
Microsoft ditching the Nokia name on smartphones - nmjenkins
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29724072
======
otoburb
>The announcement comes despite Microsoft agreeing to a 10-year deal to use
the Nokia name on mobile products.

That clause either didn't have much bite, or was only a verbal side
agreement/PR stunt and wasn't actually written into the acquisition
agreement(s).

EDIT: This article[1] clarifies via the relevant quote:

>"Microsoft has also agreed to a 10-year license arrangement with Nokia to use
the Nokia brand on current and subsequently developed Mobile Phones based on
the Series 30 and Series 40 operating systems," Nokia said in a recent US
filing.

Basically, Microsoft has the option to use the Nokia brand name and is
presumably paying Nokia as part of the 10-yr brand license deal. Without
knowing the specifics of the license agreement, Microsoft may have tied any
transfer payments based on gross revenue from Microsoft Nokia-branded mobile
products; simply dropping the brand name might be a convenient way to side-
step any payments to Nokia if they had the foresight to add escape clauses to
the agreement.

[1] [http://gadgets.ndtv.com/mobiles/news/nokia-cannot-use-
mobile...](http://gadgets.ndtv.com/mobiles/news/nokia-cannot-use-mobile-brand-
post-microsoft-deal-until-2016-422340)

~~~
raverbashing
Yeah, looks like an option and maybe it's even payed for

Meaning that MS can, but is not obligated to name it Nokia

------
pessimizer
They only have the name exclusively until December 2015. After that point,
Nokia can release mobile phones again under its own brand.

[http://followingjolla.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-small-
print-t...](http://followingjolla.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-small-print-three-
ways-nokia-can.html)

------
fidotron
This whole deal, from the moment Elop went to Nokia, was a disaster in slow
motion. That the current Lumias are so good, yet sell at unsustainable levels,
shows just how fundamentally flawed Microsoft's strategy has been, and
continues to be.

They've been solidly outplayed at their old embrace, extend, extinguish game,
and unless they can get back into that mode mobile will just be dead to them.

And I say this as someone that would welcome a strong third player, because
the App Store/Play Store duopoly is stagnating fast.

~~~
untog
Nokia was already in the disaster zone before Elop got there. While I agree
that the current strategy hasn't been a winning one, I don't actually see that
they had a ton of other options. Become another me-too Android manufacturer?

~~~
higherpurpose
But going WP7 certainly didn't help. It slowed Nokia's sales to a crawl.

Nokia could've been the Samsung of Android, today, especially when you
consider its advantage in smartphone and camera engineering. All it had to do
is adopt Android early "enough" (even a year after Samsung did would've been
okay).

Here's some data for the skeptics:

[https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1543014](https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1543014)

~~~
pessimizer
>But going WP7 certainly didn't help. It slowed Nokia's sales to a crawl.

I think it's more accurate to say that it was the fault of that stupid (unless
it was intentionally meant to lower the value of Nokia mobile, of course) Elop
speech, where he obsoleted Symbian and Maemo, at a time when Nokia hadn't
released a Windows phone, and didn't even have a plan to serve the low-end
smartphone market that Symbian had locked up.

------
DigitalSea
I think the problem with the lacklustre sales and drop in stature of the Nokia
brand is not the Nokia name, it is the fact that the Windows phone operating
system pales in comparison to Android and iOS. I do not mean "pales" as in
Android or iOS is superior, I mean when it comes to the very thing most of us
use our phones for (besides texting, email and making calls): applications and
games, they are nonexistent on Windows Phone OS.

If Microsoft were to release a Lumia phone running Android, I would definitely
buy one, no question or doubt about it. The latest Lumia phones are incredible
pieces of hardware; nice design, nice internal hardware, responsive
touchscreen, good battery life and one of the best cameras in a phone
currently on the market.

It is so painfully obvious and as usual, Microsoft just do not get it. They
have some of the best phones on the market, but they go relatively unnoticed
because they're running an operating system most people are not interested in
using or dislike. I have a Samsung Galaxy S5, but if I had a choice of a Lumia
phone like the Lumia 930 running Android, I would have bought that instead. I
have longed for a Lumia phone running Android for a while now.

Microsoft should just ditch Windows Phone OS or at the very least, sell two
variants, give the customers a choice, do not make them have one over the
other. One running Android and the other Windows. I can already tell you which
version would be more popular.

I feel as though the reason the flagship Lumia phones are not running Android
is because Microsoft feels like it would be admitting defeat. They have
invested a lot of money in the operating system, purchase of Nokia and
continued development of new phone models, it has become more of a pride thing
now and the fact they have committed to Windows Phone OS so much they could
not easily back out from it even if they wanted too.

Free the hardware. Give consumers choice. If you prefer Windows Phone OS, then
buy a Lumia running Windows Phone OS or if you are like many consumers out
there wanting to stay up-to-date and having access to the latest games and
applications, buy a Lumia running Android.

~~~
skrebbel
You know that this is taste, right? I got so fed up with Android's horrible UX
and lack of consistency that I ditched it for windows phone, and I'm not
looking back.

It's a really excellent smartphone OS. Fast, usable with one hand, clean, no
clutter, instant overview. The only disadvantage is a smaller app ecosystem -
this matters to many people but not to all by far.

~~~
freehunter
I used Windows Phone for several years and loved it. The app ecosystem is
smaller, but the built-in features are so nice that you don't need a whole lot
of apps (does the iPhone or Android have a QR reader built in yet, or built-in
social networking apps?) With the amount of work and money that Microsoft puts
into making sure any dev can make a Windows Phone version of their app as
easily as possible, the only reason devs don't support it (especially if they
have a Windows 8 app, looking at you Google) is pure apathy.

~~~
dingaling
> the only reason devs don't support it ... is pure apathy.

Plus $99 per year for the privilege of loading your proto-app onto your own
phone.

Versus just picking-up an Android phone and starting to hack, I can understand
the lack of interest.

There's also the problem of the intersection of mobile-oriented developers and
developers familar with the MS development stack; I'd say that the majority of
the latter are back-end corporate coders, not front-end app developers.

~~~
wfjackson
It's been $19/yr for over a year now vs. the $25 one time cost to get into the
Play Store. Also free for students and MSDN members.

I believe the fee is there to prevent a malware propagation problem like we
have on Android.

~~~
swartkrans
> I believe the fee is there to prevent a malware propagation problem like we
> have on Android.

Anecdotally, I have had zero problems with malware on Android and I have used
Android since 2010, and I have never known anyone to have a problem. Yet
you're making it out to be some kind of huge deal, also $19 a year is still
more than $0 a year to build your own app for your own hardware. Not being
able to side-install apps on other platforms is the sole reason for me using
Android, because otherwise I would use iOS which otherwise has the best phones
and eco-system period.

~~~
wfjackson
Anecdotally, I haven't seen an issue around me with malware on Windows either
from 2010 (except one person complaining about the Ask toolbar bundled with
Java/Flash).

I guess you haven't been looking at the news about Android Malware.

[https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-
instant&ion=1&e...](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-
instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=android+malware&tbm=nws)

------
fulafel
Previous discussion (41 days ago):
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8298449](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8298449)

------
thisjepisje
No more Nokia/Microsoft dumbphones? :(

------
stealthlogic
Way to run Nokia into the ground Microsoft.

~~~
adamman
Nokia got lazy. They saw the iPhone and didn't change course until it was too
late. If anything, Microsoft kept them above ground.

~~~
pessimizer
Microsoft put Nokia into the ground with a single speech that obsoleted all of
the phones that they had in the wild (and were still trying to get people to
buy) for a phone that they hadn't developed yet.

The N900 and N9 were better than the iPhone, although that's not saying much.

