Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft To Cut 7,800 More Jobs, Take $7.6 Billion Writedown On Nokia

jones_supa writes: Microsoft is about to announce another round of layoffs. A company press release confirms the plan, saying that it will target up to 7,800 employees and will be aimed mostly at the hardware division. The hardware division includes the lion's share of former Nokia employees, which became part of Microsoft last year. In an e-mail to employees, chief executive officer Satya Nadella reiterated the company's commitment to its phone business, though he also said that some refocusing was necessary and that Microsoft's phone business would reflect the overall Windows strategy: "We are moving from a strategy to grow a standalone phone business to a strategy to grow and create a vibrant Windows ecosystem that includes our first-party device family," the e-mail reads. "As a result, the company will take an impairment charge of approximately $7.6 billion related to assets associated with the acquisition of the Nokia Devices and Services business in addition to a restructuring charge of approximately $750 million to $850 million."

46 of 249 comments (clear)

  1. Wait a minute... by mrspoonsi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Didn't MS buy Nokia for $7B, and they write off $7.6B, so they are pretty much writing off the whole Nokia as worthless.

    1. Re:Wait a minute... by faway · · Score: 5, Funny

      truth be told, many consumers did that years ago. as usual it has taken Microsoft forever to catch up with consumers.

    2. Re:Wait a minute... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      I suspect that yes, they're casting off the picked bones from Nokia's corpse, but they probably stuffed a few other rotten carcasses of accounting into that can while they were at it. Some that come to mind are Sidekick, Kin/Pink, some residual accounting losses from Zune... stuff like that.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:Wait a minute... by McGruber · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

      Buh-bye, Nokia.

    4. Re:Wait a minute... by Ravaldy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They did but keep in mind that it may have cost them far more than 14 billion to start from scratch. The value of Nokia was probably far more than 7B so they got it at a bargain. Spending $7B now could mean billions in savings yearly.

      My father before retiring purchased a competitor for $360 000. They had to restructure so they laid off most of the staff which cost them $500 000 in severance. This move increased the company's revenue by over $4 000 000 a year in addition to gaining control of all patents the company owned also removing the need to pay royalties for some of their own products. The ROI was less than a year.

      Without seeing all of the financial data behind the purchase it's hard to understand if MS is actually being financially smart or reckless. I'm sure the data is available but I have no idea where to look and even if I did I wouldn't know how to read it properly.

    5. Re:Wait a minute... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I and many others will be installing Windows 10 on our Nokia phones in less than a month. I don't forsee the phone hardware that I bought ceasing to continue to be produced in the near future.

      Yes, they sloughed off some of the croft. The old Nokia died completely independent of Microsoft, which is the only reason Microsoft could afford to buy it.

    6. Re:Wait a minute... by jbengt · · Score: 2

      $7.2B indeed.
      http://www.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com]
      They've valued nokia below their total worth estimated at acquisition time.

      And it looks like MS shareholders had already devalued MS for it.

      (Tue Sep 3, 2013 7:16pm EDT)
      Shares in Microsoft slid as much as 6 percent in the afternoon, lopping more than $15 billion off the company's market value, as investors protested the acquisition of an underperforming and marginalized corporation that lost more than $4 billion in 2012.

    7. Re: Wait a minute... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      lets also mention the test equipment vendors that have almost all been bought by the evil danaher: tektronix, fluke and keithley being the big 3 that come to mind. why can't companies stay around, these days? oh, right, if they are honest and provide a product that lasts, that's 'no good' for the current disposable economy. sigh.

      audio companies, include, too; harmon kardon and nakamichi come to mind as they are now shells. shit, even b&w (used to be high end speakers) now make fashion headphones for the apple crowd. SQ does not matter, only looks, for that audience.

      everyone is engaged in a race to the bottom. pretty depressing, actually.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    8. Re: Wait a minute... by baegucb · · Score: 2

      Oddly enough, I know 2 out of those companies. I almost went to work for Fluke at one time. Decided the commute (Seattle area) wasn't worth it. Haven't really followed them in years. I did work for Harman for a couple of years, walking distance from my home at the time (Northridge) and the owner at the time Sydney Harman was stupid in many, many ways. As in bragging at an all hands meeting about one of his young kids arranging a limo in the Carribean, and oh yes, btw, I'm laying off 1/3 of the company.

    9. Re:Wait a minute... by dryeo · · Score: 2

      I thought that Microsoft put one of their (ex-)executives in as CEO, he made decisions that killed Nokia and then sold it to MS and went back to work at MS, probably with a huge bonus.
      Personally I've been very happy with my Nokia phone, owned it for ten years now, battery is still good for 5 days (probably more if it didn't spend over half its time out of range of a signal), does what a phone is supposed to do, namely make phone calls.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  2. Wow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, basically Microsoft successfully killed the actual Nokia, successfully transferred the IP to themselves, have completely screwed the pooch in terms of being able to manage an acquisition which never made any sense ... and now they've written off the purchase.

    I'm sorry, but if you're taking over $7 billion in writedowns, maybe the decision to but it in the first place was stupid and misguided?

    This just sounds like Microsoft pissed away billions trying to prop up their failing phone, and are now leaving the rotting carcass of Nokia in their wake.

    Is this anything but mismanagement and hubris? Because it sounds like other than fucking up Nokia it hasn't achieved a damned thing.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Wow ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, basically Microsoft successfully killed the actual Nokia, successfully transferred the IP to themselves, have completely screwed the pooch in terms of being able to manage an acquisition which never made any sense ... and now they've written off the purchase.

      So, basically Microsoft got access to all of Nokia's IP and a big portion of their customer base for $7b in cash they didn't know what to do with, and destroyed a competitor in the process?

      Is this anything but mismanagement and hubris?

      Sounds like a bargain to me.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Wow ... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ... an acquisition which never made any sense

      Apple makes an iPhone for about $200, and sells it for about $600, for a gross profit of about $400 per phone.

      Google makes no money directly from Android software, and the Android handset makers make a tiny fraction of what Apple makes.

      There are HUGE advantages to controlling the entire HW/SW platform. Just because Microsoft screwed it up, doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea. The concept made a lot of sense, but the execution was mismanaged.

    3. Re:Wow ... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      I was so looking forward to getting a Nokia Windows 10 phone for Christmas.

    4. Re:Wow ... by fwarren · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Back in 2011 when Elop wrote the burning memo the handwriting was on the wall. Nokia was going to have trouble in the smart phone market. There is no way of knowing if their Linux offering that Elop canned to go with WinMo would have worked out for them. What was obvious even back then, was that moving to WinMo was a mistake. MS had gone from 12% of the smart phone market to under 4% by that point. No one was clamoring for new Windows 7.5 phone. Every Windows 6 phone user I knew had left for Apple or Google by that point in time, fed up random reboots on their phone that took 2 minutes to complete.

      It did not help that at that point most of his wealth was invested in Microsoft stock and only a small amount in Nokia stock. It was in his best interest to try and save the Widnows phone. Elop had drank to much kool-aid and was convinced that anything Microsoft was the way to go and coupled with that financial interest he took Nokia in the wrong direction.

      The only thing dumber than Elop tanking Nokia was Microsoft purchasing Nokia.

      I take that back. Microsoft purchasing Skype was just as dumb. After spending over 9 billion on Skype and then having to upgrade the hardware infrastructure Skype runs on. I suspect Microsoft has another 10 billion or so it will need to write off.

      --
      vi + /etc over regedit any day of the week.
    5. Re:Wow ... by danbob999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apple is the only company successful with this business model. Blackberry failed, Nokia failed (with symbian, before Microsoft), Samsung failed (Bada), Palm failed. That Microsoft failed isn't surprising at all.

    6. Re:Wow ... by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I will say that the build quality of the Surface line is very good. MS has learned to make decent hardware. Its pricey, but you get what you pay for.

      --
      Good-bye
    7. Re:Wow ... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Informative

      MS didn't get all the IP. Nokia kept most of it which makes the original deal more unsound. MS got the business while Nokia kept the patents.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:Wow ... by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Informative

      So, basically Microsoft successfully killed the actual Nokia, successfully transferred the IP to themselves, have completely screwed the pooch in terms of being able to manage an acquisition which never made any sense ... and now they've written off the purchase.

      Nokia is still around, they've just reverted back to their core business - selling telephony equipment.

      Nokia's well known for their handsets, but handset business is awful, due to its consumer nature. It's low profit, mass production, with lots of time wasted on stuff like warranty and support.

      Microsoft bought that business.

      Nokia's core business of selling equipment used to run cell networks is still around - Microsoft didn't buy that, and the core is honestly where the money's at. Think whenever a carrier goes and sets up a new cell tower all the equipment they need to buy - controllers, baseband processors, amplifiers, exciters, receivers, antennas, etc. all costing 6 figures minimum. And one set for the bands in question, another set for 2G, 3G and 4G, ... and you're talking millions of dollars of hardware, the BOM cost of which is probably well under $100k.

      And with 5G on the horizon, that's more opportunity.

      The real Nokia is still around, and they've shed the crappy parts of their business.

    9. Re:Wow ... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2

      Don't blame Elop for OPK's problem.

      When Elop got on board at Nokia, Symbian was dead in the water. Sure, the Android was gobbling up most of the market, and by that time even the Finnish didn't care.

      They sat on the smart phone and didn't push it because ... ? Reasons? I mean, the Symbian developer program was a huge mess too.

      The iPhone shouldn't have upturned the market the way it did, if Nokia was capable of executing from an engineering point of view.

      Not to say that they didn't have capable engineers, there are a lot of things that can hamstring engineering teams. In this case, I think it was managerial dysfunction that kept Nokia from being acquired.

      Not only that but Nokia's profitability was on the downswing since 2002.

      So, I think Nokia was doomed before the smartphone revolution hit.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    10. Re:Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your Finance-Fu is weak.

      Buy company for $7B

      Strip it of it's assets and IP (plus kill a competitor).

      Announce a tax write-off of more than you spent.

      Result: money back on your tax bill, plus you get to keep the bits you stripped.

    11. Re:Wow ... by fwarren · · Score: 3, Informative

      All besides the point. I was not talking about HOW they got to 2011. Instead I was talking about WHAT they were doing in 2011.

      Symbian was a cash cow that had been milked past the point where it was healthy for Nokia. To that point, Nokia saw Maemo/Meego as their way out, switching to modern Linux based OS. Elop offered another choice. Shitcan Maemo and go to Windows Mobile instead.

      No one knows how sticking with Maemo would have worked out. Would it have saved Nokia? Who knows?

      We know how going with WinMo worked out. They lost a year of sales. Who wanted to buy a Symbian phone when they knew it was dead, anyone who wanted a non-linux Nokia handset just sat back and wait a year, thus tanking sales. The Linux based Nokia phones were selling like hotcakes despite the fact they were not being marketed. That was a pretty good sign going with WinMo was the wrong thing to do. Then when the new WinMo Nokia handsets arrived, the market rejected them.

      Since they killed Maemo and sold off QT they had no option but to stick with WinMo at that point. The rest is history

      --
      vi + /etc over regedit any day of the week.
    12. Re:Wow ... by Kenshin · · Score: 2

      Nokia's Linux-based phone was "flying off the shelves" (I honestly hate that term) to pimply smartphone enthusiasts, in limited production quantities compared to the rest of their line. Not to mainstream consumers.

      I'm not saying it was a bad phone, from everything I heard it was pretty good, but it wasn't some guaranteed "hit" in the waiting.

      Going with Windows Phone turned out to be a bad choice, but the other choices they could have gone with may have also turned out to be bad. It could very well have been a no-win situation. They just went the most controversial route.

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    13. Re:Wow ... by Magnus+Pym · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are so wrong about the Telephony business. If anything, it is an even worse business than handsets. Chinese competition has killed the profit margins. 10 years ago, 3 of the top 5 telco vendors were based out of North America. Lucent, Nortel & Motorola. They have all gone bust and their carcasses have been subsumed by European companies. Similar consolidation has happened in other markets.

      What is now the `Nokia' company is the amalgamation of Alcatel, Lucent & Nokia. The big dogs who have any clout left whatsoever are Ericcsson and Hauwei.

      I used to work in the industry. Till the late 90s/early 2000s, Telecomm Infrastructure was superhot, and some of the best brains in the world joined these companies. Those days are long gone, the pond has shrunk dramatically and anyone who is halfway decent and motivated has long flown to other companies. The best brains these days are going to Google, Amazon, Facebook etc.

      The telecomm industry is now full of former big fish jockeying for position in the ever-shrinking pond. There are several categories of people: the politicians, the option-less and the clueless. The percentage of idiots &/or assholes is very high. As much of the technical work as possible is outsourced to India and China, and the work ethic is mostly `sweatshop'. Engineers in the industry have no bargaining power, salaries are flat or shrinking, and it is brutually hard (if not impossible) to find a job at least in the developed world. Most folks who have had to leave are having to retrain and take jobs in `sister' industries like storage and having their careers reset.

      Nowadays, telecomm companies give away the equipment at cost or lower, hoping to make money on support contracts.

      I would not wish a career in Telecomm on my worst enemy.

    14. Re:Wow ... by guises · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Amazon seems to be doing pretty well. Lexmark has done very well with this model. Gillette has done very well for themselves as well. And IBM.

      Customer lock-in wasn't invented by Apple. What makes Apple impressive is that they've managed to do it while getting their customers to keep asking for more of the same.

  3. Die, white whale, die by faway · · Score: 2

    Sometimes I feel like Ahab when it comes to Microsoft. and yet the truth is, Google is the new Microsoft. they are the Microsoft of the Internet so to speak. indeed there are many companies that resemble Microsoft, for instance Starbucks is the Microsoft of coffee and equally evil.

    1. Re:Die, white whale, die by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      indeed there are many companies that resemble Microsoft, for instance Starbucks is the Microsoft of coffee and equally evil.

      Yeah, like that time that Starbucks paid less than the average wage? Woops, they pay more. Or like that time that Starbucks put the competition out of business by dumping and then raised their prices, destroying jobs in the process? No, they put the competition out of business by being consistent, and they are totally willing to open a starbucks across the street from a starbucks so there's plenty of jobs. Wait, like that time they underpaid their suppliers? No, they pay more than fair trade amounts, although those amounts are arguably too low at least they've over the baseline. So in what way is Starbucks like Microsoft? Because they produce a product that more people want to use than the stuff you like?

      FWIW I think starfucks coffee is ass and if I wanted a cup of sugar I'd just ask for it, but seriously, how is Starbucks like Microsoft? The occasional bullshit trademark lawsuit? That's lame, but nowhere near that territory.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Die, white whale, die by faway · · Score: 2

      If you only read Starbucks' PR feed, you'd never know. (And you clear DON'T)
      Try asking someone who works there. They screw people over on a regular basis. Like systematically making sure they can't get enough hours to qualify for health benefits.
      They also screw their customers in 100 ways. Do you like having your MAC address uploaded to their servers?
      But you have no idea. Just put your head back in the sand and everything will be happy.

    3. Re:Die, white whale, die by gtall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stalin was evil, Mao was evil, Lil'Kimmy Jong Un is evil. How many people has MS, Google, and Starbucks killed?

    4. Re:Die, white whale, die by spacepimp · · Score: 2

      How about that time when Starbucks stacked the ISO committees to get a ratified undocumented XML as a standard? Or that time when Starbucks had the FUD campaign threatening to sue corporations and home users who used other coffees, due to the Non Disclosed coffee patents they all were infringing?

      Starbucks sucks, I won't step foot in one, but MS has a special sort of evil that has fostered a long term distrust and disrespect, that has only been achieved by precious few companies.

    5. Re:Die, white whale, die by nickweller · · Score: 2

      @faway: "Sometimes I feel like Ahab when it comes to Microsoft. and yet the truth is, Google is the new Microsoft. they are the Microsoft of the Internet so to speak".

      How is Google forcing you to use their search engine on your browser?

  4. Also gone is Elop by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apparently Elop is also out as part of the layoffs. Most likely he'll get a big payout for his part.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  5. Look on the bright side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is sure to resolve the skilled tech labor shortage that the tech giants have been complaining about.

    1. Re:Look on the bright side by arth1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I presume that those on a H1B visa will be let go first, of course?

  6. windows is exactly the problem. by nimbius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Going from ballmers dominator approach in which all markets become a subservient cash-cow for Microsoft product-driven walled gardens of commerce and perpetual licensing, to "we just want to make it a windows thing" is still completely missing the point. the 7 billion dollar writeoff is the business equivalent of a hangover from 30 years of chasing a white rabbit everyone else had already caught. focusing on windows isnt a business strategy, its a suicide letter.

    For what windows does in the real world, other companies already do better and most importantly cheaper. games? steam is a household name. word processing? a google docs enabled chromebook has that covered in spades along with social networking and internet. While microsoft was busy jumping through hoops with zune, windows phone, and surface tablet, they completely ignored the fact that despite competitors dominating a product segment in terms of sales, their competitors had obsoleted the very birthright applications of redmond itself: the apps.

    Microsoft has XBox (for now) and a contractual model of business licensing that will assume more and more the role of a monarchy over a colony as time marches on until finally the very same companies that targeted redmonds consumer products will begin to target their business divisions as well. A few more years here and there of fervent litigious hand waving will commence, more layoffs will ensue, and eventually Microsoft will have found itself not consumed 'cancerously' by the open source it vilified, but entirely sidestepped.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:windows is exactly the problem. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Steam Machine is the 4th platform, with a limited library, just like the major consoles.

      Historically, there's been room for 1st place, 2nd place, and nintendo in the console market. The Steam Machine is a hard sell; it needs to be cheaper and better. And if you're building a real gaming PC, you're going to install Windows on it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:windows is exactly the problem. by Ravaldy · · Score: 2

      Going from ballmers dominator approach in which all markets become a subservient cash-cow for Microsoft

      Ballmer is who brought MS to a halt in the end user market. That's all on him for not surrounding himself with the right people

      walled gardens of commerce and perpetual licensing

      How is MS licensing a walled garden? I'm confused as I find their licensing model to be tailored for each specific facet of their industry: Retail, OEM, Business.

      For what windows does in the real world, other companies already do better and most importantly cheaper

      Define real world. You mean end users right? MS sunk the ship with end users. That's been pretty clear for a while now but the new CEO is trying to remedy that.

      As for business, I find they improved their product offering as well as the cost and feature set. I cannot see a reason to consider any other platform for most businesses. I'm not talking specialized application here, I'm talking main stream stuff such as centralized storage, permission, workstation management, deployment and more...

  7. In other news by ranton · · Score: 4, Funny

    In other news, Microsoft is hiring 7800 H1B workers to head up their new mobile division.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    1. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Source? We can't tell if you're joking or not.

  8. Re:First Jolla and now Microsoft by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Funny

    I say we wait another 80 years. If most cellphone users are dead by then, it means that those wavelengths really are dangerous.

  9. Re:Another round of layoffs by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

    And the yearly stacked ranking and purging wasn't enough? MS problem was that they were in the 90s mindset where they could buy themselves into new areas by buying companies. They got good people but the problem was they didn't know what to do with those companies.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  10. Nokia's return? by gaiageek · · Score: 2

    Now let's hope the rumors that Nokia will begin producing Android smartphones in 2016 are true.

  11. Microsoft tried the wrong business model by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This isn't Apple envy. They didn't say they want to focus on one offering. They said they want a vibrant ecosystem that includes their first-party devices.

    Distinction without a difference really.

    They've learned that when you're making the bulk of your OS's phones yourselves, there's little incentive for competitors to license your software.

    Microsoft's problem is that their business model has been to SELL software. That worked fine in the PC market place because the hardware and the software were abstracted from each other AND they managed to become a de-facto standard before something like linux came along. Microsoft's problem in mobile is that they tried to replicate that business model (selling software to third party hardware makers) while Google was almost literally giving away Android to all of Microsoft's potential customers. Google makes their money from ads, not software sales so Google effectively evaporated any profit margin for Microsoft or anyone else who wasn't vertically integrated in mobile. The moment Nokia dumped their own platform for Windows they were effectively dead because nobody else wanted to use Microsoft's software and Nokia wasn't going to be able to drive it into the mobile marketplace by themselves.

    So instead what Microsoft is belatedly realizing is that they should have followed Apple's model and vertically integrated for mobile. Apple is a software company fundamentally. What makes a mac different from a PC is OS X. What makes an iPhone different from an Android phone is iOS. The hardware is basically the same underneath. So Apple sells you their software but won't sell it without a fairly nice device to go along with it. However an important feature in this is that Apple has design chops and retail experience in their DNA. Microsoft doesn't. So Microsoft has to replicate what Apple is doing without the design culture that makes Apple successful at doing it.

    Basically it's fortunate for Microsoft that they have a huge amount of cash in the bank because I think they are going to burn through a lot of it trying to transform the company into something they currently are not. They have enough cash that I'm not about to declare them dead but Microsoft doesn't have an easy road ahead of them I think.

    1. Re:Microsoft tried the wrong business model by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

      For me, it's because the brand name is poison. I wouldn't even look at Windows Mobile when it came out, after the horrible Windows CE devices and ugly desktop experiences I've had. By the time I realized that Windows Phone is a pretty decent platform, I was already well established with Android in my household.

      The think that gave Microsoft power, that people tend to stick with one platform once they've invested time and money into it, is now working against them. It's pretty tough to get people to switch from iOS and Android. All your email, messaging, apps, etc are tied to a particular phone OS, and your phone is typically tied to a 2 year contract.

      No idea how MS can pull out of this one. I've mostly chalked it up that the sun is setting on the Microsoft empire, and someone new is going to take over the 2020's. Probably Google, but I don't really know for sure. (crystal ball is in the shop)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  12. Wrong. by DarthVain · · Score: 2

    They are writing off *more* than they paid for Nokia, pretty much saying Nokia was worse than worthless...

  13. maybe the build is nice by FranTaylor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    but for tablet use they are just too darned heavy. When I hold one like a tablet I think, "where can I put this down" because it's too heavy to just nonchalantly carry like a tablet.

    And then when you try to use it like a laptop, you say, "what is with this terrible keyboard" and "why can't I use it as an actual lap-top"

    The Surface is like a Pontiac Fiero, trying hard to be two things at once and not doing either of them particularly well.