Microsoft is cutting 1,000 jobs in Finland as it stops phone production(uk.businessinsider.com)
uk.businessinsider.com
Microsoft is cutting 1,000 jobs in Finland as it stops phone production
http://uk.businessinsider.com/microsoft-cutting-1000-jobs-in-finland-as-it-ends-phone-production-report-2016-5
165 comments
I too was there during those days, in Espoo.
But to be honest we also had our share of alienating developers, it wasn't only MS fault.
First the Symbian development was a mess with the Metrowerk tools and that Symbian C++ dialect, then came PIPS, followed by Carbide (Eclipse based).
Followed by the whole mess of open sourcing Symbian and closing it again.
Or the Symbian model moving from Symbian C++ / PIPS to Qt, also in the middle this process.
Maemo was GTK, but then everyone should move to Qt. Better not lets also move the OS into Meego.
I remember asking why the Nokia 770 didn't had a GSM modem and the team saying to me that wasn't the market they wanted to target. When they did the usual roadshow of upcoming devices.
Nokia was already quite bad in terms of relationship with app developers before Elop came into the party, due to the internal politics.
Of course, the famous burning platform memo was just the last way to alienate developers that were slowly accepting the new Qt based model for Symbian, after all the previous pain points.
But to be honest we also had our share of alienating developers, it wasn't only MS fault.
First the Symbian development was a mess with the Metrowerk tools and that Symbian C++ dialect, then came PIPS, followed by Carbide (Eclipse based).
Followed by the whole mess of open sourcing Symbian and closing it again.
Or the Symbian model moving from Symbian C++ / PIPS to Qt, also in the middle this process.
Maemo was GTK, but then everyone should move to Qt. Better not lets also move the OS into Meego.
I remember asking why the Nokia 770 didn't had a GSM modem and the team saying to me that wasn't the market they wanted to target. When they did the usual roadshow of upcoming devices.
Nokia was already quite bad in terms of relationship with app developers before Elop came into the party, due to the internal politics.
Of course, the famous burning platform memo was just the last way to alienate developers that were slowly accepting the new Qt based model for Symbian, after all the previous pain points.
What if Nokia 770 also was a phone? History could have been so radically different. I will never understand...
If the 770 was also a phone, it would have been a ghastly tablet with a phone inside.
But in 2007, the n800 would have been a ghastly tablet/phone with 2.5x the pixels, expandable storage to 64GB, and several different media players that sucked, but are still better than iTunes today. I'm still using the Canola media player on an n810.
The story of Nokia MeeGo: http://muropaketti.com/artikkelit/the-story-of-nokia-meego
Nokia was doomed before Elop took over. Kallasvuo was CEO when Apple released the first iPhone, and Kallasvuo was the one who decided that Nokia's existing offerings were good enough to compete, just keep minorly refining things every generation. By the time Elop came in, the ship was already sinking (or, if you prefer, the platform was already burning). Elop's decisions did not turn that around, but realistically, could he have?
I agree that Nokia was too slow to compete, but they had massive advantages over both Apple and Google and with good guidance could've survived successfully.
Even years after the iPhone came out, Nokia outsold Apple, had a bigger R&D budget and a bigger foothold in practically every market except North America.
Smartphones outsold feature (dumb) phones only in 2013, five years after the iPhone came out. When did Nokia slip to 3rd place by number of sold devices? Q1 2015.
There was time, just no will.
Even years after the iPhone came out, Nokia outsold Apple, had a bigger R&D budget and a bigger foothold in practically every market except North America.
Smartphones outsold feature (dumb) phones only in 2013, five years after the iPhone came out. When did Nokia slip to 3rd place by number of sold devices? Q1 2015.
There was time, just no will.
> but they had massive advantages over both Apple and Google and with good guidance could've survived successfully.
I can't agree more. Few people remember the Nokia 770 was released almost 2 years ahead of the iPhone. With a bit of polish it could have grown into a fantastic product line. In fact, the N9 was pretty much a masterpiece.
I can't agree more. Few people remember the Nokia 770 was released almost 2 years ahead of the iPhone. With a bit of polish it could have grown into a fantastic product line. In fact, the N9 was pretty much a masterpiece.
I remember wanting to buy it. I didn't because back then it was to much money for me. I remember thinking that I defently want a future version of it.
For some reason that I don't understand, they continued to push Symbian, and those phones were not good. I remember thinking, either push further on the MeeGo stuff or drop it and move to Android. They did neither and suffered for it.
For some reason that I don't understand, they continued to push Symbian, and those phones were not good. I remember thinking, either push further on the MeeGo stuff or drop it and move to Android. They did neither and suffered for it.
Symbian devices were actually very good phones. For making and receiving voice calls, they were better than Android has ever been.
Of course, as a platform for Web browsing, and particularly for app development, Symbian was not good.
But I still miss the phone functionality of my E71, or the Symbian devices I had before it.
Of course, as a platform for Web browsing, and particularly for app development, Symbian was not good.
But I still miss the phone functionality of my E71, or the Symbian devices I had before it.
And this was their undoing: thinking that people really cared that much about talking on the phone.
Talking is one of my least-used functions on my Android phone. I use it far, far more for texting, apps, internet, navigation, games, photos, and even visual voicemail than I do for talking. I might have a handful of calls a week on it. A phone that's great for talking and sucks for all the other things would be mostly useless to me.
Talking is one of my least-used functions on my Android phone. I use it far, far more for texting, apps, internet, navigation, games, photos, and even visual voicemail than I do for talking. I might have a handful of calls a week on it. A phone that's great for talking and sucks for all the other things would be mostly useless to me.
> Of course, as a platform for Web browsing, and particularly for app development, Symbian was not good.
So in other words - they were great phones, but terrible smartphones? I fully agree.
So in other words - they were great phones, but terrible smartphones? I fully agree.
Again, depends on what is "smart". For many day-to-day things, Symbian phones were superior to current smart phones as well. Some of this is more about security/commercial setup than technology, but 15 years ago, I was able to synchronize Outlook calendar to a Symbian phone, and it would remind me of my meetings, and it worked great.
Android or iPhone could do the same technically, but my employer can no longer use it. The company would give all data about meetings to Google or Apple. It's an absolute no-no.
Thus I sometimes forget my meetings, as the phone no longer reminds me.
Also, the alarm clock of Symbian was great, and i could depend on it. Even if you turned the phone off, it would wake you up. I'm nervous about trusting any Android device to wake me up in the morning if I have to catch a plane or a train (and I understand it's the same with iPhone).
Android or iPhone could do the same technically, but my employer can no longer use it. The company would give all data about meetings to Google or Apple. It's an absolute no-no.
Thus I sometimes forget my meetings, as the phone no longer reminds me.
Also, the alarm clock of Symbian was great, and i could depend on it. Even if you turned the phone off, it would wake you up. I'm nervous about trusting any Android device to wake me up in the morning if I have to catch a plane or a train (and I understand it's the same with iPhone).
>Few people remember the Nokia 770 was released almost 2 years ahead of the iPhone.
I owned one of these. It was an ugly, slow, expensive brick. I'd much rather use a Treo from that period. The iPhone was a wonderfully svelte device compared to either. I don't think you're appreciating how badly Apple beat up the Palm and Nokia competition back then. It was absolutely no contest and a disruption that was badly needed. Holding up the 770 as some under-appreciated jewel is fairly ridiculous. It was comically out of touch with consumers.
I owned one of these. It was an ugly, slow, expensive brick. I'd much rather use a Treo from that period. The iPhone was a wonderfully svelte device compared to either. I don't think you're appreciating how badly Apple beat up the Palm and Nokia competition back then. It was absolutely no contest and a disruption that was badly needed. Holding up the 770 as some under-appreciated jewel is fairly ridiculous. It was comically out of touch with consumers.
It was just an alpha device, and a Nokia side-project. It didn't even have a phone radio. The N800 was a pre-iPhone device and quite more polished. The N900 and N9 are, in my opinion, still better than many devices we see today in the market. And they are 6 years old...
I don't have any inside information but as an outsider the main thing that puts pressure on everyone is the margin that Apple commands on its products. People have repeatedly said that even when iPhone had 20% of the smartphones sold, they were taking in a much bigger slice of the pie when it came to profits. How do we tell potential shareholders "you can put your $1 on Apple or you can put your $1 on us but just so you know we have to ship n times as many phones as Apple does just to make the same amount of money that Apple does".
> Smartphones outsold feature (dumb) phones only in 2013, five years after the iPhone came out.
Yes but who had higher profits? That's the real factor. Outselling by itself is meaningless if your margins are poor.
Yes but who had higher profits? That's the real factor. Outselling by itself is meaningless if your margins are poor.
I agree. In India Nokia was voted as "Most Trusted Brand" for years. Cell phone == Nokia in India. All they had to do was to put Android in some phones as an arbitrage move and they could have still been the leader in that space in India. Which has grown like 8x in last 5 years.
If Elop had bet on Android instead of Windows Phone, Nokia would probably be doing well.
Almost certainly not. Have you seen the profit numbers at Samsung, Motorola, and HTC? They're getting destroyed by Android competitors like Xiaomi, Huawei, etc and Apple.
What makes you think Nokia would have ended up like Samsung/Motorola/HTC rather than Xiaomi/Huawei/etc? Nokia at least had a chance to be one of the profitable ones.
There are no profitable android makers.
Apple has 94% of the profits in mobile: http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/15/11/16/apple-inc-n...
We will never know for sure by Nokia shareholders might have gotten an amazing deal out of going Windows Mobile and getting acquired by Microsoft. As for the employees, this would have happened either way with how badly the company was prepared for smartphones.
Apple has 94% of the profits in mobile: http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/15/11/16/apple-inc-n...
We will never know for sure by Nokia shareholders might have gotten an amazing deal out of going Windows Mobile and getting acquired by Microsoft. As for the employees, this would have happened either way with how badly the company was prepared for smartphones.
Recent Samsung financial results say that their profit growth is fueled in part by Galaxy S7. So, no, there are fairly profitable android makers.
http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/27/11523616/samsung-earnings-...
http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/27/11523616/samsung-earnings-...
Because every android manufacturer will end with virtually no profit since they are producing a commodity. When you basically can't differentiate with your software except for which shitty skin you layered on top of Android, what makes a samsung better than an lg or any other android device?
Because every android manufacturer will end with virtually no profit since they are producing a commodity. When you basically can't differentiate with your software except for which shitty skin you layered on top of Android, what makes a samsung better than an lg or any other android device?
Updates. Updates, updates, updates.
I've come to trust Apple. Why? Because my iPad 2 still gets OS and security updates. Because my iPhone 5s still gets OS and security updates.
Apple has demonstrated that they support their tablets and phones at least 4 or 5 years. That's why I'll buy another Apple tablet. That's why I'll buy another Apple phone.
Why would I buy an Android phone or tablet that's unsupported and abandoned after less than two years in many cases? Where security updates (think Stagefright) take months and months to get patched, if they ever get patched at all on your device? Android devices simply aren't safe.
Even the Nexus devices can't compete with Apple on longevity of support.
Android manufacturers could convince me to try their products if they'd simply patch them in a reasonable time and update them for a reasonable amount of time. I would define reasonable as at least 4 full years after purchase. For that, I'd pay Apple like premiums.
Until that time comes, my only viable option is Apple.
Updates. Updates, updates, updates.
I've come to trust Apple. Why? Because my iPad 2 still gets OS and security updates. Because my iPhone 5s still gets OS and security updates.
Apple has demonstrated that they support their tablets and phones at least 4 or 5 years. That's why I'll buy another Apple tablet. That's why I'll buy another Apple phone.
Why would I buy an Android phone or tablet that's unsupported and abandoned after less than two years in many cases? Where security updates (think Stagefright) take months and months to get patched, if they ever get patched at all on your device? Android devices simply aren't safe.
Even the Nexus devices can't compete with Apple on longevity of support.
Android manufacturers could convince me to try their products if they'd simply patch them in a reasonable time and update them for a reasonable amount of time. I would define reasonable as at least 4 full years after purchase. For that, I'd pay Apple like premiums.
Until that time comes, my only viable option is Apple.
This is rather ignorant. Hardware is what makes Samsungs (for example) better: superAMOLED screens (which iPhones still don't have), better cameras, waterproof cases, removable batteries, etc. Can you drop your crappy iPhone in the pool? No, but a Galaxy S5 can handle that with no trouble, while having a better screen, removable battery, and upgradable SD card storage.
Yeah, but no. There's nothing stopping Huawei or anyone else from exactly copying that Samsung. And then what's the difference between the two? Nothing except price.
OTOH, nobody can copy an iphone because nobody but apple can put ios on a phone.
OTOH, nobody can copy an iphone because nobody but apple can put ios on a phone.
The problem with that idea is that if Huawei really could copy the Samsung, then why haven't they? I'd love to see more phones up to Samsung's specs, but I'm not seeing any. Heck, I'd love to see Samsung make a phone to those specs again (the S6 was crap and the S7 still doesn't have a user-replaceable battery though at least they finally put waterproofing back in).
The other difference is quality. I have no faith Huawei can make a phone at Samsung's quality level. Where are they going to get the screen from anyway? Or the camera? Those components aren't easy to copy; those things are state-of-the-art.
Finally, even Apple can't copy Samsung. They still have crappy screens, though the next iPhone is finally supposed to be getting a superAMOLED screen. WTF took them so long? Simple: Apple isn't a hardware manufacturer, they have to contract stuff out, whereas Samsung is a hardware maker, and makes state-of-the-art screens themselves.
The other difference is quality. I have no faith Huawei can make a phone at Samsung's quality level. Where are they going to get the screen from anyway? Or the camera? Those components aren't easy to copy; those things are state-of-the-art.
Finally, even Apple can't copy Samsung. They still have crappy screens, though the next iPhone is finally supposed to be getting a superAMOLED screen. WTF took them so long? Simple: Apple isn't a hardware manufacturer, they have to contract stuff out, whereas Samsung is a hardware maker, and makes state-of-the-art screens themselves.
Hardware is the differentiator.
Xiaomi and Huawei aren't Android competitors. They run Android on their phones!
Perhaps they meant that foreign (specifically Chinese) competition has done much better globally than those companies currently holding most of the US market.
I meant android producing competitors, as contrasted to apple. Which I think was pretty obvious in context.
I'm always amused by these Windows phone supporters that will argue until their red in the face that Nokia would have still suffered the same fate had they went Android. They have nothing to back their empty claims other than hate. The truth is that they would have fared way better had they selected Android instead of dollar cost averaging the windows phone fiasco all the way to the bottom. Nokia was destroyed by Microsoft. The only saving grace is the 8 Billion dollar severance package they got by unloading the carcass to Microsoft.
I guess, we'll see how that turns out for Blackberry.
I was also in Ruoholahti at the time and while those where dreadful times, it wasn't as bad (Atleast for me) as you picture it. Yeah, MeeGo (well, it was Harmattan, there was nothing MeeGo except binary compatibility and using the name to please Intel). Formatting Linux laptops was more of a joke imho. And guys who started Jolla where really not high execs in the program - really good tech guys but not execs :)
But yeah, I got myself a transfer inside Nokia after harmattan program was finished (still working on Linux stuff). Was away for few years and went back few months before Microsoft bought us, laid us off and our dept. spun off. During those times I didn't see any change on how things where handled from old Nokia days. So anyone who says that they didn't see this final layoff round coming is blind AF.
But yeah, I got myself a transfer inside Nokia after harmattan program was finished (still working on Linux stuff). Was away for few years and went back few months before Microsoft bought us, laid us off and our dept. spun off. During those times I didn't see any change on how things where handled from old Nokia days. So anyone who says that they didn't see this final layoff round coming is blind AF.
Remember when they kicked out Ari Jaaksi (for one, I thought he was a GREAT leader).
Then they brought in the son of the former Finnish president (Ahtisaari) and the guy stood in front of the entire program telling us how awesome he was and he was going to reshape the way people use mobile phones.
Good times.
Then they brought in the son of the former Finnish president (Ahtisaari) and the guy stood in front of the entire program telling us how awesome he was and he was going to reshape the way people use mobile phones.
Good times.
Minecraft is very much not destroyed. Nokia .. well, the burning platform was while they were still an independent company. Like Blackberry they failed to adapt to smartphones, and failed to understand their own niche.
Nokia .. well, the burning platform was while they were still an independent company.
They were an independent company under control of a trusted general of Steve Ballmer. Nokia had a lot of goodwill in some regions, e.g. in Europe they were known for their excellent reliable and serviceable hardware. At the time the fear was that a switch to Android would reduce their margins, but I guess they'd still be around and pretty successful if they had switched to Android timely.
They were an independent company under control of a trusted general of Steve Ballmer. Nokia had a lot of goodwill in some regions, e.g. in Europe they were known for their excellent reliable and serviceable hardware. At the time the fear was that a switch to Android would reduce their margins, but I guess they'd still be around and pretty successful if they had switched to Android timely.
A general that had a bonus clause on the contract offered by the Nokia board if he managed to sell the company.
If you had such a bonus on your contract what would you do?
If you had such a bonus on your contract what would you do?
Minecraft is in a death spiral, but it's normal, since it's already an old and overplayed game for its target.
The flipside here is that Nokia was doomed anyway. Meego wasn't going to break the iOS/Android duopoly. Nokia was being destroyed by the success of the iPhone. It couldn't compete.
>Microsoft really loves to own and eventually destroy Nordic companies. (skype, minecraft, nokia)
Minecraft went from being neglected to even mismanaged to something that's alive again. Skype was originally Estonian, nor Nordic, and runs better than ever considering it doesn't rely on the charity of "supernodes" anymore. I can't remember the last time I had a dropped call or random quality drops.
I do agree MS shouldn't have picked up Nokia. It was a walking corpse and didn't help either entity in the end, but this is just business as usual. Playing up this "wild linux hackers vs The Man(TM)" is pretty out there. If you want a paycheck, the entity that pays you needs to make money. If MS didn't fire you, Nokia would have. MS is profitable. Nokia isn't.
>Microsoft really loves to own and eventually destroy Nordic companies. (skype, minecraft, nokia)
Minecraft went from being neglected to even mismanaged to something that's alive again. Skype was originally Estonian, nor Nordic, and runs better than ever considering it doesn't rely on the charity of "supernodes" anymore. I can't remember the last time I had a dropped call or random quality drops.
I do agree MS shouldn't have picked up Nokia. It was a walking corpse and didn't help either entity in the end, but this is just business as usual. Playing up this "wild linux hackers vs The Man(TM)" is pretty out there. If you want a paycheck, the entity that pays you needs to make money. If MS didn't fire you, Nokia would have. MS is profitable. Nokia isn't.
Written by Swedish people who registered the company in Estonia. (for tax reasons)
I think Sweden counts as Nordic.
I think Sweden counts as Nordic.
What would have happened to Nokia phones if MS hadn't taken over? They pretty much dug their own hole.
Yes, far from "destroying" Nokia, MS threw good money after bad to the tune of $billions trying to keep them afloat. Now they've given up on that fruitless endeavor.
3 possibilities (and probably many more):
1) go all-in with their own Symbian/Qt/MeeGo strategy
2) go all-in with Google Android
3) go all-in with a Nokia fork of Google Android (a nonstarter today, but back in 2011, with Nokia's considerable heft and before Google started rolling so much of Android into non-open Google Play Services, things could have played out differently)
In terms of Nokia's performance as a phone company, it is more or less impossible for any of these options to have done any worse than Nokia did with Windows Phone.
HOWEVER, for Nokia as a company, Windows Phone "worked out" in the sense that they had a willing buyer for an asset that was long-term uncompetitive against Asian players in a commodity market. (then again that too has a counter-argument that the phone division would have been worth more than $7 billion had it not dedicated itself to the losing proposition of Windows Phone)
1) go all-in with their own Symbian/Qt/MeeGo strategy
2) go all-in with Google Android
3) go all-in with a Nokia fork of Google Android (a nonstarter today, but back in 2011, with Nokia's considerable heft and before Google started rolling so much of Android into non-open Google Play Services, things could have played out differently)
In terms of Nokia's performance as a phone company, it is more or less impossible for any of these options to have done any worse than Nokia did with Windows Phone.
HOWEVER, for Nokia as a company, Windows Phone "worked out" in the sense that they had a willing buyer for an asset that was long-term uncompetitive against Asian players in a commodity market. (then again that too has a counter-argument that the phone division would have been worth more than $7 billion had it not dedicated itself to the losing proposition of Windows Phone)
They could've been in Samsung's place if they hadn't bet the farm on Windows Phone.
They were too proud to simply adopt Android. They were broken before they made deals with Microsoft.
Shame - personally I think people would have bought a Nokia Android phone. They were renowned for their hardware.
Shame - personally I think people would have bought a Nokia Android phone. They were renowned for their hardware.
I was also in Ruoholahti as well as Nokia House when they closed down Ruoholahti.
Overnight Nokia turned into a cesspool of backstabbers who didn't add any real value, but managed to steal the credit from everyone else.
Overnight Nokia turned into a cesspool of backstabbers who didn't add any real value, but managed to steal the credit from everyone else.
> but managed to steal the credit from everyone else.
Steal credit for what? What has come out of Microsoft's phone business since the Nokia purchase that anyone would want to take credit for?
Steal credit for what? What has come out of Microsoft's phone business since the Nokia purchase that anyone would want to take credit for?
I said NOKIA turned into a cesspool, not Microsoft.
As an example, Lumia 1020 had a lot of people working hard on it... but a very select few went out and took all the credit.
As an example, Lumia 1020 had a lot of people working hard on it... but a very select few went out and took all the credit.
It's a real pity. I saw the writing on the wall and wrote this:
http://jacquesmattheij.com/microsoft-just-bought-nokia-for-0
And I very much wished I was wrong. They'll have to pry my impossible to destroy Nokia from my hands when I'm dead. Thanks!
http://jacquesmattheij.com/microsoft-just-bought-nokia-for-0
And I very much wished I was wrong. They'll have to pry my impossible to destroy Nokia from my hands when I'm dead. Thanks!
Hard to understand. They buy the one company division in the world who was pushing the Windows Phone brand, a company who was innovating in terms of design and cameras and who had finally cracked their own decent brand and product line etc, and they immediately start winding them down. And they're going to work on their own hardware now anyway.
At the same time they throw their own stable OS in the bin and release a buggy beta version which has ruined the experience for WP users.
What was the point of this whole exercise? A convoluted way of getting Nokia's masses of IP rights for mobile? Why not just leave Nokia to keep pushing WP?
At the same time they throw their own stable OS in the bin and release a buggy beta version which has ruined the experience for WP users.
What was the point of this whole exercise? A convoluted way of getting Nokia's masses of IP rights for mobile? Why not just leave Nokia to keep pushing WP?
A lot of people believe Nokia was about to switch to releasing Android phones and Microsoft had no choice but to buy them or exit the phone business. Nokia was in dire straits at the time.
This is not incorrect.
I think with UWP, the phone team lost control of the platform, and the core team working on UWP weren't that interested in making compromises needed for the phone. Hence the terrible and poor builds.
> What was the point of this whole exercise? A convoluted way of getting Nokia's masses of IP rights for mobile? Why not just leave Nokia to keep pushing WP?
Nokia only sold their mobile phone arm and licensed the IP. This doesn't seem like the cheapest way to get those licenses.
Nokia only sold their mobile phone arm and licensed the IP. This doesn't seem like the cheapest way to get those licenses.
As far as I'm aware they were giving exclusive licensing rights to their IP to Microsoft in perpetuity. But yeah, it doesn't seem cheap...
That is not correct. All the phone vendors need licenses to some Nokia IP as they own much of the core patents needed for GSM/UMTS/LTE radio implementations. They've licensed them to Microsoft among others. I guess MS got all the Nokia phone software copyrights to themselves, but I don't think Symbian and S40 source are worth very much at the moment.
>I guess MS got all the Nokia phone software copyrights to themselves
This is incorrect. MS only bought non-exclusive, 10-year license for Nokia’s patent portfolio. Nokia has all the IP.
This is incorrect. MS only bought non-exclusive, 10-year license for Nokia’s patent portfolio. Nokia has all the IP.
Seems clear to me. They executed on a strategy and consumers weren't interested.
My wife really likes Windows Phone and wanted a Lumia 1020 for the camera. I offered her my 6+ and she refused.
Trying to upgrade her to a new model is basically impossible. At the time we bought it if you went to any carrier store the Windows phones were clearly second class citizens with the best models not present. Carriers like T-Mobile wouldn't even sell you a decent model because they don't carry them at all and if you buy one separately you find that carrier specific stuff (tethering) is broken.
With Windows phone it was really like they weren't even trying to move units. Sure they built the software and hardware, but actual retail presence seemed pretty broken.
They also failed at continuity. There is no Lumia 1020 successor. The lineup in general seems fragmented with no regular predictable upgrade path and iteration.
Trying to upgrade her to a new model is basically impossible. At the time we bought it if you went to any carrier store the Windows phones were clearly second class citizens with the best models not present. Carriers like T-Mobile wouldn't even sell you a decent model because they don't carry them at all and if you buy one separately you find that carrier specific stuff (tethering) is broken.
With Windows phone it was really like they weren't even trying to move units. Sure they built the software and hardware, but actual retail presence seemed pretty broken.
They also failed at continuity. There is no Lumia 1020 successor. The lineup in general seems fragmented with no regular predictable upgrade path and iteration.
AT&T did a pretty good job of promoting them a few years ago, but my problem is that I had a HTC Titan II, then moved up to a Nokia 1020, then when it's screen broke, moved up to a... oh wait. Exactly like you said, there was no upgrade path.
They didn't release any new phone models for something like 3 solid years. At the same time, the Nokia purchase removed HTC (who was at least somewhat enthusiastic about the OS previously) from the Windows Phone ecosystem.
So if you're a die-hard Windows Phone fan, they went 3 years with no new phones for you to buy! It's no wonder the OS is struggling. And while the Nokia 1020 is a fine phone, I loved, loved, loved my HTC WinPhone and it's a damn shame I'll never be able to buy that combination of hardware and software ever again.
They didn't release any new phone models for something like 3 solid years. At the same time, the Nokia purchase removed HTC (who was at least somewhat enthusiastic about the OS previously) from the Windows Phone ecosystem.
So if you're a die-hard Windows Phone fan, they went 3 years with no new phones for you to buy! It's no wonder the OS is struggling. And while the Nokia 1020 is a fine phone, I loved, loved, loved my HTC WinPhone and it's a damn shame I'll never be able to buy that combination of hardware and software ever again.
The wireless carriers have the final say on which phones they stock and promote, not the manufacturer. There most likely weren't enough sales of Windows Phone devices to make it worthwhile for them to bother trying.
Carrier sales reps didn't like selling Windows Phones, and you can't blame them. From their perspective, they want to sell you a phone in the shortest amount of time that has the lowest probability of return.
Windows Phones had a different UI that meant the sales rep had to spend time showing how it worked, and even if he/she did make the sale, he faced the high risk of a Lumia getting returned because the customer found out some key app wasn't available on Windows Phone but was easily available on iOS and Android (their bank, or airline, Snapchat, and let's not forget Instagram wasn't there for a while)
(source: I'm a former Nokia employee)
Windows Phones had a different UI that meant the sales rep had to spend time showing how it worked, and even if he/she did make the sale, he faced the high risk of a Lumia getting returned because the customer found out some key app wasn't available on Windows Phone but was easily available on iOS and Android (their bank, or airline, Snapchat, and let's not forget Instagram wasn't there for a while)
(source: I'm a former Nokia employee)
Well penetration of WP is down yeah, but that only makes sense when Nokia Lumias immediately disappeared from shops upon announcement of the MS Lumia devices, and when MS did not market or promote those new devices very much. The 950 range was also largely unavailable due to stock levels. So for about two years there you couldn't buy a Lumia even if you wanted to. So it's not surprise that usage went down and that consumers weren't interested.
But my question is what was the corporate strategy? Did they see the success of the Lumia line and wanted control of it? If so, why did they immediately fire people and stop development of new devices?
But my question is what was the corporate strategy? Did they see the success of the Lumia line and wanted control of it? If so, why did they immediately fire people and stop development of new devices?
It's so when they kill it there are fewer people to complain
It's pretty easy to understand. Nokia was bought by the previous CEO.
It only makes sense if Microsoft is planning to kill Windows Phone (or whatever it's called now).
I guess it is about time I stop making my hobby coding portable between WP and Android, focusing just on Android.
Sad, because WP is actually much better from tooling and architecture point of view, but the way the whole WP 7, WP 8, WP 8.1 and the yet to become stable WP 10, just drove everyone off.
Personally I was kind of pissed off, when the 512 MB devices were left out of the last preview update.
Also it was the only viable alternative to Android, on the countries where iOS devices are seen as too expensive, specially the ones where devices aren't subsidized.
Sad, because WP is actually much better from tooling and architecture point of view, but the way the whole WP 7, WP 8, WP 8.1 and the yet to become stable WP 10, just drove everyone off.
Personally I was kind of pissed off, when the 512 MB devices were left out of the last preview update.
Also it was the only viable alternative to Android, on the countries where iOS devices are seen as too expensive, specially the ones where devices aren't subsidized.
OTOH, can you name a single feature of WP10 that you wanted to upgrade for? I went from a 920 with wp8 to a 950 with wp10, and the only good new features are ones that required new hardware (continuum and hello).
I regret buying the 950. Excellent hardware, but unstable battery hog of an OS, with an app situation that's bad and getting worse. WP 8.0 was the high mark. All the changes since then made things worse.
I regret buying the 950. Excellent hardware, but unstable battery hog of an OS, with an app situation that's bad and getting worse. WP 8.0 was the high mark. All the changes since then made things worse.
From developer point of view, more mature .NET Native instead of MDIL, ability to use VC++ 14 improvements and best of all the 8.1 Universal App solution model finally merged as UWP.
From the user point of view probably nothing.
From the user point of view probably nothing.
Why do you think Microsoft continues to develop Windows Phone?
Maybe they don't want to loose their face?
You should follow this tweeter discussion from Sinofsky
https://twitter.com/stevesi/status/733699065763004416
It wasn't the difference between desktop and mobile stacks that pushed most away, rather the breaking changes between WP 7, WP 8, WP 8.1 and WP 10. As explained recently on the Ars Technica article,
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/05/onecor...
And as a developer I cannot really get why WP 10 is still so buggy (according to the reports) versus the already stable 8.1.
You should follow this tweeter discussion from Sinofsky
https://twitter.com/stevesi/status/733699065763004416
It wasn't the difference between desktop and mobile stacks that pushed most away, rather the breaking changes between WP 7, WP 8, WP 8.1 and WP 10. As explained recently on the Ars Technica article,
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/05/onecor...
And as a developer I cannot really get why WP 10 is still so buggy (according to the reports) versus the already stable 8.1.
>And as a developer I cannot really get why WP 10 is still so buggy (according to the reports) versus the already stable 8.1.
Microsoft eliminated QA as a job role and laid off all of its QA staff in 2014, with rather predictable consequences for both Windows 10 and WP 10. Plenty of articles about it if you Google around.
If anything, it's surprising that things have turned out as well for them as they have.
Microsoft eliminated QA as a job role and laid off all of its QA staff in 2014, with rather predictable consequences for both Windows 10 and WP 10. Plenty of articles about it if you Google around.
If anything, it's surprising that things have turned out as well for them as they have.
They really did that?
It does make sense, though. QA teams cost a lot of money, and don't produce anything at all. They're a cost center. The only thing they do is keep your quality up so that customers don't get mad and leave.
MS doesn't have to worry about that. People weren't buying WinPhone anyway, and no one's going to abandon Windows (PC OS) because of bugginess. So using the users as beta-testers makes perfect sense for them. If you don't like it, then don't buy MS products.
It does make sense, though. QA teams cost a lot of money, and don't produce anything at all. They're a cost center. The only thing they do is keep your quality up so that customers don't get mad and leave.
MS doesn't have to worry about that. People weren't buying WinPhone anyway, and no one's going to abandon Windows (PC OS) because of bugginess. So using the users as beta-testers makes perfect sense for them. If you don't like it, then don't buy MS products.
This is hyperbole right?
Because they are not done.
Remember any of these: Pocket PC, Windows CE, Microsoft Kin, Windows Embedded Handheld, ....
MS spent $1 billion for Kin alone. When they consider market to be important to their future, they'll keep going and spending money. Setbacks destroy their partners but they just wait and try again when time is right.
MS is still mainly business and OEM sales company. Consumer-centric divisions (including XBox, Windows Phone, Bing) are irrelevant from a profit standpoint. MS is perceptually trying to get into mobile because they are fearing for their business and OEM sales if they don't have the presense in mobile.
Remember any of these: Pocket PC, Windows CE, Microsoft Kin, Windows Embedded Handheld, ....
MS spent $1 billion for Kin alone. When they consider market to be important to their future, they'll keep going and spending money. Setbacks destroy their partners but they just wait and try again when time is right.
MS is still mainly business and OEM sales company. Consumer-centric divisions (including XBox, Windows Phone, Bing) are irrelevant from a profit standpoint. MS is perceptually trying to get into mobile because they are fearing for their business and OEM sales if they don't have the presense in mobile.
I believe this is entirely true. Intel pulled off this strategy just fine with the Itanium.
Useless product, nobody uses it, but the fact that they kept investing in it made most competitors lose their nerve.
Useless product, nobody uses it, but the fact that they kept investing in it made most competitors lose their nerve.
Note that the former head of the Windows Phone group during the WP7 and WP 8.x timeframe, Terry Myerson, is now the head of the Windows division as a whole. Probably would have looked really bad for him politically if Windows Phone were shut down too soon after his promotion.
for the same reasons google develops a web-browser. They need a platform where they have control. Not so much for evil reasons, but because it's a risky place to be in when a competitor controls the platform you use to deliver your services.
Pride and/or poor internal incentive structures that prevent them from acknowledging its failure.
It wasn't just 512 MB RAM devices. That was just a poor excuse they used for a pragmatic push on "Nokia veterans" to buy the 950(XL), or at least 640.
And Myerson has the audacity to say "We always take care of our customers, Windows phones are no exception. [...] regardless of a person's phone choice, we want everyone to be able to experience what Microsoft has to offer them."
And Myerson has the audacity to say "We always take care of our customers, Windows phones are no exception. [...] regardless of a person's phone choice, we want everyone to be able to experience what Microsoft has to offer them."
I own the 630 when it got released with 8.1.
For me, the appeal as hobby development was that I wanted to support a third ecosystem, have my love-hate relationship on the MS stack back to the MS-DOS 3.3 days and I love what they are doing with C++/CX (VC++ finally catches up with C++ Builder) and the whole AOT compilation for .NET (MDIL and .NET Native).
But with this scenario there isn't much value in building up WP skills specially since WP10 is still quite buggy, even as an hobby.
For me, the appeal as hobby development was that I wanted to support a third ecosystem, have my love-hate relationship on the MS stack back to the MS-DOS 3.3 days and I love what they are doing with C++/CX (VC++ finally catches up with C++ Builder) and the whole AOT compilation for .NET (MDIL and .NET Native).
But with this scenario there isn't much value in building up WP skills specially since WP10 is still quite buggy, even as an hobby.
Just few weeks ago, Nokia announced that Nokia branded smart phones and tablets will be entering market soon. This time they are based on Android OS. It'll be interesting to see how well they'll sell (compared to Windows Phone).
http://company.nokia.com/en/our-businesses/nokia-technologie...
http://company.nokia.com/en/news/press-releases/2016/05/18/n...
http://company.nokia.com/en/our-businesses/nokia-technologie...
http://company.nokia.com/en/news/press-releases/2016/05/18/n...
Other than the Nokia brand name (which is still pretty valuable), I wonder how they will differentiate themselves from other Android handset makers?
Nokia brand, Nokia design. And an outlet for whatever cool tech Foxconn has stumbled upon in Shenzhen?
In an era when smartphones are increasingly commoditized, it could work well enough to carve out a sustainable business.
In an era when smartphones are increasingly commoditized, it could work well enough to carve out a sustainable business.
As the second article says, it's not Nokia building them, but letting another company ("HMD global Oy") build them under the Nokia brand.
This is similar to what they did with the somewhat recent Nokia N1 tablet: it was built by Foxconn.
This is similar to what they did with the somewhat recent Nokia N1 tablet: it was built by Foxconn.
This HMD global was founded by an ex-Nokia employee.
Seems like the sleeper agents are being activated.
Seems like the sleeper agents are being activated.
I long suspected something like that. Let MS purchase and restructure a sinking ship. Allow the talent to move on and do R&D on the cheap via startups. Once the restrictions of the deal end, see what's flourished and return to the consumer market. I assumed Jolla but this other entity got it.
Could the patents be a reason for this? As in, if you don't release a phone every Nth year; you might lose the rights to them?
We may never know the real story. Steve and Bill used to meet in Bill's jet flying over the ocean so that they could avoid any monitoring as they made deals to benefit each other (the whole "we're competitors" was largely fake - I was in plenty of meetings with Steve and also worked for a direct report of Bill. Their goal was to make each other rich.) It may not be a coincidence that Steve dropped Flash (at the time considered the competitor to Microsoft's CLR in the browser - their bet on the future of controlling future development platforms) and Bill took-over the biggest competitor to the iphone. There were plenty of other similar deals being made between them and the major computer vendors (and, if it isn't obvious, we paid the price by the limited competition and limited choices. Bill and Steve didn't just meet with each other. People who think "free market" is real are both naive and arrogant.)
And in a court of law I will say that I just made all this up.
And in a court of law I will say that I just made all this up.
"People who think "free market" is real are both naive and arrogant."
I think in general people - for and against laissez faire economics - confuse free markets with fair.
Free market proponents make the error of asuming that all free is also fair and decent and their opponents presume everything should be first and foremost fair (rather than efficient).
I think in general people - for and against laissez faire economics - confuse free markets with fair.
Free market proponents make the error of asuming that all free is also fair and decent and their opponents presume everything should be first and foremost fair (rather than efficient).
How is two individuals doing what makes sense for themselves not a free market? Free market doesn't mean altruistic
He can't say it outright. He's saying they were regularly manipulating the markets in which they operated in an anticompetitive manner. That's one of the main mechanisms by which free markets fail.
Freedom requires transparency.
That’s what free means. Not “companies free to do whatever they please”.
That’s what free means. Not “companies free to do whatever they please”.
>That’s what free means. Not “companies free to do whatever they please”.
The fact that you used the word "free" here to tell us what "freedom" doesn't mean implies otherwise, because I believe "free to do whatever they please" is exactly what it does mean. There are no "requirements" in a free market other than serving demand and making a profit.
The fact that you used the word "free" here to tell us what "freedom" doesn't mean implies otherwise, because I believe "free to do whatever they please" is exactly what it does mean. There are no "requirements" in a free market other than serving demand and making a profit.
A much better writeup here: http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-cuts-another-1850-job...
A lesson from Palm, Nokia, Motorola, and every other small-to-midsize company in the Telco arena: Never let yourselves be acquired. It won't end well.
> Never let yourselves be acquired.
Ha. Tell that to someone who's about to make millions of dollars from an acquisition.
Ha. Tell that to someone who's about to make millions of dollars from an acquisition.
Nokia was a disaster for years before Microsoft bought them. Given that the alternative appears to have been a steady decline into bankruptcy, I think Nokia did pretty well for themselves in that deal. They sold the company for a lot more than it was worth.
For Nokia this turned out to be a good deal. They got good money for the mobile phone business. If they would have sticked to it that might have been the end of the whole company.
Now Nokia got several billions, bought Alcatel and continues other business. The feature phone business ended up in new company which is using Nokia's name and IPR and pays per unit royalties to Nokia. If this venture proves succesful, Nokia could just acquire them.
Years ago there was speculation that Elop was a trojan horse, placed by Microsoft. After things turned out as they did, I have started thinking that maybe it was the other way round. Maybe somebody planned all along that hiring Elop would open the opportunity of dumping the business to Microsoft in case it would nit start generating profits.
Now Nokia got several billions, bought Alcatel and continues other business. The feature phone business ended up in new company which is using Nokia's name and IPR and pays per unit royalties to Nokia. If this venture proves succesful, Nokia could just acquire them.
Years ago there was speculation that Elop was a trojan horse, placed by Microsoft. After things turned out as they did, I have started thinking that maybe it was the other way round. Maybe somebody planned all along that hiring Elop would open the opportunity of dumping the business to Microsoft in case it would nit start generating profits.
The Finn press discovered that the Nokia board had offered a contract to Elop where he would get a large bonus if he managed to sell the company.
This was talked a lot in Finland, you can easily find it if you google for it, but Microsoft haters like to ignore this little action from Nokia board.
This was talked a lot in Finland, you can easily find it if you google for it, but Microsoft haters like to ignore this little action from Nokia board.
TwitPic had a massive offer from Twitter when it was young. They declined and years later, Twitter tried to take them down. They settled to just make Twitpic read-only.
Apple could easily have agreed to an acquisition in the 1990s. It takes true serious chutzpah and goodwill to nose up from a failing product line.
> serious chutzpah and goodwill to nose up from a failing product line
The bigger question is maintaining a controlling interest. VCs love quick easy exits. Seems to be the default pattern these days which is sad. And we wonder why so few long-term large scale businesses get created in SV these days.
The bigger question is maintaining a controlling interest. VCs love quick easy exits. Seems to be the default pattern these days which is sad. And we wonder why so few long-term large scale businesses get created in SV these days.
I don't think this is telco-specific...
Firebase, WhatsApp and Instagram have been good.
Android isn't much worse off..
To be fair, Android wasn't established when it was acquired. It was still in early stages and not released in production devices. Google took it there (by financing, management or what, I don't know, but it happened after they acquired it).
Yeah well, the GP post mentions "small to midsize telco" companies, so Android was definitely small.
(on the other hand it implies the behemoth of Nokia was "midsize", uh)
(on the other hand it implies the behemoth of Nokia was "midsize", uh)
The table graphic in this article really eschews clarity. The most recent figures on the left and a giant emoji slapped over it? Seems like a graph would've been better suited. The source even has the table in text format for easy processing.
eschews clarity
Those are rather nice words, I'm tempted to use plain 'ridiculous'. Feels like a child could do better. Ok it's not some scientific article, but still, you could put at least some effort in it.
Those are rather nice words, I'm tempted to use plain 'ridiculous'. Feels like a child could do better. Ok it's not some scientific article, but still, you could put at least some effort in it.
I had an image of Businessinsider as something staid like FT, but on clicking through some of those links it appears to be more like a non-ironic version of Clickhole.
I wonder how it would have played out for Nokia if Microsoft had not bought them. Rather better in some ways I'd imagine.
I don't think so. Nokia got $7.2 billion from Microsoft for a loss-making device business. Nokia still exists today and swallowed Alcatel-Lucent last year.
It's hard to imagine a better outcome for Nokia than Microsoft buying the phone albatross in 2013. I honestly believe that it was part of a contingency plan that had made Nokia's board approve the Windows Phone plan -- that Ballmer basically promised a buyout in case WP doesn't fly. (I don't have evidence of this, but clearly Ballmer really, really wanted Nokia's phones and Nadella really, really doesn't.)
In the alternate universe where Nokia's board decided to go with Android instead of Windows, I think they would have ended up as a kind of European HTC or Sony in the Android market. And in that scenario the Nokia phone unit wouldn't have been worth $7.2 billion either.
It's hard to imagine a better outcome for Nokia than Microsoft buying the phone albatross in 2013. I honestly believe that it was part of a contingency plan that had made Nokia's board approve the Windows Phone plan -- that Ballmer basically promised a buyout in case WP doesn't fly. (I don't have evidence of this, but clearly Ballmer really, really wanted Nokia's phones and Nadella really, really doesn't.)
In the alternate universe where Nokia's board decided to go with Android instead of Windows, I think they would have ended up as a kind of European HTC or Sony in the Android market. And in that scenario the Nokia phone unit wouldn't have been worth $7.2 billion either.
Either way, how was the unit worth $7.2 billion in 2013 to anyone? Why did Microsoft pay such ridiculous money for a loss-making business, only to essentially burn it down over the next two years? From April 2014, when the deal was finalized, to May 2016, when the last employees are being laid off, the damage Microsoft incurred from this deal amount to about $1.8 million per HOUR of business. Did they really think they could pull off some magic trick to make Windows Phone fly, or were they bound by some backroom deal to buy the phone business at set price in case it started to weight down on Nokia?
It was driven by Ballmer's ego more than a rational plan.
They imagined they could speed time to market for devices by eliminating frictions inherent in being 2 companies working on 1 product (and as an employee I can say there were indeed inescapable frictions). But ultimately it couldn't get around the core problem: (almost) nobody wants a Windows Phone.
They imagined they could speed time to market for devices by eliminating frictions inherent in being 2 companies working on 1 product (and as an employee I can say there were indeed inescapable frictions). But ultimately it couldn't get around the core problem: (almost) nobody wants a Windows Phone.
Maybe, as Pavlov suggested, this was part of the deal - that MS would have to pay at least $7.2bn for the phone business if Windows on Nokia didn't work out.
Nokia had far better industrial design, logistics, marketing and brand recognition than any current Android manufacturer.
If they had carried out that switch (and survived in the short term - they were on the brink of bankruptcy at the time), Nokia would be doing pretty well nowadays.
If they had carried out that switch (and survived in the short term - they were on the brink of bankruptcy at the time), Nokia would be doing pretty well nowadays.
What were they indeed thinking when they decided to turn Android down? I fully agree with your points about Nokia's strengths. My understanding is that they decided to go with Microsoft because going aboard Google would be entering a "race to bottom": they thought Android manufacturers can not differentiate themselves, and are essentially reduced to minions which compete to make cheap hardware to run Google's ecosystem. They thought all Android manufacturers would see diminishing profits, and only Chinese vendors would probably remain in the long term.
I think their situation is somewhat similar to Sony. Sony is also well-recognised electronics brand globally. But Sony pushes on with its 'premium' Android smartphone brand (Xperia).
Xperia is the closest you can come to a Nokia-like Android phone these days: it has a great physical build, good camera and excellent battery life. The pre-installed apps seem like they were carefully selected unlike with Samsung phones.
Sony's mobile division is not doing super-well, but it's not a disaster either. I'm myself a proud owner of a Xperia Z3 device and will likely also buy my next smartphone from Sony. I keep wondering, is the existence of a 'premium' Android manufacturer really an oxymoron, like Nokia's management in 2013 predicted?
PS. Nokia is doing pretty well nowadays, though not as a handset manufacturer.
I think their situation is somewhat similar to Sony. Sony is also well-recognised electronics brand globally. But Sony pushes on with its 'premium' Android smartphone brand (Xperia).
Xperia is the closest you can come to a Nokia-like Android phone these days: it has a great physical build, good camera and excellent battery life. The pre-installed apps seem like they were carefully selected unlike with Samsung phones.
Sony's mobile division is not doing super-well, but it's not a disaster either. I'm myself a proud owner of a Xperia Z3 device and will likely also buy my next smartphone from Sony. I keep wondering, is the existence of a 'premium' Android manufacturer really an oxymoron, like Nokia's management in 2013 predicted?
PS. Nokia is doing pretty well nowadays, though not as a handset manufacturer.
Their was a time when they could have competet with their own software. Maemo was great back in 2009 and if they had continue to push it, it could have been a viable alternative.
Their stock price in the last few months would disagree with that assertion.
I say this as an unfortunate shareholder.
I say this as an unfortunate shareholder.
It is clear that at this point that in 2013 Nokia was in such a bad situation, getting $7,2 billion for the handset business was a very good deal for Nokia. Nokia Chairman of Board Risto Siilasmaa has been hailed as a saviour and a magician for orchestrating it.
The interesting question is, what would have happened if Nokia had gone the Android route in 2011 instead of Windows Phone.
The interesting question is, what would have happened if Nokia had gone the Android route in 2011 instead of Windows Phone.
Amen. Likely there'd be still a strong Nokia brand producing cutting-edge Android phones and maybe some other would have vanished earlier. Who knows.
For the view that it would have been better without Microsoft, I'd recommend Tomi Ahonen's blog.
I agree with him to the extent that, in hindsight, it would be hard to make more destructive management decisions than what actually happened. The people inside Nokia often seemed to be trapped in a nightmare. It was a sad, hollowed-out place well before it was sold to Microsoft. Stephen Elop killed several projects that would have provided alternatives to Windows Phone. Nothing was allowed to encroach on that failing product.
All that said, Nokia had missed the boat in modern smartphone OSs, much in the way Blackberry had done. There is no guarantee they would have found a good answer on their own.
I agree with him to the extent that, in hindsight, it would be hard to make more destructive management decisions than what actually happened. The people inside Nokia often seemed to be trapped in a nightmare. It was a sad, hollowed-out place well before it was sold to Microsoft. Stephen Elop killed several projects that would have provided alternatives to Windows Phone. Nothing was allowed to encroach on that failing product.
All that said, Nokia had missed the boat in modern smartphone OSs, much in the way Blackberry had done. There is no guarantee they would have found a good answer on their own.
Are you kidding me? Both BB10 and Harmattan/Meego were far ahead of iOS and Android when they were released. There's a lot of arguments you can make, but they both have created modern OS's. People think of BBOS and Symbian but they were in the roadmap to be replaced.
Where they failed it was assuming their market leads at the time would allow them to take their time deploying a solid OS while the app ecosystems for iOS and android blew up. By the time they shipped it became a question of where they fit in the world anymore.
Where they failed it was assuming their market leads at the time would allow them to take their time deploying a solid OS while the app ecosystems for iOS and android blew up. By the time they shipped it became a question of where they fit in the world anymore.
It's questionable whether QNX has any advantages over a Linux kernel anymore, and BB10's application APIs were unremarkable. I've used Meego, and it's a nice tablet Linux, but it has nothing like the userland innovation of Android, with a unified managed language runtime for both apps and system middleware. Both Android and iOS created new app APIs, and new UI/graphics stacks on top of open source kernels, and new multimedia stacks. They both went much farther than "a nice tablet Linux."
While Nokia had the resources to succeed in smartphones, and a unique market position with S40 that would have been even stronger but for some of Elop's decisions, I don't think one can claim Meego would have been a slam-dunk. None of the efforts to mobile-ize Linux that have been short of the kind of rethink of the userland that went into Android have gone very far. Tizen, Jolla, Meego, and Canonical's mobile products are all variations on the theme of incremental changes to Linux, all with about the same outcomes.
While Nokia had the resources to succeed in smartphones, and a unique market position with S40 that would have been even stronger but for some of Elop's decisions, I don't think one can claim Meego would have been a slam-dunk. None of the efforts to mobile-ize Linux that have been short of the kind of rethink of the userland that went into Android have gone very far. Tizen, Jolla, Meego, and Canonical's mobile products are all variations on the theme of incremental changes to Linux, all with about the same outcomes.
I'm just surprised how long this took. I was expecting this to happen for the past few years already. Thanks and goodbye.
It has been already happening for the past few years. The first round was handled by Nokia. Last year MS announced layoffs of 2300 people in Finland. After this there is pretty much nobody left.
"The Californian search giant" - typo, or am I missing something?
I remember reading an article which explained the pragmatic reasons for the MS purchase of NOKIA.
Namely that MS wanted to bring back some of the billions they have offshore without it getting heavily taxed. Taking this into consideration the acquisition of NOKIA and eventual write down as a loss is not that bad. Especially considering it has kept it windows phone alive, and most likely moved any essential expertise to their other departments
Namely that MS wanted to bring back some of the billions they have offshore without it getting heavily taxed. Taking this into consideration the acquisition of NOKIA and eventual write down as a loss is not that bad. Especially considering it has kept it windows phone alive, and most likely moved any essential expertise to their other departments
Makes sense. The sooner they cut their losses and focus on cloud/productivity apps the better off they'll be. IMHO
There's an interesting article over at Anandtech discussing the fate of Nokia and what projects might occur under Nokia licensing contracts. http://www.anandtech.com/show/10333/foxconn-and-hmd-to-retur... I hope that some of the folks getting the boot by MS will join the Helsinki based HMD Global who got an exclusive global license to create Nokia-branded mobile phones and tablets for the next ten years.
I see it as Nokia was a very good hardware company that couldn't turn itself around into a software company. Before iPhone you needed many moving parts, good supply chains, great hardware variety, spare part production and who knows what. Now you need good software. Nokia was less likely to turn itself around than IBM.
The best thing that happened after MS essentially killed mobile division of Nokia is that Jolla was created. I hope Jolla will succeed. Their latest troubles and tablet project failure were unfortunate (I was a backer and won't be getting the tablet).
[deleted]
I wonder what Tomi Ahonen thinks of these latest developments.
May 20, 2016
So the Nokia brand returns.. with a Vengeance
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2016/05/so-the-...
http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2016/05/so-the-...
Nokia is dead.
Get over it.
Get over it.
"... linux laptops were being reformatted to run windows."
Microsoft/Windows is a cancer. Ballmer once said Linux was a cancer. He later retracted, after it was well-known Microsoft itself uses Linux.
There's nothing more pathetic than when you see Microsoft's businesspeople or lawyers at conferences all faithfully using Windows, as if there was no other choice, and rambling on about how their products can solve any problem. These are not stupid people, but they are blinded to independent reasoning about computer software.
And then there are the people at Microsoft Research. What a waste (not for them -- they probably get paid handsomely). It is like MS is keeping these minds locked away, so the zombie-like adherence to Windows can persist. Keep the monopoly going.
Microsoft is a cancer on the brain. It creates a zombie-like, tunnel vision of computing. Everything must pass through Redmond.
Microsoft continues to remain dangerous to the future of computing, because they continue to work dilgently to effectively quell all independent thought from being implemented and made accessible to users.
Intent, malice, etc. is irrelevant. Regardless of why they do it, the end result is suppression of non-Microsoft software.
And now hardware.
Microsoft/Windows is a cancer. Ballmer once said Linux was a cancer. He later retracted, after it was well-known Microsoft itself uses Linux.
There's nothing more pathetic than when you see Microsoft's businesspeople or lawyers at conferences all faithfully using Windows, as if there was no other choice, and rambling on about how their products can solve any problem. These are not stupid people, but they are blinded to independent reasoning about computer software.
And then there are the people at Microsoft Research. What a waste (not for them -- they probably get paid handsomely). It is like MS is keeping these minds locked away, so the zombie-like adherence to Windows can persist. Keep the monopoly going.
Microsoft is a cancer on the brain. It creates a zombie-like, tunnel vision of computing. Everything must pass through Redmond.
Microsoft continues to remain dangerous to the future of computing, because they continue to work dilgently to effectively quell all independent thought from being implemented and made accessible to users.
Intent, malice, etc. is irrelevant. Regardless of why they do it, the end result is suppression of non-Microsoft software.
And now hardware.
This comment breaks the HN guidelines by calling names. Please don't do that on this site. The old-fashioned technology flamewar is one of the things we're trying to avoid here, regardless of how one feels about Microsoft etc.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11770051 and marked it off-topic.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11770051 and marked it off-topic.
OP: "... cemented them as assholes in my mind."
That's "name-calling".
But I understand the need to detach the silly hyperbolic responses my comment triggered. I was not expecting those.
Please accept my apologies for any incomvenience I may have caused.
That's "name-calling".
But I understand the need to detach the silly hyperbolic responses my comment triggered. I was not expecting those.
Please accept my apologies for any incomvenience I may have caused.
What do you make of all the Windows-unrelated stuff that comes out of Microsoft Research? Seems like a lot of money and effort they're spending to cover their real mission of infecting the world with their zombie cancer.
I recently saw a Microsoft Research paper about a memory mapping prototype the authors implemented in Linux. I now realize they must have been personally executed by Satya "Kim Jong Un" Nadella when he learned of their non-Windows treachery.
We can only pray that one day these minds will be set free, and we can finally enter the golden age of AI that would surely have arrived 30 years ago if not for the scourge of Microsoft.
I recently saw a Microsoft Research paper about a memory mapping prototype the authors implemented in Linux. I now realize they must have been personally executed by Satya "Kim Jong Un" Nadella when he learned of their non-Windows treachery.
We can only pray that one day these minds will be set free, and we can finally enter the golden age of AI that would surely have arrived 30 years ago if not for the scourge of Microsoft.
I'm surprised at the negative attitude you have of MSR. People at MSR seem to have it pretty good and are free to publish their results to the open, so I don't see anything wrong with what they do. It actually seems nice that Microsoft is willing to fund researchers on things that are not directly related to products like Theoretical CS.
There is nothing more PATHETIC than a designer using Windows. If only he could taste the wonderful FREEDOM of GIMP and throw down the shackles of Microsoft oppression!!! The CANCER would be gone from his brain and he would soar free like a majestic eagle on the winds of unZOMBIEfied morning forever. Yet he tolls forever blinded to independent reasoning about computer software! The work of the blind designer cannot be true! Everything else is irrelevant.
Yet there is NOTHING more pathetic than a gamer using Windows. This is a cancer on his game-brain, nothing more that a zombie-like tunnel-vision of gaming. The gamers are not stupid people yet Microsoft keeps their capable mouse-hands LOCKED away so their skills will never develop beyond what Redmond envisions. Everything MUST BE CONTROLLED through One Microsoft Way, and so Microsoft continues to remain dangerous to the FUTURE of gaming! Lo and behold, the end result is SUPPRESSION OF ALL non-Windows games.
And now - hardware.
Yet there is NOTHING more pathetic than a gamer using Windows. This is a cancer on his game-brain, nothing more that a zombie-like tunnel-vision of gaming. The gamers are not stupid people yet Microsoft keeps their capable mouse-hands LOCKED away so their skills will never develop beyond what Redmond envisions. Everything MUST BE CONTROLLED through One Microsoft Way, and so Microsoft continues to remain dangerous to the FUTURE of gaming! Lo and behold, the end result is SUPPRESSION OF ALL non-Windows games.
And now - hardware.
Is your argument that Microsoft is evil because not all people who use computers are actually interested in how they work?
It's not apparent to me why business people or lawyers should be also computer science aficionados. Should I be a telecoms engineer to use a phone or a combustion specialist to drive a car?
It's not apparent to me why business people or lawyers should be also computer science aficionados. Should I be a telecoms engineer to use a phone or a combustion specialist to drive a car?
I think the idea is MS employees are hamstrung by having to use an inferior OS because it's the one their employer makes. It's like being a Honda employee who needs to tow a heavy load for some company project, and while a big Ford diesel F-350 would be perfect for the job, you're not allowed to use that and have to use a Honda Ridgeline instead, but the load is beyond the Ridgeline's towing capacity so you either have to use two Ridgelines (which is probably illegal and technically difficult), or just overload one Ridgeline (which is both illegal and very dangerous). Or, you're an employee of Freightliner, and you need to go buy something from a local business, but you have to use a company vehicle. But the company vehicles are all Freightliner semi-tractors, and they don't have any regular cars in their fleet because they don't make cars. So you're expected to drive a semi-tractor to some local business to pick up something, and the local business doesn't even have a parking lot large enough for you to get the truck in.
Best tool for the job, and all that. Now arguably, Windows is indeed the best tool for business type people working at MS, due to the application software, the network environment they're in, etc.. However, for researchers doing heavy computing, I would say it's definitely not, it's quite inferior. There's a reason most of the supercomputers, render farms, etc. now run Linux, and it's not just license cost.
Best tool for the job, and all that. Now arguably, Windows is indeed the best tool for business type people working at MS, due to the application software, the network environment they're in, etc.. However, for researchers doing heavy computing, I would say it's definitely not, it's quite inferior. There's a reason most of the supercomputers, render farms, etc. now run Linux, and it's not just license cost.
They are simply following incentives set by the economic environment they operate in.
Can we start saying Ballmer was a better CEO than Nadella?
This is all happening because of a decision made by Ballmer. Disclosure: MS employee whose wife was a Nokia employee.
Everything was in place for UWP to take over the world, but they failed to produce a good phone OS, or produced one that was worse that what it was supposed to replace.
I asked one of the project managers: "why, will it really change that much for us, I mean, there's hope right?"
they responded: "This is a takeover, I've seen it before, they're just not calling it that- they'll kill MeeGO in it's crib.. and for us, it's adapt or die".
By the end of the second week (Elop did an eloquent speech about the future of Meego) all the really senior technical experts were working for Intel despite Elop saying "they just want to sell chips" and being generally derogatory to Intel), all the designers and senior management went to Jolla (which tried to enter a market which is fairly dominated already as a startup), myself, I was fired.. and everyone else is still running the ghost ship, I wasn't a large fan of microsofts products going in to Nokia, which is why I liked Maemo/MeeGO for the phone and I could use Linux at work- but this move cemented them as assholes in my mind.
Nothing they do nowadays for good PR is going to change my mind of how surreptitiously they took over nokia and sent it into it's death spiral. Microsoft really loves to own and eventually destroy Nordic companies. (skype, minecraft, nokia) - lets see what they do with TeacherGaming.