Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th Feb 2011 15:26 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Rafe Blandford, from All About Symbian/Al About MeeGo, has published what is most likely the most complete and in-depth analysis of the Nokia/Microsoft deal, taking just about everything into account. His conclusion? You may not expect it considering the sites he works for, but he concludes that partnering with Microsoft was the best (i.e., least bad) choice. "So in assessing the relative risks and potential return between the two strategies, my opinion is that by following the 'go it alone strategy' Nokia would see a continued gradual decline in the face of intense competition and a less competitive surrounding ecosystem. By contrast, partnering with Microsoft offers Nokia the opportunity, although not the guarantee, to reverse its recent decline and potentially return to its dominant position in mobile."
Thread beginning with comment 464125
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Never a Least Worst Option
by saso on Sat 26th Feb 2011 13:43 UTC in reply to "Never a Least Worst Option"
saso
Member since:
2007-04-18

If you give up control of your platform for a platform you have zero control over, and it's going to take over a year to bring that new platform in then you die. It's that simple.


Nokia had two working smartphone operating systems - Symbian and Maemo. Symbian runs great on low-powered hardware and has legacy app support. With Qt on it, it's still got some life in it, at least for a transitional period. Maemo, on the other hand, had great future potential. After 4 years in development (from 2005), Nokia had a great Maemo handset (N900). Full Debian OS at the core, easy to port desktop software to it (OpenOffice, Gimp), rather than having to rewrite it from ground up (like for Android's Dalvik) and the potential to carve out a whole new niche - a full computer in a pocket (bluetooth for peripherals, HDMI outputs for display attachments).

The best option is to get your act together over your own platform. The least worst option is to go for an OS that has some market share, ideally where you can get your hands on the code.


Couldn't agree more. Nokia had great software and hardware, ready to ship. And yet a stream of very unwise management decisions and lack of focus succeeded in essentially destroying what great potential they had for building their own ecosystem.

Reply Parent Score: 5

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

"The best option is to get your act together over your own platform. The least worst option is to go for an OS that has some market share, ideally where you can get your hands on the code.


Couldn't agree more. Nokia had great software and hardware, ready to ship. And yet a stream of very unwise management decisions and lack of focus succeeded in essentially destroying what great potential they had for building their own ecosystem.
"

I don't dispute the first point, but I reckon MS does provide the sources to oems so they can customize the kernel to their hardware, so Nokia probably will have access the the sources. However, that will not help them as their expertise is not in MS technologies unlike all the other oems which have had a history with wm so that is a lot of time wasted in retraining staff or hiring new staff.

Amusingly there is going to be a huge shuffling of engineering and yet the middle management (that has gotten Nokia in this position) seems to be staying exactly the same.

Reply Parent Score: 4