Nokia Had an Android Phone In Development

puddingebola writes "Perhaps influencing Microsoft's $7.2 billion acquisition, the New York Times is reporting that Nokia had an Android phone in development. From the article, 'A team within Nokia had Android up and running on the company's Lumia handsets well before Microsoft and Nokia began negotiating Microsoft's $7.2 billion acquisition of Nokia's mobile phone and services business, according to two people briefed on the effort who declined to be identified because the project was confidential. Microsoft executives were aware of the existence of the project, these people said.' Perhaps Nokia feared they had put too many eggs in one basket? Whatever the case, the project is most likely dead at this point."

Comments

Like Nokia itself

[Anonymous Coward]

(dead at this point)

Re:Like Nokia itself

[Anonymous Coward]

It might be dead at this point, but the move to have a team of researcher to develop an Android system and then secretly telling everyone what they had will force MS to buy the Nokia at nice price. That is 10 times better than the let-sit-and-rot in the past few years.

I'll buy it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Microsoft won't be using it, I'll be happy to buy the IP and the reference platform for $1.

Re:I'll buy it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah! It's just their stealthy plot to obtain Nokia's expertise in making Android devices. Watch now for cheap Microsoft knockoffs of Android phones.

Wasted opportunity

[Samantha Wright]

Think of all the embracing, extending, and extinguishing they could've attempted! Probably not a good business decision, in retrospect. I bet MS's phone market share would've looked a lot better if they'd developed a super-fancy Exchange-oriented business email client for a line of custom Android phones rather than developing WP8.

Re:Wasted opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

One for the rules of corp business is "If you can't control it kill it". MS takes this to extremes.

Re:Wasted opportunity

[dmbasso]

Yep, I agree.

7.2 bil...That's $7.20 in poor peoples' money

[fustakrakich]

But still, that's a pretty big gamble to kill off an Android phone, or just some ploy to keep the money from the taxman.

Re:7.2 bil...That's $7.20 in poor peoples' money

[symbolset]

Without Nokia Windows Phone's global market share drops to 0.6 from 3.0. So... about $3B per point of market share. Otherwise they disappear in the noise of "other". There wasn't anywhere else they could get those points so cheap. They will probably scoop up Blackberry's customers too. They really have no choice. Smartphones and tablets will be more that 80% of clients sold next quarter, trending up. Next quarter will be the last quarter that traditional PCs outsell tablets, and people get tablets that are like their smartphone and work well with it, not one that works well with and like their PC. If people keep getting invested in phone and tablet apps on platforms that are not theirs, they are done for. Frankly I think it is too late, but to them they have no choice but to try.

Re:7.2 bil...That's $7.20 in poor peoples' money

[Samantha Wright]

Personally I'm a little sceptical about the "last quarter" part. The tablet market isn't saturated like the PC market is, making it an unfair comparison. And since a PC is still more essential to most households (and laptops can be price-competitive with tablets), it's inevitably going to be the preferred thing to upgrade in the long term for those who can't afford both pieces of hardware. It seems much more likely that the demand for tablets will eventually decline once the market's more mature, and stay in the shadow of the PC until the content creation situation changes, especially with cannibalization by so-called "phablets."

Re:7.2 bil...That's $7.20 in poor peoples' money

[excelsior_gr]

people get tablets that are like their smartphone and work well with it, not one that works well with and like their PC.

And that is the brilliant idea that brought us Win8, because MS thought they could unite this ecosystem and offer interoperability for... profit?

Re:7.2 bil...That's $7.20 in poor peoples' money

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. Tablets are and will always be a nice-to-have accessory living somewhere between your cant-live-without-it phone and PC.

Re:7.2 bil...That's $7.20 in poor peoples' money

[jd2112]

people get tablets that are like their smartphone and work well with it, not one that works well with and like their PC.

And that is the brilliant idea that brought us Win8, because MS thought they could unite this ecosystem and offer interoperability for... profit?

Exactly, Microsoft is at the '???' stage of their plan, the next being 'Profit!!!'

Re:7.2 bil...That's $7.20 in poor peoples' money

[symbolset]

IDC thinks that in 2014 desktops and laptops will still edge out tablets on an annual basis (and therefore in some quarters at least), and 2015 will be the first full year of tablets being dominant by shipping units. It is not unusual for me to disagree with IDC. I do not believe that desktops and laptops will recover the lead ever in any quarter going forward for as long as we maintain the artificial distinctions between these variations on the personal computer spectrum. We shall see.

Pricing

[1984]

I was actually more fascinated that the once-pioneer and market leader in mobile phones (outside the US) was being sold off for more than $1Bn less than the sloppy-thirds of Skype which is widely duplicated by free services.

Re:Pricing

[romiz]

As Skype is a network, and does not offer interoperability, it benefits from a network effect: its usefulness compared to its concurrents is the square of the number of ts consumers. This usually leads to a natural monopoly, and Microsoft must have recognized it.

Nokia is now just a device manufacturer, it squandered its 'network' when it abandoned the Symbian users and developers.

Re:Pricing

[UnknowingFool]

The purchase of Nokia did not include transfer of patents only a 10 year license to the patents. Patents would have made the Nokia deal much higher.

Microsoft buys Microsoft

[l0ungeb0y]

... who declined to be identified because the project was confidential. Microsoft executives were aware of the existence of the project

Only Microsoft would buy have to a company they already owned.
It's been known for years now that their CEO was a trojan horse planted by Balmer.
Too bad for Nokia, because they were actually a very good company that made good products.
Then Mr. Microsoft-Assfucker became their CEO and burned them to the ground.
Now they make shit products and will face the same fate of all other MS mobile offerings.

Re:Microsoft buys Microsoft

[flayzernax]

They did this to Shadowrun the FPS when it was actually a good game. They didn't want it competing with other products and discontinued it, refused to update, or release content, and patch it.

M$ is the grim reaper of IP.

Re:Microsoft buys Microsoft

[symbolset]

They are the preventer of progress, destroyer of compatibility. At one point they decided they had destroyed every competing browser vendor, declared their browser "done" and fired the team who produced... IE6.

Re:Microsoft buys Microsoft

[rtb61]

Now of course with M$ ownership, they are right in the line of fire for a very, very expensive class actions law suit. Especially if they already used a majority ownership to implement decisions that favoured themselves at the expense of minority share holders (note this is illegal). So will M$ get screwed over in court for killing Android on Nokia, especially when it get's in some cases patent royalties equal to or greater than what it charges for windows phone OS licences.

I'll bet there are already a bunch of lawyers salivating at the chance to drag M$ and Nokia into court to recover billions in losses to shareholders. Then could come Nokai employee civil action suits for career losses as a result of manipulation of Nokia management decision to favour M$. Always remember there is a huge monumental difference between majority ownership and total ownership in a public company and the resultant impact upon remaining share holders and even employees. When the fraudulent actor in the future of Nokia has such deep pockets as M$ to target and remembering that the class action suit will occur in a region now becoming very hostile to M$ due to those losses, the class action law suit become very desirable.

Re:Microsoft buys Microsoft

[phantomfive]

You don't think Microsoft had a team of lawyers that considered this possibility, and figured out a boring, mind-numbing and legalistic way around it? There will be no serious lawsuit over this.

Re:Microsoft buys Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. MS poison and destroy any semblence of usefulness and awesomeness they touch.

MS's shithouse business practices are what keeps alternate OS's alive and kicking, but then they can't possibly hope to see any wood for the trees, since their average dev is 25 years old, will not work there for more than a few years and has no clue, cos they think having MS on their resume is 1337 creds. The 2 interviewees i had that proudly told me they had worked for MS, I told them to fuck off and never apply with my shop again, ever. I want people who understand computing, not a bunch of muppets who only know managed code and how to do what they're told by that fat useless piece of shit, Ballmer.

God bless MS, the ruiner of everything IT.

Re:Microsoft buys Microsoft

[TapeCutter]

cos they think having MS on their resume is 1337 creds

I have 20+yrs of experience, tertiary qualified, with good stints at the world's top three IT service companies on my resume, I've hired more than a few developers over those years. I don't have MS on my resume, and judging from the content of your post, I wouldn't want your name on it either for exactly the same reason.

Re:Microsoft buys Microsoft

[sharklasers]

They are the preventer of progress, destroyer of compatibility. At one point they decided they had destroyed every competing browser vendor, declared their browser "done" and fired the team who produced... IE6.

I don't understand. They didn't stop progress - Firefox and Chrome were developed and went past IE, along with the rest of technology to the point where Microsoft is now caught on the left foot because THEY didn't progress. Compatibility is also their strong point - Windows has a huge amount of legacy software to support, which hence results in a lot of bloat but also compatibility so people don't have to worry too much that their software won't work on a newer version of Windows. It's one of the main selling points of the OS after all.

As for the browser wars, Netscape Communicator was SHIT compared to IE 4, then 5. I remember moving to IE because it was, at the time, the genuinely better browser. When IE 6 stagnated, alternatives appeared and LIFE WENT ON. People treat Microsoft as if they killed their child or something - they only become a problem if you let them.

Re:Microsoft buys Microsoft

[jbolden]

What are you talking about?

Microsoft owned very little of Nokia prior to the sale. What was the mechanism by which Microsoft got Nokia's board of directors and executives to implement plans to the disadvantage of minority shareholders? For that matter, how were minority shareholders disadvantaged by Nokia not going bankrupt and receiving subsidies from Microsoft followed by a buyout for more than the phone division was worth.

The stock jumped not fell on the buyout Your post doesn't even make sense.

Re:Microsoft buys Microsoft

[SpzToid]

rtb61's argument is well known, but I'll explain it.

Microsoft owned very little of Nokia prior to the sale.

So you understand this much already, which is good. However you are failing to take into account Stephen Elop who arrived a few years ago, from Microsoft, to become Nokia CEO, and eventually sell Nokia at a greatly reduced price to Microsoft, (which paid for the transaction with offshore profits that couldn't be repatriated into the US easily anyway.

What was the mechanism by which Microsoft got Nokia's board of directors and executives to implement plans to the disadvantage of minority shareholders?

Stephen Elop

For that matter, how were minority shareholders disadvantaged by Nokia not going bankrupt and receiving subsidies from Microsoft followed by a buyout for more than the phone division was worth.

By ditching their own OS efforts, i.e. Meego, and doing an exclusive for Windows Phone which failed dramitically.

Please, let me cite some Stephen Elop CEO facts for you to decide yourself:

NOKIA CORPORATION UNDER ELOP

First 6 months - Corporate quarterly revenues up 26% from 10.0B Euro to 12.6B Euro
Next 2.5 years - Corporate quarterly revenues down 55% from 12.6B Euro to 5.6B Euro

First 6 months - Corporate quarterly profit up 200% from 295M Euro to 884M Euro
Next 2.5 years - Corporate quarterly profit of 884M Euro turned into loss of -115M Euro

During first 6 months - Standard & Poor's rating for Nokia A, Moody's rating A2, Fitch's rating A
On last day of office - Standard & Poor's rating for Nokia junk, Moody's rating junk, Fitch's rating junk

On day before Elop announced as new CEO - Nokia share price $9.70
On day before Elop released his Burning Platforms memo - Nokia share price $11.28 (up 16%)
On day before Nokia announces Elop to step down as CEO - Nokia share price $3.90 (down 65%)

NOKIA HANDSET UNIT PERFORMANCE UNDER ELOP

First 6 months - Handset quarterly revenues up 25% from 6.8B Euro to 8.5B Euro
Next 2.5 years - Handset quarterly revenues down 69% from 8.5B Euro to 2.6B Euro

First 6 months - Total handsets profit first 6 months 1.8B Euro
Next 2.5 years - Total handsets loss next 2.5 years 361M Euro

First 6 months - North America quarterly handset volume flat from 2.6M units to 2.6M units
Next 2.5 years - North America quarterly handset volume down 80% from 2.6M units to 0.5M units

First 6 months - China quarterly handset volume up 13% from 19.3M units to 21.9M units
Next 2.5 years - China quarterly handset volume down 81% from 21.9M units to 4.1M units

Nokia handset market share when Elop started - 33%
Nokia handset market share when Elop departed - 14%

Nokia ranking handsets when Elop started - 1st
Nokia ranking handsets when Elop departed - 2nd

Gap to leader when Elop started - Nokia 50% bigger than number 2 (Samsung)
Gap to leader when Elop departed - Samsung 30% bigger than Nokia

This handset unit has now been sold (plus patents and mapping licences) for 5.3B Euro to Microsoft

NOKIA SMARTPHONE DIVISION PERFORMANCE UNDER ELOP

First 6 months - Smartphone quarterly revenues up 29% from 3.4B Euro to 4.4B Euro
Next 2.5 years - Smartphone quarterly revenues down 73% from 4.4B Euro to 1.2B Euro

First 6 months - Smartphone quarterly profit up 94% from 283M Euro to 548M Euro
Next 2.5 years - Smartphone quarterly profit of 548M Euro turned into loss of -168M Euro

First 6 months - Smartphone quarterly volume up 18% from 24.0M units to 28.3M units
Next 2.5 years - Smartphone quarterly volume down 74% from 28.3M units to 7.4M units

Nokia smartphone market share when Elop started - 35%
Nokia smartphone market share when Elop departed - 3%

Nokia ranking smartphones when Elop started - 1st
Nokia ranking smartphones when Elop departed - 9th

Gap to leader when Elop started - twice a

Re:Microsoft buys Microsoft

[quacking duck]

They are the preventer of progress, destroyer of compatibility. At one point they decided they had destroyed every competing browser vendor, declared their browser "done" and fired the team who produced... IE6.

I don't understand. They didn't stop progress - Firefox and Chrome were developed and went past IE, along with the rest of technology to the point where Microsoft is now caught on the left foot because THEY didn't progress.

Firefox v1 wasn't released until 3 *years* after IE6 went public. It then took several years of active PR efforts and reports on IE6's serious security issues before IE share was driven convincingly below 75% and management finally started "allowing" web application development to include standards compatibility and testing (fortunately I'd already been doing that for several years at that point).

Even at that point, Microsoft managed to screw with web developers. IE7, 8 and 9 each had their own non-standard quirks that broke workarounds for earlier versions, so you were left with, for example, stylesheets that the major standards-compliant browsers worked with 99% of the time... then separate workarounds for IE6, 7, 8 and 9.

IE didn't even fully support PNG translucency until 2011! Until v9 there were still issues like a PNG's translucent pixels showing up as flat gray when using them as background images.

Then there were Javascript performance issues. One implementation circa 2007 required Javascript processing of an AJAX response to produce a list of about a dozen items, each with multiple clickable actions. It took Firefox 2-3 seconds to produce the results on the page. The then-new IE7 took 5 seconds. IE6--the vast majority of our users at the time--took over 10 seconds. In the initial delivery by the vendor, they actually loaded all 8 of these lists, every time that page loaded. Firefox took 10-15 seconds, IE7 took 30 seconds, but IE6 took 1.5 *minutes* to process the inline XML. Poor implementation to be sure, but it illustrated just how behind and inefficient both IE were.

I suppose we "let them become a problem" by trying to improve our web applications by incorporating more modern techniques... some of them close to a decade old by that point, i.e. 3-4 generations by tech standards... but as a web developer I can say with no uncertainty that IE6 and 7, and even IE8 to a lesser degree, were serious roadblocks on the road to producing a more modern web experience.

Re:Microsoft buys Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one hope Elop really IS a very strong candidate for succeeding Balmer as MS's CEO. Not sure what would replace Windows on the desktop though.

Re:Microsoft buys Microsoft

[SpzToid]

Mod up informative!

Re:Microsoft buys Microsoft

[SpzToid]

Just to add one more detail to your argument. You write that killing Android on Nokia is what forced Microsoft to just out-right buy Nokia, and that's grounds for legal action. What about not selling the N950 ever, anywhere?

It was the N9/N950 running Meego which is what started the whole burning oil platform memo/argument from Elop. Elop did everything he could to bury that device and the entire team that developed it, because he wanted to sleep with Microsoft so bad, and do an exclusive. Yet the Meego team did deliver and despite Elop it did go on sale, not in the US or EU but only in a few places like Saudi Arabia and South Africa, thanks to Elop. The US and EU countries were only allowed to buy crippled Microsoft Windows Phone 7.8 OS phones; while Microsoft took more time to finish Windows Phone 8 at Nokia's timely expense.

When the N9 launched, very shortly thereafter Elop even publicly trivialized it by demo'ing a Windows Phone prototype, with his own hands at the Communasia Communications Symposium in Singapore, on June 22, 2011.
http://youtu.be/r1lsJOwdmfA
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2011/jun/23/nokia-n9-windows-phone-tease

That's a major Osborne directly attributable to Elop.

So yeah, minority partner Microsoft at the behest of former Microsoft manager S. Elop and Nokia CEO does seem to have driven OS choices on multiple occasions. But l forgot until now what a lovely piece of evidence the N950 is. The N950 which wasn't even allowed to be sold, yet was finished and made available for developers. How much money would a wider release of the N9 generated, and ignoring that for a moment, how much revenue would have been generated if the N950 would have gone on sale even if only in the limited markets the N9 was allowed to be sold in? Why wasn't the N950 ever allowed to be sold anywhere? Look for yourself at what a lovely device it is:

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Nokia-N950-16GB-/171130186470?

How popular would this device have been, along with the N9 given sufficient resources & marketing love? We're talking iPhone and Android killers, because along with features like tethering 3g over low-power bluetooth, and low-power SIP support in the OS, Nokia was way ahead of their time. (disclaimer: I use 3g SIP over bluetooth w/ my N9 w/ Ubuntu 12.04 a lot, and battery life is great).

As long as Stephen Elop was Nokia CEO, Nokia handset division was going to be a 100% Microsoft shop. A real CEO should have remained focused to prior Meego efforts and strategy, and worked to fix problems along those lines.

I dream of Elop defending himself in court against the charges you have suggested, *while* he is active CEO of Microsoft, taking them down with him. (But no way will Bill let him be CEO of Microsoft, because aside from delivering Nokia to him, his actual performance was abysmal).

How much of a role did an Android phone play...

[divisionbyzero]

in the acquisition? Exactly fuck all. Really, do you think Microsoft would pay $7.5 just to avoid yet another Android also-ran competitor?

Re:How much of a role did an Android phone play...

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt they would have been concerned about Nokia as an Android competitor - but they would have been very, very worried about losing their partnership with the maker of 80% of the Windows phones sold. Nokia is the only thing that is currently letting Microsoft believe that it has any chance at all with phones.

Windows already has fuck-all share of the smartphone market - reducing that to only 20% of fuck-all would just be humiliating.

Re:How much of a role did an Android phone play...

[Anonymous Coward]

They burned up that much cash on tablets that they couldn't sell. Gates said that he didn't give a shit if m$ was completely unprofitable for an entire year. With the cash hoarde they have, they can be as screwey as they want. $7.5 billion to kill off another Android phone maker....done!

Re:How much of a role did an Android phone play...

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Think of it more like a "the murdered woman was pregnant" headline. Actually, that's a pretty good analogy. Certainly closer to the truth than Balmer would like to admit.

Re:How much of a role did an Android phone play...

[sjames]

That's not what they got. They avoided the embarrassment of having the producer of their flagship Windows phone drop them like a hot potato in order to produce an Android phone. In addition they bought continuing production of the Windows phone.

Re:How much of a role did an Android phone play...

[Anonymous Coward]

MS paid to save the only Windows Phone handset manufacturer that counts. They didn't pay to prevent yet another Android phone from appearing - they paid to save the only WP phones from DIS-appearing.

Re:How much of a role did an Android phone play...

[Threni]

No, but I do thing that many, many people would have bought a Nokia quality Android phone, and Microsoft didn't want to take the chance of waiting for Elop's arguably* deliberate damage to the Nokia brand/shareprice/future to recover with a successful, popular range of phones people actually want to buy.

*In court, I'd say that I didn't really believe this.

Re:How much of a role did an Android phone play...

[c]

I doubt they would have been concerned about Nokia as an Android competitor - but they would have been very, very worried about losing their partnership with the maker of 80% of the Windows phones sold.

I suspect it's a bit of both. Losing market share would be really bad, but just as bad would be if their Windows Phone poster child Nokia did really well with an Android phone (and I can't see why they couldn't... they do good hardware) to the point that they no longer needed Microsoft propping them up financially. It would send one hell of a message to other mobile manufacturers... namely, "not worth the bother".

That perception matters a lot. Technology-wise, I doubt Windows Phone is that bad (I haven't seen one, myself). But the market thinks it's tainted, and that's what's killing it as much as anything else.

Nokia is volume

[fermion]

If one is going to be a volume business in the mobile phone business, one has to sell android. It is the only thing that competes with Apple. Nokia is volume. At it's height Nokia had about twice the sales of Apple phones sales. Ms has been at this for 15 years and has never broken 20% of the market, and has generally had duds. Now with MS money they can be a boutique shop selling phones that do nothing. Unless Google stops backing up Android with lots of free to the user stuff, or unless MS starts supply free stuff to the end user(big skydrive, free cloud exchange, free online office) people are not going to pay for the phone then monthly fees to use MS services. Even Apple keeps prices low.

Re:Nokia is volume

[whoever57]

My prediction is that Microsoft will almost give away phones when they own Nokia's handset business. Micorsoft realizes that they are in danger of an entire generation learning that they don't need a PC running Windows and that this is complete disaster for Microsoft in the making.

How much money has Microsoft dumped into Xbox over the years? I suspect that those billions will pale into insignificance in comparison to Microsoft's plans for Windows Phone.

Re:Nokia is volume

[Sir_Sri]

Windows phone picked up about 3.7% of the market in 2Q 2013 - or 8.7 million devices. Of those Nokia shipped 7 million, and Samsung 1 million + other.

Now lets look at android. Sure, samsung shipped 73 million devices, but numbers 2-5 each shipped between 10 and 12 million units. LG, Lenovo, Huawei, ZTE

So while Nokia - and everyone else is getting completely smoked by samsung, they're actually catching up to the second tier of the pack at around 10 million units a quarter.

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24257413

So sure, nokia is managing about 1/4 the sales of apple with MS. And had 77% year on year growth. That'... well, is surprisingly good honestly. Even if they get half that much growth this year they'll be in the 2nd rung of smartphone makers behind samsung. Which given that they don't have semiconductor fabs is about as good as you can hope for.

Re:Nokia is volume

[dbIII]

Compare it to Nokia's sales before Elop. The figures look like they fell off a cliff and there's some sort of movement at the bottom.

2nd rung of smartphone makers

So after being number one they may in a perfect world claw their way back to second place?

Re:Nokia is volume

[Bill Dimm]

My prediction is that Microsoft will almost give away phones when they own Nokia's handset business. Micorsoft realizes that they are in danger of an entire generation learning that they don't need a PC running Windows and that this is complete disaster for Microsoft in the making.

The same logic would apply to their Surface tablets, but it hasn't happened. Of course, things may change when Ballmer is gone.

Re:Nokia is volume

[whoever57]

The same logic would apply to their Surface tablets, but it hasn't happened

Hasn't it?

Well

[Lirodon]

I did this mockup after the rumor about Huawei buying Nokia, its relevant again. http://i.imgur.com/ZOTnXTd.png Nokia Nexus 4.8 could have been fun

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome, I like it a lot :o)

Something i would have like to have seen as well. I love(d) Nokia and am sad they have died a horrible death at the hands of MS :'o(

Re: Well

[jsh1972]

My thoughts exactly... I love the phone itself- decent specs, killer firm factor, Nokia true black (amoled?) Screen. Looks especially nice where the black glass meets up with the chassis on one of the colored phones. I wonder if anyone's managed to get android running on a lumia.

Re: Well

[lars_boegild_thomsen]

Android (Jellybean) is at least partly running on the N9. Last time I checked, they hadn't managed to get calls going - but 3G data was working.

Re: Well

[jsh1972]

Very snazzy device, I'd love to have one.

One never knows...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever the case, the project is most likely dead at this point.

You never know. Microsoft might want to start making a profit on their acquisition. If that's the case, it'd be their only option. It's not like they could put iOS on it. /snark

Bluff

[Anonymous Coward]

It might just be a bluff to rush Microsoft into purchasing them

Re: Windows Phone should being doing so much bette

[Anonymous Coward]

lol.

Re:Windows Phone should being doing so much better

[Anonymous Coward]

I quit after being forced to buy a win7 phone

I'm calling BS. Under what circumstances were you 'forced' to buy a WP7 device?

Unless you had a massively customer facing role, or perhaps worked on the phone team, you would not be 'forced' to buy such a device. In such cases you'd be given one to be able to do your job. For the rest of us we were given the option to purchase one at a special price.

As a current Microsoft employee... I will agree that the HTC Trophy was an unmitigated piece of crap and sadly was until late last year the only Windows Phone option on Verizon.... though I do not blame the OS for that, I blame HTC (and not just for the Trophy) as I experienced similar quality with other HTC WP7 devices, issues I did not see or hear as much of from non-HTC units.

Re:Windows Phone should being doing so much better

[Anonymous Coward]

All services people are 'reimbursed' for their phones as well as getting the general benefits. We were told what phones they would reimburse and told to not bring other branded products on customer visits. So what do you call that? I had no problems with that really. I quit as the account management in services (and I moved around services quite a bit) was just insane with incompetence and ignorance to new products and the customers we were getting as part of Microsoft sucked and treated us like crap (pretty sure it was the company we kept). Working in Redmond is awesome and I wouldn't mind that again, anywhere else in Microsoft hell no.

Estrategy

[Lisias]

Everybody knew Microsoft were going to buy the Mobile Division from Nokia since the first day Elop laid this butt on that chair. The question were for how much.

I think that all that Android effort was a strategic move to prevent Microsoft to buy the Division too much cheap.

Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[hairyfeet]

I am so sick of this "magical thinking" when it comes to Android. There is something like a dozen making Android phones, how many of those have been consistently profitable with Android? ONE, and that is Samsung. HTC and LG have made profits, not consistently mind you, and with LG their profits on a lot of phones can be measured in pennies.

Like it or not folks, and this is coming from somebody that uses an Android phone that I'm quite happy with, with Android you have a race to the bottom where the VAST majority of Android sales in the under $185 price range and this market, the ultra low end? is a market that Nokia could NEVER compete in, okay? They were already WAAAY behind on smartphones thanks to all the infighting and not one, not two, but THREE OS teams backstabbing and playing politics, the ONLY market they had a lead in was dumbphones and that market was dead at the end of 2010 with the mediatek SoC that allowed Chinese shops to make a nice dumbphone for just $3 USD. They also had beancounters insisting on "getting their money's worth" from the TI OMAP chip they had bought the rights for, but that thing was too far behind the curve to make a decent Android phone with and the high cost of the Nokia factories meant they would have to sell them at a price point the market would never go for.

So can we please please PLEASE stop the "Android is magic" bullshit already? When it comes to smartphones honestly the cost or lack thereof of the OS isn't even a real concern and thanks to anybody being able to build Android devices its a race to the bottom and in fact reminds me an awful lot of the "PC Price Wars" that drove many an OEM out of business, and finally Nokia was fucked with a capital F long before then, a toxic corporate culture, too much infighting and too much politics had turned the company into the biggest 8 track player builder in a landscape of CDs. Android isn't some fairy Godmother, it isn't "if you build it they will come" because if that were so there wouldn't be so many struggling Android manufacturers. It wouldn't have mattered by that point if they used windows, Linux, or WebOS, the company was too far behind and too badly fucked by PHBs to ever take on Samsung and the ONLY way for Nokia to survive as an Android maker would have been to curbstomp Samsung as their costs were too high. How many here honestly and truly believe that Nokia could have taken on Samsung at the top and not been bitchslapped?

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Anonymous Coward]

how dare you instile the great God that is Android. Anyone who dares to do this is obviosuly a closet Fanboi and should be dispatched to the Gallows without delay.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[symbolset]

Samsung only sells half the Android devices. So what you are saying is that a consortium of non-Samsung mutually opposed companies are colluding to build 400 million devices this year, selling them for perhaps $120 billion, and losing money on every one. Because they love Google, I suppose, and want them to do well despite their duty to their own shareholders. C'mon Hairy. Did you bring enough of whatever that was you took to share with everybody?

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Stormwatch]

Indeed, Android was not the ideal choice for Nokia. If only they had their own next-gen mobile operating system, ready to go, and consistently praised by reviewers... oh, wait.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[phantomfive]

Nokia had the best reception of any cell phone company (at least, that was their reputation). They made nice hardware. Apparently they have the best camera of any cell phone.

Given all that, they could have competed. Not because Android is magic, but because WP8 counteracts any benefit their phones ever had. Buy an Android with an amazing camera? Sure! Buy WP8 with an amazing camera? Does it even have a fart app?

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Osgeld]

its not pennies, its pennies per uint, sell a few million phones and even 3 cents a unit profit starts adding up.

stopped reading there cause you dont even have the basics down to your own argument

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[kthreadd]

When someone says that something is an "Android Phone" or a "Windows Phone" or an "iOS Phone" then all they say is that it's a general purpose computer that has been locked down to running that particular OS. There's no technical barrier in installing Android on a "Windows Phone", just like there's nothing stopping you from installing Debian GNU/Linux on a "Windows Computer."

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[boysenberry]

Nokia WAS fucked mainly cause its managed by morons, and Android certainly isn't magic, so I'm with you there. But it's a little more nuanced than you depict. A Lumia with Android would not have been a magic bullet, but it would have been, and still would be, one of the top 5 sexiest android phones. It would be looking super sexy on that shelf right alongside the S4s and HTC One's, but with WP, it's in a corner of the shop that only lost children end up in. A few tangential points: 1) There's nothing particularly unique about Nokia's PHB problem. Almost every large company suffers with these issues. Nokia may have been particularly bad, but they still manage to make beautiful phones at competitive prices. 2) At the time they chose WP, Samsung was nowhere near the market leader it is now. HTC was a pretty big deal at the time while the best that Samsung had out there was the S2. The "only samsung is making it and everyone else is drowning" is bs. The top dog can fall off his perch in a single year. The S2 situation was barely two years ago and you can kind of pinpoint Samsung's "mindshare dominance" starting at the S3: only slightly over a year ago! If you look at Xiaomi, the HTC One, Moto X, etc, you start to see that the gap between top dog and the runner-ups is miniscule. 3) There STILL is no "Apple of the android market". I mean there is no Android manufacturer who has taken the route of making superbly beautiful phones with no compromises. Top dog Samsung's phones are nowhere near as beautiful or high quality as the Lumias or iPhones. The few phones where it looks like any effort was made in design tend to be pretty much clones (like HTC One = BBX).

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[bemymonkey]

I for one would have welcomed Nokia as a hardware option for Android devices. Hardware options are exactly what we're missing... you can go with plasticky Samsung, patchy HTC (nice build quality on the One, but the software support is spotty at best) or only-one-option Google Nexus. LG? Pfff, outside of the Nexus 4, I wouldn't even consider it.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[dbIII]

Compared with WP7 and most likely WP8 it is magic :(

finally Nokia was fucked with a capital F long before then

In global terms it dominated sales in every mobile phone type and the only worry was that the rate of growth was slowing. The decline didn't happen until Elop took the seat.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[sharklasers]

You're correct that Samsung is the only company that consistently makes a profit with Android. But... it doesn't make any business sense to exclusively focus your entire phone business on a single mobile platform (Windows Phone) that hasn't shown to be particularly popular or profitable to anyone, without having say Android phones as something to fall back on if the gamble doesn't pay off. That to me screams ulterior motives.

Nokia didn't even TRY (as in, never actually put to market an Android phone, not including anything in R&D). If they put in a high-end Android phone with Lumia quality hardware, I'd very, very seriously consider it instead of Samsung. But they didn't fucking try because their ex-Microsoft boss had other ideas. And that's what's so annoying about this business. People using politics instead of common sense.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[boysenberry]

It was just too late by 2011. They should've properly invested in Maemo(/Meego) when they initially released it in 2005. Had that been polished up and shoved into a sexy phone before Android (or even iPhone) took off, the landscape today would likely have been very very different.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[gl4ss]

doing some profit is better than doing no profit at all.

but, you could put it this way: I might have bought another Nokia if it ran android. with windows phones no fucking way.. I can take them for free and develop for them if someone pays but no fucking way I'm paying with my own cash for them. compared to windows phone ANDROID IS LITERALLY LIKE MAGIC when it comes to (potential) functionality. windows phone objectively feels as limited as a s40 phone from 5 years ago(and the api's are quite literally comparable in functionality too!).

sure, the company culture would have needed to be fixed first for them to have been able to even make an android phone... but it would have sold and made a buzz. Nokia when they had their act together was able to bury every other phone manufacturer in manufacturing efficiency - from siemens to panasonic to ericcson to motorola. They raced to the bottom before! their most successful years were race to the bottom years of feature phone selling where eventually they became the dominant seller - it was only with android that the other players were able to get back into the game at all. That is where they could compete! that is where bean counting counts! it was foolish for them to try high end wars and especially foolish to try that with windows phone. the last really successful smartphone from Nokia I think is the C6 - a cheap piece of **** - but successful because it filled a role for users - for a lot of users - for a cheap price, so it sold a lot. it was the last nokia smartphone that sold to masses who pay for their own phones.

talking purely as an user of smartphones. I even bought the 808. but no fucking way I'm buying the 1020. So I might go for the sony z1.

though then again with fixed corporate culture they could have made symbian comparable to android as well(due to their culture they wasted in practice FIVE FUCKING YEARS of development and even plenty of wasted time of their contractors.. to which they paid a lot of money so they didn't mind wasting time) so maybe it's useless to discuss the matter - but with windows phone even if they had fixed their corp they couldn't have made wp catch up since that was ms's ball to drop.. which they did.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Xiaran]

> with Android you have a race to the bottom Umm thats the idea isn't it. It's a good thing.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[dnaumov]

I am so sick of this "magical thinking" when it comes to Android. There is something like a dozen making Android phones, how many of those have been consistently profitable with Android? ONE, and that is Samsung. HTC and LG have made profits, not consistently mind you, and with LG their profits on a lot of phones can be measured in pennies.

Like it or not folks, and this is coming from somebody that uses an Android phone that I'm quite happy with, with Android you have a race to the bottom where the VAST majority of Android sales in the under $185 price range and this market, the ultra low end? is a market that Nokia could NEVER compete in, okay?

You're stupid. Look up Asha. Nokia succesfully competed not in just sub-185$ market, but in sub-100$ market as well.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Anonymous Coward]

The list is not quite correct it is Samsung, LG, HTC, Huawei, Miomi and Sony, yes Sony has been making profit with Android again recently, thanks to their well designed phones.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am so sick of this "magical thinking" when it comes to Android. There is something like a dozen making Android phones, how many of those have been consistently profitable with Android? ONE, and that is Samsung. HTC and LG have made profits, not consistently mind you, and with LG their profits on a lot of phones can be measured in pennies.

Congratulations, this is exactly how a free market is supposed to work. With enough competition prices are driven down to a break-even level and the big winner is the consumer. Once you see profits increase above break even that is a pretty clear sign of competition not working, either because of too few actors or because of price fixing.
If you want a market where the companies make a huge profit and the consumer gets screwed over instead I suggest that you buy and iPhone or start buying CD's from major record companies or something.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Anonymous Coward]

and selling Lumia's at a loss was not a race to the bottom? you got to be kidding.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're making 3 cent net on a ~100 $ unit you're investing 1 billion to produce 10 mil units, netting you 300,000 profit.
At that point you might as well close shop and invest in gold, diamonds and real estate.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarely locked down, but maybe there just aren't drivers for the components.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[mcgrew]

That's no different than saying "Linux PC" or "Windows laptop". Just like the Android phone or the Windows phone; it's simply descriptive of the OS it uses, and face it -- the OS is the computer from the user's point of view. What difference does the hardware brand make? Nokia, Samsung, Kyocera, who cares? Actually, I like my Kyocera because it's cheap and waterproof, I'd hate to drop a $600 Samsung in the sink. There isn't anything a $600 Samsung will do that my $100 Kyocera won't, except be destroyed if you're caught in a downpour (I had an LG die like that).

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[aliquis]

the ultra low end? is a market that Nokia could NEVER compete in, okay?

They have done pretty well in there before.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[jbolden]

Samsung only sells half the Android devices. So what you are saying is that a consortium of non-Samsung mutually opposed companies are colluding to build 400 million devices this year, selling them for perhaps $120 billion, and losing money on every one.

I don't agree with Hairy on a lot. And yes, 2011 I believe Samsung and Apple combined made 101% of the profits in the industry the other players on average lost money. The situation is not pretty. This doesn't include the smaller players like LG but the situation is worse not better as you go down market:
http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/51f97ca0ecad04705b00000d-800-/chart-of-the-day-oem-profits.jpg

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Peter H.S.]

Nokia could have had excellent success with an Android phone. Unlike the many upcoming phone makers you see today, Nokia had a huge market share with lots of loyal costumers who always chose Nokia phones when they needed a replacement phone. Nokia was a premium brand among consumers.

By not making a Android phone, all their loyal costumers were forced to go elsewhere. For years, 9 out of 10 Nokia costumers have chosen another brand of smartphone when they needed a new phone.
If Nokia could have kept most of those costumers with a Android phone, they would be dominating the market this day, and they would have kept the up coming competitors down, in stead of just handing over the smartphone market to them without a fight.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[jbolden]

Phones are not general purpose. The hardware is tweaked to work with the OS. For example the camera in the Nokia 920 would not function under Android, Microsoft had to write custom low level code to integrate camera components in a different way. The video system for the 920 is specific to the camera, now maybe 95% of the code was shared with other camera of a similar type but it is entirely possible that a very different camera design wouldn't work at all on Windows. Android is designed for greater hardware diversity so it has less problems going on new systems. But look at how badly the Android for iPhone projects are doing with Apple's tweaks lately. Android isn't able to get nearly the same performance out of that hardware.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[jbolden]

It wasn't ready to go they only 4 models in the pipeline though 2014. Moreover to get the N9 version out it had to be end of life because otherwise the conflicts between MeeGo and Symbian conversion were too large. MeeGo could have been excellent. But there were tough choices that were never made and Nokia took much too long in what they were doing.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Anonymous Coward]

By what standard was it too late? They weren't exactly late to the smart phone market, they were early, and out of step. Symbian was under featured but still selling well all over the world. Symbian sales were still growing. They were profitable in smartphones. The switchover to Maemo would have been a challenge, but nothing like the challenge that Windows phone presented.

Quarter 3 2010 Symbian based Nokia smartphone sales: 26.5 M units and 3.6 B Euros revenues;
Nokia smartphone Average Sales Price 136 Euros, profits in smarpthone unit 335 M Euros

Quarter 4 2010 Symbian based Nokia smarpthone sales: 28.3 M units and 4.4 B Euros revenues;
Nokia smartphone Average Sales Price 155 Euros, profits in smarpthone unit 548 M Euros

http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/06/the-final-reckoning-of-burning-platforms-memo-damaged-nokia-by-wiping-out-13b-in-revenues-and-destro.html

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[jbolden]

They don't have the best camera on any Android. They have a very good camera given a normative form factor. I think Apple on balance is better (920, 1020 Nokia is the clear winner) but that's a matter of taste. Nikon makes an Android with an insanely good camera and Samsung has a camera phone which is better. In the end software is cool but things like lens size dominate for people who want camera quality.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[jbolden]

The decline in margins started in 2002. The crash in Symbian sales started in 2010 several months before Elop was even hired. The failure to get MeeGo out on time was his predecessor.

What Elop did was get a company that was on its way to bankruptcy through a tough restructuring bring them back to profitability and get them sold for a moderate amount. I don't agree with everything he did, but Nokia fans have an analysis which is frankly clueless. They should read more of the business press.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[kthreadd]

What you are descibing is essentially regular drivers. It's exactly the same thing that regular computer operating systems uses. The camera is not in any way built for Windows, it just happens that it require a driver and that driver is available for Windows Phone. With the appropriate driver the same camera should work in any operating system.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Holmwood]

Very true. I used a Nokia N770 tablet starting in 2006. It was fantastic for the time. Maemo (later Meego) was still a little rough around the edges, but very good. I thought at the time that surely it was only a year or so of polishing from mass release, and Nokia ARM-based tablets and smartphones starting at resolutions of 800x480 would sweep the market. And time ticked by. Even 2 and a half years later, Apple was still playing around at well under half the resolution, but time kept moving.

I still have my patched N800 somewhere with a (ridiculous for 2007) 65GB of storage.

Nokia could have dominated that market, or, at worst, been highly competitive with Apple.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well. If you think you can't compete in the mobile phone business because there are other phone manufacturers then, yes, you surely have no business being there. And, yes, not everyone is successful. I still really believe Nokia could have been one of the successful ones though.

Nokia never sold their phones because of the amazing Symbian system. They sold them because of the amazing hardware. And Android in itself wouldn't have been a saviour, but unlike Windows Phone neither would it have been a strong reason AGAINST buying a Nokia phone.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, a Nokia Android phone wouldn't have bombed. It wouldn't have been as sexy as the N9 but it would have done very well. The problem with the Lumia series is not the hardware.

Isn't it strange that (as far as I have seen) none of these so called "analysts" have commented on the correlation between Samsung's rise to #1 and Nokia's fall to #10? Here's a hypothesis: when Nokia announced they were going exclusively with Windows Mobile millions of customers gave them the finger and largely went to Android on Samsung.

Now consider that Nokia hardware could far superior to Samsung's (that is, after all, how Nokia rose to #1). I'll let you work out the implications of these things yourself.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[jbolden]

It is a very complex driver. But the difference is the subsystem is tweaked to the driver not the driver tweaked to the subsystem. That's more like the way the workstation market used to work than the way x86 hardware works.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Kjella]

Like it or not folks, and this is coming from somebody that uses an Android phone that I'm quite happy with, with Android you have a race to the bottom where the VAST majority of Android sales in the under $185 price range and this market, the ultra low end? is a market that Nokia could NEVER compete in, okay?

I find it very strange that you argue that Nokia couldn't sell cheap phones when that was what they're best at. Nokia wasn't exactly the Ferrari of the cell phone world, they built boring solid cheap phones that the first world found dull and emerging markets gobbled up. Take those hardware skills, massive economics of scale, brand and sales network, build a cheap Android phone and they'd be giving Samsung a run for their money instead of maybe soon clawing their way back to second tier.

If there's a race to the bottom, you can either get in or get out but if you stand around thinking your customers will be happy to pay a huge premium for your product then 95% of the time you're wrong. For example just look at all the expensive solutions that have been replaced by cheap x86 desktops and servers. If you can take a cheap SoC from China, slap a $0 version of Android on it, put it in a phone chassis and sell it then that's what it is worth today, what that was worth yesterday doesn't matter.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, LG HTC and rest should use Symbian, or no, better Windows. Much better for them and much more profitable.
And sure Nokia will do really good.
NOT!

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you perhaps forgetting the sensor size? If we are not talking about really huge lenses?

Re: Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be jabbering nonsense. I say this as somebody who has installed Linux or NetBSD on numerous classic UNIX workststions. It's more complex than putting a "distro" on commodity PC clone hardware but not different in any technical sense.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[marcello_dl]

> It is a very complex driver
Well, you have to put the spying code SOMEWHERE :D

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is totally revisionist bullshit. Symbian was down where? North America only, it was actually growing elsewhere. The completely myopic focus on what's trendy in the North American market only destroyed an international company.

Symbian had been in a slow and steady decline, but that was from a marketshare high of 70% down to about 40% at the time of Elop. From Q1 2008 to q1 2010 it changed from 47% to 44%. That's not a catastrophic decline. That's higher than the iPhone. That is, the scenario was, they were the only company owning the sector, down to, they were the leading player in a broader market with a profitable smartphone sector that had actually stabilized. By Q3 2011 it was at 17%. Now they are dead. WIndows phone is projected to maybe get to 10% by 2017.

It's possible that Nokias internal problems would have doomed them anyway but it's far from evident that this was necessarily the case. Nor was market share in free fall pre Elop. They had a profitable and growing smartphone unit, a transition plan, and plenty of brand reputation. They would have had time to bring Maemo to the market, and then some to iterate on it.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[dinfinity]

Man, even now Nokia makes awesome distinctive hardware. I've often glanced with jealousy at some of the WP phones by Nokia (and HTC, for that matter), only to feel regret that similar hardware wasn't available with Android.

Considering their brand image is still rock solid - a source of popular (positive) memes even - I seriously think that Nokia would make a killing if they released similarly awesome Android devices.

Re: Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Anonymous Coward]

you forget Nokia has out-sold every other competitor ever, until very recently - in the "dumbphone" market - and by impressive margins, at that

the "race to the bottom" has made them an absolute fortune...

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[dbIII]

You again? Nice choice of words - since total global sales don't paint a gloomy enough picture you've picked a metric that neither of us can find out. Please be honest about where you've got that "margins" figure from and admit that you've just made it up.

bring them back to profitability

So when were they making a loss before Elop? 1871 appears to be the number, then a profit each year since.
I really do not understand what motivates such blatant liars as the above poster. If he wasn't so incompetent at it I'd think he was an astroturfer, but instead it appears that it's just a clueless fan cheering blindly for a team and making up his own cheers.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[dbIII]

From Wikipedia (original source is linked from there) "Nokia was the world's largest vendor of mobile phones from 1998 to 2012".

Re: Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[jbolden]

Those aren't classic workstations. We are talking from the 1980s or mid 1990s. And it is much different if you are taking advantage of the subsystems that make them special not just trying to get them to run.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[jbolden]

I said decline in margins. Try responding to what is wrote.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[jbolden]

Huh? Margins are part of financial statements they are public information released under penalty of perjury. They are the easiest data by far to track.

As far as the margin decline it was well known and discussed. For example a pre Elop article:
http://mobileopportunity.blogspot.com/2011/02/nokia-now-comes-hard-part.html

The rest seems to be you not understanding what margin means.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[jbolden]

So what? They still are a huge vendor of mobile phones like #2 for 2013.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[dbIII]

Your reference is a BLOG!?
Why are you cheering for this blatant corporate raid anyway?

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Maury Markowitz]

"So what you are saying is that a consortium of non-Samsung mutually opposed companies are colluding to build 400 million devices this year, selling them for perhaps $120 billion, and losing money on every one"

No, what he said is that a *group* of non-Samsung mutually opposed companies are *competing wildly* to build 400 million devices this year, selling them for perhaps $120 billion, and losing money on every one.

That's what a race to the bottom *is*. That there is a race to the bottom is undeniable, the numbers are posted widely every few months. Let's see

http://bit.ly/1ddvbxy

As you can see, with the exception of Apple and Samsung, everyone else is zero or negative. If you believe sprinkling Android sauce over Nokia would change anything, you've done nothing to suggest why.

"Did you bring enough of whatever that was you took"

Given that your message doesn't clearly state what it's taking offence to, flies in the face of widely reported facts, and doesn't even seem to be based on what he said in the first place, one might be inclined to cast sophomoric aspersions later in the thread, no?

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Rob Y.]

Right. Android may not be magic, but 'Android == Samsung' is just as misguided as "Nokia + Android == Success". There are many reasons for Samsung's success with Android, but a primary one is name recognition. Everyone's heard of Samsung. HTC, ZTE, even LG - much less. Nokia would've had the name recognition bit sewn up. In any case, the barrier to entry for Android devices is low - that's why there are so many of them. And the barrier for adoption is zero - i.e., the apps are there for any new entrant - it's not like trying to establish desktop Linux in a Windows-centric world.

All they'd have had to do is execute well, and they'd have stood a good chance of succeeding. And if they had succeeded with WP, all Samsung would have had to do is execute well in that space to unseat them. Of course, now that they're Microsoft's in-house shop, nobody else is going to go WP. So unless that was the plan all along...

More and more, there's no other consistent explanation (other than an outdated belief that 'you can't fail if you ride the Microsoft train'). And if this skunkworks Android project was real, maybe that was part of Elop's plan to force Microsoft's hand and make his plan a reality. In any case, 7 billion is a lousy deal for Nokia's shareholders, but I'll bet Elop's otherwise worthless stock options made it a mighty big windfall for him. Just another case where the CEO's priorities are not aligned with the shareholders', and failure of the company == success of the CEO.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[phantomfive]

There are many reasons for Samsung's success with Android, but a primary one is name recognition.

That appears to be what HTC is hoping with their latest advertising campaign

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[yorugua]

Nokia had the best reception of any cell phone company (at least, that was their reputation). They made nice hardware. Apparently they have the best camera of any cell phone. Given all that, they could have competed. Not because Android is magic, but because WP8 counteracts any benefit their phones ever had. Buy an Android with an amazing camera? Sure! Buy WP8 with an amazing camera? Does it even have a fart app?

The thing is... if the guys at cyanogenmod had a ROM for the LUMIA, maybe I could've bougth one, even if there was no Nokia-native Android. Problem now is... nokia hw is MS... and I don't feel fine on giving MS more lawyer-power than they already have.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[bondsbw]

They all feel like easily-breakable plastic and the button at the bottom feels like it could break off. These are just a few reasons I chose a Motorola Razr HD over a Galaxy Note 2.

If Samsung could make a solid-feeling phone, I might change my mind. I've got to admit that TouchWiz is looking better these days than in the past.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Anonymous Coward]

4 Model by 2014? No. They the N9 and N950 ready and in production in 2011 and another model which ready which was killed. These are already 3 Phones in 2011.
And also see here: http://felipec.org/2011/06/21/my-disagreement-with-elop-on-meego/

There were also Meltemi phones ready before it was killed.

I also don't understand the comment about end of live. MeeGo was exellent (and still is - I have still use the N9).

Yes, I took too long, but not that long that killing it just when is was ready in 2011 was justified. Adding an Android line to be safe would have been a good idea, maybe.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

The US market maybe, but not in the real world.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad statistics. Most of those Symbian-based "smartphones" were 12-key devices that were marketed as dumbphones. I owned one - it had a crappy text-mode browser and nobody would compare it to a Android or even a Blackberry.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[sribe]

So what you are saying is that a consortium of non-Samsung mutually opposed companies are colluding to build 400 million devices this year, selling them for perhaps $120 billion, and losing money on every one. Because they love Google, I suppose, and want them to do well despite their duty to their own shareholders.

Well of course they're not losing money intentionally. However, they are losing money--it's called getting beaten in the marketplace.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[hairyfeet]

No I'm saying having Ferrari make Yugo mini-cars would end up with a bankrupt Ferrari?

Why people has so much trouble following a simple concept is beyond me, but for those that seem to have trouble grasping the concept (which from the replies seems to be the majority) I'll spell it out....in a race to the bottom only the tightest ships will survive those that can pinch the most pennies, lower the material costs down to the absolute minimum, shave every penny and pinch it until it screams...remember Dell? Remember why they became the #1 PC maker? Because they were only making $8 a sale that's why!

What everyone seems to have trouble grasping is that Nokia had too many upfront costs, too much overhead to compete in a sharktank like a race to the bottom, they would have died just as many OEMs died in the PC Price Wars, inability to shave costs equals dead company. They have a factory in Europe, one of the most worker friendly places on the planet, no fucking way that factory can compete with a place in China whipping off phones while paying workers less than $5 USD a day, they had a large R&D that frankly wasn't delivering the D part of that, again not gonna be able to compete with the likes of LG and Huawei who have their businesses striped down as a ricer racer, its just not possible.

But of course I'll be marked down for daring to point out the reality of the market, because I refuse to guzzle the koolaid and pretend that RMS farts rainbows and anything that the Linux kernel touches is magically a hit, News Flash...its not. Out of the dozen companies making Android phones? Only ONE is making consistent profits, the rest? They are making money alright, but their profits are less than what Nokia was making on dumbphones in 2011, they just aren't making the kind of bank Nokia would require to survive, the ONLY company making the kind of green a top heavy company like Nokia would require to keep the stock from continuing its free fall? Samsung. Again better companies have tried to beat Samsung, companies that have a hell of a lot more experience, advertising budgets, and brand recognition than Nokia, and they have failed. Nokia would have been curbstomped.

Frankly its amazing how few here can even understand markets, whether its the FOSS blinders or magical thinking? Fuck if I know, you act like that because a company is making profits that means Nokia could make enough to thrive...wrong,for the same reason that Compaq and Maxtor ended up being bought out during the price wars by companies that ran leaner and meaner. if you have an expensive to run company a race to the bottom is corporate suicide. The only way Nokia would have made bank in Android is to close up shop and move to Asia so they could compete with LG and Huawei, but that would have cost billions they just did not have.

Like it or not Nokia was fucked and the Android fairy wouldn't have stopped the freefall, it would have accelerated it. The best thing would have been to buy WebOS back in 08, they didn't do that. By the time the board got its head out of its ass they were too far behind, too bloated, too toxic, they were fucked.

Re: Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[hairyfeet]

Normally we don't agree but you are spot on, its like how all those UNIX stations in the late 80s had everything from the kernel on up written around the particular hardware that was on the system. In a way the current smartphones remind me a LOT of the 80s, back in the days where you could only run the OS that came with a unit because it was written at such a low level around the hardware that anything else would have run like a slug upon it.

Honestly the whole thing is moot anyway, as I said in the earlier post that so few seem to be able to grasp you just can't take a top heavy company like Nokia and throw them into a sharktank that is a race to the bottom and expect them to do anything besides be a snack for the leaner and meaner companies, its just not gonna happen. You look at the costs of the factories, the cost of the employees, the huge amount of management they employed? They were WAY too top heavy to compete with the likes of LG and Huawei, and the only one making bank in the amounts required to keep Nokia in the black was Samsung and that 800 pound gorilla would have treated Nokia like Samsonite luggage.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[hairyfeet]

Interesting? For a Wiki link? Really mods? if you want a link friend how about one showing what was REALLY going on with MeeGo which had one internal team screwing it (Symbian team) and one of the largest hardware makers ON THE PLANET actively fucking it for fear that the ARM version would outsell the X86 (Intel, which considering the cripple compiler and bribery of OEMs, is anybody surprised?) so MeeGo was DOA before it ever walked out the door.

So before you put your faith in the Wiki how about looking up what was going on behind the scenes? Start with OSNews, many of their posters are from that part of the world and include many software engineers that actually worked there. They paint a picture of an OS with serious flaws, including requiring to be restarted twice a day or MeeGo would crash thanks to a nasty memory corruption bug they were having hell locking down, and if that weren't enough they had Symbian team cockblocking and headhunting, they had Intel demanding and getting changes which sent the OS back practically to square one several times, and you had PHBs changing the entire UI on a whim causing the entire UI to be tossed at 75% complete.

I'm sorry friend but MeeGo, just like Nokia itself, was fucked. It had NO CHANCE of competing with iPhone 2 and Android 2.x (which is still so popular its used by many of the lower tier OEMs like Huawei) and it sure as hell couldn't compete with Android 4 and iPhone 5. All you'd have had is another Touchpad, which with Nokia profits dropping like a stone would have outright slaughtered the company.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[jd2112]

and selling Lumia's at a loss was not a race to the bottom? you got to be kidding.

With Windows OS installed you aren't in a race to the bottom, you are already in a deep dark hole never to see the light of day.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[jd2112]

I find it very strange that you argue that Nokia couldn't sell cheap phones when that was what they're best at. Nokia wasn't exactly the Ferrari of the cell phone world, they built boring solid cheap phones that the first world found dull

So, the were the Toyota of the cell phone world?

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[hairyfeet]

Look up "market devaluation" and you will see why Nokia had no choice but to bring in Elop and hope a Hail Mary with WinPhone would save them. The simplified version is that losing half their value in the 6 years before Elop came in made their ability to borrow money VERY difficult and due to the way the tax codes are set up these big corps pretty much live on borrowed money. there are a few exceptions of course (Apple) but most require the ability to get loans easily and at a low enough rate to stay afloat, Nokia could no longer do that and so was bleeding out.

So they really had no choice, its not like Google would cut them a billion dollar check to make Android phones and their market devaluation left them with severe liquidity problems that just rearranging the deck chairs wasn't gonna solve. the huge cash infusion gave Wall Street confidence and helped slow down the stock freefall and also helped reopen their lines of credit. If they would have went with Android we'd be talking about how the evil MSFT is trying to buy Nokia's patents at their bankruptcy, that is all.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[jbolden]

The N950 never released. It wasn't ready. I don't know that there was ever a production version. What other model was killed?

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[X.25]

No I'm saying having Ferrari make Yugo mini-cars would end up with a bankrupt Ferrari?

Why people has so much trouble following a simple concept is beyond me, but for those that seem to have trouble grasping the concept (which from the replies seems to be the majority) I'll spell it out....in a race to the bottom only the tightest ships will survive those that can pinch the most pennies, lower the material costs down to the absolute minimum, shave every penny and pinch it until it screams...remember Dell? Remember why they became the #1 PC maker? Because they were only making $8 a sale that's why!

What everyone seems to have trouble grasping is that Nokia had too many upfront costs, too much overhead to compete in a sharktank like a race to the bottom, they would have died just as many OEMs died in the PC Price Wars, inability to shave costs equals dead company. They have a factory in Europe, one of the most worker friendly places on the planet, no fucking way that factory can compete with a place in China whipping off phones while paying workers less than $5 USD a day, they had a large R&D that frankly wasn't delivering the D part of that, again not gonna be able to compete with the likes of LG and Huawei who have their businesses striped down as a ricer racer, its just not possible.

But of course I'll be marked down for daring to point out the reality of the market, because I refuse to guzzle the koolaid and pretend that RMS farts rainbows and anything that the Linux kernel touches is magically a hit, News Flash...its not. Out of the dozen companies making Android phones? Only ONE is making consistent profits, the rest? They are making money alright, but their profits are less than what Nokia was making on dumbphones in 2011, they just aren't making the kind of bank Nokia would require to survive, the ONLY company making the kind of green a top heavy company like Nokia would require to keep the stock from continuing its free fall? Samsung. Again better companies have tried to beat Samsung, companies that have a hell of a lot more experience, advertising budgets, and brand recognition than Nokia, and they have failed. Nokia would have been curbstomped.

Frankly its amazing how few here can even understand markets, whether its the FOSS blinders or magical thinking? Fuck if I know, you act like that because a company is making profits that means Nokia could make enough to thrive...wrong,for the same reason that Compaq and Maxtor ended up being bought out during the price wars by companies that ran leaner and meaner. if you have an expensive to run company a race to the bottom is corporate suicide. The only way Nokia would have made bank in Android is to close up shop and move to Asia so they could compete with LG and Huawei, but that would have cost billions they just did not have.

Like it or not Nokia was fucked and the Android fairy wouldn't have stopped the freefall, it would have accelerated it. The best thing would have been to buy WebOS back in 08, they didn't do that. By the time the board got its head out of its ass they were too far behind, too bloated, too toxic, they were fucked.

You are beyond silly.

Nokia *was* premium brand. They wouldn't be competing with bottom of the barrel if they went with Android, they'd be competing with Galaxy S and iPhone models. And people would be buying them. You think Lumia phones with Android wouldn't be nice, but would be competing with 50$ shitty Chinese devices? Sure thing chief.

Nokia had a loyal customer base. Until they sold out to Microsoft.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[johanw]

They are still general-purpose phones that could run native programs. I bought my first smartphone, the Nokia E50, because I could run car navigation on it. I still use a Symbian device (Nokia E72) today (mostly because it has a decent keyboard, I'm not a touchscreen fan) and it can do almost the same as most Android phones (although it doesn't run Angry Birds and I'm still looking for a decent usenet text group application).

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Symbian had no long term chance. It was always a clunky, slow piece of shit, and it took Nokia an enormous effort and thousands of coders to make it half-usable. Coding for it was a total nightmare. The app ecosystem was totally stagnant for yeeears. That it was still selling pretty well was only indicative of the fact that it was the only cheap semi-smartphone around at the time. Soon after the "burning platform", when you could get $99 androids, symbian wouldn't have stood a chance.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[hairyfeet]

And you are frankly full of shit, Nokia hadn't been a "premium" brand since the late 90s, in fact only in parts of Europe were they even known, the USA saw Nokia as the company that along with Motorola made shitty dumbphones sold at Fred's and other dollar stores. There is your "premium" brand for ya chief, sold right next to the generic soda.

As for Nokia making any money with Android? I'd point out the #2 maker of Android HTC is expecting another year of losses because guess what? In a race to the bottom only the leanest of companies will make consistent profits...hey that is what i said would be the case, didn't I? Like it or not Nokia was top heavy, had too high of an operating cost, too little experience in the Android smartphone market, no experience with writing low level drivers for Android, and their factories cost more per unit than HTC,LG, and Huawei and all of those are showing inconsistent profits, again if they are lucky a few dollars per unit because surprise! That is what a race to the bottom is, it is great for consumers because they price gets as close to cost as can be while still making devices profitable but Nokia's costs made their ability to compete in that shark tank non-existent. Even their ability to compete with dumbphones has been falling like a stone thanks to the Mediatek SoC that lets Chinese companies and those subcontracting (like Motorola) to sell dumbphones for sub $10 USD retail. I'm sorry but Nokia didn't have the chops to play in the Android market, they would have been eaten alive, as HTC,Huawei and others are right now.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[kubajz]

Phones have strong seasonal sales variations around Christmas - e.g. here, so your point is quite weak.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Meski]

How do you find Windows to be different? It too will be a race to the bottom, with a critical difference: It lags so far behind in market share that it'll hit bottom and burn long before Android (deliberately not mentioning Apple, iOS doesn't meaningfully run on anything but Apple)

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Ash-Fox]

in fact only in parts of Europe were they even known

I have no idea what you're talking about. Everywhere I've been in Europe (and I have travelled a lot), I have seen people with Nokia phones. It's only since around 2009 that I stopped seeing them in most places.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[hairyfeet]

Uhhh...that is what I said, they were only ever "big" in parts of the EU and they haven't been a name brand in the USA or anywhere other than the EU since the late 90s.

If you asked an American what they thought of Nokia? First if they even knew who Nokia was would place them in the minority as again no big hits since the days of Win98, and if they DID know who Nokia was they'd say "shitty Fred's phones" because that is the only place where you see Nokia in the states anymore and even there they are having their milkshake drank by the Motorola because of the mediatek SoC.

Like it or not Nokia was about as much of a "premium brand" today as Palm, they are a has been that few outside the EU remember or even care about one way or another. Like it or not sticking with Symbian for so long left Nokia too far behind to catch up, no different than how Palm stuck with garnet so long that their devices looked like 8-tracks in comparison to the other players, no way in hell would Nokia have been able to sell their smartphones at a low enough cost to even get a toehold in the Android market, much less get their foot in the door.

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[riondluz]

Maybe, but they would still become either an also-ran or a wannabe.

Watching M$ latest commercials, they seem to agree; the "look! we're 41MPixels!". Man, they have a great marketing group; pimping usage, like tooth-fairies comming to clean end-users' sour taste in mouth.

I love my N900, chuckle when i lately note CList phone ads selling "my N900", omitting the "lumia" from modelname. I'd cut an apendage for an N950! Not really; well maybe.

Becomming so much more about interfaces (h/w) to the OS/DE and plainly, M$ reliably sucks at making WM/DM (s/w).

As micro/nano moves sprouts from drones-n-goggles we'll prob all be using flesh2.0 and brainware to control our devices, making issue even more fragmented

But droid would be the monkey on the back of a really well engineered nokia device. QT/E17/meego would spank that monkey in a heartbeat. If it resembles anything like the existing maemo community then popular support alone could make it a best seller.
Encryption (GPG,XMPP,KRB,eCryptFS...) would be a great place to start.

droid's fundamental basis as a pay2play cloud device for renting content runs counter to popular computing and FOSS. A play-store model so simple even a caveman can grok it; but I like repos and distros and suspect even joe6pk would grep if packaged correctly.

Sorry4ranting but freedom is the next best thing to privacy. gphone unmodded, winphone and iphone, all are compromised, h/w quality notwithstanding.

Maybe Nokia's demise will liberate a crop of talent who can milk profit out of openness and a good (p2p) support model. I know just as current spying is driving a shift to linux, so to will a 'linphone' eventually gain mindshare. 10 years is my guesstimate. We here all knew how FOSS was better, even Open h/w, now the public is becomming more receptive to understanding why.

Combined w/GrandCentral, if G had chosen that path i would kneel at their feet. But disruptive tech is a bottom up kind of thing and, though not sure where tizen/sailfish will fit into things, am confident that, while Nokia may have lost its way, its community of engineers and programmers will take their expertise elsewhere, hopefully court carriers, and foster the next evolution in communications

M$'s big hurdle is that people have invested in understanding another OS (i or d) and the Concepts behind it. RT, redmonds' approach to tiling...
is facing an uphill battle and their OS is not remarkable enuf to hold/capture attention.

An E17 or buntu wrapped linphone, made by nokian labrats and designed by those wanting a better symbian (maemo), and supported by the free and open bazzar of ideas rooted in word-of-mouth. Secure, distributed, ones' own. Who could ask for more?

Re:Like a Nokia Android wouldn't have bombed?

[Ash-Fox]

My point was that I don't believe there is any part of Europe where they aren't known.

Two Ways This Could Have Affected the Deal

[guttentag]

Given that Microsoft was making more money off Android phones than Windows phones, one of two things must have occurred:

Ballmer told Nokia, "look, if you put Android on your phones, you're going to end up paying us so much in licensing fees you might as well just sell yourself to us now."

Or, Ballmer realized there wouldn't be many Windows phones left if Nokia switched to Android, and decided it was worth $7 billion to keep one major handset manufacturer putting Windows phones into the marketplace.

Re:Two Ways This Could Have Affected the Deal

[jbolden]

Microsoft was paying Nokia fees for an exclusive ($250m / quarter). When the renewals came up the 2 or 3 year cost was likely so high (probably at least double that) that Microsoft realized it would just be cheaper to buy the phone division outright....

Re:Two Ways This Could Have Affected the Deal

[boysenberry]

I think the latter is correct. It's all about ecosystems now, and MS failed at every attempt they've made to build one (except for xbox, but theyve utterly failed to expand that brand outside of consoles despite countless half-assed attempts). They probably figure that Nokia running WP was one of the last chances they'd have for getting into the devices ecosystems, which in the without which they lost all relevance.
But that they, and especially Nokia, think their best bet is for two bloated has-beens who've been unable to turn their titanics around and consistently failed at any attempts to reinvent themselves for 10+ years, is pretty moronic.
Dear MS/Nokia: "Let's just keep throwing money at it" is not a strategy.

Exaggeration

[Anonymous Coward]

In developement, yeah, like it would take more than a few days them to make android run on any of the lumia phones.

Re:Exaggeration

[symbolset]

Not if they gave an unocked lumia to Cyanogen. Those guys are amazing.

Re:Exaggeration

[Anonymous Coward]

Or shipped the Lumia 1020 with an unlocked, CWM-ready bootloader that allows it to be reflashed to Android. Win, win for Microsoft... they move inventory, and can claim that every one sold is actually being used as a Windows phone, even if XDA knows otherwise.

Or they could just an option like Android has to install apps from "untrusted" sources, so WinPho can have as much pr0n as Android. While gay iQueens have to pretend that apps like Grindr are for platonic social networking among gay professionals whose private pics are more censored than a "Ken" doll, WinPho users can join their Android brethren at FuckFindr, BottomsUp, and SexNoWWW.

Most likely???

[roc97007]

Kidding, right?

ZTE

[Anonymous Coward]

ZTE is quite profitable with its Android phones

Could we please agree on one thing...

[Hymer]

...Nokia is neither sold nor bought YET! They are missing both approval of the share owners and from the EU, US and probably also from the Finnish government.
For Nokia Android would not be a race to the bottom because Nokia IS already on the bottom... if you do not earn anything then anything that would raise your earnings is a better solution even if it is Android.
This, if proven true, may in fact sabotage the Microsoft - Nokia merger plan...
I surely hope that most of Nokias shareholders will say "Thanks, but no thanks" to Microsoft and get Elop fired.

Re:Could we please agree on one thing...

[dbIII]

"Thanks, but no thanks" to Microsoft and get Elop fired

Elop has already left the country and is taking up a new position at Microsoft.

Re:Could we please agree on one thing...

[jbolden]

If Nokia walks away from this deal they walk away from their Windows exclusive subsidies. They walk away from some of the promotional money for Lumia, They don't own their own OS anymore. So what do they get: the ability to fight with Asian manufacturers over who can put parts in the box more cheaply?

The stock shot up on the news of this buyout. Why would the shareholders not be interested? The US is going to approve it. The EU is going to be thrilled that Microsoft's phone division is going to be based out of Finland for years to come. Likely this helps EU/Microsoft relations.

Re:Could we please agree on one thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Elop has already left the country and is taking up a new position at Microsoft.

<sarcasm>
Probably smart move... Does Canada have an extradition treaty with Finland?
</sarcasm>

Re:Could we please agree on one thing...

[Hymer]

"The EU is going to be thrilled that Microsoft's phone division is going to be based out of Finland for years to come. Likely this helps EU/Microsoft relations. "

After PRISM ? That would be like saying "YES" to uncle Sam having an official approval to spy thru Nokia manufactured phones and not being able to do anything about it.
They may however use just that against uncle Sam and the merger.

Nobody in Finland (or in EU) is happy about this merger, the money are just a small compensation... but ideally they rather would keep Nokia where it was, without Microsoft... and without Elop, that was quite clear when the chairman spoke.

Re:Could we please agree on one thing...

[jbolden]

If they wanted to keep Nokia they could have. Finland could have waived the requirements for unemployment that drove the high restructuring costs that required the subsidies from Microsoft. They didn't. Finland didn't step up and nationalize Nokia. If the realistic alternatives are: Microsoft buys Nokia and Nokia dies they pick Microsoft.

They don't need to use anything to block the merger. They want to block it they can. But no one is talking about blocking the merger because they want Nokia to live as a division of Microsoft.

Re:Could we please agree on one thing...

[gmhowell]

If the realistic alternatives are: Microsoft buys Nokia and Nokia dies they pick Microsoft.

Don't underestimate the ability of bureaucrats and others in power to bite off their noses to spite their faces.

Nokia could have an enhanced Android version.

[master_p]

Given its experience, Nokia could have taken Android and polish it so much that it would have left its competitors in the dust.

Not only that, but Nokia could have brought Qt to Android and make Android application development extremely more pleasant than what it is now (and avoid all the legal problems with Android's Java).

In any case, starting with an existing functioning OS gives you a great advantage over your competitors. Nokia tried to not only compete in the smartphone market but also to create their own OS from scratch! and to add more salt to the injury, thet chose the same kernel as Android did!

Finally, Nokia could have invested in a proper Adobe Flash 11 implementation and have the only smartphone that can show the web like a desktop PC. That's what sold N900 in the first place anyway. There are lots of people who do not care about Flash, but there is also lots of people who are frustrated that they cannot play their favorite Flash games on mobile.

Re:Nokia could have an enhanced Android version.

[JaredOfEuropa]

Flash? Back then, Flash was an important plugin. Browsing on an iPad in the early days was a frustrating experience; most sites used a Flash player for video and many of the larger web shops and sites made extensive use of it. But these days, it's rare for me to come across a site with Flash.

Flash is on the way out (thanks in part perhaps to all those complaining iPad users), and the web is a better place for it. Nokia investing in a good mobile Flash player would prove once again that they are late to the game.

Re: Nokia could have an enhanced Android version.

[Anonymous Coward]

I used work for Nokia. The Flash software was written by Adobe, it was buggy. Jobs was right to drop it.

Re:Nokia could have an enhanced Android version.

[Anonymous Coward]

Android does NOT NEED POLISHING.

One of the problems it currently has is that manufacturers feel the need to fuck with it, and they make it worse. Stock Android is a beautiful, wonderful OS that does not need any changes!

Re: Nokia could have an enhanced Android version.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then tell me why would a manufacturer enter a race to the bottom to churn out hardware to run just an unchanged Android? That would be insane. You would need to do a massive exercise in supply chain and manufacturing optimization and cut your margins to near-zero.

See the problem?

The valuable component in Android is the user data. The majority of the servers for the core user data is controlled by Google. If you want to do something disruptive, democratize this control.

So no, just pumping out an Android phone is not the answer to anything.

Re:Windows Phone should being doing so much better

[Anne Thwacks]

HTC could have been No 1 in the market, but decided that the reason people bought Apple was because the iPhone did not have removeable batteries and externa SD cards. In reality, the reaon people did not by Apple was to get removeable battriese and external SD cards. Change of tack on this and HTC could be No1 again. The build quality of their Android phones is good.

No one has allegience to Samsung (all my family are Samsung users).We buy the best Android phone on the day our contract runs out. We have a boatload of Galaxy S3 batteries on charge at any one moment, and when we come in the door, we swap batteries. S4 or HTC? when the contracts run out, we will look at everything, ZTE, Xaomei, or WTF.

No exchangeable battery - no buy. Simples. WinPhone? Are you MAD?

Dislcaimer: We have 4 Nokia Symbian 60 phones, and they are also in regular current use.

Newkia

[pineapplebytes]

So everyone here is completely and utterly unaware of the company that was formed the same day Microsoft bought Nokia called Newkia that aims to produce mobile phones for the Android?

Re:Newkia

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.slashgear.com/newkia-seeks-nokia-defectors-to-make-android-phones-06296809/

Re:Newkia

[Anonymous Coward]

So everyone here is completely and utterly unaware of the company that was formed the same day Microsoft bought Nokia called Newkia that aims to produce mobile phones for the Android?

No, we're not unaware: it was reported here.

Re:Newkia

[PPH]

I doubt this will get very far. Microsoft bought Nokia in part for its patent portfolio*. Anyone that thinks they can carry a set of hardware blueprints out the door and into a new competitor is in for a rude surprise.

* Patent portfolio plus mutual licensing deals with the other major IP holders. Anyone that thinks they can build a phone from scratch these days is going to end up with one like this.

Re:Newkia

[TheLongshot]

Microsoft didn't buy Nokia's patents. They licensed them.

Re:Newkia

[PPH]

When Nokia becomes a subsidiary of Microsoft, the point will be moot. If Microsoft doesn't want a spin-off using Nokia technology with a competing O/S, licenses will not be granted. From which shell company the licenses will not be granted really doesn't matter.

If Newkia doesn't have those rights in its pocket NOW, forget about it. In addition, they have little to deal with when negotiating for licenses from other manufacturers like Samsung, Google, Apple, etc. Other than a desire on the part of these players to screw with Microsoft, why would they grant licenses to a group with nothing to bring to the table in exchange?

Re:Newkia

[TheLongshot]

Microsoft bought the phone business they wanted. Microsoft's trojan horse, Elop, is gone. Microsoft has no further attachment to Nokia, so Nokia can mostly do what they want (other than make mobile phones.)

shipped vs sales

[Anonymous Coward]

Shipped and sales are not the same thing. You are comparing apples and oranges. Nokia might have shipped that many but sales are much lower. Almost no one who has experiences Windows on the desktop wants that on their phone.

Re:shipped vs sales

[jbolden]

Shipped and sales from quarter to quarter may not be. When we are looking at multi quarter trends, yeah... pretty much they are the same thing.

Most profitable android development evar!

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Wow! I think the highest profit margins ever recorded in an android universe must have been this project in Nokia. Just a couple of engineers writing a few header files, and one middle manager producing a presentation of a product development plan, one double agent ratting it out to Microsoft ..., boom, the take over negotiations with Microsoft goes at combat speed and the offer bumped up by a billion or two!

Well done, Nokia, you have learned the lessons of all those municipalities and governments threatening to go to Linux to wrangle a better deal from Microsoft well.

Re:Most profitable android development evar!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, it was when Motorola Mobility CEO Sanjay Jha called up Larry Page and said he was going to start suing other android manufacturers. 60 seconds, $12.5 billion.

Platform was already compatible

[jovius]

The Vertu luxury brand phones use Nokia HW platform, and switched to Android apparently without much work. Nokia Android phone was speculated early this year.

Meego or Android could have saved Nokia...

[Sla$hPot]

If not for the plain arrogance towards both the market and it's customers that often comes with to much success.
In that respect the just team up with a partner with the exact same problem. Or should i say gotten owned by.
They should have listened to all the critics back in 2006-2007 when they started to produce perfectly engineered smartphones that met all the specs on paper, but never really worked in practice, ie. N96.
Nokia + Microsoft are just like to middle aged guys that found each other, sunday morning at six o'clock when all the hot girls ( or guys :/ ( no pun intended ) ) left the bar. The whole town is empty. They need all the luck they can get or it could get ugly.
Had Nokia just teamed up with Intel, way earlier and kep focus on meego and perhaps Qt, it could have been a great party.
Had they focused on Android already back in 2005 as a plan b, they would have been safe by now.
Now it's just two battered old guys holding hands, sun is rising. Hum!

Re:Meego or Android could have saved Nokia...

[sixtuslab]

Meego would have been the way to go, the only problem against it would have been the ecosystem which would have been easily fixed by becoming part of the android ecosystem like the other finnish linux os phonemaker Jolla did.

Newkia, first phone within a year

[sixtuslab]

http://www.zdnet.com/nokia-is-dead-newkia-rises-from-its-ashes-7000020271/

Linux != Android.

[Anonymous Coward]

There were the N700, N800, N810, N900 with Linux, not Android on them.

Plus how does this sound?

I am so sick of this "magical thinking" when it comes to Cars. There is something like a dozen making Cars, how many of those have been consistently profitable with cars? ONE, and that is Ford. Toyota and GM have made profits, not consistently mind you, and with GM their profits on a lot of cars can be measured in pennies.

Re:Windows Phone should being doing so much better

[drinkypoo]

Change of tack on this and HTC could be No1 again. The build quality of their Android phones is good.

That's funny, I see the most complaints about HTC phones disintegrating.

"movement at the bottom"

[Anonymous Coward]

happens to be alligators... with the big one being MS.

Dropping an Android alternative ...

[Rambo Tribble]

... might be difficult to explain to shareholders. Unless MS outright intends to kill Nokia, they had better clue-up on the salability issue.

Re:Dropping an Android alternative ...

[PPH]

... might be difficult to explain to shareholders.

Not any more.

they had better clue-up on the salability issue.

When Microsoft tires of Nokia, there isn't going to be anything left to sell.

its called leverage

[Anonymous Coward]

Well duh!
Getting android running on their hardware was pretty much the only way to get any leverage to force microsoft to pony up cash forthe company. Otherwise hey were doomed to be Ballmer's bitch and ultimately wiped out.

Yeah, about that...

[Anonymous Coward]

This was common knowledge in the MP division of Nokia (where I work), but what will happen now is anyone's guess - I knew about it around the beginning of the year. And yes, it was a closely guarded secret, though apparently not so much... :-)

Samsung's research center in Finland

[X.25]

Very few people seem to remember that Samsung announced opening a research center in Finland, few months ago.

People laughed at the time, but hopefully these funny guys now understand why Samsung did it.

They really played it smart :)

Re:Windows Phone should being doing so much better

[Anonymous Coward]

BS caller back again to point out more BS!

All services people are 'reimbursed' for their phones as well as getting the general benefits.

So the argument that you are 'forced to buy a win7 phone' doesn't hold up well when you are reimbursed... *if* you choose to partake. You didn't have to, nor would you be the first person to say "I don't want to carry a cell phone" or "I like my existing phone, I'll just leave it in my pocket."

We were told what phones they would reimburse and told to not bring other branded products on customer visits. So what do you call that?

Common sense? They probably also weren't keen on carrying a Mac Book Air running Windows either... which is not unlike being told not to speak of your fandom of... the Green Bay Packers when on a customer site in Minneapolis (Vikings territory), or expressing a love of U-Dub while in Oregon (Ducks).

Before the Surface, I carried a (personal) iPad along to a couple of customer visits... and while I wasn't told to, I made sure to keep it from view so as not to give a bad impression.

Re:Scale

[symbolset]

The annual figure you're talking about is $120 Billion. It is roughly the GDP of Iraq. Enough money to feed the entire world for a day. And you're talking about dozens of the most powerful companies in the world - the technology elite, manned by the greatest minds resources like this can assemble, choosing to make no money, unable to think of something profitable to do with their money.

Sorry, no sale. I don't care what the reports say. It is just not credible.

I liked my Lumia 920, but not Windows Phone...

[turrican]

I really liked my Lumia 920, hardware-wise - but couldn't get over some of the glaring annoyances (e.g. call volume control not independent of ringer volume control) of WP8. Sold it and went back to my old iPhone for the time being.

I might have kept it had the option to try out Android on it. Bummer.

Re:Does it even have a fart app?

[turrican]

Yes, there are several. I was actually considering writing a(nother) one with features I hadn't seen (ex: a timer)

But even the availability of fart apps couldn't overcome annoyances like lack of separate controls for ringer and call volume.

giant corporation having a backup plan?

[LostMyBeaver]

Ok, I worked with Nokia on at least 5 models of phones which never made it past the labs. Prototypes and proofs of concept.

Playing the conspiracy theorist, let's try this.

1) Microsoft announces development of a Surface phone.
2) Nokia threatens to sue Microsoft for billions of dollars because of business agreements which have had Microsoft passing Nokia phones off as flagship Microsoft products.
3) Microsoft decides if Windows Phone will ever work, they will have to make a phone themselves.
4) Microsoft buys Nokia's failing phone division which has absolutely no hope of ever recovering because Nokia doesn't own or know how to market their own platform. They only know how to build and manufacture devices.
5) Microsoft now has full license to probably more patents in the phone market than most of the market combined.

I am of course just speculating.. But isn't this a bit more likely?

Can Android run on non Lumias?

[unixisc]

Just wondering - can other Nokia phones, such as Belle or Asha be rigged to run Android? Windows Phone 8 is not so bad, but the OS on those other phones could use something else.

The best part survived

[DrYak]

(dead at this point)

Well, then it's good that the whole Meego/Maemo branch split and ran away before Nokia went belly up and are now readying their Jolla.

(and that *former nokia* people making the jolla. people with actual experience, so its going to be a road a lot less bumpy than, say, openmoko's freefunner)