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 571257
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Prediction
by TM99 on Tue 3rd Sep 2013 15:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Prediction"
TM99
Member since:
2012-08-26

Because that 'cash' is still tied up in the stock market in one form or another. Apple has one of the lowest R&D budgets per sales and has a portfolio that rivals large hedge funds.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/darcytravlos/2013/03/24/apple-cash-marg...

This gives a good overview, and why the market looks at Apple's stock price and NOT their cash on hand.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Prediction
by ezraz on Tue 3rd Sep 2013 15:44 in reply to "RE[2]: Prediction"
ezraz Member since:
2012-06-20

I'm not sure I understand how this applies to my point. The article was about what apple is doing with all the profits it is making, and it usually hoards lots of cash (even in the dark days of the 90's they held more cash and short-term assets than most companies).

My point was that Apple is earning those profits in the first place. Samsung or HTC or Nokia or you name it - they aren't earning that kind of money from their mobile divisions, hardware or software. In some cases their other businesses are propping up their mobile divisions, and their designs are copy cats with short lifespans.

I get that you if you aren't in the states you might not see the proliferation of iOS devices, but I don't get the continued focus on "market share" with no talk of business realities.

The comparison back to the OS wars of the 90's does not apply, because back then Microsoft was taking all the market share AND most of the profit. Android isn't a company, it's an advertising delivery platform.

Reply Parent Score: 0