Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nokia acquired by Microsoft

blogs.technet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 573 posts

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#451

Post by shubb »

simba-hiiipower wrote: post #412
tytso wrote: post #408

One thing which I haven't seen anyone mention yet. Nokia, like Skype, was a non-US company, which means Microsoft could use cash which is trapped in Europe. So you have to take the purchase price and discount it by as much as the US Corporate tax rate (which Microsoft would have to pay if the money was going to be repatriated back to the States, as would be needed if that cash was going to be used to pay dividends or…

yeah, in one of their releases they specifically mention the transaction will be completed using offshore funds. and while i'd generally like to see some movement on policy to encourage large us-based multinationals to bring-home more of their offshore earnings (for reinvestment domestically), the current environment does play-out nicely for foreign m&a - which is at-least (in my opinion) a better use of funds than d…

Money from work and sales outside the US should be repatriated and invested domestically, just because the company is notionally based in the US?

Sounds a tad imperialistic?

I think getting companies pay tax in the US for sales in the US would be less internationally antisocial...

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#452

Post by tomflack »

untog wrote: post #435
ddeck wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Apple already lost to Android. Last count, Android had 80% of the market. That's like suggesting that Mercedes Benz have lost already to Ford because they have smaller market share. Apple produce a premium product with prices and margins that reflect that. Of course they would prefer dominant market share, as would Mercedes. But a non-majority share does not imply that they've somehow lost.

That's like suggesting that Mercedes Benz have lost already to Ford because they have smaller market share. Which they have, when you're talking about market share. There's some cognitive dissonance going on here- Windows Phone can't succeed because it has a low market share. But Apple succeeds because it has a low market share. Basically, if low market share isn't a problem for Apple, there's no reason why it would…

Apple didn't always have a low market share and built up a huge importance for developers before their share started to slide.

There are still millions of iPhones sold every year, even if they're a smaller piece of the overall pie.

Contrast to Windows Phone which never had any kind of market share or importance, and has to fight up from absolutely nothing.

That's the difference between iPhone's small market share and WP's small share.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#453

Post by ajuc »

aet wrote: post #432
ajuc wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you choose: small profits, or no customers? That's the choice. Android was "IBM PC trick", and competititors trying to preserve high margins and differentiate their products will end like Amiga, Commodore or Atari.

Or, they'll end up like Apple

Apple barely survived nineties selling their niche desktop computers. Then miracles happened and they invented a few new markets from scratch.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#454

Post by phillmv »

shubb wrote: post #451
simba-hiiipower wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, in one of their releases they specifically mention the transaction will be completed using offshore funds. and while i'd generally like to see some movement on policy to encourage large us-based multinationals to bring-home more of their offshore earnings (for reinvestment domestically), the current environment does play-out nicely for foreign m&a - which is at-least (in my opinion) a better use of funds than d…

Money from work and sales outside the US should be repatriated and invested domestically, just because the company is notionally based in the US? Sounds a tad imperialistic? I think getting companies pay tax in the US for sales in the US would be less internationally antisocial...

>I think getting companies pay tax in the US for sales in the US would be less internationally antisocial...

IIRC, that's precisely not what these tax repatriations are about; they're about sales abroad that are received by a foreign subsidiary. They avoid repatriating it back to the (US-based) parent company because they suspect if they hold onto it long enough the US government will issue yet-another tax holiday.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#455

Post by JVIDEL »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #434
rayiner wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that a lot of people would have bought the phone doesn't mean it would result in profit. Lots of people by HTC phones, but that company is circling the drain. The problem is that an Android phone is a commodity. Its hard to differentiate yourself on the product side. That means you're in extreme price/specs competition. That drives profits towards zero, just as they are on other commodity platforms like the…

The problem is that an Android phone is a commodity. All phones are commodities. Going with Windows Phone just meant that they were a commodity with an incompatible OS.

Exactly, smartphones were relatively rare before 2005 or so, but even before the iphone there were a lot of people with symbian, BBs and treos, and now dumbphones are mostly of the disposable kind.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#456

Post by chollida1 »

DominikR wrote: post #296

To me, this is borderline criminal behaviour and shows once more that Microsoft is incapable of playing fair. Installing a trojan horse as Nokias CEO, who then proceeds to destroy any value left in that company so that Microsoft can pick it up for a cheap price. I'd be amazed if Elop is promoted to MS's CEO position for such deceitful behaviour

> To me, this is borderline criminal behaviour and shows once more that Microsoft is incapable of playing fair.

This is a perfect example of a comment that has no business on hacker news.

> Installing a trojan horse as Nokias CEO, who then proceeds to destroy any value left in that company so that Microsoft can pick it up for a cheap price

You do realize that Microsoft doesn't get to appoint the CEO of other companies right? Nokia picked Elop on their own. There was buzz at the time about how they had "stolen" him away from Microsoft.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#457

Post by rsynnott »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #318
BuckRogers wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple already lost to Android. That's not true. Apple's mobile devices are more profitable than any single line of Android devices. Also, sales of the iPad vs any other line of Android tablets, ie. Samsung's are not even close. Your comparison is no different than comparing Windows Server vs Linux servers. Yes, it might have hurt the market for WinServer a little bit (and Apple's iOS devices), but it's not like any…

Samsung's line of Android devices became more profitable than Apple's iPhones at some point during, or just before this quarter (it's a bit vague because it's all based on estimates but it's basically happened already, we'll get the analyst estimates based on corporate announcements about a month after the end of the quarter). Some would consider that "making a killing".

This was based on the Strategy Analytics report? That was a little dubious, as it was based on saying that (a) half of Apple's profits are from the iPhone and (b) Samsung makes no profit on its desktop, laptop or tablet divisions at all. There was also some confusion over net vs gross.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#458

Post by mcintyre1994 »

buster wrote: post #304
DominikR wrote: post #296

To me, this is borderline criminal behaviour and shows once more that Microsoft is incapable of playing fair. Installing a trojan horse as Nokias CEO, who then proceeds to destroy any value left in that company so that Microsoft can pick it up for a cheap price. I'd be amazed if Elop is promoted to MS's CEO position for such deceitful behaviour

I think the exact same thing... - get ex MS employee to be Nokia CEO - fire lots of Nokia employees - run the company down - buy Nokia, hire ex MS employee to run that part It's a shame, i never had a Nokia, but the featurephones atleast have been decent hardware and quality. They haven't been marketleader for nothing.. Oh, and by the way, the next step will be: - buy all Nokia patents (if they haven't as well) - sue…

If you believe this was a conspiracy, you might be inclined to believe Microsoft will have influence over the remains of Nokia too. If that is the case, it's better to have Nokia sue the market over them patents, much less space to be attacked back without a devices division.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#459

Post by Lusake »

nl wrote: post #12

~$7 Billion for the device & services business and Nokia's patents. Seems like a good price now, but one you wouldn't have ever predicted before 2007 & the launch of the iPhone. In 2003 Nokia was worth $245 billion[1] [1] http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/22/the-sad-tale-of-nokias-sink...

Considering that Google acquired Motorola Mobility for $12.5b, $7b for Nokia doesnt look expensive.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#460

Post by PuercoPop »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #434
rayiner wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that a lot of people would have bought the phone doesn't mean it would result in profit. Lots of people by HTC phones, but that company is circling the drain. The problem is that an Android phone is a commodity. Its hard to differentiate yourself on the product side. That means you're in extreme price/specs competition. That drives profits towards zero, just as they are on other commodity platforms like the…

The problem is that an Android phone is a commodity. All phones are commodities. Going with Windows Phone just meant that they were a commodity with an incompatible OS.

You are misunderstanding his use of the word commodity and hence his point. He is using commodity in the sense that to satisfy the demand of the item the manufacturer is irrelevant to the buyer. Clearly not all phones as commodities. An iPhone is not the same as a Chinese knockoff.
Post reply on HN