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

461–470 of 573 posts

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#461

Post by Samuel_Michon »

freehunter wrote: post #424
Samuel_Michon wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last year, Microsoft was ordered by the EU to pay Euro 860 million, for breaking promises it made after the 2004 antitrust case. In March of this year, Microsoft was fined another Euro 561 million. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

A ruling that is very controversial. The browser ballot was enforced based on the idea that Microsoft had a dominant share of the market, which this very thread goes out of its way to disprove. The EU decision was a cash grab, nothing more. Microsoft has no market dominance, and other more dominant players aren't forced to live by the same rules. If Android has 80% market share, why isn't Google forced to present a c…

Microsoft has been convicted multiple times for abusing its market position. As a repeat offender, different rules apply for it. That’s why Microsoft isn’t allowed to live anywhere near a school or playground.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#462

Post by MaysonL »

tomflack wrote: post #452
untog wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Actually, Apple's share of the mobile phone market is still growing, as it has been since 2007. It just isn't growing as fast as Android's.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#463

Post by dragonwriter »

CmonDev wrote: post #330
macspoofing wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've been trying to ape Apple in consumer electronics for the last ten years. For some reason, they figure since Apple was making a butt-load manufacturing and selling their own Phones and Tablets, they should do that too. Meanwhile, Google follows the Microsoft OEM strategy and Android takes 80% of the market.

Yet Microsoft makes money on Android and Google doesn't make money on WP :).

> Yet Microsoft makes money on Android and Google doesn't make money on WP

As long as people buying WP devices are using Google search, or visiting websites that use Google's ad network, Google is making money off of WP, even if they aren't holding WP manufacturers to ransom over dubious patents.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#464

Post by MaysonL »

pisarzp wrote: post #307
mynameisvlad wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument is stupid. Please give a source for "a lot of people" considering it superior. A lot of people I know consider the iPhone/Apple ecosystem superior. And no, you can't use market share to back this up, as much as you might want to. Because that doesn't measure user experiences being considered superior. There's a lot more factors that go into market share; that's just one of them.

It's not stupid. He just said what he knows anectodically, and I can confirm from many discussions I had. As a data point just take the number of people who chose Samsung Galaxy S4 or HTC One over iPhone, even though they cost more less the same.

A data point worth considering is: a larger percentage of Android users switch to iPhone than vice-versa.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#465

Post by wslh »

rayiner wrote: post #38

This is a great move. There is no money in being an Android vendor except if you're Samsung and are totally vertically integrated. With Windows Phone, Nokia and Microsoft at least have some hope of carving out a profitable stake in the market. Anecdotally, I'm very impressed with some of the new Lumias. I got a 620 to replace my stolen iPhone, and for $200 unlocked its phenomenal phone. The build quality makes a flag…

The new Nokia mobile can be great but business is business and if they can't build an ecosystem it does not matter if your mobile has billion of megapixels. I love that Blackberries are using QNX but this is not enough.

My other concern is if Microsoft is being negligent instead of if they are right or wrong. For example, I think Skype acquisition was negligent in a moment where this kind of technology was moving to the browser (WebRTC), being commoditized, and with a few lines of code everyone can technically replicate the technical parts of the service. Nokia acquisition and Microsoft recent write-offs will scare investors.

In others aspects I also experienced a general degradation in the Microsoft relationship with partners/developers that can obviously harm their business and developers ecosystem. For example, they didn't release the latest Windows 8.1 version to MSDN customers, only to a few vendors. Companies need the latest release to test their software in new environments.

There are a lot of positive things that Microsoft is doing right related to the cloud such as Hyper-V, App-V, Azure, and development tools. The main concern is if they only understand the infrastructure and not the end user and if this issue is embedded in their DNA. When I deal with some of their commercial hosted web services, like Microsoft Exchange, it seems like nobody in Microsoft used GMail, AdWords, or Google Analytics before...

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#466

Post by mrweasel »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #446

What does this mean for Nokia's remaining feature-phone business? I was under the impression that there was still a global market for people wanting cheap, low-function, phones.

I was thinking the same thing. What is Microsoft going to do with that part of the business, that's the part that's doing well.

Nokias feature phones are still huge in Africa and large parts of Asia. If Microsoft is just going to ignore that part of the business, then they are opening the marked for the competitors. If they just bought Nokia for their smartphone, then they are making a giant mistake.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#467

Post by aaronbrethorst »

Swannie wrote: post #429
nemothekid wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Zuckerberg or Sandberg be good candidates from Microsoft CEO? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to slight Facebook, but in my mind Facebook and Microsoft operate on two completely different wavelengths. I'm confident they wouldn't perform poorly, but I find it hard to believe they could provide the type of leadership and vision Microsoft needs right now. I'm just interested in hearing your thinking. Also n…

Yeah, I strongly agree. I never understood why people think Sandberg or Zuckerberg would every be considered by the board. Facebook is such a totally different business to one building software and hardware for operating systems, office tools, web and email platforms, cloud services, systems management, identity management, mobile platforms, gaming platform development, unified communications, collaboration software,…

That assumes you want continuity with Ballmer.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#468

Post by shaaaaawn »

Microsoft recently sent me a Nokia Lumia 820.1 (developer edition) for App dev / test purposes. I have to say after playing around with it, I'm thoroughly impressed. The app store is obviously significantly deficient, but one item of note is that Nokia has developed a lot of Apps they built in house that are actually worth using, especially for photography. The rest of the phone is on par with my iPhone 4S but plays better with my Windows ecosystem. I'd buy a future edition.

Disclaimer: I'm naturally biased as Windows 8 is already the platform I use for my dev machine, laptop, and HTPC.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#469

Post by mbreese »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #300
mbreese wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it would have been brilliant. Microsoft is horrible at personal interfaces and trying to deal with actual people. But they are wonderful at enterprise. If either Microsoft or RIM had been able to say "Fine, we'll let Apple and Google play with their fancy new devices - we'll make products that let people actually get work done" that would have been a brilliant strategy. They could have completely dominated corpor…

BYOD wouldn't have changed much. The entire reason this is happening is because people like consumer-centric products above enterprise-grade products. They work better for people vs working better for enterprises, which is what Microsoft+RIM would have focused on. It doesn't matter how many enterprise features a phone has, if people don't like using it, it won't be used.

I think it would have pushed BYOD back a couple of years. I think that iPhone started the trend when people started migrating away from Blackberries. If there was a serious contender from Microsoft/RIM for a corporate smartphone, then that would have held it back for a year or two. At least until the iPad rolled around. I think that regardless of what a combined Microsoft/RIM had come out with, that the iPad would have still driven BYOD to the point where it is today.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#470

Post by GFischer »

rodolphoarruda wrote: post #409
DominikR wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 2.3 Phone will run almost every existing Android app out there. In fact, most Android apps target 2.2 and up.

Yes, and that point drove my decision to buy my now 2 year old Samsung Ace. It was a 2.3 device, thus it will run most apps without any issues. What I found later was that a particular hardware spec would really annoy me to the point that I couldn't install any more apps, and it's probably an issue that many low end phone users face: small internal memory. Hey, the phone has only 128Mb of memory for apps. The problem…

I have an Ace too (180 mb internal memory), and it's an extremely annoying problem.

Only a very few low end phones made that braindead decision - my girlfriend has a cheaper Mini 2 and it has 1 GB of memory for apps.

You can install apps on the SD, but they still take a little of those valuable megabytes. The only apps I have on the internal memory are Gmail, Maps, Facebook and Youtube (plus Play Services). Several apps can be moved to the SD (Opera Mobile, most games, MX media player, Adobe Reader, so I manage.

Post reply on HN