Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Sep 2013 05:39 UTC
Microsoft Ever since Stephen Elop became CEO of Nokia we knew this outcome was inevitable. It was his job to make it as easy as possible for Microsoft to acquire the vital parts of Nokia, and here we are: Microsoft is acquiring Nokia's devices unit for 3.79 billion euro, and another 1.65 billion euro for its patents. It's a bit of a complicated deal in that Microsoft buys the Asha feature phone brand and Lumia smartphone brand outright, but will only license the Nokia name for current Nokia products; the Nokia brand will remain under the control of Nokia the company. This means Nokia as a phone brand is effectively dead.

In addition, Stephen Elop will return to Microsoft. I'm sure entirely coincidentally, Ballmer announced recently that he's stepping down.

All this was as inevitable as the tides rolling in. Nokia has been going downhill and has stagnated ever since the announcement it would bank its future on Windows Phone. It went from being the largest smartphone manufacturer to an also-ran, which is made painfully clear by the fact that Microsoft paid more for Skype than it does for Nokia's devices unit.

A painful end for a once-great phone brand. This was the plan all along, and in essence, Nokia's board has executed it masterfully; the Finnish company has switched core markets several times in its long, long history (it started out as a paper company), and the unprofitable phone business was a huge liability for the company, despite claims by some that Nokia was doing just fine. Nokia's board has masterfully gotten rid of this money pit so it can focus on the parts that are profitable.

And, as always, the next Lumia will turn it all around.

Thread beginning with comment 571169
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I'll miss the bottem-end Nokia phones
by ozonehole on Tue 3rd Sep 2013 06:46 UTC
ozonehole
Member since:
2006-01-07

My phone is a bottom-end (2G) Nokia 100, which runs the S-30 operating system. I think these are only sold in Asia (I live in Taiwan). It retails for around US$50, but mine was free from the phone company in exchange for a two-year contract.

For bottom-end phones, Nokia is good. Quality is excellent, battery life is about four days, even includes a built-in flashlight (can't find that on anything else that isn't a "smart phone").

I have no need for a smart phone, but if I was getting one, I would never consider Windows.

Now that Microsoft is taking over Nokia, we may see the end of these low-cost phones. Maybe I should pick another Nokia 100 while they are still being made? For my needs, it's perfect.

Reply Score: 3

MyNameIsNot4Letter Member since:
2011-01-09

Sorry for this "off topic" comment, but to save 50 bucks, you signed a two year contract? Am i missing something, or is this something to reflect on? ;)

/Uni

Reply Parent Score: 2

ozonehole Member since:
2006-01-07

You're missing something. The two-year contract (as opposed to pre-pay) also gains me a lower per-minute rate. But the free phone was an added bonus. Plus I can get a new free phone once every two years.

Reply Parent Score: 3

oskeladden Member since:
2009-08-05

My phone is a bottom-end (2G) Nokia 100, which runs the S-30 operating system. I think these are only sold in Asia (I live in Taiwan). It retails for around US$50, but mine was free from the phone company in exchange for a two-year contract.


They're also sold in the UK. They cost around £20 sim-free (that is, off contract) in high street shops. A couple of my friends have it - it makes a great hiking, camping and festival-going phone, apparently, because it lasts weeks without needing a recharge, and because it doesn't feel like a big deal if you lose it.

I wonder if Microsoft intends to continue these bottom-end phones. There's still a solid market for them in many parts of Asia, but I guess there are plenty of Chinese manufacturers who'd be more than happy to fill the gap.

Reply Parent Score: 3

aqd- Member since:
2009-02-16

I have no need for a smart phone, but if I was getting one, I would never consider Windows.


WP7/8 performs much better than Android on low-end hardware (single-core, 512GB RAM). My HTC mozart was always smooth and responsive and doesn't crash as often as other HTC phones.

However, the performance advantage will be nullified soon if not already, and Microsoft doesn't have anything else to offer. App development and publishing on WP7/8 is also very restrictive despite of its tiny market/apps and great need to attract more developers.

It has been 2 years and Microsoft did absolutely nothing to improve the situation. Either they don't care much about WP itself or their top management is braindead.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jnemesh Member since:
2008-04-08

What "low end" hardware are you talking about? A "low end" Android phone right now would be the Nexus 4...which has a decent, multi-core CPU, a decent GPU, and plenty or RAM...and it's $200 for an 8GB version, $250 for the 16GB. Not to sound like a commercial here, but what does Windows Phone give you for $200 to $250? (unsubsidized)

Reply Parent Score: -1

bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

While that may have been true for WP7, didn't i read somewhere that 8 actually requires a dual core cpu?

Reply Parent Score: 1

japh Member since:
2005-11-11

WP7/8 performs much better than Android on low-end hardware (single-core, 512GB RAM).


Where do you find WP8 on a single core CPU? I thought the minimum requirements are dual-core for WP8 (which would be odd,if it really runs that well on a single-core)

Edited 2013-09-03 18:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Such bottom-end Nokia phones can be also bought in the EU.

The message so far is that they will continue being made under Nokia brand: http://conversations.nokia.com/2013/09/06/asha-feature-phones-and-t...

Reply Parent Score: 2