MSFT buys remnants of NOK - Page 3 - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

post #31 of 44 (permalink) Old 2014-07-18, 11:34 AM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 3,370
Former Nokia wasn't really pro-Android. I recall a memorable quote from one of the former Nokia execs...

Quote:
Anssi Vanjoki, outgoing head of Nokia's smartphone division, likens mobile phone makers that adopt Google's software to Finnish boys who"pee in their pants" for warmth in the winter. Temporary relief is followed by an even worse predicament.
I think the whole Android experiment was more of a "lets force Microsoft to buy us so we can bring some value to our shareholders" move.

Honestly, when you survey the list of Android hardware vendors, there isn't a lot of profit going on there... so I'm not sure that Nokia would have done all that well if they would have simply become a commodity Android handset vendor.
audacity is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 44 (permalink) Old 2014-07-18, 12:47 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: 43° N, 81.2° W
Posts: 8,506
The whole Nokia deal looks like one more gasp from Microsoft to gain market share. They will, at best, get a little more recognition as a third place player with a 'me too' presence. Let's face it, they don't have the credibility or developer support to compete with Apple. They don't have the massive advertising infrastructure to compete with Google's Android. Microsoft might gain some inroads with companies or individuals that want Windows compatibility but that's a pretty slim chance at this stage of the game. Then there is the lack of apps. To get an idea of how MS will do with any new phones we only need to look at how well their tablets are performing in the marketplace. Windows phones will likely be a harder sell.
ExDilbert is online now  
post #33 of 44 (permalink) Old 2014-07-18, 01:25 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 8,139
^^^^
They'll now also have to compete with IBM/Apple for the business market.

I haven't lost my mind. It's around here...somewhere...
JamesK is online now  
 
post #34 of 44 (permalink) Old 2014-07-18, 02:02 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 991
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExDilbert View Post
...They will, at best, get a little more recognition as a third place player with a 'me too' presence... Let's face it, they don't have the credibility or developer support to compete with Apple.
There are multiple variable at play here.
If just common sense would do, MS would be dead 10 years ago.
Not only are they not, Bill Gates was the richest person on earth all this time.
And I think it is not exactly undeserved...

They will try to play the Windows card and the outcome of this strategy is not exactly clear. Mobile today is "fashion".
Not surprisingly peddled by the fashion champion Apple that lost the desktop/enterprise market a long time ago.

Will this "fashion" actually turn into replacing computers in the long term is too early to call...
four is offline  
post #35 of 44 (permalink) Old 2014-07-18, 02:24 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 8,139
Quote:
And I think it is not exactly undeserved...
It is when you look at the history of MS and BG. MS has lost 4 antitrust trials. It has also been convicted on many other offences. MS has engaged in many illegal acts to force market share, up to and including extortion, with BG calling the shots. Look at all the companies that died after trying to partner with MS or the technology buried by them. It's a long list.

I haven't lost my mind. It's around here...somewhere...
JamesK is online now  
post #36 of 44 (permalink) Old 2014-07-18, 02:31 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 991
All this is true.
But when being "nice" and "profitable" did go hand in hand?

When IBM one day dropped the price on their 360 mainframes, buyers were paying less than renting it for 6 months the day before.
Lots of businesses were hurt. And IBM weren't even a convicted monopolist...
four is offline  
post #37 of 44 (permalink) Old 2014-07-19, 12:30 AM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: 43° N, 81.2° W
Posts: 8,506
Gates played hardball with vendors and business customers to kill the competition. Unlike Apple today, MS didn't have a superior product then to gain market share. Gates did have the ear of a lot of corporate customers who bought a lot of PCs and servers based on promises made by Gates. He could also leverage the popularity of MS-DOS on existing PCs which was used to maintain compatibility and ease the transition. (Even today's Windows PCs have limited MS-DOS compatibility and MS-DOS ran a lot of programs on Windows PCs and servers until suitable native Windows replacements were delivered.) He also told them a lot of big fat lies to keep them on the hook until he could deliver something worth buying. (Under Gates, MS was notorious for delivering products years late and then taking years more to fix bugs.) That won't work in today's phone market due to the maturity of competing products. I also doubt that the EU would let Apple or Google get away with the stuff Microsoft did back then. (The US is a lame duck when it comes to prosecuting large companies like MS and Canada just follows its lead.)

So where does that leave MS? Buying defunct phone companies to get smartphone technology? Gates must be shaking his head in disbelief. He would have watched Nokia crash and burn and picked through the rubble for ideas to steal. When he ran MS it had a policy of developing everything internally, ignoring standards and pummelling any competitors that got in his way. That included some huge companies such as IBM. The list of software and hardware companies with dominant market share that were destroyed by MS under Gates is staggering. The irony is that MS is now on the receiving end from two companies that it once almost destroyed, called Apple and IBM.
ExDilbert is online now  
post #38 of 44 (permalink) Old 2014-07-19, 08:41 AM
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 991
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExDilbert View Post
The irony is that MS is now on the receiving end from two companies that it once almost destroyed, called Apple and IBM.
Wow!
There was a time when Microsoft almost destroyed IBM? Are you sure?

Heard lots of scary stories related to the PC industry history but never this one...
four is offline  
post #39 of 44 (permalink) Old 2014-07-19, 11:46 AM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 3,370
Destroyed is a strong word, but the clones (which Microsoft enabled by having their non-exclusive OS agreement with IBM) relegated IBM to a tiny percentage of the x86 hardware market. IBM was unable to differentiate themselves sufficiently to be able to command an additional premium for their products, so market-by-market they let the clone makers take over. IBM eventually became a services company.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExDilbert
The irony is that MS is now on the receiving end from two companies that it once almost destroyed, called Apple and IBM.
This is hardly the first time. In the early 1990s Apple and IBM formed the AIM alliance. Remember the PowerPC?
audacity is offline  
post #40 of 44 (permalink) Old 2014-07-19, 01:04 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: 43° N, 81.2° W
Posts: 8,506
I was thinking more along the lines of Windows vs OS/2. OS/2 was arguably a better OS at the time but it made little impact compared to Windows 3.0, released about the same time. From a consumer adoption perspective, the success of Windows over OS/2 was a marketing victory. MS gave Windows away with new PCs and discounted it heavily in the retail market. Once MS dominated the PC market, prices went up, way up. MS also used its market share to bully PC makers into making Windows the only option available on consumer PCs. Those types of tactics landed MS in court but it was too late to affect MS dominance in the PC desktop market.

Destroyed is a strong word but I think it fits. I did qualify it with "almost". Apple did almost declare bankruptcy in the 1990s. IBM was in very bad shape until it decided to stop competing in the PC market and focus on other areas. MS, along with PC makers like Dell, did destroy IBM's PC division. It just didn't take the rest of the company with it.
ExDilbert is online now  
post #41 of 44 (permalink) Old 2014-07-19, 01:21 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 991
The IBM-Microsoft deal has been (re)written gazillion times.

In short: IBM made the mistake (the first and last time!) to let MS develop its own DOS-based products despite licensing it from them.
Reason: they didn't see it as anything but a fad that is going to die shortly (same what Ballmer thought about tablets!).

The rest is history...

I wouldn't bet we'd be much past the calculator and perforated punch cards had they NOT make this mistake.
The (only) other alternative being to worship at St. Jobs church...

And when looking at the reasons IBM's PC division died, you should start with PCjr and MicroChannel.
That's when they realized the mistake they made and tried to undo the damage...

EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExDilbert View Post
Under Gates, MS was notorious for delivering products years late and then taking years more to fix bugs.
He could do worse... I wonder who taught him that?
http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/show...21#post2009321

Last edited by four; 2014-07-19 at 02:35 PM.
four is offline  
post #42 of 44 (permalink) Old 2016-05-25, 08:56 PM Thread Starter
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: /dev/null
Posts: 3,022
And the inevitable end to this sad buggering of once great Nokia by Ballmer and Elop has drawn to a close. There's a special place in Hell for people like this who shamelessly and incompetently destroy share owner value.

Microsoft gives up on consumer phones, claims Windows Phones down but not out | 9to5Mac

Related: http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/76-s...ml#post2776065
99semaj is offline  
post #43 of 44 (permalink) Old 2016-05-27, 08:18 AM
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 52
^^^Ha!! Yeah, because Nokia was on fire before MSFT got a hold of them. I love stuff like this. Nokia was dying well before "the sad buggering" at the hands of bad ol' Microsoft. Now they can fulfill their destiny - become yet another Android manufacturer.

Rejoice.
Abysmal is offline  
post #44 of 44 (permalink) Old 2016-05-27, 11:41 AM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: 43° N, 81.2° W
Posts: 8,506
MS buying Nokia seemed like a good move at the time. Nokia was on the rocks and had a line of budget Windows phones that were selling well in Asia. Windows phone even moved to third place in the smartphone market. Not sure what happened but I suspect that the integration was bungled and the bean counters lowered the axe. MS does not like to be in third place, especially a far distant third. Workplace BYOD basically killed the business market for Windows phones. Things are going to get even uglier when cheap, high end Android phones from the big Chines phone makers start hitting the NA market.
ExDilbert is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome