Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 29th Jul 2013 21:19 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Nokia's vice president Bryan Biniak: "We are trying to evolve the cultural thinking [at Microsoft] to say 'time is of the essence'. Waiting until the end of your fiscal year when you need to close your targets, doesn't do us any good when I have phones to sell today." Later Biniak adds: "As a company we don't want to rely on somebody else and sit and wait for them to get it right." There was a simple solution to this problem.
Thread beginning with comment 568334
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Nokia/TI in 2002 versus 6 years later
by jphamlore on Tue 30th Jul 2013 03:15 UTC
Member since:

This was Nokia and TI in 2002, a complete 2.5G and 3G solution, hardware and software reference platform. They owned the IP for the entire stack.

And this is Nokia and TI 6 years later, well before Elop joined Nokia:

Note the massive decline at TI's wireless division in 2007 and 2008 well before Elop took over at Nokia. Nokia had already switched to a multi-vendor strategy which robbed TI of revenue and made TI's exit from that business very easy, which it promptly announced.

By 2008, Nokia knew its relationship with its major fab partner TI was coming to an end. Consider how it appears Apple will be unable to end its relationship with Samsung as a fab partner, for given Apple's volumes and need for the latest technology, the number of potential fab partners is extremely small.

Reply Score: 3

tylerdurden Member since:

There is a bit more to the story, TI had already announced their intentions to become a fabless outfit by then.

Edited 2013-07-30 04:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

jphamlore Member since:

History merely repeated itself which makes Nokia's failure to anticipate Texas Instruments' leaving the business even more mystifying. TI had already demonstrated it was unwilling to absorb the risk of paying for itself the cost of the newest fabs just to satisfy a customer in its former relationship with Sun. TI's business model is based around dominating segments, such as I believe today analog, not trying to slug it out risking untold billions in fabs.

There was a time when Sun's fabless strategy looked like genius, back when there were more candidate fabs, especially in the US. And then there weren't because good business relationship don't work like that with one party assuming all the risk and the other freeloading. Sun had a programming language Java which it had tailored for multi-threading, and it had machines it was trying to design to exploit large numbers of threads, but found itself unable to produce those machines because it had failed to develop suitable long-lasting relationships with fab partners.

Reply Parent Score: 3