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

541–550 of 573 posts

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#541

Post by likeclockwork »

gnaffle wrote: post #514
likeclockwork wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that "plastic" is as bad as popular opinion thinks it is in the case of something the size of a phone. If we say "polymer" does it sound any better? I mean there's plastic.. and then there's plastic.

Of course, it's not necessarily bad, and there's different types of plastic. Some kinds are very rugged. However, most plastic phones are made of plastic because it's a cheap material that doesn't require much in the way of precision to fit together, and it just doesn't have the same kind of quality (or even quality feel) as a phone made with a different material.

I was thinking that 'metal is better' myself.. as I enjoyed the heft and solid feel of my Motorola Droid.

Then I got a Galaxy Nexus and revised my opinion on plastic phones entirely, it feels good in hand and has ruggedly endured all kinds of accidental abuse at my hands.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#542

Post by jussij »

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.

The Op is using commodity in the sense that wood is a commodity.

Now anyone can grow wood, but the big money is turning that wood into furniture and that takes a skilled carpenter.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#543

Post by jussij »

yulaow wrote: post #498
gtirloni wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Windows Phone is in second place in Latin America now. I wouldn't say "no customers" so quick.

Again, it is not important if is 30-40-50-whatever% in a single country, worldwide it is still about 3%

I would have thought what is more important than market share in the developed world is good market share in the emerging economies like Latin America.

That would offer more scope for growth.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#544

Post by engrenage »

voltagex_ wrote: post #189
engrenage wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other manufacturers don't have any alternative but to stay with Google despite Motorola and the tightening noose of Play Services.

Play Services is an absolute win for consumers. How is it a noose for manufacturers?

It progressively reduces their control over the products they make and hands that ever more over to Google.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#545

Post by jussij »

psbp wrote: post #171
sjwright wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, a great move would have been for Microsoft to purchase RIM/BlackBerry three or four years ago, and focus on the corporate sector. They could have had the best information security story in the industry. They could have had the ultimate Exchange email experience. Together, these companies would have had a serious chance at being the indisputable third platform. On their own, they came up with a dozen incompatible…

Yes, a brilliant strategy to have an aging company buy a device maker that markets to an aging customer base.

And better still the device you’re buying doesn't even run the Windows Phone OS.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#546

Post by bad_user »

gnaffle wrote: post #346
zobzu wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im not sure why its better for Nokia to be under MS than working with MS. It seems to be a great move for MS if anything. That'd be fine if it wasn't a move that was planned by planting a CEO with a plan to decimate the company until MS could buy it. It might be legal but it's certainly not moral.

Actually I don't think that was intentional at all. Nokia failing so miserably with Windows Phone can't have been anyones plan. And if they had succeeded like expected, Nokia would still be worth too much for Microsoft to consider buying it.

Except that everybody knew that switching to WinPhone is suicidal. Search for the announcements on HN and read the comments.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#547

Post by tanzam75 »

hippiefahrzeug wrote: post #535
tanzam75 wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Installed base became meaningless after the iPhone changed the game. Everybody started out at 0% of a brand-new market -- including Nokia. That's why it's known as disruptive innovation. Nokia's mistake wasn't in killing Symbian for smartphones in 2011. It was in not killing Symbian in 2009 or 2008. But it's hard to give up that market share and start from zero. In cases of disruption, high market share is actually a…

I appreciate your engagement in this discussion, but you can't be serious now: Of course the iPhone was a game changer, but that doesn't reset everything to 0. Nokia's brand recognition, Nokia's relationships with telcos and their vast distribution channels... these things don't go flying out of the window just because of the iPhone, and it certainly wasn't a disadvantage. As for Nokia killing Symbian: To publicly an…

Brand recognition is the one thing that might actually have been valuable. But then, it didn't save Blackberry. Which chose the option that you seem to suggest for Nokia -- of leveraging its existing installed base into a gradual transition. (Incidentally, RIM only sold smartphones, and had a peak market cap of $120 billion in 2007. Today, it's worth less than 1/3 of Nokia.)

Telco relationships and distribution channels are necessary but not sufficient. All the other phone makers had telco relationships and distribution channels, too. Didn't help them compete against the iPhone.

What got them some traction was that they threw out their old smartphones and started over -- 2 years before Nokia finally got around to doing it. That 2 years made all the difference.

There is an argument for Nokia ditching Symbian and keeping it secret. This assumes it could've been kept secret. A change of that magnitude was bound to leak out -- for example, a Symbian engineer quitting the company in disgust and telling the newspapers.

Disruptive innovation is called disruptive because it turns your assets into liabilities. For example, your factories and distribution network used to be valuable because they gave you scale that nobody else had. But now, they just cause you to have higher fixed costs than your competitors. The classic example being US Steel when the minimill disrupted the steel business.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#548

Post by voltagex_ »

engrenage wrote: post #544
voltagex_ wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Play Services is an absolute win for consumers. How is it a noose for manufacturers?

It progressively reduces their control over the products they make and hands that ever more over to Google.

Where control means staying with Android 2.3.x far past the useful life of the product, I'm inclined to side with Google.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#549

Post by coldtea »

bdcravens wrote: post #513
coldtea wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? It's the very inverse: they DONT allow people to have a useful phone for several years at a time, they saddle them with an osbolete OS and don't provide upgrades. It's a very big pain point that Android makers don't provide upgrades for their older devices (even 1 year old ones). For some models they don't provide upgrades AT ALL, and you have to get custom-install on them to have a new Android. That's why (Goo…

I don't think this is an Android issue, but with the carriers, and to a lesser degree, the handset makers.

If it gets down to the users, then it is an Android issue. After all, the Android maker choose to have this kind of collaboration and enable the carriers to do this.

Re: Nokia acquired by Microsoft

#550

Post by Maarten88 »

StandardFuture wrote: post #186
macspoofing wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There are a lot of people who would have picked up the attractive, well built, well engineered Nokia devices if they had the platform of Android. Yeah maybe. There is no guarantee that the outcome would have been more favorable than being bought out by Microsoft. >Apple obviously is very much in a battle with Android ... Apple already lost to Android. Last count, Android had 80% of the market. There is zero chance o…

I'm sorry but moving this conversation towards being about Android and Android's "market share" is going off topic. Microsoft clearly did not need to purchase Nokia to have a Windows Phone. That already exists (in partnership with multiple hardware vendors as well). So, market share of Mobile OSes is obviously not a (main) motivation behind this acquisition.

> Microsoft clearly did not need to purchase Nokia to have a Windows Phone.

They could not afford having anyone else buying Nokia. With the low stock valuation of Nokia, that was a realistic and very scary scenario for Microsoft. I see it as a pre-emptive move of Microsoft, and a move of Nokia (the non-phone part) to preserve their long-term independence.

Post reply on HN