

Microsoft just bought Nokia for $0 - plinkplonk
http://jacquesmattheij.com/Microsoft+just+bought+Nokia+for+%240

======
maxklein
When I read such articles, that's when you realise that people are resistant
to change. It's like those people still using Windows XP because it's the
best. Tech is in constant change, but at some point, some people just give up
and decide not to join in anymore: not to make facebook accounts, not to join
twitter, not to upgrade their OS, not to switch browser.

That's what this post is: someone refusing to face the changing landscape of
tech.

Mobile is greater than what it seemed to be at the start. Mobile operating
systems are no longer button phones, they are computers, and they are going to
integrate with the desktop tightly. That's the new world, and in such a world,
there are only going to be just a few platforms.

Nokia had almost zero chance of being the new platform. Microsoft continues to
maintain strong platform presence on the desktop, browser, gaming console/set-
top, and they have brought in a strong mobile platform, even if sales are
lack-luster now.

Android provides a free, single platform for everybody else.

Apple has their iPhone eco-system, which is not open to others to use.

If Nokia stays on their platform, they will surely fade into irrelevance, and
at some point they will need to switch to Android, and be years behind all the
other Android clones. That would be the end of Nokia.

The Microsoft-Nokia deal basically has given the Microsoft mobile platform
relevance, and it means that a big chunk of the mobile market will be
MS/Nokia, and that will ensure that Nokia remains relevant.

With this move, the integrated platform market has basically been divided into
three equal chunks (Android, iOS, MS) and for the new few year people are
going to have to choose between those. Nokia as a hardware manufacturer - if
it does good deals with MS, will basically form one-half of the third major
platform. That's how it will stay relevant.

After this deal, Android is likely going to become more popular, because most
other hardware manufacturers will bet full-scale on android. However, the
problem is that Android lacks a desktop environment, so canot be as tightly
integrated as the other two platforms could.

So I expect Android to take the role of feature-phones now, while MS and Apple
control and split the high-end market.

I'm not sure what role blackberry will play in all this.

~~~
raganwald
> That's what this post is: someone refusing to face the changing landscape of
> tech.

I didn't read that at all, what I read was someone saying that change is
necessary, but that _this_ change has huge benefits for Microsoft but
questionable benefits for Nokia.

We should be wary of falling into the "politician's fallacy" from the
delightful Britcom "Yes, Prime Minister:"

 _We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do it._

~~~
maxklein
There is no other "something" to be done to save Nokia. It brings benefit to
Microsoft, and it _saves_ Nokia.

~~~
marshray
Baloney. Some of Nokia's other options were to

1\. Develop a fantastic new platform/product/ecosystem that people wanted to
buy (using local talent)

2\. Support Android on some or most of their devices

3\. Reinvigorate their current platform somehow (new features, reduced costs,
new apps, developer incentives, etc)

Keep in mind, MS's product in this space is widely considered less than
successful. The only thing MS has going for it is cash in the bank, but so do
Google and Apple and Nokia.

How many people walk into the store thinking "I'd like to sign up to buy a
Windows phone"? How is this going to benefit Nokia again?

~~~
kyberneticka
Windows Phone 7 has been on the market for less then a full quarter. It is a
brand new OS, better on initial release then iOS 1.0 or Android 1.0. So stay
calm. In time, people will see Windows Phone as an attractive alternative in
the market.

RE point 1 and 3, Nokia did this already - it was supposed to be Maemo. They
didn't go anywhere with it. They turned it into Meego. We know what happened
with. Nokia failed MISERABLY in this regard.

~~~
redrobot5050
How is WP7 better than iOS 1.0? It seems about feature even with iOS 1.0.

Nevermind that WP7 isn't competing against iOS 1.0. It's competing against iOS
4.3, and in the fall, iOS 5.0.

------
arethuza
I think the "the same happen without any risk to MS" is an excellent point -
the downside for Microsoft is limited and the upside is pretty good. For Nokia
the upside is limited (at best you are yet-another Windows Mobile 7 handset
manufacturer - it's not like they have an exclusive) and the downside is huge.

~~~
saturdaysaint
"The downside is huge."

Compared to what? I don't think the downside is greater than the downside of
maintaining their own incredibly expensive and increasingly obsolete
platform(s). This gives them their only hope of delivering a stable
smartphones with a modern UI in the first half of this year (bonus: without
spending tens-of-thousands of developer hours). I consider that "upside".

~~~
zmmmmm
_Compared to what?_

Compared to joining an ecosystem that has already succeeded (Android). The
downside if WP7 turns out to peak at 5% of the market - which is entirely
possible at this juncture - is that Nokia will suffer a horrific drop in
profits and probably go out of business. They now _need_ WP7 to reach 30 - 50%
of the market simply to consider this strategy a success. It's incredibly
risky to take a bet like that.

~~~
saturdaysaint
Elop has given a credible reply to this argument: Android would put them on
the fastest track imaginable to commoditization. Nokia's support and supply-
chain would have taken Android from the marketshare leader to the undisputed
ruler of the smartphone market. In this kind of atmosphere, it could be safely
surmised that no manufacturer would have any leverage with Google and there
would be very little opportunity for interesting differentiation.

~~~
zmmmmm
> Android would put them on the fastest track imaginable to commoditization

The way I see it they are on that track anyway. As far as I can tell they got
absolutely no hard concessions from MS about control of WP7 - I'm sure
Microsoft said lots of nice things but when it comes to the crunch Nokia has
to be delusional if they think Microsoft is going to let them have any real
influence over WP7. If you are going to get commoditized it might as well be
in a market that is a known success rather than one which might totally fail.

> In this kind of atmosphere, it could be safely surmised that no manufacturer
> would have any leverage with Google

Nokia is easily big enough and powerful enough that they could take Android
their own way. They could forgo licensing Google's apps and put their own on,
thus maintaining a foot in the ecosystem but remaining entirely independent.
Android would have given them a lot more options than just becoming
subservient to Google (which, even if they did do, I would maintain is better
than being subservient to MS).

This deal is strange enough to me that I half suspect there is another
surprise - perhaps MS and Nokia joining together to sue the living daylights
out of Google with every patent in their arsenals.

------
ghenne
Here's what is happening. Microsoft wants to buy Nokia, but not with all those
buildings full of people. The announcements mean than Nokia can now get to
work laying off tens of thousands of people. They don't need 120,000 employees
anymore. Everybody involved in Symbian can go. Most of the Meego staff, too,
as well as lots of middle and upper management. It won't cost Microsoft a cent
in severance pay.

Once it's all cleaned up, Microsoft can complete the purchase. The stock price
should be lower too, reducing the total cost further.

~~~
shareme
ah what have you been smoking?

Nokia kept both MeeGO, Qt, and Symbian groups..

~~~
ghenne
Check out these two slides from the Nokia-Microsoft presentation:
<http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/11/rip-symbian/> Symbian goes to 0. Meego is
cut 75%. Services cut 20%.

As for QT, here is what the press release says:

"Qt will continue to be the development framework for Symbian and Nokia will
use Symbian for further devices; continuing to develop strategic applications
in Qt for Symbian platform and encouraging application developers to do the
same. With 200 million users worldwide and Nokia planning to sell around 150
million more Symbian devices, Symbian still offers unparalleled geographical
scale for developers.

Extending the scope of Qt further will be our first MeeGo-related open source
device, which we plan to ship later this year. Though our plans for MeeGo have
been adapted in light of our planned partnership with Microsoft, that device
will be compatible with applications developed within the Qt framework and so
give Qt developers a further device to target. "

So, QT on Symbian dies with Symbian, but stays on with crippled Meego.

------
noonespecial
The whole thing feels like shark-jumping if you ask me. I'd watch Nokia stock
today and see if investors don't agree. I'm betting they do. I wish I knew a
damn thing about investing, I'd short this one for sure.

~~~
Kilimanjaro
Like jumping from a burning platform to shark-infested waters?

~~~
ZeroGravitas
He specified a North Sea rig in his memo. I don't know if he's aware (he is
Canadian) but it's relatively common knowledge in this area that due to the
low temperatures your life expectancy even if you make it into the water
conscious and in one piece is under 15 minutes, less the further north you go.
Sharks are the least of your worries.

~~~
swombat
Interestingly, that's not because you'll get a thermal shock that will kill
you. The body is surprisingly good at maintaining temperature for a while
after being plunged in icy cold stuff. The problem is, it's so good at it,
that it will block off the arteries to your legs and arms to stop them from
leaking so much heat (better survive without limbs than die with them), and
you'll drown because you can't swim. As far as hypothermia is concerned, you
have about an hour before passing out due to hypothermia. But you have about
10 minutes if you're not wearing a life jacket.

<http://mariovittone.com/2010/10/1-10-1/>

------
wippler
I think the post is unnecessarily harsh on both Nokia and Microsoft. Windows
Phone is now a lot better and is comparable with iOS/Android, only thing it is
lacking is apps.

Nokia making this decision much late in the game clearly knows that Microsoft
also came late to the game. It needs MS as much as MS needs Nokia. Together
with huge marketing muscle of MS, they can surely make something out of the
partnership.

~~~
silvestrov
Missing apps is like being BeOS: you can be the best OS in the world, but
without apps you are not going to sell.

App-less, you are nothing in this product segment.

Besides, their Mac support is not that great, no support for syncing
calendars. This is not 90'ies anymore, you need Mac support at this time to
get the teenagers and cool people to use your product.

~~~
neutronicus
I don't think it's the same at all.

All I use on my Android phone is e-mail, maps, the browser, and general phone
stuff - honestly, I would trade the entire app store for a little more
reliability and a better touch screen.

~~~
bad_user
That's why I bought an iPhone; even though I'll never buy a Macbook or other
Apple products.

Being able to sync contacts / calendar back and forth to my Google Apps
account is priceless.

~~~
dingle_thunk
The Windows Phone does this. It also integrates those contacts with the status
updates, contact details and pictures from your Facebook, Hotmail, YMail &
Exchange accounts

~~~
Johngibb
From everything I've read, WP7 is really good. However, I think that it's a
huge fault of Microsoft that it just hasn't been marketed well. I've wanted to
try one... I go to Best Buy, and all they have is one non-functional demo unit
(the kind with just a picture of a screenshot). Can you ever imagine Apple
launching an iPhone, and not having working versions of it in their store to
try out?

I'm skeptical, but hopefully Nokia will give them enough exposure and allow
people to actually get their hands on a WP7 phone.

------
bambax
This post is so true and so sad.

> _most of Nokia's brand loyalty is because of the indestructible and
> unbelievably reliable phones they made in the 90's, since then they've been
> steadily dropping on that front_

Nokia phones are still the most reliable and solid, by far... for now.

~~~
michael_dorfman
Really? Here in Norway, people are complaining constantly about a few Nokia
models that are notorious for bad reliability, and I've never heard complaints
about iPhones, for example.

If Nokia phones are actually "the most reliable and solid, by far", they've
got a serious perception problem in the marketplace, at least in these parts.

~~~
bambax
I don't buy phones everyday, so maybe the most recent models are weaker, but I
have a Nokia from 2009, and so does my wife. Our kids have taken them to the
most incredible abuse imaginable and they're still working fine.

I had Sony phones, Samsung phones, all very fragile and sensitive to dust,
water, being stepped upon, etc.

We don't have iPhones but we have iPads (which are a different beast
altogether, of course)... the fist iPad to enter our home lasted exactly one
day (it doesn't like being dropped from a table -- even a low table).

------
pietrofmaggi
The main problem of the late Nokia is the (lack of) speed in innovation.

If they jump on the Android boat they'll have to fight against Samsung,
Motorola, HTC, LG, etc.. Look at the current performance of Sony-Ericsson.

On the Windows Phone 7 boat they are the big fish, and they can try to deliver
some good products without to much competition (in the WP7 environment).

~~~
davidw
Microsoft does not want a platform dominated by one hardware manufacturer.
Their interest is for Nokia to be the Compaq of phones, or something along
those lines.

There's no way that Nokia can really own the platform so that the same stuff
that runs on their phones won't run on other phones in the future. Microsoft
owns it, period. With Android, being open source, they would have had a bit
more leverage.

~~~
unp3rs0n
Android is already saturated with almost all hardware vendors jumping in and
entry of low cost Chinese handsets. Microsoft may own it, but remember that
they are an upstart now in the mobile business, not an established player. I
am pretty sure this deal would allow them a lot more leverage to influence the
OS design and software. Pretty much like the early WinTel era.

~~~
davidw
> Pretty much like the early WinTel era.

The company that got really, really rich off the early WinTel era was none
other than Microsoft. Not Compaq, not IBM, not any of the other clones.

~~~
rick_bc
Well, it's actually Intel.

------
Swannie
Nokia were clearly the leader 10 years ago.

Whilst at the front of the race they took their eye off for a little
distraction called Symbian. The problem there was the complete lack of control
over the UI. Symbian forked their UI for phone and tablet, and phone producers
forked their own UIs again (UIQ, Series 60,80,90), making upgrading the
existing UI centrally practically impossible. The only option was to start
from scratch... oops. The committee appears to have made a big deal out of
binary compatibility. Yet with today's consumer, that is not important on a
smart phone, when we want to get apps from a store.

Nokia looked up and has realised it's now running on a different track to
everyone else - the finish line moved and they can't catch up (3 years to get
from the old UI's, and we've still not got shiny new Symbian in mass market
products). Time to get into the current race.

The problem with branching Android, is that it puts them back in exactly the
same sort of situation they were in when they backed Symbian. By going with
Microsoft they have moved to a much more controlled system. Microsoft have
buckets of experience with smart phones, and I believe that WM7 will be the XP
of mobile. Let's just hope they don't Vista it.

------
latch
Some reports suggested that [considerable] money was part of the deal. Do we
know for sure whether this is or isn't the case?

"Microsoft invests $300 million in a strategic partnership with Nokia" is a
lot different than "Microsoft just bought Nokia for $0."

~~~
jsnell
A one-time few hundred million would be peanuts at this scale, I can't imagine
it affecting the decision unless it was quietly deposited to somebody's
private Swiss bank account.

~~~
Geee
Microsoft will help a lot in the marketing department for the new devices,
with money and with mind-share. One important point in this deal is the US
markets, it would be impossible marketing effort for Nokia to gain ground on
with Symbian and MeeGo, even if they succeeded in making them technically
superior.

------
ErrantX
Ok really thick comment. If the mass market is being stolen by Android... why
didn't Nokia start using Android?

It would seem the logical idea; if the platform is burning rather than trying
to stand on a piece of planking that has a history of falling in the ocean..
why not dowse yourself in petrol and fling yourself into the inferno.

I mean; if the argument is that Android is eating up the market Nokia wants...
then why not have the easiest slice?

------
therockhead
Nokia made a lot of mistakes in the past but I think the biggest one was not
buying Palm/WebOS.They could have had a great OS and have total control of
there future.

------
abijlani
I completely disagree with the article. He treats both Nokia and Microsoft as
though they have no idea what they are doing. Microsoft has decades of
experience in coming up from behind place and crushing the competition. As for
Nokia, they make really good hardware. They got caught up in selling cheap
handsets because it was great business for a while but that does not mean they
cannot make great hardware. I think this is a great move for both companies
and even better for consumers.

~~~
marshray
I can't think of many times when Microsoft has "come up from behind place and
crushed the competition" when the competition was less than ten times smaller
than they were.

Perhaps enterprise adoption of .Net over Java is once such example. Can you
think of others?

I'd probably put Microsoft and Nokia at even odds in the phone market, but I
really don't expect them to pass Android with something non open-source.

~~~
Yzupnick
Xbox for one

~~~
marshray
Looking at the numbers here:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_%28seventh_generation%29)
it looks to me like Xbox has been successful and competes well with the PS3 in
North America, but has dismal acceptance in Japan. But both of them are
trailing behind the Wii.

So that's clearly a success compared to the Windows-on-phones idea, but I
don't think it counts as having "crushed the competition".

~~~
unp3rs0n
Xbox has been the highest selling console for six straight months now. Expect
that to continue given how wildly popular Kinect has been over the holiday
season.

------
cincinnatus
A fair bit of hyperbole and fanboy-ism happening here. Which is completely
understandable.

It is pretty clear that WP7 is _not_ Windows Mobile, that Microsoft does in
fact finally _get_ it.

Jumping on the Android bandwagon is not in any way clearly a better or safer
move. In fact from a market perspective those waters are considerably more
bloody and getting worse every day.

This is a desperation play by Nokia in the high end of the market for certain,
but of all the bad choices they had available this may be the least bad. I is
also likely true that there is no move they could make that would ever result
in bringing them back to the heights of their past. Innovators dilemma in
action.

~~~
ansible
Yes, this is a desperation play. Ideally, they'd have made this decision 2
years ago, and already be shipping their first few WP7 phones.

------
rodh257
Why is this on the front page? Come on. Anyone who thinks this deal isn't good
for both parties is kidding themselves. After years of trying to create their
own operating system Nokia have finally admitted they need to invest in an
ecosystem. If they were to take on Android they'd be late to an already full
party.

With WP7 there's no one seriously pushing it, Dell, LG both aren't famous for
their phones. HTC owes most of what they have to Android. Nokia and Microsoft
working together is a partnership not to be written off. It's a point of
difference for Nokia, and Microsoft isn't going to be out of this game,
they'll invest and invest and they will be a major player, you watch.

A lot of ridiculous statements have been made by bloggers of late when
discussing smartphones, but I don't think I've heard any as silly as this:
"And to those whose Nokia/Windows smartphones will give them the mobile
variation on the MS 'BSOD' while calling 911, my condolences to you too."

~~~
gorog
Plus Nokia certainly negotiated a great deal. If they get WP7 licenses for 1$
when others get it for 10$, they have room to provide better quality for the
same retail price, while making comfortable margins. It's not because Apple
develops its own OS that this strategy is the best for everyone. Nokia should
better be the next Dell than the next Amiga. Also, carriers can't break WP7
like they can break Android (and block its updates).

~~~
rick_bc
But is that legal?

Even if it's legal, the other manufacturers will just abandon Windows Mobile
7. Not a nice scene.

~~~
rodh257
I think it would be just like giving a discount to bulk orders. Nokia will buy
a huge amount of licenses compared to dell, htc or any other supplier. Once
the app ecosystem grows other suppliers will want to be a part of it.

------
ThomPete
As always here in HN we tend to focus on the actual technology and platform
rather than what it do for normal people.

This is a great win both for Microsoft as it is for Nokia and as it is for the
millions of people who are just regular phone users.

Yes nokia will have to build an ecosystem (<http://000fff.org/the-power-of-
digital-ecoystems/>)

But they still have huge market share with people who are not likely to care
that there exist an iPhone because it's too expensive.

And if the market is in fact trending smartphones in 2011-2012 nokia will have
great opportunity to develop a market into a smartphone market with their
existing base.

------
iuguy
My favourite phone was the Nokia 6210. That thing was damned near
indestructable. The 6310i was also great but it only really added bluetooth
and had no authentication on the AT modem profile (which meant anyone could
connect to it and dial up to the Internet, snarf data and so on whenever
bluetooth was on).

The problem with Nokia was that they kept messing around with Symbian and
didn't really know what it was for, making clunky interfaces that while better
than Windows Mobile at the time were just blown away by the iphone.

Instead of trying to provide a better experience than the iphone, they went
crazy trying to imitate it and as a result failed to innovate. Ultimately
Nokia's marriage to Symbian pretty much screwed the pooch. They had to ditch
it but for what? If they're just another android OEM they're going to have
some interoperability issues and it'll still be quite expensive. Switching to
Microsoft means that if the tech is good it'll be well supported with a long
term roadmap by guys with a good track record elsewhere. Nokia won't be just
another OEM - they will be able to influence Microsoft's development. They
still shift huge amounts of phones especially at the lower end of the market,
and Microsoft will recognise that.

Sure Nokia are down but not out, and I think this is better for both than the
title suggests.

~~~
ansible
Years ago it seemed to me that Symbian was a dead-end. Just reading about the
programmer APIs was enough to convince me of that.

Motorola finally realized that P2K and their other proprietary stuff wasn't
going to cut it for the future. Most of these mobile phone OSs were designed
for very small, resource-constrained devices. Which is fine... that's all that
was viable in the market at the time. But they weren't designed to scale up.

For example: Android uses Linux, and it has had MP support for a long time
(late 1990's?). Even as of five years ago, many people would have thought that
a phone with a multi-core CPU is crazy. Why would you need all that power (and
power consumption)? And here we are in 2011, with the Nvidia Tegra 2 and other
CPUs in shipping phones. For most of those phone OSs, adding multi-core
support would be a multi-year re-write. Linux? No problemo.

And beyond that, there is database support, and support for various Internet-
based protocols (chat, radio, web, etc.). And what is needed for that is a
really solid TCP/IP stack. I've seen (and done) things to a TCP/IP
implementation to get it running on a small device. It wasn't pretty. Or high
performance. It will 'work', but not for heavy duty use like you'd need on a
smartphone these days.

Edit: grammar. Mention of TCP/IP stack.

~~~
iuguy
That's a good comment, but bear in mind that the MP support in the 90s was
Pentium Pro only (and expanded to x86/64). While multi-processing algorithms
can be generalised, they're best when they're optimal for the architecture
they're running on. MP on Arm is quite different when it comes to things like
thumbing and pipelining compared to x86.

I only know this because I did some work on Arm 7 after doing some MP work on
Pentium Pro 200s a few years earlier. It's amazing the crap your brain
collects over time!

~~~
ansible
Oh, indeed. My point was that the rest of the kernel (VFS, device drivers,
etc.) was already fairly well prepared for MP when ARM multicore came into the
picture.

------
Uchikoma
Nokia wants to be Apple but acts like Dell, this does not make any sense.

Disclaimer: Being Dell is nice, but you need to think like Dell concerning
their, much lower, margins. And whatever Microsoft tells you, you're just one
of many and compete with HTC, not Apple.

~~~
rm445
Nokia used to have levels of consumer satisfaction and devotion similar to
what Apple have.

Consistently, for about a decade (from the mid-nineties), they made the most
desirable phones, with the best combination of hardware and user experience.
But the user experience just didn't keep up as phones developed more features.

To continue the Apple analogy, the current Nokia smartphone experience is as
though Apple had continued to push OS9 while the rest of the world moved on
around them. Symbian is Mac OS classic in 2011.

~~~
Uchikoma
It's not about consumer satisfaction but about business models. They want the
high margin Apple model (into which HP also wants so they bought Palm and in
which RIM is).

Then they need their own OS. That their OS setup is behind the market hurts
their sales, but is irrelevant to the Apple vs. Dell business model discussion
(full stack high cost high margin vs. commodity hardware low cost low margin)

------
martythemaniak
Now imagine what Nokia could have done had they picked up Palm and installed
Jon Rubenstein as their CEO instead. _facepalm_

------
ig1
I sincerely hope that Elop sold all of his Microsoft shares before he joined
Nokia, otherwise he could be breaking all kinds of laws right now.

~~~
ig1
This is a legitimate point, Elop would have got options while he worked for
Microsoft, that creates the scope for both insider trading problems and
conflict of interest issues which are legally regulated.

~~~
Maakuth
I'm fairly sure this has been explored very thoroughly by the lawyers of both
companies. Actually, I think this deal was something that the board was
preparing for when they decided to hire a Microsoft man.

------
jsz0
This is a ridiculously bad article that glorifies Nokia as something they
haven't been in many years. It was sink or swim time for them. Choosing
Android 2 years ago may have been a really smart move but there are already
established leaders in Android handsets. It was too late for Nokia to go
anywhere with Android. They will be a first class citizen of WM7 and get a
tremendous amount of support from Microsoft who will be willing to piss away
millions, if not billions, of dollars to promote WM7. They could have never
got that type of treatment from Google. They'd be just another player in an
overcrowded market. At least this gives them some potential to offer a unique
product.

------
johnyzee
What do you mean $0? From what I heard Microsoft paid several hundred million
dollars in this deal.

Ah, here it is:

[http://blogs.computerworld.com/17800/google_and_microsoft_of...](http://blogs.computerworld.com/17800/google_and_microsoft_offer_nokia_hundreds_of_millions_to_abandon_meego_symbian)

Note that a couple of hundred million was on the table from several bidders.
If there are more than a few living braincells left at Nokia they probably got
significantly more out of it than that.

------
teyc
There are two key drivers here:

1) Smartphones will replace feature phones

2) Nokia still leads in feature phones in terms of ruggedness and reliability

If my wife is replacing her current Nokia, she'd certainly weigh towards
Nokia. But she'd want something a little more current, as long as it is just
as reliable.

As nice touch phones are, the form factor required for finger interaction
means it is not as convenient as a smaller phone. Symbian will continue to
have a life for a very long time.

------
aniket_ray
Contrary to everyone else I actually think this is a smart move. Personally, I
didn't find Windows Phone 7 too bad compared to an iPhone.

The only thing that Apple has in its favour is the RDF.

Nokia needs a differentiating OS, Android is not that OS. I don't think Nokia
wants to become a bit part commodity hardware manufacturer. So Windows Phone 7
might turn out to be a smart move.

Nokia is in a position to capture the cheap smartphone category, a category
that is still up for grabs.

~~~
stopmi
but other companies like htc, motorola etc. can also manufacture WP7 phones.

and nokia cannot make too many changes to functionality even if allowed as it
would fragment the WP7 app-market. even gui based changes would kill the ui-
consistency that MS is touting..

so i do not understand how nokia is differentiating itself by becoming a WP7
phone manufacturer...

~~~
iqster
I think it is about the developer/apps/market place "ecosystem". Elop
mentioned that in the burning platform memo. I'd give Microsoft some credit in
their developer relationship machine that's already in place.

The deal makes sense to me in terms of economies of scale ... more popular OS
= more developers/apps.

------
pessimist
I predict that Nokia will sue Android for patent violations soon.

------
SudarshanP
Nokia to developers: no Qt for Windows Phone development as posted on another
HN thread.

[http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/11/nokia-notifies-
developers...](http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/11/nokia-notifies-developers-
that-qt-is-out-for-windows-phone-devel/)

Linux(KDE) has a lot of Qt stuff. Will the Nokia Microsoft marriage hurt Linux
badly in some way?

~~~
marshray
Oh wow, I hadn't thought of that.

Yeah I imagine this is likely to piss off Nokia's most loyal developers.

I doubt Linux distributions are going to notice. QT will continue to be a rock
solid first class platform even with minimal new development. It already has
more features than it needs. They could probably coast for a decade before it
begins to hurt on Linux.

~~~
msg
When I used it Qt was dual licensed, one way for commercial closed source, and
GPL for open source. It can just be forked right?

~~~
marshray
Sure, but who's going to enhance it and promote it and keep it growing and
alive?

KDE? Oracle? :-)

------
tewks
This is a great article, but the conclusion is flawed in that high point for
Nokia was not the Nokia 2110!

It was instead Series60 third edition, which included a WebKit browser and SIP
support in 2006.

Afterwards, nothing happened... it was as if the company threw its hands up in
resignation post-iPhone.

------
paolomaffei
Wasn't the 3310 the Nokia high point?

~~~
threepointone
+1. what a gorgeous little phone that was. I honestly still believe that, for
that time (and a few years beyond it), the 3310 was the best phone a non-
business type could have. The buttons on it were perfect, and no one did t9
like it.

/nostalgia.

------
ashr
No doubt that MS has a great opportunity now and so has Nokia. Their
partnership better move fast otherwise it won't be able to benefit.

Without knowing the details of the partnership, the content in the OP sounds
mostly hyperbole and opinion at best.

------
mariusmg
"And to those whose Nokia/Windows smartphones will give them the mobile
variation on the MS 'BSOD' while calling 911, my condolences to you too."

Just a giant frustrated douchebag who likes Android. Why is this even
submitted? It's clearly trolling

~~~
FiddlerClamp
Yeah, he can't even get the name of Windows Phone right.

------
jogjayr
So months ago, using an external OS (Android) was like "Finnis boys peeing
their pants to keep warm", but now it's a good strategic partnership? And
especially given Elop's very recent Microsoft ties, could there possibly be
some other agenda?

~~~
Maakuth
That was a quote from Nokia exec called Anssi Vanjoki, who leaved the company
when Elop was hired.

------
nickzoic
When jumping off a burning oil platform into the freezing North Atlantic,
don't look down and think "Oooh, I'll jump into the burning oil slick, that'll
be warmer!"

------
sunstone
This is true. And Nokia just bought WP7 for 0$. The question that remains
is... How are they going to split the revenue from mobile search.

------
ericmsimons
Seems pretty naive to say Windows Phone 7 is a bad platform when you haven't
even touched it...

------
tomelders
um... didn't Microsoft pay Nokia a lot of money for this deal?

------
shareme
Considering that Nokia's decision to stab other Symbian partners in the back
form way back and do an UI and than have the failure of Symbian for years blow
up in their face I would state that Nokia is about worth $0.

~~~
bb1000
Yeah right. They still have the largest market share for smartphones:37% and
mobile phones: 31%. And made a profit of €2billion 2010.

------
innes
Sorry, but reflexively mentioning 'the BSOD' is pretty much a red flag for me
when it comes to taking an argument seriously.

------
andrewljohnson
I dislike when essays swear at me, particularly long ones. If you want me to
take what I am reading seriously, I expect you to choose your words carefully,
and using the word "shit" doesn't smack of careful word choice. I kind of
swear like a sailor when I talk sometimes, but not when I write.

~~~
sfphotoarts
you just did.

