Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
Bruce Perens.
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.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Seen how much money Microsoft is making out of Android?
Worked out great for Google!
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
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.
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.
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.
Seen how much money Microsoft is making out of Android?
More than they make from Windows Phone.
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".
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
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.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
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.
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.
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
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
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 !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
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.
Most of the stuff on
...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.
E pluribus unum
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.
Most of the stuff on
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.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
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.
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.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
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.
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.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
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.