?

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Divebus]

Exactly how did MS set the web back 5 years?

Oh.. that 5 year span when NOTHING improved on IE? That piece of time between the death of Netscape and the advent of tabbed browsing (and RSS feeds) on Firefox? The lack of innovation certainly WAS Microsoft's fault. Not only that, it was their plan - eliminate everything else so they didn't have to spend money on competition.

People used IE in the early 2000s because it came with the computer. Microsoft had won the desktop wars and with it, everything else. The era of being cross platform was gone. Everyone clicked the Big Blue E to get on the Internet and nobody was going to PAY for Netscape. IE was the logical choice as most people thought Microsoft was the only source for computer software. Under threat of never seeing your precious Word and Excel documents again, they were right.

The ability to stifle innovation (including their own) came from two things; Microsoft Server Extensions and tolerance to really bad code, both of which were a good thing in a way. The big problem with Netscape at the time is they were trying really hard to be W3C standards compliant and, except for the addition of Java to Netscape, things moved very slowly. Microsoft grew impatient with the W3C and leapt out way ahead with Server Extensions, those little addons which made the browser much more like a client-server relationship instead of the stateless relationship originally intended with browsers. Front Page made it easy to activate complex tasks by moving the heavy lifting to the server and calling it with a simple trigger in HTML.

Of course, Server Extensions brought many new capabilities never before seen on a browser, something the W3C couldn't keep up with and it was never Microsoft's intention to standardize them (as in go through a standards committee to define and publish the technology). The problem was that all these sites were "IE Only". Microsoft was VERY close to ensuring anyone not using a totally Microsoft technology chain on the Internet saw a blank screen. In other words, they nearly owned the Internet.

IE's tolerance for bad coding was good for IE users as it rendered pages with broken code pretty well. Microsoft handed out a lot of free copies of Front Page to create this broken code which would render with unexpected results on other browsers. Front Page (and plain bad hand coding) made anything other than IE look illiterate. That's the price of sitting around on your hands. Microsoft was there to take it all away in a long series of brilliant chess moves... and then everything went thud for a while.

It actually functioned rather well when it was novel, but nothing moved in terms of real technical advances unless Microsoft was threatened by some shred of competition which was quickly squashed. The next software patch would allow IE to do the same thing for free but for Windows only. Otherwise, Microsoft pretty much sat on their asses and took their sweet old time releasing anything new. Innovation was dead as long as nobody dared try to use anything else.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a question for Slashdot - was the judge right when he said Linux and Apple weren't viable threats (thus making Windows was a monopoly), or is Linux actually a viable replacement for Windows?

I have been using GNU/Linux as my primary operating system since early 2000 with only virtualized Microsoft Windows XP or 7 for very specific instances. I spend 99.999% of my time with GNU/Linux and feel tainted in any workplace where Microsoft Windows is installed on their desktop or notebook computers, especially in environments where all the work functions are performed via web browser and/or an SSH session to a *nix box.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[PYRILAMPES]

Microsoft does this to every business partner. They always have. If Nokia was fool enough to trust Microsoft, there will be no tears shed. The more reasonable answer is Nokia officers dropped the ball and got paid well for dancing with the Microsoft. The "only" losers were the employees and their stockholders.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[cheesybagel]

Netscape 4 and later were a steaming pile of dung. That was the problem. IE from version 3 onwards was quite useable. It was only after IE 5 came out and Netscape basically folded that development froze seemingly forever.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[21mhz]

You mean the company that single handedly set the web back at least five years and has been criminally convicted for anti competitive behavior and the company that is being run into the ground by the 8th largest shareholder of the previously mentioned company?

You got modded up for spreading false information, so here goes: Elop is not the 8th largest shareholder of Microsoft.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Anonymous Coward]

Netscape Communicator?

Nope, Netscape had just as terrible support for web standards and it was slow and buggy.

Opera?

Nope, slow as hell and up until 2000 was trialware and for the following 5 years it was adware.

Anything that cared about standards?

There wasn't really anything.

IE might have had the largest market share, but that was because of...ooooh...monopolistic practices.

Actually it was because it worked fine, nothing stopped anyone from installing a competing browser EVER. But competing browsers were no better so nobody used them.
These days it's far worse, i'd like to use Chrome on iOS but Apple prevents competition with it's own bundled Safari browser by not allowing you to change the default browser, that's much worse than simply bundling a browser with the OS (which every single OS vendor does anyway).

Once MS's monopoly was given the slap on the wrist, things got better for everyone.

Rubbish, once competitors started making decent products people actually started using them, that's when things got better. And what OS vendor doesn't ship a browser? Should we also chastise Microsoft for their inclusion of Paint, Calculator, Notepad, etc?

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Anonymous Coward]

People used IE because:
1) Yes, it was there
2) There was no other browser on Windows that was significantly better than IE6. Netscape even when free was really really crap. Yes it was crappier than IE6.

Go look how long it took for Mozilla to be not so crap - leaks, crashes etc. It still is crappier than Google Chrome in many ways.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[BlackPignouf]

There was Opera "between the death of Netscape and the advent of tabbed browsing (and RSS feeds) on Firefox".

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have called him a CUELESS bastard.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Bert64]

Better browsers were out for quite some time before firefox started gaining traction, and most of that was not because firefox was a better browser but because ie was a massive security hole and people were getting owned with drive by exploits on a regular basis.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Bert64]

Which at the time was not free, and could not render many of the broken sites designed specifically for ie... The fact that it was the sites that were broken and not the browser didn't matter to users, they blamed the browser.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[hairyfish]

People used IE in the early 2000s because it came with the computer.

I'm an IT guy, I used IE because it was better than anything else available at the time. Most other "people" clearly thought the same thing.

most people thought Microsoft was the only source for computer software. Under threat of never seeing your precious Word and Excel documents again, they were right.

Crap. People used MS because it was the one of the only producers of user friendly software that wasn't a pile of steaming dog turd. Firefox, Apple and Google showed that if you produce quality products, people will use them.

Innovation was dead as long as nobody dared try to use anything else.

Jesus fucking Christ, if innovation died then where the fuck did Apple and Google and Facebook come from? The biggest IT companies around all came to power during your so called period of innovation-death. Good luck with that hypothesis...

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[hairyfeet]

Opera cost money and Netscape put out the abortion known as NS4, nuff said.

I'm sorry AC but the other guy is right, hell I was a big NS fan and even I had to put up with IE for a few years because there just wasn't anything out there. Sure you could get a free version of Opera...if you didn't mind 30% of your browser to be a giant flashing adbar, but those of us on limited bandwidth connections really didn't want to pay the bandwidth for opera's ads.

And again look at the numbers, when FF came out people started jumping and then Chrome made even more run away, the second anything better came along we bailed. i know I was one of the first ones using the Moz Suite, followed by FF before it was even called FF and now I'm on a Chrome variant, I honestly don't even know what version of IE comes with Win 7 because I haven't ever fired it up.

You can't blame "The big bad M$" if nobody else is making a decent product, and at the time there really wasn't any decent product that competed. This is the same way MS Office took off BTW, WordPerfect ruled the roost until they didn't bother putting out a Windows version until nearly 2000, before that they put out a badly ported DOS version which crashed and ran like shit. people didn't buy MS Office because they liked it, they bought it because they liked having their work done without 3 crashes making them start from the top multiple times.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the company that single handedly set the web back at least five years and has been criminally convicted for anti competitive behavior and the company that is being run into the ground by the 8th largest shareholder of the previously mentioned company?

You got modded up for spreading false information, so here goes: Elop is not the 8th largest shareholder of Microsoft.

So he's a cheap whore?

Nice to know.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Divebus]

Jesus fucking Christ yourself, buddy. Apple, Google and Facebook was disruptive to Microsoft and only had a choice to face an uphill battle against it or partner with it. There were innovators and practically every one of them had to battle Microsoft in one way or another. Hell, Microsoft even viewed newspapers and television as competition. I'm an IT guy too with the difference that I also saw the strengths of things NOT Microsoft.

It's pretty well documented that Microsoft leveraged three things because of their popularity; (1) strong armed business partners into doing whatever Microsoft wanted under threat of getting thrown off the gravy train, (2) tied their software together so, to the end user, it appeared everything would fall down if anything non-Microsoft was introduced to the system and (3) was actively replicating functions other innovators were coming up with and releasing it en-masse to be Windows only, suppressing many innovators, large and small.

At some point, the "popularity" of Microsoft shifted from having desirable products to "people" being fearful of exiting their ecosystem. By "people", I mean people who didn't know any different. Microsoft products were getting very shoddy and expensive, and they didn't care. I can't tell you how many eye rolls I've spent on board meetings where mentioning something that didn't come from Microsoft sent them scurrying in terror. They all thought email was Outlooking, the Internet was the Big Blue E and the only possible computer to buy was anything Windows because they needed to print Word documents. The real innovations were happening elsewhere and it took 10 years before the frustration of being stuck in Microsoft world came to the surface.

Ha... I said "surface".

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[MachineShedFred]

Also, it beg's the question, irregardlessly, I could care less?

This wins.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[DNS-and-BIND]

Opera had tabbed browsing in 2000. I remember because that's why I switched, opening multiple tabs at modem speeds was awesome. Read what you've got on the screen, and by the time you finish, all your other tabs have finished loading. Firefox? Bullshit.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[TheCycoONE]

I refute your claim that NS was trying to support standards any more than IE was, and assert that they were trying harder to deviate from standards.

Netscape tried to push their own tag which was needed for overlapping elements in that browser (nothing else worked with z-index), a small violation of the HTML spec, and a huge violation of the CSS spec. They also didn't support any units except px, and sometimes %. Stylesheets wouldn't render at all if you turned off javascript. As others have said, it's an ugly horrible mess of a browser.

IE 5/6 were the best browsers at the time. The problem is when they ran out of competition they quit spending money, disbanded the IE team, and left things to stagnate for years - but without competition why would a company innovate? They are not a hacker group making the internet better for fun, they're a publicly traded company vying for the most market share.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple, Google and Facebook was disruptive to Microsoft and only had a choice to face an uphill battle against it or partner with it. There were innovators and practically every one of them had to battle Microsoft in one way or another.

Oh wow, thanks for the insight captain obvious! Yeah when entering a market you shouldn't have to battle with the market leader, they should just stand aside and let you take all their market. They produced better products and that's how they did well, unlike companies like Netscape who produced crap products (like NS4) and then complained because people didn't choose them over Microsoft. If you want to disrupt the market you have to make something better, that's what Apple, Google and Facebook have done, that's what Netscape was far too incompetent to do so they blamed their incompetence on their competitor.

It's pretty well documented that Microsoft leveraged three things because of their popularity; (1) strong armed business partners into doing whatever Microsoft wanted under threat of getting thrown off the gravy train

Why would you want your partner to support your direct competitor(s)? That makes no sense, you partner with them on condition of exclusivity, otherwise they aren't a partner, they're just another customer. These customers could have gone all in with a competitor...oh no they couldn't, because all the competitors were shit.

(2) tied their software together so, to the end user, it appeared everything would fall down if anything non-Microsoft was introduced to the system

Oh bullshit, you could install anything you wanted and it didn't affect the system. Don't lie just because you don't have a valid argument.

(3) was actively replicating functions other innovators were coming up with and releasing it en-masse to be Windows only, suppressing many innovators, large and small.

Like what? Do you have examples or just your fantasy land where big bad Microsoft is the cause for the incompetence of their competitors? We now have competent competitors in companies like Google and Apple which have shown that if you produce a decent product people will choose it.

At some point, the "popularity" of Microsoft shifted from having desirable products to "people" being fearful of exiting their ecosystem. By "people", I mean people who didn't know any different.

what...the...fuck?! People were fearful of exiting Microsoft's ecosystem? You really are a braindead moron aren't you.

Microsoft products were getting very shoddy and expensive, and they didn't care.

Rubbish! Microsoft was the only game in town because there were no decent competitors, their competitors thought they could come out with shit and people would just buy it, they were wrong. Things started to change when Apple came out with a decent competitor, OSX, and when decent competitors like Firefox and Chrome were launched.

I can't tell you how many eye rolls I've spent on board meetings where mentioning something that didn't come from Microsoft sent them scurrying in terror.

Yeah i'm sure you have.

The real innovations were happening elsewhere and it took 10 years before the frustration of being stuck in Microsoft world came to the surface.

No it took 10 years for competitors to actually make something worth changing to. Until then no competing product was any better, thus the effort to change resulted in no benefit. Take the MS-hating blinders off and see it for how it really was, only when good competition came along did change also come.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know nothing. Just another myopic slashdot asshole.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know nothing. Just another myopic slashdot asshole.

You're welcome to refute it, but of course you know you can't and you still want to believe in microsoft being responsible for all the ills of society, the fact is their competitors sucked and that's why they failed, nowadays their competitors are very good, which is why they succeed. I'm sorry for being an asshole and ruining your fantasy version of history. Keep believing that netscape et al. were fantastic and microsoft ruled the universe so nobody could ever use their competitors.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft was actively threatening OEMs who installed other OSs on PCs to develop and maintain their monopoly.

No they were threatening those who were getting deep discounts for being Microsoft partners, their other option was to be a customer and pay the normal OEM price and explore other revenue areas like Linux.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Divebus]

It's really hard to have an intelligent exchange just about anywhere, and you're becoming a poster child as to why.

Ever hear of "embrace, extend, extinguish"? Microsoft built in browser incompatibilities with an object tag for ActiveX to make sure Netscape and Opera performed poorly (Opera sued for that), MSN.com even served a different CSS to Opera visitors to make it look broken, for a while, you saw a blank screen on msn.com unless your user-agent string said MSIE, they extended and broke CSS favoring their own -ms- property extensions, they broke Java in browsers with J/Direct, they created Java development tools that stripped away all the cross platform intentions of Java (Sun sued for that), they planned to extinguish the HTML standard with their own free browser to "cut off Netscape's air supply" (Paul Maritz revealed this in a meeting with Intel), they extended and broke Kerberos to lock out other platforms from Windows 2000, they embraced and extended the AOL IM protocol to make AOL's own IM software stop working, they made a mess out of ISO-9660 with their Joliet extension (so you only see the 8.3 names in other platforms), they told Intel to withdraw VDI and threatened PC makers if they implemented it (look up Steven McGeady's testimony), Bill Gates told Andy Grove to shut down the Intel Architecture Labs driving CPU level Internet technologies without Microsoft's permission, Intel had to kill NSP, kill Java support, stop support for Netscape - all part of their illegal restrictive licensing agreements with OEMs to favor Microsoft and harm everything else, they signed up OEMs for a rebate on installing Windows on PCs in exchange for a fee they had to pay for any PC they sold without Windows, effectively making a PC without bundling Windows more expensive for the OEM to make (anti-competitive and illegal), Microsoft threatened Apple unless they abandoned the ability of QuickTime to play multimedia content on computers (they refused and Microsoft sabotaged QuickTime's functionality on Windows with misleading error messages and technical changes or bugs so that QuickTime software sometimes didn't work properly on Windows), they stuffed an ISO standards body to make OOXML (a compendium of Microsoft proprietary undefined digital glop) a "standard" which only they controlled (instead of the truly available ODF standard), Microsoft had fully developed FUD as a marketing strategy (announcing nonexistent products to head off something a competitor actually made or claiming competitive software will crash Windows), If you’ve bought a new PC lately, it probably came equipped with something called “Secure Boot” (UEFI), a feature which prevents you from running anything but Windows on the PC...

These people aren't very nice, relying on a mix of brilliant marketing, threats against OEMs (Microsoft thought they owned any PC right down to the metal), failings of competitors, vaporware and fraudulent illusions. Sure, Netscape had problems and so did Microsoft. They earned their success with their best office productivity software, but their biggest success came from bending everyone over and fucking them, including the customers. Good competition could have been here a lot sooner.

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really hard to have an intelligent exchange just about anywhere, and you're becoming a poster child as to why.

Your failure to address my points proves quite categorically that the lack of intelligence in this discussion is clearly on your side.

Microsoft built in browser incompatibilities

As did Netscape...the only reason you're hung up on the fact that Microsoft did that is because Netscape's product - specifically NS4 - was worse and ultimately failed.

they extended and broke CSS favoring their own -ms- property extensions

As did Netscape, then web developers used these extensions - there is absolutely no reason they had to other than the CSS standards body was horribly behind the times, so developers had to use vendor-specific implementations.

they broke Java in browsers with J/Direct

Wrong they provided access to Windows APIs through J/Direct, so if developers wanted to specifically target Windows features they could do so.

they planned to extinguish the HTML standard with their own free browser to "cut off Netscape's air supply" (Paul Maritz revealed this in a meeting with Intel)

of course, the HTML standards body was falling way behind progress, both MS and Netscape were diverging with their own implementations, they were both doing the same thing. this poor performance of the HTML standards body is what drove creation of proprietary web environments like Adobe Flash too, the extensions MS and Netscape created to the HTML standard were answering a demand from web developers that the standards body were not which is the reason why they were both create and extensively used.

they extended and broke Kerberos to lock out other platforms from Windows 2000

no they didn't, they implemented kerberos - which didn't break anything existing - and used one of the available fields for SIDs for access privilege data. it didn't break anything.

they embraced and extended the AOL IM protocol to make AOL's own IM software stop working

That doesn't follow, extending AOL's IM protocol in their own implementation does not stop AOL's IM software from working.

they made a mess out of ISO-9660 with their Joliet extension (so you only see the 8.3 names in other platforms)

Actually no, they created a non-proprietary standard extension to address the deficiencies in the file naming schemes of ISO 9660.

Bill Gates told Andy Grove to shut down the Intel Architecture Labs driving CPU level Internet technologies without Microsoft's permission, Intel had to kill NSP, kill Java support, stop support for Netscape

None of that ever happened, in other news of things CEOs said that never happened: Steve Jobs was going Thermonuclear War on Android.

they signed up OEMs for a rebate on installing Windows on PCs in exchange for a fee they had to pay for any PC they sold without Windows, effectively making a PC without bundling Windows more expensive for the OEM to make (anti-competitive and illegal)

Microsoft didn't sign up, the OEMs signed up to get discounts in exchange for exclusivity.

If you’ve bought a new PC lately, it probably came equipped with something called “Secure Boot” (UEFI), a feature which prevents you from running anything but Windows on the PC...

No, that's completely wrong. Secureboot has nothing to do with Windows, if you bought a PC with UEFI that is Windows 8 certified then it comes with the Microsoft key installed.

These people aren't very nice

You'll find businesses in general aren't very nice, if you look at the major players they are all guilty of similar indiscretions be they Oracle, Appl

Re:Queue the slashdot Nokia/MSFT hating.

[Anonymous Coward]

What an incredible pile of bullshit excuses, half of them completely false and the other half twisted in denial. You're right. Microsoft was SOOOOO benevolent and perfect in every way. A model citizen in the Corporate world. Just read any of the documentation I supplied and you'll see how ridiculous it is. They were convicted as thugs. Doesn't matter anymore since their ecosystem is burning down around them due to their arrogance. I won't discuss this anymore since providing quotes and documentation only makes you squeal harder.

Tax or Financial Engineering

[alexander_686]

I wonder if they are doing this for

Tax Reasons: In the U.S. Real Estate Investment Trusts have favorable tax treatment – which is why the owner of the building and the occupier of the building is almost never the same, or for

Financial Engineering reasons: a one time transaction to raise cash and is good window dressing for the financial statements. Better than taking out a mortgage, but it’s only a one time, stop gap measure.

Re:Tax or Financial Engineering

[roc97007]

3) Monetary reasons. They actually need the cash right now to stay in business. They're betting on a recovery and future sales covering the cost of money. (Speaking as having worked for a failing company that tried this. It probably helped them stay in business for a few more months.)

Re:Tax or Financial Engineering

[yoshi_mon]

1. 7 Digit UID, check.

2. Bashing non-conservative talking points, check.

3. Talking about the stock market as if it is not a rigged game for the rich, check.

Why is this post not at -1?

Re:Tax or Financial Engineering

[alexander_686]

Er – I am not a jaded socialist.

If Finland’s tax code allows REITs then this maneuver will create long term value for the company. (I dislike REITs because the REIT tax code distorts the real economy - which might give you a hint where I am on the political / economic spectrum).

If Nokia is doing this for some quick cash and for some window dressing to its balance sheet – that is something else. That would reek of short term desperation – which implies long term hardship.

Re:Tax or Financial Engineering

[Anonymous Coward]

In Hungary this is a sign of corruption. Government owned buildings sold below value to "friends", then rent back above the regular rates. Standard since the beginning of ages.

Re:Tax or Financial Engineering

[PolygamousRanchKid]

4) Protection from a hostile takeover. The first thing that corporate raiders look at, is what assets a distressed company has. If the stock market value of a company is less than its physical or intellectual property assets, you can by it, sell the assets, close up shop, and make a tidy profit.

Nokia has just made itself 170 million € less attractive to corporate raiders.

Re:Tax or Financial Engineering

[Retrieve Password]

Selling the family silver. Although compared to the original press reports, they only got half the asking price. - proof once more that selling when you're desparate often results in getting less than the asking price. 50% less in this case....

Re:Tax or Financial Engineering

[ultranova]

What kills me is I wasted the whole day trading

Stop doing that then. A get rich fast scheme is hardly worth your life.

A really sad demise

[Bruce Perens]

I have a Nokia n770 and n900, and they were capable systems. In some ways Android is only now reaching a similar capability. If Nokia could have been convinced to market them, Android might never have taken the market the way it did.

I was one of a series of consultants they did not listen to with regard to Open Sourcing Symbian and what was, and was not, still of value in Symbian at that late date. Much of what they really valued - like the Symbian kernel - wasn't really business-differentiating in the eyes of the customer and nobody wanted it any longer, but yet they spent Billions on it.

Their destiny is to become a patent troll or to have their assets bought by one. What a shame.

Re:A really sad demise

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have gone for Linux/Unix derivative in late 1990s instead of the obscure Symbian. I can tell you that there were working prototypes at that time.

Re:A really sad demise

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm not the average customer but the Symbian kernel is differentiating to me. Symbian phones are fast as hell and have battery life that Linux and BSD powered smartphones can only dream of.

Re:A really sad demise

[Anonymous Coward]

Their destiny is to become a patent troll or to have their assets bought by one. What a shame.

Wrong, Nokia's patents have real value. GSM is almost a Nokia-designed protocol. While LTE may not rely on Nokia patents as much, I'm pretty sure Nokia has some very high value patents there. If Elop allows it there will be big companies attempting to buy those patents. Apple, Broadcom and Google/Motorola all come to mind, Microsoft would be a front-runner, hopefully their Board of Directors forces Elop to consider offers from them.

Re:A really sad demise

[Bruce Perens]

Maybe I'm not the average customer but the Symbian kernel is differentiating to me. Symbian phones are fast as hell and have battery life that Linux and BSD powered smartphones can only dream of.

Maybe so, but would you have spent a king's ransom to make it run IPV6? I think they did.

Re:A really sad demise

[Bruce Perens]

I don't think we're contradicting each other, are we? Of the companies you've mentioned, I think Broadcom is the least litigious. They sued Qualcomm once.

Re:A really sad demise

[Dr_Barnowl]

It was an anecdote for a while that their MeeGo / Harmattan based N9 was outselling their entire Lumia line combined, despite Nokia doing it's best to bury the thing, by not selling it in such core markets as the USA, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc ... this may have been true of Q4 2011, although Nokia have released no real numbers on the N9.

Re:A really sad demise

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a good point. I would not, since none of the carriers in my country support IPV6, but of course that decision was not so simple for Nokia.

PS it's cool how you always reply to AC. Thanks for that :)

Re:A really sad demise

[Anonymous Coward]

Symbian supports IPv6? Most Symbians barely do IPv4 properly. Essentially, those phones are good @ most things - except internet.

I agree w/ the GP, just having Linux or a BSD doesn't guarantee that the phone would have taken off. Nokia might have done better staying with Symbian at large, and just adapting Meego/Plasma Active for their top end phones. Before they sold off Qt to Digia.

Re:A really sad demise

[Anonymous Coward]

They are indeed less litigious. They may not make it easy for folks to reverse engineer drivers for their communications stack (chips, etc), but they haven't sued anyone to my knowledge for doing it, unlike certain other companies.

of course they are.

[lister king of smeg]

Why of course they are selling the headquarters. Why would Microsoft need it when they already have a headquarters? All they just want the patents software(nokia maps) talent and factories. They already have all the bureaucracy and buildings they need.

Re:of course they are.

[roc97007]

Side note, does Microsoft actually need Nokia's factories or talent? Once Microsoft owns the IP, can't they simply close everything down and move the business to the US, and the manufacturing to China? If Microsoft is only concerned with (essentially) one product (the Windows 8 phone), why would they need Nokia's talent at all?

Side side note, I wonder if this will have an appreciable effect on the economy of Finland? (Probably not, but I don't have the numbers in front of me.)

Re:of course they are.

[lister king of smeg]

They probably don't "need it" but with the MS surface move Microsoft has made signals that they want a more apple like hardware operation, where they control hardware and software. Nokia has everything MS need aside for a phone and tablet show. Nokia had had dismal product lines recently but that because their CEO is trying to kill them so his former employer can buy up Nokia on the cheap. mind you much of thier products lines failing has been because they killed everything except windows phone but even there the hardware is descent quality and they have a record of building great phones before E(f)lop came along.

Re:of course they are.

[alexander_686]

Let me try to refine this question - Do you want to manufacture high quality phones or clone phones? I don’t know the answer.

Nokia is known for 1. Engineers who make really good hardware and 2. High quality manufacturing in context of supplying different models in different markets (think different languages, networking standards, supply chains, etc.).

Now, can Nokia charge a premium for it’s hardware over it’s rivals “beige box” android rivals? If the answer is yet then MSFT should keep Nokia intact. If not..

Re:of course they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cellphone RF design - antenna, layout, testing etc is not exactly copy & paste. They need very specialized engineers and technician teams to do what they do. There is also the need for the embedded side to write the low level drivers for all that.

You can't rely on the chip vendors e.g. Qualcomm etc to deliver a full reference design. Yours would like exactly like the others that do that.

Re:of course they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

Very good point; having worked in a phone manufacturer with great hardware engineers, our software process sucked (and I am a SW engineer). I see that some phone companies have amazing hardware but terrible software (Nokia, Ericsson in the old days) while Android is an amazing software but the hardware is lacking. Apple managed to hit a sweet spot in the combination of both, charging a premium for it. And I say this as an apple hater, I hate their walled garden, the restrictions, the "we know what is better for you" attitude

Re:of course they are.

[Darinbob]

Many Nokia factories are in other parts of Europe (or further) with cheaper labor rates. To be fair there was also some sense of being a larger EU/World player than just a Finnish brand. But some bad blood generated when they backed out of factory plans in Bochum Germany.

The Nokia talent is good though, better than MS talent. If MS wants to make a good phone then there is no better place to look for talent; unless they merely want an inexpensive phone. However phones these days aren't really much in the way of phones anymore, they're more about being tiny computers with a cheap phone tacked on and a lot of customers don't really care about high quality phone calls, so I suspect MS won't want good phone engineers. MS certainly doesn't want all the Nokia talent that dealt with back end networking, MS won't be selling hardware to carriers.

And it's just the headquarters. There are(were) many buildings, not just in Finland but around the world (including a new one in Silicon Valley that was quite probably a mistake). However the headquarters are very nice. It's in a prime location overlooking the bay, the building is very nice looking and stands out with glass everywhere, great access to freeways and busses, etc. You can send execs there to reward them in summer, or to punish them in winter.

Re:of course they are.

[roc97007]

> Let me try to refine this question - Do you want to manufacture high quality phones or clone phones? I don’t know the answer.

In the context of this question, you want to manufacture Windows 8 phones, and *only* Windows 8 phones. Whether that falls into either above category is a matter of opinion.

> Nokia is known for 1. Engineers who make really good hardware and 2. High quality manufacturing in context of supplying different models in different markets (think different languages, networking standards, supply chains, etc.).

...but the Windows 8 phone is already designed, and surely it can be manufactured cheaper in China?

> Now, can Nokia charge a premium for it’s hardware over it’s rivals “beige box” android rivals? If the answer is yet then MSFT should keep Nokia intact. If not..

I think the question boils down to, what value to Microsoft is Nokia after they're bought out? Microsoft's business model is to charge a premium for their *software*. The hardware is peripheral. Microsoft has absolutely no interest in any hardware Nokia makes that isn't running Windows. So all that engineering and manufacturing pertaining to feature phones is not interesting to Microsoft. What's left? The manufacturing and IP of the Windows 8 Phone. (Windows 7 phone being a dead product and everyone knows it.) Manufacturing can easily be shipped offshore, (everyone else is doing that; the process is known) and the only thing left is the engineering crew specific to the Windows 8 phone. Then the question becomes, do you keep a skeleton crew employed in Finland to design the next iteration of the phone, or do you just pull all that back to Redmond? I think that question answers itself.

In summary, the larger question is not, what value does Nokia's manufacturing and engineering and current (non-MS) product line have to Nokia, it's what value does all that have to Microsoft. I'm thinking, not much.

Re:of course they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

Side note, does Microsoft actually need Nokia's factories or talent? Once Microsoft owns the IP, can't they simply close everything down and move the business to the US, and the manufacturing to China? If Microsoft is only concerned with (essentially) one product (the Windows 8 phone), why would they need Nokia's talent at all?

Side side note, I wonder if this will have an appreciable effect on the economy of Finland? (Probably not, but I don't have the numbers in front of me.)

I think that's already happening. I don't think Finland depend on any one company. That's why all the Scandinavian countries are AAA+ stable rated countries.
They are socialism done right.

However the global backwater autocracy might try to make it look otherwise by eventually finding a way to bankrupt their economies too.

Re:of course they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

Side side note, I wonder if this will have an appreciable effect on the economy of Finland?

YES. I don't remember the facts but I vaguely remember something about it in some internet new item. Google it cuz I'm lazy. Finland's economy is expected to lag behind Europe's in part because of the sabotage of Nokia.

Re:of course they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia's biggest business is not Windows phones - they are only the most visible here in the West (US/Europe). Far and away, most revenues (and profits) are from the series 40 phones that sell in the billions all over the emerging markets (Asia, Africa, South America). Unfortunately, that is a very competitive market these days, especially with low cost android phones on the scene. So, you could say that Google is NOT Nokia's friend. MS may not be either, but it is contributing to the company's income.

Re:of course they are.

[symbolset]

I guess it depends on many factors. Finnish retirement funds owned many hundreds of millions of shares of Nokia. In the last five years the value of that many shares has dropped by about 3.4 billion dollars. Many Finns also invested in the company, a point of national pride. The value of Nokia has fallen by about $100B in the last five years. There are only about 5 million people in Finland.

Re:of course they are.

[roc97007]

Ooh. Well done, Microsoft. I wonder if they had some investments on the exchange rate markets.

Re:of course they are.

[roc97007]

I understand, but if Microsoft acquires them, that will all by necessity go away.

Re:of course they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

Many seem to mix up the Microsoft/Nokia association forgetting that is only unidirectional. Same way as "Car needs tires". And here Nokia produces the same model of tires with small differences in look & feel.

Car tires really don't "need" the cars. Their existence is totally dependent on the existence of cars.

Re:of course they are.

[TheLink]

You also have to ask how much of Nokia's talent is still working for Nokia.

Re:of course they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

If Nokia closes tomorrow, it'll have little to none effect on Finnish economy - the damage already happened and around 10 000 ppl got fired and subcontract companies have been run on the ground months ago. Not that it'll have very long-time effect anyway - skilled people won't have problem finding work, especially at software side. Many ex-Nokia employees have formed small companies which do fine, some bigger ones (Jolla). Factory workers at Salo are probably in the shittiest situation, but we'll survive. At least it has been good lesson to learn never to put your bets in one big company saving your economy...

Re:of course they are.

[Anonymous Coward]

Finland isn't Scandinavian, fucktard.

Google sells Android for less than free ...

[Cassini2]

Microsoft charged money for their software, and Nokia is history.

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ...

[Swampash]

Seen how much money Microsoft is making out of Android?

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ...

[Threni]

Not sure - nobody's being straight with their figures.

I do know that nokia have a good reputation for hardware, and that if they sold quality android phones they'd quickly be up there with Samsung and HTC. People have heard of them. 2 year ago, *noone* had heard of HTC. If nokia aren't careful, nobody will remember them in 2 years time.

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet no one but Samsung and Google are making any actual profits off Android.

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ...

[Flipao]

Seen how much money Microsoft is making out of Android?

More than they make from Windows Phone.

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah! Another ill-informed call to cross the river into the promise land of Android. And don't get me wrong, Android is great for mobile devices and tablets and such but the fact of the matter is that for every vendor making money off of Android at least a dozen have come and failed. The success in question has less to do with Android than it has to do with a popular apps base. How do you think Apple keeps going in the face of the competition and the fury of fanbois?
 
By your own metric iOS is the best mobile OS out there as 100% of those making legitimate iOS devices are making a handsome profit from it.
 
Hell, a larger portion of vendors (by percentage) of Win8 RT and Win8 phone makers may make a profit than those who adopted Android.

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ...

[viperidaenz]

HTC have been making smartphones and PDA's for 10 years. Back then most of them were rebranded though. I was using HTC phones rebranded as i-mate around 8 years ago.

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ...

[Threni]

Yeah, rebranded, and/or not used by regular people. Like I say, no-one had heard of them, and they just came out of nowhere, took the stage, and then faded as Samsung's star ascended.

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seen how much money Microsoft is making out of Android?

More than they make from Windows Phone.

Google makes more from iOS than they do from Android.
and Apple basically just prints money

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft sold WP7 for less than free: they gave a huge cash infusion to Nokia to convince them to use their OS.

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ...

[symbolset]

Nokia promised to deliver their Symbian customers into the Windows Phone camp. They drove them all away instead. Now that they are out of Symbian users they are about to be reminded of the fine print.

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ...

[cheesybagel]

A lot of business types used them here back then. It was one of the few good alternatives if you wanted a personal computing device of that type. Most of the PDAs back then had no phone capability.

Re:Google sells Android for less than free ...

[cheesybagel]

Google makes more from iOS than they do from Android.

That's funny. Last time I upgraded iOS it asked me to switch search engines to Yahoo and I clicked the wrong button. Now I can't figure out how to switch back to Google. Hmmm... time to google it.

Why a smart phone manufacturer?

[dubbreak]

There is still a big feature phone market out there. One option would be cutting back everything but feature phones and be profitable in that market. From what I remember Nokia made some rock solid feature phones.

Re:Why a smart phone manufacturer?

[s73v3r]

I would highly doubt that market is anywhere near as profitable as the smartphone market was.

Re:Why a smart phone manufacturer?

[LordLucless]

But it's going to be a diminishing market. The majority of phones seem to be offered on a plan basis in Western countries, so even phones which would be prohibitively expensive up front are available to people who would otherwise get feature phones.

The only people I know with feature phones are people who explicitly do not want a smart phone (generally, but not always, the older generation). For most people, the cost difference between a plan with a feature phone, and a plan with a smart phone is marginal. I guess developing countries might be more interested in feature phones, but then again, I'd imagine they'd be in less of a hurry to continually upgrade than their developed counterparts, resulting in lower turnover for Nokia.

It used to be that feature phones were the default, with smart phones an expensive niche, but now, feature phones are really becoming the niche.

Re:Why a smart phone manufacturer?

[viperidaenz]

Feature phone market is down in the dirt. I can go to a shop and buy a feature phone for $29 with $20 credit on a prepay plan with no contract and the phone isn't even carrier locked. Android smartphones start at under $100. (all prices in NZD)

Re:Why a smart phone manufacturer?

[master5o1]

Cancelling troll mod because phone moderation is a bad idea.

Re:Why a smart phone manufacturer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but there may be a reverse in this trend, as AT&T and Verizon are now swapping to data-only plans (everything is now data!), and increasing their prices on top of that. $80 per month minimum price, for 300 MB of data (AT&T), now watch many people who had smart phones previously now ditch them because even the basic plan is too much. I believe it was Verizon who was looking at a $1 per MB overage charge (billed in increments of 1MB, even if you were only 1 bit over), up to $25, and then charging you full price for another data block on top of that.

Oh, and these plans supposedly allow you (force you) to connect all of your mobile devices to the same account....great, so I sign up for this, and say my wife uses the entire allotment watching some stupid Gangnam-Style video on Youtube on her tablet...now I'm fucked on all our devices for the month (you guessed it, they don't allow you to restrict allotments per device any longer).

They need to sell Finland

[Diamonddavej]

Finland's GDP was US$189.4 billion in 2010 v's Apple's revenue of US$156.508 billion in 2012. Hard to compete when you rival's revenue exceeds your own countries' GPD.

Re:They need to sell Finland

[alexander_686]

GDP is more akin to profit then to revenue. Apple's net profit was 47b in 2012, or about 1/4 of Finland. We should compare apples to Apple.

Re:They need to sell Finland

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and no. Neither is quite valid.

Re:They need to sell Finland

[viperidaenz]

Nokia's 2011 revenue was US$50b. Samsung Electronics was US$150b, which also includes all their TV's LCD panels, DRAM, Flash, Hard drives, Cameras, batteries and other appliances. They're beating Apple in the smartphone market.

Re:They need to sell Finland

[alexander_686]

Maybe for phones – but smartphones are the future – and it does not look pretty for Nokia.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/09/daily-chart-6

Re:They need to sell Finland

[Local ID10T]

GDP is more akin to profit then to revenue. Apple's net profit was 47b in 2012, or about 1/4 of Finland. We should compare apples to Apple.

False.

Whichever method you use for calculating GDP, it is measuring economic activity -thus revenue, not profit.

• Production method -market value of all final goods and services calculated during 1 year,
• Income method -sum total of incomes of individuals living in a country during 1 year,
• Expenditure method - all expenditure incurred by individuals during 1 year.

Simply put: "[GDP] is akin to ignoring a company's balance sheet, and judging it solely on the basis of its income statement." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product

Re:They need to sell Finland

[alexander_686]

I am going to disagree with you.

Pick apart the wiki article you posted and you will see things like:
          Production approach: Net Value Added = Gross Value of output – Value of Intermediate Consumption. (where Gross value of output is revenue) or
          Income approach: .Corporate profits
Etc.

Here is an example.

In country Y
Manufacture A has revenue of 45b and profits of 5b.
Middle Man B distributes company’s A product. It has revues of 50b and profits of 5b.

In country Z
Integrated company C produces and distributes 50b of product and has 10b of profits.

Question – Is countries Y GDP twice as big as country Z. No – because you nailed it on the head when you referred to real “economic activity”.

There are differences between corporate and GDP accounting. Investing is assets is a cost to companies reducing profits (short term, accounting wise). For GDP it is added in. But it is still more akin to prfoits then revenue.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/06/28/gdp-for-a-country-is-not-the-same-thing-as-turnover-for-a-business/

Makes you wonder...

[Sponge Bath]

Industry titan hits tough times and sells HQ. Apple is doing well now, but you have to wonder if we might see the new "mothership" on the block at some point.

Re:Makes you wonder...

[inglorion_on_the_net]

The thing is, Apple went through hard times and managed to turn things around. People were predicting they would go out of business for years, then came iTunes, OS X, the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad, all of which have been resounding successes, propelling Apple to previously unthinkable heights.

Nokia actually has a similar story. It's an old company, and they have been in many businesses that they have since abandoned for more profitable ones. The question is: Will they be able to do it again?

As far as I know, Apple did well under Jobs, then declined after Jobs was gone, brought back Jobs, and became successful again. Nokia apparently tried the "change the leader" approach, and the new leader certainly made large changes to the company. So far, it doesn't seem to be working out very well. Maybe it needs more time, or maybe it needs a different strategy.

Re:Makes you wonder...

[MachineShedFred]

Part of the decline of Apple during the mid-80s was due to the incredibly inept management that Apple used after Jobs left, but Jobs wasn't exactly instilling the same values at Apple back then that he did in his second tenure.

It was Apple's arrogance that caused the hardships of the 90s, and their recognition of that arrogance and the purging of all the busywork ridiculous money-bleeding projects, as well as a good amount of luck and a nice fat settlement of what could have been a billion dollar lawsuit over QuickTime that saved Apple.

Remember OpenDoc? QuickDraw 3D? Mac clones? CyberDog? eWorld? The multiple attempts at a new OS (Copeland, Rhapsody, Taligent, etc.) before they just went and bought OpenStep?

All bad projects that wasted talent and money in the mid-90s at Apple, which were summarily executed.

"The sale is another step towards reducing costs"

[Anonymous Coward]

You do not reduce costs by leasing more. You increase costs in return for cash now. The only possible way this will reduce costs is if they get rid of all the Nokia Helsinki staff. Someone who knows needs to report whoever it was on the Nokia board who sold the company out.

"concentrating on its core business" - the only way that Nokia will concentrate on it's core business is by ditching the loss making, market share eating smartphone division. Rumor has it that Nokia has agreed to lock its self out of Android, which means it has no way back into the market.

This is yet more press release bullshit from a bunch of idiots killing a once great company.

not the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to remember a comany called SGI that went into the real-estate biz to subsidize themselves... how did that work out for them?

Re:not the first time

[MrEricSir]

Worked out great for Google!

Re:not the first time

[stox]

Google got a nice campus out of it.

How long before

[stox]

they put Navteq up for sale?

Re:How long before

[MachineShedFred]

How much money do you think Apple would pay for it, considering the spotlight shown on their rather mediocre maps app?

Nothing to do with perhaps a Memo

[tuppe666]

This is SLASHDOT. We are BIAS.

Its not bias of slashdot!? that has made Microsoft Windows Phone and that Nokia Strategy as popular Marmite covered spiders. Nokia twinning themselves *exclusively* with an OS that late; with less features and incompatible with its predecessors, with no viable upgrade path, with proprietary software...on hardware made in china; with less features than its predecessors or the competition at the cost to real peoples jobs, its market value, revenues; market share; brand value....only for it being replace with the latest suitor HTC [with the pattern repeated as Microsoft become their own OEM]. Has become a patent troll with Microsoft...while devaluing those patents to anyone who would have bought them.

I'm just barely touching the surface of what is perhaps a decline of company on an unrepresented scale. I find it insulting to an nth degree that anyone would try to pass anything, anyone saying anything against this is, as emotional, although I suspect the thousands of newly unemployed probably aren't loving them right now.

Re:Nothing to do with perhaps a Memo

[Divebus]

Hehe... You said "surface"

Re:Nothing to do with perhaps a Memo

[MachineShedFred]

At least when IBM entered it's decline in the mid-80s and early 90s, it was smart enough to divest losing businesses (PC business, though Lenovo is making a go of it now) and rely on proven revenue where they make some of the best stuff on the market: servers and services.

Microsoft only has software, and it's dwindled to the Windows products, Office, and Exchange. Everything else is a loser, and the lack of innovation is starting to show cracks in the remaining three.

The Microsoft and the Nokia

[DrJimbo]

A Microsoft asked a Nokia to carry him across a river. The Nokia refused because it was afraid of getting stung by the Microsoft. But the clever Microsoft argued that if it stings the Nokia then they would both drown. So the Nokia agrees and carries the Microsoft into the river. Halfway across the Microsoft stings the Nokia dooming them both. In its dying breath the Nokia asks the Microsoft why it did such a thing. The Microsoft replies "it is my nature".

Re:The Microsoft and the Nokia

[Anonymous Coward]

A star trek voyager fan!

Re:The Microsoft and the Nokia

[Anonymous Coward]

actually tis a fable from Aesop.

Re:The Microsoft and the Nokia

[Anonymous Coward]

A Microsoft asked a Nokia to carry him across a river. The Nokia
refused because it was afraid of getting stung by the Microsoft.
But the clever Microsoft argued that if it stings the Nokia then
they would both drown. So the Nokia agrees and carries the
Microsoft into the river. Halfway across the Microsoft stings
the Nokia dooming them both. In its dying breath the Nokia asks
the Microsoft why it did such a thing.

The Microsoft looks to HTC and Samsung as the Nokia sank. Grinning, it reaches for Nokia's patents as it goes under, whispering, "You see, Nokia, I can swim."

Re:The Microsoft and the Nokia

[Anonymous Coward]

actually tis a fable from Aesop.

Nope. Wrong again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

Re:The Microsoft and the Nokia

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, it is a fable from aesop :)
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_aesop_farmer_snake.htm

Re:"The sale is another step towards reducing cost

[roc97007]

It "reduces costs" on the VERY short term, as you get an influx of cash and then essentially have to pay it back plus the holding company's profit margin. A desperate company will try this at some point, hoping against hope that this allows them to stay in business long enough to turn it around.

Can't blame them

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would anyone ever want to have a headquarter in Ass-poo?

Re:"The sale is another step towards reducing cost

[roc97007]

...it's a little like outsourcing. Cost savings (on paper) is largely smoke and mirrors, as the cost savings from cheaper manpower must be balanced against the cost of the outsource company's profit margin, and the increased cost of doing business due to incompetent staff.

I'm sorry, did I say that out loud?

Nobody knows?

[tuppe666]

Seen how much money Microsoft is making out of Android?

What money!? There is loads of nominal amounts listed around the internet, Thinks hinted at of what has happened behind closed doors. We know a lot of deals have been struck we just can only speculate at what they are. The reality is I suspect very little actual money has changed hands.

Stick a fork in this turkey....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's DONE! WP8 isn't going to save the company...sales figures, while impressive for WP (quadrupling of sales), is STILL not going to amount to much more than 4 or 5% of the total market share, and that is FAR from being enough to save WP or Nokia. I won't shed a tear...the Nokia of today is NOT the Nokia we all knew and loved, they haven't been since Elop took the helm. Sorry fanboys and girls, it's time to say your goodbyes now.

They gave it away

[tuppe666]

There is still a big feature phone market out there.

Elop destroyed it by saying they were crap. In fact the OS set to replace symbian on these featurephones, the linux based "Meltemi" was cancelled make of that what you will. Samsung [featurephones]...and well "Value Android" are replacing these. I think you will be astonished at how powerful these value androids are...Check out the Huawei Ascend G330 look at the specs http://www.gsmarena.com/huawei_ascend_g330-4966.php.

Re:They gave it away

[Anonymous Coward]

Will it stay charged for 2 weeks while sitting on my desk or in my pocket like my $50.00 five year old cell phone does? (on a $100 per year plan) (well, truthfully, I did replace the battery once -- but I got the battery for free from another phone given to me, but even then the old battery was lasting over a week)... LG150 -- I think it has a recall notice but it works so I didn't bother changing it for a 160 a few years back.

Is Apple doing well

[tuppe666]

Apple is doing well now

Apple had had billions wiped off its value; Its market share is declining; The launch quarter figures for its most profitable product the iphone, and its new product the iPad is already being overtaken by Android...again. There last product launch the mini, was disappointing.

...but this is all off topic. Apple has different problems..and is a long way from being in any immediate trouble. Unlike Nokia which Microsoft have destroyed in months.

Why hire M$ moles in the first place ?

[Taco Cowboy]

I do not own any Nokia shares - and I thank the man upstairs for granting me the wisdom for keeping myself away from Nokia as far as I can.

Back to the main stuff ---

I still do not understand the rationale of Nokia's BoD hiring a M$ mole to run Nokia.

What's so special of that M$ mole in the first place?

I mean, look at Nokia now, versus the Nokia before that M$ mole took over.

Nokia was in a decline - yes, a decline, before the M$ mole was hired.

After that mole took over, Nokia took a nose dive.

No longer a decline, but a nosedive.

For how many quarters already Nokia has posted a loss?

Because of that M$ mole, Nokia has run out of cash - and now, even its HQ building has to be sold to raise some.

Man ...

As I have said - I just do.not.understand !!

Re:Why hire M$ moles in the first place ?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why hire M$ moles in the first place?

Google for "JASSM-158" and you will understand the connection.

The only thing Finland achieved by trading Nokia's head on a plate for a bunch of US-made stealth cruise missiles is that Russia is now targeting them with dozens of highly mobile and manouverable "Iskander" theatre-range ballistic missiles. (That same strike weapon system that totalled the georgian war effort 2 years ago.)

Re:Why hire M$ moles in the first place ?

[hairyfeet]

It wasn't a "M$ Mole" that fucked Nokia, it was 5 long years of having its thumb up its ass and no direction that killed Nokia.

I mean look at the situation elop had handed to him, they had not one, not two, but THREE different OSes, all of them fighting internally for resources, none of them were up to the task of taking Android and iOS head on, the only thing they had in their favor was dumbphones and anybody with eyes could see dumbphones are going the way of the 8 track. They didn't have the money to compete with HP for WebOS, Apple sure as fuck isn't gonna license them iOS, the MeeGo team was quoted as saying it would "be a year to a year and a half" before it was able to match iOS and Android and of course neither would be standing still during that year and a half, and with Android they would be an also-ran because frankly Samsung and HTC just do Android better than anybody else.

So I honestly don't see what call everyone think Elop should have done, did you want him to get the company curbstomped by putting out a half baked MeeGo? Jump into the race to the bottom that is Android? FYI look at the numbers, Samsung is making a profit but barely, nobody else is looking good right now thanks to all the competition and cheap prices, so what? What could he have done? I mean we all know the best move would have been to get WebOS but that was off the table by the time he got there, so their choices were 1.-Get slaughtered for a year and a half and hope the MeeGo team could pull a miracle out their ass, or 2.- Take a finished product from MSFT and have them foot the bill for advertising it as well.

Hindsight is always 20/20 folks, and if he would have chosen MeeGo or Android they'd be just as fucked as they are now, Android prices are in a freefall and MeeGo simply wasn't done. So he made a call, a call that didn't pan out but frankly other than closing the doors and giving the money back to the stockholders i don't know what other call the guy could have made. maybe if they would have brought somebody in 5 years earlier, maybe if they wouldn't have let their resources get so fragmented, maybe things would have come out differently. But Elop didn't have a time machine, he had to work with what he had which by that point was a sinking ship.

Re:Why hire M$ moles in the first place ?

[LavouraArcaica]

To me, the whole problem is that Elop had 3 different OSes (fighting internally for resources) and then he though to put all 3 OSes in the garbage and take another one. Nokia could improve Symbian (big costs to improve the system itself, small costs in changing mindsharing) OR improve Meego (not so big costs improving the system, bigger costs creating another software ecosystem and gaining mindshre). But no! Let's try another complete new thing. something that don't have mindshare, don't have software ecosystem and it's not even ready yet! Looks like a fantastic idea! Nokia, in the bottom line, though they could stop de time for 3 years and, after this time, enter the market again.

Re:Why hire M$ moles in the first place ?

[bmcage]

Samsung making barely profits?? http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/25/samsung-q3-earnings/

Samsung has more than 3 OS for their phones. It does not seem to hurt them. A company like Nokia could bet on several horses in 2009 without worries, as long as management had clear goals and niches for each OS. Making a Nokia build with Android OS would sell.

Re:Why hire M$ moles in the first place ?

[21mhz]

Nokia could improve Symbian (big costs to improve the system itself, small costs in changing mindsharing) OR improve Meego (not so big costs improving the system, bigger costs creating another software ecosystem and gaining mindshre).

But no! Let's try another complete new thing. something that don't have mindshare, don't have software ecosystem and it's not even ready yet!

Windows Phone 7.5 was basically ready by the time they put out first phones with it. MeeGo... don't get me started, I worked on it. Nokia has Microsoft's shoulder now to drive the software ecosystem; alone, it did not stand a chance. The competencies simply weren't there in sufficient strength, and it would take a lot of time and pain to build them. Moreover, there was a lot of "anti-competency" in the company, all the dead weight accrued during the Symbian years.

Re:Why hire M$ moles in the first place ?

[exomondo]

Nokia could improve Symbian (big costs to improve the system itself, small costs in changing mindsharing)

The reality is Symbian was never going to be able to compete with iOS and Android, the app selection would never get close thanks to the development tools, SDK and APIs making it painful to develop for.

improve Meego (not so big costs improving the system, bigger costs creating another software ecosystem and gaining mindshre).

They spent years on that project, then the merge with Moblin and got absolutely nowhere.

But no! Let's try another complete new thing. something that don't have mindshare, don't have software ecosystem and it's not even ready yet!

Well actually it was ready by the time Nokia were ready, and wrt mindshare and the software ecosystem they stood a far better chance with someone like Microsoft pushing those as well than they would going it alone. Sure they could have gone with Android and maybe even struck some kind of deal to be the sole Nexus partner or something (since this was before the Motorola Mobility deal), maybe that would have worked out for them. Or perhaps they could have taken on WebOS, though that probably wouldn't have been much different from continuing with MeeGo.

Re:Why hire M$ moles in the first place ?

[hairyfeet]

Look at the post below you friend, even those that worked on the MeeGo team said it wasn't even alpha quality, no way in hell it could compete with iOS 3 and Android 2 which were out when Elop took the reins. And Symbian? Really? That would be like saying if you threw enough money at PalmOS 1 (the old 3.1 looking PalmOS Garnet) that you could have a product that could compete with android and iOS. I'm sorry but Symbian was a low rent OS that was designed for low resource dumbphones, it would have had to have had the entire graphical and networking stacks trashed and started over, no way in hell he could have got that out the door in less than 6 months. And the third OS was a JavaSE based mess that they had been working on for ages and was basically a pig, so it would have been pointless to try to save it.

So I'm sorry but you can't bring a guy in when the bow is already under and the ship is filling with water fast and expect him to magically raise the ship with nothing but what he has on hand. I urge you to go read the blogs of the MeeGo devs from that period, this isn't a secret ya know, even they said a year to a year and a half MINIMUM to get up to the level of iOS 2 because there was serious issues both with memory leaks and with the networking stack sucking power. Nobody is gonna buy a phone that crashes every couple of hours because it runs out of memory or you have to plug in every time you want to get on the web.

At the end of the day what you had was a horribly fragmented company without a single product that could be sold in the high end space, not one. So his choices were either jump into the meat grinder that was Android ( and even then the market was flooded with cheap smartphones running Android, anybody with eyes could see that market was saturated and 90% of the customers were buying strictly on price, and Nokia never was competitive in the "el cheapo" markets like Motorola) or take WinPhone and let MSFT foot the bill for the advertising they couldn't afford.

So I don't see how you think he had another call, MeeGo wasn't even in beta and you know you can not just magically throw more devs on a project and make it come out quicker, and between all the infighting and internal politics all three OSes were WAY behind and had serious issues. In a way its exactly what Apple found themselves in in the late 90s with the pink and blue teams, only there was no NeXT to buy to save their behind because HP was willing to pay Dr Insaneo prices for WebOS...which they promptly sat on as they didn't know WTF to do with it, so that only left them 2 options, get curbstomped in the Android mosh pit, or let MSFT bring in a team of engineers (on their dime no less) as well as pay the ad budgets and practically give them the OS for nothing.

But if they would have hired somebody 5 years earlier I think your plan would have had merit, they could have EOLed Symbian, tossed the JavaSE based, and sunk the resources into MeeGo and had a serious competitor. But that was then, this is now, and they virtually ZERO money coming from smartphones, the bottom was falling out of dumbphones which all could see were doomed anyway (hell Walmart now sells $50 Android phones with their El Cheapo prepaid plans, no way higher priced Nokia hardware could compete with THOSE prices) so frankly no matter what you think of Elop I would state that being put in the big chair we all would have made the same call, not like they had time to just start over what with Android and iPhones exploding.

Re:Why hire M$ moles in the first place ?

[hairyfeet]

Since you worked on MeeGo would you PLEASE point out it wasn't ready and had serious issues next time the whole "The big bad M$ came and killed poor little MeeGo!" myth comes around again?

Please speak up, I'm sure as an insider you could shed a LOT of light and bust this myth once and for all, its not like MeeGo was this perfect mobile OS just sitting there ready to ship but the "evil M$ Mole" killed it, it simply wasn't up to the task of taking android and iOS on and they didn't have the right people there capable of bringing it up to speed in time.

Re:Why hire M$ moles in the first place ?

[21mhz]

I'm trying every time this comes up, but it's a whack-a-mole (pun intended).

Re:Why hire M$ moles in the first place ?

[21mhz]

I mean, look at Nokia now, versus the Nokia before that M$ mole took over.

Let's follow your advice and actually look at it.
Nokia was in decline, now its stock is rising.
Nokia hadn't had a competitive device in the smartphone segment in a while. Now it's got several and announces yet more.

Pray tell, what nosedive are you talking about?

For how many quarters already Nokia has posted a loss?

This question sounds stupid, considering the magnitude of problems Nokia got themselves into over many years.

sell the HQ

[rossdee]

Congress could sell the Capitol building to aid in reducing the deficit

Re:sell the HQ

[PolygamousRanchKid]

The Capitol building is OK. It just needs to be fumigated.

Apple irrelevant; Android got swag

[tuppe666]

the fact of the matter is that for every vendor making money off of Android at least a dozen have come and failed.

Show me these facts. The irony in reference to this post is Asus and Sony are now profitable since they dropped Windows. Samsung I believe is making out like gangbusters. Lenovo; ZTE; Huawei doing great. Stop spreading this ill informed garbage.

...oh you mean HTC which is STILL profitable, and makes...you guessed it windows phones.

Oh your making a point about your beloved Apple making lots of profits...I'm afraid Apples pursuit of profits is already hurting Apples market share, which didn't work out well last time...they became Microsofts Bitch. They are already irrelevant.

Re:Apple irrelevant; Android got swag

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony in reference to this post is Asus and Sony are now profitable since they dropped Windows.

Since when did either Sony (notice all the laptops with Windows 8 on them) or Asus (note the "ASUS recommends Windows 8" line). So what exactly is supposed to be ironic when both are still selling Windows machines? Maybe you meant "Windows Phone"? But then again, when did either of them sell Windows phones?

Samsung I believe is making out like gangbusters

Yes, Samsung would be the one vendor they were referring to.

ZTE

O really? Steep profits drop adds to ZTE woes .

Huawei doing great.

Huaweii profits dropped 22%. Yeah sounds like they are doing great what with their profits dropping off at huge rates.

Stop spreading this ill informed garbage.

Says the guy spreading the ill-informed garbage.

...oh you mean HTC which is STILL profitable, and makes...you guessed it windows phones.

HTC Profit Falls 79% Amid Competition. Oh and HTC makes more Android phone models than Windows phones for quite some time now.

Oh your making a point about your beloved Apple making lots of profits...I'm afraid Apples pursuit of profits is already hurting Apples market share, which didn't work out well last time...they became Microsofts Bitch. They are already irrelevant.

Yes, their market share has gone down because the market has expanded with tons of shitty Android phones flooding the market not because they are selling less phones and tablets.

California: ahead of the curve

[slew]

California was going to try to sell and lease-back a few buildings, but they bailed out before they did the deed...

Android is all swag

[tuppe666]

Google makes more from iOS than they do from Android.
and Apple basically just prints money

I bet you can't show me current figures to support your claim. Ignoring the indirect benefits of not having another vendor dominate the smart-phone market, when you want make money from advertising on mobile, or the intangible benefits it brings like heavily promoting its brands Google; Chrome; Android; Nexus; Gmail; Play; Wallet; Google+ etc. I suspect the direct benefit from taking a cut from every sale on play as it continues to be launched; inproved; expanded.

As for Apple printing money...absolutely, but as the tablet; phone market continue to mature its pursuit of profit over marketshare. Is looking increasingly shaky, but hey they learnt last time they did this right....

Re:Android is all swag

[MisterSquid]

As for Apple printing money...absolutely, but as the tablet; phone market continue to mature its pursuit of profit over marketshare. Is looking increasingly shaky, but hey they learnt last time they did this right....

I don't understand all the people who measure and forecast success according to marketshare. Minority platforms not only can be healthy, they also can outperform majority platforms.

For one obvious example, Apple has about 10% marketshare for computers and low single-digit percentage in the installed base. Yet, Apple has fully dominated the consumer computer industry in terms of profit and growth. Apple does better than every single one of its competitors in consumer computing (selling new computers) because marketshare is not a factor now that the Internet and open standards exist.

This is even more true with mobile computing.

Who cares how many Android devices exist in relation to iOS devices? Consumers don't because what they mostly do is connect to the Internet with their smartphones, where they watch video, comb Facebook, check email, send texts, and post Tweets.

Why does anyone even talk about smartphone OS marketshare as if it matters?

Re:Android is all swag

[tuppe666]

Why does anyone even talk about smartphone OS marketshare as if it matters?

Because it matters. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-202143.html.

Re:Android is all swag

[Swampash]

I bet you can't show me current figures to support your claim.

Eric Schmidt's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Hearing, August last year. He admitted that two thirds of Google's revenue from mobile comes from Apple devices.

Re:"The sale is another step towards reducinCostco

[jbengt]

There are some advantages to leasing rather than owning, though. Owning is not free, and can be more expensive than leasing Leasing can give more agility, you can (usually) grow and shrink more easily, being saddled wit a 5-year lease or so, rather than a 30-year mortgaqge. Leasing avoids some risk if you sign a favorable lease, you don't have to worry about cost fluctuations, paying for unexpected repairs, or whether the lease pays for the cost of operating. You don't have to become an expert in constructing and operating buildings, you don't need staff for all that. If you're actually profitable, you can make money doing what your company does, and hopefully make a better return on investment than you can running the building. It's classic capitalism, do what you do efficiently and trade (using money) for what others are good at. Though, none of that means it is necessarily wise in this case, when Nokia already has the building, and seems to only be using the money to invest in losing more money.

Re:"The sale is another step towards reducinCostco

[roc97007]

Some good points, but I've yet to see an instance where a company sold their buildings to a holding company so that they could grow or shrink or move elsewhere more efficiently. I've only ever seen it as a short term cash grab.

Even if you owned the buildings, you (as a company) probably did not build them, nor do you necessarily have to have a crew to maintain them. All that can be contracted out. Moreover, you can sell a building with a 30 year mortgage and still recover some equity, whereas getting out early from a 5 year lease may be more costly.

Why O Why o Why ELOP???

[Anonymous Coward]

At what point are the board going to act and boot out Elop? Look at it:

Every single plank of his approach has failed, he took a company with the leading market share, that just needed a refresh of its products, and has decimated them. WHY???

It's not like he is somehow disconnected to this mess, he did the biggest chunks of damage when he announced that their Symbian was dead, even as he announced it would continue to sell! Staggering incompetence. He chose a platform that had no hope and it flopped, (WP7), he's got a refresh of it that also has no hope (WP7.8), yet another platform that also has no hope WP8.

Seriously? At what point are the board going to show some leadership and eject him??

Re:Why O Why o Why ELOP???

[Dr_Barnowl]

The only thing they can do now is make Android phones, in a marketplace dominated by Samsung.

Their Linux OS efforts are now so far behind, and with the sale of Qt, not likely to pick up speed, that they can't take the risk of trying to introduce another "burning platform" to the mix. Apple are not going to license them iOS, and Windows Phone is obviously a no-go (does the N9 *still* outsell all their Lumia lines?)

The board are likely not able to mentally process the idea that the only way forward for Nokia is as a minority player in the smartphone market. They've been so used to dominating the mobile phone market, that anything that isn't domination just doesn't sound good enough. Windows Phone is their only hope for domination, because it's the only thing that can significantly differentiate them from all the Android phones out there.

Honestly, they should go for Android ASAP. Nokia still has brand recognition - they are still the iconic phone brand that people think of, still the most recognisable default ringtone in the world, still have a reputation for quality. They should leverage their ability to build decent hardware, slap Android on it, get out there in the market (Android is the *largest* high end mobile market), and fight for their survival.

Alas, they've become lazy. They don't want to fight - they didn't have to for so long. Instead, they are King of the Windows Phone market. Whoopee-do.

Re:Why O Why o Why ELOP???

[Anonymous Coward]

Every single plank of his approach has failed, he took a company with the leading market share, that just needed a refresh of its products, and has decimated them. WHY???

Lol! Nice fantasy, they had a leading marketshare of the almost-dead featurephone market, they were done for if they relied on that. They had been trying product refreshes and even entirely new products for 5 years, all of which failed at every turn...Nokia was a sinking ship long before Elop came along, the only thing that was certain was that Nokia couldn't bet on themselves. The choice was Android or Windows Phone and there's certainly nothing to suggest they would have done any better had they chosen Android.

Re:Why O Why o Why ELOP???

[exomondo]

Alas, they've become lazy. They don't want to fight - they didn't have to for so long.

They did fight! They just kept losing. Various Symbian refreshes and many years spent on Maemo/Meego that yielded only marketshare to iOS and Android.

Instead, they are King of the Windows Phone market. Whoopee-do.

Personally i think they should have become the champion of stock Android, with timely updates running the stock OS on well-built and well-engineered hardware, sticking to what Nokia is good at. But even that would be a big gamble and would make them a Nexus competitor. Making some Nokia-specific - but compatible - distribution of Android would probably offer little.

Blackberry 10 licensee? Maybe, but that probably would have been even riskier than Windows Phone.

There's nothing particularly wrong with Windows Phone, it just needs to win mindshare, the name would have been a good start, disassociate it with Windows.

Re:"The sale is another step towards reducing cost

[Anonymous Coward]

So herein lies the question, will the short-term cash enable Nokia to return to profitability in the long-term?

Looking at the situation, I suspect like many others the answer is almost certainly "no". Selling then leasing back HQ is a classic desperation maneuver, sure they might survive, but if someone had a list of companies that do this I suspect not even 1 in 100 succeed. Sell the stock if you've got them and can find a buyer, otherwise get certificates and use them as toilet paper.

You need to reread your links.

[tuppe666]

Yes, their market share has gone down because the market has expanded with tons of shitty Android phones flooding the market not because they are selling less phones and tablets.

LOL and that is the point. Android had great phones at every price range...apple have only one phone, and its poor value..and its killing them. You need to recheck your links [those that aren't behind paywalls] I don't think you read them they include quotes like "now held over 12 percent of the Chinese smartphone market." and "It also claimed that the Ascend P1 and Ascend D1 had become best selling handsets in China, Western Europe, Japan, Australia and Canada"...a market Apple is being outsold 21:1 by Android. Calling these phones cheap, is a mistake they are great phones, and the words you're looking for is "good value"

As I said these Android phones are very profitable for those companies. If you can find evidence to the contrary I would love to see it :). Like I say even HTC are still making profits from Android, even with the Windows handycap.

Re:You need to reread your links.

[cheesybagel]

I guess he needs to buy himself a TAG Heuer Android phone since he seems to be more concerned about having an expensive phone than anything actually useful.

This is pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

Fire this idiot and traitor Elop, abandon Microsoft Disaster 8 at once, start selling good Android phones. This should have been done years ago.
Nokia could have competited with Samsung, HTC and others on the Android market today.
Instead Elop have chosen Nokia to be a slave and a whore of Microsoft.

When Nokia finally dies, I'm sure Microsoft will buy it for $1 just for their patents.

I really liked Nokia. Now I wish them quick death, because what they do is so pathetic. Just finish it now. To die is better than being a whore.

No hate here, just sorrow

[EzInKy]

It really is painful to see such a fantastic nerd friendly company hit bottom like this. I really would like them become a phoenix and raise from their ashes, but I'm not seeing it in the cards. But you know, if they would only ship an updated version of their famed N900 I'd certainly be willing to send another $600 their way, and I'd be willing to wager so would a few other million people as well. Hope those 170 million Euros will keep Nokia alive long enough to come to its senses.

Re:No hate here, just sorrow

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still very early, but there is Jolla. I'll be curious to see what they do and whether I'll be switching from my N8 ( which is :-\ ) to a Jolla phone in a couple years.

(Holy crap I haven't posted here in years. Writing out anchor tags in comments takes me back...)

Well I just received a new E6 today,

[treadmarks]

It looks like if I waited much longer to buy it, I wouldn't be able to. Apparently if you stick around long enough you will live to see a respectable version of Symbian. And that makes the situation even more tragic, because just as Symbian is (almost) caught up, they decide to kill it and hitch their cart to Microsoft, the most laughable non-innovator of the last decade. Predictably, this has failed, and now my only wonder is whether this new phone will outlive Nokia, like some artifact from before its shameful marriage of desperation with Microsoft, when it still had something to be proud of.

Nokia Meets Monty Python's Meaning of Life

[guttentag]

In the "birth" chapter of Monty Python's Meaning of Life, a hospital administrator walks in on a woman giving birth and is excited to see that they are using the most expensive machine in the whole hospital: the useless "Machine That Goes Ping." He explains to the doctors, nurses and students, who have forgotten all about the woman in labor, the twisted accounting brilliance this machine represents:

You see, we leased this back from the company we sold it to, and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.

Everyone applauds.

Re:Nokia Meets Monty Python's Meaning of Life

[Anonymous Coward]

Goverments all over the world have been doing the same thing. It's called public private partnership in that context and it's of course stupid as hell longterm, but you are the one that balanced the budget that year...

Nokia is getting

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly what they deserve for exclusively backing a piece of shit OS like Windows Phone. I hope their tombstone has dead tiles on it.

even pissing

[Anonymous Coward]

even pissing is hard now ? and it might be very cold outside.

it is real fun seeing these high paid CEOs doing shitty things even a manual worker in China will not do.

lumia 920

[Anonymous Coward]

they should have released their LUMIA 920 in INDIA where there is maximum demand for such a superb smartphone. But they released it in US and Europe but not India. I wonder why??

Re:lumia 920

[stooo]

Perhaps because you can't sell phones with an English GUI ?

What demise?

[21mhz]

So, they are in the sad company of their neighbors in Keilaniemi, like Kone and Fortum, who have also sold their headquarters to real estate conglomerates years ago and stayed on as tenants. Of those, only Neste Oil still owns their HQ.

Re:What demise?

[Bruce Perens]

Were they in a better position, they'd be able to sell stock to make money. But that will be more difficult now. Assets like real estate keep the value of the company from being entirely speculative. After this, expect them to sell some patents. And at the end of that, their value will be based entirely on whether people think the company can pull itself out of its current problems or not, they'll be a really poor rated stock, and they'll have no more sources of cash if they can't fix the company in the short term.

Re:What demise?

[21mhz]

And if they can't fix the company, holding onto that ownership title will help them how?

It can be the case of somebody finally taking a hard look on things and saying: "WTF are we still doing this when we could get 170 million now and save on upkeep costs in the long run". Makes sense when a corporation optimizes its finances. It evidently made sense to Kone, who are not in any kind of trouble.

Re:What demise?

[Bert64]

How exactly would they save on upkeep costs in the long run?
Whoever they lease the building from is going to want the building properly maintained (especially considering nokia aren't likely to be around very long, so they will need to find replacement tenants soon), as well as making a profit from leasing it out,

Re:What demise?

[Bruce Perens]

Actually, Kone has had their ups and downs over the past decade. They suffered from a consolidation in the elevator market - their major business at the time - that pushed them out of the market to a great extent.

Re:What demise?

[Bruce Perens]

If they can't fix the company what they did with assets is moot. But disposition of assets reduces valuation over time despite any momentary uptick, so it can hinder fixing the company as well as help.

Re:What demise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't they have offices in smaller cities like Oulu, which they could make their headquarters, and sell Nokia House completely? It would save them lots more.

They DIDN'T give it away

[21mhz]

Nokia is selling featurephones like hotcakes, they just don't run that ugly OS called Symbian. No Linux either, but who says that everything under the sun should run Linux?

Just because you don't see these phones sold on the perennially screwed U.S. market does not give you an excuse to repeat misinformation.

Creates some serious logistical hurdles.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia Selling Its Headquarters To Raise Funds

Wherever will they quarter their heads after this?

Another non-story

[21mhz]

... for all the anti-Microsoft zealots to vent their fantasies about the evil corporate world and spread hearsay.

Finnish MTV3 news yesterday shown the waterfront of big corporate headquarters on Keilaniemi and said that of those, only Neste Oil still owns its building. But who cares, right, this is so symbolic!

I wonder how the other recent non-story did not make it before it was debunked: Nokia posted a job opening searching for a Linux programmer. This got Android fans to jump to a conclusion that Nokia is developing an Android phone. This "news" then got picked up by some technology websites, retold in more or less certain terms depending on how desperate the website is for click revenue. Does this indicate that some Android users are insecure about the hardware choice for their platform and think Nokia might make a better phone?

Re:"The sale is another step towards reducing cost

[roc97007]

You're right, but it's, like, something to try before going under. A responsible CEO will try it. Of course, a responsible CEO wouldn't have been in the position in the first place, but never mind...

Reduce costs?

[Bert64]

This won't reduce costs, day to day costs will increase as they will now be leasing the building and the new owners will want to profit from doing so, it will just give them a temporary injection of cash.

There can be only 2

[gelfling]

There are only two phone companies: Samsung and Apple. All others will disappear soon.

nerd-friendly mobile phone

[Anonymous Coward]

You are badly informed. The update to the N900 is the N9 (Wikipedia, price comparison). It has been available on the market for over a year now.

You will not get anything better than this from Nokia anymore as the development teams are sacked. There will be no more official software updates for the N9, but the fan community picks up the ball because the OS (MeeGo, a Debian derivative) is quite hackable. I have installed the whole GNU and Qt developer toolchains and can develop both live on the device and cross-compiling to ARM from my laptop. It's also easy to flash alternative OS like Mer.

Some ex-Nokia developers formed a new company, Jolla, and have demoed their first product just a couple of days ago.

Re:nerd-friendly mobile phone

[EzInKy]

I've been watching Jolla, but thanks! The N9 doesn't even have a real keyboard so it is hardly a replacement for the N900.

Jury Is Still Out on Nokia Business Model, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet investors are "celebrating" right now... I bet they are choosing on which building to hang Elop's "antennas" ....

Just plain and simple, most "International Executives" are useless MBA-waving, short sighted managers when applied to completely different types of companies, context and NATIONALITY ! Straying into something they mostly don't know how to deliver, that is BUILD QUALITY into their products...which is what them Nokias used to do, worse, most top talent in Nokia got humiliated and or was let go, which is SUICIDE in any company, let alone in very competitive tech !

It takes people with YEARS of EXPERIENCE to make top tier, best of breed products in ANY industry, that is the same in ALL business. If you hire someone from the outside you better be real sure he's gonna deliver AND know what YOUR business is all about, and not jus flash them fancy MBAs or whatever, I think is debatable whether Elop was the right guy, he was from a VERY different kind of business in MS ! Getting him only amplified the badness, as basically trew out all the water, the baby and even the sink...

Least but not last but best...get someone with TECHNICAL BALLS ! Which does NOT include knowing how to make nice slides...

Have a Nice Day

They have been doing this for years

[jfanning]

I remember them building one site in the early 2000's in Espoo, Finland. Soon after it was completed they sold it and leased it back.

They have been doing this for years.

They are not, and have never been, interested in owning their properties. The head office was pretty much an exception.

Nokia and Maps

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks bad for Nokia at the moment, but all is not lost. There is a huge market waiting to be tapped in the form of indoor mapping.

A Nokia engineering team has just recently released the results that they have designed just such a system, that uses several interesting elements such as LED lights, etc all interacting with an app on the user's smartphone. This can be used to map locations, etc in ways traditional GPS does not work, and opens up all kinds of uses (marketing of course being the least tasteful, but...)

Everyone knows that basically Google Maps controls the outdoor mapping market for mobile devices. There are no others even close. Now even Google is starting to attempt to figure out how to map the interior of buildings where GPS does not work. Nokia (and a few other small companies) have already invented methods of doing so. Now we will see who can monetize it first, with the best and most accurate database.